Middle East - what's next

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What's "open war"? I heard that the Hezbollah missed a Israeli ship and hit a ship from Egypt. This true?

No, they got an Israeli ship:

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hezbollah rammed an Israeli warship with an unmanned aircraft rigged with explosives Friday, setting it ablaze after Israeli warplanes smashed Lebanon’s links to the world one by one and destroyed the headquarters of the Islamic guerrilla group’s leader.

[Galaxy]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13853565/


In addition to the fighting in Lebanon, Israel pressed ahead with its offensive in the Gaza Strip against Hamas, striking the Palestinian economy ministry offices early Saturday.

In another maritime strike, Israel said that a Hezbollah rocket barrage missed its target and struck a civilian merchant ship. They did not know the nationality of the ship, or whether there were casualties.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

A valid complaint, but would be a "last resort"? We have tried to talk with Iraq for a long time, and Saddam kicked out UN inspectors and peacekeepers. I guess a big concern is what is consider "last resort"? I don't want to be trigger happy, but I don't want to allow a country like Iran or North Korea to obtain nukes when we have the ability to stop that from happening. We have talked with many of these countries for a long time, but what does talk do to these leaders? You can't change them.

Last resort means the only option is war. As in getting bombed yourself or a country is taking over other countries. Anything that happened in Iraq wasn't worthy of "last resort". I mean look what the years of sanctions did. Saddam was a shell of himself. His power was eroded. He couldn't do jack and we had our eye on him constantly.

Oh, and btw, the reason we haven't bombed North Korea (not to you, but since you brought up NK, to rowech) isn't because of "public opinion". It's because of that big ass country right next to it that we really don't want to piss off.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

We have tried to talk with Iraq for a long time, and Saddam kicked out UN inspectors and peacekeepers.

Not entirely true, as Saddam let Hans Blix and co. back into Iraq. Bush then told Blix to get out because he wanted to attack (a cynical person may say he told him to get out because he was undermining the case for war by not finding any WMD's).

Originally Posted by Galaxy

...I don't want to allow a country like Iran or North Korea to obtain nukes when we have the ability to stop that from happening. We have talked with many of these countries for a long time, but what does talk do to these leaders? You can't change them.

Iran was moderating until Bush named them part of the Axis of Evil, which supercharged the radicals much like 9/11 supercharged the aggressive hawks in this country. North Korea was moderating under the Sunshine Policy, and in deals brokered by Clinton and Carter, locked up their plutonium fuel rods, and with deals negotiated with the South they began to integrate the two Koreas. Bush fucked that all up:

A few days before Bush took office in January 2001, a half-dozen members of Clinton's national-security team crossed the Potomac River to the Northern Virginia home of Colin Powell. President-elect George W. Bush had named the former general as his secretary of state, a choice widely viewed, and praised, as a signal that the new president would be following a moderate, internationalist foreign policy.

The Clinton team briefed Powell for two hours on the status of the North Korean talks. Halfway into the briefing, Condoleezza Rice, the new national security adviser, who had just flown in from meeting with Bush in Texas, showed up. One participant remembers Powell listening to the briefing with enthusiasm. Rice, however, was clearly skeptical. "The body language was striking," he says. "Powell was leaning forward. Rice was very much leaning backward. Powell thought that what we had been doing formed an interesting basis for progress. He was disabused very quickly."

In early March, barely a month into Bush's term, Kim Dae Jung, South Korea's president, made a state visit to Washington. On the eve of the visit, Powell told reporters that, on Korean policy, Bush would pick up where Clinton had left off. The White House instantly rebuked him; Bush made it clear he would do no such thing. Powell had to eat his words, publicly admitting that he had leaned "too forward in my skis." It was the first of many instances when Powell would find himself out of step with the rest of the Bush team--the lone diplomat in a sea of hardliners.

If Powell was embarrassed by Bush's stance, Kim Dae Jung was humiliated. KDJ, as some Korea-watchers called him, was a new kind of South Korean leader, a democratic activist who had spent years in prison for his political beliefs and had run for president promising a "sunshine policy" of opening up relations with the North. During the Clinton years, South Korea's ruling party had been implacably hostile to North Korea. Efforts to hold serious disarmament talks were obstructed at least as much by Seoul's sabotage as by Pyongyang's maneuverings. Now South Korea had a leader who could be a partner in negotiating strategy--but the United States had a leader who was uninterested in negotiations.

In Bush's view, to negotiate with an evil regime would be to recognize that regime, legitimize it, and--if the negotiations led to a treaty or a trade--prolong it. To Bush, North Korea's dictator was the personification of evil. He told one reporter, on the record, that he "loathed" Kim Jong-il. It was no surprise that Bush would distrust anyone who wanted to accommodate his regime. Bush not only distrusted Kim Dae Jung but viewed him with startling contempt. Charles "Jack" Pritchard, who had been director of the National Security Council's Asia desk under Clinton and was now the State Department's special North Korean envoy under Bush, recalls, "Bush's attitude toward KDJ was, 'Who is this naive, old guy?'" Kim Dae Jung had also committed what Bush regarded as a personal snub. Shortly before his Washington trip, the South Korean president met Russian president Vladimir Putin, and issued a joint statement endorsing the preservation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Everyone knew that Bush placed a high priority on scuttling the ABM Treaty.

So when Kim Dae Jung arrived in Washington, Bush publicly criticized him and his sunshine policy. Bush and his advisers--especially Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld--decided not only to isolate North Korea, in the hopes that its regime would crumble, but also to ignore South Korea, in hopes that its next election would restore a conservative.

Bush was the naïve one, it turned out. Kim Jong-il survived U.S. pressures. And Kim Dae Jung was replaced by Roh Moo Hyun, a populist who ran on a campaign that was not only pro-sunshine but also anti-American. Relations were soured further by Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address, in which he tagged North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as an "axis of evil." A month later, in February, Bush made his first trip to Seoul. James Kelly, his assistant secretary of state for Asian affairs, went in advance to set up the meeting. Pritchard, who accompanied Kelly, recalls, "The conversation in the streets of Seoul was, 'Is there going to be a war? What will these crazy Americans do?' Roh said to us, 'I wake up in a sweat every morning, wondering if Bush has done something unilaterally to affect the [Korean] peninsula."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...05.kaplan.html

The lesson here is not that 'evil madmen' can't be negotiated with, the lesson is that if you put idiots in charge of foreign policy, you will end up with negative results. Same as if you put idiots in charge of FEMA, you will end up with poor disaster relief. If you put idiots in charge of rebuilding a country, you will end up with a shitty country.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by rowech

I realize it's impossible to transplant times, etc. I love watching Israel do what they're doing though. They have two soliders captured, not even killed, and they go to bat for those two folks.

Somebody else asked whether Israel escalates if Iran/Syria had nukes.

My thought is, yeah, they're going to bat for those two guys...but are they doing it because it's a chance to escalate and do what needs doing militarily without looking like bullies, or is it really all about just the two soldiers?

I want to believe it's the latter, but we've had Israel on a leash for so long when they're surrounded by people who want to wipe them out that part of me wonders if there isn't at least a little bit of political expediency at work here.

And this is coming from somebody who wholeheartedly supports Israel's actions here.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The Hezbollah is an "arm" of Iran.

Let's assume that Iran ordered the abductions, even though we have no evidence of that right now. How are they responsible for the Isreali response that the EU termed "disproportionate"?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Let's assume that Iran ordered the abductions, even though we have no evidence of that right now. How are they responsible for the Isreali response that the EU termed "disproportionate"?

If you walk up to somebody and punch him in the face, you really can't cry that he kicked you in the nuts and broke your ribs while you were writhing on the ground. Just because he's exercised restraint in the past doesn't mean he's going to let you keep taking shots at him forever.

The response might be disproportionate relative to the act of kidnapping, if you view it through narrow lenses, but is it disproportionate relative to the last sixty years of Arab violence against Israel?

You either put up with perpetual violence and act in fits and starts, or you take the velvet gloves off and act with the political will to end what they started.

We've seen the results of the former, and now we're seeing Israel do the latter. What the difference will be, only time will tell.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13853565/


In addition to the fighting in Lebanon, Israel pressed ahead with its offensive in the Gaza Strip against Hamas, striking the Palestinian economy ministry offices early Saturday.

In another maritime strike, Israel said that a Hezbollah rocket barrage missed its target and struck a civilian merchant ship. They did not know the nationality of the ship, or whether there were casualties.

"Doh"

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And this is coming from somebody who wholeheartedly supports Israel's actions here.

Would you support the 10 million deaths of WWI as an appropriate reaction to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand? Were the thousands of deaths worth Jenkins' ear?

This is what I fear this is turning into, a war killing thousands or tens of thousands or even more because two soldiers were kidnapped, something that could have been stopped if cooler heads were to prevail.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Would you support the 10 million deaths of WWI as an appropriate reaction to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand? Were the thousands of deaths worth Jenkins' ear?

This is what I fear this is turning into, a war killing thousands or tens of thousands or even more because two soldiers were kidnapped, something that could have been stopped if cooler heads were to prevail.

i really don't think this is about the two soldiers anymore. would israel like them back alive, of course. but at this point it has moved from that purpose to more of a "okay we've put up with this crap long enough, now we're going to do something about it once and for all."

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

If you walk up to somebody and punch him in the face, you really can't cry that he kicked you in the nuts and broke your ribs while you were writhing on the ground. Just because he's exercised restraint in the past doesn't mean he's going to let you keep taking shots at him forever.

The response might be disproportionate relative to the act of kidnapping, if you view it through narrow lenses, but is it disproportionate relative to the last sixty years of Arab violence against Israel?

You either put up with perpetual violence and act in fits and starts, or you take the velvet gloves off and act with the political will to end what they started.

We've seen the results of the former, and now we're seeing Israel do the latter. What the difference will be, only time will tell.

If someone punches you in the face, and you take out a gun and shoot him ten times, that's an overreaction. Let's not call Israel innocent bystanders here. They've had their own share of violance against the Palestinians, to say they have been acting with velvet gloves is just not an appropriate metaphor. Since 2000, over 3,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel, while only 1,000 Israelies have been killed by Palestinians, according to the BBC.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i really don't think this is about the two soldiers anymore. would israel like them back alive, of course. but at this point it has moved from that purpose to more of a "okay we've put up with this crap long enough, now we're going to do something about it once and for all."

I agree, it was the spark in the dry brush that started the wildfire, like a number of wars.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

If someone punches you in the face, and you take out a gun and shoot him ten times, that's an overreaction. Let's not call Israel innocent bystanders here. They've had their own share of violence against the Palestinians, to say they have been acting with velvet gloves is just not an appropriate metaphor. Since 2000, over 3,000 Palestini
ans have been killed by Israel, while only 1,000 Israelis have been killed by Palestinians, according to the BBC.

Couple things.

1) How much of Israeli-on-Palestinian violence was unprovoked?

2) Since 2000. Well, hell, I haven't scratched my balls since June of 2006. That means something as far as civil behavior goes, doesn't it?

3) Hyperbole, much? This isn't a matter of bringing a gun to a rockfight, although I don't have a problem with swatting a mosquito that doesn't know when to quit with a sledgehammer if that gets the point across.

Look, Israel is *surrounded* by hostile nations that would love to wipe it from the face of the earth. Has any other country on earth had its athletes kidnapped and massacred to make a political point? Has any other country on earth been the subject of near-daily attacks on civilians to try to force the government to coerce to the political demands of a fringe group of radicals?

I guarantee you that if, say, Mexicans or Latin Americans were coming across the United States border and blowing themselves up in populated areas, if the Canadians were kidnapping soldiers or lobbing missiles into New York or Seattle, and had been doing so for years, if not decades, we would not have put up with it. If France were the constant target of terrorist attacks by Basques or the Germans (no jokes, please), would anybody deny their right to hold the governments of those nations responsible for stopping such attacks, and to take matters into their own hands if those governments proved unable or unwilling?

Why is Israel held to a different standard? Because a group of people no other nation in the region even WANTS continues to refuse to negotiate in good faith with a country that has bent over backwards to try to acquire peaceful co-existence with its neighbors, and is a media darling for its poverty in the shadow of a nation peopled by a group that has once before been the target of genocidal attacks, and would be again if its neighbors had the means?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Couple things.

1) How much of Israeli-on-Palestinian violence was unprovoked?

2) Since 2000. Well, hell, I haven't scratched my balls since June of 2006. That means something as far as civil behavior goes, doesn't it?

3) Hyperbole, much? This isn't a matter of bringing a gun to a rockfight, although I don't have a problem with swatting a mosquito that doesn't know when to quit with a sledgehammer if that gets the point across.

Look, Israel is *surrounded* by hostile nations that would love to wipe it from the face of the earth. Has any other country on earth had its athletes kidnapped and massacred to make a political point? Has any other country on earth been the subject of near-daily attacks on civilians to try to force the government to coerce to the political demands of a fringe group of radicals?

I guarantee you that if, say, Mexicans or Latin Americans were coming across the United States border and blowing themselves up in populated areas, if the Canadians were kidnapping soldiers or lobbing missiles into New York or Seattle, and had been doing so for years, if not decades, we would not have put up with it. If France were the constant target of terrorist attacks by Basques or the Germans (no jokes, please), would anybody deny their right to hold the governments of those nations responsible for stopping such attacks, and to take matters into their own hands if those governments proved unable or unwilling?

Why is Israel held to a different standard? Because a group of people no other nation in the region even WANTS continues to refuse to negotiate in good faith with a country that has bent over backwards to try to acquire peaceful co-existence with its neighbors, and is a media darling for its poverty in the shadow of a nation peopled by a group that has once before been the target of genocidal attacks, and would be again if its neighbors had the means?

Well put.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

If someone punches you in the face, and you take out a gun and shoot him ten times, that's an overreaction. Let's not call Israel innocent bystanders here. They've had their own share of violance against the Palestinians, to say they have been acting with velvet gloves is just not an appropriate metaphor. Since 2000, over 3,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel, while only 1,000 Israelies have been killed by Palestinians, according to the BBC.

That's just bizarre logic. The terrorists are the aggressors, and Israel has the power to kill many, many more people than a 3/1 ratio in response. They have not. If their goal was to remove all the Arabs from Palestine, they could kill hundreds of thousands very quickly. They have not come close.

If someone punches you in the face, and you punch him in the face three times in response, that's not an overreaction.

An overreaction would be if the Israelis acted as the terrorists do, and killed as many as they could in response to each rocket fired.

Again, you have to look at the charters of these terrorist groups. They are bent on removing Israel. I don't see how anyone can justify that, or be surprised or upset when Israel uses its more advanced weaponry to try and do something about it.

Turning the other cheek has not worked for the Israelis. They need to strike hard. They need to stop the unprovoked daily shelling of their towns.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Why is Israel held to a different standard? Because a group of people no other nation in the region even WANTS continues to refuse to negotiate in good faith with a country that has bent over backwards to try to acquire peaceful co-existence with its neighbors, and is a media darling for its poverty in the shadow of a nation peopled by a group that has once before been the target of genocidal attacks, and would be again if its neighbors had the means?

Why is it that the fact that Israel was plopped in the middle of what was Arab territory always frigging ignored in this calculation ? If I set up a nation in the middle of Kansas, kicked out the people who were there before, and did this not on any sort of democratic basis but rather because the imperial masters wished it to be so, would you look favorably upon me ? There was no doubting the need for a Jewish homeland of some sort after WW II - but instead of taking a chunk of Germany (which was amongst the locations discussed, along with South America), they took a chunk of Arab territory and decided to put it there. There's no justification for terrorism (speaking of which - ain't it grand that there former primer Minister is famous for butchering Lebanese ?), but lets not pretend that Israel's location was anything other than a big fuck you to the Arabs.

And look, I know what's done is done - Israel is there to stay, and the people have done a remarkable job in making something of a nation surrounded by hostile forces. The sooner the Arab world recognizes that the location is never going to be changed, the better of they will be.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Why is it that the fact that Israel was plopped in the middle of what was Arab territory always frigging ignored in this calculation ? If I set up a nation in the middle of Kansas, kicked out the people who were there before, and did this not on any sort of democratic basis but rather because the imperial masters wished it to be so, would you look favorably upon me ? There was no doubting the need for a Jewish homeland of some sort after WW II - but instead of taking a chunk of Germany (which was amongst the locations discussed, along with South America), they took a chunk of Arab territory and decided to put it there. There's no justification for terrorism (speaking of which - ain't it grand that there former primer Minister is famous for butchering Lebanese ?), but lets not pretend that Israel's location was anything other than a big fuck you to the Arabs.

And look, I know what's done is done - Israel is there to stay, and the people have done a remarkable job in making something of a nation surrounded by hostile forces. The sooner the Arab world recognizes that the location is never going to be changed, the better of they will be.

Considering that the nation of Israel pretty much originated there shortly after the dawn of man, I'd say they had every right to reclaim their homeland.

There's plenty of desert in Syria and Jordan. Give the Palestinians a piece of it there, if you're so sensitive to their "plight." Or tell them to learn to just get along. But paying them to blow themselves up in civilian population centers is bullshit, and you can stick that in your equation.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Considering that the nation of Israel pretty much originated there shortly after the dawn of man.

6,000,000 years is a pretty long time

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Why is it that the fact that Israel was plopped in the middle of what was Arab territory always frigging ignored in this calculation?

Because it's irrelevant to whether or not Israel has the right to defend herself against genocidal aggressors? It's not irrelevant to the roots of the current conflict, but what the hell has it got to do with Israel's right to secure herself and her borders against hostile neighbors who would like nothing better than to eradicate her?

If I set up a nation in the middle of Kansas, kicked out the people who were there before, and did this not on any sort of democratic basis but rather because the imperial masters wished it to be so, would you look favorably upon me?

I dunno. Seems to me that's basically what Andrew Jackson fomented in the 19th century. Let's say the Cherokee Nation had been behind the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building, and had taken to launching suicide attacks. Does that change anything for you?

Hey, if nothing else, the Jews don't accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah. That whole "turn the other cheek" bit? Works great for Christians, but I tend to think "an eye for an eye" probably holds more sway in Israeli culture. That it's taken so long for them to reach that point demonstrates remarkable restraint, IMO.

There was no doubting the need for a Jewish homeland of some sort after WW II - but instead of taking a chunk of Germany (which was amongst the locations discussed, along with South America)

Oh, that's fantastic. Let's see here. Germany gets defeated in World War I, forced to cede land and pay harsh reparations. A failed painter of a demagogue rises to power partly on the whole "Jews are to blame for our defeat 30 years ago, a true Aryan nation could never have been beaten" platform. Country rallies behind him (at least initially), and he attempts to wipe them out, with the complicity of a range of not-so-nice people.

And now that they've been defeated again, let's take part of their country and give it to the very people they've spent the last four years blaming for their troubles.

What could possibly go wrong?

Look, here's what it boils down to. Very few nations in the world really had any taste for the idea of accepting a mass influx of Jews - and that probably speaks to the anti-Semitism of the era more than anything else - but there happened to be this protectorate sitting in what happened to be the ancestral home of the Jewish nation. They said "Hey, uh, we'd go there." The British, maybe feeling a wee guilty, said "Go right ahead."

Maybe it was a

big fuck you to the Arabs.

and maybe it was more complicated than that. The point is:

I know what's done is done - Israel is there to stay, and the people have done a remarkable job in making something of a nation surrounded by hostile forces. The sooner the Arab world recognizes that the location is never going to be changed, the better of they will be.

The fact that Israel is still the one that reaps world criticism whenever it acts unilaterally in her own defense interests tells me that the world hasn't moved on that much. Anti-Semitism may be politically incorrect, but it's still alive and well. Israel doesn't have all that many friends on the global stage, and maybe part of that is appeasement aimed at the oil cartel. Maybe quite a large part of it is.

But maybe, just maybe, there's more people in charge around the globe who think like Iraq's speaker of the parliament, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, who's recently been saying some things that might sound familiar in an historical context:

Originally Posted by al-Mashhadani

Some people say, 'We saw you beheading, kidnappings and killing. In the end we even started kidnapping women who are our honor,'” al-Mashhadani said. “These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew.”

“I can tell you about these Jewish, Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq and come with the agent and cheap project.”

“No one deserves to rule Iraq other than Islamists.

He hasn't come right out and advocated the eradication of Israel the way Mahmud Ahmadinejad has, true, but comments such as those should still trouble any thinking individual.

The fact that the world community, in chastising Israel for her military actions, without doing anything meaningful to address the core issue - that the rest of the region hates Israel and would cheerfully destroy her with or without provocation given the opportunity - is more disturbing still.

It's one thing to say Israel shouldn't do this, and quite another to offer a meaningful alternative, which is one thing the Palestinian/Arab faction has yet to do.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Turning the other cheek has not worked for the Israelis. They need to strike hard. They need to stop the unprovoked daily shelling of their towns.

This has been a typical refrain from the Israelis over the years, and on the surface it makes sense. But here's always been my question -- when have the Israelis ever turned the other cheek? They occupied Gaza for nearly 30 years and routinely built settlements on purportedly Palestinian lands. If they invade and occupy Lebanon during this crisis -- which looks like a foregone conclusion -- it will be the third time that Israel has occupied Lebanon in the last 30 years. When Israel makes inferences that they have turned the other check, what they really mean is that they haven't hit their enemies as hard as they want.

I have tried to see the Israeli/Arab conflict from both sides over the years and I've never been able to say that I think one side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong. I have tried to place myself in both sides' positions and I see why the hatred is there on both sides. There are many in the Arab world who want Israel off the map, yet I have no doubt that if Israel thought they could get away with it, there are members of the Israeli government who would advocate a couple of strategically placed nuclear devices and end everything right now.

I'm not sold that Israel is punishing the right people with their strikes and I think this case has exposed a flaw in our terrorism strategy. Hezbollah isn't the government of Lebanon, and the Lebanese government is too weak to do anything about the militant faction of Hezbollah.

The real villain in this scenario is Iran. Iran is the sponsor of terrorism in this case. But no one wants to get in a rumble with Iran. Israel will extract their pound of flesh in Lebanon, nothing will really change and everybody will hate everybody just a bit more than they did yesterday.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Why is it that the fact that Israel was plopped in the middle of what was Arab territory always frigging ignored in this calculation ? If I set up a nation in the middle of Kansas, kicked out the people who were there before, and did this not on any sort of democratic basis but rather because the imperial masters wished it to be so, would you look favorably upon me ? There was no doubting the need for a Jewish homeland of some sort after WW II - but instead of taking a chunk of Germany (which was amongst the locations discussed, along with South America), they took a chunk of Arab territory and decided to put it there. There's no justification for terrorism (speaking of which - ain't it grand that there former primer Minister is famous for butchering Lebanese ?), but lets not pretend that Israel's location was anything other than a big fuck you to the Arabs.

I'm continually mystified by the number of people who believe this, and believe this in earnest. In America. In 2006. It's almost as if Hamas leaders themselves were standing over the history books, rewriting furiously.

Here's the ancient history stuff:

1. The Jews have had the longest continuous presence in what is known today as Israel of any group. Maybe not 6 million years, but definitely more than 3,000.

2. Jerusalem has always been the center of the Jewish religion. It is not mentioned in the Koran.

Fast-forward to the 1890s:

3. During extensive pogroms in Russia, many Jews were forced to leave, or conditions were made so unbearable that leaving was necessary.

4. Many came to America, among other places. Many others formed what was known as the Zionist movement, or a push to have a Jewish state. They decided to do this in what is now known as Israel.

5. At that time, it was sparsely populated and much of it considered uninhabitable. But there was an existing Jewish presence - maybe 8% of the population, or about 50,000 people.

6. The territory was then part of the Ottoman Empire. There were no countries or states.

7. They tried to form a permanent state, but were not allowed by the Ottomen (Ottomans?). They tried to secure territory in both Uganda and in Argentina, among many places. That quickly proved impossible.

8. They began building agricultural settlements on the land, where no one was displaced because it was barren land.

Moving into the 1910s:

9. England gained control of the area, which was then called the British Mandate.

10. In 1917, the British enacted what's known as the Balfour Declaration.

Originally Posted by Balfour Declaration

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

And in the 1930s:

11. As Hitler rose to power, conditions in much of Europe became pretty bad for the Jews. Many sought to leave, but were blocked. Some left, and headed for Palestine.

12. At first, the British allowed this. But after a while, they began blockading the ships. The Jews were able to get some people through, many were sent back to a certain death.

The early 1940s:

13. Most Jews who remained in Europe were sent to the death camps, where six million were killed - about a third of Jewish population of the world. About 500,000 Jews lived in Palestine at the time, making up about 30% of the total population.

And in 1948:

14. The United Nations voted to create the two-state solution in Palestine - one state for the Jews, known as Israel, the other for the Arabs.

15. The Arabs declared war immediately.

16. The Arabs asked all fellow Arabs living in Israel to leave while they finished Hitler's work. They left, despite pleas from the Israelis.

17. These people are now known as Palestinian refugees, many of whom live in the old Jewish territories of Judea and Samaria. This area is also known as the West Bank, which was held by Jordan during the 1948 war.

18. Against staggering odds, the Israelis repelled the attacks.

19. During this time, about 400,000 Arabs were displaced. And about 700,000 Jews, who were living throughout the Middle East in places like Iran, were also displaced.

20. The Jewish refugees came to Israel, where they were welcomed. The Arab refugees were not allowed to do much of anything. The same Arab countries who asked them to vacate refused to allow them to immigrate.

And to 1967:

21. Led by Egypt, the Arab countries massed troops on several Israeli borders, threatening to kill every man, woman and child.

22. Again, against staggering odds, the Israelis won what's now known as the Six-Day War, helped enormously by a first strike through the air wiping out the Egyptian air force.

23. The Israelis took over quite a bit of land, including the West Bank, Gaza and the Sinai peninsula.

Since then:

24. Gradually, some Arab states have become more moderate. The Egyptians accepted the return of Sinai for peace. Jordan made peace.

25. Hostilities have erupted from time to time. Israel occupied southern Lebanon for a long time, leaving in 2000, I believe.

26. Meanwhile, militant groups still pledge to eliminate Israel entirely.

27. Peace talks always fail because the Arabs want the Palestinians to have what's known as "right of return" to Israel. If allowed back in, there are now enough Palestinians to safely eliminate the Jewish majority in the area. At that point, Israel would probably cease to exist.

28. The Israelis will not grant right of return. They feel that Palestine should form as a separate, peaceful country, and that other Arab countries should take in refugees as well, since Israel represents less than 1% of the land of the entire Middle East.


Now, I'm curious why this amounts to a "fuck you" to the Arabs. It's not like Israel was ever an Arab country. It was a territory, and the Jews had an established presence.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

This has been a typical refrain from the Israelis over the years, and on the surface it makes sense. But here's always been my question -- when have the Israelis ever turned the other cheek? They occupied Gaza for nearly 30 years and routinely built settlements on purportedly Palestinian lands. If they invade and occupy Lebanon during this crisis -- which looks like a foregone conclusion -- it will be the third time that Israel has occupied Lebanon in the last 30 years. When Israel makes inferences that they have turned the other check, what they really mean is that they haven't hit their enemies as hard as they want.

I have tried to see the Israeli/Arab conflict from both sides over the years and I've never been able to say that I think one side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong. I have tried to place myself in both sides' positions and I see why the hatred is there on both sides. There are many in the Arab world who want Israel off the map, yet I have no doubt that if Israel thought they could get away with it, there are members of the Israeli government who would advocate a couple of strategically placed nuclear devices and end everything right now.

I'm not sold that Israel is punishing the right people with their strikes and I think this case has exposed a flaw in our terrorism strategy. Hezbollah isn't the government of Lebanon, and the Lebanese government is too weak to do anything about the militant faction of Hezbollah.

The real villain in this scenario is Iran. Iran is the sponsor of terrorism in this case. But no one wants to get in a rumble with Iran. Israel will extract their pound of flesh in Lebanon, nothing will really change and everybody will hate everybody just a bit more than they did yesterday.

This article, written in 2002, explains it far better than I can:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8/IN241627.DTL

So far, the Israelis have used remarkable restraint in response to nearly constant violence.

From examining what's going on, Israel appears to be trying to set up a buffer zone in southern Lebanon. So far, given their complete command of the air, the number of deaths indicates that the Israelis are trying not to kill civilians.

At the same time, Hezbollah is specifically targetting civilians with their rockets in northern Israel. They did start this, after all. I think Israel recognizes that Iran and Syria are more the Hezbollah supports than Lebanon. But it's not like Lebanon is doing anything to stop them.

I think Israel will do its best to focus entirely on Hezbollah, not on the rest of the Lebanese. But there was unprovoked violence coming from Lebanon, and not to react strongly would be insane.

Would you criticize the US if US troops went into Pakistan to go after Al Qaeda?

[Franklinnoble]

The only way to create any sympathy whatsoever for suicidal terrorists (as if those animals could ever garner any sympathy) is via revisionist history.

It doesn't even surprise me, but then again, I view history through a less secular lens. This is spiritual warfare. God's chosen people have been targeted with genocide since the beginning of recorded history.

In the last century, I believe America has done the right thing so far. There have only been two attacks on our soil in the last 100 years. Both originated from the same source - a desire to wipe out the jews. Hitler wanted to do it. Now it's muslim terrorists. If the US didn't intervene in World War 2, there wouldn't be an Israel, and there wouldn't be very many jews. If the US doesn't intervene in the middle east today, there's won't be an Israel.

[Edward64]

Solecismic. I read through your 28 points and I still agree with Crapshoot.

Your argument seems to be the Jews were there first and have always had some sort of presence there and were for the most part not the initial aggressors. Okay, even if this was valid, the big f*** you occurred in 1948.

Countries/territories come and go (ex. native Americans) and it comes to a point where old history does not matter anymore in the secular world. Whats important is dealing with current (ex. within last 100 years?) realities and deal with it.

I also agree with kcchief19 questioning whether Israel is punishing the right group in Lebanon. How about a Fallujah type operation? Warn the civilians to leave, tease Hezbollah to fight it out and then go for it. I know this won't get the leadership (or the 2 soldiers) but this is certainly better than highways, airports and other country infrastructure etc.

[JPhillips]

Franklin: Hitler had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Claiming that Pearl Harbor was based on a desire to wipe out the Jews is truly revisionist history.

Pearl Harbor was about resources and a desire to remove western influence from the Asia/Pacific region.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Franklin: Hitler had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Claiming that Pearl Harbor was based on a desire to wipe out the Jews is truly revisionist history.

Pearl Harbor was about resources and a desire to remove western influence from the Asia/Pacific region.

If you think Hitler starting WWII had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, you're crazy. Do you think Japan would have considered attacking the United States if there weren't already a war in Europe?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Solecismic. I read through your 28 points and I still agree with Crapshoot.

Your argument seems to be the Jews were there first and have always had some sort of presence there and were for the most part not the initial aggressors. Okay, even if this was valid, the big f*** you occurred in 1948.

Countries/territories come and go (ex. native Americans) and it comes to a point where old history does not matter anymore in the secular world. Whats important is dealing with current (ex. within last 100 years?) realities and deal with it.

What's important is dealing with right here and now. 160 Nations including the UN recognize the state of Israel to exist. That league of nations exclude only countries located in Africa and the Middle East which are based on the religious laws of Islam.

I also agree with kcchief19 questioning whether Israel is punishing the right group in Lebanon. How about a Fallujah type operation? Warn the civilians to leave, tease Hezbollah to fight it out and then go for it. I know this won't get the leadership (or the 2 soldiers) but this is certainly better than highways, airports and other country infrastructure etc.

But it's highways, airports, and infrastructure controlled by the Hezbollah, not by Lebanon. That's been reiterated multiple times by folks telling us why Israel cannot declare war on Lebanon. Until Lebanon can retake those lands and secure it themselves, it really should be considered an "occupied zone" just like the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem. The only difference of course, is who plants their flag their. In southern lebanon, it's Hezbollah.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

If you think Hitler starting WWII had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, you're crazy.

Agreed. The Tripartite Pact had been around for over a year before Japan attacked the United States.

And despite only being obliged to declare war on a nation if directly attacked (per the rules of the Tripartite Pact), Germany declared war on the United States on Dec. 11, 1941. Not by coincidence as the true revisionists will suggest, but because of the axis.

Germany hands were not even close to being clean with regards to Pearl Harbor.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Dutch

What's important is dealing with right here and now. 160 Nations including the UN recognize the state of Israel to exist. That league of nations exclude only countries located in Africa and the Middle East which are based on the religious laws of Islam.

Dutch. I basically agree with you, here and now is most important ... not old historical claims. However I certainly don't think you can use the UN to buffer your argument, I'm not interested enough to research/list, but I am sure there are plenty of UN recognitions for the other side also that Israel/US disregards.

Originally Posted by Dutch

But it's highways, airports, and infrastructure controlled by the Hezbollah, not by Lebanon. That's been reiterated multiple times by folks telling us why Israel cannot declare war on Lebanon. Until Lebanon can retake those lands and secure it themselves, it really should be considered an "occupied zone" just like the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem. The only difference of course, is who plants their flag their. In southern lebanon, it's Hezbollah.

Its senseless and impossible to try debate your term 'control'. Basically, there are alot of collateral damage/impact on those I view as 'innocent Lebanese civilians'. That's the main rationale of my earlier point that Israel has lost the 'moral high ground', not that Israel doesn't have the right to defend herself 'proportionately'.

My statement stands. Pull a Fallujah, give civilians fair warning to leave, tease Hezbollah and tell them the Jews are coming and fight it out. Reoccupy southern Lebanon, embarass Hezbollah ... I think if there is this clear cut distinction, there would be less perception that this is indiscriminate.

Granted, this won't help the 2 soldiers but whats happening now won't return them alive unless the Israeli's get lucky.

On the other hand in Gaza, I admittedly do not view the population there as 'innocent Gaza civilians'. I don't know for sure but I suspect the population there has actively supported Hamas and encouraged their attacks on Israel. I do not view the Lebanese civilians in the same light.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Dutch. I basically agree with you, here and now is most important ... not old historical claims. However I certainly don't think you can use the UN to buffer your argument, I'm not interested enough to research/list, but I am sure there are plenty of UN recognitions for the other side also that Israel/US disregards.

And there's the difference, I didn't have to research anything, it's obvious.

Its senseless and impossible to try debate your term 'control'. Basically, there are alot of collateral damage/impact on those I view as 'innocent Lebanese civilians'. That's the main rationale of my earlier point that Israel has lost the 'moral high ground', not that Israel doesn't have the right to defend herself 'proportionately'.

Warfare does affect civilians, I agree. So what? Israel has a right to defend itself. And the inconvenient truth that Lebanon cannot control it's own militia's from waging war on Israel is not an excuse for Lebananon proper as a whole to be excluded for retaliation.

My statement stands. Pull a Fallujah, give civilians fair warning to leave, tease Hezbollah and tell them the Jews are coming and fight it out. Reoccupy southern Lebanon, embarass Hezbollah ... I think if there is this clear cut distinction, there would be less perception that this is indiscriminate.

The doctrine of terror organizations is distinctly against fighting man to man. When an army approaches, they scattered with the civilians. They do not exist accept among the people. And until I see a concerted effort on the part of Lebanon or the people of the region to *at the very least* protest the occupation of southern lebanon by Hezbollah, I'll change my mind. All I do see is the people showing support for Hezbollah and protesting Isreal and even Lebanon.

Granted, this won't help the 2 soldiers but whats happening now won't return them alive unless the Israeli's get lucky.

On the other hand in Gaza, I admittedly do not view the population there as 'innocent Gaza civilians'. I don't know for sure but I suspect the population there has actively supported Hamas and encouraged their attacks on Israel. I do not view the Lebanese civilians in the same light.

Then those civilians and the state of Lebanon have a responsability to actively stand up and fight Hezbollah. They won't do it and if they can't do it, they aren't asking for help. Sorry, but they paint themselves in the corner, not Israel.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And there's the difference, I didn't have to research anything, it's obvious.

You got me on this one ... You can't really believe that's a valid rebuttal/discussion point?

[biological warrior]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

If you think Hitler starting WWII had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, you're crazy. Do you think Japan would have considered attacking the United States if there weren't already a war in Europe?

Japan was always one of our biggest worries pre WWI-II, and most military analysts of the time knew that a war with japan was inevitable, thus the need for the constant revision of War Plan Orange, and the U.S. circumventing lots of naval treaties by building a mass of experimental ships such as: Pocket carriers, heavy cruisers/destroyers and light carriers pre WWII....not to mention lots of subs between 1929-1939.

[Buccaneer]

Aww gee, is FN talking history again?

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Aww gee, is FN talking history again?

It's always good for some humor ... at least from the parts you see quoted by people.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Aww gee, is FN talking history again?

Yeah, it doesn't jive with your revisionist crap, Bucc. I get that. But you still seem to derive some perverse pleasure in pointing out how much smarter you are than anyone who doesn't see things from your point of view.

Just put me on ignore already and shut the hell up.

Edit... or not. I'm ignoring you now. Say whatever the hell you want. I wouldn't want to deny you your petty little ego trip.

[sabotai]

This thread went from completely serious to damn funny pretty quickly.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sabotai

This thread went from completely serious to damn funny pretty quickly.

See, we can still have fun without Hell Atlantic around.

[biological warrior]

Back to the original topic.....is the peace process now ''officially dead?''

[cartman]

Originally Posted by biological warrior

Back to the original topic.....is the peace process now ''officially dead?''

At this point, I'd have to say there is still a heartbeat. As long as Jordan, Egypt, et. al. stay on the sidelines, this appears to be a fight right now between Hezbollah and Israel, with Syria behind the scenes. The fighting is all taking place in Northern Israel/Southern Lebanon. The West Bank and Gaza are still pretty calm as of now, and those are the areas that the peace process was about.

[Bubba Wheels]

Its time that the U.S. and Israel take a page from the terrorist handbook and implement it themselves. Syria, Lebenon and Iran create these 'rogue terrorist organizations', then fund and direct them all the while denying being involved. The U.S. and Israel should start doing the same thing, hire mercenaries, ex-KGB/CIA types, ect., name the organization something like 'Zionist Forever', wind them up with funding and set them loose on Syria and Iran.

Come to think of it, that's kind of what Israel did do in the movie Munich.

[Edward64]

I'm pretty sure peace is officially dead.

It seems the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is taking the headlines and the Israeli-Hamas is taking a backseat.

It seems to me that Hezbollah was picking for a fight so this conflict will continue on-and-one. Hamas may back off temporarily.

Just speculating here. If Israel is able to kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon into Syria, make reparations with Lebanon ... would Fatah/Hamas be more apt to make peace? (ex. one less ally bordering Israel).

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm continually mystified by the number of people who believe this, and believe this in earnest. In America. In 2006. It's almost as if Hamas leaders themselves were standing over the history books, rewriting furiously.


Now, I'm curious why this amounts to a "fuck you" to the Arabs. It's not like Israel was ever an Arab country. It was a territory, and the Jews had an established presence.

"I WAS HERE FIRST!" Good thing the Natives here don't rise up and take back "their" country.

I don't feel any pity for Israel. They've dished out a lot of hurt (see their numerous UN Resolutions). For some reason, we stand right by them, and even protect them. All while people wonder why bin Laden and his followers (as well as others) "hate our freedom"

[gkb]

Solecismic,

I admit to be fairly ignorant about the history of Israel and their conflicts. I've been reading a bit lately, mostly news articles, and trying to understand what's happened in the past. I was surprised to find that Israel has a history of exchanging prisoners...I had assumed that Israel would never do anything like that.

Do you think that Israel's past of trading prisoners is working against them? If they had never exchanged prisoners would their enemies continue to try and kidnap soldiers and citizens?

I understand that even if the Arab terrorist groups weren't kidnapping Israelis, they'd still be trying to kill them, but it seems the current mess was ignited by the kidnappings of soldiers, both by Haman and Hezbollah, and that strategy has worked in the past.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

If you think Hitler starting WWII had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, you're crazy. Do you think Japan would have considered attacking the United States if there weren't already a war in Europe?

yes, actually they would have. Japan was pushed to attack the US by a scarcity of resources, particularly oil. They literally waited almost as long as they could before circumstances forced their hand.

[sachmo71]

a cease fire will be negotiated within a week.

[biological warrior]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

a cease fire will be negotiated within a week.

With or Without the soldiers being returned?

[DaddyTorgo]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...gue/index.html

The Middle East peace process is "dead," Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said on Saturday.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Its time that the U.S. and Israel take a page from the terrorist handbook and implement it themselves. Syria, Lebenon and Iran create these 'rogue terrorist organizations', then fund and direct them all the while denying being involved.

Umm... the US did this throughout the cold war, funding groups like UNITA, the contras, mujahedeen, etc. We're still harboring Luis Posada. I'm sure that we still have the capacity...

And of course, the Israeli's covert-ops capabilities are famed.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...gue/index.html

The Middle East peace process is "dead," Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said on Saturday.

Let's hope the Arabs haven't built one of those nukes yet.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

"I WAS HERE FIRST!" Good thing the Natives here don't rise up and take back "their" country.

I don't feel any pity for Israel. They've dished out a lot of hurt (see their numerous UN Resolutions). For some reason, we stand right by them, and even protect them. All while people wonder why bin Laden and his followers (as well as others) "hate our freedom"

Kinda like bin Lander used to be an ally to us.