Chemical Attack Against Israel? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

bermuDa · 07-14-2006, 02:23 AM

The American media, no matter what angle it is coming from, makes it very difficult for me to see the issue from anything but a "pro-Israel" stance. So I was very shaken by some British news footage I saw that talked about how Israel was illegally (by international law) settling people in the West Bank and demolishing Palestinian houses because of the impossible beauracracy they've set up to discriminate against non-Israelis trying to make a home for themselves in Palestine legally. Multiple generations were made homeless because they couldn't get a document from Israel saying they could build a house on land that does not belong to Israel.

The situation is not just a matter of one hateful group attacking and the innocents defending themselves. There is blood on everyone's hands in this conflict, and [the American media and government] are condoning the violence by ignoring or hiding the fact that Israel is not just a victim.

Some people waste their time beating their brows, lamenting "why do 'they' hate us and our way of life? why don't they just let us live in peace?"--What these people don't realize is that we are the aggressors, and preserving our way of life involves snuffing out innocent ones and making a people homeless, destitute, and desperate. You can't make a suicide bomber without taking away his reasons to live (family, home, means of providing for himself and those he loves), and leave him just with reasons to die (revenge, a perverted sense of 'justice').

Even in our pacifism, we tread on the lives of others. Wars are waged not because we support them, but because we do nothing to stop them.

abaya · 07-14-2006, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bermuDa

Even in our pacifism, we tread on the lives of others. Wars are waged not because we support them, but because we do nothing to stop them.

Precisely. The great American giant, fast asleep until only our own turf gets bombed... and then goes back to sleep again promptly afterwards. What would it take to get us moving, to make us pay attention to news beyond our own borders? To understand how much of our money is tied up with various interests in the Middle East, almost none of which contribute to peace? I don't think Americans want to know.

In any case, someone has began a thread on the Israel/Hezbollah conflict in General Discussion, so perhaps we can take this discussion there.

roachboy · 07-14-2006, 06:21 AM

a good graphic from the guardian concerning the sequence of events so far.
things are moving very quickly and i find it easy to grow confused.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,,1807749,00.html

this seems to me wholly nuts.
so for one israeli soldier kidnapped, it is ok to invade gaza, shut down water, electricity, cut off food and push 1.4 million people ever closer to what all but the israeli government and the ny times refer to as a humanitarian crisis.

for 2 israelis kidnapped by hizbollah, it is ok for israel to invade lebanon.

i dont follow the self-defense line being advanced by the israelis and the bush squad--i dont follow any of the logic that would explain israeli actions.

meanwhile, if you read any account that still thinks gaza worth talking about, conditions there continue to deteriorate rapidly.
so far in lebanon, israeli military actions have alreaedy killed some 50 civilians.

i dont get it.

Seaver · 07-14-2006, 08:20 AM

Quote:

for 2 israelis kidnapped by hizbollah, it is ok for israel to invade lebanon

Um... you're forgetting the 16 rocket attacks. I can assure you that if people sent 16 rockets into our cities from say, Tijuana, we'd damn sure retalitate. And it'd be perfectly legal to do so under defense of one's borders.

host · 07-14-2006, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

......i dont follow the self-defense line being advanced by the israelis and the bush squad--i dont follow any of the logic that would explain israeli actions.

meanwhile, if you read any account that still thinks gaza worth talking about, conditions there continue to deteriorate rapidly. so far in lebanon, israeli military actions have alreaedy killed some 50 civilians. i dont get it.

You're "confused" because you don't succumb to simply "knowing what you know"!
roachboy, as I've attempted to stir discussion about the influence of AIPAC and JINSA in the U.S., with regard to their influence on the usual "we know what we know", phenomena that is "all present", and "all knowing", in America, and...I guess because there is mostly a lil slice of America, here too, here....too, I have gotten nowhere.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=46

After I noticed that the "liberal bastion" of disinformation, the NY Times, had never published a reference to JINSA, I thought that it was time to post about it, and its founders:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/printthread.php?t=104074
No other poster on this forum, unless I've missed it...has posted any reference to JINSA.

roachboy, as you pointed out yesterday, there is no more than a smidgeon of interest here at this forum in going beyond the regurgitation of the infotainment that most have been convinced is "the news". Looking around here and across America-scape, it's as if the internet did not exist to challenge conventional "wisdom" and ignite curiousity. It ain't happenin'....

I'm old enough to clearly remember the "June War" in '67, and the surprise attack by Egypt during Israeli religious holy day observances in '73. I rooted for Israel, both times. I worried that there was a real possibility that Israel "would be swept into the sea". My politcal POV has matured in the ensuing 30 odd years, and Israel is no longer the "underdog". There is no possibility that Israel's future survival will ever hang in the balance, as it actually seemed to in the opening days of those two, long ago conflicts.

I identified with your reaction of boredom, roachboy. Although I have been fascinated enough by the consistancy of the progression of most exchanges here, the predictability, and the inability to get "anything back", is taking it's toll on my enthusiasm for doing this....here.

Get some balance, folks. Read the columns of Gideon Levy, in www.haaretz.com .

It is difficult to tell if influential Iraelis only influence U.S. foreign policy, or actually control it, now. This question could not even be asked in an informed and curious United States.

Quote:

http://www.democracynow.org/article....258#transcript
Friday, July 14th, 2006
Noam Chomsky: U.S.-Backed Israeli Policies Pursuing "End of Palestine"; Hezbollah Capture of Israeli Soldiers "Very Irresponsible Act" That Could Lead To "Extreme Disaster"

Israel has intensified its attacks on Lebanon as warplanes launched fresh strikes on Beirut airport, communication networks, Lebanese roads and a power plant. Meanwhile, the US has vetoed a UN Security Council Resolution condemning Israel's attack on the Gaza Strip. MIT professor Noam Chomsky says the US and Israel are punishing Palestinians for electing Hamas, and says Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers subjects Lebanese "to terror and possible extreme disaster" from Israeli strikes. We also get comments from Middle East analyst Mouin Rabbani in Jerusalem. [includes rush transcript] Israel has intensified its attacks on Lebanon as warplanes launched fresh strikes on Beirut airport, communication networks, Lebanese roads and a power plant.

More than 60 Lebanese civilians have been killed in the offensive which follows the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah.

Israeli jets bombed the main highway linking Beirut to Damascus, tightening an air, sea and land blockade of Lebanon.

The Israeli army said Hezbollah fighters fired more than 100 rockets on northern Israel on Thursday, killing two people, wounding 92 others and hitting Haifa, Israel's third largest city. Hezbollah denied firing into Haifa, but Israel described the incident as a "major escalation" of the crisis. The Lebanese army also responded to the offensive with anti-aircraft fire.

Israel has warned that the south of Beirut could be targeted. Israeli jets dropped leaflets on Thursday warning people to stay away from Hezbollah offices. Some areas of the city are now without electricity following an attack on a power station. Israeli jets also struck a pro-Syrian Palestinian group in eastern Lebanon. No casualties were reported.

The escalation has sparked international calls for restraint. The European Union and Russia have criticized Israel's strikes in Lebanon as disproportionate. President Bush said Israel has the right to defend itself, but should not weaken the Lebanese government.

The UN Security Council is due to hold an emergency meeting later on Friday. Lebanon has urged it to adopt a resolution calling for a ceasefire. The US has already vetoed a council resolution demanding Israel end its military offensive in the Gaza Strip. Eight of the last nine vetoes have been cast by the United States. Seven of those were to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

* Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics and philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is author of dozens of books, including his latest "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy." In May he traveled to Beirut where he met, among others, Hezbollah leader Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah. He joins us on the line from Massachusetts.
* Mouin Rabbani, senior Middle East analyst with the International Crisis Group and a contributing editor of Middle East report. He joins us on the line from Jerusalem.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: We're joined on the phone right now by Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics and philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, author of dozens of books. His latest is Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. <b>In May, he traveled to Beirut, where he met, among others, Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.</b> He joins us on the phone from Masachusetts. We welcome you to Democracy Now!

NOAM CHOMSKY: Hi, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Well, can you talk about what is happening now, both in Lebanon and Gaza?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, of course, I have no inside information, other than what's available to you and listeners. What's happening in Gaza, to start with that -- well, basically the current stage of what's going on -- there's a lot more -- begins with the Hamas election, back the end of January. Israel and the United States at once announced that they were going to punish the people of Palestine for voting the wrong way in a free election. And the punishment has been severe.

At the same time, it's partly in Gaza, and sort of hidden in a way, but even more extreme in the West Bank, where Olmert announced his annexation program, what’s euphemistically called “convergence” and described here often as a “withdrawal,” <h3>but in fact it’s a formalization of the program of annexing the valuable lands, most of the resources, including water, of the West Bank and cantonizing the rest and imprisoning it, since he also announced that Israel would take over the Jordan Valley.</h3> Well, that proceeds without extreme violence or nothing much said about it.

Gaza, itself, the latest phase, began on June 24. It was when Israel abducted two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother. We don't know their names. You don’t know the names of victims. They were taken to Israel, presumably, and nobody knows their fate. The next day, something happened, which we do know about, a lot. Militants in Gaza, probably Islamic Jihad, abducted an Israeli soldier across the border. That’s Corporal Gilad Shalit. And that's well known; first abduction is not. Then followed the escalation of Israeli attacks on Gaza, which I don’t have to repeat. It’s reported on adequately.

The next stage was Hezbollah's abduction of two Israeli soldiers, they say on the border. Their official reason for this is that they are aiming for prisoner release. There are a few, nobody knows how many. Officially, there are three Lebanese prisoners in Israel. There's allegedly a couple hundred people missing. Who knows where they are?

But the real reason, I think it's generally agreed by analysts, is that -- I’ll read from the Financial Times, which happens to be right in front of me. “The timing and scale of its attack suggest it was partly intended to reduce the pressure on Palestinians by forcing Israel to fight on two fronts simultaneously.” David Hearst, who knows this area well, describes it, I think this morning, as a display of solidarity with suffering people, the clinching impulse.

It's a very -- mind you -- very irresponsible act. It subjects Lebanese to possible -- certainly to plenty of terror and possible extreme disaster. Whether it can achieve any result, either in the secondary question of freeing prisoners or the primary question of some form of solidarity with the people of Gaza, I hope so, but I wouldn't rank the probabilities very high.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Noam Chomsky, in the commercial press here the last day, a lot of the focus has been pointing toward Iran and Syria as basically the ones engineering much of what's going on now in terms of the upsurge of fighting in Lebanon. Your thoughts on these analyses that seem to sort of downplay the actual resistance movement going on there and trying to reduce this once again to pointing toward Iran?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, the fact is that we have no information about that, and I doubt very much that the people who are writing it have any information. And frankly, I doubt that U.S. intelligence has any information. It's certainly plausible. I mean, there's no doubt that there are connections, probably strong connections, between Hezbollah and Syria and Iran, but whether those connections were instrumental in motivating these latest actions, I don't think we have the slightest idea. You can guess anything you’d like. It's a possibility. In fact, even a probability. But on the other hand, there's every reason to believe that Hezbollah has its own motivations, maybe the ones that Hearst and the Financial Times and others are pointing to. That seems plausible, too. Much more plausible, in fact.

AMY GOODMAN: There was even some reports yesterday that said that Hezbollah might try to send the Israeli soldiers that it had captured to Iran.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Israel actually claims that it has concrete evidence that that's what was going to happen. That's why it's attempting to blockade both the sea and bomb the airport.

NOAM CHOMSKY: They are claiming that. That's true. But I repeat, we don't have any evidence. Claims by a state that's carrying out the military attacks don't really amount to very much, in terms of credibility. If they have evidence, it would be interesting to see it. And in fact, it might happen. Even if it does happen, it won't prove much. If Hezbollah, wherever they have the prisoners, the soldiers, if they decide that they can't keep them in Lebanon because of the scale of Israeli attacks, they might send them somewhere else. I’m skeptical that Syria or Iran would accept them at this point, or even if they can get them there, but they might want to.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky , we have to break. When we come back, we'll ask you about the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations comments about Lebanon. We'll also be joined by Mouin Rabbani, speaking to us from Jerusalem, Middle East analyst with the International Crisis Group. Then Ron Suskind joins us, author of The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of its Enemies Since 9/11. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest on the phone is Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His latest book is Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. I wanted to ask you about the comment of the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations. He defended Israel's actions as a justified response. This is Dan Gillerman.

DAN GILLERMAN: As we sit here during these very difficult days, I urge you and I urge my colleagues to ask yourselves this question: What would do you if your countries found themselves under such attacks, if your neighbors infiltrated your borders to kidnap your people, and if hundreds of rockets were launched at your towns and villages? Would you just sit back and take it, or would you do exactly what Israel is doing at this very minute?

AMY GOODMAN: That was Dan Gillerman, the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations. Noam Chomsky, your response?

NOAM CHOMSKY: He was referring to Lebanon, rather than Gaza.

AMY GOODMAN: He was.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah. Well, he's correct that hundreds of rockets have been fired, and naturally that has to be stopped. But he didn't mention, or maybe at least in this comment, that the rockets were fired after the heavy Israeli attacks against Lebanon, which killed -- well, latest reports, maybe 60 or so people and destroyed a lot of infrastructure. As always, things have precedence, and you have to decide which was the inciting event. In my view, the inciting event in the present case, events, are those that I mentioned -- the constant intense repression; plenty of abductions; plenty of atrocities in Gaza; the steady takeover of the West Bank, which, in effect, if it continues, is just the murder of a nation, the end of Palestine; the abduction on June 24 of the two Gaza civilians; and then the reaction to the abduction of Corporal Shalit. And there's a difference, incidentally, between abduction of civilians and abduction of soldiers. Even international humanitarian law makes that distinction.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about what that distinction is?

NOAM CHOMSKY: If there's a conflict going on, aside physical war, not in a military conflict going on, abduction -- if soldiers are captured, they are to be treated humanely. But it is not a crime at the level of capture of civilians and bringing them across the border into your own country. That's a serious crime. And that's the one that's not reported. And, in fact, remember that -- I mean, I don’t have to tell you that there are constant attacks going on in Gaza, which is basically a prison, huge prison, under constant attack all the time: economic strangulation, military attack, assassinations, and so on. In comparison with that, abduction of a soldier, whatever one thinks about it, doesn't rank high in the scale of atrocities.

JUAN GONZALEZ: We're also joined on the line by Mouin Rabbani, a senior Middle East analyst with the International Crisis Group and a contributing editor of Middle East Report. He joins us on the line from Jerusalem. Welcome to Democracy Now!

MOUIN RABBANI: Hi.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Could you tell us your perspective on this latest escalation of the conflict there and the possibility that Israel is going to be mired once again in war in Lebanon?

MOUIN RABBANI: Well, it's difficult to say. I couldn't hear Professor Chomsky's comments. I could just make out every sixth word. But I think that Israel is now basically, if you will, trying to rewrite the rules of the game and set new terms for its adversaries, basically saying, you know, that no attacks of any sort on Israeli forces or otherwise will be permitted, and any such attack will invite a severe response that basically puts the entire civilian infrastructure of the entire country or territory from which that attack emanates at risk. Judging by what we've seen so far, it more or less enjoys tacit to explicit international sanction. And I think the possibilities that this conflict could further expand into a regional one, perhaps involving Syria, is at this point quite real.

AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk about the UN resolution, a vote in the draft resolution, 10-to-1, on Gaza with the U.S. voting no and for countries abstaining -- Britain, Denmark, Peru and Slovakia?

MOUIN RABBANI: Well, I think it would have been news if that resolution had actually passed. I think, you know, for the last decade, if not for much longer, it’s basically become a reality in the United Nations that it's an organization incapable of discharging any of its duties or responsibilities towards maintaining or restoring peace and security in the Middle East, primarily because of the U.S. power of veto on the Security Council. And I think we've now reached the point where even a rhetorical condemnation of Israeli action, such as we’ve seen in Gaza over the past several weeks, even a rhetorical condemnation without practical consequence has become largely unthinkable, again, primarily because of the U.S. veto within the Security Council.

AMY GOODMAN: Mouin, what do you think is going to happen right now, both in Gaza and in Lebanon?

MOUIN RABBANI: Well, I think it's probably going to get significantly worse. I mean, in Lebanon, it seems to be a case where Hezbollah has a more restricted agenda of compelling Israel to conduct prisoner exchange, whereas Israel has a broader agenda of seeking to compel the disarmament of Hezbollah or at least to push it back several dozen kilometers from the Israeli-Lebanese border. You know, the Israeli and Hezbollah perspectives on this are entirely incompatible, and that means that this conflict is probably going to continue escalating, until some kind of mediation begins.

In Gaza, it’s somewhat different. I think there Hamas has a broader agenda, of which effecting a prisoner exchange with Israel is only one, and I would argue, even a secondary part. I think there Hamas's main objective is to compel Israel to accept a mutual cessation of hostilities, Israeli-Palestinian, and I think, even more important, of ensuring their right to govern. And I think, at least as far as the Israeli-Palestinian part of this is concerned, Hamas's main objective has been to send a very clear message, not only to Israel, but to all its adversaries, whether Israeli, Palestinian or foreign, to remind the world that political integration and democratic politics for them are an experiment, that they have alternatives, and if they're not allowed to exercise their democratic mandate, that they will not hesitate, if necessary, to exercise those alternatives.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Noam Chomsky, right now industrial world leaders gathered in St. Petersburg for the G8 meeting. What role does the U.S. have in this?

NOAM CHOMSKY: In the G8 meeting?

AMY GOODMAN: No. What role -- they're just gathered together -- in this, certainly the issue of Lebanon, Gaza, the Middle East is going to dominate that discussion. But how significant is the U.S. in this?

NOAM CHOMSKY: I think it will probably be very much like the UN resolution that you mentioned, which is -- I’m sorry, I couldn't hear what Mouin Rabbani was saying. But the UN resolution was -- the veto of the UN resolution is standard. That goes back decades. The U.S. has virtually alone been blocking the possibility of diplomatic settlement, censure of Israeli crimes and atrocities. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, the UN vetoed several resolutions right away, calling for an end to the fighting and so on, and that was a hideous invasion. And this continues through every administration. So I presume it will continue at the G8 meetings.

<b>The United States regards Israel AS VIRTUALLY A MILITARIZED OFFSHOOT, and it protects it from criticism or actions and supports passively and, in fact, overtly supports its expansion, its attacks on Palestinians, its progressive takeover of what remains of Palestinian territory, and its acts to, well, actually realize a comment that Moshe Dayan made back in the early ’70s when he was responsible for the Occupied Territories. He said to his cabinet colleagues that we should tell the Palestinians that we have no solution for you, that you will live like dogs, and whoever will leave will leave, and we'll see where that leads. That's basically the policy. And I presume the U.S. will continue to advance that policy in one or another fashion.</b>

AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky , I want to thank you for being with us. His latest book is Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. And Mouin Rabbani, senior Middle East analyst with the International Crisis Group, joining us from Jerusalem. Thank you both.

Quote:

http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/n...-02.9370341620
.....A note from Tikkun:

Why Aren’t American Jewish voices of Protest Being Heard?

The answer is simple: the forces that support Israel’s government no matter what it does have successfully united and created ÅIPAC as their primary spokesgroup. But the forces that critique Israeli policy and yet wish to Israel secure and safe have refused to unite their energies. Instead, they find minor points to disagree with each other and then use that as their basis for insisting that a unified alternative to AIPAC will not be created with their participation.

We in the Tikkun Community have repeatedly called for this kind of coalition to work together and create a progressive alternative to AIPAC. We recognize the legitimacy of groups saying that there need to be some clear guidelines so that this alternative to AIPAC is not dismissed as part of the anti-Israel forces whose real agenda is to dismantle the state of Israel altogether, nor part of the “Palestinians are always victims and Israelis are always evil” propaganda machine. Similarly, it should not be a technocratic peace voice that talks only in terms of why peace is in the interests of the Jewish people-it must affirm the humanity of the Palestinian people and acknowledge that their human rights are important to us also, not only instrumentally as a way to maximize the best interests of Jews.

You can do something about this. Challenge those who support these peace groups and insist that they get their organizations to work together with Tikkun and with each other to form a united progressive middle path voice in Washington, D.C. While recognizing that each group has legitimate needs in terms of fundraising and getting their own groups’ ego needs met, it’s also important to recognize yet a higher need: to be effective in challenging policies that are immoral and self-destructive. Insist to the people who support these organizations that they work with Tikkun, Jewish Voices for Peace, MeretzUSA, and other peace groups that support a two state solution.

The primary obstacles to putting this kind of coalition together with each other and with Tikkun have been:

1. Brit Tzedeck ve’Shalom 2. Americans for Peace Now 3.Israel Policy Forum
4. Churches for Middle East Peace

If these 4 groups would join with each other and with the Tikkun Community/NSP and with Jewish Voices for Peace to create a unified voice in Washington D.C. and a unified annual mobilization, the peace voices would be greatl strengthened. Take, for example, one instance of this: the recent National Advocacy Days of Brit Tzedeck v’Shalom, last week. In their recent national communication they proudly announce that they brought 100 activists to D.C. In our last visit, Tikkun had brought some 300 activists. We say this NOT to say we are stronger, but to say that 400 activists together would have been even better, and had we cooperated with each other and with the other groups mentioned above we probably could be bringing between 1,000 and 2,000 people at a time—and that would have a far greater impact. The differences between these groups are far less important than the similarities, and the urgency of having a coherent voice for Middle East peace should be sufficient grounds to turn attention away from the differences to focus on the similarities.....

The controversy regarding Shebaa Farms, in southern Lebanon receives coverage, but no one
has probably ever heard of it:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr...nG=Search+News

abaya · 07-14-2006, 11:26 AM

Host, thanks for the very interesting Noam Chomsky interview. I appreciated reading it.

I have heard that haaretz.com is actually a pretty good source of Israeli news (more balanced than one might expect). Thanks also for posting that link.

Xazy · 07-14-2006, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

a good graphic from the guardian concerning the sequence of events so far.
things are moving very quickly and i find it easy to grow confused.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,,1807749,00.html

this seems to me wholly nuts.
so for one israeli soldier kidnapped, it is ok to invade gaza, shut down water, electricity, cut off food and push 1.4 million people ever closer to what all but the israeli government and the ny times refer to as a humanitarian crisis.

for 2 israelis kidnapped by hizbollah, it is ok for israel to invade lebanon.

i dont follow the self-defense line being advanced by the israelis and the bush squad--i dont follow any of the logic that would explain israeli actions.

meanwhile, if you read any account that still thinks gaza worth talking about, conditions there continue to deteriorate rapidly.
so far in lebanon, israeli military actions have alreaedy killed some 50 civilians.

i dont get it.

You do not reply about the daily rocket attacks that have been going on in the past year. You do not reply about them attacking another sovereign nation.

Sorry but if you keep attacking another country, and sending in hundreds of rockets, you assault people in their country, at some point you ahve to reply back! And you can not just smack back you have to hit hard, and show the country that it is an act of war, and no matter what size of attack you are doing, you have to reign in the militants that are running and ruining your country. Abide by the rules, abide by the peace accords, abide by the UN resolutions you have to disarm the militant groups, or they will never allow peace.

djtestudo · 07-14-2006, 05:15 PM

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't Hezbelluh, the so-called "wacko group", either under the protection, or supported by, Lebenon?

If so, then I don't see a problem.

Same with the governing body of the Palestinians allowing their terrorists to attack across the Israeli border they themselves have demanded be there.

If you don't want Israel attacking you, how 'bout not allowing these attacks? Israel isn't innocent in the grand scheme of Middle East politics, but it isn't as though they are trying to expand either.

double · 07-14-2006, 05:29 PM

The situation is very disturbing, and peace has not been possible to achieve. It looks like it will not be achieved for quite some time again. Maybe fresh thinking would be needed to make decisions on both sides. It has turned in to a vicious war cycle that will not end because both the Palestinians and the Israeli have been in it for so long that the generation that is at war right now has grown up in it, and fresh thoughts and decisions are that much harder to make.

Here's probably how its going to go this time: countless people die again, the hate and fear roots deeper in the people on both sides. The outside world will interviene at somepoint and come up with a peace plan, one or the otherside strikes out something that pushes the situation in to flames again, both sides blame each other, and we're back in square one again.

I cannot belive (or actually it was'nt a surprise) how poorly Bush blurted out justifications for all these people to die. He is a very dangerous man. And the scariest thing is that so many people do not understand the implications of what comes out of that mans mouth.

This is clearly not working. Perhaps it is time to come up with some other ideas as of how to deal with the problem, instead of continuing the cycle..?

host · 07-14-2006, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't Hezbelluh, the so-called "wacko group", either under the protection, or supported by, Lebenon?

If so, then I don't see a problem.

Same with the governing body of the Palestinians allowing their terrorists to attack across the Israeli border they themselves have demanded be there.

If you don't want Israel attacking you, how 'bout not allowing these attacks? Israel isn't innocent in the grand scheme of Middle East politics, but it isn't as though they are trying to expand either.

djestudo, please read as much as you can and consider what is reported today, in the context of what has come before. Read about Jinsa, and about AIPAC.

There is much willingness to post opinion here, but there was none when I posted about Jinsa and AIPAC and their influence on what "you know that you know". <b>Please consider the contradiction in the idea that what is good for Israel is good for the U.S., because it isn't.</b> Even if you only read the following highlighted phrases, you'll be exposed to scenarios that you may never have considered. Israel is out to maximize it's return on it's own efforts and interests, at our (U.S.) expense, if necessary. It spends the money and risks the lives of some of it's smartest and boldest people to appropriate U.S> military secrets, and industrial, technical, and commercial intelligence whereever it identifies target rich environs, including and even centering on the U.S.. Read about the man who recruited and ran Jonathan Pollard, Rafi Eitan, in the article below. The man has a constituency of senior citizens in Israel whose interests he now represents in the Knessett.

Eitan's old organization, the fighters who founded the modern state of Israel, were, by their own admission, (bottom of this post...) an organization that "The Palmach also launched violent guerilla warfare against the hostile British mandatory rule and its military war machine: destroying police stations and radar installations, sinking naval vessels, mining the railroad system, demolishing the border bridges and more."

I'm waiting to be labeled as anti-semetic in a future post....and if that is what an American who endeavors to be informed, who doesn't consider another country, a wealth, prosperous, regional military power. that send it's spies to mine sensitive and classified info from my country, lobbies incessantly and quites successfully for financial aid that it could pay for without pressuring Americans to issue new bond debt and then give it to Israel in the aid that AIPAC squeezes from our congress, <b>to be the good friend to the U.S. that so many here and generally in the U.S. are sure that it is, then I will wear that label, and consider the objectivity and knowledge of those who do the labelling.....</b>
Two sides and much distortion from both of them. I'm taking all of it with a grain of salt. Israel is much stronger, selfish and more belligerent than most here, believe. The Iraeli government and electorate is much better at working in it's own best interests, more often, than the governments or the electorate of any of it's neighbors, or of the U.S. We should sudy their strategy and tactics and always examine what parts the U.S. relationship with Israel is in our interest, and what parts aren't, and act accordingly. They do that, why don't we?

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/com...821036,00.html
The framing of Hizbullah

Israel's response to its soldiers' capture is part of a hamfisted attempt to redraw the region's map

Amal Saad-Ghorayeb in Beirut
Saturday July 15, 2006
The Guardian

The capture of three Israeli soldiers by the Lebanese resistance movement, Hizbullah, to bargain for prisoner exchange should come as no surprise - least of all to Israel, which must bear its own responsibility for the abductions and is using this conflict to pursue its wider strategic aims.

<b>The prisoners Hizbullah wants released are hostages who were taken on Lebanese soil. In the successful prisoner exchange in 2004, Israel held on to three Lebanese detainees as bargaining chips and to keep the battle front with Hizbullah open. These detentions have become a cause celebre in Lebanon. In a recent poll, efforts to effect their release attracted majority support, much more even than the liberation of Shebaa Farms, the disputed corridor of land between Syria and Lebanon still occupied by Israel.

The domestic significance of these hostages is ignored by those who choose to reduce the abductions to an act of solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza.</b> Indeed Israel's media are aware of recent attempts to capture soldiers, including a botched attempt a few months ago in which three Hizbullah fighters were killed. Hizbullah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, confirmed the attack took five months to plan. Its timing was probably a coincidence. It would seem, though, Hizbullah exerts some influence over the fighters in Gaza - those who captured Corporal Shalit were at the very least inspired by Hizbullah.

The regional significance of the abductions has also been misconstrued. To suggest Hizbullah attacked on the orders of Tehran and Damascus is to grossly oversimplify a strong strategic and ideological relationship. Historically there has been an overlap of interests between Syria, Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas. Together they form a strategic axis - the "axis of terror" to Israel - that confronts US-Israeli designs to redraw the map of the region.

But the nature of that relationship has changed much over the years. Since Syrian forces left Lebanon, Hizbullah has become the stronger party. It has never allowed any foreign power to dictate its military strategy.

<b>It is ironic, given Israel's bombing of civilian targets in Beirut, that Hizbullah is often dismissed in the west as a terrorist organisation. In fact its military record is overwhelmingly one of conflict with Israeli forces inside Lebanese territory. This is just an example of the way that the west employs an entirely different definition of terrorism to the one used in the Arab world and elsewhere, where there is a recognition that terrorism can come in many forms.

The attempt to frame Hizbullah as a terrorist organisation is very far from political reality in Lebanon, from public opinion across the Arab and Islamic world, and from international law.</b>

Israel's disproportionate response to the soldiers' capture will have an impact on Lebanese domestic policy. Hizbullah has recently proposed a comprehensive national defence strategy; the Lebanese government has yet to come up with anything similarly convincing. If demands for a prisoner exchange are successful then it shows that what Hizbullah would term the logic of resistance is the most effective defence strategy. Israel's escalation has been a poor PR exercise. Even if it succeeds in showing the Lebanese people that Hizbullah can be a liability, this may well be cancelled out by Israel's own aggression, which will only confirm Hizbullah's repeated warnings of the constant threat posed by Israel.

· Amal Saad-Ghorayeb is assistant professor of political science at the Lebanese-America University. a.sghorayeb@gmail.com

Quote:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/733784.html

<b>Just a farmer in Cuba</b>
By Gideon Alon

There is something misleading about Pensioners Affairs Minister Rafi Eitan. Perhaps because he has trouble walking, has poor vision and is hard of hearing, you expect him to be unfocused and to have a poor memory. But you soon discover that his memory is excellent, his thinking is quick and his responses are very sharp.

<h3>Eitan, who turns 80 in November, remembers in great detail events that happened more than 60 years ago when he was serving in the Palmach's Yiftah Brigade.</h3> He remembers exactly what he felt when he captured Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and what Yasser Arafat told him at their meeting in 1965.

<b>Of all the topics discussed during the interview, there was only one he adamantly refused to talk about at length - his relationship with Cuban leader Fidel Castro.</b> Eitan is a partner in a company that owns vast orchards in Cuba, but when asked about the secret of his ties to Castro, he answers: "There is no secret. It's simply not true. I don't work with Castro. I'm a farmer in Cuba. All the rest are bluffs by the press."

But you met a few times.

"The company deals with agriculture in Cuba, mainly with growing vegetables and producing citrus juice concentrate at the world's largest plant. I met Castro a few times, but we're not friends."

What kind of a person is he?

"Permit me not to talk about this. I don't want to."

Rafi Eitan was born Rafael Hantman on Kibbutz Ein Harod. When he was three, his family moved to Ramat Hasharon. As a young man, he volunteered for the Palmach and took part in the Leil Hagesharim operation and in freeing illegal immigrants from Atlit. During the latter operation, he lost almost all his hearing after a mine exploded near Yagur.

After the establishment of the state, he enlisted in the Shin Bet general security service and advanced to the position of deputy chief of the operations unit. From there he made his way to the Mossad. In 1960, he commanded the operation to capture Eichmann in Argentina.

"When I held his head, the words of the partisans' song were ringing in my head, 'Please don't say this is my last journey,'" he recalled.

Eitan was a special adviser to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1975, and from 1977 was the counter-terrorism adviser to Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir. <H3>After that he served as head of the Defense Ministry's bureau for scientific relations (Lakam), an intelligence agency that worked on obtaining Western technologies for the defense industries. In this capacity he was responsible for recruiting and handling the American Jonathan Pollard, who was convicted of spying for Israel and has been in jail for 21 years now.</H3>

In 1986, he was appointed by Ariel Sharon to head Israel Chemicals, and upon his retirement in 1990, he entered the business world and became wealthy. According to various reports, he has been involved in oil deals, high-tech companies and, as mentioned, a large agricultural concern in Cuba. He has homes in Afeka and Kfar Vradim, and land in Kedumim. When he was elected to the Knesset, he transferred the management of his business interests to his son, Yuval.

<b>100 years of terrorism</b>

In 1982, you said we could expect another 100 years of terrorism. Have you changed your mind since then?

"No. It seems to me that the incident last week near Kerem Shalom proves what I said in 1982. My assessment stemmed from the structure of Palestinian society. Even today, the format is similar: there is a Hamas government, but it does not control its army; the one giving the orders is Khaled Meshal in Damascus."

"Even when Arafat built the preventive intelligence service, Fatah and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), he made sure each body would have one leadership in Palestine and one abroad. The moment the system is built this way, it has no chance of being controlled uniformly. In 1965, when I met with him, he told me that he would build a Palestinian system with many political bodies, but that each would have an independent military system, and each system would be divided into cells, and each cell would be independent - and only in that way would they have a chance of tossing the Jews into the sea."

Was it wise of Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz to order the arrest of Palestinian ministers and parliament members in order to attain the release of the soldier Gilad Shalit?

"I said in the past that in a war against terrorism, all options are permissible. I don't want to answer your question specifically, because I think any comment by a minister on this subject can only be damaging."

If you were in their place, would you have ordered the IDF to enter Gaza?

"If I had to decide, I would have thought twice about going into Gaza with a large military force, or would have waited until I had the defensive means to deal with the Qassams appropriately, something I believe the IDF will have sooner or later. As a rule, I believe that in the long race against terrorism, defense must come first. We cannot kill all of our enemies, and therefore we must defend ourselves."

Do you think that Israel should negotiate with terrorist organizations for the release of the captive soldier?

"When I was the prime minister's adviser on terrorism, I preferred first taking defensive action and only at a later stage going on the offensive."

Is the fact that Olmert and Peretz lack security experience not to our detriment at the moment?

"Why do you think that citizens are incapable of dealing with security problems? Olmert and Peretz don't need to deal with tactics; the IDF has experienced and very capable commanders, and they are the ones who should do the job."

Don't you think that the flaws uncovered in the performance of the soldiers at Kerem Shalom indicate weakening discipline and worrying basic problems?

"I'm not familiar with all the details of the incident, but to judge by those around me - in other words, my children, grandchildren and their friends - I don't see any change in their attitude toward the army compared to ours. I want to reassure you that even in my time there were failures. Even in 1948, when we were fighting for our lives, there were incidents of soldiers falling asleep on guard duty. I would not under any circumstances draw conclusions from the incident at Kerem Shalom about the army as a whole. In my opinion, our systemic failure was that we were not wise enough to create tools to discover the tunnels ahead of time."......

......How do you explain your dazzling success in the elections?

"Kadima's formation and Arik's illness created a vacuum. People phoned me two weeks before the elections, such as my friend from the Mossad, Amos Manor, who told me: I'll vote either for you or for Uzi Dayan's list, whoever is going to pass the threshold. Apparently, my image was more appealing than Uzi Dayan's."

Do you really believe that the fact that someone like you headed the Pensioners' list is what gave the Gil party its big push?

<b>"If someone like me were not at the head of the party, we wouldn't have won seven seats." ........</b>

........How do you relate to the actions against you by the Public Committee to Free Jonathan Pollard - the appeal to the High Court of Justice against your appointment as a minister and the demonstrations in front of your home?

"With equanimity. These demonstrations are of no value. They don't help Pollard and they don't hurt me. This activity against me stems from a deep lack of understanding of the current situation."

They claim you did not act with the necessary diligence to free him from prison.

"That is not true. I was active on behalf of Pollard's release. Twenty years ago I openly stated that I accepted responsibility for his imprisonment. I did not place the blame on anyone else. When you engage in intelligence work, there are also failures."

Quote:

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

......The Palmach in Politics and Culture

The Palmach was a left-wing organisation, associated with left-wing parties. Its members trained and lived in Kibbutzim, which were generally left-sympathetic. The political tendencies of its leaders such as Yigal Allon and Yitzhak Sadeh, was towards Mapam a left-wing party in opposition to David Ben-Gurion and the Mapai ruling party. Those tendencies caused Ben-Gurion to order the dissolving of Palmach in 1948.

Palmach members were not, however, a unified, homogeneous collective with a single ideology. In the early years of the state of Israel they could be found in all political parties.

Yigal Allon, considered by many to be the representative of the Palmach generation, never properly reached a position of national leadership, although he was Prime Minister for a few days between Eshkol's death and Meir's appointment in 1969. He died in 1980.

The best known Palmachnik in Israeli politics was Yitzchak Rabin of the Israeli Labour party. Others included Moshe Dayan, Chaim Bar-Lev and Mordechay Gur.

Palmachniks can be found everywhere in Israeli politics. Besides left-wing activists such as Mati Peled, Yair Tsaban and Shulamit Aloni,<h3> Palmach veterans include right-wing extremists such as Rehavam Zeevi and Rafael Eitan........</h3>

Quote:

http://www.palmach.org.il/show_item....798&itemType=0

The Palmach (Hebrew abbreviation of Plugot Mahatz – פלוגות מחץ) was the elite striking force of the “Hagana” – the underground military organization of the Jewish community, its national institutions and the Zionist Movement prior to the establishment of the State of Israel.

The Palmach was founded in May 1941
(World War II) in order to help the British to
defend the country (then Palestine) against the
approaching German armies. In the fall of 1942,
as the threat of invasion receded, the British
authorities ordered the dismantling of the Palmach,
which caused it to go underground. It became a fully
mobilized voluntary force consisting of young men
and women, organized in six platoons and in special
companies: the “Palyam” (marine force),
the “Germans”, the “Arabs”, the aviators, and
the paratroopers who landed behind the German
lines in occupied Europe. The Palmach units were
stationed in Kibbutzim, where they underwent
military training but also worked on the farms,
14 days a month in order to support themselves.
They did not idolize military attributes but created unique social and cultural life.

From the summer of 1945 until the end of 1947, when the British administration suppressed the Jewish settlement movement and blocked Jewish immigration into the country, the Palmach was engaged in bringing 65 ships with tens of thousands of Jewish refugees and Holocaust survivors from Europe (Haapala - העפלה) illegally. <h3>The Palmach also launched violent guerilla warfare against the hostile British mandatory rule and its military war machine: destroying police stations and radar installations, sinking naval vessels, mining the railroad system, demolishing the border bridges and more.</h3>

At the same time, anticipating the withdrawal of the British and the subsequent Arab military uprisings, preparations were made to counter the attacks of local Arabs and of neighboring countries.

Following the U.N. decision of November 29, 1947 to partition Palestine, Arab armed gangs blocked the roads and besieged Jewish towns, including Jerusalem. At the time 2,200 Palmach fighters were the only force ready to engage in battle, though they were poorly armed. As the War of Independence unfolded, they operated all over the country, liberating Jerusalem and other besieged towns, conquering territories, opening roads and, with the newly organized “Hagana” troops, defeated the invading armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. They fought valiantly but suffered many casualties – over 1,168 dead and hundreds wounded.

Upon the declaration of the State of Israel, May 15, 1948, ZAHAL, the Israel Defense Army (IDF) was established, founded on the infrastructure of the “Hagana” and its striking force, the Palmach. The three brigades – Harel, Yiftach and HaNegev, reinforced by new immigrants – were considered the elite units of the IDF until the end of the War of Independence.....

powerclown · 07-15-2006, 07:17 AM

Israeli lobbies do not determine US foreign policy imo.
American interests in the region drive US foreign policy, as self-interest governs every other countrys' foreign policies.

Israeli and American views converge on many issues, they share many of the same values and interests. Israel is also a multicultural society (a nation of immigrants), with a commitment to democracy, freedom of assemble/speech/press, an independent judiciary, free elections with diverse parties, and are among the highest educated in the world. There are many programs that capitalize on the two nations' shared values, such as environment, energy, space, occupational safety and health. Israel also acts as a military deterrent, intelligence partner, and R&D partner in a region dominated by autocratic regimes.

***

CONFUSING THE ISSUE: MEARSHEIMER & WALT'S "THE ISRAEL LOBBY"
by Libby Frank
Member, Leadership Team, Women Challenge U.S. Policy: Building Peace on Justice in the Middle East (Women's Int'l. League for Peace and Freedom)

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of the paper, "The Israel Lobby," hold leading positions in American academic life. The paper is provoking great interest in political and activist circles and provides an opportunity to clarify issues of the "Israel Lobby" and U.S. policy.

The authors' vivid descriptions of oppressive Israeli actions and the billions of dollars of U.S. tax money that go to Israel are accurate and do need public airing. Successful efforts to keep the U.S. public ignorant of what is going on in the Middle East and the control of debate on these issues have also been accurately exposed here.

However, there are many problems in the paper. I focus here on only a few.

1. The exoneration of U.S. from responsibility for its own foreign policy.

2. The definition of the "Israel Lobby."

3. Claims of no benefits to U.S. from Israel.

4. The "Jewish Face" of the Israel Lobby.

Most important, the authors (henceforth M-W) dismiss claims that the U.S. government's imperialist, repressive moves in the Middle East are an integral part of its overall foreign policy. According to them, the "Israel Lobby" is to blame.

Noam Chomsky faults the paper, writing "that it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility."1

Does Israel "divert" U.S. policy from "what its national interest would suggest" as stated by M-W, or do the interest of the right-wing Israeli government coincide with those of the U.S.?

Diverse voices around the world challenge the idea that the Lobby is responsible for U.S. policy vis a vis Israel. Following are some of the most eloquent:

From Vijay Prashad in the online version of The Hindu (India)

"AIPAC AND AJC [the American Jewish Committee] are powerful, but they do not determine U.S. foreign policy. They are powerful not just because of their money, but because their views converge with those of the neo-conservative elements who dominate the ruling coalition in Washington." 2

"US geostrategic interest in a strong Israel has been considerable for a long time. The idea that after WWII the US or any other major power would allow independent Arab governments to emerge and control their own oil resources is simply not credible." 3

From Joseph Massad, Faculty Member at Columbia, in Al-Ahram Weekly;

"Is the pro-Israel lobby extremely powerful in the United States? As someone who has been facing the full brunt of their power for the last three years through their formidable influence on my own university and their attempts to get me fired, I answer with a resounding yes. Are they primarily responsible for US policies towards the Palestinians and the Arab world? Absolutely not." 4

From the Palestine Solidarity Committee (USA);

"There is no evidence of a centralized international conspiracy of Jews to control banks, media, Congress, or the world in general....

"We find hints of this stereotype in the insistence that U.S. support for Israel is entirely due to the influence of the so-called 'Jewish lobby'....Furthermore, there are several other powerful factions that pressure the US government to support the Israeli government, such as right-wing Christian groups...and the Aerospace Industry Association (AIA). The AIA, promoting sales of weapons and equipment to Israel, donates twice as much to political campaigns in this country as all the pro-Israel groups combined." 5

M-W state that since 1967, the "centrepiece of the US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel." That relationship is not explained except as it is determined by the "Israel Lobby."

They allege that "... the Bush administration's ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at improving Israel's strategic situation." This, too, according to M-W, is explained only by the Israel Lobby.

That "Lobby" is defined by M-W as "shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction...Many of the key organisations in the Lobby, such as the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organisations, are run by hardliners who generally support the Likud Party's expansionist policies....The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals...and 'neo-conservative gentiles'...."

But a major omission from their definition is the powerful role of the weapons manufacturers and their lobby – namely the Aerospace Industry Association (AIA).

The profits from arms sales to the Middle East by members of the AIA are tremendous. Omitting this aspect obscures the drive by the U.S. for hegemony in the region. It appears that M-W do not see this drive by the U.S. as a problem.

The AIA itself proudly acknowledges its role: "...it is assumed that for any potential sale of U.S. defense equipment, a decision has already been made that such a sale would be consistent with U.S. foreign policy interests...." 6

M-W state that "The US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets...." But this is not due to the "Israel Lobby" as defined by M-W. They don't mention the lobbying efforts by Sikorsky, the manufacturer of the Black Hawks, or Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the F-16s.

"Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company is the world's largest "defense" contractor. In 2001, Israel decided to purchase 52 additional F-16 fighter jets. The contract value was reported to be approximately $1.3 billion..." 7 It has donated over $1 million to members of the US government committees responsible for awarding defence contracts, and in return has been rewarded with orders from the US federal government that are worth $65 million per day....There is also a 'revolving door' between the company and the Bush administration, with personnel working for Lockheed Martin moving to the Pentagon, and vice versa." 8

The producer of Blackhawk helicopters, "Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation. In February 2001, Sikorsky was awarded a $211.8 million contract for 24 additional Black Hawk helicopters to serve the Israeli Air Force."7

"These companies targeted members of House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees, which allocate federal defense money, and the Armed Service committees. Both companies spend heavily on lobbyists in Washington." 8

Can we imagine that Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin don't have vested interests in U.S. foreign policy? Yet M-W make absolutely no mention of this kind of influence and it is not included in their definition of the Israel lobby.

M-W express concern that the U.S. isn't getting its money's worth from Israel, but they ignore benefits the U.S. currently receives from Israel. While giving a good account of past assistance and cooperation with U.S. foreign policy, M-W tacitly convey the idea that currently it's a one-way street. That is, that the U.S. is completely supporting Israel and getting nothing worthwhile in return.

But there are many ways Israel helps U.S. aggression today. Two right-wing governments are supporting each other and gaining from each other.

As Joseph Massad has written in Al Ahram, "...it is in fact the very centrality of Israel to US strategy in the Middle East that accounts, in part, for the strength of the pro-Israel lobby and not the other way around.... The fact that it is more powerful than any other foreign lobby on Capitol Hill testifies to the importance of Israel in US strategy and not to some fantastical power that the lobby commands independent of and extraneous to the US 'national interest' The pro-Israel lobby could not sell its message... if Israel was a communist or anti-imperialist country or if Israel opposed US policy elsewhere n the world." 4

Douglas Feith, currently U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, once explained that "...Israel has formidable military forces, intelligence capabilities, militarily relevant R&D skills, strategically located ports and airfields, training facilities, medical infrastructure, and high-quality equipment maintenance skills. Israel willingly allows the U.S. to benefit from all this. Without Israel, the U.S. couldn't duplicate these benefits in the Middle East, even if we spent many billions of dollars."10

Today, Israel is actively providing aid to the U.S. in Iraq.

In the words of an Associated Press release, "After decades of U.S. military aid and defense cooperation, the U.S. military is permeated by technology developed in Israel." 11

A remarkable story in the Los Angeles Times has recently reported on the advice and support that the U.S. receives from Israel on how to fight the insurgency in Iraq. Here are some excerpts.

"In the last six months, U.S. Army commanders, Pentagon officials and military trainers have sought advice from Israeli intelligence and security officials on everything from how to set up roadblocks to the best way to bomb suspected guerrilla hide-outs in an urban area.

"Israeli and American officials confirm that ... the Pentagon is increasingly seeking advice from the Israeli military on how to defeat the sort of insurgency that Israel has long experience confronting.

"The Israelis 'certainly have a wealth of experience from a military standpoint in dealing with domestic terror, urban terror, military operations in urban terrain, and there is a great deal of intelligence and knowledge sharing going on right now, all of which makes sense,' a senior U.S. Army official said on condition of anonymity. 'We are certainly tapping into their knowledge base to find out what you do in these kinds of situations.'"

"Many of the tactics recently adopted by the U.S. in Iraq – increased use of airpower, aerial surveillance by unmanned aircraft of suspected sites, increased use of pinpoint search and seizure operations, the leveling of buildings used by suspected insurgents – bear striking similarities to those regularly employed by Israel.

"In the last week, U.S. soldiers began leveling houses and buildings used by suspected guerillas, a tactic long employed by the Israeli military in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.... The Americans learned a lot from the Israelis' use of [bulldozers] in urban combat." 12

In addition to weapons manufacturers, there are oil interests tied in with the administration. These interests are dismissed by M-W, saying "there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim," that is, concern for oil.

One must also consider the gendarme role that nuclear-armed Israel plays in the region, a consideration completely ignored by M-W.

Let's be clear. Criticism of Israeli government policy or repressive actions is not anti-Semitic. But when one speaks of the "Israel Lobby," it resounds as the "Jewish Lobby." M-W, focusing on Jewish lobby groups, add to that perception.

Mitchell Plitnick, of Jewish Voice for Peace, explains: "One of the classic anti-Semitic myths is that of Jews manipulating governments and other seats of power behind the scenes. That pretty closely describes the work of a lobby, and there is a powerful one, with a Jewish face, working to push particular policies regarding Israel. We need to understand that lobby, what its effect is, and what its nature is. That means asking, directly and fairly, is this a 'Jewish lobby', and does this truly have the power to be a tail wagging the dog of American Middle East policy?.... Jewish 'shadow control' is an old canard of anti-Semitism." 3

And Vijay Prashad in Frontline (India) continues "The idea of the 'Jewish lobby' is attractive because it draws upon at least a few hundred years of anti-Semitic worry about an international conspiracy operated by Jewish financiers to defraud the European and American working poor of their livelihood. ... The stereotype of a 'Jew' without a country, but with a bank, had no loyalty to the nation, no solidarity with fellow citizens .... The Nazis stigmatised the 'Jew' as the reason for poverty and exploitation and obscured the role played by capitalism...."

It is important to realize that U.S., policy is no more altruistic in the Middle East than it is anywhere else in the world. The U.S. doesn't need an Israel Lobby to tell it how to conduct its own dirty business.

Many readers of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper are angry and frustrated by the one-sided policies of the U.S. government and their echo in the corporate media. And many have welcomed the articulate exposé by M-W of elements in the Israel Lobby.

But what is presented relieves the U.S. government of almost all responsibility for its misdeeds in the region. Thinking progressive activists cannot accept this thesis.

roachboy · 07-15-2006, 10:03 AM

here are two blog based in the gaza strip:

http://fromgaza.blogspot.com/
http://a-mother-from-gaza.blogspot.com/

both are terribly sad. both are well worth reading.

djtestudo · 07-15-2006, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

djestudo, please read as much as you can and consider what is reported today, in the context of what has come before. Read about Jinsa, and about AIPAC.

Host, those have absolutely nothing to do with anything I said, nor with what I asked.

As opposed to this, which tells me everything I need to know.

Quote:

quoted from Wikipedia
Hezbollah or Hizbullah[1] (Arabic omgحزب الله‬, meaning Party of God) is a militant, radical, Lebanese Islamist group, with a military arm and a civilian arm, founded in 1982 to fight the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon.

Along with the Amal movement, Hezbollah is the main militant organization representing the Shia community, Lebanon's largest religious bloc. Founded with the aid of Iran and funded by it, it follows the distinctly Shiite Islamist ideology developed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. It calls for the establishment of an Islamic state in Lebanon, on the principle of sovereignty of the jurisconsult, although recognizing that this could only come about with the consensus of the Lebanese people.

The civilian wing of Hezbollah runs hospitals, news services, and educational facilities and participates in the Lebanese Parliament. Its Reconstruction Campaign (Jihad al-Bina) is responsible for numerous economic and infrastructural development projects in Shia-populated areas of Lebanon.

Hezbollah is regarded by some in the Arab and Muslim worlds, such as the Iranian and Syrian governments, as a legitimate resistance movement and is a recognized political party in Lebanon, where it has participated in government.

However, as it initiates attacks against civilians in Israel and ideologically supports such attacks by other organizations, such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas, and many governments, including the United States, have designated it a terrorist organization(*).

On March 10, 2005, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to adopt a resolution that stated `Parliament considers that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities on the part of Hezbollah and that the EU Council should take all necessary steps to curtail them.'

Sounds to me like it is essentially the same thing as Hamas: a terrorist organization masquarading as a political party.

I have no doubt that there are innocent people involved here. However, I also have no doubt that there are a hell of a lot of guilty people as well, and to ignore the guilty would be sending a terrible message to anyone who wants to protect the innocent.

host · 07-15-2006, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't Hezbelluh, the so-called "wacko group", either under the protection, or supported by, Lebenon?

If so, then I don't see a problem.

Same with the governing body of the Palestinians allowing their terrorists to attack across the Israeli border they themselves have demanded be there.

If you don't want Israel attacking you, how 'bout not allowing these attacks? Israel isn't innocent in the grand scheme of Middle East politics, but it isn't as though they are trying to expand either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Host, those have absolutely nothing to do with anything I said, nor with what I asked.

As opposed to this, which tells me everything I need to know.

Sounds to me like it is essentially the same thing as Hamas: a terrorist organization masquarading as a political party.

I have no doubt that there are innocent people involved here. However, I also have no doubt that there are a hell of a lot of guilty people as well, and to ignore the guilty would be sending a terrible message to anyone who wants to protect the innocent.

djtestudo, I am not trying to "single you out", but because of your comments, in both of your most recent posts, I consider your views a proxy for several posters who, IMO, could have posted similar statements to the ones you did.

Before you posted your "wacko" question, in regard to Hezbelluh, I posted Noam Chomsky's interview, it was displayed on this thread, a day ago. I posted the preface:

Quote:

* Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics and philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is author of dozens of books, including his latest "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy." <b>In May he traveled to Beirut where he met, among others, Hezbollah leader Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah.</b> He joins us on the line from Massachusetts......

Chomsky also stated:

Quote:

.....At the same time, it's partly in Gaza, and sort of hidden in a way, but even more extreme in the West Bank, where Olmert announced his annexation program, what’s euphemistically called “convergence” and described here often as a “withdrawal,”
but in fact it’s a formalization of the program of annexing the valuable lands, most of the resources, including water, of the West Bank and cantonizing the rest and imprisoning it, since he also announced that Israel would take over the Jordan Valley.......

.......The United States regards Israel AS VIRTUALLY A MILITARIZED OFFSHOOT, and it protects it from criticism or actions and supports passively and, in fact, overtly supports its expansion, its attacks on Palestinians, its progressive takeover of what remains of Palestinian territory, and its acts to, well, actually realize a comment that Moshe Dayan made back in the early ’70s when he was responsible for the Occupied Territories. He said to his cabinet colleagues that we should tell the Palestinians that we have no solution for you, that you will live like dogs, and whoever will leave will leave, and we'll see where that leads. That's basically the policy. And I presume the U.S. will continue to advance that policy in one or another fashion......

Now....Chomsky isn't God, but he is the only voice who I have some respect for, who just met with Hezbollah leader Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah in the last two months. Chomsky's comments could have impressed you enough to preclude the following comments in your post that I responded to, but your comments indicated to me, that you were unimpressed with Chomsky's opinions, because you posted, in addition to your "question", this:

Quote:

...Israel isn't innocent in the grand scheme of Middle East politics, <b>but it isn't as though they are trying to expand either.....</b>

djtestudo, most of the region is arid, uncultivated, uninhabitable desert. I thought Chomsky's statement regarding control by Israel of water and of the Jordan (as in...."river"...) Valley, and his quoting of Moshe Dayan, contradicted your "expand either" opinion, before you posted it.

I responded to you with:

Quote:

Eitan's old organization, the fighters who founded the modern state of Israel, were, by their own admission, (bottom of this post...) an organization that "The Palmach also launched violent guerilla warfare against the hostile British mandatory rule and its military war machine: destroying police stations and radar installations, sinking naval vessels, mining the railroad system, demolishing the border bridges and more."

and yet...you came back with this statement:

Quote:

Sounds to me like it is essentially the same thing as Hamas: a terrorist organization masquarading as a political party.

Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Palmach of the founders of the modern state of Israel. Hamas and the Palmach leaders have been elected in democratic elections. Hezbollah has a charasmatic leader and has popular backing that will probably insert it's politcal wing into the Lebanese Parliament.

Consider that Hezbollah has controlled southern Lebanon since before the present Lebanese government, and it's army, existed. Consider that IDF has been unsuccessful, even with all of it's might and resources, in dislodging Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. How successful has the U.S. military been in it's attempts to dislodge insurgents from Anbar province, in Iraq? It's fine to recite opinions about the shortcomings of the flegling Lebanese government, when it comes to their ability or desire to dislodge the armed guerillas of Hezbollah from the territory that they have defended and died to hold for 25 years. Again, it's a simplistic response, and excuse that justifies a bias towards Israel. I endeavor to acquire and maintain a more accurate opinion.
In 1967 and in 1973, I was squarely on the "side" of Israel. I can't just do that, anymore. It would not be an opinion that "fits the facts".

All have used terror against civilians as a tactic to achieve their goals. To simply side with the most successful of the three groups, Palmach, and to label their successors as less violent and more legitimate, especially considering the current IDF rampage on two fronts, is simplistic and indefensible, IMO.

Please read the follwoing excerpts from an article in my last post:

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/com...821036,00.html
The capture of three Israeli soldiers by the Lebanese resistance movement, Hizbullah, to bargain for prisoner exchange should come as no surprise - least of all to Israel, which must bear its own responsibility for the abductions and is using this conflict to pursue its wider strategic aims.

The prisoners Hizbullah wants released are hostages who were taken on Lebanese soil. In the successful prisoner exchange in 2004, Israel held on to three Lebanese detainees as bargaining chips and to keep the battle front with Hizbullah open. These detentions have become a cause celebre in Lebanon. In a recent poll, efforts to effect their release attracted majority support, much more even than the liberation of Shebaa Farms, the disputed corridor of land between Syria and Lebanon still occupied by Israel.

The domestic significance of these hostages is ignored by those who choose to reduce the abductions to an act of solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. Indeed Israel's media are aware of recent attempts to capture soldiers, including a botched attempt a few months ago in which three Hizbullah fighters were killed. Hizbullah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, confirmed the attack took five months to plan. Its timing was probably a coincidence. It would seem, though, Hizbullah exerts some influence over the fighters in Gaza - those who captured Corporal Shalit were at the very least inspired by Hizbullah.....

......But the nature of that relationship has changed much over the years. Since Syrian forces left Lebanon, Hizbullah has become the stronger party. It has never allowed any foreign power to dictate its military strategy.

It is ironic, given Israel's bombing of civilian targets in Beirut, that Hizbullah is often dismissed in the west as a terrorist organisation. In fact its military record is overwhelmingly one of conflict with Israeli forces inside Lebanese territory. This is just an example of the way that the west employs an entirely different definition of terrorism to the one used in the Arab world and elsewhere, where there is a recognition that terrorism can come in many forms.

The attempt to frame Hizbullah as a terrorist organisation is very far from political reality in Lebanon, from public opinion across the Arab and Islamic world, and from international law....

Consider that none of this strife started in 2006, or in 1973, or in 1967. Consider that some Israelis put a higher priority on the rule of law than the officials of their own government, and are more sympatheitc to the circumstances of innocent Palestinians than some of the Americans who post,
here at TFP politics:

Quote:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/734705.html
Last update - 08:37 05/07/2006
Ministry admits 'blacklist' of Palestinians who left W. Bank
By Akiva Eldar

......The property has been used to establish settlements and military bases in the Jordan Valley.

The blacklist began with 100 people, but swelled to over 2,000 by late 2004, when Brigadier General Ilan Paz, then-commander of the army's Judea and Samaria (West Bank) District, ordered that no new names be added henceforth. Palestinians on the list who sought to rejoin their families in the territories, or even to come on brief visits, were refused permission "for security reasons."

Following a report on the blacklist published in Haaretz on March 14, the head of Meretz's Knesset faction, Zahava Gal-On, demanded a response from Defense Minister Amir Peretz. Tuesday, Gal-On received a letter from Peretz's bureau which said that the practice of "approving the entry of Palestinians on the basis of the background described above has been canceled.......

......According to a 2005 State Comptroller's Report, thousands of dunams of "Palestinian-owned lands were allocated to Jewish settlements in the Jordan Valley" during the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. Numerous ministers, senior government officials, and officials of the World Zionist Organization's Settlement Division were involved in this process.

By law, however, property owned by absentee Palestinians was supposed to be held in trust by the Civil Administration's Director of Government Property, a representative of the Custodian General. <b>Such land could not legally be used for settlements, and it could be used for security purposes only if an official expropriation order were issued.</b>

But according to military sources, a significant portion of the Jordan Valley settlements were established on land owned by Palestinian absentees. Parts of the absentees' lands were also given to local Palestinians in exchange for their lands, which were than transferred to the settlements.

In a legal opinion drafted in October 2003, <b>the legal adviser for Judea and Samaria warned that the use of these lands was illegal, and suggested that the government find a way to resolve the problem, since if it ended up in court,</b> "it would not benefit the state in any way, and would cause a chain reaction that would endanger the entire fabric of the relevant settlements' lan."

I'm not directing all of what was in my previous towards you, per se, djtestudo. I am trying to show you why I mentioned your name, at all.

In modern times, the collapse of the Ottoman empire, ninety years ago, is the catalyst for what we observe in the middle east, today, As the victors in WWI, Britain and France called the shots in it's aftermath. British strategists drew the borders in Palestine and in Iraq. From non-left leaning democrats, on one end of the U.S. politcal spectrum, to <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTYzNGM3YjY3ZDk4NWUwYWI5YTJmNDM1MDMzMzExNjc=">Michael Ledeen</a> on the other, Americans mostly supported the Bush policy regarding Iraq and Israel. Indeed, if the following is any indication, this sentiment is still alive and well:

Quote:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...cxMDI0YzEwMjA=
Saturday, July 15, 2006

The Administration [John Podhoretz]
I'm at a total loss to understand Mike Ledeen's blast at the Bush administration for the way it's handling the Israel crisis. John Bolton works for Condi Rice, and has been making brilliant statements at the U.N. and vetoed an evil Security Council resolution. Mike, you can't think Bolton is acting alone here. The Bush foreign-policy team has, in effect, given Israel a green light by saying it has the right to defend itself but not to be disproportionate — which is code for saying what Israel has done so far is not disproportionate. <b>Once again the Bush administration has proved itself the best friend Israel has ever had — and, relative to almost any other administration one could think of, standing up to appeasing world opinion here in a very resolute manner.</b>What Mike proposes sounds wonderful in theory but is something only a president in a fantasy novel would actually do. What this president is doing in actuality deserves praise, not brickbats.

I lsitened to Sean Hannity yesterday make a similar statment as Podhoretz does, above. They both assume (or whoever writes the TP's for both of them, assumes....) that having and asserting (with force, if there is even a one percent chance....according to Ron Suskind's new book...) an opnion about Israel, Iraq, or just about anything political, that is contrary to the opinion of statesmen and populations in the rest of the world, is a sign of superior wisdom, strategy, possession of the moral "high ground".

It looks to me, though that this is bullshit, and that it has been so, as long as any of us in America have been alive. Consider now that the verdict is coming in, like it or not....who was more accurate in his assessment on March 7, 2003, GW Bush, Mr. Powell, Mr.Tenet, Mr. Cheney, or....French PM Mr. De Villepin:

Quote:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_...82752441633846
....How could anyone have known back then that invading Iraq was going to be a mistake wrought with negative consequences?

The speech that follows was surely heard by the key planners in America, including everyone in the White House. It was delivered to the United Nations Security Council just days before the Iraq invasion. The speaker used the same reports and evidence available to the US. Note how accurate his comments were:

- He correctly ascertains the degree to which Iraq represented a threat to the world, and to its neighbors.

- He identifies the convergence of international institutions as the reckoning force that was successfully disarming Iraq.

- He debunks the Iraq / al Qaeda link.

- He predicts that innocent families would suffer.

- He forecasts the postwar carnage.

- And, he zeroes in on the Bush administration's disingenuous motives for war.

He did all this before the Iraq invasion; ....

Excerpts of De Villepin's speech to the UN follows, at the link in the preceding quote box. Our leaders and many of our country men were wrong, when it came to justifying and executing the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This thread is an example, IMO, that we still don't all fucking "get it".
<b>How many more times, in matters of where to project armed force, and who to align ourselves with, will the French be right and the POTUS be wrong?</b> 62 years ago today, France was not even yet returned to being a sovereign country. Now, they are smarter than we are? What is this neocon mindset that sez that a sign that we are right is when the rest of the world disagress with us? The days when the U.S. stood alone behind Israel, are over. Israel provides for itself, quite adequately. Are we doing the same for ourselves?

james t kirk · 07-16-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

okay...

being of lebanese heritage myself i ask myself how the israeli government can get away with the murder of innocent people, whilst the entire world and the 'champion of peace' (aka the USA) actually condone such blatant acts of war.

You mean you don't know.

Ok, Iwill tell you.

Because in American politics there are 3 ethnic groups that can bring down an administration and they are known as the three I's

Ireland
Italy
Israel

Notice Lebanon does not start with the letter I.

To put it simply, Bush, or whoever for that matter in the USA congress is pandering to the powerful Israeli lobby. Go against them and you will feel their very real rath.

Simple.

I heard a statistic once on Politically incorrect that a Palestinian spokeswoman threw out to which Bill Maher had no response and it speaks volumes.

For every Israeli killed by Palestinian suicide bombers, or in any other fashion for that matter, Israeli forces have killed 9 Palestinians.

Sobering.

So, you can blah blah blah about how the Palestinians are murderous bastards blowing up discos and the rest, the fact of the matter is that way more Palestinians have paid the price than have ever Israelis. Whether it's a suicide bomber on a bus in Tel Aviv, or a missile launched at a refugee camp, you are just as dead. I fail to see the distinction in the manner in which one person or the other is killed in the name of turf. (Which is what all this boils down to.)

I guess you can decide for yourself who has gotten the short end of the stick.

Xazy · 07-16-2006, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk

So, you can blah blah blah about how the Palestinians are murderous bastards blowing up discos and the rest, the fact of the matter is that way more Palestinians have paid the price than have ever Israelis. Whether it's a suicide bomber on a bus in Tel Aviv, or a missile launched at a refugee camp, you are just as dead. I fail to see the distinction in the manner in which one person or the other is killed in the name of turf. (Which is what all this boils down to.)

I guess you can decide for yourself who has gotten the short end of the stick.

Hmm yes you can now bleh bleh about the hundreds of rockets being shot at you throughout the year. You can bleh bleh about how they have done nothing since the withdrawl except re-arm the militants, and you can bleh bleh about how they attacked a neighboring countrys military base and bleh bleh kidnapped a soldier... did i forget to bleh bleh about them putting in control of the government a terrorist organization that bleh blehed ran the operation causing this last issue... so bleh bleh now to that as well.

Might as well add, my neighbor was walking in Jerusalem, with a friend, when an arab walked up to him, and stabbed him in the chest, he had a punctured lung and had to be in the hospital for a couple of weeks. He is a US citizen (this happened a few years ago). My sister who lives there is a US citizen. Did I call my congressmen, you bet. I do not care what you say about lobby etc... But I always vote, and I always vote person never party, so if they care about my vote, then they will reflect what my views are. Welcome to Democracy.

host · 07-16-2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

Hmm yes you can now bleh bleh about the hundreds of rockets being shot at you throughout the year. You can bleh bleh about how they have done nothing since the withdrawl except re-arm the militants, and you can bleh bleh about how they attacked a neighboring countrys military base and bleh bleh kidnapped a soldier... did i forget to bleh bleh about them putting in control of the government a terrorist organization that bleh blehed ran the operation causing this last issue... so bleh bleh now to that as well.....

Xazy, I'm sure that the "juice" you add to the mix by alerting your congressman to look after U.S. support for the defense of Israel, is but a small and not all that necessary a gesture in the scheme of things......JINSA has Israel's back, with this fine supporting cast:

Quote:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html
How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington – and Launched a War
by Michael Lind
April 10, 2003

America's allies and enemies alike are baffled. What is going on in the United States? Who is making foreign policy? And what are they trying to achieve? Quasi-Marxist explanations involving big oil or American capitalism are mistaken. Yes, American oil companies and contractors will accept the spoils of the kill in Iraq. But the oil business, with its Arabist bias, did not push for this war any more than it supports the Bush administration's close alliance with Ariel Sharon. Further, President Bush and Vice President Cheney are not genuine "Texas oil men" but career politicians who, in between stints in public life, would have used their connections to enrich themselves as figureheads in the wheat business, if they had been residents of Kansas, or in tech companies, had they been Californians.

Equally wrong is the theory that the American and European civilizations are evolving in opposite directions. The thesis of Robert Kagan, the neoconservative propagandist, that Americans are martial and Europeans pacifist, is complete nonsense. A majority of Americans voted for either Al Gore or Ralph Nader in 2000. Were it not for the overrepresentation of sparsely populated, right-wing states in both the presidential electoral college and the Senate, the White House and the Senate today would be controlled by Democrats, whose views and values, on everything from war to the welfare state, are very close to those of western Europeans.

Both the economic-determinist theory and the clash-of-cultures theory are reassuring: They assume that the recent revolution in U.S. foreign policy is the result of obscure but understandable forces in an orderly world. The truth is more alarming. As a result of several bizarre and unforeseeable contingencies – such as the selection rather than election of George W. Bush, and Sept. 11 – the foreign policy of the world's only global power is being made by a small clique that is unrepresentative of either the U.S. population or the mainstream foreign policy establishment.

The core group now in charge consists of neoconservative defense intellectuals. (They are called "neoconservatives" because many of them started off as anti-Stalinist leftists or liberals before moving to the far right.) Inside the government, the chief defense intellectuals include Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense. He is the defense mastermind of the Bush administration; Donald Rumsfeld is an elderly figurehead who holds the position of defense secretary only because Wolfowitz himself is too controversial. Others include Douglas Feith, No. 3 at the Pentagon; Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a Wolfowitz protégé who is Cheney's chief of staff; John R. Bolton, a right-winger assigned to the State Department to keep Colin Powell in check; and Elliott Abrams, recently appointed to head Middle East policy at the National Security Council. On the outside are James Woolsey, the former CIA director, who has tried repeatedly to link both 9/11 and the anthrax letters in the U.S. to Saddam Hussein, and Richard Perle, who has just resigned his unpaid chairmanship of a defense department advisory body after a lobbying scandal. Most of these "experts" never served in the military. But their headquarters is now the civilian defense secretary's office, where these Republican political appointees are despised and distrusted by the largely Republican career soldiers.

Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party's tactics, including preventive warfare such as Israel's 1981 raid on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for "democracy." They call their revolutionary ideology "Wilsonianism" (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as the Palestinians.

The neocon defense intellectuals, as well as being in or around the actual Pentagon, are at the center of a metaphorical "pentagon" of the Israel lobby and the religious right, plus conservative think tanks, foundations and media empires. Think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) provide homes for neocon "in-and-outers" when they are out of government (Perle is a fellow at AEI). The money comes not so much from corporations as from decades-old conservative foundations, such as the Bradley and Olin foundations, which spend down the estates of long-dead tycoons. Neoconservative foreign policy does not reflect business interests in any direct way. The neocons are ideologues, not opportunists.

The major link between the conservative think tanks and the Israel lobby is the Washington-based and Likud-supporting <h3>Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa),</h3> which co-opts many non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew out the retired general Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq. In October 2000, he cosigned a Jinsa letter that began: "We ... believe that during the current upheavals in Israel, the Israel Defense Forces have exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of [the] Palestinian Authority."

The Israel lobby itself is divided into Jewish and Christian wings. Wolfowitz and Feith have close ties to the Jewish-American Israel lobby. Wolfowitz, who has relatives in Israel, has served as the Bush administration's liaison to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Feith was given an award by the Zionist Organization of America, citing him as a "pro-Israel activist." While out of power in the Clinton years, Feith collaborated with Perle to coauthor a policy paper for Likud that advised the Israeli government to end the Oslo peace process, reoccupy the territories, and crush Yasser Arafat's government.

Such experts are not typical of Jewish-Americans, who mostly voted for Gore in 2000. The most fervent supporters of Likud in the Republican electorate are Southern Protestant fundamentalists. The religious right believes that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews, and fundamentalist congregations spend millions to subsidize Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

The final corner of the neoconservative pentagon is occupied by several right-wing media empires, with roots – odd as it seems – in the British Commonwealth and South Korea. Rupert Murdoch disseminates propaganda through his Fox television network. His magazine, the Weekly Standard – edited by William Kristol, the former chief of staff of Dan Quayle (vice president, 1989-1993) – acts as a mouthpiece for defense intellectuals such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and Woolsey as well as for Sharon's government. The National Interest (of which I was executive editor, 1991-1994) is now funded by Conrad Black, who owns the Jerusalem Post and the Hollinger empire in Britain and Canada.

Strangest of all is the media network centered on the Washington Times – owned by the South Korean messiah (and ex-convict) the Rev. Sun Myung Moon – which owns the newswire UPI. UPI is now run by John O'Sullivan, the ghostwriter for Margaret Thatcher who once worked as an editor for Conrad Black in Canada. Through such channels, the "gotcha!" style of right-wing British journalism, and its Europhobic substance, have contaminated the US conservative movement.

The corners of the neoconservative pentagon were linked together in the 1990s by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), run by Kristol out of the Weekly Standard offices. Using a P.R. technique pioneered by their Trotskyist predecessors, the neocons published a series of public letters whose signatories often included Wolfowitz and other future members of the Bush foreign policy team. They called for the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq and to support Israel's campaigns against the Palestinians (dire warnings about China were another favorite). During Clinton's two terms, these fulminations were ignored by the foreign policy establishment and the mainstream media. Now they are frantically being studied.

How did the neocon defense intellectuals – a small group at odds with most of the U.S. foreign policy elite, Republican as well as Democratic – manage to capture the Bush administration? .......

......Then they had a stroke of luck – Cheney was put in charge of the presidential transition (the period between the election in November and the accession to office in January). Cheney used this opportunity to stack the administration with his hard-line allies. Instead of becoming the de facto president in foreign policy, as many had expected, Secretary of State Powell found himself boxed in by Cheney's right-wing network, including Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton and Libby.

The neocons took advantage of Bush's ignorance and inexperience. Unlike his father, a Second World War veteran who had been ambassador to China, director of the CIA, and vice president, George W was a thinly educated playboy who had failed repeatedly in business before becoming the governor of Texas, a largely ceremonial position (the state's lieutenant governor has more power).....

Xazy, instead of posting "bleh", mulitple times, post a rebutal to the points in the above article. Is it better for Israel or for the U.S. that Cheney and Bolton were closely associated with JINSA before their current government "service"? What leverage does the U.S. have remaining, besides using it's own and justifying Israeli force projection, to influence an end to violent exchanges between Israel and it's neighbors?

What more could your "congressman" do, to "help Israel". How is it in the best interest of most Americans. for the U.S. to openly align itself with the only middle east regional conventional and nuclear military super power, Israel, when the U.S. is so obviously dependent on the uninterrupted shipment of the full potential of the petroleum output of Israel's geographically proximate and politically oppositely aligned nations?

Again....please point out what you can document as inaccurate in the above article, and as to how Israel is being shortchanged in it's relationship with the U.S. government. IMO, this U.S. administration has subordinated my best economic and security interests, and those of most other Americans, in favor of what is best for Israel, and the bill and other consequences of this policy has not even been felt yet. Your anecdotal references and your tone of outrage, notwithstanding.

Xazy · 07-16-2006, 01:06 PM

I only mentioned it, in reply to James kirk who said [QUOTE
Ok, Iwill tell you.

Because in American politics there are 3 ethnic groups that can bring down an administration and they are known as the three I's

Ireland
Italy
Israel[/QUOTE]
and talking about Israel's lobby etc... I feel the US and Israel are very close allies

james t kirk · 07-16-2006, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

Hmm yes you can now bleh bleh about the hundreds of rockets being shot at you throughout the year. You can bleh bleh about how they have done nothing since the withdrawl except re-arm the militants, and you can bleh bleh about how they attacked a neighboring countrys military base and bleh bleh kidnapped a soldier... did i forget to bleh bleh about them putting in control of the government a terrorist organization that bleh blehed ran the operation causing this last issue... so bleh bleh now to that as well.

Might as well add, my neighbor was walking in Jerusalem, with a friend, when an arab walked up to him, and stabbed him in the chest, he had a punctured lung and had to be in the hospital for a couple of weeks. He is a US citizen (this happened a few years ago). My sister who lives there is a US citizen. Did I call my congressmen, you bet. I do not care what you say about lobby etc... But I always vote, and I always vote person never party, so if they care about my vote, then they will reflect what my views are. Welcome to Democracy.

Ah, I see, the Palestinians are just natural born killers and should be dealt with as such. Now I understand why they are killing or attacking your friends in Israel.

They are born that way.

BTW, kidnapping or killing an Israeli soldier, that's what they should be doing if they have a beef with the Israelis, not blowing up buses.

djtestudo · 07-16-2006, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk

Ah, I see, the Palestinians are just natural born killers and should be dealt with as such. Now I understand why they are killing or attacking your friends in Israel.

They are born that way.

BTW, kidnapping or killing an Israeli soldier, that's what they should be doing if they have a beef with the Israelis, not blowing up buses.

You are correct, they aren't natural-born killers.

They are MADE that way.

And they shouldn't be doing ANYTHING to Israel except working towards the peace that they obviously don't want. Otherwise they would be defending themselves instead of provoking attack.

Xazy · 07-17-2006, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk

Ah, I see, the Palestinians are just natural born killers and should be dealt with as such. Now I understand why they are killing or attacking your friends in Israel.

They are born that way.

BTW, kidnapping or killing an Israeli soldier, that's what they should be doing if they have a beef with the Israelis, not blowing up buses.

Nobody said that, not sure where you are coming from, at all in that 'born that way.' Nobody said that. Are they raised with hatred, I think that anyone who has knowladge of how their education system is, how they teach that Israel and anti-west propoganda from birth. How kids are raised that suicide bombers are a worthy goal. How they dress kids in costume as a suicide bomber... But no one raised any of that at all in this thread besides YOU James...

All we were talking about was defending ones country

Palestenians in the past year should be doing nothing but creating their government, building up an infratructure, disarming the terrorist groups (instead of making them the government). And them sending hundreds of rockets and attacking, and trying to do suicide bombs, in the past year, shows that they do not want peace. And at some point a nation has to say enough is enough we can no longer allow them to continue to assault us.

And I have my doubts on continueing this discussion with you if you seem to even think that it is justified for them to dig under in to another nation, assault a military base, and kidnap 2 soliders of the neighboring country is an 'acceptable' method.

bermuDa · 07-17-2006, 03:33 AM

Just out of curiosity, are there any Palestinian groups with any political clout that we haven't branded as terrorist organizations?

and for the record, there are no justified actions in war.

Also, if you are going to use an article to aid your position, quote a small relevant portion and include a link. the next "response" with more quoted material than actual substance is going to get deleted.

Xazy · 07-17-2006, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bermuDa

Just out of curiosity, are there any Palestinian groups with any political clout that we haven't branded as terrorist organizations?

and for the record, there are no justified actions in war.

Also, if you are going to use an article to aid your position, quote a small relevant portion and include a link. the next "response" with more quoted material than actual substance is going to get deleted.

I know of none, but who is to blame for that? Us or the organization that has a terrorist group to it.

bermuDa · 07-17-2006, 03:58 AM

Are we to blame the Palestinian citizens because we call the only Palestinian political groups we know of terrorist organizations? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Xazy · 07-17-2006, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bermuDa

Are we to blame the Palestinian citizens because we call the only Palestinian political groups we know of terrorist organizations? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I am not sure you are understanding what I am replying. Are we to blame that their organizations do suicide attacks, and send rockets in to Israel, and do not recognize the right for Israel to exist. That defines them as terrorist groups, their actions and conduct, not us calling them that.

bermuDa · 07-17-2006, 04:19 AM

I think there's a misunderstanding both ways; I meant are we to blame the civilians for there being no other political power than those that we call terrorists?

In response to your question, there are other groups that are guilty of the same or worse acts of terrorism, but we have different names for them because we support their ideology. Many of the actions of the Israeli government are institutionalized forms of terrorism. We most certainly do determine what we call these groups. Any action can be made heroic or cowardly just by the words we use to describe them.

Seaver · 07-17-2006, 05:05 AM

Quote:

In response to your question, there are other groups that are guilty of the same or worse acts of terrorism, but we have different names for them because we support their ideology. Many of the actions of the Israeli government are institutionalized forms of terrorism. We most certainly do determine what we call these groups. Any action can be made heroic or cowardly just by the words we use to describe them.

Guidance-bombing a building which has known enemies is not terrorism. It's part of war.

Indiscriminate rocket or suicide attacks purposely killing civilians is terrorism, not a part of war.

Don't let yourself be caught up in the greys. There are legal rules to war, there are legal definitions of terrorism. Israel, though they have blood on their hands, makes extreme strains to both make peace with and treat their enemies extremely well considering the bloodlust of their neighbors.

host · 07-17-2006, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bermuDa

Just out of curiosity, are there any Palestinian groups with any political clout that we haven't branded as terrorist organizations?

and for the record, there are no justified actions in war.

Also, if you are going to use an article to aid your position, quote a small relevant portion and include a link. the next "response" with more quoted material than actual substance is going to get deleted.

This will render some of the content in my post unavailable to anyone who wants to retrieve and view more than the small portion of text that you will allow to be posted, in as little as a few days after it is posted here. If what I post here in support of my opinions, is intended not to be retrievable after a short time, I won't be able to justify the time and effort it takes to post in a way that avoids making one "I know what I know"..."so there..." post, after another.

Removing an option that has allowed me to attempt to share, in depth, with other members here, the influences that helped me to form an opinion that they may not have previously considered, seems to conflict with the goal of all of us making an earnest effort to understand and respect each other. We may never reach a consensus on an issue that we discuss here, but this should be a place where reasonable people can display, in detail, for each other, the integrity, substance, accuracy, and level of bias of the information sources that shaped the opinion that they've posted.

IMO these brief, undocumented "drive by" posts contribute to the heightening of polarization, rather than help us to understand where the "other guy" is coming from.

I offered examples here:

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=388

If I had simply posted this link,
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20030714.shtml in this post concerning Bob Novak's columns about "Joe Wilson's CIA wife".... or this link, http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000978837 both in this post, http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=18
they would be meaningless now, because both of those links no longer resolve. It happens with at least half the links, after a short while, and with almost every link to NY Times reports....so....I know of no other way to preserve the docmentation in what I post.

bermuDa · 07-17-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Guidance-bombing a building which has known enemies is not terrorism. It's part of war.

Indiscriminate rocket or suicide attacks purposely killing civilians is terrorism, not a part of war.

Don't let yourself be caught up in the greys. There are legal rules to war, there are legal definitions of terrorism. Israel, though they have blood on their hands, makes extreme strains to both make peace with and treat their enemies extremely well considering the bloodlust of their neighbors.

And right now those guided bombs are killing Lebanese civilians, and the legal acts of war have been killing Palestinian civilians and rendering them homeless for who knows how long. Whether an act during a conflict intentionally targets the innocent or not doesn't make those casualties any less dead, or their surviving families any less grieving, or their cries for justice any quieter. The problem is that people on both side of the conflict suffer loss and think that the solution is to retaliate.

And host, I was mostly just tired of having to scroll for eternity to get to the next post, my warning wasn't intended to target you specifically. I understand that you're between a rock and a hard place, but we don't have the time to read every article that shaped your opinion about related or unrelated subjects to understand where your viewpoint is coming. In fact, it's the kind of post I mentioned earlier that discourages myself from continuing to participate in threads like this, because I wonder if I'm actually expected to read those ten pages of quotes before I can rationally respond to them. I just end up ignoring those posts and responding to others. Frankly, I don't even know what your position on this subject is, because I don't have the time it takes to read all of the articles you quote in their entirety. Ultimately, your attempt to get everyone to understand the origins of your opinion serves to the opposite effect you intended. There are times when quoting an entire article might be necessary to completely understand the point being made; I do not see that happening here. I see member's opinions being buried amongst pages of quotes from other people. Please, try using your own words to sway us instead of those of other people. There's nothing wrong with quoting facts or statements that shed further light on the subject, but it's tiring to have to look through entire articles trying to figure out exactly what point you're trying to make.

roachboy · 07-17-2006, 10:25 AM

following the "logic" of the bush administration's "war on terrorism":
what rules of war?

here's why i ask this way:

it seems that it is now ok for nation-states to declare something like war on non-nation-state entities. apparently, the bush people have assumed that this irregular kind of war means that the rules do not really apply. whence the claims that the geneva convention does not really apply, that provisions in the convention are "confusing"--that prisoners being held at guantanomo arent really prisoners of war etc..

the rules are so inoperative that states dont even have to make a credible argument for war in this brave new world.

but if that is true, then there are problems: for example if a "terrorist" is one who operates outside the "rules of war"--and war against a non-nation-state entity arguably puts you on a different level than would war between nation-states---either (a) there are no rules so there are no terrorists or non-terrorists--the distintion has nothing to do with ordinance or uniforms, it simply is a function of whether you happen to approve of the politics behind an action or not. or (b) there are rules but everyone is outside them, so all actors are equally "terrorist" in this kind of context.
you would think that (c) this kind of war does not fit but everyone acts as though it does and respects the rules but that would entail things like proportionality of response, abjuring collective punishment, minimizing "collateral damage" and so forth. none of these seem to be happening so far in lebanon.

what in fact differentiates military from "terrorist" in this kind of irregular legal space? apart from supporting one side and opposing another--in which case the distinction means only "i like one side i dont like the other"
well, the uniforms and the press apparatus---these would be different. military operations that unfold in this grey area are presented as if they were legitimate--by being "reactive" say, by adapting to a "new kind of war"--all the usual arguments you have been getting from the rationale for the organization of the national security state to the neo-schmittian arguments for de facto dictatorship in america as a response to a "state of exception"....

another question: does defining something like the israeli pulverization of lebanon around the strange category "war" create problems for trying to understand causes? is a history of routinized brutalization visited upon the palestinians count as part of the cause? or is cause limited to hezbollah rocket attacks last week? if you link the myriad problems created by the israeli occupation--including settlement programs--to the present context, one thing that does happen is that the notion of the rules of war and the claim that the israelis have been playing by them go straight out the window.

just curious.

Hanxter · 07-17-2006, 11:12 AM

a declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others...

declarations of war have been acceptable means and diplomatic measures since the Renaissance, when the first formal declarations of war were issued...

in public international law, a declaration of war entails the recognition between countries of a state of hostilities between these countries, and such declaration acted to regulate the conduct between the military engagements between the forces of the respective countries... the primary multilateral treaty governing such declarations is the Hague Conventions...

anything beyond that is plain and simple murder...

get off the train and don't piss on the tracks!!!

Xazy · 07-17-2006, 11:43 AM

I would think the other country invading and killing members of your army, sending in rocket attacks in to your country would count as a declaration of war. But if it is murder, then when is Lebannon going to go after the murders? Oh wait the answer to that would be never...

Seaver · 07-17-2006, 01:30 PM

Quote:

And right now those guided bombs are killing Lebanese civilians, and the legal acts of war have been killing Palestinian civilians and rendering them homeless for who knows how long. Whether an act during a conflict intentionally targets the innocent or not doesn't make those casualties any less dead, or their surviving families any less grieving, or their cries for justice any quieter. The problem is that people on both side of the conflict suffer loss and think that the solution is to retaliate.

Yes, but there's a difference between manslaughter, murder 2, and murder 1. The outcome is the same, but the purpose of them differ drastically and thus so does punishment.

As for you Roach, I have a better question for you other than arguing the semantics of the definition of terrorism. If a person had a dog whom he refused to leash. The dog on an almost daily basis attack and kill kids within the neighborhood.

Would the people within the neighborhood be right in putting the blame on the owner?

Would they have a right of self defense to break into the owner's backyard and restrain or kill the dog? Remember, the police or animal control (UN) wont help. They suggest sitting down and talking to the owner, though he repeatedly refuses and very often leave the talks before the conclusion in protest.

And finally would you hold the parents to legal punishment for the incursion into the owner's territory to end the attacks?

bermuDa · 07-17-2006, 01:47 PM

is your analogy supposed to infer that Lebanon has control over the terrorist groups within its borders? Or that they keep it fed and sheltered? Have there been peace talks between Lebanon and Israel, from which the Lebanese withdrew prematurely?

To take the analogy a little bit further, suppose the only reason the dog was vicious was due to years of abuse and torture, and that each attack was provoked by the victim. Should the dog still be destroyed?

Ultimately, comparing the Palestinians to dogs does nothing other than to dehumanize a very human crisis. Like it or not, we're all still human beings, even the terrorists.

OzOz · 07-17-2006, 03:32 PM

Lebanon was asked by the UN (Security Council Resolution 1559, in 2004) to disband all militias, including Hezbollah, operating within its borders. It refused to disband Hezbollah, on the grounds that it was part of the resistance against "the enemy" (no prizes for guessing who that is), and stated that preserving Hezbollah constitutes a "Lebanese strategic interest". This is from the Lebanese Army's website - see the section on "The Resolution 1559" here. The relevant paragraph, in its entirety, is reproduced below:

Quote:

An immediate withdrawal of the Syrian Arab forces according to the security council's resolution number 1559 cannot be executed however the redeployment operations are carried out in cooperation between the two countries and specifically in the framework of the high military committee. The national resistance which is confronting the Israeli occupation is not a guerilla and it has no security role inside the country and its activities are restricted to facing the Israeli enemy. This resistance led to the withdrawal of the enemy from the bigger part of our occupied land and is still persistent to free the farms of Shebaa. Preserving this resistance constitutes a Lebanese strategic interest with the aim of relating the struggle with the enemy and regain all the Lebanese legitimate rights achieving and at the forefront the withdrawal of Israel from the farms of Shebaa and the return of the refugees to their land.

So yes, Lebanon does keep Hezbollah sheltered, at the very least - and very enthusiastically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

But if it is murder, then when is Lebannon going to go after the murders? Oh wait the answer to that would be never...

Yes, exactly. What people seem to miss, and what I have not heard reported in the media once in this whole mess, is that Lebanon has been saying openly, for anyone who cares to look, that Hezbollah is very welcome and Lebanon isn't going to do anything to remove them - anything at all.

roachboy · 07-17-2006, 03:47 PM

1559 is important to the israeli justification for its attacks.
but it is clear that they have a strange relationship to un resolutions, however: how many have they ignored relative to their treatment of palestinians?

no wait: the other ones serve no immediate political function.
forget them.

meanwhile, this from the daily star based in beirut:

Quote:

Assault on Lebanon makes mockery of Geneva Conventions

Daily Star staff

BEIRUT: Israeli actions in the past week appear to be in violation of international law regarding the conduct of war, which is regulated by the Geneva Conventions, a set of international agreements first formulated in 1949 that govern - among other things - the treatment of civilians. These cover all international conflict, whether declared or undeclared, meaning the current Israeli offensive against Lebanon is subject to international law.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and their 1977 Protocols, civilians are defined as all those who are not active participants in combat. Under Article 51 of Protocol I "the civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." This would seem to indicate that the July 15 attack on a minibus full of civilians attempting to flee the village of Marwahin in the South, resulting in 18 deaths, constituted a breach of international law.

While Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations," Article 48 of Protocol I states that "the presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character." This means the presence of military targets, including arms caches, in civilian areas of Beirut and in villages in the South of Lebanon, does not render those areas acceptable military targets. This also indicates Hizbullah's attacks on civilian targets are illegal under international law. Warring parties are also prohibited under the First Protocol from using civilians to shield their military installations, as Israel has accused Hizbullah of doing.

Also prohibited under international law are attacks on "civilian objects." These include water-processing plants, such as the Yurin plant, and the grain silo in Beirut Port, both attacked Saturday by Israel. This also applies to the civilian power plants around the country which have come under deliberate attack. Attacks on civilian targets such as food and water storage facilities and power plants may also be considered to be reprisals, banned under Article 52 of Protocol I.

The type of weapon that may be used in war is also governed by international law. Article 35 of Protocol I states: "It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering." Witnesses have reported that on July 15, the Israeli Air Force dropped cluster bombs on the southern suburbs of Beirut. These bombs, which explode multiple times, distributing large amounts of shrapnel, are internationally banned, although this ban is not recognized by all countries.

Furthermore, according to a statement released by the Presidential Palace, on Saturday, in its attack on villages in the Arqoub area in the South, Israel made use of phosphorus weapons, also internationally banned.

In violation of Article 62 of Protocol I, Israel has attacked two Civil Defense buildings, which are considered protected civilian objects under international law. - The Daily Star

source: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article....icle_id=74043#

there is a way in which debates about this topic are repetitions of nearly every other kind of debate in here: they begin and end with different assumptions about what information does and does not count in attempting to understand an event. generally, folk simlpy assert a position based on an ordering of information--and a defining of relevance--rarely do you get arguments for why it makes sense that information is shaped as it is. particularly from folk whose positions run them toward an endorsement of state power, of state actions. it seems that part of such support is a willingness to swallow prefabricated assumptions and move from there to construction of your "own" position.
folk who identify as coming from the left politically routinely try to raise questions about these assumptions and these questions are routinely ignored.
not being able to work out why a particular way of framing an argument is legitimate is not a particularly strong endorsement of the position.

on what possible basis are folk who find themselves supporting israel's attack on the civilian population of lebanon able to pretend that the logic of this situation began with hezbollah's rocket attacks last week?
on what possible basis can anyone disconnect what hezbolah has done from what the israelis--with full american support--have been doing to the palestinans since--o let's take an easy starting point--hamas was elected to the government?
or does trying to understand what hezbollah might be doing amount to support for hezbollah? on what planet? for what reason? [[on this the effect of the discourse of "terrorism" that the bush administration has used to prop itself up for 5 years now can be seen in a kind of collective lobotomy]]
do folk really think that the geopolitical view==floated by the bush administration as much for obfuscation as for anything else--works to the exclusion of the question of israel's treatment of the palestinians?

OzOz · 07-17-2006, 03:58 PM

Israel is not a signatory to the 1977 Additional Protocols, and is therefore not bound by them.

roachboy · 07-17-2006, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Israel is not a signatory to the 1977 Additional Protocols, and is therefore not bound by them.

so attacking civilian targets is ok?

OzOz · 07-17-2006, 04:29 PM

In terms of the "civilian objects" listed in the article you quote, yes. Civilian infrastructure has always been a valid target for them.

But I have to ask the other way around: Is walking into a pizza shop or disco with a 10kg bomb on your back OK? That's what the Israelis are fed up with, but whenever they do anything to respond, everyone is up in arms. How can they do anything without civilian casualties when the people responsible hide themselves amongst the civilian population as a matter of policy?

Frankly I don't see why the Israelis should be forced to fight with one hand tied behind their backs when their opponents aren't.

As far as the Daily Star article itself goes, criticising Israel for not playing by the Additional Protocols when Israel has never recognised them is a bit like criticising someone for not playing by the rules of tennis when they're playing golf. It's sloppy reporting.

bermuDa · 07-17-2006, 09:06 PM

Here is the series of events as I understand it. Please help me if I get anything wrong, I'm trying to understand both sides of the conflict (not to pick a side that is "more right" than the other, but to make it possible to come to some sort of understanding on the situation and what can be done to solve it.

On the one hand we have a nation that is recognized by other nations, and on the other hand, a group that is not recognized as an national or international political party.

The nation (Israel) is ranked around 23rd in terms of global military powers in terms of sheer numbers. 1,230 aircraft, 530,000 active military personnel (6th in the world), and 9.5 billion dollar military budget (source). The numbers and resources of the other group(s) are not known to me.

Israel makes life for Palestinians extremely hard, and have caused the destruction of homes, businesses, and families, and illegally occupy Palestinian terrirtory.

The group(s) and individuals, feeling they have no choice, retaliate by whatever means they are capable of and feel are necessary, which involves terrorist acts and hiding amongst the civilian population (truthfully, in an all-out armed conflict they would stand no chance). Their actions are in violation of international laws, which they are not considered bound by.

Israel in turn retaliates by whatever means they are capable of and feel are justified, which involves using their military supremacy to worsen the situation for the Palestinians, and step up their agressive activities, including those that are in violation of international law (which, as it has been pointed out, they are not bound by).

Hamas (internationally known as a terrorist organization) is publically elected as the Palestinian state's political party. This does not improve the situation. I am a bit fuzzy on the specifics of the outcome of Hamas taking political power.

Hizbullah and perhaps other groups seek shelter in neighboring nations sympathetic to their cause, either out in the open or hiding among the civilian population. They continue to carry out their guerilla tactics/acts or terrorism/violence against Israeli civilians and military personnel.

Israel flies fighters low over Lebanon to show that they are capable of striking anytime, anywhere. They launch missles and attacks that are responsible for the deaths of many Lebanese civilians, and an unknown number of terrorists. I am not aware of any official Lebanese military response.

That is where I believe we are now. Please correct and incongruities or errors in the timeline. My point is that there are multiple sides to this conflict, and none of them claim to be bound by the international laws that are intended to protect civilians. Both sides feel justified and they have no choice but to fight fire with fire. My own personal response is that neither side is justified, but it is a very difficult situation to try to talk about rationally, because emotions run so high when there is such a great loss of life and quality of life. There is a lot of fear and hate broiling and reciprocating on both ends; I personally think that this is one of the most important and difficult points to address when trying to formulate a valid solution to end the bloodshed.

07-14-2006, 02:23 AM	#41 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	The American media, no matter what angle it is coming from, makes it very difficult for me to see the issue from anything but a "pro-Israel" stance. So I was very shaken by some British news footage I saw that talked about how Israel was illegally (by international law) settling people in the West Bank and demolishing Palestinian houses because of the impossible beauracracy they've set up to discriminate against non-Israelis trying to make a home for themselves in Palestine legally. Multiple generations were made homeless because they couldn't get a document from Israel saying they could build a house on land that does not belong to Israel. The situation is not just a matter of one hateful group attacking and the innocents defending themselves. There is blood on everyone's hands in this conflict, and [the American media and government] are condoning the violence by ignoring or hiding the fact that Israel is not just a victim. Some people waste their time beating their brows, lamenting "why do 'they' hate us and our way of life? why don't they just let us live in peace?"--What these people don't realize is that we are the aggressors, and preserving our way of life involves snuffing out innocent ones and making a people homeless, destitute, and desperate. You can't make a suicide bomber without taking away his reasons to live (family, home, means of providing for himself and those he loves), and leave him just with reasons to die (revenge, a perverted sense of 'justice'). Even in our pacifism, we tread on the lives of others. Wars are waged not because we support them, but because we do nothing to stop them. __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman. Last edited by bermuDa; 07-14-2006 at 02:29 AM..

07-14-2006, 06:21 AM	#43 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	a good graphic from the guardian concerning the sequence of events so far. things are moving very quickly and i find it easy to grow confused. http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,,1807749,00.html this seems to me wholly nuts. so for one israeli soldier kidnapped, it is ok to invade gaza, shut down water, electricity, cut off food and push 1.4 million people ever closer to what all but the israeli government and the ny times refer to as a humanitarian crisis. for 2 israelis kidnapped by hizbollah, it is ok for israel to invade lebanon. i dont follow the self-defense line being advanced by the israelis and the bush squad--i dont follow any of the logic that would explain israeli actions. meanwhile, if you read any account that still thinks gaza worth talking about, conditions there continue to deteriorate rapidly. so far in lebanon, israeli military actions have alreaedy killed some 50 civilians. i dont get it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-14-2006, 11:26 AM	#46 (permalink)
abaya Location: Iceland	Host, thanks for the very interesting Noam Chomsky interview. I appreciated reading it. I have heard that haaretz.com is actually a pretty good source of Israeli news (more balanced than one might expect). Thanks also for posting that link. __________________ And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran

07-14-2006, 05:15 PM	#48 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't Hezbelluh, the so-called "wacko group", either under the protection, or supported by, Lebenon? If so, then I don't see a problem. Same with the governing body of the Palestinians allowing their terrorists to attack across the Israeli border they themselves have demanded be there. If you don't want Israel attacking you, how 'bout not allowing these attacks? Israel isn't innocent in the grand scheme of Middle East politics, but it isn't as though they are trying to expand either. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

07-14-2006, 05:29 PM	#49 (permalink)
double Crazy Location: Helsinki	The situation is very disturbing, and peace has not been possible to achieve. It looks like it will not be achieved for quite some time again. Maybe fresh thinking would be needed to make decisions on both sides. It has turned in to a vicious war cycle that will not end because both the Palestinians and the Israeli have been in it for so long that the generation that is at war right now has grown up in it, and fresh thoughts and decisions are that much harder to make. Here's probably how its going to go this time: countless people die again, the hate and fear roots deeper in the people on both sides. The outside world will interviene at somepoint and come up with a peace plan, one or the otherside strikes out something that pushes the situation in to flames again, both sides blame each other, and we're back in square one again. I cannot belive (or actually it was'nt a surprise) how poorly Bush blurted out justifications for all these people to die. He is a very dangerous man. And the scariest thing is that so many people do not understand the implications of what comes out of that mans mouth. This is clearly not working. Perhaps it is time to come up with some other ideas as of how to deal with the problem, instead of continuing the cycle..? __________________ Reach out and touch faith

07-15-2006, 07:17 AM	#51 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Israeli lobbies do not determine US foreign policy imo. American interests in the region drive US foreign policy, as self-interest governs every other countrys' foreign policies. Israeli and American views converge on many issues, they share many of the same values and interests. Israel is also a multicultural society (a nation of immigrants), with a commitment to democracy, freedom of assemble/speech/press, an independent judiciary, free elections with diverse parties, and are among the highest educated in the world. There are many programs that capitalize on the two nations' shared values, such as environment, energy, space, occupational safety and health. Israel also acts as a military deterrent, intelligence partner, and R&D partner in a region dominated by autocratic regimes. * CONFUSING THE ISSUE: MEARSHEIMER & WALT'S "THE ISRAEL LOBBY"** by Libby Frank Member, Leadership Team, Women Challenge U.S. Policy: Building Peace on Justice in the Middle East (Women's Int'l. League for Peace and Freedom) John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of the paper, "The Israel Lobby," hold leading positions in American academic life. The paper is provoking great interest in political and activist circles and provides an opportunity to clarify issues of the "Israel Lobby" and U.S. policy. The authors' vivid descriptions of oppressive Israeli actions and the billions of dollars of U.S. tax money that go to Israel are accurate and do need public airing. Successful efforts to keep the U.S. public ignorant of what is going on in the Middle East and the control of debate on these issues have also been accurately exposed here. However, there are many problems in the paper. I focus here on only a few. 1. The exoneration of U.S. from responsibility for its own foreign policy. 2. The definition of the "Israel Lobby." 3. Claims of no benefits to U.S. from Israel. 4. The "Jewish Face" of the Israel Lobby. Most important, the authors (henceforth M-W) dismiss claims that the U.S. government's imperialist, repressive moves in the Middle East are an integral part of its overall foreign policy. According to them, the "Israel Lobby" is to blame. Noam Chomsky faults the paper, writing "that it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility."1 Does Israel "divert" U.S. policy from "what its national interest would suggest" as stated by M-W, or do the interest of the right-wing Israeli government coincide with those of the U.S.? Diverse voices around the world challenge the idea that the Lobby is responsible for U.S. policy vis a vis Israel. Following are some of the most eloquent: From Vijay Prashad in the online version of The Hindu (India) "AIPAC AND AJC [the American Jewish Committee] are powerful, but they do not determine U.S. foreign policy. They are powerful not just because of their money, but because their views converge with those of the neo-conservative elements who dominate the ruling coalition in Washington." 2 "US geostrategic interest in a strong Israel has been considerable for a long time. The idea that after WWII the US or any other major power would allow independent Arab governments to emerge and control their own oil resources is simply not credible." 3 From Joseph Massad, Faculty Member at Columbia, in Al-Ahram Weekly; "Is the pro-Israel lobby extremely powerful in the United States? As someone who has been facing the full brunt of their power for the last three years through their formidable influence on my own university and their attempts to get me fired, I answer with a resounding yes. Are they primarily responsible for US policies towards the Palestinians and the Arab world? Absolutely not." 4 From the Palestine Solidarity Committee (USA); "There is no evidence of a centralized international conspiracy of Jews to control banks, media, Congress, or the world in general.... "We find hints of this stereotype in the insistence that U.S. support for Israel is entirely due to the influence of the so-called 'Jewish lobby'....Furthermore, there are several other powerful factions that pressure the US government to support the Israeli government, such as right-wing Christian groups...and the Aerospace Industry Association (AIA). The AIA, promoting sales of weapons and equipment to Israel, donates twice as much to political campaigns in this country as all the pro-Israel groups combined." 5 M-W state that since 1967, the "centrepiece of the US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel." That relationship is not explained except as it is determined by the "Israel Lobby." They allege that "... the Bush administration's ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at improving Israel's strategic situation." This, too, according to M-W, is explained only by the Israel Lobby. That "Lobby" is defined by M-W as "shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction...Many of the key organisations in the Lobby, such as the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organisations, are run by hardliners who generally support the Likud Party's expansionist policies....The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals...and 'neo-conservative gentiles'...." But a major omission from their definition is the powerful role of the weapons manufacturers and their lobby – namely the Aerospace Industry Association (AIA). The profits from arms sales to the Middle East by members of the AIA are tremendous. Omitting this aspect obscures the drive by the U.S. for hegemony in the region. It appears that M-W do not see this drive by the U.S. as a problem. The AIA itself proudly acknowledges its role: "...it is assumed that for any potential sale of U.S. defense equipment, a decision has already been made that such a sale would be consistent with U.S. foreign policy interests...." 6 M-W state that "The US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets...." But this is not due to the "Israel Lobby" as defined by M-W. They don't mention the lobbying efforts by Sikorsky, the manufacturer of the Black Hawks, or Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the F-16s. "Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company is the world's largest "defense" contractor. In 2001, Israel decided to purchase 52 additional F-16 fighter jets. The contract value was reported to be approximately $1.3 billion..." 7 It has donated over $1 million to members of the US government committees responsible for awarding defence contracts, and in return has been rewarded with orders from the US federal government that are worth $65 million per day....There is also a 'revolving door' between the company and the Bush administration, with personnel working for Lockheed Martin moving to the Pentagon, and vice versa." 8 The producer of Blackhawk helicopters, "Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation. In February 2001, Sikorsky was awarded a $211.8 million contract for 24 additional Black Hawk helicopters to serve the Israeli Air Force."7 "These companies targeted members of House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees, which allocate federal defense money, and the Armed Service committees. Both companies spend heavily on lobbyists in Washington." 8 Can we imagine that Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin don't have vested interests in U.S. foreign policy? Yet M-W make absolutely no mention of this kind of influence and it is not included in their definition of the Israel lobby. M-W express concern that the U.S. isn't getting its money's worth from Israel, but they ignore benefits the U.S. currently receives from Israel. While giving a good account of past assistance and cooperation with U.S. foreign policy, M-W tacitly convey the idea that currently it's a one-way street. That is, that the U.S. is completely supporting Israel and getting nothing worthwhile in return. But there are many ways Israel helps U.S. aggression today. Two right-wing governments are supporting each other and gaining from each other. As Joseph Massad has written in Al Ahram, "...it is in fact the very centrality of Israel to US strategy in the Middle East that accounts, in part, for the strength of the pro-Israel lobby and not the other way around.... The fact that it is more powerful than any other foreign lobby on Capitol Hill testifies to the importance of Israel in US strategy and not to some fantastical power that the lobby commands independent of and extraneous to the US 'national interest' The pro-Israel lobby could not sell its message... if Israel was a communist or anti-imperialist country or if Israel opposed US policy elsewhere n the world." 4 Douglas Feith, currently U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, once explained that "...Israel has formidable military forces, intelligence capabilities, militarily relevant R&D skills, strategically located ports and airfields, training facilities, medical infrastructure, and high-quality equipment maintenance skills. Israel willingly allows the U.S. to benefit from all this. Without Israel, the U.S. couldn't duplicate these benefits in the Middle East, even if we spent many billions of dollars."10 Today, Israel is actively providing aid to the U.S. in Iraq. In the words of an Associated Press release, "After decades of U.S. military aid and defense cooperation, the U.S. military is permeated by technology developed in Israel." 11 A remarkable story in the Los Angeles Times has recently reported on the advice and support that the U.S. receives from Israel on how to fight the insurgency in Iraq. Here are some excerpts. "In the last six months, U.S. Army commanders, Pentagon officials and military trainers have sought advice from Israeli intelligence and security officials on everything from how to set up roadblocks to the best way to bomb suspected guerrilla hide-outs in an urban area. "Israeli and American officials confirm that ... the Pentagon is increasingly seeking advice from the Israeli military on how to defeat the sort of insurgency that Israel has long experience confronting. "The Israelis 'certainly have a wealth of experience from a military standpoint in dealing with domestic terror, urban terror, military operations in urban terrain, and there is a great deal of intelligence and knowledge sharing going on right now, all of which makes sense,' a senior U.S. Army official said on condition of anonymity. 'We are certainly tapping into their knowledge base to find out what you do in these kinds of situations.'" "Many of the tactics recently adopted by the U.S. in Iraq – increased use of airpower, aerial surveillance by unmanned aircraft of suspected sites, increased use of pinpoint search and seizure operations, the leveling of buildings used by suspected insurgents – bear striking similarities to those regularly employed by Israel. "In the last week, U.S. soldiers began leveling houses and buildings used by suspected guerillas, a tactic long employed by the Israeli military in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.... The Americans learned a lot from the Israelis' use of [bulldozers] in urban combat." 12 In addition to weapons manufacturers, there are oil interests tied in with the administration. These interests are dismissed by M-W, saying "there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim," that is, concern for oil. One must also consider the gendarme role that nuclear-armed Israel plays in the region, a consideration completely ignored by M-W. Let's be clear. Criticism of Israeli government policy or repressive actions is not anti-Semitic. But when one speaks of the "Israel Lobby," it resounds as the "Jewish Lobby." M-W, focusing on Jewish lobby groups, add to that perception. Mitchell Plitnick, of Jewish Voice for Peace, explains: "One of the classic anti-Semitic myths is that of Jews manipulating governments and other seats of power behind the scenes. That pretty closely describes the work of a lobby, and there is a powerful one, with a Jewish face, working to push particular policies regarding Israel. We need to understand that lobby, what its effect is, and what its nature is. That means asking, directly and fairly, is this a 'Jewish lobby', and does this truly have the power to be a tail wagging the dog of American Middle East policy?.... Jewish 'shadow control' is an old canard of anti-Semitism." 3 And Vijay Prashad in Frontline (India) continues "The idea of the 'Jewish lobby' is attractive because it draws upon at least a few hundred years of anti-Semitic worry about an international conspiracy operated by Jewish financiers to defraud the European and American working poor of their livelihood. ... The stereotype of a 'Jew' without a country, but with a bank, had no loyalty to the nation, no solidarity with fellow citizens .... The Nazis stigmatised the 'Jew' as the reason for poverty and exploitation and obscured the role played by capitalism...." It is important to realize that U.S., policy is no more altruistic in the Middle East than it is anywhere else in the world. The U.S. doesn't need an Israel Lobby to tell it how to conduct its own dirty business. Many readers of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper are angry and frustrated by the one-sided policies of the U.S. government and their echo in the corporate media. And many have welcomed the articulate exposé by M-W of elements in the Israel Lobby. But what is presented relieves the U.S. government of almost all responsibility for its misdeeds in the region. Thinking progressive activists cannot accept this thesis. Last edited by powerclown; 07-15-2006 at 09:58 AM..

07-15-2006, 10:03 AM	#52 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	here are two blog based in the gaza strip: http://fromgaza.blogspot.com/ http://a-mother-from-gaza.blogspot.com/ both are terribly sad. both are well worth reading. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-16-2006, 01:06 PM	#58 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	I only mentioned it, in reply to James kirk who said [QUOTE Ok, Iwill tell you. Because in American politics there are 3 ethnic groups that can bring down an administration and they are known as the three I's Ireland Italy Israel[/QUOTE] and talking about Israel's lobby etc... I feel the US and Israel are very close allies

07-17-2006, 03:33 AM	#62 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	Just out of curiosity, are there any Palestinian groups with any political clout that we haven't branded as terrorist organizations? and for the record, there are no justified actions in war. Also, if you are going to use an article to aid your position, quote a small relevant portion and include a link. the next "response" with more quoted material than actual substance is going to get deleted. __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

07-17-2006, 03:58 AM	#64 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	Are we to blame the Palestinian citizens because we call the only Palestinian political groups we know of terrorist organizations? I'm not sure what you're getting at. __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

07-17-2006, 04:19 AM	#66 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	I think there's a misunderstanding both ways; I meant are we to blame the civilians for there being no other political power than those that we call terrorists? In response to your question, there are other groups that are guilty of the same or worse acts of terrorism, but we have different names for them because we support their ideology. Many of the actions of the Israeli government are institutionalized forms of terrorism. We most certainly do determine what we call these groups. Any action can be made heroic or cowardly just by the words we use to describe them. __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

07-17-2006, 10:25 AM	#70 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	following the "logic" of the bush administration's "war on terrorism": what rules of war? here's why i ask this way: it seems that it is now ok for nation-states to declare something like war on non-nation-state entities. apparently, the bush people have assumed that this irregular kind of war means that the rules do not really apply. whence the claims that the geneva convention does not really apply, that provisions in the convention are "confusing"--that prisoners being held at guantanomo arent really prisoners of war etc.. the rules are so inoperative that states dont even have to make a credible argument for war in this brave new world. but if that is true, then there are problems: for example if a "terrorist" is one who operates outside the "rules of war"--and war against a non-nation-state entity arguably puts you on a different level than would war between nation-states---either (a) there are no rules so there are no terrorists or non-terrorists--the distintion has nothing to do with ordinance or uniforms, it simply is a function of whether you happen to approve of the politics behind an action or not. or (b) there are rules but everyone is outside them, so all actors are equally "terrorist" in this kind of context. you would think that (c) this kind of war does not fit but everyone acts as though it does and respects the rules but that would entail things like proportionality of response, abjuring collective punishment, minimizing "collateral damage" and so forth. none of these seem to be happening so far in lebanon. what in fact differentiates military from "terrorist" in this kind of irregular legal space? apart from supporting one side and opposing another--in which case the distinction means only "i like one side i dont like the other" well, the uniforms and the press apparatus---these would be different. military operations that unfold in this grey area are presented as if they were legitimate--by being "reactive" say, by adapting to a "new kind of war"--all the usual arguments you have been getting from the rationale for the organization of the national security state to the neo-schmittian arguments for de facto dictatorship in america as a response to a "state of exception".... another question: does defining something like the israeli pulverization of lebanon around the strange category "war" create problems for trying to understand causes? is a history of routinized brutalization visited upon the palestinians count as part of the cause? or is cause limited to hezbollah rocket attacks last week? if you link the myriad problems created by the israeli occupation--including settlement programs--to the present context, one thing that does happen is that the notion of the rules of war and the claim that the israelis have been playing by them go straight out the window. just curious. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-17-2006, 11:12 AM	#71 (permalink)
Hanxter The Griffin	a declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others... declarations of war have been acceptable means and diplomatic measures since the Renaissance, when the first formal declarations of war were issued... in public international law, a declaration of war entails the recognition between countries of a state of hostilities between these countries, and such declaration acted to regulate the conduct between the military engagements between the forces of the respective countries... the primary multilateral treaty governing such declarations is the Hague Conventions... anything beyond that is plain and simple murder... get off the train and don't piss on the tracks!!!

07-17-2006, 11:43 AM	#72 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	I would think the other country invading and killing members of your army, sending in rocket attacks in to your country would count as a declaration of war. But if it is murder, then when is Lebannon going to go after the murders? Oh wait the answer to that would be never...

07-17-2006, 01:47 PM	#74 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	is your analogy supposed to infer that Lebanon has control over the terrorist groups within its borders? Or that they keep it fed and sheltered? Have there been peace talks between Lebanon and Israel, from which the Lebanese withdrew prematurely? To take the analogy a little bit further, suppose the only reason the dog was vicious was due to years of abuse and torture, and that each attack was provoked by the victim. Should the dog still be destroyed? Ultimately, comparing the Palestinians to dogs does nothing other than to dehumanize a very human crisis. Like it or not, we're all still human beings, even the terrorists. __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

07-17-2006, 03:58 PM	#77 (permalink)
OzOz Psycho Location: Right here, right now.	Israel is not a signatory to the 1977 Additional Protocols, and is therefore not bound by them. __________________ Maybe you should put some shorts on or something, if you wanna keep fighting evil today. Last edited by OzOz; 07-17-2006 at 04:01 PM..

07-17-2006, 04:29 PM	#79 (permalink)
OzOz Psycho Location: Right here, right now.	In terms of the "civilian objects" listed in the article you quote, yes. Civilian infrastructure has always been a valid target for them. But I have to ask the other way around: Is walking into a pizza shop or disco with a 10kg bomb on your back OK? That's what the Israelis are fed up with, but whenever they do anything to respond, everyone is up in arms. How can they do anything without civilian casualties when the people responsible hide themselves amongst the civilian population as a matter of policy? Frankly I don't see why the Israelis should be forced to fight with one hand tied behind their backs when their opponents aren't. As far as the Daily Star article itself goes, criticising Israel for not playing by the Additional Protocols when Israel has never recognised them is a bit like criticising someone for not playing by the rules of tennis when they're playing golf. It's sloppy reporting. __________________ Maybe you should put some shorts on or something, if you wanna keep fighting evil today. Last edited by OzOz; 07-17-2006 at 04:50 PM..

07-17-2006, 09:06 PM	#80 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	Here is the series of events as I understand it. Please help me if I get anything wrong, I'm trying to understand both sides of the conflict (not to pick a side that is "more right" than the other, but to make it possible to come to some sort of understanding on the situation and what can be done to solve it. On the one hand we have a nation that is recognized by other nations, and on the other hand, a group that is not recognized as an national or international political party. The nation (Israel) is ranked around 23rd in terms of global military powers in terms of sheer numbers. 1,230 aircraft, 530,000 active military personnel (6th in the world), and 9.5 billion dollar military budget (source). The numbers and resources of the other group(s) are not known to me. Israel makes life for Palestinians extremely hard, and have caused the destruction of homes, businesses, and families, and illegally occupy Palestinian terrirtory. The group(s) and individuals, feeling they have no choice, retaliate by whatever means they are capable of and feel are necessary, which involves terrorist acts and hiding amongst the civilian population (truthfully, in an all-out armed conflict they would stand no chance). Their actions are in violation of international laws, which they are not considered bound by. Israel in turn retaliates by whatever means they are capable of and feel are justified, which involves using their military supremacy to worsen the situation for the Palestinians, and step up their agressive activities, including those that are in violation of international law (which, as it has been pointed out, they are not bound by). Hamas (internationally known as a terrorist organization) is publically elected as the Palestinian state's political party. This does not improve the situation. I am a bit fuzzy on the specifics of the outcome of Hamas taking political power. Hizbullah and perhaps other groups seek shelter in neighboring nations sympathetic to their cause, either out in the open or hiding among the civilian population. They continue to carry out their guerilla tactics/acts or terrorism/violence against Israeli civilians and military personnel. Israel flies fighters low over Lebanon to show that they are capable of striking anytime, anywhere. They launch missles and attacks that are responsible for the deaths of many Lebanese civilians, and an unknown number of terrorists. I am not aware of any official Lebanese military response. That is where I believe we are now. Please correct and incongruities or errors in the timeline. My point is that there are multiple sides to this conflict, and none of them claim to be bound by the international laws that are intended to protect civilians. Both sides feel justified and they have no choice but to fight fire with fire. My own personal response is that neither side is justified, but it is a very difficult situation to try to talk about rationally, because emotions run so high when there is such a great loss of life and quality of life. There is a lot of fear and hate broiling and reciprocating on both ends; I personally think that this is one of the most important and difficult points to address when trying to formulate a valid solution to end the bloodshed. __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.