Forums | MacLife

Tallgeese wrote:

Fried Chicken wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

You're just pissed off because this time, Christains are involved in the conflict. Boo hoo.

It's not that simple.  George Bush loves his christians, and he supposedly wants democracy everywhere, now christians are affected but he continues to support Israel.
And you cannot blame an incompentant government for not doing something about terrorists in the region that are supported by Syria and Iran.


And these boo hoo christians are my family.  Right now because of this bullsmurf Israel conflict I cannot even speak with my Grandma, or some close family friends, who btw are American citzens.

Why can't you talk to the American citizens?

Because the Israelis are holding Lebanon hostage, and I cannot get a line in.  I bet that the telephone services there are cut off, or blown up.

And Lebanon has the potential to become such a wonderful country.  I visited there once, and it is really nice.  The small villages there have old values that go back hundreds of years, and the formation of the state of Israel destroyed all that.


To give you an example of such a village:
http://www.bterram.com/bterram_001.htm


That's the village where my dad was born, and where my Grandmother is living right now.

resedit wrote:

Fried Chicken wrote:

Because the Israelis are holding Lebanon hostage, and I cannot get a line in.  I bet that the telephone services there are cut off, or blown up.

Israel has targeted cell service towers. So you are probably correct.
Hezbollah is holding Lebanon hostage. Israel went into Lebanon many moons ago because of continued attacks against Israel. When they pulled out, there was a UN resolution for the disolving of Hezbollah - which obviously did not take place.

Hezbollah is a state of its own within Lebanon that is able to wage war that Lebanon can not control. It is Hezbollah that is holding Lebanon hostage - along with their Syrian and Iranian supporters.

And it is Syria and Iran, I believe, that are the real targets here.

Res mentioned the idea of Israel "crushing" hizbollah and Hamas or whatever. Impossible, ain't gonna happen. If there was any hope of crushing those movements through military might, they'd have done it, well, decades ago. One column I read said it was a show of force designed to show Israel's enemy that killing/kidnapping Israelis carries such a high price that it will stop.

Ridiculous, of course. It was the "strategy" employed in Vietnam, to zero effect. Actually it's not a form of thinking at all. Force is a pretty miserable substitute for rational thought.

But I still harbor the deep suspicion that there's more to the picture. There sure as smurf is more to it than three smurfing soldiers. I mean, Israel has negotiated the release of its prisoners many times before -- why not now?

robco wrote:

No one has yet been able to state what Israel's response should have been.  I suppose the typical "roll over and take it like a little bitch" EU response?

Not necessarily.  Read the article I linked to on the previous page.

They're engaging in a strategy that has proved quite ineffective before.  Destroying Lebanon's infrastructure will only strengthen Hezbollah once this conflict has been resolved.  Are they really harming Hezbollah with this strategy?

In short (to paraphrase what I've read elsewhere) simply because one is justified in taking a specific action does not necessarily mean that such an action is wise.

If you want to bring Palestine in to this, I've reached a conclusion.

smurf those guys. I had all the sympathy in the world for them and then they go and elect Hamas. Well, call the devil and don't be surprised at what shows up at your door.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I still don't see how anyone can say both sides are equally to blame. It just baffles me.

I'm not saying it's all Israel's fault, but Israel is so goddamned powerful and just doesn't want to give up its Palestinian colonies, I think it deserves a larger portion of the blame.

Hizbollah deliberately provoking Israel? By taking a couple of soldiers? How many Lebanese and Palestinians are in Israeli prisons, including women and children? What was it some Israeli was quoted as saying? They wanted to throw Lebanon 20 years back by smashing its infrastructure?

It's insanely disproportionate. It's like Zidane co-co-bunting that Italian player.

So Israel is wrong simply because it has a strong military?  Is that why the US is always wrong too?

Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza and is preparing to withdraw from the West Bank, it's giving up it's occupation.  So why again was the attack by Hamas justified?  Oh, the beach attack - but there's no way Hamas could have dug the tunnels in that short a time frame - the attack was premediated.  They knew it would engender a military response from Israel.

Hamas, the elected government and representatives of the Palestinian people, committed an act of war by crossing the internationally recognized border and kidnapping a soldier.  Oh, not to mention killing the other members of his tank crew.  Then firing rockets indiscriminately (no one complains that the rocket attacks against Israel are targeting civilians).

Hezbollah, a part of Lebanon's democratically elected government, also committed an act of war against Israel by crossing the border, murdering IDF soldiers and kidnapping two.

So for pulling out of Lebanon and Gaza, Israel gets these acts of war in return.  Until the Islamists learn to respect the rule of law and pursue other methods to redress grievances, there will be no end in sight.  Instead they're pursuing the military option, which Israel will counter with more military force.

Wrong as Israel may be in holding some of these prisoners, the incursions by Hezbollah and Hamas absolutely were not justified in any way, shape or form.  That is the key piece missing from all UN resolutions proposed - they decry Israel, but are silent regarding the behavior of the militants.

We manage to keep our fundamentalist religious wackos in check and keep them from committing acts of war against other nations.  Until the Palestinian Authority can do that, they have no business governing a nation of their own.  As for Lebanon, if the IDF can take out or severely cripple Hezbollah, they'll be doing the Lebanese government a favor in the long run.

I do agree that Israel should have given 72 hours for the soldiers to be returned before engaging in a military response and that they have gone a little over the line.  At the same time, they need to make some sort of response to demonstrate that these sorts of incursions will not be tolerated and that kidnapping soldiers and murdering Israeli civilians will not bring about the outcomes they desire.  Acquiesing will only make things worse.

robco wrote:

Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza and is preparing to withdraw from the West Bank, it's giving up it's occupation.  So why again was the attack by Hamas justified?  Oh, the beach attack - but there's no way Hamas could have dug the tunnels in that short a time frame - the attack was premediated.  They knew it would engender a military response from Israel.

Why are you interpreting criticism of Israel as support for or a claim of justification for the acts of Hamas?

Hamas, the elected government and representatives of the Palestinian people, committed an act of war by crossing the internationally recognized border and kidnapping a soldier.  Oh, not to mention killing the other members of his tank crew.  Then firing rockets indiscriminately (no one complains that the rocket attacks against Israel are targeting civilians).

I see no one supporting them!  The criticism is that Israel's response has been disproportionate, or at least ill-advised.

Hezbollah, a part of Lebanon's democratically elected government, also committed an act of war against Israel by crossing the border, murdering IDF soldiers and kidnapping two.

So for pulling out of Lebanon and Gaza, Israel gets these acts of war in return.  Until the Islamists learn to respect the rule of law and pursue other methods to redress grievances, there will be no end in sight.  Instead they're pursuing the military option, which Israel will counter with more military force.

I don't see anyone supporting the acts of Hamas or Hezbollah.  I believe the main criticism is that Israel is bringing great harm upon civilian populations without doing damage to the militant groups involved.

We manage to keep our fundamentalist religious wackos in check and keep them from committing acts of war against other nations.  Until the Palestinian Authority can do that, they have no business governing a nation of their own.  As for Lebanon, if the IDF can take out or severely cripple Hezbollah, they'll be doing the Lebanese government a favor in the long run.

I doubt they're doing them any favors.  A favor would be helping to support the Lebanese government. 

Additionally, blaming the Palestinian government for not acting at this point makes no sense.  The government is practically powerless, because all international funding has been cut off.  There is no ability to rein in militants.  Meanwhile, the civilian population suffers.

This conflict (the overarching conflict) will NOT be won militarily.  It's impossible, because you're dealing with weak centralized governments and powerful militant groups.

bratboy wrote:

Why are you interpreting criticism of Israel as support for or a claim of justification for the acts of Hamas?

Every single proposed UN resolution for the current situation condemns only Israel.  The only thing anyone says is that Israel is wrong for doing this, but then offers up no alternate course of action.

bratboy wrote:

I see no one supporting them!  The criticism is that Israel's response has been disproportionate, or at least ill-advised.

Sure it's disproportionate, they want to establish a deterrent to future activity.  It probably won't work.  Negotiating with Hamas and Hezbollah isn't an option though.

bratboy wrote:

I don't see anyone supporting the acts of Hamas or Hezbollah.  I believe the main criticism is that Israel is bringing great harm upon civilian populations without doing damage to the militant groups involved.

You mean other than Iran, Syria and their supporters in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon and other Arab nations?

If you know how to wage war against militants who hide in civilian areas and hide their equipment among civilians - effectiely using them as human shields without causing any civilian casualties, I'd love to hear it.  The IDF does take steps to minimize civilian casualties, but as with the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's not always possible.  There have always been civilian casualties in war, there always will be civilian casualities in war.

bratboy wrote:

I doubt they're doing them any favors.  A favor would be helping to support the Lebanese government.

In what way?  Giving them arms to fight Hezbollah?  Giving them money?  Has the government (of which Hezbollah is a part) asked for any help to eliminate Hezbollah?

bratboy wrote:

Additionally, blaming the Palestinian government for not acting at this point makes no sense.  The government is practically powerless, because all international funding has been cut off.  There is no ability to rein in militants.  Meanwhile, the civilian population suffers.

Hamas is the Palestinians government, they committed this act, they are completely responsible.  They won't rein in militants because they won't rein in themselves.  They like having their militias and power.  Of course everyone cut off funding, Hamas is a terrorist organization.  By endorsing Hamas, Palestinians citizens endorsed terrorism.  Fatah wasn't much better, but they were willing to talk.  Also, Hamas and Hezbollah wouldn't be nearly as strong as they are if they didn't have popular support.

bratboy wrote:

This conflict (the overarching conflict) will NOT be won militarily.  It's impossible, because you're dealing with weak centralized governments and powerful militant groups.

True.  It won't be won at all.  They've been at each others' throats for millenia and will continue for generations to come.  We won't arm the governments because we don't trust them and can't trust them.  The only hope is to destroy the militant groups.

Perhaps one day the Palestinians, Syrians and Iran will reach the point that Egypt and Jordan did - they hate Israel, but continually trying to annihilate Israel is futile and they've got better things to do.  Until that day, the cycle of violence will continue.  But no external force - US, EU, UN - will bring about a lasting peace.  It has to be decided by the people, and right now, the militants are winning the hearts and minds.  It's not easy fighing blind, ignorant religious zealotry.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Sorry, was I expected to read beyond that?

I guess not.

robco wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Sorry, was I expected to read beyond that?

I guess not.

Okay, well, drop me a line when you feel like responding to what I actually write.

bratboy wrote:

[I have no idea what drives the individual opinions of the UN members, but it might be related to exasperation resulting from multiple blocked attempts to criticize the past actions of Israel.

That's a separate issue from the criticisms offered here and elsewhere, however.

The US blocks all resolutions that won't condemn the actions of both parties.  The US is pretty much Israel's only supporter in the UN.  The US has stated that it will support resolutions against Israel so long as they are not one-sided and also condemn the other side.

bratboy wrote:

Probably not.  I'm not sure that this is an either/or proposition, however.  Those soldiers could be killed at any time, regardless of of how many things Israel blows up.

True enough.  I think Israel is hoping that swift, severe responses will act as a deterrent.  Not going to work with people who are more than willing to die and sacrifice others for their cause.  But on the other hand, there really isn't a way for Israel to win them over.  The strategy is to keep grinding them down until they're either unwilling or unable to fight.  I think Israel is aware that they'll never win them over.

bratboy wrote:

I was referring to the discussion here and in the United States.  I'm not claiming that the militants have no supporters.

Both sides have supporters here.  The pro-Israeli side is more prevalent, but that is starting to shift a bit.

bratboy wrote:

My point is that I don't think their current actions will be at all beneficial in the long run.

If they can manage to take away Hezbollah's ability to strike Israel, they will have completed their goal.  Israel has stated that they do not wish to occupy Lebanon, only to stop the attacks.

bratboy wrote:

I'm guessing it's part of their long term goals.  AFAIK, the United States has supported the government of Lebanon.  Am I wrong?

Which is why the US government is in such a bind here.  We do support Lebanon's government, but at the same time support Israel's right to defend itself.

I suppose we need standards to determine when sufficient measures have been taken to prevent civilian casualties (Israel did drop leaflets warning civlians to stay away from target areas before attacking) and/or what are acceptable levels of "collateral damage."

bratboy wrote:

There are rational, pragmatic people within Palestine and within the Palestinian government.  Do the actions of the international community and Israel act in support of those people, or do they further marginalize them? 

You may refuse to believe it, but the various factions of Hamas are not controlled by those in the Palestinian government.

There are, but they aren't in control and they are a minority.  Again, most condemnation from the international community has been directed at Israel.  Not much condemnation of Hamas.  Until Hamas recognizes Israel, they won't receive any international support, nor should they.  If Hamas can't control its various factions, it shouldn't be governing.

bratboy wrote:

Precisely.  Victory lies in turning the public away from the militant groups.

Neither the US or Israel can do that.  It's not an option.

bratboy wrote:

I see no evidence that such a strategy will be successful.  The militant groups need to be marginalized.

Hamas is a militant group, they're not going to marginalize themselves.  Israel is pretty much hated universally.  The rest of the world is trying to marginalize Hamas by cutting off funding.  If other parties in the disputed territories and Lebanon can marginalize Hamas and Hezbollah, that would be great, but the US and Israel cannot.  Neither is credible in the eyes of the people.

bratboy wrote:

Yet again, I find it completely unfair to blame the civilian population for the acts of their government. 

I have never claimed that the Israeli civilians population deserved the attacks they suffered because of their government's policy in the occupied territories, and I'm not going to blame the Palestinian civilians for attacks upon Israel by militant groups.

They are not completely to blame, but partly to blame for putting Hamas in power.  That's the problem with democracy.  They had to know that the peace process would be stalled when they went to the polls.

robco wrote:

The US blocks all resolutions that won't condemn the actions of both parties.  The US is pretty much Israel's only supporter in the UN.  The US has stated that it will support resolutions against Israel so long as they are not one-sided and also condemn the other side.

So the fact that no resolution has ever passed against Israel's actions is because the resolution failed to criticize the Palestinians? 

I don't know that I believe that....

True enough.  I think Israel is hoping that swift, severe responses will act as a deterrent.  Not going to work with people who are more than willing to die and sacrifice others for their cause.  But on the other hand, there really isn't a way for Israel to win them over.  The strategy is to keep grinding them down until they're either unwilling or unable to fight.  I think Israel is aware that they'll never win them over.

"Winning them over" isn't necessary.

Both sides have supporters here.  The pro-Israeli side is more prevalent, but that is starting to shift a bit.

I've seen many critical of Israel in this country, but I have not seen support for militant attacks agains them.

If they can manage to take away Hezbollah's ability to strike Israel, they will have completed their goal.  Israel has stated that they do not wish to occupy Lebanon, only to stop the attacks.

Right.  I'm saying that their "goal" may not work to their benefit in the future.

Which is why the US government is in such a bind here.  We do support Lebanon's government, but at the same time support Israel's right to defend itself.

I suppose we need standards to determine when sufficient measures have been taken to prevent civilian casualties (Israel did drop leaflets warning civlians to stay away from target areas before attacking) and/or what are acceptable levels of "collateral damage."

It's quite a fuzzy area.  At this point I'm not comfortable stating what I believe Israel is justified or not justified in doing.  However, as I said above––what they're justified in doing may not be the best course of action. 

I do not see how destroying the Lebanese infrastructure will do anything to aid Israel in the long run.

There are, but they aren't in control and they are a minority.  Again, most condemnation from the international community has been directed at Israel.  Not much condemnation of Hamas.

Do you not think that this is because the civilians of Gaza and Lebanon are much more affected by Israel's actions than vice versa?

Until Hamas recognizes Israel, they won't receive any international support, nor should they.  If Hamas can't control its various factions, it shouldn't be governing.

That's a hard stance, but one that may not prove to be beneficial in the long run.  Hamas has been elected.  A carrot and a stick would likely be much more effective than no carrot at all.

Neither the US or Israel can do that.  It's not an option.

I wholeheartedly disagree.  The average person in Palestine or Lebanon or Israel or the U.S. have much in common––they want security, shelter, the ability to support their families, and stability in their daily lives.  I believe it is possible to marginalize those committed to violence. 

Hamas is a militant group, they're not going to marginalize themselves.  Israel is pretty much hated universally.  The rest of the world is trying to marginalize Hamas by cutting off funding.  If other parties in the disputed territories and Lebanon can marginalize Hamas and Hezbollah, that would be great, but the US and Israel cannot.  Neither is credible in the eyes of the people.

I believe the elected government must be given a chance to govern.  We're talking about politicians.  Hamas is not cohesive, and everything possible should be done to support those who seek a nonviolent solution (even those within Hamas).  Cutting them off will only bolster their control. 

They are not completely to blame, but partly to blame for putting Hamas in power.  That's the problem with democracy.  They had to know that the peace process would be stalled when they went to the polls.

A real democracy does not see dissenting voices silenced by violence.  You may feel comfortable calling Gaza a "democracy," but I do not.

Can't you just FEEL the love here?

bedstuy wrote:

Can't you just FEEL the love here?

Oh. my.