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
• 
mostly just playing stupid. And drinking. And the fact that getting up in arms about this spiraling out of control is really not needed, so you take it to its final conclusion, and then laugh about it because the inherent idea is so absurd.
I need more rum.
Also, do any and all political threads on here need to get 80+ responses back and forth between the same half a dozen posters with long-winded explanations from both sides? It gets old. Rather quickly.
Posted by Sean Scullion at July 16, 2006 12:15 AM
Bill, sorry, I didn’t make my point very well.
Actually, I re-read your initial post, and I think the fault was not with how you wrote it but with how I interpreted it. You did in fact mention that you were upset with those who were primarily concerned with how the latest conflict would affect gas prices. So the latest “Needs an Emergency Drop Shipment of Hooked on Phonics Because He’s an Idiot” award goes to… me.
Besides, it probably was a bit callous to dismiss concern about human lives as “hand-wringing.” My frustration was with those who are condemning Israel without suggesting a viable alternative. But I think anyone with an ounce of decency is at least saddened by the loss of human life that has occurred and will yet occur.
And yes, we in the U.S. in particular need to get over our self-centered way of looking at the Middle East.
Posted by: TallestFanEver at July 16, 2006 04:31 AM
Also, do any and all political threads on here need to get 80+ responses back and forth between the same half a dozen posters with long-winded explanations from both sides? It gets old. Rather quickly.
Well, as one of the more frequent posters, I’ve enjoyed the back-and-forth with “the same half a dozen posters” (although, to be fair, the “regulars” amount to more than a half a dozen in most threads). Some thoughts can’t be expressed in a mere sentence or two, and through discourse with others in Peter’s blog I’ve learned a great deal and been exposed to different ways of thinking.
I’m sorry if that’s killing your buzz. But no one is forcing you to read any threads in this blog.
And count yourself lucky if your buzz is all you have to worry about. There are many others out there with far greater worries.
“Also, do any and all political threads on here need to get 80+ responses back and forth between the same half a dozen posters with long-winded explanations from both sides? It gets old. Rather quickly.”
I’m sorry tallest fan, but I’m going to need along winded explanation of what you mean.
JAC
Let’s talk about the facts, instead of abstractions.
Israel withdrew to the international border with Lebanon (designated by the UN) in May 2000. Its presence in Lebanon was wrong. The campaign to get Israel out of Lebanon was waged by an organization of mothers of soldiers called The Four Mothers (biblical reference) who stood up to generals.
Shortly after the withdrawl the Hizballa took over southern Lebanon, armed itself with 13,000 rockets from Iran whose range covers a third of Israel, some of them of longer range than before, placed their forces on the border, kidnapped 3 soldiers (with the UN forces turning a blind eye), and started attacking a small area which they claim is also part of Lebanon. Since then, they have attacked that area, kidnapped an Israeli civilian (possibly from Europe), every once in a while attacked Israeli civilian areas with their rockets, and allowed a few incursions into Israel, all the while also aiding the Islamic Jihad in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel did bargain for the bodies of the 3 soldiers and the civilian, and refrained from an all out assault. Israel did not give Hizballa all of the Lebanese prisoners because there are four Israeli soldiers who were missing in Lebanon since the 80’s.
One reason was because of the fear of the Hizballa’s attack on its civilians, who were basically held hostage. It should also be noted that Hizballa’s success is one of the reasons for the greater support for ‘armed resistence’ among the Palestinians that led to the second Intifada following shortly Israel’s withdrawl from Lebanon, and continuing ever since.
Last week Hizballa decided to kidnap soldiers in order to get involved in the conflict in Gaza, and help the Hamas and Jihad in Gaza. They also asked for the release of Palestinian prisoners. It should also be noted that Israel withdrew from Gaza in last September, removing from their homes 8000 Israeli settlers (that should never have been there, but who still have lost their homes). Since then the areas Israel withdrew from and other areas were used to shell Israeli towns and Kibbutzim (inside Israel’s border) in the south daily, while weapons were being smuggled from Egypt. Israel did not start an all out asault until June.
Meanwhile in the west bank, suicide bombers try to make their way to Israel. Most but not all are blocked. They also attack settlers (who I completely oppose politically). At the same time that the soldier was taken from a base outside Gaza (for who the Hamas asked for a thousand Palestinian prisoners) a 16(?) year old settler was kidnapped and murdered in the West Bank.
(The kidnapping in Gaza was done by the Hamas, the leading party in the Palestinian government).
In 2006 elections, the leading party opposing future withdrawls has shrunk to 13 or 12 seat in the Israeli Parliament. The prime minister belongs to a party who supports a wide (but in my opinion insufficient for peace) withdrawl from the West Bank.
All this is not happening because of a religious argument or strange medieval reasons. They are happening because of reasons easily understandable to a westerner. Remember how you felt after the attacks on your countries.
The reason why the HIzballa is fighting is simple. The Hizballa’s leadership position in Lebanese politics, as well as in the forefront of the Islamic fight depends on its continued harassing of Israel. They are not fighting to win, they are fighting to continue fighting, so they are able to attack Israel whenever it is politically expedient for them.
It is imposible to fight a complete war against an army with multiple bases and caches all over Lebanon by commando attacks. A military incursion by force with tanks will cause more harm to civilians, while causing more casualties to Israeli soldiers. Shortly after the kidnapping a tank went into Gaza, all the soldiers in it have died. Israeli soldiers are a significant part of the citizenship, since military service is compulsory, so we value their lives too, as much as civilians (my sister was stationed next to the Lebanese border as a UN laison because of her English which is better than mine). The Hizballa does not wear uniforms and works from inside the civilian population, as does the Hamas in Gaza. Their rockets are hidden inside houses.
If Israel slaughters innocent civilians so do the American , British, and Spaniards who went to Aphganistan, Iraq, or any other war they participated in. If you believe that that makes the civilians or soldiers of these countries the legitimate targets for attacks that’s your business.
——————
Turning the other cheek is nice if it is not your cheek.
Oh, there will be no nuclear war because of this conflict. The only one that has nuclear weapons at present is Israel, and it is not going to use them.
Bill Myers,
While you’re taking umbrage, human beings are still suffering. I’m not looking for a reply or another neatly typed justification. What I’d like is for everyone who really does feel horror at the loss of human life in the middle east and all over the world to make that horror the thing they convey to other people. Because I really don’t think most people care how many people die as long as they’re far, far away from where the bombs and the bullets are. In two differing reports of a bombing campaign, in Beirut I think, one report said a hundred people were killed and another report said at least forty of the people killed were civilians. If both of those numbers are right, almost half the casualties were people who got in the way. Discuss the reasons and tactics of war by all means, as it’s certainly not going away, but war needs to be talked about in context, otherwise it’s an incomplete picture and people get very callous about the cost. Suffering and death are the context. Our leaders have forgotten this or they just don’t care, and I don’t want the same thing to happen to the rest of us.
Bill Mulligan said:
“…when the guerrillas are firing sophisticated rockets the resupply of said rockets is something to be legitimately suppressed.
“
Doe sthe term “rocket fuel” rings a bell to you? Do you believe civil infraestructures carry rocket fuel?
” WW2 would have lasted forever if the Allies had adopted a “no civilian casualties” policy (and it’s doubtful the Axis powers would have gone along).”
WWII was a war between armies. Armies that did really had an use for airfields, fuel supply lines and bridges. And even so, the fire bombing of Tokio or the british carpet bombing of Köln are widely seen as war crimes. Even then they were seen as disproportionate use of force. Even Fascists and germans in Spain found a military justification for the bombing of Guernica, but the truth is all these actions have only one motivation; to terrorize population.
As for the japanese, to believe there was no resistance due to the atomic bombings is naive. The emperor’s message in the radio and what Japanese consider to be a correct behavior in defeat are considered the main cause of japanese compliance in the ocupation. Even the (few) japanese prisoners during war, prior to the atomic boms acted that way. Please read “The Chrysanthemum and the Sword:Patterns of Japanese Culture”, Ruth Benedict work on Japan written with the data she surveyed for the US Army to prepare for a future ocupation of the isles.
I would also recomend you to read Mario Vargas Llosa work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He’s been awarded the Jerusalem prize as a long term friend of the state of Israel, wich he sets as an example for most countries in the world (mostly his own, he is peruvian-born). I would translate his today’s column in El Pais but I fear its lenghty. I link it here for all of you who can read spanish. He makes a good point on how any attack to Israel policy toward palestinians is quickly mistaken by most for an attack to the existence of Israel.
http://www.elpais.es/articulo/elpporopi/20060716elpepiopi_5/Tes/Israel/matices
Also I would like to share this other link with you.
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_292.shtml
OK, at the risk of getting everyone really, really, really sick of me…
Posted by: Edible Consumer at July 16, 2006 09:58 AM
Bill Myers,
While you’re taking umbrage, human beings are still suffering. I’m not looking for a reply or another neatly typed justification. What I’d like is for everyone who really does feel horror at the loss of human life in the middle east and all over the world to make that horror the thing they convey to other people.
In other words, you want people to feel how you want them to feel, and to communicate what you want them to communicate. Because you know what we should all be feeling and how we should express it.
I used to be a far-left anti-war liberal. I believed that all war for any reason was wrong, and that anyone who disagreed just didn’t get it. They didn’t understand the suffering because they needed a hero like me to help them care.
Talking down to people as though they lacked a human heart because they weren’t marching to the beat of my drummer closed more minds than it opened.
I still consider myself a liberal, but I’m no longer against war in all its forms. And it’s funny how often I get attacked by people who think I just don’t get it. They can’t even imagine that I once thought as they did — because having trodden in that magical paradise, they can’t imagine anyone would wish to leave.
I know you haven’t necessarily said that all war is morally unjustifiable, but you are acting as smugly as I once did. So trust me, I “get it,” far moreso than you’re willing to believe.
By the way, I’m sorry if this reply is unwelcome, as you implied with your earlier post. And I am equally sorry if you feel this is another “neatly typed justification.” It actually represents my sincerest thoughts and feelings, as all of my posts have.
Because I really don’t think most people care how many people die as long as they’re far, far away from where the bombs and the bullets are.
Have you heard of an Iranian girl named Nazanin? She was going to be executed for killing a man who was attempting to rape her. I signed a petition that was sent to the U.N. and circulated e-mails to all of my friends and family asking them to do the same. The Iranian high court issued a stay of execution so the case could be reviewed. There’s reason to believe that public pressure exerted by people like myself helped.
My girlfriend works for a juvenile detention facility where we live. My girlfriend and I are white suburbanites. Many of the kids who end up in the facility are non-whites from poor backgrounds. My girlfriend has been spending time outside of work trying to think of programs that could help enrich these kids’ lives for the brief time they’re in the facility — even though when they leave they often go back to an urban environment that frequently does not directly touch her life.
You see, just because something isn’t readily apparent on the surface — or being expressed in a way that meets with your approval — doesn’t mean it’s not there.
While I don’t begrudge anyone from focusing on their “feelings” vis a vis the war, it’s not my thing. I’d rather focus on tactics, strategy, outcomes, etc. that may seem callous and others are free to pretend that they are better than I am because they claim to “feel” the suffering of others. To each his own though it looks foolish when they try to claim the high ground.
Doe sthe term “rocket fuel” rings a bell to you? Do you believe civil infraestructures carry rocket fuel?
Er, I don’t know. Since they have found weapons in freaking Mosques I wouldn’t be surprised. At any rate…does the expression “transporting rocket fuel over bridges and roadways” ring a bell?
WWII was a war between armies. Armies that did really had an use for airfields, fuel supply lines and bridges.
Ok, that’s a bit of a qualifier. Your original statement was just “If you have to risk soldier’s lifes to avoid civilian casualties instead of dropping bombs from planes, then the right thing is to do that.”
As for the Japanese, to believe there was no resistance due to the atomic bombings is naive. The emperor’s message in the radio and what Japanese consider to be a correct behavior in defeat are considered the main cause of Japanese compliance in the ocupation. Even the (few) japanese prisoners during war, prior to the atomic boms acted that way. Please read “The Chrysanthemum and the Sword:Patterns of Japanese Culture”, Ruth Benedict work on Japan written with the data she surveyed for the US Army to prepare for a future ocupation of the isles.
A good book to be sure, one that certainly puts into doubt the statement “history teach us that people can’t be pummeled into submission by force, on contrary, they tend to become more desperate in their opposition.” The Japanese WERE indeed “pummeled”. Their opposition crumbled. Your generalization was too general.
Not that I would use japan as a model for the Middle East. The Japanese acted MUCH more sensibly than the Palestinians have.
Are you really this stupid, or do you just play stupid on the internet?
See: the name you posted this garbage with.
I’ve thought several times about posting to this thread, but I really don’t have anything to add. I’m so at odds with my thoughts on this whole issue (Israel & Lebanon, not idiots posting only to insult other posters), that I’m not even sure where to begin.
1) Israel is not carpet bombing anything.
2) Israel does not seek to subjugate or occupy Lebanon.
3) Since the beginning of this conflict the Hizbala fired more than a thousand rockets into Israel. These rockets are mobile. They are transported by land from Syria or from air or sea by Iran. Then they are transported throughout the country by roads and bridges using vehicles that use fuel. Afterwards, if they are not used they are hidden somewhere, in Shiate villages and cities, often in residences. Rocket fuel is irrelevant. They are not trying to go to the moon, the rockets have fuel in them.
4) I am not far away. I am about two to three hours drive from being in range of the Hizballa’s missles (maybe less).
5) If the suicide attack in Madrid was done by a group that had bases in Morroco, and was part of the Morrocan government; and if in support of that attack this organization based in Morroco would have kidnapped a member of the Spanish coast guard in order to release Muslim prisoners, and would have bombarded the Spanish towns along the Mediterranean coast, I assume that the Spanish army would have reacted, and that he question whether this attack was meant as part of a reconquista effort of Al-Andalus or just for political pressure would have been less important to you. Please adapt this to your own country wherever you are.
To be honest I’m just a lurker on this site and only come here to receive updates on Peter’s comic book and novel work however I feel inclined to comment on this topic. A poster I know at another forum described Israel reaction as performing brain surgery with a chainsaw. In any case Israel played right into their enemies hand, because they are getting the reaction that they deliberately provoked when they kidnapped the two solders. In light of my being an American citizen this might sound hypocritical but I truly feel that Israel should have waited and preceded more carefully before entering a conflict that could have widespread implication for both the Israeli and Lebanese people. What Iraq is to us Lebanon might become for Israel.
As for Israel having it’s fair share of neiboring enemies well you can thank England and America for that as they were the ones that created a nation state for Jews displaced by World War two by displacing the people that were already living there. At least that what I think happened as I’ve been out of school for many years now, and I apologize if my understanding on the topic is flawed. Please feel free to correct me, as I would rather be humbled and educated rather than continuing base my opinion on this issue using wrong information.
1) I never said Israel was carpet bombing, I was responding to the WWII reference on the issue of civilian victims beign acceptable or not.
2) When you use force to make the population do what you want them to do, then you are trying to subjugate them; “repress, quash, keep down, subdue, subjugate, reduce, put down by force or intimidation”. If Israel tried to subjugate Hezbolah, I wouldnt have any problem with it, but its the whole Lebanon population they are terrorizing.
3) Again, I just disagreed about the convenience of bombing civil fuel depots like the airport’s and someone came up with the rockets.
But still, While Israel demands Lebanon army to go south and disarm Hezbolah, they deprive them of the means to do it, both fuel and roads. As I said again, Hezbolah is a guerrilla, much less dependent on roads, infraestructures and fuel than a regular army. Attacking those only make the rest of Lebanese weaker. Moreso, throwing fliers to lebanese civilians, urging them to leave the attacked area when you have deprived them of roads and fuel to do it properly is a joke.
4) I hope you and yours do nor come into harm
5)Madrid attacks were made by a group that have bases in Morocco and we know for sure Morocco goverment does not have the will to engage that group. We also know exactly who the supporters of ETA are, since they dont hide and enjoy the same rights any other spaniard have. In both cases a part of spanish society demanded swift action, military action. And in both cases we have decided to end the causes of the conflict and not simply try to “subjugate” the attackers and their suporters.
In the early 80’s, part of the goverment sponsored a group that kidnapped and killed terrorists and their civilian suporters, ultimatelly kidnapping an innocent by mistake. This only caused more people to back ETA and the spanish society to demand for a strict adherence to law and civil behavior. Spanish Misnister of interior affairs ended up in jail, as well as other high rank officials.
20 years later, ETA has little or no support for their violence and its negotiating a permanent cease fire. Restrain pays off. With Islamist terrorists we are doing the same; use intelligence and police to keep them as bay, cry our dead but make sure no one can ever label us guilty for an innocent death.
And as for how the spanish army would have reacted… Armies dont have to react in any other way than however the goverment says. Period.
—————
As for what Bill Mulligan said about Japan:
The book I mentioned describe how japanese prisoners, way before Atomic attacks, were cooperative and eager to help the american troops that captured them. In battle they would fight to the last man but whenever one was captured, he became docile and eager to appease. Not out of cowardly or sense of futility but for the same reasons they fought so fiercely: to be as good as you can in the position you are in. As a soldier, the best soldier, as a prisoner, the best prisoner. Japanese idiosincracy and adherence to the Emperor’s word was what made them docile after defeat, not pummeling.
Every invaded country without that idiosincratic peculiarity have shown resistance and have tried to make the invade/agressor life miserable. Spanish did to the french, polish did to the german, vietnamese did to the americans… Even if your country goverment is wrong, people will hate whoever is killing them and gravitate to whoever group is doing more to fight back. It doesnt have to do with reason, but with feelings.
Putting aside the history of the area (and though we must never forget history, peace is only won by concentrating on the future)….
Seems to me that Israel has every reason to be a) be angry and b) retaliate against aggressors that act, well, aggressively, against its citizens. Whether that be Hezballuh, Palestians or whoever… if they target civilians they get NO support from me.
However, Israel loses a great deal of support when it fires missiles, storm or otherwise into heavily populated civilian areas and then claims that ‘it’s ‘unfortunate’ when civilians die. It’s not ‘unfortunate’, it’s a totlaly forseeable event and a calculated decision that killing civilians is not as bad as NOT killing Hezballuh/enemy operatives.
Civilian deaths are the tragc tool of both sides in a war. Depending whose side you’re on they are unfortunate collateral damage or murdered innocents – watching one hour of any news station teaches you that.
The steps that must follow are:
The Lebanese government must call on hezbullah to stop its campaign and must condemn their actions as overtly provocative (fighting an enemy inside your own land is one thing, attackign the enemy on their own soil is different)
The Israelies must call off their bombing asap. They’ve had their show of strength and it must be clear to anyone that unless they plan to invade the Lebanon the harder they bomb, the LESS likely this enemy is to back down and lose face. Equally, the more civilian deaths, the more potential enemies are created in the surviving population on both sides.
The two above items must be negotiated internationally. Neither side is inclined to make the first move, which is a pity because the first one to do so is likely to get most of the international goodwill out of it.
Yes, I know sounds remarkably easy. It’s not.
But the fact is that the alternative is two (or more) nations looking for bigger and bigger rocks to throw at each other. And we all know where that leads.
Despite most of the comments, there’s one truth: it’s not our business. Israel will do what Israel wants. We didn’t vote for the current conservative Israeli government, and it’s not our right to do so.
(Yes, most of us didn’t vote for the current conservative American government, but we can still voice grievances. It is our government, after all.)
In all honesty, being partly of Irish extraction, I feel the way I did when the IRA and Catholic factions were turning Northern Ireland into a bloodbath. I hate it. I feel tied to it. But I can’t do anything to stop it, because it’s not my right. The only thing I could do was negative – not attend the Catholic fundraisers that supported terrorist groups.
And I suspect that American Jews who are frightened about this can only do the same; stop supporting Israel with money and praise until they choose to come to the bargaining table. That is, if the table doesn’t get incinerated in a nuclear fireball.
It is amazing to me that we have leaders i
I know PAD’s post implies that he somehow expected or thinks bush will criticize Israel on this, but in actuality, he is one of the few supporting israel of world leaders, and has long been a supporter of Israel (as have other presidents and evangelical christians in general today).
His cautions, it seems obvious to me, are a desire not to see the whole aread erupt, as we have been told would happen, and did not happen, after both Afgjanistan and Iraq. The truth is, he needs it, and we need it, to be peaceful there in order for us to be safe.
So I wish this wasn’t happening.
However, I can’t blame Israel. On the one hand, you have a relatively free nation and on the other, nations, terrorists, and a population that seems unwilling to admit the other side will be there, whether they like it or not. It is a no brainer to me. Until they admit Israel ain’t going anywhere, there will never be true peace.
and until arab nations stop seeing a vast jewish conspiracy behind everything, and look to their own nations and leaders, most of them will continue to be hundreds of years behind the times.
One day, there will be alternatives to oil, and unless they get their act together, they will be left with nothing.
As to this specific conflict, again, the problem is it doesn’t matter what israel does, it doesn’t matter how much land it fgives up, how many concessions, these groups of terrorists, and many of these governments simply want to destroy Israel and have it not exist anymore. So negotiations are meaningless really, there is no good faithm they only buy time. The nut in Iran is unbelieveable in his statements-he doesn’t even try to hide it.
A small nation like Israel in the heart of enemies has no choice but to be extremely tough-and if people there don’t like it, then change their governments, and ask for real peace.
spiderrob8, I think you hit the nail right on the head.
1 I might be naive, but if you know where your foes are and also know that by dropping bombs you will probably kill innocents, blaming your foes for those victims is simply perverse.
****
I don’t think it is perverse. When armed robbers take over a bank, and the police have to go in with a shootout, if innocents are killed, the police don’t get tried for murder. The bank robbers do.
I see no difference here. I don;t blame FDR for civilain deaths in WWII, I blame Hitler and company.
>>When armed robbers take over a bank, and the police have to go in with a shootout, if innocents are killed, the police don’t get tried for murder. The bank robbers do.
I see no difference here. I don;t blame FDR for civilain deaths in WWII, I blame Hitler and company. >>
With respect, given that a) the missiles aren’t presumably being aimed at specific locations where the kindapped soldiers are being held (or there’s a new type of missile on the market that only blows up kidanppers and not kidnapees), wouldn’t the more comparable example be that a bunch of ‘Most wanted’ robbers from Glendale/The Bronx commit a murder a child/rape a whole family in a neighbouring area and the police, following criticsm that they’re weak on crime – wait a couple of days and then go into Glendale/The Bronx and throw a ton of grenades down a busy street where the gang are beleived to regularly hang-out in the hope that it’ll take out some of them and put others off?
Not to me. When dealing with nations, you have to deal with the broader problem. The problem is not just these specific soldiers kidnapped, or these specific guys who kidnapped. There’s a far broader problem, and dealing with that one symptom, would simply lead to more problems in the future.
It would be like dealing with the one guy who commits murder, but not dealing with the organization (the gang or the mafia or whatever) that creates and encourages that condition to exist, arresting the pusher on the streetm but not the guy who supplies him all the way down the supply line (as well as the demand for it).
It would be like saying after 9.11, well heck, the hijackers are all dead, so justice has prevailed and there is nothing else to do. The problem isn’t the guys who came up with the plan, or supplied them, trained them, gave safe haven to them, or the mindset in general in the middle east that creates this problem to begin. That would be being totally reactive instead of proactive.
> people cant be pummeled into submission by force, on contrary, they tend to become more desperate in their opposition.
Depends. I’m convinced that the Germans might have won their war against the Soviets if they had treated the population better. The average Soviet had no love for their dictatorial, totalitarian nutcase of a leader. They were mostly living in medeival-level squalor. If the Germans hadn’t stupidly treated them like sub-human creatures (which their propaganda assured them the Soviets were) and instead had helped them as they came through, acting as ‘liberators’ in spite of the realo purpoise being far different, they might have done it.
>As for the japanese, to believe there was no resistance due to the atomic bombings is naive. The emperor’s message in the radio and what Japanese consider to be a correct behavior in defeat are considered the main cause of japanese compliance in the ocupation.
Shortly after the occupation began, Japanese were practically worshiping MacArthur as being instrumental in reliving them of many years of misery at the hands of the Imperial army. Don’t believe it? Talk to people who were around back then and saw Japanese soldiers herding civilians off cliffs to ‘save’ them from falling into the hands of Americans. Or families torn apart as children were wisked away to the countryside – ostensibly to protect them from bombing raids, in reality to be enslaved in work camps to the war effort.
As for the anti-Israel sentiments … Canadians have shown in poll after poll that they support giving up hard-won freedoms in order to fight terrorists. Yet, inexplicably, they then turn around and don’t support a country which suffers from terrorist actions on an almost daily basis.
I may admit to being Canadian, but it’s been quite a while since I’ve been proud of it.
>20 years later, ETA has little or no support for their violence and its negotiating a permanent cease fire. Restrain pays off.
It isn’t generally known outside the country, but Canada had a problem of its own with a home-grown terrorist faction – the FLQ (Front de Libération du Québec) – in the mid-60s and early 70s. Blowing things up, killing a few people. Eventually, they kidnapped a British diplomat and provincial cabinet minister and killed the latter, proudly taking responsibility for it. OK, enough’s enough. Then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau called in the War Measures’ Act, declared Martial Law, brought in the army and stomped the terrorist movement flat. The War Measures’ Act was then lifted and peace has pretty much been de rigueur ever since, a couple of stand-offs with the natives aside. So, sometimes taking firm action also works.
“Depends. I’m convinced that the Germans might have won their war against the Soviets if they had treated the population better. The average Soviet had no love for their dictatorial, totalitarian nutcase of a leader. They were mostly living in medeival-level squalor. If the Germans hadn’t stupidly treated them like sub-human creatures (which their propaganda assured them the Soviets were) and instead had helped them as they came through, acting as ‘liberators’ in spite of the realo purpoise being far different, they might have done it.”
Precisely my point. If they hadn’t choose to force soviet population they could have win in the East. There was even a plan to create a russian pro-german army under a White Czarist general. But it was Hitler hatred of slavic people that prevented that army (that just needed the supplies to start fighting) from giving russians an alternative to Stalin. Israel is making the pro-western Lebanese leadership irrelevant. How can they get to people when their international allies are bombing them?
The only info I have about FLQ or Quebequian terrorism is what I read on Alpha Flight regarding NorthStar origin 🙂
Now, I am sure they didnt have the popular back up ETA or IRA have. Here we have GRAPO (they say they are communist) and we could deal with them strictly police-wise. Same happened with Bayer-Meinkhoff (however thats written) and Red Brigades in German and Italy. Small groups with limited support, you can deal with violently.
Interesting novel, ten-fifteen years back, called AIRBURST. Don’t recollect the author’s name. Plot revolved around a commando raid on a secret Israeli weapons depot, making away with one of their tactical nuclear warheads. The warhead is eventually used against Washington, but it proves to be a cleverly contructed fake.
The most memorable part of the otherwise forgettable book came at the end as a high-ranking representative of Israeli intelligence meets informally with an American equivalent.
The latter is incredulous upon learning it was all a carefully-plotted ruse to draw out an extremist cell and help to track them down and eventually eliminate them.
“But, but, one of the staff was the Prime Minister’s own son!”
“Yes. It ensured there would be no likelihood of the enemy seeing it as a ruse.”
“But, why didn’t you let us in on it? Didn’t you trust us?”
“Of course not. We’ve lived for decades with our backs to a wall, surrounded by implacable enemies who wish to eradicate us. We do whatever it takes to survive. That you ask these questions proves you are unable to understand that.”
Over the top and a bit ridiculous in terms of exaggerated plot elements, but it did serve, in my mind, to quite effectively highlight the vast chasm which exists between the two mind sets. The discussions being held here show there is still much truth to it, unfortunately.
The current Israeli government is not conservative, it is a coalition of a Centrist party (which is the larger member) and Labor, which is moderate-liberal party. The centrist party is willing to withdraw from a large but insufficient part of the West Bank, but does not support negotiations both because it is not willing to offer better terms to the Palestinians and because it does not want to negotiate while terrorism continues. I support a more liberal position than both, but I must admit that I’m not sure if the Palestinians are wililng to make peace on acceptable terms. The more liberal Labor, who I’d like to see in power, was discredited by the collapse of the peace process and the subsequent violence and has no chance of getting enough power to folow the policies I support.
—————
Bush’s support for Israel has been wrong at times, but not in this case.
—————
“Civilian deaths are the tragc tool of both sides in a war. Depending whose side you’re on they are unfortunate collateral damage or murdered innocents”
There is a difference between attacking civilians in order to kill civilians and civilians dying during an attack on terrorists.
I don’t know how to fight terrorists who are working from inside a civilian population, and are undistinguishable from civilian population without any civilian casualties. In the past I felt Israel was not careful enough, and have demonstrated against its actions. But in this case, there is a standing order to the pilots to abort attacks if there is a risk of hitting civilians. Doing more than that would mean not fighting this war at all.
—————–
“The steps that must follow are:
The Lebanese government must call on hezbullah to stop its campaign and must condemn their actions as overtly provocative (fighting an enemy inside your own land is one thing, attackign the enemy on their own soil is different)
The Israelies must call off their bombing asap. They’ve had their show of strength and it must be clear to anyone that unless they plan to invade the Lebanon the harder they bomb, the LESS likely this enemy is to back down and lose face. Equally, the more civilian deaths, the more potential enemies are created in the surviving population on both sides.”
This is insufficient. The key issue is to end the situation in which the Hizballa sits inside Lebanon and on the Israeli border, attacking whenever they please. If the Lebanese cannot disarm the Hizballa (which they should but can’t), they should at least enforce a complete ceasfire and take control on the border. If not, Israel will be doomed to continue fighting a war with a state inside a state.
Returning the soldiers is also important. Although this war is not only about the soldiers, but about the situation that made he kidnapping acceptable.
——————–
“When you use force to make the population do what you want them to do, then you are trying to subjugate them; “repress, quash, keep down, subdue, subjugate, reduce, put down by force or intimidation”. If Israel tried to subjugate Hezbolah, I wouldnt have any problem with it, but its the whole Lebanon population they are terrorizing.”
All wars are about making countries do what you want. The Hizballa are Lebanese. I don’t know of a way to fight Hizballa outside of Lebanon. However, Israel is not trying to repress, quash, keep down, subdue, subjugate, reduce, put down by force or intimidation Lebanon. We are trying to reduce the Hizballa’s fighting ability, while getting the Lebanese government to be able to assert its authority. We have not attacked the Lebanese army.
——————–
“But still, While Israel demands Lebanon army to go south and disarm Hezbolah, they deprive them of the means to do it, both fuel and roads. As I said again, Hezbolah is a guerrilla, much less dependent on roads, infraestructures and fuel than a regular army. Attacking those only make the rest of Lebanese weaker. Moreso, throwing fliers to lebanese civilians, urging them to leave the attacked area when you have deprived them of roads and fuel to do it properly is a joke.”
You have a mistaken view of how the Hizballa fight. The Lebanese army has better means than a guerilla force to move around, like armored weapons, helicopters and ships. In any case, once a ceasefire is acheived the roads can be fized quickly enough for the Lebanese army to redeploy. Nobody expects the Lebanese arm to act during the fighting. I am not familiar with a case in which civilians wishing to flee a part of Lebanon where leaflets were dropped could not do so. The leaflets mostly involved Beirut’s Shia neighborhood.
——————-
The reference to ETA is irrelevant unless we were talking about a situation in which Spain withdrew from the Basque country, and the state formed there made war against it. Spain’s security forces and law control the Basque country, and the Basques are Spanish citizens. The Muslims inside Spain are citizens or residents as well, and also subject to Spanish law (although apparently more discontent).
Similarly Israel has a population of Palestinian citizens who have equal rights, and whose involvement in terrorism in relatively small (but not nonexistant). They have representatives in the Israeli Parliament who speak positively of Assad and the Hizballa, and has visited both countries. If terrorism happens it is treated by police and the courts of law. Our problem is with the Palestinians in areas we withdrew from, such as parts of the West Bank and Gaza, or in areas we control militarily but are not part of Israel. They are not subject to Israeli law.
In Lebanon restraint clearly did not pay off.
—————-
“Madrid attacks were made by a group that have bases in Morocco and we know for sure Morocco goverment does not have the will to engage that group.”
The situation I described is much more extreme. I don’t think the Madrid terrorists have military bases in Morroco. They do have public and ideological support which is tolerated to a degree by the government like in most Muslim countries). The Hamas has supporters and offices in Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, but Israel did not attack these countries. Israel did not attack Lebanon while he HIzballa was arming and controling groups in the West Bank. Israel attacked a country whose territory was used to launch constant attacks against Israel.
—————–
“And as for how the spanish army would have reacted… Armies dont have to react in any other way than however the goverment says. Period.”
We have a cultural misunderstanding here. Israel never had a military dictatorship. When I speak of the army acting, I take it for granted that it is not acting independantly of the government.
—————–
“As to this specific conflict, again, the problem is it doesn’t matter what israel does, it doesn’t matter how much land it gives up, how many concessions, these groups of terrorists, and many of these governments simply want to destroy Israel and have it not exist anymore. So negotiations are meaningless really, there is no good faithm they only buy time.”
Not really. Offering concessions to moderates may possibly achieve peace. But it is also essential to draw the line where the concessions end, and that these concessions are not a sign of weakness that should justify continued fighting. There are forces in the Arab and Muslim world that wish to continue fighting beyond the concessions Israel can and should offer (such as the Hizballa). As it is necessary to show the wililngness to make concessions, it is also necessary to show that continued fighting will fail. Those arabs who have accepted Israel did so because they have given up defeating it by force. For the extremists to become moderate they must realise both that fighting wil not succeed and that negotiations will succeed. There are people on both sides of the political divide in Israel who tend to forget one side of the equation.
“To be honest I’m just a lurker on this site and only come here to receive updates on Peter’s comic book and novel work however I feel inclined to comment on this topic. A poster I know at another forum described Israel reaction as performing brain surgery with a chainsaw. In any case Israel played right into their enemies hand, because they are getting the reaction that they deliberately provoked when they kidnapped the two solders.”
This is a wrong analysis of the situation. The objective of the Hizballa was not to draw Israel to war, but to score points by kidnapping soldiers, as part of a long term policy of harassing Israel in order to gain a leading position in Lebanon and in among Islamic movements. The objective of the war is not to perform brain surgery, it is to stop the Hizballa from harassing Israel whenever they please. This is acheived by weakening the Hizballa’s fighting ability sufficiently and enabling the Lebanese government to assert the authority that it could not before.
“Israel should have waited and preceded more carefully before entering a conflict”
How? If Israel had done nothing than the Hizballa’s objective would have been acheived, there leadership position, its ability to attack Israel at will and seem like a hero of Islamists everywhere would have been successful. Israel’s weakness would have strengthened Islamists in Gaza and the West Bank as well as in other Arab countries.
“What Iraq is to us Lebanon might become for Israel.”
What Iraq is to America, Lebanon was to Israel in the 80’s, which is why we left Lebanon. If the US has learned from Israel’s experience it would not have gone into Iraq. But unlike the US we cannot leave the middle east. So we have to make sure that Lebanon doesn’t come after us into Israel.
“As for Israel having it’s fair share of neiboring enemies well you can thank England and America for that as they were the ones that created a nation state for Jews displaced by World War two by displacing the people that were already living there.”
This is false Palestinian prpaganda. The US didn’t do much for Israel before the 60’s. Israel was formed out of the Jewish community established during the British mandate in Palestine, which then went on to receive some refugees from the holocaust and from Arab countries. But the British government only supported this endevor briefly in the early 20’s, and opposed it for most of the time until 1948. It certainly did not create Israel. Nor did the british displace Arabs. In fact the Jewish community in Palestine did not displace the Arab population either. In fact it increased during the British mandate. Some of the Arab population was displaced during a war between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine following the end of the British mandate in 1948, during which Israel was founded. The Arab objective of this war was to expel all of the Jews in the area, and indeed no Jews lived in the areas of mandate Palestine controled by the Arabs, while some Arabs became citizens of Israel.
The effort to create a nation state for Jews preceded the Holocaust.
I consider http://www.mideastweb.org/ to be reasonably reliable source for information on the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
In any case, the formation of a Jewish nation state in a small part of the Arab world which also happened to be the Jews ancient homeland is much more justfied than the formation of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zeeland, and all the European colonial endevors, as well as the origin of the many Arab nation states in the same region, and the Muslim nation state in Packistan, and some European countries. In any case, there has now been a Jewish nation state in the middle east for more than 60 years, in which 6 million Jews and one million Arabs live in a democratic society, regardless of its origin.
>>It would be like saying after 9.11, well heck, the hijackers are all dead, so justice has prevailed and there is nothing else to do.
I take your fair point about seeing the bigger picture, but in this case – as far as I know – the people who perpetrated the kidnappings which sparked this are STILL alive, so it’s not as if it’s a case of ‘they’re dead, let’s move on to the accomplices’. It’s a case of ‘we can’t find them, so let’s bomb into submission the places of people who might be supporting them and if innocents get in the way, well, that’s life (or death)’.
In war, maybe that’s a fair strategy, but knowingly bombing targets full of civilains to do so leads to something which surely must be beyond politics. It becomes a decision born out of both pragmatism and morality. Yes, it’s happened throughout history. I don’t think that should make the decision any easier. And I certainly don’t think this is a ‘Dresden’ scenario so far.
There’s a dichotomy that always bothers me. A suicide bomber who *deliberately* targets innocents is surely much worse than a person whose ‘necessary/sanctioned’ actions kill people simply by *default*. But a person who sacrifices themselves for their cause is one who takes the step out of strength of faith, while the innocents sacrificed for the bigger picture are all too often given no choice. They don’t sacrifice anything. They simply ARE sacrificed.
The fact is that you’ll never convince an innocent family living in terror in Lebanon that their deaths are an unfortunate necessity any more than you can/should convince an innocent family in an Israeli market that the suicide bomber about to blow them to Kingdom Come has even the slightest justification or thought-processes.
I certainly wouldn’t want to justify either. Trouble is, both sides find countless ways to do just that.
Shortly after the occupation began, Japanese were practically worshiping MacArthur as being instrumental in reliving them of many years of misery at the hands of the Imperial army. Don’t believe it? Talk to people who were around back then and saw Japanese soldiers herding civilians off cliffs to ‘save’ them from falling into the hands of Americans. Or families torn apart as children were wisked away to the countryside – ostensibly to protect them from bombing raids, in reality to be enslaved in work camps to the war effort.
Interesting. I suspect however that if MacArthur had treated the Japanese people more cruelly and not been the model of occupation-government behavior, said people-who-were-around-back-then would probably have been speaking in glowing terms of the noble Japanese Imperial army.
And just because this situation looks like it can’t get more depressing, let me toss in this post by a poster to the “Rapture Ready” message board named “ohappyday”:
“Is it time to get excited? I can’t help the way I feel. For the first time in my Christian walk, I have no doubts that the day of the Lords appearing is upon us. I have never felt this way before, I have a joy that bubbles up every-time I think of him, for I know this is truly the time I have waited for so long. Am I alone in feeling guilty about the human suffering like my joy at his appearing somehow fuels the evil I see everywhere. If it were not for the souls that hang in the balance and the horror that stalks man daily on this earth, my joy would be complete. For those of us who await his arrival know, somehow we just know it won’t be long now, the Bridegroom cometh rather man is ready are not.”
The idea of looking forward to Doomsday is an utterly alien one to me. Reminds me of John Stewart’s comment that a portion of Americans believe the the End is coming in accordance to God’s will and the rest of the American populace believes that the End is coming because of people who believe the End is coming in accordance to God’s will.
Or something like that.
First off, Micha, I’m glad you’re all right. Stay well, chummer. Reading your response to Lester reinforced an idea that has been lurking around in the back of my head. Seems like a lot of the smaller odd governments, the ones we in the west would call the bad guys, are flexing their muscles in an attempt to either show off to us, like the little kid on the playground with the redwood-sized chip on their shoulder, yeah that’s right, we bad, or to show their own population that Hey, We’re Doing Something, Things Aren’t So Bad So Don’t Revolt, Okay? spiderrob also makes a good point, where Israel is they’re going to be a target. Every so often, they’re going to be tested, and unfortunately the people giving the tests only understand and respect these kind of responses. Or at least, they seem to, from what I know.
What many here seem to forget: Hezbollah has outright said they want nothing more than the outright destruction of Israel. They don’t want peace. They don’t really care about the Palestinians. All they want, from many, MANY public announcements, is to destroy Israel.
Israel is the only ones truly trying to create a peace there. While they give up land time and time again, all they see in return is suicide bombers. All they see is Hezbollah and Hammas furthering the attacks, kidnapping and killing. I say it is about time for Israel to say Enough is Enough, and do what the rest of the world always knew would have to be done. Fight for peace.
I hate war, but I don’t see how Israel had any other choice. And when push comes to shove, America will side with them, even if it comes to an all-out war. America will not see Israel wiped form the map.
I’m convinced that the Germans might have won their war against the Soviets if they had treated the population better. The average Soviet had no love for their dictatorial, totalitarian nutcase of a leader. They were mostly living in medeival-level squalor. If the Germans hadn’t stupidly treated them like sub-human creatures (which their propaganda assured them the Soviets were) and instead had helped them as they came through, acting as ‘liberators’ in spite of the realo purpoise being far different, they might have done it.
While most historians consider Hitler’s invasion of Russia to the single biggest mistajke of his sorry life, I think you are correct–it would have worked, had he not been so stupid as to throw away the considerable power of the anti-bolshevek forces who might have fought on Germany’s side.
Similarly, the Japanese were not altogether unwelcome in some of the lands they “liberated” from European colonial rule but it only took a brief taste of Imperial Japanese brutality to make the locals appreciate the genteel racism of the English and Dutch.
We should all be grateful for the often demonstrated stupidity of evil.
Micha, reading your posts leaves little of value I think I can add. Please take care.
And at least Bush isn’t criticizing them (at least not at the moment) for taking action against the cretins of Hezballuh who see land give-backs, not as a sign of a desire for peace, but a show of weakness.
Hezbullah doesn’t see land give-backs as a sign of weakness either, PAD. They see it as naked peace-mongering that threatens to stabilize the region — something that doesn’t sit well with their philosophy of a non-existing Israel uber alles. So long as the Hezbullah mindset and their adherents continue to run around, I fear their will always be incidents designed to shake down the peace process back to square one.
I think this thing is either going to die down very quickly or tip over into full-blown, multi-nation war very quickly. No half-measures here.
Actually, I see Israel getting caught in a protracted not-quite-war with Hezbullah in Lebanon alone, kinda like the Taliban in Afghanistan, with jihadi volunteers coming in to help. In such a case, there may be a chance of some insurgents being “flypapered” away to fight that war instead (because if there is anything that a would-be “martyr” would want more than to kill Americans, it would be to kill their Evil Zionist Jew Masters ™).
I’m not at much risk in this war since I live in jerusalem, a likely target for suicide bombers, but a very unlikely target for long range missles (and also out of range of almost all known Hizballa missles, although you can never be sure). I’m also not very likely to be killed in a suicide bombing since I don’t have a very interesting life, and am not likely to be on a bus or in a restaurant.
“Actually, I see Israel getting caught in a protracted not-quite-war with Hezbullah in Lebanon alone”
That’s exactly the kind of thing this war was trying to prevent and avoid. Idealy this war should and in a ceasefire soon. I am very concerned that Israel will not know when to stop. Nasseralla seems to be wanting now to prolong it out of pride. The Lebanese government wants a ceasefire. Who will prevail? It might be convenient if Bush does pressure Israel to stop, but the timing has to be right. If this war stops with Hizballa feeling as if they are able to continue as before or even more so, than they will continue attacking Israel, and this will encourage the Hamas and maybe others, and will create a prolonged bleeding (death by a thousand paper cuts). The UN resolution involving Israel’s withdrawl from Lebanon called for Hizballa disarming and disbanding. The current israeli prime minister who cries now to the world was the one who decided that Hizballa should not be asked to disarm. I hope the Israeli government does not expect that it will disarm, and will realize that we should stop fighting for less, instead on insisting on what is justified but unlikely. Not that anybody would appreciate it if we do stop for less.
I also believe that we should negotiate with the Hamas for a ceasefire in Gaza. I am critical of the government for not doing this. Although, make no mistake, the Hamas, and even more so the islamic Jihad, want the same think the Hizballa wants, a continued bleeding. If they go for a ceasefire it will be because of the pressure of the Israeli army, and only temporarily. But I am afraid Israel will waste this opportunity because they don’t want to give credance to a group like Hamas. Ironically, I believe the US doesn’t want us to negotiate with terrorists. The kidnapped soldier is a complication too, because we should negotiate for a ceasefire but not agree to give anything for a kidnapping, or more will be kidnapped.
I am very concerned about the Lebanese civilians. as usual everything is propaganda. The Lebanese try to make it seem as if Israel is slaughtering indiscriminatly (you are familiar with this from your wars), but obviously if we did there would be many more casualties. But I can never be certain that Israel is doing all it can to avoid killing civilians. I just can’t judge in this case. When I knew Israel wasn’t I demonstrated against. But here I don’t know. I know there was no chance to fight this war with no civilian casualties, and not fighting this war would have meant telling the Israeli people that their lives are in the hands of the Hizballa and Hamas, that the army cannot protect them.
I am still a peacnick at heart, so I keep going through what if’s, going 5, 10, 15 steps back. If we had done this back then, then maybe…. But this is the kind of trickery that is typical of of the self-rightuous in this conflict. Israel is expect to make the absolutly right choice in every step, while the arab choices seem understandable no matter what they do. Since it is unlikely that Israel will always (or even often) make the right choice, we can never know if making all the right moral choices would have resulted in a good outcome or in more violence. It is easy for the self-rightous to say that it would have. Meanwhile, the extreme right can claim that since no matter what we do thinngs go bad, it is pointless to try to be moral. I would have liked to see a more liberal government, although I cannot guarentee that it would not have had to face the Hizballa too. The Israeli liberals lost power because the violence that started after the peace process collapsed. Could they have acted differently so it wouldn’t have collapsed? Maybe. We can go back even further with what ifs. The truth is that the Israelis have their own hot tempered, racist, violent, angry, people who got pushed to the extreme out of violence and so on.
The recently created connections with moderate Lebanese bloggers are down the drain. They are back to hating us. They will not become terrorists, tey live too comfortably, and are not Shia. But the hate wil remain. They say we should have attacked only the Hizballa. I wish, but I don’t knnow how to fight an army in Lebanon without it affecting Lebanon. They say that we should only have attacked the mini-state that the hizballa created in the south. But the Hizballa is spread all over Lebanon, their center is in Beirut, they sit in the government and have semi-official status as ‘resistence’. anyway, how about the innocent Shia civilians in the south? Or do these Christian-Lebanese not care for Shia’s. They also say we should have attacked Syria. They hate Syria. But does it seem sane to you to attack Syria when the army attacking you is in Lebanon? Would killing innocent Syrians be be better?
I’ve read somewhere that the hizballa’s initial attack was meant against the US effort to build democracy and moderation in Lebanon. That’s possible. But I prefer to focus on more down to earth causes.
About the speculation about WWII Japan and Russia. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 82, the Shia cheered for it liberating them from the PLO. So did our Christian allies, who went on to massacre Palestinians. Beware of allies in contries you occupy.
“We tell to the population of South Lebanon that we want to avoid civilian victims. We recomend them to flee from their towns and homes and that they head north, because we are going to attack the south of the country with great force” (rough translation from Spanish source)
This said by Udi Adam, Chief of IDF North Command.
20 civilians traveling North on the region were killed this Saturday on two different strikes.
http://www.elpais.es/articulo/internacional/Llueven/misiles/mojado/elpporint/20060717elpepiint_2/Tes/
In this link you can see how precise the bombings over Beirut are. The article is written by Maruja Torres, a well known spanish journalist and long time lover of the city of Beirut, who was also there in 82. She describes how Christian, sunni and shia alike are actually talking about integrating Hezbolah into Lebanon army. That is how people react when they feel victims.
I believe the IDF is without doubt the most civic army in the region, but I also believe there is too much vengeance and punishment and too little military tactics in whats happening. ¿Whats the point of bombing Beirut lighthouse? Does Hezbolah have a fleet? Why are bombs landing on hospitals? Why bomb the harbours people are using to flee Lebanon to Cyprus? The whole IDF rethoric in their statement is one of subjugation as I said before. Its a discourse of “Do what I say or else…”. And their actions seem only headed to make Lebanon poorer, a move that Hezbolah took advantage of before, by building a welfare network that gave them respectability among the poor and won them their seats in parlament.
Alright, I finally found something to talk about:
Syria and Iran are discussing the possibility of a “prisoner swap” between Israel and Hezbollah.
What a @#$^ing crock.
The Israeli soldiers are not prisoners, they are hostages. They were kidnapped from within Israel’s border.
I swear, the nerve of these bášŧárdš…
Oh, and just for kicks, Bush finally plans to veto a bill if it passes: the bill would increase funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
Glad to see that Bush has his priorities in order.
“she describes how Christian, sunni and shia alike are actually talking about integrating Hezbolah into Lebanon army.”
This would be much more than I hoped for. In fact it is probably not true. The problem is that Hizballa acts as an independant force wih its own policy of harassing and threatening Israel, but if Israel wants to do something about it, then the Lebanese government claim they don’t know anything about it and wallow in their feeling of victimhood. If there is one army in Lebanon that would be wonderful, and unlikely.
I am not saying it will happen. She is not saying it will happen. All she says its there is a growing pupplic oppoinion in favour of that possibility. So in fact is neither true or false.
I realized I need to explain something. Why didn’t the Lebanese army disarm the Hizballa? Why didn’t it enforce its authority, especially after kicking Syria out? There are two reasons: Lebanese are afraid of returning to the civil war between the sects so they don’t want to confront the Shia militia; and even more so since the Hizballa is following the lofty goal of ‘resistence’ namely fighting Israel; nobody wants to be accused of doin anything in Israel’s interest, even if it is in their own interest.
Why is this important? Because the same thing is happening with the Palestinians. You have the Palestinian ‘police’, which is made up of several security forces belonging to different leaders, the irregular independant groups associated with the Fatah like the Al-Aqsa brigade, the popular resistence committies etc., you have the Hamas’s brigades, and their new security force, the Islamic Jihad, and the popular democratic front. The Palestinian government dare not assert its authority over these ‘resistence’ groups since they don’t want to harm the ‘national unity’, although these groups do fight among themselves if say the Hamas insults te leader of the Fatah, or the Al-Aqsa brigades need salaries and so forth. The Palestinian president would like a ceasefire, but he only dares to negotiate ceasefires with various organizations. The Hamas made an agreement with him once, but not the Jihad, who is connected with the Hizballa. He speaks of the need for ‘one authority, one army’ etc. But Arafat, and maybe others seem to have prefered the situation of competing organization (free market?). This is also given as a justification for the need of the Hizballa. This also convenient in the negotiation front where the Hamas does not recognize Israel, but does not oppose the Palestinian President negotiating with Israel.
Basically the situation is between Israel’s demand for dismantling of the organization and an end of violence, followed by negotiations. And the Palestinian president who offers negotiations, maybe partial ceasefire, and after the negotiations conclue han supposedly order will be acheived in the newly created Palestinian state, assuming peace is reached and all the difficulties are solved, and the Palestinian people and the Israelis agree.
Quite simple, isn’t it.
I have a lot of sympathy for the Lebanese, partly for the entirely weak reason that I’ve known some lovely people from the area. But let’s face it–if you allow rogue elements to do as they please on your territory you can’t be surprised if you end up caught in the crossfire. If I let the crips stay in my house it should come as no shock when the bloods pop a few caps into my living room, yo.
Of course in Lebanon’s case the crips weren’t actually invited and they won’t leave.
Micha, in all of this talk about the whys and wherefores of the war being waged, there is one thing I’d like to make sure doesn’t get lost: I fervently hope for your continued safety. I know you’ve said that Hezbollah’s rockets don’t quite have the range to reach Jerusalem, but I don’t think anyone can truly be sure of their safety in a time of war. Be safe, my friend. I will pray for you and all of your countrymen.
And thank you as always for continuing to educate us about your area of the world.
hello I’m Arabian and I’m going to say things that may upset you:
– doesn’t Hezbollah have the right to take action to free Lebanese prisoners in Israel ?
– “hitting the roads will cut the supplies” this is not a pen and paper campaign or a video game where you have to follow a set path to get from one place to the next, and they are not going from Normandy to Berlin , the distance is very short.
– very convenient for Israel to be the best democracy in the middle east after expelling most of the population , what do you say to give them the right to come home.
– why doesn’t Israel just give the occupied lands back thy don’t have cities in them , just sumer houses and settlements , every one in the Arab world considers all of Israel on Arab land but we don’t want that anymore Israel can have what it has but it is impossible for the Palestinians to have a viable stat with any less.
– Israels out-lash against targets that have nothing to do with Hezbollah makes us feel that its impossible to build anything while we are at the mercy of Israel , the Israelis better change their policy before the advance of technology makes it easer quicker and cheaper to build devastating weapons.
Thanks Bill. I am so far unaffected by this war, except for stress. My sisters are in Berkley and Melbornerespectively, and they are probably as stressed.
“she describes how Christian, sunni and shia alike are actually talking about integrating Hezbolah into Lebanon army.”
” am not saying it will happen. She is not saying it will happen. All she says its there is a growing pupplic oppoinion in favour of that possibility. So in fact is neither true or false.”
I am not sure it is true that there is a growing public opinion in favor of integrating the Hizballa into the Lebanese army. This seems to reflect more the views of secular moderates in Beirut (i.e. the Cedar revolution people), who oppose the Hizballa, and are western leaning. But I doubt if it is the view of the Shia at large, or even the public at large outside Beirut, or the actual leaders of the various groups and sects, since it basically means dismantling the Hizballa as a private militia. Even if it has popular support among the forces that conducted the Cedar revolution, it is another question if they dare or can actually get it done.
Hey, El Hombre Malo, there has been much talk recently of an international peacekeping force coming to Lebanon. How do you feel about it?
“hello I’m Arabian and I’m going to say things that may upset you:”
Don’t worry about it. I have been arguing with people for many years. As an Israeli peace activists I argued with people for peace during the height of the intifada. People threw things at me and spit in my face. I don’t get upset easily.
“- doesn’t Hezbollah have the right to take action to free Lebanese prisoners in Israel ?”
No. The Lebanese government can negotiate with the government of Israel for the return of Lebanese. But if a group like Hizballa commits an act of war to release the prisoners, they should expect war in return.
I know of only two reasons why Israel actually would want to keep these prisoners. (1) because there are 4 Israeli sldiers missing in Lebanon since the 80’s (not including the new ones), and we think Lebanon has information where they are. (2) I don’t know who the other Lebanese prisoners are, but one of them is aman called Samir Kûņŧár. Look him up in Wikipedia. He came into Israel from Lebanon in 1979. He went into a house and held a boy and hisfather hostage, while the mother and her baby daughter were hiding, the mother covering her daughter’s face so she wont make a noise. The saughter suffocated, the father and son were murdered by Mr. Kûņŧár. For obvious reasons Israel does not want to give him back. If Lebanon caught Hariri’s murderer, they would not give him to the Syrians.
– “hitting the roads will cut the supplies” this is not a pen and paper campaign or a video game where you have to follow a set path to get from one place to the next, and they are not going from Normandy to Berlin , the distance is very short.”
Still, a missle shot into Israel, or fighter trying to get into Israel has to move from point A to point B somehow.
“- very convenient for Israel to be the best democracy in the middle east after expelling most of the population , what do you say to give them the right to come home.”
There are three reasons why we don’t want to take te Palestinian refugees back:
1) Subjective reason: We want to have a state in which the Jews are the majority, instead of being a minority among arabs. That’s what we’ve been working for. If millions of Arabscame into Israel, it would stop being a Jewish state, just as if millions of Jews came into Lebanon it would stop being an Arab state, and so forth for every country.
2) Objective reason: if millions of Arabscame into Israel, than it would stop being a Jewish nation state with an arab minority, and become a bi-national state. We believe that bi or multi national states in general (like Yugoslavia and Lebanon), and this state in particular, will be unstable, and suffer constant civil war. Our objective is to reach peace in which the Israelis and Palestinians can have their own states in part of Palestine/Israel. Maybe in the future there wil be enough peace and trust for a confederacy or something like that.
“- why doesn’t Israel just give the occupied lands back thy don’t have cities in them , just sumer houses and settlements ,”
That’s not eactly true, there are cities and towns. But I, and many Israelis want to give the Palestinians the territories occupied in 67. We have fought hard to get the Israelis out of Gaza. But it is difficult for us to convince Israelis to support withdrawl, when the lands we give to Arabs become sources of terrorism against Israelis. We are also not sure if the Arabs are willing to accept Israel as a Jewis state in the pre 67 borders.
” every one in the Arab world considers all of Israel on Arab land”
I know. Some Jews view all of Israel to be Jewish land. I view Israel/Palestine to be a Jewish and Arab land. Just as my parents are also the parents of my younger sisters.
“but we don’t want that anymore Israel can have what it has”
Yet you also want us to take in the Palestinian refugees. That meens that there will be a Palestinian state without Jews in the West Bank and Gaza, and another Palestinian state with a large Jewish minority in the what is now Israel. That we cannot accept. I do support am arab-Palestinian nation state in the occupied territories and a Jewish state with an Arab minority enjoying equal rights, in Israel.
“but it is impossible for the Palestinians to have a viable stat with any less.”
True. I oppose any plan that will not give the Palestinians 100% of the territories, or eqivalent by land exchange. But the political party I support lost the elections, because people blame us for the Intifada and terrorism. The person who won, supports withdrawl from 90% (or less) of the West Bank. At the moment I think it wouldbe best to take the 90%, start building a peaceful state, and then talking about the other 10% from a position of strength and confidence. But I don’t think that will happen.
“- Israels out-lash against targets that have nothing to do with Hezbollah makes us feel that its impossible to build anything while we are at the mercy of Israel”
The constant terrorism against Israelis by Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Palestine make Israelis feel that it is impossible for them to trust anybody, and that they are at the mercy of Arabs who think they should not be in the middle east. Israelis feel that the only thing they can trust is the strength of the army.
“the Israelis better change their policy before the advance of technology makes it easer quicker and cheaper to build devastating weapons.”
Or what? Arabs and Jews will continue dying with deadlier weapons. Israelis cannot stop the violence alone, while the Arabs continue encouraging the violent people. If I am to convince Israelisthat military force doesn’t work I have to showthem that something else does. I also need the Arabs to understand that ‘armed resistence’ does not work, or we will always be facing violence. Countries cannot be pacifists.
I forgot something:
“”- very convenient for Israel to be the best democracy in the middle east after expelling most of the population , what do you say to give them the right to come home.”
There are three reasons why we don’t want to take te Palestinian refugees back:
1) Subjective reason: We want to have a state in which the Jews are the majority, instead of being a minority among arabs. That’s what we’ve been working for. If millions of Arabscame into Israel, it would stop being a Jewish state, just as if millions of Jews came into Lebanon it would stop being an Arab state, and so forth for every country.
2) Objective reason: if millions of Arabscame into Israel, than it would stop being a Jewish nation state with an arab minority, and become a bi-national state. We believe that bi or multi national states in general (like Yugoslavia and Lebanon), and this state in particular, will be unstable, and suffer constant civil war. Our objective is to reach peace in which the Israelis and Palestinians can have their own states in part of Palestine/Israel. Maybe in the future there wil be enough peace and trust for a confederacy or something like that.”
I forgot reason 3) Cultural reason: for many years Jews moved or ran away or were expeled from one place to another in this world. We always tried to rebuild our lives and look to the future. It is difficult for Jews to understand why Palestinians, instead of making a better future for their children, are always trying to go back to a past that no longer exists, and to which the attempt to return will bring more and more harm.
I know that many Palestinians lost their homes. I’m sorry. But giving them their homes back will cause more problems and suffering. Trying to get the homes will bring suffering. My father lost a home in Romania during WWII (I’m not saying the Holocaust because there was no great suffering in my family). And then he lost a home again when he ran away from the communists. Now he has a new home. It is important to remember the past, but we do not want to be enslaved to it. We do not want to go back.
“Subjective reason: We want to have a state in which the Jews are the majority, instead of being a minority among arabs. That’s what we’ve been working for. If millions of Arabscame into Israel, it would stop being a Jewish state, just as if millions of Jews came into Lebanon it would stop being an Arab state, and so forth for every country.”
I haven’t been following this discussion, so excuse me for butting in and reading stuff out of context of the conversation, but I gotta tell you, Micha, I wouldn’t use this part in your argument if I were you. Substitute “whites” for “Jews,” “blacks” for “Arabs,” and, say, “Utah,” for “Israel,” and you’ll see my problem. I hope.
Substitute “whites” for “Jews,” “blacks” for “Arabs,” and, say, “Utah,” for “Israel,” and you’ll see my problem. I hope.
The difference tends to be that, much like with many Muslims, being Jewish is racial as well as religious: it’s a culture onto itself that incorporates both aspects in a way that “white” or “black” are not.
So, I think to a large degree, Micha makes a great point. To some degree, he doesn’t.
Yes, you can look at the Israeli/Palestinian situation and see the conflict, you can see the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, in Rwanda. Simply separating the groups isn’t a great solution (and the US has also had it’s own history of racism and discrminiation, and so forth).
But part of it is simply getting all groups involved to move past their hatred and learn to accept one another.
For Israel, this may one day mean that they are no longer the Jewish state that they were created to be – this would hopefully mean that one day, Jews won’t have to worry about being wiped out by just about every other group on the planet just because they’re Jewish.
But in the mean time? Well, they’ve faced persecution for more than 2000 years, particularly from those religions that sprang forth, in part, from their own in Christians and Muslims. So I can’t blame them for wanting a place to call their own… a land that they’ve lived upon as long as Arabs have, and long before Muslims and Christians came along.