so then what does Israel do, Joel? Just deal with it?
not trying to put you on the spot, I totally agree with you - just wondering what could be done differently.
Edit:
The same anti-Israel crowd was all up in arms about construction of the wall, yet it seems quite tame now in comparison and of course a far less violent reaction to the Palestinians' hostility.
Your issue with Israel is that it exists. That is clear.
You're wrong. And I've said it many times before. I support the existence of Israel 100%. But many policies, as they stand, have been clearly ineffective with tremendous financial and mortal consequences.
I hear you though. This escalation in violence has got me shook up and my otherwise decent sense of humor is out of step. That said, I stand by my fundamental premise that the US should use the purse strings to influence more consensus in that area. Simply arming one side to the tee is not working.
and Cosmo. you won't last. I ignore user'd Sabadaba and Vitamin, but always hit quote to see what they say anyways.
so then what does Israel do, Joel? Just deal with it?
not trying to put you on the spot, I totally agree with you - just wondering what could be done differently.
Edit:
The same anti-Israel crowd was all up in arms about construction of the wall, yet it seems quite tame now in comparison and of course a far less violent reaction to the Palestinians' hostility.
Yes, they gotta deal with it. That seemed to be the Israeli policy actually until this incident with Hamas and Hezbollah. Get behind the wall, and just wait until the Palestinians got their shit together.
so then what does Israel do, Joel? Just deal with it?
not trying to put you on the spot, I totally agree with you - just wondering what could be done differently.
Edit:
The same anti-Israel crowd was all up in arms about construction of the wall, yet it seems quite tame now in comparison and of course a far less violent reaction to the Palestinians' hostility.
Yes, they gotta deal with it. That seemed to be the Israeli policy actually until this incident with Hamas and Hezbollah. Get behind the wall, and just wait until the Palestinians got their shit together.
In your estimation, best case scenario, how long before the "Palestinians get their shit together"??
so then what does Israel do, Joel? Just deal with it?
not trying to put you on the spot, I totally agree with you - just wondering what could be done differently.
Edit:
The same anti-Israel crowd was all up in arms about construction of the wall, yet it seems quite tame now in comparison and of course a far less violent reaction to the Palestinians' hostility.
Yes, they gotta deal with it. That seemed to be the Israeli policy actually until this incident with Hamas and Hezbollah. Get behind the wall, and just wait until the Palestinians got their shit together.
When the Palestinians "got their shit together" they put a group in power who's platform dealt with the total destruction of the Jewish state.
so then what does Israel do, Joel? Just deal with it?
not trying to put you on the spot, I totally agree with you - just wondering what could be done differently.
Edit:
The same anti-Israel crowd was all up in arms about construction of the wall, yet it seems quite tame now in comparison and of course a far less violent reaction to the Palestinians' hostility.
Yes, they gotta deal with it. That seemed to be the Israeli policy actually until this incident with Hamas and Hezbollah. Get behind the wall, and just wait until the Palestinians got their shit together.
In your estimation, best case scenario, how long before the "Palestinians get their shit together"??
Here are some excerpts from an article entitled ???Israel???s New Strategy??? by Barry Rubin, Director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center, and editor of Middle East Review of International Affairs. It appeared in the July/August 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs, one of America???s leading foreign policy journals. I think it's an exceptionally good breakdown of Israel's policy before the current blow up. Excuse any typos, they???re mine because I???m typing all this shit up myself.
???Israel politics and policy are undergoing a revolutionary transformation ??? one of the most important developments in the nation???s history. As dramatic as recent events have been, equally important is the emergence of a new strategic paradigm that reverses 30 years of debate and practice and overturns some of Israel???s most basic assumptions.???
???The shift began when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered a complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank.???
???The emerging new policy is based on a broad Israeli recognition that holding onto the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is simply not in Israel???s interests, despite the fact that the Palestinian leadership has been uninterested in and incapable of making peace and that both Fatah and Hamas will use that land to try to launch attacks on Israel. The territories no longer serve a strategic function for Israel, given the unlikelihood of a conventional attack by Arab state armies, and Israel could better defend its citizens by creating a strong defensive line rather than by dispersing its forces. Moreover, because a comprehensive peace deal is not likely to be reached for many years, the territories are no longer of value as bargaining chips.???
???The Palestinian and Syrian leaderships were simply not ready for peace ??? because of radical forces and ideologies, hard-line personalities, extremist goals, and the fact that the conflict bolstered dictators who would otherwise have faced serious domestic problems. With their own hopes shattered, Israelis from across the political spectrum reluctantly accepted that the conflict would endure for a long time.???
???No one foresaw that Arafat would be offered the bargain the left proposed, reject it, and resort to all-out war. For the Israelis, the year 2000 was a revelation. Palestinian and Syrian leaders thought ready for peace instead chose to continue the conflict. Palestinian leaders kept the refugees ???right of return??? as their highest priority, which the Israelis saw as a sign that destroying Israel was more important to Palestinian leaders than ending the occupation. The Israelis concluded that their long-standing belief in the Palestinians??? desire for peace was fundamentally flawed. From then on, the Palestinian leadership was seen as being unready ??? and certainly not eager ??? for peace.???
???At the same time, a number of other developments suggested that although the conflict would continue, it would not spread or escalate. ??? Other Arab regimes ??? challenged by Islamists and strategically weak ??? started to be willing to sacrifice some of their support for the Palestinians in exchange for improved relations with the United States. Even if they would not make peace with Israel, they also did not want war, and their support for the Palestinians hit rock bottom.???
???What emerged from the shock of the failure of Oslo and the five-year-long terrorist war that followed was a new synthesis in Israeli thinking: a national consensus along centrist lines, drawing ideas from across the political spectrum. From the left came the idea that Israel should withdraw from the captured territories, dismantle many of the settlements, and accept an independent Palestinian state in exchange for real peace. This melded with the right???s belief that there would be no partner with whom to make a real peace for a long time to come. These two notions fused into a new paradigm, which dominates Israeli politics and thinking today, even as the Palestinians stick to a policy that combines weakness and intransigence. Although the Israelis??? most optimistic hopes have been dashed, most Israelis now believe that the situation can actually be made more secure with the right approach.???
???The Israeli military played a considerable role in developing this new viewpoint.???
???The idea of a defense based on a clear line laid out along advantageous terrain was far more attractive to strategists.???
???The only remaining vulnerability would be from missiles fired over the frontier, which was as much of a problem when Israeli forces were actually on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza.???
???Along with the military officers, both Israeli politicians and the Israeli public recognized that adopting a sustainable framework for defense would mean giving up on the idea that the PA (Palestinian Authority) would ever be of help in fighting terrorism; experience had taught Israel that the Palestinian leadership was at best useless and at worst a de fact ally of terrorists.???
???The consensus was that there was little chance of a deal with the Palestinians due to the nature of their politics and their leadership. Virtually no one in the Palestinian leadership had really tried to alter that nature in the 1990s, and Palestinian leaders increasingly and openly endorsed radical positions after 2000. Whatever good intentions Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas may have, he is too weak to impose order or to make the tough decisions necessary for peace, especially given the absence of any strong moderate faction that could help remake Palestinian politics. While in control, Arafat???s Fatah movement simply did not offer such leadership, and its corruption and incompetence were destroying it (as became evident with its downfall in the January 2006 elections). Moreover, the sheer multiplicity and fractiousness of the various Palestinian factions made the imposition of order ??? or any coherent policy, other than the lowest-common-denominator option of simply continuing the conflict ??? almost impossible. And even as Fatah was overwhelmingly dominated by extremists, including both unreconstructed old hard-liners and a younger generation that glorified the terrorism of the al Aqsa Brigades, Hamas was becoming steadily more powerful. Meanwhile, the Palestinians??? desire to eliminate Israel came to seem too strong, their glorification of violence too powerful, to overcome.???
???With Hamas in power, Abbas now has become even more powerless, Fatah is turning more radical and violent in a desperate attempt to compete with the Islamists, and there has been an intensification of incitement of the younger Palestinian generation to continue the struggle for many years.???
???Israel???s new policy has made clear its willingness to make a real compromise peace. Meanwhile, however, Israel needed a new strategy to fit existing conditions.???
???This was the context in which Sharon decided on complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the dismantling of several West Bank settlements. ??? Olmert, announced a policy of ???convergence,??? in which Israel would withdraw from most of its remaining positions in the West Bank, dismantle many more settlements, and consolidate those ???settlement blocs??? that it intended to claim in the future.???
???[Sharon] recognized Israel???s need for a sustainable strategic stance as long as a comprehensive diplomatic solution remained out of reach. He came to realize that holding territory was no longer strategically advantageous (and was perhaps detrimental in a long war of attrition) ??? Sharon also wanted to put the ball in the Palestinians??? court by forcing them to show whether they could govern a territory that was, for most practical purposes, a state. Turning over the Gaza Strip, said Weisglass [an advisor to Sharon], meant there were ???no more excuses . ??? The whole world is asking what they intend to do with this sli
ce of land.???
???The Hamas victory only reinforced this view, and also proved its accuracy to many foreign observers.???
???A key factor in this defensive orientation will be completion of the security fence to protect Israel from attack.???
???Despite its critical evaluation of Palestinian politics, Israel will try to help moderate Palestinians, but it has no illusions about their strength or the extent of their pragmatism. What is important is not whether Israeli officials meet with Abbas or other Palestinian officials, but whether there is any reason to believe such discussions could have a real result.???
???This revolution has promoted national unity. Those who think Israel can obtain peace simply by giving up more, as well as those who think Israel should keep all the territories, have been pushed to the margins of both politics and debate. Facing reality and making the best out of difficult conditions have triumphed over wishful thinking. This is the kind of approach that suits an Israeli political culture that has always focused on the art of the possible. Relative optimism, in this case, is the result of making the most of an apparently insoluble situation that would otherwise seem to engender only hopelessness.???
So to get right down to it, can anyone come up with a reason why Israel shouldn't lay waste to the openly hostile countries?
Or can anyone recommend a viable alternative?
I think you won't see Israel do this simply because they are afraid of alienating themselves. Gentiles are accepting of Jews up to a point. If we insist on defending what is ours, that might be going too far. Before you know it, even more people would be hating uppity Jews who insist on defending their homes. Its kind of like being caught between the devil & the deep blue sea. Stand down and you die. Stand up & Gentiles the world over will call for your head. Unless your counting his money or writing a sitcom, a Gentile is not going to be happy with anything you do.
I'm not clear as to how the Palestinians "getting their shit together" would actually have any effect on Hezbollah's actions. They are not - unless I'm mistaken - a Palestinian group. Rather they are Islamic in origin, created specifically to combat the Israeli occupation of Lebanon and have since pushed a larger, Islamist campaign to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. As I noted earlier, Hezbollah's support of the Palestinian cause has largely been for PR reasons following the departure of Israel from Lebanon (which was, after all, their I>cause celebre[/i] in the beginning. They needed to justify why they continued to sponsor incursions into Israel (either via attempted suicide bombers or rockets) and the Palestinian cause was the popular one to hang their hat on.
I would think that Palestine could declare nation-state sovereignty tomorrow, resolve border disputes with Israel, sign a peace accord and sit down to a Halal/kosher feast with Israeli settlers along the West Bank and Hezbollah's core mission wouldn't change at all. (Nor Hamas' for that matter). Hezbollah has been politically savvy enough to at least recognize the importance of tying themselves to the Palestinian cause but that doesn't mean they actually believe in it in any real way.
There seems to be two ways to stop Hezbollah in the short run: smash them out of existance (which would almost surely result in massive civilian death and destruction) or convince Syria and/or Iran that it'd be in their best interests to rein Hezbollah in. Ultimately though, I don't think it's possible to change some people's ideological positions - they're too entrenched, too compounded by social conditions and/or perceptions, etc. However, you can change people's policies and actions by demonstrating to them that the ultimate costs to their interests (whether that be economic, political, social) would be better serviced through a negotiated process rather than an all-or-nothing approach.
One can argue whether or not Israel's actions - either now or in the past - have been as "mediated" or "restrained" as they could be. I don't know if there will ever be resolution on that issue. I do think that most would agree that Israeli could go a lot further as an aggressor and that they have sacrified things that have gone against some of their national interests (say land) in the furtherance of other interests (say peace). I think other countries engaged in hostility with them, either now or in the past, have also made similar calculations.
There's no way there can ever be a 100% "win-win" scenario - someone, often times both parties, will end up getting fucked over something. The example that always comes to my mind is South Africa post-apartheid and the amnesty program created to ensure the best peace possible b/t former colonizers and the colonized. Morally speaking, one could make the argument (as has happened in Zimbabwe with Mugabe) that black Africans have the right to exact revenge (or justice depending on your framing) on white settlers but in the interests of avoiding civil strife or war, they've created a national policy that basically says, "let the past be the past and let's build from here lest we destroy ourselves over history."
That's a fucking bitter pill to swallow and I can't even say that I agree with it on an emotional level but I can at least respect, as policy, what the aim is and what the long term vision is.
Not to get too far afield with all this but it really strikes me that we, as Americans, tend to want to see this through a very polar lens and that people lose a sense of nuance and just how goddamn complex shit like this is. I don't mean to pick on Rockadelic (well, yes I do) but to me, his gung-ho, "don't treat on me!" attitude reflects this American exceptionalism built on the fact that really, nothing has threatened our national security since World War II (and even then Pearl Harbor aside, it's not like the Luftwaffe was dropping bombs on NY and LA every other night). Suffice to say, I'm pretty sure none of us here were around then to know what that felt like (there's Cold War paranoia but that's definitely a case of perception > reality. Just ask McCarthy).
Even post-9/11, we live in such an incredibly safe society that I think it's kind of easy for us to make pronouncements of "what should be done" when we RARELY feel the blowback on that shit (except for, unfortunately, the thousands of service people losing their life in Iraq and Afghanistan but let's not go down there). We're just hella isolated and comfortable and complacent. One tragedy of our post 9/11 foreign policy is that it actually didn't shake us out of illusions of American exceptionalism. Our response has only accentuated how much we desparately need to cling to the idea that we can live in state of absolute security (how unrealistic that is) and that shit like invading Iraq isn't somehow going to blowback on us.
We've been used to peace WITHIN OUR OWN BORDERS so long that we've forgotten that peace is usually achieved through sacrifice, not through mere force of power. If I'm historically inaccurate here, I welcome a correction - seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. We might be afraid of young people, or people of color, or immigrants or whoever else is walking down the street from us but how many you really wake up thinking, "hey, my apartment didn't get shelled last night. Good, now I can go to work."?
As others have pointed out in this thread, the Israelis, for example, have often times just taken body shots that, if it were America forced to absorb them, would have probably kick-started WWIII a long time ago. They may seem weak to some for not retaliating earlier or harder but if you're PRIMARY goal is to ensure the existance of your nation and your society, and if that goal is in actual, real danger, then maybe you'd be willing to take an occassional missile or suicide bomber without carpet bombing someone in return if it means that NOT carpet bombing might ensure a lasting peace down the road.
Just to be clear here too, I think that 1) supporting Israel's right to exist and 2) desiring a solution to the humanitarian crisis amongst Palestian refugees are NOT mutually exclusive. If I'm wrong, someone explain that to me.
That said, and I hate to keep coming back to this, but DS keeps insisting that in the case of the Palestinians, "they brought this upon themselves" because Hamas was elected to power. Let me state again - Hamas won overwhelmingly in Gaza and the West Bank. They did NOT carry the national vote and therefore, they cannot be said to have a mandate on the Palestinian will even if THEY (Hamas) are operating as if that's the case. Anti-Hamas Palestinians may have to suffer the consequences of what their pro-Hamas neighbors did but if you're trying to broker a peace with them, then you can't assume every Palestinian (or even the MAJORITY of them) are down with Hamas.
ODub, Jeeez....I figured putting you on my Top 5 Fave Posters list would make me immune to attacks
Here is a piece written by an Arab that not only gives some hope, but reflects an opinion that I believe, which is "If you don't keep your own house clean don't be surprised when someone comes and cleans it for you"
If what Mr. Ibrahim is saying is true, and there is a silent majority in the Middle East that wants to eliminate Hezbollah as badly as Israel does, the only thing I can imagine stopping it from happening is corruption at the highest levels of their Governments. And I think in any circumstance, if given the choice between a "Win/Lose" scenario vs. a "Lose/Lose" scenario the former would be the choice. And if there can only be one winner let's ALL hope it's Israel.
Arab Majority May Not Stay Forever Silent[/b]
By YOUSSEF IBRAHIM July 17, 2006
Yes, world, there is a silent Arab majority that believes that seventh-century Islam is not fit for 21st-century challenges. That women do not have to look like walking black tents. That men do not have to wear beards and robes, act like lunatics, and run around blowing themselves up in order to enjoy 72 virgins in paradise. And that secular laws, not Islamic Shariah, should rule our day-to-day lives.
And yes, we, the silent Arab majority, do not believe that writers, secular or otherwise, should be killed or banned for expressing their views. Or that the rest of our creative elite - from moviemakers to playwrights, actors, painters, sculptors, and fashion models - should be vetted by Neanderthal Muslim imams who have never read a book in their dim, miserable lives.
Nor do we believe that little men with head wraps and disheveled beards can run amok in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq making decisions on our behalf, dragging us to war whenever they please, confiscating our rights to be adults, and flogging us for not praying five times a day or even for not believing in God.
More important, we are not silent any longer.
Rarely have I seen such an uprising, indeed an intifada, against those little turbaned, bearded men across the Muslim landscape as the one that took place last week. The leader of Hezbollah, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, received a resounding "no" to pulling 350 million Arabs into a war with Israel on his clerical coattails.
The collective "nyet" was spoken by presidents, emirs, and kings at the highest level of government in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Morocco, and at the Arab League's meeting of 22 foreign ministers in Cairo on Saturday. But it was even louder from pundits and ordinary people.
Perhaps the most remarkable and unexpected reaction came from Saudi Arabia, whose foreign minister, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, said bluntly and publicly that Hezbollah's decision to cross the Lebanese border, attack Israel, and kidnap its soldiers has left the Shiite group on its own to face Israel. The unspoken message here was, "We hope they blow you away."
The Arab League put it succinctly in its final communique in Cairo, declaring that "behavior undertaken by some groups [read: Hezbollah and Hamas] in apparent safeguarding of Arab interests does in fact harm those interests, allowing Israel and other parties from outside the Arab world [read: Iran] to wreck havoc with the security and safety of all Arab countries."
As for Hezbollah and its few supporters, who have pushed for an emergency Arab summit meeting, the response could not have been a bigger slap in the face. Take a listen:
* Abdul Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of Al-Arabiya, possibly the most influential Arab opinion-maker today, was categorical yesterday: "We have lost most of our causes and the largest portions of our lands following fiery speeches and empty promises of struggle coupled with hallucinating, drug-induced political fantasies." As for joining Hezbollah in its quest, his answer was basically, "you broke it, you own it."
* Tariq Alhomayed, editor in chief of the Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, stuck the dagger in deeper: "Mr. Nasrallah bombastically announced he consulted no one when he decided to attack Israel, nor did he measure Lebanon's need for security, prosperity, and the safety of its people. He said he needs no one's help but God's to fight the fight." Mr. Alhomayed's punch line was, in so many words: Go with God, Sheik Nasrallah, but count the rest of us out.
Several other Arab pundits, not necessarily coordinating their commentary, noted that today Sheik Nasrallah has been reduced to Osama bin Laden status, a fugitive from Israeli justice, sending out his tapes from unknown locations to, invariably, Al-Jazeera, the prime purveyor of Mr. bin Laden's communications.
All in all, it seems that when Israel decided to go to war against the priestly mafia of Hamas and Hezbollah, it opened a whole new chapter in the Greater Middle East discourse. And Israel is finding, to its surprise, that a vast, not-so-silent majority of Arabs agrees that enough is enough. To be sure, beneath the hostility toward Sheik Nasrallah in Sunni Muslim states lies the deep and bitter heritage of a 14-century Sunni-Shiite divide, propelled to greater heights now by fears of an ascendant Shiite "arc of menace" rising out of Iran and peddled in the Sunni world by Syria.
I still don't have a clear picture on why Hezbollah decided to attack Israel right now. While I have my own working theory on why Hamas decided to kidnapp those soldiers, as for Hezbollah, in the U.S. media at least, there's a ton of supposed reasons. 1) Hezbollah was doing this to support Hamas, 2) Hezbollah was doing this at the beconing of Iran who is trying to spread their influence throughout the region, 3) Hezbollah wants to assert themselves in the region, 4) I even heard a report on CNN today that the Hezbollah leader in Lebanon might not have checked the attack and kidnapping with the grandleader in Syria, and didn't think this would escalate into what it's become. There are other theories as well. I'm not sure we're going to get a coherent breakdown of this attack until the dust settles.
There was an interview with this writer from the Nation on NPR today who just did a piece on the leader of Hezbollah after talking to him. Interestingly enough, Hezbollah claim that this strip of the Golan Heights, which Israel still occupies, actually belongs to Lebanon, so they use that to say they are still fighting against the "Israeli Occupiers" in their speeches.
As for the Palestinians and Hezbollah. I would guess that if the Palestinians were ever to make a real peace with Israel it would take the wind out of Hezbollah and a bunch of other Arab governments and movements about how Israel is always oppressing the Arabs. While Hezbollah might still have beef over this strip in Golan, they might just focus more on Lebanese internal politics.
On this current crisis, I'm serious when I say this but I'm betting that this will all blow over in a little bit. The diplomatic maneuverings are already happening. There's public statements by Israel, Lebanon, and Hezbollah about cease fires, etc. It will all slowly go back to the status quo.
"What's happening in Gaza, to start with that -- well, basically the current stage of what's going on -- there's a lot more -- begins with the Hamas election, back the end of January. Israel and the United States at once announced that they were going to punish the people of Palestine for voting the wrong way in a free election. And the punishment has been severe.
At the same time, it's partly in Gaza, and sort of hidden in a way, but even more extreme in the West Bank, where Olmert announced his annexation program, what???s euphemistically called ???convergence??? and described here often as a ???withdrawal,??? but in fact it???s a formalization of the program of annexing the valuable lands, most of the resources, including water, of the West Bank and cantonizing the rest and imprisoning it, since he also announced that Israel would take over the Jordan Valley. Well, that proceeds without extreme violence or nothing much said about it.
Gaza, itself, the latest phase, began on June 24. It was when Israel abducted two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother. We don't know their names. You don???t know the names of victims. They were taken to Israel, presumably, and nobody knows their fate. The next day, something happened, which we do know about, a lot. Militants in Gaza, probably Islamic Jihad, abducted an Israeli soldier across the border. That???s Corporal Gilad Shalit. And that's well known; first abduction is not. Then followed the escalation of Israeli attacks on Gaza, which I don???t have to repeat. It???s reported on adequately.
The next stage was Hezbollah's abduction of two Israeli soldiers, they say on the border. Their official reason for this is that they are aiming for prisoner release. There are a few, nobody knows how many. Officially, there are three Lebanese prisoners in Israel. There's allegedly a couple hundred people missing. Who knows where they are?
But the real reason, I think it's generally agreed by analysts, is that -- I???ll read from the Financial Times, which happens to be right in front of me. ???The timing and scale of its attack suggest it was partly intended to reduce the pressure on Palestinians by forcing Israel to fight on two fronts simultaneously.??? David Hearst, who knows this area well, describes it, I think this morning, as a display of solidarity with suffering people, the clinching impulse.
It's a very -- mind you -- very irresponsible act. It subjects Lebanese to possible -- certainly to plenty of terror and possible extreme disaster. Whether it can achieve any result, either in the secondary question of freeing prisoners or the primary question of some form of solidarity with the people of Gaza, I hope so, but I wouldn't rank the probabilities very high. "
"With Hezbollah firing rockets on northern Israel for a sixth straight day on Monday ??? including one that destroyed part of an apartment building in nearby Haifa ??? tens of thousands of Israelis in the region remained holed up in bomb shelters that, while apparently rocket-proof, are hot and uncomfortable.
In this part of the country, where Hezbollah rockets have been a threat for decades, taking cover in bomb shelters has become as commonplace as bracing for a hurricane is in Florida."
"...this town is also the gateway to Hezbollah country, where Hezbollah controls everything from local administration and schools to security. Hezbollah has its footprint everywhere here, from its signature yellow banners to portraits celebrating fallen martyrs.
So since the current conflict began, Israeli aircraft have sought to bomb Tyre and the area south of here into submission, while refugees fleeing the bombing have turned the town into a way station on the path to safety in the north."
I cannot forsee a solution to this problem for as long as the lefts deeply patronising view of the 'disadvantaged' remains widely held. The left seems to view their pet groups as being almost sub-animalistic in thier primitivity. They are viewed akin to billiard balls who will scatter in accordance with whatever pressure is exerted upon them rather than individuals capable of making individual decisions which they are then accountable for.
Its this desire to absolve them of any responsiblity which creates a distorted world view from which rather laughable 'solutions' to various problems originate. To suggest that the solution to this problem is for israel to simply tolerate the existence of organisations commited to their destruction and absorb whatever they throw at them is ridiculous. Yet this is the terminus of much of the criticism made against israel.
If one party is commited to nothing more than security and another party is commited to the destruction of said former party then it seems obvious to me which party the world community should be most focused on addressing the actions of. Im sure in the abstract that most people would agree but the power disparity between the two parties in alliance with other factors confuses peoples thinking by invoking what can only be described as classist ideas.
For the second time in 48 hours western governments declined to intervene as Israeli forces, on the sixth day of aerial attacks, killed 47 people and wounded at least 53. Hizbullah, the Iranian-backed militia, also stepped up its attacks, launching 50 rockets against Israel, the highest number in a single day. The death toll since Israel began its attack has risen to 210 in Lebanon and 29 in Israel.
It seems a little crude to reduce the whole debate into numbers, but a 1:7 ratio of Israeli:Lebanese deaths seems a little one-sided.
To suggest that the solution to this problem is for israel to simply tolerate the existence of organisations commited to their destruction and absorb whatever they throw at them is ridiculous. Yet this is the terminus of much of the criticism made against israel.
i agree...somewhat. israeli's treatment of the palestinians is simply wrong, you can't expect the palestinians to progress if they have no resources and no hope for improving their economic situatin. HOWEVER, i agree with the above statement insofar as no matter what Israel does to try to negotiate with Hamas and Hezbolah, it will never be enough. Simply put, those groups will only be satisfied with the destruction of Israel. I consider myself to be extremely liberal and anti-war, but i really don't see how this sitatuation can ever be resolved with all sides happy. Put yourself in the shoes of the Israeli government. Can you imagine how the US would react if terrorists were CONSTANTLY killing american citizens...over here.
When you have a group of people whose drive is basically just to kill what they do not like/agree with (basically brainwashed) it is obviously a tough situation to deal with because they stop at nothing and there is no such thing as reasoning.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Can you imagine how the US would react if terrorists were CONSTANTLY killing american citizens...over here.
I really hate to step into this quagmire of a discussion, but that question reminds me of how Native Americans were treated by the United States government to the point of being practially wiped off of the planet.
Everyone now regrets the treatment that Native Americans received, correct?
Can you imagine how the US would react if terrorists were CONSTANTLY killing american citizens...over here.
I really hate to step into this quagmire of a discussion, but that question reminds me of how Native Americans were treated by the United States government to the point of being practially wiped off of the planet.
Everyone now regrets the treatment that Native Americans received, correct?
I think you won't see Israel do this simply because they are afraid of alienating themselves. Gentiles are accepting of Jews up to a point. If we insist on defending what is ours, that might be going too far. Before you know it, even more people would be hating uppity Jews who insist on defending their homes. Its kind of like being caught between the devil & the deep blue sea. Stand down and you die. Stand up & Gentiles the world over will call for your head. Unless your counting his money or writing a sitcom, a Gentile is not going to be happy with anything you do.
You go goy*
Can you imagine how the US would react if terrorists were CONSTANTLY killing american citizens...over here.
I really hate to step into this quagmire of a discussion, but that question reminds me of how Native Americans were treated by the United States government to the point of being practially wiped off of the planet.
Everyone now regrets the treatment that Native Americans received, correct?
Can you imagine how the US would react if terrorists were CONSTANTLY killing american citizens...over here.
I really hate to step into this quagmire of a discussion, but that question reminds me of how Native Americans were treated by the United States government to the point of being practially wiped off of the planet.
Everyone now regrets the treatment that Native Americans received, correct?
well, you are assuming (i think) that Israel had no right to the land to begin with. that is the subject of the overall fight, but is unrelated to whether Israel is acting appropriately under the circumstances. if you agree that diplomacy is the best method, than how can you argue with Israel's attacks (other than the severity of them), considering that Hamas and Hizbolah refuse to be diplomatic.
Can you imagine how the US would react if terrorists were CONSTANTLY killing american citizens...over here.
I really hate to step into this quagmire of a discussion, but that question reminds me of how Native Americans were treated by the United States government to the point of being practially wiped off of the planet.
Everyone now regrets the treatment that Native Americans received, correct?
plaese not to conflate two completely different historical events. the suggestion that white settler America's treatment of Native Americans in any way resembles what is happening in the Middle East is absurd. refer to the "right of return" thread O-dub started for some commentary on this.
The thing is...the more I've been reading and watching (and trying less - difficult as it may be - to draw quick conclusions), the more it seems like Israel's attacks on Lebanon flirt very close - if not crossing over - into being indiscriminate. And yes, I understand that the high rate of civilian casualties is a reflection of the fact that Hezbollah doesn't set up camps outside of populated areas but rather, they're very much integrate into cities in Lebanon. That said, Israel has killed, what? Less than 20 members of Hezbollah but over 200 Lebanese civilians? And moreover, their bombing campaign is creating conditions under which has, according to NPR, over 100,000 Lebanese fleeing into neighboring countries.
As others have noted here, this is a "you're fucked either way" scenario insofar as Israel should have to right to defend itself against rocket attacks, Hezbollah has no rationale or defense for its actions, and this has been a tension building. But at the same time, it really seems like the people suffering the worse are the Lebanese, most of whom probably do NOT support Hezbollah. I did find this point very telling and revealing in terms of the layers of complexity:
???Israel is making it possible for the Lebanese government to move in,??? Foreign Minister Livni said. ???In a way, Israel is doing the Lebanese government???s job for it??? by taking on Hezbollah, which has been a state-within-a-state in southern Lebanon and southern Beirut.
And let's be clear: Hezbollah are the primary ones to blame here insofar as their actions sparked the chain reaction but collective punishment doesn't seem like a proper mode of redress. Regardless, I don't think there can a solution that will satisfy all sides but at this point, I really have a hard time feeling like Israel is "in the right" at least in terms of: this might be the right policy for them to pursue on one level, but the humanitarian cost is being exacted elsewhere and as it seems, terribly and unfairly so. (Whether "fairness" matters is a whole 'nother philosphical debate I suppose).
Most of all, I just hope a viable cease fire can be worked out very soon.
Are you gunning for some kind of investigative reporting award for exposing my double stacked post? If not, the Big Brother tag applies. The simple fact that you wrote, "Take that shit to KindergartenStrut" speaks volumes.
Comments
not trying to put you on the spot, I totally agree with you - just wondering what could be done differently.
Edit:
The same anti-Israel crowd was all up in arms about construction of the wall, yet it seems quite tame now in comparison and of course a far less violent reaction to the Palestinians' hostility.
You're wrong. And I've said it many times before. I support the existence of Israel 100%. But many policies, as they stand, have been clearly ineffective with tremendous financial and mortal consequences.
I hear you though. This escalation in violence has got me shook up and my otherwise decent sense of humor is out of step. That said, I stand by my fundamental premise that the US should use the purse strings to influence more consensus in that area. Simply arming one side to the tee is not working.
and Cosmo. you won't last. I ignore user'd Sabadaba and Vitamin, but always hit quote to see what they say anyways.
Yes, they gotta deal with it. That seemed to be the Israeli policy actually until this incident with Hamas and Hezbollah. Get behind the wall, and just wait until the Palestinians got their shit together.
In your estimation, best case scenario, how long before the "Palestinians get their shit together"??
When the Palestinians "got their shit together" they put a group in power who's platform dealt with the total destruction of the Jewish state.
how does Israel deal with that?
I am not holding my breath.
???Israel politics and policy are undergoing a revolutionary transformation ??? one of the most important developments in the nation???s history. As dramatic as recent events have been, equally important is the emergence of a new strategic paradigm that reverses 30 years of debate and practice and overturns some of Israel???s most basic assumptions.???
???The shift began when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered a complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank.???
???The emerging new policy is based on a broad Israeli recognition that holding onto the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is simply not in Israel???s interests, despite the fact that the Palestinian leadership has been uninterested in and incapable of making peace and that both Fatah and Hamas will use that land to try to launch attacks on Israel. The territories no longer serve a strategic function for Israel, given the unlikelihood of a conventional attack by Arab state armies, and Israel could better defend its citizens by creating a strong defensive line rather than by dispersing its forces. Moreover, because a comprehensive peace deal is not likely to be reached for many years, the territories are no longer of value as bargaining chips.???
???The Palestinian and Syrian leaderships were simply not ready for peace ??? because of radical forces and ideologies, hard-line personalities, extremist goals, and the fact that the conflict bolstered dictators who would otherwise have faced serious domestic problems. With their own hopes shattered, Israelis from across the political spectrum reluctantly accepted that the conflict would endure for a long time.???
???No one foresaw that Arafat would be offered the bargain the left proposed, reject it, and resort to all-out war. For the Israelis, the year 2000 was a revelation. Palestinian and Syrian leaders thought ready for peace instead chose to continue the conflict. Palestinian leaders kept the refugees ???right of return??? as their highest priority, which the Israelis saw as a sign that destroying Israel was more important to Palestinian leaders than ending the occupation. The Israelis concluded that their long-standing belief in the Palestinians??? desire for peace was fundamentally flawed. From then on, the Palestinian leadership was seen as being unready ??? and certainly not eager ??? for peace.???
???At the same time, a number of other developments suggested that although the conflict would continue, it would not spread or escalate. ??? Other Arab regimes ??? challenged by Islamists and strategically weak ??? started to be willing to sacrifice some of their support for the Palestinians in exchange for improved relations with the United States. Even if they would not make peace with Israel, they also did not want war, and their support for the Palestinians hit rock bottom.???
???What emerged from the shock of the failure of Oslo and the five-year-long terrorist war that followed was a new synthesis in Israeli thinking: a national consensus along centrist lines, drawing ideas from across the political spectrum. From the left came the idea that Israel should withdraw from the captured territories, dismantle many of the settlements, and accept an independent Palestinian state in exchange for real peace. This melded with the right???s belief that there would be no partner with whom to make a real peace for a long time to come. These two notions fused into a new paradigm, which dominates Israeli politics and thinking today, even as the Palestinians stick to a policy that combines weakness and intransigence. Although the Israelis??? most optimistic hopes have been dashed, most Israelis now believe that the situation can actually be made more secure with the right approach.???
???The Israeli military played a considerable role in developing this new viewpoint.???
???The idea of a defense based on a clear line laid out along advantageous terrain was far more attractive to strategists.???
???The only remaining vulnerability would be from missiles fired over the frontier, which was as much of a problem when Israeli forces were actually on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza.???
???Along with the military officers, both Israeli politicians and the Israeli public recognized that adopting a sustainable framework for defense would mean giving up on the idea that the PA (Palestinian Authority) would ever be of help in fighting terrorism; experience had taught Israel that the Palestinian leadership was at best useless and at worst a de fact ally of terrorists.???
???The consensus was that there was little chance of a deal with the Palestinians due to the nature of their politics and their leadership. Virtually no one in the Palestinian leadership had really tried to alter that nature in the 1990s, and Palestinian leaders increasingly and openly endorsed radical positions after 2000. Whatever good intentions Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas may have, he is too weak to impose order or to make the tough decisions necessary for peace, especially given the absence of any strong moderate faction that could help remake Palestinian politics. While in control, Arafat???s Fatah movement simply did not offer such leadership, and its corruption and incompetence were destroying it (as became evident with its downfall in the January 2006 elections). Moreover, the sheer multiplicity and fractiousness of the various Palestinian factions made the imposition of order ??? or any coherent policy, other than the lowest-common-denominator option of simply continuing the conflict ??? almost impossible. And even as Fatah was overwhelmingly dominated by extremists, including both unreconstructed old hard-liners and a younger generation that glorified the terrorism of the al Aqsa Brigades, Hamas was becoming steadily more powerful. Meanwhile, the Palestinians??? desire to eliminate Israel came to seem too strong, their glorification of violence too powerful, to overcome.???
???With Hamas in power, Abbas now has become even more powerless, Fatah is turning more radical and violent in a desperate attempt to compete with the Islamists, and there has been an intensification of incitement of the younger Palestinian generation to continue the struggle for many years.???
???Israel???s new policy has made clear its willingness to make a real compromise peace. Meanwhile, however, Israel needed a new strategy to fit existing conditions.???
???This was the context in which Sharon decided on complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the dismantling of several West Bank settlements. ??? Olmert, announced a policy of ???convergence,??? in which Israel would withdraw from most of its remaining positions in the West Bank, dismantle many more settlements, and consolidate those ???settlement blocs??? that it intended to claim in the future.???
???[Sharon] recognized Israel???s need for a sustainable strategic stance as long as a comprehensive diplomatic solution remained out of reach. He came to realize that holding territory was no longer strategically advantageous (and was perhaps detrimental in a long war of attrition) ??? Sharon also wanted to put the ball in the Palestinians??? court by forcing them to show whether they could govern a territory that was, for most practical purposes, a state. Turning over the Gaza Strip, said Weisglass [an advisor to Sharon], meant there were ???no more excuses . ??? The whole world is asking what they intend to do with this sli ce of land.???
???The Hamas victory only reinforced this view, and also proved its accuracy to many foreign observers.???
???A key factor in this defensive orientation will be completion of the security fence to protect Israel from attack.???
???Despite its critical evaluation of Palestinian politics, Israel will try to help moderate Palestinians, but it has no illusions about their strength or the extent of their pragmatism. What is important is not whether Israeli officials meet with Abbas or other Palestinian officials, but whether there is any reason to believe such discussions could have a real result.???
???This revolution has promoted national unity. Those who think Israel can obtain peace simply by giving up more, as well as those who think Israel should keep all the territories, have been pushed to the margins of both politics and debate. Facing reality and making the best out of difficult conditions have triumphed over wishful thinking. This is the kind of approach that suits an Israeli political culture that has always focused on the art of the possible. Relative optimism, in this case, is the result of making the most of an apparently insoluble situation that would otherwise seem to engender only hopelessness.???
I think you won't see Israel do this simply because they are afraid of alienating themselves. Gentiles are accepting of Jews up to a point. If we insist on defending what is ours, that might be going too far. Before you know it, even more people would be hating uppity Jews who insist on defending their homes. Its kind of like being caught between the devil & the deep blue sea. Stand down and you die. Stand up & Gentiles the world over will call for your head. Unless your counting his money or writing a sitcom, a Gentile is not going to be happy with anything you do.
I'm not clear as to how the Palestinians "getting their shit together" would actually have any effect on Hezbollah's actions. They are not - unless I'm mistaken - a Palestinian group. Rather they are Islamic in origin, created specifically to combat the Israeli occupation of Lebanon and have since pushed a larger, Islamist campaign to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. As I noted earlier, Hezbollah's support of the Palestinian cause has largely been for PR reasons following the departure of Israel from Lebanon (which was, after all, their I>cause celebre[/i] in the beginning. They needed to justify why they continued to sponsor incursions into Israel (either via attempted suicide bombers or rockets) and the Palestinian cause was the popular one to hang their hat on.
I would think that Palestine could declare nation-state sovereignty tomorrow, resolve border disputes with Israel, sign a peace accord and sit down to a Halal/kosher feast with Israeli settlers along the West Bank and Hezbollah's core mission wouldn't change at all. (Nor Hamas' for that matter). Hezbollah has been politically savvy enough to at least recognize the importance of tying themselves to the Palestinian cause but that doesn't mean they actually believe in it in any real way.
There seems to be two ways to stop Hezbollah in the short run: smash them out of existance (which would almost surely result in massive civilian death and destruction) or convince Syria and/or Iran that it'd be in their best interests to rein Hezbollah in. Ultimately though, I don't think it's possible to change some people's ideological positions - they're too entrenched, too compounded by social conditions and/or perceptions, etc. However, you can change people's policies and actions by demonstrating to them that the ultimate costs to their interests (whether that be economic, political, social) would be better serviced through a negotiated process rather than an all-or-nothing approach.
One can argue whether or not Israel's actions - either now or in the past - have been as "mediated" or "restrained" as they could be. I don't know if there will ever be resolution on that issue. I do think that most would agree that Israeli could go a lot further as an aggressor and that they have sacrified things that have gone against some of their national interests (say land) in the furtherance of other interests (say peace). I think other countries engaged in hostility with them, either now or in the past, have also made similar calculations.
There's no way there can ever be a 100% "win-win" scenario - someone, often times both parties, will end up getting fucked over something. The example that always comes to my mind is South Africa post-apartheid and the amnesty program created to ensure the best peace possible b/t former colonizers and the colonized. Morally speaking, one could make the argument (as has happened in Zimbabwe with Mugabe) that black Africans have the right to exact revenge (or justice depending on your framing) on white settlers but in the interests of avoiding civil strife or war, they've created a national policy that basically says, "let the past be the past and let's build from here lest we destroy ourselves over history."
That's a fucking bitter pill to swallow and I can't even say that I agree with it on an emotional level but I can at least respect, as policy, what the aim is and what the long term vision is.
Not to get too far afield with all this but it really strikes me that we, as Americans, tend to want to see this through a very polar lens and that people lose a sense of nuance and just how goddamn complex shit like this is. I don't mean to pick on Rockadelic (well, yes I do) but to me, his gung-ho, "don't treat on me!" attitude reflects this American exceptionalism built on the fact that really, nothing has threatened our national security since World War II (and even then Pearl Harbor aside, it's not like the Luftwaffe was dropping bombs on NY and LA every other night). Suffice to say, I'm pretty sure none of us here were around then to know what that felt like (there's Cold War paranoia but that's definitely a case of perception > reality. Just ask McCarthy).
Even post-9/11, we live in such an incredibly safe society that I think it's kind of easy for us to make pronouncements of "what should be done" when we RARELY feel the blowback on that shit (except for, unfortunately, the thousands of service people losing their life in Iraq and Afghanistan but let's not go down there). We're just hella isolated and comfortable and complacent. One tragedy of our post 9/11 foreign policy is that it actually didn't shake us out of illusions of American exceptionalism. Our response has only accentuated how much we desparately need to cling to the idea that we can live in state of absolute security (how unrealistic that is) and that shit like invading Iraq isn't somehow going to blowback on us.
We've been used to peace WITHIN OUR OWN BORDERS so long that we've forgotten that peace is usually achieved through sacrifice, not through mere force of power. If I'm historically inaccurate here, I welcome a correction - seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. We might be afraid of young people, or people of color, or immigrants or whoever else is walking down the street from us but how many you really wake up thinking, "hey, my apartment didn't get shelled last night. Good, now I can go to work."?
As others have pointed out in this thread, the Israelis, for example, have often times just taken body shots that, if it were America forced to absorb them, would have probably kick-started WWIII a long time ago. They may seem weak to some for not retaliating earlier or harder but if you're PRIMARY goal is to ensure the existance of your nation and your society, and if that goal is in actual, real danger, then maybe you'd be willing to take an occassional missile or suicide bomber without carpet bombing someone in return if it means that NOT carpet bombing might ensure a lasting peace down the road.
Just to be clear here too, I think that 1) supporting Israel's right to exist and 2) desiring a solution to the humanitarian crisis amongst Palestian refugees are NOT mutually exclusive. If I'm wrong, someone explain that to me.
That said, and I hate to keep coming back to this, but DS keeps insisting that in the case of the Palestinians, "they brought this upon themselves" because Hamas was elected to power. Let me state again - Hamas won overwhelmingly in Gaza and the West Bank. They did NOT carry the national vote and therefore, they cannot be said to have a mandate on the Palestinian will even if THEY (Hamas) are operating as if that's the case. Anti-Hamas Palestinians may have to suffer the consequences of what their pro-Hamas neighbors did but if you're trying to broker a peace with them, then you can't assume every Palestinian (or even the MAJORITY of them) are down with Hamas.
Jeeez....I figured putting you on my Top 5 Fave Posters list would make me immune to attacks
Here is a piece written by an Arab that not only gives some hope, but reflects an opinion that I believe, which is "If you don't keep your own house clean don't be surprised when someone comes and cleans it for you"
If what Mr. Ibrahim is saying is true, and there is a silent majority in the Middle East that wants to eliminate Hezbollah as badly as Israel does, the only thing I can imagine stopping it from happening is corruption at the highest levels of their Governments. And I think in any circumstance, if given the choice between a "Win/Lose" scenario vs. a "Lose/Lose" scenario the former would be the choice. And if there can only be one winner let's ALL hope it's Israel.
Arab Majority May Not Stay Forever Silent[/b]
By YOUSSEF IBRAHIM
July 17, 2006
Yes, world, there is a silent Arab majority that believes that seventh-century Islam is not fit for 21st-century challenges. That women do not have to look like walking black tents. That men do not have to wear beards and robes, act like lunatics, and run around blowing themselves up in order to enjoy 72 virgins in paradise. And that secular laws, not Islamic Shariah, should rule our day-to-day lives.
And yes, we, the silent Arab majority, do not believe that writers, secular or otherwise, should be killed or banned for expressing their views. Or that the rest of our creative elite - from moviemakers to playwrights, actors, painters, sculptors, and fashion models - should be vetted by Neanderthal Muslim imams who have never read a book in their dim, miserable lives.
Nor do we believe that little men with head wraps and disheveled beards can run amok in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq making decisions on our behalf, dragging us to war whenever they please, confiscating our rights to be adults, and flogging us for not praying five times a day or even for not believing in God.
More important, we are not silent any longer.
Rarely have I seen such an uprising, indeed an intifada, against those little turbaned, bearded men across the Muslim landscape as the one that took place last week. The leader of Hezbollah, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, received a resounding "no" to pulling 350 million Arabs into a war with Israel on his clerical coattails.
The collective "nyet" was spoken by presidents, emirs, and kings at the highest level of government in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Morocco, and at the Arab League's meeting of 22 foreign ministers in Cairo on Saturday. But it was even louder from pundits and ordinary people.
Perhaps the most remarkable and unexpected reaction came from Saudi Arabia, whose foreign minister, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, said bluntly and publicly that Hezbollah's decision to cross the Lebanese border, attack Israel, and kidnap its soldiers has left the Shiite group on its own to face Israel. The unspoken message here was, "We hope they blow you away."
The Arab League put it succinctly in its final communique in Cairo, declaring that "behavior undertaken by some groups [read: Hezbollah and Hamas] in apparent safeguarding of Arab interests does in fact harm those interests, allowing Israel and other parties from outside the Arab world [read: Iran] to wreck havoc with the security and safety of all Arab countries."
As for Hezbollah and its few supporters, who have pushed for an emergency Arab summit meeting, the response could not have been a bigger slap in the face. Take a listen:
* Abdul Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of Al-Arabiya, possibly the most influential Arab opinion-maker today, was categorical yesterday: "We have lost most of our causes and the largest portions of our lands following fiery speeches and empty promises of struggle coupled with hallucinating, drug-induced political fantasies." As for joining Hezbollah in its quest, his answer was basically, "you broke it, you own it."
* Tariq Alhomayed, editor in chief of the Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, stuck the dagger in deeper: "Mr. Nasrallah bombastically announced he consulted no one when he decided to attack Israel, nor did he measure Lebanon's need for security, prosperity, and the safety of its people. He said he needs no one's help but God's to fight the fight." Mr. Alhomayed's punch line was, in so many words: Go with God, Sheik Nasrallah, but count the rest of us out.
Several other Arab pundits, not necessarily coordinating their commentary, noted that today Sheik Nasrallah has been reduced to Osama bin Laden status, a fugitive from Israeli justice, sending out his tapes from unknown locations to, invariably, Al-Jazeera, the prime purveyor of Mr. bin Laden's communications.
All in all, it seems that when Israel decided to go to war against the priestly mafia of Hamas and Hezbollah, it opened a whole new chapter in the Greater Middle East discourse. And Israel is finding, to its surprise, that a vast, not-so-silent majority of Arabs agrees that enough is enough. To be sure, beneath the hostility toward Sheik Nasrallah in Sunni Muslim states lies the deep and bitter heritage of a 14-century Sunni-Shiite divide, propelled to greater heights now by fears of an ascendant Shiite "arc of menace" rising out of Iran and peddled in the Sunni world by Syria.
The sooner this is settled the better.
There was an interview with this writer from the Nation on NPR today who just did a piece on the leader of Hezbollah after talking to him. Interestingly enough, Hezbollah claim that this strip of the Golan Heights, which Israel still occupies, actually belongs to Lebanon, so they use that to say they are still fighting against the "Israeli Occupiers" in their speeches.
As for the Palestinians and Hezbollah. I would guess that if the Palestinians were ever to make a real peace with Israel it would take the wind out of Hezbollah and a bunch of other Arab governments and movements about how Israel is always oppressing the Arabs. While Hezbollah might still have beef over this strip in Golan, they might just focus more on Lebanese internal politics.
On this current crisis, I'm serious when I say this but I'm betting that this will all blow over in a little bit. The diplomatic maneuverings are already happening. There's public statements by Israel, Lebanon, and Hezbollah about cease fires, etc. It will all slowly go back to the status quo.
"What's happening in Gaza, to start with that -- well, basically the current stage of what's going on -- there's a lot more -- begins with the Hamas election, back the end of January. Israel and the United States at once announced that they were going to punish the people of Palestine for voting the wrong way in a free election. And the punishment has been severe.
At the same time, it's partly in Gaza, and sort of hidden in a way, but even more extreme in the West Bank, where Olmert announced his annexation program, what???s euphemistically called ???convergence??? and described here often as a ???withdrawal,??? but in fact it???s a formalization of the program of annexing the valuable lands, most of the resources, including water, of the West Bank and cantonizing the rest and imprisoning it, since he also announced that Israel would take over the Jordan Valley. Well, that proceeds without extreme violence or nothing much said about it.
Gaza, itself, the latest phase, began on June 24. It was when Israel abducted two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother. We don't know their names. You don???t know the names of victims. They were taken to Israel, presumably, and nobody knows their fate. The next day, something happened, which we do know about, a lot. Militants in Gaza, probably Islamic Jihad, abducted an Israeli soldier across the border. That???s Corporal Gilad Shalit. And that's well known; first abduction is not. Then followed the escalation of Israeli attacks on Gaza, which I don???t have to repeat. It???s reported on adequately.
The next stage was Hezbollah's abduction of two Israeli soldiers, they say on the border. Their official reason for this is that they are aiming for prisoner release. There are a few, nobody knows how many. Officially, there are three Lebanese prisoners in Israel. There's allegedly a couple hundred people missing. Who knows where they are?
But the real reason, I think it's generally agreed by analysts, is that -- I???ll read from the Financial Times, which happens to be right in front of me. ???The timing and scale of its attack suggest it was partly intended to reduce the pressure on Palestinians by forcing Israel to fight on two fronts simultaneously.??? David Hearst, who knows this area well, describes it, I think this morning, as a display of solidarity with suffering people, the clinching impulse.
It's a very -- mind you -- very irresponsible act. It subjects Lebanese to possible -- certainly to plenty of terror and possible extreme disaster. Whether it can achieve any result, either in the secondary question of freeing prisoners or the primary question of some form of solidarity with the people of Gaza, I hope so, but I wouldn't rank the probabilities very high. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/world/middleeast/18israel.html
"With Hezbollah firing rockets on northern Israel for a sixth straight day on Monday ??? including one that destroyed part of an apartment building in nearby Haifa ??? tens of thousands of Israelis in the region remained holed up in bomb shelters that, while apparently rocket-proof, are hot and uncomfortable.
In this part of the country, where Hezbollah rockets have been a threat for decades, taking cover in bomb shelters has become as commonplace as bracing for a hurricane is in Florida."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/world/...artner=homepage
"...this town is also the gateway to Hezbollah country, where Hezbollah controls everything from local administration and schools to security. Hezbollah has its footprint everywhere here, from its signature yellow banners to portraits celebrating fallen martyrs.
So since the current conflict began, Israeli aircraft have sought to bomb Tyre and the area south of here into submission, while refugees fleeing the bombing have turned the town into a way station on the path to safety in the north."
Its this desire to absolve them of any responsiblity which creates a distorted world view from which rather laughable 'solutions' to various problems originate. To suggest that the solution to this problem is for israel to simply tolerate the existence of organisations commited to their destruction and absorb whatever they throw at them is ridiculous. Yet this is the terminus of much of the criticism made against israel.
If one party is commited to nothing more than security and another party is commited to the destruction of said former party then it seems obvious to me which party the world community should be most focused on addressing the actions of. Im sure in the abstract that most people would agree but the power disparity between the two parties in alliance with other factors confuses peoples thinking by invoking what can only be described as classist ideas.
It seems a little crude to reduce the whole debate into numbers, but a 1:7 ratio of Israeli:Lebanese deaths seems a little one-sided.
i agree...somewhat. israeli's treatment of the palestinians is simply wrong, you can't expect the palestinians to progress if they have no resources and no hope for improving their economic situatin. HOWEVER, i agree with the above statement insofar as no matter what Israel does to try to negotiate with Hamas and Hezbolah, it will never be enough. Simply put, those groups will only be satisfied with the destruction of Israel. I consider myself to be extremely liberal and anti-war, but i really don't see how this sitatuation can ever be resolved with all sides happy. Put yourself in the shoes of the Israeli government. Can you imagine how the US would react if terrorists were CONSTANTLY killing american citizens...over here.
Sad indeed..
Pbilly
DJ equipment
http://www.planetdj.com
I really hate to step into this quagmire of a discussion, but that question reminds me of how Native Americans were treated by the United States government to the point of being practially wiped off of the planet.
Everyone now regrets the treatment that Native Americans received, correct?
What you talkin' about pale face?
Man wtf are you doing?
*yeah, I saw that shit.
well, you are assuming (i think) that Israel had no right to the land to begin with. that is the subject of the overall fight, but is unrelated to whether Israel is acting appropriately under the circumstances. if you agree that diplomacy is the best method, than how can you argue with Israel's attacks (other than the severity of them), considering that Hamas and Hizbolah refuse to be diplomatic.
plaese not to conflate two completely different historical events. the suggestion that white settler America's treatment of Native Americans in any way resembles what is happening in the Middle East is absurd. refer to the "right of return" thread O-dub started for some commentary on this.
and yeah, you shouldn't have stepped into this.
As others have noted here, this is a "you're fucked either way" scenario insofar as Israel should have to right to defend itself against rocket attacks, Hezbollah has no rationale or defense for its actions, and this has been a tension building. But at the same time, it really seems like the people suffering the worse are the Lebanese, most of whom probably do NOT support Hezbollah. I did find this point very telling and revealing in terms of the layers of complexity:
???Israel is making it possible for the Lebanese government to move in,??? Foreign Minister Livni said. ???In a way, Israel is doing the Lebanese government???s job for it??? by taking on Hezbollah, which has been a state-within-a-state in southern Lebanon and southern Beirut.
And let's be clear: Hezbollah are the primary ones to blame here insofar as their actions sparked the chain reaction but collective punishment doesn't seem like a proper mode of redress. Regardless, I don't think there can a solution that will satisfy all sides but at this point, I really have a hard time feeling like Israel is "in the right" at least in terms of: this might be the right policy for them to pursue on one level, but the humanitarian cost is being exacted elsewhere and as it seems, terribly and unfairly so. (Whether "fairness" matters is a whole 'nother philosphical debate I suppose).
Most of all, I just hope a viable cease fire can be worked out very soon.
Take that shit to KindergartenStrut.
Ireland...wot???
Are you gunning for some kind of investigative reporting award for exposing my double stacked post? If not, the Big Brother tag applies. The simple fact that you wrote, "Take that shit to KindergartenStrut" speaks volumes.
Get ready....it's inevitable