Israel, Lebanon, and Gaza
 

The situation sure has escalated quickly.

I'm not sure how I feel about the criticism of Israel by the Russian, French, and others. It is not for a response, per se, but for a "disproportionate" response.

In actions of war, how can a response be disproportionate?

I suppose this brings me back to my terrorist conundrum in terms of response. If terrorists attack and hide amongst the civilian population, who is responsible, then, when civilians are killed in attempts to kill the terrorists?

Hezbollah and Hamas certainly have support in the governments of Lebanon and the Palestinians.

Greece has called the attacks by Israel "excessive" and pointless.

How does Israel protect itself from those sworn to see their destruction?

War is ugly. I don't necessarily see the Israeli response as excessive or pointless, but certainly tragic, as is the whole situation.

ETA: I almost forgot about Syria. They're going to be playing quite a ole in this as well.

Interesting update - at least to me anyway. The latest report is that Hezbollah is trying to move the hostages to Iran. Should that happen, it gets much, much uglier.

I have a feeling the middle east is about to go up in a conflagration of massive porportions- I hope to be wrong- but I doubt it.

Just read about the hundreds of bombings in Beirut.

I wish I could say that I disagreed but I can't. This is not a good turn of events and seems to be getting worse by the hour.

Did something provoke this attack - I mean a specific incident? Or, it is just escalating based on the long and dirty past?

The most recent provocation has been the kidnapping of that Israeli soldier. Pretty much a steady line of escalation since.

From CNN:

"Israel Defense Forces said the Haifa rockets came from Lebanon and blamed the strike on Hezbollah, whose guerrillas triggered the violence when they attacked inside Israel on Wednesday, killing eight Israeli soldiers and capturing two more"

It is a reaction to the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier (now three soldiers). The Archduke Ferdinand of our time... OR to put it another way, escalation based on a long and dirty past.

You cannot have peace with those who do not wish to have peace with you.
In spite of the long and dirty past, and it is certainly so, various groups backed by governments - be they Hezbollah and Iran and Syria or Hamas in the Palestinian areas or whatever group and sponsor - want the extermination of Israel and have stated as much. Clinton brokered one incredible deal at one point, where 96% of disputed lands would be given to the Palestinians. Arafat rejected this because of pressure from terrorist factions. The controlling groups do not want peace. They want the destruction of Israel and the death of every Jew.

I would not be at all surprised if the Hezbollah activities are at present being orchestrated by the leader of Iran.

I am encouraged that Egypt and the Saudis have thus far stayed out of this. If they remain detached, I think it possible that it can be contained to the immediate area. Israel isn't one to mess around, as previous wars have demonstrated. It is possible they will completely level Lebanon and Syria.

"The Archduke Ferdinand of our time" is a horrific statement. It sent chills thru my spine.

well, yes and no.

the kidnapping of the soldier is indeed at the root, but the Hammas attempts to create an environment of "we'll get what we want by forcing you to bargain with lives" and Israels refusal to get pulled into negotiations/prisoner exchanges that would invariably lead to more and more of the same tactic being used against them, and to a greater and greater extent. ie: giving in to blackmail, is what has caused things to advance so quickly.

Israel said 'not now, not ever' and have decided to show them exactly what they've bargained for instead. at this point its far beyond a single soldier being kidnapped.

if all the soldiers were surrendered right now, I think Israel would gladly drop the whole thing....but at this point....no one else will.

mi dos centavos

Isreal doesn't exactly go out of its way to make friends either. I often feel like our support of Israel is a bit of a "dirty compromise".... we have to support them because otherwise they'd all be dead, but because of our support, I feel they often overstep their bounds, and then we look like jerks for condoning their behavior.

It seems a shrewd move by Hezbollah/Hamas. The US, Israel's strongest ally, is distracted by difficult situations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and world opinion of the US is at a very low ebb. The UN security council is busy with weapons programs in Iran and North Korea. The new Israeli PM doesn't seem to have the same international status as Sharon (I had to look up Olmert's name). And Hamas has increased status in Palestinian territory. If there was ever a time to instigate trouble, this is it.

Also, with the building of the wall and the pull-out from Gaza, Israel hasn't been properly fulfilling its assigned role as neighborhood bully. So, gotta do something to provoke the response that will justify renewed conflict.

I don't know if continued escalation is inevitable, but it at least seems like a very real possibility. And I have mixed feelings about that. I'm not particularly fond of people blowing up other people, and if they really must do that I wish they'd go somewhere with fewer historical treasures. However, I also think that no substantial improvements will be made in that region until the more moderate countries are jolted out of the tendency to frame conflicts as isolated, unrelated actions and forced to take a firm, public stance - and back it up with actions. Is this the provocation that will lead to that action? I don't know.

Make friends? When they are surrounded- quite literally- by countries that want them annihilated and wiped off the map?

Gosh- imagine not wanting to try to "make friends".

Get lost, then.

I'd hate being uprooted as much as the next guy. But since it seems almost inevitable that for Israel to gain any sort of permanent peace, it would be necessary to kill every Arab within a 500-mile radius and sew their lands with salt .... I think it thus becomes the duty of every Israeli ... to leave. To abandon the concept of Israel, to abandon a land where all your neighbors want you dead, to accept surrender rather than become a destroyer.

Who can want to live in a nation that can only be maintained by constant violence? Just leave. Come to California if you must. Get out.

Why wait until your country is forced to go beyond the daily rations of civilian killings it perpetrates at the moment? There is no end to be imagined other than either abandonment of Israel or destruction of the arab states around it.


If the United States were facing the prospect of killing every man, woman and child in Canada and Mexico for its own national security, who here would remain a U.S. citizen?

Difficult choices, yes. But Israel is dealing with the most difficult of times. And everyone knows they will only get worse, and worse, and worse.

Leave? Walk away from the land they believe is their by right? By Divine Hand? Give up their faith?

They can "believe" anything they choose to.

In which case you should have no problem with them choosing to believe in defending their country.

At all costs? Even the cost of their very souls?


For a nation which lays claim to its land by virtue of God's decree, the matter of the soul might weigh even more heavily than otherwise.

I'm not sure that in the end Isreal will remain Israel, and if the citizens of that country do not leave they could be destroyed. It's something we have not seen in our lifetime but it is something that could happen. Israel is far outnumbered in its immediate area with people who want to see it destroyed then who want to see them suceed.

Though the prospect of the citizens of Israel fleeing their country is a sad one, it is also scary. For if the people who want to see Israel destroyed also want to see the US destroyed. And if Israel abandons their land, those people will see it as a victory and may take that momentum to again launch their attack on the US.

I don't think there is a good solution to this. :(

The people who were there when Israel returned perhaps feel that way too.

Israel is a country created out of guilt and by screwing with people the West cared about even less than Jews.

It was a mistake, but one not reasily rectified at this point. It is brutal to say but perhaps it is best to just let them all shoot at each other until they come to their own conclusion rather than forcing them to sit at tables doing nothing for decades while rage simmers in the young.

I suppose it all depends on what you feel is worth fighting for.

I can't necessarily quantify what I would fight for or die for, more thigns certainly falling in the fight for category.

I suppose that during our own Revolutionary War the same thing came into question. Was it worth fighting and dieing for? Was the loss of life worth freedom from the oppressive nature of England?

Throughout history cultures have clashed or been forced to defend themselves from aggressors. Cultures have been obliterated or assimilated, but I can't recall any just packing up and leaving.

I think Israel would live at peace with their neighbors if given the chance. They have been (see the previous reference to the Clinton brokered land for peace deal), but their neighbors have refused.

Some say violence begets violence. That's true to an extent. But a lack of response to violence leads to more violence as the aggressors gain confidence that they will be unopposed and their actions will cost them nothing.

Not many have just up and left, but then there haven't been many countries created by international accord and completely disregarding the wishes of the poeple already living there.

Actually, there are a fair number of such things but in pretty much every case they are nearly universally abhorred.

I'm guessing if the United Nations came round and said "We're giving Seattle back to the Shoshone, everybody just cope with it" 50 years on there'd likely be an active resistance to this. The Shoshone would be saying "we would live in peace if everybody would just go along with our view of things," scaeagles and Nyphythys would would support the resistance and iSm would say "just move out" to the Seattlites (but only because the Shoshone promise to restore Pirates of the Caribbean and Haunted Mansion to the glory they once were).

I had a point in there but I seem to have lost it. Oh yeah, looking to historical precent for how to behave here isn't really instructive since there is not really any historic presedent for the issue.

Israel exists, though it really shouldn't. Now that it does, it has the right to protect itself. It has plenty of just cause for the paranoia that has gripped it since pretty much its rebirth. The Arabs also have valid cause for being pretty angry about the existence of Israel. Yet again, I can understand motivations without agreeing with behaviors.

What we should just do is go to Israel and say "we're very sorry, we acted in a moment of guilt when we gave you this land and it was wrong of us. Could we offer you Arizona instead? It has pretty much everything your current territory has (except beaches and olive trees) and the Navajo aren't nearly so heavily armed."

I suppose I should understand someone who is an athiest ignoring the Biblical history of Israel- it was not created out of guilt. We did not give them anything-

Well, where is God then?


Where was God during the Crusades? Where is God during the Intefadeh? God has long, long, long ago abandoned Jerusalem ... it's high time the jews followed suit.


Feh on being the Chosen People. Chosen for such horrors and demons. It's one thing to suffer violence and death, quite another to suffer becoming the very nazis you claimed to repudiate and loathe.


Get out.

While I think the history of Israel is not in dispute, I understand this is a world in which the controlling party of a piece of real estate is based on who wants it at the time, who is the strongest, and who wants to try to take it. The Israelites, upon release from Egypt, walked around a while and then set about conquering. Others conquered them. Settlers of the North American continent displaced indiginous peoples. Examples ad infinitum.

It is for that reason I can't look at who used to have a parcel of land or a claim to something. That gets WAY out of control as a standard. The only thing one can do is look at they way it is now and the current owners of the property can do their best to defend it.

With Kuwait, the invasion by Saddam was repelled. Danger exists when land is simply given up in the interest of appeasement. I think in the context we are in Godwin's law doesn't really apply, so I'll bring up the Sudentenland. After all, that was all Hitler wanted.

Did you really just compare Israel to Nazi Germany? I'm really not referring to the distastefulness of it, but more to the actual geopolitical situation. Israel isn't looking to exterminate or displace, just survive.

Hopefully the G8 can bring some pressure to calm things down for a bit. Otherwise this will grow like a wildfire.

Already Israel is making noise that Iran is behind the latest Hezbollah actions (ie kidnapping the soldiers). Iran is being pressured on nuclear research and they are pushing back by having Hezbollah turn up the heat with actions like kidnapping soldiers. If the leaders of Israel believes this, and reports I've seen here in DC indicate they do, how long will it be before Israel strikes out at Iran?

I personally have no doubt Iran is behind the escalation of actions by Hezbollah. Irans leader Aminadabooboo (or whatever) has said hey have no righ to exist. What better way to escalate it? Hezbollah does get lots of their funding frmo Iran.

I could see Israel doing something similar to their 1981 (was that the year?) bombing of and Iraqi nuke facility.

I think the biggest risk comes from Iran taking action against Israel. They have already said that if Israel does anyhing to Syria hat there will be grave consequences.

Whatever the reason and methodology for Irael's existence, the fact remains that they do exist and have the same right and reason to continue as we do. (We didn't exactly take over this country without causing serious harm to the natives). They have demonstrated that they want to live in peace and have been rebuffed too many times to count. They have a right to defend themselves, and Hamas and Hezbellah know perfectly well that their actions are beyond provocative. I believe they are emboldened by their association with Iran, and no doubt are acting up under the direction of Iran's leaders. Personally, I hope they (Israel) kick ass.

Someone hold me- I agree with everything she just said.:eek:

What matters is not what we think, or what's true. What matters is what they think and from what I'm hearing on news reports they believe Iran is acting against them via Hezbollah. Of course a large part of the issue in this region is the lack of central authority. Lebanon is not launching rockets at Isreal, Iran did not kidnapp soldigers, but a few radical individuals in each country did take sme part in those actions. Do you hold all of Lebanon responsable for the actions of Hezbollah? Apparently so if you are Isreal. I expect the same will hold with them and Iran. If they can show a radical element in Iran gave orders to Hezbollah ((or even just think) then they will condem the entire country.

Yes, scaeagles, I am comparing the Israelis to the Nazis. Not that their aims are the same, rather their methods.

Illegal occupation of foreign lands, mayhem and murder of civilians.

And people ask me why I like Disneyland so much, why I go to the movies so often and why I do theatre which transports the audience to some place else... It's because this world can be so sad and infuriating sometimes.

Disneyland anyone?
:)

I again appreciate you complete lack of mincing words. However, I still think the comparison in any form is ridiculous.

This comes to the question I posed earlier - who is responsible for the death of civilians when the terrorists who mount attacks take shelter amongst them? I do not subscribe to school of thought that would blame those taking reprisals. The blood lies with the cowardly instigators who utilize such tactics.

ETA: Damn right, WB.

Would the same have been true of the American revolutionaries? They "hid" (aka lived) among the civilian population, as do all guerilla fighters. Are you going to absolve the British of all Colonial deaths in their aim to route out the Revolutionary guerillas? Or is it a matter of whose side you're on?

I'm not ignoring it, but oddly I don't use the Bible as a handbook for modern geopolitics. The Biblical history is the hook on which the claim to the land is made, guilt (I'm not talking about WWII but the pogroms of the late 1800s that eventually lead to the Balfour Declaration) and anti-semitism (some factions saw it as a way to get the Jews out of their country) is the reason the Western world gave it to them.

As a practical result, I pretty much agree with wendybeth. Israel is there and it has a right to defend itself. But it is a problem created by sloppy thinking 60-80 years ago and the beef on both sides is easy to understand. Attempts to force Israelites out of their homes are seen as an act of violence while generally ignoring the original act of violence (in the sense that territorial confiscation is considered an act of violence) that initially put them in those homes.

But if god wants the Jews to have Israel it is another example of this deity's general stupidity that they can only have it by being in a perpetual state of war or semi-war. And it was just plain spiteful of it to let other people live there for 2,000 years before giving it back. Frankly, I don't see what it is that you like about this god, it's something of a prick.

Beautiful!

:rolleyes:

Your loss.

I don't have much to add to this thread, but whenever I think about war and the Middle East, I always always think about this Dave song:

"The Last Stop"

Silence is poetry

Fire
The sun is well asleep
Moon is high above
Fire grows from the east
How is this
Hate so deep
Lead us all so blindly killing killing
Fools we are
If hate's the gate to peace
This is the last stop
For raining tears

War
The only way to Peace
I don't fall for that
Raining tears

You're righteous, so righteous, so righteous
You're always so right
Go ahead and dream
Go ahead believe that you are the chosen one
Raining tears
Oh no

Gracious even God
Bloodied on the cross
Your sins are washed enough
Mother's cry
"Is hate so deep
Must a baby's bones
This hungry fire feed?"
As smoke clouds roll in
The symphony of death
This is the last stop
Scream

Right is wrong now
Shut up you big lie
This black and white lie
You comb your hair to hide
Your lying eyes

You're righteous, so righteous, so righteous
You're always so right
But why your lie
Go ahead and dream
Go ahead believe that you are the chosen one

This is the last stop
Here there's more than is showing up
Hope that we can break it down
So it's not so black and white

This is the last stop
Here there's more than is showing up
Hope that we can break it down
So it's not so black and white

You're righteous
You're righteous
You're righteous
You're always so right
But there you are nailing a good tree
Then say forgive me, forgive me
Why

Go ahead and dream
Go ahead believe that you are the chosen one

Raining tears
This is the last stop
Here there is more than is showing up
But I hope that we can break it down
It's not so black and white



This song is so powerful. If you get a chance, listen to it. It's filled with anger, grief and the few notes at the end lead us possibly to happiness. It's wonderful. There's this yell he does in this song that's so intense that it brings me to tears every now and then. Not to mention that every instrument on the planet is in this song.

I love my Dave.
(Sorry for the derail.)

Edit to replace the first set of lyrics I posted. The second set is much more accurate.

Certainly a fair question, and I will not deny that my perception of right and wrong comes into play, as does yours.

Not being as knowledgable as I should be on the revolutionary war, I don't completely know the tactics of those involved on either side.

I suppose there is a difference between being in the military and having a home, and a hit and run mentality. Should I be in the Continental army, and I head out and find a patrol of Redcoats and ambush them and run away to my home where my children are, and the Redcoats have followed me and I won't come out, then yes, I am responsible for the deaths of my children when they burn my house down. I have chosen to hide where my children are and place them in harms way.

Should I be a soldier and in the Continental army, and I'm out on the battlefield, and the British find out where I live and go and take my children and kill them to discourage others from joining the Continenal army, then I would blame the British for taking the battle to where the innocents are even when they knew who they were looking for was not there.

I could go on and on with situation analogies, but I'll give one more. Let's say I'm growing crops and feeding the Continental army. The British would have every justification for burning my crops. I add this as a pseudo comparison to Israel bombing airstrips in Lebanon to prevent support of terrorist activities from those airstrips.

What about a decision to kill thousands of civilians because military targets are too fortified and you don't want to put your own soldiers at risk in attempting to get at them? And therefore by killing civilians you hope to pressure the leadership of the other side into surrender?

So your home is a valid target for anyone we go to war against since the tax revenue that it generates helps fund our troops.

Was this for me or for Alex?

Yes, I'm sure I'll suffer for eternity for want of a prick god to worship. Though I suppose I should be in fear that New Testament God is reverting to Old Testament God and will begin murdering my family one by one until I agree to worhsip him; fortunately I don't have much contact with my sisters so all I'll be out are some flowers for the funerals.

Perhaps the current situation in Israel is a sign that he has fallen off the wagon of the 12-step anger management program that he's been in since the birth of his first child. We all thought fatherhood had mellowed him but then he started nipping at the hooch again and we all know that God is a mean drunk.

That could be a reference to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (because I'm a bit slow on the keyboard and of the mind today I'm taking about Alex's post, #44 of this thread). Probably the biggest example of that I can think of.

Another fine question, which again I will admit partially comes down to the side I'm on. I can cite all the arguments that everyone knows as justification of those two bombings, but it is still an issue that basically comes down to what Alex is alluding to.

Ignorance looks so good on you.

But don't worry-I would not dream of wasting my time discussing it with you.

Does it really matter?

Oh goodie. Now I read (in the UK Times) that India is pointing a finger of blame at Pakistan for the recent train bombings. It's the same thing as in Lebanon. India suspects Pakistan militants for the bombings and in turn the Pakistan government for not controlling them.

I suppose it is. I would expect, then, my government to use whatever means within its power to use that military i have helped fund to annihilate those who found it necessary to target my home.

War is an ugly business which civilians cannot hope to be spared the ugliness of.

Well, I think he fact I asked the question seems to indicate I was curious.

ah, well, that's a cat I simply don't feel like dealing with. It can stay curious.

Yes those fit, but they aren't what I was alluding to. I was alluding to the conventional weapon carpet bombing we had engaged in (both in Germany and Japan) well before the atom bomb came into the picture.

As root definitions this is the folly of fighting a war against a tactic. The firebombings of Tokyo were essentially terrorism carried out by uniformed military (the goal was terrorize civilian populations and therefore weaken military and political leadership). That's why we can never win against "terrorism." Once all ability to resist through conventional means are removed then terrorism is easily justified in the eyes of those doing it. And, sometimes they're right.

That's why I find it hard to universally condemn the PLO (most other groups it is easier since they are involving themselves in something that need not involve them). It is hard to dismiss out of hand the idea that they have a valid complaint and right to resist Israel's presence. If their resistance is just it is hard to argue that they should not use the only form of resistance that is available to them. History isn't always written by the victors but the vocabulary usally is.

That isn't to say I endorse the resistance either. If people would just get over the silly attchment to geography, and the idea of "birthright," and the superstition of religion, then it seems to me that both parties to the violence could find ways to peacefully coexist. So I don't really buy into the idea that violent resistance is justified but many people do and therefore the tactics are justified. But then we're not arguing about methods but axioms. And discordant axioms can never be brought into alignment through discussion.

Nephythys: You're the one who brought god into it. I'd happily leave it out of the equation but if you want it in the middle of things you have to admit it seems to have cocked things up pretty good.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

If civilians are, ipso facto, part of any war, then why is terrorism an unacceptable method (or so we like to claim when convenient) of waging war?

Because it's against us. It's not "terrorism" per say. We'd have a similar reaction if they were carpet bombing New Jersey (well maybe not New Jersey but you get my point) or rolling tanks down main street USA. Any kind of attack on us is unacceptable.

The only issue I see, is that the terrorits when caught are not being treated as prisoners of war but rahter as non-entities without any type of rights. That's not exactly taking the moral high ground.

Jesus Christ! Just a little bit of blasphemy and the board goes down for half-an-hour (or was that just for me, it happened last night as well; the connection kept resetting).

Told you God is petulant.

no- just sick of the crap you say about Him.

Hezbollah Chief Declares 'Open War' With Israel

Did not have a link yet-


On edit-
Link

Yet another fine question for which I do not have an answer and will again say comes down in part to which side I fall on (again, begin slow, I am referring to an Alex post a few back).

I suppose it comes down to some sort of attempt, as the Geneva convention is, to bring some sort of limitation to barbarism associated with war.

Terrorism does not equal war, though it can be and is a part of it. I suppose I would define terrorism (in the current world environment) as groups without an official tie to a government with an agenda attempting to use fear or death to move closer to the agenda. Not a perfect definition, so examples -

I do not regard the Hamas capture of the Israeli soldier as terrorism. I consider it an act of war, as the soldier was uniformed, certainly a legitimate military target, and Hamas is the government of Palestine (though there are certainly factions within it). I would not regard car bombings staged by Islamic Jihad as an act of war, but as an act of terrorism. They have an agenda to create war in the region for the elimination of Israel.

So....I'm writing as I'm thinking, so I do not consider my position to be well defined as of yet....I suppose I would then say I do not think states are capable in and of themselves of terrorism. They commit acts of war. They can support terrorism by getting groups such as Hezbollah to do their dirty work, as is the case presumably with Iran.

One part of terrorism is that we don't necessarily know who is responsible or where they may be. This is not the case with acts of war. We knew the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and where they were and where to strike them.

Kind of rambling in an unorganized way there and I hope it is somewhat sensible.

I tell you, God is not the problem. It's the actions people take in the name of God that results in the problem.

I dont think God is that hand's on, If God was a bit more involved, people wouldn't be killing each other in God's name. But, it seems, left on their own, people are blind idiots who use God as an excuse to fake superiority and kill each other.

Let's explore this scenario. Let's say the entire Israeli government/population decides it's time to move on.

First and foremost, they're going to need a place to move to. What country is willing to give up a chunk of their land and freely hand it over to another nation? Other than Antarctica (as I understand, there is an international treaty stipulating nobody can settle there—correct me if I'm wrong), is there any land on Earth that is not claimed by (at least) one nation? Sure, Israel is a strong ally of the US, but do you think we're going to let them move into the spare bedroom for eternity? I don't see that happening.

But for the sake of this topic, let's say they find a country willing to donate to the cause, as it were. (Or maybe they create new land in the middle of the Atlantic using alien crystalline technology.) There's no way in hell that the exodus of an entire country could be kept secret, let alone invisible. During this emigration they'd be shooting gallery ducks, just waiting to be knocked down by their enemies.

But let's assume some or most of the population was able to make it out and settle in their new land. Do you think their old neighbors are going to calm down and live in peace? I sure don't. The Muslims (no, I'm not saying every Muslim in the world feels this way, but enough do to warrant generalization) don't just want Israel out of the Middle East—they want them annihilated off of the face of the Earth! All this move will do is make them have to shoot longer distances to hit Israel. The Muslim countries in that area need Israel the same way 1950s America needed Communism the same way Fundies need "The Gays" today. They need a common enemy to distract their populace away from the real problems they are experiencing. In spite of the wealth enjoyed by the oil-producing nations, very few of their population gets to enjoy it. Their "leaders" are a just a bunch of glorified thugs. (pretty much always have been) They will do everything in their power to shift attention away from themselves.

You should hear the things I say about others in the pantheon of non-existent beings. I have a 20-minute bit where I tear into the Easter Bunny that just kills in the Catskills.

But I'm sure he is pleased to see you get upset when he is condemned for the evils he commits. I bet you'll get extra pudding pops in heaven.

Snark away- your comments don't phase what I believe in.

Admit it- you're not just an athiest, but a God hater. Who pissed in your spiritual cheerios?

No wait- I don't care. Spare me any answer.

Spiritual? There's nothing spiritual about the venom people spew in the name of religion.

Seems akin to the venom people spew about religion.

That's kind of how the people who lived there when the British gave it to the Jews felt about it. "If you want them to have a homeland, give them Wales."

I'm guessing that iSm doesn't feel it is a requirement that they move to another place that is their own country. In 1919 when the whole process began there were maybe 50,000 Jews on the Arabian peninsula. Everybody else came from different countries and presumbably they could once again disperse to different countries. Heck, I believe it is still the case that a majoirty of Israelis hold dual citizenship (but I could easily be wrong).


I see no reason to believe this. Muslims and Jews on the Arabian peninsula cohabitated pretty much peacefully prior to the re-existence of Israel. Also, while we have seen international terrorism resulting from this conflict over the last many decades it has either targeted Israel or Israelis allies and rarely non-Israeli Jews.

Of course, I don't think there'll be another diaspora unless they are driven from the area by force, but if there was a global Economic Redevelopment Council capable of tearing down and realigning neighborhoods along more rational lines, rectifying the error of recreating Israel would probably be near the top of the list.

I find it very interesting to look at LoT as a microcosm of what it happening in the world. Fundimentalists come in swinging, not able to actually discuss anything but just looking for a fight. No wonder people end up killing each other. God forbid someone thinks or believes differently!

Oh now, petulance is not your best god-like feature.

I don't hate God. I don't think God exists. To hate god would be like hating a Care Bear.

You, however, do think god exists. And attribute to him certain acts and characteristics. I find those acts and characteristics abhorrent. So, while I don't hate God, if it exists as you suppose then I would hate him. Being omniscient and omnipotent does not make you authomatically worthy of worship.

What I'm doing is not hating god, I am mocking your conception of God.

Now, as long as it is fresh and my own I don't really have a problem with peed-upon Cheerios. A very spiritual person has decreed that consuming fresh urine is itself a path to God and righteousness. And as long as it is spiritual it must be true and good, right?

I don't care if you believe something different- 99% of my friends believe very different things and we have a good time discussing it. Here however- you specialize in ridicule-and it's a shame I feel any need to respond to your insults and ignorant assumptions about me.

But that's fine- you have lousy aim.

Petulant?

Hardly-

I find the brand of snarkiness here amusing. And frankly you raise my apathy level to an all time high. I could care less-

Carry on-

I am going to carry on until you do care less. Until you're riled up into a state of absolute apathy.

But we can move on. You're the one that believes all of this is God's fault, not me. I believe it is, ultimately, the Russians fault.

The Russians? Interesting. Please expand.

I believe Russia actively sells arms to the non-Israeli countries in the region. Is that the reason?

Russia is a bit of a sleeping dragon at the moment, I think, but that's a topic for another thread...

Actually, what is a shame is a lack of ability to actually have a discussion rather than an argument. 99% of the people on this board have NO problem having intelligent discussions with little or no issue and lots of respect. It's funny how adding just one bit of vitrol to the mix can change the discussions from intelligent and thoughtful to down right worthless.

It's a pattern I only see with a few her on LoT but it gets tiring none the less:
* Poke
* Provoke
* Become Indignent about obvious response.

I am shocked at that comment, NA. Utterly, utterly shocked.:D

(get it? Indignant?)

The whole process of Britain creating a new homeland for the Jews was begun with the Balfour Declaration (which was helped along by Britain coming to control much of the Arabian territory previously under Turkish Empire control after World War I - that is they suddenly came into possession of a bunch of land that was in no way culturally British. Of course this was at odds with the British promise of independence for Arabs (as dramatized in Lawrence of Arabia).

Popular support for something like the Balfour Declaration built in Western Europe (and in Britain particularly) as a response to the brutal anti-Jewish pograms that had been going on in Russia for most of the previous 50 years and seemed to slowly be spreading west (Poland had joined in and virulent anti-Semitism was seen to be shifting from isolation to violence in many other European locations). The Dreyfus trial in France caused a lot of sympathy for the mistreatment of Jews among certain classes of Europeans and then it was brought into stark relief in 1911 when a sham "blood libel" trial was brought again a man by the name of Beilis in Kiev. He was accused of murdering a child for use in a Jewish blood ritual.

The trial was widely seen as a sham and despite an acquittal by an all-Christian jury (despite an exceedingly unfair trial) a lot of sympathy swung towards European Jewry and the obstacles they faced. For decades Jews had been escaping Russia back to the Holy Lands where wealthy Jews in Europe supported them with donations to purchase land.

For many "enlightened" Europeans the answer was essentially what some Americans were trying to do with the creation of Liberia. Avoid the conflict by removing them from the sphere of conflict. Some people simply wanted to be helpful. Other supporters were purely anti-Semitic and hoped all the Jews would leave Europe.

But it probably would never have been a successful endeavor if the Russian pogroms and Beilis trial had never happened (in coincidental conjunction with the ending of World War I on geographical terms favorable to England).

Interesting history lesson of which a lot I was ignorant of. Thanks.

I don't come to poke- I state my opinions- you choose to get poked by them. BOTH sides provoke- to deny otherwise is dishonest to an extreme. I am also not indignant- you would do well to stop making assumptions on my mood since you clearly have no idea.

Uh huh.


That's why the rest of us can have decent discussions most of the time.

I am not having a problem with the discussion or my part in it- you are.

Back on topic- didn't a country recently offer to let Israel move there? I seem to recall it in the past couple of months. It was somewhere in Europe, but I do not recall.

LOL!

We could play a drinking game!

Wasn't there some quasi-autonomous region in the old societ union that was set aside for the Jews? what ever happend to that? or does anyone know that story?

:p what would the rules be?

A shot for each snark - don't you think?

The Jewish Autonomous Oblast.

It is still there. Founded by Stalin (and so well after the beginnings of a reinstated Israel in Arabia) and intended mostly as a way to get Jews out of the main areas of Russia (short of actually letting them go back to the Holy Land) but also part of a larger plan for ethnic autonomous regions. Never very successful in getting Jews to willingly relocate and today there are only about 2,000 Jews in the area.

I wanted to add to the discussion; but everything I have to say is summed up nicely by WB.

Be alot of drunk people around here:p

Yeah - and imagine what the posts would look like then ?
:evil:

actually.....there would either be no difference, or they would be funnier;)

Are you saying that your wife is always drunk?

Me? Not any more. 6 or so years ago, there would've been a different answer.

Hah, she wishes she had that excuse.

Ha ha. Alex broke the boards. Heathen.
:D

No, it was down for me, too. So, I actually had to work.

But, um, I didn't know Not Afraid six years ago. Was there something more recent, maybe just a few months? No typos or something?

"Always drunk" was the key phrase. 6 years ago, I was almost ALWAYS drunk. Currently, I haven't been drunk for, oh, a year and 4 months?

And that is how wars are started.

Maybe some of us are sick of god being brought into everything. We have our own minds. We can think for ourselves. God does not make anyone do anything they don't want to do. SHE is not at the root of all evils. There is no hard, scientific proof that god exists. If you have some, please, provide it*.

God is something that some people believe in. Fine. But god is not something that everyone belives in. When the entire world realizes that everyones interperations of god are different, and accept that not everyone will believe in the same god, then maybe we can have peace. Until then, this you insulted my god, my god is the right way, I am the defender of god mentality will continue to result in violence. All in the name of something that may or may not exist.


*and no, the bible does not count. It was not written by the hand of god. It could have been written by someone on an acid trip for all we know.

This reminds me of a song. It's fitting here.

God hater.





;)

:rolleyes: yeah, my joking comment to Alex about why the boards went down is how wars start.

Laughable.

I don't know - suppose either of you had weapens of mass destruction? I for one, would be afraid.

No. And you wern't joking when you said you are sick of the crap people say about your god. Your reactions to what is said clearly show that you are annoyed that people do not believe the way you do. Personaly I'm sick of people trying to shove their god down my throat.

If you look closely at the wars in the ME you'll see that they are about god. The underlying cause of most of the hatred in this country is about god. "God" says being gay is wrong. Let's kill the gays. "God" says being anything but x religion is wrong. Let's convert everyone so they believe *my* way. But *your* way is not the only way, and it may not be the right way. But no one will know until we kick it.

This country was founded on the freedom of religion. If *you* can't accept that people will believe differently then *you* then I feel really sorry for you.

But you know:

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.

Or maybe god just has a really sick sense of humor.

And when I die I expect to find him laughing.

I would never use them on you- I like you ;)

The end is near!

Time to find some new friends.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

We didn't start the fire.

Rather upsetting article on the Israel-Lebanon violence
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13922915/

Pretty upsetting to read. The video's just like the article, only you see the people involved AND the dead body (from a distance)

In a meeting today I found out one of our developers is trapped in Lebanon. He had gone to visit his family and now can't get out. He's an American citizen though, and has registered at the embassy, but I guess there's a wait list to be evacuated. In the meantime he has access to email.

A co-worker's wife and kids were on the cruiseship that evacuated US citizens from Lebanon to Cyprus.

Sheesh. He must really have wanted to get out of work.


Seriously, I hope he gets out soon.

Fighting for peace is like fvcking for virginity

Couldn't disagree more. Peace is achieved when warring groups have a definitive winner and the winner sets the terms of the peace.

If warring groups didn't war, and instead just decided to get along there would be no need for war or fighting.

This makes the assumption that you can control actions beyond your own. You cannot. Should groups wish to war with me and will not get along with me, no matter how I try to get along with them, it matters not. To have peace, then, I must go to war to stop them from warring with me against my wishes.

If they refuse to live at peace with me, I must then go to war to achieve peace. Therefore, peace through war is often necessary.

Two of our major allies, being Japan and Germany, 60 years ago were our biggest enemies. We now have incredible peace with them because we conquered them when they did not wish to live at peace with us.

But if they had wished to live in peace with us we woudln't have had to conquer them to begin with.

Correct. However, we cannot make anyone live at peace with us who doesn't want to except by conquering them. They didn't want to. So we had to go to war to have the effect of peace. Therefore, peace through war isn't only possible, it's proven.

I wasn't suggesting that anyone make anyone live in peace. And I think that living in peace is impossible for the human race. But if people could just get along and respect other people and their points of view there would be no war.

Above is what I was originally was responding to. Of course peaceful people want to live in peace. Sometimes you just have to fight for it with those who don't want it.

Yes, that's been working quite well in Iraq.

Hmmm....I don't think I said every war results in immediate peace. I said it is sometimes necessary to fight to achieve peace and has happened throughout history.

And I'm just saying that sometimes war doesn't acheive peace. Sometimes, it just makes things dreadfully worse.

I never said it did. All I did was respond to the "fighting for peace is like fvcknig for virginity" comment. It isn't as ridiculous as that. Sometimes is has to happen that way.

What scaeagles said!

Yes, war sucks and should be avoided when ever and where ever possible. But believe it or not, there are some genuinely evil and/or insane people out there. No quantity of drum circle beating, sage burning, pot-smoking, and folk song singing will get them to listen to pleas for non-violence. Deal with it or be destroyed.

This reminds me of Morrigoon's signature:

"It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge

I'm especially jealous of the peace bestowed upon war's collateral damage. Oh sweet dirt nap, where have you been all my life?

That's a great suggestion. The United States should try it.

I think in most cases, we do.

I agree, SM.

Most cases? War isn't horseshoes. Oh, but there are hand grenades...hmmmm.

I'd argue that the two major American wars fought in my lifetime were not unavoidable.

But I'll gladly acknowledge that there have been wars avoided by American diplomacy, detente, and a senile man's willingness to kill us all. So, yeah, "most cases" is accurate but it's the wrong damn answer for me.

My feelings exactly.

I see that just a bit differently. I'd describe it as having a leader willing to stand up to imperialistic bullies, leading the end of one of the most oppressive states (well technically a group of states) to ever curse the face of the planet.

I take it you are referring to Vietnam and Iraq. How about other campaigns such as Gulf War I and Afghanistan?

Lol...I threw that in just to poke you with my troll stick. I know all about your man-crush on Mr. Reagan. I only half believe what I wrote.

I assumed he was referring to Gulf I and Gulf II/Afganistan.

I don't know if it is playing nationally on NPR or just locally but there was an interesting conference on Vietnam recently and they've been excerpts. Jack Valenti in one presentation made an interesting point about how on his own JFK might very well have avoided Vietnam and LBJ probably would have as well. But since LBJ inherited JFK's Vietnam policies it was seen as politically impossible to change them. Not particularly relevant but not something I had considered before.

More on topic, I guess it depends on what you define as unavoidable. Is going to war to aid in the defense of an ally avoidable? Obviously, you can avoid the war by turning your back on them, but is that the right thing to do? Sometimes? Always? Never?

I thought about it for a bit, and because I don't see how assisting an ally in the expulsion of an invader could be considered unavoidable, I figured he must not be referring to Gulf War I.

Of course, I do not even consider them to be separated into Gulf War I and II. It's all one to me, but that's another story which has been discussed ad infinitum.

Were Iraq and Afghanistan considered allies at the time we went to war? Which allies were we protecting?

I consider Vietnam and Iraq the two major wars of my lifetime. (Yeah, I'm pushing it a bit seeing as how Vietnam was raging before I was born and ended before I was old enough to understand war.)



I don't count Gulf I as avoidable even though it was totally avoidable because there's precious little black and white when it comes to the questions you ask.

Not to speak for Alex, but I think he was speaking in general terms of what might be considered avoidable.

And we all know Saddam had the most power to avoid the current war in Iraq, don't we? (just my trollish poke back at Sac)

Man crust on Regan leads directly to the carrying of a man bag, don't you know?

Man crust? lol

Ah, one of the better typos. :)

I caught it right after I posted, but even I laughed at that one. So, it stays.

While I did have a chance to see Reagan speak in person, I promise I left no man crust on him.

No man crust on Reagan's man bag?

to be honest i think that saddam was always plotting something. wether he had the power or not. but i think that in the end we did do the right thing. he was going to lose power one way or the other. it was jus what was the mob going to be like? :eek: atleast the is my take on it.

Hi Jupiter. I see that was your first post. Welcome to the LoT.

So you licked it all off? :evil: :D

Scraped, more like.

Blecch.

His secret service detail might have frowned on that.

Not to tread on anyone here, but I have only two things to say about this whole ME mess:

1. For centuries, man has killed fellow man over a plot of dirt. I don't care who stood there or whatever, the fact remains that it's still just a plot of dirt. Fighting over it for "sacred" reasons is just pointless and stupid.
2. God, protect me from your followers. Amen.

Oh, and my post above is not directed at anyone here - it's seriously just how I feel about the whole crap in the Middle East.

I'm curious....apparently John Kerry has said that if he were President, what's happening in the Middle East (specifically Israel and Labanon) wouldn't be happening.

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry.

While I think he is completely full of himself, I wonder what everyone else thinks about this.

What I found to be most interesting is how he said that we should have been focusing on Hezbollah. Does this mean that if we had invaded Lebanon he would have been supportive? I sincerely doubt it. Or better yet, if we had invaded Iran, the chief financiers of Helbollah, he would have been supportive? Not a chance.

However, I am open to the possibility that should Kerry be President, this would not be happening, but certainly not because Kerry would be doing anything to prevent it. I personally believe that Iran is giving orders to Hezbollah to up the violence into full scale war to distract the attention of the international community away from Iran trying to continue with their nuclear programs.

I don't think with Kerry in office Iran would feel a need to distract the international community.

If Iran were a pit-bull, Kerry would probably try and make nice with it or simply ignore it. Bush takes a big stick and repeatedly pokes it- which is more likely to piss it off? Never mind that the pit-bull is an asshole and everyone is afraid of it, the point is which method is more likely to result in a less tragic outcome?

Well, not that it was the most stable place to begin with, but I definitely think we have aided in the destabilization of the region by our efforts in Iraq. We kicked a hornet’s nest and now our enemies are just a little extra thirsty for blood, both from us, and our allies.

Could Kerry have made a noticeable difference, had he become President? I’m pretty skeptical of that assertion. The damage was already done. This is a mess that won’t be cleared up for years to come, in my opinion.

Yeah, it makes me quite sad that it doesn't much matter who's President or who's elected to any position in government.

The goal of those who crave power is always to change things to such a degree that no one can turn back the tide. I think that has happened with Iraq, and I think it has happened - or is fiendishly close - in many other vital spheres of the world - be it globalcorporate, religiofundamentalism, profit medicine, elected government, or earthspanning capital.

How do you define less tragic. I think one produces tragic (not that I really lay what is happening in Israel-Lebanon at the feet of Bush) now and the other produces tragic next year.

This year you say why didn't you leave the dog alone? Next year you say why did you get the dog get so out of control.

It makes much more sense to at least ensure a fence is betwixt you and the dog before you poke it, Alex.

Depends on what you poke it with. I'm not sure who you are saying should have a fence but Israel was trying to build one to general international condemnation when they were attacked by the dog.

And no it doesn't.

I wonder what the status of the Americans that are in Lebanon is? Ralphie watched a TV news special this weekend saying that there were about 25,000 of them there. Bush can be supportive of Israel's right to defend herself, but what of the US citizens there?

And thus it is with the world of international relations and domestic politics.

Political opponents will do their best to downplay the threat that was posed by those who, though our actions, no longer pose a threat at all, even when those same political opponents trumpeted the danger looming on the hoizon by said threat.

Any new threat will be said to be out of control because the proper attention was not paid to it.

What was a threat doesn't matter. What is a threat doesn't matter. What matters is that they can be the ones in power to ignore or deal with the threat as they see fit. And often times, sadly, those threats are aided in the name of reaching out or understanding or compromise, making the elimination of the threat that much more complicated and difficult.

When religion leads, we fight.

Not sure I follow that, GC.

It feels like when leaders of countries are motivated by religious belief, that there are more wars. You know, like the Crusades etc. I always felt that the source behind religion is enlightenment and healing and paths to heaven and all that. But the disagreement of what is and isn't right leads to fighting. That's kind of sad.

Like Bush. He said God put him there. But he's also said that he's a war president. In fact, in his war on terror, he used the word crusade to describe what we were doing.

People don't like to touch the subject of religion when it comes to 9/11, but wasn't that a key factor in why it happened?

I'm just thinking out loud after reading this whole thread. That's all...
:)

Religion has certainly been the cause of many wars, but I don't now that you can make an argument it produces more wars.

Excessive nationalism and ethnocentrism, at least over the last 200 years has been far more frequently the primary cause of wars.

I hear ya.

Is the current situation in Israel and the region more racial or religious? Do radical Islamicists want to eradicate Israel because they hate Judaism or they hate Jews? If a Jew converted to Islam, would that be OK with a radical Islamicist, or would that Jew still need to be eradicated?

I have no idea.

I imagine the various groups would have different answers. Some would be accepting of honest religious conversion (as the religion has been since the beginning) while others would still object to a separate national identity based on the ethnic identity of Jews. The resistance by Palestinians has never been fought on explicitly religious grounds but rather on geographic grounds; conversion would not remove that problem. Then other groups would still object since the conversion likely wouldnt be to the proper brand of Islam.

I think that's a large part of why the problem is so intractable. There are vastly different motivations for the violence and they're all knotted up such that there aren't any simple solutions and simply cutting the Gordian Knot doesn't make anybody happy either.

You don't think a country should be prepared to fight before picking a fight? We're good, but not three or four fronts good. Don't get me wrong- I think Iran is incredibly dangerous and the Chamberlain approach would be a mistake, but I was originally comparing (very simplistically) the differences between Bush and Kerry. They are polar opposites, and sometimes the answer lies somewhere in the middle: try every diplomatic tactic, enlist as much aid as possible and try real hard to remember that we live in a global community and if we keep pissing off everyone else we will be standing alone.

I suppose the problem is that diplomacy takes time. Diplomacy is often used as a delaying tactic, as is the case with Iran and their nuclear ambitions. So trying every diplomatic tactic is not practical and can be counterproductive to your goal.

If that is what you mean by wall, then I suppose. But what you suggest is what Bush has mostly been doing with Iran.

And we are more than capable of taking on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, Brazil and The Netherlands simultaneously if we really wanted to. The only reason it looks difficult is that we're doing our best to fight without killing.

Other than attacking their historic enemy and rhetorically telling the truth about them, what have we done to provoke violence from Iran? What position in relation to Iran have we taken that has been condemned by the international commnity? What action has Bush taken that obviously provoked Iran into giving missiles to Hezbollah for use against Israel?

That isn't necessarily something in the middle. There is always another diplomatic tactic that could be tried.

For the record, I believe that Iran should be able to develop nuclear weapons if it wants that the the "diplomacy of non-proliferation" is stupid and a time waster in that it is doomed to complete failure. So I'm not in support of what the diplomatic community is trying to do with Iran. I'm just reacting to your violent dog analogy. You don't put off dealing with a violent dog, you muzzle it as soon as possible.

You muzzle the dog, not poke at it endlessly then marvel at the fact it took a hunk out of your leg....

You said wall, not me. By 'fence' I meant some sort of defense, as in adequate arms, cannon fodder, etc, which we do not have at the moment.

Oh, we have plenty enough to deal with Iran. We just probably don't have the political will to use it. But again, other than trying to keep Iran from developing nukes, what is the policy of poking by Bush that has created in Iran the desire to support attacks on Israel?

Sorry, wall/fence. Same thing.

I guess what I'm getting at is, considering that Iran has been supporting attacks on Israel since the Shah was overthrown, how do you distinguish the current behavior as something caused by Bush?

Again, I was merely pointing out the general (as perceived by myself) differences in approach to this problem between Kerry and Bush, not intending to get into a discussion about whether a symbol of preparedness is a fence or a wall. However, if it were a wall, there would be limited poking involved, right? Hard to poke through a solid object.

Oh, and a simple keyword search using 'Bush and Iran' yielded over 7,400,000 results, from which I am fairly certain more than a few instances of 'pokage' would be easy to glean. There are plenty of legitimate instances for sure, but there are also many that are based on speculation and presumption that have yet to be proven. (Not unlike Iraq, pre-invasion). His rhetoric makes people nervous, because it sounds like the same stuff he accused Iraq of, and look where we are now. Meanwhile, N. Korea really does have nuclear capability and has clearly expressed the intent to use it if it deems necessary, which is frightening given the nutjob that is running that country. It seems to me that Bush is far less concerned with that situation, which I would consider puzzling if not for the cynic in me.

So that was the only thing stopping you, huh? ;)

Sorry, I'll stop derailing now.

I would suggest a nutjob is running Iran as well.

N. Korea gained nuclear capability through appeasement. It is the textbook case on why the appeasement of loud threats is not in the best interest of the appeasers.

Some would have us appease Iran. Not that I completely disagree with Alex's view on self determination in term sof seeking nclear capability, but continued appeasement will result in them having nukes. Assuming we don't want them to have nukes, action is necessary. Diplomacy will not deter them, and they have made that clear.

So then, WB, are you saying you would support military action in Iran to prevent them from acquiring the power N Korea does?

Not the only thing, no.:p

Scaeagles, if Iran specifically threatens us or any of the allies that we hold defensive treaties with, then yes. Otherwise, sadly- no. I would want to go in and kick their asses, but as long as they play this underhanded, spy-vs-spy clandestine activities game, we have little choice but to do the same. In the manwhile, we should be developing alternative energy sources- that would be the most successful long term method of containing these assholes. Take away their funding, and you make it very difficult for them to continue on as they have been. We should also (and hopefully are) developing strategies and weaponry that might counteract or negate any nuclear aspirations, and so long as they choose to fund groups like Hezbullah and the like I have no problems with using Israel or other countries in the same manner.

The history of the middle east, in a few min...

That was actually pretty helpful.