Chemical Attack Against Israel?
 

I so hope this isn't true [click for link]
I've followed the Palestinian conflict from a highly interested follower and researching it and reading books, to more recently a highly disaffected person and only find out what i'm forced to by the media coverage. This however is the first event that truly scares me. I hope to god that this claim isn't true.

My question is, if this is true, what do you believe the repercussions will be? I feel that Israel will dispossess all Palestinians of whatever land they have and forcibly relocate or kill everyone there.

Personally, I hope they plow the land with salt, but that's just me.

Until the Palestinians show a willingness, let alone an ability, to govern themselves, they shouldn't get any benifit of the doubt.

And electing a terrorist organization to run the government doesn't count.

I think we'll be right back to where we were before the Israelis started moving out of settlements. If the Palestinians don't want to play ball, well, the Israelis are going to end that real fast. I believe they will probably forcibly relocate them, but I find it hard to believe that they're going to 'kill everyone there.'

I don't think they'll "kill everyone there" either.

However, between this (if it actually happened), and the raid where two soldiers were killed and one was kidnapped, something should be done.

CNN.com has nothing of any chemical attack of sorts reported. Reuters is the only source thus far.

I don't see how that is going to have much of an effect, the land isn't particularly arable as it is.

You aren't focusing on the topic I wished to talk about, you are simply venting against the Palestinians. How do you think this situation will play out?

Big ups to Maryland btw

You have to pay attention to both parts of what I said, I said they'll move or kill everyone, meaning they will incorporate all of Palestine into the State of Israel and make sure that no palestinians are there. To reiterate, they will move people, and those who will not move will be killed.

If it was a real chemical attack this would be all over the news. Claims it was a chemical warhead is much different than a chemical warhead attack.

If it happens, Israel will unleash the dogs like after the Olympic affair. Only this time they'll have other countries to hold accountable (/cough syria/iraq/iran).

Well, those who won't leave can be made to leave. Unless the Palestinians start shooting at the Israelis it could go relatively smoothly, but then agai n, I can understand why the Israelis would have an itchy trigger finger with people blowing themselves up and se tting off IEDs. Hopefully if they do move back into the land they already have it'll happen without a war, but I don't suspect we'll be that lucky.

If there is a war, I don't think it will be a largely Middle Eastern affair, just Israel and Palestine with obviously the secret influences behind Palestine, but I don't believe it will be an open war between all of the ME and Israel. If it is, well, I'm sure it'll lead up to war with Iran which would be a shame since it's too soon for that if you ask me.

bogus if u ask me..a bit like that iraqi information minister claiming all sorts of rubbish during the start of the iraqi war.

what i find more disturbing is that israel is practically given the green light by the US to rampage into gaza and knock out infrastructure affecting millions of people in the name of 'fighting terror'. all this without a whimper from the west.

all this for one soldier. somebody tell me one IDF soldier is worth more than a million palestinians to israel and the rest of the world. surely israel has a right to 'defend itself', but this i find is way too heavy-handed to be a knee jerk reaction, but rather its a calculated operation by israel. their objective..hmm im not sure yet....just a gut feeling...

I don't see anything at DEBKAfile, and I would expect them to print it even if mainstream media didn't.

I find no fault in Israel's "knee-jerk reaction". Hamas, being the elected government of the Palestinian people, must be held accountable when it's militants tunnel into Israel, kill 2 soldiers and kidnap another. Or maybe they could consider the halting of daily rocket attacks on Israeli positions. Both actions equate to an act of war. And you are right it is calculated; why does that matter? You have a terrorist organization elected into public office, and they refuse to abandon their terrorist operations and aspirations. With the elections in Palestine, Hamas and the Palestinian people at large were put in the driver seat of the car, by themselves, the UN, the US, the World at large, they need to stop making excuses and buck up, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

if the israelis have a qualm with hamas, then so be it. but to annihalate infrastructure that was barely there to begin with and debilitate a nation for the sake of making a point against the legitimately elected government albeit a terrorist organisation is totally wrong.

im sure not all palestinians voted for hamas, so lets not treat them all as if they did.

So where does attacking civilian infrastructure to make a point fall on the terrorism continuum?

Just to be clear, i think there are elements on both side who only exist to draw out the conflict.

Okay....from comments that I've read here so far, I have the impression that the two threads that I started in the last 3 months that displayed my research on JINSA were largely ignored, dismissed, or discounted. Some of the posts I've read here could have been written by JINSA or mossad.....why is their no ability or desire to empathize.....to put one's own feet in the other fellow's shoes for even a moment?

The hair trigger reaction is to side with the nuclear military power....the side that possesses the overwhelming conventional armored military power...the same side with the largest and most influential lobby inserted to influence U.S. government and society. The side that enjoys the support of current and former JINSA affiliates, Cheney, John Bolton, Richard Perle, William Kristol, et al.......

Why does the fact that the world witnessed the news videos of IDF forces reducing, with bulldozers a few years ago, the structure that housed the Palestinian political leader to a splintered shack, with the leader still inside....and then confined him there for the rest of his active days.....not provide a catalyst for the democratic election of Hamas?

I ask you now, Mojo or Seaver, or djestudo, what party would you vote for, if you observed that humiliation of your leader? Did you know that, four years after the IDF closed the new Gaza int. airport, by bulldozing it's main runway, the airport workers still report daily to work at the airport and the terminal, as a reaction of pride and defiiance, and to get paid the wages needed to support themselves.

Fuck yes...they voted for Hamas...the providers of health centers for their families and the most defiant and militant politcal faction that the average man on the street could choose. We live in a world where only the threat of violence gets attention, concessions, and respect. Why do you think John Bolton is the U.S. ambassaor to the U.N. ? Why do you think that North Korea and Iran cling to and flaunt their claimed right to refine weapons grade plutonium?

Here is the link to the 2002 Gaza airport story, and the rest is self explanatory. Consider that Palestinians are as proud as any israeli or American. Consider how you reacted to last year's SCOTUS ruling on eminent domain. Consider that congress lives and does business in DC. Are our politicians held personally responsible for not intervening to stop violent crime and rampant drug distribution in DC?

Would they be more motivated to condemn DC violence if Maryland and Virginia built high walls around DC? Why do you support what the IDF and the Israeli government do against thee majority of Palestinians who commit no violent acts? What would you do if you were a peace abiding, middleaged Palestinian male living in Gaza now, with no electriciity in a summer desert climate, and waning supplies of clean water to sustain you and your family?

http://israelinsider.com/channels/se...s/sec_0170.htm

Did I mention that the shell damaged Gaza power plant is insured via a $48 miillion war/terrorism damage policy that it's developer paid for.....funds that will be paid by issuance of additional U.S. treasury debt?

No need for me to condemn the Palestinian killing and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, although i agree that it is wrong and counterproductive, but so is blind support for Israel, and the existance of JINSA and the MEGA Israeli lobby of our government and the manipulation of our POV.

Maybe?
Stop my government from calling for the annihilation of my neighbor.
Stop my government from refusing to acknowledge the right of my neighbor to even exist or live in peace.
Stop blowing up my neighbor's bars, restaurants, buses, markets, etc.
Stop firing rockets into my neighbor's house.
Stop trying to hijack my neighbor's commercial airplanes.
Stop teaching institutionalized hatred of my neighbor to my children in our school system.
Stop voting in terrorists to run my government.
Start talking with my neighbor on behalf of my people, for the good of my people.
Start cleaning up my own house. (Literally and politically)

For example, what was the first thing the Palis did when Israel pulled out of Gaza? Organize and do something productive? No - they start looting and burning down stuff.


I don't necessarily think Israel's heavy-handed responses are entirely productive, but the Palis don't give them much to work with. I side with Israel because they are a modern, productive democracy amidst a sea of backwards, aggressive, stubborn, medieval dictatorships. They aren't the problem, they are the answer. The should be role models for the entire Middle East, and I am glad they have an ally in the United States.

powerclown...

with the exception of hijacking my neighbours commercial airplanes, the rest of your points can be said about israel too. works both sides of the fence. just hope you can critically analyse both sides.


Stop my government from calling for the annihilation of my neighbor. - if not publically, then secretly. both governments despise each other as much as the other. lets not kid ourselves

Stop my government from refusing to acknowledge the right of my neighbor to even exist or live in peace. - no need to elaborate. look at whats happening now and past incursions like Jenin.


Stop blowing up my neighbor's bars, restaurants, buses, markets, etc. - you forgot to mention bridges and infrastructure.

Stop firing rockets into my neighbor's house. - does the term political assassinations mean anything to you?


Stop teaching institutionalized hatred of my neighbor to my children in our school system. - works both ways this one..or maybe thats just teaching love for ones own culture, land, country etc and hatred for anyone thats trying to take that away.. a bit like the US and what it teaches on al qaeda for example.

Stop voting in terrorists to run my government. - dont tell me sharon wasnt a war criminal

let me see..if i recall correctly, both the 'palis' and the israelis lives in relative harmony until britain came along anc fucked it all up by diving the middle east for its own material gain and installed these puppet regimes and dictatorships to repress its people, whilst israel was given plenty of the green stuff (in US dollars of course). now where is the part where the 'palis' should be aspiring to be like their neighbours? is it because they were left landless after the west two-timed them and fucked them over so badly that they are left reeling from the consequences more than 50 years later?

you tell me where the justice is...

Woah woah woah, how did I get dragged into the non-sympathetic crowd? I simply stated the truth in how Israel would react.

I'm not getting involved in this who is worse conversation. If I was Israel I would fully support the wall and probably serve more than my time in the army, if I was Palistinian I would probably attack any Israeli soldier I found on my territory.

A couple of points to make here.

There is a distinct difference between the two target sets mentioned. Bridges and other infrastructure are legitimate targets, and it's worth mentioning that the Interior Ministry building was hit during the night, when it could reasonably be expected that there was most likely no-one there.

Bars, restaurants, buses, markets: One feature of all of these things is that they usually contain lots of people - innocent civilians - when they're struck by Palestinian terrorists with the intent of killing and maiming as many of these innocent civilians as possible. If I'm not mistaken, deliberately targeting innocent civilians - as opposed to civilian casualties incurred during a strike on a valid military target when a reasonable effort has been made to reduce the likelihood and extent of such casualties - is a war crime.

If you're a political leader on either side during wartime, then the bad news for you is that it's Open Season. You're fair game. You'd better hope that your armed forces are up to the job of protecting you.

Another thing to note: In their targetted assassinations, the Israelis usually use a locally-modified version of the Hellfire missile, with a reduced-strength warhead which is large enough to ensure that anyone in a vehicle struck by it is unlikely to survive, but that is reduced in strength in an attempt to reduce collateral damage and casualties. In fact, the warhead is weaker than backpack bombs found carried by some would-be Palestinian suicide bombers, which are designed to cause as much death and destruction as possible.

Putting these two together: The strike which took out Yassin a few years ago now as he was emerging from a mosque killed only three people - Yassin himself and two of his bodyguards. Had you, at the same time, given a Hamas leader the choice of assassinating Sharon (himself a valid military target as Israeli Prime Minister) either with the same type of precise Hellfire strike as he's emerging from a synagogue, or of assassinating him by dropping a 2000lb bomb on the synagogue while he and hundreds of others are inside, which do you seriously think he would choose?

Oh? How far does the US, or Israel for that matter, go in this sense? A friend of mine once worked with a PhD student who was originally from the West Bank. On her first day of kindergarten, she and everyone else in her class had been given a rifle bullet and told to see that it ended up inside a Jew. Can anyone tell me that either the US or Israel indoctrinate their children to this extent? Teaching pride in, and love for, one's country is one thing. Teaching the slaughter of innocent civilians is another entirely.

I would accept your right to do exactly this - in the West Bank, Gaza or in Israel proper, if a state of hostilities existed.

Host, the problem with what you are asking is that I, for one, have grown up in an environment that has supported open thought far more then it is over there.

So, if I were over there and that happened, I would have enough pride in myself and desire for self-preservation of myself and my family that I would vote for the group that was more likely to support peaceful resolutions to the conflict, and therefore reduce the likelihood of injury coming to my self/family.

However, from my present view, it seems to me that this conflict is likely to end with one group being completely eliminated as a political entity, either through peace and assimulation (ha!) or through force to the point of genocide.

I think that, despite both sides sharing the blame for much of what has happened, the Palestinians have shown a complete lack of willingness and ability to work with, not just Israel, but the whole world, to find a solution, and so they get no sympathy when Israel retaliates to legitamite acts of war.

The reason why the Israeli's attack infrastructure is simple, basic military strategy that's been in practice for thousands of years.

For example: Sherman's drive through the south to Atlanta. Sherman's men destroyed everything in their path; homes, twisted railroad ties (bowties), burned cotton crops, freed any slave they ran into, killed as many people as they could.

Why? Because once you finally demoralize the people, the common ordinary people, the ones who ultimately put those leaders in power, you will create massive discontent against the the government THEY put in place.

So, by attacking the palestinian infrastructure, the IDF is essentially waging war against the Hamas government.

My opinion? If that 19 yr old kid isnt returned alive, every single Hamas leader, doesnt matter where they are, are going to die. and every single Hamas leader KNOWS THAT. Hamas knows and believes that threat. Plus they absolutely know that it's not an empty threat. Israel has targeted terrorist leaders before; they WILL do it again.

I guarantee that Hamas leadership are on their knees praying to Allah that whoever kidnapped that kid returns him alive.

Israel has held back at this point for only one reason: The White House told them not to do it.

Bush doesnt want an escalation in the middle east because greater unrest will result in higher gasoline prices here at home. With the mid-term elections coming up soon, higher gas prices would virtually gaurantee the loss of the Republican-controlled congress and senate.

Remember, without US support, there IS no Israel. Period. There is not one country on the face of the earth that likes or wants Israel to exist.

I'll end this diatribe with a joke i heard recently, courtesy of Jay Leno.

Q: Why was Moses dumb?
A: Because after wandering the desert for 40 years, Moses chose to settle on the only piece of land in all of the middle east that DOESNT have any oil. :)

I don't know where the justice is...where is it in the concept of right of return for refugees on the losing side of (multiple) wars? After World War II, Germans living in the Czech Sudetensland, who had been active in agitating for Nazi takeover, were expelled and lost their property. Poland annexed parts of East Prussia at the instigation of the USSR, and settled Poles there, in violation of allied agreements. No compensation was ever offered and no right of return was ever implemented. In 1947, India and Pakistan formed two states, and exchanged populations on a mass scale. No right of return was ever implemented. Turkey absorbed ethnic Turks from Bulgaria, and Finland absorbed Finns displaced by the Russians when Finland ceded territory to them. Further, their "brother" Arabs don't want them in their countries...hows that for judicial solidarity?

Israel is a member of the United Nations. That means that the other 191 member states officially recognize Israel.

sorry, Seaver....I should not have painted your comments wiith tthe same broad brush that I used to repond to Mojo or djestudo.

djestudo, I agree that it may not be possible for people not raised in that area of the world to behave as viiolently oor to react as irrationally as Israelis and Palestinians have.

What I cannot understand iis the assumption of too many that individual Palestinians with no personal history of violent or terrorist acts (the vast majority), and only a recent history of votiing in democratic elections, can be held equally responsible for violent attacks against Israelis, as Israeli political and miilitary leaders are held responsible.

Some here have even indicated that the majoriity of ordinary Palestinians are assumed to be terrorist supporters who deserve to be on the receiving end of any violence that the leaders of the sovereign state of Israel decide to send in their direction.....while official acts of war that reign indiscriminately against Palestinian civilian population are inappropriate to criticize.

The story of the bullet "lesson" in Palestinian 'kindergartens" helps quite a bit to remove a POV that indiviidual Palestinians aree much less culpable than Israeli leaders are.

Can anyone who accepts that "put a bullet in a Jew" story, consider that, even today, much of the state of New Hampshire stiill does not fund or offer "kindergarten"? Folks in an economically devasted and resource starved place like the West Bank and Gaza are fortunate to have kiindergarten as the norm there, though. Did the Palestinian version of the U.S. dept. of Education, design, distribute and fund the kindergarten bullet curriculum?

Even today, Hamas is known to have riival iinternal factions of varying weak or strong support for terroriist tactics. There is also a documented and bitter politiical struggle playing between Hamas and what remains of Arafat's political organization. So...how does the Palestinian who simply tries to provide for his family in the midst of all the upheaval, receive so much scorn and so liittle sympathy from some of you, while you reserve sympathy and support for Israeli leaders who order their soldiers to destroy access to electricity and clean water to hundreds of thousands in the desert during the hottest season of the year?

You obviiously believe that the average Palestinian, just scraping to survive, is more culpable for not making a personal effort to stop a history of suicide bombers who were not commanded or dispatched by a transparent, organiized central authority, than U.S. elected officials in DC who have the authority and the resources to lower crime in DC and to slow iillegal Mexican border infiltration to a trickle, but don't. You don't seem to hold any authority to the high standard of performance that you hold a collection of poverty striicken violence ravaged Palestinians to.

You certaiinly don't hold Shiite supreme cleriic Sistani to the standard of culpabiility that you assign to the Palestinian public's obligation to influence the end of terrorist acts against Israel. Don't you thiink that Sistani could do more to influence hiss followers to help end the insurgency and save lives of Ameriican troops?

How do you come to assign so much blame to powerless individuals who have been stateless for so many years that you weigh their suspected culpabiity for terrorism on a much higher scale than you assign to leaders who we all know have the power and resources to effect reduction in violence, criime, terrorist acts, and border infiltration, but don't?

i am absolutely bafled by the responses in support of if actions in gaza.
i had difficulty expressing it and keeping to the civility game we agree to play here---but this edito from haaretz sums things up and says it better than i could:


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...?itemNo=733427

I think it's somewhat hypocritical for Israel to say they wont deal with Hamas regarding the release of their soldier when just a month or so ago traded an Israeli businessman for Palestinians in Israeli's jails. I suspect some of the heavy handed tactics used by Israel is to buffer claims that Hamas demanded women and children(under 18) released from Israeli prisons since this doesnt put Israel in a positive light international speaking.

I won't get into this that or the other thing because everyone has different truths, but I'd like to see a huge UN presence in the Palestinian territories just to give both sides a chance at peace.I hardly think it is fair that Israel controls the Palestinians every day of life by running the electricity grids, water supply,food supply money supply etc etc then in the last couple days have destroyed whatever infrastructure left ie blowing up government building, razing houses of suspected terrorists and razing farmland not to mention having a say if and when the Palestinians will be recognized as a people and have statehood.

But when you blow people up, someone will get pissed off.

Maybe the media shouldn't cover this conflict anymore.Wonder if things would get better or worse without the constant attention to who is right and wrong or the bigger victims. Darfur or Sierra Leone anyone?

Good find roachboy. I think I'll send this honestreporting. They are pretty fair and reasonable when it comes to media bias.

roachboy...JINSA and AIPAC have gotten their moneys worth....

I hadn't heard about this. Would you have a link to this story?






One wonders how valid the issue of occupation is after what Hamas pulled in Gaza. In return for land, all Israel got was daily rocket attacks, kidnappings, and scenes of rioting, burning and looting...all originating from Gaza. Why is this acceptable? Is Hamas more concerned about tending to the needs of their people, or annihilating Israel?

Can anyone blame Israel for hunting down the leadership of Hamas after what they have done? Why doesn't anyone outside of Israel hold Hamas accountable for terrorizing Israeli men, women and children with rocket fire and suicide bombers, and kidnapping and killing their citizens? Why doesn't anyone outside of Israel condemn Hamas for not recognizing Israel's right to exist and for attacking it non-stop?

Israel's public security minister, Avi Dichter, suggested Friday that Israel is ready to cut a deal that would fall short of a direct prisoner swap,

Dichter said Israel could free some Palestinian prisoners as a goodwill gesture, provided Shalit is released and Hamas stops rocket attacks on Israel. If there is calm, "Israel will need to, after some time, release prisoners as a reciprocal gesture," Dichter said. "Israel knows how to do this. Israel has done this more than once in the past."

He was referring to previous prisoner swaps, usually in deals that free far more Palestinians than Israelis. Privately, Israeli officials have said they did not rule out talks in Shalit's case, either.

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/ne...ntent=w070761A

Sorry for the lag between responses.Have to make a living.

My hope is that the Hamas have treated the Israeli soldier as humanely as possible. Otherwise they have defeated themselves.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israel raises possibility of prisoner release if Hamas frees kidnapped soldier

SARAH EL DEEB

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - Two weeks into Israel's violent standoff with Hamas, Israel sent conflicting signals Friday on whether it is prepared to swap Palestinian prisoners for a 19-year-old Israeli soldier whose capture by Palestinian militants has touched off a harsh Israeli military campaign.

Israeli troops killed 32 Palestinians in two days of air strikes and artillery barrages, Palestinian officials said. The campaign is aimed at stopping rocket attacks on Israel and pressuring the ruling Hamas movement to release the kidnapped soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit.






Israel's public security minister, Avi Dichter, suggested Friday that Israel is ready to cut a deal that would fall short of a direct prisoner swap,

Dichter said Israel could free some Palestinian prisoners as a goodwill gesture, provided Shalit is released and Hamas stops rocket attacks on Israel. If there is calm, "Israel will need to, after some time, release prisoners as a reciprocal gesture," Dichter said. "Israel knows how to do this. Israel has done this more than once in the past."

He was referring to previous prisoner swaps, usually in deals that free far more Palestinians than Israelis. Privately, Israeli officials have said they did not rule out talks in Shalit's case, either.

Moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he has won Israeli assurances that it would reciprocate for Shalit's release by freeing some prisoners, as well as Hamas politicians it has rounded up in recent days.

Officials close to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert later said that Dichter's statement did not reflect the views of the government, and that Israel insists on the soldier's unconditional release. However, the government did not issue a formal statement distancing itself from the minister.

Israel does not want to be seen as cutting a deal with Hamas militants, but also does not seem to have a way to free the soldier by force.

Hamas said Friday that Shalit, seized June 25, is alive and being treated well. It also urged Israel to negotiate. The Islamic militant group initially demanded the release of hundreds of prisoners, but then scaled back its demands, seeking freedom for some 150 female inmates and several dozen men serving long sentences.

The internal Israeli debate came as ground troops backed by tanks pursued militants in the streets of crowded Gaza towns, and aircraft struck northern Gaza.

Shalit is believed to be held in southern Gaza, and days after he was seized, Israel launched its biggest military campaign in the coastal strip since ending its 38-year occupation there nine months ago.

The incursion began in southern Gaza, then expanded Thursday to the north as troops seized control of a ribbon of land. On Friday, Israeli aircraft struck Palestinian gunmen in northern Gaza.

Palestinian health officials said a total of 32 Palestinians were killed over two days, including 24 on Thursday, in the bloodiest day of clashes since the renewed fighting began last week. An 11-year-old boy shot in the chest during fighting on Wednesday died of his wounds late Friday, Palestinian hospital officials said.

Despite the Israeli offensive, Palestinian rocket fire from Gaza continued Friday, with militants launching a dozen projectiles toward Israel.

Egyptian mediators have proposed a two-stage deal in which Hamas would free Shalit and halt rocket attacks. In exchange, Israel would halt its offensive and promise to free some Palestinian prisoners in the future.

A Palestinian official close to the negotiations said Israel has agreed to the Egyptian formula, but wants the deal to be confidential, to avoid the impression of a direct prisoner exchange. Hamas wants the terms of the deal to be announced publicly, he said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the talks are confidential.

Israeli cabinet minister Roni Bar-On, who is close to Olmert, said Israel would not negotiate with Hamas over the release of prisoners. However, his comment did not appear to contradict Dichter who also did not call for direct contact with the militants.

The fighting has compounded the misery that has deepened in Gaza and the West Bank since Hamas took power in March. International sanctions imposed to pressure the group to recognize Israel have rendered it unable to pay government salaries, but on Friday, Palestinian officials said about one-fifth of the 165,000 civil servants would receive a small down payment.

Government employees sustain about one-third of the Palestinians. Small down payments have been paid twice before.

source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/735959.html

the israeli incursion really needs to stop.
there is no justification for this kind of collective punishment.
note in the above that some 200 containers of food are still being blocked from entering gaza
the main power station remains out of commission.

there really is no possible justification for this kind of action.

Thanks. Oddly I feel better after reading that article. What a strange world we live in.

Before the incursion there was about 500 rockets fired in to Israel from Palestine in the past year.

The attack on the post that caused the incursion was led by Hamas, which is the organization that heads the Palestenian government (elected by the people there).

Now would you not consider that a declaration of war, in any other country?

If Hamas wants to run a government, they have to stop being terrorists first. You can not with one hand assault a country daily and expect the other side to sit there and not respond ever.

What has Palestenians done since Israel a year ago left their territory, leaving them free to rule themselves? On the very first day that they left, they fired rockets into Israeli towns. That is not settlements, but pre-1967 territory, non 'contested' land. How much have they built, and grown, err wait no they dig a tunnel and Hamas terrorists (somehow different then the Hamas government, so it is not an act fromt he nation, though I have yet to figure this out), attack a military base, and capture a soldier, and hold him hostage for hundreds of prisoners in an exchange.

Simply the war that Palestenians are waging has nothing to do with occupation. At some point you have to say enough is enough, Palestine is run by terrorists and they will not disarm them, and they will not govern them, so you have to hit back.

xasy..

hit back? hit back at who though? the whole palestinian population? just cos george bush is a total dick doesnt mean all americans are total dicks. get my point?

If the population elects a terrorist organization, in their 'democratic' process... If the government continues to allow terrorist organizations to work, and shoot hundreds of rockets daily. They continue to not only not disarm, but train new terrorist cells, what should a country do? Israel gets heat if they close the border completely, and that does not stop them from trying to dig and attack,to shoot.

Imagine if your town was getting shot at with rockets daily. And the minute you try to defend yourself, you get yelled at. Sorry but if you have a terrorist government, participating in ground assault on a neighboring country. Rocket attacks on the neighboring country. Kidnapping of government people of a neighboring country (this being a soldier, they also murdered a civilian as well), how long would you accept it as being norm. After all it is not the 'palestenian population' they only elected the terrorists. The country accepts them and honors them as martyrs.

Sorry while I feel bad for the average citizen, the government is to blame, they have to stop acting as a terrorist organization. They have to disarm the militants. They have to build a country, but they do not seem to want that.

So I understand your point, but the problem is that your point does not work, over all, since it does not solve the terrorist attacks and the fact that they are governed by a terrorist organization that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel). I am sorry I am mistaken, they do not even recognize Israel right to exist as a nation.

Wel it looks like Hezbollah thought it would be a good idea to capture some Israeli soldiers too. They then brought them back into Lebanon and the Israeli's went right on in after them. Something tells me this is going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.

[COLOR="Yellow"]PLEASE REFRAIN FROM THE USE OF RACIAL SLURS TO DESRIBE PLAYERS IN SITUATION[/COLOR]

Anybody seen the price of crude this morning? With this wideniing of the war, crude is going to skyrocket and the stock market is going to get hit hard. Gold will increase in value though.

Just return those dammed soldiers and be done with it. It's the 1% of the arab population that is fucking up the lives of the ordinary palestinians, israeli,lebanese, syrians.

Stop the missle attacks, the tunneling, recognize Israel and make peace. Why is that so goddammed difficult!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Israel isnt going anywhere. When are these fucking people going to realise that?

perhaps because the idf shares something of your racist view of palestinians, and of arabs in general.
perhaps because it is understood that racism directed against arabs is somehow ok.
i do not know where you get the idea that being a racist is ok, mobo: apparently you acquired it somewhere.
maybe you should give this some thought.
then i would advise you give this some more thought before you post more racist drivel here.

I apologize for the use of that offensive term. All i see is such trouble that has such a simple solution. The whole situation just makes me so angry because, if the arab countries would simply recognize the right of israel to live in peace and stop shooting rockets into israel and capturing soldiers, everything could be solved. 99% of all people in all the countries simply want to live in peace and raise their families. But so long as the syrian govt continues to support those groups, peace just cant happen.

Listening right now to the Syrian ambassador on CNN. He was asked why Damascus supports Hamas, FAtah, Hezbollah, etc etc etc. Of course he denied that those organisations even exist. And that of course Syria has no ties to any organisation or groups that fire rockets into Israel on a daily basis.

He completed avoided answering a direct question whether the rockets fired into Haifa were done by Hezbollah or some other militant group. Listening to this guy, he seemed to imply that israel shot their own rockets themselves into Haifa. :rolleyes:

Loaded words:
"simply"
"the right"
"stop shooting rockets"
"everything... solved"

Through the tone and vocabulary of your post, I am not convinced that you have a good grasp of how very, very complicated this whole situation is. If you did, I am not sure if you would dare say that anything is "simply" solved in the Middle East (or anywhere else, for that matter). People don't start shooting rockets across borders just for fun; they have their reasons, and the reasons are not simple. People will also not simply stop shooting rockets and suddenly realize, out of the blue, that "hey! we've been wrong for the last 60 years! let's all shake hands and sing kumbaya."

Hey, for our part, why can't we "simply recognize" that Palestine had "the right to live in peace," before Israel came into the picture? That's their perspective, and is it really so much less reasonable than yours? Why not at least entertain their feelings, to try and understand why the fuck people have been so pissed off for 60 years? That's the only way that dialogue could possibly lead ANYwhere.

In any case, it is all one big clusterfuck. There are no easy solutions, and there is no ONE group to blame. Please do not make such claims.

"We will have peace when Arabs love their children more then they hate us."

--Golda Meir, Israeli Prime Minister, 1969

Amen. Forgot about that statement. Well done powerclown

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.

so i ask the likes of powerclown and mobo one question.

lets take the scenario and justify what israel has done.

so some wacko group on the border with israel kidnaps 2 soldiers and holds them hostage to be swapped for other prisoners, putting national security at stake and the lives of every lebanese national not to mention the hundreds of thousands of holiday makers at stake..and yes that includes my wife and her family are there in lebanon on a holiday shes has been talking about since the day i met her....

so israel decides that hesbollah practically uses the national airport as some sort of base, that all the ports are used to smuggle arms, so israel decides to block all ports coming into the country, the infrastructure like runways and bridges which are vital to the economy of a nation recovering from 15 years of civil war are supposedly fair game.

and all Bush has to say is that israel has a right to self defence and that syria is to blame? i dont know if the whole world is oblivious to this, but this is what i call WAR! unjustified attacks on a democratically elected govenment which doesnt support terrorism (as is the case of hamas) is unacceptable to any decent human being.

i compare bushs' blessings to the blessings the US gave saddam to invade kuwait back in the 90's...i wonder what will prevail...

anyways back to my point....

so if say the USA or another group from within the USA..say the CIA took the nationals of another country hostage, prisoner etc, without the knowledge of another country...in a military operation or otehrwise, would that be justified? and if not then does the country who wants their citizens back have the right to bomb infrastructure in the US?

take guantanamo for example... illegally held prisoners...held under false pretenses.....or maybe the secret rendering of terrorism suspects by the CIA...can a country that objects to the detention of their citizens have the right to attack the USA and its infrastructure based on the same justifications that israel has used against lebanon?

just a few thoughts.....all posts welcomed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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

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.

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.

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.

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..?

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?

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.

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.

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:
Chomsky also stated:
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:
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:
and yet...you came back with this statement:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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?

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.

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.

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:
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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 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!!!

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...

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?

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.

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:

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

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.

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:

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?

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

so attacking civilian targets is ok?

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.

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 disagree strongly with this. Their view and stance, is the total destruction of Israel. They believe Israel does not have a right to exist. Look to the yom kipper war, or the 6-day war, or any other conflict in the past 60 years there, and you will see, it is not about anything other then, the destruction of Israel. Even now as Hamas is part of the Palestenian government, they do not recognize Israel.

An example of the hardship is closing border enterancesbetween Palestine and Israel, where terrorists enter. And when they open it, the capture a suicide bomber, and have to close down the enterance. Later that day get condemned for not allowing Palestenian employees to get to work (no mention of the suicide bomber that was trying to sneak through). Safety comes sadly at a price.

They have also destroyed homes of anyone who was a suicide bomber. Sadly since Palestenians are willing to be martyrs, and do not mind dying this is a punitive punishment, since in Palestine homes tend to be for an entire family, so there could be a whole family there. Again a safety measure attempt that comes at a price.

If there is a strip of houses that are used as cover from Israel, so that they can fire rockets at Israel, they have come in and bulldozed the place flat, so that anyone firing rockets there will be seen, and can defend against. Once again safety comes at a price.

So neither group recognizes the other as a legitimate political entity with any right to exist, the main difference being that Israel has an institutionalized method of fighting the war (whilst violating international law to which they might not be bound, but I refer to it as a sort of "standard protocol" for armed conflict), while the Palestinian groups are a more scattered bunch, fighting their side of the conflict (also violating international law) as guerillas and suicide bombers. Both sides target civilians, and do whatever they consider necessary to accomplish their goals. Is this a more accurate description?

Also, I see what you're saying about the actions that must be taken for safety's sake, but unfortunately, it is precisely those actions that garner support for Israel's opponents. I simply cannot consider this the only acceptable course of action because it basically boils down to whether we'd rather see Israeli lives and property destroyed, or Palestinian lives and property destroyed. Allowing either only widens the rift between the two sides, as more cries for vengeance and more angry soldiers or suicide bombers are borne from the violence visited upon them on purpose or by circumstance.

What has especially shaken my view of the situation was footage I saw of a Palestinian family sitting on the curbside weeping as they watch Israeli bulldozers destroy their newly built house, not because they had any ties to terrorism, but because it was impossible for them to get through all the red tape needed to build a house sanctioned by the Israeli bureaucracy, while more Israeli families are encouraged to settle and "dig-in" to the West Bank so they might claim it as their own territory. Looking into the faces of the family, especially the young boys, I saw the kind of confusion and anger that takes anchor in the heart and fills the mind with thoughts of violence that might never be quelled. It was like watching the birth of a suicide bomber. In the parent's faces, I saw nothing but despair. I can not justify this as protection of any Israeli interests other than forcing innocent Palestinians out of the West Bank. Are they not worthy of living peacefully and working on land that they own, in a land they consider sacred? Do the actions of a few condemn the many? If so, we are all in a lot of trouble.

We can do better than this.

Israel has recognized the Palestenian right to exist, they have said they would work with Hamas, if they would stop acting as a terrorist organization, and recognize Israel's right to exist. So again that is inaccurate.

Never said that. Israel tries its best not to hit civilians, they do not target civilians, the terrorists use the civilians as human shields.

Yes, and Israel withdrew a year ago, and since then got a terrorist organization running their government, re-arming of the militant groups, over 500 hundred rocket attacks, continued attempts for suicide bombers to get in to Israel, tunnel dug, assaulting a military compound inside Israel, soldiers killed, soldier kidnapped. Yep it is their right to own, and work the land.. I wish someone would tell them to do that, and not continue to assault their neighbor who was attempting peace, since they do not seem to get the idea.

xasy: do you notice any dissonance between your summary and the information bermuDa posted?

in his posts, you get an outline of ways in which the various parties involved with this long brutal degrading (for everyone) conflict determine each other---in yours, you get an image of israel as Perpetual Victim, which provides you with no options if you want to explain why this or any particular conflict might happen----except vague and outmoded narratives of israel the victim struggling to survive in a hostile environment (when the reality is that israel is by a considerable distance the most powerful military force in the region and is under no meaningful threat from any combination of others--no threat in the way you seem to prefer to think about threat, that is--there is no threat to israel's existence in 2006...) buttressed perhaps with the socially acceptable racism directed at arabs that many folk who have no idea what they are talking about use to fill in inconvenient gaps in vague narratives (so in your story there are no civilians only terrorists opposing israel--everyone is a terrorist--you cant tell who is and who is not--"they" use "human shields"--and so by extension are not themselves human--nice work....)


your narrative gives you no space to actually think about the conflicts that lay behind the present war on lebanon.
for you, all questions as to cause and motive are settled in advance. everything you adduce as evidence is simply plugged into this a priori framework.

as a way of thinking about history, your position is not viable, precisely because what looking at history would function to explain you have decided is already settled, given in advance. the same problem obtains for thinking about politics.

there are ways in which this kind of narrative indicates that this thread is not even a debate---it is simply a place for a collage of mutually exclusive stories and no meaningful dialogue between them.

you could even see this kind of talking past each other as a little petri dish in which some of the structuring features that lay behind not only the lsraeli war on lebanon but a whole series of previous conflicts sits: if these narratives reflect what is happening ideologically amongst the participants, they simply talk past each other. they are set up to talk past each other.

at bottom, the version that i have been tracking assumes that violations of the dignity of the palestinian population are problematic--and that violence will follow from systematic violations of dignity, that is of basic human rights---from this, you assume that the palestinian population is made up of a wide range of human beings--not "terrorists"--and then you attempt to see how it is that variables have come to be shaped as they are--and you can get a glimpse of how the right likud story is fundamentally an insult to that dignity. not content with shutting palestinians out of the present, a narrative like yours tries to shut them out of the past as well.

in the end, xazy, yours is not a narrative about this conflict: your is a narrative within the conflict--it is part of the conflict--it is the logic used by one of the parties to shape itself within the context of the conflict--you are not explaining the conflict, then--you are reproducing it in your narrative.

Yes because this thread is not about the entire history of Israel and the palestenian conflict. My viewpoint is decided honestly, not going to deny it. And in this thread I have not been posting to explain my views or opinions on the past 60 year conflict.

On a side part of my thoughts that once you signed a peace treat, and start moving to that peace, both sides are supposed to hold to their end. So far it is all one sided. So if you want to go back in history start a topic about that, but do not throw that in my face, about how I am not responding about that. This is about recent history, and going back since really the whole peace process to me more then shapes this encounter.

I have always sympothized with the innocents hurt, and that, at the same time I blame the terrorists for allowing this to continue... But look at the schools there, they are taught and bred hatred at this point.

I agree that whatever may have happened in the history may have shaped the past few years, but if both sides sign an accord and want to start a peace process then both sides have to work towards it. If the other side does not want to (which is seemingly obvious by their actions) then we can continue to talk about the acts of war that they are doing.

But to be honest, all this is a different topic and should not be continued in this thread.

how one understands this conflict IS the center of this thread. debates about how one understands this conflict IS the thread. what else do you think is going on here? what is the interest in repeating lines that you can see on television, given at press conferences by nice men in flashy uniforms?
if there is no debate to be had, what are we doing here?
what is the point of this, or any, of the threads about this conflict?

.....indeed !!! ....and....it explains why the general discussion thread on a "political" subject, like the new escalation of violence in the M.E., racked up so many more posts than this thread has.

If some of us were not so committed to challenging the "I know what I know" mindset that perceives the politics forum to be "too frustrating", or "too intimidating", debate could then be totally eclipsed by "discussion"....chit-chat........banter........ like this:

I imagine this is the same way some of the countries and groups involved in this conflict feel about resuming past talks or starting some kind of new negotiations.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...823817,00.html

well this removes any ambiguity about what the bushpeople are up do, doesnt it?

what is going on here?
how does the bush administration give permission to israel to bomb lebanon?
how could the bush administration give israel the green light, then devise a plan to comdemn the attacks in a week, then send rice to set up a cease fire AND BEFORE ANY OF THIS HAPPENS TELL PEOPLE THE PLAN?
why would you do that?
what possible purpose does this serve?
why would the administration want a cease fire to be seen as a sham?

how does the bush administration give permission to israel to bomb lebanon?

what is going on?

i am so confused.

Isreal has recognized Palestinian rights of existance for quite some time. A big point of this is that they gave away Gaza to hold to their end of the peace agreement. The Israeli government exists to protect themselves as a result of the many wars others have declared on them in thier short history.

Hamas and the PLO (both Palestinian governmental parties) have NEVER swayed from their party platform of total destruction of Israel.

So why are you trying to paint them both with the same brush?