Is Israel Invincible?
Rita
July 30, 2006
Israel Is Powerful, Yes. But Not So Invincible.
By JOHN KIFNER
NO exit?
As the bloodbath in Lebanon spilled past its second week — with at
least 400 Lebanese dead and many more presumed buried in rubble; some
800,000 refugees, nearly a quarter of the population, on the run; and
the fragile nation’s infrastructure shattered — there was no easy way
out for either Israel or Hezbollah, the combatants locked in what each
saw as a deadly existential struggle.
The very clear winner, for the moment at least, was Hezbollah and its
leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. (Unless, of course, Israel succeeds in
its efforts to assassinate him.) As the only Arab leader seen to have
defeated the Israelis — on the basis of their withdrawal in 2000 from
an 18-year occupation — he already enjoyed wide respect. Now, with
Hezbollah standing firm and inflicting casualties, he has become a
folk hero across the Muslim world, apparently uniting Sunnis and
Shiites.
The standoff stunned Israel, whose offensive came in response to a
Hezbollah cross-border raid that resulted in the death of eight
Israeli soldiers and the capture of two others. Central to the
embattled nation’s sense of survivability is the idea of its
invincibility. Its intelligence knows everything, the mythology goes,
and no army dare stand against it. In truth, Israel has, in part, been
lucky in its enemies, mostly Arab regimes with armies suitable mainly
for keeping their own populace in check.
What was clearly conceived two weeks ago as a quick battle using air
power and strikes on specific targets with commando raids to degrade
Hezbollah’s resources, particularly its stores of thousands of
rockets, has turned into a crisis. “Israel is far from a decisive
victory and its main objectives have not been achieved,” wrote the
country’s most respected military analyst, Zeev Schiff, in the daily
Haaretz.
Hezbollah, Sheik Nasrallah has said, “needs only to survive to win.”
That seemed increasingly likely by week’s end. Deeply entwined among
the Shiite community that makes up perhaps 40 percent of Lebanon’s
population, it would be impossible to eliminate. But there is more.
Although the Israelis announced within days that they had destroyed 50
percent of Hezbollah’s munitions, the guerrillas have continued to
rain more than a hundred rockets a day on Israel. And on Wednesday, in
Bint Jbail, a town the Israelis said they controlled, a well-laid
Hezbollah ambush pinned down infantrymen from the elite Golani Brigade
for hours. At times the firing was so heavy the brigade’s soldiers
could not return it; eight Israelis were killed. The highly advanced
Merkava tanks were reduced to ambulances and several were destroyed.
The idea that a supposedly ragtag group of guerrillas could trap the
Golani Brigade was a visceral threat to the future. Still, while there
has been criticism of the conduct of the war in Israel, with the
rockets hitting northern Israel and Hezbollah still entrenched, there
is wide popular support for continued combat.
Yoel Marcus, a columnist for Haaretz who had earlier acidly asked if
this was the same army that had defeated all of the Arab forces in
just six days, ended the week writing: “It is unthinkable to walk away
from the battlefield with the depressing sense that out of all the
wars Israel has ever fought, only Hezbollah, a mere band of
terrorists, was able to bombard the Israeli home front with thousands
of missiles and get off scot free.
“Before any international agreement, Israel must sound the last chord,
launching a massive air and ground offensive that will end this
mortifying war, not with a whimper but a thunderous roar.”
It is the United States that may well come out the worst in this
impasse, particularly in terms of its influence in the Arab and Muslim
world. Already widely seen throughout much of that world as the lapdog
of Israel, it is now viewed as publicly sanctioning the continued
pounding of Lebanon, blocking efforts for a cease-fire and even
rushing the Israelis more laser-guided bombs.
“I think this is a loser,” said Augustus Richard Norton, an expert on
the Shia of Lebanon who teaches at Boston University. “Time is working
against us, not with us. The options stink.”
Vali R. Nasr, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, said that
“the reason it’s an impasse is that there is a lot riding on it for
the U.S. and Israel.” He added: “It potentially puts into question the
entire rationale of whether overwhelming military force can shape the
region. The bar for victory for the U.S. and Israel is growing every
day and for Hezbollah it is lowering every day.”
Israel has been down this road in Lebanon before. In both 1978 and
1982 it invaded to drive out Palestinian guerrillas and employed a
heavy bombing campaign that drove many Shiites from the south to
Beirut’s southern slums. Its 18-year occupation of the south brought
Hezbollah into existence.
“Hezbollah had 20 years to hone their skills and hatred against
Israel,” said Mr. Norton, a former Army officer who served with the
United Nations in southern Lebanon and taught at West Point. “That
hatred was created by Israel; it wasn’t there at the beginning.”
Israel’s battle plan rested on air power, hoping that heavy bombing
would demoralize the population and turn it against Hezbollah,
although many military experts say that rarely works. Officials last
week seemed uncertain how to proceed: they said they would keep
bombing rather than launch any big land attacks, but still called up
as many as 30,000 reserves.
As international concern grew over the destruction, there was a flurry
of diplomatic maneuvers aimed at creating a peacekeeping force. But
while there was widespread support in principle, no nation seemed
eager to send its own troops, particularly if the mandate was to
disarm Hezbollah, in effect, to become another combatant.
On Friday, as crowds spilled out of a Sunni mosque in Cairo, capital
of one of America’s key allies, they waved posters with the bearded,
black-turbaned portrait of Sheik Nasrallah.
“Oh, Sunni! Oh, Shiite! Let’s fight the Jews,” the crowds chanted.
“The Jews and the Americans are killing our brothers in Lebanon.”
Islander
In the news this morning an Israeli bomb killed 51 civilians including
women and children in a shelter in Qana. I wonder if that was one of
the guided bombs that we rushed to Israel.
We are complicit in this in more than one way. Instead of standing with
the rest of the world to demand an immediate cease fire, we elected to
delay. Once again, we made the wrong choice. Instead of standing for
peace, we stood for war in the eyes of the world.
Jerry Okamura
"Islander" <nos...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:jP2dnWGNVspWfVHZ...@rockisland.com...
> Rita wrote:
>
>>
>>
> In the news this morning an Israeli bomb killed 51 civilians including
> women and children in a shelter in Qana. I wonder if that was one of the
> guided bombs that we rushed to Israel.
>
> We are complicit in this in more than one way. Instead of standing with
> the rest of the world to demand an immediate cease fire, we elected to
> delay. Once again, we made the wrong choice. Instead of standing for
> peace, we stood for war in the eyes of the world.
An interesting posting. I came away from the news of the bombing with a
different take. I wondered why the news media seemed so apoplectic about
the bombing of one building where some "civilians" may have died (don't know
if among those "civilians" there were some "enemy combatants"). I wondered
how the TV news organizations woould have reported the fire bombing of
Tokyo, the targetting of other cities and towns in Japan, the destruction of
the cities of Germnay, the dropping of two nuclear boms on Japan, where in
each and every one of these events, a whole lot of "innocent" civilians were
killed and injured....
Jerry Okamura
"Gary James" <gnjames...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8irpc2tmadsosj7up...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 09:37:38 -0700, Islander <nos...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Rita wrote:
>>
>>> The New York Times
>
>>> "The Jews and the Americans are killing our brothers in Lebanon."
>>>
>>>
>>In the news this morning an Israeli bomb killed 51 civilians including
>>women and children in a shelter in Qana. I wonder if that was one of
>>the guided bombs that we rushed to Israel.
>>
>>We are complicit in this in more than one way. Instead of standing with
>>the rest of the world to demand an immediate cease fire, we elected to
>>delay. Once again, we made the wrong choice. Instead of standing for
>>peace, we stood for war in the eyes of the world.
>
> taxpayer money to Israel so they can buy missiles that will kill their
> Arab neighbors and destroy their neighborhoods. Then when the Arab
> children are thrown out on the streets, the Republican Congress votes
> more taxpayer money to be sent over there so we can build them new
> houses.
>
> Does this sound strange to anybody but me ?
Yes. We like to throw money at a problem but are not willing to do what is
necessary to really solve the problem.
Jerry Okamura
> criminals of other countries hang but not their own. What we need to
> do after the next war it to hang our own president. True it wouldn't
> help the people he murdered, but it would be a warning to the next
> man who wants to practice murder on foreigners in the name of Peace.
>
I think some Israeli representative said it best. He asked a very simple
question...what would America's response be, if some group in Mexico was
firing missiles into the United States? What do you think we should do,
under those circumstances?
Islander
> Islander, the Germans and Japanese of WWII would weep to know that
> there were not more like you in 1941.
>
> Surely you understand that any cease fire that leaves Hezbollah free
> to re-group and re-arm only means that they will be back, probably
> sooner rather than later, to do this all over again. The real question
> raised by the article is whether or not militant Islam has found a
> formula for driving the Jews of Israel into the sea. It's just
> possible that this is the beginning of the end for Israel, as well as
> for Christian Europe.
>
It seems pretty clear to me that Hezbollah intended to bait the Israelis
into attacking in force and it appears that their strategy is working.
This is a battle to unify the Arab world against a common enemy. Our
failure to understand that weakens us.
Bob Schaefer concluded his program this morning with an editorial about
how we are increasingly not talking with Hezbollah, with Syria, with
Iran, and with North Korea. The argument of the administration is that
talking with them would reward bad behavior. However, we won the cold
war by keeping the communication channels open with the former Soviet
Union. When we abandon the opportunity to communicate we leave
ourselves with only the vagaries and unpredictability of war.
California Poppy
Jerry Okamura wrote:
> > We are complicit in this in more than one way. Instead of standing with
> > the rest of the world to demand an immediate cease fire, we elected to
> > delay. Once again, we made the wrong choice. Instead of standing for
> > peace, we stood for war in the eyes of the world.
>
> An interesting posting. I came away from the news of the bombing with a
> different take. I wondered why the news media seemed so apoplectic about
> the bombing of one building where some "civilians" may have died (don't know
> if among those "civilians" there were some "enemy combatants"). I wondered
> how the TV news organizations woould have reported the fire bombing of
> Tokyo, the targetting of other cities and towns in Japan, the destruction of
> the cities of Germnay, the dropping of two nuclear boms on Japan, where in
> each and every one of these events, a whole lot of "innocent" civilians were
> killed and injured....
My criticism of the news media is that it ignored the shelling of
Israel by Hezbollah for so many years. Fortunately, the New York Times
and the Washington Post no longer are important news media, and that is
what really galls them.
Jean Smith
Islander <nos...@privacy.net> wrote:
> It seems pretty clear to me that Hezbollah intended to bait the Israelis
> into attacking in force and it appears that their strategy is working.
> This is a battle to unify the Arab world against a common enemy. Our
> failure to understand that weakens us.
It seems to me that it is more likely that the Israelis were caught running a
special op in Lebanon. Finding themselves with prisoners they asked for a
prisoner exchange, but Israel decided that it had the pretext that it needed to
cut Hezbulah back a notch.
I emailed the President of Lebanon to tell him that they needed to surrender as
soon as I saw this start.
Olly Mensch
LIFE IN AN ORWELLIAN UNIVERSE
Group: alt.discuss.clubs.private.the_diaspora Date: Fri, Jul 28, 2006,
7:53pm (EDT-3) From: ENW...@webtv.net
Life in an Orwellian universe
By Charles Krauthammer -- JULY 29, 2006
,
Israel's moral scrupulousness is being paid in blood — and yet they're
still branded as evil personified
What other country, when attacked in an unprovoked aggression across a
recognized international frontier, is then put on a countdown clock by
the world, given a limited time window in which to fight back,
regardless of whether it has restored its own security?
What other country sustains 1,500 indiscriminate rocket attacks into its
cities — every one designed to kill, maim and terrorize civilians —
and is then vilified by the world when it tries to destroy the enemy's
infrastructure and strongholds with precision-guided munitions that
sometimes have the unintended but unavoidable consequence of collateral
civilian death and suffering?
Hearing the world pass judgment on the Israel-Hezbollah war as it
unfolds is to live in an Orwellian moral universe. With a few
significant exceptions (the leadership of the United States, Britain,
Australia, Canada and a very few others), the world — governments, the
media, U.N. bureaucrats — has completely lost its moral bearings.
The word that obviates all thinking and magically inverts victim into
aggressor is "disproportionate," as in the universally decried
"disproportionate Israeli response."
When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it did not respond
with a parallel "proportionate" attack on a Japanese naval base. It
launched a four-year campaign that killed millions of Japanese, reduced
Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a cinder, and turned the Japanese home
islands to rubble and ruin. Disproportionate? No. When one is wantonly
attacked by an aggressor, one has every right — legal and moral — to
carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it
cannot threaten one's security again. That's what it took with Japan.
Britain was never invaded by Germany in World War II. Did it respond to
the blitz and V-1 and V-2 rockets with "proportionate" aerial
bombardment of Germany? Of course not. Churchill orchestrated the
greatest land invasion in history that flattened and utterly destroyed
Germany, killing untold innocent German women and children in the
process.
The perversity of today's international outcry lies in the fact that
there is indeed a disproportion in this war, a radical moral asymmetry
between Hezbollah and Israel: Hezbollah is deliberately trying to create
civilian casualties on both sides while Israel is deliberately trying to
minimize civilian casualties, also on both sides.
In perhaps the most blatant terror campaign from the air since the
London blitz, Hezbollah is raining rockets on Israeli cities and
villages. These rockets are packed with ball bearings that can penetrate
automobiles and shred human flesh. They are meant to kill and maim. And
they do.
But it is a dual campaign. Israeli innocents must die in order for
Israel to be terrorized. But Lebanese innocents must also die in order
for Israel to be demonized, which is why Hezbollah hides its fighters,
its rockets, its launchers, its entire infrastructure among civilians.
Creating human shields is a war crime. It is also a Hezbollah specialty.
On Wednesday, CNN cameras showed destruction in Tyre. What does Israel
have against Tyre and its inhabitants? Nothing. But the long-range
Hezbollah rockets that have been raining terror on Haifa are based in
Tyre. What is Israel to do? Leave untouched the launch sites that are
deliberately placed in built-up areas?
Had Israel wanted to destroy Lebanese civilian infrastructure, it would
have turned out the lights in Beirut in the first hour of the war,
destroying the billion-dollar power grid and setting back Lebanon 20
years. It did not do that. Instead, it attacked dual-use infrastructure
— bridges, roads, airport runways — and blockaded Lebanon's ports to
prevent the reinforcement and resupply of Hezbollah. Ten-thousand
Katyusha rockets are enough. Israel was not going to allow Hezbollah
10,000 more.
Israel's response to Hezbollah has been to use the most precise weaponry
and targeting it can. It has no interest, no desire to kill Lebanese
civilians. Does anyone imagine that it could not have leveled south
Lebanon, to say nothing of Beirut? Instead, in the bitter fight against
Hezbollah in south Lebanon, it has repeatedly dropped leaflets, issued
warnings, sent messages by radio and even phone text to Lebanese
villagers to evacuate so that they would not be harmed.
Israel knows that these leaflets and warnings give the Hezbollah
fighters time to escape and regroup. The advance notification as to
where the next attack is coming has allowed Hezbollah to set up
elaborate ambushes. The result? Unexpectedly high Israeli infantry
casualties. Moral scrupulousness paid in blood. Israeli soldiers die so
that Lebanese civilians will not, and who does the international
community condemn for disregarding civilian life?
<><><><><><><><>ESTHER<><><><><><><><>
Laugh long, live long , . . Yesterday is history . . . Tomorrow is a
mystery . . . Today is a GIFT . . . That is why they call it the
Present.
LIFE IN AN ORWELLIAN UNIVERSE
Group: alt.discuss.clubs.private.the_diaspora Date: Fri, Jul 28, 2006,
7:53pm (EDT-3) From: ENW...@webtv.net
Life in an Orwellian universe
By Charles Krauthammer -- JULY 29, 2006
,
Israel's moral scrupulousness is being paid in blood — and yet they're
still branded as evil personified
What other country, when attacked in an unprovoked aggression across a
recognized international frontier, is then put on a countdown clock by
the world, given a limited time window in which to fight back,
regardless of whether it has restored its own security?
What other country sustains 1,500 indiscriminate rocket attacks into its
cities — every one designed to kill, maim and terrorize civilians —
and is then vilified by the world when it tries to destroy the enemy's
infrastructure and strongholds with precision-guided munitions that
sometimes have the unintended but unavoidable consequence of collateral
civilian death and suffering?
Hearing the world pass judgment on the Israel-Hezbollah war as it
unfolds is to live in an Orwellian moral universe. With a few
significant exceptions (the leadership of the United States, Britain,
Australia, Canada and a very few others), the world — governments, the
media, U.N. bureaucrats — has completely lost its moral bearings.
The word that obviates all thinking and magically inverts victim into
aggressor is "disproportionate," as in the universally decried
"disproportionate Israeli response."
When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it did not respond
with a parallel "proportionate" attack on a Japanese naval base. It
launched a four-year campaign that killed millions of Japanese, reduced
Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a cinder, and turned the Japanese home
islands to rubble and ruin. Disproportionate? No. When one is wantonly
attacked by an aggressor, one has every right — legal and moral — to
carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it
cannot threaten one's security again. That's what it took with Japan.
Britain was never invaded by Germany in World War II. Did it respond to
the blitz and V-1 and V-2 rockets with "proportionate" aerial
bombardment of Germany? Of course not. Churchill orchestrated the
greatest land invasion in history that flattened and utterly destroyed
Germany, killing untold innocent German women and children in the
process.
The perversity of today's international outcry lies in the fact that
there is indeed a disproportion in this war, a radical moral asymmetry
between Hezbollah and Israel: Hezbollah is deliberately trying to create
civilian casualties on both sides while Israel is deliberately trying to
minimize civilian casualties, also on both sides.
In perhaps the most blatant terror campaign from the air since the
London blitz, Hezbollah is raining rockets on Israeli cities and
villages. These rockets are packed with ball bearings that can penetrate
automobiles and shred human flesh. They are meant to kill and maim. And
they do.
But it is a dual campaign. Israeli innocents must die in order for
Israel to be terrorized. But Lebanese innocents must also die in order
for Israel to be demonized, which is why Hezbollah hides its fighters,
its rockets, its launchers, its entire infrastructure among civilians.
Creating human shields is a war crime. It is also a Hezbollah specialty.
On Wednesday, CNN cameras showed destruction in Tyre. What does Israel
have against Tyre and its inhabitants? Nothing. But the long-range
Hezbollah rockets that have been raining terror on Haifa are based in
Tyre. What is Israel to do? Leave untouched the launch sites that are
deliberately placed in built-up areas?
Had Israel wanted to destroy Lebanese civilian infrastructure, it would
have turned out the lights in Beirut in the first hour of the war,
destroying the billion-dollar power grid and setting back Lebanon 20
years. It did not do that. Instead, it attacked dual-use infrastructure
— bridges, roads, airport runways — and blockaded Lebanon's ports to
prevent the reinforcement and resupply of Hezbollah. Ten-thousand
Katyusha rockets are enough. Israel was not going to allow Hezbollah
10,000 more.
Israel's response to Hezbollah has been to use the most precise weaponry
and targeting it can. It has no interest, no desire to kill Lebanese
civilians. Does anyone imagine that it could not have leveled south
Lebanon, to say nothing of Beirut? Instead, in the bitter fight against
Hezbollah in south Lebanon, it has repeatedly dropped leaflets, issued
warnings, sent messages by radio and even phone text to Lebanese
villagers to evacuate so that they would not be harmed.
Israel knows that these leaflets and warnings give the Hezbollah
fighters time to escape and regroup. The advance notification as to
where the next attack is coming has allowed Hezbollah to set up
elaborate ambushes. The result? Unexpectedly high Israeli infantry
casualties. Moral scrupulousness paid in blood. Israeli soldiers die so
that Lebanese civilians will not, and who does the international
community condemn for disregarding civilian life?
<><><><><><><><>XXXXXXX<><><><><><><><>
Laugh long, live long , . . Yesterday is history . . . Tomorrow is a
mystery . . . Today is a GIFT . . . That is why they call it the
Present.
O L L Y
Olly Mensch
Charles Krauthammer, whose article I tried to cut and paste to this
group; Hope it arrives!!!
We incinerate Hiroshima - and are apoplectic about what is happening now
in the Middle East!!
Olly
Alan Lichtenstein
Islander, please spare us your crocodile tears. The only reason the
world wants a cease fire is because Israel is winning. If the
terrorists were winning, there wouldn't be so much as a peep from the
rest of the world.
The rest of the world did absolutely nothing to disarm the terrorists,
and Israel, frankly, is sick and tired of hazing them operate with
impunity and fire rockets into the Israeli civilian population ,as they
have been doing over the years and with the tacit approval of the rest
of the world.
The Israelis, are simply sick and tired of empty promises, and window
dressing that really was intended to accomplish nothing, except to
continue to destroy Israel, little by little, over time. And now,
apparently, they have decided to do something about it.
If you want a cease fire, then you're going to have to insure that
Hammas and Hezbollah are disarmed, and put out of business, and that
nothing can arise which takes their place. That means having to deal
with Iran and Syria as well.
You want a cease fire? Then make certain there's a solution that's a
real solution. Crocodile tears don't cut it. The Arabs got exactly
what they wanted and deserved by supporting Hammas and Hezbollah.
Sorry to be so pejorative about your views, as we usually agree on most
things. But you simply don't recognize that there needs to be a
solution once and for all this time. THAT is the only thing Israel
wants. Now, what's your solution?
Alan Lichtenstein
While your point, and the point of the Israeli Ambassador is well taken
Jerry, the Mexicans don't have to fire missiles into the US. They're
going to win back those areas with their illegal immigration. And we're
going to help them do it by letting them stay, and even making them
citizens.
The Arabs are very upset, because Israel doesn't allow them entry, and
even built a fence to keep them out. So all that's left for them is to
fire missiles into Israel and kill as many civilians as they can.
Alan Lichtenstein
Actually, most analysis' I have seen don't share that view. The
majority seem to conclude that Hezbollah miscalculated the Israeli
response, expecting the usual limited reprisal and some kind of
negotiation, where they could use the anti-Israeli posture of most of
the rest of the world to bring pressure to bear on Israel. Furthermore,
the analysis also conclude that Iran had a significant role, in that it
encouraged Hezbollah, in order to take the pressure off them with their
nuclear program.
I think you're looking for excuses to somehow diminish what Israel hope
and is likely to accomplish in this instance: The destruction of the
terrorists, and the prevention of them rising to the extent they have,
at some future time. The Arab world, for the first time, has come out
against the Arab terrorists, and that is a major achievement. And THAT
is another miscalculation which Hezbollah made.
> Bob Schaefer concluded his program this morning with an editorial about
> how we are increasingly not talking with Hezbollah, with Syria, with
> Iran, and with North Korea. The argument of the administration is that
> talking with them would reward bad behavior. However, we won the cold
> war by keeping the communication channels open with the former Soviet
> Union. When we abandon the opportunity to communicate we leave
> ourselves with only the vagaries and unpredictability of war.
Again, I must disagree with you. We won the cold war, because our
economic system simply overwhelmed them. THAT would have occurred
regardless of whether we were talking with them or not.
Alan Lichtenstein
While I agree with you that the shelling of Israel was for the most
part ignored by all the media, surely you don't believe that the New
York Times and Washington Post are no longer important media?
Alan Lichtenstein
Sordo, bless his queer heart, has already posted it.
Islander
You protest too much. I said nothing about the rightness or wrongness
of the Israeli response. Rather, I criticized our complicity. To have
delayed a call for a ceasefire is to be complicit in the continuation of
the warfare. In this case, we support the establishment of a
multinational peace keeping force, not including our troops, to occupy
the border region. I agree with that, but we are not likely to
facilitate that if we act to prevent negotiation in opposition to the
very countries that we are asking to place their troops in the region.
We still do not seem to understand that these battles are not battles
that we can win on the battlefield. We continue to facilitate the goals
of the Arabs by responding to them in our blatantly predictable way.
Hezbollah is winning and unfortunately Israel is losing and we along
with them.
Islander
On the contrary, by keeping the lines of communication open, we bought
time for our economic system to prevail. Can you imagine what might
have happened had Curtis LeMay had his way?
Alan Lichtenstein
( previous post snipped-follow thread )
I read what you wrote and understood it, I believe, far better than you
wanted. You cleverly are attempting to criticize the Israeli action by
using a third party( namely us ), so that you can rationalize that
you're not really criticizing WHAT Israel did or didn't do, but that WE
DIDN'T do it. There is no reason for us to support a cease fire so long
as there military achievement on the battlefield on behalf of Israel. A
cease fire now, without any military achievement merely returns to the
status quo ante, a circumstance that Israel cannot tolerate.
So tell us, is THAT what you're advocating? If it isn't, then your
criticism is unwarranted, for that means the policy is correct.
As far as your final comment is concerned, I am surprised at you, for it
displays a gross ignorance of the true Arab goal: The destruction of
Israel. You don't negotiate that away, despite the apparent successes
with Egypt and Jordan. That has to be achieved on the battlefield.
Negotiations haven't dimmed that in over 50 years. Why do you seem to
think that it is any different now?
Alan Lichtenstein
The lines of communication had little to do with anything. The Soviet
Union would never have used its nuclear arsenal to attack us, now would
we use ours. Their willingness to enter into arms limitation treaties
is evidence of that, and even if those treaties ere never negotiated
because their were no lines of communication, the effect would still
have been the same. Despite their totalitarian political structure, the
USSR was not led by irrational maniacs, as the totalitarian,
fundamentalist Arab states of Iran and Syria are. Russia simply could
not compete and their system collapsed because of it.
As far as your comment about Curtis LeMay, that is irrelevant. He never
had the opportunity to act on his views, as he never achieved authority.
Our democratic system saw to that. His views did not reflect those of
mainstream America, just as the war hawks in the Soviet Union never
reflected the more reasoned views of the leadership.
Islander
I'm not that clever, Alan.
On the news this morning: It took four wars with Egypt before peace was
secured. It took two with Jordan. So far there have been four wars
with Lebanon and peace is not in sight. Lebanon appears to be different
due to the presence of Hezbolla and the influence of other countries,
namely Syria and Iran. If war is the answer (and I don't believe that
it is) then Israel is attacking the wrong enemy.
I'm afraid that our policies in the middle east have been a disaster.
We have, over and over again, taken action that escalates hostility and
produces more enemies. We are creating their heroes by our actions.
There are 1.2B Islamists and only 6M Israelis. Warfare cannot continue
to work for them in the long term.
Islander
But, the hawks are in power now and we are playing with matches in a
tinderbox.
Alan Lichtenstein
You have given the answer with your post above. It took four wars and
complete Israeli victory on the battlefield for the Arab States of Egypt
and Jordan to admit defeat. Once they admitted defeat, peace through
negotiation, was possible, resulting in the current status. Hezbolla
remains intransigent. Why do you suppose it will be any different with
Hezbolla? As far as military strategy and tactics are concerned, while
Iran and Syria might be the influential backers of Hezbolla, Hezbolla is
the entity doing their dirty work. So, first things first; Hezbolla
must be dealt with, and then with no client to support their political
and irrationalist fundamentalist Islamic ideas, those states can be
dealt with next. Israel might ultimately have to attack them, but that
time is not yet right.
> I'm afraid that our policies in the middle east have been a disaster. We
> have, over and over again, taken action that escalates hostility and
> produces more enemies. We are creating their heroes by our actions.
Actually we did not create anything that the Arabs didn't create
themselves. We merely followed our interests. I recall that in every
instance it was the Arabs, with no, I repeat, no prodding from us, who
introduced hostilities. Have you forgotten that it was Hezbolla which
cast the first stone? Are policies are merely reflective of that. The
cries for a cease fire patently ignore that.
It might be convenient to say that we won't place blame, but
unfortunately blame must be placed in order to arrive at any kind of
lasting solution. And accepted. The Arabs simply refuse to accept
their burden of that blame. You can hardly fault Israel for that. All
the compromises which have been made, have been made by Israel. A
material point which you choose to ignore. Do you think that's right?
if not, then what should be done?
As a final comment, I note your clever attempt to sidestep my challenge
to you regarding the policies. Apparently you have chosen not to reply
to the substance of my assertion. Am I wrong? If not, a reply would be
appreciated. Your response appears to indicate that I am not.
> There are 1.2B Islamists and only 6M Israelis. Warfare cannot continue
> to work for them in the long term.
I don't disagree. But Israel has a lot of bigger sticks and those
sticks are the great equalizer. The Israelis will not go to the gas
chambers again quietly. They may go, but they'll take a lot of maniac
Muslims with them. As Jeff says, Europe, and various apologists for the
Arabs must recognize that this is not only a war against Israel, but
against Christian Europe and the Western World as well. I agree with him.
Alan Lichtenstein
A convenient cop-out. Hawks have been in power before. Recall Vietnam?
As I said, your comment is irrelevant to the assertion I made. We
defeated Communism for economic factors and those alone.
Josh Rosenbluth
>
> I read what you wrote and understood it, I believe, far better than you
> wanted. You cleverly are attempting to criticize the Israeli action by
> using a third party( namely us ), so that you can rationalize that
> you're not really criticizing WHAT Israel did or didn't do, but that WE
> DIDN'T do it. There is no reason for us to support a cease fire so long
> as there military achievement on the battlefield on behalf of Israel. A
> cease fire now, without any military achievement merely returns to the
> status quo ante, a circumstance that Israel cannot tolerate.
From what I've read and heard, Israel's military campaign has been
going rather badly. But even if it were going well, there is an
argument that a military victory in the short term only will result in a
longer term political defeat: making heroes out of Hezbollah throughout
the Arab and Muslim world - including in Sunni Jordan and the Sunni and
Christian parts of Lebanon.
> So tell us, is THAT what you're advocating? If it isn't, then your
> criticism is unwarranted, for that means the policy is correct.
We could negotiate directly with Syria to attempt to drive a wedge
between this Sunni country and Shia Iran (Iran will not be able supply
Hezbollah if it can't do so through Syria). A deal with Syria will
necessarily include a cease fire before Israel can win militarily
(assuming they can), which if you believe the argument above is in
Israel's interest anyway.
In the mid term, we need to figure out a way for Israel to strike a deal
with Palestine. That boil inflames much of the hatred.
In the longer term, victory over Hezbollah is not much different than
victory over al Qaeda. It's a war with somewhat limited military
components, where eventual victory requires winning the hearts and minds
of the Muslim world. As Rushdie puts it (and he knows a thing or two
about the evil of Islamism), we have to both fight our Muslim enemies
and cultivate our Muslim friends. One sure-fire way not to do that is
to try to impose democracy on an Arab/Muslim country that hates a
foreign occupier and is torn by sectarian violence.
> As far as your final comment is concerned, I am surprised at you, for it
> displays a gross ignorance of the true Arab goal: The destruction of
> Israel. You don't negotiate that away, despite the apparent successes
> with Egypt and Jordan. That has to be achieved on the battlefield.
> Negotiations haven't dimmed that in over 50 years. Why do you seem to
> think that it is any different now?
If you start with the premise that the goal of all Arabs is the
destruction of Israel, then we have no friends to cultivate - we might
as well join Israel and wage non-stop war against every Arab country
plus Iran and Pakistan.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jose
>"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."
>Jonathan Swift
>
>
Followed soon there after with the end of the USA.
Jose
Have you seen any mushroom clouds?
Jose
>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:19:41 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
><okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Islander" <nos...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:jP2dnWGNVspWfVHZ...@rockisland.com...
>>
>>
>>>Rita wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>In the news this morning an Israeli bomb killed 51 civilians including
>>>women and children in a shelter in Qana. I wonder if that was one of the
>>>guided bombs that we rushed to Israel.
>>>
>>>We are complicit in this in more than one way. Instead of standing with
>>>the rest of the world to demand an immediate cease fire, we elected to
>>>delay. Once again, we made the wrong choice. Instead of standing for
>>>peace, we stood for war in the eyes of the world.
>>>
>>>
>>An interesting posting. I came away from the news of the bombing with a
>>different take. I wondered why the news media seemed so apoplectic about
>>the bombing of one building where some "civilians" may have died (don't know
>>if among those "civilians" there were some "enemy combatants"). I wondered
>>how the TV news organizations woould have reported the fire bombing of
>>Tokyo, the targetting of other cities and towns in Japan, the destruction of
>>the cities of Germnay, the dropping of two nuclear boms on Japan, where in
>>each and every one of these events, a whole lot of "innocent" civilians were
>>killed and injured....
>>
>>
>
>As I see it, the American people are too willing to see the war
>criminals of other countries hang but not their own. What we need to
>do after the next war it to hang our own president. True it wouldn't
>help the people he murdered, but it would be a warning to the next
>man who wants to practice murder on foreigners in the name of Peace.
>
>
>
Well!
As I see it, you are willing to surrender your country without ever
firing a shot in defense.
Jerry Okamura
"Alan Lichtenstein" <a...@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:ntWdnYOjXP4YiFDZ...@rcn.net...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> I think some Israeli representative said it best. He asked a very simple
>> question...what would America's response be, if some group in Mexico was
>> firing missiles into the United States? What do you think we should do,
>> under those circumstances?
> While your point, and the point of the Israeli Ambassador is well taken
> Jerry, the Mexicans don't have to fire missiles into the US. They're
> going to win back those areas with their illegal immigration. And we're
> going to help them do it by letting them stay, and even making them
> citizens.
That is not the point. The question is not whether Mexico, or for that
matter some organization in Mexico, is going to take over the US anyway, the
question was and is, what would the American response be, if the gov ernment
of Mexico, or some organization in Mexico, fired rockets into the United
States.
>
> The Arabs are very upset, because Israel doesn't allow them entry, and
> even built a fence to keep them out. So all that's left for them is to
> fire missiles into Israel and kill as many civilians as they can.
And Israel is responding.
Rumpelstiltskin
I just read a book in which one character says that in her
country, the politicians are sent to jail as soon as they're
elected. She said it saves time.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom: it is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves" -- Wm. Pitt the Younger
Jerry Okamura
>>
>
> It seems pretty clear to me that Hezbollah intended to bait the Israelis
> into attacking in force and it appears that their strategy is working.
> This is a battle to unify the Arab world against a common enemy. Our
> failure to understand that weakens us.
If you were a citizen of Israel, would you care? Or would you be more
interested in stopping the attacks on your country?
>
> Bob Schaefer concluded his program this morning with an editorial about
> how we are increasingly not talking with Hezbollah, with Syria, with Iran,
> and with North Korea. The argument of the administration is that talking
> with them would reward bad behavior. However, we won the cold war by
> keeping the communication channels open with the former Soviet Union.
> When we abandon the opportunity to communicate we leave ourselves with
> only the vagaries and unpredictability of war.
What good does it do to "talk" to countries, who have publicly said that
their goal is the elimination of Israel?
Jerry Okamura
He probably would have started a bombing campaign against Syria and Iran.
Jerry Okamura
Who cares? I will repeat, if I were an Israeli, all I care about is what is
best for the preservation of "my" country, and to stop those who wish to
kill me to stop killing me.
Glenn
> What is there to talk to Hezbollah about? They want one thing -- the death
> of every Israeli Jew, and probably a few more besides. What's to
> negotiate? The death of only half? The payment of tribute in exchange for
> their worthless word that they will behave? The last time we made a deal
> like was with the Barbary Pirates, and it didn't work out too well.
Sid you are getting yourself all worked up and you blood pressure is
probably over the blow off point. Calm down, have a drink, look at the
possibilities. Invest in Somalia real estate.
--
Glenn
Jean Smith
Old...@webtv.net (Olly Mensch) wrote:
> Jerry - you made an excellent point - in fact,the same point as made by
> Charles Krauthammer, whose article I tried to cut and paste to this
> group; Hope it arrives!!!
> We incinerate Hiroshima - and are apoplectic about what is happening now
> in the Middle East!!
> Olly
The Israelis seem to have gotten the news media to back away from Gaza and much
of the news of Lebanon seems to be reported from Israel.
Islander
So, you would escalate this into WW III? No, it is time to stop this
insanity. There is enough blame to go around for both the Israelis and
the Arabs. This has to stop before it gets even worse. As I said
earlier, we proposed that a peace-keeping force be placed on the border
between Israel and Lebanon. Take 10 miles on each side of the border
and occupy it with 10,000 UN or NATO troops. I think that this is our
only reasonable option if we are to prevent further broadening of the
conflict. But, the first priority is to get a cease fire since most of
the countries that we would expect to man the peace-keeping force would
require it as a first step. We cannot include our troops in that force
and I would also recommend not using UK troops. Standing alone in
opposing a cease fire in the hope that time will allow Israel to destroy
the Hezbolla does not look like a very good strategy to me and the
longer this drags out the more the Arab propaganda mill will take
advantage of the inevitable civilian casualties. In parallel, we need
to be making some effort to undo the damage that the Bush administration
has done in both Syria and Iran. We cannot do that without talking to
them. They have the taste of blood now and can foresee the end of
Israel if they simply keep playing the same game that we keep getting
suckered into. Time for a change!
Rita
wrote:
From commentary I listened to on TV today, several U.S. generals said
Israel is not going to be able to destroy Hezbollah with an air war.
Israel asks for more time, but then what? If a coalition can be made
to provide buffer zones so that Hezbollah can no longer launch
missiles at Israel, that seems to be the right thing to do.
The generals also said that the rocket launchers cannot be destroyed
in any great numbers with the bombing, and that air wars are not
effective against this kind of enemy. But that civilian casualties
are indeed inevitable.
It is time for the U.S. to back off and listen to the rest of the
nations for once. I rather expect U.S. judgment in such matters is
open to question after Iraq, don't you think?
But Islander, it if futile to argue with those who support Israel in
all it does because we then are accused of supporting terrorists.
Islander
I don't understand the Israeli strategy at all. It is almost as if
something has snapped and they have gone crazy. I don't see how they
can win this.
The head of Israeli Military Intelligence reported in 2004 that
Hezbollah had 13,000 rockets, most with a 25-kilometer range, about 500
with a range of 45 kilometers [Fajr-3] to 75 kilometers [Fajr-5], and a
few dozen with a 115-kilometer range [Zelzal-2]. A senior Military
Intelligence officer told the Knesset's Defense and Foreign Affairs
Committee in 2006 that Hizbullah possessed thousands of rockets with a
20-kilometer firing range as well as some 100 rockets capable of
reaching targets of 40-70 kilometers. Hezbollah had not used the Fajr
rockets until the July 2006 conflict.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hizballah-rockets.htm
Many of these rockets are truck mounted and are easily hidden. I
counted 10 launch tubes on one such vehicle. And, Hezbolla has had
years to hide them. The expected civilian collateral damage that would
be a consequence of taking out this many weapons is unimaginable.
Even more frightening is the transition of Iran to cruise missiles.
Reportedly, a Ukranian firm is providing them to Iran already. These
have a sufficient range that no place in the middle east is safe.
Further, they are low altitude vehicles that are difficult to intercept.
This is not the time to escalate the war or the whole region is going to
explode. If Israel is forced to fight for its survival, you can be
assured that it will use its nuclear capability.
We have to find a way to cool things off!
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
>In article <11567-44C...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net>,
> Old...@webtv.net (Olly Mensch) wrote:
>
>> Jerry - you made an excellent point - in fact,the same point as made by
>> Charles Krauthammer, whose article I tried to cut and paste to this
>> group; Hope it arrives!!!
>> We incinerate Hiroshima - and are apoplectic about what is happening now
>> in the Middle East!!
>> Olly
>
>The Israelis seem to have gotten the news media to back away from Gaza and much
>of the news of Lebanon seems to be reported from Israel.
I heard an Egyptian guy (apparently experienced with the West
since his English was clear and perfect) who called in to a TV
show (PBS, not junk TV). He complained of the one-sided view
that Americans get of the Middle East. He said that in Cairo, he
got Al Jazeera and all the Arabic news agencies, and also Fox
News and all the other American outlets.
Jim Higgins
> women and children in a shelter in Qana. I wonder if that was one of the
> guided bombs that we rushed to Israel.
>
> We are complicit in this in more than one way. Instead of standing with
> the rest of the world to demand an immediate cease fire, we elected to
> delay. Once again, we made the wrong choice. Instead of standing for
> peace, we stood for war in the eyes of the world.
Fool!
Jean Smith
El Castor <NotA...@not-here.com> wrote:
> Rita <nita...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:13:27 -0700, El Castor <NotA...@not-here.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>What is there to talk to Hezbollah about? They want one thing -- the
> >>death of every Israeli Jew, and probably a few more besides. What's to
> >>negotiate? The death of only half? The payment of tribute in exchange
> >>for their worthless word that they will behave? The last time we made
> >>a deal like was with the Barbary Pirates, and it didn't work out too
> >>well.
> >>
> >I've heard both sides arguing on TV this weekend. The Israeli
> >spokespeople and the Lebanese.
> >
> >Then I saw two different programs where U.S. generals were
> >questioned about the missile attack that killed so many civilians.
> >They all stated positively that precision missiles don't hit the
> >wrong target and that you don't use them to take out a very
> >small rocket launching device. They said that Israel obviously
> >did not know for sure if civilians were in the targeted building,
> >or if they did, they fired the missile anyway. I was quite surprised
> >as I don't think any U.S. general is a Hezbollah supporter.
> >
> >They also said you don't use missiles to fight insurgents. Doesn't
> >work. And when asked who was winning, they said "Hezbollah",
> >both in the present situation and in the court of public opinion.
> >
> >I expect Secretary Rice has been given similar information from
> >the U.S. military in formulating her response, whatever she may
> >say in public.
> >
> >You may believe continuing these assaults by Israeli via bombings
> >will destroy Hezbollah, but you may be in a minority here. And
> >no question the outcry about more and more Lebanese civilian
> >deaths is turning public opinion.
> >
> >Puts the Bush administration in quite a bind.
>
> Once again, I saw two videos this afternoon. They were pretty clearly
> taken by an Israeli drone. The first showed two trucks being driven
> into the building in question. The voiceover said that Israeli
> intelligence believed they were carrying rockets. The second showed
> three rockets launched in quick succession from behind the building.
>
> Do you really believe that Hezbollah is sad because those kids were
> killed? I wouldn't be surprised if they killed a few extra and
> arranged their bodies on the rubble. Your reaction is exactly what
> they were hoping for. Where's your sympathy for the Israelis who have
> had to endure 3,000 Hezbollah rockets? Do you think Hezbollah cares if
> they land on a school or hospital? Israel doesn't use schools and
> hospitals as ammunition dumps or missile launching sites.
>
It's good to hear that there may be some things that you think that Israel
doesn't do. Unfortunately, Israel is saying that it wants to hit Hezbulah,
but what they are doing thrashing out killing lots of folks and missing
Hezbulah. NBC had a reporter on the scene of yesterday's massacre during Meet
the Press. There were people and probable unarmed Hezbulah but no Hezbulah
targets. Tom Friedman, one of my favorite opinion writers, sent himself on a Mid
East mission and watched the opinion regarding Israel change as Israel staggered
around Lebanon swinging. He holds out hope that dialogue can change the
situation. He thinks that the stage is set for change including changing Syria
because sitting in the backseat while Iran and Hezbulah drive is scary. But we
haven't spoken with Syria for a year and a half and change comes hard for Condi
and Co. I hope they pull off that comprehensive Middle East settlement, but the
competence of this bunch rarely surprises me in a good way. I don't think that
Israel really wants to enter into a guerrilla war. Maybe they will come around.
Tom said that before GWB the U.S. had the role of being the optimist and
supporting hope in the world. He thinks that being a regime of fear is why they
have lost approval worldwide.
The Israelis have brought Lebanon together as they haven't been since
the civil war and perhaps ever.
Rita
wrote:
>In article <rOmdnSPJV-jRPVDZ...@comcast.com>,
I like Tom Friedman also, Jean. He speaks from deep knowledge of the
Middle East and is unbiased as one can get on that incendiary topic.
He doesn't excuse anyone from bad behavior.
Alvin Toda
wrote:
>Sorry to be so pejorative about your views, as we usually agree on most
>things. But you simply don't recognize that there needs to be a
>solution once and for all this time. THAT is the only thing Israel
>wants. Now, what's your solution?
Israel will get what it wants when it is willing to negotiate peace
terms with Hamas and Hezbollah.
Alvin Toda
wrote:
>LIFE IN AN ORWELLIAN UNIVERSE
It's Orwellian from ALL sides....
Alvin Toda
wrote:
>Islander, the Germans and Japanese of WWII would weep to know that
>there were not more like you in 1941.
>
>Surely you understand that any cease fire that leaves Hezbollah free
>to re-group and re-arm only means that they will be back, probably
>sooner rather than later, to do this all over again. The real question
>raised by the article is whether or not militant Islam has found a
>formula for driving the Jews of Israel into the sea. It's just
>possible that this is the beginning of the end for Israel, as well as
>for Christian Europe.
Hezbollah will re-group and re-arm and be back. It doesn't matter that
the Israelis think that they can use force to kill all of them.
Hezbollah has sacrificed and persivered in the past, and they will do
it again. Israel might remember this as the missiles continue to fall
from the Hezbollah. It'll only stop when they run out.
Alvin Toda
wrote:
>Islander wrote:
>> It seems pretty clear to me that Hezbollah intended to bait the Israelis
>> into attacking in force and it appears that their strategy is working.
>> This is a battle to unify the Arab world against a common enemy. Our
>> failure to understand that weakens us.
>
>Actually, most analysis' I have seen don't share that view. The
>majority seem to conclude that Hezbollah miscalculated the Israeli
>response, expecting the usual limited reprisal and some kind of
>negotiation, where they could use the anti-Israeli posture of most of
>the rest of the world to bring pressure to bear on Israel. Furthermore,
>the analysis also conclude that Iran had a significant role, in that it
>encouraged Hezbollah, in order to take the pressure off them with their
>nuclear program.
I would agree. Hezbollah has exchanged prisoners with the Israelis
before. The difference here is Olmert wants to show Hezbollah how
tough he can be... They definitely miscalculated his response.
Alvin Toda
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>"Alan Lichtenstein" <a...@xyz.com> wrote in message
>news:ntWdnYOjXP4YiFDZ...@rcn.net...
>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think some Israeli representative said it best. He asked a very simple
>>> question...what would America's response be, if some group in Mexico was
>>> firing missiles into the United States? What do you think we should do,
>>> under those circumstances?
>> While your point, and the point of the Israeli Ambassador is well taken
>> Jerry, the Mexicans don't have to fire missiles into the US. They're
>> going to win back those areas with their illegal immigration. And we're
>> going to help them do it by letting them stay, and even making them
>> citizens.
>
>That is not the point. The question is not whether Mexico, or for that
>matter some organization in Mexico, is going to take over the US anyway, the
>question was and is, what would the American response be, if the gov ernment
>of Mexico, or some organization in Mexico, fired rockets into the United
>States.
Jerry, the US supporting Israeli strategies, would bomb Mexico city
for being complicit in the missile firings, and blame all the civilian
deaths for the terrorists that might have been living and working in
the buildings.
Alvin Toda
wrote:
Amazing that an Israeli newspaper weighs in on the Israeli attacks
this way. While American newspapers continue to report the propaganda
of the Israeli govt.....
Jerry Okamura
Josh Rosenbluth
Apart from a cease-fire of the current violence, what "peace terms" are
there to negotiate over with Hezbollah?
Josh Rosenbluth
Olly Mensch
their current battle with Hezbollah. And that is why I sent in the
article by Charles Krauthammer,who - in my view - said it all much
better than I ever could.
What troubles me so much is that that view is - I am sure - a minority
view -
and it seems that - more than ever - the hatred against Israel (and he
Jews) is spreading. As iI stated elsewhere, we incinerate Hiroshima, but
when Israel kills some women and children - as tragic as that is - but,
most likely by accident, thinking that was the source of
Hezbollah's firing of rockets - the world - including a majority in this
country, I believe - complains about their cruelty. Forgetting the
years and years of the wounds and deaths inflicted upon the Israelis by
terrorists, from the Palestinians, the Hezollah, the Hamas, etc. And
also, conveniently, forgetting who started this conflict.
One canot help but conclude that this judgment on the part of most of
the world, is not based on the facts as they are happening,but on sheer
anti-semitism. I am fully aware that criticism of Israel does not
necessaily equate with criticism of he Jews. In this case, however,
when it is so crystal clear who the villains are, one cannot help but
conclude that it is hatred of Jews. and that is a sadness I feel- and
have felt - all of my life, and it is everywhere - not only in the
Middle East.
Olly
Olly Mensch
the gas chambers again quietly. They may go, but they will take a lot
of maniac Muslims with them."
then, doing our job for us - and pehaps become extinct in the process.
Olly
Olly Mensch
Rita wrote:" but, Islander, it is futile to continue to argue with those
who support support Israel in all it does; we would then be accused of
supporting terrorists."
You've got that right!
olly
California Poppy
Olly Mensch wrote:
> Alan - I cannot help but agree with your post regarding Israel, and
> their current battle with Hezbollah. And that is why I sent in the
> article by Charles Krauthammer,who - in my view - said it all much
> better than I ever could.
> What troubles me so much is that that view is - I am sure - a minority
> view -
> and it seems that - more than ever - the hatred against Israel (and he
> Jews) is spreading.
I do not believe that most hate Israel or the Jews. Such hatred is a
minority view taken up by liberal extremists in this country. I
believe they want us to think they are being contrarian and just
questioning authority, but their ultimate goal is to get Bush. They
want to blame him and claim he and his administration just weren't
skilled enough at diplomacy.
However, I do fear for Israel. It is a small country in a hostile area
of the world. We could just incorporate Israelis into our country. We
could use their talent and experience. Dave jokingly said we should
give them Northern Mexico. How I wish they were our neighors instead
of Mexico. I also fear for the US. With such a murderous religion and
with us as the target, we are in danger as is all of Western
civilization. Their birthrate would overwhelm us in a few generations,
if not their suicide bombers before then.
Olly Mensch
= = you wrote:" Tom Friedman wrote the book "From Beirut to Jerusalem"
many years ago - - that book opened my eyes as to the fact that Israel
was not guiltless. Until then, I had mindlessly gone along believing
the fault was all on the other side."
And now you "mindlessly" go along with one such as Tom Friedman - NOT a
neutral observer.
Olly
Alan Lichtenstein
> Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
>
>>
>> I read what you wrote and understood it, I believe, far better than
>> you wanted. You cleverly are attempting to criticize the Israeli
>> action by using a third party( namely us ), so that you can
>> rationalize that you're not really criticizing WHAT Israel did or
>> didn't do, but that WE DIDN'T do it. There is no reason for us to
>> support a cease fire so long as there military achievement on the
>> battlefield on behalf of Israel. A cease fire now, without any
>> military achievement merely returns to the status quo ante, a
>> circumstance that Israel cannot tolerate.
>
>
> From what I've read and heard, Israel's military campaign has been
> going rather badly. But even if it were going well, there is an
> argument that a military victory in the short term only will result in a
> longer term political defeat: making heroes out of Hezbollah throughout
> the Arab and Muslim world - including in Sunni Jordan and the Sunni and
> Christian parts of Lebanon.
Don't believe everything you hear second or third hand. In military
circles, as I'm certain some of our former officers can verify,
battlefield cease fires which are preludes to cessation of hostilities
are usually sought by the party getting the worst of the military
action. After all, why does a military force which is achieving its
goals require a cease fire, when in can achieve its goals without same,
and thus gaining victory? The cease fire is usually sought by the
loser. And the fact that there is a very large hue and cry by the
Arabs, we can tell who are the losers.
Israel may be going a bit slower than the armchair analysts see.
Perhaps some of our armchair analysts are closet Arab sympathizers and
the 'analysis' is more wishful thinking than reality. Fact remains,
Israel is not making any sounds requesting a cease fire, thus sending a
message loud and clear, that they intend to fight this to a conclusion,
and that they feel that they're winning. And that's all that counts.
>> So tell us, is THAT what you're advocating? If it isn't, then your
>> criticism is unwarranted, for that means the policy is correct.
>
>
> We could negotiate directly with Syria to attempt to drive a wedge
> between this Sunni country and Shia Iran (Iran will not be able supply
> Hezbollah if it can't do so through Syria). A deal with Syria will
> necessarily include a cease fire before Israel can win militarily
> (assuming they can), which if you believe the argument above is in
> Israel's interest anyway.
Josh, after posting the above, please tell us: Do you also believe in
the Tooth Fairy?
> In the mid term, we need to figure out a way for Israel to strike a deal
> with Palestine. That boil inflames much of the hatred.
Israel struck a deal with the Palestinians years ago, and all they got
for their efforts was 1500 Rockets fired into their territory during the
so-called 'cease fire' and 'peace.' The only deal to be struck is the
total disarming of the terrorists. And pray tell, how do you propose to
achieve that by negotiation, given their track records?
> In the longer term, victory over Hezbollah is not much different than
> victory over al Qaeda. It's a war with somewhat limited military
> components, where eventual victory requires winning the hearts and minds
> of the Muslim world. As Rushdie puts it (and he knows a thing or two
> about the evil of Islamism), we have to both fight our Muslim enemies
> and cultivate our Muslim friends. One sure-fire way not to do that is
> to try to impose democracy on an Arab/Muslim country that hates a
> foreign occupier and is torn by sectarian violence.
Wrong. In order to attack Israel, Hezbollah needs to be in close
proximity to Israel. Denying then this essentially defeats them. al
Quaeda doesn't need any kind of base( although they have on in Pakistan
) as they are strictly a terrorist organization striking at ANY Western
symbol.
>> As far as your final comment is concerned, I am surprised at you, for
>> it displays a gross ignorance of the true Arab goal: The destruction
>> of Israel. You don't negotiate that away, despite the apparent
>> successes with Egypt and Jordan. That has to be achieved on the
>> battlefield. Negotiations haven't dimmed that in over 50 years. Why
>> do you seem to think that it is any different now?
>
>
> If you start with the premise that the goal of all Arabs is the
> destruction of Israel, then we have no friends to cultivate - we might
> as well join Israel and wage non-stop war against every Arab country
> plus Iran and Pakistan.
Now you woke up and smelled the coffee. It's time to stop wishful
thinking, which your post typifies and come back to reality.
Alan Lichtenstein
> "Alan Lichtenstein" <a...@xyz.com> wrote in message
> news:ntWdnYOjXP4YiFDZ...@rcn.net...
>
>>Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>I think some Israeli representative said it best. He asked a very simple
>>>question...what would America's response be, if some group in Mexico was
>>>firing missiles into the United States? What do you think we should do,
>>>under those circumstances?
>>
>>While your point, and the point of the Israeli Ambassador is well taken
>>Jerry, the Mexicans don't have to fire missiles into the US. They're
>>going to win back those areas with their illegal immigration. And we're
>>going to help them do it by letting them stay, and even making them
>>citizens.
>
>
> That is not the point. The question is not whether Mexico, or for that
> matter some organization in Mexico, is going to take over the US anyway, the
> question was and is, what would the American response be, if the gov ernment
> of Mexico, or some organization in Mexico, fired rockets into the United
> States.
You're right. I just couldn't resist the opening to get that in.
>>The Arabs are very upset, because Israel doesn't allow them entry, and
>>even built a fence to keep them out. So all that's left for them is to
>>fire missiles into Israel and kill as many civilians as they can.
>
>
> And Israel is responding.
finally.
Olly Mensch
it wants when it is willing to negotiate peace terms with Hamas and
Hezbollah."
and that is the eradication - literally and physically- of Israel. Plus,
they are a terrorist organization - with whom one does not enter into
negotiations, since,obviously they cannot be trusted. Off with their
heads - - their battle cry!!!
Olly
Alan Lichtenstein
> Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, most analysis' I have seen don't share that view. The
>>majority seem to conclude that Hezbollah miscalculated the Israeli
>>response, expecting the usual limited reprisal and some kind of
>>negotiation, where they could use the anti-Israeli posture of most of
>>the rest of the world to bring pressure to bear on Israel.
>
>
> That is what Nasrallah claims (see my response to Jean), but it seems
> very unlikely. Keep in mind that a few days before the incident that
> started this, Hamas did exactly the same thing -- cross the border and
> kidnap an Israeli soldier. Hundreds of rockets didn't produce the
> response that kidnapping that soldier did. Hezbollah was well aware
> that Israel's response in the Hamas case was not a limited reprisal.
> Hezbollah got just what they expected -- and wanted. In any event,
> Iran is almost certainly pulling the strings of both groups, and has
> to be pleased with the outcome. They've refused to comply with the
> UN's demands, no one seems to have noticed, and the price of oil is
> going through the roof.
Israel has gone into Gaza numerous times, and always on a temporary
basis. Lebanon is not Gaza, and Hezbollah never dreamed that Israel
would finally tell the rest of the world to go to hell and cleaned out
the Hezbollah terrorists from their cleverly placed positions where they
use civilians as a shield to extract exactly the kind of sympathy that
the bleeding hearts are now bleeding for.
War is hell, and civilians do get killed.
> Alan, you may know some Israelis. My wife swims with a woman who lived
> there with her husband. They couldn't take it any longer and left. How
> can anyone endure that place? Jean believes that it's just a matter of
> negotiating with the Arabs. You and I know that's not going to work.
> Arabs can't be reasoned with. How can this go on? What kind of future
> can Israel possibly have?
Most former Israelis I know left for economic reasons, not because they
were afraid of terrorists. Israelis stand a lower possibility of being
killed in a terrorist attack than citizens of many of our large cities
stand of being killed by some miscreant.
And this will go on until the Arabs get tired of it, just as Jordan and
Egypt did. BTW, both countries are reaping economic benefits by peace
with Israel, and that's why neither country has taken a hard line
against Israel. In short, the Arabs, at least in Jordan and Egypt have
found that making money is better than irrational religious jihads and
other such stupidities. Israel is not going to dry up and go away, and
the terrorists don't have the means to achieve that. And given the
increasing isolation of Syria and Iran, the major source of supply and
financing of the terrorists, that may put a dent into terrorist operations.
>>Furthermore,
>>the analysis also conclude that Iran had a significant role, in that it
>>encouraged Hezbollah, in order to take the pressure off them with their
>>nuclear program.
>>
>>I think you're looking for excuses to somehow diminish what Israel hope
>>and is likely to accomplish in this instance: The destruction of the
>>terrorists, and the prevention of them rising to the extent they have,
>>at some future time. The Arab world, for the first time, has come out
>>against the Arab terrorists, and that is a major achievement. And THAT
>>is another miscalculation which Hezbollah made.
>>
>>
>>>Bob Schaefer concluded his program this morning with an editorial about
>>>how we are increasingly not talking with Hezbollah, with Syria, with
>>>Iran, and with North Korea. The argument of the administration is that
>>>talking with them would reward bad behavior. However, we won the cold
>>>war by keeping the communication channels open with the former Soviet
>>>Union. When we abandon the opportunity to communicate we leave
>>>ourselves with only the vagaries and unpredictability of war.
>>
>>Again, I must disagree with you. We won the cold war, because our
>>economic system simply overwhelmed them. THAT would have occurred
>>regardless of whether we were talking with them or not.
>
>
>
> "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."
> Jonathan Swift
Alan Lichtenstein
> Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
>
>> Islander wrote:
>>
>>> Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
>>>
>>>> Islander wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ( previous post snipped-follow thread )
>>>>
>>>>>>> In the news this morning an Israeli bomb killed 51 civilians
>>>>>>> including women and children in a shelter in Qana. I wonder if
>>>>>>> that was one of the guided bombs that we rushed to Israel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are complicit in this in more than one way. Instead of
>>>>>>> standing with the rest of the world to demand an immediate cease
>>>>>>> fire, we elected to delay. Once again, we made the wrong
>>>>>>> choice. Instead of standing for peace, we stood for war in the
>>>>>>> eyes of the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Islander, please spare us your crocodile tears. The only reason
>>>>>> the world wants a cease fire is because Israel is winning. If the
>>>>>> terrorists were winning, there wouldn't be so much as a peep from
>>>>>> the rest of the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The rest of the world did absolutely nothing to disarm the
>>>>>> terrorists, and Israel, frankly, is sick and tired of hazing them
>>>>>> operate with impunity and fire rockets into the Israeli civilian
>>>>>> population ,as they have been doing over the years and with the
>>>>>> tacit approval of the rest of the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Israelis, are simply sick and tired of empty promises, and
>>>>>> window dressing that really was intended to accomplish nothing,
>>>>>> except to continue to destroy Israel, little by little, over
>>>>>> time. And now, apparently, they have decided to do something
>>>>>> about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want a cease fire, then you're going to have to insure that
>>>>>> Hammas and Hezbollah are disarmed, and put out of business, and
>>>>>> that nothing can arise which takes their place. That means having
>>>>>> to deal with Iran and Syria as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You want a cease fire? Then make certain there's a solution
>>>>>> that's a real solution. Crocodile tears don't cut it. The Arabs
>>>>>> got exactly what they wanted and deserved by supporting Hammas and
>>>>>> Hezbollah.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry to be so pejorative about your views, as we usually agree on
>>>>>> most things. But you simply don't recognize that there needs to
>>>>>> be a solution once and for all this time. THAT is the only thing
>>>>>> Israel wants. Now, what's your solution?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You protest too much. I said nothing about the rightness or
>>>>> wrongness of the Israeli response. Rather, I criticized our
>>>>> complicity. To have delayed a call for a ceasefire is to be
>>>>> complicit in the continuation of the warfare. In this case, we
>>>>> support the establishment of a multinational peace keeping force,
>>>>> not including our troops, to occupy the border region. I agree
>>>>> with that, but we are not likely to facilitate that if we act to
>>>>> prevent negotiation in opposition to the very countries that we are
>>>>> asking to place their troops in the region.
>>>>>
>>>>> We still do not seem to understand that these battles are not
>>>>> battles that we can win on the battlefield. We continue to
>>>>> facilitate the goals of the Arabs by responding to them in our
>>>>> blatantly predictable way. Hezbollah is winning and unfortunately
>>>>> Israel is losing and we along with them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I read what you wrote and understood it, I believe, far better than
>>>> you wanted. You cleverly are attempting to criticize the Israeli
>>>> action by using a third party( namely us ), so that you can
>>>> rationalize that you're not really criticizing WHAT Israel did or
>>>> didn't do, but that WE DIDN'T do it. There is no reason for us to
>>>> support a cease fire so long as there military achievement on the
>>>> battlefield on behalf of Israel. A cease fire now, without any
>>>> military achievement merely returns to the status quo ante, a
>>>> circumstance that Israel cannot tolerate.
>>>>
>>>> So tell us, is THAT what you're advocating? If it isn't, then your
>>>> criticism is unwarranted, for that means the policy is correct.
>>>>
>>>> As far as your final comment is concerned, I am surprised at you,
>>>> for it displays a gross ignorance of the true Arab goal: The
>>>> destruction of Israel. You don't negotiate that away, despite the
>>>> apparent successes with Egypt and Jordan. That has to be achieved
>>>> on the battlefield. Negotiations haven't dimmed that in over 50
>>>> years. Why do you seem to think that it is any different now?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not that clever, Alan.
>>>
>>> On the news this morning: It took four wars with Egypt before peace
>>> was secured. It took two with Jordan. So far there have been four
>>> wars with Lebanon and peace is not in sight. Lebanon appears to be
>>> different due to the presence of Hezbolla and the influence of other
>>> countries, namely Syria and Iran. If war is the answer (and I don't
>>> believe that it is) then Israel is attacking the wrong enemy.
>>
>>
>>
>> You have given the answer with your post above. It took four wars and
>> complete Israeli victory on the battlefield for the Arab States of
>> Egypt and Jordan to admit defeat. Once they admitted defeat, peace
>> through negotiation, was possible, resulting in the current status.
>> Hezbolla remains intransigent. Why do you suppose it will be any
>> different with Hezbolla? As far as military strategy and tactics are
>> concerned, while Iran and Syria might be the influential backers of
>> Hezbolla, Hezbolla is the entity doing their dirty work. So, first
>> things first; Hezbolla must be dealt with, and then with no client to
>> support their political and irrationalist fundamentalist Islamic
>> ideas, those states can be dealt with next. Israel might ultimately
>> have to attack them, but that time is not yet right.
>>
>>> I'm afraid that our policies in the middle east have been a disaster.
>>> We have, over and over again, taken action that escalates hostility
>>> and produces more enemies. We are creating their heroes by our actions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually we did not create anything that the Arabs didn't create
>> themselves. We merely followed our interests. I recall that in every
>> instance it was the Arabs, with no, I repeat, no prodding from us, who
>> introduced hostilities. Have you forgotten that it was Hezbolla which
>> cast the first stone? Are policies are merely reflective of that.
>> The cries for a cease fire patently ignore that.
>>
>> It might be convenient to say that we won't place blame, but
>> unfortunately blame must be placed in order to arrive at any kind of
>> lasting solution. And accepted. The Arabs simply refuse to accept
>> their burden of that blame. You can hardly fault Israel for that.
>> All the compromises which have been made, have been made by Israel. A
>> material point which you choose to ignore. Do you think that's right?
>> if not, then what should be done?
>>
>> As a final comment, I note your clever attempt to sidestep my
>> challenge to you regarding the policies. Apparently you have chosen
>> not to reply to the substance of my assertion. Am I wrong? If not, a
>> reply would be appreciated. Your response appears to indicate that I
>> am not.
>>
>>> There are 1.2B Islamists and only 6M Israelis. Warfare cannot
>>> continue to work for them in the long term.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't disagree. But Israel has a lot of bigger sticks and those
>> sticks are the great equalizer. The Israelis will not go to the gas
>> chambers again quietly. They may go, but they'll take a lot of maniac
>> Muslims with them. As Jeff says, Europe, and various apologists for
>> the Arabs must recognize that this is not only a war against Israel,
>> but against Christian Europe and the Western World as well. I agree
>> with him.
>
>
> So, you would escalate this into WW III? No, it is time to stop this
> insanity. There is enough blame to go around for both the Israelis and
> the Arabs. This has to stop before it gets even worse. As I said
> earlier, we proposed that a peace-keeping force be placed on the border
> between Israel and Lebanon. Take 10 miles on each side of the border
> and occupy it with 10,000 UN or NATO troops. I think that this is our
> only reasonable option if we are to prevent further broadening of the
> conflict. But, the first priority is to get a cease fire since most of
> the countries that we would expect to man the peace-keeping force would
> require it as a first step. We cannot include our troops in that force
> and I would also recommend not using UK troops. Standing alone in
> opposing a cease fire in the hope that time will allow Israel to destroy
> the Hezbolla does not look like a very good strategy to me and the
> longer this drags out the more the Arab propaganda mill will take
> advantage of the inevitable civilian casualties. In parallel, we need
> to be making some effort to undo the damage that the Bush administration
> has done in both Syria and Iran. We cannot do that without talking to
> them. They have the taste of blood now and can foresee the end of
> Israel if they simply keep playing the same game that we keep getting
> suckered into. Time for a change!
>
Oh please, Rita, you say now is the time to stop this insanity, but you
don't have a clue how, beyond your wishful thinking and good intentions.
There has been a cease fire for years, yet Hezbollah and Hammas
continued to fire over 1500 missiles into Israel, all of which are
unprovoked. You conveniently ignore that so that you can rationalize to
yourself that somehow we can negotiate with these maniacs.
The simple way to end this is to destroy the maniacs and excise that
maniacal thinking, as well as destroying the source of supply for these
maniacs. THAT is how you deal with this.
Israel doesn't want a cease fire because they believe that they can
achieve the same results without one. And their opinion is the only one
that counts. Not some armchair critics, even though they may be
American military men.
Rita
wrote:
>Rita - -
I don't share your belief that Israel can do no wrong. It is an
article of faith, not reality. The situation is complex and I don't
accept simplistic theories.
Rita
wrote:
>Rita-
Of course I got that right.
Rumpelstiltskin
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:04:39 -0400, Gary James
><gnjames...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:14:32 -0500, Jean Smith <gote...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <rOmdnSPJV-jRPVDZ...@comcast.com>,
>>> El Castor <NotA...@not-here.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rita <nita...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:13:27 -0700, El Castor <NotA...@not-here.com>
>>>> >wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >>What is there to talk to Hezbollah about? They want one thing -- the
>>>> >>death of every Israeli Jew, and probably a few more besides. What's to
>>>> >>negotiate? The death of only half? The payment of tribute in exchange
>>>> >>for their worthless word that they will behave? The last time we made
>>>> >>a deal like was with the Barbary Pirates, and it didn't work out too
>>>> >>well.
>>>> >>
>>>> >I've heard both sides arguing on TV this weekend. The Israeli
>>>> >spokespeople and the Lebanese.
>>>> >
>>>> >Then I saw two different programs where U.S. generals were
>>>> >questioned about the missile attack that killed so many civilians.
>>>> >They all stated positively that precision missiles don't hit the
>>>> >wrong target and that you don't use them to take out a very
>>>> >small rocket launching device. They said that Israel obviously
>>>> >did not know for sure if civilians were in the targeted building,
>>>> >or if they did, they fired the missile anyway. I was quite surprised
>>>> >as I don't think any U.S. general is a Hezbollah supporter.
>>>> >
>>>> >They also said you don't use missiles to fight insurgents. Doesn't
>>>> >work. And when asked who was winning, they said "Hezbollah",
>>>> >both in the present situation and in the court of public opinion.
>>>> >
>>>> >I expect Secretary Rice has been given similar information from
>>>> >the U.S. military in formulating her response, whatever she may
>>>> >say in public.
>>>> >
>>>> >You may believe continuing these assaults by Israeli via bombings
>>>> >will destroy Hezbollah, but you may be in a minority here. And
>>>> >no question the outcry about more and more Lebanese civilian
>>>> >deaths is turning public opinion.
>>>> >
>>>> >Puts the Bush administration in quite a bind.
>>>>
>>>> Once again, I saw two videos this afternoon. They were pretty clearly
>>>> taken by an Israeli drone. The first showed two trucks being driven
>>>> into the building in question. The voiceover said that Israeli
>>>> intelligence believed they were carrying rockets. The second showed
>>>> three rockets launched in quick succession from behind the building.
>>>>
>>>> Do you really believe that Hezbollah is sad because those kids were
>>>> killed? I wouldn't be surprised if they killed a few extra and
>>>> arranged their bodies on the rubble. Your reaction is exactly what
>>>> they were hoping for. Where's your sympathy for the Israelis who have
>>>> had to endure 3,000 Hezbollah rockets? Do you think Hezbollah cares if
>>>> they land on a school or hospital? Israel doesn't use schools and
>>>> hospitals as ammunition dumps or missile launching sites.
>>>>
>>>It's good to hear that there may be some things that you think that Israel
>>>doesn't do. Unfortunately, Israel is saying that it wants to hit Hezbulah,
>>>but what they are doing thrashing out killing lots of folks and missing
>>>Hezbulah. NBC had a reporter on the scene of yesterday's massacre during Meet
>>>the Press. There were people and probable unarmed Hezbulah but no Hezbulah
>>>targets. Tom Friedman, one of my favorite opinion writers, sent himself on a Mid
>>>East mission and watched the opinion regarding Israel change as Israel staggered
>>>around Lebanon swinging. He holds out hope that dialogue can change the
>>>situation. He thinks that the stage is set for change including changing Syria
>>>because sitting in the backseat while Iran and Hezbulah drive is scary. But we
>>>haven't spoken with Syria for a year and a half and change comes hard for Condi
>>>and Co. I hope they pull off that comprehensive Middle East settlement, but the
>>>competence of this bunch rarely surprises me in a good way. I don't think that
>>>Israel really wants to enter into a guerrilla war. Maybe they will come around.
>>>
>>>Tom said that before GWB the U.S. had the role of being the optimist and
>>>supporting hope in the world. He thinks that being a regime of fear is why they
>>>have lost approval worldwide.
>>>
>>>The Israelis have brought Lebanon together as they haven't been since
>>>the civil war and perhaps ever.
>>
>>I saw Tom Friedman on Meet the Press Sunday. He was telling Russert
>>how things were and he said ... " what we are doing now ...er,
>>...what the *Israelis* are doing now" ....
>>
>>It was an honest slip of the tongue because I'm sure he considers
>>himself Israeli. But we must always remember that we will never get
>>a fair and unbiased opinion about the Mid East from sources such as
>>he.
>
>I believe you are wrong about that. Friedman wrote the book "From
>Beirut to Jerusalem" many years ago -- that book opened my eyes as
>to the fact that Israel was not guiltless. Until then, I had
>mindlessly gone along believing the fault was all on the other side.
I had to look for a photo to confirm that I knew who Tom Friedman
was, but after seeing a photo I agree, I always listen carefully to
what he has to say when I see him.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom: it is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves" -- Wm. Pitt the Younger
Joe Avalon
>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:13:58 -0500, Jose <joda...@gignews.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Gary James wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>As I see it, the American people are too willing to see the war
>>>criminals of other countries hang but not their own. What we need to
>>>do after the next war it to hang our own president. True it wouldn't
>>>help the people he murdered, but it would be a warning to the next
>>>man who wants to practice murder on foreigners in the name of Peace.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Well!
>>As I see it, you are willing to surrender your country without ever
>>firing a shot in defense.
>>
>>
>
>Not at all. I would fight to help my country anytime she needed
>defending. When was the last time we were invaded ? 1814 ?
>
So your attitude is to wait until you've been invaded before you do
anything.
Josh Rosenbluth
Me an Tom Friedman.
> > In the mid term, we need to figure out a way for Israel to strike a deal
> > with Palestine. That boil inflames much of the hatred.
>
> Israel struck a deal with the Palestinians years ago, and all they got
> for their efforts was 1500 Rockets fired into their territory during the
> so-called 'cease fire' and 'peace.'
I must have missed that deal? When did it happen? What was agreed to?
> The only deal to be struck is the
> total disarming of the terrorists. And pray tell, how do you propose to
> achieve that by negotiation, given their track records?
You appear to assume that "Palestine" and "terrorist" are synonyms. If
so, then what is your proposed solution for Palestine?
I guess Israel should expel their Arab and Muslim citizens, and since
they all are complicit in attacking our friend and promoting terror, we
ought to do likewise in the USA?
Josh Rosenbluth
Jose
>I like Tom Friedman also, Jean. He speaks from deep knowledge of the
>Middle East and is unbiased as one can get on that incendiary topic.
>He doesn't excuse anyone from bad behavior.
>
>
>
Friedman on Meet the Press.
MR. RUSSERT: How do you see Iraq?
MR. *FRIEDMAN*: I think it's a big deal, and I think that we are at a
tipping point in the Middle East. I think it's going to play out over a
long time but, Tim, the necessary things have happened in Iraq, in
Lebanon, and in the Israel-Palestinian theater. In Iraq we've had eight
million Iraqis come out and basically say, "We want a different
future." In Lebanon, we've had Lebanese stand up for the first time and
shout something they've only whispered before: "Syria, we want you out
of here."
In Israel-Palestine, we have a decent Palestinian government and we have
Israel getting out of Gaza. The Palestinians are going to have a place
in the sun. It's a miserable place, but if they turn it into something
decent, it's going to completely catalyze that frontier. So I think
we're at a major tipping point. The necessary things but not the
sufficient things for me to feel that this tipping point won't be a
teeter-totter. But I'm very optimistic. I think this is a big, big
deal. This is--has has the potential to be as big as Napoleon's
invasion of Egypt in terms of fundamentally reshaping that part of the
world.
But we still got to finish the war in Iraq. It's not done. We've still
have to get the Syrians out of Lebanon and we've still got to
consolidate an Israeli-Palestinian peace. So there's a career in all
three of those things, and it's going to take a huge amount of
baby-sitting and involvement. But what's happened is really, really big
and I think really, really good for America and the world.
Jose
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:15:40 -0700, El Castor <NotA...@not-here.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Rita <nita...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:16:43 -0700, El Castor <NotA...@not-here.com>
>>>Now you are getting crazier than usual. Now Hezbollah is responsible
>>>for the dead kids. I repeat, in your view, Israel is always 100%
>>>justified in its every action and always has been. Your degree of
>>>partisanship is such that I don't believe much you post.
>>>
>>>Hapless Lebanon civilians mean nothing to you. You have expressed
>>>no sorrow they are being killed but rather blaming the victims.
>>>Others with more knowledge than you have said that Lebanon was not
>>>strong enough to dislodge Hezbollah.
>>>
>>>
>>The Christians and Sunnis of Lebanon are not strong enough to dislodge
>>Hezbollah -- but the Shiites of the North, which is where Israel is
>>fighting Hezbollah, are ardent supporters. They are reaping what they
>>sowed. That's how I feel, now please explain your lack of sympathy for
>>Israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah rockets. I'm having a hard time
>>understanding that.
>>
>>
>>
>I don't have to explain anything based on your assumption that I
>have no sympathy for Israeli civilians. I have great sympathy for
>all civilians in war.
>
>
Who is Hezbollah targeting with their rockets? Israeli civilians. You
have expressed sympathy for Israeli civilians? When was that?
Jerry Okamura
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> "Alan Lichtenstein" <a...@xyz.com> wrote in message
>> news:ntWdnYOjXP4YiFDZ...@rcn.net...
>>
>>>Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>>I think some Israeli representative said it best. He asked a very
>>>>simple question...what would America's response be, if some group in
>>>>Mexico was firing missiles into the United States? What do you think we
>>>>should do, under those circumstances?
>>>
>>>While your point, and the point of the Israeli Ambassador is well taken
>>>Jerry, the Mexicans don't have to fire missiles into the US. They're
>>>going to win back those areas with their illegal immigration. And we're
>>>going to help them do it by letting them stay, and even making them
>>>citizens.
>>
>>
>> That is not the point. The question is not whether Mexico, or for that
>> matter some organization in Mexico, is going to take over the US anyway,
>> the question was and is, what would the American response be, if the gov
>> ernment of Mexico, or some organization in Mexico, fired rockets into the
>> United States.
>
>
> You're right. I just couldn't resist the opening to get that in.
That is okay, I am getting used to the fact that people do not seem to want
to respond to the posts.
Alan Lichtenstein
( previous post snipped-follow thread )
> Do you really believe that Hezbollah is sad because those kids were
> killed? I wouldn't be surprised if they killed a few extra and
> arranged their bodies on the rubble. Your reaction is exactly what
> they were hoping for. Where's your sympathy for the Israelis who have
> had to endure 3,000 Hezbollah rockets? Do you think Hezbollah cares if
> they land on a school or hospital? Israel doesn't use schools and
> hospitals as ammunition dumps or missile launching sites.
You raise some very good points, Jeff, which the bleeding hearts, in
their zeal to substitute wishful thinking, and perfect world values for
reality seen very anxious to ignore. While I won't go as far to say
that Hezbollah killed some Muslims to add fuel to the fire, I do agree
that they show a callous disregard for their people by their placement
of their rockets, headquarters, etc., using them as human shields.
The stupid Muslims are as easily fooled by Hezbollah as we are by the
neoconservative reactionary Administration we have. Hezbollah provides
charity, Health Care, Education and other 'benefits to the poor
downtrodden and very stupid fundamentalist Arabs, thus outwardly
currying favor as a 'generous' entity, only interested in their welfare.
so they Stupid Muslims ignore the fact that they are being used as
human shields and that Hezbollah really doesn't give a damn if they get
killed, contradicting what Hezbollah does overtly. Just as we are
easily fooled by tax cuts which don't go anywhere near paying for the
programs that need to be cut to pay for them.
Further, the bleeding hearts ignore the fact that Israel showed a great
deal of restraint by NOT replying to the indiscriminate rocket attacks,
which targeted civilian targets DELIBERATELY. Apparently our bleeding
heart friends use arguments of convenience to permit them to not to be
confused by the facts and see only what they want to see, disregarding
the rest.
Israel came out yesterday totally dismissing any consideration of a
cease fire any time soon. This quite assertive pronouncement sends a
message to the rest of the world: The Israelis are prepared to fight
this battle to a conclusion that is favorable to them, and that they
consider that they're winning. A total Israeli victory over Hezbollah
and Hammas would be unacceptable to the rest of the world and their
bleeding heart sympathesizers in this country. but Israel is also
sending another message to the world: We're sick of your crap which
does nothing to solve the problem, so we're going to solve it ourselves.
Regrettably, Israel endured so many homicide bombings and rocket attacks
and did not decide to take this action sooner.
Alan Lichtenstein
( previous post snipped-follow thread )
> It's good to hear that there may be some things that you think that Israel
> doesn't do. Unfortunately, Israel is saying that it wants to hit Hezbulah,
> but what they are doing thrashing out killing lots of folks and missing
> Hezbulah. NBC had a reporter on the scene of yesterday's massacre during Meet
> the Press. There were people and probable unarmed Hezbulah but no Hezbulah
> targets. Tom Friedman, one of my favorite opinion writers, sent himself on a Mid
> East mission and watched the opinion regarding Israel change as Israel staggered
> around Lebanon swinging. He holds out hope that dialogue can change the
> situation. He thinks that the stage is set for change including changing Syria
> because sitting in the backseat while Iran and Hezbulah drive is scary. But we
> haven't spoken with Syria for a year and a half and change comes hard for Condi
> and Co. I hope they pull off that comprehensive Middle East settlement, but the
> competence of this bunch rarely surprises me in a good way. I don't think that
> Israel really wants to enter into a guerrilla war. Maybe they will come around.
On the contrary. Despite the fact that you are blind as a bat and
cannot see the Hezbollah strategy of DELIBERATE placement of their
rockets and other supply and tactical headquarters in civilian areas,
and in many cases right inside civilian apartment houses, knowing that
any Israeli response will kill civilians as well, the israeli strategy
is working quite well. The rest of the world and their bleeding heart
sympathizers who have tremendous scales over their eyes, is now crying
for a cease fire is evidence that israel is hitting them hard.
What is occurring now, and what you don't like, is that finally Israel,
having long recognized the Hezbollah strategy is simply ignoring those
civilian casualties, and doing what they must. Point of fact, if
Hezbollah were so concerned about the civilians, why don't THEY remove
their weapons from those areas?
Don't have an answer for that, do we? Maybe you ought to take a step
back and think about that for a minute. It just might cause a couple of
those scales to fall from your eyes. Give you a more objective
perspective on the issue than you have.
George Z gave you the best advice: Go have a cup of tea, take your meds
and go back to bed.
Israel is winning and is going to solve the problem once and for all.
And that just galls you doesn't it? And BTW, they're doing us a favor.
Every Muslim they kill is one less potential terrorist for us to worry
about.
Alan Lichtenstein
( previous post snipped-follow thread )
> Hapless Lebanon civilians mean nothing to you.
They obviously don't mean very much to Hezbollah, either. If they did,
Hezbollah would not place their ordinance in civilian areas, would not
set up headquarters in civilian neighborhoods and apartment houses and
would meet Israeli forces directly instead of their indiscriminate
sending of rockets into civilian areas. Of course, that really doesn't
concern you, does it?
so if they don't mean very much to Hezbollah, except only when the get
killed, as Hezbollah knows they will, for their sympathy generation,
then why should Israel care more? Fact remains, Israel finally decided
to not allow itself to be intimidated by the terrorist strategy. The
problem is lebanon's. Lebanon should be knocking down the doors of the
UN screaming for an armed international force to disarm Hezbollah and
dislodge them from Lebanese civilian areas. The fact that lebanon is
not, sends no sympathy for them. They're only sorry that they're losing.
You have expressed
> no sorrow they are being killed but rather blaming the victims.
When the victims are willing and complicit, they are no longer victims
and cannot be characterized as such. A material fact which you choose
to ignore to support your bleeding heart positions.
> Others with more knowledge than you have said that Lebanon was not
> strong enough to dislodge Hezbollah.
But yet they did nothing to ask for support from the world to do it for
them, despite the fact that they had years to do so. Until now. I
wonder why. Have you ever asked that question? I doubt it.
Jean Smith
Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
> Israel is winning and is going to solve the problem once and for all.
> And that just galls you doesn't it? And BTW, they're doing us a favor.
> Every Muslim they kill is one less potential terrorist for us to worry
> about.
It's great that you can simplify your argument to one sided religious hatred.
--
Brits http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2277717,00.html
Qana http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1701888.htm
Alan Lichtenstein
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:21:40 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Sorry to be so pejorative about your views, as we usually agree on most
>>things. But you simply don't recognize that there needs to be a
>>solution once and for all this time. THAT is the only thing Israel
>>wants. Now, what's your solution?
>
>
> Israel will get what it wants when it is willing to negotiate peace
> terms with Hamas and Hezbollah.
Are you daft, man? Israel is willing to negotiate when these two
terrorist organizations do two things: 1) Agree to recognize israel's
right to exist and 2) Agree to stop their terrorist attacks into Israel.
You really do ignore what is inconvenient for you.
Alan Lichtenstein
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:35:50 -0700, El Castor <NotA...@not-here.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Islander <nos...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rita wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The New York Times
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>July 30, 2006
>>>>Israel Is Powerful, Yes. But Not So Invincible.
>>>>By JOHN KIFNER
>>>>
>>>>NO exit?
>>>>
>>>>As the bloodbath in Lebanon spilled past its second week — with at
>>>>least 400 Lebanese dead and many more presumed buried in rubble; some
>>>>800,000 refugees, nearly a quarter of the population, on the run; and
>>>>the fragile nation’s infrastructure shattered — there was no easy way
>>>>out for either Israel or Hezbollah, the combatants locked in what each
>>>>saw as a deadly existential struggle.
>>>>
>>>>The very clear winner, for the moment at least, was Hezbollah and its
>>>>leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. (Unless, of course, Israel succeeds in
>>>>its efforts to assassinate him.) As the only Arab leader seen to have
>>>>defeated the Israelis — on the basis of their withdrawal in 2000 from
>>>>an 18-year occupation — he already enjoyed wide respect. Now, with
>>>>Hezbollah standing firm and inflicting casualties, he has become a
>>>>folk hero across the Muslim world, apparently uniting Sunnis and
>>>>Shiites.
>>>>
>>>>The standoff stunned Israel, whose offensive came in response to a
>>>>Hezbollah cross-border raid that resulted in the death of eight
>>>>Israeli soldiers and the capture of two others. Central to the
>>>>embattled nation’s sense of survivability is the idea of its
>>>>invincibility. Its intelligence knows everything, the mythology goes,
>>>>and no army dare stand against it. In truth, Israel has, in part, been
>>>>lucky in its enemies, mostly Arab regimes with armies suitable mainly
>>>>for keeping their own populace in check.
>>>>
>>>>What was clearly conceived two weeks ago as a quick battle using air
>>>>power and strikes on specific targets with commando raids to degrade
>>>>Hezbollah’s resources, particularly its stores of thousands of
>>>>rockets, has turned into a crisis. “Israel is far from a decisive
>>>>victory and its main objectives have not been achieved,” wrote the
>>>>country’s most respected military analyst, Zeev Schiff, in the daily
>>>>Haaretz.
>>>>
>>>>Hezbollah, Sheik Nasrallah has said, “needs only to survive to win.”
>>>>That seemed increasingly likely by week’s end. Deeply entwined among
>>>>the Shiite community that makes up perhaps 40 percent of Lebanon’s
>>>>population, it would be impossible to eliminate. But there is more.
>>>>Although the Israelis announced within days that they had destroyed 50
>>>>percent of Hezbollah’s munitions, the guerrillas have continued to
>>>>rain more than a hundred rockets a day on Israel. And on Wednesday, in
>>>>Bint Jbail, a town the Israelis said they controlled, a well-laid
>>>>Hezbollah ambush pinned down infantrymen from the elite Golani Brigade
>>>>for hours. At times the firing was so heavy the brigade’s soldiers
>>>>could not return it; eight Israelis were killed. The highly advanced
>>>>Merkava tanks were reduced to ambulances and several were destroyed.
>>>>
>>>>The idea that a supposedly ragtag group of guerrillas could trap the
>>>>Golani Brigade was a visceral threat to the future. Still, while there
>>>>has been criticism of the conduct of the war in Israel, with the
>>>>rockets hitting northern Israel and Hezbollah still entrenched, there
>>>>is wide popular support for continued combat.
>>>>
>>>>Yoel Marcus, a columnist for Haaretz who had earlier acidly asked if
>>>>this was the same army that had defeated all of the Arab forces in
>>>>just six days, ended the week writing: “It is unthinkable to walk away
>>>>from the battlefield with the depressing sense that out of all the
>>>>wars Israel has ever fought, only Hezbollah, a mere band of
>>>>terrorists, was able to bombard the Israeli home front with thousands
>>>>of missiles and get off scot free.
>>>>
>>>>“Before any international agreement, Israel must sound the last chord,
>>>>launching a massive air and ground offensive that will end this
>>>>mortifying war, not with a whimper but a thunderous roar.”
>>>>
>>>>It is the United States that may well come out the worst in this
>>>>impasse, particularly in terms of its influence in the Arab and Muslim
>>>>world. Already widely seen throughout much of that world as the lapdog
>>>>of Israel, it is now viewed as publicly sanctioning the continued
>>>>pounding of Lebanon, blocking efforts for a cease-fire and even
>>>>rushing the Israelis more laser-guided bombs.
>>>>
>>>>“I think this is a loser,” said Augustus Richard Norton, an expert on
>>>>the Shia of Lebanon who teaches at Boston University. “Time is working
>>>>against us, not with us. The options stink.”
>>>>
>>>>Vali R. Nasr, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, said that
>>>>“the reason it’s an impasse is that there is a lot riding on it for
>>>>the U.S. and Israel.” He added: “It potentially puts into question the
>>>>entire rationale of whether overwhelming military force can shape the
>>>>region. The bar for victory for the U.S. and Israel is growing every
>>>>day and for Hezbollah it is lowering every day.”
>>>>
>>>>Israel has been down this road in Lebanon before. In both 1978 and
>>>>1982 it invaded to drive out Palestinian guerrillas and employed a
>>>>heavy bombing campaign that drove many Shiites from the south to
>>>>Beirut’s southern slums. Its 18-year occupation of the south brought
>>>>Hezbollah into existence.
>>>>
>>>>“Hezbollah had 20 years to hone their skills and hatred against
>>>>Israel,” said Mr. Norton, a former Army officer who served with the
>>>>United Nations in southern Lebanon and taught at West Point. “That
>>>>hatred was created by Israel; it wasn’t there at the beginning.”
>>>>
>>>>Israel’s battle plan rested on air power, hoping that heavy bombing
>>>>would demoralize the population and turn it against Hezbollah,
>>>>although many military experts say that rarely works. Officials last
>>>>week seemed uncertain how to proceed: they said they would keep
>>>>bombing rather than launch any big land attacks, but still called up
>>>>as many as 30,000 reserves.
>>>>
>>>>As international concern grew over the destruction, there was a flurry
>>>>of diplomatic maneuvers aimed at creating a peacekeeping force. But
>>>>while there was widespread support in principle, no nation seemed
>>>>eager to send its own troops, particularly if the mandate was to
>>>>disarm Hezbollah, in effect, to become another combatant.
>>>>
>>>>On Friday, as crowds spilled out of a Sunni mosque in Cairo, capital
>>>>of one of America’s key allies, they waved posters with the bearded,
>>>>black-turbaned portrait of Sheik Nasrallah.
>>>>
>>>>“Oh, Sunni! Oh, Shiite! Let’s fight the Jews,” the crowds chanted.
>>>>“The Jews and the Americans are killing our brothers in Lebanon.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>In the news this morning an Israeli bomb killed 51 civilians including
>>>women and children in a shelter in Qana. I wonder if that was one of
>>>the guided bombs that we rushed to Israel.
>>>
>>>We are complicit in this in more than one way. Instead of standing with
>>>the rest of the world to demand an immediate cease fire, we elected to
>>>delay. Once again, we made the wrong choice. Instead of standing for
>>>peace, we stood for war in the eyes of the world.
>>
>>Islander, the Germans and Japanese of WWII would weep to know that
>>there were not more like you in 1941.
>>
>>Surely you understand that any cease fire that leaves Hezbollah free
>>to re-group and re-arm only means that they will be back, probably
>>sooner rather than later, to do this all over again. The real question
>>raised by the article is whether or not militant Islam has found a
>>formula for driving the Jews of Israel into the sea. It's just
>>possible that this is the beginning of the end for Israel, as well as
>>for Christian Europe.
>
>
> Hezbollah will re-group and re-arm and be back. It doesn't matter that
> the Israelis think that they can use force to kill all of them.
> Hezbollah has sacrificed and persivered in the past, and they will do
> it again. Israel might remember this as the missiles continue to fall
> from the Hezbollah. It'll only stop when they run out.
That day is coming soon, Alvin. Hezbollah's lines of supply have
already been cut and once they are pushed back far enough, they won't be
able to hit Israel with the kind of rockets they have been using.
They'll need larger rockets, which, assuming they CAN resupply( a
questionable objective ), will NOT be able to be hidden among civilian
populations as easily as Hezbollah has done now. Thus the world will
see where they are and how THEY cause the civilian deaths they are now
exploiting to their benefit.
Alan Lichtenstein
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:15:40 -0700, El Castor <NotA...@not-here.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Rita <nita...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:16:43 -0700, El Castor <NotA...@not-here.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rita <nita...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:13:27 -0700, El Castor <NotA...@not-here.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Do you really believe that Hezbollah is sad because those kids were
>>>>killed? I wouldn't be surprised if they killed a few extra and
>>>>arranged their bodies on the rubble. Your reaction is exactly what
>>>>they were hoping for. Where's your sympathy for the Israelis who have
>>>>had to endure 3,000 Hezbollah rockets? Do you think Hezbollah cares if
>>>>they land on a school or hospital? Israel doesn't use schools and
>>>>hospitals as ammunition dumps or missile launching sites.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Now you are getting crazier than usual. Now Hezbollah is responsible
>>>for the dead kids. I repeat, in your view, Israel is always 100%
>>>justified in its every action and always has been. Your degree of
>>>partisanship is such that I don't believe much you post.
>>>
>>>Hapless Lebanon civilians mean nothing to you. You have expressed
>>>no sorrow they are being killed but rather blaming the victims.
>>>Others with more knowledge than you have said that Lebanon was not
>>>strong enough to dislodge Hezbollah.
>>
>>The Christians and Sunnis of Lebanon are not strong enough to dislodge
>>Hezbollah -- but the Shiites of the North, which is where Israel is
>>fighting Hezbollah, are ardent supporters. They are reaping what they
>>sowed. That's how I feel, now please explain your lack of sympathy for
>>Israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah rockets. I'm having a hard time
>>understanding that.
>>
>
> I don't have to explain anything based on your assumption that I
> have no sympathy for Israeli civilians. I have great sympathy for
> all civilians in war.
Oh, but you do. You have said little to nothing over the years about
the rocket attacks into Israel, the homicide bombings cause by fanatical
Muslims, and the financial support given to Hezbollah by their Arab
'brothers,' especially from iran and Syria. Now, all of a sudden, your
'concern' takes a strong upward spike, but only when Israel kills Arabs?
Your assertion is merely a cop-out and leaves you with little
credibility on this issue. I rarely agree with Jeff, but here, he has
levied a challenge. Your response, which I have named the 'Connie'
response is:
"I said it, I believe it and that's that."
Unless you want to leave it at that, then, yes, you do need to explain
the apparent dilemma your position creates.
Alan Lichtenstein
> Alan - I cannot help but agree with your post regarding Israel, and
> their current battle with Hezbollah. And that is why I sent in the
> article by Charles Krauthammer,who - in my view - said it all much
> better than I ever could.
> What troubles me so much is that that view is - I am sure - a minority
> view -
> and it seems that - more than ever - the hatred against Israel (and he
> Jews) is spreading. As iI stated elsewhere, we incinerate Hiroshima, but
> when Israel kills some women and children - as tragic as that is - but,
> most likely by accident, thinking that was the source of
> Hezbollah's firing of rockets - the world - including a majority in this
> country, I believe - complains about their cruelty. Forgetting the
> years and years of the wounds and deaths inflicted upon the Israelis by
> terrorists, from the Palestinians, the Hezollah, the Hamas, etc. And
> also, conveniently, forgetting who started this conflict.
> One canot help but conclude that this judgment on the part of most of
> the world, is not based on the facts as they are happening,but on sheer
> anti-semitism. I am fully aware that criticism of Israel does not
> necessaily equate with criticism of he Jews. In this case, however,
> when it is so crystal clear who the villains are, one cannot help but
> conclude that it is hatred of Jews. and that is a sadness I feel- and
> have felt - all of my life, and it is everywhere - not only in the
> Middle East.
> Olly
>
First of all, Olly, you need to recognize that the civilian deaths were
no accident. They were caused by the deliberate and calculated tactics
of Hezbollah, which placed rockets in civilian neighborhoods, and
headquarted themselves in those same neighborhoods and apartment houses.
Collateral civilian casualties, and lots of them could not be helped
under those tactics where Hezbollah was essentially using the civilians
as human shields, quite DELIBERATELY. The fact that israel finally
decided to ignore the fall out from those deaths, and not be intimidated
or otherwise shamed into felling sorry for the Arabs and stopping the
attacks, is what worries the fanatical Muslims and their anti-Semitic
supporters in this country, and NG. Now that Israel is not going to
fall for their strategy of 'feeling sorry' for the innocent(
questionable ) civilians who die, Hezbollah now sees that israel,
prepared to fight this to a conclusion, knows it is going to lose, and
lose big.
And Iran knows that if that occurs, THEY are next in line.
You are correct in that those who now shed tears for the poor
downtrodden Arabs in the war zone, shed no tears whenever a homicide
bomber, in an act of insanity, chose to become a 'martyr' for Allah, and
take as many innocent Israeli civilians with him( or her ), or when one
of the over 3000 rockets that Hezbollah or Hammas sent into Israel
killed any innocent Israeli civilians then.
I used to think that it was just the bleeding heart, liberal mentality
that was the cause. Now, I'm inclined to entertain the position that
you assert above, as the cause being anti-Semitism. Or more precisely,
anti-Jewish.
Alan Lichtenstein
> Alan - wonderful expression : you wrote:"the Israelis will not go to
> the gas chambers again quietly. They may go, but they will take a lot
> of maniac Muslims with them."
> How true - but what is so sad about it is the fact that they would be,
> then, doing our job for us - and pehaps become extinct in the process.
> Olly
I don't think it will come to that, Olly. I just wanted to place the
issue in perspective for our bleeding heart, liberal friends, who can't
seen to let the scales fall from their eyes.
Olly Mensch
in our country here. Europe is alredy being overwhelmed - by sheer
numbers - of Muslims, whom they allow to emigrate and propagate, at an
alarming rate. And they are all over Europe. And, yes, they want to
eliminate Western civilization!!
Regarding your comments about anti-semites here, I do disagree with you.
They are not just leftist radicals, who want to be heard. Anti-semitism
is a far more vicious and deeply ingrained phenomenon - throughout the
centuries - and it has no sane reason to back up its existence,except
for the pits of mankind's ugly excesses. It is far more dangerous than
you have depicted it.
Olly
Alan Lichtenstein
The fact that you take company with others who share those beliefs,
detracts nothing from the assertion that the beliefs are fantastic.
>>>In the mid term, we need to figure out a way for Israel to strike a deal
>>>with Palestine. That boil inflames much of the hatred.
>>
>>Israel struck a deal with the Palestinians years ago, and all they got
>>for their efforts was 1500 Rockets fired into their territory during the
>>so-called 'cease fire' and 'peace.'
>
>
> I must have missed that deal? When did it happen? What was agreed to?
You may recall many years ago, agreements, negotiated through third
parties, at first, an agreement with Arafat to first recognize israel,
to set up an independent Palestinian Authority in exchange for
recognition of Israel and disarming the militants. I'm surprised that
you have such a short memory. The recent pull-out by israel from areas
in the West Bank and Gaza, and their dismantling of the settlements is
only the final part of those agreements.
However, as we all know, the rockets kept on flying from Gaza despite
all that.
>>The only deal to be struck is the
>>total disarming of the terrorists. And pray tell, how do you propose to
>>achieve that by negotiation, given their track records?
>
>
> You appear to assume that "Palestine" and "terrorist" are synonyms.
I don't assume anything. The Government of the Palestinian Authority is
led by hammas, a terrorist organization, recognized as such by the UN, I
believe, whose goal is STILL the destruction of the Israeli State.
So, yes, Josh, they are synonymous. You may not like it, but they are.
If
> so, then what is your proposed solution for Palestine?
Military victory by Israel.
Friends do not include those within your own house. Israeli Arabs, are
israelis, and within the 'house' of Israel. American Muslims, are
Americans, within the American 'house.' Both groups share in the
economic benefits of their respective countries and see themselves first
as citizens of that country. so while my post was directed towards
Muslims living in other countries, it did not apply to those in those
countries. Although, it wouldn't be a bad idea. Would sort of preclude
some problems which will crop up, such as that little problem which
cropped up on 9/11/01.
Rita
wrote:
>Rita wrote:
I don't need to explain a damn thing. I've written for years about
the madness in the Middle East -- how revenge and retaliation on all
sides and all sides behaving badly at times. Who can sort it out?
Overall I see at as six of one and half a dozen of the other in terms
of figuring out who is to blame precisely for what. Arabs kill
Israelis and Israelis kill Arabs. How long now has all this been
going on? Each side justifies its actions. Innocent people die on
both sides. One can't measure any one death or death on any one
side as more or less tragic than on the other.
These are my feelings and if you don't like them, Alan, I can't
help that. But perhaps I should have recognized it is a fool's game
to keep count of the latest tragedies because that just brings in
partisans arguing the other side does worse. The fruits of a cycle
of revenge and retaliation are that both sides do worse.
Jerry Okamura
> El Castor wrote:
>
>
> The stupid Muslims are as easily fooled by Hezbollah as we are by the
> neoconservative reactionary Administration we have. Hezbollah provides
> charity, Health Care, Education and other 'benefits to the poor
> downtrodden and very stupid fundamentalist Arabs, thus outwardly currying
> favor as a 'generous' entity, only interested in their welfare. so they
> Stupid Muslims ignore the fact that they are being used as human shields
> and that Hezbollah really doesn't give a damn if they get killed,
> contradicting what Hezbollah does overtly. Just as we are easily fooled
> by tax cuts which don't go anywhere near paying for the programs that need
> to be cut to pay for them.
Kind of convulted thought process it seems to me. In the US, the two
parties "curry favor" also, it just that they do it in completely different
directions it seems to me.
Jerry Okamura
"Jean Smith" <gote...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gotermite-761E8...@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> In article <GuqdnXTD8qUG6lLZ...@rcn.net>,
> Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Israel is winning and is going to solve the problem once and for all.
>> And that just galls you doesn't it? And BTW, they're doing us a favor.
>> Every Muslim they kill is one less potential terrorist for us to worry
>> about.
>
> It's great that you can simplify your argument to one sided religious
> hatred.
>
you?