News: Israel v. Lebanon conflict

[Honoko]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13823680/

Isn't one of our fellow GWers in the Israeli army? I hope he's safe, you know?

Anyways, I feel like there hasn't been much discussion in here about current events lately. Thoughts on this so-called war? Did Israel act too rashly? What was Lebanon thinking when they captured those two soldiers anyway? Come in and share, rant, whatever ^^ Just remember to keep it civil :rolleyes:

[Genma]

OHNOES, WW3!!!!

I'm just not sure what to say about this, other than that war and killing is pretty stupid.

[masamuneehs]

i haven't looked too far into it yet. US domestic politics is pretty hairy these days (Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are facing lawsuits for leaking a CIA agent's identity...)

but i would say from what I heard that the counter by Israel is probably a bit too heavy handed. I'm not saying it's not justified, but i do think it's a poor course of action. Yes you should be able to go kill the people who captured your soldiers, but over 50 Lebanese civilians, who probably had absolutely nothing to do with the event, are dead because Israel decided to fire off their guns.

Hezbollah is a mess, any factions within Lebanon are going to use the chaos as opportunity and Israel could be facing a much more dangerous neighbor in the near future.

[woofcat]

For those against war is has given us great things. Not those ideals or concepts that most people say but its taken countries out of depression, started maggot therapy, many advances in technology that save lives and make them easier. I am not saying its all good but you can't cast the entire concept of war in a black light. It has many positives.

[KitKat]

I believe it's Death BOO Z who recently had his birthday who is in the Israeli army. Back when we had the community pages he wrote some interesting blogs about life in the army (made me feel so much less secure about armed forces in general after hearing his stories). I hope he's alright. His unit didn't sound like one they would sent to the front lines, at least, I hope they wouldn't.

[Yukimura]

The whole Israel thing is just rotten. Both sides have a claim to the land, the Arabs for being denied representation in the Israeli government when it was formed and Israel because it was formed and is now a soverign nation. The Israeli's aren't going anywhere and I don't think sharing power is ever going to work as well, in someways it might have been better if a religiously neutral 3rd party still controlled the entire area, as the two sides would ideally be equally under the controlling body.

Unfortunately now we have a situation where many muslims (I doubt a majority however) see the existance of Isreal as an insult and an outrage and seek to destroy it as a nation and reclaim it as muslim controlled territory. These same muslims generally espouse a desire for a unified Islamic State controlling all the lands predominantly held by muslims, if not the whole world.

The best outcome of the current situation is for Isreal to get its people back and cease it's attacks against Lebannon. The worst case scenario is far beyond my knowledge of the current climate in the Middle East but It would probably involve declarations of war by/on Syria and/or Iran by/on Isreal. If Iran got involved militarily it would have to send its forces through either Iraq or Turkey.

We all know that Iraq is full of US troops, who would not look kindly on what would amount to an Iranian invasion of Iraq. US troops would likely stop the Iranians at the boarder, which could easily turn into shooting. Alternatively only an complete idiot would drive through Turkey without permission or a very good reason. Thus Turkey and the US could get dragged into the conflict. Once the US gets involved militarily who know's what will happen. Publicly I support the getting the people back and returning to the status quo stance, but I imagine Israel is becoming tired of pulling its punches with respect to the numerous groups constantly picking on it, this hostage situation could be the straw that launched Isreal onto the muslim world with enough fury and technological advantage to send several middle easten countries back to the Dark Ages, unfortunately this wouldn't stop the zealots and would just cause worthless destruction on a massive scale.

[Honoko]

Well, the capture of the 2 Israeli soldiers was done by Lebonese terrorists, no? And in ref to your last paragraph, Yuki, yes, Israel's just tired of people coming into their borders from wherever and blowing up places. So the capture that sparked this whole mess is like the last straw. My personal concern is that Lebanon is a weak country with a weak government. Destroying a country like that will only make Israel look like a bully. Plus, how can a weak government in the first place have the military to even take care of Hezbollah themselves?

And then you have the whole Iran connection. Israel's accusing Iran of knowing that the captive Israelis are being moved to that country, which, of course Iran totally denies. But that's the reasoning behind bombing the airport over and over again. Supposed intelligence claims that Iran uses that airport to ship its terrorists into. I personally feel that this is all way too overboard. And Hezbollah is a group of retards that were playing with fire. (Well, not an intelligent thing to say, but let's face it, they could have not captured the soldiers, right?)

[mage]

Israel doesn't exist.

[Genma]

For those against war is has given us great things. Not those ideals or concepts that most people say but its taken countries out of depression, started maggot therapy, many advances in technology that save lives and make them easier. I am not saying its all good but you can't cast the entire concept of war in a black light. It has many positives.

I never said it didn't have positives. The fact that you have to kill hundreds or thousands of people to "accomplish" something is ridiculous and stupid, though, and there is probably a better way.

The only war I can honestly think of being justified is WWII.

Of course at the end of a war there will be positives, and during (such as a more prosperous economy), but usually the road to get there isn't worth the outcome. Vietnam, Korea... the list goes on.

I'm not an avid anti-war activist by any means, I just don't think it's a great thing. Especially if you throw the lives of thousands of civilians in danger simply because another country kidnapped two of your soldiers... well, that's just plain stupid.

[Honoko]

The only war I can honestly think of being justified is WWII.
Justified as in, the US being dragged into it? Please elaborate before misunderstandings occur :rolleyes:

[Xollence]

I never said it didn't have positives. The fact that you have to kill hundreds or thousands of people to "accomplish" something is ridiculous and stupid, though, and there is probably a better way.

The only war I can honestly think of being justified is WWII.

Of course at the end of a war there will be positives, and during (such as a more prosperous economy), but usually the road to get there isn't worth the outcome. Vietnam, Korea... the list goes on.

I'm not an avid anti-war activist by any means, I just don't think it's a great thing. Especially if you throw the lives of thousands of civilians in danger simply because another country kidnapped two of your soldiers... well, that's just plain stupid.

How was WWII more justified than all of the other wars?

- I don't know, people say that all the time, and never really understood the differences between that war and all of the other wars.

[Deadfire]

The West Bank is one of the hottist zones and has been for some time there is alot more then this that is going on and if you look and the countries involved with this all it gets confusing to say the least.

The West Bank is a landlocked territory on the west bank of the Jordan River in the Middle East. It is considered by the United Nations and most countries to be under Israeli occupation. Some Israelis and various other groups prefer to refer to it as "disputed" rather than "occupied" territory. It is not currently considered under international law to be a de jure part of any state.

The borders of the West Bank were defined by the 1948 Arab-Israeli War armistice lines after the dissolution of the British mandate of Palestine, when it was captured and annexed by Jordan. From 1948 until 1967 the area was under Jordanian rule, though Jordan did not give up its claim to the area until 1988. The area was captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, although with the exception of East Jerusalem, it was not annexed by Israel due to the concern of the overwhelming amount of Palestinian people it would control. Prior to 1948 the area was part of the British Mandate created after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Located west and south-west of the Jordan River in the eastern part of the Palestine region in the Middle East, it is bordered by Israel to the west, north, and south, and by Jordan to the east. 40% of the area (including most of the population) is under the limited civilian jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, while Israel maintains overall control (including over Israeli settlements, rural areas, and border regions). The population of the West Bank is predominantly Palestinian (84%) with a significant minority of Jewish settlers.

The Palestinian people believe that the West Bank ought to be a part of their sovereign nation, and that the presence of Israeli military control is a violation of their right to self-determination. The United Nations calls the West Bank and Gaza Strip Israeli-occupied (see Israeli-occupied territories). The United States generally agrees with this definition. Many Israelis and their supporters prefer the term disputed territories, claiming it comes closer to a neutral point of view; this viewpoint is not accepted by most other countries, which consider "occupied" to be the neutral description of status.

Israel argues that its presence is justified because:

Israel's eastern border has never been defined by anyone;
The disputed territories have not been part of any state (Jordanian annexation was never officially recognized) since the time of the Ottoman Empire;
According to the Camp David Accords (1978) with Egypt, the 1994 agreement with Jordan and the Oslo Accords with the PLO, the final status of the territories would be fixed only when there was a permanent agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Now I remember the Yom Kippur War, Ramadan War or October War between Israel and a coalition of Arab nations led by Egypt and Syria. The war began on the day of Yom Kippur with a surprise joint attack by Egypt and Syria. They invaded the Sinai and Golan Heights, respectively, which had been captured by Israel in 1967 during the Six-Day War.The Egyptians and Syrians advanced during the first 24–48 hours, after which momentum began to swing in Israel's favor. By the second week of the war, the Syrians had been pushed entirely out of the Golan Heights. In the Sinai to the south, the Israelis had struck at the "seam" between two invading Egyptian armies, crossed the Suez Canal (where the old ceasefire line had been), and cut off an entire Egyptian army just as a United Nations cease-fire came into effect.

The war had far-reaching implications for many nations. The Arab world, which had been humiliated by the lopsided defeat of the Egyptian-Syrian-Jordanian alliance during the Six-Day War, felt psychologically vindicated by its string of victories early in the conflict. This vindication paved the way for the peace process that followed, as well as liberalizations such as Egypt's infitah policy. The Camp David Accords, which came soon after, led to normalized relations between Egypt and Israel—the first time any Arab country had recognized the Israeli state.

As such if you take down 3 or more different Armies at one time many people have alot to fear. This is why Israel may be pushing their luck, but I fear they be pushing it to far recently

[Turkish-S]

Well, the capture of the 2 Israeli soldiers was done by Lebonese terrorists, no?

Plus, how can a weak government in the first place have the military to even take care of Hezbollah themselves?

I personally feel that this is all way too overboard. And Hezbollah is a group of retards that were playing with fire. (Well, not an intelligent thing to say, but let's face it, they could have not captured the soldiers, right?)

In lebanon they don't see hezbollah as terrorists. They are more like freedom fighters to them. And how hard do you think it is to capture 2 soldiers?

I myself don't think that terrorists have anything to do with this.

Could someone plz give me the definition of a terrorist?:confused:

[Yukimura]

The formal definition of terrorist is 'One who employs terrorism as a political tool' and terrorism is defined as 'the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion'.

Essentially people who try to accomplish their political goals by attacking another countries assets in the hope of frightening them into agreement, usually the term is reserved for attacking civillian citizens of a country to get leverage over their government. I don't know what these Hezbollah have done in the past but I know that kidnapping soldiers is more an act of war than terrorism. I've read that they have attacked civillians intentionally though, and that is generally considered terrorism by the West. (Israel also bombed a TV station, which they probably justify by saying it was run by Hezbollah and hence terrorists, but that seems a little extreme to me)

Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese governement, apparently a large part with enough seats for veto power, but also has a military aspect which acts out it's will. I've read that their goal is the removal of Israel as a state, but I've also read that their goal is simply the removal of Israel from Lebanese territory so I don't know which to believe. I do know that the group is considered a terrorist organization by Israel and the United States and some other countries. This hinders their access to diplomatic solutions to their problems, if they were to seek them.

[masamuneehs]

the problem with defining terrorism is this: you do not need to be a terrorist organization to use terrorism! The classic case in point is Germany and Japan during WWII, but also see Indonesia 1965-69. Sri Lanka is also an excellent example of the blurring of "terrorism".

Terrorism, as we see it portrayed in the news, is quite often insurgency/rebellion poorly defined. With Israel and the surrounding region, where multiple parties are all claiming a legitimate right to the land and authority, it is almost worthless to say that any one group has "the right" to monopolize violence in any given territory.

"unlawful violence" is another ill-defined term. Al-Qaeda, the US Revolutionaries, and Nazi resistance movements all used violence "illegaly", since the law was written by the government they were fighting against.

As if it's not enough, here's a second example.
A) An Iraqi insurgent shooting at a group of armed US soldiers.
B) An Iraqi terrorist shooting at unarmed US soldiers.
C) An Iraqi terrorist bombing a US medical facility.

Technically, B and C are defined as illegal by international law if the terrorist knows his targets are undefended. If a person is unarmed, they must be captured. Many US soldiers have been court martialed for violating this.

And what if the unarmed soldiers were walking to a cache to get in a tank that they would then use to attack a target, say the one that Iraqi is based at?

Doesn't that seem like watching and waiting while your enemy reloads, right in front of your eyes, with the intention of killing you when he finishes reloading? Consider too the hospital. Sleeping can be thought of as "reloading" the human body in a way, preparing it to attack that person the next day.

Now consider: D) US troops bombing a weapons producing factory.

Who do you think works in these factories? Armed men? Hah, doubtful. In this case killing defenseless civilians is justified because they are in the process of mounting an attack against the soldiers, hence the soldiers are simply defending themselves.

The problem is then this: How is bombing a hospital different from bombing the factory?

[Honoko]

And how hard do you think it is to capture 2 soldiers?
If you read my post correctly, I asked, "they could have not captured the soldiers" implying that whatever their reason for attacking Israel at that moment did not have to culminate with a capture, did it? I never questioned the ease of how one goes about doing it =P

And I never knew about Hezbollah being considered "freedom fighters" in Lebanon. My bad. No need to get so indignant, especially when you're not even reading my posts correctly. I even admitted that the statement wasn't intelligent.

As for the term "terrorism"-- I think it's an overused word these days. I get nauseated whenever I hear that word come out of our brilliant president's mouth. But in any case, any one who goes around trying to convince people to believe in one's ideology by the use of violence is one of the most selfish people out there and qualifies him/herself as a grade A asshole. Probably not a good definition of a terrorist but I think it's broad enough to apply to almost anyone who supports suicide bombers.

[Honoko]

Israel Preparing for Ground War? (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060721/D8J01NU05.html)

So far there's 330 Lebonese dead, compared to approx 31 Israelis who've died since this conflict started. Both sides appear to be stubborn and a bunch of civilians are suffering as a result. It appears that besides the UN, the Vatican is the only "state" that is publicly denouncing these attacks. I, for one, am disappointed with the US in their usual slow reactions to anything. Apparently they're just now planning to send Condi Rice over, nine friggin' days after the violence have started.

[DB_Hunter]

No, they had already planned to send her over. She has delayed her trip on purpose so that Israel will have more time to pound Lebanon. This was made public days ago.

[Honoko]

^ Ah, I misread a paragraph in the article. It's still a shitty thing to do. "Gotta wait til the death toll's over 300 before we make a move." Repetitive disappointment for one's country can be frustrating.

[masamuneehs]

Since it looks like Israel is calling up their reserves (http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nL2161118&imageid=top-news-view-2006-07-21-082825-RTR1FOZY_Comp%5B1%5D.jpg&cap=Lebanese%20civilians%20evacuate%20an%20area%20 of%20south%20Beirut%20destroyed%20by%20Israeli%20a ir%20strikes%20on%20July%2021,%202006.%20REUTERS/Issam%20Kobeisi), giving them potentially 5000+ more war personnel, I would say that several ground strikes into Lebanon will occur before we know it. The one thing holding Israel back is the fear that Hezbollah will offer surprisingly solid resistance, a potential humiliation for Zion. Remember, Hezbollah does not need to win a ground war for them to 'win' the conflict in the eyes of many. Offerring a solid resistance against the more technologically advanced Israel would make Hezbollah heroes in many nations...

But I think Israel will only go with military strikes, maybe brief captures of Lebanese territory. I don't think they have what it takes to take over that entire country. They've been fighting since the moment the nation of Israel was founded and adding a hostile territory to their own would be a bad move. Look for them to quickly withdraw if they do advance ground troops.

Oh, and the UN has proposed a token initiative for both sides to call a ceasefire. But two of the Security Council (can you guess who? Come on, just take a guess) are opposed to the ceasefire. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2280081,00.html) That's right, Bush and Tony Lapdog Blair don't want to call for a ceasefire until "Hezbollah is disarmed" and "Lebanese political control is extended into the south of the country" .... To me this seems like they're just saying 'Let Israel win and whichever new faction picks up the pieces in Lebanon we'll hope is better". Hezbollah will never give up its arms, and many Lebanese see them as the real representatives of the people (obviously not all, maybe not even most of them though, as is the case in America now...) The worst part of this is that with the US and UK holding the Security Council back from making any real decision on the matter the UN is not going to have a role in diplomacy, and possibly weaken humanitarian aid efforts, which is the real tragedy.

An excellent editorial on the US's role in the Middle East from the recent Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1214953,00.html)

[ChaosK]

OHNOES, WW3!!!!

I'm just not sure what to say about this, other than that war and killing is pretty stupid.


Actually many people believe this is the start of world war 3, as John Stewert..or was that Steven Colbert?...hmm... took clips from many news channels with about 9 people going "yes this is indeed the start of world war 3" then finally theres a guy going "world war 4!" and everybody stares at him.

Honoko, I don't really think the US should get involved, we stick our noses into too many affairs.

[Edort4]

Israel Preparing for Ground War? (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060721/D8J01NU05.html)

So far there's 330 Lebonese dead, compared to approx 31 Israelis who've died since this conflict started. Both sides appear to be stubborn and a bunch of civilians are suffering as a result. It appears that besides the UN, the Vatican is the only "state" that is publicly denouncing these attacks.

Well the president of the spanish government said that israels answer to Hezbollahs attack was disproportioned. That they where attacking civilian objetives. After this the israel embassador, the opposition and some jew agrupation called the president anti-semite and said that the diplomatic relationships where very severed. So its just normal that people dont say anything, this people fires up easily.

About US getting involved, it would be good if only they would vote yes to the UN resolutions and talk with israel. At least to make them see that selfdefense is one thing and state terrorism another. But I dont think that they are going to say anything to them even less get involved with some pacification forces after all the mess they have caused in that part of the world.

And this is a question correct me if im wrong but isnt the greates part of hezbollah under irani control-subvention? So why is everybody pointing libanon and dont say a shit about iran?

[gr3atfull]

This all started because Israel didnt want to accept the Palestinian government and now the war is back to Lebanon. I bet after the war stops, Israel would expand his country more.

Anybody got some friends in Lebanon now? I got a few friends there and they are still not back in Canada. Hopefully, they will get here alive.

Also, found an interesting site, got some shocking pictures....

http://www.fromisraeltolebanon.info/

[Honoko]

Honoko, I don't really think the US should get involved, we stick our noses into too many affairs.
You know, it would be really nice if the US just sits back and watch things happen without getting involved. I admit that tends to be my personal style whenever conflicts arise among my friends and stuff.

The only reason I think the US needs to get involved is because, well, this country is pretty much the only superpower in the world who should (based on the so-called principles this country was based on) give a shit about the rest of the world. I don't think it takes a super intelligent person to realize that what's going on over there is either not right or if justified, totally overkill. By not getting involved (and holding back the UN), the US is showing that they are one greedy, lazy country who thinks they could do whatever they want with total disregard for their fellow nations.

[DB_Hunter]

The US is already involved. Its just that some people are finding it a bit of a shock to discover how cruel the foreign policy of the US is... its taking time to sink in.

US rushes precision-guided bombs to Israel (http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-07-22T050649Z_01_N21268027_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-BUSH-WEAPONS.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-2)

It seems to me that the US is trying to drag Syria away from Iran, thus making any future attack on either of the two countries easier. In a sense the talks have already begun, with the intial positions being that the US will not call for a ceasefire and Syria is willing to talk but with no conditions being dicated. As for the people of Lebanon, the US frankly doesn't give a shit. And while all this is going on people seem to be forgetting that Israel is still attacking Gaza.

Israel has destroyed Lebanon's infrastructure, without really harming Hizbullah. That's why ground operations are now being conducted. The result of the air strikes is over 330 people dead in Lebanon, many more injured and over half a million displaced from their homes. Not counting the loss of income, Lebanon seems to have suffered billions of dollars of damage.

I don't think Lebanon will be the same again, with its disintegration into a land of warring tribes looking more likely than recovery. It has enough ethnic/religious/tribal diversity to allow this to happen.

[gr3atfull]

Just got this fwd. Found it interesting and decided to share with all of you guys.

Its pretty long but I found its worth it.


WHAT ARE THEY FIGHTING FOR
Tanya Reinhart
Dear All,

Remember Tanya, she was here in Sacramento about 2 years ago? This article is exceptionably helpful in explaining the frightening events in Lebanon, Patestine and Israel.

Peace to all of us,

Mary Bisharat

A shorter version of this article was scheduled to appear Thursday, July 13 in Yediot Aharonot, but postponed to next week because of the developments in Southern Lebanon. (*)

Whatever may be the fate of the captive soldier Gilad Shalit, the Israeli army's war in Gaza is not about him. As senior security analyst Alex Fishman widely reported, the army was preparing for an attack months earlier and was constantly pushing for it, with the goal of destroying the Hamas infrastructure and its government. The army initiated an escalation on 8 June when it assassinated Abu Samhadana, a senior appointee of the Hamas government, and intensified its shelling of civilians in the Gaza Strip. Governmental authorization for action on a larger scale was already given by 12 June, but it was postponed in the wake of the global reverberation caused by the killing of civilians in the air force bombing the next day. The abduction of the soldier released the safety-catch, and the operation began on 28 June with the destruction of infrastructure in Gaza and the mass detention of the Hamas leadership in the West Bank, which was also planned weeks in advance. (1)

In Israeli discourse, Israel ended the occupation in Gaza when it evacuated its settlers from the Strip, and the Palestinians' behavior therefore constitutes ingratitude. But there is nothing further from reality than this description. In fact, as was already stipulated in
the Disengagement Plan, Gaza remained under complete Israeli military control, operating from outside. Israel prevented any possibility of economic independence for the Strip and from the very beginning, Israel did not implement a single one of the clauses of the agreement on border-crossings of November 2005. Israel simply substituted the
expensive occupation of Gaza with a cheap occupation, one which in Israel's view exempts it from the occupier's responsibility to maintain the Strip, and from concern for the welfare and the lives of its million and a half residents, as determined in the fourth Geneva convention.

Israel does not need this piece of land, one of the most densely populated in the world,
and lacking any natural resources. The problem is that one cannot let Gaza free, if one wants to keep the West Bank. A third of the occupied Palestinians live in the Gaza strip. If they are given freedom, they would become the center of Palestinian struggle
for liberation, with free access to the Western and Arab world. To control the West Bank, Israel needs full control Gaza. The new form of control Israel has developed is turning the whole of the Strip into a prison camp completely sealed from the world.

Besieged occupied people with nothing to hope for, and no alternative means of political struggle, will always seek ways to fight their oppressor. The imprisoned Gaza Palestinians found a way to disturb the life of the Israelis in the vicinity of the Strip, by launching
home-made Qassam rockets across the Gaza wall against Israeli towns
bordering the Strip. These primitive rockets lack the precision to focus on a target, and have rarely caused Israeli casualties; they do however cause physical and psychological damage and seriously disturb life in the targeted Israeli neighborhoods. In the eyes of many Palestinians, the Qassams are a response to the war Israel has declared on them.

As a student from Gaza said to the New York Times, "Why should we be the
only ones who live in fear? With these rockets, the Israelis feel fear,
too. We will have to live in peace together, or live in fear together." (2)

The mightiest army in the Middle East has no military answer to these home-made rockets. One answer that presents itself is what Hamas has been proposing all along, and Haniyeh repeated this week - a comprehensive cease-fire. Hamas has proven already that it can keep its word. In the 17 months since it announced its decision to abandon
armed struggle in favor of political struggle, and declared a unilateral cease-fire ("tahdiya" - calm), it did not participate in the launching of Qassams, except under severe Israeli provocation, as happened in the June escalation. However, Hamas remains committed to political struggle against the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. In Israel's view,
the Palestinians elections results is a disaster, because for the first time >they have a leadership that insists on representing Palestinian interests rather than just collaborating with Israel's demands.

Since ending the occupation is the one thing Israel is not willing to consider, the option promoted by the army is breaking the Palestinians by devastating brutal force. They should be starved, bombarded,terrorized with sonic booms for months,
until they understand that rebelling is futile, and accepting prison life is their only hope for
staying alive. Their elected political system, institutions and police should be destroyed. In Israel's vision, Gaza should be ruled by gangs collaborating with the prison wards.


The Israeli army is hungry for war. It would not let concerns for captive soldiers stand in its way. Since 2002 the army has argued that an "operation" along the lines of "Defensive Shield" in Jenin was also necessary in Gaza. Exactly a year ago, on 15 July (before the
Disengagement), the army concentrated forces on the border of the Strip
for an offensive of this scale on Gaza. But then the USA imposed a veto. Rice arrived for an emergency visit that was described as acrimonious and stormy, and the army was forced to back down (3). Now, the time has finally came. With the
Islamophobia of the American Administration at a high point, it appears that the USA is prepared to authorize such an operation, on condition that it not provoke a global outcry with excessively-reported attacks on civilians.(4)

With the green light for the offensive given, the army's only concern is public image. Fishman reported this Tuesday that the army is worried that "what threatens to burry this huge military and diplomatic effort" is reports of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Hence, the army would take care to let some food into Gaza. (5) From this perspective, it is
necessary to feed the Palestinians in Gaza so that it would be possible to continue to kill them undisturbed.

==============
*Parts of this article were translated from Hebrew by Mark Marshall.

(1) Alex Fishman, Who is for the elimination of Hamas, Yediot Aharonot
Saturday Supplement, June 30, 2006. See also Alex Fishman, The
safety-catch released, Yediot Aharonot June 21, 2006 (Hebrew), Aluf
Benn, An operation with two goals, Ha'aretz, June 29 2006.

(2) Greg Myre, Rockets Create a 'Balance of Fear' With Israel, Gaza
Residents Say. The New York Times, July 9, 2006.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/world/middleeast/09rockets.html?ex=1310097

(3) Steven Erlanger, "U.S. Presses Israel to Smooth the Path to a
Palestinian Gaza", New York Times, August 7 2005.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/international/middleeast/07israel.html?ex=1281067200&en=82f12ac7eed5ee24&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/international/middleeast/07israel.html?ex=1281067200&en=82f12ac7eed5ee24&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>
The planned July 2005 offensive is documented in detail in my The Road
Map to Nowhere - Israel Palestine since 2003, Verso, September 2006.

(4) For a detailed survey of the U.S. administration's present stands,
see Ori Nir, U.S. Seen Backing Israeli Moves To Topple Hamas, The
Forward, July 7, 2006. http://www.forward.com/articles/8063

(5) Alex Fishman, Their food is finished, Yediot Aharonot, July 11,2006.

http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart <http://www.tau.ac.il/%7Ereinhart>

[DB_Hunter]

I'm really sorry to be posting one long post after another, but I too just got this forwarded to me. Its interesting so I'm putting it up to share with you guys.

Cheney Unleashes The Dogs of War

Vice President Cheney has ignited a new Middle East war that threatens to spread from Israel & Lebanon, to Syria & Iran

By Dean Andromidas

July 19, 2006

Vice President Dick Cheney has ignited a new Middle East war that threatens to spread from Israel and Lebanon, to Syria and Iran. As EIR recently exposed, (EIR June 30, "Cheney and Netanyahu Conspiring for War"), this latest war was planned at a secret meeting between Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Likud chairman Benjamin Netanyahu, during a conference organized by the American Enterprise Institute in June at Beaver Creek, Colorado.

This war is not intended to make Israel safe from Hamas, Hezbollah terrorism, or Iran's alleged intentions to build nuclear weapons, but is rather a drive by the synarchist financial forces represented by the likes of George Shultz and Felix Rohatyn, who stand behind Cheney and Netanyahu. Their aim is to escalate a global clash of civilizations, to maintain their political and financial hegemony, as their own global financial system crumbles.

Israel is their chosen instrument to launch a war against Syria and Iran, now that U.S. military forces are bogged down in Cheney's insane Iraq war. Their war plan is well known to readers of EIR, and is the policy the Bush Administration has been implementing, with disastrous results, for the last three years. This is based on the notorious policy paper, "A Clean Break: New Strategy for Securing the Realm," which was presented to Netanyahu when he became Israeli Prime Minister in 1996. Its authors included the "Prince of Darkness" Richard Perle, former Defense Department official Douglas Feith, and neo-conservative fanatics such as David and Meyrav Wurmser. That document called for a "clean break from the slogan 'comprehensive peace' to a traditional balance of power." They called for Israel to "seize the initiative along its northern border," against Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, including "striking at select targets in Syria proper" (emphasis in the original).

Hezbollah is a Lebanese umbrella organization of Islamic Shi'ite groups, and the Shi'ites are the largest religious bloc in Lebanon.

Israel's War Policy

Netanyahu came back from his meeting on the weekend of June 17-18 with Cheney at Beaver Creek, and announced that Israel must reject any form of negotiations with the Palestinians, and instead reassert its military "deterrence." This policy has been embraced by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, a former Likudnik who enjoys many of the same U.S. financial supporters as does Netanyahu. The June 25 capture of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, served as a pretext to launch Netanyahu's policy of "rebuilding Israel's deterrence" against the Palestinians, by destroying Hamas. After rejecting political negotiations with the Hamas government of Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah, as well as President Abu Mazen, the Gaza Strip was reoccupied, after chunks of its infrastructure were destroyed, leading to a humanitarian catastrophe.

Now a second front has been opened on the Israel-Lebanon border. Contrary to media reports, Hezbollah members did not cross into Israeli territory to "kidnap" two Israeli soldiers, as the media spin claims. The captured Israeli soldiers were part of a group patrolling inside Lebanese territory. Like the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, their capture became a pretext to launch a large military operation against Hezbollah. Another factor to be considered is that, according to the July 13 Jerusalem Post, the high-alert status that the northern border had been under since the capture of Shalit three weeks ago, was lifted only three days prior to the Hezbollah capture of two Israeli soldiers.

According to a report in the July 13 Israeli daily Ha'aretz, the Israel military had approved a plan for a major exercise along the Israeli-Lebanese border, based on a scenario of a Hezbollah capture of Israeli solders, after which Israel would respond with a heavy air and land assault into southern Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah. It is this plan which is now being carried out. As of this writing, Israel has begun to mobilize its reserves, including a full division, to be deployed on the already heavily fortified northern border.

The Israeli military has similar contingency plans for a strike against Syria. These plans have been the basis of exercises for the last two to three years.

While Israel has bombed targets in Beirut and put the entire country under a siege by air and sea, Hezbollah forces have launched Katyusha rockets into Israeli towns in northern Israel. The head of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has declared that the Israeli soldiers will be released only in an exchange of prisoners.

The conflict is now vectored to escalate, and spread to Syria. Israel's intention to attack Syria and Iran has been mooted by several Bush Administration spokesmen, each of whom immediately blamed Syria and Iran. Bush himself, while meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on July 13, declared that "Israel has a right to self-defense."

The most obvious proof that the Bush Administration wants a new war does not lie in its bellicose statements against Iran, Syria, Hamas, or Hezbollah, however. It lies in the fact that it has not lifted a finger either to stop, or even mediate the crisis. Through its Ambassador to the United Nations, the non-confirmable neo-con zealot John Bolton, the Bush Administration is even preventing the issue from being brought before the United Nations Security Council.

No Military Solution

In comments to EIR, veteran Israeli military historian Col. Meir Pa'il (ret.) confirmed that a broad military escalation can be expected. From a military standpoint, Pa'il said, Israel will now have no choice but to occupy southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, which means a return to the so-called "security zone" from which Israel unilaterally withdrew in 2000. Nonetheless, Israel will not be able to sustain a broad land war in Lebanon, as in 1982, or even a permanent occupation of the old security zone.

Although he doubted that Syria would offer Israel a pretext for an attack, he feared that if such a pretext presented itself, a military strike could not be ruled out. While asserting that Israel is not capable of launching a major land war against Syria, and thus would not do it, Colonel Pa'il warned that there has always been a "dream" held by a faction in the military security establishment to put Damascus within range of Israeli artillery. Since the Syrian capital is less than 40 kilometers from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, such an event is very much within the realm of possibility.

Colonel Pa'il warned that "the real problem is that Israeli leaders are only thinking in military terms," while what needs to be done is to build a political peace with Israel's Arab neighbors. Pa'il, who is a member of the pro-peace Meretz-Yahad party, said that the value of Israel's massive military superiority is to demonstrate to the Arab world that Israel cannot be defeated militarily. Nonetheless, that military must serve to set the stage for a real peace process. "The real issue is to raise the flag of a solution to the problem. I am crying and weeping because of the fact that this government has no political orientation to deal with the Arab world."

While the ex-lawyer Ehud Olmert and the ex-furniture salesman Benjamin Netanyahu are trying to sound like the ex-general Ariel Sharon, there are serious doubts within the Israeli security establishment over their drive to push Israel into a three-front, or even four-front war with the Palestinians, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran. Even prior to the new crisis with Hezbollah, Ha'aretz cited security sources who have dealt with these situations, saying that Olmert's policy of non-negotiation "infuriates" them. Ha'aretz even quoted slain Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who said, "When there is no military option, we do everything, including negotiations with the kidnappers, to free hostages."

Former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy expressed similar doubts, when speaking before a business luncheon on July 11. Asked how he would have acted in the current Israeli prisoner crisis, he replied, "I believe that one should never underestimate the enemy, and it always helps and never harms, when you approach your greatest tests with just a grain of humility."

[Post continued...]

[DB_Hunter]

[...continued post]

A Basis for Negotiations

Many Israelis also know that the Bush Administration has given Israel a green light to crush Hamas, and now Hezbollah.

Hamas knows this also. Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah, in a op-ed published in the July 11 Washington Post, under the title "Aggression Under False Pretenses," charged that both Olmert and the Bush Administration were colluding to destroy the Hamas government.

"The current Gaza invasion is only the latest effort to destroy the results of fair and free elections held early this year," Haniyah charged. "It is the explosive follow-up to a five-month campaign of economic and diplomatic warfare directed by the United States and Israel. The stated intention of that strategy was to force the average Palestinian to 'reconsider' his or her vote when faced with deepening hardship; its failure was predictable, and the new overt military aggression and collective punishment are its logical fulfillment.

"The 'kidnapped' Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit is only a pretext for a job scheduled months ago. In addition to removing our democratically elected government, Israel wants to sow dissent among Palestinians by claiming that there is a serious leadership rivalry among us. I am compelled to dispel this notion definitively. The Palestinian leadership is firmly embedded in the concept of Islamic shura, or mutual consultation; suffice it to say that while we may have differing opinions, we are united in mutual respect and focused on the goal of serving our people....

"We want what Americans enjoy—democratic rights, economic sovereignty and justice. We thought our pride in conducting the fairest elections in the Arab world might resonate with the United States and its citizens. Instead, our new government was met from the very beginning by acts of explicit, declared sabotage by the White House. Now this aggression continues against 3.9 million civilians living in the world's largest prison camps. America's complacency in the face of these war crimes is, as usual, embedded in the coded rhetorical 'green light': 'Israel has a right to defend itself.' Was Israel defending itself when it killed eight family members on a Gaza beach last month, or three members of the Hajjaj family on Saturday, among them 6-year-old Rawan? I refuse to believe that such inhumanity sits well with the American public."

Haniyah called for a prisoner exchange and put forward the principles for a negotiating process, writing that, "Palestinian priorities include recognition of the core dispute over the land of historical Palestine, and the rights of all its people; resolution of the refugee issue from 1948; reclaiming all lands occupied in 1967; and stopping Israeli attacks, assassinations and military expansion....

"Contrary to popular depictions of the crisis in the American media, the dispute is not only about Gaza and the West Bank; it is a wider national conflict that can be resolved only by addressing the full dimensions of Palestinian national rights in an integrated manner. This means statehood for the West Bank and Gaza, a capital in Arab East Jerusalem, and resolving the 1948 Palestinian refugee issue fairly, on the basis of international legitimacy and established law. "

Haniyah concluded, "If Israel is prepared to negotiate seriously and fairly, and resolve the core 1948 issues, rather than the secondary ones from 1967, a fair and permanent peace is possible. Based on a hudna (comprehensive cessation of hostilities for an agreed time), the Holy Land still has an opportunity to be a peaceful and stable economic powerhouse for all the Semitic people of the region. If Americans only knew the truth, possibility might become reality."

Olmert thinks his hard-line policies, backed by the Bush Administration, will create a new "balance of power" in the region. But Israel is facing an asymmetric war like the one the United States is conducting and losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, where there are no "balances." Already the Israeli military is warning that these operations could continue for many months, and for the first time, put hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians in the line of fire. Can Israel sustain this, economically and politically? The 1982 Lebanon War bankrupted Israel. Israel avoided bankruptcy in the six-year-long second Intifada of 2000 to 2005 only because the Bush Administration provided $10 billion in loan guarantees. Now, with the United States itself nearly bankrupt, will there be another bailout?

Executive Intelligence Review

[masamuneehs]

i do not consider LaRouche or anyone in his movement to be viable sources of information, and that includes the Executive Intelligence Review. However, the article had some good points about US-Israeli ties and how unnatural that relationship between the two nations actually is. Still, I would take anything from thosse LaRouche Movement guys with a heavy heavy grain of salt.

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

[DB_Hunter]

News Update:

Sickening (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5219360.stm)

Was to be expected I guess (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5220162.stm)

[Honoko]

Isn't there a theory floating around that Iran's the one who's behind all this and their goal is to finally establish themselves as a superpower in that region?

Of course, Al-Qaeda now jumping in and muddying the waters isn't helping either. They're now calling for all Muslims (Shiites, Sunnis) and even non-Muslims to join them to fight the US. Complete change in tactics. So frustrating. The stupid thing about war is no matter how long it takes, what kind of atrocities occur, it's still gonna end with leaders meeting at a conference table. So why not cut the crap and go straight to the talking?

[LobsterMagnet]

As a Jew I've always felt a bit ambivalent towards Israel. I do have cousins who live there, even one that’s about my own age who’s a helicopter pilot for the Israeli military. I still believe that Israel’s fervent military nationalism is pent up aggression still lingering over from the holocaust. The importance of having a land to call one’s own is something that is continually stressed in synagogues throughout the world. Jews see Israel as there last refuge and one unspoken ideal every Jew strives for is to visit Israel at least once in their lifetime. There is a sense of lingering paranoia left over from World War II. As we’re told again and again in Hebrew school, “never forget or else history is bound to repeat itself” which is kind of sad considering the incidents of undeterred genocide seen in Rowanda and Darfur.

I’m not trying to justify Israeli’s actions; I personally believe you can’t fight fire with a flame thrower. I’m just trying to help give you guys an idea of the mindset that causes such action. Any direct attacks on Israel instantly trigger visions of a final extermination of the Jewish faith. This is why Israel retaliates like a swarm of angry killer bees to any potential threat to the overall greater hive. Military nationalism can be a very scary thing no matter whose flag is waving in the background.

[Kraco]

I just hope that whoever mastermind in the Israeli military picked the UN observation post as a bombing target will be thrown into a prison. The USA didn't want to condemn Israel for the bombing, and I can understand that to some extent (even though I don't agree), because condemning that might also mean condemning the whole affair. But that's only all the more reason for Israel itself to prove justice still prevails over there.

[Honoko]

@LM: WWII is just a recent/modern tragedy the Jewish people can point to. Your people's whole history from the very beginning has been one of struggling to keep your identity despite incursions from other races. I've recently finished reading most of what Catholics dub the "Historical Books" in the Old Testament (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, etc.-- have no idea how all this is worked into the Torah, if it is at all) and man, even back then everyone in the region wanted to get rid of the Jews.

With that being said, I agree with your observations and I'm not surprised at how much emphasis and paranoia the rabbis put on nationalism. And this:

I personally believe you can’t fight fire with a flame thrower.
Very aptly put.

[masamuneehs]

so what's Israel's long term plan?

1.5 mile buffer zone inside of Lebanon. Obviously this is a 'limited' invasion. Buffer zones are funny because the nation who establishes it is essentially conquering and invading it, but almost never step in to govern the people with in it.

With Israel's military size a full-scale occupation of all of Lebanon was impossible, so I guess they're just going to stifle Hezbollah's attacking range by setting up this buffer zone.

It's a good idea (from a strictly military/Israeli standpoint), but I wonder how they will handle the Lebanese living there?

Oh, and that article about them saying "the world not calling for a ceasefire means that the world supports our fight" is a load of bullshit. Only two nations opposed the ceasefire, the US and the UK. Trying to justify your actions by saying that the dissent of two countries is the same as the wish of the entire world is pissing on the faces of the rest of the UN nations, especially the other Security Council members.

[gr3atfull]

About what happened with the Israelis shooting the UN buildings and killing 4 innocent people part of the "casques bleus" (forgot how you call that in english) is just plain stupid. This shows that the governement of israel has no idea what he is doing. Worst part is that before their deaths, the UN call the israeli government to stop bombing that place.They have called 10 times in 6 hours.

One of the people who died was a canadian. Before he died, he said on July 18th that they were always bombed directly or undirectly. The closest bombs of around 453 kgs that fell was around 100 meters of their base. So, for sure it wasnt an "accident".

About Al-Qaeda joing the fight, isnt suprising at all. It was just about time. They wanted to make sure that this conflict wasnt going to last less than a week. I bet that we are going to enter another world war with all the allies and stuff. Lebanon allied to the Middle-Eastern countries and other muslims terrorist groups. Israel is allied to the US, UK and Canada (with the current right brainless governement that follows everything that Bush asks him to do.)

In general, what Israel is trying to do (trying to destroy Hezbollah) is quite impossible. Hezbollah is support by the whole Middle-East. If he wants to try to destroy it, he has to wipe out all the muslims in general. Good luck.

[Yukimura]

@Malathais: First, Israel isn't one person, don't use him/her to describe a nation...that's a big deal in High School Level English. Anyway, I woulnd't tempt 'him', as that utter destruction of the islamic populace could theoretically be done. Ever heard of a neutron bomb? Anyway hundreds of dead civillians....no one (in America and with any authority) seems to care, and the world doesn't seem too wuick to do something about it either.

Also, not everyone in the Middle East supports Hezbollah, I've seen many reports of Egypt and Saudi Arabia denouncing Hezbollah's actions. The Arab world is anything but United (which is one of the goals of Hezbollah, as well as Iran IIRC, a unified, possibly global, theocratic Islamic state)

I personally wonder what the plan is from Israel's perspective though. The only solution that stops what I think Israel seeks to stop is the physical elimination of the large number of people who believe Israel shouldn't exist. If there were less anti-Israeli people then they're wouldn't be so many terrorist attacks against Israel. Obviously not too many people would consider the mass murder this solution would require, but if you think about it, Israel wants to be safe, and doesn't have the power to 'conquer' the Arab world and subjugate it. What other way is there to diminish the anti-Israel sentiment to a level where Israelis wouldn't have to deal with this stuff on so broad a scale.

[kAi]

A friend of mine from work who is Israeli, was chased by lebs through a couple of suburbs around here, for being from Israel.

Fucken stupid cunts, they probably don't know shit except the fact that those countries are in the middle of a war, both have nothing to do with anything. People like this piss me off!

[ChaosK]

kAi, you have Israelis and lebs on one street? Damn there must be tension there.

Also I saw that the Hezbollah, recently launched a new missle that they have never launched before, that is the biggest one they have seen launched. Fear strikes everybody. :rolleyes:

[Honoko]

Someone told me that Hezbollah's using weapons acquired from Iran, while Israel's weapons supplier is the US. If this is actually true-- Vietnam anyone?

[Kraco]

Most countries use weapons made elsewhere, especially small countries. All in all only the well industrialized, stable countries have decent weapons manufacturing, and even so the smaller the country, the more specialized it tends to be. So, that's not really a valid argument when comparing any conflict to Vietnam.


One of the people who died was a canadian.
And one was a Finn. Poor fellows. Good thing UN withdrew the rest of the observers, as Israel obviously wasn't capable of guaranteeing their safety, despite their statements.

[Turkish-S]

I personally wonder what the plan is from Israel's perspective though. The only solution that stops what I think Israel seeks to stop is the physical elimination of the large number of people who believe Israel shouldn't exist. If there were less anti-Israeli people then they're wouldn't be so many terrorist attacks against Israel. Obviously not too many people would consider the mass murder this solution would require, but if you think about it, Israel wants to be safe, and doesn't have the power to 'conquer' the Arab world and subjugate it. What other way is there to diminish the anti-Israel sentiment to a level where Israelis wouldn't have to deal with this stuff on so broad a scale.

This is impossible. Because with every bom dropped the israel/jew hate grows. so in the end i think they will have more anti-israeli people then they had in the begin.

And i don't think iran is that much involved i think it's just a plan of the US to have a reason to attack iran. They just can't afford to aid the libanese while they are threatened with a war ageanst the US.

[Splash!]

I personally wonder what the plan is from Israel's perspective though. The only solution that stops what I think Israel seeks to stop is the physical elimination of the large number of people who believe Israel shouldn't exist. If there were less anti-Israeli people then they're wouldn't be so many terrorist attacks against Israel. Obviously not too many people would consider the mass murder this solution would require, but if you think about it, Israel wants to be safe, and doesn't have the power to 'conquer' the Arab world and subjugate it. What other way is there to diminish the anti-Israel sentiment to a level where Israelis wouldn't have to deal with this stuff on so broad a scale.

So to prevent another holocaust from happening, they must kill everyone that hates them or, in essence, commit the same kind of atrocities on others that they do not wish upon themselves. Wow, what a super selfish way of looking at things. Let us destroy the whole world because they might want to harm us! If a nation with such immense power has beliefs like that, then thats just sad, really sad. Thats far worse than the terrorist philosophy itself. Lets just hope that is not what Israel wants.

This events are deeply saddening. Lebanon was one of those few nations were muslims, christians and people from other religions were actually living in complete harmony with one another without the feeling of resentment or hate. I personally don't understand why Israel decided to pounce on lebanon so suddenly based on one little incident involving two soldiers. I personally believe that this operation itself is something that was pre planned and israel was merely waiting for an something like the soldier abduction to take place so it could launch a full scale invasion. By the way, anyone have any confirmed reports on the circumstances in which the Israeli soldiers were captured? Were they actually 'abducted' from Israeli territory or were they caught in Lebanon. Or are the details of such incidents rather blurry with no clearcut agreement between people on what happened?

[gr3atfull]

Anyway, I woulnd't tempt 'him', as that utter destruction of the islamic populace could theoretically be done. Ever heard of a neutron bomb? Anyway hundreds of dead civillians....no one (in America and with any authority) seems to care, and the world doesn't seem too wuick to do something about it either.


What I meant is that Israel cant just drop a bomb and kill every one. There was the killing of the jews in WW2, and now they cant be the one killing all the arabs in the middle east.



Also, not everyone in the Middle East supports Hezbollah, I've seen many reports of Egypt and Saudi Arabia denouncing Hezbollah's actions. The Arab world is anything but United (which is one of the goals of Hezbollah, as well as Iran IIRC, a unified, possibly global, theocratic Islamic state)

Saudi Arabia and Egypt might not support them now, but when their government see that their people are supporting Lebanon, they will change their mind. Its all about politics. If they want to be reelected, they have to follow their peoples point of view. Saudi Arabia might not help Lebanon because they are friends with the Bush administration.

It is true not every middle easterner are supporting Hezbollah. Last night, I was watching an interview with Lebanons prime minister and a canadian journalist. He pointed out that from a serious lebanese newspaper, ~86% of the Lebanese supported Hezbollah. The support grew from before the conflict. My point is, it is true not every one support Hezbollah, but a big majority (75%+) of arabs are supporting them which is enough for them.

Here is a part of the interview.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/28/lahoud-interview.html

[DB_Hunter]

Saudi Arabia and Egypt might not support them now, but when their government see that their people are supporting Lebanon, they will change their mind. Its all about politics. If they want to be reelected, they have to follow their peoples point of view. Saudi Arabia might not help Lebanon because they are friends with the Bush administration.

The rulers of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are dictators who are not elected but derive their support from America, and oppress their people with America's blessing. They don't have to bother with unimportant matters such as listening to the people and getting re-elected. It's much easier and quicker just to lock them up and torture them instead. They all serve America's designs on the middle east... there is a reason after all why Egypt is the biggest recipient of US foreign aid after Israel, why that fat monstrosity of a man that is the King of Saudi Arabia gets to waddle down to Bush's ranch in Texas and why Jordan is a real buddy of the US, ever so willing to play the 'honest broker' with the US.

The government of Syria is a dictatorship not supported by America, but it oppresses its people anyway, just as brutally as the above trio, maybe even worse. Funny thing is they are so brutal to their own people yet so cowardly to the rest of the world.

Ironically despite having a theocratic flavour Iran is the only country involved/with a stake in this conflict that has an elections of some sort to elect their President. That's not to say that they are angels, they have blood on their hands from this conflict too... and I'm talking about Lebanese blood.

The population of the Muslim countries is seething, as gr3atfull has correctly identified. It is this that the Prime Minister of Lebanon and Prince Hassan (the uncle of King Abdullah of Jordan) cited as being the most dangerous development of this entire conflict. They both said in much the same words that if this conflict does not stop the forces of Islamic extremism and fundamentalism (read here people who don't want to be ruled by dictators and happen to be Muslim) will gather and gain strength, eventually toppling the governments that currently rule the Muslim world. The Syrians have also been making similar noises.

This is my analysis on the situation so far:

Syria and Iran have picked this fight with Israel, with Hizbullah acting as their proxy. The reason is that they both want international recognition of their regimes and to demonstrate their strength to highlight what they could do in any future conflict. Syria's reason is that it feels it is next on America's radar so it feels insecure, Iran knows that if Syria goes down it will be next. An added reason for Iran is for it strengthen its hand in any negotiations over its nuclear program in the future. The intention of this conflict was to use the Israeli soldiers to free some Lebanese prisoners (of which there are many in Israeli jails which no one seems to care about) and hence flex some muscle. Hizbullah was up for this and went ahead with the operation. The Israeli response was not anticipated to be this brutal, with the Syrians and Iranians hoping international pressure and perhaps even respect for human life and property on the part of the Israel will prevent it from wreaking such bloody havoc as it has done on Lebanon.

Israel for its part seems to have figured this out, and did what was strategically viable for it do, namely pound Lebanon, kill innocent Lebanese and conduct an excercise in collective punishment. Israel knows it cannot defeat Hizbullah proper, so it has decided to punish the people, in this case mostly Shia Muslims from whom Hizbullah derives its support from. The objective was to hit Hizbullah's support base, as this is easier to target and would lead to potentially permanent damage to Hizbullah, with regards to its future and support. The non-Muslims that are being targeted by Israel is in line with the strategy to increase pressure on the Muslims who support Hizbullah.

Infrastructure is being destroyed not only to restrict movement, but also as part of Israel's revenge on the Lebanese people for allowing Hizbullah to exist. Power stations and airports are not Hizbullah property, they are targeted to cause suffering to the people which in turn it is hoped will anger against Hizbullah.

This from the Israeli military stand point seems to make sense. Morally however, it is a travesty and highlights Israel's disregard for the life of others. It has called the bluff of Syria and Iran, and Syria and Iran have been found to be wanting. They are unwilling to escalate the situation because at the end of the day they fear for their own survival. Getting rid of Israel is less important than ensuring that their respect regime's continues to live on. From a military stand point, Israel cannot take out Hizbullah. Hizbullah cannot take out Israel. This is why you are having negotiations now, with Israel dropping the demand for Hizbullah to be disarmed. Israel has even struggled to take a few villages from Hizbullah. In the short term Israel seems to have for now held off the plans against it. Iran, Syria and Hizbullah didn't expect the World Community to be so paralysed in the face of such destruction by Israel, which was their miscalculation. Israel on the other hand did not expect Hizbullah to be as well prepared as they have proven themselves to be. In the long term, Israel has only succeeded in increasing the number of people in the world who don't like it.

But for now, who is the loser in all of this?

Lebanon and its people. They are the ones who have had their country destroyed and the people massacred. The countries directly responsible for this are Israel, the US, the UK, Syria and Iran.

[masamuneehs]

Of course the Saudis and Egyptians don't like Hezbollah. Hez is a Shiite (shia) group, and Saudia Arabia is over 97% hardcore Sunni, the largest Muslim faction on the planet. People tend to forget that Islam is a deeply divided religion.

And obviously the US and any capitalist country will coaxe up to their little Arab pet...rolium providers...

Then again, the Israeli and US military have ties from way back. I know plenty of people who are convinced that the Jewish lobbyists have too much of a say in US foreign policy. I don't happen to agree with those people, but I do think that the US backing of Israel makes them think they can get away with alot more bad shit than they actually can.

[Yukimura]

My point is, it is true not every one support Hezbollah, but a big majority (75%+) of arabs are supporting them which is enough for them.

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there, as masa said Islam is a divided religion. It is primarily composed of two sects, with 85%-90% of muslims following the Sunni teachings and 10%-15% the Shi'a, with several smaller sects mixed in. There extremists on all sides and to put it mildly...they don't usually care for one another. The sectarian violence you may have heard about in Iraq is usually Suunis and Shiites trying to kill one another.

For some reference, Saudi Arabia is 98% Sunni, Iran is 91% Shi'a, Iraq is 65% Shi'a 20% Kurd and 15% Sunni, (Sadaam Hussein's party was primarily Sunni, and oppressed the Shi'a and Kurds quite a bit [no one seems to like the Kurds anywhere :confused: ]), Syria is 85% Sunni 5% other muslims and 10% Christian, Lebannon hasn't had a census for 70 years but it's believed to be only about 60% muslim with a Shi'a majority by numbers but until recently a Sunni dominated governement.

Hezbollah is......drumroll....a Shi'a organization. On of their goals is the creation of an Islamic government similar to the Iranian one. Much of Hezbollah's support within Lebannon came primarily from the peasants and farmers in the countryside, instead of the more 'civillized' people of the urban areas.

::Context Switch::

Some people think that Israel's actions will magically mend all the cracks in the Islamic world and they'll unite into some monstrously powerful juggernaut to destroy the world, however the break goes back about 1300 years and they still fight, so it's probably not going anywhere. The Catholic-Protestant break is only 500 years old and there is still plenty of simmering animosity between them.

[DB_Hunter]

Ok the issue of Islam being divided has been raised a couple of times now and I think I should clear up what exactly the divide is over, since people seem to be mistaking it as differences that are so huge that the different groups in Islam are all out to kill each other.

The major divide in Islam is the Sunni/Shia divide. The origins of this divide lie pretty early on Islam. Without going into excessive detail, the stumbling block was who should be Caliph during the early era of the Caliphate. Hence the divide between the Sunni and the Shia is political in origin, not theological as many people mistake it to be. Ofcourse in the Sunni and the Shia different schools of thought exist on theological issues, but Islam allows for this difference. An example of what this means is as follows. During the time of the 4th Caliph Ali bin Abi Talib, there was a dispute as to which affairs of the State should be given priority (The Shia are 'the party of Ali'). The Caliph was locked in a dispute with the Governer of Syria, Muwawiyah. Muwawiyah was said to have become even more powerful than Ali, as he was at the frontiers of the Caliphate with the Roman Empire and had developed a powerful military there. The Romans, seeing this potential split as a chance to break apart the Caliphate, offered Muwawiyah support in overthrowing Ali as Caliph. Muwawiyah responded by telling the Romans that was once his dispute with Ali was solved he would come after them to destroy them.

Just like then, today the Sunni Shia split is manipulated by foreign powers. Today the added difference is that there are corrupt religious ministers who also use this to their own ends, and if you throw in people who don't know their history with regards to the split you have quite a confusing situtation.

Today there are many sects in Islam, on both the Sunni and the Shia. Some of them have acceptable differences in the framework Islam provides, others do not. The main difference in the Sunni and the Shia today is again guess what... political. The Sunni believe that a Caliphate must be recreated and ruled by Islam and by electing a Caliph, whilst the Shia believe that no ordinary man can rule the Caliphate and must one of the 'Chosen Imams'. Since there is now chosen Imam in the world today, but one expected near the end of time, the Shia's believe in not getting involved in political activity. The Sunni believe any man is capable of running the Caliphate, and hence activley call for its restablishment. That is why the Shia's have Ayatollahs, who are spiritual leaders but no such figure exists for the Sunni's, who await a Caliph to give their allegience to.

So there was a mention of Saddam's party being mostly Sunni. Yes, they were Sunni but they did not implement Islam. They were Baa'thist nationalists, hence the Sunni 'tag' was only an identifier and nothing more than that. As for the Kurds, that is an ethnic label, they are actually sunni's. The reason why the Kurds are not liked by many countires is because they want to form their own country along nationalist lines, Kurdistan. Kurds today exist in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. If they formed their own country they would take a chunk of territory from each of these countries. They continue fighting for their country since they were promised one by the British, who helped carve up the last Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire.

Getting back to the latest conflict, for Muslims, regardless of if they are Sunni or Shia, the killing of the (Shia) Muslims is like the killing of just that, a Muslim. The differences are manipulated and exploited due to politics, not Islam.

[gr3atfull]

The rulers of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are dictators who are not elected but derive their support from America, and oppress their people with America's blessing.

Egypt is a democratic country and Jordan has a prime minister and a king (like the UK).

About the divison of Islam, sure its divided in the Middle East, but they are still muslims. In the Al-Qaeda video, it said all Sunni and Shi'a should "work " together to stop the killing in Lebanon.

[Honoko]

Egypt is a democratic country and Jordan has a prime minister and a king (like the UK).

About the divison of Islam, sure its divided in the Middle East, but they are still muslims. In the Al-Qaeda video, it said all Sunni and Shi'a should "work " together to stop the killing in Lebanon.
Which, I should also add, is a radical change in tactics for al Qaeda. Before they were fanatically devoted to their strain of Islam. That video called for all Muslims AND non-believers angry at the U.S. and their allies to rise up and wage a holy war.

[dextrocardia]

Post deleted - MOD

The reasons for it are many but I'll point them out so that you don't repeat your mistakes, if you do repeat these mistakes you are going on a vacation.

-You are trying to incite others to hatred, and spreading propaganda
-There are so many things wrong with what you say logically,that this seems to be a direct assault on those parties that don’t agree with your point of view
-You are disrespectful to anyone posting here from those hard-working Israeli civilian families who have nothing to do with the war.
-Your post makes no effort to make discussion with the others on this forum
-I deleted your thread earlier for these same reasons I don’t know why you didn’t get the hint

[DB_Hunter]

Egypt is a democratic country and Jordan has a prime minister and a king (like the UK).

The President Hosni Mubarak has been in power since 1981, with nobody allowed to run against him in 'elections' until 2005. These 2005 elections were also blatantly flawed, as the Muslim Brotherhood (a political party) had its members/supports beaten and arrested and many were prevented from voting in the elections. He has used the Emergency Law rule to govern the country under a state of emergency for 25 years....

The King of Jordon rules the nation, as all executive power lies with him. In Britain the Queen is merely a figurehead with no real power, with the Executive power being with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. There are no elections held for the position of King.

[Death BOO Z]

First of all, I'm sorry I didn't take the time to read everything, so i might be missing out on some points.

I'm fine, as you can probably tell, my battelion has been called to the north border, and might be active. that's just about all you need to know.
as for myself, I haven't been behined enemy lines, since i'm not a tank person anymore, but take a look at an Israel map, anything from Nazerth (jesus's place of birth, and mostly an israel-arabic city) has been attacked by Hizzbhalla missles, including Haifa, the 3rd largest city in israel. So me being inside the israeli borders doesn't really mean a thing about my safety.
While I'm perfecrly aware that not everyone killed in Lebanon was a terrorist, it's puts some perspective about the situation, no one's innocent.

here's terror as i see it.
use of violence against citizens in order to achieve a certain idiology.
the kidnapping of Shallit in the gaza strip wasn't a terror act, it was a military commando mission by the Hammas, which is a terror orginazation.
the kiddnapping of the two soldiers wasn't a terror act, but the missle fire on the north (international agreed) border was a terror act.
Israel probably wouldn't have acted like this if not for the missle attacks, as it seems that since israel evacuated the south lebanon strip in 2000, Hizzbhalla has used this time to amass thousends of rackets, including rockets that can reach Tel-aviv and Jerusalem.

One of the problems of the inoformation media is it's tendenc to decide who's right by counting the victims. the lebnon people had over 300 killed, the israel had about 30 civilians (not soldiers) killed. sound's like simple math, right?
then again, consider that a good amount of the lebanonise had hizzbhalla explocives in them, and the Hizzbhalla used thae citizens as human shields. on the israel side, however, the goverment built safe underground 'rooms' for the citizens, and has it's army bases outside of citizen cities.
see, that's as far as the equasion goes.

I'm biased towards israel. I can't be anything else. Shallit, if he was here today, would have now been celevrating his first year of the army, as me and him have been drafted in the same day, so it was only by a small luck of the draw that he was in Gaza and i wasn't. the kiddnapped soldiers on the north border weren't professional military-men, they have been called back from the civil life to allow some battelions to go down to Gaza, my father has been doing the same up until ten years ago, and once i'm out of the army, I'll be called to help too, if ever needed.
That's what happens when the army is on a 'must-join' basis, there's no possibility that someone will stay quiet when a soldier is hurt. that's isreal's army strengh and weakness.

Those who talked about the Sunni-Shiai conflict in the muslim world are correct, Hizbahalla action aren't only directed at israel, they're showing their muscles against the lebanon goverment, like what happend with the ex prime minister Harriri, who was (or was suspected to be) killed by syrian forces becuase of his opposition to syria's army being station in Lebanon. there's a lot of inner politics involved in this thing,
but that doesn't matter, the facts are:
A. Israel has left south lebanon six years ago and didn't ingage in any offencive action.
B. Hizzbahlla has used this time to stock rockets and missles and targeted them on israel, including weapons from Iran.
C. Hizzbahalla has attacked Israel soldiers and fired rockets at isreal cities.

The Israeli attack is justified, by the UN's 'laws of war', if a state is attacked from a building that has both innocents and terrorist/enemy soldiers in it, the said state should go after the said building, terrorist shouldn't be allowed to use innocents as human shields.

Well, that's the last of the war i'm going to talk about in the next two days. if i'm home, i shouldn't be thinking about the army.

[DB_Hunter]

While I'm perfecrly aware that not everyone killed in Lebanon was a terrorist, it's puts some perspective about the situation, no one's innocent.

Are you saying the killing of innocent civillians is justified?


here's terror as i see it.
And my take on your view. Ofcourse not all may agree with, but a hell of a lot of people do.


use of violence against citizens in order to achieve a certain idiology.
Like Zionism and Apartheid right?


the kidnapping of Shallit in the gaza strip wasn't a terror act, it was a military commando mission by the Hammas, which is a terror orginazation.

According to Israel and its allies. Russia for example does not consider Hammas to be a terrorist organisation. There are many people who consider Israel to be a terrorist state.

Hammas also happens to be the elected government of the Palestinian people. But then again elections don't mean jack right if foreign powers don't like the results?


the kiddnapping of the two soldiers wasn't a terror act, but the missle fire on the north (international agreed) border was a terror act.

Again the word terror... it seems to people like Bush and his ilk use this as some taboo word against people the don't like and they must be hated by all with a vengence. And I suppose this is noble warefare and not terror? (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/07/30/18292861.php)


One of the problems of the inoformation media is it's tendenc to decide who's right by counting the victims.

No, less than 3000 people died in the 9/11 attacks and hundreds of thousands have been killed, tortured, kidnapped and humilated in Afghanistan and Iraq yet a lot of the world media still tries to justify this so called 'War on Terror'.


the lebnon people had over 300 killed, the israel had about 30 civilians (not soldiers) killed. sound's like simple math, right?

Yes, seems simple enough to me. And this was over a week ago. Since then many more Lebanese have been killed, and I can't remember any Israeli civillian that has been killed (I could be wrong, please correct me if I am). Whereas on the Lebanese side you have had many more killed, with the Qana massacre killing over 50 civillians, including disabled children.


then again, consider that a good amount of the lebanonise had hizzbhalla explocives in them,

I'm sorry, are you saying that as of yet unproven claims of the existance of Hizbullah weaponry being kept in houses has somehow spontaneously exploded by itself?


on the israel side, however, the goverment built safe underground 'rooms' for the citizens

Interestingly enough according to early reports on Sky News Israel has not built any underground shelters for the Arab populace that live in Israel... could you confirm whether this is true or not?


I'm biased towards israel. I can't be anything else.

Yes you can. Your a human with a conscience, you should use it. You should wake up and see what you and your army is doing to the people of the region and the world as a whole. The only governments that support you are the US and the UK. I can't speak about the US, but the vast majority of the people in the UK are against Israel's actions.

And this isn't an anti-Jewish or anti-semitic thing. There were Jews who were marching against Israel's actions in London. You don't have to be a Muslim or an Arab to see the injustice here.


the facts are:
A. Israel has left south lebanon six years ago and didn't ingage in any offencive action.
B. Hizzbahlla has used this time to stock rockets and missles and targeted them on israel, including weapons from Iran.
C. Hizzbahalla has attacked Israel soldiers and fired rockets at isreal cities.

Israel gets its weapons from the US. Without the US, Israel cannot fight any war. One week into this conflict and the US was flying in bombs in an emergency, and has continued to do so since then.

Also, show us even just one building that has been destroyed by Hizbullah rocket, just one, like what Israel has countless Lebanese villages, towns and cities.


The Israeli attack is justified, by the UN's 'laws of war', if a state is attacked from a building that has both innocents and terrorist/enemy soldiers in it, the said state should go after the said building, terrorist shouldn't be allowed to use innocents as human shields.

What the UN says is irrelevant to countries like Israel. It chooses to use the UN when it needs to, such as in the case of Resolution 1559 and ignores it in the case of resolutions 194 and 242 and clause two of resolution 338. It's chief ally the US ignores the UN and selectivley applied internationals norms, as was the case with the Iraq War and the application of the Geneva convention on the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay (to which it says the Geneva convention will now apply).

In conclusion I will say to you that Israel is fighting a brutal war, it is attacking helpless people and it is not achieving any of its stated objectives. I would also advise you on a more personal level not to take part in this war any longer. It is clearly unjust and I hope you can arrive to this conclusion also.

Take a look at this link... this is what you are helping to do. I warn you though some pictures are disturbing. (http://www.fromisraeltolebanon.org/index2.php). This is the other page, also disturbing (http://www.fromisraeltolebanon.org/)

[Yukimura]

So your saying he should just abbandon his country because they are killing a lot of people in an attempt to make their own citizens safer. In Israel everyone fights (not sure about the women...) which seems like a good idea being that there's so much hate ready to come down on them at any given time. That you would even suggest these things to a member of the Israeli military is quite amazing to me. Civillians are the ones who question their governments not soldiers, and while someone is a soldier they have a duty to follow orders and defend their country. All I hope is that Death Boo Z stays safe.

As I see it. Israel is doing a lot (relatively) of collateral damage and this is very unfortunate for the Lebanese, but from Israels perspective doing nothing will likely lead to more attacks on Israel. Any reasonable leader would attempt to take the fight to the enemy rather than accept more deaths among his/her own people. If it comes down to Lebanese civillians and Israeli civillians and someone is going to die, [This Is Where An Obvious, 'No one has to die' Counter-Argument Goes!!!!!!!] the Isrealis will protect their own. Sure it's not 'right' by most standards to kill in the hope that others won't be killed if you do, but if nations only did what was right by some arbitrary, and regardless of how hard you try 'right' will always be arbitrary, definition then anyone who wasn't willing to follow the 'right' path could run all over them.

And as to the UN, is the UN going to protect Israel's citizen's? I doubt it, and from Israel's behavior they probably doubt it as well. The UN lacks the punch that goes along with it's supposed authority, it can give and take favours but it doesn't have the third leg of authority, the ability to inflict direct damage. The reason countries like the US and Israel ignore it so much is because it most closely represents the type of idealistic 'right thing only' organization of any world body. The UN will always seek to avoid causing suffering of any kind, even when there is no other option to induce complience. It is interesting how well the UN and countries match with parents and children.

Some parents are like the UN and refuse to inflict harm to discipline their children Instead they negotiate with the children, taking away privilages or offering incentives in the hope of bartering for a desired behavior from them. I have seen many good people who grew up never having a hand raised to them in punishment, and they are respectful and obedient. I have also seen children who were beaten for anything and everything who turned out to be terrible, disrespectful, and rebelious wastes of material. In addition to the ability of the one weilding the authority, the children themselves have something to do with how they turn out, just as the people/leaders of a country have something to do with how that country will respond to pressures.

Some countries, just like some children, can be brought into line with nothing but sanctions or incentives. Others will do whatever suits them no matter what you offer them or threaten them with. A notable thing is that the countries that come to mind as rebellious are generally fighting amoungst each other. The US and, to a lesser extent, Israel, share their disrespect for the 'rules' with countries like Iran, the old Iraq, and North Korea. The most likely reason being that these countries have strong ideological goals on an international stage and will to see those goals fulfilled to the best of their abilities. NOTE: When I reference a county I'm talking about it's government, not nessecarily it's populace.

And what is a 'just' war? When is it just to drop a 500lb bomb on something that's not yours. Even I don't think it's 'just' to attack someone else, even if you've been attacked. However I think you damn well better attack anyone who attacks you, and teach them a lesson lest they attempt to hurt you again. Justice and Righteousness have no place on a battlefield. When no one wants anyone dead anymore (or isn't willing to follow through on their desire), then people should start talking about justice, until then it's about saving your own ass any way you can.

[DB_Hunter]

So your saying he should just abbandon his country because they are killing a lot of people in an attempt to make their own citizens safer. In Israel everyone fights (not sure about the women...) which seems like a good idea being that there's so much hate ready to come down on them at any given time. That you would even suggest these things to a member of the Israeli military is quite amazing to me. Civillians are the ones who question their governments not soldiers, and while someone is a soldier they have a duty to follow orders and defend their country. All I hope is that Death Boo Z stays safe.

I'm sorry but I don't subscribe the 'I'm a soldier so I don't have a brain or will of my own to make decisions' theory.


As I see it. Israel is doing a lot (relatively) of collateral damage and this is very unfortunate for the Lebanese, but from Israels perspective doing nothing will likely lead to more attacks on Israel. Any reasonable leader would attempt to take the fight to the enemy rather than accept more deaths among his/her own people. If it comes down to Lebanese civillians and Israeli civillians and someone is going to die, [This Is Where An Obvious, 'No one has to die' Counter-Argument Goes!!!!!!!] the Isrealis will protect their own. Sure it's not 'right' by most standards to kill in the hope that others won't be killed if you do, but if nations only did what was right by some arbitrary, and regardless of how hard you try 'right' will always be arbitrary, definition then anyone who wasn't willing to follow the 'right' path could run all over them.

I'm sorry if you are saying that you lack a moral compass and the ability to define what is right or not then you will never be able to solve any conflict. As for what Israel should do, this is a question that has its roots in history rather than this conflict. When did the first conflict start?


And as to the UN, is the UN going to protect Israel's citizen's? I doubt it, and from Israel's behavior they probably doubt it as well. The UN lacks the punch that goes along with it's supposed authority, it can give and take favours but it doesn't have the third leg of authority, the ability to inflict direct damage. The reason countries like the US and Israel ignore it so much is because it most closely represents the type of idealistic 'right thing only' organization of any world body. The UN will always seek to avoid causing suffering of any kind, even when there is no other option to induce complience. It is interesting how well the UN and countries match with parents and children.

You see when I said that Israel ignores the UN, I was trying to render the UN meaningless. Anyone with two braincells to rub together can see that the UN is a useless organisation which is inherently flawed in its setup, implementation and influence. A so called 'Security Council' that consists of 5 permanant members with diverging interests is supposed to look aftet the well being of the world? Gimme a break, the only people who adhere to the UN rules and resolutions are third world countries who are/feel threatned by the more powerful nations in the world who also happen to sit on the Security Council. I just found it so cynical that an attempt was made to use such a useless, ineffective organisation to justify the current conflict.


And what is a 'just' war? When is it just to drop a 500lb bomb on something that's not yours. Even I don't think it's 'just' to attack someone else, even if you've been attacked. However I think you damn well better attack anyone who attacks you, and teach them a lesson lest they attempt to hurt you again. Justice and Righteousness have no place on a battlefield. When no one wants anyone dead anymore (or isn't willing to follow through on their desire), then people should start talking about justice, until then it's about saving your own ass any way you can.

A just war is defined by your ideological beliefs. Not exactly the same as arbritrary, as justice is defined by what your nation (or even the individual) believes in.

But by your thinking would it then be safe to say you have no problem with "suicide" bombers?

These guys should certainly have no problem (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3283720,00.html). They are the epitomy of what I have said (which I think is what you are trying to say also with regards to what is a just war). However that does not stop others of different ideological persuasions to call such statements unjust.

[Edort4]

The funny thing is that they are attacking and destroying a country wich has no power over hezbollah and that tried to get ride of them and even asked for international help.

The 2 countries that are behind hezbollah and the current "war" are syria and iran neither of them are being targeted nor acused.

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

People should learn a bit about others to try to know who they are (empathy is a need for any human being) and not talk like manuals of the perfect soldier without brains or to get their mouths full with words such as freedom, democracy and justice. Something they claim to defend by violating all of them.

I just pity them and I suffer for all those lebannon people that die for a war that has almost nothing to do with them, leaving their country in ruins and with decades of reconstruction and economic recession.
One of the most prosperous countrys in the area was too much of a threat uh? :rolleyes:

I wonder if IRA bombs the US or israel will they bomb and invade belfast or dublin?

[samsonlonghair]

It just never ends. You hurt me, so I'll hurt you. Then you hurt me back, so I hurt you back.

DeathBooZ, although I disagree with your government I hope you remain safe. You're stuck in the middle of something overwhich you have no control, and I'm sure that even those who disagree with this war can empathize with you.

DB Hunter, I can understand your passion; I felt (and still feel) much the same way about the Iraq war. On matters like this I remember what the Dali Lama said on his last visit to the US. Anyone can criticize or hate a government; anyone can talk about all the things that are wrong, but few can suggest a solution.

The Iraq war was a simpler debate; either you honestly believed that Iraq was a threat or you didn't (I didn't). This is different; Hezbollah definitely is a threat to Israel, and they definitely have a stronghold on Lebanon. From Israel's point of view, what can be done? Attacking Lebanon is probably the wrong thing to do, but doing nothing is definitely the wrong thing to do. I wish I had an answer.

[Genma]

Are you saying the killing of innocent civillians is justified?

I'm pretty sure he means that there's no "right" side in this whole ordeal.

[Honoko]

Latest development: Ceasefire (so-called)
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14326294/)

About damn time? Or too late?

[masamuneehs]

Latest development: Ceasefire (so-called)
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14326294/)

About damn time? Or too late?

never too late, although certainly a shame it didn't happen earlier.

I am impressed that the Israeli PM took responsibility for the minor offensive that violated the ceasefire, but it makes me wonder if the sides will abide by it or just sneak around it as best they can...

should be interesting to see what the deployment of UN personnel is like and what effects it has. I do hope it calms things down a bit, probably will be better than just having the two slug it out and killing tons of bystanders.

[Genma]

should be interesting to see what the deployment of UN personnel is like and what effects it has. I do hope it calms things down a bit, probably will be better than just having the two slug it out and killing tons of bystanders.

I really hope the UN learned its mistake from Rwanda, and doesn't send personnel to just stand around and accomplish nothing.

[gr3atfull]

Ceasefire (so-called)
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14326294/)

It wont last long, just gives some times to Israel and Hezbollah to gather up their soldier and prepare plans and tactics.

[gr3atfull]

Sorry for double post, but I found this.

George Galloway Slaps Israel and Media Bias against Hezbollah (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZmuJ-5olCpQ)

I personnally agree with him.

[Lefty]

Truer words have never been spoken.

[Assassin]

rofl, that guy is awesome. all politics aside, he totally bitchslapped that reporter and then told her she was stupid and subconsiously racist. i almost feel sorry for her

[Kraco]

rofl, that guy is awesome. all politics aside, he totally bitchslapped that reporter and then told her she was stupid and subconsiously racist. i almost feel sorry for her

Indeed. Forgetting the politics involved, the guy certainly ruled that conversation. I have never seen before an interview like that.

[samsonlonghair]

I can talk louder than you.
. No, I can talk louder than you!
NO, I CAN TALK LOUDER THAN YOU!
. NO, I CAN TALK LOUDER THAN YOU!

Yeah, great interview. Galloway made some strong points, but made himself look foolish by engaging in a shouting match. He did more to discredit himself than the interviewer with whom he was talking.

The interviewer didn't do much better.

They've turned a very serious matter into a joke. This is just shock-and-awe journalism that accomplishes nothing but higher ratings.

[DB_Hunter]

So much for not being able to trust Hizbullah to keep the truce (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-08/19/content_4982114.htm)