Since when did Israel lose the right to defend itself?

[Joe Fields]

There is a lot of naiivete' being presented around this forum these last several days concerning Israel, and the amount of force they are inflicting on their enemies.

Since the six-day war, back in the late 60's, Israel has made it known that, if you attack them they will attack with twice as much force, and inflict twice as much damage to you. This philosophy has allowed them to keep from being overrun by other middle-eastern nations.(all of whom have declared at one time or another that their desire is for Israel to no longer exist as a nation)

This is how a nation who is surrounded by mortal enemies survives. What do you want them to do? Disarm? Talk real nice and sweet to Hezbollah, Syria, in the hopes that their enemies will learn how to play nice?

I guarantee you, if I were walking alone down a city street, and a gang of people formed around me, with the intent to do harm to me, and one comes up to me and actually threatens me, maybe even hits me, I'm going to immediately try to take as many of them out as I can. There's no sense in trying to get on their good side. They are not there to listen to reason, or to have a meaningful dialogue.

It is a damned shame that all bullets and bombs don't hit only the people they were intended for. It hurts to see innocent civilians become casualties. It is even more of a shame that all people cannot live in peace. I would say that all reasonable human beings want peace.

Don't be naiive and expect world peace. Don't equate Israel with Hezbollah. And don't expect a country surrounded by enemies to act with restraint when attacked.

I am not a hawk, although it may sound as if I am one. But I am not such a pacifist that I would turn the other cheek if attacked, or expect Israel to turn the other cheek when they are attacked. It is easy for us to sit on the sidelines thousands of miles away and pass judgement. Try to put yourselves in the shoes of the Israeli people, who deal with acts of terrorism being perptrated on their soil almost daily, knowing that you are surrounded by the enemy. You might begin to look at their situation a little differently.

[Malikshah]

1. Since when do folks not read their history?

Since the six-day war, back in the late 60's, Israel has made it known that, if you attack them they will attack with twice as much force, and inflict twice as much damage to you

Please read the history of the 1967 war. Who attacked? Who defended?

These sorts of misguided ill-informed screeds do little to raise the level of discourse.

Talk about naive...

[thinkingwoman]

12. Speaking of naive

you need to go farther back than 1967 when you're reading history.

If you are going to admonish others to read their history, you should take your own advice. Who attacked? Who defended in the 1920s? Who set up the mess in the first place and then ran home and let the powder keg blow? Who has pledged the death of the other for nearly 100 years?

Nevermind, really. People believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts. And still, the facts don't change.

[ThomCat]

65. "And still, the facts don't change."

True. Are you aware of any of them? :P

Sorry, but your post is smug, self-righteous, and entirely one-sided. You sound like someone who has a conclusion and doesn't care about anything that doesn't support it.

[thinkingwoman]

89. And the post I responded to wasn't smug?

Nice double standard.

I'm actually well aware of the facts however, thanks for asking.

[Malikshah]

104. Uh...the OP started with 1967--hence my statement-- by all means

let us go back in time.

Plan D -- implemented in the weeks leading up to the foundation of Israel. 200K+ refugees created in a reign of terror. All before the attacks by neighboring Arab states

The loveliness that was the Stern and Irgun gangs.

1956 and Operation Musketeer w/ the French and British.

By all means, do let us talk of the reality of the situation and back it up with statistics and documented facts.

Now--if one wants to talk of the myths--those can be discussed too--just be prepared to be debunked.

[thinkingwoman]

107. Keep going back

There's plenty more history you're not acknowledging yet. History. Facts. About how Israel was founded, by whom, and how all of her neighbors reacted and continue to react to this day.

If you want to keep ignoring facts and history be my guest. It's your life. It's your karma.

[Malikshah]

111. I've gone back-- back to the Hovevi Zion...

Let's go back -- and list the statistics of land ownership, populations...

Let's spend lots of time during the mandatory period and the ongoing disputes among the leadership of the Yishuv as to how to move forward

The gradualists and maximalists...the Haganah...the Stern and Irgun gangs, until Stern scandalized himself into oblivion...

What I find strange, but alas unoriginal, is the tiresome repetition of "revisionist history" tropes.

I though we had gone beyond that in the last 30 years.

[thinkingwoman]

114. So your assertion

is that history shows that Israel attacked first? You're honestly claiming that from the moment Jews began returning to the area in the early 1900s and certainly when the nation of Israel was formed that her neighbors welcomed her with open arms and non-lethal housewarming gifts?

Do you truly believe that history shows that Israel is the agressor that started this whole mess?

[Malikshah]

134. ?? Israel? The modern state of Israel was founded in 1948.

I have been providing events that pre-date 1948 and have not, as you claim, believe that Israel is the agressor (sic) that (?) started this whole mess.

Some appear to have an overwhelming need to cast certain parties in this whole mess in a zero-sum game light.

What is more frustrating--although unfortunately common in these circumstances--is the need by some to attempt to put words in other's mouths "So your assertion is".... Wow-- forensic 101 here we come!

That sort of work results in an inadequate discussion of history leading often to myths, misguided rhetoric, and ineffective discourse.

As my original post mentioned-- go back-- read history, collect the data and then we can all have a mutually productive discussion.

Until then...enjoy the oblivion.

[thinkingwoman]

162. I know when Israel was formed

But the events in the decades prior to its formation, and the grand way Britain screwed up its formation, are the foundation for what is still happening in that part of the world today.

I have not in any way put words into your mouth. I have reacted to words you have posted in this forum. Perhaps you are not coming across as you intend?

[hedgetrimmer]

269. Was it not the Jews who terrorized the British? Resulting in the British

leaving. Was it not the Jews who were sanctioned and armed to occupy and then take over a land, creating it's own government and start a slow genocide of the other inhabitants of that land? Was it not the Jews who are financially supported and armed by the U.S. that live as if it were a country club while the other inhabitants of that land live behind a wall in a third world style poverty? Was it not the Jews who respond with an eye for not an eye but a whole city block of people just trying to live on their side of the wall in third world style poverty?

[thinkingwoman]

276. oh those bad, bad Jews!

After losing 6 mil to a German madman they terrorized Britain! :rofl:

As for your genocide accusation...that's way over the top and it reveals your bias. There is no point of discussing this issue with anyone who makes such an accusation against the Jews.

[hedgetrimmer]

297. This is not accusation, it is history....

"Losing 6 mil to a German madman" does not justify anything. You would be foolish to think this was a discussion of bias against the Jews. History has been set... the term Jew is in direct correspondence to history... had we been talking about a German madman then I would have said "German madman".

The genocide of the Palistinians is fact, in much the same way the U.S. went on a genocide of the Indians. In regards to "German madman" (who was not German but Austrian and was a JEW) it is best not to become the thing you hate. In history from ancient Egypt forward Isreal the land of Jewish theocracy has become just that, the thing they hate.

Please start being a "Thinkingwoman".

[thinkingwoman]

299. Israel is not committing genocide.

No matter how much you say it or want to believe it.

[Nederland]

141. Actually

...just to demonstrate how pointless this whole exercise is, I would invite you to read the Jewish people's own history of Israel as it is recorded in the Torah. Read that and you'll see that, yes, Israel is the original aggressor in the region.

But hey, I guess it doesn't count if you have to go back 4000+ years, huh?

[thinkingwoman]

163. LOL. nt.

[Nederland]

133. Going back is pointless

How far do you go? 50 years? 100 years? 500 years? 2000 years? 5000 years?

The fact of the matter is that if you go back far enough in any part of the world you can find some example of some group treating some other group really really badly. And what does that prove, beside the fact that human beings have a very long history of shitting on one another? No, trying to look at history to determine who is "right" and who is "wrong" is a completely pointless exercise.

[Malikshah]

137. Yup-- must agree-- I go back to point out that folks need to provide

the details of what actually took place.

There are three kinds of history

What took place
What is said to have taken place
What many people come to believe has taken place...

If one wants to get into the who did what to whom when = who is the victim, one only gets into a body-counting contest. In the end of that contest all one has is a large stack of bodies.

No one people has a monopoly on morality or victimhood-- if we call keep that in mind during discussions like these, then we might have a more fruitful discourse

[vickitulsa]

158. Also we have to remember that the individual doing the research

may have an unconscious bias influencing which sources of historical "fact" s/he chooses to read. History may be written by the winners, but in most cases a lot of other people write histories, too. Someone reads a history of a certain period or war or people, and what s/he reads doesn't jive with personal experience or understanding of "the facts," so s/he decides to do a great deal MORE research and then write another, more accurate, more definitive "history."

Most academic authors try very hard to include solid and provable facts in their accounts, and indicate when there are disagreements among "those who were there" as to how certain events played out in reality. We might expect to find certain documented and agreed-upon facts in a broad spectrum of histories of the same events, while the details can vary pretty widely.

Makes for a difficult discussion of the past as it pertains to current events. Seems like it would be a good approach to explore the history, but I guess it just doesn't work out that way.

I've almost given up joining in on discussions of this topic, but part of me still wants to at least try to find the common ground and then build upon any concensus we can find, with a firm desire to reach a solution, not to simply "win an argument" or a debate.

I wonder if I'll ever see that work here? I've seen a few hopeful signs, but mostly the emotions seem to run so very high on this whole issue of the current violence in Israel and Lebanon, it's apparently hard for people to calm themselves down. Maybe we need to react more slowly to posts that make us angry -- and in some cases refuse to take bait that's thrown at us.

When emotions are so intense already, it seems difficult to write any OP or responding post that doesn't seem designed to provoke someone....

*sigh* I haven't lost hope, not yet. But I fear I'll sound like Pollyanna to some if I say I still think we can find a way through the anger to a good and peaceful solution....

[thinkingwoman]

165. You'll probably be surprised to find

That I basically agree with you. I only bring up history when posters keep pretending like Israel is the neighborhood bully who wanted to expand their territories and made the arabs mad.

[daydreamer]

146. Thousands years of antisemitism and Holocaust

was the root for the Mideastern wars. But it's a moot point now. All sides should stop fighting now. If Israel just bombed the Hezbollah's headquarter, then it is appropriate revenge. Bombing the Lebanese infrastructure is state terrorism.

[thinkingwoman]

167. I don't think there is an "appropriate revenge"

And I don't believe that is what Israel is trying to accomplish.

But any realistic discussion of this situation has to take into account the fact that Hezbollah and the Lebanese government are intimately involved. Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government. That makes Lebanese infrastructure a military target.

[daydreamer]

172. Lebanese government is a week democracy.

The Isreali aggression can only strenghten the hardliners.

[thinkingwoman]

197. yes, that is true, and yet...

what else are they supposed to do? Honestly? They have taken bombings and taken bombings and taken bombings. How long of a beat down would you take on your doorstep before fighting back?

As for Lebanon being a weak democracy...they'll never get strong as long as they allow terrorists to infiltrate their government, especially terrorists finaned and directed by other nations.

[daydreamer]

234. The bottom line is Libanese government are not the guys who

killed and kidnapped the Isreali solidiers. There is no excuse to punish the Libanese civilians when Isreal has the capability of precision-bombing thanks partly to us.

[thinkingwoman]

251. Except of course that they are

Hezbollah is part of the government.

[daydreamer]

265. How much do you know about the Lebanese government?

Do you prefer a civil war in Lebanon or a week democracy?

[thinkingwoman]

277. If terrorists are infiltrating the government

civil war (again) may be the only answer.

P.S. I'm sure you meant weak democracy rather than one that would only last 7 days.

[daydreamer]

281. You better read about how Hezbollah was founded in the first place

before you make any comment about the Lebanese government.

[thinkingwoman]

292. Already have. Facts are facts. nt.

[hedgetrimmer]

270. The U.S. has a weak Republic, thats right we do not have a Democracy.n/t

[MaswinMO]

182. What if the infrastructure is being used by Hezbollah...

To bring missiles into Lebanon so they can be used against Israel.

[daydreamer]

236. The airport was used to launch rockets?

[Joe Fields]

242. Exactly.

[Joe Fields]

15. It was Egypt who was the aggressor, that really started the ....

six day war, by bringing divisions of troops into the Sinai.

I know my history. I suggest you do the same.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eyl]

66. That Rabin quotation

Often trotted out to "prove" Israel was the aggressor, is extremely misleading. In it, he says Nasser couldn't have defeated Israel with the two Egyptian divisions which were in the Sinai in May; but by the time the war started, there were six divisions (plus change) there.

[thinkingwoman]

91. Didn't you get the memo Joe?

History has been rewritten. All those facts we older folks thought we knew just did not happen. Everything is Israel's fault all of the time since the beginning of time forever and ever amen. :sarcasm:

[Joe Fields]

94. I guess I missed that memo when I was taking my catnap.

[Malikshah]

109. Wow-- defensive much? When did any of my posts claim that

Israel was at fault at all times? Please find the quote where I said that. If not, then please explain the reason why one would put words in another's mouth.

[thinkingwoman]

117. Pot. Kettle. Black. nt

[Malikshah]

129. May I take that as an apology? As no evidence of my stating those

words was offered?

Just wondering.

Enjoy the oblivion.

[thinkingwoman]

174. If you want to.

Of course it wasn't intended as one.

[mmonk]

282. Didn't you know? Israel is always humane and has never

been wrong in it's approach to anything.

Rachel Corrie. American. Crushed to death by a U.S. made, Israeli Army bulldozer March 16th, 2003 in Rafah, Gaza Strip

[Malikshah]

106. Hmmm. Sorry, I would mark off for factual errors

One only read the documents from the period. The diaries and communications that went forth between the parties involved.

6/10 -- one can retake the test at any time, but first read up on the materials and be sure to back up one's claims w/ evidence.

Avi Shlaim's Iron Wall is a good place to start. Heck, even William Cleveland's or Smith's college textbooks provide the data needed to prove one's case.

[still_one]

21. Egypt and Syria massed troops on the Israeli border

Nasser forced the UN emergency forces to withdraw from the region, closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping, and was ready with all the other Arab nations to wipe Israel off the map. Israel would not be here today if they didn't strike first

The 1973 Yom Kipper war showed the consequences of delay, over 2600 Israeli soldiers lost their lives with the surprise attack by Egypt and Syria against her.

The 6 day war was NOT a surprise to anyone, the massed on Israels border to destroy her

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cameron27]

54. Yes, it would be a great loss to the world

You "lol" concerning the elimination of Israel is disgusting.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[still_one]

127. I wouldn't even dignify his comments with a response

He has very few posts, and I suspect an agenda which which is all to clear

My point was that Israel has a right to defend herself, and in spite of statements that it wouldn't be so bad if Israel was destroyed, THE JEWS WILL NOT BE LED TO GAS CHAMBERS LIKE SHEEP AGAIN!

[Cameron27]

131. I share your opinion...

:thumbsup:

[robinlynne]

173. yes it is.

[Name removed]

235. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[still_one]

243. I guess you do NOT know the DU rules

Incidently there is NOT one DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLIC IN GOVERNMENT WHO FEELS THE WAY YOU DO

so I would assume you will NOT be voting in the coming election for a Democrat?

[Cameron27]

244. It's been alerted..

.

[still_one]

245. thanks. even though this is a emotional issue

I would venture to say that 99.9% of the people on DU have never advocated complete death or destruction to either side.

[Name removed]

252. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cameron27]

254. Well that was just beyond reprehensible.

I've never alerted on anyone before, as a matter of fact it's sometimes better to leave an offensive remark standing for all to see...but that one deserved a quick burial.

[Name removed]

253. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[soothsayer]

2. whatev

[Joe Fields]

18. You obviously felt the need to respond.

And this was it? "Whatev?" Care to elaborate?

[SammyBlue]

27. Fantastic reponse. Are you on the debate team as well?

[enigmacat]

136. Why bother debating it when certain members on here

think Israel can do no wrong. It gets tiresome trying to debate with brick walls.

[SammyBlue]

210. I agree. . .it's like arguing with people who think Israel can do no

right.

[jonnyblitz]

233. yup, they call you anti-semitic then proceed to make racist

comments about palestinians "Oh you must be pro arab or pro-palestinian" like its presumed they are all bad and/or terrorists and its exceptable to hate them all. they don't even hide their hatred yet WE are anti-semitic.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. point taken. BUT

Since when is a "defense" made up of high tech whiz-bang jets and missiles and tanks and radar guided artillery, attacking convoys of civilians, destroying infrastructure in the north, and attacking civilian buildings, factories and other non-war related assets?

[liberalmuse]

4. Is that what Israel is doing?

Unless you consider pulverinzing Lebanon's infrastructure and killing almost 200 civilians because Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers, 'defending' oneself. Yeah, that will garner world-wide sympathy.

[SammyBlue]

28. What about when Hezbollah kills Civilians? Do you give a shit about that?

Or, like I keep asking people who defend the Palestinian terrorists, is Jewish blood that cheap?

[niyad]

50. you have the nerve to ask if jewish blood is that cheap when, in a post

this weekend, you flatly declared that palestinian blood was essentially worthless. you have no standing to claim any sort of moral high ground anywhere when you make that sort of statement.

take off your damn blinders. israel is not this pure and innocent victim you keep trying to portray, and get so angry and defensive when people point out facts.

[daydreamer]

159. Why bomb Lebanese civilians when it was Hezbollah that kidnapped

Israeli soldiers?

[BushOut06]

266. I suppose Israel could follow the GW Bush strategy...

...and bomb Egypt. Hello....where do you think Hezbollah is based? LEBANON. They deliberately set up their safe houses and bases in densely populated areas knowing full well that ANY retaliation by Israel is going to inflict civilian casualties.

[furman]

5. Agreed. This is one of the most reasonable posts written recently. n/t

[bloom]

6. I think you should put yourself in the place of the Palestinian people.

How do think you would react to what Israel does?

If you lived in Gaza and it was being bombed.

If you lived in the West Bank and Settlers were taking over.

If you had fled to Lebanon and you had family that lived in Gaza.

[Joe Fields]

14. Whatever made the Palestinians feel that it was their right to ....

take over territory that belonged to Israel, when the ancient homeland they claimed was in Syria, whiich Syria kicked them out of? Wouldn't you think that their fight would be with Syrians, and not the Israelis?

And think back to who led the Palestinians. Yassur Arafat, a mortal enemy of the Israelis; a well known terrorist, whose mission in life was to destroy the state of Israel.

If the Israeli response seems heavy-handed, it is because of the bloody attempts on the part of other nations in the region, and certain factions, to try and do away with them. The attempt of Israel to even exist, as a nation, has never been a peaceful one.

[bloom]

31. I think you are out to lunch

if you can't acknowledge that the Israel of the 20th century is about kicking people out of their country - the people who were living there before some other people decided to make it their country - by force.

But I'm sure the propaganda that you read/listen to - makes it easier for you to sleep at night.

[Joe Fields]

72. Israel did not push Palestinians out of the Gaza in the late '40's.

But Syria sure as hell kicked the Palestinians out.

Who's history books do you read?

[bloom]

116. So if some

other group of people were to start settling in Israel (by UN sanction or any other reason) and started taking over more and more land and fought with those who were living there (like the Jewish terrorist groups of the 40's did) and managed to marginalize them and set up road blocks so the current residents (now mostly Jews) couldn't go about their lives - you would say that nobody should have a problem with that?

For some reason - I don't believe you. And that was original challenge - try to put yourself in the place of the Palestinians - without dodging. Esp. since you suggested that we, "Try to put yourselves in the shoes of the Israeli people." I don't think you can do it.


And I don't think that Israel cares what the UN thinks nowadays.

[daydreamer]

160. Good point.

Let the Native Americans bulldoze the houses of white people here and see what will happen.

[bloom]

213. Now that Israel is clearly

the dominant, material-rich entity that it is - a similar analogy to what Israel does - would be if the US were to bulldoze Native Americans on their reservations - like Israel does in Gaza (Rachel Corrie and all). And if the US (European type) citizens were to start making settlements on Native American reservations - because they got the idea that the Native Americans should never have gotten ANY land - or if they thought that they have too much.

And then if any Native American groups got organized and started fighting back (maybe kidnapped a couple of National Guardsmen) - then the US military would take them out - and not only them - but bombed Canadians as well - for allowing the resistant groups of Native Americans to live in Canada (besides Canada has a lot of Native Americans - they might work together and support each other). Like if the US started bombing Victoria and cut off Vancouver Island from Ferry traffic and bombed the airports - stopped people from leaving - and kept bombing. That is what Israel is doing.

[Joe Fields]

260. I don't believe that Native Americans are committing acts of terror

against anyone here.

[bloom]

271. well you know

If non-Native American people started settling on reservations - if the US gov't started making Native Americans go through checkpoints to get anywhere - having them wait at checkpoints for hours (even when they are trying to get to the hospital) - cut down their orchards and bulldozed their homes... they might start.

While some people may justify such actions by Israelis - because of suicide bombers - it seems like a never-ending cycle with each side inflaming the other. I think that Israel could do more to be less immflammatory than what most Palestinians can do - since it is public policy that inflames the Palestinians -whereas it is a few random Palestianians who are carrying out terrorist acts. It may be large numbers of Palestinians who are angy at this point - but knowing the history - it's hard to be surprised about that.

[Joe Fields]

283. You have put the cart before the horse.

Your Native American analogy is a non-applicable one, which would only possibly apply, if they were terrorizing communities outside their reservations. And, if they did that, even then I doubt that our government would begin moving non-native Americans onto the reservations. Most likely the FBI and ATF would just over-run the reservations with brute force.

[BillZBubb]

43. Joe, you clearly are clueless.

Your take on Arafat is pure propaganda laced nonsense. Arafat changed Fatah and the PLO to a position of ACCEPTING ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST. He gave up your supposed "mission to destroy Israel". He was more than willing to accept a peace plan that restored the pre-1967 borders and guaranteed the Palestinians a viable state.

And your bullshit "to try and do away with them" is so naive as to be laughable. What faction in the Middle East has ANY CHANCE of destroying Israel? That is baloney and you know it. Groups like Hezbollah can make Israeli lives slightly more dangerous and uncertain, but they have no chance of threatening Israels existence.

Israel's response is heavy handed because they are run by goons. They have been heavy handed for over 50 years and what has it gotten them? I'll tell you: 100 more years of misery.

[Joe Fields]

75. You are so far off the mark, it isn't funny.

Arafat? Try to make nice with the Israelis? Please go peddle your hallucinations somewhere else.

[in_cog_ni_to]

217. Arafat? Does he/she means the Arafat who REFUSED to sign the Clinton I/P

PEACE TREATY? THAT Arafat? The Arafat who stole BILLIONS of dollars from the people he claimed to LOVE? The Arafat who hid all that money is Swiss bank accounts while the people he claimed to LOVE starved and suffered? That good guy Arafat???

This is all so laughable how people like to rewrite history.

Israel Seeks to Reach Final Settlement with the Palestinians

At Camp David in July, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offers Arafat 92 percent of the West Bank, all of Gaza, Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, Palestinian statehood and the dismantling of most settlements, but he rejects this and the Palestinians launch violence. In December, Barak agrees to negotiate a Clinton proposal for an Israeli withdrawal from 95 per-cent of the West Bank. Again, Arafat rejects the proposal.

[Joe Fields]

294. The one and the same.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[daydreamer]

161. If you want to talk about ANCIENT times

then there would be endless wars. How many present borders were there a thousand years ago? Sorry, this is silly.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. One point. Hezbollah struck at Military targets and captured military

people....Israel's 'response' is to bomb civilians. I see no difference in Israel's current actions and those of Hamas bombers...they're acts of terrorism against innocent people.

[Igel]

55. The problem is that you can't muster enough

good will to listen to what people are actually saying.

"Killing civilians" is a statement of fact; one doesn't condemn people over facts. One can urge restraint, but their motives matter.

If I kill my neighbor, my neighbor's dead. No court limits its concern to that simply fact; but many DUers insist that this fact, and only this fact, could possibly be relevant--why look further? But it certainly matters if my neighbor was attacking me when I killed him, if I killed him by accident while trying to shoot at an armed burglar coming through my window, or if I broke through my neighbor's window and shot him while he was having sex with his wife. Society and the legal system draw a principled distinction.

In this discussion there's a great attempt to precisely say motives do not matter, that they absolutely, positively, *must* not matter. In fact, to say they matter is the height of immorality.

When a principled moral relativism becomes impossible, one must deny the basis for making moral judgments and declare amorality to be the new morality.

[BuhByeChimp]

68. Nice post, but try not to give me a headache next time!..

With you last sentence!! Just joking, it was a very well thought out post.

[Damndifino]

86. Faulty analogies

If I kill my neighbor, my neighbor's dead. No court limits its concern to that simply fact; but many DUers insist that this fact, and only this fact, could possibly be relevant--why look further? But it certainly matters if my neighbor was attacking me when I killed him, if I killed him by accident while trying to shoot at an armed burglar coming through my window, or if I broke through my neighbor's window and shot him while he was having sex with his wife. Society and the legal system draw a principled distinction.

The problem is that not one of these analogies is appropriate. How about if you blew your neighbours' house to kingdom come (with them inside it) because their teenage son vandalized your lawnmower? What would a court's verdict be? Without doubt, society at large would judge you to be a mass-murdering f**khead.

[eyl]

67. Wrong

Hizbullah has been attacking civilians since there intial strike - 5 civilians were injured then.

[bigtree]

8. I want them to stop bombing Lebanon

It's MORE then 'a damned shame' that innocents are being killed by forces of a country that professes to be so concerned with the killing and maiming of innocents.

[SammyBlue]

32. Then turn over Hezbollah, since they are located in Lebanon.

Yet, Hezbollah can kill innocents and no one around the world says a word! Russia even defends their actions.

Hollow argument.

[bigtree]

44. Lebanon doesn't have 'Hezbollah'

Countless world leaders and observers have condemed the actions of Hezbollah. Those comments and declarations have been posted here.

Also, the innocent Lebanese who have been killed by Israel's reprisals didn't have 'Hezbollah' to 'turn over'. Defense of their lives is certainly no more of a 'hollow argument' than a defense of innocent Israeli lives.

[MaswinMO]

48. More like Hezbollah has Lebanon...

They have a majority in Lebanese parliament.

[Igel]

56. No, Hezbollah certainly does not have a majority in

Parliament.

[Mir]

71. Not even close

After the 2005 elections Hizbollah had 23 seats - up from 8 - in the 123 seat Lebanese parliament. They also have 2 cabinet members in the executive.

[BushOut06]

267. Hezbollah controls southern Lebanon

This really isn't even up for debate. The Lebanese government is either powerless or unwilling to control the southern portion of its country, and as a result, Hezbollah has moved in en masse. They practically control southern Lebanon, not the Lebanese government.

[bigtree]

74. It's a big party, but it's numbers don't seem impressive

After the 2005 elections, Hezbollah held 23 seats (up from eight previously) in the 128-member Lebanese Parliament?

Hezbollah has two ministers in the government? Labor and Energy posts.

I don't see how you get to the ones lobbing missiles through these government folks, especially the ones without any independent authority in the Parliment. Labor and Energy posts?

[MaswinMO]

84. well I do know they are defacto govt. in...

Southern Lebanon. I think Israel is much more concerned with that.

[bigtree]

93. much different

How about those innocent Lebanese? How do their killings make Israel more secure?

It appears that the Hezbollah militants have been unaffected by their deaths.

[MaswinMO]

99. ....

I guess it depends on the damage done to Hezbollah's ability to carry out attacks on Israel.

[rock]

9. I certainly agree up to a point

Israel has a much better case than bush* did in invading Iraq (as a preemptive defense measure).

[BillZBubb]

10. You have a very broad definition of "defend itself".

That's the problem. I have no problem with self-defense. What I do have a problem with is collective punishment, destruction of infrastructure, massive bombings/shellings of civilian areas, and mindless over-response.

If you want to give Israeli aggression a free pass, that's your right. But don't try to pretend you have the moral high ground.

I do equate Hezbollah with the extreme right in Israel (the group in power). Sorry if that bothers you but they are two sides of the same coin. Neither seriously cares about innocents in pursuing their goals. Each wants something that belongs to the other.

Israel is surrounded by enemies BECAUSE IT MAKES ITSELF AN ENEMY by its daily actions. Israel may have "daily" acts of terrorism, but it commits acts of terrorism every second it occupies Palestinian land and denies the Palestinians their rights.

[Joe Fields]

22. I don't "pretend" anything. I am giving my opinion.

I think that some of the things that Israel has done, while attacking southern Lebanon are wrong. I do think, however, that they have the right to try and destroy Hezbollah.

[rman]

274. Your opinion? For a moment i thought your claims were based on facts

Still the premise on which your opinion is based does not hold: at most very few here do say that Israel does not have the right to defend itself.

[Joe Fields]

284. They are based on facts.

Facts which have served as the basis of my opinion. Your revisionist history doesn't serve anyone here. You seem incapable of separating the heavy-handed nature of Israel's response from the persecution they have suffered for thousands of years, which is the bedrock basis for their mindset. If you don't know your history, and are unwilling to acknowledge the cause and effect concerning Israel's motives and actions, then you ought not get into such debates. And, if you are not arguing that Israel has no right to take action, based on the soldier kidnappings, then why are you even answering this thread? I clearly was addressing the people who have posted their shock and outrage that Israel would even respond to such an event, which there have been several, and you would know, if you have been reading posts from this last week.

[MaswinMO]

34. Hezbollah wasn't formed to get Palestinian rights...

It was formed to push Israeli forces out of Southern Lebanon. Israel pulled out of South Lebanon 6 years ago.

[Mass_Liberal]

11. Two things, Joe

1) I would argue that this is a pretty crappy defense. So this whole recent wave started when ONE Israeli soldier was captured, Israel responded, and militants responded, cycle and all that. There have already been 24 Israeli deaths so far. Has this really helped the wellbeing of the Israeli people? Even if this campaign is completely and utterly successful, the infrastructure they've destroyed, the civilians they've accidentally killed, and the moderate politicians they've alienated, will only create a new wave of terrorism and extremism in the Arab world. Starting up the whole cycle of violence anew will only set the peace process back years. These actions, in my opinion, have not been in Israeli interests

2)One major issue I have is WHO Israel is attacking. When they take out terrorists, and civilians are hit by accident, the legitimacy of that action can be argued. What I don't understand, and what I consider idiotic and again, damaging to Israeli interests, is when they destroy civilian infrastructure, like the power plant in Gaza (when this whole thing started). All it does is fuck up the lives of (mostly) non-political civilians and get them angry at Israel. It also makes moderate politicians in favor of peace and negotiations with Israel look like idiots in their own countries. Again, a great way to create more terrorists and extremists for NO DAMN PURPOSE.

[whosinpower]

17. You think there is no purpose?

I'd be more inclined to believe that there is a specific and direct purpose to the plan.

In order for Israel to overthrow unfriendly regimes - they must be constantly attacked to guarentee American dollars, donations and sympathy. Creating more terrorists is part of the plan.
They are trying to sucker Syria and Iran to join the fray. Once that happens - they will ask America to help them and America is obliged to as they have already promised such.

Just so we are clear on the plan - it is to overthrow Syria and Iran, using Lebanon as a launchpad to a much greater generational war. They are whoring for a world war. And it frightens me.

[Danieljay]

23. Yeppa. this is quite a 'defense' against one kidnapped Israeli soldier.

This is a launching ground for a large scale offensive against Syria and Iran (by the US). I said this months ago; that Israel would play a key role in the US eventual attack on Iran. Have we not learned anything from the debacle in Iraq? Bombing infrastructure in retaliation for terrorism creates more terrorists, wide spread hatred, and increased civilian casualties. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

And can you believe that a lot of the Christian fundies are actually celebrating this as the beginning of the end? What kind of effed up belief is it that praises violence and destruction, pain and suffering, so that the believer can finally be rescued and taken away from it all? Wow. unbelievable.

(edited to clarify)

[SammyBlue]

33. Yes, we Jews need to blood of the Palestinians for our blood oaths

and Passover Seders!!!

Hey, if the Catholic Church could make that propaganda stick, why not?

Yet, I never hear from anyone ANYWHERE (I don't mean here, to CLARIFY) when the Palestinians attack Jews in Israel. In fact, Israel is usually blamed.

[Danieljay]

49. "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"

Hasn't the world learned anything from the US debacle in Iraq? Why is it somehow different when its Israel? Bombing infrastructure (water plants, power grids, streets and bridges) in response to terrorism only creates more hate and anger and increases tensions. We knew that before going in to Iraq and no one listened to us then, either.

I love the Jewish people and I love the Palestinian people. I hate war and I hate violent acts committed by either side. Violence begets violence, my friend. Iraqi people didn't attack the US, Lebanon or the Palestinians didn't attack Israel. Terrorists attacked the US. Terrorists attacked Israel.

I see the US response to 'terrorism' in Iraq and the Israeli response to terrorism in Lebanon the equivilant of wiping out an entire neighborhood to kill a murderer in one house.

I'm sorry if you take my words personally, they are not meant that way.

[Mir]

95. I don't see any such ridiculousness

about Pal blood for seders. I would agree that on sites like these, clearly Israel takes the lion's share of the fury, if indeed not much more. At the same time though, I'm sure you would agree that in the MSM the Palestinians are shamefully misrepresented and the Israelis are always shown as the poor innocent victims. It's unfair to an extreme on one side as well as on the other. No need I think to bring up medieval nonsense though. The Jews and the Arabs are cousin peoples, bound together by history, blood and land. So sad to see them tearing each other apart.

[itzamirakul]

203. You asked, "What kind of effed up belief...?"

I want to know what kind of GOD would think up such a horrendous plan for retrieving his children from the place he put them originally. Armageddon. What KIND OF GOD would sit in Heaven for 4000+ years and smile evilly to HIMSELF/HERSELF as HE pictures HIS/HER children in the throes of agony that HE/SHE has planned?

What kind of GOD is being worshiped here that is overjoyed at seeing his children, his very own creations, the little MINI-MEs OF GOD, suffer such cruel fates? What KIND OF GOD would take only a few of HIS/HER children and throw the rest away for eternity all because they did not say certain words?

I cannot believe in this God.

The God I worship is the GOD of endless and limitless LOVE. That is everywhere present.

GOD is ether ALL GOOD or NOT GOOD. It is like being "a little pregnant." You are either pregnant or you are not. GOD is ether ALL GOOD or NOT GOOD. How can GOD be a little GOOD? How can GOD be partially good? Where is the line in GOD that separates the good GOD from the evil GOD? Is HIS/HER right-hand side good and the left-hand side sinful?

Where then, does EVIL exist?

How could GOD want ME to suffer? I am HIS/HER perfect creation. I am made in HIS/HER perfect image. He will restore to me the years that the locust hath eaten. GOD loves ME despite my faults. At least that's what it says in the bible.

[Danieljay]

223. Amen to that!! n/t

[Mass_Liberal]

24. I don't buy it

I think that Israel are doing this because they actually think that it will help reduce terrorism (and attacks on northern Israel), but are in fact increasing it. I don't see why it is in Israel's interests to start WWIII. For one thing, the prospect of nuclear war with Iran can't be nice for anybody.

[Danieljay]

37. The learned their response from watching the US attack Iraq harboring ..

terrorists. We all know how well that works to stop terrorism, don't we?

[Danieljay]

19. HERE! HERE! Well said! n/t

[vickitulsa]

147. "peace process"? WHAT peace process?

"Starting up the whole cycle of violence anew will only set the peace process back years."


The Palestinians, through their longtime leader, Arafat, flatly rejected the most generous and more-than-fair offer anyone could ever have expected to hear from Israel, at Camp David -- with an actual leader of a U.S. President working hard to bring the enemies to a peace agreement.

It was such a generous offer, in fact, that most observers say it would have been next to impossible for such a plan, had Arafat accepted it, to get past the rest of Israel's government to be implemented. But we never got the chance to see, since Arafat nixed the entire deal -- seemingly almost offhandedly, without even giving much careful thought to it. I think a LOT of people have never forgotten that ... especially people in Israel.

Since then, there has been so little of a "peace process" going on that it's hard to even find signs of it amidst the hate and violence. What I've observed in the last few years is both sides moving farther toward their extremist camps and policies. This cannot be good or bode well for the future of the region.

But it seems to be the case, nonetheless.

If we had an actual leader in the White House right now, I'm sure s/he could be influencing what is happening in Lebanon and Gaza to far better effect than what is going on thanks to Dubya's passive idiocy on the issues and actions involved. I think the Middle East gives Chimpy a headache; he'd rather just go eat a pig.

What does seem encouraging, however -- and I realize it's a sort of stubborn insistence on seeing something to be hopeful about where so little exists, is that here we are several days into the intense levels of bombing and rocketing, destruction and killing, and yet with all the predictions of so many notwithstanding, none of the larger and more powerful nations I've heard would surely be drawn in are showing a willingness to be drawn in at all!

That seems a minor miracle to me, but I'm not totally surprised, either. What has everyone learned from the past, whenever flare-ups of violence have occurred, even wars have occurred, between Israel and her enemies? They've learned that it's better to just stay out of it if possible, right?

I'm talking about the violence, the fighting, not the talking and trying to get the military action to stop. As far as I can see, no other nation has any desire whatsoever to jump into the military part of things. Everyone knows, from past experiences with such crises as this one, that World War Three could easily be triggered if major powers got involved militarily. Surely everyone with an ounce of sanity left understands WWIII would not benefit ANY human beings (not to mention all other living creatures).

For now, I'm settling for that much as a good sign. Heaven knows we need a good sign....

[jwirr]

13. Joe, it is not so much that they are defending themselves that

bothers me. I am afraid that by attacking Hezbollah/Lebanon they will pull other Arab countries into this and thus create a situation that will lead to a WWIII which our country cannot afford. It really doesn't matter who started it or even who is right. What matters to me is who keeps a level head and does what must be done to avoid a bigger war. In this case we (the US) do not have a level headed leader so it is up to Israel to act in behalf of the whole world not just their own interests. It is a damn mess again and it calls for hard decisions.

[atreides1]

16. Can we equate Israel with the Stern Gang or Irgun?

Fanatically anti-British, the group repeatedly attacked British personnel in Palestine and even invited aid from the Axis powers. The British police retaliated by killing Stern in his apartment in February 1942; many of the gang's leaders were subsequently arrested. The group's terrorist activities extended beyond Palestine: two members assassinated Lord Moyne, British minister of state in the Middle East, at Cairo (November 1944). Later, the Stern Gang attacked airfields, railway yards, and other strategic installations in Palestine, usually with success, though at heavy loss in members killed or captured. After the creation of Israel (1948), the group, which had always been condemned by moderate leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, was suppressed, some of its units being incorporated in the Israeli defense forces. Unlike the Irgun Zvai Leumi, a precursor of the Herut (“Freedom”) Party, the Stern Gang left no political party to carry on its political programs.


From July 1946 until June 1948, Irgun fought as irregulars against the British mandate and Arab forces, informally in coordination with Haganah forces. Their participation in alleged war crimes at Deir Yassin has been widely discussed and documented. Their largest single operation was a successful assault on Jaffa (an Arab enclave according to the UN partition plan) starting on April 25.
In 1948, the group was formally dissolved and its members integrated into the newly formed Israeli Defense Forces. This integration largely coincided with the sinking of the Altalena, a ship with fighters Irgun had recruited and arms Irgun had acquired for the Israeli forces.
In 1952, there was an attempt to assassinate German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer by a mail bomb, which is believed to be the work of Irgun and masterminded by Menahem Begin<1>

It would seem that both groups were integrated into the IDF once Israel became a state. So if the Israelis can integrate terrorists into their military, then the example has already been set.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spazito]

52. Excellent point, imo, that brings balance to the debate

The bombing of the King David hotel sticks in my mind when I see no recognition by some that, prior to 1948, one could equate the actions of the Irgun and Haganah with those of Hezbollah and Hamas. One was/is no better than the other yet that time in history is not to be remembered nor equated with the current times, at least with some.

The actions of those who fought against the British in America could well be defined as terrorists yet they are patriots. It all depends on who's ox is being gored, imo, has been throughout history and will continue to be so.

Edited to correct a typo

[Mir]

20. Cheers to all those

who brought up history here, because the original poster has little to no sense of it. 1967 was an Israeli war of aggression - in which they knowingly and savagely attacked and destroyed the USS Liberty while our flag was a visible as the sun - in order to expand territory and seize Jerusalem. This ridiculous notion that Israel is this scared and vulnerable little democracy just trying to exist in a sea of monsters is absolute bullshit.

Israeli/Zionist terror goes back to well before the unilateral declaration of the state in 1948. For all those interested in some history of Zionist terror - expecially Mr. Fields - have a quick look at this article just for starters and after you read it, ask yourself just how different Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah are from the Irgun and the Lehi Gangs. Cheers.

http://www.wrmea.org/archives/May-June_2006/0605014.html

[Joe Fields]

29. Wrong again.

Egypt was the agressor, and amassed divisions of troops in the Sinai, with the intent on attacking Israel.

[BillZBubb]

46. Sorry, Joe you bought the propaganda as usual.

Egypt didn't ATTACK Israel. Israel used the Arab "demonstration of force" as a pretext for a war of expansion they wanted.

[Joe Fields]

83. Once again, you have leaped to the wrong conclusion.

Did I ever once mention that Egypt attacked Israel first? No. Not once. What I said, if you had read carefully, and if you knew your history, is that Egypt amassed divisions of troops on the border, which Israel took as an act of aggression. What was the point of Egypt's troop movement? That is open to speculation, but, at the time, Israel felt as though Egypt was about to launch an attack.

I suggest you read a little more carefully next time you want to call "bullshit" on something someone writes.

[Mir]

51. You don't know if that

was Egypt's intent - not with any certainty at least. Does a sovereign nation not have the right to mobilize troops on its own territory? We can disagree about intentions after the fact all we want, but the fact is that Israel attacked and invaded a sovereign country - two in fact - that had not attacked it.

Also, what say you about the Al-Arish massacre of Egyptians in the Sinai by Israeli barbarians while the USS Liberty was being shelled from the sky? Self-defense here too? Have a read. This is from the USS Liberty page. I'm interersted to know your thoughts on this.

http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/forums/showthread.php?t=458

[vickitulsa]

168. "Israeli barbarians"? Oh yeah, you're not trying to provoke anyone.

History, shmistory (see my other post on this). Name-calling such as that proves you have no desire to "discuss," just to insult, demean, and accuse.

Not likely to draw a friendly response.


I wish people would put down their keyboards and take a few deep breaths... smile and remember they're talking to fellow DUers, people with a lot in common with them, people who would go to bat for them in an unfair fight, people who would CARE if your mother died....

[Mir]

206. "History shmistory?"

This is how the FReeptards think. How unfortunate. Why did I call the Israelis who committed the al-Arish massacre barbarians? This is the question. First of all, you, it seems to me, have no idea what you're talking about. Please allow me to refer you, fellow seeker of knowledge, to the findings of an historian - a Jewish Israeli historian - one Aerie Yitzak, so that you can you can research him and look into said findings in greater detail and get to understand just what happened at the minaret at al-Arish while the Israelis were murdering American sailors off the coast. To give you just a sniff, Mr. Yitzak - after careful research - came to the conclusion that Israeli forces had murdered in cold blood some 900 PoWs, 300 of whom were massacred at al-Arish by an Israeli unit know as the "Shaker Commandos."

What is more is that Mr. Yitzak obtained testimonials in his research that some of the massacred Arabs had their organs cut out so that they could be given to Israelis who happened to have been in need.

Now are these acts of barbarism? I think any reasonable person would say yes.

Were these acts of barbarism committed by Israelis? The answer is a resounding yes.

So, if it can be agreed upon that these acts of cold blooded murder were indeed barbaric, and that the perpetrators were indeed Israeli, then in the name of if A=B and B=C, then A=C, I declare the perpetrators were "Israeli barbarians."

So there was no intentional provocation, as you say, on my part at all. I was simply quoting historical fact. If the truth hurts, take it up with the perpetrators.

BTW, the leader of the "Shaker Commandos" was Mr. Binyamin ben Eliezer. You may know him as Ariel Sharon's Defense Minister, who of course has never acted barbarically with the Palestinias.

[garthranzz]

248. If you read what Nasser was saying, you'd know Egypt intended to destroy

Israel - and that closing the Straits, effectively blockading Israel, was an act of war.

[rustydog]

25. Neighbor dents your car so you have the right to destroy

his house while innocent family members sleep.

have you EVER heard of OVERKILL?

[Tom Joad]

26. NO ONE has the right to massacre civilians. No one.

[SammyBlue]

36. But when the Palestinians do it, Israeli aggression is blamed.

Damned if Israel does, damned if they don't, eh?

[Tom Joad]

39. It's the damn military occupation. That is an aggression.

[MaswinMO]

45. Israel was willing to end the occupation...

Until Hamas attacks Israel and causes Israel to send military back into the West Bank and Gaza.

[Tom Joad]

150. That's a damn lie. Sorry you believe it.

Israel never said it will pull out of the west bank, instead it *promised* to keep large parts of it, and leave several small areas for Palestinian bantustans.

[MaswinMO]

164. This suggests you're incorrect..

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=8520">Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that despite the constant terror that has plagued Israel since it pulled out of Gaza last August, he would press on with his “realignment” plan of evacuating Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria and creating a Palestinian state.

[Tom Joad]

268. It is a very partial withdrawal, and a promise to keep much of the West

Bank. It will take very fertile land, very important water sources. Not a solution that is workable. Not a solution that is just. A plan for permanent war.

See this map
http://www.strategicassessments.org/library/Disengagement/SAI%20ITAG%20DISENGAGEMENT%20MAP.pdf

[Mass_Liberal]

47. listen, SammyBlue

you have a wildly unrealistic view of the way the world looks at Israel. At least in the west, the media is mostly pro-israel. In fact, and I will make this in caps (its real important to the point I'm making: NEARLY EVERY COUNTRY ON THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE CONDEMNS TERRORIST STRIKES ON ISRAELI CIVILIANS. This is a fact you consistently ignore. Conversely, THERE ARE FEW COUNTRIES ON THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE WHICH OPENLY QUESTION ISRAELI RESPONSES TO TERRORISM. I think that you are seeing a large measure of anti-Israel sentiment on DU, and deciding that DU reflects world politics, which it clearly doesn't.

[Cleita]

122. What isn't understood is that DU is trying to look at both

sides of the conflict from the POV of the civilians affected and Israel isn't coming off smelling like a rose anymore than the non-Israeli terrorists who are fanning this conflict are.

Let's hope that the nations surrounding Israel don't decide to muster their military to fight back Israel's military that is being misused by their RW nutjobs in power just like our military is being misused in Iraq by our RW nutjobs in power.

[thinkingwoman]

278. looking at both sides doesn't require

equating Israel with the terrorists.

So many posts on DU are acting like these two forces are equals morally. They're not.

[Nederland]

144. Agreed

I agree, no one has the right to massacre civilians.

However, that statement begs the question, how should one respond to the massacre of civilians?

[burythehatchet]

30. Yeah, their strategy has worked out pretty well so far

Stay the course.

[stepnw1f]

57. Wise Statement

I have to agree... military violence will not be the solution for the Middle East.

[The Stranger]

40. Even the Chimp, after 911, didn't obliterate Pakistan or Islamabad.

If you are doing worse than the Chimp, you are seriously, seriously fucking up.

[tabasco]

41. Never. But blowing up civilians is no way to do it.

They are simply creating more hatred and problems for themselves.

[OregonBlue]

53. Israel desperately wants a full scale war in the ME. To that end

they will do whatever it takes to pull the United States into the conflict. George Bush desperately wants to attack Iran. Not too hard to see where this is going. Israel would not be doing this is they didn't think it was with full U.S. backing.

Why does Israel have any more right to Palestinian territory than the Palestinians. They have rounded up the Palestinians and put them in a concentration camp called Gaza. What do they expect the rest of the world to think? They are the good guys? Israel doesn't want peace. They want the entire West Bank and they are not going to stop until they get it. They want ALL Palestinians to leave and go to Syria, Lebanon, etc. and they are not going to stop until they achieve that end or all the Palestinians are dead.

The Jews who chose to settle there all those years ago knew who they were dealing with. They knew this would never end. Why is anyone surprised that it continues to this day? Given the warlike nature of the Palestinians and the surrounding tribes, they had to know. Now they have to live with the consequences.

[Mass_Liberal]

63. tinfoil hat, much?

n/t

[OregonBlue]

64. I don't think it's tin foil hat. I think it's pretty obvious.

[OregonBlue]

77. Self-Delete, post got crossed.

[Codeine]

78. That's pretty fucking obnoxious.

"the warlike nature of the Palestinians"? "Now they have to live with the consequences"? That's very ugly sentiment, sir. The Palestinian people are really no more inherently warlike than anybody else on Earth, and saying that the Jews who settled there have less right to peace because of it is equally offensive.

[OregonBlue]

82. What's going on there is not offensive but saying it is?

Again, what did they Jews that settled there think would happen? Everybody would just shrug and say, oh well, I guess you won it fair and square? You gotta either be kidding about the Palestinians or you haven't read much history.

[Codeine]

113. Wait.

Are we talking about settlers in the Occupied Territories or in the original settlers in Israel in general? I may have misinterpreted your post and I might owe you an apology.

[OregonBlue]

128. Primarily occupied territories. I agee that the Jews have every right to

reclaim land for their own homeland. The problem has been what they want to claim. You can't just give the Palestinians the dregs and call it fair. If they had found a way to divide the land in a manner that gave the Palestinians a contiguous, productive, viable state which included some of the desert and some of the prime land and they had taken the same for themselves, it might have worked eventually.

Trying to herd the Palestinians into small pockets in the West Bank and cutting them off in Gaza, which really is a hellhole, has only made matters worse.

Without a fair division of the land, this will never end.

[Codeine]

132. Well, then we have no disagreement.

And I apologize for my earlier post's tone. :hi:

[OregonBlue]

135. Guess I didn't make myself clear. Apology gladly accepted!

[MaswinMO]

79. Yeah right...

Even Ariel Sharon was working toward an end to the occupation of West Bank and Gaza. In case you forget, Israel pulled troops out of Gaza and Hamas responded by launching terrorist attacks.

[OregonBlue]

88. Gee, Give 'em that shithold Gaza. Really nice peace of real estate

that. Give 'em the part of the West Bank that is the least productive and put up a wall, but be sure to include the best land on the Israeli side of the wall and make sure the two territories are not connected and that you have to show your papers to cross from one to the other and, and, and. Surely you're not trying to claim that Israel was offering the Palestinian's a GOOD DEAL?

[MaswinMO]

102. Abbas was sure willing to accept it....

But Hamas wants nothing less than all of Israel.

[OregonBlue]

123. And Israel wants nothing less than ALL of Palestine that's worth

having.

[MaswinMO]

166. Not according to Israel's PM...

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=8520">Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that despite the constant terror that has plagued Israel since it pulled out of Gaza last August, he would press on with his “realignment” plan of evacuating Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria and creating a Palestinian state.
>

[PA Democrat]

237. Your link doesn't work. But this one does:

Israel Building New West Bank Settlement
Israel Is Laying the Foundation for a New Settlement in West Bank, Breaking Promise to U.S.

MASKIOT, West Bank Jun 2, 2006 (AP)— Israel has begun laying the foundations for a new Jewish settlement deep in the West Bank breaking a promise to Washington while strengthening its hold on a stretch of desert it wants to keep as it draws its final borders.

The construction of Maskiot comes at a time when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert seeks U.S. backing for eventually annexing parts of the West Bank as part of a plan to set Israel's eastern border with or without Palestinian consent.

The Palestinians and Israel's settlement watchdog group Peace Now say the Maskiot construction amounts to a new attempt to push Israel's future border deeper into the West Bank. "It's about grabbing land," said Yariv Oppenheimer of Peace Now.

Otniel Schneller, an Olmert adviser, confirmed Israel is building in additional West Bank areas to ensure they are not included in the lands given to the Palestinians. He said Israel needs to keep the Jordan Valley, where Maskiot is located, as a security buffer against Islamic militants based in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2033595&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[OregonBlue]

247. Doing this in the name of "national security" gee, where have we

heard that one before?

[Scurrilous]

155. Yaaawn...

...umpteenth time I've seen this version of events posted.

Too bad it's totally false.

On edit:

Google 'convergence'and then come back and tell us how Sharon (or his successor Olmert) planned to end the occupation of Palestinian land.

[MaswinMO]

169. You can believe what you want...

And I'll agree to disagree.

[Mir]

231. This sounds like something said on Fox

What really happened was that the Israelis pulled out of Gaza and then afterwards started to assassinate Hamas leaders which led to attacks from Hamas. This is a typical tactic you use that the MSM just loves. Report part one of the event, omit part two and report part three to make the Palestinians look utterly evil and the Israelis as benign peacemaking victims of irrational Islamist terror. "Israel pulls out and Hamas responds with attacks." Nonsense. It works on Fox, but not here.

[DrunkenMaster]

60. Slaughter is NOT self-defense!

What a ridiculous post: if you can't tell the difference between authetic self-defense and an excuse for salughter, there isn't much help for you.

[Mass_Liberal]

69. there's less of a distinction than you might think

If we agree that aerial bombing campaigns can be a tool for self-defense, then it should be noted that similar civilian casualties are sustained in every bombing campaign. In WW2, in which the allies were considered righteous in their position, we inflicted tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths on Germany. And yet we considered that hunky-dory.

My issue with this is more that this particular campaign is stupid, unnessesary, and hurts the wrong people.

[deaniac21]

61. Sacreliege!!! J'Accuse!

[LittleClarkie]

62. Last Thursday. Around tea time.

I just wish Israel saw more of themselves in their enemies. In the same position, if their roles were reversed, I think they'd be doing the same things. And it was Hezbolllah they were fighting, not all of Lebanon. And yet they've taken out all of their infrastructure: airports, communications. It just seems heavy handed, like they could give a flying fuck for the Lebanese. Which they probably could. No way to win the hearts and minds of their newly democratic neighbors who for the most part aren't involved in this.

[DistressedAmerican]

70. "What do you want them to do? Disarm? "

No, I want them to pull the hell back to the 67 greenline and get the fuck out of the occupation business. That is what has bred this hatred for Israel.

Why in hell would you think that more of the same is going to make anythuing better? They have failed miserably with these policies in creating any security for themselves. They have done nothing but breed more threats and more militants.

The invaded in the 1980's with overwhelming force and Helbollah was created as a result. Why do you think there is anything different here? Seriously.


They could do much better returning to their own damn land. At least they would have moral highground and stop breeding even more of these terrorists.

[treestar]

73. Israel's "right to defend itself" seems to include offense

In which case, Hezbollah's attack could be said to be Hezbollah "defending" itself, a right I presume it has, to anyone neutral.

[stepnw1f]

171. This Is Why Military Action Will Never Work

Especially with so much volitality in the area. It will get much worse, breeding generations more of hatred.

[Cleita]

76. I have noticed Israelis believe this.

They have always said attacking a neighboring nation is defending themselves and they sincerely believe this doublespeak. The real problem in the ME and that includes Israel are all these unlawful terrorist groups who act from an extreme ideology and some real hatred for offenses committed in previous conflicts. Also, most belong because of the thrill of it.

Somehow bombing civilian neighborhoods and mowing them down with tanks and artillery to catch a few terrorists is not defense to me but bullying. What if we in the USA did that in Mexico to drug cartels? What if we bombed our border towns like Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana because we know that drug lords are living there, maybe even being sheltered, among the ordinary residents?

It seems to me that routing out terrorists should be by surgical strikes, based on intelligence from operatives who have infiltrated those groups in any given area and taking them out this way, not killing a bunch of civilians, especially children as collateral damage.

[Minstrel Boy]

80. This is what it should be defending:

Retaining territory beyond the pre-67 borders has been its catastrophe.

[ikri]

81. An analogy for you

During the 70's, 80's and 90's the UK suffered from terrorist attacks by the IRA.

The IRA operated from within Ireland with funding from various countries, including the United States.

Would it have been acceptable for the UK to bomb Dublin? They harbored a terrorist organization, even if they had no direct control over their actions. Funding came from the US, would the UK have had the right to bomb Washington?

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigtree]

85. This post is a straw-man attack.

"There is a lot of naiivete' being presented"

"What do you want them to do? Disarm?"

"Talk real nice and sweet to Hezbollah, Syria, in the hopes that their enemies will learn how to play nice?"

Etc.

Folks here don't deserve this kind of letcturing.

[Joe Fields]

112. Have you read the posts around here lately, bigtree?

No strawman argument here. I have read numerous posts that describe Hamas, Palestinian authority, and Hezbollah as undeserving of Israel's wrath. It IS naiive of you, or anyone else here to think that when Israel is attacked, they won't, or shouldn't react strongly.

There are people on DU who are upset over the fact that the U.S. provides arms to Israel to defend itself. Now, I don't know how old you are, but for all of my fifty years on this earth I have watched Israelis get blown to pieces by terrorist attacks on their own soil. You're goddamned right I would react forcefully, if I were the Israeli leadership. They had appeasement rammed down their throats by the U.S., and all it did was allow groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to gain strength in their own countries.

Hezbollah, Syria and Iran are at fault in this new wave of violence and unrest. Not Israel. Even Egypt and Saudi Arabia know this, in the statements their leaders have made recently.

I am utterly surprised at the lack of support that Israel is getting from many of DU's members. Maybe they are too young to know any better. And, if that sounds condescending, it's because it is.

[bigtree]

126. I think many here would agree with most of that

and include their arguments against Israel's actions just the same. The testament to the legitimacy of the argument against Israel's 'disproportionate' response is in the admonitions from those who would normally support Israel in their defense, and still do.

I recognize the deep feelings you have for Israel and the revulsion you hold toward the violent attacks. I feel the same, so do many others here. I wouldn't automatically assume that folks who express deep feelings for the lives of innocent Lebanese are somehow sympathetic or supportive of the attacks on Israel or are supporting or defending Hezbollah militants.

I think the reaction here to Israel has a great deal to do with the fact that the U.S. is in such a strong position to influence them away from their bloody, collective 'reaction' that threatens to deepen the resentments and set Israel up for recriminations and further reprisals.

What is going to be the effect of the killing of innocent Lebanese? What is the purpose?

[Joe Fields]

250. I appreciate this response from you. And your insights reflect

many of mine. And maybe a lot has to do, not with what we are saying, but rather in how we say it. I certainly am not turning a blind eye toward Israel's killing of innocent Lebanese civilians. But, and maybe it is just the way things are being said here, but I will not believe for a second, that Israel has intentionally targeted and willfully murdered innocent Lebanese. Israel has a purpose, and it is a harsh one, to put it mildly. I am truly saddened that innocents have been caught up in this. It always does happen, and it sounds crass for me to say that there is always collateral damage, but indeed, it is the truth.

Yes, I do have deep feelings for a race of people who have been persecuted for thousands of years, and who endure attacks of some nature on a daily basis. I don't have an answer to fix things, but at the same time I will not point a finger at Israel and condemn them. I do not live there, and I can only imagine what it must be like, living with the prospect of terrist acts on a daily basis. Thank god I don't have to.

[MadHound]

87. However Israel also has a history of prisoner exchange also

With Hezbollah, the PLO and other nations as well. That is what is called for here, yet Israel chose to escalate matters to a full blown war. Over-reaction quite frankly, with an agenda hidden behind it.

Israel could have accomplished their originaly stated goal of return of the Israeli prisoners with simple negotiations. Instead they opted for a military option. Sorry, but that does not put Israel in a favorable light, especially considering that when all the shooting is done, there's going to be negotiations for prisoner exchange anyway.

<http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4986.shtml>

[liberalpragmatist]

90. Israel has a right to defend itself, but what it's doing is NOT effective

Firstly, the notion that Israel's existence is in danger is a common misperception. Israel certainly has enemies that want to kill its citizens, but the idea that Israel would be overrun by every other Middle Eastern country is simply not born out by the military reality. YES, the surrounding Arab states are much larger but Israel has by far the most powerful and most advanced military in the world. The militaries of the surrounding states are jokes, full of aging Soviet equipment.

Moreover, what exactly is Israel trying to accomplish by inflicting collective punishment on the Palestinians and the Lebanese? Israel expects that by inflicting pain on the Lebanese and the Palestinians, each group will drop its opposition to Israel and turn against their rejectionist factions. What kind of logic is this? When Hamas or Hezbollah attacks Israel, does that call attention to the occupation? No, it makes the Israelis angry and unified in wanting to attack the terrorists. Why would the Lebanese or the Palestinians act any differently? When countries are attacked, their people tend to unite against the invader. This has happened time and time again, and it's incredibly foolish for Israel to expect its going to work the 101st time when it has already failed 100 times before.

Who is suffering for Hezbollah's crimes? Unfortunately, the ones who perpetrated the crimes aren't the ones who are suffering. I quote from Michael Totten, a liberal-ish neo-con (who actually voted for Bush in 2004 and unfortunately supports the Iraq War) who has lived and traveled extensively in the Middle East. Although his support for the Iraq War is incredibly foolish, as I see it, his comments on Lebanon deserve to be aired, as he has lived in Beirut and his several friends there. Keep in mind too that Totten, though hardly an ideologue on the topic, tends to be quite pro-Israel.

July 14, 2006

http://www.michaeltotten.com/

July 15, 2006

Comments are Closed, and Some Clarifications - UPDATED BELOW
by Michael J. Totten

Insulting my personal friends while they are driven out of their homes as war refugees is not acceptable. My old neighborhood is under attack. My friends are terrified and in danger. How on earth do you expect me to feel about this right now? If you can't factor these things into account before bloviating in the comments, then you do not get to comment. Comments are closed until further notice.

In the meantime, allow me to clarify a few things so (some of you) can stop thinking I've decided Israel is the enemy or that Hassan Nasrallah deserves anything but a headstone or a war crimes tribunal.

Obviously Hezbollah started this and Hezbollah is the main problem. Not only did they drag my second home into a war, the bastards also threatened me personally. So I hardly see the point in telling you what I think about them right about now. I'll get to them later.

I sympathize one hundred percent with what Israel is trying to do here. But they aren't going about it the right way, and they're punishing far too many of the wrong people. Lord knows I could be wrong, and the situation is rapidly changing, but at this particular moment it looks bad for Israel, bad for Lebanon, bad for the United States, good for Syria, and good for Iran.

There is no alternate universe where the Lebanese government could have disarmed an Iranian-trained terrorist/guerilla militia that even the Israelis could not defeat in years of grinding war. There is no alternate universe where it was in Lebanon's interest to restart the civil war on Israel's behalf, to burn down their country all over again right at the moment where they finally had hope after 30 years of convulsive conflict and Baath Party overlordship.

The Lebanese government should have asked for more help from the international community. The Lebanese government should have been far less reactionary in its attitude toward the Israelis. They made more mistakes than just two, but I'd say these are the principal ones.

What should the Israelis have done instead? They should have treated Hezbollahland as a country, which it basically is, and attacked it. They should have treated Lebanon as a separate country, which it basically is, and left it alone. Mainstream Lebanese have no problem when Israel hammers Hezbollah in its little enclave. Somebody has to do it, and it cannot be them. If you want to embolden Lebanese to work with Israelis against Hezbollah, or at least move in to Hezbollah's bombed out positions, don't attack all of Lebanon.

Israel should not have bombed Central Beirut, which was almost monolithically anti-Hezbollah. They should not have bombed my old neighborhood, which was almost monolithically anti-Hezbollah. They should not have bombed the Maronite city of Jounieh, which was not merely anti-Hezbollah but also somewhat pro-Israel.

Israelis thinks everyone hates them. It isn't true, especially not in Lebanon. But they will make it so if they do not pay more attention to the internal characteristics of neighboring countries. "The Arabs" do not exist as a bloc except in the feverish dreams of the Nasserists and the Baath.

Want to hear a Lebanese take on the subject?

http://lebop.blogspot.com/2006/07/becoming-refugee.html

Becoming a Refugee
We have no sympathy for Israel's position right now. None.

We have sympathy for the Israeli civilians being hit by Hezbollah bombs, but there is no justification for Israel's action. It's abusive. The United States did not hit civilians or civilian escape routes out of the country like this when invading either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Israel made its statement. We cannot tolerate any more. We understood what they were doing. We understood why they needed to do it. But now, there is no sympathy left. Hezbollah is not a mortal danger to you. It has the potential to be, but we Lebanese have been trying to change that internally, through UN resolutions and peacefully.

The bombing has gone on for too long. It's too fierce. Hezbollah has lost morale. The Shia have lost morale. The Lebanese have lost their country.

This is a fight Israel cannot win. Everyone in Lebanon knows that Hezbollah cannot win, including Hezbollah. There is nothing Israel can do to get the soldiers back through force. But this isn't about soldiers or Israeli defense any more.

You've made this country unliveable for the people fighting to disarm Hezbollah.

Guess what? I'm leaving. Yep. Me.

Where am I going? Syria. Didn't want to, but I have to. The people we marched against are the ones you sent us begging to. The people who assassinated our leaders, kept us from having an operating democracy, and who armed Hezbollah are laughing it up because they've won the game because of you.

Bashar Assad said Lebanon would be destroyed if he left. I didn't know the Israelis would play into his game. It's not surprising that Syrian-allied Hezbollah started the mess, but you guys are just vicious.

All my Hezbollah supporting friends are sticking around. They call the rest of us cowards. I guess we are. We want to do scientific research. We want our children to learn how to play the piano. We want to watch our stock porfolios burgeon. We can't do that here any more.

I tried to sympathize with you. I didn't support Hezbollah, and if you look at the posts before this conflict began, I was maligning the political parties that oppose Hezbollah for not doing enough.

I even gave you guys the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of this, as did most Lebanese. Even the Shia, Christians, and Druze in South Lebanon understood your position. Not any more.

Oh, well. I'm a refugee.

[flpoljunkie]

92. Defend itself? Hezbollah rockets fired after Israelis attacked Lebanon.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/14/146258

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest on the phone is Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His latest book is Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. I wanted to ask you about the comment of the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations. He defended Israel's actions as a justified response. This is Dan Gillerman.

DAN GILLERMAN: As we sit here during these very difficult days, I urge you and I urge my colleagues to ask yourselves this question: What would do you if your countries found themselves under such attacks, if your neighbors infiltrated your borders to kidnap your people, and if hundreds of rockets were launched at your towns and villages? Would you just sit back and take it, or would you do exactly what Israel is doing at this very minute?

AMY GOODMAN: That was Dan Gillerman, the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations. Noam Chomsky, your response?

NOAM CHOMSKY: He was referring to Lebanon, rather than Gaza.

AMY GOODMAN: He was.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah. Well, he's correct that hundreds of rockets have been fired, and naturally that has to be stopped. But he didn't mention, or maybe at least in this comment, that the rockets were fired after the heavy Israeli attacks against Lebanon, which killed -- well, latest reports, maybe 60 or so people and destroyed a lot of infrastructure. As always, things have precedence, and you have to decide which was the inciting event. In my view, the inciting event in the present case, events, are those that I mentioned -- the constant intense repression; plenty of abductions; plenty of atrocities in Gaza; the steady takeover of the West Bank, which, in effect, if it continues, is just the murder of a nation, the end of Palestine; the abduction on June 24 of the two Gaza civilians; and then the reaction to the abduction of Corporal Shalit. And there's a difference, incidentally, between abduction of civilians and abduction of soldiers. Even international humanitarian law makes that distinction.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about what that distinction is?

NOAM CHOMSKY: If there's a conflict going on, aside physical war, not in a military conflict going on, abduction -- if soldiers are captured, they are to be treated humanely. But it is not a crime at the level of capture of civilians and bringing them across the border into your own country. That's a serious crime. And that's the one that's not reported. And, in fact, remember that -- I mean, I don’t have to tell you that there are constant attacks going on in Gaza, which is basically a prison, huge prison, under constant attack all the time: economic strangulation, military attack, assassinations, and so on. In comparison with that, abduction of a soldier, whatever one thinks about it, doesn't rank high in the scale of atrocities.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/14/146258

[MaswinMO]

108. He made up those facts...

Has any news agency reported that Israel heavily attacked Lebanon prior to the soldiers being captured?

[flpoljunkie]

138. He did not, and your response is irrelevant to what Chomsky reported.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/14/146258

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah. Well, he's correct that hundreds of rockets have been fired, and naturally that has to be stopped. But he didn't mention, or maybe at least in this comment, that the rockets were fired after the heavy Israeli attacks against Lebanon, which killed -- well, latest reports, maybe 60 or so people and destroyed a lot of infrastructure. As always, things have precedence, and you have to decide which was the inciting event. In my view, the inciting event in the present case, events, are those that I mentioned -- the constant intense repression; plenty of abductions; plenty of atrocities in Gaza; the steady takeover of the West Bank, which, in effect, if it continues, is just the murder of a nation, the end of Palestine; the abduction on June 24 of the two Gaza civilians; and then the reaction to the abduction of Corporal Shalit. And there's a difference, incidentally, between abduction of civilians and abduction of soldiers. Even international humanitarian law makes that distinction.

[MaswinMO]

175. no news source has reported that Israel...

Heavily attacked Lebanon prior to its soldiers being kidnapped. This is not irrelevant to what Chomsky said, it demonstrates lack of proof of his accusations.

[flpoljunkie]

180. You response is nonsensical, and totally irrelevant.

[MaswinMO]

184. Its not nonsense to doubt what Chomsky is saying...

His statement is blatantly false. Israel didn't heavily attack Lebanon prior to Hezbollah's attack.

[flpoljunkie]

185. NBC news reported that Israel used the kidnapping as excuse to implement

a plan, five years in the making to go after Hezbollah--on the evening news last night- -Andrea Mitchell said the same thing earlier on Chris Matthews' Sunday show.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/20...

July 15, 2006

IRAN'S ROLE REVISITED YET AGAIN....Over at the Prospect, Laura Rozen interviews Mark Perry, co-director of the Conflicts Forum, a group that has set up frequent discussions with Hezbollah over the past three years. Here's what he has to say about Iran's involvement with the recent attacks on Israel:

We’ve been hearing the theory that the timing of Hezbollah’s Tuesday kidnapping of the two Israeli Defense Force soldiers was planned well in advance and with coordination from Tehran or Damascus. Can you speak to that?

Oy vey. There are a lot of people in Washington trying to walk that story back right now, because it’s not true.

Hezbollah and Israel stand along this border every day observing each other through binoculars and waiting for an opportunity to kill each other. They are at war. They have been for 25 years, no one ever declared a cease-fire between them....They stand on the border every day and just wait for an opportunity. And on Tuesday morning there were two Humvees full of Israeli soldiers, not under observation from the Israeli side, not under covering fire, sitting out there all alone. The Hezbollah militia commander just couldn’t believe it — so he went and got them.

I think that's about the end of this discussion for me — at least for the time being. It's evident that the most knowledgeable people around have wildly different opinions about this, but also that those same people have no specific evidence one way or the other. Iran and Syria are sponsors of Hezbollah and Hamas and are obviously closely aligned with their actions, but whether they actively approved of the recent kidnappings appears to be unknown. And, for now anyway, unknowable.

—Kevin Drum 1:23 AM

[MaswinMO]

192. if it was just the capture of the soldiers...

Israel would've probably just done a prisoner exchange. Israel's response probably has much more to do with Hezollah launching missile strikes on Israel.

[flpoljunkie]

212. Israel's response has more to do with their 5 yr plan to invade Lebanon

in an unwise and futile attempt to destroy Hezbollah. It will not work, occupations do not work, and the Israeli people will be less safe as a result of their actions in both Lebanon and Gaza. It is very sad for all involved.

[MaswinMO]

219. Israel hasn't even invaded Southern Lebanon yet...

So I guess you're making things up.

[blonndee]

222. WRONG. Levelling land inside S. Lebanon, per IDF.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1656880

[DistressedAmerican]

96. "Try to put yourselves in the shoes of the Israeli people"

Why do I think you have never once put yourself in the shoes of the Palestinian people?

[mmonk]

97. It's also naive

to believe Israel isn't nor ever was aggressive or is pure as the driven snow.

[Joe Fields]

145. How might your philosophy evolve, if you were getting attacked

on a daily basis?

[Bretttido]

149. Being attacked does nothing but obscure your view of the world

Just take a look at the US after 9/11. An amazing 90% of us were complete morons that thought Bush was the good guy. If anything, Isreal being attacked should make us weary of their world perceptions.

[Joe Fields]

153. That analogy simply won't work. We were attacked once. They

get attacked every single day. Theirs is by far a different reality than what we faced.

[Bretttido]

157. Being attacked every single day = uber paranoid, i'd trust them even less

[Joe Fields]

196. If you were attacked every day, you'd have every right to be paranoid

[mmonk]

225. It's not a philosophy.

[lonestarnot]

100. Honored to give you five!

[Beelzebud]

101. You mean like how we "defended" ourselves from Iraq?

[bloom]

216. That must be what.

Like we are STILL defending ourselves over there - and probably will be 50 years from now. :grr:

[mikelgb]

103. Since when did anybody win the right to kill anybody else? n/t

[EVDebs]

105. The 'Order of Battle' in the ME requires an Egyptian army

the largest in the region being willing to risk another debacle in the Sinai as in '73. Any takers on that 'suicide mission' ?

Why Arabs Lose Wars
http://www.meforum.org/article/441

ME Military balance at a glance
http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/balance/glance.pdf

[Balbus]

110. Uppity Jews are bad for the world.

We only like Jews when they are victims. They need to stick to their place and let other people shit on them like they have since the existence of time. Jeez, you'd think they'd learn by now.

[mmonk]

115. And so are uppity peace activists from the US

Rachel Corrie

[Balbus]

119. Yeah, and we know the 5000 years of crap they had to put up with!

Oh, wait....

[mmonk]

130. Not worth replying to, but here goes....

Ancient Israel isn't modern Israel. Also, any criticism of the current Israeli government's tactics doesn't make someone anti-semitic or the victims of their tactics when heavy handed less of a victim. Tired of strawman arguments.

[EVDebs]

120. I'm with Tony Blair on this. The UN needs to set up SOME sort of

negotiations on the ME situation. The old Clinton 'road map' lead us somewhere...at least an uneasy peace. We've got no chance unless all parties are at least talking (not yelling, mind you) to eachother.

It took years for Fatah to recognize Israel. Maybe Hezbollah and Hamas may be as pragmatic soon and just give up those captured soldiers ... in exchange for something...

[bvar22]

118. "an eye for an eye......

... but no more"

Isn't that quote from some country's sacred holy books?

[EVDebs]

121. Deuteronomy. 32 : 35 and Romans 12:19-21 come to mind

Deuteronomy 32:35 'Vengeance is mine, and recompense, at the time when their foot slides; for the day of their calamity is at hand'

and also at

Romans 12:19-21, where Paul writes, "19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20 No, "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (NRSV)

We can all pray over this situation. Hopefully The Almighty will change things, until men decide to act up again.

[Cleita]

124. The Code of Hammurabi where the Bible borrows much of

it's laws. Ferchrissakes, this dates back almost four thousand years ago. Isn't it time to move on?

[enigmacat]

139. Yes, that is a good point!

But this mess has nothing to do with the true nature of Judaism. Nothing. Just like you have terrorists who call themselves Muslims. Religion is just their cover.
The sad thing is, what Israel is doing will probably cause a lot more anti-semitism in the world, ironically, even though it is the Israeli government at fault and not the Jewish people.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

125. Israel has a right to defend itself but...............

I don't THINK that anybody is arguing against Israel's "right" to defend itself against naked aggression. I DO think that some of us are merely concerned about the implications of the current conflict in the ME and how Israel's actions may ultimately affect the region, especially since we have troops in nearby Iraq. Me personally, I think all parties need to get themselves to the table (with help from us or other countries if necessary) and start talking instead of continuing to relentlessly bomb and fire rockets at each other. Nothing good can come out of sustained military conflict like this IMHO.

[Festivito]

140. Do you call the response "twice as much," as in your 1st post?

It seems to go well beyond twice. Is it twice that we should discuss, or is it something else?

It seems to me that the response is more than twice. And, that there is likely to be some other agenda being forwarded.

[rman]

142. The only substance re your claim

that an unspecified number of DUers think Israel has lost the right to defend itself, is this:

"Don't be naive and expect world peace. Don't equate Israel with Hezbollah. And don't expect a country surrounded by enemies to act with restraint when attacked."

I don't see anyone who is actually "expecting" world peace. Wanting it, yes. But "expecting"? No, not any time soon anyway.

How is what Israel does less bad than what Hezbollah does?
Who has killed tho most civilians so far?

Who has the most tanks, attack helicopters, fighter jets and bombs? Who has a substantial and well trained army?
Is it really to much to ask for restraint from a nation with as much military power as Israel?

[Joe Fields]

151. Israel had tried appeasement, at the urging of the U.S.

The only thing appeasement accomplished was that it allowed Hamas to take formal control of Palestine and Hezbollah to take over the southern half of Lebanon to gain strength.

One could also blame the Lebanese government for not handling Hezbollah like the terrorists they are. They should never have been allowed to gain control of the southern half of Lebanon.

[K8-EEE]

156. "Appeasement" Is A Phrase I'm Starting To Hate

it's like making "negotiations" or "peace" a dirty, weak concept, in reality "cracking down" has never stopped a terrorist organization and never will, it will just escalate the violence.

Look at the progress Spain and Ireland made with the IRA & ETA after they stopped the mindless "cracking down." This is not even about wanting a certain result (like the release of the soldiers) it's just a mindless cycle of revenge and violence.

That region as been fighting for 5,000 years and I've just had it -- I don't want the US involved in this, we're already up to our eyeballs in Iraq. This is WWIII they are trying to start, it's insanity.

[Joe Fields]

198. The reality is that appeasement rarely works.

The problems we are witnessing today in the middle-east have a lot to do with not taking Hezbollah and Hamas out.

[K8-EEE]

240. And THIS "Works?"

Get real....

[Joe Fields]

285. It remains to be seen. By the way, what's your solution?

[stepnw1f]

176. I'll Second That

I do not see people stating that "Isreal doesn't have any right in defending itself". I do however see people interpreting actions as defense vs. overeacting. This is debatable, but accusing DUers of saying Isreal doesn't have the right to defend itself, is really leaving no room for debate.

[SaveElmer]

143. I think it is a very complex situation...but I agree with your sentiment..

To read some people's comments you'd think Hezbollah was some peace loving organization simply defending itself...

I don't know if Israel's response is appropriate or not....the arguments that have ensued here I think are a reflection of the complexity of Mideast politics...

However, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, sponsored by terrorist states (Syria and Iran), and is hardly innocent.

It is too bad Lebanon is stuck in the middle, but Hezbollah operates with impunity from Lebanese territory (at the behest of the Syrians).

[CuteNFuzzy]

148. Defense against fleeing refugees?

Too many dead civilians that are innocent of any crime to have anything to do with a "right to defend itself"

[elias7]

152. position of arab forces: May 1967

http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Eye+on+Israel/Maps/11.++Position+of+Arab+Forces+in+May+1967.htm

Granted the website is a jewish one, but I see Israel surrounded by heavy concentration of forces from 6 neighboring countries, with Syria holding the high ground of the Golan Heights, Jordan massing along the West Bank, and Egypt massed along the Sinai border, including Gaza. On the 26th of May, President Nasser of Egypt declared, "Our basic goal is the destruction of Israel."

What to do? What to do?

Israel occupied those territories subsequently, it seems to me, for protection, not for expansion purposes. If you look at original post-WWII mandate, the entire area of Jordan (3 times the size of Israel) was to be the jewish homeland state

[mmonk]

189. Then maybe we should go back

and occupy Japan and Germany again.

[MaswinMO]

195. that makes no sense....

Germany and Japan don't have terrorist groups shooting missiles at us.

[mmonk]

205. Neither does 1967

and the current situation.

[MaswinMO]

208. sure it does...

Hezbollah attacks Israel and then Israel retaliates against Hezbollah. How does that not make sense?

[mmonk]

215. I was unaware Hezbollah shelled Israel

from the Lebanese border in 1967.

[MaswinMO]

221. I was refering to the recent conflict n/t

nt

[elias7]

209. maybe you should review the history

of the Golan Heights pre-1967.

[mmonk]

220. Don't need to.

There isn't a gathering of nations readying to attack Israel. There is a terrorist group inside the Lebanese border shelling Israel which isn't sanctioned by Lebanon to launch the attack and Lebanon isn't readying an attack on Israel.

[MaswinMO]

224. Lebanon is doing nothing to stop Hezbollah..

So why shouldn't Israel be allowed to strike at Hezbollah?

[mmonk]

227. They are basically a state with no strong controls

given what has happened in the past and the various occupations. What's the Hezbollah death toll among the dead?

[K8-EEE]

154. Do The Lebanese People Have The Same Right?

Do they have the right to protect themselves, or only Israel? Because they seem utterly defenseless -- I do not believe in collective punishment, sorry. Bombing infrastructure is not something I think is right or good in any case, I feel the same way about the US.

[MaswinMO]

178. The Lebanese are defenseless against Hezbollah....

Is that Israel's fault?

[K8-EEE]

183. Partially

It's not the fault of the people who are being killed and they should not be being deprived of life or property because of thugs in their country, any more than I should be because I have a dumbass president. Go out and assasinate the Hezbollah thugs if you want, I could care less. When I see the little bloody bodies of children wrapped in sheets -- I have a problem with that, just like Bush they are making the wrong people suffer.

Again, there is nothing to be gained by collective punishment.

[MaswinMO]

190. It's not Israel's fault that Hezbollah launches attacks...

From civilian populations. Secondly, just going in and killing only Hezbollah isn't as easy as just saying "do it."

If we could all just do that we could've avoided both world wars. If Israel did a full invasion of Lebanon to seek out Hezbollah the destruction would be much worse.

[Jara sang]

170. The same Six Day War where Israel attacked it's neighbors unprovoked?

And fired upon a U.S. spy ship killing 34 American sailors. The Israelis also massacred 1000 Egyptian POWs during the Six Day War.

[MaswinMO]

177. Israel certainly was provoked in that war...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_day_war#Main_reasons_for_the_war">Jordan signed a five-year mutual defensive treaty with Egypt, thereby joining the military alliance already in place between Egypt and Syria. Jordanian forces were placed under the command of Egyptian General Abdul Munim Riad. This put Arab forces just 17 kilometres from Israel's coast, a jump-off point from which a well coordinated tank assault would likely cut Israel in two within half an hour. Such a coordinated attack from the West Bank was always viewed by the Israeli leadership as a threat to Israel's existence. On the same day, Nasser proclaimed: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations."

Secondly, only http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_day_war#Conclusion_of_conflict_and_post-war_situation">338 Egyptians were killed. So I don't know where you got a 1000 Egyptians massacred.

[K8-EEE]

187. Well Then Didn't GWB "Provoke" All Of Them

By labeling these countries and targeting them for destruction?

I'm sick of the exceptionalism, like, oh we had to "protect" ourselves against Iraq having nothing because of a UN resolution, however Israel is also not supposed to have nukes by a UN resolution and nobody says boo about it.

[Jara sang]

259. See my post below.

According to the Israelis own estimates, between 7000 and 10,000 Egyptians were killed. Those 1000 that I mentioned above were POWs.

[elias7]

181. see my post #152

if you don't pick sides, you may not fall into the trap of cherry picking historical facts...

[Joe Fields]

199. Unprovoked? Revisionist history on your part Jara.

[Jara sang]

258. Have you read anything about the Six Day War?

Doesn't sound like it. Get the facts then try defending your argument. It was a huge land grab for Israel.


James Bamford, 'The Puzzle Palace'

"By now the war had dissolved into a one-sided slaughter. From the earliest moments of it's surprise attack, the Israeli Air Force had owned the skies over the Middle east. Within the first few hours, Israeli jets pounded twenty-five Arab airbases ranging from Damascus in Syria to an Egyptian field, loaded with bombers, far up the Nile at Luxor. In the Sinai, Israeli tanks and armored personnel carriers pushed toward the Suez along all three of the roads that crossed the desert. Then, using machine guns, mortar fire, tanks and air power, the Israeli war machine over took the Jordanian section of Jerusalem as well as the key red Sea port of Sharm El Sheikh. One Israeli general estimated that in the Sinai alone, Egyptian casualties ranged from 7000 to 10,000 killed compared with 275 of his own troops."

[Joe Fields]

286. Did you just look this stuff up? I lived through it.

I will stand by my arguments. You seem way too focused on the fact that Israel's kill ratio was huge. But you say nothing about the provocation of the Egyptians and Syrians, which triggered the war.

Reading history and understanding it are two different things, Jara.

[Jara sang]

296. So you were in the Sinai during the Six Day War?

Or the Golan Heights? West Bank? Gaza Strip? Yeah right...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

179. Your analogy doesn't work

What Israel is doing is not just "taking out the people who are trying to hurt them."

Suppose your gang was attacked by someone else's gang. Suppose instead of just defending yourself, you found out where the other gang's members lived and threw Molotov cocktails into the windows of their houses and the houses of their neighbors, and if innocent people got hurt, too bad.

That's what Israel is doing.

[elias7]

186. perhaps in the vacuum of this moment it appears that way

now suppose your gang was surrounded by 6 other rival gangs who historically were hellbent on your gang's destruction. By the way, the "if innocent people got hurt, too bad" sentiment is a strawman, that is more appropriate for freeperville

[Lydia Leftcoast]

191. Believe it or not, I'm basically pro-Israel

I believe that the Jewish people need a homeland.

HOWEVER, ever since Begin came in with his nonsense about Israel being divinely entitled to all the land that the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah ever controlled, the leadership has gone completely wacko on collective punishments and over-reactions.

I'm against these tactics because they only create more resentments in the Arab world and are bad for Israel.

[Joe Fields]

211. In case you had forgotten, it was Begin who agreed to peace

with Egypt. You call that nuts? It took years of fighting to get to that point. You make it sound as though Israelis want to be in a perpetual state of war. I think they would be more than willing to be left alone. Unfortunately, the likes of nations, such as Syria, and groups like Hamas and Hezbollah make that nearly impossible. You probably cannot even imagine what it must be like, having to endure terrorist attacks on a daily basis. And you wonder why Israel over-reacts? What if New York sustained attacks on a daily basis by terrorists? What if, every time you went to the grocery store, or the barber or hair salon, or a department store, you could never be sure if you would come back home, because of an attack, or some suicide bomber? Think about that for awhile.

[elias7]

218. hawkishness has never been my thing,

but Begin did sign a land for peace agreement with Sadat in '78 which won him the nobel prize and resulted in the 1st arab nation to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. In '81, Begin ordered the destruction of the Iraqi nuclear reactor. The invasion of Lebanon in '82 was to force the PLO out of rocket range of Israel's northern border, but this protracted struggle did cause a lot of resentment both from outside Israel and within Israel as well...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

229. But he also pushed the establishment of settlements in Arab territory

which seemed unnecessarily provocative: sending settlers into what isalready one of the most crowded places on earth and giving them special privileges. There was no intifada before that.

Both sides have done bad things. The Israelis are not totally innocent victims here, and if you think they are, then you're a blinded partisan, not an objective observer. (Being neither Jewish nor Arab, I don't have an emotional attachment to either side, and I come down hard on whoever is acting the worst at any given moment.) The revenge cycle has to stop somewhere.

A few years ago, I went to a Middle Eastern restaurant with a friend, and we learned that our waiter was from Lebanon. We commented that things had been quiet over there lately, and he said that after a time, people had come to realize that no feud was worth trashing their country for, no matter who was right or wrong.

[K8-EEE]

241. It's "God Wants Us To Have" Crap Is Insane On BOTH SIDES

I don't think we should put up with that shit anymore. Between the Xtian "crusaders," Islamic nutbags and Jewish "chosen people" it's really up to the rational reality based people to STOP SUPPORTING THESE RELIGIOUS BASED WARS!

[K8-EEE]

188. Hitler Also Was "Defending" Something Or Other

You can't just have these bombing campaigns so indescriminately. It would be more "retaliation" if they kidnapped somebody or whatever....this is just a crime against humanity, as the Iraq war is, and both things do nothing but INCREASE TERRORISM!!!

[MaswinMO]

193. you're comparing Hitler's invasion of Europe...

To Israel shooting missiles at the HQ of terrorist groups.

Did Britain attack Germany with a missile attack prior to Germany's attack?

[K8-EEE]

239. No, Neither Did Lebanon.

I love how GWB is not responsible for any of the criminals in Abu Graib, or the kidnappings or rapes in Iraq done by US contractors and soldiers, but somehow the whole population of Lebanon is responsible for the actions of a few.

The way Israel is behaving, the horrific collective punishment, is making many, many people throughout the world question what is somehow taboo in our society to even contemplate: DO they have a "right to exist" in the sense that they have a "right" to unleash any amount of violence and call it "self-defense" and, on OUR DIME?

Hey I don't believe that the Israelis OR the Palestinians are "chosen" by God to live there, there is no resolving the fact that both sides irrationally believe that to be true. I want my country OUT of this whole ME mess.

[MaswinMO]

289. you're not making sense...

Hezbollah controls Southern Lebanon and Israel is attacking their positions in the country.

I love how you can defend Hezbollah attacking Israel left and right but the minute Israel launches strikes against Hezbollah it's collective punishment.

Basically you're saying that nations can only use military defense if it involves zero civilian casualties. That's pretty impossible.

[Joe Fields]

204. You and I are not privvy to the inner machinations of the Israeli

govt. They may have very good reasons for taking out the infrastructure. But I seriously doubt if their reasons are so that they can, oh, just for the hell of it murder innocent civilians. Rocket and missle attacks are never very accurate.

[T Town Jake]

194. Excellent post...

...recommended. :thumbsup:

[mmonk]

201. Excellent?

Who is arguing here that Israel shouldn't defend itself. Who is saying Hezbollah are in the right? The whole premise is bogus.

[Joe Fields]

214. You obviously havent been reading all of the posts in these last

several days, or you wouldn't have written that. Unless you have some sort of bias.

[mmonk]

228. Are you sure that's what they are arguing?

I've been interpreted in that vein lately myself.

[leesa]

200. Israel commits acts of terrorism daily on the people of Palestine.

Take a look at the kill rate for Palestinians vs Israelis...many more Palestinians are killed. Who are the terrorists? Not buying the propaganda.

[MaswinMO]

207. Do the Israelis killed in suicide bombings not count?

Maybe if Hamas stopped committing suicide bombings the IDF wouldn't have to take military tactics in the West Bank.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

230. Again there have been grievous wrongs on both sides

and I have no respect for anyone who can't see that, for anyone who unquestioningly supports Israel (or the Palestinians) no matter what they do.

It doesn't matter who did to whom first. Both sides have done so much evil to each other that I wish it was possible to go into the Middle East and knock heads together and send both sides to sit in the corner till they can act rationally.

[NuttyFluffers]

272. O_o the voice of sanity, what they need is a big school marm

i'd say a nun, but that'd only make things worse, right? :evilgrin:

don't dig nanny states, but i'd sure as hell love it if super nanny could go over there and tell everyone to go sit in "time out" and later both parties say "i'm sorry" and share graham crackers and warm juice. my naivete and appreciation of mommy power rears its ugly head! :D

i'm actually kinda glad i passed up a lot of this recent I/P flame stuff, being busy with family emergencies and stuff, but i liked this post so had to chime in.

[Balbus]

238. Of course not!

They desereved their fate for just being there.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

262. Some of the defenders of Israeli over-reaction remind me of

the die-hard Japanese who act as if the whole world just ganged up on them for no reason in 1941.

There is no denying that the Japanese people suffered horribly and undeservedly in WWII, but too many right-wing Japanese emphasize this without ever mentioning WHY there was a war in Asia in the first place.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

202. My Two Cents

Please don't compare Bush's strategy of pre-emption with Israel's actions during the Six Day War.

1) Iraq isn't contiguous to America; it's 5,000 miles away.

2) Iraq didn't blockade American shipping . That in and of itself is a causus belli.

3) Iraq didn't sponsor feyadeen raids into America. That is in and of itself a causus belli

4) Iraq didn't amass their troops on the American border.

Besides the causus bellis (is that a word) I listed Israel had every reason to belive they were going to be hit by a stronger foe and decided to hit first.

[BeHereNow]

226. Not on MY tax dollar-

I don't give a flying fuck what Israel or any other country does
at this point.
Just NOT on MY DIME and NOT in my name.
BHN

[mmonk]

232. The question that needs to be asked is this...

Should the US back an unchecked explosive situation by backing Israel no matter the degree of response or who is dragged into this or should it try to quell the situation as much as possible and seek international demands and mechanisms to disarm Hezbollah and address the Palestinian issue even handedly regardless of people's convictions about who is worse?

[garthranzz]

246. I AGREE WITH YOU!

Too many progressives and liberals make a simplistic, naive equation. Arab schools routinely teach hatred for Jews - not just Israel. Graduating ceremonies for kindergartners include mock terror attacks on Jews. Hezbollah, by crossing a UN sanctioned border, committed an act of war. And in this instance, much as I hate to say it, Bush is right - Syria, and more particularly Iran, are pulling Hezbollah's strings.

The great irony is that so many religious/orthodox Jews support Bush because of his strong statements, refusal to talk to Arafat, "moral values," etc. Yet Bush's policies have put Israel in greater danger, because he has been blundering around the ME like a drunk frat boy. Yes, the Arab world is anti-Semitic. The people are indoctrinated with a Nazi-like mentality, and the rulers/oppressors find Israel a convenient scapegoat - it's worked for the Christians, why not the Moslems? But Jordan and Israel co-exist; it can be done. Even Egypt manages to maintain a relationship - not friendly, but workable.

Bush's policies have strengthened Iran - removing restraining forces (Iraq and Afghanistan) and showing Iran how to defy the U.S. (N. Korea). Another irony: Iran was amenable to diplomacy.

Neither Israel's government nor its policies are perfect and legitimate questions need to be asked. But we must remember that Israel is fighting for its survival, unlike any other player in this scenario.

[rman]

275. Simplistic equations such as, expecting restraint = Israel has no right

to defend itself.
Wanting world peace = Israel has no right to defend itself.
Both Israel and Hezbollah commit atrocities = Israel has no right to defend itself.

It's those arguments that are the basis for the OP's assertion the certain DUers say Israel has no right to defend itself. Arguments that are obviously nonsense.

[garthranzz]

293. Except the board doesn't light up when Jews are killed

If you want "world peace," where was your outrage and protest when military personnel de facto sanctioned by the Lebanese government committed acts of war? Where was your outrage and protest when for months on end Hezbollah shot rockets into Israel, even though the border was sanctioned by the UN? Where are the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of posts when Jewish children are targeted? Where is the outrage and protest when it is revealed that kindergarten graduation ceremonies in Gaza include mock suicide bombings and speeches about killing Jews? Where is the protest and outrage when Israel withdraws from Gaza and Hamas, Hezbollah, the PA, etc., etc., ad nauseum still not only refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, but insist that every Jew in Israel, and every Jew in the world, for that matter, should be butchered?

Is Israel's response in this instance excessive? I don't know. How many times would you allow yourself to be kicked in the shin by a would-be bully before you hauled off and punched him in the face, breaking his nose? Has Israel's government made mistakes, have there been unnecessary deaths? Yes, of course. But Israel does not have a set policy the murder of innocents or the destruction of other countries. Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, etc., do.

Sorry, but the response here is far, far from fair or even-handed. It saddens me. This is not U.S. vs. Iraq redux. If anything, Bush's actions weakened Israel, strengthened Hamas and Hezbollah, and made Israel's response, whether excessive or not, more likely and more necessary.

"World peace" won't occur by singing songs and ignoring those who want to kill you, No country would benefit more from "world peace" and no country wants it more. But the Jews in Israel - and elsewhere - won't walk into the sea, or the gas chamber, or whatever, for some hallucinatory version of it.

The intractable problem comes down to this: two groups claim ownership of the same land. One, Israel, has been willing to compromise, to its detriment. The other, the Arabs, have not, to their detriment. When they have, as in the case of Jordan, there has been peace.

DU desperately needs a tempered, "proportionate response." What I've seen, by and large, is a "Oh, Israel the big bully is attacking poor helpless Arabs again." Nonsense. (And did you know that many of the rockets coming into Israel came from inside private homes, where a room was set aside for Hezbollah's use? I don't recall Hezbollah dropping leaflets telling people to leave before the attack began.)

Sorry, on this issue I don't see much progressive thinking from DU.

[rman]

298. More Palestinians than Israelis are getting killed.

The MSM light up when Jews gets killed.
Someone has to balance the bias of the corporate media.

[ComerPerro]

249. Your analogy, like most analogies, is oversimplified BS

If you were walking down the street alone and you found yourself surrounded, you would be killed very quickly. No question about it.

[Joe Fields]

288. Not if I was armed with a pistol, brass knuckles, mace and a switchblade.

[ComerPerro]

290. And wearing full body armor. And your attackers only had

small, homemade knives.


Hmm, maybe that is a good analogy after all...

[lala_rawraw]

255. Israel lost the right to the moral argument

[Minnesota Libra]

256. I suppose by now you've noticed that Israel has.............

.....no right to defend itself, according to many, instead they should just set there and take all the suicide bombers, rockets, and anything else Hamas/Hasbollah,Arabs/Muslims/?? wants to throw Israel's way.:sarcasm:

On the other hand, Arabs/Muslims/Hamas?Hasbollah/??, with all their attacks on Israel are still the victim according to many.:sarcasm:

[K8-EEE]

257. That's Balloney -- You're Doing The GWB "Them Or Us"

Let all the rational peoples of the world say 'NEITHER!'

[leftofthedial]

261. is there ANY level of violence that Israel could commit

or ANY abuse of civil liberties they could impose

that you would not defend with the above argument?

[K8-EEE]

263. I Seriously Doubt It

It's a one-size-fit-all violence excuse, the same size fits the thugs at Hezbollah, Al Quaida etc...and it's the same as GWB's "preemption" of nothing, all of it is INSANE.

[leftofthedial]

264. I have no choice but to assume that either you might try to mug me

or that your kids might someday try to mug my kids

or that someone visiting your house might try to mug me.

therefore, I have no choice but to kill you, take whatever of your stuff that I want and burn your house down.

if you try to defend yourself or if later on any of your relatives try to come take your stuff back, it just proves my point.

[earth mom]

273. Peace and Human Life are more important than religion or a piece of land.

There is just NO excuse for killing-on either side of the issue.

[Laotra]

279. Out of curiosity,

Do people under occupation and oppression have right to defend themselves and receive any help they need to defend themselves?

Or is the right to self-defence an Israeli monopoly?

[randr]

280. Israel defends herself?

Without American military support Israel would have long ago come to terms with her neighbors and settled this centuries long dispute between factions of the same religious heritage. The fact that we, the US of A, have chosen sides and armed Israel to the teeth is the major cause of the instability. Just as with children, take away the weapons and let them work it out.

[Hobo]

287. Last Year But

I found it in the wash and gave it back to them.


- Hobo

[dpbrown]

291. They're not being attacked by Lebanon

The next time some Timothy McVeigh blows up some clinic should we blow up the White House?

[LibertyorDeath]

295. "This is how a nation who is surrounded by mortal enemies survives."

Well well well just how fucking retarded do you have to be to make your homeland among mortal enemies that want to see you destroyed.

Hey I've got a great fucking idea lets kick all these Palestinians of this land and claim it for ourselves we'll call the place Israel and be surrounded by enemies into perpetuity.

Some real fucking geniuses at work there....