Maybe this is a bit simplistic but...

gabers

I like to try and equate the situation with Israel and Hezbollah to England and the IRA. If IRA members went into N. Ireland and captured British soldiers and the Brits responded by bombing the shit out of every town they suspected IRA was hiding you would see a lot more response from the international community.

I believe Israel has every right to defend itself but at what cost? I actually find myself defending Israel in a lot of these discussions but what they are doing cannot justify what has been done to them. Restraint must not translate to Hebrew.

rebornFixer

Your thoughts and feelings about the issue are pretty close to mine ... Isreal has a right to respond to terrorist attacks, but with that "right" comes the "responsibility" to do so without stooping to the level of the very people they are seeking to defeat. Bombing civilian targets in Lebanon is ineffective at best ... At worst, it is a gross violation of basic human decency that will probably strengthen Islamic terrorism in a region where it is already a huge problem.

Nakedeye66

There is certainly a valid argument to be made that the punishment is being doled out to the wrong people. I'm an Israel supporter, and a part of me hopes that when this is all said and done, they actively help to rebuild the Lebanese infrastructure. I believe this to be a possibility.

The real perpetrators are Iran and Syria. Hezbollah has been an Iranian proxy since its formation, no different than when they killed our Marines and took our American hostages in the early 80s. In so many ways it would have made so much more sense for the Israelis to go right to Damascus or Tehran, but I can only imagine how much more amplified the international outcry wouldve been for "disproportionately" "expanding" and "escalating" things.

I'm not at all troubled when the Israelis say "enough is enough", since territorial concessions only embolden their would be killers to more brazen and violent acts. And I'm never concerned about "world opinion", since 95% of the world is going to be anti-Israel for anything they do short of dropping dead. And no, criticism of Israel DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY equate to antisemitism ... but one must wonder about those who obsess over Israel, have a certain level of vehemence, sugar-coat the murderous will of many of its neighbors, and criticize Israel for things which they would never criticize their own nation.

But I am troubled that Lebanese civilians are bearing the brunt of this, and question the strategic wisdom of that.

thankyougrandma

reborncareerist wrote:

Your thoughts and feelings about the issue are pretty close to mine ... Isreal has a right to respond to terrorist attacks, but with that "right" comes the "responsibility" to do so without stooping to the level of the very people they are seeking to defeat. Bombing civilian targets in Lebanon is ineffective at best ... At worst, it is a gross violation of basic human decency that will probably strengthen Islamic terrorism in a region where it is already a huge problem.

i love that: RIGHT vs. RESPONSABILITY

polaris

reborncareerist wrote:

At worst, it is a gross violation of basic human decency that will probably strengthen Islamic terrorism in a region where it is already a huge problem.

that is what its like living as a palestinian under israeli rule ... they've been doing it for years ...

rebornFixer

polaris wrote:

that is what its like living as a palestinian under israeli rule ... they've been doing it for years ...

Maybe so, but the violation becomes worse every time Hamas launches a rocket or blows up a bus ... At some point, someone has to choose non-violence as a solution here, and that "someone" probably has to be both parties.

polaris

reborncareerist wrote:

Maybe so, but the violation becomes worse every time Hamas launches a rocket or blows up a bus ... At some point, someone has to choose non-violence as a solution here, and that "someone" probably has to be both parties.

the solution seems so simple and yet we are so far away from it ... makes me wonder that there are factions that have no interest in peace and that ultimately - its those factions that are on the same side ...

its like that friggin' star trek movie for crying out loud ...

rebornFixer

Nakedeye66 wrote:

There is certainly a valid argument to be made that the punishment is being doled out to the wrong people. I'm an Israel supporter, and a part of me hopes that when this is all said and done, they actively help to rebuild the Lebanese infrastructure. I believe this to be a possibility.

The real perpetrators are Iran and Syria. Hezbollah has been an Iranian proxy since its formation, no different than when they killed our Marines and took our American hostages in the early 80s. In so many ways it would have made so much more sense for the Israelis to go right to Damascus or Tehran, but I can only imagine how much more amplified the international outcry wouldve been for "disproportionately" "expanding" and "escalating" things.

I'm not at all troubled when the Israelis say "enough is enough", since territorial concessions only embolden their would be killers to more brazen and violent acts. And I'm never concerned about "world opinion", since 95% of the world is going to be anti-Israel for anything they do short of dropping dead. And no, criticism of Israel DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY equate to antisemitism ... but one must wonder about those who obsess over Israel, have a certain level of vehemence, sugar-coat the murderous will of many of its neighbors, and criticize Israel for things which they would never criticize their own nation.

But I am troubled that Lebanese civilians are bearing the brunt of this, and question the strategic wisdom of that.

Nice post, well said. Since you brought up territory, I actually supported Israel's last attempt at concession (pulling out of Gaza), and what's depressing is that said concession hasn't apparently helped the situation at all. Will a Palestinian state be enough to cause these extremist groups to back off, or will it just make Israel appear weak? I still think that territorial concessions have a role to play in the peace process, but that view is in danger of being changed. Israel pulls back, but still the attacks continue.

RockinInCanada

reborncareerist wrote:

Nice post, well said. Since you brought up territory, I actually supported Israel's last attempt at concession (pulling out of Gaza), and what's depressing is that said concession hasn't apparently helped the situation at all. Will a Palestinian state be enough to cause these extremist groups to back off, or will it just make Israel appear weak? I still think that territorial concessions have a role to play in the peace process, but that view is in danger of being changed. Israel pulls back, but still the attacks continue.

If concessions are to be made successfully both sides will have to make them...

PaperPlates

Kinda like the rules to a fist fight. You can kick the shit out of the guy that attacked you, but once he's down and out, dont keep kicking him. Restraint once victory is assured.

Byrnzie

reborncareerist wrote:

I actually supported Israel's last attempt at concession (pulling out of Gaza), and what's depressing is that said concession hasn't apparently helped the situation at all.

It just wasn't as simple as that though was it! The Israelis pulled out of part of Gaza, whilst continuing to build settlements elsewhere in the West bank, and whilst continuing to build the 'security wall'. They also continued with extra-judicial assassinations and the random killing of civilians, such as a 9 year old child shot in the head for throwing a stone at an Israeli armoured vehicle. You call that a concession?
Hamas had called a ceasefire in this period. The Israeli's apparently had other ideas.

Nakedeye66

reborncareerist wrote:

Since you brought up territory, I actually supported Israel's last attempt at concession (pulling out of Gaza), and what's depressing is that said concession hasn't apparently helped the situation at all. Will a Palestinian state be enough to cause these extremist groups to back off, or will it just make Israel appear weak? I still think that territorial concessions have a role to play in the peace process, but that view is in danger of being changed. Israel pulls back, but still the attacks continue.

What is going on now is nothing different than what is DOCUMENTED by the PLO in its "Phased Plan of 1974" - accept whatever territorial concessions they can get, then use that territory to launch the war to liberate "all of Palestine". The political aims and open statements of the PLO/PA have been remarkably consistent since Arafat founded Fatah in 1964. It's only for the eager (mostly European) press that the sugarcoating and claimed interest of "land for peace" kicks in.

Having said that, if ever a true peace partner emerges, I'm ALL FOR Israeli concessions. However, Israel can't make concessions to those who seek nothing short of its annihilation.

Even though Israel has only a "cold peace" with Egypt, they returned the oil-rich Sinai, which is about 12 times the size of Israel. And they also have a slightly less cold peace with Jordan. Those are legitimate peace partners. I propose they negotiate the return of the territories gained in 1967 to EXACTLY those nations who controlled them from 1949 to 1967 - Egypt and Jordan. That land was never Palestinian. From 1949 to 1967, it was Jordanian/Egyptian. From 1918 to 1949 it was British. From 1919 going back 600 years it was Turkish. And prior to that it changed hands many times going back to the early Roman control when they finally vanquished the Jews under their occupation in 130. That's when the Romans changed the name from Judea and Samaria to Palestine.

Modern Jordan is already 2/3 Palestinian. Jordan and Egypt are in the best position to decide how to accomplish statehood for their Arab bretheren. Other than keeping a portion of the West Bank (as Israel should so that it isn't left with an indefensible east to west width of about 20 miles in a valley sitting beneath the more moutainous West Bank) ... Israel likely would return the land to Egypt/Jordan. But neither Egypt nor Jordan has any interest in that because once those indiginous Arabs become Egyptian or Jordanian, there is no more "refugee issue" or Palestinian pawns that other Arab leaders can continue to use and abuse for the Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact, the Arab-Israeli conflict might die altogether. And it is not in the self-interest of repressive Arab governments to get rid of that conflict, because that conflict with Israel is their tried and true method of stoking public support and diverting attention from their own repression of their own people.

Nakedeye66

Byrnzie wrote:

It just wasn't as simple as that though was it! The Israelis pulled out of part of Gaza, whilst continuing to build settlements elsewhere in the West bank, and whilst continuing to build the 'security wall'. They also continued with extra-judicial assassinations and the random killing of civilians, such as a 9 year old child shot in the head for throwing a stone at an Israeli armoured vehicle. You call that a concession?
Hamas had called a ceasefire in this period. The Israeli's apparently had other ideas.

First, there are walls all over the world that nobody seems to care about, including one by the Egyptians on the other side of Gaza. But the European double standard is on full glorious display when it comes to this one particular wall. Sort of how the UN passes daily "human rights" resolutions against Israel out of such concern for Muslims but sits with its collective thumb up its ass when Muslims are being slaughtered in Bosnia, Saddam's Iraq, or the Sudan. Sort of exposes the UN and its judicial arm kangaroo court ICC for what it is.

Second, Hamas always calls ceasefires only after Israel responds and the heat is on. It's like the little brother who slugs big brother in the back of the head. Big brother then chases little borther to kick his ass, but little brother runs behind mom and claims he wants a "truce" before his new audience.

C'mon, if you don't know the Hamas m.o. by now, they always scream "ceasefire" once Israel hits back, and ONLY while Israel is hitting back.

rebornFixer

Nakedeye66 wrote:

First, there are walls all over the world that nobody seems to care about, including one by the Egyptians on the other side of Gaza. But the European double standard is on full glorious display when it comes to this one particular wall. Sort of how the UN passes daily "human rights" resolutions against Israel out of such concern for Muslims but sits with its collective thumb up its ass when Muslims are being slaughtered in Bosnia, Saddam's Iraq, or the Sudan. Sort of exposes the UN and its judicial arm kangaroo court ICC for what it is.

And this is exactly why no one should take UN resolutions against Israel seriously. There is a tremendous double standard at work. These resolutions come from people with a specific axe to grind. Its a joke. The Americans veto them precisely because they are a joke.

rebornFixer

Nakedeye66 wrote:

And it is not in the self-interest of repressive Arab governments to get rid of that conflict, because that conflict with Israel is their tried and true method of stoking public support and diverting attention from their own repression of their own people.

And at least one non-Arab government, namely Iran ...

Abuskedti

polaris wrote:

the solution seems so simple and yet we are so far away from it ... makes me wonder that there are factions that have no interest in peace and that ultimately - its those factions that are on the same side ...

its like that friggin' star trek movie for crying out loud ...

its just like the US.

The solution is simple..

but the motivation is neither simple nor morally right for those making the decisions.

RockinInCanada

Nakedeye66 wrote:

First, there are walls all over the world that nobody seems to care about, including one by the Egyptians on the other side of Gaza. But the European double standard is on full glorious display when it comes to this one particular wall. Sort of how the UN passes daily "human rights" resolutions against Israel out of such concern for Muslims but sits with its collective thumb up its ass when Muslims are being slaughtered in Bosnia, Saddam's Iraq, or the Sudan. Sort of exposes the UN and its judicial arm kangaroo court ICC for what it is.

Second, Hamas always calls ceasefires only after Israel responds and the heat is on. It's like the little brother who slugs big brother in the back of the head. Big brother then chases little borther to kick his ass, but little brother runs behind mom and claims he wants a "truce" before his new audience.

C'mon, if you don't know the Hamas m.o. by now, they always scream "ceasefire" once Israel hits back, and ONLY while Israel is hitting back.

I have to say the WHOLE world is putting a blind eye to Sudan where conditions are brutal....

Heineken Helen

gabers wrote:

I like to try and equate the situation with Israel and Hezbollah to England and the IRA. If IRA members went into N. Ireland and captured British soldiers and the Brits responded by bombing the shit out of every town they suspected IRA was hiding you would see a lot more response from the international community.

I believe Israel has every right to defend itself but at what cost? I actually find myself defending Israel in a lot of these discussions but what they are doing cannot justify what has been done to them. Restraint must not translate to Hebrew.

Well when England were 'doing their thing' there were very very few people who gave a fuck about us then. Ireland didn't matter to the international community and England were the superpower so... who are ya going to support????? In times like this, it's only the oppressed who support eachother and the superpowers support eachother and that's the way it will always be.

NOW if England decided they wanted to bomb us, I'm sure they'd come up with some excuse which would make everyone think 'well yeh, maybe they ARE entitled to'. Of course the two situations are comparable... we went through that for centuries and now we're out of it we have to side with the rich people now :rolleyes:

Heineken Helen

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

I have to say the WHOLE world is putting a blind eye to Sudan where conditions are brutal....

'Never Again' my feckin arse!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

It was a nice headline alright.

shiraz

Gotta say something: Its NOT a wall, its 95% FENCE and 5% concrete. I went there, I saw it, I live here, I know what I'm talking about. And by the way, ever since it was built the amount of terrorist attacks within Israel had droped.

Oh, another alarm. The missiles went into unpopulated areas. Thank god.

Puck78

shiraz wrote:

Gotta say something: Its NOT a wall, its 95% FENCE and 5% concrete. I went there, I saw it, I live here, I know what I'm talking about. And by the way, ever since it was built the amount of terrorist attacks within Israel had droped.

it doesn't make a difference: the problem are the long queues at the check-in, the freedom to arrest people, the lack of freedom of movement, the problems that it is causing to people with jobs and relatives at the two sides of the separation. So, it's silly to have to dispute if it is a wall or a fence, let's look at the effects of it.

shiraz

Puck78 wrote:

it doesn't make a difference: the problem are the long queues at the check-in, the freedom to arrest people, the lack of freedom of movement, the problems that it is causing to people with jobs and relatives at the two sides of the separation. So, it's silly to have to dispute if it is a wall or a fence, let's look at the effects of it.

Its not silly, a wall is something more permanent and has VERY different symbolism than a fence. I wouldn't even noted about it unless I had heared so many demagogic remarks & comparisons to the Berlin wall from all around the globe, including Israel.

Puck78

shiraz wrote:

Its not silly, a wall is something more permanent and has VERY different symbolism than a fence. I wouldn't even noted about it unless I had heared so many demagogic remarks & comparisons to the Berlin wall from all around the globe, including Israel.

who cares about the symbolism when its violating so many human rights?

shiraz

Puck78 wrote:

who cares about the symbolism when its violating so many human rights?

We do, because bad symbolism & demagogy only brings in more violence end extremists around here, as if the corrent state isn't bad enough...

Puck78

shiraz wrote:

We do, because bad symbolism & demagogy only brings in more violence end extremists around here, as if the corrent state isn't bad enough...

well, you know, you might care of "symbolism" because you don't have to pass hours every day to pass through check points, because you don't lose your job for that, because maybe you have all your relatives on one side of the fence... but people that are not in your situation i suppose wouldn't care so much for "symbolism" but just on how to survive with that... And if they're herassed at the check points (and it happens) they might start to use violence, not against "symbolism" but against the situation that are living...