Hemlock B Bootsalotta

When exactly did the ceasefire end? From 2000 when Israel pulled out of south Lebanan to this past June, there have been 33 attacks by Hezbollah into Israel (http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/sib/2_05/har_dov.htm). Is that what the people that are for a cease fire thinks a ceasefire means? That's not peace, that's not a ceasefire, that's constant low intensity conflict. That's 33 acts of war. The incident in July makes 34. Do you blame them for saying enough is enough? If someone hit you 33 times and you started beating the shit out of them on the 34th time, would you be in the wrong or not?

What was Hezbollah attempting to accomplish by repeated attacks? The Liberation of Lebanon from Israel? They got that in 2000.

From:

mrph.livejournal.com

Do you blame them for saying enough is enough? If someone hit you 33 times and you started beating the shit out of them on the 34th time, would you be in the wrong or not?

If I was flattening their neighbourhood and the majority of the people I was attacking were innocent bystanders, I'm pretty damn sure I'd be in the wrong.

I'd also be an idiot, 'cos this isn't helping Israel at all, is it? Hezbollah chose the timing of this, and had plenty of time to prepare. They'll survive pretty much unscathed.

Lebanon's infrastructure won't recover, though - and Olmert will look weak and/or clumsy if he can't deliver on the promises he made when he started the operation - he still hasn't got the two kidnapped soldiers back, for example.

From:

If I was flattening their neighbourhood and the majority of the people I was attacking were innocent bystanders, I'm pretty damn sure I'd be in the wrong.

If he was hiding behind his wife when you took a swing at him and hit her, then yeah. However, a lot of those Civilians are specifically in harms way to be collateral damage and it's not as if ISrael didn't give them time to get out.

Was Sherman Wrong? Was Churchill wrong? Was Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Harris
wrong? Was the General Eisenhower wrong? Was General MacArthur Wrong? Was FDR wrong?

We're seeing history repeat itself. During the Lebanese Civil War, the PLO made attacks into Israel to kill Israelis. Israel after 10 years said enough and invaded Lebanan. They made a buffer zone. Hezbollah formed with the purpose of liberating Lebanan and Destroying Israel. They fought the Israelis, They Fought the Druze, they fought everyone but their Syrian allies and eventually the IDF tired of holding down the ground in Lebanan and pulled out in 2000. Then Hezbollah, kept fighting. Even though UN resolutions said they should disarm. Never Mind that foreign troops were still on the soil in Lebanan (Syria, but they're ok, they're not evil Jews!).

Hezbollah did not just choose the timing of this. Iran chose the timing. They practically announced it.

Lebanon's infrastructure won't recover, though - and Olmert will look weak and/or clumsy if he can't deliver on the promises he made when he started the operation - he still hasn't got the two kidnapped soldiers back, for example.

The families have already gone on record as not expecting them back. Do you expect Hezbollah to respect how prisoners of war are to be treated? I don't. Their families don't either. Olmert is getting slammed for not being agressive enough in Lebanan.

The only way there's going to be a victory here is if Israel can force the international community to actually enforce the resolutions it made with regards to Hezbollah. EXcept Hezbollah doesn't respect the international community. That's why they hide inside and fire from the UN compounds in the first place. That's why they use UN vehicles and uniforms as part of their operations. That's why they blew up the Marine Barracks in 1983 and spurred the US and everyone else to leave. Hezbollah has the goal of creating a Shia state in Lebanan like Iran. Damn the Druze, damn the Sunnis, damn everyone else, that's what they want.

From:

reddragdiva

"a lot of those Civilians are specifically in harms way to be collateral damage"

Indeed, much as the Guantanamo suicides timed it for bad PR. Damn these terrorists!

From:

When you launch rockets from next to a UN outpost, a hospital, a Mosque or a civilian settlement you should expect those ares to be in danger. That's why in the west, hospitals are given a wide berth, medical staff wear Bright Obvious Red crosses, Hospital ships are painted white with big white crosses and you don't site your artillery points next to a civilian or neutral position. It's a long established fact of the rules of war that if you do site your military assets next to otherwise neutral or non-military targets that YOU are the one endangering them.

This is one of the things that MASH got right. When the Cannon was dropped off at the 4077. They wanted it gone and moved it away from the hospital.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah is launching rockets with a very large CEP into Israel at the general population. Sure, they're not killing a lot of people, but they are killing civilians with no military purpose to their attacks. That's a basic breach of the rules of war. JUST like the V1 and V2 missile strikes against England by Germany in '44.

From:

They would never stage any corpses for effect in the media would they? Not like in Jenin were corpses would fall off stretchers and get back on, or at the Martyrs cross roads where 30 people die on the set of a film production (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEYul3VzlIs&mode=related&search=). Does Hezbollah have it's own Pollywood (http://www.seconddraft.org/cur_invest.php)?

Pay close attention to the rigor mortis of the dead. 1-2 hours after death, after the building fell and they've already got rigor? How? If they were pulled, from the rubble of a building that fell on them, why are they all relatively clean? Why are there no crush injuries? Who's green helmet man who seems to be everywhere for the camera? Why was the media kept back from the actual site?

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/188571.php
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/who-is-this-man.html
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/milking-it.html

From:

pir-anha.livejournal.com

ostensibly the return of the shebaa farms, the cessation of israel's airforce violating lebanese airspace, and the full disclosure of where all in lebanon israel left land mines. (i am not arguing that these are all equally justified; i think shebaa is a pretext; though i also believe that it was previously used by lebanese and is most certainly not israeli land.) but there is of course a wider local context. i notice that in your link much is made of hezballah going against UN resolution 425 -- but israel keeps ignoring a couple of major resolutions itself, eh.

also please note the extremely low number of casualties during the past 6 years along that border. yes, everybody counts, but frankly, it's a vast improvement over the situation pre-2000, and israel's strike on lebanon has resulted in several times that body count now on its own side, without even starting to count the bodies of the lebanese civilians, who are not at fault here. where's the sense in that? furthermore, how in the world will this make israel more safe? i am not prone to conspiracy theories (and i don't hate israel, while i have no love for hezballah), but really, this seems like such a supremely self-injurious action to take by israel that i am stunned. things were actually going pretty well with lots of internal pressures on hamas and hezballah until israel started to overreact in gaza, and now this? i don't get it. or rather, any which way i get it feels like israel is becoming something i cannot support anymore.

here's how i feel about self-defense: let's say you shoot at me. i consider it my right to defend myself by killing you -- you have lost your right to live by trying to take mine. i consider it my right to shoot you in the back. i consider it my right to follow you home and kill you if you managed to run away from me, or you sniped at me from a distance. i consider it my right to trap you. i consider it my right to have a really long memory about this, and kill you in a few years. my memory has no statute of limitations. (let's assume we're in the boonies far from civilization, so there's no police.)

i do not consider it ethical to go after you if i didn't actually see the shooter all that clearly, but you sorta kinda look like him; i'd need more evidence. i do not consider it ethical for me to torture your cousin to find out where you are. i do not consider it ethical to keep your spouse prisoner in order to lure you out into the open. i do not consider it ethical to bobbytrap the road where you live along with other people. i do not consider it ethical to bomb your landlord's family into oblivion with the bomb i meant for you. if those were truly the only ways i could get to you, i would feel constrained to take other measures, even if they were much more inconvenient for me. i might have to give up for the time being.

From:

What was Hezbollah attempting to accomplish by repeated attacks? The Liberation of Lebanon from Israel?

funny - i thought that they were pretty clear about not recognising the state of Israel, its current boundaries, or its right to exist. AFAICT, they've been pretty open about that. so they're trying to destroy it, reclaim land from it, or gain control of it, aren't they? i mean, maybe it's just me, but it seems pretty clear that it's all a religiously aggravated squabble over land, and anything else is excuse making for the benefit of the US.

neither side is right. they're just fighing endlessly over a scrap of particularly archeologically interesting, but otherwise craptastic land, and destroying the archeology while they do it. bastards spoiling it for everyone else.

From:

funny - i thought that they were pretty clear about not recognising the state of Israel, its current boundaries, or its right to exist.

I know this. Hezbollah knows this. The people asking for a ceasefire just don't seem to know this. Or refuse to understand it.

anything else is excuse making for the benefit of the US.

Except it's not a religious squabble over land. Israel hasn't destroyed Mosques to put up Synagogues. In fact they haven't even rebuilt the temple mount in spite of the fact there used to be one of their Temples there first. That shows restraint. Irshad Manji had better access as a woman to areas of Israel than she did in the Palestinian areas.

The squabble, is over whether or not the Arabs get to do what they set out to do in 1948. Destroy Israel. The land is just one of the spoils they get.

I cannot see how the Arabs are the victims here. The Palestinians have made themselve unwelcome everywhere they've gone. Revolting against a state you seek succor from is just plain stupid. When you later get ejected for it, then it's that much worse and it's your own fault.

in 1948, the UN set aside a small amount of land for the Jews. Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanan ALL tried to stop that and lost that war. Some of those countries they fomented another war. And then another war and kept loosing. in 1948, 800,000 jews left the various Arabic states because the writing was on the wall that they weren't wanted and they either settled in Israel or in the West.

Israel has to act the way it does because the endgame everyone else works towards is their destruction. The Endgame that Israel works towards is their existence. Which endgame is a valid objective?

From:

in 1948, the UN set aside a small amount of land for the Jews. Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanan ALL tried to stop that and lost that war.

seems to me that until they (the "arab states" and islamic groups) *actually* stop fighting that 1948 war, it's still the same one.

the way i see it, the UN fucked up big time by giving that chunk of land to "the jews". as soon as they did that they set up a battle of religions, over land. Israel hasn't helped that by expanding its borders.

Israel has to act the way it does because the endgame everyone else works towards is their destruction. The Endgame that Israel works towards is their existence. Which endgame is a valid objective?

"everyone else" meaning those arab states which surround them, yes? because, i mean, the US *are* still giving Israel their help. and Israel *has* expanded its borders into what was previously Palestinian territory - seems to me that their edgame is not just existance, but expansion.

Israel does have to act the way it does sometimes if it wants to keep on existing.

but is its existance the right thing? why?

i don't think it *should* exist. i find the very concept of a state for jews offensive, and provocative to other ethnic and religious groups. would a state for Muslims be a good idea? a state for Christians? should all the athiests here have their own state, where they can be free of Christian Britain? where does it end? what if the athiests have fewer kids, and lots of land, and Christian population pressure makes their farmland desireable?

as far as i can tell, the impulse that tells people that Israel is different is simply the impulse to root for the underdog, to give back something to the bullied kid. but an underdog can easily end up on top later. America was once Britain's poor weak little brother. and there's no doubt that America is far more powerful than Britain now.

the Hezbollah simply see *themselves* as the underdogs, not Israel. they think the land should rightfully be in their control, and not Israel's.

Israel hasn't destroyed Mosques to put up Synagogues.

that's not really true - some media claims that many were destroyed. they have *certainly* converted some, though. saw a very interesting documentary about their historic buildings a while back. and they've destroyed mosques in Palestine.

and that's not the big thing, really - who is to go to the mosque, in a "state for Jews"? does it matter if the building stands untouched, if the people who attended it are squeezed away?

From:

sweetfuckall.livejournal.com

a state for Christians?

Isnt' that what Texas is for?

I agree with your reasoning re: "jewish state". This notion of segregation by choice is fascinating to me - nearly every metropolitan city in the world boasts a CHINATOWN, but what about a WHITETOWN? Suddenly, it doesn't sound so benign.

"Black comedy" has the same mind-boggling effect on me. If a white guy ever ventured to stand in front of a crowd and poke fun at every race, colour, and creed but his own... Can you even imagine the consequences?

Segregation is a funny thing... I guess so long as Whitey's hand isn't anywhere near the trigger, it's ok?

From: (Anonymous)

Segregation is a funny thing... I guess so long as Whitey's hand isn't anywhere near the trigger, it's ok?

seems to be the way.

From:

I haven't travelled in places where the predominant skin colour is other than white, but I strongly suspect that minorities like to cluster together wherever they are.

From:

It seems that it was something that Prince Faisal and Major Lawrence discussed.

"everyone else" meaning those arab states which surround them, yes? because, i mean, the US *are* still giving Israel their help. and Israel *has* expanded its borders into what was previously Palestinian territory - seems to me that their edgame is not just existance, but expansion.

The expansion is to provide breathing space and a buffer. The UN mandated areas of Israel (http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/7A9BF40C-7B77-408A-A13F-2282706FF02F/0/MFAJ0d1q0.jpg) were militarily indefensible. Even after the 1948 war, Israel gave up some territory and gained other territory as part of the armistice. After the close of the Six Day War, Israel held Gaza, the Saini, the Golan Heights and Judea, Samaria (http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/0B530509-EC60-472F-9F13-4163AC5599EC/0/MFAJ0d1v0.jpg). The Yom Kippur war saw more territoy taken from the attackers. Yet, today, most of those areas have been handed back over time through diplomacy and yet, those areas are still trouble spots. Israel is not in Gaza, why are attacks being launched from there?

Seems to me, you gain far more ground by negotiating with Israel in good faith and not by attacking Israel. Why is this so hard for Arabs to understand?

and that's not the big thing, really - who is to go to the mosque, in a "state for Jews"? does it matter if the building stands untouched, if the people who attended it are squeezed away?

The Apartheid argument for Arabs/Muslims in Israel is crap. The Muslims still live there. 16.1 % of the country are Muslims and are citizens. Muslims can practice their religion freely in Israel. Is this the case in the rest of the region if you're not of the predominant religion? Can a Christian establish a church in Saudi Arabia? Can a Jew establish a new Synagogue in Iran? Can an Egyptian convert from Islam to another religion?

i don't think it *should* exist. i find the very concept of a state for jews offensive, and provocative to other ethnic and religious groups. would a state for Muslims be a good idea?

Generally, I would agree with you. Yet history has shown, that they cannot live in and among other peoples because they're too much of a target. Even before the creation of Israel, Jews in the Middle east were targets for oppression. Excepting for a golden period in Iran under one Shah, their existence has been fraught with difficulty and attacks. Even Faisal I saw this and made provisions for the establishment of Jewish lands with Mosques to be allowed to remain. Much of this was integrated into the Balfour Declaration and that initially included present day Jordan as well as present day Israel (http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/A30FA444-6402-4E8D-99A3-19FB856C2F1B/0/MFAJ0d1t0.jpg).

800,000 Jew's left the arab countries around israel in 1948 to flee coming or existing pograms. Most of them settled in Israel. In some respects, Arabs profited by that. Palastinians that left Israel and that want to return left because they thought they could come back with Arab Armies and get a better deal. They bet on the wrong horse. Those that stayed are citizens of Israel or live in the occupied territories where they wish to be free. Yet, continue to fight and bomb and destroy rather than rebuild.

the Hezbollah simply see *themselves* as the underdogs, not Israel. they think the land should rightfully be in their control, and not Israel's.

Except they are not the underdogs. They are an extension of Iran's political, religious and military power into Lebanan.

I won't hold my breath waiting for the Arab/Hashemite/Egyptian nations to de-establish all of their arbitrary national boundaries as established by post colonial agreements and to go back to either control by the Turks or to control by the western powers that took the lands from the Ottoman Turks. And Israel is SUCH a large and powerful country that they control such a large quantity of land in the Muslim world (http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/large/pw_sign_22.gif).

From:

16.1 % of the country are Muslims and are citizens

how much of that region was Muslim *before* the establishment of Israel?

Israel is not in Gaza, why are attacks being launched from there?

for the same reason that people thought it was right to give the area to Israel. "you kicked us out of our land in the past, now we want to kick you out of some of yours."

Generally, I would agree with you. Yet history has shown, that they cannot live in and among other peoples because they're too much of a target. Even before the creation of Israel, Jews in the Middle east were targets for oppression. Excepting for a golden period in Iran under one Shah, their existence has been fraught with difficulty and attacks.

i'm sorry, but i just basically disagree with your assessment here. they have sometimes been persecuted, just like other minority groups. sometimes they haven't been persecuted.
to go from their suffering persecution in some circumstances (find me one instance of a government persecuting jews which did not persecute any other group), to the moral and practical correctness of ousting other groups to provide them with their own state, well, that requires a much bigger interest in rooting for the underdog than i can muster.

And Israel is SUCH a large and powerful country that they control such a large quantity of land in the Muslim world.

would you like to plot Britain on that map? and yet, i think we all agree that Britain is more powerful than, say, Mali?
power=!size
and if they took nothing but *one* Muslim's home to expand, it would still be wrong. if we are to believe that the Arab states should simply accept the UN boundaries, why does that not apply to Israel, too? why is it a war when Israel decides it should own more land, and a terrorist attack when the Arab states try to get it back?

you know, though, if you reckon that protestwarrior.com,and the Isreali government, are reputable sources, i'll happily point you at some of the many pro-palestinian sites stating numbers of mosques destroyed by Isreal. it'd be no different. i think that neither side is particularly reliable, so i have been avoiding doing so.

From:

how much of that region was Muslim *before* the establishment of Israel?

In 1922 589,200 Muslims, 83,800 Jews, 71,500 Christians and 7,600 others in 1922.

150,000 Arabs remained in Israel during the 1948 war. 200,000 others have immigrated to Israel from the west bank and Gaza and received citizenship. Today, there are 1,350,000 Muslim Arabs in Israel, that's 19.5% of it's population (it includes those living in the Muslim quarter of Jerusalem). Based on what I've read of Muslim Arabs living in Israel, if you abide by the law and don't rock the boat like the Palestinians, you have a very good lot in life, full rights under the law, and are excluded from the draft, though if you want to serve in the IDF you can. Apparently 10% of Beduin males choose to do so.

The West bank has a population of about 2.5 million with Muslim 75% (predominantly Sunni), Jewish 17%, Christian and other 8%. There's about 1.5 Million in the Gaza Strip and that breaks down to Muslim 98.7% (predominantly Sunni), Christian 0.7%, Jewish 0.6%.

for the same reason that people thought it was right to give the area to Israel. "you kicked us out of our land in the past, now we want to kick you out of some of yours."

A lot of the people left of their own volition because they could come back and get MORE of the land that would have been taken away from jews that were already living there. That's where all the Palestinians that tried to overthrow King Hussein of Jordan went. Again, the Palestinians made the wrong choice and suffered for it. There were expulsions, but those were thankfully limited. In some cases local leaders attempted to encourage the arabs to stay.

to go from their suffering persecution in some circumstances (find me one instance of a government persecuting jews which did not persecute any other group), to the moral and practical correctness of ousting other groups to provide them with their own state, well, that requires a much bigger interest in rooting for the underdog than i can muster.

The British thought it was a sufficiently valid enough thing to do in and around WWI. More so after the riots against jews in parts of Jerusalem. Even Prince Feisal thought of it as a reasonable thing and did so as a means of providing support from a society that had brought riches to past rulers. The partitioning of the areas didn't work out as he planned because France and Britain were too stuck on the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

I'd say that the culmination of a number of attacks by various Arab Groups over the years in the Levant as well as in larger areas combined with the Holocaust, made for a fairly substantial reason for creating a Jewish State. Fact is, we're far beyond the 1947 partition and Israel exists, with the approval of the UN in the late 40s.

The fact that all of the neighboring nations attacked Israel on the eve of it's birth is telling. Then, several more times. Each time, Israel has been willing to return territory it captured in exchange for good faith negotiations. Those who have not acted in Good faith have not had territory returned.

From:

you know, though, if you reckon that protestwarrior.com,and the Isreali government, are reputable sources, i'll happily point you at some of the many pro-palestinian sites stating numbers of mosques destroyed by Isreal. it'd be no different. i think that neither side is particularly reliable, so i have been avoiding doing so.

Maps are Maps. I used the Israeli Government websites because one page showed the historical boundaries quite well. If you're going to impeach the maps, impeach the maps. As far as I know, those maps are accurate as to where and how much territory was taken in what time and according to what agreements. The Protest Warrior map is given to show how small Israel is, landmass wise in the larger scope of land controlled by Nominally or categorically islamic states.

Further, Israel did not cede land because of Terrorist attacks, they took land as buffers after being attacked 3 times in three wars that were QUITE clear about the destruction of Israel. Golan, Sainai and the West Bank were all strategic positions that Israel took to bolster their position and they were the frontiers where major battles occurred and the Arab states advanced through. Egyptian and Jordanian Territory that was taken has been returned after negotiation. Syria hasn't acted in good faith so they still have Golan.

Clearly, attacking Israel doesn't work for accomplishing objectives. Yet, some Arabs keep doing it. Why? Isn't repetition of something that didn't work 10 times before a sign of insanity of some sort?

From:

you are making assumptions about their objectives which seem unlikely to me. if their continued objective is to punish Israel, then who is to say they aren't having any success?

From:

Well if it's their more moderate goals which people in the west which seem to think are reasonable then they're going about it the wrong way. Those goals being the liberation of that last bit of Lebanon that israel holds (the border is in dispute between Israel, Syria and Lebanan) and to have prisoners that Israel holds released (never mind that many of them are clear criminals based on their acts).

But, if their objective is to punish Israel, first I ask, for what? And second, if it's merely retribution, revenge for past acts, why does anyone in the west who has a sense of justice for "peace" even think that's a valid reason for attacking Israel?

From:

i think many people in the west have more sympathy for the emotional "revenge" response of people who have been squeezed or driven out of their homes in the past 50 years than they do for people who think they have a right to a state for their religious/ethnic group. most "westerners" can't imagine wanting to create a white christian state - it has shades of Hitler all over it. so they can't put themselves in the shoes of the Isreali jews.

frankly, i reckon they're all as bad as each other, really. the Isreali government are a bunch of terrorists who were bombing the brits before they got their little country and started fighting with teh neighbours. the Hezbollah are just a bunch of terrorists. the UN made a huge mistake in creating Israel. there is no way to fix that mistake and make everyone happy.

From:

the_axel

16.1 % of the country are Muslims and are citizens.

Second class ones though.

Don'
t believe?
Go there, get to know some.

That & the Israel Army forcibly deported 750 000 Palestinians (about half the Palestinian population at the time) from Israel territory in the 1948 war - dragged them out of their houses at gun point, loaded them into trucks & through them out at the border.

Palastinians that left Israel and that want to return left because they thought they could come back with Arab Armies and get a better deal.

Some did, but not the majority by far.

From:

Second class ones though.

Don'
t believe?
Go there, get to know some.

Then why are Arabs Immigrating TO Israel? How can they do so in the first place and why would they want to? Why would they get a pass on conscription and still be allowed to enlist?

That & the Israel Army forcibly deported 750 000 Palestinians (about half the Palestinian population at the time) from Israel territory in the 1948 war - dragged them out of their houses at gun point, loaded them into trucks & through them out at the border.

That was neither widespread or a general policy. It occurred in several villages because those villages were astride the line of supply of Israeli villages. A few other villages were cleared by the terrorist elements, still others were told to stay. Quite a few Palestinians left so they could come back for more land at the expense of the Jews when their Arab Brothers won.

The Arabs that stayed are citizens of Israel. Why have they not immigrated to other more Friendly states if their lot in life in Israel is so bad?

From:

That was neither widespread or a general policy.

i'm sorry?? 750,000 not enough??

The Arabs that stayed are citizens of Israel. Why have they not immigrated to other more Friendly states if their lot in life in Israel is so bad?

why didn't the jews just leave Germany before it got as far as the holocaust? they'd been second class citizens for some time...

i mean - really! they stay because they are stubborn, and don't want to leave their homes. they were born there, their grandparents were, and their grandparents were.

From:

i'm sorry?? 750,000 not enough?? The account that I know of that was documented and admitted by Israeli Military sources was 60,000 because those villages were astride their lines of communication. If you consider the nature of the fighting, it make sense. What would an Arab army have done to a Jewish village astride it's LOC?

And some 150,000 Palestinians and Bedouin stayed. They're citizens now. Irshad Manji covers this and states that the apartheid argument for Israel is just not based on reality. She found less restrictions on her comings and goings in Israel than she did in other countries.

From: (Anonymous)

The account that I know of that was documented and admitted by Israeli Military sources was 60,000

and you consider that a non-biased source?

i'm sorry. i really can't argue any of these points on the basis of pure propaganda.

From:

sorry - not logged in.

From:

Got a better source, attribute it. Post in the clear too. Don't hide behind anonymity.

Further more, lets get something straight. The partition plan was disagreed to by the arab states that were created with the exact same post colonial fiat, and they attacked the new Jewish state. The Palestinian neighbors threw in with Israel's self declared Arab enemies and the Arabs LOST. Their hope was that NO jews would have a state. The Armistice line was pretty much around the planned Jewish STate with a few exceptions.

Then in 1967 Several of those same Arab States that got their clocks cleaned attacked again. Again, through the Golan, West Bank and Gaza/Sinai. Again they got their clocks cleaned. In fact at this point, the West bank still belonged to Jordan. BUT after the battles were over Israel was holding a lot of territory that enemy troops had assembled and attacked through.

Then in 1973, The Arabs attack AGAIN (getting beaten 3 times wasn't enough?) and they loose AGAIN!

Seems to me, Arabs are quite willing to start wars, but are unhappy when they don't go their way and have to try again. Only Harder, with more feeling this time!! And yet they still loose.

The thing is, Israel will return territory that they take in war. The Sinai and Parts of Jordan Show this. They'll do so if the nation acts in honest and good faith negotiations. IF they do not, then Israel will not play ball. That's why Syria and Lebanon are still a problem. Jordan had their own problem with Palestinians in 1970 who tried to overthrow their government. Jordan ejected them after that. But that's never talked about is it? So far, since Jordan stopped letting people attack across their border into Israel and they've stopped attacking Israel, they've had no problem with Israel. Amazing that. Egypt has had similar luck.

If you're not prepared to loose your own territory, don't launch a war trying to take someone else's territory. Especially when you've been beaten by them already. After 4 Wars, 3 of them with the Arabs Against the Israelis all by their lonesome, most of the Arab States seem to have learned that if you fuck with Israel they will clean their clocks. Lebanon seems to have lost the lesson that Jordan had. I'm not sure, how, it was right next door. Letting the PLO set up shop in the first place was their biggest mistake and that's why they're in the current predicament. Until they can get Hezbollah under control, they're going to have these problems.

Every time the Lebanese government lets Hezbollah commit acts of war, they're putting their own country in Jepardy. In the case of Hezbollah, they've Blown up a UN Peace Keeping Barracks, Attacked across their border against a neighboring state numerous times, Attacked the embassies of three foreign countries, and committed lesser acts that are not considered acts of war. Believe me, letting someone blow or burn an Embassy in your country is a bad idea. Its a very bad idea. Used to be, countries would go to war because of that. Considering what Lebanon has let happen, they've been pretty damn lucky. If you punish such acts quickly, you avoid the problems entirely.

And you see that's the simple solution. Don't attack Israel, don't let another group form a state within your own country and start running things for you and then attack Israel, you might as well have attacked them yourselves, because, ultimately, your government is responsible for what goes on inside your country when events that are internal spill over and affect other countries. If someone holds you accountable, fix the problem, don't whine about it. And don't side with the group that caused the problem in the first place.

From:

the_axel

Then why are Arabs Immigrating TO Israel?

I'm not aware thatthey are.
What's your source?

That was neither widespread or a general policy.

Yes it was. Just the leaders of Ha'ganah, Irgun &c. were too smart to document all the shit they did (the Nazi's having just provided a great object lesson in why that's a bad idea).

The Arabs that stayed are citizens of Israel. Why have they not immigrated to other more Friendly states if their lot in life in Israel is so bad?

Because (i) it's their home and (ii) the rest of the Arab world doesn'[t want Palestinian immigrants and (iii) they'd be branded as traitors by their families for leaving their land to the enemy and (iv) all Arab nations treat Palestinians as second class citizens.

Palestinians are the niggers of the Arab world.

From:

grimjim.livejournal.com

Ironic that you should hypothesize about the creation of a state for Muslims. Hezbollah does believe in the eventual creation of an Islamic state. From a UN article:
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=52494&SelectRegion=Middle_East&SelectCountry=LEBANON

“In the 1980s, Hezbollah didn’t accept the Lebanese political system,” said Dr Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, author of “Hezbollah: Politics and religion”. “It truly believed it could create an Islamic state in multi-confessional Lebanon. Today, however, though it still believes in the establishment of an Islamic state, Hezbollah operates fully as a political party within the Lebanese system. It is even part of the government.”

Israel normally permits Moslems to worship at mosques. It is unusual and thus newsworthy for Israel to limit access to the mosque. This from October 14, 2005:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A76D9A59-C268-4B27-B7F5-D970A65B53C1.htm

No Gazans have been allowed to reach the al-Aqsa mosque for "security reasons", the Israeli authorities said.

As many as a hundred thousand Palestinian Muslims converged on Jerusalem's al-Aqsa mosque on Friday for the traditional Juma'a (Friday) congregational prayers.

Many of the worshippers came by buses and cars from the sizeable Islamic community in Israel's proper and East Jerusalem. Muslims make up around one-fifth of Israel's estimated 7-million population.

However, for thousands of West Bank Palestinians, the Israeli decision means al-Aqsa will remain off limits to them...

An Israeli police spokesman told Aljazeera.net: "If things go well, we might allow younger Palestinians to pray at the mosques next Friday."

From:

And yet, that's part of a response to security threats (suicide bombers) and not as an attempt to make Muslims have trouble worshiping as they see fit.

The reverse is not the same abroad in the rest of the Middle East when it comes to Druze, Christians, Zorastrans, Jews or even Shia's in Saudi Arabia.

In Saudi Arabia, a Shia cannot even represent himself in court. The Court does not recognize him as a person.

From:

the way i see it, the UN fucked up big time by giving that chunk of land to "the jews". as soon as they did that they set up a battle of religions, over land.

Being Jewish is an ethnic grouping as well as a religious one. A lot of Isrealis are completely secular.

From:

the group it was given to were *not* secular.

From:

Cites? That was not my understanding.

Besides, I think talking about whether or not the UN should have given a chunk of land to the Jews is as redundant as talking about whether or not Europeans people should have settled in the Americas. They are there now and they aren't about to go away.

From:

I'll have to agree with you here. I think something like 25% of Israeli Jews are more or less Atheist.

And yes, on the issue of Should israel have been formed. It's 50 years in the past. Hard to quit the game and relaunch from that save point. Aint' gonna happen. Going forwards?

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29

but yes, i agree it's not worth arguing about. the thing is, you can't very well argue that the other groups have no right to fight against them, given how recent this all is.

From:

From the text: "Lehi was unique in its ability to unite in its ranks Jews from diverse backgrounds. Unlike the Hagana and Irgun, which were ideologically homogeneous, the Lehi included Revisionist Zionists, Religious Zionists communists, atheists and ultra-Orthodox Jews. Although these groups would normally have nothing to do with one another, they were all united in Lehi for the purpose of creating a state without British rule."

That doesn't sound like a religion-based group to me.

From:

Indiscriminate targetting of innocents is unconscionable.

If somebody hit me 33 times, I still didn't go into school with a shotgun and take out the whole class. That's considered pathological when individuals do it and everybody bends over backwards to blame it on video games and rock music.

From:

He's shooting at YOU with the Shotgun (the Rockets with a CEP (Circle Error Probable) measured in Hundreds of meters per KM traveled) you're shooting at him with a pistol and he's hiding behind a classroom full of children and shooting at you and another classroom of children behind you.

This is basic rules of war stuff Siobhan. Canada did this in WWII the same as everyone else in the allies. Canada had how many casualties to the Germans and proportionately how many Germans and European Civilians died from Canadian attacks? Does that make Canada heavy handed compared to Germany. Not one tiny bit. Germany started it. In this case, Hezbollah started it. Just because they can't kill enough of your population doesn't mean they get to hide behind their population when they can't and won't separate them from their combatants and worse, when they intentionally mix their combatants in with their civilians.

From:

So we end up with what, exactly? A bunch of dead kids on both sides. That's going to reduce the hostilities in the region?

I am psychologically incapably of human beings as pawns or as collateral damage or as a means to an end.

I'm thinking of just wiping this entire post. It's depressing the hell out of me.

From:

So we end up with what, exactly?

In theory, if the Lebanese learned from history (Jordan, PLO 1970 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan)), they'd have shoved Hezbollah and the PLO out the door as soon as the Israeli's left in 2000. But they're not able to do so. Jordan did that to the PLO after the PLO went too far and guess what, that border with Israel has been quiet for how long? The same goes with Egypt proper. Sure as shit, if you or some group in your country attacks Israel, they're going to try to stop those that attacked them flat and anyone that stays near them. Seems like the rule is "don't attack Israel and you get stomped flat." How many wars does Israel have to win before that sinks into various heads over there?

Set the morality aside for just a minute. Think of it as a bunch of skater punks and another bunch of bikers that are bigger and older and are really good at bar fights. What would you tell the smaller skater punks that kept messing with bikers bikes and getting their asses kicked because of it? Would you tell them to stop bothering the bikers and skate somewhere else?

I am psychologically incapably of human beings as pawns or as collateral damage or as a means to an end.

Then Hezbollah should stop using them as such. Stop parading their bodies around and stop hamming it up for the cameras. But that's how they operate and that's why they're such a problem. Insofar as Collateral Damage goes, it's a fact of life. If Hezbollah won't march out in the open and fight like an open field army and instead hides among the population what do you expect?

Even if the Israeli's lined up in nice, neatly dressed lines and bright blue uniforms, out in a field so as to utterly avoid civilian casualties ala 1800's armies Hezbollah still wouldn't do so. It's not in their interest to do so because they'd still loose and they couldn't count on the sympathy card.

I'm thinking of just wiping this entire post. It's depressing the hell out of me.

Go do something happy. Listen to something happy. Go thwap Axel.

Sadly, hiding from these kinds of acts don't get us anywhere. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away either. So you bear it and go on.

Of course, if you were down here, I'd say you needed to get angry and go do some precision paper cutting. But you're not. Go eat sushi? Go join a boxing club? Buy a motorcycle and go for a long ride in the hot sun? Oh wait....not so nice. Go walk around Spadina and look at the young gothlings and punks that are melting in the heat?

From:

So the Lebanese people brought this on themselves because they didn't eject the Hezbollah when they had the chance? Dude my neighbourhood can't even get the local crackhouse closed, you think we'd have any luck against people who own rocket launchers?

I come from a country that was at war over land for 800 years, not this piddly 50 or so. Including the insertion of an immigrant minority population with a seemingly insurmountable religious barrier. The people who lived with "terrorists" in their midst didn't turf them out, in part because they were uncles, cousins and sisters, but also because if you messed with them they would come 'round your house and shoot your fucking kneecaps off.

What do you think would be the current situation in Ireland if the British army had responded by dropping rockets on civilian centres in Dublin every time a pipebomb went off in London? The IRA would be bigger and stronger and would have the full support of the Catholic popularion. And they would still be getting money and guns from ex-pats all over the world. And half of Ireland would be a desert.

Instead the Sinn Féin functions as an accepted political party, the people have jobs and money and Big Brother and they just don't give a rat's ass about the "troubles" any more. It's over. Nobody cares.

Your country alone pumps millions of dollars into that corner of the world. What the hell could that money do if it were directed at human rights and education and a decent standard of living? People who are happy and well-fed don't join terrorist organizations.

Instead Isreal is blowing the shit out of people; killing hundreds, displacing thousands and creating economic and enviromental devestation. I expect this is the best registration drive that Hezbollah could have hoped for. It's stupid, it's short-sighted, and it's eroding their support in other countries.

Sorry, but this is my last contribution to this thread. Our world-views are too different.

From:

So the Lebanese people brought this on themselves because they didn't eject the Hezbollah when they had the chance? Dude my neighbourhood can't even get the local crackhouse closed, you think we'd have any luck against people who own rocket launchers?

It's how wars generally works in the west (http://castrorum.blogspot.com/2006/08/war-and-peace-dueling-paradigms.html). It's realty. It goes all the way back to ancient Greece. Wishing it was different will not change it. The alternative form is constant strife in the form of clan/tribal warfare but on a national scale. Canada has been a party to the western form since it's inception as a product of the Commonwealth. If you say disagree with the method, do you also call into question the method used to fight the Axis in WWII? The German people themselves were NOT directly responsible for the invasion of North Africa, Russia, Eastern europe, Western Europe, and the bombardment of the UK. Yet, they paid that price for all of those parts of Europe and Africa that were liberated. But, by voting for the Nazis in that fateful election 7.3 Million Germans sealed their own fates. So, yeah, when you get down to nuts and bolts, a nation's people ARE responsible for their actions up to an including war.

Proportional response is NOT that your country should suffer as many casualties as the other country. That is not how it works. You kick the other guy until he stops what started the war in the first place.

What do you think would be the current situation in Ireland if the British army had responded by dropping rockets on civilian centres in Dublin every time a pipebomb went off in London? The IRA would be bigger and stronger and would have the full support of the Catholic popularion. And they would still be getting money and guns from ex-pats all over the world. And half of Ireland would be a desert.

The British could treat it like a police matter because they have police authority in Ulster. They cannot do so in places that are not in their control any more than the Israelis can. If the IRA were only operating out of the Irish Republic and not underground in Ulster and the Republic allowed the IRA to setup artillery positions and bombard the UK, how do you expect the UK would have handled it? They wouldn't have said "pretty please".

Your country alone pumps millions of dollars into that corner of the world. What the hell could that money do if it were directed at human rights and education and a decent standard of living? People who are happy and well-fed don't join terrorist organizations.

How then did the British home grown terrorists decide to blow themselves up on trains and buses in London? Is the British government an especially harsh government to British Muslims? Why do they blow themselves up and the Jamaican Britons do not? They suck at the teat of a rather liberal government that gives quite a lot and they still choose to go blow up the kuffar. Why?

From: