i think rootless and vitamin did a fine job and i think they did prove aredouble wrong, the comments like "get the hell out of here with that shit" i think are coming out of frustration that dude is not being reasonable and keeps going with his ideas and comparisons even when proven wrong
Where exactly did they prove me wrong? Because as I recall, Rootless kept presenting a strawman argument in which I'm saying that Israel is predominately white. Then, his audience of geniouses buy into this and applaud. Try not to pat yourselves on the back too hard, fellas.
To reiterate, what I HAVE consistently said is that Israel exists primarily for the benefit of white people. I've supported this with examples illustrating that the most socially empowered group of people in the region are white Europeans. NONE of you have presented a factually based rebuttal of this statement. NONE. In fact, the chief detractor aknowledged that the ethnic majority doesn't have the social agency of white Europeans in the region. He basically made my argument for me, yet at the end of the day it seems that popularity contest politics reign supreme. Eat it up. I just find it hilarious that it takes only an f-grade Jedi Mind Trick to get you stupid fucking cattle to fall in. (We've decided that ad hominems are OK, right?) I say "2+2=4" and then he says "You stupid bastard. How wrong you are. 2+2=4" and then I look bad? Shit, I should've gone to magician school.
And on the charge of being suspect (insert clever Ted Kacynski icon) I'll go ahead and offer some background and clarifying info because I think that's fair.
First, I'll say that my political leaning is obviously more toward the view that an occupied Palestine needs to be granted autonomy and on a principal basis I oppose a two party solution as it has been presented, but I take reparation for Holocaust victims and the need for a Jewish homeland along those lines very seriously. I want to emphasize that I'm not hostile to that concept and in a more ideal scenario, such a place would have been established in Europe, post WWII. I realize that for numerous reasons, not the least of which fresh wounds, negotiating such a thing would have been difficult to say the least. That said, as politically unlikely as this may be, I think that Europe needs to pay like it weigh (particularly former Axis powers and Great Britain).
I was thinking about how it's possible for Fascist fringe groups to buy entire villages in Italian highlands and I have to wonder-- Why were such areas not seen as viable alternatives to the "solution" chosen? Actually, the answers are fairly obvious and Britain, the US, etc. found it far more expeditious to export the "problem." (And yes, I'm aware the Zionist movement existed pre WWII. And it wrestled with where to put a Jewish homeland.) Now, as years move forward and the collective lot of Palestinians remains largely unchanged, time can be cited as a reason maintaining the entrenched position that Israel should exist where it does.
I mentioned Italy, and that's actually where my finacee is right now studying abroad. When she leaves in a week, her plan is to visit Jordan for three weeks where her family, Jordanian Palestinian refugees reside. I find myself in the position of trying to dissuade her from her visit because despite-- and perhaps "because of" is the better argument-- Jordan being viewed as a country that is largely concessionary to Israel, I don't rule out a vice grip situation emerging there.
The bulk of the pro-Zionist camp on here, when discussing regional history, was able to rattle off historical fact after historical fact, most of which, to be fair, were extremely amiable to Israeli (yes white Israeli) aims. The assumption from the onset was that noone was questioning Israel's right to exist. That was at the outer limits of discussion and it was said that the idea "there can never be justice on stolen land" didn't apply. It was dismissed as naive. Unfortunately, the position wasn't defended with anything other than more historical facts of agreements, borders, treaties, etc. all of which presuppose the legitimacy of Israel. Clearly, it has become or always has been such an article of faith that Israel is legitimate that those of you on this forum who've been defending it from jump feel that you don't have to do so on any terms other than those of the legal documents that it drafted, or-- and there is plenty of third party historical evidence, not to mention damning acknowledgment from Israeli politicos themselves-- legal documents created in conjunction with people under duress. I'm reminded of Christians citing as proof of God the Bible. . .because, after all, the Bible is the Word of God and it says that he exists.
Sadly for your comforting intellectual cowardice, however, even people who don't particularly value things such as basing arguments upon empirical evidence or possesing warrant in one's actions often flip the table on the types of shell games you've established. Again, not necessarily because they have a huge emotional investment at stake, but because your disingenous mound of bullshit stinks. Even to bullshitters.
So while you sit back and quiet any momentarily discomforting thoughts by winning a popularity contest, you leave some serious questions unanswered such as "How can or why should a nation that routinely, and often by its admission, without direct provocation disregards terms to which it earlier agreed as measures of goodwill be taken seriously?" or "Why is it unreasonable to compare a nation that has routinely allowed, encouraged, and subsidized the efforts of almost exclusively white people to appropriate land on the fringe of or beyond its borders from surrounding indigenous people to a resort for white people" (and this says nothing of the nation itself usurping water from said area's irrigation systems to create an oasis behind its walls-- but that's all just propaganda too, right?)
I'm sure people on here have heard of Idi Amin, right? And I'm certain there are people on this board who also know of his avowed anti-Semetism (erecting a monument to Hitler in Uganda, espoused hatred of Jews, etc.). I'm also certain that several of you would cite the PLO's political allegiance with this man as reprehensible and an indication of the less than austere motivations behind the group. Well, how many of you are also aware that at the height of his tyranny, when he was killing hundreds of thousands of Eritreans, Asians, and Ugandans, Isreal was his financier? IT built the airport, to which IT shipped the weapons, that IT made or sold, which he actively used to liquidate scores of people. This isn't an exercise in "who's suffered more?" This is a call for those of you who earlier expressed a boundless unwillingness to tolerate terrorism and genocide to actually stick to your guns and recognize Israel for what it is-- A colonizer like any other. (And on a related note, I need to say that I'm disgusted by how many of you accept pro-strike on Afghanistan collateral damage rhetoric as morally permissable. "*Wah* *wah* moral relativism. *Sniffle* *sniffle* into the ocean. . . Well, you know-- You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet." Don't fool yourselves. You kicking it with the moral relativists. Straight up and down.) In the PLO's case, it can make the questionable argument that beggers can't be choosers and trying times call for less-than-stellar political bedfellows. What's Israel's excuse? Yeah, I thought so.
Anyway, regarding my fiancee's family: Her grandma was forced to flee her home when she was young. How young, I forget, but apparently old enough to remember. They, like many Palestinians lost almost all their possessions. Land, crops, etc. I was reading a book last night that mentioned a lot of Palestinians still have the keys to the homes they were forced to vacate and I remembered Nadia telling me a while back that she's pretty sure her grandmother still has the ke
y to her home. I thought about something that puts this in an eerie perspective. I bought my first house just over a year ago. It's a row house and it's 100 years old. Its construction would've predated Israel's formation. I live in the wealthiest nation in the world, so if I were destitute here, I'd be better off than the "comfortable" in other places. If tommorrow I were forced on pain of death to vacate my house, I would be furious. I work jobs I can't stand on the regular to pay my mortgage. This is nothing compared to what people here but especially elsewhere in the world go through to keep roofs over their heads. Let's just say there's a reasonable chance that in the aforementioned scenario if I came back 50 years later that house would still be standing, and if I looked through the window at a family-- especially a family of social upper echelons who moved to my house 5 years prior under the pretense that they belong to a certain sect and for that reason have a birthright to it-- I would be furious. I would still want my shit back. What's more, I would have a far more solid claim to it than would they. This is an incredibly muted version of the reality which my fiancee's family lives, only her grandmother can't look through that window. She can't get within miles of it. In the unlikely event she got past checkpoints, and guns, and barbed wire, and heat, she'd still be powerless to do anything. But one of you from New York, or Munich, or Michigan, or London, you could go there, and for many of you, living there would be as easy as saying "I am a Jew." That's not some propaganda piece, that's reality.
First, I'll say that my political leaning is obviously more toward the view that an occupied Palestine needs to be granted autonomy and on a principal basis I oppose a two party solution as it has been presented, but I take reparation for Holocaust victims and the need for a Jewish homeland along those lines very seriously. I want to emphasize that I'm not hostile to that concept and in a more ideal scenario, such a place would have been established in Europe, post WWII. I realize that for numerous reasons, not the least of which fresh wounds, negotiating such a thing would have been difficult to say the least. That said, as politically unlikely as this may be, I think that Europe needs to pay like it weigh (particularly former Axis powers and Great Britain).
Sorry, but Israel isn't going anywhere. That's just a fact that you'll have to acknowledge if you want to have any kind of peace. Getting into historical arguments about who deserves the land more will get you nowhere. That's the reality of the situation.
Sorry, but Israel isn't going anywhere. That's just a fact that you'll have to acknowledge if you want to have any kind of peace. Getting into historical arguments about who deserves the land more will get you nowhere. That's the reality of the situation.
First, I'll say that my political leaning is obviously more toward the view that an occupied Palestine needs to be granted autonomy and on a principal basis I oppose a two party solution as it has been presented, but I take reparation for Holocaust victims and the need for a Jewish homeland along those lines very seriously. I want to emphasize that I'm not hostile to that concept and in a more ideal scenario, such a place would have been established in Europe, post WWII. I realize that for numerous reasons, not the least of which fresh wounds, negotiating such a thing would have been difficult to say the least. That said, as politically unlikely as this may be, I think that Europe needs to pay like it weigh (particularly former Axis powers and Great Britain).
Sorry, but Israel isn't going anywhere. That's just a fact that you'll have to acknowledge if you want to have any kind of peace. Getting into historical arguments about who deserves the land more will get you nowhere. That's the reality of the situation.
could someone cite where on these 11 pages that someone said Isreal should not exist (i.e. abolished, attacked or laid to waste)?
First, I'll say that my political leaning is obviously more toward the view that an occupied Palestine needs to be granted autonomy and on a principal basis I oppose a two party solution as it has been presented, but I take reparation for Holocaust victims and the need for a Jewish homeland along those lines very seriously. I want to emphasize that I'm not hostile to that concept and in a more ideal scenario, such a place would have been established in Europe, post WWII. I realize that for numerous reasons, not the least of which fresh wounds, negotiating such a thing would have been difficult to say the least. That said, as politically unlikely as this may be, I think that Europe needs to pay like it weigh (particularly former Axis powers and Great Britain).
Sorry, but Israel isn't going anywhere. That's just a fact that you'll have to acknowledge if you want to have any kind of peace. Getting into historical arguments about who deserves the land more will get you nowhere. That's the reality of the situation.
could someone cite where on these 11 pages that someone said Isreal should not exist (i.e. abolished, attacked or laid to waste)?
I don't follow, Fatback. I am saying that it shouldn't exist in its current form. As far as the record question goes-- Oh, no doubt. Records vs utilities. I suspect a lot of people on this know how that goes.
In response to Motown-- You're not saying anything that challenges my points. I understand pragmatically that Israel is not likely to abolish itself (any more than the current US administration is going to voluntarily dissolve or Southern slaveowners were going to abolish the practise). To pretend as though the legitimacy of a state has no bearing on a discussion about whether or not it's "going too far" is absurd.
I am saying that it shouldn't exist in its current form.
So your thing is that the only functioning democracy in the region should dismantle itself because of its fundamentally biased reason for being, in order to give the land to a group whose reason for being is fundamentally biased. As has been stated, "Palestinians" is are a result of arbitrary borders, a term not widely used before the last 100-200 years. Jewish immigration, back to a land to which the have historical ties (not to mention a singular religious significance) largely happened over the over the same period of time. Now we can argue of the legitimacy of the founding of Isreal, just like we can argue the legitimacy of the founding of the US, but the fact is that it was formed, and the mass immigration of jews and Europeans to the israel and the US respectively determined the kind of country that was founded. We can all agree that Indians were screwed over, and I personally, as a Jew, have very mixed feelings and some compassion for the Palestinians. However, I think Israel has largely negotiated in good faith. Israel's goal is to be left alone, and they've made generous offers. The problem is people like you Are, who wont negotiate in good faith, because you dont think Israel has a right to exist. Not to say there aren't extremists in Israel, but its the people on both sides advocating their enemies annihilation that are prolonging this fight. Israel exists, and it is a functioning beautiful country and culture, and it has the right to exist and defend itself, especially against groups that attack and then hide among their own civilian populations. This tactic, and an utter willingness to murder Israeli civilians shows a complete lack of respect for human life, Are.
So your thing is that the only functioning democracy in the region should dismantle itself because of its fundamentally biased reason for being, in order to give the land to a group whose reason for being is fundamentally biased.
Well, I feel more and more that Israel is a functioning democracy only compared to it's neighbours like Syria and Egypt. How could it be when almost a fifth of it's population that are Arabs are not allowed in public offices and have been treated as second class citizens for decades, etc?
As has been stated, "Palestinians" is are a result of arbitrary borders, a term not widely used before the last 100-200 years. Jewish immigration, back to a land to which the have historical ties (not to mention a singular religious significance) largely happened over the over the same period of time.
Do you REALLY want to downplay Palestinians' ties to their land? Please explain how their historic and/or religious ties are less important than those of the Jews? To deny that Palestinians have lived there for thousands of years is denying the facts and ignorant, whatever they may have been called before.
its the people on both sides advocating their enemies annihilation that are prolonging this fight.
i think rootless and vitamin did a fine job and i think they did prove aredouble wrong, the comments like "get the hell out of here with that shit" i think are coming out of frustration that dude is not being reasonable and keeps going with his ideas and comparisons even when proven wrong
Where exactly did they prove me wrong? Because as I recall, Rootless kept presenting a strawman argument in which I'm saying that Israel is predominately white. Then, his audience of geniouses buy into this and applaud. Try not to pat yourselves on the back too hard, fellas.
To reiterate, what I HAVE consistently said is that Israel exists primarily for the benefit of white people. I've supported this with examples illustrating that the most socially empowered group of people in the region are white Europeans. NONE of you have presented a factually based rebuttal of this statement. NONE. In fact, the chief detractor aknowledged that the ethnic majority doesn't have the social agency of white Europeans in the region. He basically made my argument for me, yet at the end of the day it seems that popularity contest politics reign supreme. Eat it up. I just find it hilarious that it takes only an f-grade Jedi Mind Trick to get you stupid fucking cattle to fall in. (We've decided that ad hominems are OK, right?) I say "2+2=4" and then he says "You stupid bastard. How wrong you are. 2+2=4" and then I look bad? Shit, I should've gone to magician school.
And on the charge of being suspect (insert clever Ted Kacynski icon) I'll go ahead and offer some background and clarifying info because I think that's fair.
First, I'll say that my political leaning is obviously more toward the view that an occupied Palestine needs to be granted autonomy and on a principal basis I oppose a two party solution as it has been presented, but I take reparation for Holocaust victims and the need for a Jewish homeland along those lines very seriously. I want to emphasize that I'm not hostile to that concept and in a more ideal scenario, such a place would have been established in Europe, post WWII. I realize that for numerous reasons, not the least of which fresh wounds, negotiating such a thing would have been difficult to say the least. That said, as politically unlikely as this may be, I think that Europe needs to pay like it weigh (particularly former Axis powers and Great Britain).
I was thinking about how it's possible for Fascist fringe groups to buy entire villages in Italian highlands and I have to wonder-- Why were such areas not seen as viable alternatives to the "solution" chosen? Actually, the answers are fairly obvious and Britain, the US, etc. found it far more expeditious to export the "problem." (And yes, I'm aware the Zionist movement existed pre WWII. And it wrestled with where to put a Jewish homeland.) Now, as years move forward and the collective lot of Palestinians remains largely unchanged, time can be cited as a reason maintaining the entrenched position that Israel should exist where it does.
I mentioned Italy, and that's actually where my finacee is right now studying abroad. When she leaves in a week, her plan is to visit Jordan for three weeks where her family, Jordanian Palestinian refugees reside. I find myself in the position of trying to dissuade her from her visit because despite-- and perhaps "because of" is the better argument-- Jordan being viewed as a country that is largely concessionary to Israel, I don't rule out a vice grip situation emerging there.
The bulk of the pro-Zionist camp on here, when discussing regional history, was able to rattle off historical fact after historical fact, most of which, to be fair, were extremely amiable to Israeli (yes white Israeli) aims. The assumption from the onset was that noone was questioning Israel's right to exist. That was at the outer limits of discussion and it was said that the idea "there can never be justice on stolen land" didn't apply. It was dismissed as naive. Unfortunately, the position wasn't defended with anything other than more historical facts of agreements, borders, treaties, etc. all of which presuppose the legitimacy of Israel. Clearly, it has become or always has been such an article of faith that Israel is legitimate that those of you on this forum who've been defending it from jump feel that you don't have to do so on any terms other than those of the legal documents that it drafted, or-- and there is plenty of third party historical evidence, not to mention damning acknowledgment from Israeli politicos themselves-- legal documents created in conjunction with people under duress. I'm reminded of Christians citing as proof of God the Bible. . .because, after all, the Bible is the Word of God and it says that he exists.
Sadly for your comforting intellectual cowardice, however, even people who don't particularly value things such as basing arguments upon empirical evidence or possesing warrant in one's actions often flip the table on the types of shell games you've established. Again, not necessarily because they have a huge emotional investment at stake, but because your disingenous mound of bullshit stinks. Even to bullshitters.
So while you sit back and quiet any momentarily discomforting thoughts by winning a popularity contest, you leave some serious questions unanswered such as "How can or why should a nation that routinely, and often by its admission, without direct provocation disregards terms to which it earlier agreed as measures of goodwill be taken seriously?" or "Why is it unreasonable to compare a nation that has routinely allowed, encouraged, and subsidized the efforts of almost exclusively white people to appropriate land on the fringe of or beyond its borders from surrounding indigenous people to a resort for white people" (and this says nothing of the nation itself usurping water from said area's irrigation systems to create an oasis behind its walls-- but that's all just propaganda too, right?)
I'm sure people on here have heard of Idi Amin, right? And I'm certain there are people on this board who also know of his avowed anti-Semetism (erecting a monument to Hitler in Uganda, espoused hatred of Jews, etc.). I'm also certain that several of you would cite the PLO's political allegiance with this man as reprehensible and an indication of the less than austere motivations behind the group. Well, how many of you are also aware that at the height of his tyranny, when he was killing hundreds of thousands of Eritreans, Asians, and Ugandans, Isreal was his financier? IT built the airport, to which IT shipped the weapons, that IT made or sold, which he actively used to liquidate scores of people. This isn't an exercise in "who's suffered more?" This is a call for those of you who earlier expressed a boundless unwillingness to tolerate terrorism and genocide to actually stick to your guns and recognize Israel for what it is-- A colonizer like any other. (And on a related note, I need to say that I'm disgusted by how many of you accept pro-strike on Afghanistan collateral damage rhetoric as morally permissable. "*Wah* *wah* moral relativism. *Sniffle* *sniffle* into the ocean. . . Well, you know-- You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet." Don't fool yourselves. You kicking it with the moral relativists. Straight up and down.) In the PLO's case, it can make the questionable argument that beggers can't be choosers and trying times call for less-than-stellar political bedfellows. What's Israel's excuse? Yeah, I thought so.
Anyway, regarding my fiancee's family: Her grandma was forced to flee her home when she was young. How young, I forget, but apparently old enough to remember. They, like many Palestinians lost almost all their possessions. Land, crops, etc. I was reading a book last night that mentioned a lot of Palestinians still have the keys to the homes they were forced to vacate and I remembered Nadia telling me a while back that she's pretty sure her grandmother stil
l has the key to her home. I thought about something that puts this in an eerie perspective. I bought my first house just over a year ago. It's a row house and it's 100 years old. Its construction would've predated Israel's formation. I live in the wealthiest nation in the world, so if I were destitute here, I'd be better off than the "comfortable" in other places. If tommorrow I were forced on pain of death to vacate my house, I would be furious. I work jobs I can't stand on the regular to pay my mortgage. This is nothing compared to what people here but especially elsewhere in the world go through to keep roofs over their heads. Let's just say there's a reasonable chance that in the aforementioned scenario if I came back 50 years later that house would still be standing, and if I looked through the window at a family-- especially a family of social upper echelons who moved to my house 5 years prior under the pretense that they belong to a certain sect and for that reason have a birthright to it-- I would be furious. I would still want my shit back. What's more, I would have a far more solid claim to it than would they. This is an incredibly muted version of the reality which my fiancee's family lives, only her grandmother can't look through that window. She can't get within miles of it. In the unlikely event she got past checkpoints, and guns, and barbed wire, and heat, she'd still be powerless to do anything. But one of you from New York, or Munich, or Michigan, or London, you could go there, and for many of you, living there would be as easy as saying "I am a Jew." That's not some propaganda piece, that's reality.
I don't think you know what words mean. What is more "intellectually cowardly," stating historical facts and agreements to bolstering one's argument or making up things about Idi Amin. In 1973, Idi Amin cut off diplomatic relations with Israel and proceeded to kick all Jews and Indians out of his country. In 1976, Israeli commandos launched a raid on said subsidized airport to free hostages that were taken to Entebbe. Israel did enjoy a robust trade with Amin's predecessor, Milton Obote. But they most surely did not arm him in his genocide. Uganda's patron in the cannibal years was largely Qadafi, the Libyan dictator who has shown such solidarity with the Palestinians he has sent his men to arrange the hijacking and blowing up of civilian aircraft.
And what is this piffle about Afghanistan? I don't even understand what you mean. There were civilian casualties in America's campaign in Afghanistan, just as there were from the Taliban's misrule. But the end result of that campaign was the collapse of the Taliban regime, a net moral gain for political freedom in that troubled land.
But back to Israel. You still insist on calling it a resort for white people. This displays a profound ignorance about the difference between Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews--which all count in your book as melanin deficient. More to the point, your history of the conflict is not really a history at all. Israel's supporters on this board concede the rightlesness of Palestinians living in the territories. But for you to not acknowledge that in 1948 nearly the entire Arab world attacked Israel and did not accept a partition plan than would have created Palestinian and Jewish majority states is not so much cowardice as agitprop. Nor do you mention that even Arafat's top advisers accepted a compensation formula for the right of return for Palestinians. You mention that Jews from new york can become citizens of Israel, this is true. But the reason for a Jewish homeland is because time and again in history, Jews have been singled out for elimination and persecution. The original Zionists sought to change that. When the first waves of Zionists came to Israel, they did not steal land, they purchased it. And more to the point they developed it. In your fevered imagination you suppose that populations never emigrate or move. Palestinians were not allowed to become full citizens in the Arab states where they settled after the 1948 war. But to not acknowledge that it was in fact a war further discloses your unseriousness.
And while you mention all this crap about history, making the case of the Palestinian historical grievance, you have nothing to say about their irrendentism today. You expect them to be immune from the logic of their own war making. Do you expect a country that encounters waves of walking smart bombs to do nothing? It turns out this wall and fence the Israelis built has done a good job of keeping out brainwashed martyrs from their shopping mall. Do you expect a country to do nothing in the face of missile attacks? You are treating the Palestinians in your formulation like infants, immune from the consequences of their own choices. Even if they did have a historical case for the elimination of Israel, which they don't, wishing it won't make it so. There are repercussions for choosing to make war.
So your thing is that the only functioning democracy in the region should dismantle itself because of its fundamentally biased reason for being, in order to give the land to a group whose reason for being is fundamentally biased.
Well, I feel more and more that Israel is a functioning democracy only compared to it's neighbours like Syria and Egypt. How could it be when almost a fifth of it's population that are Arabs are not allowed in public offices and have been treated as second class citizens for decades, etc?
I feel you, I am uncomfortable with the idea of a religious democracy, but Israel is a pretty secular society, and I doubt many in the region have much respect for religious diversity. Intertwined church and state is par for this part of the world.
As has been stated, "Palestinians" is are a result of arbitrary borders, a term not widely used before the last 100-200 years. Jewish immigration, back to a land to which the have historical ties (not to mention a singular religious significance) largely happened over the over the same period of time.
Do you REALLY want to downplay Palestinians' ties to their land? Please explain how their historic and/or religious ties are less important than those of the Jews? To deny that Palestinians have lived there for thousands of years is denying the facts and ignorant, whatever they may have been called before.
I think thats a fair discussion, but it always ends up back at whether 150 years of jewish immigration was "right". It happened, just like Europeans to America in the past, or current immigration panic. Palestinians have made demands, many have been met, but in the end, they dont think Israel should exist, so their can never be a deal, because mutual distrust has poisoned any potential progress, no one can act in good faith. Palestinians are caught out, screwed by Israel and their Arab neighbors, who have used Israel as scapegoats to incite their populations and channel anger towards its lowest common denominator, bigotry. I really wonder how people expect Israel to act when their neighbors elected officials stated policy is to not recognize Israel. Should Israel attempt to negotiate with these people when attacked? What does Israel have to negotiate with?
Back to the matters at hand in Lebanon. What I see is STALEMATE.
1) Shiites are roughly 40% of the Lebanese population. They are the largest secular group in the nation. Hezbollah has the overwhelming support of this population. They are more than just a terrorist organization, they are a political movement, a social movement and a movement of empowerment for the Shiites who have always been at the bottom of the barrel in Lebanese society. They are also a state within a state and chock full of weapons. They fought a 15 year civil war with the Christians and Sunnis, and until 2000 were fighting the Israelis.
The Israeli government says they want to wipe out Hezbolalh's weapons stash, and some talk about wiping out Hezbollah period. So far though, Israel's military strategy seems to be a "shock and awe" artillery and bombing offensive. Only recently have they begun to move in troops into Southern Lebanon, but its basically small commando units, that have supposedly taken over two Shiite villages. In the long run, this is simply not going to affect Hezbollah or its weapons stockpile. It supposedly has over 10,000 missiles alone. Even a massive ground assault would only push back Hezbollah, but then they'd move back in when hostilities were over. Not only that, but international pressure will only build upon Israel to cease its activities, so this slow, step by step process will most likely run out of time eventually. This simply doesn't appear to be a sound military strategy. If the plan is rather to send a message to Hezbollah and its neighbors, I don't think it'll really do that either. Syria and Iran are not going to physically attack Israel IMO, and blowing up large parts of Lebanon have only strengthened the Shiites ties to Hezbollah. They can say, "Look what Israel does, that's why we're here to fight them."
2) There's talk of Israel creating their buffer zone that they occupied for years in Southern Lebanon and then turning this area over to an international peace keeping force, perhaps led by NATO. While this proposed force MIGHT be able to stop raids, Hezbollah has proved that it has a new arsenal of long range missiles that can hit Israel from much longer ranges, which means they can shoot right over this buffer zone most likely.
3) There's also talk that all this bombing is meant to force the Lebanese government to crack down on Hezbollah and move into the South. Shiites are 40% of the population, and I've just heard that they are 40% of the military as well. Lebanon was embroiled in a 15 year long civil war. They were just in the process of rebuilding, restarting their economy, and beginning to discuss how to reform their arcane political system that only allows certain sectarian groups to hold certain offices and shuts out Shiites from most of the top positions even though they are the largest group in the country. There is no political will on the part of the Lebanese government to take on Hezbollah. Hezbollah will not peacefully give up their weapons, especially after this Israeli offensive, Lebanon does not want a civil war, and the Shiites in the military may not stay loyal to the central government if asked to go against Hezbollah either.
4) The U.S. is sitting on the sidelines and supporting Israel in this situation, as has been Bush's policy from the get go. Sec. of State Rice has made statements about how she doesn't want a cease fire yet because it would solve nothing. The problem with that, as elaborated in #1, 2, and 3, just letting the situation continue as it is, will most likely not really change the status quo in the end anyways. The U.S. has also singled out Syria and Iran as the main supporters of Hezbollah and claimed that they have instigated this whole situation, yet the U.S. refuses to talk to either one. They have what appears to me an idiotic diplomatic stance. The U.S. policy towards Syria is that it must give up its ties to terrorists, its WMD, its opposition to a peace agreement with Israel, AND THEN, the U.S. will talk to them. This is similar to Bush's failed policies towards Iran and North Korea. Our enemies have to unilaterially give up everything because they are bad countries, and then the U.S. will negotiate. Assad, the leader of Syria, wants give and take as most countries would, but the U.S. is not listening. Rather the U.S. is trying to get Egypt and Saudi Arabia to pressure Syria, even though neither of those countries has that much pull with Assad. The U.S. has too much wishful thinking I fear here in their plans for changing the entire Middle East to its liking.
5) In the long term, the only way to really take on Hezbollah is through a very painstacking process of deals and negotiations with the central government, and then attempts to try to pry away the Shiites from the organization by presenting more moderate Shiite politicians and political parties. That will take years, and the Israeli actions right now are only strengthening the ties between the Shiites and Hezbollah.
I don't think you know what words mean. What is more "intellectually cowardly," stating historical facts and agreements to bolstering one's argument or making up things about Idi Amin. In 1973, Idi Amin cut off diplomatic relations with Israel and proceeded to kick all Jews and Indians out of his country. In 1976, Israeli commandos launched a raid on said subsidized airport to free hostages that were taken to Entebbe. Israel did enjoy a robust trade with Amin's predecessor, Milton Obote. But they most surely did not arm him in his genocide. Uganda's patron in the cannibal years was largely Qadafi, the Libyan dictator who has shown such solidarity with the Palestinians he has sent his men to arrange the hijacking and blowing up of civilian aircraft.
And what is this piffle about Afghanistan? I don't even understand what you mean. There were civilian casualties in America's campaign in Afghanistan, just as there were from the Taliban's misrule. But the end result of that campaign was the collapse of the Taliban regime, a net moral gain for political freedom in that troubled land.
But back to Israel. You still insist on calling it a resort for white people. This displays a profound ignorance about the difference between Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews--which all count in your book as melanin deficient. More to the point, your history of the conflict is not really a history at all. Israel's supporters on this board concede the rightlesness of Palestinians living in the territories. But for you to not acknowledge that in 1948 nearly the entire Arab world attacked Israel and did not accept a partition plan than would have created Palestinian and Jewish majority states is not so much cowardice as agitprop. Nor do you mention that even Arafat's top advisers accepted a compensation formula for the right of return for Palestinians. You mention that Jews from new york can become citizens of Israel, this is true. But the reason for a Jewish homeland is because time and again in history, Jews have been singled out for elimination and persecution. The original Zionists sought to change that. When the first waves of Zionists came to Israel, they did not steal land, they purchased it. And more to the point they developed it. In your fevered imagination you suppose that populations never emigrate or move. Palestinians were not allowed to become full citizens in the Arab states where they settled after the 1948 war. But to not acknowledge that it was in fact a war further discloses your unseriousness.
And while you mention all this crap about history, making the case of the Palestinian historical grievance, you have nothing to say about their irrendentism today. You expect them to be immune from the logic of their own war making. Do you expect a country that encounters waves of walking smart bombs to do nothing? It turns out this wall and fence the Israelis built has done a good job of keeping out brainwashed martyrs from their shopping mall. Do you expect a country to do nothing in the face of missile attacks? You are treating the Palestinians in your formulation like infants, immune from the consequences of their own choices. Even if they did have a historical case for the elimination of Israel, which they don't, wishing it won't make it so. There are repercussions for choosing to make war.
Vitamin,
First off, this is beautifully written. I had to look up "agitprop" and I love learning new words...
Secondly, I can't believe you read that dudes whole rant and then gave such a reasoned response. RESPECT!
The BBC's Daniel Lak at the UN in New York says that the observers had taken shelter in a bunker under their base because there had already been 14 Israeli artillery attacks on their position, causing the French general who commands Unifil to call Israel's military asking them to desist.
However, as they sheltered the bunker was hit by a single heavy bomb from an Israeli war plane and four unarmed observers, from Austria, Canada, China and Finland, were killed.
A UN rescue team also came under fire as it searched the rubble for survivors.
You were born out of death to a life in a cage Where bombs are not the only reason people die Fed by the violence of hunger and homelessness Raised by colonialism Your heart and your will still grew strong
You scare me Not just because they tell me to be scared Not just because they repeat, repeat, repeat The story of 1983 Begging me to understand Americans are worth more than Lebanese
Why do they never tell me about Jihad al Bina That you have created so much Saved so many lives Improved so many more
It scares me When I admit to myself That I would be more scared without you If I still took the time to see
To see the violence that does not just fall from the skies that exists in hunger and homelessness in colonialism
It scares me That my hope is tangled up In actions I would never want to commit
But I don???t sleep much these days And I???ve tried hard But I haven???t found Anything to give me hope that they will listen
They repeat, repeat, repeat The story of Gaza withdrawal Hoping we won???t see The violence that continues That kills in so many ways Hoping we will now support it Or at least stop looking
They insist talk does not work When there is no one to talk to It is hard to find an interlocutor When you???re not willing to listen To see To feel
How do you keep faith that talk will work When even they are insisting it won???t?
I am learning to have hope in you I am learning to see you as so much more Than those actions I would never want to commit
You amaze me. Born out of death to a life in a cage Raised by colonialism You did not accept imprisonment as natural You did not accept hunger as justice You did not accept the ceaseless killing in so many ways Of those next to you Or those farther away
I love you But I will never be yours I don???t want you inside me You are too male for me
And I cannot, gratefully, fully silence the voice that insists: Some deaths you did accept Including of some who were listening
That is why the full statement that the question-marks pry me with reads: It is sad, but I???m learning to have hope in Hizbulla
Maybe it is the naivety of one whose life has never been directly threatened I still believe: Be the change you want to see in the world.
The BBC's Daniel Lak at the UN in New York says that the observers had taken shelter in a bunker under their base because there had already been 14 Israeli artillery attacks on their position, causing the French general who commands Unifil to call Israel's military asking them to desist.
However, as they sheltered the bunker was hit by a single heavy bomb from an Israeli war plane and four unarmed observers, from Austria, Canada, China and Finland, were killed.
A UN rescue team also came under fire as it searched the rubble for survivors.
Question: Has Israel gone too far?? Answer: Yup.
I hate to say it, but the longer this goes on the more it looks like he's right.
UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon contacted Israeli troops 10 times[/b] before an Israeli bomb killed four of them, an initial UN report says.
NPR's Fresh Air interview program has been doing some great shows lately. Here's the latest from today about Hezbollah's connections with Iran and Syria with Prof. Daniel Byman. It's a Real Audio program.
The BBC's Daniel Lak at the UN in New York says that the observers had taken shelter in a bunker under their base because there had already been 14 Israeli artillery attacks on their position, causing the French general who commands Unifil to call Israel's military asking them to desist.
However, as they sheltered the bunker was hit by a single heavy bomb from an Israeli war plane and four unarmed observers, from Austria, Canada, China and Finland, were killed.
A UN rescue team also came under fire as it searched the rubble for survivors.
Question: Has Israel gone too far?? Answer: Yup.
holy fuck. what's next? I mean, they've killed US peacekeepers, and bombed civilian targets already! what lies ahead? more killing for simplistic instincts? what is this carnage about? retaliation?
Bombing the UN peaceskeepers was wrong.
Israel is going to have to answer for it. Even if it was a mistake.
But the fact that Hezbollah always does their attacks mixed in with Civilians is nagl either.
I think that picture basically explains the futility of the current U.N. force that's in Southern Lebanon. They are very small, and I don't think they have the ability to actually stop anything from happening. Not only that, but Hezbollah is right behind them all along the border as that picture shows.
Iranians volunteer to fight Israel[/b] Group heads for 'holy war' in Lebanon
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Surrounded by yellow Hezbollah flags, more than 60 Iranian volunteers set off Wednesday to join what they called a holy war against Israeli forces in Lebanon.
The group -- ranging from teenagers to grandfathers -- plans to join about 200 other volunteers on the way to the Turkish border, which they hope to cross Thursday. They plan to reach Lebanon via Syria on the weekend.
Organizers said the volunteers are carrying no weapons, and it was not clear whether Turkey would allow them to pass.
A Turkish Foreign Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity, would not say Wednesday if Turkey would allow them to cross. Iranians, however, can enter Turkey without a visa and stay for three months.
Iran says it will not send regular forces to aid Hezbollah, but apparently it will not attempt to stop volunteer guerrillas. Iran and Syria are Hezbollah's main sponsors.
"We are just the first wave of Islamic warriors from Iran," said Amir Jalilinejad, chairman of the Student Justice Movement, a nongovernment group that helped recruit the fighters. "More will come from here and other Muslim nations around the world. Hezbollah needs our help."[/b]
Military service is mandatory in Iran, and nearly every man has at least some basic training. Some hard-liners have more extensive drills as members of the Basiji corps, a paramilitary network linked to the powerful Revolutionary Guard.
Other volunteers, such as 72-year-old Hasan Honavi, have combat experience from the 1980-88 war with Iraq.
"God made this decision for me," said Honavi, a grandfather and one of the oldest volunteers. "I still have fight left in me for a holy war."
The group, chanting and marching in military-style formation, assembled Wednesday in a part of Tehran's main cemetery that is reserved for war dead and other "martyrs."
They prayed on Persian carpets and linked hands, with their shoes and bags piled alongside. Few had any battle-type gear and some arrived in dress shoes or plastic sandals.
Some bowed before a memorial to Hezbollah-linked suicide bombers who carried out the 1983 blast at Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. servicemen. An almost simultaneous bombing killed 56 French peacekeepers.
Speakers praised Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and laid scorn on Muslim leaders -- including their own government -- for not sending battlefield assistance to Hezbollah since the battles erupted two weeks ago.
Even if the volunteers fail to reach Lebanon, their mobilization is an example of how Iranians are rallying to Hezbollah through organizations outside official circles.
Iran insists it is not directly involved in the conflict on the military side, but it remains the group's key pipeline for money. Iran has dismissed Israel's claims that Hezbollah has been supplied with upgraded Iranian missiles that have reached Haifa and other points across northern Israel.
"We cannot stand by and watch out Hezbollah brothers fight alone," said Komeil Baradaran, a 21-year-old Basiji member. "If we are to die in Lebanon, then we will go to heaven. It is our duty as Muslims to fight."
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The BBC's Daniel Lak at the UN in New York says that the observers had taken shelter in a bunker under their base because there had already been 14 Israeli artillery attacks on their position, causing the French general who commands Unifil to call Israel's military asking them to desist.
However, as they sheltered the bunker was hit by a single heavy bomb from an Israeli war plane and four unarmed observers, from Austria, Canada, China and Finland, were killed.
A UN rescue team also came under fire as it searched the rubble for survivors.
Question: Has Israel gone too far?? Answer: Yup.
holy fuck. what's next? I mean, they've killed US peacekeepers, and bombed civilian targets already! what lies ahead? more killing for simplistic instincts? what is this carnage about? retaliation?
Bombing the UN peaceskeepers was wrong.
Israel is going to have to answer for it. Even if it was a mistake.
But the fact that Hezbollah always does their attacks mixed in with Civilians is nagl either.
Or, I don't get this pic...
Is this a Hezbollah stronghold with a UN base?
Someone plz explain.
21 laser guided shells hit UN station over a few hours??? Annan has every right to believe it's deliberate.
OTTAWA (AFP) - Canada???s Prime Minister Stephen Harper said an Israeli attack on a UN outpost that killed four, including a Canadian, was a ???terrible tragedy??? but not likely deliberate.
At the same time, he questioned why the UN had manned the outpost in Lebanon near the Israeli border as bombs exploded all around.
???We want to find out why this United Nations post was attacked and also why it remained manned during what is now, more or less, a war during obvious danger to these individuals,??? he told reporters.
Asked about UN head Kofi Annan???s statement suggesting Israel had targeted the outpost, Harper said: ???I certainly doubt that to be the case.???
SeanThomas:[/b] Plain and simple you need to STFU when it comes to discussions like this, this is grown folks talk. You've made blatent anti-semitic statements on here and therefore your opinion on this topic is null and void. Go back to making snide racist remarks every couple days and counting down the days till high school starts back up.
Everyone else:[/b] Over the last few days I've been receiving a whole lot of E-mails from various middle eastern college groups I belong to. Sadly, each of these letters falls against the classic Jew v. Arab line.
This first E-mail is from a group called Middle Eastern Student Society (MESS). The group is supposed to be inclusive of all areas of the middle east but lately I'm just not seeing it. I've highlighted some of the more areas of the letters I can consider to be more interesting.
Anaheim/So. Calif. Rally Against the Terror Attacks??on Lebanon and Palestine No to destruction. No to the collective punishment of civilians ??? Not in our name. Not with our money.
WHEN: Saturday, July 29th, 2006, at 5 p.m. WHERE:????at the Brookhurst Center??Plaza, 512 S. Brookhurst St., Anaheim (between Broadway and Orange) ??
Israel's war against civilians: The Right to Fight, Or the Might to Smite? State Terrorism, unchallenged... [/b] Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians attacked in full view of the world It???s time Israel be held accountable for its crimes Enough special treatment [/b] Not in our name, not with our money 134 billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money spent on Israel since 1949 Stand up. Speak out. Demand a cease fire now Join us in protest against Israel???s campaign of death and destruction against an unarmed civilian population ?? ?? ????Organized by??: American Arab??Council (AAC) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA)
??Co-Sponsored?? by:????Islamic Shura Council of Southern California ?? (Please contact??xxxx@cair.com or 714-776-xxxx??to add your organization's sponsorship) ???? ???? More Information: Since July 13, Israeli forces have killed close to 400 Lebanese civilians in a massive bombing campaign targeting civilian infrastructure and homes.?? During the same time, more than 100 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli incursions into the occupied Gaza Strip and West Bank. Israel's assault on Lebanon has injured thousands of civilians and made more than 700,000 homeless, half of whom are children.?? Israel has directly targeted civilians, flattening them in their homes and apartment buildings or cutting them down in their cars as they try to flee the fighting.[/b] Most of the key roads and bridges have been bombed along with a milk factory, convoys bringing food and medicine, gas stations and power plants, creating a humanitarian crisis of major proportions.?? Learn more:??www.electroniclebanon.net ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? _____________________________________________ ?? ?? ?? www.aaiusa.org/page/petition/presidentbush?? ?? www.fromisraeltolebanon.info ?? _____________________________________________ ?? Regional Emergency March in Los Angeles Defend the People of Palestine and Lebanon! Stop the U.S.-Israeli War![/b]
From Hillel, a Jewish college organization. IMO this letter is little less dramatic but still shows a blind allegence to a people, seemingly leaving any facts secondary
COMMUNITY SOLIDARITY RALLY FOR ISRAEL Sunday, July 23rd at 1:00pm
In the Park at Mariners Church 5001 Newport Coast Drive, Irvine (On Bonita Canyon between Newport Coast Dr. & Turtle Ridge) Co-Sponsored by Jewish Federation Orange County Jewish Federation of Greater Long Beach and West Orange County Mariners Church The Community and National Partners of JFOC We stand together as a community in unconditional support of Israel[/b]
I don't think you know what words mean. What is more "intellectually cowardly," stating historical facts and agreements to bolstering one's argument or making up things about Idi Amin. In 1973, Idi Amin cut off diplomatic relations with Israel and proceeded to kick all Jews and Indians out of his country. In 1976, Israeli commandos launched a raid on said subsidized airport to free hostages that were taken to Entebbe. Israel did enjoy a robust trade with Amin's predecessor, Milton Obote. But they most surely did not arm him in his genocide. Uganda's patron in the cannibal years was largely Qadafi, the Libyan dictator who has shown such solidarity with the Palestinians he has sent his men to arrange the hijacking and blowing up of civilian aircraft.
Come off it. In 1971[/b] when Amin came to power, he killed off Obote's cabinet, not at all to the dismay of Britain or Israel. Obote was certainly despotic, but Britain and Israel supported his deposement not because of this, but because it was consistent with their political aims. Almost immediately, Amin implemented his pogroms calling for the expulsion of Asians and still enjoyed British and Israeli military and financial backing. It was in 1973[/b] that Amin himself severed ties with Israel when they turned him down for the amount of military backing he sought. Amin's reach far exceeded his grasp and he formed yet another opportunistic, convenient political allegiance, this time with Qadafi. But please don't fool yourself or others by spouting the misinformation that somehow the state of Israel expressed some early and fundamental moral opposition to Amin. They and Britain funded his predecesser who was killing people en masse as well.
Additionally, as has been pointed out (but treated as an unimportant sidenote) Israel was one of the chief financiers of white South Africa. But of course, this has nothing to do with the countries having similar political aims and shapes; This was mere coincidence. (Please detect sarcasm.) Why don't we ask Nelson Mandela how he felt about Palestinian/ANC solidarity? In fact, why don't ask important figures from just about every indigenous autonomy movement how they feel about the plight of the Palestinians?
And what is this piffle about Afghanistan? I don't even understand what you mean. There were civilian casualties in America's campaign in Afghanistan, just as there were from the Taliban's misrule. But the end result of that campaign was the collapse of the Taliban regime, a net moral gain for political freedom in that troubled land. And you think that this was by design? Or do you even care? I suspect that you don't, and you're merely using this little consequentialist piece of rhetoric to advance your argument. Great way to arbitrate the moral value of something, friend. "Well, ya know-- We bombed the shit out of 'em, but we got rid of some of those Taliban." Yeah, as well as their victims . . . And truth be told, it didn't even end Taliban rule. I remember back in '97 and '98 when I was signing the Taliban Petition. The US media didn't give a shit about the Taliban's abuses of Afghani women's human rights. But of course, when it's time to come up with an ex post facto justification of carpet bombing a country, this becomes a huge conservative war-hawk speaking point. And here you are basically regurgitating the same thing.
Furthermore, what sold the American Public at large on bombing Afghanistan was "they bombed the World Trade Centers"-- no matter how inaccurate that statement. The same people who were so passionately declaring that no person, no matter what his or her grievance with a government, has the right to kill innocent civilians were chalking thousands dead up to "collateral damage." You know, people just like you.
But back to Israel. You still insist on calling it a resort for white people. This displays a profound ignorance about the difference between Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews--which all count in your book as melanin deficient. No, not as melanin deficient, as "of European descent" (largely; the Kurds are represented in there somewhere but, to give an honest account, are not as politically empowered as their European brethren) and, as such, the most politically empowered group in the region. Let's recap for a minute: Bedouin-- Nomadic Arabs, typically Israeli non citizens; Palestinians-- Arabs, Isreali-non citizens; Arab Jews-- Arabs, Israeli second class citizens if citizens at all; Kushitic Jews-- Africans, Israeli second-class citizens; European Jews-- Isreali citizens.
My Point: The Israeli party line is that it is a homeland for the Jewish People. Period. It cites "Jewish People" mythically and references a shared history of Jewish people the world over, but when it's time to gather round and break the unleavened, white niggas aint trying to share an equal portion. Advocates of Israel tokenistically reference Israelis of color (particularly those historically from the region) in an effort to advance a historical claim to the land but-- as has been admitted by several pro-Zionists on here-- Israel is not willing to empower all Jews equally. In that regard it questionably lives up to its pretenses of being a homeland for the Jewish People in their totality.
More to the point, your history of the conflict is not really a history at all. Israel's supporters on this board concede the rightlesness of Palestinians living in the territories. So where, exactly, is your argument?
But for you to not acknowledge that in 1948 nearly the entire Arab world attacked Israel and did not accept a partition plan than would have created Palestinian and Jewish majority states is not so much cowardice as agitprop. Are you referring to the period in time when Israel forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes? "No no, but see, the British . . ." Never mind the fact that keeping the land has been globally criticized. But that's not out of genuine concern for human rights. It's without a doubt globally orchestrated anti-Semitism at work.
Nor do you mention that even Arafat's top advisers accepted a compensation formula for the right of return for Palestinians. And you conveniently neglect to mention that for years and years on end, the PLO wasn't even recognized by Israel as a legitimate political organization, despite being the political voice to which Palestinians were relegated. So for years, while Israel sat holding all the cards, the group was actually vying for a two state solution. This was rejected time and again.
You mention that Jews from new york can become citizens of Israel, this is true. Don't forget to complete the sentence " . . .at the expense of people who lived there for centuries."
But the reason for a Jewish homeland is because time and again in history, Jews have been singled out for elimination and persecution. But, see, the interesting thing is that there's still a gaping is/ought divide that you haven't managed to traverse. You've failed to illustrate how you go from the dire need (which neither I nor anyone that I've seen on this board have denied) to compensate victims of the Holocaust and European institutionalized anti-Semitism to appropriating land from a group of people politically uninvolved with those catalyzing event.
To put this in perspective, if our administration decided tommorrow that it wanted to make good on reparations for Black folk by giving us the option to appropriate "newly liberated" land in Iraq I would be opposed, tooth and nail to any Black person who took up the offer. These people would be Black crackers to me.
The original Zionists sought to change that. When the first waves of Zionists came to Israel, they did not steal
land, they purchased it. And more to the point they developed it. In your fevered imagination you suppose that populations never emigrate or move. Palestinians were not allowed to become full citizens in the Arab states where they settled after the 1948 war. But to not acknowledge that it was in fact a war further discloses your unseriousness. It was a war on[/b] Palestine. How am I not acknowledging that?
And while you mention all this crap about history, making the case of the Palestinian historical grievance, you have nothing to say about their irrendentism today. You expect them to be immune from the logic of their own war making. Do you expect a country that encounters waves of walking smart bombs to do nothing? It turns out this wall and fence the Israelis built has done a good job of keeping out brainwashed martyrs from their shopping mall. Do you expect a country to do nothing in the face of missile attacks? You are treating the Palestinians in your formulation like infants, immune from the consequences of their own choices. Even if they did have a historical case for the elimination of Israel, which they don't, wishing it won't make it so. There are repercussions for choosing to make war. First of all, Palestinians have significant historical caseS for the elimination of Israel in its current form, not the least of which is Israel's self referential incoherence. For the leaders of a nation to say things like "Palestinians don't exist" and that it's "A Land Without a People For a People Without A Land" while defending itself almost exclusively in mythical terms--and halfassedly, at that-- is nauseating. It's a lot like colonists, Bible in hand, saying Khoison people don't have a history. If either of the two countries exists only epiphenomenally, it's Israel.
"It turns out this wall and fence the Israelis built has done a good job of keeping out brainwashed martyrs from their shopping mall." That Israel built on graves to begin with. And as far as my supposed infantilizing of of Palestinians, please. That was one of the first grievances I cited. You'll never hear me say that Palestinians are immune from the consequences of their own choices.
What's mindblowing and really insulting to me is that people are genuinely willing to get behind the notion that a nation's formation has little bearing in a discussion about it's current position (or the correctness thereof). But hey, keep sidestepping the issue. Keep using support for Israel as the arbiter of whether or not something is anti-Semitic. You don't have moral leg on which to stand.
I'm going to take time to quibble with the suggestion that NPR's coverage is biased. I listen to Morning Edition and ATC much of the time, especially in the last few weeks and I think their coverage has actually been rather balanced. News reports, for one thing, are usually very diligent in noting how many reported dead have been amongst Israelis and Lebanese. This idea that there's been a bias towards the Lebanese just doesn't bear up, especially when you review the last 10 days worth of coverage. I think we have some selective hearing going on here.
And then start going back over previous shows. I think you'll find that there's been very pointed coverage on BOTH sides. If there's more focus on the suffering of the Lebanese that's because the humanitarian crisis is far greater in Lebanon. I mean, there are not 600,000 Israelis fleeing the country right now, nor has anyone cut off aid to people in Israel unlike what the IDF has done to Southern Lebanon because they're trying to root out Hezbollah factions there.
I think that picture basically explains the futility of the current U.N. force that's in Southern Lebanon. They are very small, and I don't think they have the ability to actually stop anything from happening. Not only that, but Hezbollah is right behind them all along the border as that picture shows.
In other words, the United Nations, which has over 2,000 soldiers in south Lebanon, sat there for over 6 years while Iran, Syria and Hezbollah were busy moving 13,000+ missiles into the very area the U.N. was supposedly watching! I mean, if you were Israel, would you listen to the U.N.'s call for a "cease fire" in order for them to go back to doing their job of "peace keeping"?
Complete and utter failure.
Rwanda, Congo, Darfur, Balkans, Oil-For-Food and now this? This man has balls the size of Mount fucking Moon to be able to lecture anybody the way he has instead of taking a good, deep stare at the man in the mirror.
That picture of the two juxtaposed flags speaks volumes.
Comments
ok, i'll take your word for it, but when you try to son me i take it personally
the nazi thing was a joke
not till 1:30
everything i heard on npr for the 8 hours i was driving gave sympathy to the lebanese and none to israel, is that clearer
i do too and i've found that it's not helpful, esp in this thread. so i ain't tryin no sonning.
for the record. i mostly agree with you. i'm checking your sources to validate my own.
Where exactly did they prove me wrong? Because as I recall, Rootless kept presenting a strawman argument in which I'm saying that Israel is predominately white. Then, his audience of geniouses buy into this and applaud. Try not to pat yourselves on the back too hard, fellas.
To reiterate, what I HAVE consistently said is that Israel exists primarily for the benefit of white people. I've supported this with examples illustrating that the most socially empowered group of people in the region are white Europeans. NONE of you have presented a factually based rebuttal of this statement. NONE. In fact, the chief detractor aknowledged that the ethnic majority doesn't have the social agency of white Europeans in the region. He basically made my argument for me, yet at the end of the day it seems that popularity contest politics reign supreme. Eat it up. I just find it hilarious that it takes only an f-grade Jedi Mind Trick to get you stupid fucking cattle to fall in. (We've decided that ad hominems are OK, right?) I say "2+2=4" and then he says "You stupid bastard. How wrong you are. 2+2=4" and then I look bad? Shit, I should've gone to magician school.
And on the charge of being suspect (insert clever Ted Kacynski icon) I'll go ahead and offer some background and clarifying info because I think that's fair.
First, I'll say that my political leaning is obviously more toward the view that an occupied Palestine needs to be granted autonomy and on a principal basis I oppose a two party solution as it has been presented, but I take reparation for Holocaust victims and the need for a Jewish homeland along those lines very seriously. I want to emphasize that I'm not hostile to that concept and in a more ideal scenario, such a place would have been established in Europe, post WWII. I realize that for numerous reasons, not the least of which fresh wounds, negotiating such a thing would have been difficult to say the least. That said, as politically unlikely as this may be, I think that Europe needs to pay like it weigh (particularly former Axis powers and Great Britain).
I was thinking about how it's possible for Fascist fringe groups to buy entire villages in Italian highlands and I have to wonder-- Why were such areas not seen as viable alternatives to the "solution" chosen? Actually, the answers are fairly obvious and Britain, the US, etc. found it far more expeditious to export the "problem." (And yes, I'm aware the Zionist movement existed pre WWII. And it wrestled with where to put a Jewish homeland.) Now, as years move forward and the collective lot of Palestinians remains largely unchanged, time can be cited as a reason maintaining the entrenched position that Israel should exist where it does.
I mentioned Italy, and that's actually where my finacee is right now studying abroad. When she leaves in a week, her plan is to visit Jordan for three weeks where her family, Jordanian Palestinian refugees reside. I find myself in the position of trying to dissuade her from her visit because despite-- and perhaps "because of" is the better argument-- Jordan being viewed as a country that is largely concessionary to Israel, I don't rule out a vice grip situation emerging there.
The bulk of the pro-Zionist camp on here, when discussing regional history, was able to rattle off historical fact after historical fact, most of which, to be fair, were extremely amiable to Israeli (yes white Israeli) aims. The assumption from the onset was that noone was questioning Israel's right to exist. That was at the outer limits of discussion and it was said that the idea "there can never be justice on stolen land" didn't apply. It was dismissed as naive. Unfortunately, the position wasn't defended with anything other than more historical facts of agreements, borders, treaties, etc. all of which presuppose the legitimacy of Israel. Clearly, it has become or always has been such an article of faith that Israel is legitimate that those of you on this forum who've been defending it from jump feel that you don't have to do so on any terms other than those of the legal documents that it drafted, or-- and there is plenty of third party historical evidence, not to mention damning acknowledgment from Israeli politicos themselves-- legal documents created in conjunction with people under duress. I'm reminded of Christians citing as proof of God the Bible. . .because, after all, the Bible is the Word of God and it says that he exists.
Sadly for your comforting intellectual cowardice, however, even people who don't particularly value things such as basing arguments upon empirical evidence or possesing warrant in one's actions often flip the table on the types of shell games you've established. Again, not necessarily because they have a huge emotional investment at stake, but because your disingenous mound of bullshit stinks. Even to bullshitters.
So while you sit back and quiet any momentarily discomforting thoughts by winning a popularity contest, you leave some serious questions unanswered such as "How can or why should a nation that routinely, and often by its admission, without direct provocation disregards terms to which it earlier agreed as measures of goodwill be taken seriously?" or "Why is it unreasonable to compare a nation that has routinely allowed, encouraged, and subsidized the efforts of almost exclusively white people to appropriate land on the fringe of or beyond its borders from surrounding indigenous people to a resort for white people" (and this says nothing of the nation itself usurping water from said area's irrigation systems to create an oasis behind its walls-- but that's all just propaganda too, right?)
I'm sure people on here have heard of Idi Amin, right? And I'm certain there are people on this board who also know of his avowed anti-Semetism (erecting a monument to Hitler in Uganda, espoused hatred of Jews, etc.). I'm also certain that several of you would cite the PLO's political allegiance with this man as reprehensible and an indication of the less than austere motivations behind the group. Well, how many of you are also aware that at the height of his tyranny, when he was killing hundreds of thousands of Eritreans, Asians, and Ugandans, Isreal was his financier? IT built the airport, to which IT shipped the weapons, that IT made or sold, which he actively used to liquidate scores of people. This isn't an exercise in "who's suffered more?" This is a call for those of you who earlier expressed a boundless unwillingness to tolerate terrorism and genocide to actually stick to your guns and recognize Israel for what it is-- A colonizer like any other. (And on a related note, I need to say that I'm disgusted by how many of you accept pro-strike on Afghanistan collateral damage rhetoric as morally permissable. "*Wah* *wah* moral relativism. *Sniffle* *sniffle* into the ocean. . . Well, you know-- You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet." Don't fool yourselves. You kicking it with the moral relativists. Straight up and down.) In the PLO's case, it can make the questionable argument that beggers can't be choosers and trying times call for less-than-stellar political bedfellows. What's Israel's excuse? Yeah, I thought so.
Anyway, regarding my fiancee's family: Her grandma was forced to flee her home when she was young. How young, I forget, but apparently old enough to remember. They, like many Palestinians lost almost all their possessions. Land, crops, etc. I was reading a book last night that mentioned a lot of Palestinians still have the keys to the homes they were forced to vacate and I remembered Nadia telling me a while back that she's pretty sure her grandmother still has the ke y to her home. I thought about something that puts this in an eerie perspective. I bought my first house just over a year ago. It's a row house and it's 100 years old. Its construction would've predated Israel's formation. I live in the wealthiest nation in the world, so if I were destitute here, I'd be better off than the "comfortable" in other places. If tommorrow I were forced on pain of death to vacate my house, I would be furious. I work jobs I can't stand on the regular to pay my mortgage. This is nothing compared to what people here but especially elsewhere in the world go through to keep roofs over their heads. Let's just say there's a reasonable chance that in the aforementioned scenario if I came back 50 years later that house would still be standing, and if I looked through the window at a family-- especially a family of social upper echelons who moved to my house 5 years prior under the pretense that they belong to a certain sect and for that reason have a birthright to it-- I would be furious. I would still want my shit back. What's more, I would have a far more solid claim to it than would they. This is an incredibly muted version of the reality which my fiancee's family lives, only her grandmother can't look through that window. She can't get within miles of it. In the unlikely event she got past checkpoints, and guns, and barbed wire, and heat, she'd still be powerless to do anything. But one of you from New York, or Munich, or Michigan, or London, you could go there, and for many of you, living there would be as easy as saying "I am a Jew." That's not some propaganda piece, that's reality.
Sorry, but Israel isn't going anywhere. That's just a fact that you'll have to acknowledge if you want to have any kind of peace. Getting into historical arguments about who deserves the land more will get you nowhere. That's the reality of the situation.
What about records? Any of those?
could someone cite where on these 11 pages that someone said Isreal should not exist (i.e. abolished, attacked or laid to waste)?
I don't follow, Fatback. I am saying that it shouldn't exist in its current form. As far as the record question goes-- Oh, no doubt. Records vs utilities. I suspect a lot of people on this know how that goes.
In response to Motown-- You're not saying anything that challenges my points. I understand pragmatically that Israel is not likely to abolish itself (any more than the current US administration is going to voluntarily dissolve or Southern slaveowners were going to abolish the practise). To pretend as though the legitimacy of a state has no bearing on a discussion about whether or not it's "going too far" is absurd.
So your thing is that the only functioning democracy in the region should dismantle itself because of its fundamentally biased reason for being, in order to give the land to a group whose reason for being is fundamentally biased. As has been stated, "Palestinians" is are a result of arbitrary borders, a term not widely used before the last 100-200 years. Jewish immigration, back to a land to which the have historical ties (not to mention a singular religious significance) largely happened over the over the same period of time. Now we can argue of the legitimacy of the founding of Isreal, just like we can argue the legitimacy of the founding of the US, but the fact is that it was formed, and the mass immigration of jews and Europeans to the israel and the US respectively determined the kind of country that was founded. We can all agree that Indians were screwed over, and I personally, as a Jew, have very mixed feelings and some compassion for the Palestinians. However, I think Israel has largely negotiated in good faith. Israel's goal is to be left alone, and they've made generous offers. The problem is people like you Are, who wont negotiate in good faith, because you dont think Israel has a right to exist. Not to say there aren't extremists in Israel, but its the people on both sides advocating their enemies annihilation that are prolonging this fight. Israel exists, and it is a functioning beautiful country and culture, and it has the right to exist and defend itself, especially against groups that attack and then hide among their own civilian populations. This tactic, and an utter willingness to murder Israeli civilians shows a complete lack of respect for human life, Are.
Well, I feel more and more that Israel is a functioning democracy only compared to it's neighbours like Syria and Egypt. How could it be when almost a fifth of it's population that are Arabs are not allowed in public offices and have been treated as second class citizens for decades, etc?
Do you REALLY want to downplay Palestinians' ties to their land? Please explain how their historic and/or religious ties are less important than those of the Jews? To deny that Palestinians have lived there for thousands of years is denying the facts and ignorant, whatever they may have been called before.
True.
I don't think you know what words mean. What is more "intellectually cowardly," stating historical facts and agreements to bolstering one's argument or making up things about Idi Amin. In 1973, Idi Amin cut off diplomatic relations with Israel and proceeded to kick all Jews and Indians out of his country. In 1976, Israeli commandos launched a raid on said subsidized airport to free hostages that were taken to Entebbe. Israel did enjoy a robust trade with Amin's predecessor, Milton Obote. But they most surely did not arm him in his genocide. Uganda's patron in the cannibal years was largely Qadafi, the Libyan dictator who has shown such solidarity with the Palestinians he has sent his men to arrange the hijacking and blowing up of civilian aircraft.
And what is this piffle about Afghanistan? I don't even understand what you mean. There were civilian casualties in America's campaign in Afghanistan, just as there were from the Taliban's misrule. But the end result of that campaign was the collapse of the Taliban regime, a net moral gain for political freedom in that troubled land.
But back to Israel. You still insist on calling it a resort for white people. This displays a profound ignorance about the difference between Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews--which all count in your book as melanin deficient. More to the point, your history of the conflict is not really a history at all. Israel's supporters on this board concede the rightlesness of Palestinians living in the territories. But for you to not acknowledge that in 1948 nearly the entire Arab world attacked Israel and did not accept a partition plan than would have created Palestinian and Jewish majority states is not so much cowardice as agitprop. Nor do you mention that even Arafat's top advisers accepted a compensation formula for the right of return for Palestinians. You mention that Jews from new york can become citizens of Israel, this is true. But the reason for a Jewish homeland is because time and again in history, Jews have been singled out for elimination and persecution. The original Zionists sought to change that. When the first waves of Zionists came to Israel, they did not steal land, they purchased it. And more to the point they developed it. In your fevered imagination you suppose that populations never emigrate or move. Palestinians were not allowed to become full citizens in the Arab states where they settled after the 1948 war. But to not acknowledge that it was in fact a war further discloses your unseriousness.
And while you mention all this crap about history, making the case of the Palestinian historical grievance, you have nothing to say about their irrendentism today. You expect them to be immune from the logic of their own war making. Do you expect a country that encounters waves of walking smart bombs to do nothing? It turns out this wall and fence the Israelis built has done a good job of keeping out brainwashed martyrs from their shopping mall. Do you expect a country to do nothing in the face of missile attacks? You are treating the Palestinians in your formulation like infants, immune from the consequences of their own choices. Even if they did have a historical case for the elimination of Israel, which they don't, wishing it won't make it so. There are repercussions for choosing to make war.
I feel you, I am uncomfortable with the idea of a religious democracy, but Israel is a pretty secular society, and I doubt many in the region have much respect for religious diversity. Intertwined church and state is par for this part of the world.
I think thats a fair discussion, but it always ends up back at whether 150 years of jewish immigration was "right". It happened, just like Europeans to America in the past, or current immigration panic. Palestinians have made demands, many have been met, but in the end, they dont think Israel should exist, so their can never be a deal, because mutual distrust has poisoned any potential progress, no one can act in good faith. Palestinians are caught out, screwed by Israel and their Arab neighbors, who have used Israel as scapegoats to incite their populations and channel anger towards its lowest common denominator, bigotry. I really wonder how people expect Israel to act when their neighbors elected officials stated policy is to not recognize Israel. Should Israel attempt to negotiate with these people when attacked? What does Israel have to negotiate with?
1) Shiites are roughly 40% of the Lebanese population. They are the largest secular group in the nation. Hezbollah has the overwhelming support of this population. They are more than just a terrorist organization, they are a political movement, a social movement and a movement of empowerment for the Shiites who have always been at the bottom of the barrel in Lebanese society. They are also a state within a state and chock full of weapons. They fought a 15 year civil war with the Christians and Sunnis, and until 2000 were fighting the Israelis.
The Israeli government says they want to wipe out Hezbolalh's weapons stash, and some talk about wiping out Hezbollah period. So far though, Israel's military strategy seems to be a "shock and awe" artillery and bombing offensive. Only recently have they begun to move in troops into Southern Lebanon, but its basically small commando units, that have supposedly taken over two Shiite villages. In the long run, this is simply not going to affect Hezbollah or its weapons stockpile. It supposedly has over 10,000 missiles alone. Even a massive ground assault would only push back Hezbollah, but then they'd move back in when hostilities were over. Not only that, but international pressure will only build upon Israel to cease its activities, so this slow, step by step process will most likely run out of time eventually. This simply doesn't appear to be a sound military strategy. If the plan is rather to send a message to Hezbollah and its neighbors, I don't think it'll really do that either. Syria and Iran are not going to physically attack Israel IMO, and blowing up large parts of Lebanon have only strengthened the Shiites ties to Hezbollah. They can say, "Look what Israel does, that's why we're here to fight them."
2) There's talk of Israel creating their buffer zone that they occupied for years in Southern Lebanon and then turning this area over to an international peace keeping force, perhaps led by NATO. While this proposed force MIGHT be able to stop raids, Hezbollah has proved that it has a new arsenal of long range missiles that can hit Israel from much longer ranges, which means they can shoot right over this buffer zone most likely.
3) There's also talk that all this bombing is meant to force the Lebanese government to crack down on Hezbollah and move into the South. Shiites are 40% of the population, and I've just heard that they are 40% of the military as well. Lebanon was embroiled in a 15 year long civil war. They were just in the process of rebuilding, restarting their economy, and beginning to discuss how to reform their arcane political system that only allows certain sectarian groups to hold certain offices and shuts out Shiites from most of the top positions even though they are the largest group in the country. There is no political will on the part of the Lebanese government to take on Hezbollah. Hezbollah will not peacefully give up their weapons, especially after this Israeli offensive, Lebanon does not want a civil war, and the Shiites in the military may not stay loyal to the central government if asked to go against Hezbollah either.
4) The U.S. is sitting on the sidelines and supporting Israel in this situation, as has been Bush's policy from the get go. Sec. of State Rice has made statements about how she doesn't want a cease fire yet because it would solve nothing. The problem with that, as elaborated in #1, 2, and 3, just letting the situation continue as it is, will most likely not really change the status quo in the end anyways. The U.S. has also singled out Syria and Iran as the main supporters of Hezbollah and claimed that they have instigated this whole situation, yet the U.S. refuses to talk to either one. They have what appears to me an idiotic diplomatic stance. The U.S. policy towards Syria is that it must give up its ties to terrorists, its WMD, its opposition to a peace agreement with Israel, AND THEN, the U.S. will talk to them. This is similar to Bush's failed policies towards Iran and North Korea. Our enemies have to unilaterially give up everything because they are bad countries, and then the U.S. will negotiate. Assad, the leader of Syria, wants give and take as most countries would, but the U.S. is not listening. Rather the U.S. is trying to get Egypt and Saudi Arabia to pressure Syria, even though neither of those countries has that much pull with Assad. The U.S. has too much wishful thinking I fear here in their plans for changing the entire Middle East to its liking.
5) In the long term, the only way to really take on Hezbollah is through a very painstacking process of deals and negotiations with the central government, and then attempts to try to pry away the Shiites from the organization by presenting more moderate Shiite politicians and political parties. That will take years, and the Israeli actions right now are only strengthening the ties between the Shiites and Hezbollah.
Vitamin,
First off, this is beautifully written. I had to look up "agitprop" and I love learning new words...
Secondly, I can't believe you read that dudes whole rant and then gave such a reasoned response. RESPECT!
I have learned a lot from this discussion!
j
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0724-22.htm
I Don???t Want to Love You, But I Do
You were born out of death to a life in a cage
Where bombs are not the only reason people die
Fed by the violence of hunger and homelessness
Raised by colonialism
Your heart and your will still grew strong
You scare me
Not just because they tell me to be scared
Not just because they repeat, repeat, repeat
The story of 1983
Begging me to understand
Americans are worth more than Lebanese
Why do they never tell me about Jihad al Bina
That you have created so much
Saved so many lives
Improved so many more
It scares me
When I admit to myself
That I would be more scared without you
If I still took the time to see
To see the violence that does not just fall from the skies
that exists in hunger and homelessness
in colonialism
It scares me
That my hope is tangled up
In actions I would never want to commit
But I don???t sleep much these days
And I???ve tried hard
But I haven???t found
Anything
to give me hope that they will listen
They repeat, repeat, repeat
The story of Gaza withdrawal
Hoping we won???t see
The violence that continues
That kills in so many ways
Hoping we will now support it
Or at least stop looking
They insist talk does not work
When there is no one to talk to
It is hard to find an interlocutor
When you???re not willing to listen
To see
To feel
How do you keep faith that talk will work
When even they are insisting it won???t?
I am learning to have hope in you
I am learning to see you as so much more
Than those actions I would never want to commit
You amaze me.
Born out of death to a life in a cage
Raised by colonialism
You did not accept imprisonment as natural
You did not accept hunger as justice
You did not accept
the ceaseless killing in so many ways
Of those next to you
Or those farther away
I love you
But I will never be yours
I don???t want you inside me
You are too male for me
And I cannot, gratefully, fully silence the voice that insists:
Some deaths you did accept
Including of some who were listening
That is why the full statement that the question-marks pry me with reads:
It is sad, but I???m learning to have hope in Hizbulla
Maybe it is the naivety
of one whose life has never been directly threatened
I still believe:
Be the change you want to see in the world.
shocker.
best line:
"You are too male for me"
You beat me to it Paul! If this was going to happen anywhere, it was probably going to be right here in the Bay.
I hate to say it, but the longer this goes on the more it looks like he's right.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5583693
Bombing the UN peaceskeepers was wrong.
Israel is going to have to answer for it. Even if it was a mistake.
But the fact that Hezbollah always does their attacks mixed in with Civilians is nagl either.
Or, I don't get this pic...
Is this a Hezbollah stronghold with a UN base?
Someone plz explain.
Group heads for 'holy war' in Lebanon
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Surrounded by yellow Hezbollah flags, more than 60 Iranian volunteers set off Wednesday to join what they called a holy war against Israeli forces in Lebanon.
The group -- ranging from teenagers to grandfathers -- plans to join about 200 other volunteers on the way to the Turkish border, which they hope to cross Thursday. They plan to reach Lebanon via Syria on the weekend.
Organizers said the volunteers are carrying no weapons, and it was not clear whether Turkey would allow them to pass.
A Turkish Foreign Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity, would not say Wednesday if Turkey would allow them to cross. Iranians, however, can enter Turkey without a visa and stay for three months.
Iran says it will not send regular forces to aid Hezbollah, but apparently it will not attempt to stop volunteer guerrillas. Iran and Syria are Hezbollah's main sponsors.
"We are just the first wave of Islamic warriors from Iran," said Amir Jalilinejad, chairman of the Student Justice Movement, a nongovernment group that helped recruit the fighters. "More will come from here and other Muslim nations around the world. Hezbollah needs our help."[/b]
Military service is mandatory in Iran, and nearly every man has at least some basic training. Some hard-liners have more extensive drills as members of the Basiji corps, a paramilitary network linked to the powerful Revolutionary Guard.
Other volunteers, such as 72-year-old Hasan Honavi, have combat experience from the 1980-88 war with Iraq.
"God made this decision for me," said Honavi, a grandfather and one of the oldest volunteers. "I still have fight left in me for a holy war."
The group, chanting and marching in military-style formation, assembled Wednesday in a part of Tehran's main cemetery that is reserved for war dead and other "martyrs."
They prayed on Persian carpets and linked hands, with their shoes and bags piled alongside. Few had any battle-type gear and some arrived in dress shoes or plastic sandals.
Some bowed before a memorial to Hezbollah-linked suicide bombers who carried out the 1983 blast at Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. servicemen. An almost simultaneous bombing killed 56 French peacekeepers.
Speakers praised Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and laid scorn on Muslim leaders -- including their own government -- for not sending battlefield assistance to Hezbollah since the battles erupted two weeks ago.
Even if the volunteers fail to reach Lebanon, their mobilization is an example of how Iranians are rallying to Hezbollah through organizations outside official circles.
Iran insists it is not directly involved in the conflict on the military side, but it remains the group's key pipeline for money. Iran has dismissed Israel's claims that Hezbollah has been supplied with upgraded Iranian missiles that have reached Haifa and other points across northern Israel.
"We cannot stand by and watch out Hezbollah brothers fight alone," said Komeil Baradaran, a 21-year-old Basiji member. "If we are to die in Lebanon, then we will go to heaven. It is our duty as Muslims to fight."
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
great.
OTTAWA (AFP) - Canada???s Prime Minister Stephen Harper said an Israeli attack on a UN outpost that killed four, including a Canadian, was a ???terrible tragedy??? but not likely deliberate.
At the same time, he questioned why the UN had manned the outpost in Lebanon near the Israeli border as bombs exploded all around.
???We want to find out why this United Nations post was attacked and also why it remained manned during what is now, more or less, a war during obvious danger to these individuals,??? he told reporters.
Asked about UN head Kofi Annan???s statement suggesting Israel had targeted the outpost, Harper said: ???I certainly doubt that to be the case.???
Everyone else:[/b] Over the last few days I've been receiving a whole lot of E-mails from various middle eastern college groups I belong to. Sadly, each of these letters falls against the classic Jew v. Arab line.
This first E-mail is from a group called Middle Eastern Student Society (MESS). The group is supposed to be inclusive of all areas of the middle east but lately I'm just not seeing it. I've highlighted some of the more areas of the letters I can consider to be more interesting.
Anaheim/So. Calif. Rally Against the Terror Attacks??on Lebanon and Palestine
No to destruction. No to the collective punishment of civilians ??? Not in our name. Not with our money.
WHEN: Saturday, July 29th, 2006, at 5 p.m.
WHERE:????at the Brookhurst Center??Plaza, 512 S. Brookhurst St., Anaheim
(between Broadway and Orange)
??
Israel's war against civilians:
The Right to Fight, Or the Might to Smite?
State Terrorism, unchallenged... [/b]
Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians attacked in full view of the world
It???s time Israel be held accountable for its crimes
Enough special treatment [/b]
Not in our name, not with our money
134 billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money spent on Israel since 1949
Stand up. Speak out.
Demand a cease fire now
Join us in protest against Israel???s campaign of death and destruction against an unarmed civilian population
??
??
????Organized by??: American Arab??Council (AAC) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA)
??Co-Sponsored?? by:????Islamic Shura Council of Southern California
??
(Please contact??xxxx@cair.com or 714-776-xxxx??to add your organization's sponsorship)
????
????
More Information:
Since July 13, Israeli forces have killed close to 400 Lebanese civilians in a massive bombing campaign targeting civilian infrastructure and homes.?? During the same time, more than 100 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli incursions into the occupied Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Israel's assault on Lebanon has injured thousands of civilians and made more than 700,000 homeless, half of whom are children.?? Israel has directly targeted civilians, flattening them in their homes and apartment buildings or cutting them down in their cars as they try to flee the fighting.[/b] Most of the key roads and bridges have been bombed along with a milk factory, convoys bringing food and medicine, gas stations and power plants, creating a humanitarian crisis of major proportions.??
Learn more:??www.electroniclebanon.net
??
??
??
??
??
_____________________________________________
??
??
??
www.aaiusa.org/page/petition/presidentbush??
??
www.fromisraeltolebanon.info
??
_____________________________________________
??
Regional Emergency March in Los Angeles
Defend the People of Palestine and Lebanon!
Stop the U.S.-Israeli War![/b]
From Hillel, a Jewish college organization. IMO this letter is little less dramatic but still shows a blind allegence to a people, seemingly leaving any facts secondary
COMMUNITY SOLIDARITY RALLY
FOR ISRAEL
Sunday, July 23rd at 1:00pm
In the Park at Mariners Church
5001 Newport Coast Drive, Irvine
(On Bonita Canyon between Newport Coast Dr. & Turtle Ridge)
Co-Sponsored by
Jewish Federation Orange County
Jewish Federation of Greater Long Beach and West Orange County
Mariners Church
The Community and National Partners of JFOC
We stand together as a community in unconditional support of Israel[/b]
Come off it. In 1971[/b] when Amin came to power, he killed off Obote's cabinet, not at all to the dismay of Britain or Israel. Obote was certainly despotic, but Britain and Israel supported his deposement not because of this, but because it was consistent with their political aims. Almost immediately, Amin implemented his pogroms calling for the expulsion of Asians and still enjoyed British and Israeli military and financial backing. It was in 1973[/b] that Amin himself severed ties with Israel when they turned him down for the amount of military backing he sought. Amin's reach far exceeded his grasp and he formed yet another opportunistic, convenient political allegiance, this time with Qadafi. But please don't fool yourself or others by spouting the misinformation that somehow the state of Israel expressed some early and fundamental moral opposition to Amin. They and Britain funded his predecesser who was killing people en masse as well.
Additionally, as has been pointed out (but treated as an unimportant sidenote) Israel was one of the chief financiers of white South Africa. But of course, this has nothing to do with the countries having similar political aims and shapes; This was mere coincidence. (Please detect sarcasm.) Why don't we ask Nelson Mandela how he felt about Palestinian/ANC solidarity? In fact, why don't ask important figures from just about every indigenous autonomy movement how they feel about the plight of the Palestinians?
And what is this piffle about Afghanistan? I don't even understand what you mean. There were civilian casualties in America's campaign in Afghanistan, just as there were from the Taliban's misrule. But the end result of that campaign was the collapse of the Taliban regime, a net moral gain for political freedom in that troubled land.
And you think that this was by design? Or do you even care? I suspect that you don't, and you're merely using this little consequentialist piece of rhetoric to advance your argument. Great way to arbitrate the moral value of something, friend. "Well, ya know-- We bombed the shit out of 'em, but we got rid of some of those Taliban." Yeah, as well as their victims . . . And truth be told, it didn't even end Taliban rule. I remember back in '97 and '98 when I was signing the Taliban Petition. The US media didn't give a shit about the Taliban's abuses of Afghani women's human rights. But of course, when it's time to come up with an ex post facto justification of carpet bombing a country, this becomes a huge conservative war-hawk speaking point. And here you are basically regurgitating the same thing.
Furthermore, what sold the American Public at large on bombing Afghanistan was "they bombed the World Trade Centers"-- no matter how inaccurate that statement. The same people who were so passionately declaring that no person, no matter what his or her grievance with a government, has the right to kill innocent civilians were chalking thousands dead up to "collateral damage." You know, people just like you.
But back to Israel. You still insist on calling it a resort for white people. This displays a profound ignorance about the difference between Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews--which all count in your book as melanin deficient.
No, not as melanin deficient, as "of European descent" (largely; the Kurds are represented in there somewhere but, to give an honest account, are not as politically empowered as their European brethren) and, as such, the most politically empowered group in the region. Let's recap for a minute: Bedouin-- Nomadic Arabs, typically Israeli non citizens; Palestinians-- Arabs, Isreali-non citizens; Arab Jews-- Arabs, Israeli second class citizens if citizens at all; Kushitic Jews-- Africans, Israeli second-class citizens; European Jews-- Isreali citizens.
My Point: The Israeli party line is that it is a homeland for the Jewish People. Period. It cites "Jewish People" mythically and references a shared history of Jewish people the world over, but when it's time to gather round and break the unleavened, white niggas aint trying to share an equal portion. Advocates of Israel tokenistically reference Israelis of color (particularly those historically from the region) in an effort to advance a historical claim to the land but-- as has been admitted by several pro-Zionists on here-- Israel is not willing to empower all Jews equally. In that regard it questionably lives up to its pretenses of being a homeland for the Jewish People in their totality.
More to the point, your history of the conflict is not really a history at all. Israel's supporters on this board concede the rightlesness of Palestinians living in the territories.
So where, exactly, is your argument?
But for you to not acknowledge that in 1948 nearly the entire Arab world attacked Israel and did not accept a partition plan than would have created Palestinian and Jewish majority states is not so much cowardice as agitprop.
Are you referring to the period in time when Israel forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes? "No no, but see, the British . . ." Never mind the fact that keeping the land has been globally criticized. But that's not out of genuine concern for human rights. It's without a doubt globally orchestrated anti-Semitism at work.
Nor do you mention that even Arafat's top advisers accepted a compensation formula for the right of return for Palestinians.
And you conveniently neglect to mention that for years and years on end, the PLO wasn't even recognized by Israel as a legitimate political organization, despite being the political voice to which Palestinians were relegated. So for years, while Israel sat holding all the cards, the group was actually vying for a two state solution. This was rejected time and again.
You mention that Jews from new york can become citizens of Israel, this is true.
Don't forget to complete the sentence " . . .at the expense of people who lived there for centuries."
But the reason for a Jewish homeland is because time and again in history, Jews have been singled out for elimination and persecution.
But, see, the interesting thing is that there's still a gaping is/ought divide that you haven't managed to traverse. You've failed to illustrate how you go from the dire need (which neither I nor anyone that I've seen on this board have denied) to compensate victims of the Holocaust and European institutionalized anti-Semitism to appropriating land from a group of people politically uninvolved with those catalyzing event.
To put this in perspective, if our administration decided tommorrow that it wanted to make good on reparations for Black folk by giving us the option to appropriate "newly liberated" land in Iraq I would be opposed, tooth and nail to any Black person who took up the offer. These people would be Black crackers to me.
The original Zionists sought to change that. When the first waves of Zionists came to Israel, they did not steal land, they purchased it. And more to the point they developed it. In your fevered imagination you suppose that populations never emigrate or move. Palestinians were not allowed to become full citizens in the Arab states where they settled after the 1948 war. But to not acknowledge that it was in fact a war further discloses your unseriousness.
It was a war on[/b] Palestine. How am I not acknowledging that?
And while you mention all this crap about history, making the case of the Palestinian historical grievance, you have nothing to say about their irrendentism today. You expect them to be immune from the logic of their own war making. Do you expect a country that encounters waves of walking smart bombs to do nothing? It turns out this wall and fence the Israelis built has done a good job of keeping out brainwashed martyrs from their shopping mall. Do you expect a country to do nothing in the face of missile attacks? You are treating the Palestinians in your formulation like infants, immune from the consequences of their own choices. Even if they did have a historical case for the elimination of Israel, which they don't, wishing it won't make it so. There are repercussions for choosing to make war.
First of all, Palestinians have significant historical caseS for the elimination of Israel in its current form, not the least of which is Israel's self referential incoherence. For the leaders of a nation to say things like "Palestinians don't exist" and that it's "A Land Without a People For a People Without A Land" while defending itself almost exclusively in mythical terms--and halfassedly, at that-- is nauseating. It's a lot like colonists, Bible in hand, saying Khoison people don't have a history. If either of the two countries exists only epiphenomenally, it's Israel.
"It turns out this wall and fence the Israelis built has done a good job of keeping out brainwashed martyrs from their shopping mall."
That Israel built on graves to begin with. And as far as my supposed infantilizing of of Palestinians, please. That was one of the first grievances I cited. You'll never hear me say that Palestinians are immune from the consequences of their own choices.
What's mindblowing and really insulting to me is that people are genuinely willing to get behind the notion that a nation's formation has little bearing in a discussion about it's current position (or the correctness thereof). But hey, keep sidestepping the issue. Keep using support for Israel as the arbiter of whether or not something is anti-Semitic. You don't have moral leg on which to stand.
I'm going to take time to quibble with the suggestion that NPR's coverage is biased. I listen to Morning Edition and ATC much of the time, especially in the last few weeks and I think their coverage has actually been rather balanced. News reports, for one thing, are usually very diligent in noting how many reported dead have been amongst Israelis and Lebanese. This idea that there's been a bias towards the Lebanese just doesn't bear up, especially when you review the last 10 days worth of coverage. I think we have some selective hearing going on here.
Look, prove me wrong: http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2&prgDate=07-26-2006&view=storyview
And then start going back over previous shows. I think you'll find that there's been very pointed coverage on BOTH sides. If there's more focus on the suffering of the Lebanese that's because the humanitarian crisis is far greater in Lebanon. I mean, there are not 600,000 Israelis fleeing the country right now, nor has anyone cut off aid to people in Israel unlike what the IDF has done to Southern Lebanon because they're trying to root out Hezbollah factions there.
In other words, the United Nations, which has over 2,000 soldiers in south Lebanon, sat there for over 6 years while Iran, Syria and Hezbollah were busy moving 13,000+ missiles into the very area the U.N. was supposedly watching!
I mean, if you were Israel, would you listen to the U.N.'s call for a "cease fire" in order for them to go back to doing their job of "peace keeping"?
Complete and utter failure.
Rwanda, Congo, Darfur, Balkans, Oil-For-Food and now this?
This man has balls the size of Mount fucking Moon to be able to lecture anybody the way he has instead of taking a good, deep stare at the man in the mirror.
That picture of the two juxtaposed flags speaks volumes.