Anyone who has followed the political situation here should be aware that Israeli concessions, such as their complete withdrawl from Lebanon in 2000, was seen as a sign of weakness, and encouraged radicals such as Hezbollah and Hamas, who interpreted the withdrawl to mean that with enough time and blood Israel could be wiped out.
Anyone who has followed the political situation here should also know that Israel withdrew from Lebanon after basically leveling the place, and capturing and imprisoning many Lebanese, and are still holding them without charges or trial. That is why Hezbollah is doing what they are doing now. They captured 2 soldiers in hopes for a prisoner exchange. The same thing happened in Gaza. A civilian doctor and his brother were kidnapped by Israeli soliders on June 24th. The following day, an Israeli soldier was captured in response to the previous day's events, and the thousands of other Palestinians that are rotting in Israeli jail cells right now without charges or trial.
Why does Israel have to sacrifice its soldiers lives for those civilians? Israel's first priority is to protect its own citizens. The Israeli soldiers aren't robots - they're people with families. Had Israel launched a ground offensive prior to launching the air strikes, they would have suffered devastating casualties. It's a war, and it's unfortunate that Lebanese civilians have been killed. However, that isn't Israel's fault. Israel is acting like any other country would - protecting its own people first and foremost, whether they be soldiers or civilians.
I know that, but I'm arguing that air strikes have proven to not be very effective. Boots on the ground would be able to do more damage to Hezbollah in combination with air power than air power alone is capable of. I'm in Israel now, and I'm telling you that is the case, not because I think that, but because that is what the IDF is saying.
Anyone who has followed the political situation here should also know that Israel withdrew from Lebanon after basically leveling the place, and capturing and imprisoning many Lebanese, and are still holding them without charges or trial. That is why Hezbollah is doing what they are doing now. They captured 2 soldiers in hopes for a prisoner exchange. The same thing happened in Gaza. A civilian doctor and his brother were kidnapped by Israeli soliders on June 24th. The following day, an Israeli soldier was captured in response to the previous day's events, and the thousands of other Palestinians that are rotting in Israeli jail cells right now without charges or trial.
I'm trying to keep this thread from following other threads into meaningless namecalling. My understanding is that the doctor and his brother were arrested under suspicion of being involved in terrorist activity. That is not the same as being kidnapped. I've already said in another thread that attacking civilians is an illegitimate means of trying to obtain the release of prisoners. Such a tactic constitutes terrorism. Furthermore, Hezbollah violated an international border. That constitutes terrorism. If Hezbollah was a national army it would be an act of war. As for Gaza, the tunnel used to kidnap the Israeli soldier took months to dig. That operation had nothing to do with any Israeli arrests that happened the previous day. This was in the planning far in advance and would have happened with or without Israel's arrest of this doctor. Now, if you have anything to say with regards to the question of this thread I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise please refrain from posting here.
dayan, I'd like to ask your opinion, as someone living there, on the fear that all of this could lose control and turn into a kind of new Iraq. It is a scenario feared by the Italian foreign minister in a interview today. What do you think?
How bout after they give gaza to the palestinians, the palestinians dont use it to set up rockets and mortars? THen cry when their shit gets owned by israel....
they "gave" gaza to the palestinians, but it's like a prision, plalestinians cant go out from gaza, they have no work, nothing to do... nothing...
they "gave" gaza to the palestinians, but it's like a prision, plalestinians cant go out from gaza, they have no work, nothing to do... nothing...
While this is complete bullshit, even if it were true, what exactly do they expect after years of blowing up, shooting and maiming innocent Israeli civilians?
And why was the first thing they did when Gaza was handed over to them to destroy the greenhouses and other valuable equipment that could have been a source of income?
I know that, but I'm arguing that air strikes have proven to not be very effective. Boots on the ground would be able to do more damage to Hezbollah in combination with air power than air power alone is capable of. I'm in Israel now, and I'm telling you that is the case, not because I think that, but because that is what the IDF is saying.
I'm sure you know a hell of a lot more than me, but most if not all of the generals I've heard on the news say that the air strikes were necessary to soften up the area so as to allow the ground troops to operate more effectively.
While this is complete bullshit, even if it were true, what exactly do they expect after years of blowing up, shooting and maiming innocent Israeli civilians?
I think we're trying to keep this topic inside the limits of reasonable discussions and not as a place for provocations. However, it is important to distinguish between people responsible for the attacks on israeli civilians and innocent civilians living in the Gaza strip. It is however true that movements in and out of the Gaza strip are restricted, that aid was cut off after the election of Hamas. That unemployement has really high rates. That electricity and freshwater supplies suffer of shortages (the main electricity generator was recently destroyed so that the Gaza strip must now import electricity from Israel at least until next Christmas).
I'm saying this not to take part in any of the sides but to give some information (as a reply to your "this is complete bullshit").
Anyone who has followed the political situation here should also know that Israel withdrew from Lebanon after basically leveling the place, and capturing and imprisoning many Lebanese, and are still holding them without charges or trial. That is why Hezbollah is doing what they are doing now. They captured 2 soldiers in hopes for a prisoner exchange. The same thing happened in Gaza. A civilian doctor and his brother were kidnapped by Israeli soliders on June 24th. The following day, an Israeli soldier was captured in response to the previous day's events, and the thousands of other Palestinians that are rotting in Israeli jail cells right now without charges or trial.
We returned almost all Lebanese prisoners in 2003, after Hizbullah had kidnapped 3 Israeli soliders inside Israeli territory and one civilian in a foreign country. The ones who were left are 3 prisoners: Samir Kuntar ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar ), a prisoner who was sent into life time in prison for killing the Haran family members (including a 4 years old girl) inside Isreal. Nisim Naser, who was accused in spying for the sake of Hizbullah, and there's another one which I can't remember his name at the moment, but I know he was accused in storage of illegal weapons. This is it - 3 Lenabese prisoners who got a fair trail and sent into prison.
About the case in Gaza: no one knows whether this story is true or false (=only one website in Turkey reported that case, family neighbors said to the reporter they know the father is in fact a Hamas-loyal, Hamas itself never mentioned this case so this is just a blurry story, don't relate it as a fact), but even if it is true (=the detainees were actually innocent civilians): That case happened only 2 days before Gilad Shalit was kidnapped in Gaza via a LONG tunnle dug all the way from Rafich to Kerem Shalom in Israel ==> one got to assume it takes MORE than just 2 days to dig a long tunnle without anyone to notice you ==> the whole thing was LONG planed in advance, and has nothing to do with that blurry story.
In general: Hizbullah has no right to kidnap anyone for the sake of no one - Not the Palestinians, nor the Iraqi people, or maybe do you think its ok for the Hizbullah to kidnap a few UK/US soliders inside their countries?
So I've been reading a lot about how terrible Israel's actions have been in Lebanon on all sorts of different threads on this site. And I am willing to give many people (although not all of you) the benefit of the doubt, and assume that your anger grows out of a genuine horror at the loss of human life, and not out of a hatred of Israel itself. I accept that the death of an innocent civilian is a tragedy. My question is what would you have Israel do? And this is a political question. Please think politically when answering. As a sovereign state Israel's first priority must be to protect its citizens. How would you prefer that Israel fight Hezbollah, a group religiously committed to Israel's destruction, that hides among civilians while attacking Israel? I am not interested in hearing how morally wrong it is to kill civilians. I know this already. I want to know if anyone can actually give me a well thought out political alternative to what Israel is now doing.
As things stand now, Israel should agree to a ceasefire in Lebanon immediately, and not after weeks until Hezbollah has been destroyed - if that ever happens that quickly. In the meantime the PR damage to Israel is increasing daily in the world's public opinion and that it is a factor to consider.
I believe that the Israeli government miscalculated when it ordered the attack/retaliation in Lebanon to get rid of the Hizbollah threat. They should have worked and supported the Lebanese government (similarly the US should have provided more support, financial too, to one of the few democracies in the Middle East).
Instead of securing the protection of their citizens, I think Israel with this latest move has jeopardised their own citizens by uniting their perceived enemy. I do not believe that all Arabs want the destruction of Israel; likewise, I do not believe all Israelis do not support a two-state solution for the Palestinian problem. As well as extremists, there are moderates in both camps. Unfortunately, I think that with this recent turn of events, Israel strenghtened the extremists within the Arab world. The moderate Lebanese when faced with the destruction of their country will now support Hezbollah, and so the cycle of violence continues.
I'm trying to keep this thread from following other threads into meaningless namecalling. My understanding is that the doctor and his brother were arrested under suspicion of being involved in terrorist activity. That is not the same as being kidnapped. I've already said in another thread that attacking civilians is an illegitimate means of trying to obtain the release of prisoners. Such a tactic constitutes terrorism. Furthermore, Hezbollah violated an international border. That constitutes terrorism. If Hezbollah was a national army it would be an act of war. As for Gaza, the tunnel used to kidnap the Israeli soldier took months to dig. That operation had nothing to do with any Israeli arrests that happened the previous day. This was in the planning far in advance and would have happened with or without Israel's arrest of this doctor. Now, if you have anything to say with regards to the question of this thread I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise please refrain from posting here.
Well you'll have to get a moderator to stop me from posting, sorry.
So you say "attacking civilians is an illegitimate means of trying to obtain the release of prisoners". I agree, however Israeli soldiers were kidnapped, not civilians. The response from Israel to this kidnapping was to kill civilians along with the people who kidnapped the soldiers. The response from Hezbollah was then to kill civilians along with Israeli soldiers.
To answer your original question, here is what Israel can do:
1. Adhere to a ceasefire and stop their terrorist activities
2. Make a prisoner exchange
3. End the occupation
Here is what Hezbollah and Hamas can do:
1. Adhere to a ceasefire and stop their terrorist activities
2. Make a prisoner exchange
3. Accept a 2-state settlement
Why does Israel have to sacrifice its soldiers lives for those civilians? Israel's first priority is to protect its own citizens. The Israeli soldiers aren't robots - they're people with families. Had Israel launched a ground offensive prior to launching the air strikes, they would have suffered devastating casualties. It's a war, and it's unfortunate that Lebanese civilians have been killed. However, that isn't Israel's fault. Israel is acting like any other country would - protecting its own people first and foremost, whether they be soldiers or civilians.
So I've been reading a lot about how terrible Israel's actions have been in Lebanon on all sorts of different threads on this site. And I am willing to give many people (although not all of you) the benefit of the doubt, and assume that your anger grows out of a genuine horror at the loss of human life, and not out of a hatred of Israel itself. I accept that the death of an innocent civilian is a tragedy. My question is what would you have Israel do? And this is a political question. Please think politically when answering. As a sovereign state Israel's first priority must be to protect its citizens. How would you prefer that Israel fight Hezbollah, a group religiously committed to Israel's destruction, that hides among civilians while attacking Israel? I am not interested in hearing how morally wrong it is to kill civilians. I know this already. I want to know if anyone can actually give me a well thought out political alternative to what Israel is now doing.
Firstly Dayan I wonder whether you took your screen name from that of Moshe Dayan? In my opinion he was an awful brutal racist man, the amount of times his words have not only made my body cringe but shake with anger are probably uncountable especially when he said things like
" We should tell the Palestinians we have no solution for you, that you will live like dogs and whoever will leave will leave, and we'll see where that leads"
Anyhow the reason I firstly mention Palestine is that I firmly believe the conflict between Israel and Palestine is the root of many issues within the Middle East. I have read previous comments throughout this thread that call for a return to the green line and even those that go further stating a return to 1948 borders ( I wonder if they mean pre or post the establishment of the Israeli state).
In my own personal opinion I believe that any solution to the current tradegy unfolding in the Middle East requires Israel to firmly look in the mirror.
(Bear with me as I outline my own ideas on the situation.)
I begin my discussion with the detainment of one soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit, on June 25th 2006. Shalit was detained by unidentified Palestinian militants (alot tend towards blaming Islamic Jihad) in response to the detaining of two Palestinian civilians, Osama Muamar and Mustafa Muamar, in Rafah in an overnight raid the previous night. This has mostly gone unreported and instead media sources worldwide tend to report the Israeli military line of stating Palestinians esculated an already tense situation by " kidnapping" a soldier.
In accordance with international law the taking of a soldier is not aquaided to that of taking civilians. The taking of soldiers is a regular event in times of war and provisions are set in international law to detail as to how they should be treated during their time of detainment. However international law frowns upon the " kidnapping " of civilians.
The militants asked initially for all female prisoners and those under the age of 18 to be released. On the 1st July Palestinian's asked that 1000 Prisoners held to be released and an end to the Gaza assault named by IOF as "Operation Summer Rain", that targetted civilian infrastructure and was seen by Palestinians as punishment for electing the Hamas government in January. Palestinian's where then blamed by Israel and the international media for the esculating the situation.
Politically I understand the concept that a soverign nation's first priority is to protect its citizens, but assualting Gaza in such a way surely cannot be the best thing to do to protect your citizens as anyone with half a brain cell could see that inevitably there would be retaliation from those within Gaza who hold the Qassam rockets in their hands (Not one Israeli civilian was killed by these Qassam rockets fired from Gaza ).
Unfortunately however this is the same old story that has continued for decades as to whom to blame for continous death and injury to civilians on both sides.
Operation Summer Rain continued and reigned down heavy. The IOF entered North and South Gaza and subsequently went about arresting members of the Palestinian Government democratically elected by the people. ( 64 Hamas officials to be exact) Human rights organisations including those within the UN called for a cessation of IOF activities stating that it was creating a vast humanitarian crisis. The operations in Gaza and eleswhere within the Occupied Territories continued leaving those on the most highly populated area in our planet without electricity and other essentials for daily life. It is estimated it will take as much as 18months to fully repair the damage doen by the IOF. This collective punishment is also against international law.
Next we have the detainment of two soldiers by the Hezbollah, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Eight soldiers lost their lives trying to further travel into Lebanon to retrieve the soldiers the same day as their "abduction".
This action was claimed by the Hezbollah and in similair circumstances to the taking if Shalit the Hezbollah demanded the release of three Lebanese political prisoners. ( there is a precedent for these behaviours as previously Israel have negoiated and released political prisoners both Lebanese and Palestinian)
The response on part of Israel was the following within two hours of the "abduction" Israel's chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, told Israel's Channel 10, "If the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years."
This was a major mistake politically for Israel in my opinion. Instead of levelling Lebanon and collectively punishing an entire soverign nation diplomacy would have went a long way.
Diplomacy did not exist however and any moral ground Israel could have stood upon in stating its need to protect it's citizens was blown away with the first incursion onto Lebanese soil.
Lebanon has suffered greatly at the hands of Israeli occupation and is itself a soverign nation so do they have as much right to protect their citizens as Israel does?
THe first Katyusha rockets where fired in retaliation for Israel's actions not beforehand. Israel then uses this to qualify to itself and the international community as the reasoning behind the unprovoked attack on Lebanon.
No where in this history of this world have we seen such an action because of the detainment of soldiers.
Had I the opportunity to have stood in Olmert's shoes the last thing I would have done is begin this war with Lebanon. It cannot be quantified as the best response to the taking of soldiers, instead it can only be seen as a fulfillment of an expansionist policy that sees Israel wishing to take and hold onto as much land as they wish to.
This expansionist policy has been identified by its actions in building the "aparthied wall" and its ever increasing theft of land. To get away from the expansionist policies of the Israeli government.
In my personal opinion for Olmert to call the Hezbollah action "an act of war" and respond as such is kinda stupid as Hezbollah are not the Lebanese government nor an armed wing of the Lebanese army - they are a militant organisation established in 1982 in reaction to Israel's occupation of Lebanon so therefore their very existance is linked directly to Israeli actions.
Olmert would have been better served consulting with allies both nationally and internationally and using diplomatic persuasion to deal with Hezbollah. Instead of immediatly placing blame on the Lebanese government they should have at least attempted a discourse with them but instead Israel in it's tradition of blood lust lashed out at civilian infrastructure of a soverign nation killing to date 850+ civilians and injurying an estimated 3,289 and further displacing over 900,000.
Israel has created more support for Hezbollah nationally and globally than it ever had. People who would have never supported such an organisation are currently on the streets waving flags and wishing them luck in their fight for justice - as they see it.
Israel has done itself no favours politically, socially or economically. The fear generated on all sides has fuelled the possibility of decades of pain and for this conflict to continue far beyond the borders of Israel.
The immensely close connection Israel has with the US has been thrown into greater light as many globally who where unaware of the extent to which US arms Israel can now see it clearer than ever.
Dayan you asked the question how should Israel fight Hezbollah my answer would be that they had no real reason to. Hezbollah where not a threat to Israel's existance as some would have us believe - but now generations of arabs and others have a reason for joining this militant organisation and others to revenge the deaths of those they love - Israel has given generations a reason to further hate it. (as if it hadn't given them enough reasons already with their actions towards Palestinians)
Israel now stands before the world as a state without care for the value of Arab life - a vengeful state intent on destruction and death. It has further alienated neighbouring arab countries and their entire populations.
Imagine the scene had Olmert had the balls he was born with and acted as a leader with the ability to talk to others not just to bomb them into non-existence. Olmert could have possibly created a situation where diplomacy became a tool of intervention.
Others have used various examples of other militant groups that have progressed from bombs to politics and the IRA was one of them. As an Irish republican I am only to well aware that this progression was facilitated by the British structures and political machine – the exchange for bombs/guns to a ballot box was not won over night but rather was a process that began with Irish nationalists and republicans voting Sinn Fein into areas of power firstly in local councils then as members of the British Parliament.
However this has not been possible in the Middle East – World powers have fought wars and killed thousands in the name of bringing democracy to other areas of the world. I.e. Iraq. But what happens when the Palestinians democratically elect a Hamas government? Exactly what the US and Israel stated they would do …. Punish them.
Israel’s mistakes will indeed create a legacy of violence. If the aim was to alienate itself from the world and continue as a law onto itself then Israel has accomplished it.
Truly I think I could write forever on where I feel Israel has gone wrong from its very conception – but I don’t feel this is the time and place to do so.
For those who will put my opinions down to nothing but anti Semitism (as it’s easier to label than to understand) I have absolutely no issue in declaring my anti Zionism. This not mean I hate Israel rather that I would stand against any racist ideology set upon the destruction of others – just as I would consider myself anti Nazi or anti racist…. Etc.
I have the right as an individual and human being to defend myself but that does not give me the right to go around bombing and killing people who have yet to harm me.
The same goes for nations - self defense can not be equated to pre planned killing and maiming.
" You cannot throw a rope around the neck of an idea" .....Bobby Sands.
dayan, I'd like to ask your opinion, as someone living there, on the fear that all of this could lose control and turn into a kind of new Iraq. It is a scenario feared by the Italian foreign minister in a interview today. What do you think?
I really believe it won't be the same case - we don't want to interfere in the Lebanese politics, just to get rid of Hizbullah's constant attackes since 2000. Remember both Lebanon & northern Israel were simply blossoming after we moved out of there, and Hariri (a great Syria & hizbullah opposer) was in the lead. After he was murdered and replaced by Sinyora, there were still some diplomatic contacts between Israel & Lebanon in order to achieve a peace process. In addition to that, unlike the situation in Iraq the world's public opinion as well as most govts opinion was extremely against the whole thing right from the start.
In the end, this whole story is not (only) about Israel. Hizbullah are Shi'ite Muslims, and their real goal is to bring the Shi'ites into the lead in Lebanon (and not only there), just like in Iran. Israel role in that process is:
1. Destroying Lebanon: Hizbullah knew that Israel will have to draw the line sometime and react, and their latest action finally succeed to pull us back into Lebanon.
2. Raising Hizbullah popularity: Hizbullah knew Israel will react in an aggressive way (as we tend to do all the time), and by doing so Lebanese public opinion will show some great support for Hizbullah and any other actions they'll decide to pull out.
3. Israel is evil: Increasing the anti-Israel (and US) "mood" around the world, cause its always a god thing to do if you want to wipe us off for "dessert". That includes assistance for the Hamas and other radical militias who are acting against us.
What else is on their plan?
4. Take control over Lebanon by killing all of their opposers llike they did before (you can also find that "next step" in the end of the interview I've posted here).
5. Expanding attempts: Hizbullah will try to take over other arab countries such as Jordan or Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Shi'ite religion (also mentioned in that artical) and Iran.
In the end, this whole story is not (only) about Israel. Hizbullah are Shi'ite Muslims, and their real goal is to bring the Shi'ites into the lead in Lebanon (and not only there), just like in Iran. Israel role in that process is:
1. Destroying Lebanon: Hizbullah knew that Israel will have to draw the line sometime and react, and their latest action finally succeed to pull us back into Lebanon.
2. Raising Hizbullah popularity: Hizbullah knew Israel will react in an aggressive way (as we tend to do all the time), and by doing so Lebanese public opinion will show some great support for Hizbullah and any other actions they'll decide to pull out.
3. Israel is evil: Increasing the anti-Israel (and US) "mood" around the world, cause its always a god thing to do if you want to wipe us off for "dessert". That includes assistance for the Hamas and other radical militias who are acting against us.
What else is on their plan?
4. Take control over Lebanon by killing all of their opposers llike they did before (you can also find that "next step" in the end of the interview I've posted here).
5. Expanding attempts: Hizbullah will try to take over other arab countries such as Jordan or Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Shi'ite religion (also mentioned in that artical) and Iran.
That's what I think about this whole case.
This opinion proves to me without doubt that someone somewhere is raising their children to have a one world view.
That being Israel = poor holocaust victims free homeland without pain and suffering which ultimately can do whatever it wants and blame the arabs on pushing them into it.
Ever think Israel is merely a racist state that has it's ideas pinned upon an expansionist policy that will see it own as much land as it can get it's hands on - especially land with water!
" You cannot throw a rope around the neck of an idea" .....Bobby Sands.
dayan, I'd like to ask your opinion, as someone living there, on the fear that all of this could lose control and turn into a kind of new Iraq. It is a scenario feared by the Italian foreign minister in a interview today. What do you think?
That Lebanon could turn into a new Iraq? I don't think so. Israel does not want to be in Lebanon for an extended period of time. Israelis are still carrying the mental and emotional scars from our last time in Lebanon. We are not eager to go back. On the other hand I do think it's possible that Hezbollah might turn on the non-Shia segments of Lebanon's population in order to really take control of the country, in which case you have civil war. But I really really really don't think this is very likely to happen.
they "gave" gaza to the palestinians, but it's like a prision, plalestinians cant go out from gaza, they have no work, nothing to do... nothing...
You are right that Israel maintained control of Gaza's borders, but had the Palestinians built a peaceful civil society/state in Gaza, showing the Israelis that they did not pose a threat to Israel, this would not have been the case indefinitely. This did not happen and so Israel maintained control of the border to try to prevent more weapons from reaching those that would use such weapons against Israel. Now, please, this is not the purpose of this thread, and I've already asked others to tone it done and keep discussion here constructive, so I'll ask you to do the same.
That Lebanon could turn into a new Iraq? I don't think so. Israel does not want to be in Lebanon for an extended period of time. Israelis are still carrying the mental and emotional scars from our last time in Lebanon. We are not eager to go back. On the other hand I do think it's possible that Hezbollah might turn on the non-Shia segments of Lebanon's population in order to really take control of the country, in which case you have civil war. But I really really really don't think this is very likely to happen.
I was not thinking about an occupation by Israel and a subsequent formation of a guerrilla. i was more thinking that the conflict can attract groups from other countries, like it happened in Iraq, Algeria and even Chechnya. Thanks for the opinion, anyway.
Well you'll have to get a moderator to stop me from posting, sorry.
So you say "attacking civilians is an illegitimate means of trying to obtain the release of prisoners". I agree, however Israeli soldiers were kidnapped, not civilians. The response from Israel to this kidnapping was to kill civilians along with the people who kidnapped the soldiers. The response from Hezbollah was then to kill civilians along with Israeli soldiers.
To answer your original question, here is what Israel can do:
1. Adhere to a ceasefire and stop their terrorist activities
2. Make a prisoner exchange
3. End the occupation
Here is what Hezbollah and Hamas can do:
1. Adhere to a ceasefire and stop their terrorist activities
2. Make a prisoner exchange
3. Accept a 2-state settlement
I was not trying to keep you from posting. I was only asking that people not be provocative towards others on this thread. You're right that soldiers were kidnapped, but Hezbollah crossed an international border to do it. They didn't capture soldiers during wartime, which is legitimate. They attacked another country without provocation. If, and I've said this before, Hezbollah were the national army of Lebanon this would be an act of war. As Hezbollah is an independent group their action is terrorism and is still illegitimate.
This opinion proves to me without doubt that someone somewhere is raising their children to have a one world view.
That being Israel = poor holocaust victims free homeland without pain and suffering which ultimately can do whatever it wants and blame the arabs on pushing them into it.
Ever think Israel is merely a racist state that has it's ideas pinned upon an expansionist policy that will see it own as much land as it can get it's hands on - especially land with water!
Please don't post such things on this thread. It adds nothing constructive to the discussion and is only meant to be provocative and hurtful. But as you've said it I'll respond. Israel is not a racist state. 1/6 of Israel's population is Arab, and having taught in the Israeli school system I can tell you that we certainly don't teach our children to hate Arabs. In fact we teach them just the opposite. If you open an Israeli elementary school textbook what you'll see are pictures and stories that incorporate both Jewish and Arab characters interacting positively. If that's racist then I don't have my definitions right. As for being expansionist, if that is the case then please explain to me why Israel gave the entire Sinai peninsula (which has oil fields) back to Egypt, (in fact they did it twice) pulled out of Lebanon six years ago, gave territory adjascent to the Golan heights back to Syria, pulled out of Gaza, and were planning on withdrawing from most of the West Bank. And, for good measure, please tell me why Israel, with by far the most powerful military in the region, hasn't simply conquered its neighbors already if that is its expansionist goal.
I think that for a country like Israel, which is too small to survive even one nuclear strike, let alone a strike involving multiple nukes, (one nuke in Tel Aviv would wipe out the Israeli economy, cripple the military, and kill a huge % of Israel's population) precipitating WWIII might be a price they are willing to pay. After all, given your scenerio with al Queda, it is a choice between starting a war that can be won, and simply rolling over and dying. That said, I'm not actually sure that a pre-emptive strike on a country that may imminently nuke you would cause WWIII to begin with. I think that much of the world may, if their sane, understand such an action. In fact, if al Queda were about to take control of Pakistan's nukes I'm sure that Israel would not be the only country to be rushing to attack Pakistan. You can be sure that American, British, and probably even French and German pilots would be right up their in the sky with them.
Now, why do you say that Israel should return to its 48' borders? I've already addressed this issue with regards to someone else's post. I'm looking for people to put themselves in Israel's shoes and suggest a realistic political answer. So far people have given some interesting thoughts, but more often than not it seems that people are offering answers that are unrealistic politically for Israel, but which suit people's moral sense of what they would ideally want Israel to do. This was not my question. Leaving your sense of justice aside, what do you think a realistic political solution might look like?
My realistic solution isn't realistic.
The entire Middle East needs to be remapped. I would like to see the individual nations unite to form one giant nation in the middle east. Wealth would be evenly distributed among the states until all regions were developed to a point that they could pull their own weight in the new national economy. They would have 30-50 years to do this before being split up and divided among the more successful nation-states...for purposes of mutual survival within the nation...so that one people doesn't become so economically debilitated, that they have to resort to violence to get a seat at the table.
leadership would be tricky, but I envision socialist democracy. The region cannot support capitalist democracy by its very nature.
Firstly Dayan I wonder whether you took your screen name from that of Moshe Dayan? In my opinion he was an awful brutal racist man, the amount of times his words have not only made my body cringe but shake with anger are probably uncountable especially when he said things like
" We should tell the Palestinians we have no solution for you, that you will live like dogs and whoever will leave will leave, and we'll see where that leads"
I tend to get into arguments on threads, so I thought I'd take the name of one of Israel's great generals. This doesn't mean I respect anything about the man other than his military accomplishments.
I begin my discussion with the detainment of one soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit, on June 25th 2006. Shalit was detained by unidentified Palestinian militants (alot tend towards blaming Islamic Jihad) in response to the detaining of two Palestinian civilians, Osama Muamar and Mustafa Muamar, in Rafah in an overnight raid the previous night. This has mostly gone unreported and instead media sources worldwide tend to report the Israeli military line of stating Palestinians esculated an already tense situation by " kidnapping" a soldier.
In accordance with international law the taking of a soldier is not aquaided to that of taking civilians. The taking of soldiers is a regular event in times of war and provisions are set in international law to detail as to how they should be treated during their time of detainment. However international law frowns upon the " kidnapping " of civilians.
As Shiraz has already pointed out the story about these two civilians taken by Israel has not been verified and very possibly may not be true. As for Shalit's kidnapping being in response to an event the day before, it took at least two months to build the tunnel used to kidnap Shalit, so I really don't think that he was kidnapped in response to an event that occured the day before. Besides which, rockets were being fired non-stop from Gaza from almost the minute Israel withdrew a year ago yesterday.
Politically I understand the concept that a soverign nation's first priority is to protect its citizens, but assualting Gaza in such a way surely cannot be the best thing to do to protect your citizens as anyone with half a brain cell could see that inevitably there would be retaliation from those within Gaza who hold the Qassam rockets in their hands (Not one Israeli civilian was killed by these Qassam rockets fired from Gaza ).
First, Israelis have been killed by Qassams. Not many but there have been a few. Second, though they have not killed so many Israelis they have terrorized an entire town (Sderot) into a state of complete paralysis.
Operation Summer Rain continued and reigned down heavy. The IOF entered North and South Gaza and subsequently went about arresting members of the Palestinian Government democratically elected by the people. ( 64 Hamas officials to be exact) Human rights organisations including those within the UN called for a cessation of IOF activities stating that it was creating a vast humanitarian crisis. The operations in Gaza and eleswhere within the Occupied Territories continued leaving those on the most highly populated area in our planet without electricity and other essentials for daily life. It is estimated it will take as much as 18months to fully repair the damage doen by the IOF. This collective punishment is also against international law.
Why do you keep typing the IOF? If you mean Israeli Occupation Force then I really am starting to feel that we have nothing to talk about.
Next we have the detainment of two soldiers by the Hezbollah, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Eight soldiers lost their lives trying to further travel into Lebanon to retrieve the soldiers the same day as their "abduction".
Actually four soldiers dyed after they went into Lebanon to try and retrieve their comrades. The other soldiers killed were killed in the initial attack in which the two soldiers were killed.
This action was claimed by the Hezbollah and in similair circumstances to the taking if Shalit the Hezbollah demanded the release of three Lebanese political prisoners. ( there is a precedent for these behaviours as previously Israel have negoiated and released political prisoners both Lebanese and Palestinian)
The prisoners, as has already been stated elsewhere, recieved fair trials and were imprisoned for terrorist activity. They are not "political prisoners."
THe first Katyusha rockets where fired in retaliation for Israel's actions not beforehand. Israel then uses this to qualify to itself and the international community as the reasoning behind the unprovoked attack on Lebanon.
No where in this history of this world have we seen such an action because of the detainment of soldiers.
The first katyushas were fired as cover for the Hezbollah operatives who crossed the border to kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers on Israeli soil. Israel's attack was not unprovoked. They were responding to Hezbollah's attack on Israel. Furthermore, this is not the first such attack. As you noted Hezbollah has kidnapped Israeli soldiers from Israeli territory before, and has been firing on Israeli positions on Mt. Dov intermittently since Israel withdrew from Lebanon.
Had I the opportunity to have stood in Olmert's shoes the last thing I would have done is begin this war with Lebanon. It cannot be quantified as the best response to the taking of soldiers, instead it can only be seen as a fulfillment of an expansionist policy that sees Israel wishing to take and hold onto as much land as they wish to.
See my previous post to see why characterizing Israel as expansionist is simply wrong.
This expansionist policy has been identified by its actions in building the "aparthied wall" and its ever increasing theft of land. To get away from the expansionist policies of the Israeli government.
Aparthied does not apply here. Israel is not a minority oppressing a majority within the same country. The "fence" (it is only a wall in the Jerusalem area) is meant to save Israeli lives and has proven very effective at this. Furthermore the Israeli supreme court has made the government change the route of the fence multiple times when it deemed that the current route could not be justified solely on security concerns, which means that the court actively makes sure that the fence is not used as a means for conducting a land grab, but only as a tool for providing Israel with security.
Dayan you asked the question how should Israel fight Hezbollah my answer would be that they had no real reason to. Hezbollah where not a threat to Israel's existance as some would have us believe -
One quarter of Israel's population are as we speak now living in bomb shelters or have fled their homes. Just ask Shiraz. The economy of the north of Israel, leaving aside the country's economy as a whole, has been destroyed. Israel has been forced to massively call on their reserves, which means a huge additional drain on financial resources and the economy, as you have thousands of men being pulled from their daily lives to protect the country. This is an existential threat. A country simply can not exist like this in perpetuity.
However this has not been possible in the Middle East – World powers have fought wars and killed thousands in the name of bringing democracy to other areas of the world. I.e. Iraq. But what happens when the Palestinians democratically elect a Hamas government? Exactly what the US and Israel stated they would do …. Punish them.
No, they treated the Palestinians like responsible adults and held them accountable for who they elected to lead them.
For those who will put my opinions down to nothing but anti Semitism (as it’s easier to label than to understand) I have absolutely no issue in declaring my anti Zionism. This not mean I hate Israel rather that I would stand against any racist ideology set upon the destruction of others – just as I would consider myself anti Nazi or anti racist…. Etc.
Zionism is not a racist idealogy. It is the movement for Jewish self-determination. It has nothing to say about anything but the Jewish desire to control our own fate. If you believe in the right of peoples to determine their own fates but deny us our this right to self-determination then I'm not sure you aren't an anti-semite, and I do not say that lightly. Now, I've broken my own rule on this thread and written something angry and provocative, but this was simply too much for me. I asked for a constructive discussion of Israel's situation, not an indictment of every Israeli action and a list of apologetics for everything done against Israel. Honestly, if you are incapable of not talking about Israel as a "racist state" "aparthied state" "blood thirsty state" or any of the other derogatory drivel that is routinely spewed by demagogues all over the internet then please stay away from this thread.
The entire Middle East needs to be remapped. I would like to see the individual nations unite to form one giant nation in the middle east. Wealth would be evenly distributed among the states until all regions were developed to a point that they could pull their own weight in the new national economy. They would have 30-50 years to do this before being split up and divided among the more successful nation-states...for purposes of mutual survival within the nation...so that one people doesn't become so economically debilitated, that they have to resort to violence to get a seat at the table.
leadership would be tricky, but I envision socialist democracy. The region cannot support capitalist democracy by its very nature.
I don't know what to make of this, but as you say yourself it isn't realistic.
I agree with your sentiment that Hezbollah should share in the responsibility for the damage done to Lebanon, but I'm trying to keep this thread civil and on topic, so if you could please tone down the rhetoric and adjust your tone. I welcome your opinions, but please don't turn this thread into a forum for mud-slinging.
hey copper, youll never take me alive seeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
So I've been reading a lot about how terrible Israel's actions have been in Lebanon on all sorts of different threads on this site. And I am willing to give many people (although not all of you) the benefit of the doubt, and assume that your anger grows out of a genuine horror at the loss of human life, and not out of a hatred of Israel itself. I accept that the death of an innocent civilian is a tragedy. My question is what would you have Israel do? And this is a political question. Please think politically when answering. As a sovereign state Israel's first priority must be to protect its citizens. How would you prefer that Israel fight Hezbollah, a group religiously committed to Israel's destruction, that hides among civilians while attacking Israel? I am not interested in hearing how morally wrong it is to kill civilians. I know this already. I want to know if anyone can actually give me a well thought out political alternative to what Israel is now doing.
The question implies from the beginning that Hizbollah needs to be dealt with at all. The reason they exist-and this is pretty logical thinking when you consider the facts-is because of Israeli aggression. The numbers support that.
Recently Israel abducted some Palestinian civilians and Hizbollah tried to get them back, by taking Israeli soldiers as POW's and killing a few others-Israeli soldiers on nefarious missions I should add-like abducting more civilians, beating kids and so on...
So Hizbollah defended their people, tried to get some others back, Israel invaded Lebanon, and here we are today in all out war. And the question is what should Israel do? Interesting...
The question implies from the beginning that Hizbollah needs to be dealt with at all. The reason they exist-and this is pretty logical thinking when you consider the facts-is because of Israeli aggression. The numbers support that.
Recently Israel abducted some Palestinian civilians and Hizbollah tried to get them back, by taking Israeli soldiers as POW's and killing a few others-Israeli soldiers on nefarious missions I should add-like abducting more civilians, beating kids and so on...
So Hizbollah defended their people, tried to get some others back, Israel invaded Lebanon, and here we are today in all out war. And the question is what should Israel do? Interesting...
Exactly!! It seems some just can't fathom the Arab people might get fed up and want to defend themselves somehow. I guess they are supposed to just roll over and play dead when their Israeli masters decide they feel like playing rough.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Comments
Anyone who has followed the political situation here should also know that Israel withdrew from Lebanon after basically leveling the place, and capturing and imprisoning many Lebanese, and are still holding them without charges or trial. That is why Hezbollah is doing what they are doing now. They captured 2 soldiers in hopes for a prisoner exchange. The same thing happened in Gaza. A civilian doctor and his brother were kidnapped by Israeli soliders on June 24th. The following day, an Israeli soldier was captured in response to the previous day's events, and the thousands of other Palestinians that are rotting in Israeli jail cells right now without charges or trial.
I know that, but I'm arguing that air strikes have proven to not be very effective. Boots on the ground would be able to do more damage to Hezbollah in combination with air power than air power alone is capable of. I'm in Israel now, and I'm telling you that is the case, not because I think that, but because that is what the IDF is saying.
I'm trying to keep this thread from following other threads into meaningless namecalling. My understanding is that the doctor and his brother were arrested under suspicion of being involved in terrorist activity. That is not the same as being kidnapped. I've already said in another thread that attacking civilians is an illegitimate means of trying to obtain the release of prisoners. Such a tactic constitutes terrorism. Furthermore, Hezbollah violated an international border. That constitutes terrorism. If Hezbollah was a national army it would be an act of war. As for Gaza, the tunnel used to kidnap the Israeli soldier took months to dig. That operation had nothing to do with any Israeli arrests that happened the previous day. This was in the planning far in advance and would have happened with or without Israel's arrest of this doctor. Now, if you have anything to say with regards to the question of this thread I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise please refrain from posting here.
www.amnesty.org.uk
they "gave" gaza to the palestinians, but it's like a prision, plalestinians cant go out from gaza, they have no work, nothing to do... nothing...
my PJ trade list:
www.in-my-tree.blogspot.com
While this is complete bullshit, even if it were true, what exactly do they expect after years of blowing up, shooting and maiming innocent Israeli civilians?
And why was the first thing they did when Gaza was handed over to them to destroy the greenhouses and other valuable equipment that could have been a source of income?
I'm sure you know a hell of a lot more than me, but most if not all of the generals I've heard on the news say that the air strikes were necessary to soften up the area so as to allow the ground troops to operate more effectively.
I'm saying this not to take part in any of the sides but to give some information (as a reply to your "this is complete bullshit").
www.amnesty.org.uk
We returned almost all Lebanese prisoners in 2003, after Hizbullah had kidnapped 3 Israeli soliders inside Israeli territory and one civilian in a foreign country. The ones who were left are 3 prisoners: Samir Kuntar ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar ), a prisoner who was sent into life time in prison for killing the Haran family members (including a 4 years old girl) inside Isreal. Nisim Naser, who was accused in spying for the sake of Hizbullah, and there's another one which I can't remember his name at the moment, but I know he was accused in storage of illegal weapons. This is it - 3 Lenabese prisoners who got a fair trail and sent into prison.
About the case in Gaza: no one knows whether this story is true or false (=only one website in Turkey reported that case, family neighbors said to the reporter they know the father is in fact a Hamas-loyal, Hamas itself never mentioned this case so this is just a blurry story, don't relate it as a fact), but even if it is true (=the detainees were actually innocent civilians): That case happened only 2 days before Gilad Shalit was kidnapped in Gaza via a LONG tunnle dug all the way from Rafich to Kerem Shalom in Israel ==> one got to assume it takes MORE than just 2 days to dig a long tunnle without anyone to notice you ==> the whole thing was LONG planed in advance, and has nothing to do with that blurry story.
In general: Hizbullah has no right to kidnap anyone for the sake of no one - Not the Palestinians, nor the Iraqi people, or maybe do you think its ok for the Hizbullah to kidnap a few UK/US soliders inside their countries?
As things stand now, Israel should agree to a ceasefire in Lebanon immediately, and not after weeks until Hezbollah has been destroyed - if that ever happens that quickly. In the meantime the PR damage to Israel is increasing daily in the world's public opinion and that it is a factor to consider.
I believe that the Israeli government miscalculated when it ordered the attack/retaliation in Lebanon to get rid of the Hizbollah threat. They should have worked and supported the Lebanese government (similarly the US should have provided more support, financial too, to one of the few democracies in the Middle East).
Instead of securing the protection of their citizens, I think Israel with this latest move has jeopardised their own citizens by uniting their perceived enemy. I do not believe that all Arabs want the destruction of Israel; likewise, I do not believe all Israelis do not support a two-state solution for the Palestinian problem. As well as extremists, there are moderates in both camps. Unfortunately, I think that with this recent turn of events, Israel strenghtened the extremists within the Arab world. The moderate Lebanese when faced with the destruction of their country will now support Hezbollah, and so the cycle of violence continues.
Someone needs to stop before it gets worse.
Well you'll have to get a moderator to stop me from posting, sorry.
So you say "attacking civilians is an illegitimate means of trying to obtain the release of prisoners". I agree, however Israeli soldiers were kidnapped, not civilians. The response from Israel to this kidnapping was to kill civilians along with the people who kidnapped the soldiers. The response from Hezbollah was then to kill civilians along with Israeli soldiers.
To answer your original question, here is what Israel can do:
1. Adhere to a ceasefire and stop their terrorist activities
2. Make a prisoner exchange
3. End the occupation
Here is what Hezbollah and Hamas can do:
1. Adhere to a ceasefire and stop their terrorist activities
2. Make a prisoner exchange
3. Accept a 2-state settlement
http://www.comics.com/editoons/varvel/archive/varvel-20060726.html
Firstly Dayan I wonder whether you took your screen name from that of Moshe Dayan? In my opinion he was an awful brutal racist man, the amount of times his words have not only made my body cringe but shake with anger are probably uncountable especially when he said things like
" We should tell the Palestinians we have no solution for you, that you will live like dogs and whoever will leave will leave, and we'll see where that leads"
Anyhow the reason I firstly mention Palestine is that I firmly believe the conflict between Israel and Palestine is the root of many issues within the Middle East. I have read previous comments throughout this thread that call for a return to the green line and even those that go further stating a return to 1948 borders ( I wonder if they mean pre or post the establishment of the Israeli state).
In my own personal opinion I believe that any solution to the current tradegy unfolding in the Middle East requires Israel to firmly look in the mirror.
(Bear with me as I outline my own ideas on the situation.)
I begin my discussion with the detainment of one soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit, on June 25th 2006. Shalit was detained by unidentified Palestinian militants (alot tend towards blaming Islamic Jihad) in response to the detaining of two Palestinian civilians, Osama Muamar and Mustafa Muamar, in Rafah in an overnight raid the previous night. This has mostly gone unreported and instead media sources worldwide tend to report the Israeli military line of stating Palestinians esculated an already tense situation by " kidnapping" a soldier.
In accordance with international law the taking of a soldier is not aquaided to that of taking civilians. The taking of soldiers is a regular event in times of war and provisions are set in international law to detail as to how they should be treated during their time of detainment. However international law frowns upon the " kidnapping " of civilians.
The militants asked initially for all female prisoners and those under the age of 18 to be released. On the 1st July Palestinian's asked that 1000 Prisoners held to be released and an end to the Gaza assault named by IOF as "Operation Summer Rain", that targetted civilian infrastructure and was seen by Palestinians as punishment for electing the Hamas government in January. Palestinian's where then blamed by Israel and the international media for the esculating the situation.
Politically I understand the concept that a soverign nation's first priority is to protect its citizens, but assualting Gaza in such a way surely cannot be the best thing to do to protect your citizens as anyone with half a brain cell could see that inevitably there would be retaliation from those within Gaza who hold the Qassam rockets in their hands (Not one Israeli civilian was killed by these Qassam rockets fired from Gaza ).
Unfortunately however this is the same old story that has continued for decades as to whom to blame for continous death and injury to civilians on both sides.
Operation Summer Rain continued and reigned down heavy. The IOF entered North and South Gaza and subsequently went about arresting members of the Palestinian Government democratically elected by the people. ( 64 Hamas officials to be exact) Human rights organisations including those within the UN called for a cessation of IOF activities stating that it was creating a vast humanitarian crisis. The operations in Gaza and eleswhere within the Occupied Territories continued leaving those on the most highly populated area in our planet without electricity and other essentials for daily life. It is estimated it will take as much as 18months to fully repair the damage doen by the IOF. This collective punishment is also against international law.
Next we have the detainment of two soldiers by the Hezbollah, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Eight soldiers lost their lives trying to further travel into Lebanon to retrieve the soldiers the same day as their "abduction".
This action was claimed by the Hezbollah and in similair circumstances to the taking if Shalit the Hezbollah demanded the release of three Lebanese political prisoners. ( there is a precedent for these behaviours as previously Israel have negoiated and released political prisoners both Lebanese and Palestinian)
The response on part of Israel was the following within two hours of the "abduction" Israel's chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, told Israel's Channel 10, "If the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years."
This was a major mistake politically for Israel in my opinion. Instead of levelling Lebanon and collectively punishing an entire soverign nation diplomacy would have went a long way.
Diplomacy did not exist however and any moral ground Israel could have stood upon in stating its need to protect it's citizens was blown away with the first incursion onto Lebanese soil.
Lebanon has suffered greatly at the hands of Israeli occupation and is itself a soverign nation so do they have as much right to protect their citizens as Israel does?
THe first Katyusha rockets where fired in retaliation for Israel's actions not beforehand. Israel then uses this to qualify to itself and the international community as the reasoning behind the unprovoked attack on Lebanon.
No where in this history of this world have we seen such an action because of the detainment of soldiers.
Had I the opportunity to have stood in Olmert's shoes the last thing I would have done is begin this war with Lebanon. It cannot be quantified as the best response to the taking of soldiers, instead it can only be seen as a fulfillment of an expansionist policy that sees Israel wishing to take and hold onto as much land as they wish to.
This expansionist policy has been identified by its actions in building the "aparthied wall" and its ever increasing theft of land. To get away from the expansionist policies of the Israeli government.
In my personal opinion for Olmert to call the Hezbollah action "an act of war" and respond as such is kinda stupid as Hezbollah are not the Lebanese government nor an armed wing of the Lebanese army - they are a militant organisation established in 1982 in reaction to Israel's occupation of Lebanon so therefore their very existance is linked directly to Israeli actions.
Olmert would have been better served consulting with allies both nationally and internationally and using diplomatic persuasion to deal with Hezbollah. Instead of immediatly placing blame on the Lebanese government they should have at least attempted a discourse with them but instead Israel in it's tradition of blood lust lashed out at civilian infrastructure of a soverign nation killing to date 850+ civilians and injurying an estimated 3,289 and further displacing over 900,000.
Israel has created more support for Hezbollah nationally and globally than it ever had. People who would have never supported such an organisation are currently on the streets waving flags and wishing them luck in their fight for justice - as they see it.
Israel has done itself no favours politically, socially or economically. The fear generated on all sides has fuelled the possibility of decades of pain and for this conflict to continue far beyond the borders of Israel.
The immensely close connection Israel has with the US has been thrown into greater light as many globally who where unaware of the extent to which US arms Israel can now see it clearer than ever.
Dayan you asked the question how should Israel fight Hezbollah my answer would be that they had no real reason to. Hezbollah where not a threat to Israel's existance as some would have us believe - but now generations of arabs and others have a reason for joining this militant organisation and others to revenge the deaths of those they love - Israel has given generations a reason to further hate it. (as if it hadn't given them enough reasons already with their actions towards Palestinians)
Israel now stands before the world as a state without care for the value of Arab life - a vengeful state intent on destruction and death. It has further alienated neighbouring arab countries and their entire populations.
Imagine the scene had Olmert had the balls he was born with and acted as a leader with the ability to talk to others not just to bomb them into non-existence. Olmert could have possibly created a situation where diplomacy became a tool of intervention.
Others have used various examples of other militant groups that have progressed from bombs to politics and the IRA was one of them. As an Irish republican I am only to well aware that this progression was facilitated by the British structures and political machine – the exchange for bombs/guns to a ballot box was not won over night but rather was a process that began with Irish nationalists and republicans voting Sinn Fein into areas of power firstly in local councils then as members of the British Parliament.
However this has not been possible in the Middle East – World powers have fought wars and killed thousands in the name of bringing democracy to other areas of the world. I.e. Iraq. But what happens when the Palestinians democratically elect a Hamas government? Exactly what the US and Israel stated they would do …. Punish them.
Israel’s mistakes will indeed create a legacy of violence. If the aim was to alienate itself from the world and continue as a law onto itself then Israel has accomplished it.
Truly I think I could write forever on where I feel Israel has gone wrong from its very conception – but I don’t feel this is the time and place to do so.
For those who will put my opinions down to nothing but anti Semitism (as it’s easier to label than to understand) I have absolutely no issue in declaring my anti Zionism. This not mean I hate Israel rather that I would stand against any racist ideology set upon the destruction of others – just as I would consider myself anti Nazi or anti racist…. Etc.
I have the right as an individual and human being to defend myself but that does not give me the right to go around bombing and killing people who have yet to harm me.
The same goes for nations - self defense can not be equated to pre planned killing and maiming.
I agree. I'm not defending Hezbollah.
I really believe it won't be the same case - we don't want to interfere in the Lebanese politics, just to get rid of Hizbullah's constant attackes since 2000. Remember both Lebanon & northern Israel were simply blossoming after we moved out of there, and Hariri (a great Syria & hizbullah opposer) was in the lead. After he was murdered and replaced by Sinyora, there were still some diplomatic contacts between Israel & Lebanon in order to achieve a peace process. In addition to that, unlike the situation in Iraq the world's public opinion as well as most govts opinion was extremely against the whole thing right from the start.
So, another Iraq? I say no.
www.amnesty.org.uk
1. Destroying Lebanon: Hizbullah knew that Israel will have to draw the line sometime and react, and their latest action finally succeed to pull us back into Lebanon.
2. Raising Hizbullah popularity: Hizbullah knew Israel will react in an aggressive way (as we tend to do all the time), and by doing so Lebanese public opinion will show some great support for Hizbullah and any other actions they'll decide to pull out.
3. Israel is evil: Increasing the anti-Israel (and US) "mood" around the world, cause its always a god thing to do if you want to wipe us off for "dessert". That includes assistance for the Hamas and other radical militias who are acting against us.
What else is on their plan?
4. Take control over Lebanon by killing all of their opposers llike they did before (you can also find that "next step" in the end of the interview I've posted here).
5. Expanding attempts: Hizbullah will try to take over other arab countries such as Jordan or Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Shi'ite religion (also mentioned in that artical) and Iran.
That's what I think about this whole case.
This opinion proves to me without doubt that someone somewhere is raising their children to have a one world view.
That being Israel = poor holocaust victims free homeland without pain and suffering which ultimately can do whatever it wants and blame the arabs on pushing them into it.
Ever think Israel is merely a racist state that has it's ideas pinned upon an expansionist policy that will see it own as much land as it can get it's hands on - especially land with water!
That Lebanon could turn into a new Iraq? I don't think so. Israel does not want to be in Lebanon for an extended period of time. Israelis are still carrying the mental and emotional scars from our last time in Lebanon. We are not eager to go back. On the other hand I do think it's possible that Hezbollah might turn on the non-Shia segments of Lebanon's population in order to really take control of the country, in which case you have civil war. But I really really really don't think this is very likely to happen.
You are right that Israel maintained control of Gaza's borders, but had the Palestinians built a peaceful civil society/state in Gaza, showing the Israelis that they did not pose a threat to Israel, this would not have been the case indefinitely. This did not happen and so Israel maintained control of the border to try to prevent more weapons from reaching those that would use such weapons against Israel. Now, please, this is not the purpose of this thread, and I've already asked others to tone it done and keep discussion here constructive, so I'll ask you to do the same.
www.amnesty.org.uk
I was not trying to keep you from posting. I was only asking that people not be provocative towards others on this thread. You're right that soldiers were kidnapped, but Hezbollah crossed an international border to do it. They didn't capture soldiers during wartime, which is legitimate. They attacked another country without provocation. If, and I've said this before, Hezbollah were the national army of Lebanon this would be an act of war. As Hezbollah is an independent group their action is terrorism and is still illegitimate.
Please don't post such things on this thread. It adds nothing constructive to the discussion and is only meant to be provocative and hurtful. But as you've said it I'll respond. Israel is not a racist state. 1/6 of Israel's population is Arab, and having taught in the Israeli school system I can tell you that we certainly don't teach our children to hate Arabs. In fact we teach them just the opposite. If you open an Israeli elementary school textbook what you'll see are pictures and stories that incorporate both Jewish and Arab characters interacting positively. If that's racist then I don't have my definitions right. As for being expansionist, if that is the case then please explain to me why Israel gave the entire Sinai peninsula (which has oil fields) back to Egypt, (in fact they did it twice) pulled out of Lebanon six years ago, gave territory adjascent to the Golan heights back to Syria, pulled out of Gaza, and were planning on withdrawing from most of the West Bank. And, for good measure, please tell me why Israel, with by far the most powerful military in the region, hasn't simply conquered its neighbors already if that is its expansionist goal.
My realistic solution isn't realistic.
The entire Middle East needs to be remapped. I would like to see the individual nations unite to form one giant nation in the middle east. Wealth would be evenly distributed among the states until all regions were developed to a point that they could pull their own weight in the new national economy. They would have 30-50 years to do this before being split up and divided among the more successful nation-states...for purposes of mutual survival within the nation...so that one people doesn't become so economically debilitated, that they have to resort to violence to get a seat at the table.
leadership would be tricky, but I envision socialist democracy. The region cannot support capitalist democracy by its very nature.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
I don't know what to make of this, but as you say yourself it isn't realistic.
It's ok. I function at just a hair under genius level IQ. My ideas are often considered unrealistic. I'm used to it :(
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
hey copper, youll never take me alive seeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
rhetoric and mudslinging? M'kay.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
The question implies from the beginning that Hizbollah needs to be dealt with at all. The reason they exist-and this is pretty logical thinking when you consider the facts-is because of Israeli aggression. The numbers support that.
Recently Israel abducted some Palestinian civilians and Hizbollah tried to get them back, by taking Israeli soldiers as POW's and killing a few others-Israeli soldiers on nefarious missions I should add-like abducting more civilians, beating kids and so on...
So Hizbollah defended their people, tried to get some others back, Israel invaded Lebanon, and here we are today in all out war. And the question is what should Israel do? Interesting...
Exactly!! It seems some just can't fathom the Arab people might get fed up and want to defend themselves somehow. I guess they are supposed to just roll over and play dead when their Israeli masters decide they feel like playing rough.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde