Dispatch from Sidon...
Walter Karmazyn
Lebanese Civilians Bear the Brunt of Israel's Destruction
by Dahr Jamail
SIDON, Lebanon - The Israeli attack on Qana has taken the biggest toll
of the war, but it is only one of countless lethal attacks on civilians
in Lebanon.
Large numbers fled the south after the Israeli military dropped leaflets
warning of attacks. Others have been unable to leave, often because they
have not found the means. The Israelis have taken that to mean that they
are therefore Hezbollah.
Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon announced on Israeli army radio
Thursday that "all those in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related
in some way to Hezbollah."
Justifying the collective punishment of people in southern Lebanon,
Ramon added, "In order to prevent casualties among Israeli soldiers
battling Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, villages should be
flattened by the Israeli air force before ground troops move in."
This policy explains the large number of wounded in the hospitals of
Sidon in the south.
Wounded people from southern Lebanon narrate countless instances of
indiscriminate attacks by the Israeli military.
Thirty-six-year-old Khuder Gazali, an ambulance driver whose arm was
blown off by an Israeli rocket, told IPS that his ambulance was hit
while trying to rescue civilians whose home had just been bombed.
"Last Sunday people came to us and asked us to go help some people after
their home was bombed by the Israelis," he said from his bed in Hamoudi
Hospital in Sidon, the largest city in southern Lebanon. "We found one
of them, without his legs, lying in a garden, so we tried to take him to
the nearest hospital."
On the way to the hospital, an Israeli Apache helicopter hit his
ambulance with a rocket, severely injuring him and the four people in
the back of the vehicle, he said.
"So then another ambulance tried to reach us to rescue us, but it too
was bombed by an Apache, killing everyone inside it," he said. "Then it
was a third ambulance which finally managed to rescue us."
Khuder, who had shrapnel wounds all over his body, said "this is a
crime, and I want people in the West to know the Israelis do not
differentiate between innocent people and fighters. They are committing
acts of evil.. They are attacking civilians, and they are criminals."
At Labib Medical Center in Sidon, countless survivors of Israeli
bombardment had similar stories to tell.
Sixteen-year-old Ibrahim al-Hama told IPS that he and his friends were
hit by an Israeli bomb while they were swimming in a river near a
village north of Tyre.
"Two of my friends were killed, along with a woman," said al-Hama. "Why
did they bomb us?"
In an adjacent room, a man whose wife and two small children were
recovering from wounds suffered in Israeli bombing told IPS that they
had left their village near the border because the bombings had become
fierce, and the Israeli military had dropped leaflets ordering them to
leave.
"We ran out of food, and the children were hungry, so they left with my
wife and her sister in a car which followed a Red Crescent ambulance,
while another car took the two other sisters of my wife," he said. "They
reached Kafra village, and an F-16 bombed the car with my wife's two
sisters. They are dead."
Such killings have been common throughout the south.
On July 23, a family left their village after Israelis dropped leaflets
ordering them out. Their car carried a white flag, but was still bombed
by an Israeli plane. Three in the car were killed.
The same day, three of 19 passengers in a van heading away from the
southern village Tiri were killed when it was bombed by an Israeli plane.
A 43-year-old man from the village Durish Zhair south of Tyre lay at the
Labib Medical Center with multiple shrapnel wounds and half his body
blackened by fire.
"Please tell them to stop using white phosphorous," he said. "The
Israelis must stop these attacks. Do not allow the Israelis to continue
murdering us." He and his family were bombed in their home.
Zhair said his family were scattered in hospitals and refugee centers in
Sidon and Beirut. But in the hospital hallway outside his room, head
nurse of the hospital Gemma Sayer said "all of his family is dead. We
cannot tell him yet because he is so badly injured."
United Nations forces have been targeted again by the Israelis. Two
soldiers with the UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon were wounded
after their observation post was damaged in an Israeli air strike.
Last week, an Israeli missile killed four UN observers, an attack that
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described as "apparently deliberate."
Thousands of angry protesters stormed the UN building in Beirut Sunday
after at least 34 children and 20 adults were killed inside a shelter
targeted by an Israeli air strike in the southern town Qana.
As Israeli military drones buzzed over the capital city, smoke was seen
rising from the building as UN troops struggled to control the crowds.
Efforts to evacuate the wounded in Qana have been hindered because roads
around the town have been destroyed by air strikes.
The Israeli military refused to take responsibility for the Qana deaths,
because they said Hezbollah had used the village to launch rockets.
Lebanese President Emile Lahoud told reporters Sunday that the Qana
attack was a "disgrace" and that there was no chance for peace talks
until an immediate cease-fire was called. "Israel's leaders think of
nothing but destruction, they do not think of peace."
Prime Minister Fouad Siniora described the bombing in Qana as a "war
crime." At least 600 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and 51 Israelis have
been killed since the conflict began.
(Inter Press Service)
BVT
sympathy. It's even more of a pity that Hezbollah uses poor Lebanese
civilians as cover, inviting Israeli airstrikes and then crying about
civilian casualties. Meanwhile, the wealthy northern suburbs of Beirut
are full of life, because Hezbollah isn't welcome there....the whole
situation is pitiful, even moreso than your continued posting of half
truths and innuendos...a left wing version of Anne Coultergeist!
Walter Karmazyn
> It's a pity that Hezbollah started this latest war and now wants our
> sympathy. It's even more of a pity that Hezbollah uses poor Lebanese
> civilians as cover, inviting Israeli airstrikes and then crying about
> civilian casualties. Meanwhile, the wealthy northern suburbs of Beirut
> are full of life, because Hezbollah isn't welcome there....the whole
> situation is pitiful, even moreso than your continued posting of half
> truths and innuendos...a left wing version of Anne Coultergeist!
>
>
> Walter Karmazyn wrote:
" And to those countries who claim we are using disproportionate force,
I have only this to say: you're damn right we are!"
Dan Gillerman, Israeli Ambassador to the UN, at a pro Israeli rally in
front of the UN about the 17th of July.
carri...@insightbb.com
> It's a pity that Hezbollah started this latest war and now wants our
> sympathy. It's even more of a pity that Hezbollah uses poor Lebanese
> civilians as cover, inviting Israeli airstrikes and then crying about
> civilian casualties. Meanwhile, the wealthy northern suburbs of Beirut
> are full of life, because Hezbollah isn't welcome there....the whole
> situation is pitiful, even moreso than your continued posting of half
> truths and innuendos...a left wing version of Anne Coultergeist!
>
BVT-
You are right, you know. It's like Walter and other died-in-the wools
have a vendetta against Israel to the point of believing (and posting)
anything the international press puts out that could possibly put that
country in a bad light. Hezbollah started this and war is hell.
Hopefully it will be over soon. What more could be said?
"a left-wing version of Ann Coultergeist!"..ha, I like that.
cc
Ray
> Meanwhile, the wealthy northern suburbs of Beirut
> are full of life, because Hezbollah isn't welcome there....
------------------------------------------------
Watching Beirut die
By Anthony Bourdain
July 28, 2006
We went to Beirut to film a TV show about the city's newly vibrant
culinary and cultural scene. Then the bombs started falling, and we
could only stand on the barricades of our hotel balcony and watch it
all disappear -- again.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/07/28/bourdain_beirut/index.html
Octopus Ride
<carri...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:1154442595....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
It coud be said that while Israel is totally justified in its actions, the
team of Bush / Rice has completely bungled yet another situation in the
middle east. They just don't grasp the concept of "US interests".
Creating yet more terrorists by openly encouraging the Israelis and their
shocking refusal to even talk to Syria are more nails in the coffin of their
preposterous and failed middle east policy.
OR
band beyond description
>
>
>
> Lebanese Civilians Bear the Brunt of Israel's Destruction
> by Dahr Jamail
>
> SIDON, Lebanon - The Israeli attack on Qana has taken the biggest toll
> of the war, but it is only one of countless lethal attacks on civilians
> in Lebanon.
>
meanwhile, Condi wins yet another dominatrix accolade:
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/pressroom/
--
Peace,
Steve
Lest the amnesiacs forget:
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=20086
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=20111
Richard Morris
"band beyond description" <1...@456.com> wrote in message
news:4j9ie2F...@individual.net...
> On 2006-07-31 15:37:42 +0900, Walter Karmazyn <walterk...@yahoo.com>
> said:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Lebanese Civilians Bear the Brunt of Israel's Destruction
>> by Dahr Jamail
>>
>> SIDON, Lebanon - The Israeli attack on Qana has taken the biggest toll of
>> the war, but it is only one of countless lethal attacks on civilians in
>> Lebanon.
>>
>
> meanwhile, Condi wins yet another dominatrix accolade:
>
> http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/pressroom/
Hey, Steve! Whatcha doing reading Vanity Fair?
Shawn Lucas
Four words can sum up the Bush Admin. foreign policy:
Lack of Diplomatic Competence.
This whole "sustainable peace" business is horseshit. Diplomacy
should be aimed at getting them to stop shooting for a bit so they can
actually cool off enough to come to the negotiating table.
I could go on...the Noth Korea situation, the Iran situation, the
sectarian violence in Iraq, frosty relations Venezuela, the recent
breakdown in trade talks with the EU over farm subsidies...etc etc etc
I challenge anyone to come up with some diplomacy initiative put forth
by this administration that has actually conclusively suceeded.
<cue crickets>
Richard Morris
"Shawn Lucas" <slucas_2@ya_nospam_hoo.com> wrote in message
news:44cfacd7...@news.col.sbcglobal.net...
On the other hand, what if they don't *want* to create peace ... but rather
want to sustain confrontation in the Middle East ... and elsewhere for that
matter? Would their actions be any different if that was the actual goal?
Might we assume then that it might just well be the goal?
> I could go on...the Noth Korea situation, the Iran situation, the
> sectarian violence in Iraq, frosty relations Venezuela, the recent
> breakdown in trade talks with the EU over farm subsidies...etc etc etc
>
> I challenge anyone to come up with some diplomacy initiative put forth
> by this administration that has actually conclusively suceeded.
If they want to sustain confrontation and instability, then they have
succeeded very well.
Shawn Lucas
<jrmo...@trouserscomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> I challenge anyone to come up with some diplomacy initiative put forth
>> by this administration that has actually conclusively suceeded.
>
>If they want to sustain confrontation and instability, then they have
>succeeded very well.
>
Yeah true dat...when I wrote the above I temporarily forgot about
$3.05 gas prices (ever rising on the premise of mid-east instability)
and *Surprise!* soaring profits for BIG OIL, which of course is in
tight with this admin...coincidence?
Bah!...I gotta stay off these political threads...now what would take
my mind off that...OH yeah...BEER!
Speaking of which...I just spent the weekend in Ontario, with my
parents. I did some fishing, swimming and otherwise enjoyed Canadian
lakeside cottage life. This fine, relaxing, summer lifestyle also
traditionally epsouses copious amounts of fine Canadian brews. My
favorite: Upper Canada Lager. Mmm mmm those Canadians sure know how
to make a smooth crisp tasty Lager. Upper Canada has some other
varieties too which are mighty tasty...though I didn't sample those
this trip :-(
One is allowed to bring 1 case back over the border so I brought a 12
pack of Upper Canada home, along with a 6 of Labatt Wildcat and a 6 of
Keith Alexander IPA (brewed only in Nova Scotia). The Wildcat is
definitely much tastier than Labatt blue...but that ain't saying much.
I have not tried the IPA yet...but 5PM is getting real close oot here
on the east coast. Maybe it is psychological or maybe it is because
everything is better when one is vacationing, but the non-export
versions of Canadian beers always taste better than what gets shipped
down here.
<yet another thread hijacked with beer talk!>
k sturm
"Richard Morris" <jrmo...@trouserscomcast.net> wrote in message
news:N6CdnaGlEfmSLlLZ...@comcast.com...
Isn't that all outlined pretty clearly in the Wolfowitz Doctrine? Seems to
me that they're following their blueprint pretty closely.
Octopus Ride
"k sturm" <kas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:y0Pzg.3472$uo6....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Yup. Instability is the official goal, to become outside revolutionaries.
And no matter what one might think of Israel's actions against Hezbollah,
almost everyone here agrees that the Bush / Rice policy of recreating the
middle east in the image of Texas is a miserable failure. How does one
expect to achieve a cease fire much less a recreated middle east if you
refuse to even talk to THE biggest players in the current conflict, Syria
and Iran? "They're bad, we don't talk to bad guys". James Baker made 15
trips to Syria when he was trying to get them onboard with the first Gulf
War. He failed miserably the first 14 times. He continued to talk, cajole,
jawbone, and on trip 15 he got a commitment for Syrian troops to fight on
OUR side.
"Drain the swamp".
We could start with Washington.
OR
BVT
the situation a certain way. I choose not to regurgitate ad nauseam the
ultra lefty crap. And I'm a progressive...but I live in a place
(Madison, Wi.) where anything Israel is automatically Bush, and that's
just not the way it is, so why cop to it just to cop to it? Hopefully
they'll work it out without Washington's meddling. Walter's just here
for the effect...he's been on RMGD for a decade and is a good deadhead,
but maybe he takes Pacifica news as the gospel....me, I'm still
boycotting Pacifica! Where are you from CC?
Richard Morris
"BVT" <wavyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154476314.1...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I think everyone agrees the situation is ghastly.
Really? I don't get that feeling ....
> Some just want to see
> the situation a certain way.
Yep ... like the way that it really is.
> I choose not to regurgitate ad nauseam the
> ultra lefty crap.
What, then, are you regurgitating? And ... I haven't heard you refute
anything by calling it "ultra-lefty crap".
> And I'm a progressive...
You mis-spelled reactionary.
>but I live in a place
> (Madison, Wi.) where anything Israel is automatically Bush, and that's
> just not the way it is, so why cop to it just to cop to it?
Why not make your judgments based upon your understanding of the situation,
rather than on what the people where you live think?
> Hopefully
> they'll work it out without Washington's meddling.
No, indeed they will not. One reason they will not is that Israel continues
to depend upon the US for $$.
> Walter's just here
> for the effect...he's been on RMGD for a decade and is a good deadhead,
> but maybe he takes Pacifica news as the gospel....me, I'm still
> boycotting Pacifica!
So, you claim Walter is simply deluded, or just hanging out to stir shit?
That is not how I have ever experienced Walter! And he and I have had our
own disagreements about issues. But one thing that you can depend upon is
that he does his homework, and thinks and reasons very well indeed. You
won't hear him saying something like, "everyone around here thinks thus and
so, so why go along with the crowd".
> Where are you from CC?
Prozac, Kentucky.
R.
frndthdevl
BVT wrote:
> I think everyone agrees the situation is ghastly. Some just want to see
> the situation a certain way.
mjd
well, Carrie, what about your beloved WSJ? Do they have a vendetta
because they publish something that could possibly put Israel in a bad
light?
"Israelis have compounded that mistake with an airpower-based strategy
that, whatever its virtues in keeping Israeli troops out of harm's way,
was never going to evict Hezbollah from southern Lebanon, just as
airpower alone did not evict Saddam from Kuwait in 1991. The law of
averages, however, guaranteed that over the course of 5,000 bombing
sorties one bomb (or two or three or four) would go astray.
That may have been what happened over the weekend in Qana, where an
Israeli air attack reportedly caused the deaths of at least 27 people,
including 17 children. Yes, Hezbollah bears ultimate responsibility
here for deliberately placing its military assets among civilians. Yet
the death of those children should be counted as a crime if Israel's
purposes in Lebanon are basically feckless. A line being bandied about
in Israeli security circles is that the purpose of the bombing is to
show Hezbollah that "the boss-man has gone berserk." What kind of goal
is that? Nobody in this conflict ever doubted Israel's ability to set
Lebanon back 20, 50 or 500 years (about where Hezbollah itself wants
the country to be)."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110008733
I despise terrorists, and have always believed that Israel has the
right to defend itself against such lunatics. And yes - war is hell -
but civilized nations must take all conceivable precautions to prevent
the deaths of children, IMHO. Those that fail to do so simply reduce
themselves down to the subhuman level of the terrorists.
And, although I'm certain Walter doesn't need help defending himself,
from reading his postings for years, as I have, any rational person can
tell he is intelligent, reasonable, and makes tremendous positive
contributions to this group (not to mention has great stories of
golden-era GD shows!). Note the keywords "rational" and "positive
contributions to this group" - just wanted to point out those terms
which may be unfamiliar to you.
Richard Morris
"mjd" <mdeve...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154481572....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Yah ... I think you have touched on the essence of the problem with Israel's
approach. You can't rely upon air power alone to do the job of eliminating
ground troups unless you go for annihilation. The Israeli's surely know
that. Therefore one must assume they are not concerned about "collateral
damage" (translation: the slaughter of innocent civilians).
Of course, there have been those in the newsgroup maintaining that
annihilation is what the Lebanese are gonna get because (choose one or
both):
--the Lebanese didn't kick Hezbollah out of their country, therefore they
deserve what they get;
--Hezbollah troops hide behind Lebanese civilians, therefore the Lebanese
deserve what they get.
So it would appear that the conservative elements in the newsgroup do come
down firmly in favor of slaughter.
JimK
Let's forget about the adult Lebanese civilians for a minute and
consider this:
Children can't kick anybody out of a country. Children can't hide
anybody. That's where the defense falls on its face. And yes, I
realize that there are some circumstances where children are going to
die and there's no getting around it. But I don't have to like it and
I just don't think that's the case here.
JimK
kpn...@yahoo.com
So what then is the solution for dealing with someone who attacks you
surrounded by women and children? If the ground troops go in, I would
imagine that there would be just as much collateral damage. How do you
negotiate with someone who is sworn to your elimination, targets your
children, hides behind his, etc. I am not sure if the problem is people
don't think it's fair the military advantage Israel has or what?
Killing kids
sucks, but WTF is Israel supposed to do?
Kurt
carri...@insightbb.com
And?...Israel is dealing with an incredibly tough situation and fair
and balanced (pardon the term) criticism is the best part of a free
press.
>
> I despise terrorists, and have always believed that Israel has the
> right to defend itself against such lunatics. And yes - war is hell -
> but civilized nations must take all conceivable precautions to prevent
> the deaths of children, IMHO. Those that fail to do so simply reduce
> themselves down to the subhuman level of the terrorists.
And the sentence before the one you quoted reads--"Yes, Hezbollah bears
responsibility here (Qana) for deliberately placing its military assets
among civilians." Since you are quoting the WSJ not the NYT (the other
paper I looked at today), here is a paragraph that says a great deal-
"Israel does not deliberately target civilians, much less children.
They were hit in Qana because Hezbollah operates near civilians to use
them as a shield and to exploit such tragedies as to turn world opinion
against Israel. Hezbollah has been a consistent and flagrant violator
of international law throughout this conflict-deliberately targeting
Israeli civilians with shrapnel-filled missiles, fighting out of
uniform and hiding amoung Lebanese civilians and U.N. peacekeepers."
> And, although I'm certain Walter doesn't need help defending himself
> from reading his postings for years, as I have, any rational person can
> tell he is intelligent, reasonable, and makes tremendous positive
> contributions to this group (not to mention has great stories of
> golden-era GD shows!). Note the keywords "rational" and "positive
> contributions to this group" - just wanted to point out those terms
> which may be unfamiliar to you.
<deep breath>
"Intelligent, reasonable, positive people who can mention great stories
of the golden-era GD shows!" are not above reproach and can even be
biased and even misguided at times.
I was agreeing with the second poster.
Have a nice day.
Carrie in Kentucky
=
Richard Morris
<kpn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154491586.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There are several options.
If you accept the fact that the solution is military, then you go in with
ground troups supported by air. You have a better chance of limiting
collateral damage, imho. It appears that Israel has been leveling towns in
southern Lebanon with air attacks.
You can ask for help. Israel says that the United Nations is powerless ...
but if you don't try that route then you don't know.
You can ask for diplomacy. You talk.
You can resolve to settle the Palestinian issue as soon as possible, and
resolve to try to eliminate some of the root causes of the problem.
HTH,
R.
JimK
<snip>
>Have a nice day.
>Carrie in Kentucky
>
>=
If the Israelis know there will be "collateral damage" they know that
children will be killed if they bomb. If they go ahead and bom anyway,
how can they say they didn't intend to kill children?
What if they were your children? Would you still feel the same way?
JimK
carri...@insightbb.com
If a radical militia group indiscrimately fired a missle into your
neighborhood and killed your little kid, how would you respond? Most
human beings would want to pursue the terrorists and take away their
ability to continue to firing as many rockets as possible trying to
destroy your family. Or maybe you would just want to call for an
immediate cease-fire and give into their demands.
Sometimes you have to fight to survive.
For me, it would be a real tragedy to be a woman in an Islamo-fascist
world...having my children be used as shields...It's tough to imagine.
I've traveled in the Muslim world and only the men were addressed about
decisions of any import. Females are second class citizens so it really
wouldn't matter how I felt.
==
Walter Karmazyn
> I think everyone agrees the situation is ghastly. Some just want to see
> the situation a certain way. I choose not to regurgitate ad nauseam the
> ultra lefty crap. And I'm a progressive...but I live in a place
> (Madison, Wi.) where anything Israel is automatically Bush, and that's
> just not the way it is, so why cop to it just to cop to it? Hopefully
> they'll work it out without Washington's meddling. Walter's just here
> for the effect...
WTF are you here for?
he's been on RMGD for a decade
You're selling me short there.
and is a good deadhead,
Do I get a pet on the head for that, maybe a bone? How about a show I
don't yet have?
> but maybe he takes Pacifica news as the gospel....me, I'm still
> boycotting Pacifica!
I like listening to David Gans, but the News? I might've turned that on
a couple of times these last few years, when there was local stuff I
knew they'd be covering. Other than that never listen to it. Oh yeah,
some Sundays I tune into radio theater they have on in the evening.
Me a left wing version of anybody? In the last 3 months I've said on
this NG that I agreed with the Bush administration regarding a
congressional vote on Iran. Most here will remember me catching shit
for holding a view similar to the Bush administration, regards to Dubai
Ports. I routinely slam Bill Clinton when the opportunity comes up,
same with the Democrat party in general. Of course I don't think much
of the republicans either. I post links to articles in American
Conservative magazine, articles by one of the installers or Reaganomics,
also by one of Nixon's speech writers. I refer rmgder's to
By far not a leftist website.
And for years on this NG, I've put Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul
on my short list of my most admired folks in Washington, not that we
always agree, don't more often than not...
Same with Dennis Kucinich, Democrat from Ohio and only the 2nd democrat
I've voted for in the last 36 years. The other was my Congresswoman,
Barbara Lee.
Yet they all 3 didn't vote for HR 921. I'll leave BVD or someone else
to explain that to those of you not in the know.
They (Ron and Dennis) have however worked together here and there, like
the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act a few years back, which they
co-sponsored, not the only time.
So I guess these guys are a bit like me, or maybe I'm a bit like them or
something like that. I check out lots of information on any given thing
that I'm going to form a serious opinion on, not the gospel according to
anybody. Here I am, Clinton Bashing neocon hating guy who has had the
balls on this NG to agree with the current administration when we were
on the same page (though not for the same reason). I was the only one
here to speak against Clinton's bombing of Kosovo, and one of the few to
protest here our invasion of Afghanistan. Of course I can explain any
belief I hold and if need be, cite links all day long.
Some of you know what I do to pay the bills, and this week is one of my
busier periods, maybe I'll get more into all this tomorrow.
\
And btw, to the best of my knowledge, I haven't yet died, hopefully when
that happens, it won't be while I'm buried in wool. What a hell of a
way to go.
W
\
band beyond description
and what's wrong with Vanity Fair?
mjd
I found the dispatch Walter posted to be fair and balanced criticism,
and pretty compelling at that. I support Israel, but that doesn't mean
I turn a blind eye to actions that disturb me like killing children or
bombing a car carrying evacuating civilians waving a white flag.
> > I despise terrorists, and have always believed that Israel has the
> > right to defend itself against such lunatics. And yes - war is hell -
> > but civilized nations must take all conceivable precautions to prevent
> > the deaths of children, IMHO. Those that fail to do so simply reduce
> > themselves down to the subhuman level of the terrorists.
>
> And the sentence before the one you quoted reads--"Yes, Hezbollah bears
> responsibility here (Qana) for deliberately placing its military assets
> among civilians." Since you are quoting the WSJ not the NYT (the other
> paper I looked at today), here is a paragraph that says a great deal-
>
> "Israel does not deliberately target civilians, much less children.
> They were hit in Qana because Hezbollah operates near civilians to use
> them as a shield and to exploit such tragedies as to turn world opinion
> against Israel. Hezbollah has been a consistent and flagrant violator
> of international law throughout this conflict-deliberately targeting
> Israeli civilians with shrapnel-filled missiles, fighting out of
> uniform and hiding amoung Lebanese civilians and U.N. peacekeepers."
Like I said, terrorists like Hezbollah are lunatics and I wish I had an
easy answer for how Israel should deal with them. I still fail to see
how posting the original article makes anyone a dyed-in-the-wool
anything.
> > And, although I'm certain Walter doesn't need help defending himself
> > from reading his postings for years, as I have, any rational person can
> > tell he is intelligent, reasonable, and makes tremendous positive
> > contributions to this group (not to mention has great stories of
> > golden-era GD shows!). Note the keywords "rational" and "positive
> > contributions to this group" - just wanted to point out those terms
> > which may be unfamiliar to you.
>
> <deep breath>
> "Intelligent, reasonable, positive people who can mention great stories
> of the golden-era GD shows!" are not above reproach and can even be
> biased and even misguided at times.
> I was agreeing with the second poster.
> Have a nice day.
> Carrie in Kentucky
>
What a riot, you calling someone else biased and misguided!
JimK
Nice try at avoiding the question, although I really didn't expect an
answer.
JimK
Octopus Ride
> There are several options.
>
> If you accept the fact that the solution is military, then you go in with
> ground troups supported by air. You have a better chance of limiting
> collateral damage, imho.
This is of course what Israel is now doing. Many Israeli mothers are being
told their sons have been killed in the fighting.
They will now occupy Lebanon up to the Litani river and wait for the world
to send in a force to disarm Hezbollah and keep them from returning to
southern Lebanon.
The critics will now begin bemoaning the re-occupation of Lebanon with
ground troops.
> It appears that Israel has been leveling towns in southern Lebanon with
> air attacks.
>
> You can ask for help. Israel says that the United Nations is powerless
> ... but if you don't try that route then you don't know.
The UN did nothing, and will continue to do nothing.
At some point some non-UN multinational force will be dispatched and Israel
will withdraw its ground troops.
> You can ask for diplomacy. You talk.
> You can resolve to settle the Palestinian issue as soon as possible, and
> resolve to try to eliminate some of the root causes of the problem.
Hezbollah has nothing to do with Palestinians. They are Lebanese Shias who
already have their own country and are part of that government.
Because of their unprovoked attacks on Israel, their country is now occupied
by Israeli ground troops.
You'll be hating that tomorrow.
OR
carri...@insightbb.com
Died in the wool vs. dyed in the wool. "I haven't yet died, hopefully
when that happens, it won't be while I'm buried in wool. What a way to
go." Now that's rich. No disrespect fella, but it just seemed that you
were falling for and posting the anti-Israel line at every turn. War is
hell and they (and the US) are fighting people with a vastly different
value system.
Are you seriously asking me where I'm from, you don't know?...
I'm from Hillbilly Heaven.
Take it easy,
Carrie
Joe
> Four words can sum up the Bush Admin. foreign policy:
> Lack of Diplomatic Competence.
Close, but no cigar.
The correct four words are: Complete and Utter Failure.
kpn...@yahoo.com
Are you asking that Israel put soldiers in harms way fighting people
who
blend in the population amongst children and women? Ground conflict
will incur the same level of collateral damage simply based on how
Hezbullah fights (right or wrong). The only difference is now Israel
will
take more casualties. I will agree with you on the proper use of force.
Israel
could limit their casualties by simply carpet bombing the entire area
killing everything. They could also go in with ground troops door to
door
incur heavy casualties but totally eliminate collateral damage. IMHO,
I think the Israeli army knows where the line is in effectiveness, but
they
have an obligation to reduce loss of life on their side.
> You can ask for help. Israel says that the United Nations is powerless ...
> but if you don't try that route then you don't know.
Are you serious? The UN is very anti-Israel. Look at Kofi Annan's
remarks.
> You can ask for diplomacy. You talk.
Hasn't that been tried? Also, how do you talk with people whose goal is
to wipe you off the map?
> You can resolve to settle the Palestinian issue as soon as possible, and
> resolve to try to eliminate some of the root causes of the problem.
Here we agree. I think we do need to look at fundamentalistic-Islamists
who simply continually fan the flames that Israel needs to be wiped off
the map. This includes looking at the mullahs in Iran.
Kurt
Richard Morris
"Octopus Ride" <fakea...@anyisp.com> wrote in message
news:vO1Ag.81$Ad4....@eagle.america.net...
I hate it a lot less than bombing entire towns to rubble and then
"apologizing" for the deaths of civilians.
Ray
> The critics will now begin bemoaning the re-occupation of Lebanon with
> ground troops.
The key question here is whether the re-occupation of Lebanon with
ground troops will help or further exacerbate the situation. And if
history is a guide, the re-occupation will exacerbate it - Hezbollah
was established and grew in response to the original occupation of
Lebanon.
There are some key differences between Israel's first
invastion/occupation of Lebanon and this one: the first invasion was an
effort to destroy the PLO and also 'featured' the intentional massacre
of hundreds or more non-combatant Palestinians in Palestinian refugee
camps (Sabra and Shatila, in Beirut). This invasion OTOH is an effort
to destroy Hezbollah, which in contrast to the PLO has no legitimate
grievances with Israel, and while hundreds of non-combatants have been
killed there have been no intentional massacres by Israel a la Sabra
and Shatila.
Nontheless the attack/invasion/re-occupation of Lebanon may serve to
exacerbate the conflict: "This Week" on Sunday had its usual roundtable
discussion with talking heads from the left and right, and all agreed
that Hezbollah is now stronger than it was before the latest round of
violence/war.
The question "what is Israel supposed to do?" is a valid one - if
Hezbollah killed and kidnapped US soldiers we'd hit them hard too.
And, depending on the response, I would support that, just as I
originally supported our going into Afghanistan to take out al Qaeda
and their hosts the Taliban (which of course we dropped the ball on).
However, and leaving aside questions of morality and mass graves with
dead children and such, what Israel has done and is doing in response
here I fear is just making the problem worse. I hope I am wrong, but
if history is a guide I'm not.
> Hezbollah has nothing to do with Palestinians.
Yes and no - in that part of the world it's all connected. As you've
observed elswhere if a peace treaty was signed between Israel and the
Palestinians that would remove some of Hezbollah and Iran's influence
in the Muslim world. Too bad Israel is more interested in holding on
to many West Bank settlements than it is in a peace treaty with the
Palestinians, and too bad the US continues to finance and thereby
enable Israel there.
In my view the Bush Sr. had the right approach, updated here by
then-national security adviser Brent Scowcroft:
____________________________
Beyond Lebanon
This Is the Time for a U.S.-Led Comprehensive Settlement
By Brent Scowcroft
Sunday, July 30, 2006; B07
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated that a simple cease-fire
in Lebanon is not the solution to the current violence. She says it is
necessary to deal with the roots of the problem. She is right on both
counts. But Hezbollah is not the source of the problem; it is a
derivative of the cause, which is the tragic conflict over Palestine
that began in 1948.
The eastern shore of the Mediterranean is in turmoil from end to end, a
repetition of continuing conflicts in one part or another since the
abortive attempts of the United Nations to create separate Israeli and
Palestinian states in 1948. The current conflagration has energized the
world. Now, perhaps more than ever, we have an opportunity to harness
that concern and energy to achieve a comprehensive resolution of the
entire 58-year-old tragedy. Only the United States can lead the effort
required to seize this opportunity.
The outlines of a comprehensive settlement have been apparent since
President Bill Clinton's efforts collapsed in 2000. The major elements
would include:
· A Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with minor
rectifications agreed upon between Palestine and Israel.
· Palestinians giving up the right of return and Israel reciprocating
by removing its settlements in the West Bank, again with rectifications
as mutually agreed. Those displaced on both sides would receive
compensation from the international community.
· King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia unambiguously reconfirming his 2002
pledge that the Arab world is prepared to enter into full normal
relations with Israel upon its withdrawal from the lands occupied in
1967.
· Egypt and Saudi Arabia working with the Palestinian Authority to put
together a government along the lines of the 18-point agreement reached
between Hamas and Fatah prisoners in Israeli jails in June. This
government would negotiate for the Authority.
· Deployment, as part of a cease-fire, of a robust international force
in southern Lebanon.
· Deployment of another international force to facilitate and
supervise traffic to and from Gaza and the West Bank.
· Designation of Jerusalem as the shared capital of Israel and
Palestine, with appropriate international guarantees of freedom of
movement and civic life in the city.
These elements are well-known to people who live in the region and to
those outside who have labored over the decades seeking to shape a
lasting peace. What seems breathtakingly complicated, however, is how
one mobilizes the necessary political will, in the region and beyond,
to transform these principles into an agreement on a lasting accord.
The current crisis in Lebanon provides a historic opportunity to
achieve what has seemed impossible. That said, it is too much to expect
those most directly implicated -- Israeli and Palestinian leaders -- to
lead the way. That responsibility falls to others, principally the
United States, which alone can mobilize the international community and
Israel and the Arab states for the task that has defeated so many
previous efforts.
How would such a process be organized? The obvious vehicle to direct
the process would be the Quartet (the United States, the European
Union, Russia and the United Nations), established in 2001 for just
such a purpose. The Quartet, beginning at the foreign-minister level,
would first organize the necessary international force for southern
Lebanon and Gaza and then call for a cease-fire. The security force
would have to have the mandate and capability to deal firmly with acts
of violence. Ideally, this would be a NATO, or at least NATO-led,
contingent. Recognizing the political obstacles, the fact is that
direct U.S. participation in such a force would be highly desirable --
and perhaps even essential -- for persuading our friends and allies to
contribute the capabilities required.
With a cease-fire and international security force in place, the
Quartet would then construct a framework for negotiating the specific
elements of a comprehensive settlement, after which Israel, the
Palestinian Authority and appropriate Arab state representatives (e.g.
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon) would be added to the process to
complete the detailed negotiations.
The benefits of reaching a comprehensive settlement of the root cause
of today's turmoil would likely ripple well beyond the Israelis and the
Palestinians. A comprehensive peace settlement would not only defang
the radicals in Lebanon and Palestine (and their supporters in other
countries), it would also reduce the influence of Iran -- the country
that, under its current ideology, poses the greatest potential threat
to stability in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan.
A comprehensive settlement also would allow Arab leaders to focus on
what most say is a primary concern: modernizing their countries to
provide jobs and productive lives for their rapidly growing
populations.
Removing the argument that nothing can be done because domestic
constituencies are fixated on the "plight of the Palestinians" would
allow creative energy, talent and money to be rechanneled into
education, health, housing, etc. This would have the added benefit of
addressing conditions that encourage far too many young Arabs to
glorify terrorism as a legitimate means for dealing with the challenges
of the modern world.
It is even possible that a comprehensive settlement might help
stabilize Iraq. A chastened Iran, bereft of the "Israeli card," might
be more willing to reach a modus vivendi with the Sunnis and Kurds in
Iraq, and with the United States as well. All countries in the region
-- not to mention Iraq itself -- need a stable, prosperous and peaceful
Iraq. The road to achieving this may well lead eastward from a
Jerusalem shared peacefully by Israelis and Palestinians.
This latest in a seemingly endless series of conflagrations in the
region just may present a unique opportunity to change the situation in
the Middle East for the better for all time. Let us not shrink from the
task.
The writer was national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and
George H.W. Bush. He is now president of the Forum for International
Policy.
---
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/AR2006072801571.html
frndthdevl
Ray wrote:
>
> The question "what is Israel supposed to do?" is a valid one - if
> Hezbollah killed and kidnapped US soldiers we'd hit them hard too.
small point of exasperation. Not with you Ray, but with the term
"kidnapped". Soldiers can not be captured. They can be killed,maimed,go
MIA or captured. Civilans are kidnapped, soldiers are captured. The use
of the term "kidnapped" is like Faux news using
homicide bombers instead of suicide bombers. Twisting of meanings to
benefit one side.
hmmm over 100 rockets launched into Israel today,and one dead jewish
American riding his bike is the result? What,are they using bottle
rockets? While one strike by Israel kills 50 plus women and children.
Not saying I want to see more Israeli casualties,but the kill ratios of
civilans seems a bit out of wack for the response given by Israel. ymmv
Ken Fortenberry
> Ray wrote:
>> The question "what is Israel supposed to do?" is a valid one - if
>> Hezbollah killed and kidnapped US soldiers we'd hit them hard too.
>
> small point of exasperation. Not with you Ray, but with the term
> "kidnapped".
Exactly. Israeli "soldiers" go ten miles into Lebanon and
"arrest" Hezbollah while Hezbollah "terrorists" on the border
"kidnap" Israeli "soldiers". Same with Hamas in Gaza. The
Israeli "soldier" was "kidnapped" but over 60 members of the
Palestinian parliament were "arrested".
Our cable TV here in Chambana has the SCOLA channel and the
news programs presented there are far more balanced than
anything you'll hear from the American press.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Ray
frndthdevl wrote:
> Ray wrote:
> > The question "what is Israel supposed to do?" is a valid one - if
> > Hezbollah killed and kidnapped US soldiers we'd hit them hard too.
>
> small point of exasperation. Not with you Ray, but with the term
> "kidnapped". Soldiers can not be captured. They can be killed,maimed,go
> MIA or captured. Civilans are kidnapped, soldiers are captured. The use
> of the term "kidnapped" is like Faux news using
> homicide bombers instead of suicide bombers. Twisting of meanings to
> benefit one side.
If one is already at war I agree. Hezbollah however captured these
soldiers during 'peacetime' and said that they would be returned in
exchange for the release of prisoners - a ransom attempt - which is why
I used 'kidnapped'. That provocation was itself an act of war however,
and so these descriptors become blurred.
> hmmm over 100 rockets launched into Israel today,and one dead jewish
> American riding his bike is the result? What,are they using bottle
> rockets?
They are using rockets that apparently have no useful aiming systems -
they are just lobbing these things hoping for destruction and death.
Or rather, they are hoping for as much destruction and deathas
possible, and here they weren't 'lucky'.
So it goes.
gwatts
> Our cable TV here in Chambana has the SCOLA channel and the
> news programs presented there are far more balanced than
> anything you'll hear from the American press.
How did they report the initial detainment of the two Israeli soldiers
and on which side of the border did they report the detainment occurred?
Ken Fortenberry
The French broadcast reported that eight Israeli soldiers
were killed and two *captured* (emphasis mine) near the
Israeli-Lebanon border. They also reported that Hezbollah
has been threatening to capture Israeli soldiers so as to
force a prisoner exchange for three Lebanese citizens who
have been detained illegally for years in an Israeli prison.
--
Ken Fortenberry
DGDevin
news:1154538809.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
In my view the Bush Sr. had the right approach, updated here by
then-national security adviser Brent Scowcroft:
[snip]
· Deployment, as part of a cease-fire, of a robust international force
in southern Lebanon.
*********
Cool piece.
One problem would be that "robust" international force. I recall an
incident many years ago in Lebanon where a Dutch-manned UN post was attacked
at night by Palestinian fighters for some reason. The Dutch troops returned
fire, upon daylight they discovered some of their dead attackers were hardly
more than children. They dissolved, their government had to evac them and
put them into psychiatric care, it was an even better result than the PLO
could have hoped for. Israel would be justifiably sceptical of such a force
being useful, especially in light of the two kidnapped Israeli soldiers
being taken under the noses of a large UN position.
DGDevin
news:G96Ag.493$%j7....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
> Exactly. Israeli "soldiers" go ten miles into Lebanon and
> "arrest" Hezbollah while Hezbollah "terrorists" on the border
> "kidnap" Israeli "soldiers".
You can be lawfully arrested by Hezbolleh like you can be lawfully arrested
by the Hell's Angels, i.e. you can't. Hezbolleh is operating outside the
authority of the legitimate govt. of Lebanon, it is a ridiculous stretch to
depict them as anything but what they are, the private army of a de facto
warlord.
Ken Fortenberry
> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
>> Exactly. Israeli "soldiers" go ten miles into Lebanon and
>> "arrest" Hezbollah while Hezbollah "terrorists" on the border
>> "kidnap" Israeli "soldiers".
>
> You can be lawfully arrested by Hezbolleh like you can be lawfully arrested
> by the Hell's Angels, i.e. you can't.
And how is it that Israel can "arrest" Lebanese citizens and
members of the Palestinian parliament ?
Israel is operating outside the authority of international
law and UN resolutions. Israel is a pariah state and is now
engaged in a headlong rush toward its own demise. And not a
moment too soon.
--
Ken Fortenberry
DGDevin
news:j5a0d2pfbk24hb10n...@4ax.com...
> If the Israelis know there will be "collateral damage" they know that
> children will be killed if they bomb. If they go ahead and bom anyway,
> how can they say they didn't intend to kill children?
Some of the products you purchase are made in sweatshops, it's even possible
some were made by de facto slave labor, so does your continued purchasing of
products made in nations where such conditions exist mean you support
slavery? How can you say otherwise?
The Israelis are trying to kill Hezbolleh guerillas and destroy their
arsenal, tragically they are also killing many civilians. Hezbolleh, on the
other hand, is raining rockets on Israel in an attempt to kill civilians,
that's their goal, it isn't collateral, it's central. See the difference?
No, probably not.
> What if they were your children? Would you still feel the same way?
Ah, the old argument of those in favor of capital punishment: what if your
child was murdered, would you still feel capital punishment was wrong?
DGDevin
>>
>> You can be lawfully arrested by Hezbolleh like you can be lawfully
>> arrested by the Hell's Angels, i.e. you can't.
>
> And how is it that Israel can "arrest" Lebanese citizens and
> members of the Palestinian parliament ?
Being a state helps. Or do you deny the authority of Italy to try and bring
to justice CIA operatives who kidnapped someone in Italy for "rendition?"
Does it really come down to any govt. you disagree with is wrong while any
cause you approve of is in the right? Yeah, it does.
> Israel is operating outside the authority of international
> law and UN resolutions.
So what? So have many nations, do you wish extinction on all of them?
> Israel is a pariah state and is now
> engaged in a headlong rush toward its own demise. And not a
> moment too soon.
Great, Holocaust II. Got any ideas on what to do with the several millions
residents, a final solution of some sort? No problem huh, it's not like any
of them are people you know.
This is always worth posting:
Neighborhood Bully
by Bob Dylan
Well, the neighborhood bully, he's just one man,
His enemies say he's on their land.
They got him outnumbered about a million to one,
He got no place to escape to, no place to run.
He's the neighborhood bully.
The neighborhood bully just lives to survive,
He's criticized and condemned for being alive.
He's not supposed to fight back, he's supposed to have thick skin,
He's supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in.
He's the neighborhood bully.
The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land,
He's wandered the earth an exiled man.
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn,
He's always on trial for just being born.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized,
Old women condemned him, said he should apologize.
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad.
The bombs were meant for him.
He was supposed to feel bad.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That he'll live by the rules that the world makes for him,
'Cause there's a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac.
He's the neighborhood bully.
He got no allies to really speak of.
What he gets he must pay for, he don't get it out of love.
He buys obsolete weapons and he won't be denied
But no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Well, he's surrounded by pacifists who all want peace,
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease.
Now, they wouldn't hurt a fly.
To hurt one they would weep.
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Every empire that's enslaved him is gone,
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon.
He's made a garden of paradise in the desert sand,
In bed with nobody, under no one's command.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Now his holiest books have been trampled upon,
No contract he signed was worth what it was written on.
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth,
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health.
He's the neighborhood bully.
What's anybody indebted to him for?
Nothin', they say.
He just likes to cause war.
Pride and prejudice and superstition indeed,
They wait for this bully like a dog waits to feed.
He's the neighborhood bully.
What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers?
Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill,
Running out the clock, time standing still,
Neighborhood bully.
Octopus Ride
> > The critics will now begin bemoaning the re-occupation of Lebanon with
> > ground troops.
> The key question here is whether the re-occupation of Lebanon with
> ground troops will help or further exacerbate the situation.
Thank you for proving my point.
OR
Octopus Ride
"frndthdevl" <frndt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154539939.4...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ray wrote:
>> The question "what is Israel supposed to do?" is a valid one - if
>> Hezbollah killed and kidnapped US soldiers we'd hit them hard too.
> small point of exasperation. Not with you Ray, but with the term
> "kidnapped". Soldiers can not be captured. They can be killed,maimed,go
> MIA or captured. Civilans are kidnapped, soldiers are captured.
When the kidnappers belong to no military of any recognized state, but are
instead terrorists who are not a party to the Geneva Conventions and who are
based in a nation which is at peace with the state of the kidnapped
soldiers, the soldiers are kidnapped.
Would US National Guardsmen kidnapped along the border by Mexican drug gangs
be referred to as "captured"?
OR
Ken Fortenberry
> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
>> law and UN resolutions.
>
> So what?
And there you have it in a nutshell.
>> Israel is a pariah state and is now
>> engaged in a headlong rush toward its own demise. And not a
>> moment too soon.
>
> Great, Holocaust II. Got any ideas on what to do with the several millions
> residents, a final solution of some sort? No problem huh, it's not like any
> of them are people you know.
Palestine must become a secular democracy, a secular democracy
of the sort that American neocons want to impose elsewhere in
the Middle East but are loathe to impose in the only place they
actually can. Jews must be able to live in Palestine in peace
with their neighbors, but that will *NEVER* happen so long as
they insist on a Jewish State. A Jewish State in Palestine is
as racist and wrong as a white state in South Africa. And I do
know some people there. Some of them agree with me.
If you want peace, work for justice.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Ray
How so?
Octopus Ride
> How so?
By opening the discussion into bemoaning the introduction of ground troops
into Lebanon.
Richard was saying how that would be better than the preparatory air
campaign. I said people would be complaining about this phase next. And
people are already complaining.
OR
Ray
Octopus Ride wrote:
> "Ray" <ray...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1154563219.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Octopus Ride wrote:
> >> "Ray" <ray...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1154538809.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >> Octopus Ride wrote:
> >>
> >> > > The critics will now begin bemoaning the re-occupation of Lebanon
> >> > > with
> >> > > ground troops.
> >>
> >> > The key question here is whether the re-occupation of Lebanon with
> >> > ground troops will help or further exacerbate the situation.
> >>
> >> Thank you for proving my point.
>
> > How so?
>
> By opening the discussion into bemoaning the introduction of ground troops
> into Lebanon.
Again: how so? That is: how in your mind was what I wrote 'bemoaning'?
DGDevin
> And there you have it in a nutshell.
He said carefully sidestepping the whole argument in favor of one phrase.
> Palestine must become a secular democracy, a secular democracy
> of the sort that American neocons want to impose elsewhere in
> the Middle East but are loathe to impose in the only place they
> actually can. Jews must be able to live in Palestine in peace
> with their neighbors, but that will *NEVER* happen so long as
> they insist on a Jewish State. A Jewish State in Palestine is
> as racist and wrong as a white state in South Africa. And I do
> know some people there. Some of them agree with me.
Uh huh, dissolve the whole state huh? And while you're at it why don't you
return the U.S. to the Indians, and Mexico, and France, and Britian. Except
Britain, France and Mexico/Spain sort of stole it from the Indians in the
first, place, and what about the part that was purchased from Russia? Gee,
trying to unmake history and set things up according to a
politically-correct formula is tougher than it looks. Gonna stop there, how
about independence for Scotland, and the Basques? Do you plan to adjust
every national boundary in recent memory where one tribe, race, nationality
or whatever got shoved around? You're gonna be a busy fellow, so maybe it's
best you focus on just this one group of people who need to be pushed into
the sea.
"Secular democracy," oh man, like you can point to a whole bunch of those in
the area outside Israel. And yeah, so long as non-Jews can be citizens of
Israel, it qualifies.
DGDevin
>
> When the kidnappers belong to no military of any recognized state, but are
> instead terrorists who are not a party to the Geneva Conventions and who
> are based in a nation which is at peace with the state of the kidnapped
> soldiers, the soldiers are kidnapped.
>
> Would US National Guardsmen kidnapped along the border by Mexican drug
> gangs be referred to as "captured"?
Well said.
Richard Morris
Yah. I think there are no positive choices here.
I would note, from the beginning of this conversational thread my interest
has been the civilian population of Lebanon, *and* the civilian population
of Israel. I have not argued that Israel does not have a right to respond
... but I have tried to make the case that their response has been way out
of proportion with respect to civilian death ... the factor of 10 that often
seems to appear when Israel responds to violence directed at them.
My hope is that if they get in there on the ground they can stop the
indiscriminate killing of civilians. If Israel does not do something about
that, they are no different that those that they fight against. They all
become animals and monsters.
Two final thoughts:
One, it is entirely possible to be sympathetic and compassionate with
respect to Jews, without having to approve of everything that Israel does.
Second ... I keep hearing that the Arabs want to deny the right of Israel to
exist, push them into the sea, etc. etc. Because that is the verbiage from
some of the Arab organizations. Remember that there are significant
cultural differences in communication styles between us Westerners, and
Middle Easterners. As such, I attribute a lot of that sort of talk to
bullshit rhetoric. The Arabs basically have their asses kicked ... they
know it, and are responding the only way they can when you are
outgunned--with rhetoric, and with guerrilla action.
R.
DGDevin
>
> I would note, from the beginning of this conversational thread my interest
> has been the civilian population of Lebanon, *and* the civilian population
> of Israel. I have not argued that Israel does not have a right to respond
> ... but I have tried to make the case that their response has been way out
> of proportion with respect to civilian death ... the factor of 10 that
> often seems to appear when Israel responds to violence directed at them.
That is largely due to the fact that Hezbolleh and similar groups go to
great pains to hide behind civilians, the recent video released by Israel
showing rockets being fired from buildings they then bombed being a case in
point. Hezbolleh of course *wants* heavy civilian casualties as it makes
Israel look bad and produces recruits for Hezbolleh.
> One, it is entirely possible to be sympathetic and compassionate with
> respect to Jews, without having to approve of everything that Israel does.
Various govts. of Israel have done all kinds of crappy things, the state of
Israel has been reduced to techniques that should rightfully sicken the
spiritual founders of that state who were of course largely left-wing folks.
That is quite aside from the fact that they are surrounded by states that
have been promising the extinction of Israel for two-thirds of a century.
> Second ... I keep hearing that the Arabs want to deny the right of Israel
> to exist, push them into the sea, etc. etc. Because that is the verbiage
> from some of the Arab organizations. Remember that there are significant
> cultural differences in communication styles between us Westerners, and
> Middle Easterners. As such, I attribute a lot of that sort of talk to
> bullshit rhetoric. The Arabs basically have their asses kicked ... they
> know it, and are responding the only way they can when you are
> outgunned--with rhetoric, and with guerrilla action.
Given that surrounding Arab states have expended countless billions of
dollars and the lives of many thousands of their people in wars with Israel,
surely it's prudent for the Israelis to take the threats seriously.
DGDevin
> Israel is operating outside the authority of international
> law and UN resolutions.
Oh, BTW Ken, do you want *all* those UN resolutions enforced, including the
one establishing Israel in the first place? Or did you really mean only
those UN resolutions you agree with? Answering is not actually necessary.
frndthdevl
Octopus Ride wrote:
>
> When the kidnappers belong to no military of any recognized state, but are
> instead terrorists who are not a party to the Geneva Conventions and who are
> based in a nation which is at peace with the state of the kidnapped
> soldiers, the soldiers are kidnapped.
yeah, parse it anyway you want that makes you feel better in your
justification of the overkill being done there.
>
> Would US National Guardsmen kidnapped along the border by Mexican drug gangs
> be referred to as "captured"?
>
> OR
Oh,so you mean it would be ok for the United States to bomb Tijuana and
kill hundreds of innocents in our drug war if they captured one of
ours? Fuck those children who can't get their asses out of there. hmmm
I don't remember that being the response when DEA agent Enrique
Camarena had his head lopped off. I don't remember putting punishment
on all the innocent Mexicans who could not keep the drug gangs from
doing as they please. I do not recall Mexicali,Tijuana,Nogales Agua
Prieta being bombed and bulldozed. Yeah there you go, we should fight
our dirty little war like Israel.
Israel loves the hate coming down on us, eventually they will use their
nuke knowing we will have no other response but to back them up. The
appeasement by republicrats of anything Israel ever does all these
years is destined to continue to haunt us. After 911 we were told by
Israel and her supporters that it had nothing to do with the
Palestinian issue. lol Now we are told their destruction of innocent
life in Lebanon is necessary on our war on terror. The world should
bulldoze Jerusalem as a start.
war war
jeff
On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu was asked what the attacks would mean for US-Israeli
relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good.......Well, it's not
good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"
oh,you should be in Eugene this weekend, plenty of topless fairies and
great music.
Wish I could be there,will have to settle for Bromberg.
frndthdevl
DGDevin wrote:
> That is largely due to the fact that Hezbolleh and similar groups go to
> great pains to hide behind civilians, the recent video released by Israel
> showing rockets being fired from buildings they then bombed being a case in
> point. Hezbolleh of course *wants* heavy civilian casualties as it makes
> Israel look bad and produces recruits for Hezbolleh.
>
you do know everytime that footage you seeemingly are talking about
there was a very small disclaimer that this was NOT footage of the
actual rocket launches to which they responded. They ahve not relesed
footage of the rocket launch and destruction of the building as far as
I avhe seen yet. If you know better cite it.
DGDevin
>
> yeah, parse it anyway you want that makes you feel better in your
> justification of the overkill being done there.
Yeah, ignore that you're addressing a different point than the one in the
paragraph you quote.
> Oh,so you mean it would be ok for the United States to bomb Tijuana and
> kill hundreds of innocents in our drug war if they captured one of
> ours?
If the Mexican drugs gangs were pumping salvoes from an arsenal of
umpteen-thousand rockets that were hitting towns twenty miles from the
border, what do you suppose the U.S. would do then, ask the UN to send
observers?
> Israel loves the hate coming down on us, eventually they will use their
> nuke knowing we will have no other response but to back them up.
Put down the bong, go outside, get some exercise in the fresh air.
>The world should
> bulldoze Jerusalem as a start.
Yeah, the world's Muslims will be thrilled to hear what you propose to do to
the Dome of the Rock. Case closed, you're a freakin' whacko.
frndthdevl
DGDevin wrote:
>
> Put down the bong, go outside, get some exercise in the fresh air.
no bongs, papeles
>
> >The world should
> > bulldoze Jerusalem as a start.
>
> Yeah, the world's Muslims will be thrilled to hear what you propose to do to
> the Dome of the Rock. Case closed, you're a freakin' whacko.
you think the Jewish folks would be any less thrilled if the Wailing
Wall was dozed as well. Oh wait,can't do one without the other can you?
Wacko times take wacko action. Oh, never mind ,your right, lets let
Israel kill as many of those Arab kiddies as they can.
Sad thing is there is no satisfactory answers for either side of the
fence one might be on.. FOr the rest of our lives this is it. bummer.
The world was a much simpler place when there was a USSR.
Ray
DGDevin wrote:
> "Richard Morris" <jrmo...@trouserscomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Ff-dnUikLNmd2kzZ...@comcast.com...
> >
> > I would note, from the beginning of this conversational thread my interest
> > has been the civilian population of Lebanon, *and* the civilian population
> > of Israel. I have not argued that Israel does not have a right to respond
> > ... but I have tried to make the case that their response has been way out
> > of proportion with respect to civilian death ... the factor of 10 that
> > often seems to appear when Israel responds to violence directed at them.
>
> That is largely due to the fact that Hezbolleh and similar groups go to
> great pains to hide behind civilians
Some if not many details about what is happening now will not be known
until a later date, if ever, however from what I have read IMO in the
current situation that is largely correct. That is far from always the
case, however.
> Hezbolleh of course *wants* heavy civilian casualties as it makes
> Israel look bad and produces recruits for Hezbolleh.
Agreed. To that end Hezbollah seems to have achieved at least some of
the objectives that it had intended to when it provoked this
conflagration.
> > One, it is entirely possible to be sympathetic and compassionate with
> > respect to Jews, without having to approve of everything that Israel does.
>
> Various govts. of Israel have done all kinds of crappy things, the state of
> Israel has been reduced to techniques that should rightfully sicken the
> spiritual founders of that state who were of course largely left-wing folks.
> That is quite aside from the fact that they are surrounded by states that
> have been promising the extinction of Israel for two-thirds of a century.
Israel is in a very tough neighborhood, including Iran's current regime
which has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction. However:
* Israel has peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt.
* Lebanon signed a peace agreement with Israel as well during the
Lebanese Civil War, however Syria's opposition effectively undermined
it since much of Lebanon was under Syrian military control.
* Syria is still technically at war with Israel, and is via its support
of Hezbollah it is currently in a proxy war with Israel (just as the US
is currently in a proxy war with Hezbollah). What does Syria want for
peace with Israel? The Golan Heights, which according to Israeli
historical icon/general/defense minster Moshe Dayan Israel provoked
Syria over in order to annex it.
* In 2002 the Arab states as represented by the Arab League offically
declared that they would recognize Israel's right to exist in return
for Israel's withdrawal from Arab lands captured since 1967, the
establishment of a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its
capital, and a "fair solution" for the 3.8 million Palestinian
refugees. This is in reference to the "Saudi peace plan" which
received praises of support from the Bush Adminstration and was
referenced by Scowcroft in his recent OpEd that I posted here earlier
in this thread. That groundbreaking historical development however was
and remains essentially ignored by Israel.
> > Second ... I keep hearing that the Arabs want to deny the right of Israel
> > to exist, push them into the sea, etc. etc. Because that is the verbiage
> > from some of the Arab organizations. Remember that there are significant
> > cultural differences in communication styles between us Westerners, and
> > Middle Easterners. As such, I attribute a lot of that sort of talk to
> > bullshit rhetoric. The Arabs basically have their asses kicked ... they
> > know it, and are responding the only way they can when you are
> > outgunned--with rhetoric, and with guerrilla action.
>
> Given that surrounding Arab states have expended countless billions of
> dollars and the lives of many thousands of their people in wars with Israel,
> surely it's prudent for the Israelis to take the threats seriously.
See above.
Octopus Ride
>
> Octopus Ride wrote:
>> When the kidnappers belong to no military of any recognized state, but
>> are
>> instead terrorists who are not a party to the Geneva Conventions and who
>> are
>> based in a nation which is at peace with the state of the kidnapped
>> soldiers, the soldiers are kidnapped.
> yeah, parse it anyway you want that makes you feel better in your
> justification of the overkill being done there.
I responded to your assertion that soldiers kidnapped by a gang of
terrorists from the soil of a nation at peace with Israel should be referred
to as "captured".
They were kidnapped.
That has nothing to do with justifying the actions undertaken by Israel,
which I do. But that's a whole different discussion, as is the miserable
and ongoing failure of US foreign policy in that region.
>> Would US National Guardsmen kidnapped along the border by Mexican drug
>> gangs
>> be referred to as "captured"?
> Oh,so you mean it would be ok for the United States to bomb Tijuana and
> kill hundreds of innocents in our drug war if they captured one of
> ours?
No, I mean if US Guardsmen were kidnapped by a gang of terrorists from the
soil of a nation we were at peace with they would be referred to as
kidnapped soldiers, not "captured".
You began the semantic discussion of kidnapped vs. captured. I responded
with the correct interpretation and how it applied to the kidnapping of
Israeli soldiers. I provided a very similar example that is closer to home
to clarify the discussion you began. I take it you don't choose to respond
to that?
If you want to rant at me about supporting Israel taking action to defend
itself, look for one of my many posts in which I do that.
OR
Ken Fortenberry
> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
>> law and UN resolutions.
>
> Oh, BTW Ken, do you want *all* those UN resolutions enforced, including the
> one establishing Israel in the first place? Or did you really mean only
> those UN resolutions you agree with? Answering is not actually necessary.
Do you disagree that Israel brandishes UN resolutions like
a cudgel with one hand while brushing off UN resolutions it
doesn't like with the other ?
--
Ken Fortenberry
gwatts
> gwatts wrote:
>
>> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>
>>> Our cable TV here in Chambana has the SCOLA channel and the
>>> news programs presented there are far more balanced than
>>> anything you'll hear from the American press.
>>
>>
>> How did they report the initial detainment of the two Israeli soldiers
>> and on which side of the border did they report the detainment occurred?
>
>
> The French broadcast reported that eight Israeli soldiers
> were killed and two *captured* (emphasis mine) near the
> Israeli-Lebanon border.
Personally I agree, it was a military incident, they got captured and
anyone who says 'kidnapped' has my strong suspicions of attempting to
over-dramatize in an effort to benefit the Israelis. My intent was to
find as neutral an observation if the events as possible which I
understand probably will be a futile effort on my part. When it comes
to the Middle East and especially when it involves Israel people
completely lose their objectivity. I'm not saying I've completely kept
mine but I strongly believe that in the ongoing Israel-Anybody Else
conflict no one has the moral high ground any more.
DGDevin
> Do you disagree that Israel brandishes UN resolutions like
> a cudgel with one hand while brushing off UN resolutions it
> doesn't like with the other ?
You mean in a similar fashion to yourself? You conveniently sidestep that
the UN voted to partition Palestine, one must suspect that your belief in UN
resolutions would involve only those resolutions you find convenient.
The UN has repeatedly demonstrated that it cannot be relied upon to keep
peace in the region, Nasser threw out UN peacekeepers like they had climbed
the fence without tickets, the UN in Lebanon sits and watches and never
lifts a finger. So long as oil-rich Islamic states and their schools of
pilot fish would happily vote for the extinction of Israel every day of the
year, why should Israel adhere to resolutions that are clearly not in their
interests?
Ultimately any state is responsible for its own defense, the nation that
waits for the UN to protect it is in deep trouble. The only reason the UN
was able to defend South Korea is because the Soviets made the tactical
error of walking out before a vote, and of course Kuwait had oil. That is
not a blank check for Israel, many of their policies and tactics are
repugnant to me. But I am not going to tell them they have to stare down
the barrel of Hezbolleh's gun forever, wondering when those thousands of
rockets will be unleashed, especially when Tehran holds Hezbolleh's remote
control and will happly use to them to send a message to the west about not
trying to block Iran's nuclear program.
DGDevin
>
>> Put down the bong, go outside, get some exercise in the fresh air.
>
> no bongs, papeles
Bong, "papeles" or baked into brownies, give it a break while you can still
more or less type.
>> >The world should
>> > bulldoze Jerusalem as a start.
>>
>> Yeah, the world's Muslims will be thrilled to hear what you propose to do
>> to
>> the Dome of the Rock. Case closed, you're a freakin' whacko.
>
> you think the Jewish folks would be any less thrilled if the Wailing
> Wall was dozed as well. Oh wait,can't do one without the other can you?
??? What?
> Wacko times take wacko action.
Ah, so you're a Bush supporter.
> Oh, never mind ,your right, lets let
> Israel kill as many of those Arab kiddies as they can.
??? What?
> Sad thing is there is no satisfactory answers for either side of the
> fence one might be on.. FOr the rest of our lives this is it. bummer.
> The world was a much simpler place when there was a USSR.
When there was a USSR we'd have the armies of Egypt, Syrian and probably
Jordan going at Israel full-tilt, with the USSR and the US airlifting in
supplies and hardware as fast as they can, and also putting their militaries
on alert and putting their fleets to sea. Or does the regular use of
"papeles" mean your memory doesn't go back that far?
There's only one likely solution to this, a strong peacekeeping force has to
take over southern Lebanon (and secure the entire nation's borders) for long
enough for Hezbolleh to be disarmed and the Lebanese state to establish
control. Israel goes into Lebanon when groups like Hezbolleh or the PLO
launch attacks from there, no Hezbolleh, no need for the Israelis to go
apeshit. Much as you and probably Ken would love to bulldoze the place,
Israel ain't going away, at least not without a hell of a fight. Sorry
about that.
DGDevin
>
>
> you do know everytime that footage you seeemingly are talking about
> there was a very small disclaimer that this was NOT footage of the
> actual rocket launches to which they responded.
No, I do not know that, how do you?
>They ahve not relesed
> footage of the rocket launch and destruction of the building as far as
> I avhe seen yet. If you know better cite it.
If you can demonstrate otherwise, cite it.
dyrewlf
"DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:v8sAg.9276$157....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "frndthdevl" <frndt...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1154572012.9...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Put down the bong, go outside, get some exercise in the fresh air.
>>
>> no bongs, papeles
papeles is Spanish for papers
DGDevin
>
>> That is largely due to the fact that Hezbolleh and similar groups go to
>> great pains to hide behind civilians
>
> Some if not many details about what is happening now will not be known
> until a later date, if ever, however from what I have read IMO in the
> current situation that is largely correct. That is far from always the
> case, however.
Examples?
>> Hezbolleh of course *wants* heavy civilian casualties as it makes
>> Israel look bad and produces recruits for Hezbolleh.
>
> Agreed. To that end Hezbollah seems to have achieved at least some of
> the objectives that it had intended to when it provoked this
> conflagration.
Presuming the real motive was not orders from Tehran, the idea being to send
a message to the world about all the trouble that will result if Iran's
nuclear program results in any more pressure.
> Israel is in a very tough neighborhood, including Iran's current regime
> which has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction. However:
>
> * Israel has peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt.
Which came about because those states had leaders smart enough to see that
getting their butts kicked by Israel every decade would never be a winning
bet, leaders who cared enough about the future of their peoples to put aside
hatred and dreams of military glory to make peace. Ultimately Syria and
Iran will make peace only when the alternative is too expensive, just as
with Jordan and Egypt.
> * Lebanon signed a peace agreement with Israel as well during the
> Lebanese Civil War, however Syria's opposition effectively undermined
> it since much of Lebanon was under Syrian military control.
Precisely, and today Hezbolleh fills the same role, so long as they form a
state within a state in Lebanon, willing to undertake contract jobs for
Damascus and Tehran, Israel will be under the gun.
> * Syria is still technically at war with Israel, and is via its support
> of Hezbollah it is currently in a proxy war with Israel (just as the US
> is currently in a proxy war with Hezbollah). What does Syria want for
> peace with Israel? The Golan Heights, which according to Israeli
> historical icon/general/defense minster Moshe Dayan Israel provoked
> Syria over in order to annex it.
Would Syria agree to that area being demilitarized, with serious
peacekeeping forces stationed there? Otherwise why would/should Israel
agree to once again having Syrian artillery entrenched on the high ground?
> * In 2002 the Arab states as represented by the Arab League offically
> declared that they would recognize Israel's right to exist in return
> for Israel's withdrawal from Arab lands captured since 1967, the
> establishment of a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its
> capital, and a "fair solution" for the 3.8 million Palestinian
> refugees. This is in reference to the "Saudi peace plan" which
> received praises of support from the Bush Adminstration and was
> referenced by Scowcroft in his recent OpEd that I posted here earlier
> in this thread. That groundbreaking historical development however was
> and remains essentially ignored by Israel.
Jerusalem, blessed and cursed, it's almost beyond belief Israel would give
it up, or any part of it, or allow a hostile force to set up shop there.
"Arab lands captured since 1967," that's confusing, does that mean Israel
goes back to pre-six day war borders or not? The Israelis rightfully point
out that they don't have a lot of space to trade for time if attacked,
"buffer zone" is a valid term in their case.
>> Given that surrounding Arab states have expended countless billions of
>> dollars and the lives of many thousands of their people in wars with
>> Israel,
>> surely it's prudent for the Israelis to take the threats seriously.
>
> See above.
Israel has to wonder how secure the govt. of Egypt really is, if it went the
way of Iran then Israel would be right back where it started, surrounded,
outnumbered, backs to the wall. That isn't to say Israel doesn't have to
make concessions, but given the sustained hostility of the neighborhood the
world has to respect their legitimate fears, without solid security for
Israel none of this is going to work.
carri...@insightbb.com
You go, fella!
It's good to hear logic, reason and facts sometimes.
Don't expect much in return, maybe a trite sentence or two about how
Israel doesn't have the right to exist in the first place. "Aarrrrgh!"
Typical fare from an ideologue who is so quick to call others "stupid".
cheers,
Carrie
Ray
> "Ray" <ray...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >DGDevin wrote:
> >> Richard wrote:
> >> > their response has been way out
> >> > of proportion with respect to civilian death ... the factor of 10 that
> >> > often seems to appear when Israel responds to violence directed at them.
> >>
> >> great pains to hide behind civilians
> >
> > Some if not many details about what is happening now will not be known
> > until a later date, if ever, however from what I have read IMO in the
> > current situation that is largely correct. That is far from always the
> > case, however.
>
> Examples?
1) When Israel first invaded Lebanon in 1982 under
terrorist-cum-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin's Likud
administration, although they didn't do the killing themselves they
were in large measure responsible for the massacre of several hundred
or more Palestinian civilians in Beruit-area refugee camps -- in
response to international pressure the Israeli government even removed
then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon from office for his "personal
responsibility" for the massacre. (Sharon remained in the Begin govt.
as a Minister without porfolio however, and returned in the next Likud
govt under under terrorist-cum-Israeli Prime Minister Yiztak Shamir as
Minister of Housing, which Sharon then used to architect and
dramatically expand settlements in the West Bank.)
2) After the Likud Party under Benjamin Netanyahu came back to power
in 1996 in the aftermath of Yitzak Rabin's assassination (by a Jewish
religious extremist for signing the Oslo peace accord), Netanyahu
declared that his government would oppose a Palestinian state, he
stopped the freeze on settlment expansion in the West Bank, and he
otherwise left Oslo dying on the vine. As a result tensions were high
in Sept. 1996 when Netanyahu ordered the opening of a passageway in the
Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City that lead to the Temple Mount
(the 3rd most holy site in Islam) to demonstrate the government's
determination to "Judaize" all of Jersusalem. Netanyahu ignored the
warnings that doing so would ignite religious and political passions
(as did, not incidentally, the then mayor of Jerusalem: Likud party
stalwart Ehud Olmert, who declared the action "a great present for
humanity.") Rioting ensued for several hours without actual bullets
being fired, until a Palestinian fired an automatic weapon at Israel
troops. The Israelis fired back, and the gunfire spread quickly
throughout the West Bank - until Israelis deployed tanks near West Bank
cities and they unleashed helicoptor gunships on the Palestinians.
Netanyahu declared that he would escalate things still further, however
intensive US mediation ended the fighting. All told about 70
Palestinians were killed and several hundred wounded; 15 Israeli
soldiers were killed and several dozen wounded.
3) In July, 2002 Israel dropped a one ton bomb on the home of a Hamas
military leader, Salah Shehade, killing him and 14 of his family,
mostly children. Over one hundred others were injured in the bombing
as well -- what do you expect from dropping a one-ton bomb in one of
the most densely populated places on earth? This lead to 27 reserve
and active duty Israeli pilots to refusing to carry out what they
described as illegal orders (one captain described the bombing as
murder, another called it state terrorism), and to them denouncing the
occupation as eating at the moral fabric of Israel.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1098456,00.html
> >> Hezbolleh of course *wants* heavy civilian casualties as it makes
> >> Israel look bad and produces recruits for Hezbolleh.
> >
> > Agreed. To that end Hezbollah seems to have achieved at least some of
> > the objectives that it had intended to when it provoked this
> > conflagration.
>
> Presuming the real motive was not orders from Tehran, the idea being to send
> a message to the world about all the trouble that will result if Iran's
> nuclear program results in any more pressure.
That may have been a goal of Hezbollah's here as well, but in my view
Hezbollah's primary short-term goal here was and is to strengthen
Hezbollah itself, as an organization and as a political power. And it
may well succeed in doing just that.
> > > they are surrounded by states that have
> > > been promising the extinction of Israel for two-thirds of a century.
> >
> > Israel is in a very tough neighborhood, including Iran's current regime
> > which has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction. However:
> >
> > * Israel has peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt.
>
> Which came about because those states had leaders smart enough to see that
> getting their butts kicked by Israel every decade would never be a winning
> bet, leaders who cared enough about the future of their peoples to put aside
> hatred and dreams of military glory to make peace.
I agree. However what I was responding to here was your assertion that
Israel is "surrounded by states that have been promising the extinction
of Israel for two-thirds of a century" - Jordan and Egypt stopped doing
that after they made peace with Israel.
> > * Lebanon signed a peace agreement with Israel as well during the
> > Lebanese Civil War, however Syria's opposition effectively undermined
> > it since much of Lebanon was under Syrian military control.
>
> Precisely, and today Hezbolleh fills the same role, so long as they form a
> state within a state in Lebanon, willing to undertake contract jobs for
> Damascus and Tehran, Israel will be under the gun.
Again agreed. Again however my point is that Lebanon, as a state, has
not "been promising the extinction of Israel for two-thirds of a
century."
> > * Syria is still technically at war with Israel, and is via its support
> > of Hezbollah it is currently in a proxy war with Israel (just as the US
> > is currently in a proxy war with Hezbollah). What does Syria want for
> > peace with Israel? The Golan Heights, which according to Israeli
> > historical icon/general/defense minster Moshe Dayan Israel provoked
> > Syria over in order to annex it.
>
> Would Syria agree to that area being demilitarized, with serious
> peacekeeping forces stationed there?
At this time that's something that can only be determined by
negotiation.
> Otherwise why would/should Israel
> agree to once again having Syrian artillery entrenched on the high ground?
Again according to Moshe Dayan -- and if anybody would have known what
was going on there it would have been Dayan -- it was Israel who
initiated most ("over 80%") of the hostilities in the Golan before
Israel annexed it.
> > * In 2002 the Arab states as represented by the Arab League offically
> > declared that they would recognize Israel's right to exist in return
> > for Israel's withdrawal from Arab lands captured since 1967, the
> > establishment of a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its
> > capital, and a "fair solution" for the 3.8 million Palestinian
> > refugees. This is in reference to the "Saudi peace plan" which
> > received praises of support from the Bush Adminstration and was
> > referenced by Scowcroft in his recent OpEd that I posted here earlier
> > in this thread. That groundbreaking historical development however was
> > and remains essentially ignored by Israel.
>
> Jerusalem, blessed and cursed, it's almost beyond belief Israel would give
> it up, or any part of it, or allow a hostile force to set up shop there.
>
> "Arab lands captured since 1967," that's confusing, does that mean Israel
> goes back to pre-six day war borders or not?
What do you find confusing about that? By my read that means yes,
Israel goes back to pre-1967 6-Day War borders.
> The Israelis rightfully point
> out that they don't have a lot of space to trade for time if attacked,
> "buffer zone" is a valid term in their case.
Do you really think that say a mile or two of the West Bank under
Israeli control -- populated by *Israeli civilians* no less --- would
make a substantive difference in that regard? And if so, how?
Or are you suggesting, as is the goal of many on the Israeli right,
that Israel should annex most or all the West Bank permanently? And if
so, what do you think that Israel should do with the Palestinians who
live there: given the citizenship, expel them, or continue to control
them against their will and without giving them citizenship rights?
> Israel has to wonder how secure the govt. of Egypt really is, if it went the
> way of Iran then Israel would be right back where it started, surrounded,
> outnumbered, backs to the wall.
If Egypt were to fall to the Muslim Brotherhood (the Islamists in Egypt
who threaten the current regime), then Israel will have an enemy again
there. That said, again do you really think that Israel's holding on to
settlements in the West Bank will make any substantive difference in
favor of Israel in that regard? And if so, how?
Right now the Muslim Brotherhood -- including its Palestine branch,
known as Hamas -- uses Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank as
an effective propaganda and recruiting device. This undermines not
only Israel security but US security as well, since our financing
enables Israeli settlement expansion.
> That isn't to say Israel doesn't have to
> make concessions, but given the sustained hostility of the neighborhood the
> world has to respect their legitimate fears, without solid security for
> Israel none of this is going to work.
And until Israel is serious about making peace with the Palestinians,
including putting said peace over retaining control of and even
continually expanding many settlement blocks in the West Bank, none of
this is going to work either.
Chris
Still at it huh, Ray? Maybe Ehud Olmert reads RMGD, took my suggestions to
heart and applied them to Lebanon. He can thank me later ,when the job is
done.. Reading your tripe is like making an excursion thru a mental
cesspool.Whom do you suppose you're persuading?Do you have posters of Adolph
Hitler and Heinrich Himmler in your bedroom?Man,are you in for a surprise.
Ray
> Do you have posters of Adolph
> Hitler and Heinrich Himmler in your bedroom?Man,are you in for a surprise
Chris Kerrissey - RMGD's very own armchair holy warrior and voice for
Christio-genocide.
"i'd give the denizens of gaza and the west bank two days to
evacuate before i turned them both back into dust ! Deadline
sunrise. Leave or be returned to your elemental constituant
components."
-- Chris Kerrissey
"Did somebody say 'Fuck the Christian Right'?"
-- Bob Weir
________________________________
"It is easy for those who do not share [religious] extremists' belief
to dismiss them as irrational or as a cover for other commitments. Yet
dismissal leaves us deaf to the internal logic of people who believe
they must shatter the world to make it whole."
- Gershom Gorenberg, in the preface to his recommended book "The End
of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount"
Richard Morris
"Chris" <Devs...@BURDENadelphia.net> wrote in message
news:Qt6dnbAbu7bbTk_Z...@adelphia.com...
snip
> Still at it huh, Ray? Maybe Ehud Olmert reads RMGD, took my suggestions to
> heart and applied them to Lebanon. He can thank me later ,when the job is
> done.. Reading your tripe is like making an excursion thru a mental
> cesspool.Whom do you suppose you're persuading?Do you have posters of
> Adolph Hitler and Heinrich Himmler in your bedroom?Man,are you in for a
> surprise.
You are the one who advocates genocide, Chris.
Another "Killer for Christ" in our midst?
carri...@insightbb.com
Ray wrote:
>
> 1) When Israel first invaded Lebanon in 1982 under
> terrorist-cum-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin's Likud
> administration, although they didn't do the killing themselves they
> were in large measure responsible for the massacre of several hundred
> or more Palestinian civilians in Beruit-area refugee camps -- in
> response to international pressure the Israeli government even removed
> then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon from office for his "personal
> responsibility" for the massacre. (Sharon remained in the Begin govt.
> as a Minister without porfolio however, and returned in the next Likud
> govt under under terrorist-cum-Israeli Prime Minister Yiztak Shamir as
> Minister of Housing, which Sharon then used to architect and
> dramatically expand settlements in the West Bank.)
The *Christian* tribe took out revenge on a Muslim tribe. It was a
small scale atrocity, the type committed in Africa with little notice.
Very sad, but Sharon did not kill those people. Nonetheless, the
Israelis took that massacre very seriously..It was a huge deal and
spawned a major peace movement in Israel. Sharon thought that
settlements in West Bank/Gaza (won in a war of Arab aggression) would
make Israel more secure. Ultimately this failed to win peace just like
relinquishing Gaza has also failed to secure peace.
>
> 2) After the Likud Party under Benjamin Netanyahu came back to power
> in 1996 in the aftermath of Yitzak Rabin's assassination (by a Jewish
> religious extremist for signing the Oslo peace accord), Netanyahu
> declared that his government would oppose a Palestinian state, he
> stopped the freeze on settlment expansion in the West Bank, and he
> otherwise left Oslo dying on the vine. As a result tensions were high
> in Sept. 1996 when Netanyahu ordered the opening of a passageway in the
> Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City that lead to the Temple Mount
> (the 3rd most holy site in Islam) to demonstrate the government's
> determination to "Judaize" all of Jersusalem.
Wait, this is also a Jewish holy site...why should it be closed off?
> Netanyahu ignored the
> warnings that doing so would ignite religious and political passions
> (as did, not incidentally, the then mayor of Jerusalem: Likud party
> stalwart Ehud Olmert, who declared the action "a great present for
> humanity.") Rioting ensued for several hours without actual bullets
> being fired, until a Palestinian fired an automatic weapon at Israel
> troops. The Israelis fired back, and the gunfire spread quickly
> throughout the West Bank - until Israelis deployed tanks near West Bank
> cities and they unleashed helicoptor gunships on the Palestinians.
> Netanyahu declared that he would escalate things still further, however
> intensive US mediation ended the fighting. All told about 70
> Palestinians were killed and several hundred wounded; 15 Israeli
> soldiers were killed and several dozen wounded.
And?
>
> 3) In July, 2002 Israel dropped a one ton bomb on the home of a Hamas
> military leader, Salah Shehade, killing him and 14 of his family,
> mostly children. Over one hundred others were injured in the bombing
> as well -- what do you expect from dropping a one-ton bomb in one of
> the most densely populated places on earth? This lead to 27 reserve
> and active duty Israeli pilots to refusing to carry out what they
> described as illegal orders (one captain described the bombing as
> murder, another called it state terrorism), and to them denouncing the
> occupation as eating at the moral fabric of Israel.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1098456,00.html
Thanks to the link form the fair and balanced Guardian. Israel has
tried targeting terrorist leaders rather than occupation and the
killing of hapless soldiers on both sides. Has it worked? Obviously
not.
>
> > >> Hezbolleh of course *wants* heavy civilian casualties as it makes
> > >> Israel look bad and produces recruits for Hezbolleh.
> > >
> > > Agreed. To that end Hezbollah seems to have achieved at least some of
> > > the objectives that it had intended to when it provoked this
> > > conflagration.
> >
> > Presuming the real motive was not orders from Tehran, the idea being to send
> > a message to the world about all the trouble that will result if Iran's
> > nuclear program results in any more pressure.
>
> That may have been a goal of Hezbollah's here as well, but in my view
> Hezbollah's primary short-term goal here was and is to strengthen
> Hezbollah itself, as an organization and as a political power. And it
> may well succeed in doing just that.
>
> > > > they are surrounded by states that have
> > > > been promising the extinction of Israel for two-thirds of a century.
> > >
> > > Israel is in a very tough neighborhood, including Iran's current regime
> > > which has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction. However:
> > >
> > > * Israel has peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt.
Yes, but the alliances are tenuous. Go across the Egypt-Israeli border
sometime. It's not like going from France to Germany.
> >
> > Which came about because those states had leaders smart enough to see that
> > getting their butts kicked by Israel every decade would never be a winning
> > bet, leaders who cared enough about the future of their peoples to put aside
> > hatred and dreams of military glory to make peace.
This is true indeed.
>
> I agree. However what I was responding to here was your assertion that
> Israel is "surrounded by states that have been promising the extinction
> of Israel for two-thirds of a century" - Jordan and Egypt stopped doing
> that after they made peace with Israel.
Barely. Israel still must be prepared for other more hostile parties to
come to power.
C'mon!
>
> > > * Lebanon signed a peace agreement with Israel as well during the
> > > Lebanese Civil War, however Syria's opposition effectively undermined
> > > it since much of Lebanon was under Syrian military control.
> >
> > Precisely, and today Hezbolleh fills the same role, so long as they form a
> > state within a state in Lebanon, willing to undertake contract jobs for
> > Damascus and Tehran, Israel will be under the gun.
>
> Again agreed. Again however my point is that Lebanon, as a state, has
> not "been promising the extinction of Israel for two-thirds of a
> century."
What difference does it make if a group like Hezbollah is operating
unfettered making war plans against the devil Israel?
>
> > > * Syria is still technically at war with Israel, and is via its support
> > > of Hezbollah it is currently in a proxy war with Israel (just as the US
> > > is currently in a proxy war with Hezbollah). What does Syria want for
> > > peace with Israel? The Golan Heights, which according to Israeli
> > > historical icon/general/defense minster Moshe Dayan Israel provoked
> > > Syria over in order to annex it.
> >
> > Would Syria agree to that area being demilitarized, with serious
> > peacekeeping forces stationed there?
>
> At this time that's something that can only be determined by
> negotiation.
>
> > Otherwise why would/should Israel
> > agree to once again having Syrian artillery entrenched on the high ground?
>
> Again according to Moshe Dayan -- and if anybody would have known what
> was going on there it would have been Dayan -- it was Israel who
> initiated most ("over 80%") of the hostilities in the Golan before
> Israel annexed it.
Where did you get that info??
>
> > > * In 2002 the Arab states as represented by the Arab League offically
> > > declared that they would recognize Israel's right to exist in return
> > > for Israel's withdrawal from Arab lands captured since 1967, the
> > > establishment of a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its
> > > capital, and a "fair solution" for the 3.8 million Palestinian
> > > refugees. This is in reference to the "Saudi peace plan" which
> > > received praises of support from the Bush Adminstration and was
> > > referenced by Scowcroft in his recent OpEd that I posted here earlier
> > > in this thread. That groundbreaking historical development however was
> > > and remains essentially ignored by Israel.
They are fighting for survival, Ray. The "Saudi peace plan" could spell
the end for Jewish rule in their tiny strip of land! The Arabs that are
there enjoy civil rights and representation in the Knesset. Be
realistic.
> >
> > Jerusalem, blessed and cursed, it's almost beyond belief Israel would give
> > it up, or any part of it, or allow a hostile force to set up shop there.
> >
> > "Arab lands captured since 1967," that's confusing, does that mean Israel
> > goes back to pre-six day war borders or not?
>
> What do you find confusing about that? By my read that means yes,
> Israel goes back to pre-1967 6-Day War borders.
Why did Israel have the fight the 6 Day War to begin with?
>
> > The Israelis rightfully point
> > out that they don't have a lot of space to trade for time if attacked,
> > "buffer zone" is a valid term in their case.
>
> Do you really think that say a mile or two of the West Bank under
> Israeli control -- populated by *Israeli civilians* no less --- would
> make a substantive difference in that regard? And if so, how?
You've never heard of a buffer zone before? Perhaps more space between
Israel and the missiles and suicide bombers? The check points have
seriously curbed suicide bombing since 2002.
>
> Or are you suggesting, as is the goal of many on the Israeli right,
> that Israel should annex most or all the West Bank permanently? And if
> so, what do you think that Israel should do with the Palestinians who
> live there: given the citizenship, expel them, or continue to control
> them against their will and without giving them citizenship rights?
Give all of the West Bank back except the land around Jerusalem. Good
riddance. Be ready for a terrorist state to form with plans to destroy
the rest of your country though. Re: Hamas.
>
> > Israel has to wonder how secure the govt. of Egypt really is, if it went the
> > way of Iran then Israel would be right back where it started, surrounded,
> > outnumbered, backs to the wall.
>
> If Egypt were to fall to the Muslim Brotherhood (the Islamists in Egypt
> who threaten the current regime), then Israel will have an enemy again
> there. That said, again do you really think that Israel's holding on to
> settlements in the West Bank will make any substantive difference in
> favor of Israel in that regard? And if so, how?
I'm glad the United States held on to our Western settlements. Just
sayin.
>
> Right now the Muslim Brotherhood -- including its Palestine branch,
> known as Hamas -- uses Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank as
> an effective propaganda and recruiting device. This undermines not
> only Israel security but US security as well, since our financing
> enables Israeli settlement expansion.
True.
>
> > That isn't to say Israel doesn't have to
> > make concessions, but given the sustained hostility of the neighborhood the
> > world has to respect their legitimate fears, without solid security for
> > Israel none of this is going to work.
>
> And until Israel is serious about making peace with the Palestinians,
> including putting said peace over retaining control of and even
> continually expanding many settlement blocks in the West Bank, none of
> this is going to work either.
C'mon. Ehud Barak/Yitzhak Rabin were very serious about making peace
with the Palestinians. Ultimately they were rebuffed. Why? Certain
people have absolutely no interest in peace. Hamas and Hezbollah for
example. Hating Israel and seeking her destruction is their mandate.
Much easier than looking inward at their own cultural, economic,
educational, and societal failures.
You win though, Ray via exhaustion.
L'Chaim!
==
JB
>
> Exactly. Israeli "soldiers" go ten miles into Lebanon and
> "arrest" Hezbollah while Hezbollah "terrorists" on the border
> "kidnap" Israeli "soldiers". Same with Hamas in Gaza. The
> Israeli "soldier" was "kidnapped" but over 60 members of the
> Palestinian parliament were "arrested".
You obviously don't understand much.
The reason that you can call the Israeli fighters "soldiers" is because
they are in *uniform* and, therefore, are readily identifiable as such.
The reason that the Hezbollah fighters are labeled "terrorists" is
because they wear no military uniforms. That is their tactic.
The difference is that one is governed by the rules of engagement under
the Geneva Convention and the other is not (hence the application of
terms like "kidnapped" versus "arrested"). The question is whether or
not you are intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that difference.
JB
>
> Israel is operating outside the authority of international
> engaged in a headlong rush toward its own demise. And not a
> moment too soon.
At least now your anti-semitic hatred and bigotry is clear enough for
everyone to see.
JB
<snip>
> Of course, there have been those in the newsgroup maintaining that
> annihilation is what the Lebanese are gonna get because (choose one or
> both):
>
> --the Lebanese didn't kick Hezbollah out of their country, therefore they
> deserve what they get;
> --Hezbollah troops hide behind Lebanese civilians, therefore the Lebanese
> deserve what they get.
I haven't seen anyone argue that the Lebanese "deserve what they get".
And it amazes me that you would hold Israel accountable for Hezbollah's
tactic of hiding themselves and their armaments behind civilian targets.
>
> So it would appear that the conservative elements in the newsgroup do come
> down firmly in favor of slaughter.
You're putting words in other peoples' mouths.
theothr1
all hail the Prince of Peace...
then beat em up, steal his change.
It's called Liberation from your heavy metal objects.
JB
> Uh huh, dissolve the whole state huh? And while you're at it why don't you
> return the U.S. to the Indians, and Mexico, and France, and Britian. Except
> Britain, France and Mexico/Spain sort of stole it from the Indians in the
> first, place, and what about the part that was purchased from Russia? Gee,
> trying to unmake history and set things up according to a
> politically-correct formula is tougher than it looks. Gonna stop there, how
> about independence for Scotland, and the Basques? Do you plan to adjust
> every national boundary in recent memory where one tribe, race, nationality
> or whatever got shoved around? You're gonna be a busy fellow, so maybe it's
> best you focus on just this one group of people who need to be pushed into
> the sea.
Bingo. That gets a "Blizzam" in my book~
Richard Morris
"JB" <JayB...@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:W5Kdnf4rkpi19E7Z...@suscom.com...
You haven't been paying attention in the newsgroup, obviously.
JB
While I have been traveling lately and have not had much time to be
"here", I still have yet to see anyone say that the Lebanese people are
getting what they "deserve". Can you provide a few examples? I'm
curious about who would say that, and in what context.
And, again, don't you have any outrage at Hezbollah, or don't you think
that they have some responsibility or culpability for the degree of
civilian casualties in Lebanon?
Ray
What's "clear enough for everyone to see" is that your powers of
discernment here are lacking.
While many anti-Zionists are of course also anti-Semites, the two are
not interchangeable -- there are anti-Zionists who are not
anti-Semites; some are even Jews. And while Ken is an anti-Zionist,
nothing that he wrote here is anti-Semitic.
And in my view unwarranted accusations of anti-Semitism such as yours
here serve to undermine charges of real anti-Semitism.
========================================
"How can you possibly expect immigration from Western liberal democrats
when what you project through the settlements is the kind of aggressive
lack of consideration of minority rights and all kinds of other things
which tarnish the image of Israel and can only encourage anti-Semitism
abroad? Because the way you treat your minorities is how Jewish
minorities will be treated. What right will we American Jews have to
claim to be treated well as a minority?"
So this Gush Emunim [pro-settler Jewish religious extremist] guy smiled
from ear to ear. "Sir," he said, "you don't understand what you're
saying. Anti-Semitism is the means through which massive aliya [Jewish
immigration to Israel] will come, so if we can contribute by enabling
you in the West to see all the anti-Semites around you, it will
encourage you to emigrate - and especially to the West Bank. That is
what we want."
---
Thomas Friedman, "From Beirut to Jerusalem"
Richard Morris
> Richard Morris wrote:
>> "JB" <JayB...@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:W5Kdnf4rkpi19E7Z...@suscom.com...
>>> Richard Morris wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Of course, there have been those in the newsgroup maintaining that
>>>> annihilation is what the Lebanese are gonna get because (choose one or
>>>> both):
>>>>
>>>> --the Lebanese didn't kick Hezbollah out of their country, therefore
>>>> they deserve what they get;
>>>> --Hezbollah troops hide behind Lebanese civilians, therefore the
>>>> Lebanese deserve what they get.
>>> I haven't seen anyone argue that the Lebanese "deserve what they get".
>>> And it amazes me that you would hold Israel accountable for Hezbollah's
>>> tactic of hiding themselves and their armaments behind civilian targets.
>>>
>>>> So it would appear that the conservative elements in the newsgroup do
>>>> come down firmly in favor of slaughter.
>>> You're putting words in other peoples' mouths.
>>
>> You haven't been paying attention in the newsgroup, obviously.
>
> While I have been traveling lately and have not had much time to be
> "here", I still have yet to see anyone say that the Lebanese people are
> getting what they "deserve". Can you provide a few examples? I'm curious
> about who would say that, and in what context.
I don't have time to dive back into threads, but my perspective on this
started as simply a lament for the Lebanese people. I certainly support the
right of Israel to exist and defend itself, but expressed great concern over
the fact that it seems as though innocent Lebanese civilians were being
killed at a rate 10 times that of innocent Israeli citizens. I explained
why I was concerned for Lebanon (a dear friend and mentor of mine was
Lebanese) beyond simple humanitarian concerns.
Several people responded that if the Lebanese people condone the presence of
Hezbollah in their country, and have not booted them out, then they are
accountable for what Hezbollah does. In shorthand: they deserve what they
are getting. Sorry, but I cannot agree with that. The situation is
enormously more complex than that.
> And, again, don't you have any outrage at Hezbollah, or don't you think
> that they have some responsibility or culpability for the degree of
> civilian casualties in Lebanon?
Certainly I do have outrage at Hezbollah. But they aren't the ones who are
pulling the trigger on the civilians in Lebanon, and bombing cities and
infrastructure to rubble.
If the guilty hide behind the innocent, then you have several choices: you
can kill the innocent to get at the guilty, or you can attempt to negotiate
an end to the circumstances. The Israelis have chosen to kill the innocent
at a rate ten times that of their own losses ... and it simply will not
resolve the situation. It will only make it worse. And it is morally
reprehensible.
R.
katrinka
mjd wrote:
>
> I found the dispatch Walter posted to be fair and balanced criticism,
> and pretty compelling at that. I support Israel, but that doesn't mean
> I turn a blind eye to actions that disturb me like killing children or
> bombing a car carrying evacuating civilians waving a white flag.
>
and
> Like I said, terrorists like Hezbollah are lunatics and I wish I had an
> easy answer for how Israel should deal with them. I still fail to see
> how posting the original article makes anyone a dyed-in-the-wool
> anything.
>
The main reason I don't participate in these political discussions is
because both sides tend to attack the messenger (the person who posted
the information that weakens their own position) rather than deal with
the issues at hand.
I just want to thank Walter for posting the article, and to thank mjd
for being the voice of reason.
And Carrie, sweetie, if you ever meet Walter in person, you owe him an
apology.
Katrinka
Ken Fortenberry
> JB wrote:
>> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>> Israel is operating outside the authority of international
>>> law and UN resolutions. Israel is a pariah state and is now
>>> engaged in a headlong rush toward its own demise. And not a
>>> moment too soon.
>> At least now your anti-semitic hatred and bigotry is clear enough for
>> everyone to see.
>
> What's "clear enough for everyone to see" is that your powers of
> discernment here are lacking.
>
> While many anti-Zionists are of course also anti-Semites, the two are
> not interchangeable -- there are anti-Zionists who are not
> anti-Semites; some are even Jews. And while Ken is an anti-Zionist,
> nothing that he wrote here is anti-Semitic.
>
> And in my view unwarranted accusations of anti-Semitism such as yours
> here serve to undermine charges of real anti-Semitism.
Well said, Ray. When I married Kristine the best man at our
wedding was my old college friend Matt who is Jewish. Matt's
sister moved to Israel and became a kibbutznik in the West
Bank. I'm not half the anti-zionist that Matt is, and Matt
isn't half the anti-zionist that his father was. Both of them
considered Matt's sister a near lunatic and needless to say
neither of them was anti-Semitic. Both Matt and his Dad before
he passed away were/are highly successful divorce attorneys
serving the Jewish community from a fancy-shmancy office in
Chicago's Loop.
Those who cannot separate anti-zionism from anti-Semitism do
a grave disservice to the Jewish community many of whom both
in Israel and the United States are genuinely appalled at the
racist state Israel has become.
--
Ken Fortenberry
DGDevin
> So this Gush Emunim [pro-settler Jewish religious extremist] guy smiled
> from ear to ear. "Sir," he said, "you don't understand what you're
> saying. Anti-Semitism is the means through which massive aliya [Jewish
> immigration to Israel] will come, so if we can contribute by enabling
> you in the West to see all the anti-Semites around you, it will
> encourage you to emigrate - and especially to the West Bank. That is
> what we want."
>
> ---
> Thomas Friedman, "From Beirut to Jerusalem"
There is no shortage of real whackos barely clinging to the far edge of the
fringe all over the globe, but there aren't many who are further out that
Israel's religious extremists, some of who actually *want* all-out war with
the Arabs so their foes can all be deep-fried by heavenly bolts. What is it
with that part of the world, both sides there make the Irish appear calm and
reflective.
"I don't believe you
You got the whole damn thing all wrong."
Jethro Tull
Ray
DGDevin wrote:
> There is no shortage of real whackos barely clinging to the far edge of the
> fringe all over the globe, but there aren't many who are further out that
> Israel's religious extremists, some of who actually *want* all-out war with
> the Arabs so their foes can all be deep-fried by heavenly bolts. What is it
> with that part of the world, both sides there make the Irish appear calm and
> reflective.
Agreed. But it's not just many Israeli Jewish religious extremists who
want that -- many Christian religious extremists here in the US want
that all-out holy war with the Arabs too. We've even got one of those
right here on RMGD. (Of course Chris K and other armchair Christian
holy warriors would not be on the front line of said apocalyptic
conflagration, so I guess that arguably makes them a *little* less out
there.)
And of course Islam has its own version of these apocalyptic holy
warriors - God, save us from your followers.
===========================================
"It is easy for those who do not share [religious] extremists' belief
to dismiss them as irrational or as a cover for other commitments. Yet
dismissal leaves us deaf to the internal logic of people who believe
they must shatter the world to make it whole... Sadly the book's
warning -- that belief in the end of history is prevalent, seductive,
dangerous and demands our attention -- has become all the more relevant
since it first appeared."
- Gershom Gorenberg, in the preface to his excellent book "The End of
carri...@insightbb.com
Katrinka,
I told Walter earlier in this thread I meant no disrespect. I just
called it as I saw it. I could say that plenty of people here owe me an
apology, but that would be kind of ludicrous this being
rec.music.gdead. I've seen regular posters here be so incredibly unfair
to good people. It's just par for the course as they say in golf. Of
course, it helps a great deal 'round here to consistently side with the
conventional wisdom of The Nation, Pacifica, Air America, Daily Kos. If
not, you better have a VERY thick skin or lay VERY low. You've not
lived until you get a NeilX, Richard Morris, Joe Kohn, Iron Muffin,
Sherry in Vermont, Band Beyond, Kint Dingleberry, Sean Baker troll
pile-on! You should try it sometime, sweetie.
love&peace,
Carrie
katrinka
carri...@insightbb.com wrote:
>
> Katrinka,
> I told Walter earlier in this thread I meant no disrespect. I just
> called it as I saw it. I could say that plenty of people here owe me an
> apology, but that would be kind of ludicrous this being
> rec.music.gdead. I've seen regular posters here be so incredibly unfair
> to good people. It's just par for the course as they say in golf. Of
> course, it helps a great deal 'round here to consistently side with the
> conventional wisdom of The Nation, Pacifica, Air America, Daily Kos. If
> not, you better have a VERY thick skin or lay VERY low. You've not
> lived until you get a NeilX, Richard Morris, Joe Kohn, Iron Muffin,
> Sherry in Vermont, Band Beyond, Kint Dingleberry, Sean Baker troll
> pile-on! You should try it sometime, sweetie.
> love&peace,
> Carrie
LOL - I love those guys! (And gal)
But seriously, "troll pile-on"?
They seem like such nice people.
love&peace back atcha,
Katrinka
carri...@insightbb.com
katrinka wrote:
> carri...@insightbb.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Katrinka,
> > I told Walter earlier in this thread I meant no disrespect. I just
> > called it as I saw it. I could say that plenty of people here owe me an
> > apology, but that would be kind of ludicrous this being
> > rec.music.gdead. I've seen regular posters here be so incredibly unfair
> > to good people. It's just par for the course as they say in golf. Of
> > course, it helps a great deal 'round here to consistently side with the
> > conventional wisdom of The Nation, Pacifica, Air America, Daily Kos. If
> > not, you better have a VERY thick skin or lay VERY low. You've not
> > lived until you get a NeilX, Richard Morris, Joe Kohn, Iron Muffin,
> > Sherry in Vermont, Band Beyond, Kint Dingleberry, Sean Baker troll
> > pile-on! You should try it sometime, sweetie.
> > love&peace,
> > Carrie
>
>
> LOL - I love those guys! (And gal)
I'm sure you do!
>
> But seriously, "troll pile-on"?
Sean Faker was the only serious troll, the rest are just snots. And I
left out JimK!!
>
> They seem like such nice people.
Maybe to you. Maybe in *real life*.
>
> love&peace back atcha,
>
> Katrinka
ps--I need a swim. Bye friends.
Richard Morris
"katrinka" <ktr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154719466.9...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Wow. What do you say to someone who invites themself to a party ... shows
up ... complains about not having a good time, but doesn't leave. And
*then* claims people owe her an apology?
ROFLMAO!
R.
k sturm
"Richard Morris" <jrmo...@trouserscomcast.net> wrote in message
news:Da2dnbIxKe3_Pk7Z...@comcast.com...
I agree. It's downright comical.
mjd
you forgot to mention that they piss in the punchbowl while at said
party!
gwatts
> Wow. What do you say to someone who invites themself to a party ... shows
> up ... complains about not having a good time, but doesn't leave. And
> *then* claims people owe her an apology?
Not worth the time.
DGDevin
>> Examples?
>
> 1) When Israel first invaded Lebanon in 1982 under
> terrorist-cum-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin's Likud
> administration
We seem to have our wires crossed, I thought you were suggesting Hezbolleh
doesn't always take refuge behind unarmed civilians and was asking for
examples of that.
> I agree. However what I was responding to here was your assertion that
> Israel is "surrounded by states that have been promising the extinction
> of Israel for two-thirds of a century" - Jordan and Egypt stopped doing
> that after they made peace with Israel.
Good point, no longer actually surrounded.
> Again agreed. Again however my point is that Lebanon, as a state, has
> not "been promising the extinction of Israel for two-thirds of a
> century."
True, but in a way irrelevant given that a series of armed forces hostile to
Israel have operated from Lebanon and nobody other than the Lebanese and
Israelis seems to have cared enough to do anything about it.
> Again according to Moshe Dayan -- and if anybody would have known what
> was going on there it would have been Dayan -- it was Israel who
> initiated most ("over 80%") of the hostilities in the Golan before
> Israel annexed it.
They without question wanted to drain that swamp, but that doesn't change
that they were looking up at Syrian artillery for years, and it's not like
those guns were never fired. It's not like there's oil or some other
natural resource there, the Israelis want that land only because Syria used
it for target practice on Israeli farmers.
> What do you find confusing about that? By my read that means yes,
> Israel goes back to pre-1967 6-Day War borders.
Okay, that's what I wanted to know. Not a chance in hell of them giving up
the Western Wall, that would be like asking the U.S. to give the Alamo and
all the land around it back to Mexico.
> Do you really think that say a mile or two of the West Bank under
> Israeli control -- populated by *Israeli civilians* no less --- would
> make a substantive difference in that regard? And if so, how?
First, those civilians include lots of armed military reservists. Second,
when the whole country is knife-blade thin a few miles makes quite a
difference. Look at the desperate fight for the Golan Heights in '73, if
Israel didn't hold that land then those Syrian tanks would have been half
way to Tel Aviv. Granted, so long as Jordan is unlikely to be at war with
Israel again then that argument is less persuasive. Still, given the
history of the area I can understand the extreme reluctance of Israel to
have to spill its blood fighting for the same piece of land for the fourth
or fifth time.
> Or are you suggesting, as is the goal of many on the Israeli right,
> that Israel should annex most or all the West Bank permanently?
I don't recall suggesting that. But if memory serves, wasn't pre-'67 Israel
as large as it was only because the Arabs unwisely (and ineffectively)
attacked Israel, something the UN described as illegal aggression? Didn't
the West Bank stay in Jordanian hands because they had the only Arab army
worth a damn in 1948? So to whom does Israel return the West Bank? To the
Palestinians based on a UN resolution they rejected with armed force, or to
Jordan which invaded it in defiance of a UN resolution?
This whole business of rolling back history is suspiciously selective, after
WWII Poland and Czechoslovakia were allowed to expel their German minorities
in search of stability, yet today many of us insist that Palestinians have
the right to return to land most alive today never lived on, we try to
pretend there can be power-sharing or parallel governments in one city. How
many nations would impose on themselves the demands they make of Israel? Is
the U.S. about to return the Alaska panhandle to Canada or California to
Mexico? Should France be forced to allow Islamic girls to cover their heads
in public schools? Are we going to dissolve Pakistan, compel the Czechs and
Slovaks to live under one roof, undo the results of the U.S. Civil War and
announce a new capital in Richmond? If the answer to those questions is no,
then by what right do we insist Israel has to live by rules we don't follow
ourselves?
> If Egypt were to fall to the Muslim Brotherhood (the Islamists in Egypt
> who threaten the current regime), then Israel will have an enemy again
> there. That said, again do you really think that Israel's holding on to
> settlements in the West Bank will make any substantive difference in
> favor of Israel in that regard? And if so, how?
I don't know that I would tie the West Bank to the situation in Egypt, other
than that Israel has repeatedly had to fight a multi-front war and thus it
is an advantage to keep all its potential enemies as far away as possible.
In '73 they had to decide to allow Eqypt to advance into relatively empty
space while dealing with Syria which was in danger of breaking through and
rolling tanks into Israeli cities, surely we can understand their reluctance
to avoid that in future. Of course a lasting peace based on giving up that
occupied land is ultimately their best security, I just want to know who is
going "Send flesh and blood to fight by their side" (to quote Mr. Dylan) if
the peace treaties turn out not to be as long-lived as we would hope.
> And until Israel is serious about making peace with the Palestinians,
> including putting said peace over retaining control of and even
> continually expanding many settlement blocks in the West Bank, none of
> this is going to work either.
Agreed, it's a real permanent shit-storm. Still, it's refreshing to discuss
it with someone who takes a balanced view, as opposed to the characters who
figure Israel as a state has to be extinguished to bring peace to the
region, the peace of the grave to most of the inhabitants of course.
Richard Morris
"gwatts" <gwa...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:GTNAg.6919$oa1....@news02.roc.ny...
You are absolutely correct!
mjd
carri...@insightbb.com wrote:
> katrinka wrote:
> > carri...@insightbb.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Katrinka,
> > > I told Walter earlier in this thread I meant no disrespect. I just
> > > called it as I saw it. I could say that plenty of people here owe me an
> > > apology, but that would be kind of ludicrous this being
> > > rec.music.gdead. I've seen regular posters here be so incredibly unfair
> > > to good people. It's just par for the course as they say in golf. Of
> > > course, it helps a great deal 'round here to consistently side with the
> > > conventional wisdom of The Nation, Pacifica, Air America, Daily Kos. If
> > > not, you better have a VERY thick skin or lay VERY low. You've not
> > > lived until you get a NeilX, Richard Morris, Joe Kohn, Iron Muffin,
> > > Sherry in Vermont, Band Beyond, Kint Dingleberry, Sean Baker troll
> > > pile-on! You should try it sometime, sweetie.
> > > love&peace,
> > > Carrie
> >
> >
> > LOL - I love those guys! (And gal)
>
> I'm sure you do!
>
> >
> > But seriously, "troll pile-on"?
>
> Sean Faker was the only serious troll, the rest are just snots. And I
> left out JimK!!
trying so hard here to consider the source, but some people have to be
told over and over again - piss off, Killer Queen. There's just no
other way to respond when you call those folks 'snots'. Just take a
hike.
> > They seem like such nice people.
>
> Maybe to you. Maybe in *real life*.
>
> >
> > love&peace back atcha,
> >
> > Katrinka
>
> ps--I need a swim.
how timely - I was just about to tell you to take a flying frickin'
leap! don't let the diving board hit you in the ass on the way down...
Ray
DGDevin wrote:
> "Ray" <ray...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> We seem to have our wires crossed, I thought you were suggesting Hezbolleh
> doesn't always take refuge behind unarmed civilians and was asking for
> examples of that.
Yeah, we got our wires crossed. I agree that Hezbollah very often, if
not always, takes refuge behind unarmed civilians. If there are
exceptions I don't know of them; the current situation certainly isn't
one.
And the rest I'll get back to you on next week - I'm now off to Humbolt
Co. and the Reggae on the River festival. Have a great weekend, y'all.
mjd
katrinka - you're too kind. sorry for losing my reason and spewing
negativity at her down below in this thread, but it couldn't be helped!
DGDevin
>
> Agreed. But it's not just many Israeli Jewish religious extremists who
> want that -- many Christian religious extremists here in the US want
> that all-out holy war with the Arabs too. We've even got one of those
> right here on RMGD. (Of course Chris K and other armchair Christian
> holy warriors would not be on the front line of said apocalyptic
> conflagration, so I guess that arguably makes them a *little* less out
> there.)
If I read their beliefs correctly, *everybody* is on the front lines of that
particular battle, you don't have to leave your Barcalounger to instantly be
made aware of the final score as you are either raised up to the choir
celestial or cast down into the lake of fire.
> And of course Islam has its own version of these apocalyptic holy
> warriors - God, save us from your followers.
Yeah, and that's a major point, Bible-thumpers waiting for The Rapture
mostly pay their taxes and obey the traffic laws and can be kept in check
with votes and occasional lawsuits, they aren't flying airliners into
buildings and similar crap, occasional exceptions notwithstanding.