Middle East - what's next

[Edward64]

Dutch. Thanks for the info from wiki. I found additional info on CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...lah/index.html

I don't think either is conclusive whether Hezbollah reports to Syria, Iran or a little of both.

Does anyone else know?

[SackAttack]

I think it's less "reports to" and more "is supported by," and the answer is 'both.'

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Dutch. Thanks for the info from wiki. I found additional info on CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...lah/index.html

I don't think either is conclusive whether Hezbollah reports to Syria, Iran or a little of both.

Does anyone else know?

Hezbollah is Shia and linked to Iran (which is Shia), Hamas is Sunni and linked to Syria (which is Sunni).

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I think it's less "reports to" and more "is supported by," and the answer is 'both.'

That's probably closest. It's probably akin to saying the USA is responsible for Israel since we supply them with all their military equipment. It's not directly true, but it's close enough.

And like that relationship, we may not always agree with how Israel handles itself, but we understand. Same with Iran and Hezbollah.

Of course, the major difference is the USA and Israel just want the Arabs to leave Israel alone, not so for Iran and Hezbollah which won't quit unless they can secure the land that is owned by Israel.

They won't be able to have much of a chance to do that until they get those nukes.

[ISiddiqui]

Though Hezbollah hasn't really been the suicide bomb types though (or really much bombing aside from rockets into North Isreal from time to time). They haven't really shown any want to "secure the land that is owned by Isreal" aside from Sheeba Farms area. I have a suspicion that sometimes Iran uses Hezbollah to deflect attention from what Iran is doing.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

That's probably closest. It's probably akin to saying the USA is responsible for Israel since we supply them with all their military equipment. It's not directly true, but it's close enough.

And like that relationship, we may not always agree with how Israel handles itself, but we understand. Same with Iran and Hezbollah.

Of course, the major difference is the USA and Israel just want the Arabs to leave Israel alone, not so for Iran and Hezbollah which won't quit unless they can secure the land that is owned by Israel.

They won't be able to have much of a chance to do that until they get those nukes.

Saying Iran:Hezbollah::US:Isreal is completely off the mark.

Isrealis just bombed the Palestinian foreign ministry in Gaza. What's the point of that? Isn't that widening the war? EDIT: They had already bombed that building last week.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Though Hezbollah hasn't really been the suicide bomb types though (or really much bombing aside from rockets into North Isreal from time to time). They haven't really shown any want to "secure the land that is owned by Isreal" aside from Sheeba Farms area. I have a suspicion that sometimes Iran uses Hezbollah to deflect attention from what Iran is doing.

Here are some fun facts about Hezbollah, with major attacks recorded as well. Kinda helps put their activities in perspective.

http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=3101

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Ok, then what if the UN decreed California or Texas an Hispanic state? Many people would be pissed. Just because a group has been immigrating there for years wouldn't take away your right to be pissed that a body that you had no respresentation in decides that your home is now a theocratic state of another religion.

But the pre-Israel state was never "govern" by an Arab nation after the collaspe of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. The land was governed by Britian, as the British Mandate of Palestine before the UN took it to create two states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...e_of_Palestine

I've always hated this argument because it doesn't exactly reflect what sat in that land before the Israel-Palestine arrangement of the two states. People make it seem like the Arabs were in control and were the sole occupiants of the land.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

That's the whole point. Israel went to war over 2 captured soldiers.

As far as influence, puhleaze.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Saying Iran:Hezbollah::US:Isreal is completely off the mark.

Isrealis just bombed the Palestinian foreign ministry in Gaza. What's the point of that? Isn't that widening the war? EDIT: They had already bombed that building last week.

To be fair, Israel responded to a Hamas kidnapping of an Israeli soldier before the Hezbollah kidnappings. So there is a point.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Ok, then what if the UN decreed California or Texas an Hispanic state? Many people would be pissed. Just because a group has been immigrating there for years wouldn't take away your right to be pissed that a body that you had no respresentation in decides that your home is now a theocratic state of another religion.

1. Calling Israel a theocratic state, at least compared to the theocratic states the terrorists are trying to form, is very inaccurate.

2. Your analogy might work for Texas circa 1820, but it does not work today at all (California was acquired through treaty with the Mexicans). The US has been a sovereign nation for a long time now with an elected government, borders and a national identity. Palestine had none of that in 1948.

Two groups with equal claim, land equally divided. Seems fair to me. Only one of the two groups decided it wanted all the land.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The problem here is the asymmetry between the two sides. Isreal has what they want, what they started out for with the Zionism movement. That makes it easy for them to say that they just want peace. It's like Saddam invading Kuwait before the first Gulf War. He had Kuwait, then wanted peace. By your logic, we would be the aggressors because Iraq would stop fighting as soon as we did. That's ludicrous.

The Israelis never invaded Palestine. That's ludicrous. Just where are you getting your information?

The Zionist movement was born out of desperation, not the desire to conquer the world. This kind of talk reminds me of the whole Jews control Hollywood, Jews control the banks, Jews control the media fantasies.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Israel is also a much better equipped military that can do things like surgical strikes. Hamas and Hezbollah have shown a willingness to go after military targets if they can. They also attack civilians, because it is one of the only options available to them. If they had a modern tank and air force, I'm sure they would love to attack Israel head on. That doesn't mean that I support civilian attacks, but faced with the odds that they are, I understand, and it's been that way for centuries.

To me, that's what's known as cowardace. Let's say my neighbor annoys me for some reason. I'd like to beat him up, but he's twice my size. So I beat up his four-year-old daughter instead. Then I hide when he gets angry and starts looking for me.

Also, this is not a resistence. Hamas and Hezbollah are not noble figures looking for freedom. They are terrorists bent on destruction of a race of people. Read their charters if you don't believe me.

The fundamental difference between the terrorists and the Israelis is that one seeks the destruction of the other and places that above the creation of a sovereign state of its own, or even above life itself. And the other just wants to be left alone in peace.

The desire for peace is what makes Israel morally correct and the terrorists morally reprehensible.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Because there hasn't been a working peace in the middle east for over 50 years now, you can make the case that both sides' tactics have not been all that great. I lot of pro-Israeli people talk about 'taking the gloves off', implying that the problem is that not enough force is being employed. The problem is that that theory can never be disproven. No matter what happens, they can just say that not enough force was used. The failure of the use of more force to create peace is not seen as the failure of the force doctrine, but rather as evidence that not enough force has been used. Matthew Yglesias talked about something similar to this recently, the Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics.

A lot of pro-Israeli people don't talk that way. Sharon tried different tactics, the Israelis have even enacted some pretty remarkable attempts at letting peace break out, like the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.

But what did Hamas do? They took their rocket launchers into Gaza and used the opportunity to shell civilians in southern Israel. Why? Because they will not stop until Israel is destroyed.

Again, morally reprehensible, indefensible behavior from the terrorists. How do you defend that? When Israel finally makes a move that should signal to even the most hard-line critic that Israel wants peace above anything else, the terrorists see that as a sign of weakness and use the opportunity to increase the violence.

Even if you reject every Israeli claim to its own land (and their claims are as strong as the Arabs'), after 60 years you have to realize that sometimes you don't get your way and peace is better than violence. Egypt gets it. Jordan gets it. Lebanon gets it, even though their government is too weak to do much about it. Even hard-liners like Saudi Arabia get it.

Why can't you get it? Do you really want another Islamofascist state in the world? You seem to be a big left-wing supporter. Sharia really shouldn't be your type of thing. Women are property, people are killed for minor offenses.

Anyhow, I'm going to take a time out on this item for at least a couple of days. We're just going in circles here, and your arguments are getting increasingly ludicrous. No way to argue, really, with someone who sees the creation of Israel as similar to the UN going in tomorrow and turning Texas over to Mexican immigrant groups. That's just displaying a remarkable lack of attention toward history.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Dutch. Thanks for the info from wiki. I found additional info on CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...lah/index.html

I don't think either is conclusive whether Hezbollah reports to Syria, Iran or a little of both.

Does anyone else know?

Okay, as per the O'Reilly Factor, the Iranians supply Hezbollah with arms/dollars and the Syrians facilitate it (ex. allow arms to be moved through Syria into Lebanon). Sounds as if the Iranians are the bigger bad guys.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Why can't you get it? Do you really want another Islamofascist state in the world? You seem to be a big left-wing supporter. Sharia really shouldn't be your type of thing. Women are property, people are killed for minor offenses..

Solecismic. FWIW, I think you are unfairly jumping to conclusions here. I did not get this from MrBigglesworth entries.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

2. Your analogy might work for Texas circa 1820, but it does not work today at all (California was acquired through treaty with the Mexicans). The US has been a sovereign nation for a long time now with an elected government, borders and a national identity. Palestine had none of that in 1948.

If you look at the Ottoman Empire as the analog to the US, and CA as the analog to Palestine, it becomes clearer. The Palestinian region had local governments under the Ottomans, and almost as soon as the British took over is when the strife started, well before 1948. One area that my analogy doesn't work is that at the time of the partition, only 10% of Palestinians were Jewish, while a much larger percentage of Californians are hispanic.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Two groups with equal claim, land equally divided. Seems fair to me. Only one of the two groups decided it wanted all the land.

"Equal claim"? The Israelis began the Zionism movement with the expressed purpose of taking control of Israel by moving Jews there from all over the world. So when they get a bunch of people there and claim it, it doesn't equal the claim of people that can trace it back as their homeland for generation and generation and hundreds and hundreds of years. Such as here in the United States, we didn't have the same claim to the Indians' land that they did, but sometimes might makes right. And the Israelis had the geopolitical might on their side.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The Israelis never invaded Palestine. That's ludicrous. Just where are you getting your information?

The Zionist movement was born out of desperation, not the desire to conquer the world. This kind of talk reminds me of the whole Jews control Hollywood, Jews control the banks, Jews control the media fantasies...The desire for peace is what makes Israel morally correct and the terrorists morally reprehensible.

I don't think you understand my point, either that or you are intent on attacking a straw man. My point is that one side in the conflict has everything they want, while the other side does not. So of course the side that has everything they want desires peace. It's obvious that they do, because they already have everything they want. War serves no purpose for them.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

To me, that's what's known as cowardace. Let's say my neighbor annoys me for some reason. I'd like to beat him up, but he's twice my size. So I beat up his four-year-old daughter instead. Then I hide when he gets angry and starts looking for me.

I made two analogies, and you attacked them for not being EXACTLY right, and mocked my entire argument on the based on those analogies not being exactly right...and then make this analogy about neighbors. But I'll refrain from saying you don't merit discussion with because your analogy doesn't take into account the lack of options that H/H have in real life.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But what did Hamas do? They took their rocket launchers into Gaza and used the opportunity to shell civilians in southern Israel. Why? Because they will not stop until Israel is destroyed.

Think about that for a second from a militaristic POV. How many katyusha (sp?) rockets would it take to 'destroy' Israel, as you claim is their goal for their rocket attacks? I think a quick answer would be, 'a lot'. How many rockets do they have? I would say, 'not that many'. So that's obviously not their goal. What they are doing is responding to Israeli attacks in the only ways that they can. I can tell you right now that Israel has killed more people than Hamas and Hezbollah put together in the past couple of days. And the historical trend is 3-1.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Even if you reject every Israeli claim to its own land (and their claims are as strong as the Arabs'), after 60 years you have to realize that sometimes you don't get your way and peace is better than violence. Egypt gets it. Jordan gets it. Lebanon gets it, even though their government is too weak to do much about it. Even hard-liners like Saudi Arabia get it.

Those countries don't really have much of a stake in getting rid of Israel at this point. The Palestinians whose homes were in Israel, however, do have a big stake in it, so they continue fighting. The Lebanese who remember the Israeli invasions and occupations of just a couple of years ago also have hard feelings. Not saying that their view is right, but I understand why they would want to fight longer than, say Egypt.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Why can't you get it? Do you really want another Islamofascist state in the world? You seem to be a big left-wing supporter. Sharia really shouldn't be your type of thing. Women are property, people are killed for minor offenses.

Anyhow, I'm going to take a time out on this item for at least a couple of days. We're just going in circles here, and your arguments are getting increasingly ludicrous. No way to argue, really, with someone who sees the creation of Israel as similar to the UN going in tomorrow and turning Texas over to Mexican immigrant groups. That's just displaying a remarkable lack of attention toward history.

Odd that you call my arguments increasingly ludicrous when you want to make a strawman out them to refute them. But I digress.

I'm not a left wing supporter, I just know how terrible the Bush administration has been for the country and the world. Just because I think the Palestinians have a legitimate gripe doesn't mean I want to create an Islamofascist state (some of which, btw, are our biggest allies). That would be another strawman. I'm not saying I have a solution to the problem either, I'm just saying that I can see both sides. I don't know why you see that as an extreme position, as in terms of world opinion you would be the extreme one. I can understand your need to take time off, it seems you are much more emotionally involved in this than I am.

[Flasch186]

their stated goals vs. their ability to accomplish them doesnt make them NOT their goals....give 'em a nuke and what do you think they'll use it for?

They WANT the destruction of Israel. Israel wants peace. You admit that, so when the extremists resort to kidnapping, attacking civilians, etc. the civilized world, does NOT have to say "that is okay". I dont care if you want to empathize with their plight, but anyone can have a plight, I can make one up right now...it doesnt mean you have to agree with it.

The entire world including the Zionists want Palestinians to have their own land TOO. To me and th civilized world that is quite the compromise....the other side doesnt want it though.

Jim stated it best, the minute they stop attacking Israel ALL conflict will stop in the region (until Iran gets a nuke - but thats for another thread).

EDIT to add: You can take all the history stuff, both sides and throw it in the trash because if they continue to stand on their own history books than there will never be peace. You have to deal with the here and now and the future....a 2 state solution, and a recognition of Israel as having a right to be free from bombs (and vice versa).

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

They WANT the destruction of Israel. Israel wants peace.

I think that is taking the views of extremist Palestinians and moderate Israelis. There are a majority of Palestinians that would accept a 2 state solution. The destruction of Israel was never a must have for any peace talks between Israel and Palestine, not Oslo and not Camp David. Under the 'road map for peace', neither side has fulfilled it's obligations. It is not a one-sided thing being held up by Palestinians.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

If you look at the Ottoman Empire as the analog to the US, and CA as the analog to Palestine, it becomes clearer. The Palestinian region had local governments under the Ottomans, and almost as soon as the British took over is when the strife started, well before 1948. One area that my analogy doesn't work is that at the time of the partition, only 10% of Palestinians were Jewish, while a much larger percentage of Californians are hispanic.

• "Equal claim"? The Israelis began the Zionism movement with the expressed purpose of taking control of Israel by moving Jews there from all over the world. So when they get a bunch of people there and claim it, it doesn't equal the claim of people that can trace it back as their homeland for generation and generation and hundreds and hundreds of years. Such as here in the United States, we didn't have the same claim to the Indians' land that they did, but sometimes might makes right. And the Israelis had the geopolitical might on their side.
  
  
• I don't think you understand my point,

either that or you are intent on attacking a straw man. My point is that one side in the conflict has everything they want, while the other side does not. So of course the side that has everything they want desires peace. It's obvious that they do, because they already have everything they want. War serves no purpose for them.


I made two analogies, and you attacked them for not being EXACTLY right, and mocked my entire argument on the based on those analogies not being exactly right...and then make this analogy about neighbors. But I'll refrain from saying you don't merit discussion with because your analogy doesn't take into account the lack of options that H/H have in real life.


Think about that for a second from a militaristic POV. How many katyusha (sp?) rockets would it take to 'destroy' Israel, as you claim is their goal for their rocket attacks? I think a quick answer would be, 'a lot'. How many rockets do they have? I would say, 'not that many'. So that's obviously not their goal. What they are doing is responding to Israeli attacks in the only ways that they can. I can tell you right now that Israel has killed more people than Hamas and Hezbollah put together in the past couple of days. And the historical trend is 3-1.


Those countries don't really have much of a stake in getting rid of Israel at this point. The Palestinians whose homes were in Israel, however, do have a big stake in it, so they continue fighting. The Lebanese who remember the Israeli invasions and occupations of just a couple of years ago also have hard feelings. Not saying that their view is right, but I understand why they would want to fight longer than, say Egypt.



Odd that you call my arguments increasingly ludicrous when you want to make a strawman out them to refute them. But I digress.

I'm not a left wing supporter, I just know how terrible the Bush administration has been for the country and the world. Just because I think the Palestinians have a legitimate gripe doesn't mean I want to create an Islamofascist state (some of which, btw, are our biggest allies). That would be another strawman. I'm not saying I have a solution to the problem either, I'm just saying that I can see both sides. I don't know why you see that as an extreme position, as in terms of world opinion you would be the extreme one. I can understand your need to take time off, it seems you are much more emotionally involved in this than I am.

Islamofascist states are our biggest allies? Name one. Please read the history of the British Mandate of Palestine and the history of the Ottoman Empire. Jewish settlers were migrating to the Palestine region back in the Ottoman times.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think that is taking the views of extremist Palestinians and moderate Israelis. There are a majority of Palestinians that would accept a 2 state solution. The destruction of Israel was never a must have for any peace talks between Israel and Palestine, not Oslo and not Camp David. Under the 'road map for peace', neither side has fulfilled it's obligations. It is not a one-sided thing being held up by Palestinians.

But sadly, it's the current Palestinian goverment that wants to wipe out Israel. Camp David was under a different leader. In the end, they hold the nukes. Plus, wasn't the current regime elected in?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Islamofascist states are our biggest allies? Name one.

Saudi Arabia.

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Please read the history of the British Mandate of Palestine and the history of the Ottoman Empire. Jewish settlers were migrating to the Palestine region back in the Ottoman times.

The Ottomans restricted Jewish settling in Palestine during their rule. At the time of WWI, only 55k Jews were in Palestine in a population of over 500k. I don't see how them migrating their gives them a bigger right to the land than the people that lived there for hundreds of years.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

But sadly, it's the current Palestinian goverment that wants to wipe out Israel. Camp David was under a different leader. In the end, they hold the nukes. Plus, wasn't the current regime elected in?

Hamas' platform pushes for armed fight
By Arnon Regular

Hamas published its official platform for the upcoming Palestinian elections, which proved to be more moderate than either its 1988 charter or public statements made by its leaders throughout the ensuing years.

Diplomatically, the platform does not differ substantially from that of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction, calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital - although it does not specify that such a state should be confined to the West Bank and Gaza.

The document also makes no mention of the principle that has been Hamas' raison d'etre since its founding: the destruction of Israel and establishment of a Palestinian state on all territory west of the Jordan River in its place.

Hamas' platform is the same as that of the PLO. They softened their stance on Israel when creating their platform. Logic tells me that therefore they thought that more people would vote for them if they were less militant on the Israel issue.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

To me and th civilized world that is quite the compromise....the other side doesnt want it though.

I try to avoid these threads because they get so caught up in irrelevant and increasingly obscure historical debates and useless moralizing. But from a pragmatic perspective this is why this situation doesn't get solved. The mythical "other side". There is a segment of Palestinians that doesn't want peace. Perhaps not surprisingly they are most prevalent among the Palestinians who have left the country to places like Syria. But based on consistent polling results, a significant majority of Palestinians to want peace. The Israelis continually allow themselves to be manipulated by those who don't.

Hamas extremist Khaled Meshaal sits in Syria and watches while elected Hamas officials near an agreement with Fatah to officially recognize Israel and while a Palestinian Prime Minister emerges from Hamas who would write a column for the Washington Post asking not for the destruction of Israel, but for the 1967 borders, the right of return, and East Jerusalem. Well, Meshaal thinks, I know what to do about this. Let's just poke at the hornet's nest and we can forget all this peace talk. Israel will target the general Palestinian population for reprisals, and everything will be back to normal, with public support back in the extremists' corner. Israel is a predictable tool to these guys.

There will be peace in Israel and Palestine when Israel realizes there is no monolithic other side. There is no coherent state of Palestine. No one has established or at present has the capability to establish, a monopoly on force in Palestine. There are many independent voices and actors in Palestine. The idea that there is a coherent other side leads them to attribute the actions of someone like Meshaal to the entire people, and gives any extremist faction a veto over the peace process. So long as they have that veto, they will exercise it. Israel would not allow the most extreme Israeli settler groups to derail their plans. They knew that to capitulate to those folks would mean no progress could ever occur. Why they don't apply the same logic to Palestinians is difficult to fathom. Isrealis need to understand that while a majority in Israel controls a government that does have a monopoly on force, the same is not true in Palestine (nor will it be while they continue to strangle the country).

When Israel decides to proceed with a peace process while letting YAMAM and Mossad pursue terrorists rather than employing the IDF to shell towns and blow up bridges and power plants, we will see and end to the deadlock. There will be remnants in Palestine who still want to fight, but they will be far more easily dealt with once the majority has a real road to peace in clear view. A path to peace that depends on 100% support from the outset has always been and will continue to be a non-starter.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

If you look at the Ottoman Empire as the analog to the US, and CA as the analog to Palestine, it becomes clearer. The Palestinian region had local governments under the Ottomans, and almost as soon as the British took over is when the strife started, well before 1948. One area that my analogy doesn't work is that at the time of the partition, only 10% of Palestinians were Jewish, while a much larger percentage of Californians are hispanic.

Ten percent is still a presence. They also had a presence in the rest of the Middle East, and were driven into Israel. Those other presences should count in any general claim, as far as analyzing whether they could co-exist among the Arabs.

The Jews also settled land thought uninhabitable.

The Arabs chose not to co-exist in Israel. And the Palestinian refugees paid the price for choosing to go with those who wished to exterminate the Jews. And the price they paid is trusting people who continue to use them as political pawns 60 years later.

You're cherry picking every excuse possible to deny the Jews any right to any of the land. Ancient history counts for nothing, ten percent of pre-Mandate counts for nothing, UN resolutions count for nothing, unless they happen to be resolutions against Israel, a presence in the Middle East but not in Palestine counts for nothing.

Basically, if everyone had to follow the rules you've set up for the Jews, no one would have claim to any land, anywhere. Ever. Except the terrorists and maybe Adam and Eve, if they existed, but not if they vacationed anywhere for any length of time.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

My point is that one side in the conflict has everything they want, while the other side does not. So of course the side that has everything they want desires peace. It's obvious that they do, because they already have everything they want. War serves no purpose for them.

What a incredibly bizarre statement. War causes so much suffering. There had better be a very good reason for it (and yes, Bush acted recklessly in attacking Iraq, we agree on that).

Israel is a crowded country, one always in desperate need of water. They do not have everything they want. It's a tiny country the size of New Jersey in the midst of the vast Middle East. I'm sure they would want more land if they could have it. They have suffered incredibly over generations.

You underestimate the need for peace. This is such a vital need for all humankind. Without it, we are nothing.

The Arabs don't need that little piece of land. The terrorists just want to kill the Jews. And it's sad that people like you excuse that, can't see beyond their rhetoric.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I'm not saying I have a solution to the problem either, I'm just saying that I can see both sides. I don't know why you see that as an extreme position, as in terms of world opinion you would be the extreme one. I can understand your need to take time off, it seems you are much more emotionally involved in this than I am.

I do need to take a time out from this item, just because I think I'm wasting time with you because you're the one who seems very emotional. We keep rehashing the same subjects. Okay, we can agree to disagree. It would help if you would tell me if you had a cultural connection to the Arabs, but I understand your desire to keep that private.

I've laid out the extensive historic claim the Jews have to this land, and you dismiss every piece of it entirely, making bizarre comparisons to a Muslim takeover of New Hampshire. You excuse terrorists for targetting women and children, saying they have no other option.

Well, I have an option for them: give up violence. They'd be amazed what they could accomplish without it.

[BishopMVP]

Overall, great post. I do have a few things I want to add and quibble with

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

There is a segment of Palestinians that doesn't want peace. Perhaps not surprisingly they are most prevalent among the Palestinians who have left the country to places like Syria.

And if you look at the conditions in the refugee camps they are abominable. To get an idea of how much surrounding countries actually care about the Palestinians welfare rather than as a propaganda tool take a look inside these. From hxxp://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001140.html "The hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in Lebanon are not allowed to live anywhere outside the camps. Until last year the Lebanese Army searched entering vehicles and confiscated all building materials. Last year I interviewed Mohammed Afif, who sits on Hezbollah's Political Bureau. I haven't mentioned this until now because he has almost nothing to say but Hezbollah cliches. But he did say one interesting thing. He said I should visit Sabra and Chatilla and see how Palestinians in Lebanon live. I told him I already had, that it was clear Palestinians are treated worse by Lebanese than they are by Israelis. He was stunned that I dared say that to him. But he quickly composed himself and said "Yes, you are right. I am sorry about that." It's also worth noting that Hezbollah can't even enter the camps, let alone the Lebanese Army.

But based on consistent polling results, a significant majority of Palestinians to want peace. The Israelis continually allow themselves to be manipulated by those who don't.

Agreed on the second part. The first part varies widely depending on when and what exact wording is used in the question.

Hamas extremist Khaled Meshaal sits in Syria and watches while elected Hamas officials near an agreement with Fatah to officially recognize Israel and while a Palestinian Prime Minister emerges from Hamas who would write a column for the Washington Post asking not for the destruction of Israel, but for the 1967 borders, the right of return, and East Jerusalem. Well, Meshaal thinks, I know what to do about this. Let's just poke at the hornet's nest and we can forget all this peace talk. Israel will target the general Palestinian population for reprisals, and everything will be back to normal, with public support back in the extremists' corner. Israel is a predictable tool to these guys.

That helps explain the current Hamas/Palestinian situation. A couple other useful things to know is that Meshaal isn't aligned with the Hamas in power in Palestine and they had little to do with the initial kidnapping. In fact, Egypt spearheaded a deal to turn over the captured soldier in exchange for a cease-fire which was "scuttled at the last minute by elements in Syria." That's a main part of the reason why, posturing aside, Isreal really hasn't laid the hammer down in Palestine (at least yet.) And why, for once, most Arab governments didn't come out denouncing Israel from the beginning. Oh, just for the record, in case anyone thinks Fatah is anything but a slightly better disguised Hamas, don't forget thet al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades were formed by Fatah in response to Hamas' growing popularity.

Then you also have the Hizb'allah/Lebanon situation. Everyone knows that Hizb'allah gets its money, weapons and some training from the Iranians, often conveyed through Syria, but it's not that simple. A couple examples might help illustrate the relationship. After 9/11 the Iranian mullahs called the leaders of Hizb'allah to Tehran and asked if they were behind the attack. This means that Hizb'allah often operates independently of Iran to the point of possibly carrying out huge operations, but when called they will come explain themselves. There are also plenty of reports of Imad Mughniyeh (one of the world's most wanted men, fingered as the architect of the Beirut bombings - US Embassy and Marine barracks, among other deeds) flying to meet in January in Damascus with Hassan Nasrallah (the military leader of Hizb'allah) and possibly Basher Assad. What is most damning about the reports are that they say Mughniyeh flew from Tehran - with President Ahmadi'nejad on his jet. There is also the matter of tens of thousands of Iranian tourists visiting Lebanon this year alone. Undoubtedly members of the Pasdaran were among them, and some of the rumors have placed IRGC agents behind most of the Katyusha attacks. Another interesting note is that Hizb'allah's leadership reportedly did not authorize the Haifa attacks before they happened. One funny note is that in al-Zarqawi's last tape before his unfortunate demise he accused Hizb'allah of being Israeli agents.

There will be peace in Israel and Palestine when Israel realizes there is no monolithic other side. Isrealis need to understand that while a majority in Israel controls a government that does have a monopoly on force, the same is not true in Palestine (nor will it be while they continue to strangle the country).

It's also important to consider that in this case, almost all the violence has at least been arranged by groups operating outside Palestinian territory. There won't be peace as long as countries around Israel can support the "Palestinian resistance" with impunity. And I put Palestinian resistance in quotes there because in this case it's not what the Palestinians want, but it sure works to get the vox populi in other countries focusing their attention on the Zionists rather than their own corrupt governments. And now, IMO, Iran is making their play to be seen as the leader of that resistance as part of their grand strategy to become the leader of the Muslim world.

I think my position has been clear for awhile on this topic, but I'll reiterate it - this is due to outside actors (mainly Syria and Iran) and unless Israel is willing to ignore outside condemnation and continue on to at least Damascus this particular operation is a mistake because right now they're mostly hitting areas in Beirut/northern Lebanon that are about as pro-Israel as you'll find in the ME. Overall, I'm really hoping Iran overplays its hand and we're forced into a war with them. One that they have been building towards since the Embassy takeover and one that will only be worse for us and the countries around Iraq the longer we wait to engage our enemy. Or you can just have fun once Iran has nuclear weapons and keeps pulling shit like this against Israel.

[Glengoyne]

I don't mind MrB making, albiet inane, analogies of California or Texas too much, cause I've said similar things in recent days.

Imagine some group in Tiajuana or Ciudad Juarez started lobbing rockets into San Diego or El Paso, and the Mexican government failed to do anything to stop it. I wonder how many folks that blame Israel for this mess would criticise the American response?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Basically, if everyone had to follow the rules you've set up for the Jews, no one would have claim to any land, anywhere. Ever. Except the terrorists and maybe Adam and Eve, if they existed, but not if they vacationed anywhere for any length of time.

I'm not sure what you think I am trying to argue, there must be a communication breakdown somewhere. I'm not sure what my rule is for the Jews, but having 10% of the population and it being a high water mark of the past 2000 or so years is not a high bar to reach. From what I gather, you are saying that since they have 10% of the population, most of which immigrated over the past 40 years, that that gives them a bigger claim to the land than a people that have been there for thousands of years and have 90% of the population. I don't understand that. I can see giving historical weight to the Jews' claim since they had it 4000 years ago or something, but saying that that isn't enough to outweigh the Palestinian claim doesn't equate to Adam and Eve being the only people to ever lay claim to land. Can someone help me out and tell me if I am missing something?

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The Arabs don't need that little piece of land. The terrorists just want to kill the Jews. And it's sad that people like you excuse that, can't see beyond their rhetoric.

There are some terrorists that just want to kill Jews. But aren't there some Arabs that just want to go back to their homeland, much like the Jews and Zionism? Isn't it possible that the latter is the vast majority? You imply that every Palestinian is a terrorist. We have a defined history of Arab peace overtures that do not include the destruction of Israel. For every argument that you make that they are disengenuous, one could make an argument that the Israelis are disengenuous.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I do need to take a time out from this item, just because I think I'm wasting time with you because you're the one who seems very emotional. We keep rehashing the same subjects. Okay, we can agree to disagree. It would help if you would tell me if you had a cultural connection to the Arabs, but I understand your desire to keep that private.

I'm not really emotional at all, except with your insistance that I tell you if I have an Arab connection when I have already told you that I have not. (to recap: I am a caucasian American and my father's family can be traced back to the 1700's in this country. I have a closer connection to Judaism than any Arabs. I really don't even know if I know a single Arab, but I love latkes.)

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Imagine some group in Tiajuana or Ciudad Juarez started lobbing rockets into San Diego or El Paso, and the Mexican government failed to do anything to stop it. I wonder how many folks that blame Israel for this mess would criticise the American response?

Didn't the first Israeli strikes into Lebanon occur before the rocket strikes from Hezbollah?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Didn't the first Israeli strikes into Lebanon occur before the rocket strikes from Hezbollah?

Yup. Shortly after Hezbollah murdered, I believe, four Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid and kidnapped two others.

The rocket strikes are just "poking the hornet's nest," as somebody else put it. They had very little to do with inciting the Israeli response, but they sure as hell are keeping it going.

[BishopMVP]

My post was mainly on the political aspect - I'll add my two cents on the actual military operation the Israelis appear to be performing in Lebanon now. The short answer is I think it's stupid and counter-productive. If they had just bombed the south and kept to hezbollah-controlled areas of the country/Beirut, they possibly could have weakened Hizb'allah to the point where the Lebanese Army could have kept them in check, with the tacit approval of most Lebanese. Instead it seems they are shutting down every exit route from the country. There is no doubt in my mind they are going to destroy Hizb'allah, but with it will go the country of Lebanon that had just broken free from Syrian dominance last year and was starting to rebuild. And unlike the US in Iraq, Israel isn't gonna stick around to help rebuild the country. Maybe this is in preparation for an attack on Damascus, maybe it's ensuring the removal of the threat of Hizb'allah from the northern border in case they attack Iran in the future. Or maybe it's just having no trust in the Lebanese government to do any real action against Hizb'allah. But it's gonna force the Lebanese to back Hizb'allah instead of potentially driving a wedge between them and the rest of the country.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Didn't the first Israeli strikes into Lebanon occur before the rocket strikes from Hezbollah?

The rocket strikes from Lebanon into Israel have occurred multiple times a week if not on a daily basis for the past couple of years. It is just that they only recently increased the range they have been able to target. I understand that the volume, not frequency, of the attacks has been steadilly growing. i.e. still sending rockets on a daily basis, just now they are sending more of them.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The rocket strikes from Lebanon into Israel have occurred multiple times a week if not on a daily basis for the past couple of years. It is just that they only recently increased the range they have been able to target. I understand that the volume, not frequency, of the attacks has been steadilly growing. i.e. still sending rockets on a daily basis, just now they are sending more of them.

Can you send me a link detailing the daily rocket attacks by Hezbollah into Lebanon? I asked Solecismic earlier, but the request was ignored. I can't find anything that says that was the case, in fact these articles:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175947,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176426,00.html

...from last November imply that rocket attacks from Hezbollah are rare.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Can you send me a link detailing the daily rocket attacks by Hezbollah into Lebanon? I asked Solecismic earlier, but the request was ignored. I can't find anything that says that was the case, in fact these articles:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175947,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176426,00.html

...from last November imply that rocket attacks from Hezbollah are rare.

They were fairly rare. Threats were commonplace, but it was rare for Hizb'allah to actually fire rockets, at least far into Israel. They've claimed to have the ability to hit Haifa for a year or so I think (since Iran gave them longer-range missiles) but they never really used the Katyushas before. (EDIT - I think they may have fired a warning shot of sorts past Haifa into the ocean, but I don't recall exactly.) Then there is the 801 (Syrian-made) that hit the Israeli ship and rumors of additional more powerful weapons that they will be bringing out soon, courtesy of Iran.

Either way, it's pretty obvious the cross-border operation by Hizb'allah was what sparked the current Israeli response, and now rocket attacks are happening dozens of times a day. So I'm not sure what your point is here.

[MrBigglesworth]

Just read something that asked the question, where is the United States in all of this? I can't remember a world crisis in the past 20 years where the US has been so marginalized and irrelevant. Some may say that is a good thing, some a bad thing.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Can you send me a link detailing the daily rocket attacks by Hezbollah into Lebanon? I asked Solecismic earlier, but the request was ignored. I can't find anything that says that was the case, in fact these articles:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175947,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176426,00.html

...from last November imply that rocket attacks from Hezbollah are rare.

I heard it on an NPR report several months ago, and at the time found a number of references to the attacks online. I've heard multiple accounts since then, including details of how the Hezbollah(sp?) millitants show up like clock work to launch their 5 pm rockets, and then quickly depart before Israel can retalliate. It was actually quite surreal. Now all I come up with are recent events. What Bishop says is true about the attacks only striking Haifa within the last few days.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The Arabs chose not to co-exist in Israel.

I do have a quibble with that, many Arabs did chose to stay in Israel after 1948. 20% of the population is Muslim or Christian.

As I alluded to earlier, Israel is one of the most, if not the most, multicultural states in the region. This is not just taking into account of the religious makeup, but also the inter-ethnic and demoninational differences of those Israeli citizens who practice Judaism. And of course waves of immigration from the former Soviet Union and Africa, as well as Asians and other Africans via the guest worker program, are continually changing the ethnic makeup of the country. Israeli society has shifted towards more multicultural policies, in response...

[Edward64]

INTERMISSION, TIME-OUT etc.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Without getting into debates of who is right/wrong (please, not interested in rehashing the old arguments) etc. ...

As the originator of this thread, I feel obligated to point out that my initial posting requested not getting into who is right/wrong etc.

Reality is that this thread has evolved into a slugfest of right/wrong opinions.

Don't think I can rein it back in, but I request, at the very least, to keep this thread civil and respectful of the other's opinion.

[Edward64]

Interesting twist. UN Peace force being considered.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5186474.stm

The article also mentions there is a 2000 man UN monitoring mission already on the border of Lebanon/Israel ... haven't heard reports from them.

It would be nice to see the next 2 economic powers step up to the plate. A contingent of UN Indian and Chinese troops would be regarded as 'neutral' in the Middle East.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Edward64

It would be nice to see the next 2 economic powers step up to the plate. A contingent of UN Indian and Chinese troops would be regarded as 'neutral' in the Middle East.

India has a long record of participation in UN peacekeeping missions, in keeping with its involvement with the non-aligned movement. China has also been much more active in this arena in the past 15 years.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think that is taking the views of extremist Palestinians and moderate Israelis. There are a majority of Palestinians that would accept a 2 state solution. The destruction of Israel was never a must have for any peace talks between Israel and Palestine, not Oslo and not Camp David. Under the 'road map for peace', neither side has fulfilled it's obligations. It is not a one-sided thing being held up by Palestinians.

doesnt matter....israel isnt trying to attack the people (although lots of collateral damage isnt wanted, i hope) theyre attacking those with the power, the real power.

The militants are the one's with the weapons and the israeli gov't. cannot negotiate with "the people" so that is EXACTLY why Israel is in Lebanon now. You might say, in a round about way, giving an "opportunity" for the people to gain control of their land from the militants "similar to the situation NOW in Iraq". If the people wont stop the militias, then Israel has no choice but to "help them". It IS a one sided thing being held up by the extremists (and there are likely extremists israelis too - but they are far fewer and with less juice than those in gaza and lebanon).

you are mistaken if you think it is equal on both sides. IF the H/H stopped firing rockets today, and pulled back, and said that they are disarming today, and let the hostages go....the fighting would stop immediately and they could start working on their own borders for Palestine. Emotion aside, hatred aside that is the solution.....if they cant stop the groups that view Jews as vermin and want to kill them all, then the "power is not with the people" in those countries and Israel DOES have the right to defend itself as disproportionate as it may seem or else the Jihad can continue forever.

It actually is quite simple if they drop the history and hatred....which is the only way to sit across the table from your "enemy" and truly negotiate for peace when one side hasn't decimated the other. The Israelis with the power aren't out to wipe the palestinians off the map nor the arabs....the Arabs with the power (within the borders and in nieghboring countries, do want to wipe israel off the map....its a different starting point entirely.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Some commentator was saying unless there is a ceasefire (unlikely), Israel will have to move into Southern Lebanon to stop the rocket attacks. Thats my vote, give the civilians a last, clear warning to leave Southern Lebanaon, tell Hezbollah to fight like men or run like girls, and then go in and take out their grunts ...

Online news sites are reporting Israeli ground troops are moving in. Don't think the "last, clear warning to leave" was given though ... should have been, not as if military surprise would have been lost by giving it another 24-48 hours. Well worth the benefit of the "moral high ground" with the inevitable civilian casulties.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Online news sites are reporting Israeli ground troops are moving in. Don't think the "last, clear warning to leave" was given though ... should have been, not as if military surprise would have been lost by giving it another 24-48 hours. Well worth the benefit of the "moral high ground" with the inevitable civilian casulties.

the've been dropping flyers EVERY day warning people to leave.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

the've been dropping flyers EVERY day warning people to leave.

Would you happen to know what the flyers say? Be interested in knowing.

There is a difference between 'go away, we're bombing' vs 'go away, we're coming in'.

[Flasch186]

actualy, CNN reporter read one over the air and I dont remember the exact wording but it was 'Has Hezbollah helped you? you can now see that they have not. They are liars' Then it has a picture of the Hezbollah leader's head on a snake's body. So that was the one they read.

He said that he had also read some that warned people to go north but that is not the one he read on air.

[Flasch186]

dang, benjamin netanyahu is a fiery guy.....he just spoke to the kinneset and, man, he sounded a lot like the leaders of the extremists on the other side. I hope he never gets to be leader of Israel.

[Crapshoot]

More civilian deaths, on both sides. Bravo. Taking out Hezbollah is one thing - destroying all of Beirut and any Lebanese infrastructure is ridiculous.

[gkb]

If Israel did end up fighting Syria and Iran would the US be drawn in? If the US gets drawn in, would China and Russia come in on the other side?

How much of this is Iran’s fault? Did they prod Hezbollah to attack Israel and kidnap the soldiers specifically to draw the attention during the G8 conference away from them and their nuclear ambitions? Or is that too much of a conspiracy theory to hold water? It seems like international crisis keep popping up to keep the world leaders from really focusing on Iran. North Korea launches missiles, Hamas kidnaps a soldier, and Hezbollah kills some soldiers and kidnaps two more. Is all of this somehow intertwined?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Can you send me a link detailing the daily rocket attacks by Hezbollah into Lebanon?...

Did some more digging this morning, and found the NPR story I heard earlier this year. It was actually referring to daily rocket attacks from Gaza. So perhaps my most recent reinforcement of the attacks from Lebanon was mistaken. The original story, and the follow up describing the millitants showing up for their daily rocket attack were definately in reference to Lebanon. One of the distinctions between the attacks on Haifa and those described in the stories I heard is that Haifa is a densely populated area, whereas the shorter range rockets were landing in acres of farmland.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Did some more digging this morning, and found the NPR story I heard earlier this year. It was actually referring to daily rocket attacks from Gaza. So perhaps my most recent reinforcement of the attacks from Lebanon was mistaken. The original story, and the follow up describing the millitants showing up for their daily rocket attack were definately in reference to Lebanon. One of the distinctions between the attacks on Haifa and those described in the stories I heard is that Haifa is a densely populated area, whereas the shorter range rockets were landing in acres of farmland.

Well, I've done some digging too, and I can't believe that Hezbollah have been firing rockets in daily into Israel until I see some kind of non-biased confirmation of it. You are right that recent results keep popping up in the searches, and that may be what is screwing up the search, but even when I put in "-2006" I get nothing.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by gkb

If Israel did end up fighting Syria and Iran would the US be drawn in? If the US gets drawn in, would China and Russia come in on the other side?

Israel can take on Syria by themselves, and Iran has no way of projecting force into Israel (can't go through Turkey or Iraq) so a hot war with them, with over 100k US soldiers right across their border, is dumb. Israel would have to be the aggressor against Iran, the only thing Iran could do is give weapons to Hezbollah. Israel is already seen by much of the world as the aggressor against Lebanon.

Things would have to get really bad for the US to get involved. You can see from our weak responses so far that there is a lack of foreign policy and leadership in the White House, and our military is so bogged down in Iraq that it would be tough coordinating a response.

[Solecismic]

This is one of the most fascinating stories I've seen on this issue. Really takes the wind out of the sails of those who reflexively criticize Israel at every turn.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/17/wo...in&oref=slogin

Originally Posted by New York Times

“There is a school of thought, led by Saudi Arabia, that believes that Hezbollah is a source of trouble, a protégé of Iran, but also a political instrument in the hands of Iran,” said Adnan Abu Odeh, a Jordanian sociologist. ‘This school says we should not play into the hands of Iran, which has its own agenda, by sympathizing or supporting Hezbollah fighting against the Israelis.”

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

dang, benjamin netanyahu is a fiery guy.....he just spoke to the kinneset and, man, he sounded a lot like the leaders of the extremists on the other side. I hope he never gets to be leader of Israel.

Heehee.