Middle East - what's next

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Albeit armed forces with half its membership estimated to be loyal to Hezbollah instead of the government.

I'm not excusing their inaction by any stretch of the imagination, mostly just pointing out a rather significant problem and perhaps highlighting just a little bit what can happen when you hold your enemies too close to the bosom.

Well that's mostly because Syria held the country for so many years... and Hezbollah is Syria's little proxy. So I don't think it is "hold your enemies too close" really, more as in the situation was already polluted from years of Syrian control and it'll take more than a year to remove the Syrian traces from Lebanon. Though, at the very least, they kicked the forces out last year. Hopefully they don't take advantage of the situation and come right back in.

[Galaxy]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13929959/

Not to comment on anything, but looks like Israel is going to step it up.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

At risk of receiving more childish cracks about supporting Hezbollah, it appears I'm not alone in seeing the current trajectory of this conflict favoring Hezbollah at the expense of the Lebanese government (and by extension US and Israeli interests in Lebanon).

From a Christian Science Monitor column today:

As Israel continues to strike inside Lebanon in a bid to rout Hizbullah, the radical Islamist group is using two weapons to wage war: rockets and, more effective, TV images of civilian destruction inflicted by Israeli bombs.

The latter "weapon," broadcast over the Hizbullah-run TV station Al Manar to pump up Arab sympathies, may in the end be more powerful than Israel's military punch - a counterpunch to Israel's assertion it can crush Hizbullah through use of force.

Though Israel has eroded the militant group's ability to inflict harm, Hizbullah may in fact be pleased with the results of the violent crisis it touched off over a week ago. Its position in the area - as a service-provider in a longtime stateless zone and as a vent for Arab anger and disappointment over dashed economic and political hopes - remains secure, many experts say.

Under this scenario, analysts add, Hizbullah is here to stay - at least for the indefinite future.

Military force, no matter how overwhelming, simply can't be counted on to crush the militants, they say. It might even be what they want.

"Since many terrorist groups are caught up in notions of cosmic war - grand struggles of religious dimensions - they in fact welcome overt warfare since it vindicates their views of the war, a war whose timelines are very long," says Mark Juergensmeyer, a specialist in "new terrorism" at the University of California at Santa Barbara, who visited Lebanon just before bombs began to fall. "A siege is exactly what they want - it keeps them motivated."

(continued)

Beyond that, Israel's aim is to "impose on the region its military hegemony, and to impress its enemies," Abedin says. "It's showing Iran it is capable of this kind of sustained military campaign."

That will not reduce the long-term threat from the Islamist movement opposing Israel, he says. "Whenever the Israelis use disproportionate force they strengthen their enemies and rally popular support [for them]. The fact Israel hasn't learned this lesson," he adds, "is quite extraordinary."

Jenkins, who has a military background, sees the same dilemma posed by short-term necessities and long-term interests. "Right now, Israel's primary obligation is to end the barrage of rockets and mortars coming into its territory," he says. "But they should also understand that accomplishing that will not do much to advance - and can even complicate - what is, after all, a long-term political fight."

For countries facing this challenge, a priority is "to broaden strategies to be far more effective at political warfare," says Jenkins. In some cases "negotiations are in order," he says, noting that the British negotiated with the IRA and the Spanish with the radical Basque group ETA. The Iraqi government is signalling its willingness to talk with part of the insurgency (the more traditionally political opposition, not the Al Qaeda-inspired forces).

In the long run, military campaigns won't be the answer, most analysts agree. "There may be military battles that have to be fought," says Jenkins, "but the real answer is to focus more on how to diminish the appeal of the radical message."

A Slate column from yesterday:

What do Hezbollah's leaders think they're doing? Could they possibly believe they could come out ahead in this war against Israel? Well, yes.

Mahmud Qomati, a member of Hezbollah's political council, told the Agence France-Presse wire service today that the organization could keep up its rocket attacks "for months," adding, "Time is on our side." Big talk, but it might be true.

(continued)

Bombing the roads and bridges will slow the transportation of missiles and other supplies but probably not halt it. "Interdiction campaigns," as such tactics are known, have a spotty record in the annals of military history. The other side can fairly easily repair the damage or find alternative routes. It's also hard to tell a "rocket convoy" from an ordinary truck. In at least one case, the Israelis reportedly bombed vehicles carrying medicine from the United Arab Emirates—a sure way to alienate supporters and harden hearts and times. (The UAE is among the Arab nations that have criticized Hezbollah for starting this round of violence.)

Can Hezbollah's rockets do much damage? No. The most powerful warheads are packed with only 100 to 200 pounds of explosive. They miss their targets by, on average, two-thirds of a mile. This may be why Qomati said Hezbollah had, for the moment, "suspended" its attempts to target the petrochemical plant in Haifa—they can't hit it. Still, accuracy isn't necessary to keep up a campaign of terror—and that may be all Hezbollah needs to do.

But, the question remains, what is it they want to do? If their goal is to destroy the state of Israel, they're going to fall short. But if their goal is simply to stand up to Israel, to wage a war of attrition, and to walk away from it intact, their reputation enhanced, they could accomplish that.

(continued)

They could reasonably expect that Israel is not going to launch a full-scale invasion of Lebanon. It tried that approach in 1982, and things went badly. They could also reasonably expect—once the first few volleys flew—that the Israeli bombs and missiles would kill Lebanese civilians (as bombs and missiles tend to do). Some Lebanese would blame Hezbollah for the damage, especially at first. But as the fighting escalated, more would blame those dropping the bombs and firing the missiles. The weakness of the Lebanese government makes this all the more likely. As the Israeli bombs have fallen, Hezbollah—not the Lebanese government—has been operating many of the shelters and the medical services. Some may see them as the instigators of the violence, but others see them as the victim-saviors.

And from Slate today, worries over the impact of the conflict on the Lebanese government and a proposal to salvage the situation:

Can anything be redeemed from the horrors of northern Israel and Lebanon? It's becoming clearer that neither side can win this war. Yet only Israel requires victory to come out ahead. Hezbollah needs merely to survive, and this seems increasingly assured.

Even prominent Israeli commentators are growing disenchanted with their government's campaign. Ze'ev Schiff, the well-regarded columnist for Ha'aretz, writes today that, by driving hundreds of Shiites from villages in southern Lebanon on the grounds that Hezbollah might have missiles there, Israel "could justifiably be accused of a disproportionate military response." Meanwhile, he notes, airstrikes alone "cannot solve the problem of missiles being fired at Israel," yet the Israeli people would not support the option that might do the job: "a broad, lengthy ground operation in Lebanon."

Meanwhile, it's an open question how long the Arab governments that have denounced Hezbollah (and only Hezbollah) for starting this war—Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates—can sustain their positions in the face of Israel's escalating destructiveness. Yesterday, Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister of Iraq, denounced Israel for excessive force and came out on Hezbollah's side. Maliki is more indebted to the United States than any other Arab leader; his regime would collapse without America's military presence. If he can take such a bold stance, the other rulers—whose populations are more anti-Israel and pro-Hezbollah than they are—could feel pressure mounting.

(continued)

The war has revealed just how weak the Lebanese government is. Hezbollah holds only a minority of seats in parliament, yet Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is clearly incapable of bringing its leaders under control. Nor is the Lebanese army able to displace Hezbollah militia fighters from their positions in southern Lebanon.

Michael Young, the opinion editor for Beirut's Daily Star, writes that a Hezbollah "victory" (which would be accomplished by a mere stalemate on the battlefield) would weaken the government further. It would show that this minority party "can stand up to Israel, and can do so because it mobilized its armed state within the state without consulting any of its Lebanese political partners." As a result, Lebanon's "already frayed" political consensus "may crack." Young elaborates:

When Lebanon's diverse religious communities decide the problem is that one side has the weapons while the others have nothing but a choice to remain silent, Lebanon will break down, and it could do so violently.

(continued)

Saad Hariri, the majority leader of Lebanon's parliament (and the son of Rafik Hariri, the former prime minister whose assassination triggered last year's uprising against the Syrian occupiers), has a proposal on the table: Israel withdraws from Shabaa Farms and Hezbollah transfers the handling of a prisoner exchange to the Lebanese government. Zvi Bar'el, a columnist for Ha'aretz, writes that such a deal would hand the government a much-needed achievement.

The problem, of course, is that the Lebanese government is too weak to demand a role in this deal—and Hezbollah would see no reason to go along with it in any case.

The solution is for the United States, the United Nations, the Arab League, and maybe the European Union (throw in as many organizations as possible)—acting, crucially, alongside the Lebanese government and army—to impose this deal. This means cracking down on Israel to cease fire—and it means getting Syria or Iran (or whoever it takes) to crack down on Hezbollah to hand Prime Minister Siniora the Israeli prisoners.

Then this same international coalition—again, with the Lebanese army at least officially in the lead—will have to deploy a substantial peacekeeping operation along a wide buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon. Finally, the international community will have to give the Lebanese government billions of dollars to repair the vast damage inflicted by the Israeli airstrikes—not so much as an act of charity but to pre-empt Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah from organizing (and taking political credit for) the cleanup.

It's an unsatisfying solution, like all the others that will be floated in the coming weeks. It will not settle the underlying conflict, but—short of a regional war that could get far deadlier than any outcome could justify—a real settlement may simply be elusive for now. It will, however, stop the killing. It will keep Israel from digging itself deeper into a crisis that has no good end. And it might keep Lebanon from devolving into an anarchic state that would almost certainly prompt the return of Syrian occupiers—or, worse still, the ascendance of a solidified Hezbollah regime.

It just seems appallingly obvious that this military campaign, like Israel's last military campaign against Hezbollah, like Israel's many campaigns against Hamas, like the US campaign against Iraqi insurgents, and like the Soviet campaign against Afghanistan's mujaheddin, will fail to cripple or destroy Hezbollah. It is disappointing, but ultimately not surprising, that advocating some different approach, one that while less immediately gratifying is, over the long term, more likely to produce actual progress, is interpreted as being anti-Israel or pro-terrorist.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

It just seems appallingly obvious that this military campaign, like Israel's last military campaign against Hezbollah, like Israel's many campaigns against Hamas, like the US campaign against Iraqi insurgents, and like the Soviet campaign against Afghanistan's mujaheddin, will fail to cripple or destroy Hezbollah. It is disappointing, but ultimately not surprising, that advocating some different approach, one that while less immediately gratifying is, over the long term, more likely to produce actual progress, is interpreted as being anti-Israel or pro-terrorist.

Fox News reported 16 Israeli soldiers dead, bunker hit didn't seem to get the Hezbollah leadership, 40 rockets fired today, Israeli warning of civilians in south Lebanon to leave ... ground offensive may begin soon.

Hezbollah leader says possible surprises, Fox speculates maybe chemical weapons. Lebanese military may join with Hezbollah to fight against ground offensive.

What a clusterf**k. The Lebanese military should take this opportunity to attack Hezbollah.

[Flasch186]

more than half the lebanese military have/had taken oathes to support Hezbollah...

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

And the Arabs could have had peace simply by recognizing Israel had a right to 0.1% of the land in the entire Middle East and not repeatedly attacking Israel since its formation.

That is the genesis of the Middle East problem. Funny how it didn't make your list, though. I think that speaks volumes to your bias. You pretend to be a anti-violence supporter, but really it's just a double standard.

I think that if you look at my list, you will see that each and every one of them was US wars. I would think that would make my bias towards the US, but you see it as a bias towards Arabs. Whatever.

I don't see what 'right' Israel had to .1% of their land, other than that the Jews were claiming that they should have it and the fact that people of their same religion ruled it hundreds of years ago. Surely you can see how if that was your land, you would call that claim tenuous at best, and want to fight to get your land back. Especially if it wasn't just the land of your ethnicity, but your actual homeland.

If you want to talk about the 'genesis of the Middle East problem', you could go back to it being Zionism movement. Or the Crusades of 1099. Or the Arab conquerors of 640. Etc, etc.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

each one of those is incomparable to what is going on in LEbanon vs. Hezbollah and their religius fervor to hijack LEbanon and destroy Israel.....at least to rational folk.

No need for ad hominems, I was just pointing out your flawed logic in saying that having the power to stop the fighting makes you automatically the immoral one.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Fox News reported 16 Israeli soldiers dead, bunker hit didn't seem to get the Hezbollah leadership, 40 rockets fired today, Israeli warning of civilians in south Lebanon to leave ... ground offensive may begin soon.

Hezbollah leader says possible surprises, Fox speculates maybe chemical weapons. Lebanese military may join with Hezbollah to fight against ground offensive.

What a clusterf**k. The Lebanese military should take this opportunity to attack Hezbollah.

If your country were being overrun by a superior army, would it be moral to use chemical weapons against military targets to defend your country?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

If your country were being overrun by a superior army, would it be moral to use chemical weapons against military targets to defend your country?

Don't know about the morality of this but yes, the use of chemical weapons is okay imo. The caveat is, don't complain if Israel takes it up a notch in aggressiveness if Hezbollah uses chemical weapons. At that stage, the gloves are off.

I believe this holds true if the Lebanese military sides with Hezbollah in fighting against the pending Israeli invasion. If there is coordinated resistance between L/H against an Israeli incursion into southern Lebanon, then the 'intertwine' logic becomes real. Civilian collateral damage and certainly infrastrucutre all becomes 'understandable'.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

more than half the lebanese military have/had taken oathes to support Hezbollah...

I have not read this. Can you quote a source?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

It just seems appallingly obvious that this military campaign, like Israel's last military campaign against Hezbollah, like Israel's many campaigns against Hamas, like the US campaign against Iraqi insurgents, and like the Soviet campaign against Afghanistan's mujaheddin, will fail to cripple or destroy Hezbollah. It is disappointing, but ultimately not surprising, that advocating some different approach, one that while less immediately gratifying is, over the long term, more likely to produce actual progress, is interpreted as being anti-Israel or pro-terrorist.

Yes, a good point.

When doing conflict prediction analyses of this nature, it should be remembered that morality should be kept separate from relative capability and strategy. This is certainly not to say that morality has nothing to do with conflict, but in the end whether a side is "good" or "bad" has very little to do with their chances of winning.

As for the point about how modern armies with superior firepower have performed poorly against muslim insurgents, I would say that this is not something to do with Islam, but has more to do with how the tactics of guerrilla warfare and the mindset of those who practice it minimizes the advantages of the technically superior power. Outside the West-Islam sphere, the US vs the Viet Cong, the UK vs Irish revolutionaries in the Irish war for independence, and to some extent the British vs the colonists in the American Revolution are all examples of success of the less powerful side. Were any of these sides any more "moral" or "good" than the other? Who knows, possibly. Did that have anything to do with whether they won or lost? Probably not.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I have not read this. Can you quote a source?

I had heard it on TV, HOWEVER, I will say after reading online about them, either I misheard it or the pundit mis-spoke because everything Im reading on the net - says that they are NOT members of hezbollah but simply unwilling to fight hezbollah, for a plethora of different reasons. I apologize for misleading and being mistook myself.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

It just seems appallingly obvious that this military campaign, like Israel's last military campaign against Hezbollah, like Israel's many campaigns against Hamas, like the US campaign against Iraqi insurgents, and like the Soviet campaign against Afghanistan's mujaheddin, will fail to cripple or destroy Hezbollah. It is disappointing, but ultimately not surprising, that advocating some different approach, one that while less immediately gratifying is, over the long term, more likely to produce actual progress, is interpreted as being anti-Israel or pro-terrorist.

I guess what I don't really understand is, what is the alternative? Ceding the farmland to Lebanon? Every Israeli citizen relocating to Brooklyn?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I guess what I don't really understand is, what is the alternative? Ceding the farmland to Lebanon? Every Israeli citizen relocating to Brooklyn?

I guess so. I don't see an alternative. The terror groups have long admitted they won't stop until every Jew is entirely out of the region.

Yes, Israel is weakened by fighting back. But they would be weakened further by not fighting back.

This cartoon may be a little offensive to some. But it was printed in a mainstram newspaper and I think it's an accurate portrayal of what we're up against with Al Qaeda, and what Israel is up against with Hamas and Hezbollah.

hxxp://www.unionleader.com/uploads/media-items/2006/july/717cartoon.jpg

Terrorism is a very effective weapon against an unpopular power.

To the Hamas/Hezbollah sympathizers here (and when I say sympathizers, I mean exactly that, people who have some degree of sympathy for their cause - I don't mean you necessarily want to wipe Israel off the map, too, though they clearly do...)

What would be your reaction if Native Americans began a concerted terror campaign against nearby American cities? Let's say they get Russia to train them in guerrilla warfare and start lobbing missiles at downtown Tulsa or Fargo with the long-term intent of wiping out these populations and claiming specific ancestoral land?

What should our army do in response?

And keep in mind that Native Americans have far more claim to kick the US out than Hezbollah does with Israel. Jews had a long-term, consistent presence in the region - long before Zionism was even a policy.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I don't see what 'right' Israel had to .1% of their land, other than that the Jews were claiming that they should have it and the fact that people of their same religion ruled it hundreds of years ago. Surely you can see how if that was your land, you would call that claim tenuous at best, and want to fight to get your land back. Especially if it wasn't just the land of your ethnicity, but your actual homeland.

If you want to talk about the 'genesis of the Middle East problem', you could go back to it being Zionism movement. Or the Crusades of 1099. Or the Arab conquerors of 640. Etc, etc.

But there was no continuous presence in the region until the Jewish settlements. This was nomadic territory for the most part.

In 1850, before Zionism was anyone's policy, Jews made up about 3% of Palestine. In 1900, it was about 12%, which is about the time Zionism too hold. In 1948, it was still only 40%. One fact you conveniently ignore is that about 80% of the near-million Arabs living in Israel when it was formed left voluntarily, [b]at the request of the rest of the Arab world[/i], when the Arabs declared war.

Second, Arabs migrated to the region with the Jews. The settlements made land habitable. They lived in peace for the most part until the 1920s. Between 1900 and 1948 about as many Arabs migrated to Palestine as Jews.

Jews also made up a significant percentage of the rest of the region. In 1900, the Jewish population of Turkey was about 300,000. They're just about all gone now. About 30,000 Jews lived in Egypt. All gone now. About 65,000 lived in the Syria region. All gone now. Another 60,000 in Tunisia. Down to about 1,000 today. Iran had 35,000 in 1900, about 20,000 today, surprisingly.

More Jews were forced out of other countries in the region than there were Arabs in Israel as it was founded.

Jews lived scattered around the world, and many groups had lived in the Middle East or North Africa for hundreds of years, if not predating Arab conquerers.

After the Russian pogroms and Hitler's genocide, the Jews felt a state of their own was necessary. But they were still willing to live in peace, side by side with the Arabs. It was the Arabs who decided that wasn't possible.

Why is it that the Jews who were forced out of Turkey and other countries in the region don't count? Why is it only the Arabs who left Israel on their own, as their compatriots promised genocide, who count with you?

The Arabs decided they couldn't live with the Jews, not vice versa. They declared war. They're the ones who still, to this day, promise genocide. And still, Israel is 14% Arab, and that 14% has full citizenship rights, affirmative action programs to support them, and their children are dying from Hezbollah missles, too.

The Palestinian problem is the result of Arab countries who control 99.9% of the land in the region, but refuse to take in Palestinian refugees?

At what point will you see that the Jews have a right to live in peace, just as any other group in the entire world does? Why are they the only group of people in the entire world not entitled to a peaceful existence?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

What would be your reaction if Native Americans began a concerted terror campaign against nearby American cities? Let's say they get Russia to train them in guerrilla warfare and start lobbing missiles at downtown Tulsa or Fargo with the long-term intent of wiping out these populations and claiming specific ancestoral land?

What should our army do in response?

And keep in mind that Native Americans have far more claim to kick the US out than Hezbollah does with Israel. Jews had a long-term, consistent presence in the region - long before Zionism was even a policy.

Our army and special forces would attack them. I don't think a single person here has said that Israel has no right to attack Hezbollah. You are still fighting a strawman. What our military would not do is start bombing the infrastructure of every Indian reservation in the country to "punish" them, as Israel says they are "punishing" the Lebanese.

What about you? What would you do? According to your philosophy, if the Native Americans claim our land, we should give it to them, maybe declare the Dakota's a separate country, to be administered and governed by the Native Americans? I mean, that's just a small fraction of the land we have, and most of the area is uninhabited. The people of Fargo should just deal with it. Right?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But there was no continuous presence in the region until the Jewish settlements. This was nomadic territory for the most part.

In 1850, before Zionism was anyone's policy, Jews made up about 3% of Palestine. In 1900, it was about 12%, which is about the time Zionism too hold. In 1948, it was still only 40%. One fact you conveniently ignore is that about 80% of the near-million Arabs living in Israel when it was formed left voluntarily, [b]at the request of the rest of the Arab world[/i], when the Arabs declared war.

When was the abandoned Jeruselem re-settled by the Jews? 1900? I thought it was older than that. If there was no continuous presence in the region, how were Jews only 3% of the population that numbered in the hundreds of thousands in 1850? Did those three percent show up, then the 97% of Palestinians show up right after them in the Jewish settlements? I know that Israel made a lot of the land habitable, but to say that the Palestinians weren't even there is absurd.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

After the Russian pogroms and Hitler's genocide, the Jews felt a state of their own was necessary. But they were still willing to live in peace, side by side with the Arabs. It was the Arabs who decided that wasn't possible.

Why is it that the Jews who were forced out of Turkey and other countries in the region don't count? Why is it only the Arabs who left Israel on their own, as their compatriots promised genocide, who count with you?

The Arabs decided they couldn't live with the Jews, not vice versa. They declared war. They're the ones who still, to this day, promise genocide. And still, Israel is 14% Arab, and that 14% has full citizenship rights, affirmative action programs to support them, and their children are dying from Hezbollah missles, too.

The Palestinian problem is the result of Arab countries who control 99.9% of the land in the region, but refuse to take in Palestinian refugees?

At what point will you see that the Jews have a right to live in peace, just as any other group in the entire world does? Why are they the only group of people in the entire world not entitled to a peaceful existence?

This whole 'just live in peace' thing is completely illogical. Someone comes in, is given part of your land by an outside power, then they want to live in peace, and you are completely in the wrong for wanting your land back? Again, you can't have one side given what they want, taken from someone else, then declare the former moral because they want peace.

I feel for the Jews that were forced to leave Turkey and elsewhere. But that doesn't automatically give them a right to take someone else's land. It isn't the fault of the Palestinians that Turkey kicked out any Jewish people.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

At what point will you see that the Jews have a right to live in peace, just as any other group in the entire world does? Why are they the only group of people in the entire world not entitled to a peaceful existence?

I know. It sucks that Jews can't live in peace anywhere. Persecuted in NY, LA, etc. Sad.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Our army and special forces would attack them. I don't think a single person here has said that Israel has no right to attack Hezbollah. You are still fighting a strawman. What our military would not do is start bombing the infrastructure of every Indian reservation in the country to "punish" them, as Israel says they are "punishing" the Lebanese.

What about you? What would you do? According to your philosophy, if the Native Americans claim our land, we should give it to them, maybe declare the Dakota's a separate country, to be administered and governed by the Native Americans? I mean, that's just a small fraction of the land we have, and most of the area is uninhabited. The people of Fargo should just deal with it. Right?

Isn't that what the reservations are for? Remember how small Israel is in comparison to the Arab world. There are at least two separate reservations in America larger than the entire country of Israel.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Isn't that what the reservations are for? Remember how small Israel is in comparison to the Arab world. There are at least two separate reservations in America larger than the entire country of Israel.

Reservations are selected by the US government, governed by the US, and not sovereign in any way. Are you advocating that the Arabs should select some uninhabited land of the Arabs' choosing and give it to the Jews, as long as the Jewish people live under the laws of the Arab country they are in, maybe throw some casinos their way too? Or are you really saying that reservations are the same as the creation of Israel?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

When was the abandoned Jeruselem re-settled by the Jews? 1900? I thought it was older than that. If there was no continuous presence in the region, how were Jews only 3% of the population that numbered in the hundreds of thousands in 1850? Did those three percent show up, then the 97% of Palestinians show up right after them in the Jewish settlements? I know that Israel made a lot of the land habitable, but to say that the Palestinians weren't even there is absurd.


This whole 'just live in peace' thing is completely illogical. Someone comes in, is given part of your land by an outside power, then they want to live in peace, and you are completely in the wrong for wanting your land back? Again, you can't have one side given what they want, taken from someone else, then declare the former moral because they want peace.

I feel for the Jews that were forced to leave Turkey and elsewhere. But that doesn't automatically give them a right to take someone else's land. It isn't the fault of the Palestinians that Turkey kicked out any Jewish people.

1. The Arabs left voluntarily.

2. The Jews had Jerusalem for more than 1,000 years, then were kicked out by the Arabs. They maintained a presence in the region. They gradually returned to their homeland.

3. If 1,400 years ago doesn't count, then why does 60 years ago count?

4. Yes, it sucks for individual Palestinians who trusted their fellow Arabs. But when you wage war and you lose, sometimes you don't get what you want in the settlement. The Palestinians may have a right to complain, but not about the Jews. They made a dumb choice.

5. Israel didn't wage that war. They would have been happy to share a country with the Arabs, peacefully. The Arabs chose to attack instead.

6. Palestine was not a country, and is still not a country. The Jews were allowed to settle there by the owners of that land.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

2. The Jews had Jerusalem for more than 1,000 years, then were kicked out by the Arabs. They maintained a presence in the region. They gradually returned to their homeland.

Ha. This is so awkward. So if Mexicans gradually return to their homeland, and someday a foreign entity awards them California, the people of California are just screwed?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Reservations are selected by the US government, governed by the US, and not sovereign in any way. Are you advocating that the Arabs should select some uninhabited land of the Arabs' choosing and give it to the Jews, as long as the Jewish people live under the laws of the Arab country they are in, maybe throw some casinos their way too? Or are you really saying that reservations are the same as the creation of Israel?

Reservations are sovereign, with internal governments, usually on land familiar to the native group - though remember that they, like the Arabs throughout much of the Middle East, were often nomadic.

I'm saying that the Isrealis have just as much claim to the land as the Arabs. And because the Arabs refuse to coexist with them in peace, the Jews are entitled to a sovereign nation somewhere in the region.

Palestine, for many reasons, was the best location.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Ha. This is so awkward. So if Mexicans gradually return to their homeland, and someday a foreign entity awards them California, the people of California are just screwed?

The USA is a sovereign nation. Palestine never was.

Mexico gave California to the US in exchange for a lot of money, and citizenship rights.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Ha. This is so awkward. So if Mexicans gradually return to their homeland, and someday a foreign entity awards them California, the people of California are just screwed?

Well if the Brittish Empire folds up shop in their colony of California, and leaves a large Mexican population the option to declare a new state. Yes then the rest of the people in California would be more than welcome to stay or to leave while the surrounding territories attacked the new Mexican state. If that Mexican state prevailed, then yeah, the folks that lost the war, should accept that reality and consider that the Mexicans had won the right to that land. Those surrounding states who declared war also ought to readilly accept the population that left their homes in support of the war.

So yeah what you said.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The USA is a sovereign nation. Palestine never was.

Mexico gave California to the US in exchange for a lot of money, and citizenship rights.

The principle is the same. Taking ones land, giving it to another.

Sorry, if you can't see why people are upset, I don't know what to tell you.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I know. It sucks that Jews can't live in peace anywhere. Persecuted in NY, LA, etc. Sad.

.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

The principle is the same. Taking ones land, giving it to another.

Sorry, if you can't see why people are upset, I don't know what to tell you.

It's not that people can't see why the Arabs are upset. What we object to is the solution they propose.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It's not that people can't see why the Arabs are upset. What we object to is the solution they propose.

Sounds like that's an issue for Israel to deal with...and if they can't handle themselves, Israel should be punished accordingly. Oh wait, we (the US) don't let that happen.

We've pampered this abused child, and now the abused child is acting out.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Sounds like that's an issue for Israel to deal with...and if they can't handle themselves, Israel should be punished accordingly. Oh wait, we (the US) don't let that happen.

We've pampered this abused child, and now the abused child is acting out.

Actually, pampered is going a bit far. The US support of Israel is not a moral one, it is a completely strategic one--the massive amounts of foreign aid makes Israel more or less beholden to the whims of US foreign policy. Foreign aid has more or less bought us a reliable vassal in an otherwise unpredictable region.

The threat of a foreign aid cut-off keeps the Israelis in line. Besides that, we have more or less bankrolled the Egyptian military--that also keeps the Israelis honest.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Sounds like that's an issue for Israel to deal with...and if they can't handle themselves, Israel should be punished accordingly. Oh wait, we (the US) don't let that happen.

We've pampered this abused child, and now the abused child is acting out.

A child is either pampered or abused - which is it???

But, anyway - your point of view would have more credibility if you would occasionally condemn Hezbollah's launching of missiles into populated areas. Your lack of criticism on the one hand, combined with your inane Zionist conspiracy theories (do you still think Israel is responsible for 9/11?), plus your insistence that Israel has no right to exist, means that nobody will ever take you seriously on this topic.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

A child is either pampered or abused - which is it???

But, anyway - your point of view would have more credibility if you would occasionally condemn Hezbollah's launching of missiles into populated areas. Your lack of criticism on the one hand, combined with your inane Zionist conspiracy theories (do you still think Israel is responsible for 9/11?), plus your insistence that Israel has no right to exist, means that nobody will ever take you seriously on this topic.

Both. Abused early on, now pampered.

I think the whole situation is regretable.

I don't think Israel is responsible for 9/11, I never said that. I think it's worth looking into (their knowledge of the situation), as are their major spying initiatives in the US.

My thoughts on a "right to exist" aren't limited to Israel - I think the entire concept is a bit strange. What, does the United States have a "right to exist" and that makes us immune to those who challenge us? Did the USSR have a "right to exist" when we wanted to topple communism (what they were founded on)?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Both. Abused early on, now pampered.

I think the whole situation is regretable.

I don't think Israel is responsible for 9/11, I never said that. I think it's worth looking into, as are their major spying initiatives in the US.

My thoughts on a "right to exist" aren't limited to Israel - I think the entire concept is a bit strange. What, does the United States have a "right to exist" and that makes us immune to those who challenge us? Did the USSR have a "right to exist" when we wanted to topple communism (what they were founded on)?

Then you don't agree that Palestine has a right to exist? That's a dangerous path to tread upon.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Then you don't agree that Palestine has a right to exist? That's a dangerous path to tread upon.

I don't think anyone has an irrefutable "right to exist". Neither does the US. Neither does Canada.

It's all subjective.

Fact is, everything withstanding, Israel has screwed over the people in that region so hard time and time again, that people simply hate them now.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I don't think Israel is responsible for 9/11, I never said that. I think it's worth looking into (their knowledge of the situation), as are their major spying initiatives in the US.

Rexallllsc. I probably missed this from a while ago but can you please clarify for me. I do want to understand your statement.

1. You don't think Israel is responsible for 9/11.
2. You think we should investigate what they knew about 9/11.

Are you implying ...

a. They knew something was going to happen but did nothing substantial to inform us.
b. They knew something was going to happen, got Jews out of the Trade Center and did nothing substantial to warn us.
c. They knew something was going to happen, did inform us but we did not pay attention.
d. They are some sort of co-conspirators, minor conspirators via funding, intelligence etc.
e. (other options)

[Klinglerware]

No state has an inherent right to exist. It's not subjective though: the ability to impose and guarantee one's sovereignty (via one's own power or the power of sympathetic states) ultimately determines whether a state exists or not.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Rexallllsc. I probably missed this from a while ago but can you please clarify for me. I do want to understand your statement.

1. You don't think Israel is responsible for 9/11.
2. You think we should investigate what they knew about 9/11.

Are you implying ...

a. They knew something was going to happen but did nothing substantial to inform us.
b. They knew something was going to happen, got Jews out of the Trade Center and did nothing substantial to warn us.
c. They knew something was going to happen, did inform us but we did not pay attention.
d. They are some sort of co-conspirators, minor conspirators via funding, intelligence etc.
e. (other options)

I believe A & D are plausible and should be looked into.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Rexallllsc. I probably missed this from a while ago but can you please clarify for me. I do want to understand your statement.

1. You don't think Israel is responsible for 9/11.
2. You think we should investigate what they knew about 9/11.

It's genesis comes from this thread:

http://fof.sportplanet.gamespy.com//...ad.php?t=47713

[-Mojo Jojo-]

The point I have been trying to argue (both through my own words and in the quotations from other sources) is that there is fundamental mistake being made when this conflict is viewed through a military prism. If this were basically a military conflict, Israel's responses would make sense. But then the terrorist actions would not. The style of attacks they make will never, ever destroy Israel militarily. From a military standpoint, the damage that Hezbollah and Hamas do is completely insignificant. To them the war is not military, it is political, and they are very astute and talented political actors. Israel, on the other hand, treats the conflict as military and comes off clumsy and ham-handed in the political arena. For Israel to win (and I would very much like this to happen) they need to wage a political war. I don't disagree that there needs to be some military response, for the usual stated reason of needing to demonstrate that Israel is not toothless. But I think the military response needs to be a) more precise (which is why I would put the focus on Israel's capable and experienced anti-terror agencies and special forces) and b) executed in conjunction with political engagement.

The initial reaction to the kidnapping among the Lebanese public was, in general, not favorable to Hezbollah. If Israel's military response had been more narrowly targetted and combined with diplomatic contact with the Lebanese government (and possibly some coordination of efforts to recover the kidnapped soldiers), the public reaction in Lebanon could have remained unfavorable to Hezbollah. It could have driven a wedge between the majority of Lebanese who want democratic rule and peace with Israel and the minority who seek war. But widespread strikes throughout the civil infrastructure while leaving the Lebanese government completely isolated and helpless has had the opposite effect, driving the Lebanese majority towards Hezbollah and placing the wedge between the entire population of Lebanon and Israel.

My frustration is simply that Israel, who actually want peace, so badly misplay their hand by focusing on the military battlefield, where their actual impact is quite limited, and consistently allow themselves to be beaten where it really matters, on the political battlefield. This is not to say that political solutions will be quick or easy. They will almost certainly be painful and slow, but they are the only solutions that can ever bring closure to this conflict.

The cartoon Jim posted isn't wrong. That is basically what this scenario is. And here's why: Israel and the US want peace. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas (or least certain factions thereof) want war. In order to achieve peace the winning of hearts and minds on the other side is critical (roll your eyes if you want, but it's true). But if you want war, that's the last of your concerns. So we have to control our actions while they don't give a fuck. No one said it was easy being the good guys.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

It's genesis comes from this thread:

http://fof.sportplanet.gamespy.com//...ad.php?t=47713

Klinglerware. Thanks for the link. I don't feel up to reading it right now but will.

I found this on Drudge and found it interesting. I wondered why it took the Israelis so long to go Infantry. The article said they were trying the air war option first. If true, I think I could have told them that wasn't going to work.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...986111113.html

[Glengoyne]

Rex must have finally put me on ignore.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Rex must have finally put me on ignore.

thats ok he may be the first ever that I will put on ignore.

Dave Chappelle stopped doing his show because Bill Cosby and Oprah were going to have him killed.

Both are plausible, I guess, but theyre also ridiculously incomprehensible as having any foot in reality....but if it opens even a crack in the door that Jews are bad, or that Oprah and Bill have that sort of power than plant the seed and watch it grow. So ignorant.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

thats ok he may be the first ever that I will put on ignore.

Dave Chappelle stopped doing his show because Bill Cosby and Oprah were going to have him killed.

Both are plausible, I guess, but theyre also ridiculously incomprehensible as having any foot in reality....but if it opens even a crack in the door that Jews are bad, or that Oprah and Bill have that sort of power than plant the seed and watch it grow. So ignorant.

You think it's "ridiculously incomprehensible" that another country may have had intelligence on 9/11?

Edit: Who said Jews are bad? You should get something straight, Israel does not represent all Jews. That would be like saying I said blacks are bad because I believe OJ killed his wife.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

You think it's "ridiculously incomprehensible" that another country may have had intelligence on 9/11?

yup, couldve had as much as we did and you saw that it was almost impossible to put the clues together, so I do NOT suspect another country wouldve put them together either....ESPECIALLY when it wasnt red flagging their country in the "static".

Jew comment = youre right, sorry.....however your conspiracy theory WOULD paint a very broad picture that I DO Think is idiotic.

[Flasch186]

new news tonight rearding the impending humanitarian crisis...

I DO think it is imperative AND the responsibility of the world U.S., Israel, Syria, all of us to make sure that the food, medicine, water, etc. get into the civilians that did not heed the warnings OR couldnt leave of their own volition. THAT I do believe is the responsibility of everyone ESPECIALLY Israel, to protect the health of those citizens caught in the middle of their attempt to rout Hezbollah and I certainly hope they move with God Speed in this direction.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

new news tonight rearding the impending humanitarian crisis...

I DO think it is imperative AND the responsibility of the world U.S., Israel, Syria, all of us to make sure that the food, medicine, water, etc. get into the civilians that did not heed the warnings OR couldnt leave of their own volition. THAT I do believe is the responsibility of everyone ESPECIALLY Israel, to protect the health of those citizens caught in the middle of their attempt to rout Hezbollah and I certainly hope they move with God Speed in this direction.

I didn't want to get back into this thread, and will stay out of the Israel-Lebannon thing (Jim, I wouldn't keep arguing, your not going to change the minds of others), but this got my interest:

A) Why is it the US's responsibility for humanitarian relief of something that is happening way outside of our borders, and something we can't control (the war)? Just wanted to understand why you said the "US", without mention of others.

B) Should we risk our own men and resources (when they could be spent here helping our own) to support those who decide to stay, after Israel and others are telling them to leave?

Just some questions I wanted to ask.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I didn't want to get back into this thread, and will stay out of the Israel-Lebannon thing (Jim, I wouldn't keep arguing, your not going to change the minds of others), but this got my interest:

A) Why is it the US's responsibility for humanitarian relief of something that is happening way outside of our borders, and something we can't control (the war)? Just wanted to understand why you said the "US", without mention of others.

B) Should we risk our own men and resources (when they could be spent here helping our own) to support those who decide to stay, after Israel and others are telling them to leave?

Just some questions I wanted to ask.

a - when I said "us" I meant all countries with the capability to help....and the reason is the same as when I say "we" should go into countries to stop genocide, help save people from starving, etc. Its my opinion of how the world order works.

b - yes

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

a - when I said "us" I meant all countries with the capability to help....and the reason is the same as when I say "we" should go into countries to stop genocide, help save people from starving, etc. Its my opinion of how the world order works.

b - yes

Thanks....

Now slowing backing out the thread again.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

... something that is happening way outside of our borders, and something we can't control (the war)? ....

yeah, the US is just a disinterested bystander with no ability to affect events in Lebanon.

July 22, 2006
Weapons
U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis
By DAVID S. CLOUD and HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON, July 21 — The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.

The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/wo...rtner=homepage

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

A) Why is it the US's responsibility for humanitarian relief of something that is happening way outside of our borders, and something we can't control (the war)? Just wanted to understand why you said the "US", without mention of others.

B) Should we risk our own men and resources (when they could be spent here helping our own) to support those who decide to stay, after Israel and others are telling them to leave?

a) I do agree it is the world's responsibility to do humanitarian relief but the reality of the situation is in some specific cases (ex. post-War Europe) the world lacks the political will, military might, logistical resources to pull off a humanitarian relief without the US.

Say what you will about the UN and its politics, but it allows countries to collaborate better in humanitarian relief than without. Ex. UNICEF might be rife with corruption, but there has certainly been people that have benefited and would not have without the UNICEF organizationl.

b) No if this group is able bodied etc. Yes if this group also consists of children, elderly etc. (which it probably does).