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.

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

It'd have to be a pretty damn warped view, imo, when Jews have to constantly fight just to keep from being wiped out of existance.

The argument of whether or not the creation of Israel was justified is purely an academic one at this point. The fact is, it's a done deal. Israel exists, it's not going anywhere, and it will continue to defend itself as it deems appropriate.

Hamas and Hezbollah have it in their power to stop Israel's retaliations. All they have to do is stop bombing Israel. Of course, they don't want it to stop, which is why they deliberately position themselves in densely populated areas. That way, when Israel is forced to retaliate, they can maximize the risk for civilian casualties.

Hezbollah knows they don't have the capability to destroy Israel on their own, so their goal is to provoke enough outrage on the Arab Street in order to create a wider conflict and draw the other Arab nations into a direct war with Israel again.

What exact is it that Israel could do that would make Hamas and Hezbollah happy? They withdrew from Lebanon and the bombings continued. They gave the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt and the bombings continued. They gave the Palestinian Authority control of the West Bank and the bombings continued. They withdrew their settlements from Gaza and the bombings continued. How much territory are they expected to cede in order to get the attacks to stop?

The answer from Hamas and Hezbollah, of course, is "all of it". So, instead of trying to build a Palestinian state, they've done everything they could to keep the terrorist attacks going. And the ordinary people, both Arab and Israeli, have suffered for it.

For once, I am also in agreement with Bush, it's time for someone to tell Hezbollah to cut this sh*t out. Accept that Israel isn't going to be destroyed and work towards a goal that will actually benefit your people.

'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.

That’s my point. If the administration hadn’t gotten an earful on the “fee to flee”, I honestly question if Bush would have bothered to waive it. If he hadn’t waived it despite the outcry, he would have gotten hammered for it.

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

He didn’t change the policy, he simply waived it in this instance. I’m just not surprised he hadn’t preemptively done it.

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?

Of course it's part of a strategy. Hezbollah wants as much tension as possible. It's the best way to make sure that conflict becomes inevitable and that the peace process is indefinitely scuttled.

Anything that might actually provoke Israel to act preemptively is just gravy.

Den, you just said perfectly in a few short paragraphs what I tried but failed to say in a lot of long-winded posts. So I will jump on the bandwagon and merely add, "Yeah, what Den said."

So I will jump on the bandwagon and merely add, "Yeah, what Den said."

And here's my "me too" post.

Me too. :)

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.

They exact same argument could be made the other way. (That Hezbollah is acting up, hoping to draw other Middle East powers into the conflict on their behalf.) It’s pretty much a wash.

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.

I’m sure you agree that there is a difference between saber-rattling and actually cutting off heads. I don’t believe that intimidation quite rises to the level of terrorism, but I see why you believe flyovers are a bad thing.

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.

This is why I don’t equate flyovers with bombings as both being terrorism. Unnerving civilians with jet fighter flights is bad; specifically targeting them with suicide bombings is evil.

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.

Amen, brother. Amen

Posted by: lorshas at July 20, 2006 04:59 AM

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

lorshas, Wikipedia is far from my only source of information. I have a college education. I read newspapers, magazines, and books. I see the news on T.V. and hear it on the radio.

My only point about Wikipedia is that I will sometimes go there to confirm what I believe to be the facts. If Wikipedia contradicts my understanding of something, I look for other sources to corroborate Wikipedia. If, after reviewing multiple reliable sources, I conclude I am wrong about the facts, then I reconsider my opinions. If, however, Wikipedia confirms what I already understand to be the facts, then I feel I can proceed with confidence.

I am aware that Wikipedia has a serious flaw: anyone can edit it in real time and add bogus information to an article. Wikipedia administrators will eventually weed that crap out, but by the time they do you may already have read it.

That's why I don't use Wikipedia as my sole source of information. It's just a convenient tool to help me confirm facts I've learned from other sources that aren't handy at the time I write these posts.

You have milked the "Wiki" thing for infinitely more than it was ever worth, and in the process you're making a fool of yourself. It's a very transparent ploy that's fooling no one, by the way. Your "Wiki" taunts are a feeble attempt to distract me from the fact that you cannot refute my point about Iran.

The Iranians revolted against a U.S.-backed government. They had cause to be dissatisfied with the Shah, I'll admit. But rather than creating Heaven on Earth with a new government, the revolutionaries managed to pave the way for an even worse regime. The U.S. had no involvement in setting up the backwards-looking thuggish theocracy that is choking the life out of Iran now. They did that without our help.

Yes, the U.S. is supporting some dictatorships in the Middle East, but it is NOT supporting ALL OF THEM as you incorrectly asserted. Moreover, the existence of Iran serves to point out that Arabs cannot reasonably blame all of their problems on the U.S. and Israel.

As long as a significant number of Arabs continue to buy into the hateful, twisted and unrealistic propaganda of radical Islam, and as long as governments like Saudi Arabia continue to covertly support those movements as a form of tribute in hopes of keeping radical Islam appeased, then Arabs will continue to suffer.
You can continue to say "Wiki" to your heart's content, but it is not a magic word that will erase that reality.

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.

And suicide bombings which specifically target civilians are what, candygrams?

Pretty much everyone here who has stated support for Israel has also admitted that Israel has made some wrong-headed mistakes in the past (and present) and/or share some culpability with the tensions arising from the Palistinian issue.

Tell me, Mr. Maxwell -- do you believe that the Palestinians and larger Arab community have made or are making any mistakes and/or share responsibility for the problems in the region? Or do you sincerely believe it's all entirely Israel's fault?

Den says:

"The argument of whether or not the creation of Israel was justified is purely an academic one at this point. The fact is, it's a done deal. Israel exists, it's not going anywhere, and it will continue to defend itself as it deems appropriate."

And I agree.

"Hamas and Hezbollah have it in their power to stop Israel's retaliations. All they have to do is stop bombing Israel. Of course, they don't want it to stop, which is why they deliberately position themselves in densely populated areas. That way, when Israel is forced to retaliate, they can maximize the risk for civilian casualties."

And I disagree. Al-qusam rockets are Al-Fatah's, not Hama's. Ever since Hamas won the elections they have mantained an unilateral cease fire, wich only ended when Israeli troops entered Gaza again, and even then, not inmediatly. Hamas, although is responsible for terrorist attacks and mantains a hardcore program, is also known for keeping their agreements. When the soldier was kidnapped, they publicy demanded for the captors to free him. All analists Ive heard or read these past weeks mentioned how Hamas wasnt taking violent actions against Israel even tho the IDF attacked Palestinian Authority buildings and "arrested" elected officials.

Shlomo Ben-Ami, former Israeli foreihgn minister and security expert, as well as others Ive read, are of the oppinion that Israel should learn to negotiate with Hamas because the organization has proven more reliable and thrustworthy than any other player in the Palestinian field, ever. They might be bigots and killers, but history tells us past terrorists can become tomorrow's men of peace (Michael Collins, Ben Gurion, Menachem Begin, Gerry Adams...).

Also, the tactics the IDF is using in Gaza, such as sonic booms at low altitude in the middle of the night, cutting water supply and bombing civilian power plants are far from anti-terrorist measures and well into mass punition tactics.

"Hezbollah knows they don't have the capability to destroy Israel on their own, so their goal is to provoke enough outrage on the Arab Street in order to create a wider conflict and draw the other Arab nations into a direct war with Israel again."

Again I agree. Hezbolah is using its almost untouchable position withing Lebanon politics to act as Syria's puppet and maneuver Lebanon into falling again into it's master hands.

"What exact is it that Israel could do that would make Hamas and Hezbollah happy? They withdrew from Lebanon and the bombings continued. They gave the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt and the bombings continued. They gave the Palestinian Authority control of the West Bank and the bombings continued. They withdrew their settlements from Gaza and the bombings continued. How much territory are they expected to cede in order to get the attacks to stop?"

Actually, Egypt is by far the most Israeli-friendly nation in the Arab world. So friendly Israeli citizens go there on vacation often. About the West bank, you should see a map of the Palestinian Authority real "authority". It looks like a puzzle with 50% of the pieces missing, since there is a huge amount of Israeli "settlers" and their security comes allways first. Settlers that dont bother to hide their racial hatred of arabs, their belief on "Great Israel" and who doesnt hesitate muggin families out of their lands or destroy palestinian plantations. I remember once seeing footage of an arab farmer crying because nearby settlement guys armed with automatic riffles had killed his donkeys and poured cement into his well so he could not work a land that they deemed "too close to us for us to feel safe". Olmert's plan to remove those settlers would be a good start (although he doesnt plan to remove all), and as far as I know, many Israeli agree. But until that happens, their presence there becomes unbearable.

It is not like Israel would be giving chunks of its land. Its land seized from Jordan and Egypt, who have long forgotten their chances to have it back. People like Rabbi Kahane made this situation all the worse with his racist campaign to create a Great Israel and "drive all arabs from our god given land", who created the illusion in too many that that is Israel and that giving that land back to arabs would be a concession, to cede, when its only reparation.

As usual Peter David your pro Israeli rant is nauseous. I think you need to get it into your head that Israel is the bully in the Middle East with its high tech weaponry provided by the US. Look at the casualty figures yourself more Lebanese killed than Israelis. Israel itself is a 'terrorist' state.
Israel needs to 'knock this shit off' itself.

To some here:

Do you realize labeling Iran "Arab" is incorrect?

Also, I dont like Iran regime. I dont like its laws on morality and public expresion or women rights. But...

Since its the only country in the Gulf who holds democratic (although limited, but that happens in many democracies) ellections, allow women to vote, drive, go to university... I abhor the grip shiite clerics keep on the country, but there is a peaceful, slow struggle for things to change. All the iranians have done since they drove the Sha away, good or bad, they have done it their way. There are setbacks and mistakes, but they are achieving whatever their destiny might be their way. Real democracy and freedom only deserves its name when its hard earned on your own means, and its never achieved fast nor easily. But Iranians are doing it. Slowly. But anyone looking closely, anyone unbiased, can see they are moving.

Actually, Egypt is by far the most Israeli-friendly nation in the Arab world.

Really? I assumed it was Jordan.

As usual Peter David your pro Israeli rant is nauseous. I think you need to get it into your head that Israel is the bully in the Middle East with its high tech weaponry provided by the US. Look at the casualty figures yourself more Lebanese killed than Israelis. Israel itself is a 'terrorist' state.
Israel needs to 'knock this shit off' itself.

Now that you've gotten that out of your system, do you have anything thoughtful and constructive to contribute?

Jordan monarch is pro-western, for sure, but with the largest palestinian refugee population, their relationship with Israel cant be better than cool good neighbour, while Egypt and Israel even dare to share economic projects.

And I disagree. Al-qusam rockets are Al-Fatah's, not Hama's. Ever since Hamas won the elections they have mantained an unilateral cease fire, wich only ended when Israeli troops entered Gaza again, and even then, not inmediatly.

Okay, perhaps I over stepped when I included Hamas in the current actions, but historically, they have launched terrorist attacks against Israel. Perhaps now that they have a government to run, they, like Arafat before them, think they can earn respectability. A good start would be to reign in the other terrorist groups in Gaza and the West Bank.

Actually, Egypt is by far the most Israeli-friendly nation in the Arab world. So friendly Israeli citizens go there on vacation often.

True, but I didn't say the bombings were coming from Egypt now, did I? My point is that Israel has returned nearly all of the territory it took in the 6-day war and other conflicts and that still has failed to mollify groups like Hezbollah. Their only goal is the complete destruction of Israel. And they don't care how many of their fellow Muslims die in the process.

About the West bank, you should see a map of the Palestinian Authority real "authority". It looks like a puzzle with 50% of the pieces missing, since there is a huge amount of Israeli "settlers" and their security comes allways first.

The settlements have always been a problem and it's a point where I will agree that Israel has not always acted in the best interests of peace. The more settlements they built in West Bank, the more attacks they invited, and the more need for IDF forces to act in those territories.

The irony is, I think Sharon and now Olmert had come to realize that the settlements had become more trouble than the were worth. The fact that before his stroke, Sharon had moved away from his former militancy towards a more moderate stance was encouraging. The process of dismantling the settlements, though, has now been set back by Hezbollah. Again, that's because they don't care if Israel pulls completely out of the West Bank. They wan Israel pull completely out of the Middle East or die.

People like Rabbi Kahane made this situation all the worse with his racist campaign to create a Great Israel and "drive all arabs from our god given land", who created the illusion in too many that that is Israel and that giving that land back to arabs would be a concession, to cede, when its only reparation.

Israel has its share of radicals, too. That's a given. But Kahane isn't part of the Israeli government. In contrast, Hezbollah now controls a number of cabinet seats in Lebanon's government and has a virtual free hand in the southern region. So which group of radicals is driving the conflict then?

Of course, the more attacks Hezbollah initiates, the more vocal and stronger the Israeli militants will become. If Israel feels too threatened, the militant parties could regain control of the government. And maybe that is what Hezbollah would like to see in the short term. The more militant Israel becomes, the more "outrage" Hezbollah can provoke in the Arab Street.

Do you realize labeling Iran "Arab" is incorrect?

This is true. Iranians are Persians and their native language is Farsi, not Arabic. Unfortunately, many Americans have a lazy way of equating Arab=Muslim. Not all Muslims are Arabs and not all Arabs are Muslims.

And while Iran does hold elections, the real political power remains in the hands of the Ayatollahs. We saw that when a reformist candidate did get elected president and failed to make any real change in their government. The majority of Iranian people would love nothing more than to see the end of tensions between their country and hte west and Iran could be the most pro-western middle-eastern country, but until they have real government reform, that isn't likely to happen.

I think you need to get it into your head that Israel is the bully in the Middle East with its high tech weaponry provided by the US. Look at the casualty figures yourself more Lebanese killed than Israelis. Israel itself is a 'terrorist' state.

What exactly is your point here? That because Israel's weapons are better than Hezbollah's, they have no right to defend themselves?

We can discuss whether specific actions by Israel, such as the bombing of the Beirut airport are justified or necessary to limit Hezbollah's capabilities to launch attacks, but to say that Israel is a terrorist state simply because their weapons are more advanced is ludicrous.

... I despise spam even more.

And with PAD at SDCC, this could be a long weekend. Anyways.

Den -
Unfortunately, many Americans have a lazy way of equating Arab=Muslim.

I don't think it's quite that simple, as I believe most Americans are aware that there are plenty of Africans and Asians that are Muslim as well, and so forth. IIRC, Indonesia is the largest-Muslim population country in the world.

That said, Iran is still considered part of the Middle East, so I think the association is more Middle East sans Israel = Arab.

The term Persian is rarely used, and to most probably brings up images of long extinct civilizations more than anything else. :)

The fact remains that when a military jet fighter invades foriegn air space it's meant to be a threat

Better that than missiles, which is what's flying over from the other side.

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.

I honestly don't know where to begin. I'm not sure we are even within flying distance of being able to seriously discuss this--our views are too far apart. I know you aren't insane but if I ever say anything that what you just wrote it will only be because I HAVE gone insane.

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.

And if the other side doesn't stop? Do you just smile in the comfort of your moral superiority as they cut your throat. It's a lovely sentiment and makes sense if you smoke a lot of weed but for those on both sides who are stuck in Realityville (Right off of Nobullshit Blvd) that’s not really a plan.

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.

Yes but the difference is that Hamas is the elected leader of the Palestinians! The fanatical Jewish parties are a minority in Israel.

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.

So it's been what, 60 years? If Israel can hold out for another 20 or so the remaining surviving Palestinians who were "kicked out" (as opposed to "left to join the armies against Israel and had their asses handed to them") will be a very small number. Somehow, I don't think that will end it. Their children and their grandchildren will still lay a claim.

Of course it's part of a strategy. Hezbollah wants as much tension as possible. It's the best way to make sure that conflict becomes inevitable and that the peace process is indefinitely scuttled.

Oh I agree but it's DUMB strategy. The Arab states have tolerated and supported these people only because they have served a purpose. I'm not sure that they really WANT things to get totally out of hand. Maybe Iran does but most Arabs I know are not too fond of Persians (and the feeling is far more than mutual). I think the reaction from the Arabs has been curiously muted. They may weep few tears if Hezballah is crippled.

Den: add me to the chorus of those who say "Right on, Bro." My, this issue has made for interesting bedfellows. PAD, Bill M, the other Bill M, Craig, Iowa Jim and Den, side by side, shoulder to shoulder. I'm half expecting something sane from John Byrne to show up.

As usual Peter David your pro Israeli rant is nauseous. I think you need to get it into your head that Israel is the bully in the Middle East with its high tech weaponry provided by the US. Look at the casualty figures yourself more Lebanese killed than Israelis. Israel itself is a 'terrorist' state.

Dumb argument. Proportionality has nothing to do with the numbers killed. The Germans lost more at the Battle of the Bulge than we did. I'll use little words so you can understand; when you cowardly kill civilians as a means toward a political end and you cowardly hide out amongst civilians because you know that your enemy is reluctant to take out entire cities to root you out, you are a cowardly terrorist. To hear these useless wastes of carbon brag about carrying on in the tradition of Saladin...they aren't worthy of licking the soles of his shoes.

El Hombre--Is Iran really "Since its the only country in the Gulf who holds democratic...elections"? The limited power of the people is such that I don't know that it's really worthy of being called a democracy (Hey, Saddam "won" the "vote" too!). The Iranians are indeed moving and I greatly, GREATLY, look forward to the day when a lot of clerics are lined up against the wall with seriously puzzled "Whoa, how the hell did THIS happen?" expressions on their faces while they get the full Nicolae Ceauşescu treatment.

According to one source (tony Blair at http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page9870.asp) Hezballah has launched "1,600 rockets and mortars" at civilian targets in Israel.

Now to you "proportionality" fans I ask--how should Israel's response be measured? Should they be allowed exactly 1,600 reprisals? True, the rockets and mortors have not killed 1,600 people but that just luck and poor skills on the Hezballah front, it isn't for lack of trying. Or, if we assume that an Israeli soldier is 10 times as smart and skilled as a Hezballah goon (rough estimate but probably close) are they only allowed 160 responses?

Does anyone seriously--seriously--doubt that if Hezballah actually had the ability to decide where their rockets would land they wouldn't choose to have them land in the place where they would kill the most Israelis, civilian or not? Does anyone seriously believe that if the Israelis couldn't have racked up civilian casulaties in the tens of thousands by now if that were their goal?

The term Persian is rarely used, and to most probably brings up images of long extinct civilizations more than anything else. :)

That and rugs. :)

"One of Saudi Arabia's leading Wahhabi sheiks, Abdullah bin Jabreen has issued a strongly worded religious edict, or fatwa, declaring it unlawful to support, join or pray for Hezbollah, the Shiite militias lobbing missiles into northern Israel."

http://www.nysun.com/article/36373

Hmmmm.......interesting.

On the Iranians vs. Arabs issue: okay, sorry, mea culpa. Let's not let that distract us from the salient issue, though: that Iran is a theocratic dictatorship. I don't care that they hold elections, because they're sham elections. Most dictatorships do that. Doesn't mean they're not dictatorships.

A mobster can hide behind a legitimate business, but he's still a mobster if he, y'know, works for or runs a mob.

To those who continue to spout the mantra of proportionality: okay, what is the correct ratio of Israeli lives to Lebanese and Palestinian lives? 1:1? 2:3? 5:2?

Well???

A "proportionate" response would amount to more of the same "tit for tat" war of attrition that's been going on in that region for decades. It's a short-term solution that won't serve anyone's interests in the long run. Israel wants to hit Hamas and Hezbollah hard enough so that they don't have the strength to invade Israel again. It's a logical long-term solution.

To michael j. norton, regarding your comparison of Hamas/Hezbollah to the KKK: are you on crack? There's a major difference you're choosing to ignore in order to make your crazy world-view work: the KKK doesn't enjoy the support of the U.S. Government, nor is it supported by the mainstream of American society. I even know some bigots who revile the KKK!

On the other hand, Hezbollah and Hamas enjoy a great deal of mainstream support amongst the Lebanese and Palestinians respectively. They see them as freedom fighters. Then they cry out when their support of these fanatical death-cultists brings them misery. "Why should I suffer the logical consequence of my actions?" they cry. Gee, I dunno, because that's the way the world is designed: cause and effect?

El hombre Malo: Iran supports groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. There is a woman named Nazanin in Iran who may be hanged for daring to kill a man as he attempted to rape her (she didn't even mean to kill him, she was just trying to defend herself). In spite of their rhetoric to the contrary, it's plain to see that they're trying to start a nuclear weapons program.

Progress? You're joking, right?

Maqbool: I think you need to "get it into your head" that you're playing with some of the big boys, here. Some very smart people post here, regularly, and in order to keep up with them, you're going to need to bring more to the table then chest-thumping nonsense like that. If you can't craft a logical, facts-based argument, you're going to get cut to shreds.

I know that I have the reputation for generally being "Mr. Nice Guy," or at least that's what some of you have told me. I'm probably going to lose that reputation by the time this thread has cooled off. And I just don't give a damn. It boils my blood to see so many nonsensical statements being made about this conflict. Yeah, people ARE dying. That's why I think it's mportant to look at this realistically. A "pie-in-the-sky pass-another-joint give-peace-a-chance teach-in" ain't gonna do it, folks.

I was once one of those "let's just turn the other cheek 'cause all war is wrong" types. But I've come to the conclusion that in some cases, it is immoral not to fight. Because in some cases, not fighting elicits more violence.

Gandhi's nonviolent resistance bore fruit for India because Britain had a conscience to which such a movement could appeal. Hamas and Hezbollah are attacking a nation that has already made unilateral concessions in the form of abandoning occupied territories. Those groups do NOT have a conscience to which you can appeal through non-violent resistance.

Micha, haven't heard from you. I know it may seem presumptuous that so many of us are making statement's on Israel's behalf. But, you know, I for one believe Israel is deserving of U.S. support and want to say so.

I hope to see the occassional odd post from you just to let us know you're OK.

Yeah, the Persian Empire is long dead, but the term is still a far more accurate marker of cultural identity for the majority of the inhabitants of Iran than "Arab".

Gee, all these praises for my post. I guess the Lexapro really has evened out my moods and made me more rational.

As a "proportionality fan" I have given the reasons on why I think Israel reaction both in Gaza and Lebanon was disproportionate. Since Talking of tactics and long term goals doesnt seem to do the trick, lets try a new angle. Awnser me this instead:

1- What is the purpose of low altitude sonic booms over populated areas in Gaza? I know the IDF actually said its meant to keep terrorists awake and on the verge of breakdown. How does that breakdown affects the civilian population that can't go nowhere?

2- I understand on a military conflict cutting supply lines is an optimal tactic and many here mantain that bombing the power plant that supplies 60% of Gaza was only a logical step under that tactic. Would it've been so much different to just get there with IDF tanks and cut the supply without destroying the infraestructures?

3- I think no one here deny Israel owns the skies on the region. Ive heard an USAF officer comment once that there are no better combat pilots in the world than Israel's. Why is it so necesary then to bomb Gaza Airport, again a civil infraestructure?
-----------------
Let me comment here that the European Union have been funding civilian projects in Palestine, like hospitals, the airport, a fishing harbour, power plants. All under the assumption that a prosperous Palestinian economy would reduce violence. Israel have targeted those infraestructures every time shit happened. A terrorist bombs a bus? Let's bomb the airport. I fail to see the logic in that other than punish palestinian economy and force people to finally flee from the territories, as is the desire of many in Israel's parlament.
-------------
4- How is it proportionate to bomb whole buildings full of people in Beirut when Hezbolah bases are in South Lebanon? Where is the logic in bombing Christian neighbourhoods? Tripoli is so far north Hezbolah doesnt even got votes there and still got bombed.

5- The Beirut lighthouse, the fisher's harbour in the christian part of town, Airport... again in Lebanon the same pattern. What is the military goal in destroying these infraestructures?

6- We know Israel demands Lebanon army to go south and disarm Hezbolah. How bombing Lebanese army bases in Beirut, killing 30 soldiers, will make this happen? Are those dead soldiers a warning? "move or else..."?

Just a few questions, please, enlighten me, ease my doubts on Israel response.

"One of Saudi Arabia's leading Wahhabi sheiks, Abdullah bin Jabreen has issued a strongly worded religious edict, or fatwa, declaring it unlawful to support, join or pray for Hezbollah, the Shiite militias lobbing missiles into northern Israel."

Very interesting indeed. I think we are seeing at least a few Islamic leaders who are seeing the big picture and that Hezbollah's actions are triggering more suffering for the Lebanese people than they are advancing the cause of the Palestinian people.

the country was called Persia until 20something years ago...thats not long dead :P

Actually, Persia officially came to be called Iran in 1935, so it's a little more than 20 years. More like 71.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/806268.stm

Note I didn't use Wikipedia as my source. :)

Gandhi's nonviolent resistance bore fruit for India because Britain had a conscience to which such a movement could appeal. Hamas and Hezbollah are attacking a nation that has already made unilateral concessions in the form of abandoning occupied territories. Those groups do NOT have a conscience to which you can appeal through non-violent resistance.

There was an interesting story in one of those What If type miltary fiction book that had Ghandi and Nehru using their tactics on a Nazi occupying ofrce in India and it ended..well, badly. The nazi's didn't give a rat's ass about the world wide outcry thye got from shooting up demonstrators and, while the German commander admired Ghandi for his bravery, he didn't pause for a moment before casually ordering his immediate execution.

I guess the Lexapro really has evened out my moods and made me more rational.

Don't know if you're joking but I'm a fan of Lexapro. Anyone with mild depression, check it out.

El Hombre:
1. Answered in your ownpost.
2. Tanks would require an actual invasion and have the disadvantge of being far more easily taken out. The image of hezballah firing anti tank weapons from behind school and apartment walls and the Israelis blowing up said walls, with all the civilain deaths that would occur...
3. I see your point but would air superiority alone ensure that no flights could get through? And it also frees up those planes that would have had to be looking for and shooting down resupply planes. Now they can focus on the mission at hand; killing hezballah.

I'll have to look up some of the other stuff you're mentioned--they do sound unnecesary. Any links?

lorshas-- although I've disagreed with almost every point you've made I am very interested in hearing your point of view. We don't get much chance to often talk to Saudis. I was surprised, for example, to hear you say that Saudi propaganda is so pro-USA since everything we see here from Saudi Arabia--the textbook translations, the stuff they send to the mosques in the US--are so anti-western. What do you see that is slanted pro-USA, I'm genuinely interested. (And though I doubt we will ever agree on the larger issues I admire you for coming into the lion's den, so to speak.)

Actually, it has to do with Wahabist beign the most extreme, hardcore interpretation of sunni Islam. Sunni and Shia (Both Iran and Hezbolah are Shia) dont like each other, but wahabists actually hate shia with a passion. Shia minorities have it bad usually in sunni countries, moreso in Saudi Arabia, where wahabism is the official branch of Islam.

remember, Osama Bin Laden, Al Quaeda, Al Zarquawi and the Taliban are all wahabist.

Would it've been so much different to just get there with IDF tanks and cut the supply without destroying the infraestructures?

That depends on whether you believe Israel should be forced to risk the lives of their soldiers for something that can be accomplished by air.

- How is it proportionate to bomb whole buildings full of people in Beirut when Hezbolah bases are in South Lebanon?

Because Hezbollah has their members in the Lebanese government, which is based on Beirut.

It's the same as the fact that each state in the US votes for Congressmen, and those Congressmen work in DC, not the state they were elected in.

he Beirut lighthouse, the fisher's harbour in the christian part of town, Airport

Transportation - a lighthouse lets you know where the shore is, the harbor allows boats in easily, airport allows aircraft in easily.

the country was called Persia until 20something years ago...thats not long dead :P

Anything that happened before I was born might as well be. ;)

Seriously though, how many of you actually sit here and, when talking about those nutjob fanatics, refer them to Persians instead of Iranians?

And on the other hand, how many of you refer to Arabs instead of Jordanians, Saudi Arabians, and so forth?

Posted by: Den at July 20, 2006 02:21 PM

Note I didn't use Wikipedia as my source. :)

GAH! Will everyone get off my back about Wikipedia?

Bill Mulligan:

So in 1 you mean its acceptable to inflict the same psychological torture you use on the terrorists on the civilians. Is that what you say?

In 2 you confuse Hezbolah with Hamas. Take note that when the power plant was bombed, Hamas was still keeping its unilateral (we use that word a lot here) cease fire. Also, that Hamas means are far more scarce than thos eof Hezbolah (that have over 20 years of experience when it comes to blowing up tanks).

in 3...the distances in the area are minimal. Gaza is just a few km long and even less wide. Anything coming to Gaza would get detected and shot down from air without even having to scrammble any fighter, because they are already in the air. Any cargo plane would have close to nil chance of getting in but still Israel prefers to destroy yet another infraestructure.

lorshas, I'd like to echo and amplify Bill Mulligan's sentiments. I disagree with you... in a few cases, you've made me angry... but I don't hate you. Not even close.

We may be butting heads here, you and I, but it's better to butt heads verbally than physically.

And I will be the first to admit that our government has meddled and interfered in your region, in some cases to disastrous effect. I do not believe we should apologize for our support of Israel, nor can all of your region's problems be blamed on us. But to the extent that we have caused problems, it behooves us as U.S. citizens to listen to those we have aggrieved and to have the courage to try to change our own government's policies.

On the flip side, however, please be mindful that it cuts both ways. Saudi Arabia has indeed been a breeding ground for and supporter of terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda. Whatever our sins, the attacks of September 11, 2001, were unwarranted and evil. I'm not saying that you personally are responsible, or that Saudi Arabia is our enemy, per se. But there are elements within your country that aided and abetted those horrible attacks.

Neither of our nations is truly innocent, lorshas.

I do not believe that Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda are valid answers to your problems. Supporting or tolerating such groups will bring naught but suffering to everyone involved.

I refuse to give up the hope that all peoples of this Earth can someday learn to live together in relative harmony. It may be far-away hope... and a slim one... but what's life without hope?

Craig J

Most of your awnsers to my questions consider them to be commented with what I told Bill Mulligan. The rest:

"Because Hezbollah has their members in the Lebanese government, which is based on Beirut."

So you bomb a building full of people so you can kill a political representative (an elected one), instead of focusing on a military target. Is that how you think terrorism is beaten?

"Transportation - a lighthouse lets you know where the shore is, the harbor allows boats in easily, airport allows aircraft in easily."

Shia militia using the harbour in an area the christian phalanx control? ...

Some random replies:

Don't know if you're joking but I'm a fan of Lexapro. Anyone with mild depression, check it out.

Actually, I wasn't really joking. Depression is a bitch and I think it did carry out into some of my previous postings.

GAH! Will everyone get off my back about Wikipedia?

Hey, I put up a smilely, what more do you want?

Shia militia using the harbour in an area the christian phalanx control? ...

My guess is that since IDF's goal is not to just stop the current attacks, but to limit Hezbollah's ability to rearmed itself. They may be expecting that Syria and Iran could use the harbor to bring weapons into Lebanon. Same reason why they bombed the Beirut airport.

I still find it morally troubling myself, but such is war. The people that suffer the most from it are the ones who are caught in the middle.

the country was called Persia until 20something years ago...thats not long dead :P

According to the dreaded Wikipedia:
In the twentieth century, a dispute arose over whether Iran or Persia is the correct name for the country. On 21 March 1935, the ruler of the country, Reza Shah Pahlavi, issued a decree asking foreign delegates to use the term Iran in formal correspondence in accordance with the fact that "Persia" was a term used by Western peoples for the country called "Iran" in Persian. After some scholars protested, his successor, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, announced in 1959 that both Persia and Iran were acceptable, and could be used interchangeably. The 1979 Revolution led to the establishment of the present day theocracy that is officially called the Islamic Republic of Iran, but the noun Persia and the adjective Persian are still commonly used.

Just don't call them late for Salat!

So in 1 you mean its acceptable to inflict the same psychological torture you use on the terrorists on the civilians. Is that what you say?

Um, your exact question was "What is the purpose of low altitude sonic booms over populated areas in Gaza?" And then you answered your question. Don't blame me for it.

At any rate, look at the comparison-- Israelis "inflict" the "psychological torture" of sonic booms. Their ememies do the same...only the booms are followed by the explosions, and the shrapnel and the blood and stuff. Planes vs rockets. Let's put it up to a vote, which would you rather have?

You think Hezballah would use any planes if they had them (and brains enough to fly them)for the purpose of producing sonic booms?

In 2 you confuse Hezbolah with Hamas. Take note that when the power plant was bombed, Hamas was still keeping its unilateral (we use that word a lot here) cease fire.

From Time Magazine:
Deterred from attacking by arrests and assassinations, Hamas militants kept a cease-fire from March 2005 until last June, when they began firing rockets again and then, on June 25, decided to try another, daring tactic: they emerged from a tunnel dug under the Gaza fence to kill two Israeli soldiers and nab Corporal Gilad Shalit. Instead of talking about a peace deal, the Palestinian Authority found itself dealing with a rain of Israeli bombardments and border incursions.

Please tell me where Time got its facts wrong. Because I don't consider firing rockets and kidnapping soldiers to be what I, a humble speakerof the english language, consider a "cease-fire". (from another part of the article--"Palestinian militants have been regularly firing homemade Qassam rockets, a Hamas specialty, into Israel from Gaza--some 200 in June and 100 so far in July.")

this can be found at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1214951-1,00.html

(I think it would be helpful if those making claims that are verifiable would provide the approprite links, so that all may judge for themselves).

Den, yeah, depression bites. For me it was mild, I guess (it's hard to jusdge these things--what is mild for one may be devestating for another) but the main thing was that I was having a hard time enjoying what was a really good time for me. I was seeing success in several parts of my life but not getting anything out of it, the few negative aspects overwhelming the many positives. I hate the very idea of mind altering drugs but things have been much much better since starting Lexapro a few years back. A few side effects but nothing serious (email me at kaiju@aol.com if you ever want to talk about it).

With all the incurable crazies walking around this world the rest of us have to do whatever it takes to stay sane!

Is that how you think terrorism is beaten?

As many others have already stated, if terrorists are going to hide themselves among the general population, bad things will happen to said population sooner or later.

Terrorists do not follow the rules of war. Israel, as far as I know, is, even if that unfortunately means civilians are killed in the process.

And before you take that as some sort of tacit approval of what Israel is doing, it isn't. I'm just as sick of hearing about civilian deaths from what the US military is doing in Iraq, where more civilians are dying than terrorists.

I can only hope that some good comes of it all in the long run, because nothing good is being gained in the short term.

Shia militia using the harbour in an area the christian phalanx control? ...

Umm, yeah. Why is it so far-fetched?

Oh, and for the record, there's an article on Yahoo right now talking about how Iran wants to become a major player in the Middle East, and specifically refers to them as a non-Arab state.

So, it does happen.

Time reported " ... on June 25, (Hamas) decided to try another, daring tactic: they emerged from a tunnel dug under the Gaza fence to kill two Israeli soldiers and nab Corporal Gilad Shalit."

Funny, they never mention that the day before Israel went into Gaza and "detained" (Israelis never kidnap) 2 Palestinians who were alledgedly members of Hamas. Maybe, Hamas was responding to the Israeli provocation, surely not!

Also it is reported on Ynet that an Senior IDF officer as saying that the Israelis have significantly infiltrated Hizbullah so maybe the Israelis were not that surprised when Hizbullah kidnapped (Hizbullah never detains) 2 Israeli soldiers.

Well, I am now contributing to some terrible thread drift, but I once suffered from severe depression. I never tried to kill myself but spent much time contemplating and planning such an act. I can only describe the experience as crippling.

Through a combination of medical help and support from friends and family I was able to make it through that awful, bleak period of my life.

It's hard to tell someone who is depressed to get help, because when you're severely depressed you don't give a damn about anything. You think you're worthless. But if anyone reading this is suffering from prolonged feelings of sadness, worthelessness, hopelessness, what have you... find it within yourself to get up and get some help. It's worth it.

To the loon who ranted about how the US supplies Israel with its weapons, here's a partial list of some of ther designed/made in Iasrael weapons systems which equip their front line forces.

Merkava Mk-4 main battle tank
Sharaf attack helicopter.
Arrow - anti-missile system
Zahavan, Dalila and other pilotless planes.
F-15I (Israeli version of the F-15, incorporating Israeli avionics and carrying, among other things, the Israeli Python 3 and Python 4 Air-to-Air missiles.)
(Source - IDF and IAF sites)

So I'd say claiming the US furnishes their arms, or even a majority of them is nonsense.

"Funny, they never mention that the day before Israel went into Gaza and "detained" (Israelis never kidnap) 2 Palestinians who were alledgedly members of Hamas. Maybe, Hamas was responding to the Israeli provocation, surely not!"

It's not the average American's fault that they are ignorant of both sides of the story. For whatever reasons, the US media ignores for the most part the Israeli actions that provoke the Arabs to strike back at them. The Israeli gunboat that shelled a Gaza beach killing an entire family having a picnic in June is NEVER mentioned as the provocation for Hamas attacking less than 2 weeks later.

"To the loon who ranted about how the US supplies Israel with its weapons.....So I'd say claiming the US furnishes their arms, or even a majority of them is nonsense."

Since 1949 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $83.205 billion. The interest costs borne by U.S. tax payers on behalf of Israel are $49.937 billion, thus making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 $133.132 billion. This may mean that U.S. government has given more federal aid to the average Israeli citizen in a given year than it has given to the average American citizen.

Funny, they never mention that the day before Israel went into Gaza and "detained" (Israelis never kidnap) 2 Palestinians who were alledgedly members of Hamas. Maybe, Hamas was responding to the Israeli provocation, surely not!

There's a difference in taking two suspects into custody and crossing a border and attacking soldiers (killing several in the process).

It's not the average American's fault that they are ignorant of both sides of the story. For whatever reasons, the US media ignores for the most part the Israeli actions that provoke the Arabs to strike back at them. The Israeli gunboat that shelled a Gaza beach killing an entire family having a picnic in June is NEVER mentioned as the provocation for Hamas attacking less than 2 weeks later.

I'm sure you're aware that it isn't definite that the gunboat was the culprit in the explosion (although it remains a possibility.)

Considering that the population of Israel is smaller than that of New York City, duh.

This may mean that U.S. government has given more federal aid to the average Israeli citizen in a given year than it has given to the average American citizen.

Considering that the population of Israel is smaller than that of New York City, duh.

"Time reported " ... on June 25, (Hamas) decided to try another, daring tactic: they emerged from a tunnel dug under the Gaza fence to kill two Israeli soldiers and nab Corporal Gilad Shalit."

Funny, they never mention that the day before Israel went into Gaza and "detained" (Israelis never kidnap) 2 Palestinians who were alledgedly members of Hamas. Maybe, Hamas was responding to the Israeli provocation, surely not!

Also it is reported on Ynet that an Senior IDF officer as saying that the Israelis have significantly infiltrated Hizbullah so maybe the Israelis were not that surprised when Hizbullah kidnapped (Hizbullah never detains) 2 Israeli soldiers.

Ooookay. So we should call it "detaining" when they kill two soldiers and take another one...somewhere.

I trust those who are so concerened for the well being of those in Gunatanimo will be likewise certain to pressure Hamas to see to it that Gilad Shalit is treated well. Has access to a lawyer. Visits from the red cross. religiously sensitive food choice. Etc.

As for whether or not the Israelis were surprised that their men were kidnapped...are you seriously suggesting that they knew it would happen and let it happen so they could retaliate? You're not one of those people who think that all the Jews who worked in the world trade towers stayed home on 9/11, are you?

Posted by: Bill Maxwell at July 20, 2006 05:23 PM

It's not the average American's fault that they are ignorant of both sides of the story. For whatever reasons, the US media ignores for the most part the Israeli actions that provoke the Arabs to strike back at them. The Israeli gunboat that shelled a Gaza beach killing an entire family having a picnic in June is NEVER mentioned as the provocation for Hamas attacking less than 2 weeks later.

May I ask why you decided to omit the fact that Israel was shelling an area they believed was being used by Palestinians to fire rockets into Western Negev?

For those of you who want to judge things for yourself, here's a link to the dreaded Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_beach_blast

The entry contains links to numerous newspaper articles about the incident. It's a bit more complex than Bill Maxwell would have you believe.

I tired posting this earlier but it didn't go through, I guess. From Bill Maher;

...I have to say, watching George Bush talk about Israel the last week has reminded me of a feeling that I hadn't felt in so long I forgot what it felt like: the feeling of pride when your president says what you want your president to say, especially in a matter that chokes you up a bit. I surrender my credentials as Bush exposer - from the very beginning - to no man, but on Israel, I love it that a U.S. president doesn't pretend Arab-Israeli conflict is an even-steven proposition. Lots of ethnic peoples, probably most, have at one time or another lost some territory; nobody's ever completely happy with their borders; people move and get moved, which is why the 20th century saw the movement of tens if not hundreds of millions of refugees in countries around the world. There was no entity of Arabs called "Palestine" before Israel made the desert bloom. If those 600,000 original Palestinian refugees had been handled with maturity by their Arab brethren, who had nothing but space to put them, they could have moved on -- the way Germans, Czechs, Poles, Chinese and everybody else has, including, of course, the Jews.

But I digress. I really wanted to say that, for all those who accuse the likes of myself and the birthday girl of being unpatriotic, or hating America first, the feeling I've had watching Israel defend herself and a US president defend Israel (a country that is held to a standard for "restraint" that no other country ever is asked to meet, but that's another story) just reminds me how wrong that is. I LOVE being on the side of my president, and mouthing "You go, boy" when he gets it right. He just, outside of this, almost never does.

I rarely agree with Maher and when I do I still don't like his attitude but it's been nice to see people on both sides of the aisle seeing eye to eye on this.

Well, Maher now joins the ranks of people like Den, who say it better than I could.

Although Maher is oversimplifying the Palestinian situation a bit. Prior to the creation of The British Mandate of Palestine, it's true that there was no official Palestinian state in that area. It was in fact part of the Ottoman Emprie. That said, the area was unofficially referred to as "Palestine" and the people there did identify themselves as "Palestinian."

Nevertheless, Maher is correct. Throughout history, justly or unjustly, lands have changed hands. People have been displaced and had to move on.

Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah don't really want to solve the Palestinian problem. They fight because it's all they know. Killing Israelis is their raison d'etre. They cling to the non-existent hope that they can wipe Israel off the map because it gives them an excuse to continue the killing.

After all, if they were to capitalize on any of the numerous opportunities Israel has given them to create a new Palestinian state and a viable future for the Palestinian people, they'd have to take responsibility. They'd have to stop pointing fingers at everyone else and find a way to provide for security and economic growth and all of the difficult and sometimes tedious tasks that responsible governments must contend with.

So instead, they walk away from the table when Israel offers them 95% percent of Gaza and the West Bank. They step up the hostilities against Israel when that nation unilaterally relinquishes territory it won in battle against enemies who tried and failed to drive Israel into oblivion. And people like Bill Maxwell and michael j. norton and El hombre Malo and lorshas and so many others advance all sorts of paralogistic arguments in a vain attempt to excuse this.

But the bottom line is that the violence will continue as long as there are childish people who insist on fighting for that which is not possible: the destruction of Israel, and its replacement by a new Palestine.

That saddens me, because the Palestinians could have a homeland again. They could have a place to build anew and forge a destiny of growth and strength and hope, instead of one of constant violence to no good end.

Steve Jones

Woo! Let those conspiracy theories fly!

Here's a conspiracy of my own, based on the postings made in this thread: I'm starting to doubt that Steve Jones and Bill Maxwell are unique individuals, but are in fact the same, less than sane person who apparently believes in the Great Jewish Conspiracy.

I have no real evidence to back this up, but it's good for laughs, isn't it?

Well he wuldn't have to do that. Anti-semites flock to any tragedy to claim it as part of the Great Jew Conspiracy. They are attracted to disasters like flies to shit.

Me, I just blame global warming.

"So instead, they walk away from the table when Israel offers them 95% percent of Gaza and the West Bank. They step up the hostilities against Israel when that nation unilaterally relinquishes territory it won in battle against enemies who tried and failed to drive Israel into oblivion. And people like Bill Maxwell and michael j. norton and El hombre Malo and lorshas and so many others advance all sorts of paralogistic arguments in a vain attempt to excuse this."

In what way, Sir, have I tried to "excuse" terrorist attacks?

There is an alarming tendency to identify those who disagree with the methods Israel use to end with Terrorism with those who actually support terrorism. All Ive been saying so far is that, for many reasons, I think Israel is choosing the wrong path. Also I provided the links in wich Israeli comentators, most prominently Shlomo Ben-Ami (whom I found so often quoted here in Spain because he is a fluent spanish speaker) exposed the same oppinion.

I have also commented on how I think the suffering of civilians this course of action have caused is disproportionate and, more important, have nothing to do with the actual goal of taking out the terrorists. I have a problem with some here who seem to think these civilians and terorists are the same, or at least, that a palestinian or lebanese civilian is not as much of a victim as any Israeli. That line of thinking justify any number of deaths if to prevent the lose of Israeli life. "Hey, its War!" say some.

Well, it shouldnt be.

One does not wage war on terrorists. You wage war on nations, on armies. If you declare war on a terrorist group, you are saying theyre not terrorists but soldiers, and you are saying the civilian deaths are justified because "its them or us", while you should consider those civilians a third party in the middle of all. Because thats what they are.

How many innocent lifes are you willing to take to save one Israeli. As many as necesary some would say, when "none" is the correct awnser. That is why you dont use war tactics on a terrorist organization, because the risk of blowing a van full of fleeing civilians are too high. Terrorists are closer to the Mafia than to an Army, and I dont think anyone here would have seen with good eyes Police blowing up an apartment building in New Jersey because someone named Gotti lived in the third floor.

With Terrorists you use police and intelligence methods, not artillery. But it seems that to think that makes me some kind of distant cousin to Mengele.

Anti-semites flock to any tragedy to claim it as part of the Great Jew Conspiracy.

Ahhhhh, the race card! I was wondering when "Anti-semite" was going to be pulled out of the trick bag to describe anyone who disagrees with Israel's crimes. Isn't it so convenient to hide your villainy behind your religion, sort of like what you accuse those awful Muslim extremists of?

Oops, there's that mirror-image thing again!

Isn't it so convenient to hide your villainy behind your religion

WTF?

Wow, you're beginning to monologue like a character in a poorly written melodrama.

I've asked before. Allow me to ask again:

Pretty much everyone here who has stated support for Israel has also admitted that Israel has made some wrong-headed mistakes in the past (and present) and/or share some culpability with the tensions arising from the Palestinian issue.

Tell me, Mr. Maxwell -- do you believe that the Palestinians and larger Arab community have made or are making any mistakes and/or share responsibility for the problems in the region? Or do you sincerely believe it's all entirely Israel's fault?

Posted by: El hombre Malo at July 20, 2006 07:34 PM

In what way, Sir, have I tried to "excuse" terrorist attacks?

You did so in the "This is just NOT gonna end well" thread when you wrote:

"Both sides have reasons to feel a victim, and most arabs would renounce violence if they would see those reasons dissapear."

There is an alarming tendency to identify those who disagree with the methods Israel use to end with Terrorism with those who actually support terrorism.

There is an irritating tendency by people like you to conveniently forget what you've written when you are faced with a superior argument.

All Ive been saying so far is that, for many reasons, I think Israel is choosing the wrong path. Also I provided the links in wich Israeli comentators, most prominently Shlomo Ben-Ami (whom I found so often quoted here in Spain because he is a fluent spanish speaker) exposed the same oppinion.

You know, just because Shlomo Ben-Ami agrees with you means nothing. An illogical argument is an illogical argument, no matter who advances it.

I have also commented on how I think the suffering of civilians this course of action have caused is disproportionate and, more important, have nothing to do with the actual goal of taking out the terrorists.

Yes. And other people have pointed out to you, repeatedly, that Hamas and Hezbollah have a practice of hiding weaponry and fighters in civilian population centers. Terrorists are using the same roads as the civilians. Terrorists are getting their electricity from the same power plants as civilians. Terrorists are using the same infrastructure as civilians.

I have a problem with some here who seem to think these civilians and terorists are the same, or at least, that a palestinian or lebanese civilian is not as much of a victim as any Israeli.

And I have a problem with you repeating the same simplistic arguments over and over again, as though merely repeating something gives it any more validity. Again: terrorists use the same infrastructure as civilians. They hide amongst civilians. THEY endanger the civilians BY DOING SO.

That line of thinking justify any number of deaths if to prevent the lose of Israeli life. "Hey, its War!" say some.

Well, it shouldnt be.

One does not wage war on terrorists. You wage war on nations, on armies. If you declare war on a terrorist group, you are saying theyre not terrorists but soldiers, and you are saying the civilian deaths are justified because "its them or us", while you should consider those civilians a third party in the middle of all. Because thats what they are.

As has been pointed out already, Hezbollah is actually quite popular with the Lebanese people. Hezbollah even occupies 23 seats in the Lebanese parliament. The idea that the poor Lebanese are "caught in the middle" is hogwash. What they are doing is crying, "I should not have to suffer the consequences of our support for Hezbollah!"

Which is a bit like saying, "I shouldn't have to get wet because I refuse to come out of the rain."

How many innocent lifes are you willing to take to save one Israeli.

How many times must Israel be attacked after making gestures of peace before they are allowed in your eyes to defend themselves?

As many as necesary some would say, when "none" is the correct awnser.

In an ideal world, yes. But in the real world, it would be morally wrong of the Israeli government to continue to allow its own people to be killed by Hamas and Hezbollah in order to make you feel better.

That is why you dont use war tactics on a terrorist organization, because the risk of blowing a van full of fleeing civilians are too high. Terrorists are closer to the Mafia than to an Army, and I dont think anyone here would have seen with good eyes Police blowing up an apartment building in New Jersey because someone named Gotti lived in the third floor.

I don't know what organized crime looks like in your country, but in my country organized criminals don't have the capacity to shoot rockets at us. So your analogy completely and utterly fails.

With Terrorists you use police and intelligence methods, not artillery.

Wrong. When a nation knowingly and willingly harbors terrorists, as Lebanon has done, you hold them responsible. Doing so gives the terrorists fewer and fewer places to hide.

But it seems that to think that makes me some kind of distant cousin to Mengele.

Oh, please, stop being such a baby. I never called you anything of the sort. I'm merely pointing out the patent illogic of your arguments.

Posted by: Bill Maxwell at July 20, 2006 08:19 PM

Ahhhhh, the race card! I was wondering when "Anti-semite" was going to be pulled out of the trick bag to describe anyone who disagrees with Israel's crimes. Isn't it so convenient to hide your villainy behind your religion, sort of like what you accuse those awful Muslim extremists of?

Oops, there's that mirror-image thing again!

Please don't fool yourself into thinking that it's escaped our notice that you have yet to once address any of the gaping holes we've exposed in your arguments. Because it hasn't escaped us. Continuing to call people names won't cover up the stunning illogic of your screeds.

Isn't it so convenient to hide your villainy behind your religion, sort of like what you accuse those awful Muslim extremists of?

Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but you've got two piss-poor assumptions going here:

A) That Bill Mulligan is Jewish.
B) That it's taught to Jewish children all over the world that they must wipe other religions off the face of the earth.

Bill Mulligan isn't Jewish???

Next thing you know, you're going to try to convince me that "Mulligan" is an Irish surname.

Craig, you're such a pip. :)

it's been nice to see people on both sides of the aisle seeing eye to eye on this.

Hardly.

Bill Myers:

When I say "Both sides have reasons to feel a victim, and most arabs would renounce violence if they would see those reasons dissapear" ...where do you see an excuse for terrorism? I was speaking of the support terrorist groups and militias enjoy in Palestine due to people feeling them beign aggraviated. That doesnt excuse terrorist, I just point to one of the origins of the phenomenon in my opinion. I have stated many times what I think of the terrorists attacks, both past and present, and on the right Israel has to defend itself. I just disagree on the way it does that and the impact it has on civilians.

"There is an irritating tendency by people like you to conveniently forget what you've written when you are faced with a superior argument."

I remember what I have written. You, obviously have either not read it all or fabricated a meaning on your own. Or maybe its just my english is not that good.

"You know, just because Shlomo Ben-Ami agrees with you means nothing. An illogical argument is an illogical argument, no matter who advances it."

Well, for me it does. When this guy, who is obviously an expert in the matter we are discussing gives his oppinions, I listen. I dont take his words as godspell, but since they validate what Ive read other people say, including many Israeli journalists, I tend to think there might be a chance its not crazy to think that way. Or maybe its just a virus we all got that make us think that way. But please, tell me where am I beign illogical.

" Again: terrorists use the same infrastructure as civilians. They hide amongst civilians. THEY endanger the civilians BY DOING SO."

And again, if the military knows the terrorists are hidden among civilians, they should change tactics to avoid the civilians to suffer more than whats strictly necesary. To throw a missile at a car on a crowded street because there is a terrorist inside, is a criminal act. It simply saves the Israeli the time and effort to target that guy on a different way, at the cost of civilian life. So yes, they are scumbags willing to sacrifice innocents to their cause, they endanger civilians by doing what they do near them. But that doesnt make it different; someone is willing to kill innocents to put that dog out. All because you use a mentality of war when dealing with people who are not soldiers but, basically, criminals.

"The idea that the poor Lebanese are "caught in the middle" is hogwash. What they are doing is crying, "I should not have to suffer the consequences of our support for Hezbollah!""

While there are many who support and vote for Hezbolah, to put all lebanese in the same bag is just too convenient. As I asked before; How does targeting Hezbolah's traditional enemies, christians and sunni, contribute to erradicate the terrorist group? How does bombing Beirut civil infraestructures and neighbourghoods, in the hands of a pro-western goverment, help any military tactic?

But, of course, if one vote someone who latter does something terrible to someone else, one should expect to suffer vengeance and to see their family dead. ¿no?

In my country, ETA has a political wing that gets 10-13% of votes in Basque country. But police dont dare kill civilians when trying to get a terrorist, under the assumption they migh have voted for them. And you know what? things seem to get better every year. And yes, there is adifference of proportion, but the basic idea is the same; If you kill an innocent while trying to get the bad guy, the terrorists will instrumentalize that in their favour. And even if only 100 people listen to them and only 10 believe what they say, you have achieved little in the way of ending the whole shit.

It works. It takes time and it make your focrces vulnerable to attack, but long term it works. Israel have been trying to pound terrorist groups into submission for decades and have achieved nothing. While I believe the land devolutions to be insuficient, I think that is more in the right track. If you have to bomb a launching site, bomb it. But dont bomb an apartment building to get a couple of guys, because unless there is an inmediate treath, the civilians will only ask "isnt there another way to do this?". And some will fall prey to what terrorist say and the violence perpetuate itself.

"I don't know what organized crime looks like in your country, but in my country organized criminals don't have the capacity to shoot rockets at us. So your analogy completely and utterly fails."

As i said before, no one would object to bombing a launching site. Even if that causes civilian deaths, its justified because it stops an inmediate treath. What I talk is about dismantlin the terrorist organization, which is very much like a criminal one. As you have said, terrorists use the crowd to disguise themselve so you either kill the whole crowd or use intelligence methods to find where the guys are, see who else is dirty and kill/capture them. If you drop a bomb you sure scare the hell out of people. Normal people. You may even kill the guy. But thats it. And that might be enough for you today, but tomorrow theres gonna be a new one because thats how it works.

If Israel would have worked with the pro western goverment of Lebanon, who is just one year old and had already pushed Israel old enemy Syria out of its borders, I am sure hezbolah would have had it much tougher and Lebanese people would have suffered less.

"I'm merely pointing out the patent illogic of your arguments."

No, you disagree with my arguments, but you have not proven any of them illogic. I dont say yours are illogic, just innaceptable to me because I believe war is not the way to deal with terrorism. Both for ethical and practical reasons, as I have expressed. But you equate this to apologizing terrorism. It is you who attack me and the motives you presume I have, rather than the ideas I defend.

As I said in this and the previous thread, I believe Israel to be the most advanced society of the region. I do not believe its military success is due to foreighn support, like some here suggest, but rather to the strong national spirit they have created and the determination of the israelis to exist as a state. Like Mario vargas Llosa, I believe Israel model of society is right now a model for all emerging nations. But for all these reasons I believe Israel should have higher standarts when it comes to the use of force over civilians. A prosperous Palestine is a Palestine less likely to engage in violence towards its more powerful neighbour, and for that Israel should understand that keeping infraestructures intact is actually investing in peace. Poor, desperate people with no running water or electricity is not submissive but rather quite beligerant. This just state the obvious and it doesnt excuse terrorism.

Any healthy, functioning group should recognize the evils and wrongness of terrorism. The fact that some don't is truly mindboggling. The fact that many actively hope their children are the next suicide bomber is unthinkable.

Terorrists, and those who support terrorists are not victimes, they are perpetrators and thos complicit in terror. Poor people do not have to be criminals, murderers, or those who support murderers.

Until they change their hearts, there will be no peace. Doesn't matter how much talk, land give backs, or anything. People who want your destruction see that as nothing but weakness. Hard people understand nothing but hardness. Negotiations give them time to rebuild and expand their hate, appeasement simply makes them bolder. War helps stave things off for a time, though it only buys some time, but it does eliminate a threat for awhile.

The only time there will be peace is when people do not want to destroy Israles, kill Jews, and start blaming and expecting more from their own governments. Because, for the most part, its their own culture and governments that have completely failed them, and Israel, the West, and the United States have been made out to be convienent scapegoats for every problem they have, thta have allowed a proud people and history with a long culture to stagnate in a cesspool of nothingness, with little to add to the world in terms of culture, science, political theory, entertainment, business, except oil and that's about it.

When they grow up and join us in the 21st century, (instead of modeling themselves off the 15th), there will be peace, and people can reasonably negotiate and work things out with other people.

As long as its the "The jews did this" "the jews are scum" "the jews are behind everything" "The Great Satan" "the little Satan", the hatred of many stands revealed and no negotiations will do anything but create more problems in the future.

One does not wage war on terrorists. You wage war on nations, on armies.

That's a good point but when a nation is used by terrorists as a base or even worse, actively supports terrorists, what then?

With Terrorists you use police and intelligence methods, not artillery. But it seems that to think that makes me some kind of distant cousin of Mengela

Ok, settle down, nobody is accusing you of that. I disagree with your take on the issue but you’re obviously an intelligent guy.

Ahhhhh, the race card! I was wondering when "Anti-semite" was going to be pulled out of the trick bag to describe anyone who disagrees with Israel's crimes. Isn't it so convenient to hide your villainy behind your religion, sort of like what you accuse those awful Muslim extremists of?

Bill Mulligan:Jew. A member of the very very lost tribe of Israel, I guess. Sure an' I remember me ancestors, Shlomo and Hadassah Mulligan, kvetching about the poor quality of the corned beef and gefilte fish bagels available on the Emerald Isle…

Yeah, I'm real Jewish. And I hide my villainy behind it! Moo-who-who-hwah-ha-ha! I feel like twirling my mustache while I entrap the good guy in a needlessly complicated death device, offering him ample time to escape and spoil my malefic plans for malfeasance. I laugh, laugh at you puny mortals who bow before me like so many ants! Oh wait, those are actual ants. Damn. I have to stop eating at the keyboard...but it matters not! Soon it is YOU who will be eating at the keyboard of my evil...um. Anyway.

Bill Maxwell
Hardly.

Umm, and what does this prove, exactly?

As Bill and Bill know, I generally like Ted Rall and what he says. But now and then, like with this cartoon, I have nfc what point he's trying to make.

(And on this subject, I think Rall has a good grasp of many of the problems facing many of the Muslim nations of the Middle East and Asia... but Israel? Not quite as well.)

El hombre Malo -
And again, if the military knows the terrorists are hidden among civilians, they should change tactics to avoid the civilians to suffer more than whats strictly necesary.

I'm sorry, but exactly what tactics are you proposing that would not put civilians at risk?

The fact that the terorrists are among civilians to begin with is designed to show that they don't give a rat's ass how many civilians die.

How does bombing Beirut civil infraestructures and neighbourghoods, in the hands of a pro-western goverment, help any military tactic?

The fact that you keep asking this over and over, after we've given you answers repeatedly, leads me to questoin whether you a strong grasp of military strategy and tactics?

Look at the situation in Iraq. The US has over 100,00 troops on the ground, and, sadly, many civilians are still being killed in the name of rooting out terrorism. They're being killed by US soldiers, instead of US missles.

Israel sends missles to do it's dirty work instead of soldiers.

Neither method has saved civilians, but you can't sit there and just ignore the terrorists because they've intentionally placed themselves in civilian targets.

But for all these reasons I believe Israel should have higher standarts when it comes to the use of force over civilians.

I'd like to think the same thing of our own government, but you still end up with the Abu Ghraibs and who knows how many other incidents that should disgust all Americans.

However, theory and practice are two different rulebooks. And terrorists don't play by any rulebook that the rest of the civilized world works with.

With Terrorists you use police and intelligence methods, not artillery.
****

Yeah, that police failed and helped lead to 9.11. All options are on the table, and all must be used-military, police, financial, intelligence, all of it.

and, quite frankly, the victims of terrorism can decide what mehtods they want to use, and what they think will be effective in keeping them safe. If terrorists don't like it, change. If other nations don't like it, then do their parts to end it. If people don't like it, then do your part to end it, stop making excuses for murderers, and demand an end, and stop raising children, mostly young men, to be the kind of people to engage in terrorism.

stop treating some people as if they have all the excuses in the world for what they did and the vitims as if there are no excuses in the world. They should be held to the same responsibilty as everyone else, and should be expected to have the same respect for human life and dignity as anyone else, not made out to be heroes or supported.

The terrorists are to blame for all the deaths that have come out of this, not the victim.

OK...wow, so much...where to begin?

First let me apologize because if I quoted every thing I'd like to reply to this would go on forever and in the interest of brevity, I might not reply to some specific point. If you feel I've been unfair or slighted you in anyway feel free to post it or even email me and I'll have no problem going into anything I might say.

Now, first to the person who mentioned that I'm wrong when I compare the KKK and Hamas because the KKK doesn't recieve government support, I'll say that at one time they did. In fact several members of the congress were, at one time, proud members of such organizations. Our laws in this country were at one time made to support their aims. This doesn't mean we haven't grown up a bit. I'd like to believe the same can be said where governments and Hamas and Hezzbollah are concerned.

I would also say that we should have learned by now that tit for tat doesn't work. Thus the "JUST STOP". Now, someone mentioned the whole "What if the other side doesn't stop?" argument. I gotta say, that's a pretty weak argument in my opinion. This idea that Ghandi's tactics are outdated or wouldn't do any good is a poor way to think of things, considering Israeli's tactic hasn't worked in over half a century of fighting yet Ghandi achieved his goals without bloodying his hands.

The amazing thing about the line of thinking that it wouldn't work is that it's coming from someone on a comic book writer's blog. I mean, if superheroes should teach us anything, it's that you do the right thing without worrying about whether it's gonna be successful or whether it puts you into harm's way but rather just because it's the right thing. What happened to that? Think I'm nuts? Living in a fantasy world? Maybe, but again, Ghandi achieved his goal so it's been proven successful.

Also have we not learned that if I hit you and then you hit me and I hit you back, it goes on forever but if one of us stops, we might end up with some loose teeth but we can move on?

Also why bomb a airport when your enemy isn't going to fly into you but rather lob a missile over the border without needing a runway? Seriously.

OK, let's keep going because I'm having a ball. LOL

Michael

I see something interesting developing here, and it disturbs me more than in interests me. The word "terrorist" is being thrown around in a way somewhat akin to the word "poopyhead" gets thrown around on the playground by a pair of feuding six-year-olds. Neither side feels like they're engaging in terroristic activities, yet both are being accused of it by the other side. Now, from what I've seen, (and I'll be the first to admit that I don't have all the information) Israel has tried to keep things from escalating too much, but the neighbors seem like the aforementioned six-year olds who don't know enough to stop poking a bee's nest with a short stick.

So, just who is it that declares someone a terrorist? And by what criteria is that claim measured? Can a person be a terrorist and still have the support of their government? In that case, wouldn't that person be considered not a terrorist but a soldier? And if NOT, then wouldn't the agrieved party or parties be able to go to that person's government and ask THEM to do something about that person? Or am I just REALLY oversimplifying things? And if I am, as I readily admit I may be, why CAN'T things be this simple?

Looking at spiderrob's comment up above mine, I have to point out two things. The attacks of September 11th happened, not because of police failures, or should I say SOLELY because of police failures? The police aren't in charge of screening they who enter this country, they who wish to take flight training, or they who board an aircraft. If the police WERE in charge of that, I'm sure I wouldn't want to live here. I don't know too man people that would.

This idea that Ghandi's tactics are outdated or wouldn't do any good is a poor way to think of things, considering Israeli's tactic hasn't worked in over half a century of fighting yet Ghandi achieved his goals without bloodying his hands.

Ghandi was a great man. But while it's safe to say he achieved some goals without bloodying his hands, the liberation of India from British rule resulted in the deaths of thousands during the partitian and Indo-Pakistani war. He also had, as mentioned, the benefit of using non-violence on those who were receptive to it. His suggestion to the British on the matter of Hitler is, to my admitedly non-saintly mind, insane: "I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

The truth is, he was wrong. It WAS the weapons that saved humanity from the Axis powers. Maybe they would have collapsed eventually on their own but my God, at what price? Though we would certainly not be having any discussion on how Jews in the Middle East can best defend themselves, that's for sure.

Also why bomb a airport when your enemy isn't going to fly into you but rather lob a missile over the border without needing a runway? Seriously.

To keep them from getting more missiles? To keep them from getting away? I don't know, I'm no military tactician (though I play a mean game of Galaga).

Gotta respond to Michael's post. Ghandi-style tactics(Anybody else get an image of "UHF"?) will only work if the people on the other side will respect those tactics. If you are completely dedicated to non-violence, as respectable and honorable as that may be, there are some people out there that will see this person not as honorable, not as wise, not as inherently peaceful, but as a non-moving target. The trick is GETTING these same "Some people" to realize that you have the right to exsist as much as they do. Again, it SHOULD be simple, but some people just want to overcomplicate things.

He also had, as mentioned, the benefit of using non-violence on those who were receptive to it.

You also have to consider the fact that the British Empire was on it's death bed, thus making it far easier for India and the rest of Britain's former colonies to get their independence in the aftermaths of the two World Wars.

This isn't to downplay Ghandi's accomplishments, but he was a man who was certainly able to take advantage of the situation for his nation's benefit.

Last post for tonight, I promise, guys! Listen, with that last one that I did, if it came off as particularly warmonger-ish, I didn't mean it to. I may have a temper shorter than something so incredibly short that people would say "My GOD, that's short!" but I'd like to think I've become slightly civilized in the last couple years. I just think that sometimes, under the right circumstances, a very SPECIFIC set of right circumstances, striking out can be the correct thing to do. I wouldn't say justified or right, because that makes it too easy. You can argue any point to death to make it sound like the justified or right thing to do.

Micha, I hope you're okay.

Oh and something else, because someone asked what exactly constitutes "proportionality". Proportionality doesn't work. Just because you can either seek revenge or defend yourself maybe that doesn't mean you should. Because "proportionality" says that Superman kills Luthor, that Batman kills Joker and that Wonder Woman kills Max Lord. It says that I'm going to do exactly to you what you did to me but really my question then better be, how does this effect me in my life, in the long run?

Michael

"...the victims of terrorism can decide what mehtods they want to use, and what they think will be effective in keeping them safe"

Well, victim of terrorism, Israel, is using a method that in many people's oppinion, not only doesnt make it safer but actually might worsen the situation. Gideon Levy of Haaretz elaborates on this.

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story-07180615641.htm

spiderrob says:

"stop treating some people as if they have all the excuses in the world for what they did and the vitims as if there are no excuses in the world. They should be held to the same responsibilty as everyone else, and should be expected to have the same respect for human life and dignity as anyone else, not made out to be heroes or supported."

Actually, while demanding those who dont respect life to start doing so, I beg those whose society have already achieved that level (Israel) not to forget such values.

Craig J Ries:

"The fact that the terorrists are among civilians to begin with is designed to show that they don't give a rat's ass how many civilians die."

But the fact terrorist dont give a rat's ass about civilian losses shouldnt mean IDF should do the same. The "its all their fault because its them who put them at risk" line is only acceptable when there is an inmediate threat (ie: a lauching site that might deliver a rocket at a target in any given moment is an inmediate treath, civilian cassualties are acceptable to some extent. Political wing activists of a terrorist group on an apartment building doesnt represent an inmediate threat).

"The fact that you keep asking this over and over, after we've given you answers repeatedly, leads me to questoin whether you a strong grasp of military strategy and tactics?"

You have still not given me any awnser as to why bombing a christian neighbourhood with no ties to Hezbolah is a tactical step in a war against that terrorist group. Same with Lebanese army bases and controled infraestructures. Unless, as some have hinted here, the whole people of Lebanon deserve to suffer so they move and disarm Hezbolah.

"Look at the situation in Iraq. The US has over 100,00 troops on the ground, and, sadly, many civilians are still being killed in the name of rooting out terrorism. They're being killed by US soldiers, instead of US missles."

Well, I think no one ever said US "war on terror" is a well planed or succesful one. No one but US goverment and their apologists, that is. In fact US presence in Irak can be considered "exhibit A" in the case against military solutions for terrorism. What I defend is not a land strike (although usually these are most precise victim-wise) but a combination of intelligence and investigation with precise strikes. Hezbolah doesnt have armor nor bunkers, you dont need an army division to take out a leader, just a sniper or a commando operation. But these kind of things, even if cheaper than air strikes, are slow and require more planification. And are more risky for the people that carry them out. What a dilemma, to risk the life of a trained, full grown soldier or to take the easy way and just blow up the target and whoever happens to be near. Sort of an ethical dilemma.

"And terrorists don't play by any rulebook that the rest of the civilized world works with"

Thats my point. We cant let them write the ethical rules we play with. If we are really better than them, and I believe we are, we should stick to our values and do the job, even if its harder. No one said having principles and living up to them should be easy.

Bill Mulligan said:

"Ok, settle down, nobody is accusing you of that"

Well, someone accused me of beign a terrorism apologist.

Bill Mulligan :Ghandi was a great man. But while it's safe to say he achieved some goals without bloodying his hands, the liberation of India from British rule resulted in the deaths of thousands during the partitian and Indo-Pakistani war. He also had, as mentioned, the benefit of using non-violence on those who were receptive to it. His suggestion to the British on the matter of Hitler is, to my admitedly non-saintly mind, insane: "I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

The truth is, he was wrong. It WAS the weapons that saved humanity from the Axis powers. Maybe they would have collapsed eventually on their own but my God, at what price? Though we would certainly not be having any discussion on how Jews in the Middle East can best defend themselves, that's for sure.

And this my friend is why we continue to have this conflict. Because people believe that the guns can save us. There is a point to be made that while the weapons may have cut the Axis powers down, it didn't save humanity at all. Rather now we're stuck with a military industrial complex in the US that now threatens us all in very real ways.

Sean: Gotta respond to Michael's post. Ghandi-style tactics(Anybody else get an image of "UHF"?) will only work if the people on the other side will respect those tactics. If you are completely dedicated to non-violence, as respectable and honorable as that may be, there are some people out there that will see this person not as honorable, not as wise, not as inherently peaceful, but as a non-moving target. The trick is GETTING these same "Some people" to realize that you have the right to exsist as much as they do. Again, it SHOULD be simple, but some people just want to overcomplicate things.

I would argue that the people who see that man as a non-moving target and those who believe that weapons and striking out are useful are just two sides of the same coin. Eventually these people will end up on the other side and continue the struggle from there.

All respect to both Sean and BIll but, it is sort of like a nice excuse to give up without trying.

Michael

Something disturbing is happening somewhere in the world? That's why God created comics -- as a means of escape.

Have read both X-Factor and FNSM -- both of which came out this week. Got only one other title this week. (Neil Gaiman's Eternals) Spent several moments deciding which order to read the three in. I ended up reading them: FNSM - Eternals - X-Factor. Damn good reading all of it.

Truly was not expecting the ending of FNSM. Curious what will happen now. (In all timelines and universes involved)

The plot keeps thickening over on X-Factor.

And this my friend is why we continue to have this conflict. Because people believe that the guns can save us. There is a point to be made that while the weapons may have cut the Axis powers down, it didn't save humanity at all. Rather now we're stuck with a military industrial complex in the US that now threatens us all in very real ways.

Well, by "saved humanity" I meant savedit from whatever unimaginable horrors a victory by the Axis would have entailed. Nothing will "save" us if by that we mean the elimination of all evil and suffering on Earth.

And if you think it's the US military industrial complex that is the greatest threat today, we are pretty far apart in our outlook.

reading up on Ghandi I was struck by the thought that if he were alive today he would be regarded by many of those who profess to admire him as a nut. Some of his beliefs are almost worthy of Pat Robertson style craziness--thinking that an Earthquake was God's vengeance on India because of Hindu treatment of the Untouchables, that sort of thing.

Me, I believe in judging people by the standards of the times and their culture (within reason. Ya gotta draw the line somewhere) but I just wonder how far Ghandi would get in today's world.

Spiderrob says:

"...thta have allowed a proud people and history with a long culture to stagnate in a cesspool of nothingness, with little to add to the world in terms of culture, science, political theory, entertainment, business, except oil and that's about it.

When they grow up and join us in the 21st century, (instead of modeling themselves off the 15th), there will be peace, and people can reasonably negotiate and work things out with other people."

I've heard and read things like this for some years, mostly from americans. I have also seen Bill O'reilly express in such terms (yes, even here some of us watch Mr.O'reilly show with morbid fascination. Sort of like watching an ideological car crash). To me is obvious that people who defend this point of view have had little if any contact with arab culture, and know little of contributions out of his inmediate area of reference.

I am not an expert myself, but I would recomend to read about Pan-Arabism and how Saudi-sponsored wahabist Islamism undermined a thriving modernization of the whole Arab cultural sphere.

"Well, someone accused me of beign a terrorism apologist."

Don't feel too bad. At least you weren't tarred with the anti-semitism brush. Yet.

"I actually was sort of impressed with Bush, mostly because he was actually talking policy with someone. "

Given the conversation started 'Yo, Blair" and went on to provide a fine example of what a totally whipped lickspittle wussoid my nation's elected leader is, that may be a slight overstatement...

Or maybe not.

sigh.

At least you guys have an organ grinder instead of being stuck with the monkey!

Cheers.

1The amazing thing about the line of thinking that it wouldn't work is that it's coming from someone on a comic book writer's blog. I mean, if superheroes should teach us anything, it's that you do the right thing without worrying about whether it's gonna be successful or whether it puts you into harm's way but rather just because it's the right thing. What happened to that? Think I'm nuts? Living in a fantasy world? Maybe, but again, Ghandi achieved his goal so it's been proven successful.

****

I am not sure where you get this from. If you were going to take lessons from super hero comics, it would be when bad guys attack, or are even around, you try and beat the crap out of them no matter how much damage and destruction it causes to the city around you, while doing your best to minimize civilian casualties. But lets be serious. Spider-man doesn't turn the other cheek with the Green Goblin. he beats on him and throws him into building, buildings which contain people as they crash down around them.

I am not saying we should take those lessons. But that's the lessons they teach. Supertheroes aren't pacificsts. They are vigilantes

Also have we not learned that if I hit you and then you hit me and I hit you back, it goes on forever but if one of us stops, we might end up with some loose teeth but we can move on?
****8

Sometimes. Sometimes when they bully pops you, and you pop him back in the nose, the bully stops and reveals himself to be a coward.. You never know what will happen. Sometimes the bully shoots you.

I just hope if someone comes into your house and tries toi kill you or your family, you try and do more than turn the other cheek and reason with them. It would almost certainly not work.

Looking at spiderrob's comment up above mine, I have to point out two things. The attacks of September 11th happened, not because of police failures, or should I say SOLELY because of police failures? The police aren't in charge of screening they who enter this country, they who wish to take flight training, or they who board an aircraft. If the police WERE in charge of that, I'm sure I wouldn't want to live here. I don't know too man people that would.

****

Police tactics i was talking about, not local police officers. FBI tactics are police tactics. Investigating, arrests, prosecution was not enough. That is why 9/11 happened (and because their are psychos in the world). The fact that on 4 occasions our people had to check with lawyers to see if they could take out Osama, that is why 9/11 happened (by the time they got the ok, he was gone). What will prevent more 9/11s is not simply police tactics, though they play a role. Had we not just prosecuted those responsible for the first Twin Tower bombing, and looked at the BIG picture, and taken military steps as well as other steps, the second one might not of happened

Well, I think no one ever said US "war on terror" is a well planed or succesful one. No one but US goverment and their apologists, that is.
***
Still haven't been attacked again, while others have been.

That makes it something of a success to me, though we could do better.

1Well, someone accused me of beign a terrorism apologist.
****

No, just someone who will pay lip service "Terrorists are bad" and then spend half an hour writing why people responding to terrorist are worse, or making excuses. "I'm not making excuses, but...." and then proceeds to make excuses.

It should be almost the opposite "So and so did the wrong thing in response, but..." and then a half hour condemning the terrorists.

There is a point to be made that while the weapons may have cut the Axis powers down, it didn't save humanity at all.
****

Tell that to all the Jews who survived because of the military, and all the Jews who died because people didn't act militarily sooner. as well as all of the other people. A military response earlier, would have saved millions of lives. We would not have known that of course. and we would have the same type of people saying "That attack on Hitler's Germany, my God, that was a soverign nation, it killed hundreds of thousands of people." and saved tens of millions, but we would never know that, we could never be sure.

Sasha wrote: There's a difference in taking two suspects into custody and crossing a border and attacking soldiers (killing several in the process).

Frankly I see little difference. The IDF has killed thousands of Palestinians over the years. Most of these are not "terrorists". From a Palestinian POV, you could argue that Hamas have detained an Israeli terrorist.

Also, Israel currently holds over 9,000 Palestinians in detention of one sort or other (300+ are juveniles). Hamas holds 1 Israeli soldier. A slight imbalance I would suggest.

Steve

"...someone who will pay lip service "Terrorists are bad" and then spend half an hour writing why people responding to terrorist are worse, or making excuses. "I'm not making excuses, but...." and then proceeds to make excuses. "

I get it. We should be here stating the obvious (terrorists are bad, Israel is an enlighted state with a right to defend itself...) and agreeing. I dont need to excuse myself for not abhorring terrorism publicy in every comment I make. I stated my oppinion on that and I am now commenting on Israeli response (and I have said this way too many times) because I think is negative. Negative for Israel security interests in the long term, negative for the prosperity of the area and negative because it undermines the image of Israel as a model for other developing countries. Its my oppinion, wich I share with people who can't in any way be labeled as terrorist apologizers. You disagree with my analysis? great, tell me why and we discuss it. But instead you choose to simply say "you excuse terrorism".

Tell me where.

I dare you.

You have still not given me any awnser as to why bombing a christian neighbourhood with no ties to Hezbolah is a tactical step in a war against that terrorist group.

For starters, just because it's a Christian neighborhood doesn't mean squat. Groups like Hezbollah have as much of a beef with Christians as they do with Jews. There is nothing to say that Hezbollah wasn't also intentionally hiding out in that neighborhood (not to mention the fact that Christians in Lebanon have been the target of attacks in the last couple of years as well).

If arms or munitions were hidden in that neighborhood, and according to one article I finally found, that may have been the case, then it's not hard to see why Israel considered it a target.

In fact US presence in Irak can be considered "exhibit A" in the case against military solutions for terrorism.

*sigh* I give up. I honestly do.

You think intelligence and military commandos can deal with terrorism, and I believe that to be extremely naive.

What I defend is not a land strike (although usually these are most precise victim-wise) but a combination of intelligence and investigation with precise strikes.

What the hell do you think Israel is doing with their missiles!?

Precision strikes!

This isn't WWII, where the Allies and Germans carpet bombed cities such as London and Berlin, truly being indiscriminate as to who was targetted and killed.

You seem to want it all ways.

Hezbolah doesnt have armor nor bunkers,

I don't know where you get this notion that Hezbollah doesn't have bunkers. Didn't Israel drop several bombs on a bunker in an attempt to get Hezbollah's leader a day or two ago?

But these kind of things, even if cheaper than air strikes, are slow and require more planification.

Do you know how many times the US government thought they'd managed to kill al-Zarqawi before they finally pulled it off (using a buttload of bombs, no less)?

They came close several times. Yet, al-Zarqawi was always on the move. This may have been the only way they were ever going to get him.

It's called "Window of Opportunity". You take it as it comes, or you pass it by. When you're dealing with figures like al-Zarqawi, who are always on the move, a ground operation is NOT likely to succeed.

How is a one ton bomb on an apartment building a "precission srike"? I am not naive since I realize the way I suggest is harder and more prone to failure. I didnt rule out air strikes as you rule out commando operations, I just think the tougher way pays in the long term.

And about christians in Lebanon... them beign victims of attacks by hezbolah justifies them beign targeted also by Israel? So if Hezbolah hides in a christian neighbourhood so you attack them and kill also their enemies... you think thats just what needs to be done, precisely what the terrorist planned? That'll teach them.

See, the military approach has been tested by Israel many times. It works with rogue states with ill motivated armies, but it never bore any fruit when it came to terrorism. So maybe its time to change tactic.

Yes, negotiations, UN interference, peace talks, and the like have always gotten Israel so so much

UN "interference" got them a country, peace talks and negotiations got them a lasting peace with Jordan and Egypt.

Tell me where.

I dare you.
***
You've made excused for Iran, you've made excuses for the support of Hezbollah, you've made excuses for palestinian terorism. It's in almost everyone of your posts which I just read. Complete and total understanding for why some would support and/or engage in terorism, with lip service to the very real victims of terrorism, and none for any actions by Israel or others except sending in commandos and "targeted" bombing,

About as sophisticated analysis as a Rambo movie, where Rambo can take down the Vietnamese or Russian armies all by himself.

Movies have made people think things are easier than they are. In real life, you don't get a couple of Sly Stallone's and Arnold Schwarzenneggers together, get a couple of bombs and missiles that are so sophisticated, they are guaranteed not to miss, and problem solved.

1UN "interference" got them a country, peace talks and negotiations got them a lasting peace with Jordan and Egypt.
\******

Yes, and oh, war too. Whaddya know?

Their own nation-the UN and their war for independence. Fought against Egypt and Jordan, among others. Oh and war again in the 50s with Egypt. Oh and war again in 1967 and 1973

Those negotations came on the history of that, with some realization tnat Israel would not be destroyed, at least not easily,

Posted by The StarWolf at July 18, 2006 11:46 AM

"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."

Sounds almost reasonable, except that Syria and/or Iran would step in, Israel feels REALLY threatened now and, Bob's-yer-uncle, atomic parking lot. Iran might have nukes, Israel does have nukes, and Iran's president has made abundantly clear he would like to see Israel turned into a memory.

I like the thought, though.

"You've made excused for Iran, you've made excuses for the support of Hezbollah, you've made excuses for palestinian terorism. It's in almost everyone of your posts which I just read. Complete and total understanding for why some would support and/or engage in terorism, with lip service to the very real victims of terrorism, and none for any actions by Israel or others except sending in commandos and "targeted" bombing,"

erhm...no? I have not excused terrorism in any way, in any post. Not even partially and of course never "complete and total". What I have done is point not at how terrorist organizations are born, but as how they get new recruits and how certain conditions make it easier. That doesnt excuse those who chose to go terrorist but not to aknowledge that and include it in your long term tactics is, in my opinion, against Israel best interests.

Unless, of course, you equal my dislike for civilian suffering for a support of terrorism.

And again, please refer any of my texts in wich I have supported, excused or minimized terrorists actions.

How is a one ton bomb on an apartment building a "precission srike"?

As I said, they're not carpet bombing Beirut, are they?

them beign victims of attacks by hezbolah justifies them beign targeted also by Israel?

Quit being deliberately obtuse and then maybe you can see why people are having a hard time discussing this with you.

Christians are not the target of Israel's attacks. Nor are Lebanese citizens. Hezbollah is.

So maybe its time to change tactic.

Well, the last thing I see you doing is offering up any useful ideas on what sort of tactics should be used beyond the basic "intelligence and covert operations" that any sensible army uses.

You have not offered up a single way method as to how Israel should deal with Hezbollah that doesn't involve sitting back and watching more Israelis get slaughtered for the sake of political expediency.

I'm alive and relatively well. I decided to stop participating in online discussions since the war was stressful enough without having to defend my existence + I said everything that needed to be said + it is not going to acheive much at this point.

Shlomo Ben Ami is a good man, as well as the former Israeli Ambassador to Spain and a Historian of Spain. Unfortunatly his political career went down the toilet together with many other people who were involved in trying to reach peace but ended up being swept by the subsequent war. Like all of them he wrote a book blaiming everybody else.

Olmert was mayor of Jerusalem. He was also right wing. Unfortunatly, many Israeli leaders move to a more peacenik approacjhafter having wasted many years supporting the wrong policies, while people who were well meaning to begin with never get enough power, partially because they are considered blind to the threats of terrorism and arab insincerity. Sadly, they often are.

So we have a paradox. Israelis will not support a real peacnick as long as they are threatened by constant terrorism, but will support peace if it is on the table. But, even when peace seems maybe but inconclusively to beon the table, so is terrorism, and its message is much clearer.

OK, I've said more than I wantyed. See you after the war. If there is a suicide attack in Jerusalem (one was prevented) I'll post that I'm alive.

1"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."
****

I had the same thoughts while studying the history of the American South

El hombre Malo, I do not want to argue with you. this is a tough situation, and maybe I was reading into your posts some things that others with similar ideas have really meant, and that was not fair to you.

This is some academic exercise-real people like Micha are affected, and I am not going to argue about it anymore. I may post a thought or two but no arguments.

Micha good luck to you and your country. I wish you well, and am glad you seem to be away from the biggest threats, relatively, but am sorry your country is facing this. Be well and my prayers are with you!

Well, first - thank you for posting, Micha. And I can see why you have better things to do than participate in this discussion, which has the luxury of being just theoretical debate for the rest of us. Take care.

El hombre Malo - speaking as one person who, until now, has only read this thread (and I have read every post, in this and the "Not gonna end well" thread, too), I recognize that you are not at all endorsing or supporting terrorist actions. You are questioning some of the methods of response, and raising several very good points.

My own thoughts: Isreal, as often stated by other posters, has many enemies whose stated goal is no less than its destruction, possibly to the extent of wiping out its entire population. It has the right to defend itself against attacks, and the kidnapping of soldiers and the consistent missle strikes constituted an attack which needed to be met.

But some of the specific targets chosen - such as water supplies, the airport - do seem of questionable value. Attacking Lebanon is not the same thing as attacking Hezbolah. Some of these strikes seem more appropriate for conquering a country than attacking a terrorist element. Hezbolah may have some seats in the Lebanese government; but equating all Lebonese citizens as terrorist supporters, and justifying whatever happens to them through that equation, is a little too close to saying an attack on the US is justified, because "we," as though we're all one big block, elected officials who sent soldiers into Iraq who have killed civilains, sometimes apparently deliberately. The argument is appalling and doesn't wash either way.

Again, I do feel that Isreal has been forced into action in Lebanon at this point; and I feel that there is no justification for the missle strikes or kidnapping of its soldiers which led to this conflict. There are just some cases in which particular responses seem more harmful to the Lebanese without any significant harm being inflicted to the terrorists. (As far as commando strikes go - is there a commando force in the world which has historically been more successful than the Isreali?) To not question any Isreali military moves, in the name of supporting the country's overall right to defend itself, seems too close to me to the move in the US immediately after Sept. 11th to suppress any questioning of the government as somehow wrong. A good nation should never need unquestioning support.

"Unfortunatly, many Israeli leaders move to a more peacenik approacjhafter having wasted many years supporting the wrong policies, while people who were well meaning to begin with never get enough power, partially because they are considered blind to the threats of terrorism and arab insincerity. Sadly, they often are."

That's an interesting thing--I guess it's another example of the old Klingon proverb "Only Nixon could go to China."

(By the way - I wrote my post before reading spiderrob8's last two posts; so the first part of my post is echoing spiderrob, not copying :) )

Glad to hear Micha is ok.

Since this thread began after some comments Bush made, I wouldnt like it to end without me stating that even tho I voted for my president, Zapatero, and usually support his take on international issues, he should have been less naive and never allow anyone to put a palestinian scarf around his neck. At least, not right now, as he did two days ago. It was tactless, and Israeli ambassador was right in expressing his protest. International media sure didnt cover it much, but I know these gestures are hurtful to Israel citizens, specially sefardi community, who allways showed love for Spain and its culture.

Well, it looks as though this thread is winding down. In retrospect, my posts in this and the "This is Just NOT Gonna End Well" thread were not my finest moments. I'm dismayed by how easily I cast aside logic in favor of emotional rhetoric, and how easy it was to fall into the trap of belittling others.

I think we have all inadvertantly shown, in microcosm, why the hell it is so hard for human beings to get along peacefully. When we disagree, tempers flare. For most of us, these issues are abstractions, because we don't live in the Middle East. But the people in that region live this stuff, day in and day out. So moving from tempares flaring to acts of violence is not a very large leap in my estimation.

I continue to hold to the viewpoint that Israel is doing what is necessary to ensure some modicum of national security. I also continue to hold that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are to blame for the cycle of violence by virtue of their refusal to abandon their fanatical devotion to killing Israelis as a way of life.

That said, it is neither fair nor logical to belittle those with whom I disagree as believing that the problems of the Middle East can be solved with a "pie-in-the-sky pass-another-joint give-peace-a-chance teach-in."

And so, I would like to address the following people, in case they are still reading this thread:

Micha, may you and yours be safe. I pray that this war can be ended quickly so that the loss of life on both sides can be stopped.

El hombre Malo, I was indeed unfair to accuse you of "excusing terrorism." I am sorry. I disagree passionately with your views, but that does not excuse distorting them. I believe we have reached a point where we would be best served to agree to disagree. Thank you for sharing your viewpoint, though.

lorshas, if you are still reading this, I hope you can accept my sincerest wishes for your continued well-being. As I said, neither of our nations is truly innocent, but you and I are both individuals who cannot possibly bear all of the responsibility for the collective missteps of our respective nations. We can, however, do our part, however small, to make things better. Your posts have reminded me of that.

Den, be well. I was severely depressed at one time and know what a struggle depression can be.

Bill Mulligan, you couldn't possibly be Jewish. Your blue skin and antennae give you away as an Andorian, my friend.

That's an interesting thing--I guess it's another example of the old Vulcan proverb "Only Nixon could go to China."

Fixed it for ya!

"lorshas, Wikipedia is far from my only source of information. I have a college education. I read newspapers, magazines, and books. I see the news on T.V. and hear it on the radio"

I apologize I was judging you from your posts; I didn’t know your credentials.

"Yes, the U.S. is supporting some dictatorships in the Middle East, but it is NOT supporting ALL OF THEM as you incorrectly asserted"
I never asserted that, my point was that not every dictatorship is your enemy and not every democracy is your friend.

"And people like Bill Maxwell and Michael j. Norton and El hombre Malo and lorshas and so many others advance all sorts of paralogistic arguments in a vain attempt to excuse this"
And
"Well he wouldn't have to do that. Anti-semites flock to any tragedy to claim it as part of the Great Jew Conspiracy. They are attracted to disasters like flies to shit"

Don’t put me in the same category as the others; I should be called a self hating Semite.
And bill maybe you should read their posts again, I think you will realize you owe them an apology.
And Myers there is a difference between "excusing" and "explaining", if you don’t…do a wiki.
"You know, just because Shlomo Ben-Ami agrees with you means nothing"
El hombre how dare you compare the former Israeli foreign minister with a man who has a college education.

Sorry Bill this is my last dig, I just couldn't help it.

Regarding the responses to my posts many jump to pre conceived assumptions, my other posts just explain my same opinion in a different manner.

One is misunderstanding my "support of the right of the Palestinians to fight for their lands" into my "backing of Hamas" who I said are a problem. Myers even accused me of backing Al Qaeda.

To make my self clear , the only scenario I see for the region without Israel is if everybody is dead as well, an empty region.

From spiderrob8:
" Hard people understand nothing but hardness "
!!?

Posted by: lorshas at July 21, 2006 02:17 PM

And bill maybe you should read their posts again, I think you will realize you owe them an apology.

I have apologized for that remark in my prior post. I also extended an additional apology to El hombre Malo.

Posted by: lorshas at July 21, 2006 02:17 PM

Sorry Bill this is my last dig, I just couldn't help it.

After my initial angry reaction, I realized that I am either as ignorant as you say I am, in which case the only logical response is to learn more in order to become less ignorant; or I am not as ignorant as you believe, in which case I needn't give too much weight to your criticisms.

So, frankly, dig away to your heart's content. I am an adult, and as such I should know better than to think that anyone's "digs" diminish me as a person.

Myers even accused me of backing Al Qaeda.

To be fair, I accused certain elements in Saudi Arabia of backing Al Qaeda. I never accused you as an individual of backing Al Qaeda.

That said, I did let my anger at Saudi Arabia as a nation affect the way I interacted with you as an individual. As I said in my prior post, you are an individual who cannot bear the responsibility for everything that happens within your country. You are not my enemy and I should not have treated you as such.

And I have already acknowledged that my country has not always acted honorably towards your people. I do not believe either of our nations is innocent.

I am sorry for the confrontational nature of my interactions with you.

To make my self clear , the only scenario I see for the region without Israel is if everybody is dead as well, an empty region.

That would be a great loss for the world. I sincerely hope it never, ever comes to that.

Bill Mulligan, you couldn't possibly be Jewish. Your blue skin and antennae give you away as an Andorian, my friend

Damn! Nailed. Now I have to take the poison pill!

I might add that there is an embarrassing paucity of Irish/Jewish jokes out there. Best I could find:

There once was an proud Irishman named Pat, who went to heaven and saw St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. St. Peter asked, "Who are you?"
and Pat replied, "My name is Pat, I'm an Irishman, born on St. Patrick's Day,died on St. Patrick's Day, marching' in the St. Patrick's Day parade."
St. Peter said to Pat: "Yes, this is true! Here's a little green cloud for you to drive around heaven in and here is a harp that, when you push this button here, will play 'When Irish Eyes Are Smiling.' Enjoy it,Pat. Have a good time in heaven."

Pat jumps on his little green cloud,punches the button, and heads out with a smile on his face and a song in his heart. He's having a wonderful time in heaven, driving his little green cloud around. But on the third day, he's driving down Expressway H-1 with the harp playing full blast when, all of a sudden, a Jewish man in a pink and white two-tone cloud with tail fins roars past him. And in the back of this cloud is an organ which is playing all sorts of celestial music. Pat makes a U-turn right in the middle of the Heaven Expressway and charges back to the Pearly Gates.

He says, "St. Peter, my name is Pat,I'm a proud Irishman. I was born on St. Patrick's Day, died on St.Patrick's Day, marching' in the St. Patrick's Day parade. I come up here to heaven and I get this tiny, insignificant little green cloud and this little harp that plays only one song, 'When Irish Eyes Are Smiling.'But, there's a Jew over there. He's got a big, beautiful pink and white two-tone cloud and a huge organ that plays all kinds of celestial music and I, Pat the Irishman, want to know why!"

St. Peter stands up from his desk. He leans over and motions Pat the Irishman to come closer. Then he says:

"Pat, shush! He's the Boss's Son!"

Ok, not a GREAT joke, just the best I could find...if you want to include all priest and rabbi jokes I always liked this one:

A Catholic Priest and a Jewish Rabbi were chatting one day when the conversation turned to a discussion of job descriptions and the future. "What position do you see yourself in a couple years from now?" asked the Rabbi to the Priest. "Well, actually, I’m next in line for the Monsignor’s job," replied the Priest. "Yes, and then what?" ask the Rabbi. "Well, I could become Arch-Bishop," said the Priest. "Yes, and then?" asked the Rabbi. "Well, if I work real hard and do a good job as Arch-Bishop, it’s possible to become a full Bishop" said the Priest. "Okay, then what?" continued the Rabbi. The Priest, beginning to be a bit exasperated replied, "With some luck and real hard work, maybe I can become a Cardinal." "And then?" continued the Rabbi. The Priest is really starting to get frustrated, but replies, "With lots and lots of luck and some real difficult work and if I’m in the right place at the right time and play my political games just right, maybe, just maybe, I can get elected Pope." "Yes, and then what?" continued the Rabbi. "Good grief!" shouted the Priest, "What do you expect me to become, God?" "Well," said the Rabbi, "One of our boys made it!"

Variations on a theme, I know...

I'm not Catholic, but I always thought Archbishop outranked Bishop, not the other way around.

Anyway, how about this one:

A priest and rabbi would often meet in the park during lunch and over time, became good friends. One day, the rabbi worked up enough courage to ask a favor of the priest.

"You know, I've always been curious about what really goes on in the confessionals. Do you think I could hear a few of them?" At first the priest resisted, but eventually, he agreed to sneak the rabbi into the confessional with him one day.

The first person came in and said, "Bless me father for I have sinned. It has been three weeks since my last confession. I committed adultery once."

The priest replied, "Very well. Recite five Hail Maries, go and sin no more."

The second person came in and said, "Bless me father for I have sinned. It has been three weeks since my last confession. I committed adultery twice."

The priest replied, "Very well. Recite five Hail Maries, go and sin no more."

After a few minutes, the priest had to go to the bathroom. While the rabbi waited alone, a third person came into the confessional and said, "Bless me father for I have sinned. It has been three weeks since my last confession. I committed adultery once."

The rabbi thought for a moment and said, "Go out and do it again, they're having a two-for-one special this week."

Ba-da-boom.

Oooh, can I play, too?

An old joke tells of the Israeli prime minister's visit to the White House.

On the president's desk there are three phones. The president explains that the white phone is a direct line to the U.S. ambassador in Moscow. The red phone is a direct line to the commanding general of NATO. The blue phone is a direct line to God.

"But," says the president, "we never use that phone because it's too expensive."

Then the president goes to visit the Israeli prime minister. On his desk there are three phones. The prime minister explains that the white phone is a direct line to the Israeli ambassador in Washington. The red phone is a direct line to the head of the Army. The blue phone is a direct line to God.

"But how can a small country like Israel afford such a phone?" the president asks. "Even the U.S. can't afford to use it."

"Mr. President," says the prime minister, "here in Israel, it's a local call."

:)

Lt's just call the Bills by their last names

Myers I'm sorry if I ever offended you, typing doesn't convey my tone , i was mostly joking not insulting.

I want to ask a question , what is so bad about the Apocalypse anyway , if you die in it or falling off the stairs its just one death , on the bright side everyone is dying with you and its going to be a spectacle .

Maqbool: As usual Peter David your pro Israeli rant is nauseous. I think you need to get it into your head that Israel is the bully in the Middle East with its high tech weaponry provided by the US. Look at the casualty figures yourself more Lebanese killed than Israelis.
Luigi Novi: Having technology or more casualties is not what a “bully” is. A bully is someone who picks on those smaller and weaker than them because they get a sadistic thrill out of it hurting those with whom they don’t empathize, which is hardly an accurate description of the motives behind Israel’s actions. Israel has to deal with suicide bombers blowing themselves and civilians up, and taking Iranian soldiers hostage. Israel must respond to this, and by contrast, it is trying to minimize civilian casualties. Bullies do not do this.

Bill Mulligan: Ghandi was a great man…He also had, as mentioned, the benefit of using non-violence on those who were receptive to it.
Luigi Novi: I guess the people he would’ve killed in the Boer War, the war against the Zulus, and World War I didn’t qualify, since he volunteered for all three of those wars. :-)

(Note: despite volunteering, he didn’t actually serve in WWI.)

And then there were the Muslims. When the Nawab of Maler Kotla issued an order to shoot ten Muslims for every Hindu who was killed in the state, Gandhi gave it his blessing.

spiderrob: Spider-man doesn't turn the other cheek with the Green Goblin. he beats on him and throws him into building, buildings which contain people as they crash down around them. I am not saying we should take those lessons. But that's the lessons they teach. Supertheroes aren't pacificsts. They are vigilantes.
Luigi Novi: Given the dictionary definition of vigilante, that’s true, but I’ve observed that it tends to be used in common parlance to mean those who act as judge, jury and executioner. Most superheroes, Spider-Man included, do not do this, and are no different than citizens making a citizens arrest, distinguished only by having the advantage of a superhuman ability.

I want to ask a question , what is so bad about the Apocalypse anyway , if you die in it or falling off the stairs its just one death , on the bright side everyone is dying with you and its going to be a spectacle .

Well it depends on the Apocalypse. the Book of Revelations has lots of unpleasent ways to die, what with scorpions and boils and all, while Ragnarock would just be one great big cool fight to the death with Frost Giants. I'm holding out for the Zombie Apocalypse but that's just me.

An apocalypse that caused by some pipsqueak like Kim Jong just has zero coolness factor.

This thread feels so warm and cozy now with all the apologies flying around... ;)

Count me in for Zombieland or any MadMax scenario in which humanity gets to die slowly in small isolated groups.

Man, I am going to HAVE to remember those jokes for work tomorrow. But, embarrassing as it is for an actor to admit, I seem to have a terrible memory for jokes. Then again, the jokes I hear at work are always incredibly lame variations on the same horse-racing-sucks theme.

Lorshas, the problem with either dying in a fall down the steps or in the Apocalypse is sort of the dying part. Die nobly, die like a coward, die in a pink tutu and high heels while delivering flowers on a unicycle, it doesn't matter. You're still just as dead. Watchinbg everyone else on the planet dying around you just means it royally sucks for everybody else, too.

Israeli Soldiers use civilians as Human Shields in Beit Hanun

In the IDF's Operation Summer Rains in the Gaza Strip following the abduction of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, engineer, artillery, and infantry forces made an incursion into Beit Hanun, a town of some 32,000 people in the northern Gaza Strip, early in the morning on 17 July. According to the IDF Spokesperson, during the incursion, "IDF struck approximately twenty armed terrorists." The announcement added that, "Forces also carried out engineering work to harm terror organizations' infrastructure and hamper their activity, and arrested a number of wanted men… During searches, forces discovered three Kalashnikov rifles, a carbine, a pistol, and ammunition."

Around 6:00 A.M., troops in armored personnel carriers and bulldozers drove up to two adjacent four-story buildings in the middle of the town, near the a-Nasser mosque. The bulldozers destroyed the concrete wall around each building and then destroyed one of the external walls on the ground floor of each of the buildings. The extended Kafarneh family lives on the bottom three floors of one of the buildings. On the fourth floor are the offices of the Ramatan Palestinian News Agency. The 'Ali family lives in the other building.

Part of the force, twelve soldiers in the estimate of one of the witnesses, burst into the Kafarneh building through the area where the wall was destroyed, firing stun grenades as they entered. At the time, there were 25 people in the building, including 11 children. Some of those present were from the 'Ali family who left the adjacent building when the military entered Beit Hanun. The soldiers called all the residents to gather in the living room on the ground floor, and then searched them. Threatening the occupants with his weapon, one of the soldiers ordered 'Aza Kafarneh, a 43-year old woman, to accompany him to search each of the floors in the building and to open the doors of each of the rooms. At the end of the search, the soldiers ordered all the occupants, except for three, to leave the building. As they left, there was a heavy exchange of gunfire between IDF soldiers and Palestinians. In her testimony to B'Tselem, 'Aza Kafarneh related that, in light of the situation, she requested the soldier to let them remain in the building, but the soldiers refused. "We had to lay flat on the ground and crawl to the neighbor's house..."

The three who were kept in the building were two of her sons, Hazem, 14, and Qusay, 16, and her nephew, Khaled, 23. The three were taken to the staircase, at the entrance to the third-floor apartment, where the soldiers were located. The three sat there until around 8:00 P.M, about 45 minutes before the soldiers left the building. During this time, soldiers inside and outside the building were engaged in exchanges of gunfire with armed Palestinians. The staircase was not in the direct line of gunfire. Just before the end of the incident, the soldiers ordered the three to go downstairs, in front of them, to the entrance of the building.

At the same time (around 6:00 AM), other members of the military force had seized control of the building in which the 'Ali family lives. The only people in the building were the mother, 'Ayesha, 60, and her three sons, Hazem, 29, Tareq, 25, and 'Emad, 41. 'Ayesha 'Ali was taken into an interior room on the ground floor, where she stayed with her hands tied until the end of the events.

The soldiers ordered her three sons to undress and then searched them. The soldiers then cuffed their hands behind their back and blindfolded them. According to the testimony of Hazem, the soldiers tightened the cuffs intentionally so as to hurt them. One of the soldiers kicked him in the chest after he complained about the pain. However, when his hands began to swell and bleed from the cuffs, another soldier put a new pair of cuffs on his hands.

'Emad, who serves in the Palestinian police force, handed over his personal weapon at the beginning of the events, in response to the soldiers' demand. Another member of the family who also serves in a Palestinian police unit was not present at the time. Soldiers searched for his weapon, but they did not find it. During the search, the soldiers broke a lot of the family's furniture and caused great destruction in some of the apartments.

Following the search, one of the soldiers took Hazem's cell phone and called four persons whose numbers were in the phone's memory. The soldier told each of them: "If you want Hazem, Tareq, and 'Emad released, bring your weapons." According to Hazem's testimony, the four persons work with him at Ramatan and were selected at random; none of them have any weapons.

Around 8:00 A.M., the three men were taken to the staircase next to the third-floor apartment, where the soldiers were gathered. The three remained on the stairs, their hands cuffed behind their back and their eyes covered, until 8:45 P.M., when the soldiers left the building. At a certain point, one of the brothers, Tareq, moved a bit, and a soldier hit him in the chest and threatened to kill him. While they sat there, an intense exchange of gunfire took place between soldiers in the building and armed Palestinians outside. In contrast to the situation in the other building, many bullets entered the staircase area via the window and struck the wall, above the heads of the three occupants. One of the brothers, 'Emad, was taken by the soldiers at the end of the incident and remains in Israeli detention.

In the early 90's a band in Spain called DEFCON2 (a bit like Rage against the Machine) had a song named "Panico a una muerte Ridicula" that it would translate like "Panic of a ridiculous death". Chorus would go (roughly translated)

Breaking your neck while changing a bulb
Suicide before checking lotto
To drown on a cruise liner pool
Electrocute yourself on the tub while f*cking
Panic
Panic of a ridiculous death

As shallow it may be, people care how they die. If only, because the family would wonder why your naked body is laying beside a hen (also on the song ;) )

Undignified Ways to Die
(I believe this is by Paul Gilmartin)

Skin diving with gas tanks you stole from a dentist.
Renting a basement apartment in Venice.

Wearing clown shoes while walking through a mine field at night.
Getting a life-size tatoo of someone your height.

Mistaking a python for your favorite tie.
Hangliding at night on the 4th of July.

Having a bowling ball dropped on your head.
Mooning some cannibals who haven't been fed.

Teasing some Scott's for wearing their kilts.
Approaching a chopper while walking on stilts.

Swimming with sharks in a suit made of meat.
Flashing yourself to a hippo in heat.

Slapping the head of a bald drunken sailor.
Telling your date's burly dad: "Five bucks says I nail her."

Undignified Ways to Die
(I believe this is by Paul Gilmartin)

Skin diving with gas tanks you stole from a dentist.
Renting a basement apartment in Venice.

Wearing clown shoes while walking through a mine field at night.
Getting a life-size tatoo of someone your height.

Mistaking a python for your favorite tie.
Hangliding at night on the 4th of July.

Having a bowling ball dropped on your head.
Mooning some cannibals who haven't been fed.

Teasing some Scott's for wearing their kilts.
Approaching a chopper while walking on stilts.

Swimming with sharks in a suit made of meat.
Flashing yourself to a hippo in heat.

Slapping the head of a bald drunken sailor.
Telling your date's burly dad: "Five bucks says I nail her."

Sorry for the double post. No more jello bombs for me tonight.

U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis

The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.

The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.

The munitions that the United States is sending to Israel are part of a multimillion-dollar arms sale package approved last year that Israel is able to draw on as needed, the officials said. But Israel’s request for expedited delivery of the satellite and laser-guided bombs was described as unusual by some military officers, and as an indication that Israel still had a long list of targets in Lebanon to strike.

The new American arms shipment to Israel has not been announced publicly, and the officials who described the administration’s decision to rush the munitions to Israel would discuss it only after being promised anonymity. The officials included employees of two government agencies, and one described the shipment as just one example of a broad array of armaments that the United States has long provided Israel.

One American official said the shipment should not be compared to the kind of an “emergency resupply” of dwindling Israeli stockpiles that was provided during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, when an American military airlift helped Israel recover from early Arab victories.

Sasha wrote: There's a difference in taking two suspects into custody and crossing a border and attacking soldiers (killing several in the process).

Frankly I see little difference. The IDF has killed thousands of Palestinians over the years. Most of these are not "terrorists". From a Palestinian POV, you could argue that Hamas have detained an Israeli terrorist.

I was originally talking about Hezbollah and the northern conflict but okay . . .

Goodly amounts of Israeli citizens have been killed by Hamas/Hezbollah as well. The difference you’re missing is that when the IDF attacks Hamas/Hellbollah, those two groups make a point of fighting amongst Palestinian citizenry, insuring that there will be civilian casualties. The IDF’s primary target is the militants/terrorists, not the general populace. When the militants/terrorists attack Israel, however, their primary targets are almost always civilians. There is no equivalence here.

Also, Israel currently holds over 9,000 Palestinians in detention of one sort or other (300+ are juveniles). Hamas holds 1 Israeli soldier. A slight imbalance I would suggest.

The sad part is that a good portion of them are terrorist and/or militants. I’d guess that a good percentage of them were among the militants that were released from jail by Arafat’s government during the most recent infahda.

True that the numbers are disproportionate, but I’m sure most every one of those Palastinians can be accounted for in the bureaucracy as can their status and health. No one can say with any surety whether or not the held soldiers are even alive or dead.

That being said, I believe Israel should step up efforts to release detainees that they know are no threat.

And now for my lame joke:

A priest, a reverend, and a rabbi went out fishing in a boat on a lake.

When they went out to the middle of the lake, the priest looked into his tacklebox and said "Darn! I left my bait in the car." He then hopped out of the boat and proceeded to walk on the water all the way back to shore.

Immediately after, the reverend looked into his tacklebox and said "Shoot! I left my lures in the car as well." He then also hopped out of the boat and proceeded to walk on the water all the way back to shore.

The amazed rabbi, noticing he had left his hooks in the car as well, shrugged and hopped out of the boat. He immediately sunk to the bottom of the lake.

The priest looked at the reverend and said "I thought you told him where the rocks were?"

Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I think we're back down to two Bill's again.

Now if I only I had my own joke to go with Myers and Mulligan's.

Well there's always "A priest, a rbbi and a Palestinian walk into a bar and the bartender says "Hey what is this, some kind of a joke?"

For those who still care about the overheard conversation that started thethread, the geniuses who originally reported what was said have no revised some key sentences, possibly due to the fact that the originals made no damn sense whatsoever.

For example what was originally reported as
Old Transcript:
Blair: What does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if we get a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way…
Bush: Yeah, yeah, he is sweet
Blair: He is honey.

Is now
Blair: Look — what does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine. If you get a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way
Bush: Yeah, yeah, he is struggling.
Blair: He’s had it.

As always, beware what you read. Another retranslation manages to totally flip the context from Bush telling Merkel to put the presure on others to get a trade deal to seemingly asking that she put him under pressure, which raises some interesting possibilities that England, Germany and the US have managed to use the old good cop/bad cop routine on the less bright members (I'm looking at you, Lucky Pierre)

http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/07/21/tell-merkel-to-put-me-on-the-spot/

If I recall, according to Jewish tradition, God gave Abraham all the land that he had wandered in. That's the entire Sinaii peninsula and a strip of the Nile. That also means that it is the Arabs and the Palestinians who are living in Jewish land. Also, the Arabs are probably genetically related to the Jews more than the Palestinians, who were originally a sea-faring group who colonized the area.
Maybe my facts are wrong, but I think it's interesting to note that.
As for Bush cussing-- who gives a flying f___?

Posted by Craig J. Ries at July 22, 2006 06:32 PM

Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I think we're back down to two Bill's again.

Well, thank God. We wouldn't want to exceed our Bill quota, now, would we?

Although limiting ourselves to two Bills may be difficult. It happens to be the third most common name in the universe.

OK, one of the others is Marklar but what's the other one?

Bill Mulligan: "OK, one of the others is Marklar but what's the other one?"

Oprah.

Marklar...Oprah! Oprah...Marklar! Oprah, Marklar...Keanu!

Marklar...Oprah! Oprah...Marklar! Oprah, Marklar...Keanu!

The horror, the horror!

just want to congratulate El Hombre Malo for repeatedly making a very coherent argument and towing a reasonable line amongst all the overblown dogma being spewn.

And, just as an example of the crap that I sometimes get, here's an unedited love letter that landed in my e-mail box. The writer is being kept anonymous since he didn't have the guts to post it here. Typos are all in the original:

"I always knew you were a subpar writer and now that Ive read your blog i know your a subpar human being.

Typical self centered Jew - you whine about "terrorism" but its ok if Israelis kills children and bomb civilian airports...you are such a hypocrite.

The only thing about all this that makes me smile is that the world is condemning Israel and their terrorist actions againts innocent Lebanese people. So again the smug jews of the world just screw themselves over.

I also love how your all for the war..but its the Israelis that put themselves in danger..at least they have the balls to fight..you just sit on your fat ass and blog about it as you much on cheetos.

You are a bald fat short loser Peter. and your comics suck. Didio was right your juvenile crap in Young Justice should be forgotten.

Ok got back to blogging more jewish propaganda and getting fatter and balder you loser."

As far as hate mail goes, this one is lame. The margarine of hate mail.

I mean...you are getting fatter and balder so what? So am I, and most male adults, specially those that use the brain to work and have fun and spend too much time on a chair.

I agree that this isn't the best hate mail. Hate mail isn't truly entertaining unless it's filled with spelling errors. This one has the useless drivel and the absurd exageration, but unless it's one gigantic run-on sentence with no punctuation, it's not art.

Peter, I don't want to dignify the anti-semitic piece of crap who sent you that e-mail by acting as though any of the content is worthy of debate.

It is true, however, that much of the world is condemning Israel for the bombing of Qana, and that makes my blood boil.

It is as though we have set the bar so low for the behavior of Hezbollah and Hamas that we don't even bother to condemn them for killing Israeli civilians in the name of "driving Israel into the sea." After all, it's their nature, isn't it? It's what they do.

But when Israel inadvertantly kills civilians, the world is all over them like flies on a piece of shit. Never mind the fact that Hezbollah and Hamas provoked this latest conflict. Never mind that they use civlians as human shields. Never mind that Israel has expressed remorse, and unilaterally halted air strikes in order to investigate this tragedy. Never mind that Hezbollah chose not to capitalize on this opportunity to halt the fighting, and instead fired rockets at Israeli tanks, forcing Israel to resume some air strikes to protect ground troops. Never mind that Hezbollah would never, ever apologize for killing Israeli civilians. Never mind that Hezbollah and Hamas keep attacking even though Israel has been unilaterally withdrawing from occupied territories.

Because it's all about the smug Jews.

I really, really try to keep my objectivity about this issue, but it's getting harder and harder. I see Kofi Annan stupidly accusing Israel of deliberately targeting U.N. troops in Lebanon. I see Dr. Mohamad Chatah, an advisor the the Lebanese Prime Minister, having the unbelievable and unforgiveable temerity to say that self-defense is no excuse for Israel to cause the deaths of Lebanese civilians, while declining to condemn Hezbollah for killing Israeli civilians. I see much of the world joining the Lebanese government in declaring the Qana tragedy an "outrage" while never having expressed similar outrage when Hezbollah or Hamas or a Palestinian suicide bomber kills Israeli civilians.

And I therefore see that much of the world has lost it's moral compass, if it ever possessed it to begin with. These people are saying black is white, night is day, up is down, and it is to these people that I must ask:

WHAT the FUCK is the MATTER with you?!?!?!?!?!

Hey, how come I never get a letter from Mel Gibson?

Between Gibson, Randi (Israel is committing genocide) Rhodes, Pat Buchanan (yeah, knock me over with a feather), the usual gang of idiots at the far left sites, Our Friends In Europe, etc., you might think that Israel has no chance.

On the other hand, Israel does have the support of the president, most of the congress, and the not insignificant percentage of humanity that are not infected with anti-Semitism.

(That statement will immediately raise the already high hackles of those who shriek at even the suggestion that their unique condemnation of Israel might, in some small tiny way, be due to their hatred of Jews. Too bad. There are decent people who do not support Israel but my unscientific polling reveals that a goodly proportion of them will turn into stark raving foamy mouthed Protocols of the Elders of Zion spouting bigots when they have enough booze in them and/or the easy courage of anonymity.)

And, just as an example of the crap that I sometimes get, here's an unedited love letter that landed in my e-mail box.

You think he may be related to Mel Gibson? ;)

Before anyone takes my prior post and twists it to suit their own ends, I'd like to make it clear that the Qana bombing is just what I called it: a tragedy. I feel nothing but sorrow for the Lebanese lives that have been lost, and for the suffering of the Lebanese who have been injured and/or displaced from their homes. I am equally saddened by the suffering of the Israelis at the hands of Hezbollah and Hamas. The loss of life on both sides of this conflict is something to be mourned, not celebrated.

That said, any outrage regarding Qana will ring hollow in my ears if it is not accompanied by equal or greater outrage against Hezbollah and Hamas.

From The National Review website:

Eric Hoffer in 1968.

The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it, Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese-and no one says a word about refugees.

But in the case of Israel the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace .

Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967] he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews. No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on .

There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him. The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.

The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer [1967] had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.

I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us.

Should Israel perish the holocaust will be upon us.

Don't know if anyone will read this post, but I found this page very interesting: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/gabriel.asp

Luigi, I clicked the link and read the page to which it leads. I would urge everyone else to do so. It is very, very enlightening.

Thank you for pointing it out, Luigi.

Seconded. Thanks, Luigi.

Thirded:) Thanks, Luigi.

Seconded thirded.