This image requires context. It was taken in Kiryat Shmona, where numerous rockets have fallen. Allowing children to write messages on artillery shells may seem of questionable taste, but these are kids who's daily life centres around proximity to bomb shelters. To the extent that they have the capacity to understand what they???re doing, they write on those shells with the belief that they will end rocket attacks. Perhaps it???s cathartic.
It may be that those same shells will kill Lebanese children, but those Israeli kids, and I???d wager the same for the artillerymen firing them, aren???t celebrating the murder of innocents No one's dancing the hora over dead Lebanese babies, although, as I've mentioned before, this is what many imply is happening.
And furthermore, Israel has not subsidized a satelite station that creates music videos for adolescent suicide bombers as Hezbollah's al-Manar does. Israel does not fund the development and distribution of suicide bomber video games, as Hezbollah and Iran do. Leading Rabbis in Israel do not recruit Israeli teens to strap bombs to their chest and walk into Lebanese markets. Israeli textbooks for children do not say Arabs come from pigs and monkeys. I could go on.
Nonetheless, the bombs of Israel on Lebanon terrorize Lebanese civilians. This response, as I wrote earlier, is meant as a demonstration. It is cruel and barbaric in its own way. But it is the logic of war. And war is hell. Nonetheless it's not quite the same thing as toddlers wearing mock up suicide vests.
And per Juan Cole, his latest foaming screed today accuses Israel of ethnic cleansing, no different than Saddam against the Marsh Arabs. This is not analysis, it's propaganda.
If the citizens of Lebanon want the bombing to stop, then they should get hezbollah to stop bombing Israel. Why is Israel the only country in the middle east who is held accountable for anything that happens there? If the world would hold muslim nations accountable for their actions, then maybe you'd see some progress made. As for disproportionate response; people die from terrorist incursions into Israel on the regular. Where is the outcry of emotion for them? There is none because Jews are disposible.
Why do the photos of the Israeli girls sending messages on bombs to Lebanese children need defending? That strikes me as something an apologist would do. I didnt post the link to the photos to win an argument. That's not my burden.
I don't think you are giving people enough credit to make up their own minds upon seeing the photos or reading Professor Cole's blog.
If the citizens of Lebanon want the bombing to stop, then they should get hezbollah to stop bombing Israel. Why is Israel the only country in the middle east who is held accountable for anything that happens there? If the world would hold muslim nations accountable for their actions, then maybe you'd see some progress made. As for disproportionate response; people die from terrorist incursions into Israel on the regular. Where is the outcry of emotion for them? There is none because Jews are disposible.
If the citizens of Lebanon want the bombing to stop, then they should get hezbollah to stop bombing Israel. Why is Israel the only country in the middle east who is held accountable for anything that happens there? If the world would hold muslim nations accountable for their actions, then maybe you'd see some progress made. As for disproportionate response; people die from terrorist incursions into Israel on the regular. Where is the outcry of emotion for them? There is none because Jews are disposible.
There's enough strawmen here to keep an army busy bombing them.
Seriously - the sheer fucking myopia that people display on this subject is precisely what makes people who aren't already blindly indoctrinated incredibly skeptical about the truth claims of EITHER camp.
Like, I had someone on my blog argue that Hezbollah doesn't terrorize - they called them "acts of self-defense." That's some crazy "I drank the kool-aid" bullshit that you just can't take seriously.
Likewise, to suggest that NO ONE CARES ABOUT DEAD JEWISH PEOPLE can't be taken seriously either. Or that only Israel is held accountable for its actions. Last time I check, Iraq got invaded to "hold it accountable for its actions". The Palestian Authority got defunded by most Western nations, for Hamas' actions. I'm just not buying it.
Israel is not the ultimate victim any more than Lebanon is. If people can't respect and understand the tragedy ON BOTH SIDES, then they (and we) are seriously fucked.
BTW, Hazbeen - I'd really love to see you propose an informed suggestion of how Lebanon - having gone through decades of civil war that left the country decimated - is supposed to "stop Hezbollah from bombing Israel" when Syria has been running interference for years, Iran is moving money and weapons to Hezbollah as well and you have a Sunni/Shia riff that only empowers Hezbollah further. Am I wrong about any of this?
I'm not saying the Lebanese gov't couldn't have done more but you make it sound as if the Lebanese overwhelmingly were backing Hezbollah and if you bothered to watch the news last year, you know that wasn't true. But Hezbollah isn't like some pissant militia running around Montana. They're better armed than the Lebanese army and have more powerful allies backing their play.
Seriously, when this whole conflict started, I was decidedly a lot more pro-Israel - much to the surprise of my friends on the left, but the sheer amount of apologism is making me question a lot of unchallenged assumptions I've made through the years. Believe me, I feel equally skeptical about all the virulent anti-Zionism I've been witnessing as well.
And Vitamin: this whole "this is barbaric...but this is the logic of war" is like having your cake and eating it too. To me, your statement basically endorses nihilism because if war sucks and if bad shit happens during war, then war becomes the justification for having bad shit happen. After a certain point, no one knows where the chicken and egg began and no one cares. It's just war.
There's enough strawmen here to keep an army busy bombing them.
Seriously - the sheer fucking myopia that people display on this subject is precisely what makes people who aren't already blindly indoctrinated incredibly skeptical about the truth claims of EITHER camp.
Like, I had someone on my blog argue that Hezbollah doesn't terrorize - they called them "acts of self-defense." That's some crazy "I drank the kool-aid" bullshit that you just can't take seriously.
Likewise, to suggest that NO ONE CARES ABOUT DEAD JEWISH PEOPLE can't be taken seriously either. Or that only Israel is held accountable for its actions. Last time I check, Iraq got invaded to "hold it accountable for its actions". The Palestian Authority got defunded by most Western nations, for Hamas' actions. I'm just not buying it.
Israel is not the ultimate victim any more than Lebanon is. If people can't respect and understand the tragedy ON BOTH SIDES, then they (and we) are seriously fucked.
BTW, Hazbeen - I'd really love to see you propose an informed suggestion of how Lebanon - having gone through decades of civil war that left the country decimated - is supposed to "stop Hezbollah from bombing Israel" when Syria has been running interference for years, Iran is moving money and weapons to Hezbollah as well and you have a Sunni/Shia riff that only empowers Hezbollah further. Am I wrong about any of this?
I'm not saying the Lebanese gov't couldn't have done more but you make it sound as if the Lebanese overwhelmingly were backing Hezbollah and if you bothered to watch the news last year, you know that wasn't true. But Hezbollah isn't like some pissant militia running around Montana. They're better armed than the Lebanese army and have more powerful allies backing their play.
Seriously, when this whole conflict started, I was decidedly a lot more pro-Israel - much to the surprise of my friends on the left, but the sheer amount of apologism is making me question a lot of unchallenged assumptions I've made through the years. Believe me, I feel equally skeptical about all the virulent anti-Zionism I've been witnessing as well.
And Vitamin: this whole "this is barbaric...but this is the logic of war" is like having your cake and eating it too. To me, your statement basically endorses nihilism because if war sucks and if bad shit happens during war, then war becomes the justification for having bad shit happen. After a certain point, no one knows where the chicken and egg began and no one cares. It's just war.
who is being myopic here? if israel's strategy can be justified, its certainly not because of the short term effects. you talk about the two sides being israel and lebanon. if that is how you are looking at things, than you are justifiably aggitated by what israel has done in the past few weeks.
in my opinion, israel has its hands tied right now and backing off, without some sort of resolution, would not be a good idea in the grand scheme. in my opinion, Bush could end all of this right away if he stepped in and negotiated with Syria. he is probably hoping that Israel will engage in a ground war and take care of Hizbolah, one less problem for him to deal with. if you wanna blame someone for all these deaths, start with mr. hands off.
This image requires context. It was taken in Kiryat Shmona, where numerous rockets have fallen. Allowing children to write messages on artillery shells may seem of questionable taste, but these are kids who's daily life centres around proximity to bomb shelters. To the extent that they have the capacity to understand what they???re doing, they write on those shells with the belief that they will end rocket attacks. Perhaps it???s cathartic.
It may be that those same shells will kill Lebanese children, but those Israeli kids, and I???d wager the same for the artillerymen firing them, aren???t celebrating the murder of innocents No one's dancing the hora over dead Lebanese babies, although, as I've mentioned before, this is what many imply is happening.
And furthermore, Israel has not subsidized a satelite station that creates music videos for adolescent suicide bombers as Hezbollah's al-Manar does. Israel does not fund the development and distribution of suicide bomber video games, as Hezbollah and Iran do. Leading Rabbis in Israel do not recruit Israeli teens to strap bombs to their chest and walk into Lebanese markets. Israeli textbooks for children do not say Arabs come from pigs and monkeys. I could go on.
Nonetheless, the bombs of Israel on Lebanon terrorize Lebanese civilians. This response, as I wrote earlier, is meant as a demonstration. It is cruel and barbaric in its own way. But it is the logic of war. And war is hell. Nonetheless it's not quite the same thing as toddlers wearing mock up suicide vests.
And per Juan Cole, his latest foaming screed today accuses Israel of ethnic cleansing, no different than Saddam against the Marsh Arabs. This is not analysis, it's propaganda.
Jaun Cole is a poo-poo head no doubt. Glad dude lost his prospective teaching position.
And Vitamin: this whole "this is barbaric...but this is the logic of war" is like having your cake and eating it too. To me, your statement basically endorses nihilism because if war sucks and if bad shit happens during war, then war becomes the justification for having bad shit happen. After a certain point, no one knows where the chicken and egg began and no one cares. It's just war.
I did not write my earlier comments because I was trying to justify Israel's actions. I was writing out of frustration with the muddle of our language about the war and its justifications. The Jewish state is punishing innocent civilians. This is cruel. I don't think any Zionist right now cannot struggle with this issue. And I am conflicted. I am empathetic to Israel's vulnerability, frustration, the serious strategic threats arrayed against it. But at the same time, I don't see this as a moral response or a strategic one. It's simply a demonstration. I hope that Israel sends home Nasrallah in a body bag. I hope it wipes out Iran's al Quds force. I hope it achieves its strategic aims. But I don't see it at this point. And so then what are we to make of the cratering of Lebanon's roads, the displacement of its citizens? What then? But here is the most awful and chilling question. What if Israel's collective punishment does create the disincentive necessary to turn Lebanon against Hezbollah? What if it works. What if once again history vindicates the logic of war?
I don't see this as a moral response or a strategic one. It's simply a demonstration.
Why does it have to be a demonstration? Israel has to deal with the issue of Hezbollah. I'll only be dissapointed by this action if the status quo reasserts itself & we're back to rockets from Lebanon in 6 months.
Why do the photos of the Israeli girls sending messages on bombs to Lebanese children need defending? That strikes me as something an apologist would do. I didnt post the link to the photos to win an argument. That's not my burden.
I don't think you are giving people enough credit to make up their own minds upon seeing the photos or reading Professor Cole's blog.
Why do the photos need defending? They don't. They need explanation. Posted in this thread with a sarcastic "beautiful" as the only context, they blatantly dehumanises Israelis. They're tantamount to saying gee, look at these smug Israeli monsters who produce kids that gleefully write on shells destined to murder Lebanese children. Whatever your intention, posting a link to those images was, in effect, making that point and I find such vilification unacceptable. If you had posted them with a description of the context in which they were taken, the point conveyed would be the tragedy of war, not the monstrosity of the Israelis. Thus the need for an explanation.
So it's therapeutic for Israeli children but barbaric for Arab youth? Interesting.
If it's cathartic for Israeli children to write on shells, and the back-story to the image suggests then this may have been the case, that there's no reason why Lebanese children writing on rockets would not also find it cathartic. However, I don't think that's what you're insinuating. You want to suggest that there's a double standard in countenancing the actions depicted in the images and what Vitamin described in his post. Such a suggestion is either silly or uninformed.
McLaughlin of The McLaughlin Group recently interviewed the Syrian ambassador to the US, who said that if Israel pulled out of Gaza, the WB, etc., that, not only would Hamas and Hezbollah cease to exist, but that there'd be peace.
I expect someone to jump in, as usual, and point out that this is what Arafat turned down, to which I ask, "Is it fair to compare Arafat's time to this one?" Seems to me the temp is rising in the thermometer of geopolitics.
So it's therapeutic for Israeli children but barbaric for Arab youth? Interesting.
If it's cathartic for Israeli children to write on shells, and the back-story to the image suggests then this may have been the case, that there's no reason why Lebanese children writing on rockets would not also find it cathartic. However, I don't think that's what you're insinuating. You want to suggest that there's a double standard in countenancing the actions depicted in the images and what Vitamin described in his post. Such a suggestion is either silly or uninformed.
Not exactly my point. More of a "look inside yourself and ask why we think and feel the way we do." There is a double standard for some. I think it's sad both ways, but I've seen more dehumanizing directed at Arabs for this sort of behavior. "Look what they have their kids do. They are sowing the seeds of hate." That sort of thing. People always jump to the defense of Israeli's but not for Arab kids.
McLaughlin of The McLaughlin Group recently interviewed the Syrian ambassador to the US, who said that if Israel pulled out of Gaza, the WB, etc., that, not only would Hamas and Hezbollah cease to exist, but that there'd be peace.
I expect someone to jump in, as usual, and point out that this is what Arafat turned down, to which I ask, "Is it fair to compare Arafat's time to this one?" Seems to me the temp is rising in the thermometer of geopolitics.
The U.S. spent years negotiating the Oslo Peace Accord between Israel and the PLO. Israel's government was finally really committed to a peace process, and even the major Arab governments, besides Syria, were behind it as well. Israel gave the PLO a bunch of guns and let a whole bunch of hardcore PLO fighters and leaders return to the Occupied Territories as an act of goodwill, and in return Arafat and the PLO were suppose to crack down on the radicals and terrorism. He didn't do it. Israel released a whole bunch of Palestinians in Israeli prisons as another act of goodwill, and again, in return Arafat was suppose to crack down on terrorism, but he didn't do it. The U.S. and Egypt began giving the PLO weapons and training to their security and intelligence services to try to build them up so that they could take on the more radical wings like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but again, Arafat didn't follow through. Finally, the U.S. negotiator came up with a plan that Israel agreed to for all of Gaza, most of the West Bank and 1/2 of Jerusalum. The U.S. negotiator went to Arafat, and said will you agree to this deal. Arafat said yes. The negotiator went back to Israel and said we have a deal. He went back to Arafat to have him actually agree to all the details, and he turned it down saying that he wanted the right of return for all Palestinian refugees. If you didn't catch what that means in the other thread, it's a demand that Palestinian refugees get back all their historical homes and land within Israel. It basically means that the Palestinians don't believe Israelis have a right to the land, because they would all have to get up and leave whatever places Palestinians laid claim to. Right after that he called for armed struggle and the Intifadah 2, which was not like the first one with kids and rocks and such, but a bloody terrorist war, started.
Right now there is really no one with a strong base within the Palestinian movement who wants negotiations. Abbas, who is the titular head of Fatah in the PLO is an old timer, and a moderate who actually believes in the peace process, but he has absolutely no base of support. Plus he has no power to stop any of the other factions who want war. Hamas just won 40% of the vote in Palestinian elections, they think they can actually win a war with Israel. Then there's the Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqxr (sp?) Brigade, and a bunch of others, who want an armed struggle as well.
And guess who supports all of these radical groups? Syria, who has been the one Arab government most opposed to a peace proposal with Israel because it still holds onto this old 1970s vision of Arab nationalism and the destruction of Israel as the path to leadership of the Arab world.
Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza because it didn't think that holding onto it was worth the costs, and that it could better protect its people within Israel proper, plus it didn't feel like there was anyone on the Palestinian side to negotiate such a move. Hamas then won the Palestinian elections. After that victory 3 major things happened. 1) Many foreign donors cut off their aid to the Palestinian Authority because they didn't want to support Hamas, which meant the PA almost went broke and couldn't pay any of its employees or provide many services to its people, 2) What began as small confrontations with Fatah ended up turning into running gun battles with Fatah in the streets of Gaza, and finally, 3) with everything going to shit, they decided to do what they do best, which in my opinion, was to get the Palestinian public behind then and distract them from the fact that Hamas really wasn't governing them, by digging a tunnel under the Israeli border, blowing up a tank, killing a couple Israeli soldiers and kidnapping. Thus they proved their radicalism and ability to stand up to the "Israeli oppressor" and galvanize their base rather than deal with actually governing the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Authority.
So in the end, while the Syrian ambassador expresses a view that many people would like to believe, the reality is that the Palestinians are hopelessly divided, are living with a very radicalized younger generation who wants war with Israel, and will probably be living under crap conditions in the Occupied Territories for the foreseable future because they cannot govern themselves at this point, because they'd rather go to war with Israel instead.
So in the end, while the Syrian ambassador expresses a view that many people would like to believe, the reality is that the Palestinians are hopelessly divided, are living with a very radicalized younger generation who wants war with Israel, and will probably be living under crap conditions in the Occupied Territories for the foreseable future because they cannot govern themselves at this point, because they'd rather go to war with Israel instead.
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.
One interesting bit of speculation I'd heard was the possibility that Iran might be using Hezbollah as a red herring of sorts right now to relieve some scrutiny. I don't know much stock I place in that, however.
I haven't read this thread to it's conclusion, so forgive me if I've overlooked some things but there is a recurring attitude of cultural chauvenism that I find a little hard to ignore: Arabs as kids. It's very telling and it's a tad ironic that some posters seem to miss the fact that therein lies much of the problem.
Also, a question for Paul Nice: Is your assertion really that the most salient issue in objection to Israel on the whole is anti-Semitism? Really? Truly? I would never argue that anti-semetism is some long dead creature that ended with the Holocaust (much in the same way that I wouldn't reason "Well, so and so never burned a cross on my lawn. . ."), but let's be real here-- people hate Israel by and large because its an occupier. A colonizer. Further, Israel's political brass has for years gone to great length to equate Israel with "Jewish," "Judaism," "Jew," so any criticism of Israel is construed as anti-Semetic. Jewish scholars and humanitarians critical of Israel are "self-hating Jews." (Noam Chomsky was mentioned. Wonder if folks on here realize that he is a former Zionist.)
In the posts I've read by you so far, you seem to be using "anti-Israel" and "anti-Semetic" almost interchangeably. Do you think the Pan-African movement was a mistake as well? Does it not seem a bit absurd to you that something could be called a "Law of Return" and allow a person with no historic claim to a piece of land to inhabit it, while people with a lineage dating back centuries in that area are subject to Jim Crow-esque laws and second class citezenship? Also, are you familiar with Israel's spotty treatment of Black Jews seeking asylum? You speak as though the idea of an aeons old Hostility on the part of the Arab world toward Jewish people is accurate, when the West has a far more pronounced and entrenched history of anti-Semetism (taking the form of expulsion and extermination). Also, you make it seem like Israelis unilaterally and quietly just pulled out of Gaza. Israelis were still trying to build houses in areas they were required by law to vacate . . .down to the wire.
One last thing I want to say: I'm very much in favor of rational, secular [read: atheist] responses to political conflict resolution, so I find it a bit unsettling and less than even-handed that while Islamic terror and fundamentalism is criticized (as it should be), to the point I've read --like 11 pages of this thread--it seems that people have yet to lodge any sort of criticism of sovereignty based in a "God's chosen people" mythos. And in preemptive response to "Israel was formed by mandate after WWII to create a homeland for Jewish settlers"-- I'm aware and not insensitive to this. I do think that the nations responsible should have also been responsible for reparation and ceding land to victims. Instead, the bigwigs opted for Liberia 2.0, and now we have a country that is basically a satellite for white people (and the US in particular) in the middle east.
"Israelis are outnumbered . . .Oh I guess there is that small advantage of having US military force at its disposal."
Come on.
[Also, forgive slow response-- I don't have the interweb at home. . . And I know that I've probably just destroyed any hope of procurring raers or whatever other misspellings of value.]
Earlier, someone posted a beautiful rhetorical to the tune of-- "When Afghanistan was bombed post 9/11 where was the protest then?" In response to that poster: You're kidding, right? The whole absurd notion of "collateral damage" was the subject of many a deserved protest and political outrage. Were you relying on mainstream US media sources, exclusively, as your window to the world at the time?
Does Syria have any political reach within Palestine? Like, could they command Palestine to obey?
No, just like claims that Iran told Hezbollah to attack Israel and they obeyed. None of the major groups are puppets of larger states, even though a lot of people like to talk like that in the media and in Congress. Syria has always supported the most radical Palestinian groups. In the 1960s and 70s that would be the radical communist Palestinian groups. Now that communism and Arab nationalism are almost completely discredited, they back Hamas and Islamic Jihad. That said, none of those groups step to the beat of Syrian drums. Plus, in case you've missed in my multiple posts on the subject, the Palestinians do not speak with one voice, rather like 5 or 6. See Hamas shooting at Fatah in the streets of Gaza recently.
I'm obviously not Paul, and he usually has a LOT to say for himself, but I'd like to respond to a couple points you made.
One interesting bit of speculation I'd heard was the possibility that Iran might be using Hezbollah as a red herring of sorts right now to relieve some scrutiny. I don't know much stock I place in that, however.
One theory was that Iran was up for speculation by the UN for its nuclear program and instructed Hezbollah to make this attack to distract world attention. Don't know if I believe that Hezbollah takes orders like that from Iran, but I'm pretty sure Hezbollah ok'd their actions with Iran first, and they said OK.
Does it not seem a bit absurd to you that something could be called a "Law of Return" and allow a person with no historic claim to a piece of land to inhabit it, while people with a lineage dating back centuries in that area are subject to Jim Crow-esque laws and second class citezenship?
There were both Jews and Palestinians in what would become Israel before it was created. And we've discussed the Palestinians' claim to the "Right of Return" in another thread. The claim is that Palestinians should get back all their historical homes not only in the Occupied Territories, but also within Israel proper. That would mean all the Israelis that live in said places would be displaced. Does that sound like something that would lead to a "good" peace between the two sides? Doesn't it sound like the Palestinians believe that Israel doesn't have the right to exist? The two-state solution which is endorsed by Israel, the U.S. and even most Arab governments these days is that Israel wil exist, and a Palestinian state will be created in Gaza, most of the West Bank and part of Jerusalem. Palestinian refugees would be free to move to this new state, but in return the Palestinians would have to agree to the right of Israel existing. That means no Right of Return back to Israel proper.
Also, are you familiar with Israel's spotty treatment of Black Jews seeking asylum? You speak as though the idea of an aeons old Hostility on the part of the Arab world toward Jewish people is accurate, when the West has a far more pronounced and entrenched history of anti-Semetism (taking the form of expulsion and extermination).
Both of these statements I feel are true, but what does that have to do with Israel and the Palestinians or Israel and Hezbollah finding peace? Nothing.
Also, you make it seem like Israelis unilaterally and quietly just pulled out of Gaza. Israelis were still trying to build houses in areas they were required by law to vacate . . .down to the wire.
What the settler movement wanted and what the government wanted were two different things. Go back through this thread and find the excerpts from an article in Foreign Affairs that I posted. It's a pretty good description of the huge change in policy that Israel has been undergoing since the Sharon government. Basically, Israel didn't feel like it was worthwhile to hold onto the Occupied Territories anymore because it was too costly because of Palestinian resistance, they weren't really threatened by Arab governments launching a war anymore, weren't needed to trade with the Palestinians as the Palestinians weren't negotiating anymore, but rather turning to armed struggle again, they thought they could better defend their people by concentrating them behind the wall their building, and that the Palestinians were going to lob missiles at them whether they were in Gaza or not. Hence the Israeli government decided to unilaterally pull out of Gaza.
If the citizens of Lebanon want the bombing to stop, then they should get hezbollah to stop bombing Israel. Why is Israel the only country in the middle east who is held accountable for anything that happens there? If the world would hold muslim nations accountable for their actions, then maybe you'd see some progress made. As for disproportionate response; people die from terrorist incursions into Israel on the regular. Where is the outcry of emotion for them? There is none because Jews are disposible.
Firstly, Hezbollah is not a nation state. Secondly, the condemnation of Israel is not because there is a global ant-Jewish conspiracy it is because we are in danger of heading into a very major conflict here that could fuck us all.
One theory was that Iran was up for speculation by the UN for its nuclear program and instructed Hezbollah to make this attack to distract world attention.
This was basically the theory I'd heard.
There were both Jews and Palestinians in what would become Israel before it was created.
Which is my point, exactly. And historically, anti-Semetism was a significantly less pronounced political force in the region than it has been throughout Europe's history. The creation of Israel was a massive influx of white Europeans taking over a land to which they have no geographic claim. It was created in a manner every bit as dubious as Europeans "buying" American land from Indians. It's still a resort for white people in the Middle East, and at the risk of sounding un-diplomatic-- No, that does not have the right to exist. Defending Israel's purported right to exist in the Middle East is a lot like defending Sun City Resort South Africa.
And we've discussed the Palestinians' claim to the "Right of Return" in another thread. The claim is that Palestinians should get back all their historical homes not only in the Occupied Territories, but also within Israel proper. That would mean all the Israelis that live in said places would be displaced. Does that sound like something that would lead to a "good" peace between the two sides? Doesn't it sound like the Palestinians believe that Israel doesn't have the right to exist? The two-state solution which is endorsed by Israel, the U.S. and even most Arab governments these days is that Israel wil exist, and a Palestinian state will be created in Gaza, most of the West Bank and part of Jerusalem. Palestinian refugees would be free to move to this new state, but in return the Palestinians would have to agree to the right of Israel existing. That means no Right of Return back to Israel proper.
Sounds a lot like a home invasion where your assailant decides to be generous and "give you back" your living room, part of the kitchen, and most of one bedroom. This isn't Let's Make a Deal. Israel is in no moral position to issue such proposals. People point out the horrifying acts of terrorism that Arab militants in the region commit and neglect to mention that as a group of people, Palestinians have little bartering power outside of those terrorist acts to move the (military) behemoth. They are at the mercy of Israel. So 90% of the time, it's stones against air deployed fleshettes. Explain to a mother whose five year olf has just had his face and genitals ripped off that Israel's hand was forced.
Gotta jet back to my shitty call center routine. Will continue.
And historically, anti-Semetism was a significantly less pronounced political force in the region than it has been throughout Europe's history.
Historically there's been anti-Semetism wherever there have been Jews. Anti-semetism in the region starts with the Jews fleeing from the area from the dominant conquerors and then begins again when the Jews return as peaceful settlers in the 1880's and suffer immediate attacks. There was always animosity from the Palestinians.
Sounds a lot like a home invasion where your assailant decides to be generous and "give you back" your living room, part of the kitchen, and most of one bedroom. This isn't Let's Make a Deal. Israel is in no moral position to issue such proposals. People point out the horrifying acts of terrorism that Arab militants in the region commit and neglect to mention that as a group of people, Palestinians have little bartering power outside of those terrorist acts to move the (military) behemoth. They are at the mercy of Israel. So 90% of the time, it's stones against air deployed fleshettes. Explain to a mother whose five year olf has just had his face and genitals ripped off that Israel's hand was forced.
This sounds ass backwards. I think the home invasion in Israel happened when Jews were thrown into chains & scattered across the face of the earth. I don't expect non-jews to see it this way, though, because how can you expect people who have habitually ignored your rights & liberties to care about this issue & your rights to your homeland.
Comments
Canada is incorrectly displayed in that graphic.
Prime Minister Harper hasn't called for a ceasefire.
And furthermore, Israel has not subsidized a satelite station that creates music videos for adolescent suicide bombers as Hezbollah's al-Manar does. Israel does not fund the development and distribution of suicide bomber video games, as Hezbollah and Iran do. Leading Rabbis in Israel do not recruit Israeli teens to strap bombs to their chest and walk into Lebanese markets. Israeli textbooks for children do not say Arabs come from pigs and monkeys. I could go on.
Nonetheless, the bombs of Israel on Lebanon terrorize Lebanese civilians. This response, as I wrote earlier, is meant as a demonstration. It is cruel and barbaric in its own way. But it is the logic of war. And war is hell. Nonetheless it's not quite the same thing as toddlers wearing mock up suicide vests.
And per Juan Cole, his latest foaming screed today accuses Israel of ethnic cleansing, no different than Saddam against the Marsh Arabs. This is not analysis, it's propaganda.
I don't think you are giving people enough credit to make up their own minds upon seeing the photos or reading Professor Cole's blog.
There's enough strawmen here to keep an army busy bombing them.
Seriously - the sheer fucking myopia that people display on this subject is precisely what makes people who aren't already blindly indoctrinated incredibly skeptical about the truth claims of EITHER camp.
Like, I had someone on my blog argue that Hezbollah doesn't terrorize - they called them "acts of self-defense." That's some crazy "I drank the kool-aid" bullshit that you just can't take seriously.
Likewise, to suggest that NO ONE CARES ABOUT DEAD JEWISH PEOPLE can't be taken seriously either. Or that only Israel is held accountable for its actions. Last time I check, Iraq got invaded to "hold it accountable for its actions". The Palestian Authority got defunded by most Western nations, for Hamas' actions. I'm just not buying it.
Israel is not the ultimate victim any more than Lebanon is. If people can't respect and understand the tragedy ON BOTH SIDES, then they (and we) are seriously fucked.
BTW, Hazbeen - I'd really love to see you propose an informed suggestion of how Lebanon - having gone through decades of civil war that left the country decimated - is supposed to "stop Hezbollah from bombing Israel" when Syria has been running interference for years, Iran is moving money and weapons to Hezbollah as well and you have a Sunni/Shia riff that only empowers Hezbollah further. Am I wrong about any of this?
I'm not saying the Lebanese gov't couldn't have done more but you make it sound as if the Lebanese overwhelmingly were backing Hezbollah and if you bothered to watch the news last year, you know that wasn't true. But Hezbollah isn't like some pissant militia running around Montana. They're better armed than the Lebanese army and have more powerful allies backing their play.
Seriously, when this whole conflict started, I was decidedly a lot more pro-Israel - much to the surprise of my friends on the left, but the sheer amount of apologism is making me question a lot of unchallenged assumptions I've made through the years. Believe me, I feel equally skeptical about all the virulent anti-Zionism I've been witnessing as well.
And Vitamin: this whole "this is barbaric...but this is the logic of war" is like having your cake and eating it too. To me, your statement basically endorses nihilism because if war sucks and if bad shit happens during war, then war becomes the justification for having bad shit happen. After a certain point, no one knows where the chicken and egg began and no one cares. It's just war.
who is being myopic here? if israel's strategy can be justified, its certainly not because of the short term effects. you talk about the two sides being israel and lebanon. if that is how you are looking at things, than you are justifiably aggitated by what israel has done in the past few weeks.
in my opinion, israel has its hands tied right now and backing off, without some sort of resolution, would not be a good idea in the grand scheme. in my opinion, Bush could end all of this right away if he stepped in and negotiated with Syria. he is probably hoping that Israel will engage in a ground war and take care of Hizbolah, one less problem for him to deal with. if you wanna blame someone for all these deaths, start with mr. hands off.
And here's the context.
Jaun Cole is a poo-poo head no doubt. Glad dude lost his prospective teaching position.
I did not write my earlier comments because I was trying to justify Israel's actions. I was writing out of frustration with the muddle of our language about the war and its justifications. The Jewish state is punishing innocent civilians. This is cruel. I don't think any Zionist right now cannot struggle with this issue. And I am conflicted. I am empathetic to Israel's vulnerability, frustration, the serious strategic threats arrayed against it. But at the same time, I don't see this as a moral response or a strategic one. It's simply a demonstration. I hope that Israel sends home Nasrallah in a body bag. I hope it wipes out Iran's al Quds force. I hope it achieves its strategic aims. But I don't see it at this point. And so then what are we to make of the cratering of Lebanon's roads, the displacement of its citizens? What then? But here is the most awful and chilling question. What if Israel's collective punishment does create the disincentive necessary to turn Lebanon against Hezbollah? What if it works. What if once again history vindicates the logic of war?
Why does it have to be a demonstration? Israel has to deal with the issue of Hezbollah. I'll only be dissapointed by this action if the status quo reasserts itself & we're back to rockets from Lebanon in 6 months.
Why do the photos need defending? They don't. They need explanation. Posted in this thread with a sarcastic "beautiful" as the only context, they blatantly dehumanises Israelis. They're tantamount to saying gee, look at these smug Israeli monsters who produce kids that gleefully write on shells destined to murder Lebanese children. Whatever your intention, posting a link to those images was, in effect, making that point and I find such vilification unacceptable. If you had posted them with a description of the context in which they were taken, the point conveyed would be the tragedy of war, not the monstrosity of the Israelis. Thus the need for an explanation.
Make no mistake: I am not apologising.
If it's cathartic for Israeli children to write on shells, and the back-story to the image suggests then this may have been the case, that there's no reason why Lebanese children writing on rockets would not also find it cathartic. However, I don't think that's what you're insinuating. You want to suggest that there's a double standard in countenancing the actions depicted in the images and what Vitamin described in his post. Such a suggestion is either silly or uninformed.
I expect someone to jump in, as usual, and point out that this is what Arafat turned down, to which I ask, "Is it fair to compare Arafat's time to this one?" Seems to me the temp is rising in the thermometer of geopolitics.
Not exactly my point. More of a "look inside yourself and ask why we think and feel the way we do." There is a double standard for some. I think it's sad both ways, but I've seen more dehumanizing directed at Arabs for this sort of behavior. "Look what they have their kids do. They are sowing the seeds of hate." That sort of thing. People always jump to the defense of Israeli's but not for Arab kids.
The U.S. spent years negotiating the Oslo Peace Accord between Israel and the PLO. Israel's government was finally really committed to a peace process, and even the major Arab governments, besides Syria, were behind it as well. Israel gave the PLO a bunch of guns and let a whole bunch of hardcore PLO fighters and leaders return to the Occupied Territories as an act of goodwill, and in return Arafat and the PLO were suppose to crack down on the radicals and terrorism. He didn't do it. Israel released a whole bunch of Palestinians in Israeli prisons as another act of goodwill, and again, in return Arafat was suppose to crack down on terrorism, but he didn't do it. The U.S. and Egypt began giving the PLO weapons and training to their security and intelligence services to try to build them up so that they could take on the more radical wings like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but again, Arafat didn't follow through. Finally, the U.S. negotiator came up with a plan that Israel agreed to for all of Gaza, most of the West Bank and 1/2 of Jerusalum. The U.S. negotiator went to Arafat, and said will you agree to this deal. Arafat said yes. The negotiator went back to Israel and said we have a deal. He went back to Arafat to have him actually agree to all the details, and he turned it down saying that he wanted the right of return for all Palestinian refugees. If you didn't catch what that means in the other thread, it's a demand that Palestinian refugees get back all their historical homes and land within Israel. It basically means that the Palestinians don't believe Israelis have a right to the land, because they would all have to get up and leave whatever places Palestinians laid claim to. Right after that he called for armed struggle and the Intifadah 2, which was not like the first one with kids and rocks and such, but a bloody terrorist war, started.
Right now there is really no one with a strong base within the Palestinian movement who wants negotiations. Abbas, who is the titular head of Fatah in the PLO is an old timer, and a moderate who actually believes in the peace process, but he has absolutely no base of support. Plus he has no power to stop any of the other factions who want war. Hamas just won 40% of the vote in Palestinian elections, they think they can actually win a war with Israel. Then there's the Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqxr (sp?) Brigade, and a bunch of others, who want an armed struggle as well.
And guess who supports all of these radical groups? Syria, who has been the one Arab government most opposed to a peace proposal with Israel because it still holds onto this old 1970s vision of Arab nationalism and the destruction of Israel as the path to leadership of the Arab world.
Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza because it didn't think that holding onto it was worth the costs, and that it could better protect its people within Israel proper, plus it didn't feel like there was anyone on the Palestinian side to negotiate such a move. Hamas then won the Palestinian elections. After that victory 3 major things happened. 1) Many foreign donors cut off their aid to the Palestinian Authority because they didn't want to support Hamas, which meant the PA almost went broke and couldn't pay any of its employees or provide many services to its people, 2) What began as small confrontations with Fatah ended up turning into running gun battles with Fatah in the streets of Gaza, and finally, 3) with everything going to shit, they decided to do what they do best, which in my opinion, was to get the Palestinian public behind then and distract them from the fact that Hamas really wasn't governing them, by digging a tunnel under the Israeli border, blowing up a tank, killing a couple Israeli soldiers and kidnapping. Thus they proved their radicalism and ability to stand up to the "Israeli oppressor" and galvanize their base rather than deal with actually governing the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Authority.
So in the end, while the Syrian ambassador expresses a view that many people would like to believe, the reality is that the Palestinians are hopelessly divided, are living with a very radicalized younger generation who wants war with Israel, and will probably be living under crap conditions in the Occupied Territories for the foreseable future because they cannot govern themselves at this point, because they'd rather go to war with Israel instead.
With the exception of a few, there's too many emotions and personal bias clouding rational, objective viewpoints.
One interesting bit of speculation I'd heard was the possibility that Iran might be using Hezbollah as a red herring of sorts right now to relieve some scrutiny. I don't know much stock I place in that, however.
I haven't read this thread to it's conclusion, so forgive me if I've overlooked some things but there is a recurring attitude of cultural chauvenism that I find a little hard to ignore: Arabs as kids. It's very telling and it's a tad ironic that some posters seem to miss the fact that therein lies much of the problem.
Also, a question for Paul Nice: Is your assertion really that the most salient issue in objection to Israel on the whole is anti-Semitism? Really? Truly? I would never argue that anti-semetism is some long dead creature that ended with the Holocaust (much in the same way that I wouldn't reason "Well, so and so never burned a cross on my lawn. . ."), but let's be real here-- people hate Israel by and large because its an occupier. A colonizer. Further, Israel's political brass has for years gone to great length to equate Israel with "Jewish," "Judaism," "Jew," so any criticism of Israel is construed as anti-Semetic. Jewish scholars and humanitarians critical of Israel are "self-hating Jews." (Noam Chomsky was mentioned. Wonder if folks on here realize that he is a former Zionist.)
In the posts I've read by you so far, you seem to be using "anti-Israel" and "anti-Semetic" almost interchangeably. Do you think the Pan-African movement was a mistake as well? Does it not seem a bit absurd to you that something could be called a "Law of Return" and allow a person with no historic claim to a piece of land to inhabit it, while people with a lineage dating back centuries in that area are subject to Jim Crow-esque laws and second class citezenship? Also, are you familiar with Israel's spotty treatment of Black Jews seeking asylum? You speak as though the idea of an aeons old Hostility on the part of the Arab world toward Jewish people is accurate, when the West has a far more pronounced and entrenched history of anti-Semetism (taking the form of expulsion and extermination). Also, you make it seem like Israelis unilaterally and quietly just pulled out of Gaza. Israelis were still trying to build houses in areas they were required by law to vacate . . .down to the wire.
One last thing I want to say: I'm very much in favor of rational, secular [read: atheist] responses to political conflict resolution, so I find it a bit unsettling and less than even-handed that while Islamic terror and fundamentalism is criticized (as it should be), to the point I've read --like 11 pages of this thread--it seems that people have yet to lodge any sort of criticism of sovereignty based in a "God's chosen people" mythos. And in preemptive response to "Israel was formed by mandate after WWII to create a homeland for Jewish settlers"-- I'm aware and not insensitive to this. I do think that the nations responsible should have also been responsible for reparation and ceding land to victims. Instead, the bigwigs opted for Liberia 2.0, and now we have a country that is basically a satellite for white people (and the US in particular) in the middle east.
"Israelis are outnumbered . . .Oh I guess there is that small advantage of having US military force at its disposal."
Come on.
[Also, forgive slow response-- I don't have the interweb at home. . . And I know that I've probably just destroyed any hope of procurring raers or whatever other misspellings of value.]
Earlier, someone posted a beautiful rhetorical to the tune of-- "When Afghanistan was bombed post 9/11 where was the protest then?" In response to that poster: You're kidding, right? The whole absurd notion of "collateral damage" was the subject of many a deserved protest and political outrage. Were you relying on mainstream US media sources, exclusively, as your window to the world at the time?
No, just like claims that Iran told Hezbollah to attack Israel and they obeyed. None of the major groups are puppets of larger states, even though a lot of people like to talk like that in the media and in Congress. Syria has always supported the most radical Palestinian groups. In the 1960s and 70s that would be the radical communist Palestinian groups. Now that communism and Arab nationalism are almost completely discredited, they back Hamas and Islamic Jihad. That said, none of those groups step to the beat of Syrian drums. Plus, in case you've missed in my multiple posts on the subject, the Palestinians do not speak with one voice, rather like 5 or 6. See Hamas shooting at Fatah in the streets of Gaza recently.
One theory was that Iran was up for speculation by the UN for its nuclear program and instructed Hezbollah to make this attack to distract world attention. Don't know if I believe that Hezbollah takes orders like that from Iran, but I'm pretty sure Hezbollah ok'd their actions with Iran first, and they said OK.
There were both Jews and Palestinians in what would become Israel before it was created. And we've discussed the Palestinians' claim to the "Right of Return" in another thread. The claim is that Palestinians should get back all their historical homes not only in the Occupied Territories, but also within Israel proper. That would mean all the Israelis that live in said places would be displaced. Does that sound like something that would lead to a "good" peace between the two sides? Doesn't it sound like the Palestinians believe that Israel doesn't have the right to exist? The two-state solution which is endorsed by Israel, the U.S. and even most Arab governments these days is that Israel wil exist, and a Palestinian state will be created in Gaza, most of the West Bank and part of Jerusalem. Palestinian refugees would be free to move to this new state, but in return the Palestinians would have to agree to the right of Israel existing. That means no Right of Return back to Israel proper.
Both of these statements I feel are true, but what does that have to do with Israel and the Palestinians or Israel and Hezbollah finding peace? Nothing.
What the settler movement wanted and what the government wanted were two different things. Go back through this thread and find the excerpts from an article in Foreign Affairs that I posted. It's a pretty good description of the huge change in policy that Israel has been undergoing since the Sharon government. Basically, Israel didn't feel like it was worthwhile to hold onto the Occupied Territories anymore because it was too costly because of Palestinian resistance, they weren't really threatened by Arab governments launching a war anymore, weren't needed to trade with the Palestinians as the Palestinians weren't negotiating anymore, but rather turning to armed struggle again, they thought they could better defend their people by concentrating them behind the wall their building, and that the Palestinians were going to lob missiles at them whether they were in Gaza or not. Hence the Israeli government decided to unilaterally pull out of Gaza.
Firstly, Hezbollah is not a nation state. Secondly, the condemnation of Israel is not because there is a global ant-Jewish conspiracy it is because we are in danger of heading into a very major conflict here that could fuck us all.
This was basically the theory I'd heard.
Which is my point, exactly. And historically, anti-Semetism was a significantly less pronounced political force in the region than it has been throughout Europe's history. The creation of Israel was a massive influx of white Europeans taking over a land to which they have no geographic claim. It was created in a manner every bit as dubious as Europeans "buying" American land from Indians. It's still a resort for white people in the Middle East, and at the risk of sounding un-diplomatic-- No, that does not have the right to exist. Defending Israel's purported right to exist in the Middle East is a lot like defending Sun City Resort South Africa.
Sounds a lot like a home invasion where your assailant decides to be generous and "give you back" your living room, part of the kitchen, and most of one bedroom. This isn't Let's Make a Deal. Israel is in no moral position to issue such proposals. People point out the horrifying acts of terrorism that Arab militants in the region commit and neglect to mention that as a group of people, Palestinians have little bartering power outside of those terrorist acts to move the (military) behemoth. They are at the mercy of Israel. So 90% of the time, it's stones against air deployed fleshettes. Explain to a mother whose five year olf has just had his face and genitals ripped off that Israel's hand was forced.
Gotta jet back to my shitty call center routine. Will continue.
This sounds ass backwards. I think the home invasion in Israel happened when Jews were thrown into chains & scattered across the face of the earth. I don't expect non-jews to see it this way, though, because how can you expect people who have habitually ignored your rights & liberties to care about this issue & your rights to your homeland.