Israel/Hezbollah

Textkit is a learning community- introduce yourself here. Use the Open Board to introduce yourself, chat about off-topic issues and get to know each other.
Post Reply
Kopio
Global Moderator
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Israel/Hezbollah

Post by Kopio »

Hello All,

Just wanted to ask....what do you all think about the stuff going on in the Middle East? Are you concerned? What do you think should the UN should do? Do you think this is going to escalate into something more??

As for me.....I think that Israel has the right to protect itself from terrorists. And I think that the UN should put as much political pressure on both sides to stop the bombing now. I am hopeful that this doens't turn into a much larger skirmish....but mutterings about Syria and Iran make me nervous.

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY »

Kopio I am always concerned when innocent people die no matter what their nationality, religious beliefs etc.

I just have a question; there's no doubt in any rational person's mind that Israel has a right to defend itself. At what point does this right end though? At what point the rights of others start?

Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Re: Israel/Hezbollah

Post by Amadeus »

Kopio wrote:Just wanted to ask....what do you all think about the stuff going on in the Middle East? Are you concerned?
And how! This could be the beginning of World War III, and no one, except the warmongers and the military-industrial complex, wants this to happen.
What do you think should the UN should do?
The UN is powerless, ineffective. It just takes one veto from one of the permanent members to paralize it.
Do you think this is going to escalate into something more??
It may or may not. Depends on what Damascus and Tehran want, since they were responsible for the capture of the two Israeli soldiers and knew what Israel's reaction was going to be.
As for me.....I think that Israel has the right to protect itself from terrorists.
Every country has a right to defend itself. The question here is, did the Israelis overreact? I believe so. The two soldiers were legitimate targets and could be used in exchange for some of the 9,000 detainees held in Israeli camps. But Israel, instead of working through diplomatic channels, responded by punishing the Lebanese people as a whole. Are many of the 9,000 arab prisoners terrorists? I bet, but others have been locked up with no charges and no trial, so we cannot say they are guilty or innocent. Still, look at the numbers, two or three Israelis captured vs 9,000 arab prisoners vs. the whole Lebanese people. And don't accuse me of anti-semitism, there are many Israelis who don't support their own government and are anti-war, but we just don't hear about them.

If someone hasn't taken the time to look at what other jews think about all of this, here's a helpful link: http://normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=252

Excuse the rant.

Vale atque valete!
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.

edonnelly
Administrator
Posts: 989
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Music City, USA
Contact:

Re: Israel/Hezbollah

Post by edonnelly »

Amadeus wrote:The UN is powerless, ineffective.
I agree. Anyone waiting for the UN to "solve" this problem is going to be very disappointed. I think there are those who want the UN to get bogged down the way it always so they can act like they are doing something ("dipomacy") but in fact are not doing a thing but stalling.

[I'm all for diplomacy, I just don't see it happening in the UN when there's a real crisis.]
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library

cdm2003
Textkit Fan
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:54 pm
Location: Kansas City, Missouri, USA

Re: Israel/Hezbollah

Post by cdm2003 »

Amadeus wrote:Every country has a right to defend itself. The question here is, did the Israelis overreact? I believe so. The two soldiers were legitimate targets and could be used in exchange for some of the 9,000 detainees held in Israeli camps. But Israel, instead of working through diplomatic channels, responded by punishing the Lebanese people as a whole. Are many of the 9,000 arab prisoners terrorists? I bet, but others have been locked up with no charges and no trial, so we cannot say they are guilty or innocent. Still, look at the numbers, two or three Israelis captured vs 9,000 arab prisoners vs. the whole Lebanese people.
Hi Amadeus...I agree with the other points you made and I know that my own friends and family have been having talking about your precise question, i.e., did Israel overreact? Most of my family tends to take your side in this issue, that Israel did overreact.

Without knowing specifics on the numbers or types of arab prisoners being held in Israel, I feel that one thing Israel must avoid is the appearance that Israeli soldiers and civilians are ripe for the picking in order to be exchanged for other prisoners, etc. A brief service in Israel's army is mandatory for all male and female citizens of Israel, so it's not exactly convenient to say that these are "legitimate targets." They are legitimate only insofar as they are citizens.

The status of arab prisoners within Israel is a separate issue (at least to me) and I would not hesitate to say that it does need to be addressed as well as the issue of the US's arab "detainees." Too much of this arresting, torturing, and disappearing has been going on with countries that claim to be better than that and it needs to not only stop immediately but be rectified.

There has been too much done against Jews and Israel in just 75 years to brush-off the political kidnapping of Israeli citizens or soldiers. I'm not saying that that justifies a certain level of response...only that it does justify a response. Personally, I feel Israel needs to do whatever it needs to in order to maintain their autonomy and peace within a region that, for the most part (though certainly not universal), is hostile towards them.

Just my two asses worth :shock: ,
Chris

GlottalGreekGeek
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:37 am
Location: Mountain View

Post by GlottalGreekGeek »

Before I say anything, I should mention that I am an Israeli citizen, even though I don't live in Israel.

This is about more than two kidnapped soldiers. This is about destroying a potential enemy of Israel before they get stronger.

If we (Israel) had not reacted strongly, we would not have discovered that Hezbollah had missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv. At present, they seem to have poor control of their missiles, but I am grateful that we caught them before Hezbollah had improved its aim.

Sometimes there is a time for appeasement of terrorists to avoid unnecessary grief. Israel has done that in the past. On the other hand, there is a time for a strong hand. Hezbollah will never be friendly, or even neutral, towards Israel. Now is the time to attempt to root out Hezbollah once and for all if possible - while there is evidence of their threat to show the rest of the world, but before they get stronger. After all, one world war was started by trying to appease a mad dog who had no interest in peace. Hezbollah is equally uninterested in peace.

Also, if Hezbollah is defeated, it will send a message to Syria and Iran (especially since Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons) that Israel should not be messed with, and it would remove a base near Israel from where Iran could launch attacks. And a war with Iran will be far worse that a war with Hezbollah.

That article you linked to says
Eight soldiers are killed and two abducted to Lebanon? All of Lebanon will pay
which grossly misrepresents the situation. Hezbollah is hiding many of its weapons in civilian houses, so Israel doesn't have much choice if it wants to destroy weapons. However Israel does warn the residents before it strikes - enough time for the residents to save their lives, but not for Hezbollah to remove its weapons. It is unfortunate that many Lebanese are losing their homes, but this is hardly behavior expected from the attitude "All of Lebanon will pay".

Also, Hezbollah is run by Shi'a muslims - they care little for the Lebanese who are Christian or Sunni muslims, and my mother heard on the news that they might, if they can't hit Israeli targets, strike fleeing Lebanese, especially if they percieve that few of them are Shi'a. In which case it would be the duty of both Israel and the international community to provide military escorts to the fleeing Lebanese. However, my mother only brought this up this morning.

My mother is watching news about the crisis even as I type this. Watching and reading news consumes much of her waking time. I read and watch some too, but not nearly as much because she discusses almost everything she sees or hears about the crisis, and there is such a thing as overload. Another factor is that I have flight tickets to go to Israel this September, so both of us are hoping that the conflict will be over by then. However, my grandfather in Israel is dying, and this is our last chance to see him alive, so if the conflict has not ended by then we will have a tough choice to make. There is the option of meeting him somewhere nearby, such as Cyprus or Istanbul, but we're not sure his health can permit that much travel.

I have more to say, but I'm getting overwhelmed now. However, since my relatives are in the line of fire, and I could be in the line of fire shortly, I have limited sympathy for the "Israel is a big bully" argument. Hell, if I weren't exempt from military service in Israel, I *would* be one of those soldiers now, since I am of the right age.[/quote]

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »

IreneY wrote: there's no doubt in any rational person's mind that Israel has a right to defend itself. At what point does this right end though? At what point the rights of others start?
The right to defend itself can end?
It is not only a right, but the government has an obligation to defend its citizens. It is not always done in the proper way but you seemed to make a more or less general statement.

edonnelly
Administrator
Posts: 989
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Music City, USA
Contact:

Post by edonnelly »

GlottalGreekGeek wrote: Sometimes there is a time for appeasement of terrorists to avoid unnecessary grief. Israel has done that in the past. On the other hand, there is a time for a strong hand. Hezbollah will never be friendly, or even neutral, towards Israel. Now is the time to attempt to root out Hezbollah once and for all if possible - while there is evidence of their threat to show the rest of the world, but before they get stronger. After all, one world war was started by trying to appease a mad dog who had no interest in peace. Hezbollah is equally uninterested in peace.
With a few search and replace commands, this could easily be a pre-war Bush administration speech justifying the war in Iraq.
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper »

Bert wrote:
IreneY wrote: there's no doubt in any rational person's mind that Israel has a right to defend itself. At what point does this right end though? At what point the rights of others start?
The right to defend itself can end?
It is not only a right, but the government has an obligation to defend its citizens. It is not always done in the proper way but you seemed to make a more or less general statement.
Of course the problem is that the manner in which Israel chooses to 'defend itself' causes great harm (and long lasting economical harm) to other citizens. If you just forget the fictional concept of borders and nations for a second, you simply have a bunch people killing hunders of other people that are not even involved in the conflict. I know you to be a very sensible man Bert, and I can only assume that you do not mean to imply that Israeli citizens somehow are of greater value than Lebanese citizens?
The right to defend yourself ends where every human right ends, there where it infringes on the rights of another.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

edonnelly
Administrator
Posts: 989
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Music City, USA
Contact:

Post by edonnelly »

Kasper wrote:The right to defend yourself ends where every human right ends, there where it infringes on the rights of another.
So, are you saying that in WWII any attack against Germany that harmed any innocent citizen was wrong and not justified?

The truth is that borders and nations are not a fictional concept, they are a part of the real world, and there is not a always a choice where no innocent person gets hurt. In the real world one must often make a choice of between the lesser of two evils.
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY »

Bert wrote:
IreneY wrote: there's no doubt in any rational person's mind that Israel has a right to defend itself. At what point does this right end though? At what point the rights of others start?
The right to defend itself can end?
It is not only a right, but the government has an obligation to defend its citizens. It is not always done in the proper way but you seemed to make a more or less general statement.
It is a more or less general statement. Let me make a huge exaggeration for a minute. Let's assume that Israel's goverment would feel much much better if there wasn't Lebanon or other country near Israel in which terrorists can be 'found' *. Let's also assume that Israel had the means to wipe these countries off the face of the map. Would it be within its rights to do so?
Would Israel's goverment be obliged to try to do so?

* inadequate one-word effort to describe why the terrorist would be there and under what conditions.

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper »

Ed - the comparison between WWII and the kidnapping of 2 soldiers is about similar to Israel's reaction to the actual kidnapping of 2 soldiers.

If a terrorist group operates from New York, should New York be destroyed?

Let's not forget that Israel's 'citizens' were not attacked, but its soldiers.

I am in no sense trying to justify the acts of Hezbolla. I fully agree that what they did was wrong, but Israel's reaction has been so overblown and over the top that there is no justification for it. Lebanon did not start firing rockets at Israel, a rogue group attacked 8 (or was it 10?) soldiers.

I guess the whole problem in the area just goes so much deeper than this one incident that it very difficult to have a discussion about it.

ps. There is ever-increasing recognision of human rights that are not affected and independent of any border/nation. Many of these rights are now seen as peremptory norms. Enforcement of these rights is always a problem of course.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »

IreneY wrote:

It is a more or less general statement. Let me make a huge exaggeration for a minute. Let's assume that Israel's goverment would feel much much better if there wasn't Lebanon or other country near Israel in which terrorists can be 'found' *. Let's also assume that Israel had the means to wipe these countries off the face of the map. Would it be within its rights to do so?
Would Israel's goverment be obliged to try to do so?

* inadequate one-word effort to describe why the terrorist would be there and under what conditions.
I understand your point now. The issue is then no longer a case of defending its citizens.

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques »

The matter is that this is now about a few soldiers being kidnapped; this is the last straw to break the proverbial back of the Israeli camel — they refuse to tollerate the cycle of violence and "peace" talks which go nowhere except back to more excused deaths of innocent Israelis. Both Democrats and Republicans largely agree, including Joe Biden and Newt Gingrich as on CBS last Sunday, that Israel is doing the right thing, not only for its own defense, but for the disarmament and hopefully the destruction of the intollerable terrorist organization Hezbollah, who has killed thousands of innocent Israelis over the years, and Americans, lest we forget.

As for the gigantic response coming from Jerusalem, and calls of "disproportionality," the matter is thus: Hezbollah launches its missiles (brand new ones now, by the way, courtesy of Tehran that can reach large Israeli cities) into Israel, killing Israeli pedestrians, families in their houses, wounding, mutilating, et cetera. Everyone, if I may generalize, agrees that Hezbollah must be disarmed. Great. How do you propose to do that? Some sort of peace deal? All right, fine. Except that we've already tried that, and the result has been more terrible deaths and provocations, for Hezbollah is not interested in peace, or deals; they aren't attacking because they want something tangible like money, or even bits of territory — they are each of them sworn to the absolute destruction of the State of Israel, and to the total annihilation of all Jewish people in the world, starting with the Israelis. So, they have to be taken out. And how is that accomplished? Exactly in the manner by which the IDF is exsecuting. The importance is this: if Israel fails to eliminate Hezbollah now, Hezbollah will kill again, and again, and again, as they are sworn to do. This is their mission.

We are left with war and death either way. To make and to finalize (read: "end") war now means to prevent worse war in the future. Such was the nature of fighting against Adolph Hitler, and so many other tyrants and terrorists in history. To ignore this reality is to cause pain and suffering unimaginable.
L. Amādeus Rāniērius · Λ. Θεόφιλος Ῥᾱνιήριος 🦂

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques »

Just read the above message, Kasper — Israeli soldiers are not Israeli citizens? Are the slaves? Heh, you should know that almost every Israeli serves a few years in the IDF. You can imagine the sense of protection all Israelis feel for their fellow soldiers, for their fellow citizens.
L. Amādeus Rāniērius · Λ. Θεόφιλος Ῥᾱνιήριος 🦂

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper »

Hurray for the Cowboys!! Particularly, lest we forget, the American ones!!
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

edonnelly
Administrator
Posts: 989
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Music City, USA
Contact:

Post by edonnelly »

Kasper wrote:Ed - the comparison between WWII and the kidnapping of 2 soldiers is about similar to Israel's reaction to the actual kidnapping of 2 soldiers.
I wasn't comparing the two events, I was pointing out how a statement as absolute as the one you made is without question wrong.

Let me also add that I don't believe the Israeli attacks are about how many soldiers were captured, how many citizens were killed, or how many rockets were fired. The attacks are about how many soldiers will be captured, how many citizens will be killed and how many rockets will be fired if action is not taken. While there's a currently a strong movement to suggest that war kills and avoiding war at all costs saves lives, it is a naive belief -- for often it is inaction that can lead countless more innocent lives lost than quick, decisive action.
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library

Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Re: Israel/Hezbollah

Post by Amadeus »

cdm2003 wrote:There has been too much done against Jews and Israel in just 75 years to brush-off the political kidnapping of Israeli citizens or soldiers.
I could not disagree more, cdm2003. Many wrongs have been done to Israel, sure, but Israel itself has its share of blame for a lot of crimes since 1948, like the expelling of hundreds of thousands of natives from their land and not allowing for their return. Here they cannot play the victim card.
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper »

edonnelly wrote:
Let me also add that I don't believe the Israeli attacks are about how many soldiers were captured, how many citizens were killed, or how many rockets were fired. The attacks are about how many soldiers will be captured, how many citizens will be killed and how many rockets will be fired if action is not taken. While there's a currently a strong movement to suggest that war kills and avoiding war at all costs saves lives, it is a naive belief -- for often it is inaction that can lead countless more innocent lives lost than quick, decisive action.
How do you consider that bombing a country is going to stop terrorism? Certainly without the intention of actual occupation and sorting out the terrorists (which we all know is a highly succesful policy), how is going to stop terrorists? On the contrary, senslessly killing hundreds of lebanese citizens will only encourage more lebanese people to take up terrorism against Israel. Or do we assume, like Lucus appears to do, that only Hezbolla's missiles causes the injuries he Lucus spoke off? Terrorism is not dependent on the available supply of weapons, anything can become a weapon to a person looking for one. It is this state of mind that causes terrorism and the brutal violence that Israel in now placing upon the entire country of Lebanon will only increase this state of mind.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY »

So, some of you really believe that by this action there's really a chance that Hezbollah is going to be destroyed and thus the heinous terrorist acts commited by its members are going to stop?

I am not a die-hard pacifist, I do realise that aggressive action is sometimes necessary but, honestly, you don't think this is actually going to bring new 'troops' to Hezbollah? Do you honestly believe that if you had nothing to do with terrorism and a member of your family was killed by the current military actions of Israel, or if, in a less bloody scenario, all you ever owned is destroyed by the same cause you are going to sit there and say "Oh well, Israel had a right to defend its own"?

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques »

Not to press that point, Amadeus, but it is quite a myth about the original origin of the Palestinians -- quite simply, the Arabs who came to be known several decades later as "Palestinians" were Arab immigrants from the surrounding Arab countries, the "dregs" of society that those countries didn't want, and thrust into the newly forming Jewish nation in order to change the balance away from a Jewish majority. Then, when Israel declared itself an independent state, all those same Arab countries tried to destroy Israel — this is without Israeli provocation, lest we invent the nonsense of a centuries-old "cycle of violence" myth; it started with this war of independence.

Now, many many Arab immigrants were living in their homes in the newly declared Israel, rather content and unprovoked — then when war broke out, and the Arab militaries flooded into Israel and tried to conquer it, they called for all their fellow Arabs to leave their homes, come back to the pure Arab lands. So, despite Israel's warnings to its Arab citizens not to, many many of these Arabs did flee. Only to find, after the war, they were not welcome in their old homelands. It was of course a setup, a way of keeping an Arab foothold in this new Jewish territory. This is why the myths of the "refugee camps" clearly belie the truth: there are now milions of "Palestinian" refugees in Jordan. Why the heck are they refugees? Why have the Jordanians not reassimilated them back into Arab society? Because they won't let them. Because tyrants in the Middle East have caused their own nationals to suffer, in certainly horrible conditions, in order to foster terror against the Jewish state and to inculpate the Israelis. When Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied the West Bank for decades, that was the time to build for the later-named 'Palestinians' cities, homes, create civilization. Both were perfectly capable. They left their own blood to suffer, as political leverage.

Yasser Arafat (an Egyptian!) is largely responsible for leading the many myths of the "Palestinians," and of course for inciting the intifadas which have caused the "cycles of violence" that seem so endless to our eyes.

As for what to do with the Palestinians — and, for better or for worse, these people have made their new nation, and have a right to the name they choose for themselves — they deserve a home, and certainly a just and representative democracy. Israel has agreed, through massive territorial concessions and through very unwise but hopeful withdrawals, as from Gaza, to facilitate just this. Israel has agreed to live in peace. The problem is, as we can see quite clearly, that the Palestinians, as of yet, have not.
L. Amādeus Rāniērius · Λ. Θεόφιλος Ῥᾱνιήριος 🦂

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Post by Amadeus »

GlottalGreekGeek wrote:This is about more than two kidnapped soldiers. This is about destroying a potential enemy of Israel before they get stronger.
You know, there are many ways to destroy an enemy. Military force is not always the answer, especially in the Mid East, where its use has proven futile for the past 60 years.
Sometimes there is a time for appeasement of terrorists to avoid unnecessary grief. Israel has done that in the past. On the other hand, there is a time for a strong hand.
And Israel has used a "strong hand" in the past, only to create more enemies for itself. Hizbollah didn't appear out of the sky, it is a reaction to the territorial policies of Israel.
Hezbollah is hiding many of its weapons in civilian houses, so Israel doesn't have much choice if it wants to destroy weapons. However Israel does warn the residents before it strikes - enough time for the residents to save their lives, but not for Hezbollah to remove its weapons. It is unfortunate that many Lebanese are losing their homes, but this is hardly behavior expected from the attitude "All of Lebanon will pay".
Well, just today, watching the BBC, it was announced that Israel targeted a two story building, resulting in the death of an entire family and a UN diplomat. There is no search and rescue because the Iseaeli army is firing at whoever approaches the area. Robert Fisk, from the Independent, is in Beirut and he is reporting that there are no warnings by the attacking army.
I have more to say, but I'm getting overwhelmed now. However, since my relatives are in the line of fire, and I could be in the line of fire shortly, I have limited sympathy for the "Israel is a big bully" argument. Hell, if I weren't exempt from military service in Israel, I *would* be one of those soldiers now, since I am of the right age.
Yes, this "is" overwhelming, and I can understand your sense for patriotism, but as a neutral observer from Mexico I have to voice my deep disagreements with how Israel is conducting this war, which is totally disproportionate. Why the hell isn't a ceasefire a solution? A temporary ceasefire would at least help both sides cool off and think a little more rationally. But no, it is an "all or nothing" war, an eye for two eyes.
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.

Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Post by Amadeus »

Lucus Eques wrote:Not to press that point, Amadeus, but it is quite a myth about the original origin of the Palestinians
Dear Lucus,

On the contrary, yours is the myth. Here's part of a debate that Norman Finkelstein (whose website I have already linked to) had with former Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami:
AMY GOODMAN: And Shlomo Ben-Ami, your response to those who continue to say that at that time, at the time of the establishment of the state of Israel and before, that it really was empty, that Jews came to a place that was not populated.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Of course, it is nonsense. I mean, it was populated. Obviously, it was populated. I mean, the notion that existed, I think it was Israel Zangwill, the first to say that we are — we came a nation without a land to a land without a people. Obviously, it was not true, but again, part of the tragedy was that the Palestinians, as such, did not have — the Palestinian peasants did not have the full control of their own destiny. Part of that land was bought by the Zionist organizations from Affendis, landowners living in Turkey or anywhere else throughout the Ottoman Empire, and these people were inevitably evicted by these kind of transactions. But as a whole, I think that not more than 6 or 7% of the entire surface of the state of Israel was bought. The rest of it was either taken over or won during the war.
Have to go now... finish this later :roll:
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques »

Amadeus wrote:
You know, there are many ways to destroy an enemy. Military force is not always the answer, especially in the Mid East, where its use has proven futile for the past 60 years.
Proven, you say? Do prove it for us!
And Israel has used a "strong hand" in the past, only to create more enemies for itself. Hizbollah didn't appear out of the sky, it is a reaction to the territorial policies of Israel.
Please, explain this reasoning and history in full to us. Without having a common frame of reference, we're just throwing words around.
L. Amādeus Rāniērius · Λ. Θεόφιλος Ῥᾱνιήριος 🦂

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

cdm2003
Textkit Fan
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:54 pm
Location: Kansas City, Missouri, USA

Re: Israel/Hezbollah

Post by cdm2003 »

Amadeus wrote:
cdm2003 wrote:There has been too much done against Jews and Israel in just 75 years to brush-off the political kidnapping of Israeli citizens or soldiers.
I could not disagree more, cdm2003. Many wrongs have been done to Israel, sure, but Israel itself has its share of blame for a lot of crimes since 1948, like the expelling of hundreds of thousands of natives from their land and not allowing for their return. Here they cannot play the victim card.
I understand what you're saying. But when the world consistantly abuses, enslaves, tortures, and attempts to exterminate a certain group of people for let's say, oh, about two solid millennia, I would say that they're entitled to at least a little real estate where they can be safe. I'm not defending imperialism or even uprooting a single soul from his or her home, but I don't believe I'm playing the victim card either. Obviously, this is a terribly complex issue, but the world chose for two millennia to exile Jews from their homes in practically every corner of the world. I think Israelis are entitled to defend their own homeland in today's world however they see fit.

Versteh?

edonnelly
Administrator
Posts: 989
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Music City, USA
Contact:

Post by edonnelly »

Kasper wrote:How do you consider that bombing a country is going to stop terrorism?
Again, I think you are oversimplifying to try to rationalize your position (or at the least you are using a "straw-man" tactic to argue your point). It's not a binary outcome (either stop terrorism or don't stop it). Isreal believes that inaction will lead to an escalation of violence against it. By acting, they believe that they will be able to prevent this unchecked escalation. Will it stop terrorism? Of course not, nobody thinks that. The hope is that a strong response will prevent things from getting as bad as they would if there were no response. Attacks against Isreal may even continue to increase, but the response will still be a success if the rate of the increase is dramatically less than it would have been without the response (but that won't stop those who are against the response from declaring it a failuring).
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper »

edonnelly wrote:
Kasper wrote:How do you consider that bombing a country is going to stop terrorism?
Again, I think you are oversimplifying to try to rationalize your position (or at the least you are using a "straw-man" tactic to argue your point). It's not a binary outcome (either stop terrorism or don't stop it). Isreal believes that inaction will lead to an escalation of violence against it.
I think you need to rest of my post you quoted from. I am trying to rationalize my position indeed. My position is that indiscriminate bombing of both civilans and (potential) terrorists will not stop or diminish terrorism, but inflame it. I think that is a perfectly rational concept, even if it is overly simple.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques »

What makes you think it's indiscriminate, Kasper? We know Hezbollah deliberately hides its weapons and its arms in the middle of residential areas, using civilians as human shields, in order to maximize the death count when it is attacked. Israel has always done everything it can to avoid the casualties of innocents; that is its sworn policy.
L. Amādeus Rāniērius · Λ. Θεόφιλος Ῥᾱνιήριος 🦂

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY »

Should Turkey be given the 'go ahead' to invade N. Iraq? See this article for example (and no, this is not a different question really)

Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Post by Amadeus »

Lucus Eques wrote:
Amadeus wrote:You know, there are many ways to destroy an enemy. Military force is not always the answer, especially in the Mid East, where its use has proven futile for the past 60 years.
Proven, you say? Do prove it for us!
Can you not see it, care amice? How many peaceful days have Israel and Palestine enjoyed? It is an endless cycle of demolition, followed by terrorism, then retaliation, more terrorism, more retaliation, and so on and on and on.
And Israel has used a "strong hand" in the past, only to create more enemies for itself. Hizbollah didn't appear out of the sky, it is a reaction to the territorial policies of Israel.
Please, explain this reasoning and history in full to us. Without having a common frame of reference, we're just throwing words around.
No, no, no. I'm not the history teacher. Lucus, why are you asking me to justify and explain everything I say/write? You have to do some research and reasoning yourself. But just to indulge you a bit, Hezbollah was started in 1982, two years after Israel invaded Lebanon, which was itself triggered by the PLO firing rockets into northern Israel from southern Lebanon, which in turn was caused by the displacement of Palestinians... and so forth ad nauseam...
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.

Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Re: Israel/Hezbollah

Post by Amadeus »

cdm2003 wrote:I understand what you're saying. But when the world consistantly abuses, enslaves, tortures, and attempts to exterminate a certain group of people for let's say, oh, about two solid millennia, I would say that they're entitled to at least a little real estate where they can be safe. I'm not defending imperialism or even uprooting a single soul from his or her home, but I don't believe I'm playing the victim card either. Obviously, this is a terribly complex issue, but the world chose for two millennia to exile Jews from their homes in practically every corner of the world. I think Israelis are entitled to defend their own homeland in today's world however they see fit.

Versteh?
What is that, German? I was trying to learn German and Latin at the same time, but it became pretty difficult, I think you know why. :lol:

Now, the Jewish people have indeed suffered (sine causa?) throughout history, but, as far as International law is concerned, that is not an valid argument for taking territory that is not yours (here I'm speaking of East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights...). History is history, and the Jewish people cannot hold (and I don't think they are holding) the world of today responsible for crimes that happened centuries ago. Justice, in this case, is left to our Maker. Don't you agree?

Vale!
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD »

When I have some spare time, I would like to participate in this discussion, hopefully later tonight. I also look forward to addressing GGG's comments.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Sanskrit
Textkit Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:53 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Sanskrit »

I think that it's good that the Israelis are defending their country. The more land you give to the Muslims the more they want to take from you. Same thing is happening in India where the Muslims took Bangladesh and Pakistan and are still fighting to have Kashmir. I don't support the killing of innocent people and my opinion is that Israel didn't make the right decision to bomb people randomly. Terrorists don't give a damn about who dies and who doesn't, they will only use it as an excuse to kill even more innocent people. It is a difficult matter, but one thing is sure. Something has to be done against fundamentalism.

I don't think that the people of Israel hate each other that much to live together as neighbours. Although a lot has happened, it would be nice to see Israel as one nation with Muslims and Jews living in peace. At least I wouldn't hear all the endless news bulletins about the Gaza strip every day of the week. You know, I hate my idiot neighbour a lot and I just don't talk to him. I understand that the situation in the middle east is more complicated though.

Carola
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 12:34 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Post by Carola »

And on a more human note - I was speaking to a young friend of mine this morning; his relatives in Sthn Lebanon have been forced to flee from their home, no-one really knows what is happening to them. I just worry about the innocent people who always seem to get the rough end of the deal. The generals and politicians always seem to survive to write their memoirs, the ordinary families get destroyed.

Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Post by Amadeus »

IreneY wrote:Should Turkey be given the 'go ahead' to invade N. Iraq? See this article for example (and no, this is not a different question really)
Hmmm... Washington, according to the BBC, is warning Turkey against a unilateral move against Kurds in northern Iraq. Is this a double standard or what? *sigh*
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper »

Lucus Eques wrote:What makes you think it's indiscriminate, Kasper? We know Hezbollah deliberately hides its weapons and its arms in the middle of residential areas, using civilians as human shields, in order to maximize the death count when it is attacked. Israel has always done everything it can to avoid the casualties of innocents; that is its sworn policy.
What makes me think it is indiscriminate is the large amount of civilian casualties and the long term economical devastation that will affect the whole of Lebanon for many years to come. I acknowledge that this partly due to Hezbollah hiding its weapons as you describe, but also in part to Israel's "strong hand".
Although I have no sympathy for Hezbollah or its cause, it's the Israeli bombs that are presently actively doing the damage. To this I very strongly object.

Despite 'sworn policies", I do not believe that Israel has always done everything it can to avoid innocent casualties.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques »

To this I very strongly object.
Personally, I very strongly object to Hezbollah lobbying missiles into the residential areas of Haifa and other cities deliberately to target and to kill civilians and children. It is plain that Israel has no objective to kill innocent people anywhere — why the heck would they do that? If they were to do such a thing, it would only cause Israel harm.
I do not believe that Israel has always done everything it can to avoid innocent casualties.
I respect those who share this sentiment, but I would like to hear the evidence upon which this assumption is based.
L. Amādeus Rāniērius · Λ. Θεόφιλος Ῥᾱνιήριος 🦂

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper »

Lucus Eques wrote: Personally, I very strongly object to Hezbollah lobbying missiles into the residential areas of Haifa and other cities deliberately to target and to kill civilians and children. It is plain that Israel has no objective to kill innocent people anywhere — why the heck would they do that? If they were to do such a thing, it would only cause Israel harm.
Like I said, I have no sympathy for Hezbolla and I agree that what they are doing is deliberately targeting civilians. I'm also happy to agree that the civilian casualties in Lebanon are only 'collateral damage'. I still think this is unacceptable.
Lucus Eques wrote:
I do not believe that Israel has always done everything it can to avoid innocent casualties.
I respect those who share this sentiment, but I would like to hear the evidence upon which this assumption is based.
Somehow I thought you would, but like Amadeus I am not a history teacher. Do you believe that presently everything is being done to avoid innocent casualties?
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques »

Somehow I thought you would, but like Amadeus I am not a history teacher.
This seems so silly to me. Do you just believe the opinion columns then? I don't. If I read any broad-ranging comment with historical implications, I research it — real easy to do on the internet, or with an encyclopaedia nearby. You don't need to be a history teacher, and god help us if we do not know history well enough that we can't explain an opinion with significant foundations in the past.
Do you believe that presently everything is being done to avoid innocent casualties?
On the part of the Israelis? Yes. They have nothing to gain from hurting or killing the innocent, and the implication otherwise is frankly shocking.
L. Amādeus Rāniērius · Λ. Θεόφιλος Ῥᾱνιήριος 🦂

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper »

No I don't believe opinion columns and generally avoid them, there is too much unfounded opinion in the world. But ike you say yourself, there is plenty of such information available. Seriously have a look if you need evidence. I have no doubt that you have seen the pictures on TV or in the papers of civilian casualties, admittedly on both sides.

I agree that the implication that Israel is not doing everything it can do avoid civilian casualties is shocking. That is the exact reason why I so strongly object to the current action taken by Israel. And Israel does have other options, eg:
a) don't attack;
b) use precision bombing;
c) send in ground troups to search particular buildings; etc

I agree that all these options may not appeal to you or the Israeli government and/or may be expensive, but there are options to avoid the high costs of civilian casualties and at the moment Israel is not doing everything it can to avoid this.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

Post Reply