I know it’s seemed like the Middle East has been spiralling out of control in the past. But the Israelis are now looking to be fighting a multi-front war, and that’s never good. At least they’re going about it methodically and correctly, severing the supply lines and airports to hinder troop movements. And at least Bush isn’t criticizing them (at least not at the moment) for taking action against the cretins of Hezballuh who see land give-backs, not as a sign of a desire for peace, but a show of weakness. Although he *has* stated that the Israelis should show “restraint,” and considering the actions of Bush et al in regards to Iraq, I think we’ve pretty much thrown away the “show restraint” card.
I think this thing is either going to die down very quickly or tip over into full-blown, multi-nation war very quickly. No half-measures here.
PAD
• 
Maybe my priorities are out of whack, but this is more upsetting for me than 9-11. I fear for Israel and I fear for us.
By the way, is anyone else kind of offended when the news reporters follow up their coverage of the Middle East conflict with “And what does this mean for oil prices?”
Heinlein used to say that the touchstone of an “intellectual” was to ask if they believe in astrology. I now believe the touchstone is whether they can consider the possibility that Israel might be wrong.
There may yet be a chance for this thing to burn out before it gets too big. Iran can’t really get into the fighting directly without trying to go through the US forces in Iraq, and I don’t think they’re stupid or crazy enough to do that. That just leaves the Syrians, and the Israelis are already at work on separating them from Hezballuh. Without any supply lines, it’ll just be a matter of time before Hezballuh runs out of rockets.
Of course, that doesn’t do any good for the people who are going to be maimed and killed in the meantime, but at least there’s a chance to avoid Armageddon.
Michael, I’m not sure what you mean. Is it that the answer is manifestly “no”? Or “yes”? (Since the answer to Heinlein’s query was obviously “no”.)
For myself, obviously Israel can be wrong. It’s just that they are wrong about 1/100 as often as they are assumed to be by the rest of the world (a rough estimate, to be sure, but I’m going with it).
PAD, I’m going out on a limb here but I’m not so sure this WON’T end well–at least as well as war ever can. People will surely die, innocents, many of them. But they have cut off Hizbollah from their Syrian supplies and if the Syrians are stupid enough to try to save them…Israel can settle some accounts. Iran says an attack on Syria will be an act of war. Meaning…what? Iran attacks Israel? With an army that fought Saddam’s for 13 years without winning? I’ll put money on the Israelis.
The whole multi front war part may be a misnomer. The Iranians would have to march through Turkey (!) or Iraq (!!!) to get to Israel. Unlikely, though we can all dream. More likely it would be a missle attack and that would sure give the Israelis a GREAT excuse to do what the world is silently praying for them to do–bomb Iran’s underground nuclear program even further underground (I know that the Iranians say that the complex is so far underground that it can’t be reached. That will be a considerable comfort to those trapped there when the air runs out).
Multi fronts are definitely to be avoided when we are talking about troops and tanks but it’s not much more difficult to shoot missles in two directions than it is to shoot them in one direction. Assuming one has enough missles and I think Israel does.
I note that Egyptions and Saudis have been unusually quiet, all things considered. I don’t think they see the demise of Hizbollah and Hamas as being all that bad a thing, survival-wise.
Could Israel take out Syria? I think so–the classic line from some of my Arab friends is that “Syria will fight to the last Egyption”. Without the support of others they are just another corrupt backwater with an expensive army they don’t know how to use.
I know it looks bad to hope for an escalation…but wiping out Hizbollah, for now, and leaving the regime that arms them is just another temporary fix. Take out Syria, get Lebanon out from under its domination, and give the Iranians a reason to reconsider the whole “wipe Israel off the face of the map” policy. Maybe then real peace can be achieved, as opposed to this insane constant bleeding wound we have now.
On the other hand, it’s alarming when Hizbollah can actually take out a warship. One could argue that they waited too long to settle this. One could also argue that waiting even longer will only ensure Hizbollah control of even more destructive weapons.
Ah, screw it. What we’re all scared about is that this conflict spirals out of control and we’re stuck in T2 land. I say, the world coming to an end would make life alot easier to deal with. If the šhìŧ goes down and nukes hit all over the globe, all you have to deal with is Food & Shelter, instead of Everything Else. Bring on the Apocalypse, I say. It makes living a lot less complicated.
Seriously, if this Irael vs. Everybody conflict spirals out of control, just find your hidey-hole for a while, and then when you poke out your head, its freakin’ Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdrome outside. How cool would that be?!!!
For some reason I’m thinking of HULK: THE END right now in the back of my head, but that’s probably because I’m posting on PAD’s blog. Ah well…
Whooo! WW3! Rock!
What we’re all scared about is that this conflict spirals out of control and we’re stuck in T2 land.
To hëll with that. I’m not scared of being stuck in T2 land. Anyone can take a robot. Animal Man beat up robots.
What I’m scared of is a bright flash of light followed by being on fire.
And ninjas.
(I considered writing a completely serious response to this post, but with what PAD wrote about, plus India and Pakistan getting a little irate with each other, plus North Korea’s kind-of-pëņìš missile, I’m genuinely a little terrified, so I thought I’d talk about robots. And ninjas. Whom I fear.)
Whenever I fear apocalypse, I take cold comfort from something I heard Robert Bly say during a reading as a passing joke:
“The world will NOT end; that would be too easy.”
Thanks to Bill Mulligan for making my point; for Israel to only be wrong once in 100 disputes is a remarkable feat for any nation. It may be impossible to ever find fault with such a model of civilized behavior. This means that in 50 years, Israel has made bad decisions only about 3.5 times a year. But my opinions in this matter have been warped by the ravings of Alexander Cockburn and Edward Said, at least one of whom is dead:
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/2/2003/765
(the link is for Cockburn’s article on the death of Said). Under the rules of this game, any criticism of Israel must automatically be anti-Semitic, and any kind word about innocent bystanders in Lebanon implies a criticism of Israel.
I hold no brief for Hezbollah, but it seems to me that the size of Israel’s response — a lot of dead grandmas and babies in Lebanon– will only win more recruits for the terrorists. Oops, Israeli bombs just hit a Lebanese minibus and killed 15 people. THAT’LL help the cause of peace and stability.
Alas both sides seem committed to increasinly awful acts of terrorism, presumably imagining that if they can just pull of some act of true barabarism then the other will step back, mop their brow and knuckle under.
Lob some missles at a civilian target! That’ll make them think!
Oh please, it’ll never end.
Posted by: Michael at July 15, 2006 07:48 AM
Thanks to Bill Mulligan for making my point; for Israel to only be wrong once in 100 disputes is a remarkable feat for any nation. It may be impossible to ever find fault with such a model of civilized behavior. This means that in 50 years, Israel has made bad decisions only about 3.5 times a year.
The above is a classic example of the “straw man” argument. In case you’re unfamiliar with the term, Michael, it’s a logical fallacy based on a misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.
Mulligan did not assert that Israel is only wrong once in every one hundred disputes. He asserted that, in his estimation, the rest of the world is 100 times more likely to think Israel is wrong than is actually the case.
His point, clearly, was that there’s a lot of anti-Israeli sentiment floating around out there. Mulligan was clearly using mathematics figuratively, not literally, so it’s silly to debate the arithmetic while ignoring the core issue.
Under the rules of this game, any criticism of Israel must automatically be anti-Semitic, and any kind word about innocent bystanders in Lebanon implies a criticism of Israel.
No one in this thread accused anyone of anti-semitism. You’re the only one thus far to have brought that up. Another straw man.
I hold no brief for Hezbollah, but it seems to me that the size of Israel’s response — a lot of dead grandmas and babies in Lebanon– will only win more recruits for the terrorists. Oops, Israeli bombs just hit a Lebanese minibus and killed 15 people. THAT’LL help the cause of peace and stability.
When terrorist groups are invading your borders, killing some of your soldiers and taking others hostage, there is no peace and stability to protect. Those are acts of war, and it is logical to respond in kind.
Posted by: Nick Eden at July 15, 2006 08:06 AM
Alas both sides seem committed to increasinly awful acts of terrorism, presumably imagining that if they can just pull of some act of true barabarism then the other will step back, mop their brow and knuckle under.
Lob some missles at a civilian target! That’ll make them think!
Israel’s dilemma is far less simplistic than you’re making it out to be. In at least one case, Israel dropped leaflets warning civilians to evacuate before dropping actual bombs in that area. And terrorists often don’t have clearly defined military bases, choosing instead to hide in civilian populations.
And what kind of message do you think it would send if terrorist groups knew they could invade Israel and capture her soldiers at will without any kind of retaliation?
It’s very easy to criticize. Anyone can do that. Do you have a viable alternative course of action to suggest? If so, I’m all ears.
Thanks to Bill Mulligan for making my point; for Israel to only be wrong once in 100 disputes is a remarkable feat for any nation. It may be impossible to ever find fault with such a model of civilized behavior. This means that in 50 years, Israel has made bad decisions only about 3.5 times a year.
Errr…not quite. the quote I made was It’s just that they are wrong about 1/100 as often as they are assumed to be by the rest of the world which means that they are merely being blamed for much more than they do, that is, you see. Since Israel is roasted daily in the Arab and much of the European press my 1% estimate actually makes them “wrong” several times a day, not the 3.5 times a year you came up with (interesting math, BTW).
Under the rules of this game, any criticism of Israel must automatically be anti-Semitic, and any kind word about innocent bystanders in Lebanon implies a criticism of Israel.
There are a few folks who unfairly tag anyone who is anti-Israel as automatically anti-semetic. Given the insane Protocols of the Elders of Zion type nuttiness that infuses some (though not in any way all or even necesarily most) of the anti-Israel side, this is not surprising, but it’s still an grossly unfair attack. One should discuss such a position on its own merits and only bring up anti-semitism if the person in question displays actual anti-semitism.
The problem is this, Israel and their collective enemies only have one mindset: to prove that they are the strongest one their is. This perspective allows only one response to violoence: if they hit u hit them back harder… but in a situration like this the harder they hit each other the more determind they become to
A hit back even harder
B not show any sign of weakness so that the world can see they are the strongest
C prepeared to achive their respective goals at any cost
and of course everytime we go through this routine the goal of peaceful agreement slips further & further away
Is firing a misslie at an appartment building any better than blowing up a bus? on the bus as far as the bomber concerned they all deserve to die dispite the fact their innocent commuters. while the pilot may be aiming for a terrorist he his quite prepared to kill lots of innocent people 2 get him but at least he just has to watch on a screen and not look them in the eye.
for the record i Do believe Israel is justified in retaliating i just don’t think it’s very inteligent and it will only lead to more deaths on all sides
Bill Myers wrote:
Israel’s dilemma is far less simplistic than you’re making it out to be. In at least one case, Israel dropped leaflets warning civilians to evacuate before dropping actual bombs in that area. And terrorists often don’t have clearly defined military bases, choosing instead to hide in civilian populations.
Is there evidence to suggest that the Gazan power station responsible for providing clean drinking water was one of those bases? And if there was, why not send in the Mossad to take them out? And just how using sonic booms to keep people awake in the middle of the night is doing anything other than terrorising a civilian population in order to try and force a political change escapes me.
Don’t get me wrong though: I don’t see lobbing missiles at Israeli targets as any more acceptance. Terrorism, the application of military power against a civilian population remains unacceptable whoever’s doing it.
And what kind of message do you think it would send if terrorist groups knew they could invade Israel and capture her soldiers at will without any kind of retaliation?
No-one would be citicising a special forces raid to get them back. The worry is that by destroyng the instrastucture (and ultimately the government’s ability to govern) of Lebannon in response to a couple of missing squaddies not only is Israel harming thousands of innocents, but it’s just going to bring about the kind of anarchy that lets the like ot Hamas and Hizbullah thrive. It’s a vicious circle.
It’s very easy to criticize. Anyone can do that. Do you have a viable alternative course of action to suggest? If so, I’m all ears.
A wise man was quoted on the radio this morning: “Anyone who comes in and sees an easy answer is not in possension of all the facts.” Or as we used to say when Americans came in and offered to sort out Northern Ireland: “If there were easy answers we’d have found them by now.”
No solution is going to be quick. Let alone painless. Still, to perhaps make a fool of myself there seem to me a few things that must happen to bring peace to this kind of conflict.
1: Both sides must accept that the other has a grievance. Right now both Arabs and Israelis seem to think that they are the only victims.
2: You need a lot of political courage to make it work. You need to have people prepared to talk to the other, to listen to the other.
3: Those people need to have enough authority to do something. Gerry Adams does seem to have been able to reign in the IRA, thank God for that. There’s certainly no-one I can see in the Levant willing and able to play the same role.
One of the Israeli actions that’s been least comprehensible over the last decade has been it’s willingness to destroy the power base of anyone in Lebannon and Palestine that might have been able to reign these nutters in. Remember how Hamas would send in a suicide bomber and the IDF would blow up a couple of police stations because those policement should have done more to stop the attach. Thus ensuring that there would be even less chance of the surviving cops being able to stop the next one even if they wanted to. And so the bloody dance continued.
There may be a model though in Israel’s relationship with Jordan and Egypt. Those states are strong enough to control their crazies. They have a fairly mature relationship with Israel. Lebannon and Palestine have been rendered anarchies, at least in part by Israel’s actions. They will remain thorns in Israel’s side until they’ve got governments strong enough to control their crazies. And bombing their airports won’t help that happen.
“The problem is this, Israel and their collective enemies only have one mindset: to prove that they are the strongest one their is.”
Which is just silly, has no one explained to these people that “Hulk is strongest one there is”?
JAC
Someone mentioned this may be a chance for Israel to “settle accounts” and I think that’s precisely what Israel is doing. Even though Hamas is not connected to the first kidnapping and demanded that those responsible (a shady group backed from Syria) release him unharmed, Israel instantly targeted Hamas elected leaders and Gaza’s civil infraestructures. Whats the use of bombing the airport if Hamas dont have an air force and Israel completely control the skies? Power plants? Water supply? Thats just an overwhelming, massive and calculated attack on the population living conditions. Thats not a military response but a demographic one.
As for Lebanon, Israel demands the lebanse army to disarm Hezbola, something the IDF was’nt able to do in 20+ years of presence in the country. They are pummeling a country that just started closing its wounds from the civil war and the Israeli&Syrian ocupation, destroying their infraestructures because they “held them responsible” for not beign able to do what no one has been able to do. And probably they will destroy any chance the anti-syrian camp had of keeping power.
And they kill civilians… I might be naive, but if you know where your foes are and also know that by dropping bombs you will probably kill innocents, blaming your foes for those victims is simply perverse. Do it the hard way; send commandos, risk your soldier’s lifes because thats what soldiers are there for. If you decide that some foreighner civilian’s life is worth less than your soldier’s, you’re a war criminal in my oppinion.
And thats my main concern. I agree Israel is the most civil, democratic and modern country in the region, but that doesnt give them any moral superiority to do what they want.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 15, 2006 02:21 AM
I’m going out on a limb here but I’m not so sure this WON’T end well–at least as well as war ever can.
Bill, on the one hand, I think Israel has responded to invasions by Hezbollah and Hamas in the only way that it could. I mean, Israel’s recent withdrawals from occupied territories, which were not forced by military defeats, would be seen by any rational mind as a gesture of peace. Instead, Hezbollah and Hamas saw the moves as a sign of weakness to be exploited. Had Israel not reacted swiftly and strongly to their incursions, those groups would have interpreted that as an invitation to engage in even more outrageous acts.
On the other hand, I think you are being overly optimistic about the possibility for a crisp and positive resolution to this conflict. Rising casualties from Israeli attacks may well cause the Lebanese to rally around Hezbollah, which is already a member of Lebanon’s ruling government. I realize that Lebanon is not known as one of the great military powers of the world. But it’s one thing to fight a radical faction within a country, and another to fight an entire nation.
Syria and Iran have thus far offered no more than condemnations of Israel, but that could change in a hurry. Last year Syria tried to use assassinations to reassert its influence on Lebanon. I think they’d love a chance to come to her “defense.” They may not be the most militarily adept country, but they hate Israel, and Israel is attacking a nation with which Syria shares a border. That could motivate them to get into gear. And while I don’t see Iran sending columns of troops marching through Iraq, foreign nations have had no trouble sneaking foreign terrorist fighters into that country; after all, Iraq’s security situation is a mess. I don’t think they’d have any more trouble sneaking terrorist fighters through Iraq to join in the fight against Israel.
The governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia are undemocratic and have long attempted to suppress Islamic fundamentalist movements within their borders. Another Israeli-Arab war could galvanize support for those fundamentalist Islamic movements and destablize those governments, making a dangerous situation even moreso.
I’m not saying these scenarios are certain to play out, but they are possibilities. I do think the current conflict is reason for serious concern.
“The problem is this, Israel and their collective enemies only have one mindset: to prove that they are the strongest one their is.”
Which is just silly, has no one explained to these people that “Hulk is strongest one there is”?”
But if we’re going with a Hulk theme, then I think we can’t ignore the other popular chant of “Hulk just wants to be left alone.”
Israel wants to exist. Their enemies refuse to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Does anyone think for a moment that if every Arab, every terrorist group, every aggressor suddenly had a change of heart and said, “Y’know what? We’ve been wrong all this time. We will fight no more, forever,” and that peace declaration stuck without terrorist raids, bombings, and inculcating new generations into anti-Israel thinking, that Israel would then continue to attack its neighbors?
PAD
Well, would Israel give back the lands it stole? What about Jerusalem? What about Golan Heights and the water sources they seized? What about the sizeable percentage of Israelis that demand arabs to be pushed out of “Great Israel” borders? What about the 30% of arab israelis who have limited rights, who cant even join most public positions?
Both sides have reasons to feel a victim, and most arabs would renounce violence if they would see those reasons dissapear. They need stable leaderhip to keep the extremists that wont in reign. But Israel is determined to handpick those leaders, undermining anyone they dont like.
Posted by: Nick Eden at July 15, 2006 10:26 AM
Is there evidence to suggest that the Gazan power station responsible for providing clean drinking water was one of those bases?
I’m guessing the terrorists don’t have a separate infrastructure for providing clean drinking water and electricity. Cutting off your enemy’s supplies is a logical wartime tactic. It’s not pretty, and it’s certainly not nice, but war is never either.
And what do you mean by “one of those bases?” As I’ve already pointed out, the terrorists don’t have discrete bases.
And if there was, why not send in the Mossad to take them out?
Probably because the Mossad exists in the real world, as opposed to the world of James Bond films where the actions of a spectacularly sexy few can achieve devastating victories.
And just how using sonic booms to keep people awake in the middle of the night is doing anything other than terrorising a civilian population in order to try and force a political change escapes me.
As I’ve said, the terrorist have no discrete bases. They are spread out amongst and recruit from the general populace.
No-one would be citicising a special forces raid to get them back. The worry is that by destroyng the instrastucture (and ultimately the government’s ability to govern) of Lebannon in response to a couple of missing squaddies not only is Israel harming thousands of innocents, but it’s just going to bring about the kind of anarchy that lets the like ot Hamas and Hizbullah thrive. It’s a vicious circle.
First, it is vulgar in the extreme to dismiss the captured Israeli soldiers as a “couple of missing squaddies.” Second, other Israeli soldiers were killed during these raids. Third, would you be so sanguine about this if your country were invaded, even by a small force? Fourth, Israel attempted to break the vicious circle by withdrawing from occupied territories unilaterally. Hamas and Hezbollah reacted by stepping up their attacks and by engaging in outright acts of war.
A wise man was quoted on the radio this morning: “Anyone who comes in and sees an easy answer is not in possension of all the facts.”
Or as we used to say when Americans came in and offered to sort out Northern Ireland: “If there were easy answers we’d have found them by now.”
Yes, I know. I never asserted there was an easy answer. You, however, implied there was an easy answer with your blanket criticisms of Israel. That’s why I challenged you to come up with a viable alternative. See, merely criticizing is an empty act. Unless you can suggest a viable and workable alternative, your criticisms are meaningless.
No solution is going to be quick. Let alone painless. Still, to perhaps make a fool of myself there seem to me a few things that must happen to bring peace to this kind of conflict.
1: Both sides must accept that the other has a grievance. Right now both Arabs and Israelis seem to think that they are the only victims.
Frankly, that’s nothing more than a meaningless bromide. Of course both sides need to come to an understanding; that’s the definition of peaceful conflict resolution. Do you have any substantive, viable suggestions as to how this can be achieved?
2: You need a lot of political courage to make it work. You need to have people prepared to talk to the other, to listen to the other.
Again, another meaningless bromide, lacking in any ideas for actually bringing people to the table.
3: Those people need to have enough authority to do something. Gerry Adams does seem to have been able to reign in the IRA, thank God for that. There’s certainly no-one I can see in the Levant willing and able to play the same role.
One of the Israeli actions that’s been least comprehensible over the last decade has been it’s willingness to destroy the power base of anyone in Lebannon and Palestine that might have been able to reign these nutters in. Remember how Hamas would send in a suicide bomber and the IDF would blow up a couple of police stations because those policement should have done more to stop the attach. Thus ensuring that there would be even less chance of the surviving cops being able to stop the next one even if they wanted to. And so the bloody dance continued.
There may be a model though in Israel’s relationship with Jordan and Egypt. Those states are strong enough to control their crazies. They have a fairly mature relationship with Israel. Lebannon and Palestine have been rendered anarchies, at least in part by Israel’s actions. They will remain thorns in Israel’s side until they’ve got governments strong enough to control their crazies. And bombing their airports won’t help that happen.
Israel tried to negotiate with Arafat, offering him unprecedented territorial concessions, and was rebuffed. Israel pulled out of occupied territories unilaterally and Hamas and Hezbollah responded by invading Israel, which, I repeat again, is an act of war by any civilized standards. So while it is tempting to put one’s hand to one’s forhead and lament how “violence only begets more violence,” it’s a simplistic lament that omits the fact that Israel has tried to work things out peacefully.
The “vicious circle” lament assumes that everyone everywhere is rational. Not so. Hamas and Hezbollah are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. No more, no less. They don’t accept Israel’s right to exist. If Israel stops fighting, they won’t.
Posted by: El Hombre Malo at July 15, 2006 11:03 AM
Well, would Israel give back the lands it stole?
Israel has already done just that by withdrawing from lands it had occupied.
And to say that it “stole” them is grossly inaccurate. It seized some of those territories while defending itself against the aggressions of its neighbors.
What about Jerusalem?
What about it? Do you suggest they merely give it up in order to appease their enemies?
What about the sizeable percentage of Israelis that demand arabs to be pushed out of “Great Israel” borders?
What the hëll are you talking about? A sizable percentage of Israelis want Israel to work out a peaceful solution. But they don’t want to sit back and let their enemies invade their country and abduct their soldiers.
I don’t get this. When did it become anything other than an act of war to invade another country?
What about the 30% of arab israelis who have limited rights, who cant even join most public positions?
There are many legitimate grievances against Israel. Israel nevertheless has a right to defend its borders.
Both sides have reasons to feel a victim, and most arabs would renounce violence if they would see those reasons dissapear. They need stable leaderhip to keep the extremists that wont in reign. But Israel is determined to handpick those leaders, undermining anyone they dont like.
Again, what in hëll are you talking about? Israel has responded to attacks by hostile forces. That has included attempts — some succesfful — to assassinate the leaders of those hostile forces, which is a common tactic during wartime. Can you name one instance where they’ve tried to interfere in the government of a nation not actively engaged in hostilities against them?
Israel is not perfect and deserves criticism for the way it has treated the Palestinians. But let’s, you know, limit our criticisms to things Israel has actually done. And moreover, let’s keep things in perspective: Israel is in a constant battle for survival against enemies whose goal is not to get concessions from Israel, but to wipe it out of existence. Period.
“I’m going out on a limb here but I’m not so sure this WON’T end well–at least as well as war ever can.”
War never ends well. The dead can’t speak for themselves, and the survivors are scarred emotionally, psychologically, and physically, which just gives everyone an excuse for the next round.
Bush and his frat brothers (“Rummie”,”Condi” and “Deadeye Ðìçk”) are already stirring up the pot looking for an excuse to hit Iran and or Syria.
Yes, Israel has the right to defend it’s citizens. However, the response to the abduction of two soldiers has been how many dead Lebanese civilians?
Disproportionate indeed.
I am with El hombre malo.
Sigh. I don’t have the patience anymore to answer the specifics of the posts above. It seems to me that people can apply a case by case simple test of common sense and common decency in order to know when and if Israel is right and when wrong, instead of listening to propaganda and over-liberal or over-conservative reflexes and cliches. At a certain point Israelis, even some peace suppoerters such as myself realize that that is not going to happen. That people who don’t know and don’t understand, who sit far away, will make nonsensical cliched and often ignorant statements. That we have to take care of ourselves, and do the best we can in this world.
I support the war completely for a simple reasons. I oppposed the occupation of Gaza and the Lebanon. I oppose the occupation of the West Bank and the Golan. When I told israelis that Israel should not occupy, and that it should be able to defend itself from its borders, they asked: what if the radical organizations (who do not recognize israel’s borders, or the interest of their own countries) will decide to attack Israel proper after the withdrawl? and I said that Israel can defend itself, and that I will support a war if it is in defence of Israel rather than an occupation. Nevertheless, almost a year has passed since the withdrawl from Gaza, and 6 from Lebanon. The attacks against Israel started shortly after the withdrawl. If Israel is not allowed to defend itself from its borders. If withdrawl means that Israel cannot defend itself, and that if we withdraw from the West Bank it will mean that radical organizations will attack from Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank (and maybe other countries), while the governments disavow resposibility, than withrawl would be wrong. I do not want Israel to continue occupying the West Bank.
Have Americans been kidnapped in order to force Israel to release its prisoners in Iraq and Cuba?
Since the war in Iraq was wrong, would such a kidnapping be considered justified?
We’ve searched through the military history of the US, Russia and Europe for ways to fight wars without hitting civilians. It’s not going so well. At least our wars are against countries that are actually near us.
Bill, syria and Iran are not going to get involved.
Bill wrote:
Yes, I know. I never asserted there was an easy answer. You, however, implied there was an easy answer with your blanket criticisms of Israel. That’s why I challenged you to come up with a viable alternative.
You are mistaken to see what I initially wrote as a blanket criticism of Israel. It was a blanket criticism of both sides.
But if we’re going with a Hulk theme, then I think we can’t ignore the other popular chant of “Hulk just wants to be left alone.”
Israel wants to exist. Their enemies refuse to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Does anyone think for a moment that if every Arab, every terrorist group, every aggressor suddenly had a change of heart and said, “Y’know what? We’ve been wrong all this time. We will fight no more, forever,” and that peace declaration stuck without terrorist raids, bombings, and inculcating new generations into anti-Israel thinking, that Israel would then continue to attack its neighbors?
PAD
and Israel has every right to be left alone at peace with it’s neighbours but to achive this requires diplomacy and a great deal of turning the other cheek ( admitidly impossible in these circumstances) as insane as this sounds Israel needs to start acting like the victim not the aggressor and really trying to make an effort to engage in negotions instead of simply trying to impose peace which will never work
I know in that this is a lofty ideal and would liturally be political sucide to any politician who tried it but really is the meet aggression with more aggression approach really working?
as u pointed out “Hulk is the stongest one there is” but has it ever bought him peace nope just a world of pain
Posted by: Micha at July 15, 2006 11:42 AM
Sigh. I don’t have the patience anymore to answer the specifics of the posts above.
I don’t know if my anything in my posts has added to your exasperation. If so, I apologize. I’ve tried to research specifics before making my points. You’re more knowledgeable about this than I, although I’ve tried to catch up as best I can.
I’m aware that both inside and outside of Israel, there were those who warned that withdrawing from occupied lands without an agreement was dangerous. The current situation lends credence to that point of view.
And as you’ve pointed out, there was a very good argument to be made against occupying those lands in the first place.
Nevertheless, I don’t think it’s overly simplistic to say that the way Hamas and Hezbollah have reacted to Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from some occupied lands demonstrates that those groups are uninterested in a peaceful resolution to their dispute with your nation.
Like you, I am at once exasperated with and perplexed by the voices questioning Israel’s right to defend herself, or questioning whether her response has been “proportionate.” Perhaps it is my emotional side getting the better of me, but crossing into another nation’s borders, kidnapping some of her troops and killing others is in my view nothing short of an act of war.
We’ve searched through the military history of the US, Russia and Europe for ways to fight wars without hitting civilians. It’s not going so well. At least our wars are against countries that are actually near us.
To be fair, Micha, while Iraq was a blunder on our part, Afghanistan harbored the architects of the September 11th attacks. Not every attack we’ve made against a far-away nation has been unprovoked.
Bill, syria and Iran are not going to get involved.
Time will tell. I hope you are correct.
I continue to remain concerned that this could escalate into a wider conflict. That doesn’t mean I think Israel is doing the wrong thing. Quite the opposite — I think Israel is responding in the only logical way.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t make the situation any prettier. May God protect you, my friend, and keep you well. And may this conflict end speedily and with a minimum of bloodshed.
Posted by: Nick Eden at July 15, 2006 11:49 AM
You are mistaken to see what I initially wrote as a blanket criticism of Israel. It was a blanket criticism of both sides.
No, I’m not mistaken. Just because you criticized the other side doesn’t mean your criticisms of Israel weren’t of the “blanket” variety. You accused both sides of engaging in terrorist actions, without acknowledging that Israel faces certain enemies whose stated desire is to wipe it off the map. I therefore challenged you to suggest a viable alternative for Israel to pursue. You have yet to do so.
For God’s sake, I’m advocating for a nation’s right to defend its borders against an invasion. And yet people are implying or suggesting that Israel merely “turn the other cheek.” Even though unilateral concessions made by Israel have been met with nothing more than increased aggression!
Would that I didn’t believe this, but it’s already tipped into the latter category, with three nations involved and counting. And none of the three so far involved wanted to be battlefields for this mess.
“syria and Iran are not going to get involved.”
It’s been determined that the missle that struck the Israeli ship was a high-tech Iranian device, not the low accuracy missles used by Hizbollah. Anyone thinking that Iran isn’t one of the motivating factors behind all of this is living with their head burried in the sand
Bill, in this specific case I am more dissatisfied with the attacks coming from one side of the isle than the other. But, I felt it would be more fair to criticize people who generalize about our conflict from all sides. I often find myself arguing with right wing people in one place and with left wing people on the other, although I am what would be considered left. I’m also nervous (not afraid as much as annoyed), although I am out of the range of Hizballa rockets. I did not seek to offend you, and I appologize if I did. I did want to criticize in general a certain attitude about the Israeli conflict, that brings so many people to comment about it with broad generalizations and misinformation. You do not hear such discussions about India and Packistan, although their conflict is as long and more bloody. Or about the policies of Britain or Spain, although they have suffered terrorism.
———-
Both Iran and Syria armed Hizballa and have agents in Lebanon. But both have not committed their own armies. Syria denied being hit by Israel, which indicates it does not want to join the war. Iran said that it will come to the aid of Syria if attacked, but somehow forgot about Lebanon. This sounds like countries that don’t want to join the war. We don’t want them to. The only people who want us to attack Syria are the Lebanese.
——————
“I’m aware that both inside and outside of Israel, there were those who warned that withdrawing from occupied lands without an agreement was dangerous. The current situation lends credence to that point of view.”
Yes. If I want Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and that my home (in Jerusalem) wil not become a target of rockets too, I must show to the Israelis, the Arab leaders, the organizations, and the world (who talks big about dipplomacy but usually does little), that Israel will not be a victim of such attacks after withdrawl.
“Nevertheless, I don’t think it’s overly simplistic to say that the way Hamas and Hezbollah have reacted to Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from some occupied lands demonstrates that those groups are uninterested in a peaceful resolution to their dispute with your nation.”
They don’t. They attack Israel because it gives them prestige. They are too weak to actually defeat Israel, but since they do not want peace they’ll continue attacking until they have incentive not to. These groups are able to operate because the leadership and the majority of Lebanese and Palestinians think it is better to allow them to continue than take the risks involved in stopping them. These risks are real and understandable. But if these governments can guarentee security to Israel than Israel has to act Itself. Israelis cannot be hostages to the weaknesses of the Palestinian or Lebanese political systems.
“crossing into another nation’s borders, kidnapping some of her troops and killing others is in my view nothing short of an act of war.”
You also have to look at the broader strategic perspective. Israel is surrounded by Arab countries, each of which has a significant Islamic anti-peace segment, which is tolerated to a degree. All of which are dying to get involved in the Israeli Palestinian conflict in support of the Hamas. They will not refrain from getting involved because they feel sad for Israel, or for the sake of peace. Their government will not curtail them for the sake of Israel.
“To be fair, Micha, while Iraq was a blunder on our part, Afghanistan harbored the architects of the September 11th attacks. Not every attack we’ve made against a far-away nation has been unprovoked.”
I’m not against the war in Afghanistan. It was justified. But, how many Afghani civilians died in that war? And how many American cities have been hit as a result of the US’s attack on Afghanistan? If the war on Afghanistan is justified, how much more is Israel’s war?
“What about the 30% of arab israelis who have limited rights, who cant even join most public positions?”
The funny thing here is the 30%. I don’t know where that came from. The Palestinian-Israelis have equal rights. Their problems are similar to those of Africans-Americans today: poverty, lesser opportunities etc. However, their situation is a little more complicated, they belong to the same nation who is attacking us.
“What about the sizeable percentage of Israelis that demand arabs to be pushed out of “Great Israel” borders?”
There is a political party in Israel who supports that position. They united with another right-wing party that does not. Together they got 9 out of 120n seats in the Israeli Parliaments. 10 seats are shared by three arab parties, one communist, one nationalistic, and one Islamic. Do the math.
To hëll with that. I’m not scared of being stuck in T2 land. Anyone can take a robot. Animal Man beat up robots.
What I’m scared of is a bright flash of light followed by being on fire.
And ninjas.
What if this conflict leads to the creation of Robotic Nuclear Powered Relgious Fundamentalist Ninjas Who Shoot Fire … OUT OF THEIR EYES!
Now *there’s* a truly terrifying thought.
Bill Myers wrote:
For God’s sake, I’m advocating for a nation’s right to defend its borders against an invasion. And yet people are implying or suggesting that Israel merely “turn the other cheek.” Even though unilateral concessions made by Israel have been met with nothing more than increased aggression!
If the only choices are to turn the other cheek or to slaughter yet more innocents and ensure that another generation of Palestinians hate you souch that they can’t see anything better to do with their lives then retaliate in kind, then yes, I do think turning the other cheek would be better in the long run.
I really hope that someone finds another option.
Well, this morning, I was half awake when this line more or less came into my head:
Did you know that President Bush’s full name is actually George W.W.III Bush?
I know, there was 9/11 first. And I was all for going into Afghanistan. But I’ve always thought if we’d just stayed there, concentrated on limiting ourselves to fighting the Taliban (which seems to be experiencing a resurgence), and then maybe set up a perimeter of ourselves and our allies (who would’ve supported that) instead of going into Iraq as well, perhaps we wouldn’t have helped stir things up to the place they are now.
But, then, as Dennis Miller used to say, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.
On the other hand, I think you are being overly optimistic about the possibility for a crisp and positive resolution to this conflict. Rising casualties from Israeli attacks may well cause the Lebanese to rally around Hezbollah, which is already a member of Lebanon’s ruling government. Well, I don’t know that I would ever expect a “crisp” resolution to the Middle East situation (and given that both Israel and Iran possess or will possess nukes I don’t know that “crisp” is a word we ever want to see used!) but you point is quite valid. I’m not saying this WILL end well, only that it COULD.
Allowing active terror organizations to exist on one’s borders, actively supported by countries who have leaders with far more weapons than common sense seems to me to have no realistic good end. Attacking them at least has the POSSIBILITY of a good resolution. Of course, it could also be a disaster but I can’t blame the Israelis from considering a throw of the dice.
Syria and Iran have thus far offered no more than condemnations of Israel, but that could change in a hurry.
Agreed, but I don’t think the Syrians will amount to much and while you are abxsolutely correct that the Iranians could step up their terrorist activities within Israel, I’m not sure they can do much more than they have.
Incidentally, to those who insist that israel keep its reactions “balanced” and “in proportion”–would it be ok for them to do to the Iranians what Iran does to them? Arm rebel factions in Iran to the teeth and let them randomly blow up Iranian civilians? We ok with that?
Note to all–that wasn’t directed at Bill Meyers, who is one of the more sensible, IMHO, voices here.
Well, would Israel give back the lands it stole? What about Jerusalem? What about Golan Heights and the water sources they seized? What about the sizeable percentage of Israelis that demand arabs to be pushed out of “Great Israel” borders? What about the 30% of arab israelis who have limited rights, who cant even join most public positions?
So if Israel agrees to hand back everything it has ever won in war–something the rab states would never do–and somehow suppresses anyone in its population that doesn’t like this, while giving its Arab citizens even more freedom than they currently have (which is more than they would probably have in any ARAB country)…what then? Do you think Hezbollah and Hamas will be satisfied? I don’t. Not while a Jew breaths. I take them at their word.
War never ends well. The dead can’t speak for themselves, and the survivors are scarred emotionally, psychologically, and physically, which just gives everyone an excuse for the next round.
It’s not hard to come up with examples of wars that have ended with dangerously aggressors being defeated. I would see that as a positive.
If the only choices are to turn the other cheek or to slaughter yet more innocents and ensure that another generation of Palestinians hate you souch that they can’t see anything better to do with their lives then retaliate in kind, then yes, I do think turning the other cheek would be better in the long run.
Ignoring the fact that I don’t think the chices can be reduced just to that, if you reword it to say “If the only choices are to turn the other cheek and watch yourself and your friends and family butchered or to attack those who would slaughter you” the obvious choice might cahnge. yeah, it’s a one sided way to present it but so, I think, was yours.
I don’t think Israel is without fault ever, but looking at the countries that routinely condemn it I don’t see a one that would have tolerated a situation similar to the one Israel has faced. If the Palestinians on Syria’s border did anything like launch rockets into Damascus…well, ask the resident of Hama what would happen (you might need a Ouija Board for some).
Posted by: Micha at July 15, 2006 01:46 PM
Bill, in this specific case I am more dissatisfied with the attacks coming from one side of the isle than the other. But, I felt it would be more fair to criticize people who generalize about our conflict from all sides. I often find myself arguing with right wing people in one place and with left wing people on the other, although I am what would be considered left. I’m also nervous (not afraid as much as annoyed), although I am out of the range of Hizballa rockets. I did not seek to offend you, and I appologize if I did.
You didn’t offend me, and you’re such an intelligent and good-hearted person that you’re unlikely to ever do so. Your apology is accepted but entirely unnecessary.
Besides, your nation is at war with forces attacking you within your own borders. I’d have to be a royal áššhølë to pitch a hissy fit at you while you’re facing such an awful situation.
I did want to criticize in general a certain attitude about the Israeli conflict, that brings so many people to comment about it with broad generalizations and misinformation. You do not hear such discussions about India and Packistan, although their conflict is as long and more bloody. Or about the policies of Britain or Spain, although they have suffered terrorism.
Having encountered you often enough, I’ve learned to make a habit of learning enough about the situation before commenting on it.
That said, there are some principles that transcend context in my view. One such principle is that a nation has a right to defend its borders against aggression.
Posted by: Micha at July 15, 2006 01:46 PM
I’m not against the war in Afghanistan. It was justified. But, how many Afghani civilians died in that war? And how many American cities have been hit as a result of the US’s attack on Afghanistan? If the war on Afghanistan is justified, how much more is Israel’s war?
Have no doubt, I agree with you wholeheartedly that your nation is justified in waging war against Hezbollah and Hamas, and moreover is entirely justified in the manner in which it is waging that war.
Posted by: Nick Eden at July 15, 2006 02:14 PM
If the only choices are to turn the other cheek or to slaughter yet more innocents and ensure that another generation of Palestinians hate you souch that they can’t see anything better to do with their lives then retaliate in kind, then yes, I do think turning the other cheek would be better in the long run.
History has shown that the choices are never as stark nor simplistic as you’ve portrayed them. The military conflicts between Israel and Egypt did not prevent them from reaching an accord in the 1970s.
You would do well to research the area a bit more before making feel-good statements about the current conflict.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 15, 2006 03:30 PM
Allowing active terror organizations to exist on one’s borders, actively supported by countries who have leaders with far more weapons than common sense seems to me to have no realistic good end. Attacking them at least has the POSSIBILITY of a good resolution. Of course, it could also be a disaster but I can’t blame the Israelis from considering a throw of the dice.
Oh, agreed. I simply wanted to point out some of the other possibilities. What happens in the Middle East has strategic implications for us, and I think we would do well to anticipate the possibilities. That said, Israel needn’t, in the words of our President, seek a “permission slip” to defend itself.
And as I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t think Israel has any reason to apologize for waging this war, nor for the way in which they’re waging it.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 15, 2006 03:30 PM
Note to all–that wasn’t directed at Bill Meyers, who is one of the more sensible, IMHO, voices here.
I agree. Bill Meyers is a great guy. If nothing else, I like him because our names are so similar. Mine is spelled “Myers.” 😉
I agree. Bill Meyers is a great guy. If nothing else, I like him because our names are so similar. Mine is spelled “Myers.” 😉
Duh’oh! NO WONDER typing in billmeyerscreations.com took me nowhere at all while billmyerscreations.com took me to the homepage of a gifted talent!
I’m pretty much completely disgusted by this whole situation. What I think is worse, though, is all the armchair quarterbacks looking into the situation and spinning it to their own viewpoint. People are dying. You don’t see anything but numbers on any of the reports. If I see one more talking head on the screen pondering what this is going to do to our gas prices, I’ll vomit all over. So our wallets will be hit a little more. Boo-frigging-hoo. PEOPLE are DYING. The leaders on both sides think that The Reasons are justified, but you know what? Any time you have to eliminate your opposition in an arguement, you’ve already lost. The Dark Ages never ended.
Kk, my rant’s over. Thanks for reading.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at July 15, 2006 05:35 PM
PEOPLE are DYING. The leaders on both sides think that The Reasons are justified, but you know what? Any time you have to eliminate your opposition in an arguement, you’ve already lost. The Dark Ages never ended.
Sean, I like you, so I’m trying to temper my response. But I think you’re engaging in some feel-good chest-thumping of your own.
Just because both sides believe themselves to be justified doesn’t mean that one side can’t be more right than the other. I think the Allies were a touch more right than the Axis during WWII, for example. I think we were morally justified in our invasion of Afghanistan following 9/11 (but not so morally justified in invading Iraq). And I think the Israelis, in responding to incursions into their nation by enemies sworn to push them into the sea, occupy a somewhat higher moral elevation here.
Yes, people are dying, and it feels good to wring our hands about it. But what good does that do? Do you have any suggestions for a viable alternative to this war? Do you think it would in any way be responsible for the government of Israel to ignore a threat to its national security?
By the way, folks, let us not forget that while the roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict are deep, and the conflict is complicated, the formation of the modern Israeli state was motivated to protect Jews who had immigrated to what was then Palestine, in order to flee political persecution and attempted extermination in Europe. Despite what radical Islamists may wish to believe, it’s not as though some powerful Jewish conquerors established Israel as step one towards Jewish domination of the entire Middle East.
The Arabs have never accepted the idea of an Israeli state and have been waging war for decades in order to drive them out. Were Israel to simply lay down their arms unilaterally, I believe many Arab factions would make good on their promise to destroy Israel. Were groups like Hezbollah and Hamas to unilaterally lay down their arms and start acting like adults, I don’t think Israel would respond in the same fashion.
Maybe it’s just because the War on Terror, “I’m a war president” conservative march has been going on for so long, but I’m getting really sick of hearing that every atrocity committed by one country against another, whether accidental, in self-defense, whatever the rationale, is automatically acceptable under the blanket excuse of “war is ugly.”
I can’t even begin to understand what Israel is going through, or the Palestinians for that matter. I just keep thinking back to that episode of Star Trek where two races wiped each other out over something as stupid and meaningless as which side of the face was black and which side was white. People are killing each other and as long as every death is another “act of war,” this will go on until no one is left.
I’m far from an idealist. I’ve lived in the world just long enough to doubt there’s a better way than slaughtering people en masse to keep some people safe from some other people. I just think it would be a lot easier to see through the bûllšhìŧ if we stopped treating war like some black hole that swallows all reason.
I don’t know what I’m trying to say. I just hate how common it’s become for people to shrug off human suffering, whether it’s deserved or undeserved. There are countries in Africa where the deathtolls from recent wars are so horrifying that I can’t even fathom the loss to human potential.
Peter,
Sorry this has nothing to do with the current blog, I just havn’t been able to find any contact info for you or J.K. Woddward…
I’m trying to contact J.K. Woodward in order to get permission to use his FALLEN ANGEL graphic on a new music DVD titled – SATANIC ANGELS BOOK I.
Could you please direct this to the correct channels.
Thank you,
Gordon Mcghie
Trigger Music Inc.
1-800-765-4851 [North America]
011-1-250-765-4851 [International. Pacific Time Zone]
http://www.triggermusic.com
Posted by: Edible Consumer at July 15, 2006 08:32 PM
I just hate how common it’s become for people to shrug off human suffering, whether it’s deserved or undeserved.
I personally take umbrage at the implication that I, or anyone else for that matter, who believes Israel is justified is “shrugging off human suffering.”
Personally, I felt a chill go down my spine when this latest conflict began. And I was personally grateful to see Micha’s posts, confirming that he was OK.
I know people who have served in Iraq. I work with a man whose son was on the front lines when the invasion began in 2002. I don’t want to see anymore bloodshed. Anywhere.
But I also know that simply laying down arms does not always prevent bloodshed and suffering — in some cases, it can worsen it.
I think no one said here that Israel doesnt have a right to defend itself. I just say there must be some other way. “Cutting supply lines” is a military strategy ill suited to deal with guerrillas. An extremist militant have little problem going days or weeks without electricity or running water, a civilan family does not. A guerrilla have little use for Gaza Airport since Israel completely owns the skies but palestinian economic development needs that kind of infraestructure. As for Lebanon, a country that just got rid of a pro-Syrian goverment by a narrow margin, these kind of things can throw the population into the arms of the anti-israeli camp.
Israel has the right to defend itself but also have the responsability to use its force wisely, and to prevent future conflict in extent of its power. And all these years of conflict have taught us that massive force display and civilian casualties dont work. And the “this is war, šhìŧ happens” attitude many show when arab civilian victims are mentioned is nauseating. Its on the same level as an arab terrorist justifying a suicide bombing in a israeli market. If you have to risk soldier’s lifes to avoid civilian casualties instead of dropping bombs from planes, then the right thing is to do that. To put a foreighner’s life below the life of a national is obscene, and the gate to all war crimes.
Ive lived with terrorism all my life, beign a spaniard. And I’ve heard every reason for contundent action against terrorists and their background. But as most spaniards, I have come to understand that it is wiser to let some escape and be allways right than to commit some wrongs to end with all the šhìŧ. And it pays off. We now see the light at the end of the tunnel but even if we didnt, we would at least be sure that they are the only criminals in the matter at hand.
Israel have the power, so it also have the responsability. Every time they kill an innocent because they prefer the “easy” way, they make this last longer. For this to end, extremist have to lose their popular backing, and history teach us that people cant be pummeled into submission by force, on contrary, they tend to become more desperate in their opposition.
“Cutting supply lines” is a military strategy ill suited to deal with guerrillas. An extremist militant have little problem going days or weeks without electricity or running water, a civilan family does not.
Perhaps, but when the guerrillas are firing sophisticated rockets the resupply of said rockets is something to be legitimately suppressed.
If you have to risk soldier’s lifes to avoid civilian casualties instead of dropping bombs from planes, then the right thing is to do that.
I totally disagree and I can’t come up with one good example of that ever being done. WW2 would have lasted forever if the Allies had adopted a “no civilian casualties” policy (and it’s doubtful the Axis powers would have gone along).
history teach us that people cant be pummeled into submission by force, on contrary, they tend to become more desperate in their opposition.
History has any number of exceptions to this–Japan in WW2, etc.
Bill, sorry, I didn’t make my point very well. (But, in explanation, I’ve been at work 14 hours now. Lame, but true!) A lot of the news reports that I’ve seen have been less on the actual conflict but on what is this going to do to us? I’d just heard the umpteenth talking head wondering what THIS was going to do with gas prices and someone in the room made a crack about guessing that they’d have to cancel their trip to the beach. THAT’s what had me riled up. So, you’re right, I was most assuredly doing my own chest-thumping. I just don’t like the way that the media and some of the people around me are almost trivializing what’s happening. Maybe for some people that’s the way their minds work. Me, I don’t. I think about the people there, or at least I try to. Gotta admit, my first thought was that I’m glad I’m here. But then, I can’t help but wonder what it’s like to be on either side. Ironically enough, right now CNN’s airing their TWA flight 800 special, and that’s another time I wondered about what those people experienced. Was the media reaction the same? Hate to admit it, but I don’t remember. I just really get upset when there’s a whole big conflict in the world and the media or people around me belittle it.
Just reread El hombre Malo’s post. Each time I read it, it struck me that you understand the feelings because you’ve experienced the situation. I’m glad you’re able to communicate that, and everything else you said. And you’ve also made an arguement that I haven’t heard before in the whole situation. You too, Micha.
All I’m trying to say is that this situation is deep, and there are some people are treating it like a puddle to be stepped around. I’ve reread and edited this post more than any other I’ve ever done,beacuse I want to be sure that I’m at least making myself clear. This is an old fight, the solution isn’t simple. There’s a lot involved. I just think that people should keep the big picture in mind before they worry about the smaller problems.
I’d really hate to get drawn into world war 3 just because people of different religious background can’t agree on the same invisible man in the sky to worship. I mean, COME ON!
Bits of wisdom from *TallestFanEver*
“Ah, screw it. What we’re all scared about is that this conflict spirals out of control and we’re stuck in T2 land. I say, the world coming to an end would make life alot easier to deal with. If the šhìŧ goes down and nukes hit all over the globe, all you have to deal with is Food & Shelter, instead of Everything Else. Bring on the Apocalypse, I say. It makes living a lot less complicated.”
“Seriously, if this Irael vs. Everybody conflict spirals out of control, just find your hidey-hole for a while, and then when you poke out your head, its freakin’ Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdrome outside. How cool would that be?!!!”
“I’d really hate to get drawn into world war 3 just because people of different religious background can’t agree on the same invisible man in the sky to worship. I mean, COME ON!”
Are you really this stupid, or do you just play stupid on the internet?