Middle East Tensions Exploding

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

As I've always said on here, civilian deaths are regrettable but at least in this conflict the Israeli military is making an effort to avoid civilian casualties although those efforts like "propaganda bombing" areas might not work for the sick, infirm, elderly, etc. It's Hezbollah who is the most indiscriminate by randomly launching rockets into Northern Israel. Do two wrongs make a right? Of course not but I'd like to know how exactly Israel is supposed to launch this offensive in a more reasonable way against an enemy that imbeds itself in the civilian population. It's just a very difficult situation from a humanitarian and military perspective.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Boy those Beirut strikes really took out Hezbollah's infastructure, didn't they?

 

Hez are launching more missiles now then they were then.

 

Gee, who woulda thought that blowing up highways and gas stations would have had this little effect on Hezbollah?

 

They should have gone straight to real Hezbollah strongholds in south lebanon to set up the buffer zones FROM THE START.

 

Bombing Beirut was a HORRIBLE idea that has proven to be completely USELESS. Its just there are some people will defend any strike from israel to arab-terrorists, regardless of how STUPID and NON-SENSICAL it is, constantly responding with idiotic statements like "so what, they should should just roll over and die!?!?!?"

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

If we want to play "coulda, woulda, shoulda" the Israeli army should've sent ground forces immediately into Lebanon to establish a buffer zone instead of relying on air power. As a defense minister told the Christian Science Monitor today, "We thought we could fight this war like the U.S. did in Kosovo but we are not a superpower."

 

I'd say that we don't know the full effects of all the bombings on bridges, roads, etc. because Israel took out those locations to halt resupply routes and to prevent their captured troops from being moved. Moreover, Hezbollah had 10,000+ rockets in their arsenal that they have been stocking for six years and have only fired off around 1,000+ so of course they have tons more rockets to spare to fire away because the Israeli army says it has taken out 1,000 or so of them.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

That is true...but in the end, if Lebanon is going to become a truly free democracy, the change will have to come from within and not from without. The Lebanese people have to throw out Hezbollah. No one else can really remove them permanently, since they're so entrenched in Lebanese society.

 

This is something you think about BEFORE bombing Beirut, and increasing Hezbollah's popularity in the region, not after.

 

Oh, but apparently the mere thought of not bombing Beirut and civilian infrastructure for some vague reason that nobody can quanitify in practical terms, was "rolling over and surrendering to the murderers." Or something.

 

I love how some people expect lebanese people to blame themselves and HEzbollah and not Israel for their people getting blown. These people clearly don't understand basic human emotions... has any people or nation in the history of the world EVER played "blame the victim" when come under attack regardless of the circumstances???? Even here, the "us is at fault for 9/11" crowd is a radical fringe.

 

 

For all my negative talk, i do think that israel is sort of on the right path (finally), by targeting the south and creating a buffer zone.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html

 

A great example of the "fair" coverage this war is receiving right now.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html

 

A great example of the "fair" coverage this war is receiving right now.

Do bigger clouds of smoke make Isreal look like bigger assholes somehow?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

In some people's minds, yes.

 

Boy, you don't see too many pictures of blown up Israeli neighborhoods though, eh? http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060806/D8JATDO80.html Actually this link here has a pretty fitting picture of the situation in Israel right now, to be fair.

 

Yeah, let's have a cease fire with a terrorist group, that will fix things, since the Arabs have been so great about keeping cease fires in the past.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I think Lebanon just rejected the UN resolution for a ceasefire b/c it didn't get Israel out of Southern Lebanon. So much for the diplomatic solution everyone has been calling for.

[megaadvice 0]

Weather you agree or disagree with him, this is what the media is there for expressing differing points of veiw, not stopping them like Fox News does.

 

http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videopla..._060806,00.html

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Well, Galloway is a far-leftist, so his remarks aren't surprising.

 

Frankly, Fox News has had plenty of people on TV saying they support Hezbollah and think Israel should stop attacking them, so I don't know why people continue to rag on them so much.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Well duh, and those people are probably not too eloquent and hardly photogenic. They're there to reinforce the right-wing line by showing the supposed alternative.

 

I love how people are jumping onto this altered photo idea's bandwagon despite it reeking of a bizarro world (anti-Jewish in this case) conspiracy. I demand the people who entertain this concept to begin entertaining the unofficial 9/11 theories. You can't just support this sort of crazy shit when you see fit.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I see a disconnect between what was most likely done to boost some kind of readership. Thickening a bunch of smoke to it somehow mean that Isreal are a bunch of bastards? Is that really what people are thinking? I have my doubts. There is no doubt there are plenty of people out there who are not fond of Isreal... to flat out hating them. I just don't see the photo as a worthy example of bias. Nor do I see much reason to complain when Fox News is around even if it were. Tit for tat kids.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Maybe Israel should just start their own terrorist group to fight Hezbollah. Then maybe people will sympathize with their plight, after they kidnap a few Lebanese soldiers.

[pappajacks 0]

israel already holds thousands of lebanese and palestinians in their prisons...a number of them never charged with a crime nor put on trial.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeah, I'm sure there's no reason for any of them to be there at all.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I'm glad you don't mind throwing people in prison without any trial or charge.

 

Are you a big fan of Saddam?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Look, I'm not saying they should be held without trial or anything. If that is really the case that they have 10,000 Palestinian prisoners (are you really willing to trust the Arab numbers lately, though?), then the UN should be looking into it, since that would be a blatant human rights violation, and Israel should then correct the situation.

 

That said, to even compare the two sides is grossly unfair. Hezbollah is a known terrorist group with the aim of destroying Israel. Israel is a civilized democracy that just wants to exist in peace, yet is continually attacked and then criticized for defending itself. It's completely hypocritical.

 

Oh, I also love how in the news today, there was a report that an Israeli raid had killed 40 Lebanese...until later it was discovered that only 1 person was killed. Goes into what I said earlier about trusting numbers.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

There is no hypocracy here when both sides are acting like murdering assholes. Both sides are holding prisoners. Both sides are fanning the flames. That is why I choose to not support either.

 

It's sort of like supporting the troops even if you don't support the policy. Though I doubt you could understand that considering your political affiliation. Which isn't intended as a burn on my part to you. It's just the feedback I get from conservative leaning people.

[EricMM 0]

Who do you think struck first?

 

And don't say the creation of Israel was the first blow...

[Dobbs 3K 0]

There is no hypocracy here when both sides are acting like murdering assholes. Both sides are holding prisoners. Both sides are fanning the flames. That is why I choose to not support either.

 

It's sort of like supporting the troops even if you don't support the policy. Though I doubt you could understand that considering your political affiliation. Which isn't intended as a burn on my part to you. It's just the feedback I get from conservative leaning people.

 

Hey, I want the troops to get home safe...I think we need to get out of Iraq ASAP, personally, if that's what you're referring to.

 

Look, both sides have acted out of bounds in some ways, but when one side is a civilized democracy and the other side is a terrorist group backed by countries that have repeatedly tried to destroy the other side...I don't see what's so hard about picking which side we should be on.

 

Let's not forget Hezbollah murdered American servicemen in the '80s. That alone makes them the enemy.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Okay, so Reuters did alter that picture. I ask why though. Seriously, what the hell. That sort of thing is suicide for a news service.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

It wasn't Reuters that specifically altered it. It was a free lance photographer working for them, who was trying to make the Israeli attacks seem worse than they had been.

 

Reuters has since pulled all the photographer's photos, and is investigating. They've already found at least one other photo he had altered recently.

 

From what I understand, the photographer in question is Lebanese. You have to understand, most of the Arab world wants Israel destroyed. There have been lies perpetuated by the Arabs about the Jews for years. You have a civilized democracy surrounded by barbarians trying to destroy them, and telling as many lies as possible to turn world opinion against Israel. Is it really that hard to pick sides in this?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Oh, I didn't know it was a freelance dude that did it. Okay, it isn't so "what the fuck" now.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Not that the alterations made the smoke look all that much worse. In fact the smoke looked to be roughly the same amount. So why they did it like that is anyones guess IF making it look worse was the point.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Looks like France is buckling to pressure from the Arab League to withdraw demands for sending a multilateral force with some teeth into Southern Lebanon. I swear the French are total pansies these days. They are beholden to their crazy labor unions at home who block tons of needed economic reform and now they are becoming beholden to their Muslim population who caused riots last year because of the economic distress in the country. All of their problems just feed themselves and while Sarkozy sounds tough and I hope he wins in 2007 he will probably end up being another paralyzed technocrat like Chirac ended up being after 1995.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how incompetent the UN always is in handling these situations. Like, why in the hell is this organization still around? However, this debacle will pale in comparison to when Iran gives its response on August 22nd which will probably reject the incentives package of the EU-3 and will not end up getting Chapter 7 sanctions b/c of Russian and Chinese oil interests EVEN THOUGH sanctions would probably moderate the regime since youth unemployment is at around 25% there and would climb with international pressure.

 

So basically if the French cave that means no international force that would mean anything which means Israel will stay in S-Lebanon which we know is a losing situation for them and they know it too. Looks like another victory for the terrorists here. Thank you UN and incompetent diplomats everywhere for all you've done for the world.

[cbacon 0]

[Dobbs 3K 0]

You would like that guy, C-Bacon.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I can't view videos from work right now. DescriptioN?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

It's George Galloway video, which I think was linked to in another thread on this board already. Basically he's a gigantic British liberal...very anti-Israel and pro-Arab.

[cbacon 0]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...mp;ItemID=10663

Confrontation with Hamas and Hezbollah

 

by Noam Chomsky

 

July 29, 2006

 

Q: How would you assess the Israeli and U.S. responses to the election of Hamas, and to the ensuing conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon?

 

 

Noam Chomsky: The U.S. response reveals, once again, that the United States supports democracy if and only if it conforms to U.S. strategic and economic objectives.

 

 

Perhaps it would be useful to review some highlights since Hamas was elected in late January 2006.

 

On February 12, the statements of Osama bin Laden were reviewed in the New York Times by NYU law professor Noah Feldman. He described bin Laden's descent into utter barbarism, reaching the depths when he advanced "the perverse claim that since the United States is a democracy, all citizens bear responsibility for its government's actions, and civilians are therefore fair targets." Utter depravity, no doubt. Two days later, the lead story in the Times casually reported that the United States and Israel are joining bin Laden in the lower depths of depravity. Palestinians offended the masters by voting the wrong way in a free election. The population must therefore be punished for this crime. The "intention," the correspondent observed, "is to starve the Palestinian Authority of money and international connections" so that President Mahmoud Abbas will be "compelled to call a new election. The hope is that Palestinians will be so unhappy with life under Hamas that they will return to office a reformed and chastened Fatah movement." Mechanisms of punishment of the population are outlined. The article also reports that Condoleezza Rice will visit the oil producers to ensure that they do not relieve the torture of the Palestinians. In short, bin Laden's "perverse claim"; but when the United States advances the claim, it is not ultimate evil but rather righteous dedication to "democracy promotion."1

 

These paired articles elicited no comment that I could discover. Also overlooked was the fact that bin Laden's "perverse claim" is standard operating procedure. Familiar examples are "making the economy scream" when Chileans had the effrontery to elect Salvador Allende -- the "soft track"; the "hard track" brought Pinochet. Another pertinent illustration is the U.S.-UK sanctions regime that murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, devastated the country, and probably saved Saddam Hussein from the fate of other monsters like him (often supported by the United States and Britain to the very end). Not quite bin Laden's doctrine; rather, much more perverse, not only in terms of scale but also because Iraqis could not by any stretch of the imagination be held responsible for Saddam Hussein.

 

The most venerable illustration is Washington's forty-seven-year campaign of terror and economic strangulation against Cuba. From the internal record, we learn that the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations determined that "[t]he Cuban people are responsible for the regime," so they must be punished with the expectation that "[r]ising discomfort among hungry Cubans" will cause them to throw Castro out (JFK). The State Department advised that "[e]very possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba [in order to] bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of the government."2 The doctrine remains in force.

 

Without continuing, we find ample evidence that it is no departure from the norm to adopt bin Laden's most perverse claim in order to punish Palestinians for their democratic misdeeds.

 

The United States and Israel then proceeded to implement their "intention," with scrupulous care. Thus, for example, an EU proposal to provide some desperately needed aid for health care was stalled when U.S. "officials expressed concerns that some of this money might end up paying nurses, doctors, teachers and others previously on the government payroll, thereby helping to finance Hamas." Another achievement of the "war on terror." With U.S. backing, Israel also continued its terrorist atrocities and other crimes in Gaza and the West Bank -- in some cases, perhaps, in an attempt to induce Hamas to violate its embarrassing cease-fire, so that Israel could respond in "self-defense," another familiar pattern.3

 

 

In May 2006, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert announced his plan to formalize Sharon's West Bank expansion programs, which were announced along with the "Gaza disengagement." Olmert chose the term "convergence" ("hitkansut") as a euphemism for annexation of valuable land and resources (including water) of the West Bank, programs designed to break the continually shrinking Palestinian areas into separated cantons, virtually isolated from one another and from whatever corner of Jerusalem will be left to Palestinians, all imprisoned as Israel takes over the Jordan valley and controls air space and any external access. In a stunning public relations triumph, Olmert won praise for his courage in "withdrawing" from the West Bank as he put the finishing touches on the project of destroying any hope for recognition of Palestinian national rights. We were enjoined to lament the "anguish" of the residents of scattered settlements that would be abandoned as they "converge" into the territories illegally annexed behind the cruel and illegal "Separation Wall." All of this proceeds, as usual, with a kindly nod from Washington, which is expected to fork up the billions of dollars needed to carry out the plans, though there are occasional admonitions that the destruction of Palestine should not be "unilateral": It would be preferable for President Mahmoud Abbas to sign a surrender declaration, in which case everything would be just fine.

 

 

The people of Gaza and the West Bank are supposed to observe all of this submissively, rotting in their virtual prisons. Otherwise they are sadistic terrorists.

 

The latest phase began on June 24, when the Israeli army kidnapped two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from their home in Gaza. They were "detained" according to brief notes in the British press. The U.S. media mostly preferred silence.4 They will presumably join the 9,000 other Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, 1,000 reportedly in prison without charges, hence kidnapped -- as were many of the rest, in that they were sentenced by Israeli courts, which are a disgrace, harshly condemned by legal commentators in Israel. Among them are hundreds of women and children, their numbers and fate of little interest. Also of little interest are Israel's secret prisons. The Israeli press reported that these have been "the entry gate to Israel for Lebanese, especially those who were suspected of membership in Hezbollah, who were transferred to the southern side of the border," some captured in battle in Lebanon, others "abducted at Israel's initiative" and sometimes held as hostages, with torture under interrogation. The secret Camp 1391, possibly one of several, was discovered accidentally in 2003, since forgotten.5

 

 

The next day, June 25, Palestinians kidnapped an Israeli soldier just across the border from Gaza. That did happen, very definitely. Every literate reader also knows the name of corporal Gilad Shalit, and wants him released. The nameless kidnapped Gaza civilians are ignored; international law, while rightly insisting that captured soldiers be treated humanely, absolutely prohibits the extrajudicial seizure of civilians. Israel responded by "bombing and shelling, darkening and destroying, imposing a siege and kidnapping like the worst of terrorists and nobody breaks the silence to ask, what the hell for, and according to what right?" as the fine Israeli journalist Gideon Levy wrote, adding that "[a] state that takes such steps is no longer distinguishable from a terror organization." Israel also kidnapped a large part of the Palestinian government, destroyed most of the Gaza electrical and water systems, and committed numerous other crimes. These acts of collective punishment, condemned by Amnesty International as "war crimes," compounded the punishment of Palestinians for having voted the wrong way. Within a few days, UN agencies working in Gaza warned of a "public health disaster" as a result of developments "which have seen innocent civilians, including children, killed, brought increased misery to hundreds of thousands of people and which will wreak far-reaching harm on Palestinian society. An already alarming situation in Gaza, with poverty rates at nearly eighty per cent and unemployment at nearly forty per cent, is likely to deteriorate rapidly, unless immediate and urgent action is taken."6

 

The pretext for punishing Palestinians is that Hamas refuses to accept three demands: to recognize Israel, cease all acts of violence, and accept earlier agreements. The editors of the New York Times instruct Hamas leaders that they must accept the "ground rules that have already been accepted by Egypt and Jordan and by the Arab League as a whole in its 2002 Beirut peace initiative" and, furthermore, that they must do so "not as some kind of ideological concession" but "as an admission ticket to the real world, a necessary rite of passage in the progression from a lawless opposition to a lawful government" -- like us.7

 

Unmentioned is that Israel and the United States flatly reject all of these conditions. They do not recognize Palestine; they refused to end their violence even when Hamas observed a unilateral truce for a year and a half and called for a long-term truce while negotiations proceed for a two-state settlement; and they dismissed with utter contempt the 2002 Arab League call for normalization of relations, along with all other proposals for a meaningful diplomatic settlement. Even when it accepted the "Road Map" that is supposed to define U.S. policy, Israel added fourteen "reservations" that rendered it entirely meaningless, eliciting the usual tacit approval in Washington and silence in commentary.8

 

 

The Hamas electoral victory was eagerly exploited by the United States and Israel. Previously, they had to pretend that there was "no partner" for negotiations, so they had no choice but to continue their project of taking over the West Bank, as they had been doing systematically since the Oslo Accords were signed (extending earlier actions). The pace of settlement peaked in 2000, the last year of Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, then escalated under Bush-Sharon. With Hamas in office, Olmert and his cohorts can lament that there is "no partner." Therefore, they must proceed with annexation and destruction of Palestine, counting on articulate Western opinion to applaud politely, perhaps with mild reservations about unilateral "convergence," and to suppress the fact that while Hamas's programs are in many respects entirely unacceptable, their own are comparable or much worse, and are not just rhetoric: They are systematically implementing their denial of any meaningful Palestinian rights, a crucial difference.

 

The next act in this hideous drama opened on July 12, when Hezbollah launched a raid in which it captured two Israeli soldiers and killed several others, leading to an all-out Israeli attack, killing hundreds and destroying much of what Lebanon has painfully reconstructed from the wreckage of its civil wars and the Israeli invasions. Whatever its motives, Hezbollah took a frightful gamble, for which Lebanon would surely pay dearly. Here we see the danger of processes that have led to the rise of "parallel or alternative leaderships that can protect [civilian populations] and deliver essential services" with their own military wings, as veteran Middle East correspondent Rami Khouri has noted.9

 

On the motives, analysts differ. "Hezbollah's official line," the Financial Times reports, "was that the capture was aimed at winning the release of the few remaining Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails. But the timing and scale of its attack suggest it was partly intended to reduce the pressure on the Palestinians by forcing Israel to fight on two fronts simultaneously." Many agree, recalling Hezbollah's reaction to the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000 -- when it seized soldiers in a cross-border raid that led to a prisoner exchange -- as well as its response to Israel's devastating attacks in the West Bank in 2002 (Amos Harel).10 Others highlight the prisoner motive, which is also suggested by the exchange in 2000, by the fact that Hezbollah had attempted capture of soldiers before the recent crisis, and by the matter of Israel's secret prisons, mentioned earlier. Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a Lebanese academic specialist on Hezbollah, regards the Gaza connection as primary, but argues that one should not ignore "the domestic significance of these hostages."11

 

 

Still others regard Iran and/or Syria as the main actors. Many experts and Iranian dissidents disagree, though few doubt that Iran and Syria authorized Hezbollah's actions. Most Arab rulers place the blame on Iran. At an emergency Arab League summit, they were willing "to openly defy Arab public opinion" because of their concerns about Iranian influence. One Dubai military specialist commented that the Iranians, by means of Hezbollah, "are embarrassing the hell out of the Arab governments," who are doing nothing while "[t]he peace process has collapsed, the Palestinians are being killed. . . . And here comes Hezbollah, which is actually scoring hits against Israel." The criticism of Hezbollah was opposed by Syria, Yemen, Algeria, and Lebanon; the Iraqi parliament, "in a rare show of unity," condemned the Israeli attack as "criminal aggression," and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose designation Washington applauded, "call[ed] on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression." The fact that most Arab leaders, however, are willing to "defy public opinion" may have large-scale regional implications, strengthening radical Islamist groups. It is noteworthy that the "Supreme Guide" of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Mahdi Akef, sharply condemned the Arab states. "The Brotherhood would win a comfortable majority" in a free election in Egypt, according to Middle East scholar Fawwaz Gerges, and has broad influence elsewhere, including with Hamas, one of its offshoots.12

 

A broader analysis is suggested by retired colonel Pat Lang, former head of the Middle East and terrorism desk at the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency: "This is basically tribal warfare. If you have someone who's hostile to you and you're unwilling to accept a temporary truce, as Hamas offered, then you have to destroy them. The Israeli response is so disproportionate to the abduction of the three men it appears it's a rather clever excuse designed to appeal both to their public and to the U.S."13

 

 

Speculation about motives and conflicting factors should not blind us to the tragedy that is unfolding. Lebanon is being destroyed, Israel's Gaza prison is suffering still more savage blows, and on the West Bank, mostly out of sight, the United States and Israel are consummating their project of the murder of a nation, a grim and rare event in history.

 

 

These actions, and the Western response, illustrate all too clearly the amalgam of savage cruelty, self-righteousness, and injured innocence that is so deeply rooted in the imperial mentality as to be beyond awareness. One can easily understand why Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization, is alleged to have said that he thought it might be a good idea.

 

-- July 20, 2006