The Middle East spirals out of control!

Big news as of late. As a result of several Israeli soldiers being killed, and two taken prisoner by Hizbullah militants in Israel, the IDF has launched attacks against Lebanon, which constitutes Hizbullah's base of operations, as well as attacks on the Gaza and Palestine's Hamas-led government, which Israel claims is partially responsible for the kidnappings.

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...820163,00.html

Israel laid siege to Lebanon yesterday bombing Beirut airport, blockading sea ports and declaring its northern neighbour's airspace closed to everything but Israeli jets launching waves of attacks.
Hizbullah, the Lebanese militia group, responded by bombarding Israel with scores of rockets, some of which for the first time hit a major city - the port of Haifa about 20 miles from the border.

Israeli air force planes ranged freely across Lebanon, bombing villages, army bases, bridges and a television station as Israel intensified its campaign to win the release of two soldiers captured by Hizbullah on the border on Wednesday.

The air raids also severed the main road between Beirut and Syria's capital, Damascus. Israeli gunboats turned ships away from Lebanese ports and last night flames were billowing from fuel tanks after a second attack on the capital's crippled airport. At least 50 Lebanese people were killed in the assault, including 17 members of two families.

Hizbullah's rocket attacks on Israeli towns and kibbutz killed a woman and sent families fleeing from their homes for bomb shelters or areas away from the border. No one was injured by two rockets that fell on Haifa but they had an important psychological impact because Hizbullah has not been able to hit targets so deep into Israel before nor such a large city.

As the violence escalated it appeared to polarise reaction, with the US and EU taking markedly different stances. The US president, George Bush, said Israel had the right to defend itself but cautioned against bringing down the Lebanese administration. "The concern here is that any activities by Israel to protect herself will weaken that government ... topple that government, and we have made that clear in our discussions," Mr Bush said during a visit to Germany. "Having said all that, people need to protect themselves."

He also said that Syria needed to be held to account for supporting Hizbullah and Hamas.

But the EU said the sea and air blockade was unjustified and it deplored the "disproportionate" use of force and the loss of civilian life. The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, said he would despatch a three-person team to the region to try to defuse the crisis. The Israel-Lebanon crisis, coupled with anxiety over the mounting confrontation over Iran's nuclear ambitions, drove the price of crude oil to a record $76 yesterday.

Hizbullah is demanding the release of Arab security prisoners in Israeli jails in return for the two captured soldiers and a third soldier held in the Gaza Strip after he was snatched by Palestinian militias last month.

Israel dropped leaflets warning residents of a Beirut suburb where the Hizbullah's leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, lives to evacuate their homes. Israel's justice minister, Haim Ramon, suggested that the Hizbullah chief could be a target.

"All those who plan the attacks, all those who allow such terror activities, are also a target," he told Israel radio. The Israeli military told a meeting of the government's security cabinet that it favoured also attacking crucial infrastructure such as power plants. On Wednesday, the army said it would bomb Lebanon "back 20 years" if the soldiers were not released. Israeli tanks were gathering on the border for what may be a wider ground operation.

An Israeli army spokesman, Erik Snider, said the blockade of Lebanon could go on for some time.

"We're trying to isolate Lebanon to prevent attacks from Lebanon against Israeli soldiers and civilians. The airport has traditionally been a hub for smuggling weapons to Hizbullah as well as ports along the sea. We're operating from the air as well as the sea in addition to artillery fire," he said.

Israeli said it feared the two captured soldiers - Ehud Goldwasser, 31, and Eldad Regev, 26 - could be taken to Iran, and that the blockade and attacks would make that more difficult. The Lebanese government yesterday appealed for an immediate ceasefire, saying it did not endorse the Hizbullah attacks.

But Israel appeared determined to press ahead with the assault, saying it is responding to an "act of war" by the Lebanese government because it contains members of Hizbullah. Israel also kept up its campaign against Hamas in Gaza by blowing up the offices of the Palestinian foreign minister, Mahmoud al-Zahar. Israel launched an assault on the Gaza Strip nearly three weeks ago, sending tanks and troops in on the ground and destroying the main power plant and government offices in the territory, after a soldier, Gilad Shalit, was captured by Palestinian militias.

More than 80 Palestinians, including women and children, have been killed in the subsequent assault on Gaza.

Residents of the northern Israeli town of Nahariya fled their homes yesterday after a rocket killed a 40 year-old woman and wounded 29 other people.

Exciting stuff, wouldn't you say? There's some speculation that since Israel and Hizbullah act as proxies for the United States and Iran, respectively, that they could precipitate a conflict between the two powers in the region. Especially if Israel launches attacks on Syria.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Russia intervening on Syria's behalf is ludicrous. Nuclear relations between us and the Russians still operate on MAD. So unless the Russians are perfectly fine engaging Americans in a limited conflict (which they'll lose) they'll be sending off a nuclear tripwire.

Most amazing jew boots

Well, to go back to the start, Hamas militants did by kidnapping that Israeli corporal, and then Hizbullah escalated the conflict by killing eight and capturing two more.

Hizbullah doesn't necessarily represent the interests of the Palestinian people, but they are, however, a legitimate part of Palestinian society. They have a political wing and their own media network, as well as having seats in the Lebanese parliament. The Israelis are attacking Lebanese infrastructure, because it is that very infrastructure that is used by Hizbullah to further its own ends.

One could argue from the Israeli standpoint, that the Lebanese haven't done enough to reign in Hizbullah, which isn't exactly fair since in many respects Hizbullah is stronger than the Lebanese government. However, one could argue that Israel needs to step into the region to retrieve their soldiers and severely damage the capabilities of Hizbullah in the Lebanese's stead.

What'll be most important about this situation is whether or not the conflict will spread into Syria. If Hizbullah's aim was to start a regional conflict, then releasing information that the captured soldiers are in Syria would be a good way to do it.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

The reason they kidnapped Israeli soldiers in the first place is because a couple years ago, Hamas was able to negotiate the release of 400 prisoners for two soldiers and a handful of corpses.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Right. And if nobody's around to say that you are wrong, then you are right.

Might makes right becuase it forces the acceptance of a certain point of view or policy. The government is always right because we'll get thrown in a Federal penitentiary if we break the law. That doesn't necessarily make laws morally sound, it just means that it's impossible to dissent.

Morality really has nothing to do with it. For instance, let's use something silly, like the zombie apocalypse. If people die from a zombie bite, then they will return as a zombie. Is it wrong, then, to shoot them in the head before they turn? It eliminates the risk to the group, but the concept of killing another human being despite the knowlege that they will become a zombie might offend somebody's moral sensibilities, despite the fact that it's a necessary action.

The Lebanese can't be faulted for their impotence, but this is what happens when you let terrorists develop a stronger military than your own, and your immediate neighbor would sooner recognize their sovereignty than yours.

Is it tragic that innocent Lebanese are dying because Hezbollah crossed the line? Absolutely, but Hezbollah's decades of terror have also been a severe tragedy. If Israel is taking this opportunity to end the global threat that Hezbollah represents, then by all means we should be supporting their actions.

The buck stops, though, if Israel attacks Syria.

I was speaking idiomatically.

A war is precisely what Hezbollah wanted. Keep in mind that the Israelis were attacking Gaza two weeks before the kidnappings along the border because Hamas kidnapped that Israeli corporal. It was clear from the get go that Israel wasn't going to tolerate another soldier abduction.

Hezbollah knew that Israel had no choice but to retaliate, which means that ultimately Hezbollah's goal was to start another war and gain local political influence by resisting everybody's favorite badguy.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

They have possibly the worst human rights crime in history (right after South Africa, and of course, the US).

What the fuck is this shit? Worst in History? Apartheid was pretty bad, but not even the Afrikaners could touch Kim Jong, the Khmer Rhouge, Stalin, etc., etc., etc. Even if you're speaking in modern terms there are a myriad of worse human rights offenders than Israel and the United States.

Israel withdrew from Lebanon at the turn of the millenium. Hezbollah has no reason to exist anymore other than to serve the regional goals of the Syrians and Iranians, and the reason this war started was because Hezbollah needs to re-assert the need for its existence lest the Lebanese government starts a crackdown.

If you honestly want to go back in time to play the blame game we can start this whole mess with Britain and the UN for founding Israel.

Saying that the Israelis are the "badguys" is ludicrous. Israelis aren't blowing up cafes and busses. Israelis aren't going into other countries and abducting their soldiers. Israelis don't launch rockets unprovoked into neighboring nations.

Israel has always acted in a reactionary measure, and comparing the Israeli government to Apartheid is ludicrous. Arabs in Israel have the same basic rights as Jews, and if the Palestinians desire independance while also harboring and electing elements hostile to Israel then how can Israel act in any other way? You think that if Israel stops reacting to terror that the attacks will stop? You think that if they make a total withdrawal from Palestine that Hamas will just call it a day and go back to doing something constructive?

FELIPE NO

Then why is it that despite Mashal's claim that Hamas would stop armed resistance that the 1988 charter is still in effect? Keep in mind also that Hamas has threatened to start beheadings if attempts are made to arrest members of their cabinet, regardless of however many crimes they've commited.

Why would Mashal tell the Egyptians that Hamas would never change, then tell the Russians a week later that they would stop armed resistance?

It's all a bunch of bullshit. A gradual reduction of intimidation since the offer of humda in 2004 (a ten-year truce). You're pretty fucking gullible for swallowing that trite.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

So long as Hamas maintains its militant wing, they are a terrorist organization. Does Labor have its own militia there in aussie land? Do they have turf wars with the Conservatives or kidnap New Zealanders?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Alright, let's pretend for a second here that Hamas isn't a terrorist organization. That they're a legitimate governing body, and that their actions reflect directly upon the Palestinian government.

Does the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier not then constitute an act of war? If Hamas is no longer a fringe element, and is the recognized authority in Palestine, then doesn't that mean that they must be held accountable for their actions as a governing body?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

I don’t think it’s ludicrous at all. Maybe they don’t bomb cafes or abduct other countries’ soldiers. But they do intentionally bomb civilian districts and abduct/kill innocent civilians instead. Which is worse?

I would say that targeting civilians as opposed to killing them due to circumstance would be the worse of the two. Or do you think that the rockets Hezbollah are firing have any kind of guidance system?

Quote:

Yes, but a “reactionary manner” isn’t invading a country, abusing human rights, and then attempting to occupy that country. It’s not like Israel is just sitting around baking cookies and doing good. It’s constantly stirring up shit with the Arab world and the Israeli government knows that the Arabs will attack them. They then use that as an excuse to “respond in a reactionary manner.” In this case, it’s the “removal of Hezbollah”, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel sticks around. Just by looking at Israel’s last two invasions of Lebanon, their intentions are clear.

Israel's defensive intentions have always been to provide a buffer against Arab aggression. Israel didn't even occupy the West Bank until 1967, and until then, Tel-Aviv was a stone's throw from a hostile border. Decades of aggression that ended when Israel got the bomb haven't exactly cooled passions in the Arab world. Or have you forgotten that Hamas and Hezbollah are Syrian and Iranian proxies?

Israel invaded Lebanon because the PLO was at the time launching attacks along its southern border, and they withdrew from Haifa to the security zone after the PLO withdrew its combatants from the region. Israel remained in the zone to keep the PLO from operating within Lebanon, and also keep the newly formed Hezbollah from attacking Israeli territory. Yet despite the purpose of Hezbollah, which was to end the Israeli occupation, they deployed themselves along the Blue Line after Israel's withdrawal in 2000. Why then would Hezbollah not dissolve itself when the threat from Israel had ended?

Hezbollah is now a Lebanese power, and their immediate aim is to gain political power in Lebanon. What better way to do that than to stir up the hornet's nest and create a need for their initial existence?

Quote:

No. Sure, Arabs and Jews have equal rights, but that doesn’t mean anything, really. Whether or not they HAVE rights is not the question. Everyone has equal rights under international law. The real question is whether or not these rights are being upheld. And the reality is that Israel continues to abuse these rights. We can get technical if you want, but we’re talking about quite a few international laws and regulations that Israel has purposely been broken in the name of “retaliation.”

Give me an example of Arab Israelis that have been denied their rights afforded to them by the Israeli constitution. International Laws have nothing to do with rights violations in an Apartheid-esque government, because Apartheid, in case you've forgotten, was a government which oppressed its own nationals.

Quote:

Think about what will happen to the American morale if we go to another war. We’re already stretched out pretty thin militarily.

Not in the Middle East. If Iran attempts to cut off the world's oil because of Israeli escalation, then the global community would be behind us in ending an Iranian blockade. People the world over would be clamoring for the resignation of President Ahmedinejad.

Quote:

Also, please name a big incident where the Israelis did not react with military might. I’m just curious.

Well, the recent hostage negotiations in which Israel exchanged 400 political prisoners for two of their soldiers and the remains of several others, for one. The one that was mentioned in this thread?

Quote:

Maybe, but it didn’t help that Israel was already holding hundreds of Lebanese prisoners. Hezbollah’s not entirely to blame for this conflict. After all, in Israel, hostage-taking is legal. Just remember that Israel has been in Lebanon long before Hezbollah. This isn't the first time this has happened.

Israel was in Lebanon starting in 1978, which is a 4 year difference between the Israeli presence and the founding of Hezbollah. Nevermind either, that when the Civil War ended, Israel released several of their detainees after militias dissolved themselves. The only Civil War militia that hasn't been disolved is the one belonging to Hezbollah, and the prisoners Israel continues to detain are members of that organization.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Which is why the idea of Iran actually doing anything in response to Israeli aggression is laughable. They can't reach Syria with a US controlled Iraq. They couldn't reach Syria before with a Saddam controlled Iraq. If they launched missiles into Israel, it'd have to go over Iraqi airspace. If they attack shipping in the Gulf with their Silkworms, then they've started a war with the US and everybody that likes oil.

I'm not saying Ahmedinejad is stupid, I'm saying that it's dumb to think that Iran would actually make good on their threats.

Quote:

Were all the hippies and Cronkite right, and the US military wrong, on Vietnam? What about that time Castro got the better of the US government? You're ideology's black and white so neither of these should be too tough of a pigeonhole.

Might isn't simply measured in physical force. All political interests have to have a certain amount of clout behind them to get anywhere, and in the case of Vietnam, the anti-war crowd had gained a greater political force than the warhawks.

Might makes right, even in politics.

Also, Cal, the US and the UN did offer to recognize Hamas as the ruling party in Palestine if they gave up their goal of eradicating the state of Israel.

The Canadian deaths are tragic. This is probably the best time for the US to pressure Israel to back off and delegitimize Hezbollah. Now is the best time to send the message to the Palestinians: "Look where Hezbollah has gotten you. They've dragged you into a war that you cannot win and for what?"

The Lebanese government would be willing to accept anything right now. If the IDF and the Lebanese military threatened joint operations against Hezbollah how long would they remain armed?

Quote:

your argument however, brady, is not logical in any way.

In what way? What is my argument?

Quote:

How can one give you an example of the everyday disregard of arab rights in israel, wether they are Palestinian or Israeli?

Well I dunno Mr. Knowitall, you claim to be there, apparently you should be the fucking authority on the subject.

Quote:

It happens, take my word for it.

You're some guy on the internet. Why should I take your word for it? So far you've given me no reason to believe that you've even set foot in the Middle East. You make vague statements about stuff that's happening over there, without providing any examples of it. You speak in generalities with no specific umph behind your statements other than the baseless claim that you've been there, we should take your word for it.

Fuck your experience. I don't care if the IDF drove a Merkava through your house. You've given us no reason to believe you've been there.

Quote:

Obviously you're implying that Israel is committing acts of terrorism.

Of course they're committing acts of terror. Terror is a necessary tool in the waging of any war. What makes the IDF different from Hezbollah, is that the IDF is considered the military branch of a recognized nation, and its actions are then legitimized in a diplomatic environment. Whether or not people agree with those actions is a part of diplomacy.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

Brady you idiot, i'm egyptian and i live in egypt, check my posting ips..

I don't care where you live. You still don't get the fact that you haven't given us anything better to go off of other than saying you having been there.

I also don't care what you think about whether or not I believe you. Who are you to expect us to just take your word for you? If you want people to take your word for it you need them to trust you, and in case you haven't noticed, the internet is a collective of strangers. I don't know anything about you other than you live in Egypt and get boners for Thor, and I don't know anything about your moral fibre or credibility.

Taking your word for it is not enough.

Quote:

Remember if i mention a single incident/experience it can be labeled as an individual act and so i'd have to mention more and more, we're not going to make any situation changing decisions here so the importance of providing THAT solid of an argument isn't justified.

Though, it is justified if you want people to believe you. I'm not questioning what goes on in Palestine, though what you're not getting is that I'm asking you about Arab Israelis.

I also don't give a shit if you're Aetheist or worship Osiris. You're just some guy on the internet.

I'd still like to know what's so illogical about my argument, please.

Quote:

I'm not going to bother joining this debate though as Brady, Night Pheonix, Robo Jesus, Lord Styphon and the rest of the nationalist crowd is just running the "what's right for Israel is right for America is right for me" line.

Israel is no friend of the US. For certain we'd probably be a lot better off in the region without a "Zionist body" in the Middle East. The Israelis have the bomb, though, so supporting them becomes a necessity even in a post-Cold War environment. If the nation of Israel is threatened with destruction you think they're going to just sit on those nukes?

Fuck it, though, if you can't take in the big picture of this situation, or come up with a better argument to delegitimize Israel's aggression other than your mate is stuck in Lebanon.

Styphon's already said it, but allow me to put some more emphasis on it. If you think you can come into Palace threads and troll them, you can fuck off. Clearly us "nationalists" are so Godawful, why do you even post here?

Quote:

The armed robber is right, his victim is wrong, but the police are MORE right.

The thief was never right to begin with, because the government says he's wrong. Since the thief has no chance of defying the government, then the government defaults as being in the right.

You don't have to like Might Makes Right, it's a fact.

I was speaking idiomatically.

This is because the people are the ones which dictate what is right. The citizens are the ones that hold most of the cards in a democratic society. The principle hasn't changed, it just means that voters acting as a collective are mightier than their elected representatives.

Most amazing jew boots

If it is rejected, though, then it will be Hezbollah that has decided to extend hostilities.

Would the Lebanese be so willing to live with them then when Hezbollah had a chance to end the killing? If Hezbollah accepts, though, they'll be isolated inside Lebanon in the southeast. If they don't accept, they risk losing support, and if they do, then they'll become marginalised as a regional power.


I don't think you're getting it, Onyx. I'm not asking you about Palestinians, I'm asking about Arab Israelis. If Palestinians were Israelis, then it sort of delegitimizes their claim to independence, doesn't it?

Quote:

By “nationals,” you aren’t referring to Afrikaners, are you? Please briefly explain yourself some more, and also explain why any member of the United Nations doesn’t have to adhere to its laws.

Afrikaners were technically nationals, sure, in the sense that they were Dutch descendants that held the power in South Africa. I'm talking about the indigenous peoples of South Africa. The ones that felt the stamp of Apartheid's boot. I suppose in a sense, the blacks could've been seen as non-nationals from an Afrikaner perspective, since South Africa is a Western construct as opposed to an African born national body.

It's pretty complicated, now that I think about it.

UN members don't actually have to follow its laws because the UN doesn't really pass laws. It passes resolutions. The UN functions on the basis of primitive law and the whims of the Security Council. Member states don't have to follow resolutions if the Security council can't agree to enforce them. So long as you have one friend on the security council (in Israel's case, the US, and NK's China and Russia) who can cast a vetoe, then you're pretty much in the clear. What's even more hilarious, is that if you're a member of the security council, then you can simply vetoe any measure of enforcing a resolution upon your state.

It's a charming organization, sure, but when UN interests don't meet those of a single Security Council member, the whole process becomes meaningless.

Quote:

But in regards to the Lebanese prisoners, how can you prove that Israel is only holding members of Hezbollah?

Quite simply, I can't. It was a statement made based on conjecture, and was really a stab in the dark.

I can tell you, though, that considering the nature of reward incentives for locals turning in "terrorists" there's going to be a large number of innocent men in our Black Ops prisons. I can't really comment on Israel's detainees, though.

Quote:

The difference between Israel and Hezbollah is that Israel has no choice but to attack civilian targets, because Hezbollah is not a visible entity. Every action on both side (IDF and Hezbollah) is in fact very deliberate.

The importance then, becomes intent. Like you said, Israel pretty much has to target civilian districts because Hezbollah isn't a standing army. It's seriously doubtful that the IDF intended to kill those Canadians, for instance.

Israel does lack any appreciable amount of restraint, short of a ground invasion. Dropping leaflets isn't a forewarning so much as the IDF is telling Lebanese "Your lives or your livelihoods." A lot of Lebanese probably think they have no choice but to stay with their possessions. Even if they do live in the basement of a Hezbollah broadcasting station.

Quote:

And I have another topic that I’d like to bring up: much of the shells and artillery being used has American names on it. How do you think that’s going to affect the U.S. and innocent Lebanese in the future when yet another organization against Israel and the United States forms in Lebanon? I’d like to hear your guys’ takes on this.

It won't make much of a difference. Hezbollah has already been anti-American. It was bad enough that the international community got itself involved in the civil war back in the 80's.

If Israel doesn't present a threat to Lebanon, though, there won't even be a need for militias. Hezbollah was founded, after all, when Israel's second occupation became more permanent in 1982. Israel's reluctance to send ground troops into Lebanon probably reflects a policy of delegitimizing the need for militias to protect Lebanese lands from Israeli aggression.

Like I said before, Israel needs to try and delegitimize the need for Hezbollah in Lebanon. This offer of a cease-fire is a great step in that direction. Now Israel and the US need to start making inroads with the Lebanese government towards moving against Hezbollah jointly.

FELIPE NO

Let's put it this way. Israel has killed ten times as many Lebanese as Hezbollah have killed Israelis. Israel is tearing up the Lebanese infrastructure. Beirut should have plenty to fear from Israel.

Alternatively, going to war with Hezbollah risks another civil war and Syrian intervention. Though, if the Israelis and Lebanese military can work together to drive Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon, Syria can't intervene, and the likelihood of a civil war springing up becomes severely reduced so long as Israeli troops stay south of the border while providing air support.

US support will be key, though. If the US can help send arms to the Lebanese, then their effectiveness becomes increased considerably, and the US's position regarding Lebanon is no longer questionable.

The question comes in, though, on wether that hardware would be for lease or on loan. Perhaps we could send an expeditionary force?

Quote:

Okay, then we can agree that it is “possible” that some Lebanese prisoners in Israeli prisons aren’t affiliated with Hezbollah at all, but civilians instead?

And I read that Israeli troops have already entered Lebanon today.

Sure, it's entirely possible that the Israelis are holding civilians.

As for Israeli troops in Lebanon, didn't they go across the border to attack Hezbollan positions before going right back across, or is this a full-blown invasion that I haven't heard about?

Quote:

Despite how ridiculous the organization can be, its laws have to be followed, especially if its member countries agree to them.

That's just the thing, though. It's laws don't have to be followed. There's no real definite enforcement of the laws, they only apply to the losers. It's not like Civilization or Alpha Centauri where you can't trade anymore if you're kicked out of the UN.

Quote:

And again, blacks in South Africa did not have the same rights as whites. We all know that. The distinction you are trying to make doesn’t really exist, as the original “mandate” of Palestine was a Western construct as well. If anything, that makes them more similar than different.

Kind of. There wasn't a seperate state that was to be created inside South Africa. Black South Africans were South African all the same.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

You said it because you thought I'd assume that you'd have a religious bias against Israel being a Muslim. I don't care if you're Muslim. Hell, your proximity to the region only serves to give you bias. Or did you not think that one through?

How much do you know about this that hasn't been presented to you through Arab media?

I can ask you all of these same questions, and what can you do? You still haven't provided any examples of your experience. That implies to me that you don't actually have any experience, and don't want to be exposed as a liar, and a troll.

I support Israel's actions, though I think they could go about doing this better if they started backing off and engaging with the Lebanese diplomatically, which may just be the case.

Israel can't act with restraint, because they can't help but attack civilian targets if they want to fight Hezbollah, which they have to. The most important measure of restraint they've practiced has been keeping their troops on the other side of the border, which is very commendable, and implies a desire to avoid another Hezbollah, or increase support for Hezbollah.

Also, please tell me which of my statements need proving, and what it is about my argument that lacks logic.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

Don't wave the troll card in my face Brady, that's beyond lame, as long as i am trying to say something objectively i don't think i qualify as a troll. Shove it back where it came from.

And yet, you still don't want to provide any examples of your experience. Whatever, though, I think people understand who is right here. (heh, might makes right ) Most mods wouldn't be so lenient regarding a spurning of a warning, but whatever, you're just another hothead, no loss.

Quote:

You considering Israel to be a soveriegn state, your disregard for its inhuman acts, and refusal to admit that Israel is a terrorist nation.

Well what do you want me to do, go over there and ask them very nicely to stop being such big meanies? I understand that Israel isn't exactly playing Mr. Nice Guy, but then they don't really care. Israel does what it does for the sake of its national defense. If Israel blows up Palestinian caves, it's probably because they had the very reasonable fear of them being used as weapons caches. Why would people even want to live in caves in the first place?

Israel isn't the hottest property on the globe, but I would sooner side with the Israelis than a bunch of wackos that think blowing up civilians will destroy their neighbor, or an organization that carries out assaults on a sovereign nation as a means of garnering political power.

Also, are you implying that Israel isn't a sovereign state?

Quote:

Brady i was objecting to your blind-support for Israel, it doesn't seem blind now, but can you really say that 100% of what you or i know is what really happens?

If we go based on that logic, though, nothing we think really matters, and we should just act as if nothing is happening. (this is actually what happens, but for the sake of argument it doesn't hold water)

Quote:

how about the Sabra and Shatila massacres?

Which were commited by Christian militias. Though Israel was personally responsible for requesting their involvement, and then doing nothing as the massacre was perpetrated. Of course, Israeli involvement was actually confirmed by an Israeli inquiry, and it was found that Ariel Sharon beared personal responsibility in the massacre, and he lost his job as the minister of defence. Of course, he'd later become Prime Minister despite the inquiry's suggestions.

It's too controversial a subject to debate in this thread, but what we do know is that Israeli troops reported the massacre to their superiors, and were then told not to intervene as they provided logistical support to the Phalangists. We also know, due to investigations by Mossad, that there were no PLO members in Sabra, despite Sharon's claim that there were still 2,000 PLO members in the camp. The need for sending in the Phalangists in the first place. Israelis also kept the refugees from leaving the camps, despite the knowlege that the Phalangists were perpetrating a massacre.

Of course, a lot of this wouldn't have been known in the first place if 300,000 Israelis hadn't demonstrated in Tel-Aviv to begin with.

Israel has definitely been a part of some foul stuff in the past. Though, Israel has always acted from the standpoint of protection against aggression. That still doesn't mean, however, that they are above criticism, even internally.

Interestingly enough, I've learned that there may have been a Syrian involvement in the massacre, if even indirectly. The reason the Israelis invaded Western Beirut in the first place was as a response to the assasination of President Bachir Gemayel by a man who was a member of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, and who claimed to be an agent of Syrian intelligence. In addition to that, Elie Hoboka, who was the commander of the Phalangists that perpetrated the massacre, was reported by Mossad to be maintaining his Syrian contacts, and in fact later openly switched sides to the Syrians.

Quote:

So with that in mind what happened is what really matters, regardless of who it happened to. Look more into the history of the area and the conflict. Believe me when i say, a country 'growing' into another country like a tumor is enough reason to consider it a paradise, read into the circumstances that "Israel" has risen in. Read into what they've done, then come back and tell me they are 'reactionaries'.

The Israelis are reactionaries.

Militias like the Haganah would have never existed in the first place had it not been for the Arab riots in 1921 that killed more than a hundred Jews. Arab attacks following World War 2 led to Jewish reprisals and a civil war following British withdrawal. At the founding of Israel, all of its surrounding neighbors attacked it without provocation. While the Israelis gained 10% of the land originally afforded to them, the Jordanians came away with the West Bank, and the Egyptians the Gaza Strip. Egypt nationalized the Suez canal while Nasser expanded his military ambitions and encouraged Fedayeen based in Egypt to attack Israel. In 1967, Egypt expelled peacekeepers from Gaza and cut off shipping at the Straights of Tiran, while they, Jordan, and Syria threatened war with Israel, prompting Israel to pre-emptively attack Egypt, while subsequently repelling the Jordanians and the Syrians, capturing the Sinai, West Bank, and Golan Heights in the 6 Day War. Border skirmishes with the Egyptians and Syrians led to the surprise attack on Israel in Yom-Kippur, and following Israel's success, they got the bomb.

No more Arab-Israeli wars.

Why so much hostility towards the Jews? Number of reasons. Starting in the 19th Century, Jews were buying up lands in Palestine from the Ottomans in order to escape pogroms and as a measure to eventually establish a Jewish state. This led to understandable consternation among Arab palestinians, however, they were never guaranteed their own nation until they assisted the British in helping fight the Ottomans in WW1. Then Britain stabbed Palestinians in the back with the Balfour Declaration, which declared that the Jews would eventually gain their own nation in Palestinian territory.

You claim that Israel was like a growing tumor in another nation, but that nation never existed. It wasn't even intended to be founded until the British made promises to Palestinians that they couldn't keep, knowing full well the land legitimately owned by Zionist organizations.

So ultimately the problem with Israel is that it exists. Palestinians don't think it should, despite its legitimacy, and in the beginning Israel's arab neighbors saw it as an excuse to divide up Palestine between themselves.

The one time Israel acted aggressively was during Operation Suzannah, when the Israelis tried to keep the British in the Suez by starting low-key bombings in Gaza and Egypt. An event that took years for Israel to patch up relations with the US, and gave Egypt the excuse to persecute Egyptian Jews after its failure.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

Oh and considering that you just said Palestinians were stabbed in the back, and you admit that palestine did exist, Israel DID grow like a tumor in an already existant nation and land.

Palestine exists in the sense that the Romans renamed Judea, Syria Palaestina in an effort to dissasociate the land with Jews following their forced expulsion after the Bar Kochba Revolt. Palestinian national identity didn't even develop until after the 6 Day War, when the Israelis didn't take to calling Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank Israelis, like the Egyptians and the Jordanians insisted they were members of their states before.

People only recognize the existence of Palestine because of the commonality between Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza and their mutual interests.

Quote:

Now i'm not saying it is a cancerous tumor (forgive the medical anology(sp?) ) i just think that its very existance's legitimacy is disputable because of the awkward way it "poped" into the world.

Palestine itself popped in very awkwardly as a result of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and Great Britain being granted its administration. If you're referring to the UN's plan for the seperate Jewish and Arab states, then yeah, that is pretty awkward.

Quote:

Are you familiar with the diggings and tunnels being done under Al Aqsa? Let's just ignore the regional conflicts for a moment and consider how infuriated you would be (if you were religious) if someone was to dig tunnels under the Vatikan in such a manner that when all tunnels are complete, the whole structure would collaps at even a small bomb dropped near?

Well, first of all I'm not Catholic, so I couldn't really give a shit. I guess Catholics would be kinda upset, sure, but I don't think they'd be as particularly angry about it as Muslims would be about Al Aqsa. Christianity, despite the efforts of the Catholic church, still retains a lot of metaphysical conotations. The church itself isn't so much important as it is the congregation of Christian brothers.

But then, I'm not Catholic, and I don't kiss the remains of dead dudes.

Quote:

What are they supposed to do, not blow them all up?

Well, yeah. How's about we not blow ourselves up and take other innocent people with us? Why aren't there suicide bombings of the construction firms that lease out these dozers?

How about this one. Are you ready for it? Why not attack the forced expulsion operations themselves?

Quote:

Anyone else see a silly connection here?

Yes. Very silly. You're implying that the US invasion of Iraq is a part of a grand Zionist conspiracy to establish a Jewish State across the central Middle East. What. The. Fuck.

If this is honestly the Honest-To-God Truth, then why haven't we made aggressions towards Egypt? Why did Israel cede the Sinai back to the Egyptians?

That's a doozy. If all you've seen from Israel is advancement, why cede the biggest buffer against Egyptian aggression they could have?

Also, where are you getting this description of the Promised Land?

Also, isn't the tunneling under the Al Aqsa being performed for the sake of archeological curiosity?

Quote:

Remember what i said about plowing down homes, that's enough reason to retaliate, do you know that Hamas is mostly people who've eaten shit because of Israel, and so's Hezbullah? Did you know that most bombers aren't rerlated to any organization and are just retaliating for such horrors?

I'm willing to bet that Hamas is populated by dudes with plenty of love lost for Israel, but where do you get the independance of bombers? Wasn't one of the two female suicide bombers coerced into killing herself under threat of an honor killing?

Quote:

People in prisons (The reason the kidnappings were made in the first place) are there for no other reason but to break them before they get any chance to avenge themselves for the humiliation they got. That still makes Israelis the bad guys in my book.

And where did you get this?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Am I still the only one who thinks the Zionist conspiracy working through the United States is crazy as fuck?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

People haven't been "doing" much to Iran. For the past decade it's mostly been Iran doing things to others.

I'm not denying that there is a pro-Israeli lobby in the US, but the idea that the United States invaded Iraq due to an unfounded expansionist agenda by Zionist hardliners is laughable. It discounts the involvement of a myriad of other interests, including huge Arab Oil lobbies, oil interests foreign and domestic, not to mention the oil interests of our President and his cronies, as well as the overall strategic position of Iraq in the War on Terror, the protection of the American Petrodollar against the Euro, and the preservation of Middle Eastern regimes that are at least cordial when it comes to relations with the United States.

I don't buy for a second that it's a means for Israel to expand to the Euphrates, because doing so is logistically and politically impossible for Israel to accomplish. Even assuming that you're right, and that Israeli policy is dictated by expansionistic Zionists, it'd be impossible to maintain an Israeli force across the desert and into western Iraq without first neutralizing Israel's immediate neighbors. Even then, such a huge expansion would not only raise the wrath of the entirety of the Arab League, but invite intervention by an international body, and cause opinion of Israel in the US to drop like a stone, if not cause US intervention against Israel.

Gotta watch those Israelis, though. Just because it doesn't look like they're making any overtures towards major territorial expansion and express no interest in doing so doesn't mean they couldn't be secretly plotting to accomplish the impossible!

It's insane. Absolutely insane.

It's also not hard for pro-Israeli interests to drum up support for Israel when they remain a reactionary force in the region. Discounting who "started it," Israel hasn't initiated violent conflict in decades. At the worst, Israel's invasion of Lebanon is akin to the US's Vietnam and Iraq, and the USSR's Afghanistan. The invasion was made under false pretenses (the attempted assasination of an Israeli diplomat was performed by a Palestinian terrorist unaffiliated with the PLO and reports of Palestinian aggression from Lebanon the year before the invasion were grossly exaggerated by the Likud) which while serving in the immediate terms the eradication of the PLO as an effective fighting force, only gave rise to new enemies in the form of Hezbollah, and a domination of Lebanese society by the Syrians that would cripple stability in Lebanon for a decade.

You can say that Israel creates a lot of it's own problems, and you'd be absolutely right, but the only organizations with any legitimacy for aggression against Israel are Palestinian. Nations like Syria and Iran have no right to use Palestine as an excuse to further their own regional agendas, megalomaniacs like Bin Laden have no real ties to Palestine, or even an interest in their freedom, and Hezbollah hasn't had any reason to maintain aggression towards Israel since they withdrew across the Blue Line in 2000.

I was speaking idiomatically.

So are you implying a kind of proxy enforcement, as was the case with the Nazi occupation of Europe? Good luck with that. Getting arab agencies to oppress other arabs for the sake of Israel wouldn't last very long at all.

Quote:

I have to disagree with Palestinian organizations having any legitimacy for aggression against Israel. Syria has its own reasons, since Israel still occupies Syrian territory in the Golan Heights.

I was focusing more on the Palestinian side of things, which Havoc is focusing on. Syria has no claim to represent the interests of a people they attempted to conquer in 1948 and two subsequent wars, though they do have a claim to the Golan Heights, as you've mentioned.

The Palestinians have been shit on long enough to justify their aggression towards Israel, but the methods of these liberation organizations don't give them much credence.

Quote:

You might have a good background about Guevara's principles so review that before you overrule this possibility.

If you mean that Bin Laden has attempted to foment pan-Arab sentiments in Palestine, then sure you may have a point. Doing so, though, doesn't actually serve his goals in any tangible way, since Palestinian nationalism is too strong a movement. It's a propaganda coup, in which Bin Laden uses the suffering of Palestinians to help justify murdering Americans, Europeans, Indonesians, and Africans. A fact that I think Palestinians are ashamed of. If Bin Laden was honestly interested in Palestinian liberation, then Al-Qaeda would be making a much stronger show of force in the Mediterranean than they are now.

Quote:

I see that somehow your stance has shifted a bit, at least from what i originally thought you were thinking, which is a good thing because open-mindedness is always a plus.

My original position hasn't changed. I fully support Israel's practice of military reactionism, though it's been well past the time for the IDF to make its message clear. Now is the time Israel should back off unless they want to stir up more permanent resentment for Israel and support for Hezbollah. Hezbollah will only be exterminated with help from the Lebanese, and helping them establish their sovereignty is the only way Israel can hope to secure it's northern border, and maintain stable relations with Lebanon.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Oh make no mistake, the Israelis could easily sweep through Lebanon. The problem lies in the aftereffects of another Israeli-led invasion into Lebanon.

FELIPE NO

I was actually thinking about how great it would be to get an Israeli perspective here. It's also great, because you're a lot more articulate than other Israelis I've seen.

I didn't mean to imply that Israel should stop attacking Hezbollah when I said that they should back off. What I was getting at was that Israel needs to lighten the pressure on the Lebanese so that inroads can be made between the Israelis and the Lebanese government. If Lebanon isn't an active player in the destruction of Hezbollah, then another organization will take its place even if you do destroy them.

War zone or not, the IDF is taking out civilian targets. This is an inescapeable fact, and no amount of excusing is going to change that. However, the IDF also can't be blamed for doing so, since, as you've pointed out, Hezbollah has made it an active policy to put the people of Lebanon in harm's way. A reporter from CNN was allowed into South Beirut several hours after the Israelis reported they dropped 26 tons of bombs on a Hezbollah headquarters (an earlier reporter was turned away, I wonder why?). It was indeed a mosque under construction that was hit, but despite the lack of any materiel, the reporter did note that it had an unusually large basement for a Mosque. It's nobody's fault but Hezbollah, and their supporters, that Lebanese have to be killed over this. Who do they intend to protect when they leave rocket stockpiles in neighborhoods?

Quote:

The fact is that Israel is much more selective of its targets than most other countries

This is also very true. At least so far, I haven't seen the IDF dropping White Phosphorous into southern Lebanese towns.

Quote:

And if the situation was the other way around (with us and the Hezbollah) I probably wouldn’t be sitting here right now (not to mention, being able to sit at all, ever).

Attempting to excuse atrocity by comparison, though, doesn't really excuse anything. If Israel was on the receiving end of force equal to that of it's own, it'd be a moot point, since Israel would have been destroyed long ago. Offsetting accountability by association doesn't prove anything, it just proves that you're marginally less of a jerk, if you get what I'm saying.

People expect Israel to be the moral superior, and so far they've done so. The IDF says it's been holding back 1/5th of their operational capability, and I believe it. Southern Beirut would be nothing but rubble now if the IDF wasn't sensitive of collateral damage.

This is the nature of war, though. So long as you're the winner, there's no need to excuse yourself.

I like how the leader of Hezbollah claimed that the two Palestinian kids they killed with Katjusha rockets were Martyrs for Palestine. As if he had the right to declare it.

Quote:

Not only that, but even the Arab countries are suspiciously quiet about the Israeli retaliation.

Not really. Hezbollah represents a large Shi'a contingent, and actively represents the interests of Iran and Syria. The Arab nations haven't forgotten how Iran was prepared to march the Basij across the Middle East in the 80's. If Israel is going to act as a buffer to their influence, then Israel's neighbors, and the other members of the Arab league aren't going to look to stop them.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

It's probably because the Iranians didn't give them the go ahead for the kidnappings, which means that Hezbollah's command is acting without Iranian advice. Despite Iranian and Syrian support, Hezbollah is still a militia, and they'll act despite the influence put on them by Damascus and Tehran.

Then again, spokesmen for both nations speak in half-truths, plausible deniability, or have repeatedly dodged questions. The Syrian ambassador to the US has appeared on Larry King Live several times, and done a skillful job of blaming Israel for the problem without implicating Syria in any involvement.

Quote:

As for the Palestinian problem, well, I don't really see the connection. Hezbollah has nothing to do with the Palestinians. If they're so into helping others, they should start with "their own" country and invest more money in the reconstruction of Lebanon, than in arming themselves.

That's because Hezbollah is more interested in garnering political support in Lebanon than actually accomplishing anything for the Palestinians, or even locally. Palestine is a popular cause, and that kind of rhetoric serves well when it comes to donation drives. The indiscriminate use of rockets by Hezbollah, however, indicate that they have no real consideration for the safety of Arabs in Palestine, as the death of those two kids has made clear. Bombs don't differentiate between Arabs or Jews.

This is what I was trying to get at before with CryHavoc by asking why Hamas wouldn't target the tools of oppression. Organizations like Hamas aren't actually interested in the liberation of the West Bank and Gaza, they're more interested in garnering power as regional and political forces. The charity organizations set up by Hamas and Hezbollah are proof enough of that. It basically comes down to warrior politics, and every now and then they need to flex their muscles with a cafe bombing or a soldier kidnapping to prove to irate Palestinians that they're still on the up-and-up. Buying votes with medicine and vindication.

I bet you the impending medical crisis in Lebanon created by the IDF's destruction of Lebanese infrastructure will receive a significant leg up from the friendly neighborhood Hezbollah.

Quote:

But you're right, a prosperous Lebanon is in our best interests. It's just that getting aid from Israel isn't going to look good to the Lebanese people, and definitely won't help their government with the public support.

This is true, the moderate government doesn't want another civil war on its hands by acting in league with Israel. I think the threat of assassination is also keeping Lebanese officials from speaking out more about Hezbollah, as well.

Jam it back in, in the dark.