# Lebanon-Israel



## dona83

This is bad... I can't believe this is allowed to go on. Can someone fill me in as to why Israel decided to attack Lebanon other than the two kidnapped soldiers? Because the Israelis in my mind have stooped down to an all time low. Leave Lebanon alone...


----------



## darkscot

Same reason US would attack us if we harboured anti-US terrorists. Israel can't get rid of Hezbollah any other way it seems.


----------



## Beej

dona83 said:


> This is bad... I can't believe this is allowed to go on. Can someone fill me in as to why Israel decided to attack Lebanon other than the two kidnapped soldiers? Because the Israelis in my mind have stooped down to an all time low. Leave Lebanon alone...


That is a huge and often fiery debate. Good luck!


----------



## HowEver

Why not ask instead why Hezbollah has spent the last 15 years lobbing rockets into Israel? Or why Hezbollah is "allowed" to kidnap these Israeli soldiers from Israel? Why not ask why Lebanon allows terrorists funded by Iran and Syria, whose only purpose is to attack Israelis, to operate unfettered within Lebanon?

Interesting what gets asked in this regard.

Imagine a group of people operating out of southern Ontario and firing rockets at Buffalo or Niagara. Really, would the Canadian or U.S. governments allow this to last more than 5 minutes?

Why *didn't* you ask why Hezbollah is allowed to fire thousands of rockets into Israel or kidnap Israeli soldiers from within Israel?

Finally, in Canada, it is illegal to send money to Hezbollah (or Hamas, for that matter) because these are known, U.N.-certified, Canadian-certified terrorist organizations. Try it, you'll go to jail. Then we can all ask why that's "allowed."





dona83 said:


> This is bad... I can't believe this is allowed to go on. Can someone fill me in as to why Israel decided to attack Lebanon other than the two kidnapped soldiers? Because the Israelis in my mind have stooped down to an all time low. Leave Lebanon alone...


----------



## ArtistSeries

HowEver said:


> Finally, in Canada, it is illegal to send money to Hezbollah (or Hamas, for that matter) because these are known, *U.N.-certified*, Canadian-certified terrorist organizations. Try it, you'll go to jail. Then we can all ask why that's "allowed."


Funny how you should mention U.N. when Isreal keeps on ignoring all the sanctions against it...


----------



## HowEver

ArtistSeries said:


> Funny how you should mention U.N. when Isreal keeps on ignoring all the sanctions against it...


Yeah, we can all quote the sanctions against Hamas and Hezbollah too. The Canadian definition is more important, though, it's true.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Now, you are becoming very selective there....

I'm with Chirac and Putin on this one....


----------



## Bajan

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm with Chirac and Putin on this one....


Putin is one to talk! The Russians have used a force much worse to quell their problems in Chechnya. If the Russians were the ones being bombarded by katyusha rockets and their soldiers kidnapped then Russia would probably have the entire ground of southern Lebanon raized.

As for Chirac.....he'd probably have his little tail between his legs.


----------



## Beej

What are the positions of Putin and Chirac? Have they taken a, "Do something, but less so" approach?


----------



## Bajan

ArtistSeries said:


> Funny how you should mention U.N. when Isreal keeps on ignoring all the sanctions against it...


Why should Israel bother with the U.N. when the U.N. and it's members don't even lift a finger when Israel is constantly provoked and fired upon or blasted by suicide bombers by the Sunni Hamas, the PA backed Fatah, the PFLP and the Shia Hezbollah?  

Meanwhile if an Israeli dog even so as to urinates on an Arab tree there is a resolution passed by the UN to castrate the dog.


----------



## T-hill

Bajan said:


> Meanwhile if an Israeli dog even so as to urinates on an Arab tree there is a resolution passed by the UN to castrate the dog.


:clap: Well said!


----------



## MacDoc

Humans have killed about 1.2 billion of their own species ( not counting billions more non species congruent ) since WWII.

Firing, throwing, lobbing, whatever means of destruction at neighbouring "tribes" has gone on since humans picked up rocks and likely went on in pre **** sapiens primates.

ALLOWED !!!!!!?????....yeah right


----------



## ArtistSeries

Beej said:


> What are the positions of Putin and Chirac? Have they taken a, "Do something, but less so" approach?


Chirac: French President Jacques Chirac castigated Israel for its military offensive in Lebanon on Friday, calling it "*totally disproportionate*," 
Putin: “No hostage-takings are acceptable,” Putin said on the eve of hosting the G-8. “But neither is the use of full-scale force in response to these, even if unlawful, actions.”


----------



## Beej

ArtistSeries said:


> Chirac: French President Jacques Chirac castigated Israel for its military offensive in Lebanon on Friday, calling it "*totally disproportionate*,"
> Putin: “No hostage-takings are acceptable,” Putin said on the eve of hosting the G-8. “But neither is the use of full-scale force in response to these, even if unlawful, actions.”


Thanks. So they're using proportianality. Good. I have some sympathy for that argument because it implicitly acknowledges that do-nothing is not appropriate. 

Some aspect of disproportionate (from our perspective) is likely, given Israel's perspective (neighbours that actively want them (and, in some cases, the Jewish race) decimated. But there are still some standards. 

I don't know enough about the current conflict to say it is too much or not, but it is good to see the concept in the dialogue instead of just criticising them. Israel is not in a position that lends itself to the nicities of diplomacy first, second and third (like most nations can do). There's still much room for diplomacy, but on a daily basis it will (and has been) abused. Quite the mess. Between this and Kashmir, things don't look good.


----------



## ArtistSeries

So what's the body count today? I can assure you it there will be many more Lebanese dead civilian bodies than Israeli ones....
One has to wonder if the isolation of the democratically elected Hamas government contributed to internal factors here...


----------



## Vandave

ArtistSeries said:


> One has to wonder if the isolation of the democratically elected Hamas government contributed to internal factors here...


They are isolated for a reason. That doesn't excuse their actions, or more accurately, lack of actions.


----------



## HowEver

ArtistSeries said:


> So what's the body count today? I can assure you it there will be many more Lebanese dead civilian bodies than Israeli ones....
> One has to wonder if the isolation of the democratically elected Hamas government contributed to internal factors here...


The "democratically elected Hamas government" has vowed to destroy Israel and every Israeli, as have most Arab governments, not just Iran and Syria. These are the folks you support?

Meanwhile, Arabs live in Israel unscathed--they vote, they are in government, they are protected as much as possible. How many Arabs have Hamas blown up on Israeli buses? Do they care? How many Arabs live in northern Israel towns targetted by Hezbollah rockets? Do they care? Do you?

What's the body count today? Why not answer why you and the OP ask these questions and not why Hezbollah and Hamas should be "allowed" to kidnap and bomb Israelis?


----------



## ArtistSeries

HowEver said:


> .... to kidnap and bomb Israelis?


You mean that it's okay if Isreal does it?


> Saturday, 24 June 2006
> Israel captures pair in Gaza raid
> 
> Israeli soldiers have seized two Palestinian men in an overnight raid into the southern Gaza Strip.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5112846.stm



> The Israeli strikes on targets other that Hezbollah installations are at least in part punitive - power installations, roads and the international airport have been hit.
> 
> Israeli officials have insisted that there will be no direct negotiation with Hezbollah or Hamas over the return of its soldiers, and no Palestinian prisoner releases.
> 
> In the past, Israel has negotiated with Hezbollah and released hundreds of prisoners, but Israeli officials are now talking about a changed situation and new rules.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5180202.stm
Just so long as the victims are Lebanese, it's nice to see some feel smug about it.


----------



## Bajan

AS: You throw around more quotes than there are blades of grass on my lawn.


----------



## HowEver

Yes.

Did you even bother to _read_ your links?



> *The Israeli military said the two brothers were members of the militant group Hamas and were planning attacks on Israel.*





ArtistSeries said:


> You mean that it's okay if Isreal does it?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5112846.stm
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5180202.stm
> Just so long as the victims are Lebanese, it's nice to see some feel smug about it.





> The Hezbollah raid into Israel, in which eight Israeli soldiers were killed and two were captured, was a stunning and provocative attack.


It's spelled "Israel" btw.

As you well know, when Israel takes prisoners, it is because they are engaged in hostile activities against Israel, and then they are treated well--well enough to live to see these prisoner swaps.

Mostly, when Palestinians and others kidnap Israelis they wind up dead after being tortured and paraded through the streets, ripped in pieces and otherwise desecrated.

You do read the news, don't you? Or just link it.

Nobody is saying Israel is entirely innocent. Just that the standards applied to Israel are applied to no other country in the world.

And answering one part of these posts and ignoring the rest may appear clever but it's the opposite.


----------



## Beej

HowEver said:


> Nobody is saying Israel is entirely innocent. Just that the standards applied to Israel are applied to no other country in the world.


That seems to be the crux of the matter. No other major nation commenting on Israel's acitivity are under the same situation. Not even close. That makes determining 'appropriate' and 'disproportianate' very difficult. There is no standard to turn to. If a G7 nation were in these circumstances, their perspective would change very quickly. The G8 (Russia) already has.

See the Kazimi example for a more at home example. Canada could have done more, but not all out attack (given international norms). That is the difference in situations. Canada's existence (by race or by border) was not a part of her death. We were removed in many ways. Israel is not. Looking at this in terms of 'us' or body counts don't take into account the real threat facing Israel. This threat has been quite clearly stated. 

Israel must be open to criticism as any nation is, but their actions must not be divorced from their circumstances.

This is why appropriate and proportianate are difficult to determine. We have no benchmark. I don't have THE answer to this but, in my opinion, anyone who has THE answer is quite willingly ignorant.


----------



## ArtistSeries

HowEver, what's the difference between Israel kidnapping two Hamas militant or soldiers (if you want to use that language) and Hammas kidnapping two Israeli soldiers?

Please note that: *The Israeli military* said the two brothers were members of the militant group Hamas

They have denied being part of Hamas. 


> Israeli soldiers have seized two Palestinian men....
> Hamas said they were sons of a member but were not involved in Hamas. It called the abduction a crime.
> Hamas denied the men were its members.


----------



## ArtistSeries

HowEver said:


> As you well know, when Israel takes prisoners, it is because they are engaged in hostile activities against Israel, and then they are treated well--well enough to live to see these prisoner swaps.


I'm sure Shamai Leibowitz would have alot more to say on the subject than me... of course you'd call him something else.


----------



## HowEver

It's Hamas, not Hammas.

The difference is which political system "allows" for fair trials and safe treatment of prisoners, and which system exists as an internationally recognized terrorist organization whose purpose is to kill a neighbouring state's citizens.

You're not doing very well at this. Perhaps you should take more time.



ArtistSeries said:


> HowEver, what's the difference between Israel kidnapping two Hamas militant or soldiers (if you want to use that language) and Hammas kidnapping two Israeli soldiers?
> 
> Please note that: *The Israeli military* said the two brothers were members of the militant group Hamas
> 
> They have denied being part of Hamas.


----------



## ArtistSeries

HowEver said:


> The difference is which political system "allows" for fair trials and safe treatment of prisoners, and which system exists as an internationally recognized terrorist organization whose purpose is to kill a neighbouring state's citizens.





> "For years, American taxpayers money has funded the occupation °© the torture chambers, the military apparatus, the bulldozers used in house demolitions, the building of settlements and now the construction of the West Bank wall, declared illegal by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Americans should be held accountable for where their money is going" (The Nation: 3/16/2005). Our Department of State, despite its more than fifty years of monetary support to Israel, more than that given to any other nation on the planet, does not hold the state of Israel "accountable to their obligations under universal human rights norms and international human rights instruments," nor does it "promote respect for human rights" in Israel, or "freedom from torture," nor does it "promote the rule of law" regarding Israel's wall, and these are only the allegations as noted in Leibowitz' article. A more thorough review of these reports reveals the Janus face of the Department of State.


http://www.counterpunch.org/cook04092005.html

Your terrorists (and this is a recent definition btw) is another's Islamic Resistance Movement - or do you prefer to gloss over the fact that early Hamas was funded by Mossad to counter the PLO... Blowback is a bitch aint' it?


----------



## interlude




----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> Your terrorists (and this is a recent definition btw) is another's Islamic Resistance Movement - or do you prefer to gloss over the fact that early Hamas was funded by Mossad to counter the PLO... Blowback is a bitch aint' it?


another example of the failed doctrine; "the enemy of my enemy is my ally"


----------



## MacDoc

A close but not quite situation was Ireland over several hundred years with the Northern Irish deposed from their lands to make way for King Billy's reward to his troops.
...and we know how long THAT took to settle.....if it even is now.
Israel et al is waaaaaaayyyyyy more complex.

There is going to be water issues in the area in none to short a time as well.



> Analysis: Middle East water wars
> 
> By Adel Darwish
> Writer and commentator on the Middle East
> 
> 
> Darwish says that water is at the heart of the conflict
> 
> After signing the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat said his nation will never go to war again, except to protect its water resources.
> 
> King Hussein of Jordan identified water as the only reason that might lead him to war with the Jewish state.
> 
> Former United Nations Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali warned bluntly that the next war in the area will be over water.
> 
> *From Turkey to Uganda, and from Morocco to Oman, nations with some of the highest birth-rates in the world are all concerned about how to find enough water* to sustain urban growth and to meet the needs of agriculture, the main cause of depleting water resources in the region.
> 
> All of these countries depend on either the three great river systems which have an average renewal rate of between 18 days to three months, or on vast underground aquifers some of which could take centuries to refill.
> 
> International law is inadequate in defining and regulating the use of shared water resources.
> 
> The Nile, the world's longest river, is shared between nine countries whose population is likely to double within two decades; yet the volume of water the Nile provides today is no larger than it was when Moses was found in the bulrushes.
> 
> The list of 'water-scarce' countries in the region grew steadily from three in 1955 to eight in 1990 with another seven expected to be added within 20 years, including three Nile nations.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2949768.stm


----------



## HowEver

AS, while ignoring the present debate, you bring up the occupation--which has ended.

Forgetting of course, how the occupation started: Israel claimed territory to defend itself after all of its neighbours attacked.

What next? 19th Century arguments?


----------



## ArtistSeries

HowEver said:


> What next? 19th Century arguments?


I don't know, seems to be Israel's argument for the "Promised Land", no?


----------



## T-hill

HowEver said:


> It's spelled "Israel" btw.


Really? That's not what 90's Fox cartoon Animaniacs taught me...


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> ...the democratically elected Hamas government...


Hamas's Khaled Meshal, not elected democratically or otherwise, says he is calling the shots from Syria and that seems to be so. I also wonder why being democratically elected by Palestinians makes a government good and principled, in your view, when being democratically elected by Americans or Canadians has resulted in governments you hold in such contempt.

And thank you, ArtistSeries, for once again making your unfair and unreasonable biases clear. To recap, Hezbollah fires hundreds of Katushya rockets from Lebanon, hitting Haifa, Safed, Nahariyah, Kiryat Shmona, and many other towns and villages, causing deaths and hundreds of injuries. They invade Israeli territory and kill and kidnap Israeli reservists. 

This is not even ostensibly in retaliation for anything - there was no Israeli presence of any kind in Lebanon, and (except for periodic Hezbollah rockets fired out of Lebanon), the border area has been calm for years.

It is unreasonable and unprincipled to suggest that Israel is not entitled to respond, to protect its citizens, to recover its soldiers. Even Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan have criticized Hezbollah, and urged Lebanon to take control of it's territory (i.e. remove Hezbollah's effective control over the south, from where it attacks Israel).

Even the Star, not a particularly Israel friendly paper, said this today:


> Israel clearly has the right, and indeed an obligation, to defend its citizens from missile attacks from outside its borders and from terrorist incursions from lands it has vacated.
> How to do that against heavily armed Hamas and Hezbollah militias that have complete freedom to operate in Lebanon and Gaza with unfettered materiel and financial backing from the Iranians and Syrians is the question to which no one seems to have an answer.
> Those who accuse Israel of falling into traps set by Hamas and Hezbollah by overreacting to their provocations do not say how it should deal with the seemingly endless attacks.


A little balance please.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> A little balance please.


I made my view very clear when I said I agreed with Chirac and Putin on this one. 

I'll do my own recapping nxnw, thank you.

So, what's the death toll?


> The death toll in the four-day-old conflict rose above 100 in Lebanon, and stood at 15 in Israel.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060715.wisra0715/BNStory/Front

No, nxmw, in your view whatever Israel does is completely reasonable. After all, they are only Palestinians... 
So for every Katushya rocket the wanton destruction of the Palestinian infrastructure is the answer?
So how does bombing central Beirut get your soldiers back? 



> The U.N. human rights chief said both Israel and the militant group Hezbollah were violating international humanitarian law by targeting or endangering civilians.
> 
> "While Israel has legitimate security concerns, international humanitarian law requires that parties to a conflict refrain from attacks directed against civilian objects," said High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour.
> 
> Arbour, a former justice of the Canadian Supreme Court, said "the prohibition on targeting civilians is also being violated by Hezbollah."


Is that a little better for you?


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> I also wonder why being democratically elected by Palestinians makes a government good and principled, in your view, when being democratically elected by Americans or Canadians has resulted in governments you hold in such contempt.


Does this sound like a good country:


> On September 25, 1997 Mashal was the target of an assassination attempt carried out by the Israeli Mossad under orders from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his security cabinet. Ten Mossad agents carrying Canadian passports entered Jordan, where Mashal was living, and injected him with a toxic substance. At the time of the assassination attempt Mashal was considered Hamas' Jordanian branch chief.
> Jordanian authorities discovered the assassination attempt and arrested two Mossad agents who had engaged in the attempt. Jordan's King Hussein then demanded that Benjamin Netanyahu turn over the poison antidote, and at first Netanyahu refused. As the incident began to grow in political significance, however, American President Bill Clinton intervened and forced Netanyahu to turn over the antidote.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Meshaal


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> I made my view very clear when I said I agreed with Chirac and Putin on this one.
> 
> ...So how does bombing central Beirut get your soldiers back?


You purport to align you views with Chirac and Putin (neither of them paragons, by the way) but the venom of your real intent drips from your lips in the balance of your comments. Among other things, you continue your fraud of pretending that hundreds of rockets are not hitting Israeli civilian targets, with your continuing deceit that this is solely about the kidnapped soldiers. 

The bombing in "central Beirut" was an attack on Hezbollah headquarters, (and after Israel dropped leaflets warning civilians to leave the area, at that). So, Hezbollah fires hundreds of Katyushas at Israeli civilian targets, Israel bombs Hezbollah, and you distort the facts.

Then, when you are shown to be unfair and dishonest, you change course and haul out another slander. 

By the way, since you evaded my question about "why being democratically elected by Palestinians makes a government good and principled, in your view, when being democratically elected by Americans or Canadians has resulted in governments you hold in such contempt," I'll answer it. 

Being democratically elected DOESN'T make a government good or principled. It's that simple. Those who debate the middle east conflict dishonestly, however, like to ignore this obvious fact and hence we see the phrase "the democratically elected Hamas government" used to support one fraudulent argument or another. In your case, the argument is that Hamas should be respected, despite the fact that it advocates the destruction of Israel, as well as hatred and terrorism against Jews. Even Chirac and Putin aren't selling that one.


----------



## Fink-Nottle

> *History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake. *
> James Joyce (spoken by Stephen in 'Ulysses')


There is far too much history here and far too many attrocities committed by both sides for there to be any justice resolved from what has gone before. Eventually, hopefully, they will realize they can't obliterate each other and will then try to create a safe and just society for their children. What's happening in Northern Ireland gives some hope that this can be done. God help them...


----------



## dona83

Thank you everyone for clearing up the story for me. It's still too bad it's come to this but now I have a clearer perspective as to what's going on.


----------



## K_OS

Israel is a perfect example of why western society should not get into nation building so far it's been one disaster after another.

Laterz


----------



## Dr.G.

"There is far too much history here and far too many attrocities committed by both sides for there to be any justice resolved from what has gone before. Eventually, hopefully, they will realize they can't obliterate each other and will then try to create a safe and just society for their children." F-N, I agree with your contention. Until both sides agree that this killing cannot go on, and say "Enough!", then it will continue. Sadly, this is what I fear. We shall see.


----------



## HowEver

And that statement [^^K-Os, above] is a perfect example demonstrating that society should not get its news and information from online fora.

dona83, there are newspapers and libraries and such. Not perfect either, of course.

In a perfect world, you'd give up land and hand people a country and they'd stop killing your people.

Since that isn't going to happen, perhaps you have some alternative for "nation-building."




K_OS said:


> Israel is a perfect example of why western society should not get into nation building so far it's been one disaster after another.
> 
> Laterz


----------



## Dr.G.

"In a perfect world, you'd give up land and hand people a country and they'd stop killing your people." A valid point, HowEver.


----------



## dona83

The media's skewed and for some reason as a daily paper reader I did not hear about this until the second day of attacks. Bad Donald. Anyway I asked here first because I knew by now you people have probably formed a good perspective on what's going on right now.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> Being democratically elected DOESN'T make a government good or principled. It's that simple. Those who debate the middle east conflict dishonestly, however, like to ignore this obvious fact and hence we see the phrase "the democratically elected Hamas government" used to support one fraudulent argument or another. In your case, the argument is that Hamas should be respected, despite the fact that it advocates the destruction of Israel, as well as hatred and terrorism against Jews. Even Chirac and Putin aren't selling that one.


:yawn: 
So by your argument, I could easily call Israel a terrorist government - Mossad being it's arm of terror... 
Maybe, we should take Iraq as an example of democratic goevernment in the middle east - even Putin scoffs at that one...

Has rocket been loobed at Israel? Yes - show me where I wrote underwise.
Now, what has Isreal been targeting in Lebanon? How many bombs has it sent over the border? 
So, what's the body count ratio of Israeli versus Lebanese?

One thing for sure, Isreal's response will radicalize many in the region against it.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Dr.G. said:


> "In a perfect world, you'd give up land and hand people a country and they'd stop killing your people." A valid point, HowEver.


In a perfect world, you'd let people who have been living on certain lands for thousands of years keep living there instead of displacing them and declaring that territory "Your promised land"...


----------



## HowEver

Actually, you are probably right about the daily newspapers not catching this until the next day, as it probably broke mid-cycle.

As skewed as they are, the dailies do have somewhat updated websites, like:

www.thestar.com
www.globeandmail.com

and so on.

Even www.cnn.com once in a while gets its head out of its ass and reports on what is actually going on, despite the U.S. provisos that their own dead and prisoners not be shown in media while there is carte blanche to report on others.




dona83 said:


> The media's skewed and for some reason as a daily paper reader I did not hear about this until the second day of attacks. Bad Donald. Anyway I asked here first because I knew by now you people have probably formed a good perspective on what's going on right now.


----------



## Bajan

ArtistSeries said:


> In a perfect world, you'd let people who have been living on certain lands for thousands of years keep living there instead of displacing them and declaring that territory "Your promised land"...


So you are saying that the Palestinians have been living the the Land of Israel for thousands of years? Please provide me with one of your famous quotes proving this?

If you want to play this card then we better give North America back to it's origional inhabitants. Or maybe we should kick all of the Anglos out of Quebec?

Give it up as your so called arguments are worthless. If you feel so strongly about ridding the Holy Land of Israelis then I'll be the first one to buy you a plane ticket to Lebanon, Siria or Gaza so you can help your Hamas/PFLP/Fatah/Hezbollah and Arab brothers.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> The bombing in "central Beirut" was an attack on Hezbollah headquarters, (and after Israel dropped leaflets warning civilians to leave the area, at that).


So the roads, bridges, gas stations, TV stations, electrical plants and just part of the rountine bombings? 

I have never said Israel can't defend itself. My objection with Israel is that they ALWAYS overdo their reaction. Apart from the UK, the USA and Canada, there is much contemnation of their actions.

The Age offered this:


> Israel's leaders continue to suffer from the delusion they can defeat violent Palestinian resistance to that occupation without offering the Palestinians a credible, non-violent political path to statehood, promised in various international agreements.
> 
> Following the precedent set by Ariel Sharon with his unilateral disengagement from Gaza, his successor as Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, believes that if Israel dodges the bullet of a bilateral peace negotiation with the Palestinians — something it has done so far by claiming "there is no Palestinian partner for peace" — it will be able to create, unilaterally, a rump Palestinian state that will leave in Israeli hands large chunks of Palestinian territory and make a mockery of Palestinian national aspirations.
> 
> Despite the massive imbalance of forces, the Palestinians will never abide such an outcome. In 1988 and in 1993, as part of the Oslo agreement, they recognised Israel's legitimacy in 78 per cent of what used to be the Palestine mandate, leaving themselves with 22 per cent, less than half the territory assigned to them by the United Nations in 1947. No Palestinian leader, now or in the future, will agree to further Israeli land grabs to accommodate settlements established in violation of international agreements and international law, whose illegality even the utterly one-sided Bush Administration has had to concede.
> 
> On this territorial issue, as on that of Israel's efforts to deny Palestinians the right to site the capital of their prospective state in East Jerusalem, there is no daylight between any of the Palestinian parties. President Mahmoud Abbas would be no less unyielding on these issues in a negotiation with Israel than would Hamas.
> 
> On the other side of the Israeli-Palestinian divide, if Hamas wishes to enable the international community, and particularly European countries, to end sanctions that have so brutally punished the Palestinians, it must at least be prepared to say that, even if it is now unwilling to pronounce on Israel's legitimacy — given Israel's continued violation of previous agreements and its ongoing theft of Palestinian land for its settlements — the elimination of the state of Israel is not Hamas' goal.
> 
> Its goal is a sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.
> Hamas must understand that Palestinian violence to punish Israelis is self-defeating. The new Hamas regime will achieve nothing if it is not prepared to offer Israel a non-violent political path to security within its pre-1967 borders. Hamas cannot have it both ways: it cannot demand recognition by the international community as the legitimate Government of the Palestinian Authority if it is not willing to enforce law and order. It must be willing to suppress the various militias and end their illegal activities. Otherwise, its proposals for a hudna (truce) with Israel remain meaningless.
> 
> Similarly, the Lebanese Government cannot allow the uninhibited operation of Hezbollah's militia and its freedom to violate international borders at will and still maintain its own legitimacy.
> 
> That said, Israel will quickly lose what international support it had for opposing Hezbollah's terrorism if it continues its assaults in Lebanon without regard to the consequences, not only for Lebanon and for the wider region, but for its own long-term security as well.
> 
> Indeed, the point of Hezbollah's aggression is the expectation that Israel would act in ways that will only deepen its isolation. Nothing is likely to achieve the goal of Israel's enemies more effectively than disproportionate measures that even its friends cannot support.
> 
> Hezbollah's naked aggression against Israel has nothing to do with the Palestinian cause. The two are linked only in the following sense: Hezbollah would not have attacked Israel if it could not have invoked Israel's assaults on Gaza's civilian population as its pretext. As long as Israel's policies allow this conflict to fester, it remains vulnerable to the depredations of radical groups that will exploit the Palestinian tragedy for their own ends.
> 
> _Henry Siegman is a senior fellow on the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations, a visiting professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program of the School of Oriental and African Studies in London and former head of the American Jewish Congress._


http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...the-cost/2006/07/16/1152988409591.html?page=2

If the former head of the AJC "gets it", I wonder why others cant...


----------



## Lawrence

"No quote needed"

Philistines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistine


----------



## Vandave

ArtistSeries said:


> So, what's the body count ratio of Israeli versus Lebanese?


Why are you fixated on the body count for each side?


----------



## ArtistSeries

Bajan said:


> So you are saying that the Palestinians have been living the the Land of Israel for thousands of years? Please provide me with one of your famous quotes proving this?


I'm not sure if you are stupid or being willfully ignorant...


----------



## Vandave

I think one of the reasons for Israel's strong response is that they went to far a year ago in the prisoner negotiation / swap. They traded hundreds of people for one businessman. I think that set a bad precedent and only encouraged more kidnappings. 

I think this current fighting will end in a prisoner swap. Maybe less public this time around than before.

By having a strong reprisal to the recent kidnapping, Israel has now created a disincentive for it to happen in the future.


----------



## Bajan

dolawren said:


> "No quote needed"
> 
> Philistines
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistine


Yes this is indeed correct but what AS seems to not understand is that the Palestinians are not Philistines but are Arabs and the Arabs arrived many many generations and thousands of years after the biblical Israelis displaced the Philstines.

In fact the term "Palestinian" was a name given to the Israelis by the Christian Crusaders to belittle them.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Bajan said:


> If you feel so strongly about ridding the Holy Land of Israelis then I'll be the first one to buy you a plane ticket to Lebanon, Siria or Gaza so you can help your Hamas/PFLP/Fatah/Hezbollah and Arab brothers.


You are such as ass - what kind of stereotype are you trying to convey?
Here a little up yours – I’m probably more devout to the Jewish religion that you are. 

But your response is typical of someone who professed that Isreal is a democratic state but turns the issue into a Jew/Muslim battle. It’s the policies of Israel that I object to.


----------



## Bajan

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm not sure if you are stupid or being willfully ignorant...


Wow! I can not belive that you are calling me ignorant. You have proven time and time again that you know NOTHING about the history of the middle east. You throw around your foolish anti-Israeli and anti-semitic comments on the topic every other month.

You seem to be sooooooooo good at research that you can't even seem to find the fact that the Israelis had this land THOUSANDS of years before any Arab set foot in "The Promised Land". It is people like you who I just shake my head at.


----------



## vapour

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm not sure if you are stupid or being willfully ignorant...


Palestine has just as long a history for the Jews which is why it was designated as a home land stemming from the Balfour Declaration following the first world war. At that time Palestine was mostly a desert wastland and it was the birth of Israel that really brought life to the area.

On that matter of the current crisis I think Israel has little choice but to try and wipe out Hezbollah since hezbollah wants the eradication of Israel and will continue to arm for war if not dismantled militarily.


----------



## Bajan

ArtistSeries said:


> You are such as ass - what kind of stereotype are you trying to convey?
> Here a little up yours – I’m probably more devout to the Jewish religion that you are.
> 
> But your response is typical of someone who professed that Isreal is a democratic state but turns the issue into a Jew/Muslim battle. It’s the policies of Israel that I object to.


I see that you are a very educated individual by calling me an ass. Hmmm I must have touched a nerve.

If you are so devouted to the Jewish religion then may G*d help you.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Bajan said:


> Wow! I can not belive that you are calling me ignorant.


Calling you? No stating that you are.


----------



## Bajan

ArtistSeries said:


> Calling you? No stating that you are.


Very nice. But do you still want me to buy you that plane ticket so you can rid the Israelis from occupied Palestine?


----------



## Beej

I was wondering when the way-back machine would start up. History doesn't provide, "dibs" even if someone could devise a magical genetic formula for ownership. Then there's the problem of how far back to go in the way back machine. Ugh.


----------



## Vandave

Bajan said:


> Wow! I can not belive that you are calling me ignorant. You have proven time and time again that you know NOTHING about the history of the middle east. You throw around your foolish anti-Israeli and anti-semitic comments on the topic every other month.


From all the posts I have read from AS, I haven't seen anything anti-semetic. I think he has been pretty clear about his lack of support for the government of Israel, but nothing against it's people or religion.

If you have quotes to show otherwise, please do (strong claims, strong evidence). Otherwise, I think an apology is in order.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Bajan said:


> Very nice. But do you still want me to buy you that plane ticket so you can rid the Israelis from occupied Palestine?


Have I ever stated that this is what I want?

I challenge you to find one statement where I said that this is what I wished!
Or is this the delusions of some religious radical? 
Go ahead Bajan....


----------



## Bajan

Vandave said:


> From all the posts I have read from AS, I haven't seen anything anti-semetic. I think he has been pretty clear about his lack of support for the government of Israel, but nothing against it's people or religion.
> 
> If you have quotes to show otherwise, please do (strong claims, strong evidence). Otherwise, I think an apology is in order.


I don't have the time nor the chutzpah to dig up all of AS' comments over the years. He doesn't come out and blatantly say what he wants but what he has implied over the years is quite clear.

I will agree that throwing out a call that someone is anti-semitic is a bit much without substantial evidence but as for an apology to AS that will happen only when he tones down his anti-Israeli rhetoric.


----------



## Bajan

ArtistSeries said:


> Have I ever stated that this is what I want?
> 
> I challenge you to find one statement where I said that this is what I wished!
> Or is this the delusions of some religious radical?
> Go ahead Bajan....


ArtistSeries, I am going to stop wasting both my time and your time on this issue. Let's agree to disagree as this type of behaviour on ehMac is not right.


----------



## Vandave

Vandave said:


> Why are you fixated on the body count for each side?


AS, any response?


----------



## dona83

Looks like I just opened a big can of worms....

 Two minutes for instigating and a game misconduct.


----------



## ArtistSeries

The real "chutzpah" are your insinuations. 

Run along little doggy...



I have been very clear on my position vis-a-vis Israel. You have called me anti-Semite because I don't agree with certain policies of Israel. 



You prefer to play the anti-Semite card than actually back up your claims... 

Now, you claim a waste of time - so it's okay for you to smear me? 



Israel has over reacted and escalated the stakes in the Middle East. In the long run, it has radicalized certain elements and harmed its statehood. The credibility of Israel with regards to a peace process seems like a sham and I wonder about the sincerity in dealing with any problem.
If it were not for the backing of the US, I wonder if it would be the bully that it is.





> But most other leaders here differ with Bush. While recognizing Israel's right to defend itself, they argue that the Jewish state's military onslaught in Lebanon in the past few days was an overreaction that is feeding the spiral of violence.
> 
> 
> 
> French President Jacques Chirac has sharply criticized Israel for what he said was an unbalanced response to the cross-border raid into Israel on Wednesday by Lebanese-based Hezbollah fighters who captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others.
> 
> 
> 
> Italian Premier Romano Prodi described Israel's military actions in the past few days as "disproportionate." Prodi called for all sides in the conflict to forsake violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Harper appears to be the only G-8 leader besides Bush who has singled out Islamic militants for blame in the latest outbreak of Middle East fighting.


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home



With our foreign policy aligning itself with whatever Bush says, I can only see Canada's standing in the world declining.


----------



## HowEver

The reason people get called "Anti-Semitic" is they disagree with what Israel does--no matter what. If Israel does nothing, they disagree; if they retaliate, they disagree, whether it is a "measured" response (as Harper called it--which it was, at the time) or not. And when they go to war after 8 soldiers are killed and 2 are kidnapped, from their own soil, by terrorists that have been bombing them freely from Lebanon, it's just more disagreement with no rationale alternative offered.

When you disagree with *everything* one country does and don't apply the same standards elsewhere, others can wonder why.


----------



## ArtistSeries

HowEver said:


> The reason people get called "Anti-Semitic" is they disagree with what Israel does--no matter what. If Israel does nothing, they disagree; if they retaliate, they disagree, whether it is a "measured" response


Since this is thinly disguised as a jab in my direction.....

I agreed with the actions of Sharon when he pulled out of Gaza and his about face on the policies he helped put into place. 


> nxnw - until recently I would of had no regrets at seeing Sharon expire. I look upon his Gaza initiative with garded optimism. Only time will really tell.
> 
> He is a hero to Israel for what he did during the Yom Kippur War (no matter what you think of the war itself). And yes, it was masterful, and the state of Israel should view him as a War Hero.


http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=334820&postcount=27

I have critisized the Arab World with regards to Israel


> I think it was a stupid arrogant move on the part of Arab World to attack. If they wanted to regain territory from the Six Year War and have a better chance at getting the UN Security Council Resolution 242 enforced, diplomatic channels should of been used. Not only that, escalating the chance of a superpower confrontation was irresponsable....


http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=334878&postcount=30


----------



## ArtistSeries

I think that Bijan and all use what was once described as "moral objectivist"



> by his own lights "knows" what is absolute right and absolute wrong and that stance CAN admit of no variation.
> It's a complete an utter waste of time.
> 
> He CAN'T see another point of view as in his world.... and can be none.
> Sounds quite "fundamental" to me.


http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=254604&postcount=62


----------



## MacDoc

However- anti-semite refers to discrimination against those of Jewish faith or sometimes just ancestry- this is an Israeli conflict - a nation state.
There was anti Semitism long before modern Israel existed.
Anti-Semitism compounds the problems Israel faces but the two are not equivalents.

I detest discrimination of any form that is degrading and fosters hatred based on skin colour, ancestry, sex or something not "chosen" by the individual.

Cultures and religions can be odious as can foreign policies of nation states. It's a somewhat different set of parameters for assessment and potential sanctions as these are choices.
So I would never support sanctions or discriminate on the former human attribute and might very well support them on cultural. politicial or religious basis.....and no I do NOT think faith based policies should be exempt from censure....it's one of the problems that too often the censure and criticism is missing.

Israel as a powerful nation state faces similar geo poltical problems ( need for buffer states etc ) as other powerful nations and empires have in the past.

These issues are compounded by religious conflict.
Israel itself as an issue between being a theocracy and a modern secular nation and that doesn't make things any easier.

Unwinnable.....to quote the Economist recently.


----------



## miguelsanchez

*More Bad News*

<br>
*Eight Canadians Killed by Israeli Airstrikes*
<br>


----------



## Bajan

ArtistSeries said:


> The real "chutzpah" are your insinuations.
> 
> Run along little doggy...


I have said what I have said and you being the arrogant fool and not to say a Ben Zonah that you are do not seem to want a cease fire. Seems that you and the Israeli govenment are one of the same.

Please continue your rant and show the whole ehMac community your true colours.

Alevai tisareff ba ge'inom! (Translations provided upon request).


----------



## Lawrence

Bajan said:


> In fact the term "Palestinian" was a name given to the Israelis by the Christian Crusaders to belittle them.


Link request please,
Where did you get that information from?

¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿


----------



## ArtistSeries

Bajan said:


> Please continue your rant and show the whole ehMac community your true colours.
> 
> Until you and your family have single handedly been in constant danger of death by the evil ones who want to destroy the "Zionest entity" you are a disgrace to the entire Jewish race.


I think your religious bigotry and fervor get the best of you. Moral objectivism is rather apt….

BTW, you should add the other popular slur – “self-loading Jew” – that’s always a good one…

Bajan, you show all the bigotry and zealotry of those you despise… 
But someone that does not surprise me - the most racist comments I have heard are usually from people who belong to the tribe...

So where have I stated what you accuse me of? C'mon I'm waiting....


----------



## Bajan

dolawren said:


> Link request please,
> Where did you get that information from?


Hi Dolawren, the name Palestine was used by the Crusaders but it actually was used thousand(s) of years before by both the Hellinic and Roman forces when they took over the land. The Romans are a great example when they put up a very tough fight when they tried to take over Jerusalem and when they finally succeeded they used the name Palestinians to describe the remaining Jewish population as a way to "piss" them off.

There are many many articles if you do a quick google search. But as these articles are freely published on the Internet you should take them with a grain of salt.

Here are a couple: 1 2


----------



## T-hill

ArtistSeries said:


> the most racist comments I have heard are usually from people who belong to the tribe...


Well, I'd say that's Exhibit A in bajan's argument... A baseless generalization of one group because of one member of the group.


----------



## Bajan

ArtistSeries said:


> I think your religious bigotry and fervor get the best of you. Moral objectivism is rather apt….


Since you continue to refuse to give it up and let bygones be bygones why don't you take a drive through Cote-Ste-Luc on this lovely day waiving your Palestinian flag and reading versus from the Quoran. I'm sure you'll find some friends to spout your ignorance with.

Mods: Any chance of locking this thread before ArtistSeries has a coronary?


----------



## ArtistSeries

Bajan said:


> ....Cote-Ste-Luc on this lovely day waiving your Palestinian flag and reading versus from the Quoran. I'm sure you'll find some friends to spout your ignorance with.


I actually lived in in Cote-Ste-Luc for the longest time. The only flags you'll see flying here are the ones of Israel. That's right, not a single Canadian one. A nice little ghetto...

And I was disgusted by the double standard of C.S.L. decorating the town in such a manner. I think you’d be hard pressed to find Arab Muslims having the same liberties. It does underline the hypocrisy that we have towards certain….

The irony that some are quite facile in the persecution others yet have decried it when it happened to them…


----------



## ArtistSeries

So Bijan, where are my anti-Semite writings?


----------



## Beej

Bajan said:


> Until you and your family have single handedly been in constant danger of death by the evil ones who want to destroy the "Zionest entity" you are a disgrace to the entire Jewish race.


That is a stupid and exceedingly rude statement. I hope the translation-piece clears that up.

By the way, there are two possibilities (or more):
1) Anti-semitism (modern style as identified here)

2) Lefty Underdogism (see much U.S. criticism...it establishes a different treatment in debates similar to Israels') -- the 'Sinistro' weakness?  

I don't know enough about past posts to say if 1) or 2) is more likely, or a blend or something else or if 1) and 2) can even be told apart. It will come down to reason, respect and instinct.


----------



## Bajan

Beej: Yes my words are indeed sometimes harsh and not fully thought out. I'd gladly edit the post upon your reqest.

AS: I gotta go enjoy the rest of this beautiful weekend so I'm sure we'll talk later.


----------



## Beej

Bajan said:


> Beej: Yes my words are indeed sometimes harsh and not fully thought out. I'd gladly edit the post upon your reqest.


Your acknowledgement is fine. Thanks. 

I'm assuming an apology won't happen, but that would be 'big' of you. Either way, thanks for the non-defensive and clear acknowledgement. 

-Cheers


----------



## zoziw

miguelsanchez said:


> <br>
> *Eight Canadians Killed by Israeli Airstrikes*
> <br>


That is terrible news.


----------



## T-hill

ArtistSeries said:


> So Bijan, where are my anti-Semite writings?


Ooh!!! Ooh!!! Pick me!!! Pick me!!! I found one!


----------



## da_jonesy

Beej said:


> I was wondering when the way-back machine would start up. History doesn't provide, "dibs" even if someone could devise a magical genetic formula for ownership. Then there's the problem of how far back to go in the way back machine. Ugh.


I have to agree with you on this one... to a point (nice use of the "way back machine" metaphor there Sherman). 

Personally I think that there needs to be an international/UN treaty (statement, etc...) enacting a 50-75 year (2 or 3 generations perhaps) statute of limitations on claiming that certain land belongs to anyone. 

This would probably clear up half of the existing conflict and land claims that are currently issues around the world (including those here in Canada with the first nations).


----------



## MacDoc

Water is going to be more of an issue than land and a "sense of injustice" is not going to be cured by proclamation.

A friend I met in France who migrated to there from Quebec ( he hated it because of the local in fighting amongst families) said there were simmering family and clan feuds going back centuries.

One thing that might ameliorate the damage if not the tendencies to violence is to reduce arms flow and in that many of the nations of the world are disgusting hypocrites. 

I stick with my guess that a peaceable sustainable planet may occur when we have 90% less population.

....and even then the 5-10 year olds will need to be watched closely lest they start the rocks and sticks cycles anew.


----------



## Beej

MacDoc said:


> Water is going to be more of an issue than land and a "sense of injustice" is not going to be cured by proclamation.


Water is the commodity of the 21st century but, guess what, it's energy and land access. There is plenty of water if you have the energy to process salt water and the land access. The old issues renew themselves.


----------



## da_jonesy

One has to admit that the Israeli Airforce is far better at killing Canadians than the US Airforce. 8 to 4 so far.

An interesting observation I heard is the current US Administrations almost complete lack of involvement. In the past the US Secretary of State would have been flying between parties negotiating a cease fire.

My guess is that there is a message being sent to Syria and Iran... continue to interfere with our interests in the region and watch your country's infrastructure be systematically destroyed piece by piece. Lebanon is being set back 20 years by these strikes. With no peace in sight one can see this escalating and strikes against Syria and Iran will begin soon ("ooohhh too bad we struck your nuclear facilities Iran, sorry about that").

My prediction is that very soon you will results stating that the Hezbolah rockets originated in both Syria and Iran. That will be all the excuse that is needed and Israel will start bombing them as well.


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> HowEver said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason people get called "Anti-Semitic" is they disagree with what Israel does--no matter what. If Israel does nothing, they disagree; if they retaliate, they disagree, whether it is a "measured" response
> 
> 
> 
> Since this is thinly disguised as a jab in my direction.....
Click to expand...

There's this, too:


> Per Ahlmark, the Swedish author and former deputy prime minister of his country... came up with his own aphorism: "The old anti-Semitism wanted to make the world Jude rein, the new anti-Semitism wants to make the world Jude-state-rein."
> ...
> While Israelis and Jews try to define the hostility toward Israel as anti-Semitism, the issue of what exactly is anti-Semitism becomes even more important. At what stage does political and moral criticism of Israel, even vehement criticism, become anti-Semitic? Nearly all those involved in the issue, including rightists like Jerusalem mayor Ehud Olmert, emphasize that not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. But Olmert and Melchior agree that anti-Semitism can be hidden behind yet another aphorism: "criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic."
> 
> So where's the boundary? Says Ahlmark: "Political criticism, even bitter criticism of Israel, is certainly not anti-Semitic... The line is crossed when people begin to use anti-Semitic terminology to describe Israel's actions.
> 
> ...Comparisons between Israel's actions and those of the Nazis is doubly sinful: It is both anti-Semitic, because the hidden message is the delegitimization of Israel, the way the Nazi regime was illegitimate, and it also minimizes the dimensions of the Nazi atrocities...
> 
> Like a lexicographer working on a new dictionary, Ahlmark goes on: "A bias against Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic, as long as it doesn't use anti-Semitic expressions,. But *when there is incessant criticism of Israel that does not include criticism of other regimes in the region and human rights abuses in those countries, the question must be asked if Israel is not being judged separately, with different criteria than any other state in the world*. And that [is] already close to the anti-Semitic red line."
> ...
> And the fact that the Jewish people, thank God, is no longer helpless, the way it was in the past, and that the state of Israel knows how to use force, contributes to the hostility."


----------



## nxnw

dajonesy said:


> ... Israeli Airforce is far better at killing Canadians than the US Airforce...


That's a really terrible thing to say. These are the tragedies of war and not to be talked about sarcastically. The horrible reality is that Hezbollah uses populated areas to keep store its weapons and other military purposes. This despicable strategy suits Hezbollah, because it can't lose: either Israel doesn't fight back and lies back like lambs to be slaughtered (which would make both Hezbollah and ArtistSeries very happy), or it does fight back, resulting in the deaths of innocents that Hezbollah has put in the line of fire and used as human shields.

Where is Hezbollah's culpability for this?

Responding to some of ArtistSeries comments — he brings up Beirut and I respond about Beirut, so he distorts my answer to support a characteristically dishonest argument that no other bombing has ostensible justification. Now he refers to infrastructure. 

Certainly Israel has bombed infrastructure - bridges, airports. These are primary targets in any armed conflict, in this case, critical strategic conduits that facilitate Hezbollah making war. Weapons and combatants are transported on these roads, over these bridges, via these airports. On the other hand, I believe Israel has not yet targeted power plants or transformers, it has avoided targeting the Lebanese military - an exception being the radar station that guided the (Iranian made) missile that struck an Israeli ship last Friday. At Beirut airport, the radar and control towers were not touched - the runways were the targets.


----------



## HowEver

What an amazing thread.

Rest assured if a group was bombing Sarnia or Aurora or St. Anne de Beaupré or Dartmouth or Kamloops or Lethbridge, the Canadian government would very, very quickly declare war and (as much as the Canadian military is capable) bomb the hell out of bridges, boats, trees, land, planes, people, whatever it took to make it stop.

And if they didn't, we'd have a new Canadian government very soon after.

That we are even debating what Israel should do is stupefying. They should do whatever it takes to make the killing of its people, soldiers or not, stop.

If Hezbollah, or Hamas or whoever Syria or Iran or others are funding or providing weapons to, sets up shop in a supermarket, don't shop there. You're not safe. I'm sure there are three-year olds who don't undersand this, but not many.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Nxnw, maybe you should ask why some are quite ready to gloss over the human rights abuse in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait…. Could it be because you tend to ignore those abuses if you call them “friends”? 

Nxnw, you sound like a petulant child that wants finger pointing while claiming some moral superiority. 

I tend to agree with most of Per Ahlmark’s writings when it comes to anti-Semitisms and human rights, but find that is pro-Israeli stance (instead of a neutral one) overshadows the points of his arguments. The lack of appreciation of any tangential issues undermine his arguments. His writings on the UN and Iraq (he’s supported the Iraq invasion) show a clear bias and moves much of his writings from a scholarly vain to an activist one. 

So, where have I said that Israel does not have a right to exist? Certainly, if you look, I have written the opposite. 

Nxnw, what did you think of Henry Sigman’s comments? Would you agree with them?
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=425821&postcount=47


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> Nxnw, maybe you should ask why some are quite ready to gloss over the human rights abuse in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait…. Could it be because you tend to ignore those abuses if you call them “friends”?...


Maybe I should ask why you ignore human rights abuse in every single Arab country, in Iran, in North Korea, etc., but attack Israel relentlessly for sins that are trivial by comparison. It sure ties in with Ahlmark's comments:


> ...when there is incessant criticism of Israel that does not include criticism of other regimes in the region and human rights abuses in those countries, the question must be asked if Israel is not being judged separately, with different criteria than any other state in the world. And that [is] already close to the anti-Semitic red line."


Also, what was your purpose in implying that you are Jewish in this thread? I am quite sure you are not, from comments you have made in previous communication between us.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> Maybe I should ask why you ignore human rights abuse in every single Arab country, in Iran, in North Korea, etc., but attack Israel relentlessly for sins that are trivial by comparison.


I haven't but that's far from the point with respect to the subject at hand.

Your argument is being disingenuous at best and ignores the debate at hand....

Petulant child sums your position best...


----------



## HowEver

Well, here are some statements that suggest that some Canadians shouldn't even have the right to fly flags.

And the "ghetto" reference is disgusting.

Speculating that others don't have the same right is silly at best, simply untrue in any case.




ArtistSeries said:


> I actually lived in in Cote-Ste-Luc for the longest time. The only flags you'll see flying here are the ones of Israel. That's right, not a single Canadian one. A nice little ghetto...
> 
> And I was disgusted by the double standard of C.S.L. decorating the town in such a manner. I think you’d be hard pressed to find Arab Muslims having the same liberties. It does underline the hypocrisy that we have towards certain….
> 
> The irony that some are quite facile in the persecution others yet have decried it when it happened to them…


----------



## nxnw

...and, coming full circle to ArtistSeries' esteemed "democratically elected" Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, the Hamas government that has been shunned and isolated by the world for refusing to renounce it's ideology of terrorism and hate, let's just remember why it is isolated. From a CBC reality check


> The single most important of those three conditions is the renunciation of violence. Yet it is not surprising that Hamas, which was founded on violence 18 years ago, is reluctant to turn its back quite so soon on its founding principles.
> 
> After all, the Covenant of its creation proclaimed of Hamas that "death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes," promising that the struggle against the Jews would continue "until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realized…
> 
> "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it …The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them."


That's the Hamas you claim is a credible negotiating partner. What, exactly, is on the table? How and when they will murder us?


----------



## HowEver

Before you get banned for these statements, would you answer concerning how you see yourself as "more devout to the Jewish religion?" I'm curious to know as well how you explain this.




ArtistSeries said:


> You are such as ass - what kind of stereotype are you trying to convey?
> Here a little up yours – I’m probably more devout to the Jewish religion that you are.
> 
> But your response is typical of someone who professed that Isreal is a democratic state but turns the issue into a Jew/Muslim battle. It’s the policies of Israel that I object to.


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> I haven't but that's far from the point with respect to the subject at hand..


Actually, you invited support for another member's contention that you express antisemitic views, did you not? Let's just say that you seem to be flirting with the "red line". 

If you don't want to be perceived that way, maybe you should turn off the computer for a while and evaluate why you hate Israel so much, why you made derisive and slanderous comments (in this thread) about "members of the tribe", why you deceptively implied that you were Jewish, etc...

And your nasty ghetto reference, pointed out above, is not the first time you have used Nazi references or symbolism to malign Israel or — in this case — Jews directly. What compels you to do this?


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> ...and, coming full circle to ArtistSeries' esteemed "democratically elected" Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, the Hamas government that has been shunned and isolated by the world for refusing to renounce it's ideology of terrorism and hate, let's just remember why it is isolated. From a CBC reality checkThat's the Hamas you claim is a credible negotiating partner. What, exactly, is on the table? How and when they will murder us?


And from your esteemed article


> There is one theory that choking off aid will force Hamas to the bargaining table and ultimately force it to forsake violence and recognize Israel's right to exist.
> 
> But that is a dangerous gamble that might have the opposite effect. There is another theory that in a Middle East already inflamed by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, starving the Palestinians into submission would be a rash and dangerous decision.
> 
> Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, who has some credibility on the question of the Middle East, is clear in his own views.
> 
> "The common commitment to eviscerate the government of elected Hamas officials by punishing private citizens may accomplish this narrow purpose," he said. "But the likely results will be to alienate the already oppressed and innocent Palestinians, to incite violence, and to increase the domestic influence and international esteem of Hamas. It will certainly not be an inducement to Hamas or other militants to moderate their policies."


----------



## nxnw

Did you respond to something here? It looks like you are simply being evasive.

To remind you, given that the Hamas position that, "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it…The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them." the question you evaded was, "What, exactly, is on the table? How and when they will murder us?

By the way, respecting your evasive tangent, aid has not been cut off, but support of the PA has been. Aid is being channelled through NGOs, as it is pretty clear what Hamas would do with the money.


----------



## Lawrence

Bajan said:


> Hi Dolawren, the name Palestine was used by the Crusaders but it actually was used thousand(s) of years before by both the Hellinic and Roman forces when they took over the land. The Romans are a great example when they put up a very tough fight when they tried to take over Jerusalem and when they finally succeeded they used the name Palestinians to describe the remaining Jewish population as a way to "piss" them off.
> 
> There are many many articles if you do a quick google search. But as these articles are freely published on the Internet you should take them with a grain of salt.
> 
> Here are a couple: 1 2


Yes...But Romans weren't Christian Crusaders.

Maybe the British should have settled the whole issue before they left,
It's a shame that that region of the world has remained unresolved for so long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

Dave


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> It's a shame that that region of the world has remained unresolved for so long.


military hardware makers prefer it that way


----------



## MacDoc

Sp tell me what portion of the world is "resolved"?


----------



## Greenlion

DaJonesy said:

"My prediction is that very soon you will results stating that the Hezbolah rockets originated in both Syria and Iran. That will be all the excuse that is needed and Israel will start bombing them as well."


I'm afraid you might be right on this point! The only backdrop that makes much sense in the bigger picture, has the US using Israel as the wedge to open the door to push "regime change" with Syria and Iran. The belief that all of this massive escalation is to force the handover of two soldiers just doesn't add up for me. Not long after the soliders were captured, Israel began speculating aloud that they were probably taken to Iran. 

I've come to the depressing realization that the Bush administration should never be underestimated in their desire to facilitate the arrival of Armageddon(sp?) To me and several other sane and humane people I know, this used to be an example of black humour, but I'm very much afraid that to the government of the world's most obscene military machine it's a policy objective!

And always remember, the IDF is for all intents and purposes an extension of the US Armed Forces. The leash on that dog leads straight back to Washington.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

MacDoc said:


> Sp tell me what portion of the world is "resolved"?


western europe, canada, australia, japan, brazil

you'd probably argue china, but to me they are a totalitarian regime that happens to supply U.S. markets with goods


----------



## HowEver

Greenlion said:


> And always remember, the IDF is for all intents and purposes an extension of the US Armed Forces. The leash on that dog leads straight back to Washington.


This will be news to Israel, and to the U.S. especially since Condoleeza and company in the U.S. are clearly upset by what _they _see as a recent over-reaction. Again, let's hope you don't live somewhere where some group is kidnapping and killing your security forces, bombing your buses and children's restaurants and schools, while the rest of us write letters and stuff asking your government to sit tight, negotiate and wait for it all to stop. And what's with the dog references anyways? 




MACSPECTRUM said:


> western europe, canada, australia, japan, brazil
> you'd probably argue china, but to me they are a totalitarian regime that happens to supply U.S. markets with goods


Try going to a demonstration in front of the U.S. consulate, or the provincial legislature, and see how much your freedom has been "resolved." Those horses kick hard.


----------



## HowEver

*It doesn't sound much like Israel is doing what it's "told"...*

I nearly put this in the sugar pop thread...

*'Yo, Blair!': Mic catches Bush unscripted*

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...l_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News



> ST. PETERSBURG, Russia - It wasn't meant to be overheard. Private luncheon conversations among world leaders, picked up by a microphone, provided a rare window into both banter and substance — including President Bush cursing Hezbollah's attacks against Israel.
> 
> Bush expressed his frustration with the United Nations and his disgust with the militant Islamic group and its backers in Syria as he talked to British Prime Minister Tony Blair during the closing lunch at the Group of Eight summit.
> 
> "See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this (expletive) and it's over," Bush told Blair as he chewed on a buttered roll.
> 
> He told Blair he felt like telling U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who visited the gathered leaders, to get on the phone with Syrian President Bashar Assad to "make something happen." He suggested Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice might visit the region soon.
> 
> The unscripted comments came during a photo opportunity at the lunch. The leaders clearly did not realize that a live microphone was picking up their discussion.
> 
> Bush also spoke to other leaders, and his unscripted comments ranged from the serious topic of escalating violence in the Mideast to light banter about his preference for Diet Coke and a gift he received from another leader.
> 
> Blair, whose remarks were not as clearly heard, appeared to be pressing Bush about the importance of getting international peacekeepers into the region.
> 
> As he chats with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Bush expresses amazement that it will take Putin and an unidentified leader just as long to fly home to Moscow as it will take him to fly back to Washington. Putin's reply could not be heard.
> 
> "You eight hours? Me too. Russia's a big country and you're a big country. Takes him eight hours to fly home. Not Coke, diet Coke. ... Russia's big and so is China. Yo, Blair! What're you doing? Are you leaving," Bush said.
> 
> Bush thanked Blair for a gift of a sweater and joked that he knew Blair had picked it out personally. "Absolutely," Blair responded, with a laugh.
> 
> Bush, a stickler for keeping to his schedule, could also be heard saying, "We have to keep this thing moving. I have to leave at 2:15. They want me out of here to free up their security forces.''
> 
> Bush also remarked that some of the speakers at the meeting had the tendency to talk too long.


----------



## nxnw

Greenlion said:


> The only backdrop that makes much sense in the bigger picture, has the US using Israel as the wedge to open the door to push "regime change" with Syria and Iran. The belief that all of this massive escalation is to force the handover of two soldiers just doesn't add up for me. Not long after the soliders were captured, Israel began speculating aloud that they were probably taken to Iran.


This is baseless and, shall we say, unaware of what is going on and who Hezbollah is. Iran supports, funds and provides weapons to Hezbollah. It was involved in its creation and has been closely aligned with it ever since. the more sophisticated missiles that have reached deeper into Israel were supplied by Iran. Iran's connection is not speculative, but very real.

Secondly, you disregard what Hezbollah has been doing throughout its existence, continued to do after Israel left lebanon in 2000, and is doing now - firing missiles into populated areas. In the first 5 days of this conflict Hezbollah had fired over 700 missiles into northern Israel. The streets are deserted. There have been many deaths, hundreds of wounded. My cousins are spending a good deal of time in their bomb shelter (do you have, or need a bomb shelter in your house?). Children in the north are, by law, required to stay in shelters.

Finally, you have no idea of the culture of demographics of Israel if you believe that it will be a military puppet of the US. Every last one of my Israeli relatives (those of age, that is) has served in the Army. Three of them are subject to being called up, as Israeli males are subject to call up from the time they finish their service until middle age. It has often been said that the US would not be so fast to go to war if the sons of presidents and congressmen were among the troops. Well, that's life in country where you have an overtly and relentlessly intractable enemies. 

How do you respond to Hezbollah, whose leader, Sheikh Nasrallah, says: "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel... "Peace settlements will not change reality, which is that Israel is the enemy and that it will never be a neighbor or a nation." Sometimes you have no choice but to fight.


----------



## da_jonesy

nxnw said:


> This is baseless and, shall we say, unaware of what is going on and who Hezbollah is. Iran supports, funds and provides weapons to Hezbollah. It was involved in its creation and has been closely aligned with it ever since. the more sophisticated missiles that have reached deeper into Israel were supplied by Iran. Iran's connection is not speculative, but very real.


I disagree with that the observation you quoted was baseless. The fact that the Israeli army is looking for clues as to where these rockets are being manufactured show exactly how Israel wants to build a case for further actions against Syria and Iran.

I'm not passing judgement but making (what I believe) to be a sound observation of some things that are happening and some predictions of what is likely to come in the future.


----------



## Kosh

MACSPECTRUM said:


> western europe, canada, australia, japan, brazil
> 
> you'd probably argue china, but to me they are a totalitarian regime that happens to supply U.S. markets with goods


I'd probably say about the same thing... North and South America, Western Europe, Australia, Japan,... I'd include Russia and China, but Russia's had some unstable areas and China still thinks it owns some of the coutries around it.

The middle-east is always going to be a mess. I just hope we can get the Canadian citizens, who want to leave, out of there. Unfortunately the first thing the military targets is transportation methods - bridges, airports, ports, etc. It may not be the easiest getting people out, even if Steven Harper gets the ships to the Palestinian coast.


----------



## nxnw

da_jonesy said:


> ...The fact that the Israeli army is looking for clues as to where these rockets are being manufactured show exactly how Israel wants to build a case for further actions against Syria and Iran...


Surely the source of the weapons is a relevant inquiry. Your conclusion that Israel is looking because it _wants_ to take action against Syria or Iran is a groundless leap of logic, however, and it is unreasonable for you to contend that Israel wants to stretch its military and sacrifice its sons to a further expanded conflict.


----------



## MacDoc

Canada, Quebec, - Europe, Basques and Irish amongst others as well as the Bosnia/Kosovo

Australia is feuding with Indonesia and East Timor over gas and Japan with China over a variety of items including resources and property ( islands ) and with both Korea's currently.

Brazil has issues with resources expropriation with Bolivia and there is tension between Chavez/Chavez associates and other S American nations.

You take a very narrow time line if you think that represents stability.

That the "forever conflict" in the Golden Crescent is hot right now doesn't mean others won't be at some point.

as I stated, it's a pretty grim record likely to get far grimmer in the next 50 years as we bottleneck population, resources and now climate change.

I shudder to think about Bangladesh in my daughter's lifetime. The human migration will be unprecedented 

What I'm asking is step back a bit and reflect on how realistic any attempt at imposing a solution of any kind might be.
Humans are violent......digging at the roots in supplying leverage to that violence ( armaments ) in my mind is the ONLY approach that might reduce the carnage if not the inclination.....that said Rwanda was mostly machetes 

Since we have no over arching body - sovereign nations will do as their leaders see fit under the circumstances.
Getting all hot and bothered over who is "right" or "wrong" in those decisions seems futile.

Lebanon, Syria etc see fit to let a violence prone group attack a powerful neighbor.
They are currently living the consequence of that decision.
That's an observation not a judgement.


----------



## MacDoc

nxnw - I don't think it's a groundless leap that Israel may take the opportunity presented to deal with the weapons source - I don't think that is necessarily pejorative .....only a recognition of the realpolik of the conflict.
Hez is being funded and armed.....the nations doing so risk retaliation for supporting Hez.
That risk may well have been realized.

Push a stick in hornets nest....why is the result a surprise when the hornets come looking for you. Humans are violent, Israel is powerful when provoked.

My sense is we can offer support when asked and keep our noses out when not asked. They are soveriegn nations.


----------



## mikeinmontreal

Canada, Quebec? Yeah, you should see the all the daily violence here, downright scary!


----------



## MacDoc

Limited time frame you are dealing with - it has been violent in the past and may be again.
US cities are not in flames right now - they were in the near past. We are a violent species.


----------



## Vandave

nxnw said:


> Surely the source of the weapons is a relevant inquiry. Your conclusion that Israel is looking because it _wants_ to take action against Syria or Iran is a groundless leap of logic, however, and it is unreasonable for you to contend that Israel wants to stretch its military and sacrifice its sons to a further expanded conflict.


It's definately a relevant inquiry for Israel to look into where these weapons come from. The Bush admin has basically said they have intelligence to prove it, not that the detractors would believe that in any case.

I think Israel has a big incentive to expand the conflict and involve Iran. They need justification to take out their nuclear program. Time is not on the side of Israel. Demographics are working against them (6 million Israelis versus 200 or 300 million Arabs) and Iran is starting to build a formidable military to provide a counter-balance in the Middle East. 

The best option is of course peace and settlement of the Palestinian issue. But, how do you negotiate with people who don't recognize your right to exist and want to push your country into the ocean? It seems force is the next best option.


----------



## da_jonesy

nxnw said:


> Surely the source of the weapons is a relevant inquiry. Your conclusion that Israel is looking because it _wants_ to take action against Syria or Iran is a groundless leap of logic, however, and it is unreasonable for you to contend that Israel wants to stretch its military and sacrifice its sons to a further expanded conflict.


No it is not a leap of Logic at all... 

We've just watch in a period of less than a week as the Israeli Airforce pretty effectively reduced Lebanon's transportation infrastructure to a smoldering ruin.

Israel has stated that it wants Syria's and Iran's support for Hezzbolah to stop. Israel has also stated that it will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear capability. What I see here is the perfect escalation of events that would allow Israel to strike at selective strategic targets in both Syria and Iran and claim that they were doing so to disable those countries continued support of Hezzbolah. And if one or two of those targets happen to be Iranian nuclear facilities well so be it.

I think that attacking Syria and Iran is not even remotely a stretch for the Israeli Airforce which is clearly the dominant force in the region fielding some 900 aircraft. The Israeli Airforce is highly capable and well equipped, if anyone in the region could wage a sustained air war against 3 other countries it is the Israelis.


----------



## mikeinmontreal

You can say that about anywhere. No disrespect, but you don't live here on a daily basis.


----------



## Kosh

MacDoc said:


> Canada, Quebec, - Europe, Basques and Irish amongst others as well as the Bosnia/Kosovo


Canada and Quebec? You gotta be kidding if you include them on the instability list. Are you honestly saying that with a straight face? [Oh, look out here comes a Quebec missile]. If Quebec was a problem, we would have moved the capital from Ottawa. Not to mention I wouldn't be living here if Quebec was a problem. 

The Irish/British instability is probably one I'd admit to missing, but I thought it has been quiet enough in the last decade to not include it.


----------



## HowEver

I live a few kilometres from Pierre Laporte Middle School.




Kosh said:


> Canada and Quebec? You gotta be kidding if you include them on the instability list. Are you honestly saying that with a straight face? [Oh, look out here comes a Quebec missile]. If Quebec was a problem, we would have moved the capital from Ottawa. Not to mention I wouldn't be living here if Quebec was a problem.
> 
> The Irish/British instability is probably one I'd admit to missing, but I thought it has been quiet enough in the last decade to not include it.


----------



## Beej

MacDoc said:


> What I'm asking is step back a bit and reflect on how realistic any attempt at imposing a solution of any kind might be.


Violence and war are not the same thing and war isn't just the sum of all violence. 

It is also important to take a step back and see how different some conflicts are from others. It's not all just 'humans being humans'. There are material differences between conflicts and all wars cannot be reduced to being motivated by human violence. The motivations are quite often something else. 

Sometimes, solutions can be imposed. Post-WWII Germany and Japan come to mind. 

Often, solutions can't be imposed, but help can be offered and that requires judgement on who gets what, how and with what conditions. That means judging the recipients. It isn't easy or objective, but that's politics for you.


----------



## MacDoc

m in m -


> You can say that about anywhere


 .......my point exactly. I'm not talking daily - ( tho there is lots of violence daily as well amongst humans ) but in terms of decades.

as the man said ...Pierre Laporte.....I saw the tanks on TV.

and in case you forget



> Montreal Riots!
> 
> *Mayor Declares Martial Law*
> 
> Fans disgusted by the Habs' 8-2 crushing defeat against the Carolina Hurricanes at home on Monday night vented their frustrations on the streets of Montreal, causing destruction along Réné-Levesque Boulevard from Guy Street to University Avenue. Among the heavily damaged establishments were the Mövenpick at Place Ville-Marie, the Queen Elizabeth Hotel, and Sherlock's, all close to the endpoint of the rioting.


over a bloody hockey team..........get my point now??. Humans are violent. Chimps are violent, bonobos are not violent. WE are violent great apes. We tend to resolve conflict with violence.

We also have not developed an institution beyond the sovereign state charged and equipped to "keep the peace".
We have made SOME progress in that within sovereign states and on occasion between them, but there is no formal structure for the latter.


----------



## nxnw

da_jonesy said:


> ...I think that attacking Syria and Iran is not even remotely a stretch for the Israeli Airforce which is clearly the dominant force in the region fielding some 900 aircraft. The Israeli Airforce is highly capable and well equipped, if anyone in the region could wage a sustained air war against 3 other countries it is the Israelis.


It is a myth that the Israeli army is as powerful as you perceive. In the Yom Kippur war, the Arab armies had air superiority and devastated the Israeli airforce. Israeli casualties were massive and Israel came within a hair's breadth of losing the war. Of course, you should appreciate that the consequence of Israel losing a war would be its extinction.

Attacking Iran would be a devastatingly difficult decision and, in my view it is not likely to happen. It is hardly the easy call you suggest.


----------



## MacDoc

Beej - c'mon ......it was imposed after total destruction....hardly your best example....and both nations had a seachange for a warlike tradition....something the US came close to undergoing with Vietnam but the antibodies unfortunately were not quite strong enough.

Switzerland perhaps has a reasonably methodology over time.......and every single male citizen carries and rifle and is fully trained as a reservist plus they are defended by terrain.
Interesting that one of the most successful still must keep the quills intact.

Given the demographics, the resources and the religious clashes.......is it realistic inany way to expect "peace" in the Middle East??

Maybe.....a bit less war is a goal. Right now it's more war.......as it's been on and off for about 4000 years.


----------



## Beej

MacDoc said:


> Beej - c'mon ......it was imposed after total destruction....hardly your best example....and both nations had a seachange for a warlike tradition....something the US came close to undergoing with Vietnam but the antibodies unfortunately were not quite strong enough.
> 
> Switzerland perhaps has a reasonably methodology over time.......and every single male citizen carries and rifle and is fully trained as a reservist plus they are defended by terrain.
> Interesting that one of the most successful still must keep the quills intact.
> 
> Given the demographics, the resources and the religious clashes.......is it realistic inany way to expect "peace" in the Middle East??
> 
> Maybe.....a bit less war is a goal. Right now it's more war.......as it's been on and off for about 4000 years.


All useful points and all reflecting how warfare of this type is more (much more) than just genetic human violence. I think factors such as these make Middle East peace particularly unlikely; and sustained peace in other areas more likely, even though all areas are populated by those darned humans.


----------



## MacDoc

nxw - the Israeli airforce is capable of sustaining 3,000 air sorties a day - something the US could not do in the theatre.

If ever there was a regional 900 lb gorilla Israel is it........and unfortunately by necessity not choice.

That said Iran is an entirely different situation in scope and is a world problem if they export terror attacks tho Israel bears the brunt of the attacks and the response.

Syria is on a different scale.


----------



## IronMac

nxnw said:


> It is a myth that the Israeli army is as powerful as you perceive. In the Yom Kippur war, the Arab armies had air superiority and devastated the Israeli airforce. Israeli casualties were massive and Israel came within a hair's breadth of losing the war. Of course, you should appreciate that the consequence of Israel losing a war would be its extinction.
> 
> Attacking Iran would be a devastatingly difficult decision and, in my view it is not likely to happen. It is hardly the easy call you suggest.


Actually, the IDF is as powerful or more powerful than most of you realize. In terms of training, equipment, esprit de corps, etc. it is the most powerful force in the Middle East and, I think, is well capable of handling any two or, even three, opponents at any one time. It's done so in the past and can easily do so now what with the weak forces that Jordan and Syria are able to field.

As for the Yom Kippur War, the Arab armies did not have air superiority. I don't think that the Arab air forces even played much of a part in that conflict. The fact was that Israel was not able to establish air superiority without incurring massive losses to do so.

As for attacking Iran, it would be extremely difficult to do so with only limited air strikes possible unless the Americans were willing to allow IDF aircraft to land at their bases in Iraq.


----------



## da_jonesy

nxnw said:


> It is a myth that the Israeli army is as powerful as you perceive. In the Yom Kippur war, the Arab armies had air superiority and devastated the Israeli airforce. Israeli casualties were massive and Israel came within a hair's breadth of losing the war. Of course, you should appreciate that the consequence of Israel losing a war would be its extinction.


It's not a myth. Israel knows full well that its future is at stake and the best way to protect itself is through having the the most capable air power in the region. 

"The Israeli Air Force is considered the strongest air force in the Middle East, and one of the best and most sophisticated in the world. Over the past few decades Israel has purchased sophisticated American fighters and installed on them its locally developed and produced avionics and weapons. Perhaps the greatest strength of the IAF is the skill of its pilots. Israeli combat pilots are considered among the best in the world, and hold a large number of shoot-down records. It is rumored that American pilots receive training from their Israeli counterparts as part of their training curriculum. 

The IAF holds world records respective to the amounts of enemy warplanes shoot-downs, air combat performance, special operations, and air to ground operations from the jet era onward."



nxnw said:


> Attacking Iran would be a devastatingly difficult decision and, in my view it is not likely to happen. It is hardly the easy call you suggest.


I think you are not taking into account history and a capability...

On June 7, 1981 8 IAF F-16A fighters covered by 6 F-15A jets flew in Operation Opera, which entailed the destruction of the Iraqi Osiraq nuclear reactor. Eight IAF F-16 fighters flew to Iraq and bombed the nuclear facilties of Osiraq. The attack was code named Operation Opera (sometimes also referred to as Operation Babylon or Operation Ofra) by Israel.

Israel has shown that it can and will strike its enemies. In my view (and history seems to back me on this) that it not only likely it is inevitable.


----------



## MacDoc

Beej why is it much more than genetic human violence......that statement makes no sense - humans have a evolutionary endowment of violence which has made us the most successful species from a dominance and niche occupation ever.
We are top predator in all except a tiny limited cases ( great white and a couple of carnivors one mano e mano ).

We do not "go gently into that good night" - we scratch and claw our way to new ground and if that's not available we'll gang up on the neighbours and turf them.
It's the way it IS......so why the surprise?

Occasional peaceful interregnums are the surprises.

In my mind only a mjor power effort to reduce weapon availability will help and with 50% coming from the US..........well we'll be waiting a while.


----------



## Vandave

da_jonesy said:


> I think you are not taking into account history and a capability...
> 
> On June 7, 1981 8 IAF F-16A fighters covered by 6 F-15A jets flew in Operation Opera, which entailed the destruction of the Iraqi Osiraq nuclear reactor. Eight IAF F-16 fighters flew to Iraq and bombed the nuclear facilties of Osiraq. The attack was code named Operation Opera (sometimes also referred to as Operation Babylon or Operation Ofra) by Israel.
> 
> Israel has shown that it can and will strike its enemies. In my view (and history seems to back me on this) that it not only likely it is inevitable.


Iraq had all their eggs in one basket and exposed. 

Iran has learned from this and has spread their facilities throughout the country and burried them deep underground. Iran is also a longer flight from Israel which reduces available payloads.

I don't think full destruction of Iran's program is possible, short of putting boots on the ground. They can still cause major disruptions and delay it for a long time, but a nuclear Iran seems only to be a matter of time.


----------



## mikeinmontreal

MacDoc!!! LMAO!! Where the hell did you find that news item? When I was reading it, I was thinking, What?!?! Movenpick and Sherlocks have been closed for years. Then I found it Googling. Here is the actual report.

Montreal Riots!
Mayor Declares Martial Law
Fans disgusted by the Habs' 8-2 crushing defeat against the Carolina Hurricanes at home on Monday night vented their frustrations on the streets of Montreal, causing destruction along Réné-Levesque Boulevard from Guy Street to University Avenue. Among the heavily damaged establishments were the Mövenpick at Place Ville-Marie, the Queen Elizabeth Hotel, and Sherlock's, all close to the endpoint of the rioting. Montreal Mayor Guy LeMaire commented: "We're lucky les Habs didn't win the Coupe, tabernac! We may have had worse rioting and ces hoo-oligans could have made it to Rue St-Catherine and damaged all them strip clubs." 

Aislen

Guy Lemaire (Guy the Mayor) was never a mayor. For you Anglos, it's like saying Mayor Joe Blow. And Aislin is the cartoonist at the Montreal Gazette. I suspect it may have been the daily cartoon at one point. Here is the link if you're interested:

http://www.mathnews.uwaterloo.ca/Issues/mn8901/montrealriot.php

I found another equally funny news item. Mississauga man puts foot in mouth!


----------



## MannyP Design

MacDoc said:


> and in case you forget
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Montreal Riots!*
> 
> Mayor Declares Martial Law...
> 
> 
> 
> over a bloody hockey team..........get my point now??. Humans are violent. Chimps are violent, bonobos are not violent. WE are violent great apes. We tend to resolve conflict with violence.
> 
> We also have not developed an institution beyond the sovereign state charged and equipped to "keep the peace".
> We have made SOME progress in that within sovereign states and on occasion between them, but there is no formal structure for the latter.
Click to expand...




mikeinmontreal said:


> MacDoc!!! LMAO!! Where the hell did you find that news item? When I was reading it, I was thinking, What?!?! Movenpick and Sherlocks have been closed for years. Then I found it Googling. Here is the actual report.
> 
> ...
> 
> Guy Lemaire (Guy the Mayor) was never a mayor. For you Anglos, it's like saying Mayor Joe Blow. And Aislin is the cartoonist at the Montreal Gazette. I suspect it may have been the daily cartoon at one point. Here is the link if you're interested:
> 
> http://www.mathnews.uwaterloo.ca/Issues/mn8901/montrealriot.php
> 
> I found another equally funny news item. Mississauga man puts foot in mouth!


ROLMAO

Now THAT is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time! :lmao:


----------



## Beej

MacDoc said:


> Beej why is it much more than genetic human violence
> .....
> Occasional peaceful interregnums are the surprises.


There is a lot more driving humans than just violence, and the circumstances are very important. To just attribute it to 'violence' doesn't make sense. Just as well attribute it all to 'greed' (another human trait) or 'intelligence'. Is it hard to see how wars are about more than just violence.

These are all factors, along with circumstance and individual personalities with their own drivers. The 'violence' trait can make wars bloodier and involving more people, but international wars have more to them. Increasingly so with technology.
......
Those shouldn't surprise you because humans are about more than just violence. We have specific drivers that would favour peace, which is why it keeps happening. It's easy to get sucked into the news cycle but, as with local crime, the flashy news is not communicating a representation of everything that is happening.


----------



## da_jonesy

Vandave said:


> Iraq had all their eggs in one basket and exposed.


True, but even with advanced planning there are only so many sites that Israel would have to strike in Iran to set their nuclear development back significantly. These facilities are not small and it is not like they are on every street corner.

Mind from what I've seen these past few days that wouldn't be an issue for the IAF considering they've been bombing fuel stations in Lebanon.



Vandave said:


> Iran has learned from this and has spread their facilities throughout the country and burried them deep underground. Iran is also a longer flight from Israel which reduces available payloads.


I don't think that is an issue, and I am sure that the US would allow or even provide mid air refueling over Iraq to the IAF.

As Macdoc pointed out... the IAf can muster 3000 sorties a day. A week long campaign would significantly harm Iran and there is nothing to stop the IAF from hitting the same target with multiple strikes.



Vandave said:


> I don't think full destruction of Iran's program is possible, short of putting boots on the ground. They can still cause major disruptions and delay it for a long time, but a nuclear Iran seems only to be a matter of time.


Maybe not, however a sustained campaign would certainly prevent them from developing anything in the near future.


----------



## nxnw

Israel is a tiny country with a tiny population (Jewish population of under 6 million — Israeli Arabs do not have army mandatory service). Sure, for a country of this size it's armed forces are very impressive, but it's still a tiny country with a tiny population. It's absurd to exaggerate it's power and reach, as some of you have done. 

Further, while it has a fine airforce, we are talking about a few hundred fighter aircraft (I do not believe this 3,000 sortie number is accurate). It's fighters do not have the range to get to Iran and back without refuelling. Indeed, none has the range to get deep into Iran at all, without refuelling. So, where will the refuelling be done? Over Iran? Then, there is the issue of the number of facilities (15+ apparently), whether their locations are all known, and the fact that they are well protected by hardened concrete bunkers and will not easily be damaged.

Look, I think the world is better off for Israel's destruction of the Osirak reactor in Iraq, and would be better off if somebody destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities. I just don't think it is nearly as simple as some of you think it will be and, indeed, I do not believe it is possible.


----------



## Lawrence

MacDoc said:


> Sp tell me what portion of the world is "resolved"?


Had the League Of Nations at the time been allowed to finish divi'ing up the lands
in 1947 then perhaps a lot of future bloodshed could have been avoided.
As it is Israel declared itself a State "one day" before the League Of Nations could
finish the mandate that would have avoided this modern day mess, At least I think
it might have...But then who's to tell because it was never allowed to come to pass.

As it is the other nations didn't want the fertile marsh lands because at the time
Malaria was a major problem caused by the mosquitos that infested those low lying
areas which were made by silt run off from the deforestations of the hilly areas, 
But now that those same areas have been...

Ah heck...Read my links.

Anyways...What has been resolved?
Define resolved?
I'd like to think that Canada is a resolved nation in a better way than the Middle East or Africa...Or...beejacon 

Dave


----------



## HowEver

No, not quite.

There would have been two states from the beginning had all the Arab countries accepted the division, rather than immediately declaring war on Israel--a declaration that most have still not rescinded.

Technically, to get us back to the topic of the thread, Lebanon remains at war with Israel--since 1948--having declared it and never 'resolved' otherwise.

Most of the rest of the Arab world doesn't even accept that Israel--or Israelis--have a right to exist. Some groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, have at their core the purpose to destroy Israel and all its Jewish people.

I don't see how any of this can be 'resolved' without a sea change in these hateful beliefs.







dolawren said:


> Had the League Of Nations at the time been allowed to finish divi'ing up the lands
> in 1947 then perhaps a lot of future bloodshed could have been avoided.
> As it is Israel declared itself a State "one day" before the League Of Nations could
> finish the mandate that would have avoided this modern day mess, At least I think
> it might have...But then who's to tell because it was never allowed to come to pass.
> 
> As it is the other nations didn't want the fertile marsh lands because at the time
> Malaria was a major problem caused by the mosquitos that infested those low lying
> areas which were made by silt run off from the deforestations of the hilly areas,
> But now that those same areas have been...
> 
> Ah heck...Read my links.
> 
> Anyways...What has been resolved?
> Define resolved?
> I'd like to think that Canada is a resolved nation in a better way than the Middle East or Africa...Or...beejacon
> 
> Dave


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> It is a myth that the Israeli army is as powerful as you perceive. In the Yom Kippur war, the Arab armies had air superiority and devastated the Israeli airforce. Israeli casualties were massive and Israel came within a hair's breadth of losing the war.


Talk about disinformation.....
What does the strength of today's Israeli army have to do with the Yom Kippur war?

Sweet F.A.

Israel's poor weak army....


> The IDF is considered to be one of the most high-tech armies in the world, possessing top-of-the-line weapons and computer systems, most of them American-made (such as the M4A1 assault rifle, F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon jets and Apache helicopter). Israel receives more than US$2 billion per year in military aid from the United States, and much of it requires that American equipment be purchased with it.
> 
> The IDF also has several large internal R&D departments, and it purchases many technologies produced by the Israeli security industries including IAI, IMI, Elbit, El-Op, Rafael, Soltam and dozens of smaller firms. Many of these developments have been battle-tested in Israel's numerous military engagements, making the relationship mutually beneficial, the IDF getting tailor-made solutions and the industries a very high repute.
> 
> *Main Israeli developments*
> 
> 
> An Israeli Merkava main battle tank.
> Israel's military technology is most famous for its guns, armored fighting vehicles (tanks, tank-converted APCs, armoured bulldozers etc) and rocketry (missiles and rockets). Israel also designs and in some cases it has manufactured aircraft (Kfir, Lavi; both discontinued) and naval systems (patrol and missile ships, Dolphin class submarine). Much of the IDF's electronic systems (intelligence, communication, command and control, navigation etc.) are Israeli-developed, including many systems installed on foreign platforms (esp. aircraft, tanks and submarines). So are many of its precision-guided munitions.
> 
> Currently Israel is the only country in the world with an anti-ballistic missile defense system ("Hetz", or Arrow, developed with funding and technology from the United States), though an operational system is in place protecting the Moscow area. Israel is also working with the USA on development of a tactical high energy laser system against medium range rockets (called Nautilus THEL).
> Israel has the independent capability of launching reconnaissance satellites into orbit (a capability which only Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the People's Republic of China, India and Japan hold). Both the satellites (Ofeq) and the launchers (Shavit) were developed by the Israeli security industries.
> 
> Israel is also said to have developed an indigenous nuclear capability, although no official details or acknowledgements have ever been publicized. On the issue of this nuclear weapons program, Israel chooses to follow a policy of deliberate ambiguity.
> 
> FAS estimates that Israel probably has 100-200 nuclear warheads, which can be delivered by airplanes (A-4 Skyhawk or converted F-4 Phantom II), or ballistic missiles (Lance, Jericho or Jericho II missiles). The Jericho II is reported to have a range between 1,500 and 4,000 km, meaning that it can target sites as far away as central Russia, Iran and Libya.
> 
> The Israeli government has neither acknowledged nor denied that it possesses nuclear weapons, an official policy referred to as "ambiguity". However, details of Israel's nuclear program were revealed in 1986 to the British press by Mordechai Vanunu, a former nuclear technician. Following these revelations, Mordechai Vanunu was abducted by the Mossad and convicted of treason in his country. Released in 2004 under specific conditions, he lives today under surveillance in Israel.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces
nxmw, care to tell us how Israel acquired many of these arms/technology and more? Or shall we leave this for another day?

It is true that during the Yom Kipper war Israel was ill prepared and won brilliantly. 
The casualties are as follow:
_Israel_
2,656 killed
7,250 wounded
400 tanks destroyed
600 damaged/returned to service
102 planes shot down
_Egypt, Syriah_
8,528 killed
19,540 wounded
(Western analysis)
15,000 dead
35,000 wounded
(Israeli analysis)
2,250 tanks destroyed or captured
432 planes destroyed
(Rabinovich, 496–497)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_war


----------



## da_jonesy

nxnw said:


> Israel is a tiny country with a tiny population (Jewish population of under 6 million — Israeli Arabs do not have army mandatory service). Sure, for a country of this size it's armed forces are very impressive, but it's still a tiny country with a tiny population. It's absurd to exaggerate it's power and reach, as some of you have done.


Where are you getting your facts from?

"National military service is compulsory for Jewish and Druze men, and Jewish women, over the age of 18, although exemptions may be made on religious, physical or psychological grounds (see Profile 21). Men in the Haredi community may choose to be exempt while enrolled in Yeshivas, a practice that is a source of tension [1], though some yeshiva programs like Hesder provide opportunities for service.

Men serve three years in the IDF, while women serve two and sometimes under two. The IDF may on occasions require women who volunteer for combat positions to serve for three years because combat soldiers must undergo a lengthy period of training, and it is in the interests of the IDF to get as much use of that training as possible. Women in combat positions are also required to serve as reserve for several years after their dismissal from regular service, pending marriage, or pregnancy, is in order."

This doesn't even take into consideration the reserve forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Military



nxnw said:


> Further, while it has a fine airforce, we are talking about a few hundred fighter aircraft (I do not believe this 3,000 sortie number is accurate). It's fighters do not have the range to get to Iran and back without refuelling. Indeed, none has the range to get deep into Iran at all, without refuelling. So, where will the refuelling be done? Over Iran? Then, there is the issue of the number of facilities (15+ apparently), whether their locations are all known, and the fact that they are well protected by hardened concrete bunkers and will not easily be damaged.


Few hundred? Again, where are you getting your information from? Outside of the US Israel is the single largest user of the F16 and F15.

Israel is well capable of extending ongoing operations well within Iran. And with Iraq now being controlled by the US, over flight of that country is not an issue. 

In addition it is not beyond reason for the US to provide the IAF non combative assistance such as refueling should they decide to strike Iran, as Israel has provided the US with non combative assistance in the past.



nxnw said:


> Look, I think the world is better off for Israel's destruction of the Osirak reactor in Iraq, and would be better off if somebody destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities. I just don't think it is nearly as simple as some of you think it will be and, indeed, I do not believe it is possible.


I think it is possible, and I think that the statistics and history shows that Israel is more than capable and certainly has the will to do so.


----------



## Beej

HowEver said:


> I don't see how any of this can be 'resolved' without a sea change in these hateful beliefs.


I agree. Regardless of leadership, when "the man in the street" leans towards a basic racial bias, there will be trouble. How can this change with local media and educational control? Perhaps technology has a role: the internet is a double-edged sword. 

Leaders truly interested in peace will have more difficulty getting and holding power under such circumstances. It is not, however, impossible. It requires a Great leader or, in this case, a few of them. Leaders to oppose some local 'truisms' and open the door to the notion of a desirable two-state solution. It has happened, but it hasn't spread enough. This seems to very much be a tipping point situation. For better and for worse.

Not easy, but two points often forgotten but stated here (I think) and worth repeating:

1) If an opponent of Israel loses, they've lost a battle, equipment and a number of lives. If Israel loses, it will be elminated and, unfourtunately likely, experience something close to genocide without protective intervention.

2) If the opponents lay down their weapons, there would be a peaceful solution. It may not be exactly what is wanted and it would take some time for trust to grow, but it would happen and their nations would exist. If Israel lays down its weapons, it will be elminated and, unfourtunately likely, experience something close to genocide without protective intervention.

Israel's actions must be examined and analysed, but within its reality, just like everything else in life. Context matters. Go figure.


----------



## nxnw

da_jonesy said:


> nxnw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is a tiny country with a tiny population (Jewish population of under 6 million — Israeli Arabs do not have army mandatory service). Sure, for a country of this size it's armed forces are very impressive, but it's still a tiny country with a tiny population. It's absurd to exaggerate it's power and reach, as some of you have done.
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you getting your facts from?
Click to expand...

I don't see what facts you are questioning. I don't see anything in what you posted (about who serves, how long, etc.) that contradicts what I have said — Israel has a tiny pool out of which to draw an army, and characterizing this tiny country as a juggernaut is just absurd.

By the way, there is nothing in this world today that frightens me more than Iran. I was very much against the Iraq war, in part, because it would cripple the world from dealing with a danger that was infinitely greater than Saddam. So now, people figure that tiny Israel should be doing the world's dirty work to reduce the threat of Iran arming terrorists with nuclear weapons. Well, what do you think Iran will do if Israel attacked it? There are people I love, and a country I love, in the line of fire.


----------



## Beej

nxnw said:


> By the way, there is nothing in this world today that frightens me more than Iran.


Between Iran, North Korea and the Kashmir conflict, I'd have trouble putting Iran at number one (or not). I'm undecided. The elements for a peaceful solution are stronger in Kashmir, but the potential for large-scale disaster is worse and it, too, would draw in the the rest of the world.

North Korea can really hurt the South and Japan and is more outside world diplomacy than almost anyone else. The potential for worldwide disaster seems lower, but that depends upon China's reaction. Still, it doesn't seem as potentially horrific for the world, but it does seem much worse for the hundreds of millions nearby.

Iran has all the elements of danger discussed above (local destruction, creating broader war) but I'm not sure its balance is worse.

All three situations are horrible, but why Iran? I'd like your thoughts on that. If it's too off-topic, maybe it would make a strange poll/thread.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Beej said:


> Israel's actions must be examined and analysed, but within its reality, just like everything else in life. Context matters. Go figure.


This sounds more likely
An Israeli security source told Reuters that Israel believed that it had a week to inflict as much damage as it could on Hezbollah before the US, Israel’s strongest supporter, became unable to resist international pressure for a ceasefire. Israeli forces “will have to accelerate the bombardment”, he said.
The only way that we are going to have a cessation of violence is if we have an international force deployed into that area,” Mr Blair said, but the idea received a lukewarm response from Israel and the United States.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2274659,00.html


----------



## nxnw

Beej said:


> Not easy, but two points often forgotten but stated here (I think) and worth repeating:
> 
> 1) If an opponent of Israel loses, they've lost a battle, equipment and a number of lives. If Israel loses, it will be elminated and, unfourtunately likely, experience something close to genocide without protective intervention.
> 
> 2) If the opponents lay down their weapons, there would be a peaceful solution. It may not be exactly what is wanted and it would take some time for trust to grow, but it would happen and their nations would exist. If Israel lays down its weapons, it will be elminated and, unfourtunately likely, experience something close to genocide without protective intervention.


This is, indeed, the horror of it, and it almost happened in the Yom Kippur war. I have no confidence in "protective intervention" either, given Rwanda, Darfur, etc.

FYI, Israel has just under half of the world's Jewish population of about 13 million. Before the Holocaust, by the way, the world Jewish population was over 15 million.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> Israel has a tiny pool out of which to draw an army, and characterizing this tiny country as a juggernaut is just absurd.


I guess, you ignored it's strengths...
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=426236&postcount=138

It main not have the personnel but it's capabilities are impressive and make up the lack of bodies.


----------



## Beej

ArtistSeries said:


> This sounds more likely
> An Israeli security source told Reuters that Israel believed that it had a week to inflict as much damage as it could on Hezbollah before the US, Israel’s strongest supporter, became unable to resist international pressure for a ceasefire. Israeli forces “will have to accelerate the bombardment”, he said.
> The only way that we are going to have a cessation of violence is if we have an international force deployed into that area,” Mr Blair said, but the idea received a lukewarm response from Israel and the United States.
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2274659,00.html


If that source is correct, what does that say? Israel will respond to international pressure. That's all. It doesn't say what response is appropriate to the context (a very subjective matter). Geopolitics matters. Need I say it?

As for the Blair quote, again, what does that say? Blair knows the answer? The idea has merit but the opinion can be forwarded without quoting Blair (bad approach, considering Iraq). 

I don't understand why you're using these quotes instead of stating a personally thought-out position.


----------



## nxnw

The reasons I find Iran uniquely frightening are partially subjective, given it's stated genocidal objective of wiping Israel off the map. In broader terms, Iran would readily arm terrorists with nuclear weapons. It's very frightening.


----------



## Vandave

ArtistSeries said:


> An Israeli security source told Reuters that Israel believed that it had a week to inflict as much damage as it could on Hezbollah before the US, Israel’s strongest supporter, became unable to resist international pressure for a ceasefire. Israeli forces “will have to accelerate the bombardment”, he said.


I bet they are running out of targets pretty quick.

There are only so many readily identifiable targets with this type of enemy. At some point, the only way to escalate the attacks is to re-take Lebanon, which is something they probably don't want to do again.


----------



## Beej

nxnw said:


> FYI, Israel has just under half of the world's Jewish population of about 13 million. Before the Holocaust, by the way, the world Jewish population was over 15 million.


In your opinion, is that strong family ties, religious ties, pride (I don't consider it a sin, by the way, just a troublesome humanism that I practice  ), other or a mix of the above? Clearly there are more pleasant places to live, as long as frostbite doesn't bother you.


----------



## da_jonesy

nxnw said:


> I don't see what facts you are questioning. I don't see anything in what you posted (about who serves, how long, etc.) that contradicts what I have said — Israel has a tiny pool out of which to draw an army, and characterizing this tiny country as a juggernaut is just absurd.


I never claimed the Israeli Army was a juggernaut, nor did I ever claim that Israel was capable of invading another country as far away as Iran. I did claim that the IAF was capable of and quite willing to wage an extended air war with Iran. The IAF IS the defacto power in the region... you cannot dispute its effectiveness at being able to rain down destruction on its enemies in addition to defending Israel.



nxnw said:


> By the way, there is nothing in this world today that frightens me more than Iran. I was very much against the Iraq war, in part, because it would cripple the world from dealing with a danger that was infinitely greater than Saddam. So now, people figure that tiny Israel should be doing the world's dirty work to reduce the threat of Iran arming terrorists with nuclear weapons. Well, what do you think Iran will do if Israel attacked it? There are people I love, and a country I love, in the line of fire.


At this point I would imagine things will play out something like this...

1/. Israeli captives will show up in Syria or Iran
2/. Israel will state that all of the parts from the Hezzbolah rockets have come from Syria and Iran.
3/. Israel will claim it is in open hostilities with Iran and Syria until they make public statements denouncing their support for Hezzbolah.
4/. Strikes against Syria will happen first, much in the same manner as Lebanon with more emphasis in the initial attacks with destroying the Syrian airforce's bases and airports and air defenses. Once that is done look for sustained operations against strategic Syrian targets (ie. road and railway bridges, command and control facilities). Israel has the playbook laid out for them, they've seen it work twice in Iraq by the US and once in Yugoslavia by the UN.
5/. Once Syria is out of the way... strikes against Iran will start.
6/. The US will provide over flight and refueling assistance within Iraq. I would not be surprised that they would provide some target intelligence (however I would think that the Mossad has better intelligence than the US does) so they would resort to providing battlefield intelligence at a high level. (ie satellite reconnaissance damage assessments). 

Syria and Iran will attempt to defend themselves... unfortunately their military infrastructure and defenses will be at par with what Iraq had prior to 1989. Maybe some updated SAM systems (which will likely be wiped out on opening night).

Syria and Iran will turn up the heat and Hezzbolah will launch new attacks and we will see a wave of suicide attacks throughout Israel and against US interests.


----------



## Vandave

Beej said:


> Between Iran, North Korea and the Kashmir conflict, I'd have trouble putting Iran at number one (or not). I'm undecided. The elements for a peaceful solution are stronger in Kashmir, but the potential for large-scale disaster is worse and it, too, would draw in the the rest of the world.
> 
> North Korea can really hurt the South and Japan and is more outside world diplomacy than almost anyone else. The potential for worldwide disaster seems lower, but that depends upon China's reaction. Still, it doesn't seem as potentially horrific for the world, but it does seem much worse for the hundreds of millions nearby.
> 
> Iran has all the elements of danger discussed above (local destruction, creating broader war) but I'm not sure its balance is worse.
> 
> All three situations are horrible, but why Iran? I'd like your thoughts on that. If it's too off-topic, maybe it would make a strange poll/thread.


I would place Iran as the highest risk to the West. Iran is a threat to the stability of the Middle East and world oil supplies. Many people within the government of Iran are Islamic Extremists. The government of Iran wants to see the state of Israel destroyed. I don't like the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons. Too much potential for proliferation or a nutter pushing the button.

North Korea is only a threat to it's immediate neighbours. I think the US should start to withdraw from South Korea and let them bear the brunt of their own defense. The same goes for Japan. They should re-militarize and provide a counter balance to North Korea and China. North Korea has nothing to gain by starting another war and so it won't happen.

Kashmir has the potential for serious ethnical violence, but there are little to no strategic / economic interests there. Failed states are a threat wherever they exist, so if the situation were to degrade it could become another Afghanistan / Somalia. But, either India or Pakistan will control the situation as it would be destabilizing to their countries.


----------



## nxnw

I am not so concerned about Syria. Iran scares the hell out of me. It has powerful, long range missiles and limitless oil money. I reiterate that the last thing Israel wants to do is attack Iran. 

I'm hoping that the election that put Ahmadinejad in office is not the last election Iran ever has - he would not be reelected in an honest election, as the Iranian man/woman in the street is relatively secular and not aligned with these psychopaths that run their country.

By the way, it is widely believed that at least one Israeli soldier, Ron Arad, has been imprisoned in Iran for years. He is considered a national hero, and Israel would go to great lengths to rescue him, but they have not attacked Iran.


----------



## Beej

Vandave said:


> I would place Iran as the highest risk to the West.


Thanks. The kind of interesting thoughts I like ehmac for. 

Within the context that I've brutally exactracted from your post (out of context  ), I would still put Kashmir up there. The immediate economic concerns aren't as large, but the West would have difficulty not supporting India (world's most populous democracy) and, therefore, you've got similar problems to any Middle East conflict. India does have a large Muslim population, but the politics could (would?) very quickly turn to Western democracy versus a theology. Not pretty; huge populations; old anger; and modern anger. 

*Columbo impression* Just one more thing: they both have nukes.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Beej said:


> I don't understand why you're using these quotes instead of stating a personally thought-out position.


Beej, I’ve already said that I think Israel has over-reacted in this case. 
Parts of the conflicts are caused by their foreign policy towards Palestinians and its neighbours. 
By Bombing Lebanon into the stoneage, Israel will not be making any friends, quite the contrary. Depending on how long this conflict will go on, even create a new generation of militants. 

I don’t think that Israel has ever offered a credible or sincere peace plan to the Palestinians. There was some hope with, ironically enough, Sharon but it was done without respect towards Palestinians. How can you expect peace when you treat your neighbours like dirt. The Israeli apartheid wall, or whatever Israel calls it, is another example of oppression. 

When you detain Children as a matter of routine and apply different set of rules (they don’t fall under Israeli law, but under military law) you are bound to create that radical element. How else would you react after being arrested arbitrarily at checkpoints and tortured (as many are) and going through a farcical court system? 
These are not holiday camps see http://www.amnesty.org.il/reports/MDE_8.html

When you reduce a certain element of the population to cattle, it’s no wonder that they will turn to people that actually give them dignity. 
As much as I don’t agree with the policies of Hamas, they won their elections democratically – making a pariah of them only helped the radicals.

If you look, at Ireland (I know it’s not the same), with the militant arm of the IRA, did Britain bomb Ireland into submission by attacking the general population and infrastructure?


----------



## Bajan

nxnw said:


> I am not so concerned about Syria. Iran scares the hell out of me. It has powerful, long range missiles and limitless oil money. I reiterate that the last thing Israel wants to do is attack Iran.


Don't worry. Iran will get what's coming to them. Israel will probably never attack Iran unless it is something that goes beyond serious. I figure that Iran will probably be dumb enough to make the first move.

The more Ahmadinejerk opens his mouth the worse it gets and the more support he loses. I work with many many Iranians and wow do they ever hate him.


----------



## T-hill

nxnw said:


> I'm hoping that the election that put Ahmadinejad in office is not the last election Iran ever has - he would not be reelected in an honest election, as the Iranian man/woman in the street is relatively secular and not aligned with these psychopaths that run their country.


It won't be the last election in Iran. Problem is, one of the stipulations the clerics in Iran laid out for elections: You must be openly anti-Israel to run. Basically, the one whose views are closest to "I don't give a damn what the Zionist dogs do, let's fix our country before we fix them" is the candidate Israel supports. Only because that guy will put off his hate for Israel till later.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Vandave said:


> I bet they are running out of targets pretty quick.


Which brings a certain irony to this news story:


> *Israel asks to buy US jet fuel for military aircraft*
> 
> The Pentagon notified Congress of an Israeli request to purchase up to 210 million dollars in JP-8 aviation jet fuel for its military aircraft.
> 
> "The jet fuel will be consumed while the aircraft is in *use to keep peace* and security in the region," the Pentagon's Defense Security and Cooperation Agency said.
> 
> The notice to Congress came *two days after Israeli fighter jets attacked targets in Lebanon, including the international airport* in Beirut....


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060714/pl_afp/mideastisraelus_060714213638


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> ...I don’t think that Israel has ever offered a credible or sincere peace plan to the Palestinians....


Well, they did offer to get out of Gaza and something like 97% of the West Bank (excluding areas that are suburbs of Jerusalem and densely populated by Jews). While it may not be everything Palestinians want, only an anti-Israel zealot will claim it wasn't even credible. In any event, Arafat not only rejected it, but did not even agree to use it as a basis for negotiation.

I know they didn't offer the extinction of the State of Israel peace plan, but you know, that would not bring peace to the region either. Look at Sudan, Iraq. Even Lebanon is a powderkeg — why do you think Hezbollah has free reign to do what it wants? Because it the Lebanese government complied with its treaty with Israel requiring it to take control of the South, Hezbollah would have returned the country to civil war.

The essence of your thesis is that Israel just has to hand over land and it will have peace. You are too smart and well read to sincerely believe this is true. You just hate Israel.


----------



## ArtistSeries

da_jonesy said:


> IAt this point I would imagine things will play out something like this...


I came upon an article by Gwynne Dyer - I find his comments are always astute.
This is what he had to say on the situation.


> *Disproportionate force reveals Israel’s motives*
> 
> Cpl. Gilad Shalit, the soldier who was taken hostage, is no more to blame for the mess he inherited than any other 19-year-old Israeli or Palestinian, and he certainly does not deserve to die. But it is hard to see how blowing up the Gaza Strip’s main power-generating station or arresting eight cabinet ministers and 34 legislators of the democratically elected government of the occupied Palestinian territories in simultaneous night raids on their homes furthers the cause of Cpl. Shalit’s freedom. There is no sense of proportion here.
> 
> Israeli columnist Gideon Levy, writing in the newspaper Ha’aretz, put it best: “It is not legitimate to cut off 750,000 people from electricity. It is not legitimate to call on 20,000 people to run from their homes and turn their towns into ghost towns. It is not legitimate to kidnap half a government and a quarter of a parliament. A state that takes such steps is no longer distinguishable from a terror organization.”
> 
> Sixty years ago, when the Jews of British-ruled Palestine were an unrecognized proto-state under foreign military occupation, they had respectable political and military organizations like the Jewish Agency and the Haganah (the militia self-defence force that ultimately became the Israeli Defence Forces). They also had brutal terrorist organizations like Irgun and the Stern Gang, who killed without compunction both British soldiers and the Palestinians who had a rival claim to the land. The legitimate groups did not control the illegitimate ones, but there were constant contacts between them.
> 
> The Palestinian Authority’s relations with the current crop of terrorist outfits is very similar. *Hamas*, the militant Islamic party that won the Palestinian elections last January and subsequently formed a government, *has observed a self-imposed cease-fire with Israel for more than a year.* Its “military wing”, a largely separate organization, has not, nor have various other radical groups whose main goal is to discredit mainstream Palestinian organizations that want a negotiated settlement with Israel.
> 
> *Israel’s past offers enough parallels that its government should and probably does understand that it has a choice: to ignore the extremists and talk about some kind of peace deal with the mainstream or to use the extremists as an excuse not to talk to the mainstream either. It has chosen the latter option, and the current, vastly disproportionate Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip are the evidence for it.
> *
> Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has big plans for imposing a “peace settlement” and new frontiers on the Palestinians—frontiers that will keep all the bigger Jewish settlement blocks (plus all of Jerusalem, of course) within Israel. International political correctness requires that he negotiate this with the Palestinians, but he knows perfectly well that they could never agree to such a terrible deal. Why should they? So he must find a way of demonstrating that negotiations are impossible.
> 
> Olmert knows (even if Washington doesn’t) that destroying the Hamas government will not bring the “moderates” back to power.* It will just create a power vacuum in the occupied territories that will be filled by all kinds of crazies with guns. Ideal circumstances for carrying out Olmert’s plans, wouldn’t you say?
> *


http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=19032

Israel is the bully and I have very little sympathy for it's foreign policies. Israel apologist can spin this anyway they want, the crux is that I don't think real peace is what Israel wants.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> The essence of your thesis is that Israel just has to hand over land and it will have peace. You are too smart and well read to sincerely believe this is true. You just hate Israel.


Certainly not. 
I don't hate Israel. I despise it's course of action and don't see how it can possibly achieve peace in the region the way it's bullying.

Israel should hand over land, certainly, but not without conditions on BOTH sides. 
I was cautiously optimists with the actions of Sharon of late - 

Hezbollah is a problem - but don't you think that some of it caused desperation of a nation?


----------



## da_jonesy

ArtistSeries said:


> I came upon an article by Gwynne Dyer - I find his comments are always astute.


Yeah, for a while during the 90's it looked like Gwynne was pretty much out of a job after the fall of communism. He does know his stuff.

I have a funny story about Gwynne Dyer and Me during a visit to Brock University back in the day. 

I stand to my position that the systematic dismantling of Lebanon's infrastructure is a warning to Syria and Iran... And if Syria and Iran continue their rhetoric, things will go hot and then this is just the prelude of things to come.


----------



## Bajan

ArtistSeries said:


> Israel is the bully and I have very little sympathy for it's foreign policies. Israel apologist can spin this anyway they want, the crux is that I don't think real peace is what Israel wants.


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## da_jonesy

ArtistSeries said:


> Certainly not.
> I don't hate Israel. I despise it's course of action and don't see how it can possibly achieve peace in the region the way it's bullying.
> 
> Israel should hand over land, certainly, but not without conditions on BOTH sides.
> I was cautiously optimists with the actions of Sharon of late -


I have to agree with you... both sides are very much at fault in this case, and while Israel had started unilaterally rectifying some things like pulling settlements out of Gaza it looks to have been too little too late.

Unfortunately the example of the day in Iraq only shows that a determined group can through unscrupulous means and tactics hold the worlds foremost superpower at bay with marginal resources only fueled the fire for Hama's military wing and Hezzbolah in Lebanon.

Given Sharon's history I was very surprised by his unilateral actions in pulling everything out of Gaza. Now this may have been a tactical step in order to better protect his population (ie. sort of pulling everyone into the castle during a time of siege)... who knows.

If the US hadn't been castrated by Iraq they at least could have been able to step into the schoolyard fight and pull these two kids apart. Unfortunately they don't appear to be the adults anymore now do they?


----------



## Vandave

Beej said:


> *Columbo impression* Just one more thing: they both have nukes.


I guess the one positive here is Mutually Assured Destruction. Seemed to work during the Cold War.


----------



## Beej

da_jonesy said:


> Unfortunately the example of the day in Iraq only shows that a determined group can through unscrupulous means and tactics hold the worlds foremost superpower at bay with marginal resources only fueled the fire for Hama's military wing and Hezzbolah in Lebanon.


They can only hold said superpower at bay because the superpower is not willing to kill everyone and actually has standards that apply, even if they are considered inadequate. That is an important differentiation. The 'determined group' is limited only by its means.


----------



## Beej

Vandave said:


> I guess the one positive here is Mutually Assured Destruction. Seemed to work during the Cold War.


True, but it feels more like gambling than strategy to me.

MAED (mutually assured economic destruction) may work better.  Less at stake, at least.


----------



## Vandave

Beej said:


> True, but it feels more like gambling than strategy to me.
> 
> MAED (mutually assured economic destruction) may work better.  Less at stake, at least.


Pakistan seems to have rouge elements within their military. I hope to God they have good controls in place for their nukes.


----------



## MacDoc

> id Britain bomb Ireland into submission by attacking the general population and infrastructure?


at one point yes - especially in the North an effective genocide was undertaken, landholders stripped of their rights, their language banned, their religion banned and - their entire culture was reduced to just about extinction.....wilfully. That was a 400 year plus problem between cultures that persists even now.

The US attempted to do the same with North Vietnam.

Israel is a powerful sovereign nation unwilling to be terrorized without retaliating.

When Israel's neighbours make up their national minds ( as with Egypt in general ) to change their approach I do not see Israel as the obstacle to peaceful if wary relations.

Many of the same forces are a threat to Egypt as well and Egypt without doubt has been vicious in its dealing with them.

The Roma in Europe represent a similar ( smaller scale ) problem as the Palestinians in the middle east....there are no easy answers in this but I can in no way see that Israel is the aggressor.
Out of scale response is a general tactic of war for intimidation and shock.
It took TWO nuclear weapons to change Japan's mind about continuing the war in the Pacific......the fanatics in the war council certainly would have had the Emperor not defied tradition and forced the issue.

And yes the "shock tactic" is still being debated.....but that Israel is demonstrating "overwhelming force" ...is no surprise.


----------



## da_jonesy

Beej said:


> They can only hold said superpower at bay because the superpower is not willing to kill everyone and actually has standards that apply, even if they are considered inadequate. That is an important differentiation. The 'determined group' is limited only by its means.


And in the grand scheme of all things to do with conflict what does that mean? During WWII the allies considered and did whatever it took to win the war. They sacrificed their own cities so as to not let the Axis know they had broken their codes. They firebombed civilian populations (not to mention being the first to use weapons of mass destruction). They did whatever it took to defeat their enemy.

Now put yourself in the position of an islamic militant? You don't have billion's of dollars of military assets at your disposal... all you have is your brains and you willingness to do whatever it takes to win... whatever winning means to them.

All the US has done is prove that being the global superpower is meaningless if you are a willing and determined group with an agenda.


----------



## da_jonesy

Beej said:


> True, but it feels more like gambling than strategy to me.
> 
> MAED (mutually assured economic destruction) may work better.  Less at stake, at least.


Interesting thought... how about?

MADE (Mutually Assured Destruction of the Economy)

MADE in the USA? ooopppss. I'm probably on some watch list now for posting this.


----------



## Beej

da_jonesy said:


> Now put yourself in the position of an islamic militant? You don't have billion's of dollars of military assets at your disposal... all you have is your brains and you willingness to do whatever it takes to win... whatever winning means to them.


Israel doesn't want them wiped out / annexed. BIG difference. THE difference, as pointed out earlier. Germany wanted to take over and the various opponents of Israel quite openly call for elimination of the nation or much worse. So, if Israel acts as the Allies did against Germany (actually, moderated), maybe it's possible to see just cause behind it.


----------



## Beej

da_jonesy said:


> Interesting thought... how about?
> 
> MADE (Mutually Assured Destruction of the Economy)
> 
> MADE in the USA? ooopppss. I'm probably on some watch list now for posting this.


:lmao: 

Once you're MADE, there's no getting out.  

Seriously, there's merit in the approach. It isn't adequate on its own, but it can help.


----------



## MacDoc

Beej I think it's an awkward parallel as the Allies were the weaker of the two sides and both were "superpowers" or groups of. The valid illustration is of a "national change of heart" and the willingness of the Allies in turn to help rebuild.

The Basques are pretty close to a similar tho smaller scale and just now after decades ETA has foregone violence officially and there have been no attacks in 3 years prior to the abandonment. It took a "change of heart" on the part of leaders in ETA.

The problem with the Middle East is religion and resources will for the forseeable future......as it has since history was recorded will make it a trouble spot as the Bosnia area and the Afghan area has been.....and we're talking millenia.

I find it amusing ( tragically so ) that people think there is a "fix" to be had in a single short period of time.

How many times did various aspects of France and Germany go at it far back into the mists of time.???

Help when asked, refuge for those fleeing the violence...'bout ALL we can do.


----------



## Beej

MacDoc said:


> The problem with the Middle East is religion and resources will for the forseeable future......as it has since history was recorded will make it a trouble spot as the Bosnia area and the Afghan area has been.....and we're talking millenia.
> ......
> How many times did various aspects of France and Germany go at it far back into the mists of time.???
> ......
> Help when asked, refuge for those fleeing the violence...'bout ALL we can do.


I question the resources part in this mess, but the history is very relevant. A permanent crossroads it seems. Hopefully not.
.....
This is the kind of perspective I didn't see enough of in the Afghanistan or Iraq discussions. The most odious was the use of the attempt to kill the Christian as an example of 'why bother/failure'. It takes time AND baby steps. Good point MD.
.....
I disagree, but see the rationale.


----------



## da_jonesy

Beej said:


> Israel doesn't want them wiped out / annexed. BIG difference. THE difference, as pointed out earlier. Germany wanted to take over and the various opponents of Israel quite openly call for elimination of the nation or much worse. So, if Israel acts as the Allies did against Germany (actually, moderated), maybe it's possible to see just cause behind it.



I don't think that "just cause" applies for any of the combatants in this case. And my analogy was in regards to conflict in general... the point being that in conflict, for some groups, the stated goal would be to win at whatever cost.

I am comfortably sure that Islamic militants will prosecute Israel and US interests at whatever cost it may take to win.

I am equally comfortable stating that Israel will defend itself to the end regardless of the cost of achieving their defense.

As for the US in the middle east... they are demonstrating exactly how to win every battle yet lose the conflict. Oddly enough they have a precedence in their history to show that they are entirely capable of doing this again.


----------



## Beej

da_jonesy said:


> And my analogy was in regards to conflict in general... the point being that in conflict, for some groups, the stated goal would be to win at whatever cost.


And when you want to be left alone as your winning condition versus the other side that wants you dead?

To me, the 'he said / she said' thing is somewhat weak. I can see the approach on a given specific action but, overall, it's pretty clear that one side would pursue peace and too many of the others won't (even if their people would). 'A pox on both their houses' doesn't seem appropriate, given the full context as opposed to what happens in any given week.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

as far a measuring military might, doesn't Israel posess nuclear weapons?


----------



## nxnw

> ...I have very little sympathy for it's foreign policies. Israel apologist can spin this anyway they want, the crux is that I don't think real peace is what Israel wants.


Better to defend Israel than to be like you, an apologist for Hamas, whose founding charter (i.e not it's "military wing") says, "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it …The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them." 

You blind yourself to the truth. The world has demanded that Hamas renounce terrorism and renounce their aim to destroy Israel. Why do you need to ignore and distort reality to support your fraudulent criticisms of Israel?

You claim you don't hate Israel but you make these comments that are so incredibly deceitful and outrageous. My wife was just on the phone with a woman who runs a children's shelter in Haifa. 47 little kids have been living in a bomb shelter, cloistered and frantically frightened for the last few days, listening to sirens and explosions. Israel doesn't want peace? It is Israel's deepest, most profound desire.

Israel left Lebanon in 2000 (which it invaded in the first place, to suppress missiles being fired into the North) but Hezbollah kept firing missiles.

Israel left Gaza in 2005, but Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and others continued to fire rockets into Israel, continued to smuggle arms into Gaza, to smash through the border with Egypt to do this, to send suicide bombers into Israel.

Both overtly, expressly, repeatedly maintain that their object is to destroy Israel and kill the Jews, and expressly state that they do not want peace with Israel.

What kind of mind would take Hamas and Hezbollah on one hand, and claim that real problem is that *Israel* does not want peace. This is the kind of thinking that leads you to the exaggerations, half-truths and outright deceptions about Israel in your posts. 

You don't hate Israel? You refuse to tolerate any steps it takes to defend itself. You defend those who seek only to destroy it and murder its citizens. Tell me another fairy tale.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnm, you cry for the children of Haifa, but I don't hear any sympathy for the children of Lebanon. Both innocent victims of what is happening. I'm certain that both populations are living the same fears at the moment. 

Israel has overreacted. Their actions will only strengthen the circle of violence. 
Pundits such as Henry Siegman have said quite rightly:


> Israel's leaders continue to suffer from the delusion they can defeat violent Palestinian resistance to that occupation without offering the Palestinians a credible, non-violent political path to statehood, promised in various international agreements.


As for credible peace 


> In 1988 and in 1993, as part of the Oslo agreement, they recognised Israel's legitimacy in 78 per cent of what used to be the Palestine mandate, leaving themselves with 22 per cent, less than half the territory assigned to them by the United Nations in 1947. No Palestinian leader, now or in the future, will agree to further Israeli land grabs to accommodate settlements established in violation of international agreements and international law, whose illegality even the utterly one-sided Bush Administration has had to concede.


For Hamas and other ideologues, they have to renounce on the destruction of Israel if they hope to build a nation and weed out it's radical elements. It will not happen overnight.

I'd hope that you recognize that there is a division within Hamas - the political and yes, the militant wing. 
The parallels between the Irgun and Stern Gang, and the more moderate elements such Haganah seem lost to you at this moment.


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> nxnm, you cry for the children of Haifa, but I don't hear any sympathy for the children of Lebanon. Both innocent victims of what is happening. I'm certain that both populations are living the same fears at the moment.


Of course they are. Where have I minimized the suffering of the Lebanese? It is a terrible tragedy. You have levelled similar accusations at me in the past and you know them to be false. It is offensive and dishonest. 

The only ones who don't see these events as tragic are Hezbollah, for whom the Lebanese are shields, whose lives are of no consequence in the greater mission to destroy Israel. Sadly, you refuse to recognize the culpability of Hezbollah, who initiated this conflict, knowing that Israel must, and would, defend itself.

As for Israel overreacting, I am satisfied that to you, overreacting means fighting back. Realistically, the jury is surely out on the issue. Israel has responded to Hezbollah's naked aggression. It now seeks to defang Hezbollah and destroy as much of its weaponry as possible. This, frankly, would benefit the entire region and is, in my view, a patently justifiable objective.

Finally, read the Hamas charter again — an excellent example of anti-semitic hate speech — and reconcile it with your wishful thinking/self deception about a meaningful difference between the "political wing" and the "military wing". The only distinction I can see is that the political wing decrees genocide against Jews, and the military wing does the actual murdering.

You know when there will be progress for peace, and a better life for the Palestinians? When they have leaders who love them more than they hate Jews.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> As for Israel overreacting, I am satisfied that to you, overreacting means fighting back. Realistically, the jury is surely out on the issue. Israel has responded to Hezbollah's naked aggression. It now seeks to defang Hezbollah and *destroy as much of its weaponry as possible*. This, frankly, would benefit the entire region and is, in my view, a patently justifiable objective.


If you consider civilian targets weaponry.....
So pray tell, how is a van filled with children trying to escape the fighting (after being told by the Israeli army) a "weapon"?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1821706,00.html




nxnw said:


> Finally, read the Hamas charter again — *an excellent example* of anti-semitic hate speech — and reconcile it with your wishful thinking/self deception about a meaningful difference between the "political wing" and the "military wing". The only distinction I can see is that the political wing decrees genocide against Jews, and the military wing does the actual murdering.


I'm not sure I'd use "excellent" - more like "abhorrent"

We have already discussed Hamas and why they were elected (replacing the corrupt Fatah was one reason if I remember correctly) - we'll have to continue about Hamas another time.


----------



## MacDoc

appropo


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

if only the U.S. had not de-fanged the UN, it would be a perfect opportunity for the UN to insert a peace keeping force into the region and to finally help create a Palestinian state

I am very afraid that this current escalation in violence will spread to Syria and Iran and that may just bring other countries into the confilict
One can only hope Israel doesn't ever feel cornered enough to use their nukes

7 Canadians dead and counting and Harpo et al aren't able to remove a single Canadian after 6 days of fighting, yet other countries seem to be able to remove their nationals


----------



## MannyP Design

It's easier to send forces overseas when you're already there for other reasons.


----------



## Beej

MacDoc said:


> appropo


Excellent cartoon. I don't agree (yet. I'm still young and optimistic?) but it makes a powerful point in a memorable way that is accessible across generations. :clap:


----------



## MacDoc

Acknowledging that humans are violent by nature does not necessarily equate with "what's the use" angst in my view. I think it provides an honest instread of Pollyanna start point.

Channeling the competition and violence ala world cup etc is one method to help.

Wide spread family planning, education and efforts to reduce the have/have not gap in regions is another.

Care of world resources such as water and air quality yet another.

Recognising "one can only do so much" is akin to dealing with a difficult child but on a massive scale.

The debate between nxnw and AS is a healthy one - it's a part of Canada's "style". It's one thing we CAN do is provide a model of diversity.

Fundamentally the peoples of that region must work out their differences as we have had to to lesser ( indigenes ) and greater ( Quebec, the West, etc ) degrees.

The dismaying aspect is when outside geopolitical forces get involved in the Great Game as it used to be called in the British Raj era.

The area, including Afghanistan was never "stable" despite the sun never sets aspect of the Brit empire.

Efforts like the Canadian engender land mine treaty can at least keep the conflict from harming the region for untold decades forward as it has in other regions and still does massively in Afghanistan.

Only the arms suppliers and their host nations can keep such weapons as rockets and grenades and other modern weapons of destruction from proliferating.
There was a note somewhere about in Iraq there being a dozen bullets for every citizen.....what a horrid gage of "civilization" 

Pressure for arms reduction, being a model for diversity and peaceful resolution of conflict.........what we CAN do.

'Course there ar likely to be a lot more island nations once the sea level rises a few meters - nothing like a 20 mile + moat to help keep the peace......mostly.


----------



## Macfury

Superman COULD do something, but it involves time travel and usually has unintended consequences.


----------



## Beej

Macfury said:


> Superman COULD do something, but it involves time travel and usually has unintended consequences.


Maybe not. The extremists may just look at his name and say he's biased.


Edit: Below
I finally remembered why this was familiar:

Phoebe: (to Chandler) Hey! (Chandler looks up, startled) Why isn’t it Spiderman? Y’know like Goldman, Silverman...

Chandler: ‘Cause it’s-it’s not his last name.

Phoebe: It isn’t?

Chandler: No, it’s not like, like Phil Spiderman. He’s a spider, man. Y'know like ah, like Goldman is a last name, but there’s no Gold Man.

Phoebe: Oh, okay. There should be Gold Man!


----------



## NBiBooker

Wow, this is turning into a real nastathread.


----------



## HowEver

MacDoc said:


> The debate between nxnw and AS is a healthy one - it's a part of Canada's "style". It's one thing we CAN do is provide a model of diversity.


Perhaps.

But you still have to ask why there are double standards for Israel. Any notion for example that Israel is "overreacting" to its borders being breached, its citizens killed and kidnapped, while rockets terrorize thousands of people, should be recognized for what it is.

Why should Israel put up with any of this, for even the briefest period of time? Would Helsinki? Tokyo? Toronto? New York--no.

Iran and Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas are _under-reacting_. Give the soldiers back, stop firing rockets/blowing up checkpoints and buses/parading tortured and killed soldiers through the streets, and we'll call it a day. Tomorrow, they can recognize Israel's right to exist.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

When foreign criminals (not aligned with the foreign government) attack your country the best response is to:
a) Find and contain the criminals through capture or death
b) bomb civillians and civillian infrastructure
c) work with the foreign government to capture/kill the criminals
d) bomb the foreign government and its infrastucture


----------



## HowEver

Paul O'Keefe said:


> When foreign criminals (not aligned with the foreign government) attack your country the best response is to:
> a) Find and contain the criminals through capture or death
> b) bomb civillians and civillian infrastructure
> c) work with the foreign government to capture/kill the criminals
> d) bomb the foreign government and its infrastucture


"Not aligned with the foreign government?" They *are* de facto the foreign government, both in Palestine and Lebanon.

Name one thing the Lebanese government has done to stop the Hezbollah. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

So the answers are,

a) Ongoing.
b) Hezbollah purposely set up shop in crowded civilian areas. If Osama came home to live with you, would you stay or would you go?
c) Again, what foreign government? Iran? Syria? (Welcome to 2006, btw.)
d) Bombing the infrastructure is intended to prevent escape by Hezbollah *with* the soldiers they kidnapped. Had the terrorists:

1) not killed 8 soldiers and kidnapped 2 others, or
2) gave these 2 back when they started getting bombed

this thread wouldn't exist.


----------



## ArtistSeries

HowEver said:


> Name one thing the Lebanese government has done to stop the Hezbollah. Nada. Zip. Zilch.


After the Israeli invasion caused a power vacuum, you have to give credit for the Lebanese people for the Cedar Revolution. 
Now, you can blame the weak Lebanese army if you want. 
You'd have to admit that many fractions in Lebanon had been weakened and many just ceased to exist. 
Hizbullah is/was a problem - I think their excuse at the moment is the Shebba Farms region.

I fail to see how bombing Lebanon (and weakening the Lebanese state) will accomplish any goals except strengthen militant factions.

So, who do you hurt by bombing a civilian airport, power plants, civilians targets, petrol storage, cars with children trying to escape, medical supply trunks, and yes even the Lebanese army (not involved against Israel for the most part).


----------



## HowEver

You hurt those who are either protecting the Hezbollah by either doing nothing or by actively supporting them.

You cannot suggest that the Lebanese armed forces should just sit back and watch as terrorists control the entire southern part of Lebanon, and then be surprised when they are held responsible? That doesn't even approach naivete.




ArtistSeries said:


> After the Israeli invasion caused a power vacuum, you have to give credit for the Lebanese people for the Cedar Revolution.
> Now, you can blame the weak Lebanese army if you want.
> You'd have to admit that many fractions in Lebanon had been weakened and many just ceased to exist.
> Hizbullah is/was a problem - I think their excuse at the moment is the Shebba Farms region.
> 
> I fail to see how bombing Lebanon (and weakening the Lebanese state) will accomplish any goals except strengthen militant factions.
> 
> So, who do you hurt by bombing a civilian airport, power plants, civilians targets, petrol storage, cars with children trying to escape, medical supply trunks, and yes even the Lebanese army (not involved against Israel for the most part).


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

HowEver said:


> "Not aligned with the foreign government?" They *are* de facto the foreign government, both in Palestine and Lebanon.


Is Lebannon occupied territory as is Palestine, or is Lebanon it's own country. Hamas is the party running Palestine, but is Hezbollah the party elected to run Lebanon? Last I heard they we're not.



HowEver said:


> Name one thing the Lebanese government has done to stop the Hezbollah. Nada. Zip. Zilch.


I have no idea what the Lebanese government has done. As far as I know, the Lebanese government doesn't fund the Hezbollah militia. If there are Hezbollah memebers of government, those might be the appropriate targets of Israel attacks.




HowEver said:


> So the answers are,
> 
> a) Ongoing.
> b) Hezbollah purposely set up shop in crowded civilian areas. If Osama came home to live with you, would you stay or would you go?


 What does Osama have to do with this? Is the airport Hezbollah territory? Are the harbours? Are the bombarded apartments of civillians and innocents definitively, 100%, for sure Hezbollah territory? If it's okay to attack military targets that are fully located in, inseparable from innocent civillian locations... does that mean the World Trade Centre towers were a legimate justifiable military target to enemies of the US military/government? Hey, you brought up Osama out of nowhere.



HowEver said:


> c) Again, what foreign government? Iran? Syria? (Welcome to 2006, btw.)


As I understand it, Lebanon has it's own government. Is that not the case? Is it an occupied state or what?



HowEver said:


> d) Bombing the infrastructure is intended to prevent escape by Hezbollah *with* the soldiers they kidnapped.


Bull****. Bombing infrastructure in intended to inflict as much pain and suffering on Lebanon and it's people as possible. It's to show the area that Israel has power to do what it wants. It's a way for politicians to show "strength" and "determination". Personally, I don't see how bombing innocent people is a sign of strength.



HowEver said:


> Had the terrorists:
> 
> 1) not killed 8 soldiers and kidnapped 2 others, or
> 2) gave these 2 back when they started getting bombed
> 
> this thread wouldn't exist.


Israel has done prisoner exchanges with Hezbollah before. If it wanted to it could tag/trace prisoners, exchange them and then attack those responsibile at a latter time.

Here's a idea: *justice*. The people who do the crime pay for the crime. Unless you are suggesting that the Canadian family who died in Lebanon as a result of the bombings were criminals. The the convoys of innocent of children trying to escape the area, after they were warned to leave, must have been criminals by the same logic.

Justice is anger tempered by wisdom. Without the wisdom it is just blind rage. Ravaging Lebanon and it's people won't bring military hostages back. If anything it will turn the mourners of the injustly killed innocent against Israel.

The cycle of violence just continues.

There is no harm in calling for a ceasefire and for peace. The harm comes from escalating violence.


----------



## nxnw

Artistseries said:


> _sundry falsehoods, exaggerations, and distortions_


While there has been tragic loss of life in this conflict, your false characterization that Israel targets civilians does nothing but foster hatred. 

The only party in the Lebanese conflict targeting civilians is Hezbollah: Israeli civilians, with Hezbollah's 1,000+ missiles into Israeli towns and cities; Lebanese civilians, given that Hezbollah has put its military storehouses in civilian areas. 

You have an obsessive hatred of Israel, which you continue to document with your one-sided and fraudulent criticisms. It is no wonder, given your derogatory comments about "members of the tribe" in this very thread.


----------



## HowEver

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Is Lebannon occupied territory as is Palestine, or is Lebanon it's own country. Hamas is the party running Palestine, but is Hezbollah the party elected to run Lebanon? Last I heard they we're not.


If Lebanon was really "it's own country" it would do something about the Hezbollah--unless it totally agrees with what they are doing.



Paul O'Keefe said:


> I have no idea what the Lebanese government has done. As far as I know, the Lebanese government doesn't fund the Hezbollah militia. If there are Hezbollah memebers of government, those might be the appropriate targets of Israel attacks.


I think you are out of your depth here, then.



Paul O'Keefe said:


> What does Osama have to do with this? Is the airport Hezbollah territory? Are the harbours? Are the bombarded apartments of civillians and innocents definitively, 100%, for sure Hezbollah territory? If it's okay to attack military targets that are fully located in, inseparable from innocent civillian locations... does that mean the World Trade Centre towers were a legimate justifiable military target to enemies of the US military/government? Hey, you brought up Osama out of nowhere.


If Osama came to dinner, would you have the common sense to ask him to leave, or would you get the hell out yourself? Some people have no common sense.

The World Trade Centre is actually an apropos reference, given that it had a far higher propotion of Jewish people working in it than other buildings. That's why it was targetted in 1994, and that's why it was targetted in 2001.

But Israel is targetting "infrastructure." Once you figure out that this means roads, bridges, airports, headquarters of Hezbollah, you'll be better informed than you currently are.



Paul O'Keefe said:


> As I understand it, Lebanon has it's own government. Is that not the case? Is it an occupied state or what?


It depends how you define occupied. If Hezbollah have free reign, the Lebanese government isn't even at the table.



Paul O'Keefe said:


> Bull****. Bombing infrastructure in intended to inflict as much pain and suffering on Lebanon and it's people as possible. It's to show the area that Israel has power to do what it wants. It's a way for politicians to show "strength" and "determination". Personally, I don't see how bombing innocent people is a sign of strength.


No. See above for a definition of "infrastructure." Israel drops leaflets and warns before it blows up infrastructure. Terrorists bomb out of nowhere, and target civilians first and foremost.




Paul O'Keefe said:


> Israel has done prisoner exchanges with Hezbollah before. If it wanted to it could tag/trace prisoners, exchange them and then attack those responsibile at a latter time.


How well did that work out before? At some point, perhaps many thousands of rockets later, you are allowed to be a little wary of trading prisoners and negotiating, especially with people whose sole purpose is to kill all of your people.



Paul O'Keefe said:


> ...
> 
> There is no harm in calling for a ceasefire and for peace. The harm comes from escalating violence.


Call for it all you like, one side respects ceasefires and one does not.

Nobody is saying that Israel should go ahead and bomb the hell out of Lebanon or Palestine.

But Israel's detractors aren't calling very loudly--if at all--for the kidnapped soldiers to be returned. Why is that?


----------



## nxnw

Paul O'Keefe said:


> If it's okay to attack military targets that are fully located in, inseparable from innocent civillian locations... does that mean the World Trade Centre towers were a legimate justifiable military target to enemies of the US military/government?


So, all Hezbollah needs to do is keep its weapons and bases in civilian areas, fire its missiles from civilian areas (all of which it does), and it *should be* immune from attack? Do you think that is reasonable?

If Hezbollah were firing missiles at you, you wouldn't fight back? You would just let them kill you?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

i find the use of the word "kidnapped" as opposed to "captured" very interesting
little children whose faces appear on milk cartons are "kidnapped"
soldiers are "captured"

i can only imagine that the usage of kidnapped vs. captured is a deliberate form of misdirection

sort of like the U.S. referring to "enemy combatants" instead of POWs to avoid the Geneva Convention

I wonder how many more Canadians will die before Harpo gets off his ass and starts demanding a cease fire


----------



## HowEver

Whatever. Captured implies that the soldiers were doing something other than patrolling Israeli territory or stationed at checkpoints--*within *Israel. Thats' where they were. They were not on incursions into Lebanon. No one on either side has suggested otherwise.





MACSPECTRUM said:


> i find the use of the word "kidnapped" as opposed to "captured" very interesting
> little children whose faces appear on milk cartons are "kidnapped"
> soldiers are "captured"
> 
> i can only imagine that the usage of kidnapped vs. captured is a deliberate form of misdirection
> 
> sort of like the U.S. referring to "enemy combatants" instead of POWs to avoid the Geneva Convention


----------



## ArtistSeries

Please nxnw, you are getting very close to libel.

I've asked point blank in what way does destroying Lebanese infrastructure such as an airport advance Israelís security. Has the doctrine of "an eye for an eye" taken a hold so much that Israel seeks to inflict damage 10 times as great? Is the spirit of vengeance such that you approve of wanton destruction?


You seem to want a condemnation of Arab human right abuses (yes they are there), yet ignore any Israeli ones, all the while trying to claim a moral high ground. 


Fraudulent? When my sources/quotes are selected from the U.N., Louise Arbour, Henry Siegman, Amnesty, Gideon Levy and Gwynne Dyer, I find your smear misleading. Maybe you don;t like them, because it does not agree with what looks like a stance that borders on fanaticism. Or is it called loved in this case?


----------



## Greenlion

*Immune from All Criticism?*

The Pro-Israeli Lobby, well represented on this thread, make certain assumptions that many others posting here do not.

The most important assumption, which is the starting point of any comment then made, is that Israel can do nothing wrong. All its actions are taken in self defense and it is by virtue of being Israel - the divinely ordained homeland of God's only chosen people after all - that its actions are immune from being held to the same moral scrutiny as one would hold any other government on the planet.

Israel is perpetual victim. Only wanting to live in peace on the land that scripture and God promised them. Constantly under attack and threat of destruction from all sides. 

Anyone who dares to suggest otherwise is "anti-Semitic" and immediately shouted down or silenced. 

Facts do not enter into this assessment. 

I'm sure the proponents of this belief will quickly identify themselves in responding to this post.


----------



## Beej

Greenlion said:


> that its actions are immune from being held to the same moral scrutiny as one would hold any other government on the planet.
> ............
> I'm sure the proponents of this belief will quickly identify themselves in responding to this post.


Actually, just holding Israel to the same standard would be good. See However's largely ignored questions regarding what if this were happening to Toronto, New York etc. Care to address the scenario?
..............
Nice try, but responding to your post doesn't mean agreeing with the farcical characterisation. :clap: "Proof" is more than just saying, "If you respond then you agree to my terms."

If you respond to me, it will identify you as someone not interested in Israel being held to the same moral scrutiny as other governments. 

See how meaningful that was?


----------



## ArtistSeries

Beej said:


> See However's largely ignored questions regarding what if this were happening to Toronto, New York etc. Care to address the scenario?


There you go trying to be the objective one again....
Without context and history such a scenario is meaningless.


----------



## HowEver

ArtistSeries said:


> Please nxnw, you are getting very close to libel.


Given that you could count successful actual libel prosecutions in the last few decades in Canada on one hand, good luck with your case. I gather you would be representing yourself, also?



ArtistSeries said:


> I've asked point blank in what way does destroying Lebanese infrastructure such as an airport advance Israelís security. Has the doctrine of "an eye for an eye" taken a hold so much that Israel seeks to inflict damage 10 times as great? Is the spirit of vengeance such that you approve of wanton destruction?


The roads and bridges lead to Syria. As for "eye for an eye" that would hardly explain why in prisoner swaps in the past Israel always gave 100 to 1. Let's hope those days are over.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Beej said:


> Actually, just holding Israel to the same standard would be good.


So you would want us to lower the standard? If a State professes a certain moral high ground is should be accountable to those standard. 

Our foreign policies seem quite happy to align with repressive societies and nations as long as certain national interest are there. 
I find it hypocrital - but you may have another word for it.


----------



## Beej

ArtistSeries said:


> There you go trying to be the objective one again....
> Without context and history such a scenario is meaningless.


Good point. So when the points were being made by body count and infrastructure, where was the context and history? Nowhere. The direct answer to that is: ANY country under these circumstances would be very aggressive. Now, let's talk about more context and history because the "body count/infrastructure/headline appeal" arguments just don't work.


----------



## Greenlion

What's farcical about the characterization? Are telling me that people don't hold this position? 

Isn't that the basic belief that underlies rationalizing why someone from a suburb of Chicago can make claim to a home in the West Bank over a family that has resided there for several centuries?


----------



## ArtistSeries

Beej said:


> So when the points were being made by body count and infrastructure, where was the context and history? Nowhere.


Quite the contrary. They took into account past history and stated goals....


----------



## Beej

ArtistSeries said:


> So you would want us to lower the standard?
> ............
> Our foreign policies seem quite happy to align with repressive societies and nations as long as certain national interest are there.
> I find it hypocrital - but you may have another word for it.


Not sure where you get that from. You mean lower the standard for Israel from its pedestal? Are you finally admitting that they're held to a higher standard (especially when looked at in context)?
............
Reality. Since when do people expect politics to not have elements of hypocrisy and which specific element don't you like here?


----------



## Beej

Greenlion said:


> What's farcical about the characterization? Are telling me that people don't hold this position?
> 
> Isn't that the basic belief that underlies rationalizing why someone from a suburb of Chicago can make claim to a home in the West Bank over a family that has resided there for several centuries?


We're onto context now. I highly recommend considering more of it. Also, see my now distant post on the way-back machine.


----------



## ArtistSeries

HowEver said:


> As for "eye for an eye" that would hardly explain why in prisoner swaps in the past Israel always gave 100 to 1. Let's hope those days are over.


Should we examine both side of this? 
Who is included in these prisoner swaps?

What was asked in return for Cpl Gilad Shalit? 
Could it be women and children? These are your prisoners?


> For Walid al-Houdaly, 46, the capture of an Israeli soldier by Palestinian militants offers the opportunity that his wife and their *18-month-old child will be freed from prison.*
> 
> The Palestinian militant factions who captured Cpl Gilad Shalit on Sunday - including the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of the ruling Hamas party - have called for the release of all Palestinian women and children held in Israeli prisons in return for news on the missing soldier.
> 
> Mr Houdaly says his wife, Ataf, 44, headed a women's organisation dedicated to providing health services for poor Palestinians.
> 
> But for the last seven months, Mr Houdaly says, she has been held in Israeli prison under administration detention - imprisonment without charge or trial.
> 
> The Israeli authorities say that Ataf is a member of Islamic Jihad, a militant group that has carried out recent suicide bombings in Israel, and that she was involved in a bombing plot in 1987. She has denied being a member of the group and plotting any attack.
> 
> *The mother went on a 16-day hunger strike before the Israeli prison authorities allowed her baby Aesha to be brought to stay with her, in the jail,* Mr Houdaly says.
> 
> It is women and children such as Ataf and Aesha that the militant factions would like to see released.
> 
> "The question of freeing [Palestinian] prisoners is in no way on the Israeli government agenda," Mr Olmert said during a speech in Jerusalem.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5122056.stm

Shall we start debating how these prisoners are captured, processed, legal status and treated while enjoying Israel hospitality?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

Beej said:


> Actually, just holding Israel to the same standard would be good. See However's largely ignored questions regarding what if this were happening to Toronto, New York etc. Care to address the scenario?


If a Michigan militia group raided the border and captured two Canadian military personel and killed other Canadian soldiers and fired rockets into Canada, the correct response would *NOT* be to blow up Michigan airports, highways, harbours, civillian appartment buildings, and convoys of school children fleeing from the area.

The correct response would be to go after the militia and it's members and it's locations. It would also mean working with the US government when possible to get the people responsible.

The wrong thing to do, is to declare war on the US when an independent state militia is doing the fighting.

Does that sound sensible... if this sort of thing happened in Canada?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

Dropping a bomb on an apartment building killing hundreds of people is a sloppy and lazy and highly questionable method of getting back two captured soldiers. Even if a member of Hezzbolah is suspected of being in the area, should't commandos be dropped into to go after the target?


----------



## Beej

Paul O'Keefe said:


> If a Michigan militia group raided the border and captured two Canadian military personel and killed other Canadian soldiers and fired rockets into Canada
> .........
> Does that sound sensible... if this sort of thing happened in Canada?


First, this is not an isolated event and second, "working with the US government" would be a great feasible option. I'm glad we would have it.

Note the international consensus around going into Afghanistan after a couple focussed attacks on the U.S., and other periodic attacks over the years (not just U.S., but largely U.S.-focussed from what I recall). More was done for a less aggressive and more distant "enemy" with much less historical antagonism and with much more international backing for the action. 
............
This sounds like something a large portion of the international community condoned, including Canada.


----------



## MacDoc

The two soldiers were irrelevant - they were just a last straw of sorts.
Look where bombing a minor Duke ended up early in the last century.


----------



## da_jonesy

Beej said:


> Actually, just holding Israel to the same standard would be good. See However's largely ignored questions regarding what if this were happening to Toronto, New York etc. Care to address the scenario?


LOL... reminds me of this...

http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=387200&postcount=14

So explain to me again why moral relativism is a bad thing?


----------



## Beej

da_jonesy said:


> LOL... reminds me of this...
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=387200&postcount=14
> 
> So explain to me again why moral relativism is a bad thing?


You'll have to explain where you're going. 

The 'moral' argument against Israel was introduced (as is usual) and, using that framework (holding Israel to Standard) I demonstrated that it supports Israel's actions. This example can also be called 'geopolitical hypocrisy', but it still demonstrates more hypocrisy against Israel than for it.

This stuff applies quite well:
...............
Palestinian blows up a children's school bus. Some say, 'But they are from an occupied territory.' Moral equivalency complete. 

Collateral damage = genocidal massacre (just use the numbers). Moral equivalency complete.

Generally, the equivalency argument is forwarded based purely on personal politics and presented as responses or snide rejoinders. Country A did X. Response: Yes but country A did Y. Conclusion: EVIL, you must ignore X.
..............

Measuring morality without context; the good ol' moral equivalency used to demonise Israel again and again. "Israel is just as bad due to X"


----------



## HowEver

ArtistSeries said:


> Should we examine both side of this?
> Who is included in these prisoner swaps?
> 
> What was asked in return for Cpl Gilad Shalit?
> Could it be women and children? These are your prisoners?
> 
> Shall we start debating how these prisoners are captured, processed, legal status and treated while enjoying Israel hospitality?


More BS from AS.

Keep in mind that women and children have been captured by Israel wearing those lovely homicide vests, which surround the explosives with nails and ball bearings to cause the most human damage.

Remember the Israeli soldier butchered by Palestinians and dragged dead and bloody through their streets? That's the alternative Palestinians have to Israeli courts and jails.

I know where I'd rather be. When you get back from your fact-finding mission in the no-longer occupied territories, let us know how it went.


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> Please nxnw, you are getting very close to libel.


You admit that you hold Israel to a higher standard than its adversaries. You tolerate terrorism, but you criticize Israel for responding to it. You persistently criticize Israel but show no regard for other regimes in the region and human rights abuses in those countries. You did make a derogatory remark about "members of the tribe".

Truth is a defence.


ArtistSeries said:


> I've asked point blank in what way does destroying Lebanese infrastructure such as an airport advance Israelís security.


I have already responded to this. First of all, Israel has not destroyed airports. It has destroyed *runways*, leaving towers and radar intact. This advances Israeli security by inhibiting Hezbollah in its war effort, particularly, reducing its ability to move troops and weapons. Bridges and airports are key strategic targets, and you know it.


ArtistSeries said:


> Fraudulent? When my sources/quotes are selected from...


The sources you cite did not support the false and misleading factual allegations you made.


----------



## nxnw

Paul O'Keefe said:


> If a Michigan militia group raided the border and captured two Canadian military personel and killed other Canadian soldiers and fired rockets into Canada...


...the US government would make a good faith effort to locate and free them, and would co-operate with Canadian authorities as well. 

Lebanon, however, has permitted Hezbollah to be the de-facto law and army in the south, and has characterized it as a "resistance force". Lebanon has not, and will not, cause its army to disarm Hezbollah and demilitarize the area. 

So, yes, if a militia in the US was permitted by the US government to arm itself with 10,000 missiles, ignored Canada's objections, and permitted those rockets to be fired into Canada, yes - Canada would be at war.


----------



## nxnw

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Dropping a bomb on an apartment building killing hundreds of people is a sloppy and lazy and highly questionable method of getting back two captured soldiers.


... and telling lies is a sloppy way to present an argument.

There have been a number of allegations made in this thread (one regarding a bus), that I do not believe to be true, and have been unable to find a credible source for. Your claim, above, is an outright falsehood.


----------



## Beej

MacDoc said:


> Look where bombing a minor Duke ended up early in the last century.


Did that Duke get a cool song?


----------



## nxnw

Greenlion said:


> Isn't that the basic belief that underlies rationalizing why someone from a suburb of Chicago can make claim to a home in the West Bank over a family that has resided there for several centuries?


This characterization is, itself a false one. Now, I am sure you can find somebody from Chicago in a west bank settlement, but I doubt you will find even one in the "home [that] a family that has resided there for several centuries". Your statement is is typical of those who assert, falsely, that Jews have no place, history or legitimacy in Israel or the mideast.

Aside from the fact that Jews have continuously lived in the areas now called Israel and the West Bank for 3,000 years, here are just a couple of additional historical facts:
- The first census of Jerusalem, taken in 1844: 7120 Jews, 5760 Muslims, 3390 Christians. All of this population was within the walls of what is now called the old city, as the neighbourhoods outside the walls, such as Yemin Moshe, came later. Those outside neighbourhoods were also Jewish.
- In 1948, however, the Arab armies won Jerusalem, and all Jews were driven out of the old city. Jews returned 19 years later, after the 6 day war. nonetheless, certain Palestinians (and ArtistSeries) claim, in their arsenal of deceit, that the sole Jewish connection to this land is biblical;
- At the time of the founding of the State of Israel, about 1,000,000 Jews lived in Iraq, Egypt and other Arab countries. In the few years that followed, these Jews were attacked, oppressed, robbed, killed and ultimately driven out of _their_ homes, with all of their property confiscated. These refugees too refuge in Israel. Now, Israel has not kept these Jews in camps, as the Palestinians' Arab brothers have done, to be used as a political football. They were integrated into Israeli society and now form a substantial part of the population;
- The West Bank (as well as East Jerusalem and the old city) was occupied territory before 1967, occupied by _Jordan_. What stopped it from declaring that territory a Palestinian state? Answer: it wasn't what they wanted.

There's some historical context.


----------



## da_jonesy

Beej said:


> You'll have to explain where you're going.
> 
> Measuring morality without context; the good ol' moral equivalency used to demonise Israel again and again. "Israel is just as bad due to X"


Ahhh... I talking about "moral relativism" not establishing "moral equivalency". From your standpoint you sound more like a moral absolutist. If that is in fact the case, how do you position yourself in terms of the right of Israel to occupy palestinian territory? Then how do you position the right of the Palstinians to not recognize Israel?

Unless you take a relative viewpoint somewhere you will need to suggest that one party is morally superior to another. At which point do you stop? Then what is the the morally superior group on the planet?


----------



## da_jonesy

nxnw said:


> Aside from the fact that Jews have continuously lived in the areas now called Israel and the West Bank for 3,000 years,


Wait a sec...

Humans of other cultures have lived in that area before the jews. By that argument then it would be perfectly fine for people of the First Nations here in Canada could rise up and take... say Toronto. Claim it as a country for themselves and defend it tooth and nail from anyone who would not recognize that nation.

While I certainly believe that one must always look to history to understand our mistakes, I find that looking to history to solely justify your current position is a weak argument... and certainly one that cannot resolve itself peacefully.


----------



## Greenlion

nxnw said:


> This characterization is, itself a false one. Now, I am sure you can find somebody from Chicago in a west bank settlement, but I doubt you will find even one in the "home [that] a family that has resided there for several centuries".
> 
> I didn't literally mean someone's house!? Home in the sense of the land that used to belong to someone else! Where somebody else used to live.
> 
> 
> 
> nxnw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement is is typical of those who assert, falsely, that Jews have no place, history or legitimacy in Israel or the mideast.
> 
> Maybe so, but that's not my assertion.
Click to expand...


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> Aside from the fact that Jews have continuously lived in the areas now called Israel and the West Bank for 3,000 years, here are just a couple of additional historical facts:


You only side one view – so please spare me any pretense of fair and balanced. 

Care to site UN General Assembly Resolution 194? Why does Israel object so much to it?


----------



## Beej

da_jonesy said:


> Ahhh... I talking about "moral relativism" not establishing "moral equivalency". From your standpoint you sound more like a moral absolutist. If that is in fact the case, how do you position yourself in terms of the right of Israel to occupy palestinian territory? Then how do you position the right of the Palstinians to not recognize Israel?
> 
> Unless you take a relative viewpoint somewhere you will need to suggest that one party is morally superior to another. At which point do you stop? Then what is the the morally superior group on the planet?


I'm not a moral absolutist. That is wrong.  Let's clear that up right away. 

A lot of this is simply use of language (e.g. 'right' in a moral sense or not). I'll try to be clearer but do freely use 'right' and 'wrong' in the sense of accurate/innaccurate appropriate/innapporiate correct/incorrect etc. 

I rarely use it morally, and generally only when working within someone else's debating framework or to make a point about its usage.

I find the analogies and evidence used in this thread, when examined closer, generally favour the "Israel's actions are, on balance, appropriate to their circumstances and full context." Change 'appropriate' to 'morally in the right' and the discussion doesn't really change. Maybe just how you see poster. 

Sort of like, holding Israel to "Equal moral standard" or "Establishing a definition of appropriate". Content-wise, the discussion doesn't change much, although blood-pressures may decrease. 

So, "Unless you take a relative viewpoint somewhere you will need to suggest that one party is morally superior to another." is a statement that I think is really dominated by use of words in a language whose day-to-day words (right and wrong) can have presumed moral content even when not intended. 

In other words, the substance of the debate stands, use right/wrong/appropriate/innappropriate or whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Beej

da_jonesy said:


> While I certainly believe that one must always look to history to understand our mistakes, I find that looking to history to solely justify your current position is a weak argument... and certain one that cannot resolve itself peacefully.


Well put.


----------



## ArtistSeries

HowEver said:


> More BS from AS.
> 
> Keep in mind that women and children have been captured by Israel wearing those lovely homicide vests, which surround the explosives with nails and ball bearings to cause the most human damage.
> 
> Remember the Israeli soldier butchered by Palestinians and dragged dead and bloody through their streets? That's the alternative Palestinians have to Israeli courts and jails.
> 
> I know where I'd rather be. When you get back from your fact-finding mission in the no-longer occupied territories, let us know how it went.


However, sticking your fingers in your ears and going nah-nah-nah does not make it go away. Show me the BS.

*What was asked in return for Cpl Gilad Shalit? 
Was it women and children? Are those your prisoners?*


Tell me how an 18 month old in jail could possibly a suicide bomber? 

What I see is someone that refuse to acknowledge facts and prefers to keep up the wall of prejudice and hate.

As for fact finding - there is amble neutral condemnation of what is happening from the UN and various other human right watch groups.


----------



## nxnw

da_jonesy said:


> By that argument then it would be perfectly fine for people of the First Nations here in Canada could rise up and take... say Toronto. Claim it as a country for themselves and defend it tooth and nail from anyone who would not recognize that nation.


It wasn't an argument. Indeed, as your post rightly appreciates, Israel IS a state, and has been one since 1948. Yet, of all the countries in the world, it seems that only Israel has its legitimacy or it's "right to exist" questioned. One pretext for this is ArtistSeries repeated insinuation that Israel's sole claim to legitimacy is biblical (i.e classic fallacious argument - set up a straw man, knock it down.)

My post, particularly, was addressing the post about Jews from Chicago living in Arab houses. Firstly, that struck me as a loaded comment, questioning the legitimacy of Jews even living in the area. I responded to that with the historical record and the author has, in any event, clarified that it was not his meaning.

Secondly, I observed that lots of people are living on land that was once others' (as you point out yourself above). This includes houses in the Arab world that were stolen from 1,000,000 Jews.

In any event, I agree that we need to look at the world as it is now.


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:



> What I see is someone that refuse to acknowledge facts and prefers to keep up the wall of prejudice and hate.


 That's the pot calling the ...tablecloth black.

As for UN resolutions, how about security counsel resolution 1599?


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> Tell me how an 18 month old in jail could possibly a suicide bomber?


Your claim that a baby is being held prisoner is yet another inflammatory falsehood. You make these inflammatory statements without reference, as the source would show your statements to be unfair distortions.

You get this story from an uncritical BBC interview with the woman's husband. The BBC story discloses, however, that Ataf Houdaly (a.k.a. Ataf Ilayan or other transliterations), "went on a 16-day hunger strike before the Israeli prison authorities allowed her baby Aesha to be brought to stay with her, in the jail," according to her husband, Walid. 

The mother is a member of Islamic Jihad and had been convicted of an attempted car bombing in 1987 (not mentioned in the BBC story). She was released early due to the Oslo accords. She was subsequently arrested and is apparently under administrative detention. 

The husband, interestingly, had also been in jail, according to Palestine-info.net for, of all things, "attempting to kidnap a soldier in order to exchange him for Palestinian prisoners".

As for the implication that the female prisoners that Hezbollah has demanded release are harmless, here are a few, described in the IDF website, including "Vafaa Idris, a nurse murdered an Israeli citizen and injured ninety additional civilians in a suicide bombing on Yafo street in Jerusalem on 27.1.02"


----------



## Bajan

However and nxnw you boys should just stop wearing out your keyboard trying to argue with a fool.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> As for UN resolutions, how about security counsel resolution 1599?


This would certainly be a novel idea, given that Israel as a matter of routine ignores UN resolutions as a matter of course....

I'd like to see it enforced but don't you think some have a point that Israel has no time for the other UN resolutions? Kind of hypocritical don't you think? Or does it always have to be one sided when dealing with Israel?


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> This includes houses in the Arab world that were stolen from 1,000,000 Jews.


And how much Arab was stolen? Goes both ways.


----------



## Beej

Bajan said:


> However and nxnw you boys should just stop wearing out your keyboard trying to argue with a fool.


Now you're implying that apple keyboards wear out? Blasphemer!


----------



## Bajan

Beej said:


> Now you're implying that apple keyboards wear out? Blasphemer!


:lmao: Oh no what have I done!


----------



## Beej

Bajan said:


> :lmao: Oh no what have I done!


Maybe you should get stoned. 

Er, that doesn't quite carry the same weight it used to.


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> Goes both ways.


Actually, with you it only goes one way, Israel is bad, and you've got all the lies you need to prove it.

As for the UN, Here's an excerpt from and article in <I>Dissent</i>


> *Longstanding U.S. perceptions of the UN membership as anti-Western, unprincipled, motivated by petty biases, and dominated by a herd mentality stem largely from—and are given continuing basis by—the body’s history of anti-Israel conduct. An organization that has been too fractured and passive to confront the moral challenges of our time—including Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur—has managed to adopt more than twenty resolutions chastising Israel each year since 1985.* The isolation of Israel at the UN has strained the U.S.-UN relationship and undercut the legitimacy of the global body in the eyes of many Americans.
> 
> UN secretary-general Kofi Annan is seeking to restore the UN’s credibility after an era of scandal and paralysis. In March he issued a set of recommendations based on the work of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change he set up to propose reforms. Although Annan’s proposals do not directly address Israel’s anomalous position, they do get at certain conditions that have contributed to the ostracizing of Israel. If implemented, these measures should begin to show that the organization is serious about reform. At the same time, simply enacting the Annan reforms will not root out entrenched patterns. The reforms should go hand in hand with a political push led by the United States to put Israel on an equal footing with the organization’s 190 other states. If Israel’s standing does not improve after a major reform effort, Secretary-General Annan and the High-Level Panel will have failed to check the organization’s worst impulses, and the UN’s credibility crisis will persist.
> ...
> Israel became a state with the blessing of the UN. In 1947, the General Assembly endorsed a partition plan for Palestine that its Arab residents and neighboring Arab states rejected. Israel accepted it, prevailed in an ensuing war, and gained admission to the UN in 1949. Relations between Israel and the UN began to sour seven years later. During the Suez War, the General Assembly condemned Israeli military aggression against Egypt without acknowledging any Egyptian provocations, including the closure of the Suez Canal. (It also spoke of France and Britain, Israel’s partners in the action, but in gentler terms.) In 1967, the UN gave in to Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser’s demand to remove peacekeepers from the Sinai, resulting in a rapid slide toward war. *Throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, the General Assembly regularly criticized Israeli raids on Palestinian Liberation Organization bases in Jordan and Lebanon, but never mentioned the violent Palestinian provocations, such as hijackings, killing schoolchildren, and murdering Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.*
> 
> In 1974, the PLO obtained official observer status at the United Nations and began intense lobbying to ostracize Israel there. Abba Eban’s old joke that Palestinian leaders “never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity” did not hold true at the UN, which was turned into a highly effective vehicle for the PLO’s purposes. The PLO enjoyed a ready-made majority in the General Assembly thanks to the third world blocs; many of the participating countries, which customarily voted together, had experienced colonial and foreign domination and were sympathetic to Palestinian grievances. Israel became something like the proverbial friendless kid in a schoolyard, always attacked and in need of constant help from his big brother, the United States. The low point came in 1975, when the General Assembly resolved that “Zionism is Racism.” Then, in the late 1970s, the UN declined to endorse the Israel-Egypt peace process because Palestinian representatives had not participated. Though “Zionism is Racism” was repealed in 1991, the organization began to take an even harder line on Israel than the Palestinians did, holding back approval of the 1991 Oslo peace process because the talks were not preconditioned on complete Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories. As the peace process broke down, the pace of anti-Israel resolutions accelerated. The General Assembly convened a series of “emergency special sessions,” solely to criticize Israel. This is not to say that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip gave rise to no abuses or misdeeds meriting UN attention. But given the amount of debate and documentation devoted to Israel, it was as if its actions were worse than those actions of all the dictators of the second half of the twentieth century combined.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> As for the implication that the female prisoners that Hezbollah has demanded release are harmless, here are a few, described in the IDF website, including "Vafaa Idris, a nurse murdered an Israeli citizen and injured ninety additional civilians in a suicide bombing on Yafo street in Jerusalem on 27.1.02"


Again, one sided, you have taken a quote from the Israel Defense Forces website (hardly neutral) and tried to smear. BTW, you link dates to 2004. 
Now, the point, which is completely lost upon you, is that yes there maybe (and I'm sure are) legitimate prisoners, but I'm sure that the in the indiscriminate actions there are many more innocent one. 
Kangaroo court aside, would you care to even elaborate on the status/treatment/legal status of these prisoners? 

The UN and Amnesty have condemn Human Right Abuse in Israel and the Occupied Territories. Let's dismiss those, because Israel is never wrong, right?


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> Actually, with you it only goes one way, Israel is bad, and you've got all the lies you need to prove it.


You really have a nasty habit of quantifying anything you don't agree with as a lie - so much for your neutrality....

ps - reading your quote - need a little time...seems familiar


----------



## ArtistSeries

Beej said:


> Maybe you should get stoned.


Some could view that statement as a racist slur and stereotype. 



Beej said:


> Er, that doesn't quite carry the same weight it used to.


Depends on the size of the stone, no?


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> You really have a nasty habit of quantifying anything you don't agree with as a lie - so much for your neutrality....


Well a lie is something that is not true. That Israel is holding an 18 month old as a prisoner, for instance, is a lie. 

By the way, I never claimed to be neutral, but I try to make sure that my facts are accurate, and use those facts as the foundation for my arguments. You do something different.


----------



## Beej

ArtistSeries said:


> Some could view that statement as a racist slur and stereotype.
> ....
> Depends on the size of the stone, no?


If so, I'm sorry. 

I'm unaware of the racial undertones of the statement within the context of my posts, so please elaborate. 

Life of Brian was a great movie. *shameless plug even though I get no royalties*
...
Groan. Good one.


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> Again, one sided, you have taken a quote from the Israel Defense Forces website (hardly neutral) and tried to smear. BTW, you link dates to 2004.


So, because it's by the IDF, it's a lie?


ArtistSeries said:


> Now, the point, which is completely lost upon you, is that yes there maybe (and I'm sure are) legitimate prisoners, but *I'm sure that the in the indiscriminate actions there are many more innocent one*.


Well, it's not lost on me that you're sure. I suspect that there are people imprisoned who have not done anything wrong, and they should be identified and released. I don't believe that there are as many as you think. Previous prisoner exchanges, btw, have resulted in the release of convicted killers and other genuinely dangerous people.


ArtistSeries said:


> Kangaroo court aside, would you care to even elaborate on the status/treatment/legal status of these prisoners?


Israel's courts are a model for any country and your characterization is yet another distortion. As for the status/treatment/etc., of prisones, even those under administrative detention (which does trouble me if it for an extended period of time) have access to lawyers, visitors, etc.

Compare this to the Israelis who have been kidnapped (not captured) by Hamas and Hezbollah, who have been hidden and denied any rights or contact.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> Israel's courts are a model for any country and your characterization is yet another distortion. As for the status/treatment/etc., of prisones, even those under administrative detention (which does trouble me if it for an extended period of time) have access to lawyers, visitors, etc.





> *Palestinian citizens of Israel are systematically discriminated against in
> various forms: directly, through laws facially discriminating against non-Jews; *
> indirectly, through facially neutral laws and policies that nonetheless have a
> disparate impact on Palestinians; and, institutionally, through the structural
> framework that facilitates a pattern of privileges for Jews over non-Jews.22


National Law review report
http://nlg.org/programs/mideast/al_aqsa_intifada.pdf



I wonder what justification can be used for discrimination.


> The decision not to revoke the law, which denies any possibility of formal residency status being granted to Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza who are married to Israeli citizens or residents, is not only blatantly racist, but also undermines the basic tenets of a democratic state by violating the basic right of the state’s civilian population to equality in general, and the right to family life to Palestinian citizens of Israel in particular.


Association for Civil-Rights in Israel
http://www.acri.org.il/english-acri/engine/story.asp?id=305

I am grateful for certain human right groups in Israel. But have to wonder if status is only given to Jews and not Palestians – does this not seem like some kind of legal Apartheid?




> Until the High Court of Justice ruling of September 1999, Israel's security forces annually tortured hundreds of Palestinian detainees. According to official data the security forces interrogated approximately 23,000 Palestinians during the Intifada (1987-1993). The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel estimates that almost all the above detainees suffered from some form of torture during their interrogation.
> The methods of interrogation and torture frequently used by the GSS include:
> 
> Tying up detainee in painful positions for hours or days on end.
> Solitary Confinement.
> Confinement in tiny cubicles.
> Beatings.
> Violent "shaking".
> Deprivation of sleep and food.
> Exposure to cold or heat.
> Verbal, sexual and psychological abuse.
> Threats against the individual or the individual's family.
> Lack of adequate clothing or hygiene.
> 
> Degradation and torture is not limited to Palestinian detainees but have also been the lot of soldiers and left wing and right wing political activists who had undergone interrogation by the GSS, the police and the investigative military police.
> The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel recognized the existence of a threat to security of Israel but views the use of torture "for the security of the state" as a cruel and inefficient means which directly undermines the democratic nature of our society.


http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/background.asp?menu=3&submenu=1



> The formal legal status of the Arab citizens of Israel has always been unclear, in a large part due to the double definition of the state as both Jewish and democratic.
> 
> The absence of constitutional equality for the Arab minority and the fundamental definition of the State as Jewish have permitted a system of structural and institutional discrimination against the Arab citizens of Israel. At least twenty Israeli laws discriminate against the Arab minority, either by excluding the Arab minority while providing specific rights to the Jewish population, according different rights to different sectors of the population, or by abridging the rights of the Arab minority. These discriminatory laws touch on all aspects of life, including laws restricting immigration and citizenship, several legislations expropriating land and restricting land use and ownership, quasi-governmental status given to solely Jewish bodies such as the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization, laws designating Jewish symbols and national holidays (while ignoring Arab holidays and religious dates), as well as laws mandating separate and unequal educational and cultural systems.


http://www.mossawacenter.org/en/projects/legal_status.html



> Israel’s legal system makes security-related provisions that have been used or abused to prevent the enforcement of the rights of Palestinians brought before the judicial forums. The Government may consider a comprehensive review of the system in order to ensure that its security concerns are met within the boundaries of international law. The Government must show its commitment to human rights, democracy and to peace and security by undertaking this exercise in collaboration with independent experts to give credibility to the results of such examination


Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/docs/62chr/ecn4-2006-95-Add3.doc



> Israel maintains two definitions of the minor, one for Israelis and one for
> Palestinians: Israelis are considered minors until the age of eighteen, while
> Palestinians from the OPT are considered minors only until the age of
> sixteen, in contravention of international law, in particular the Convention
> on the Rights of the Child.


http://www.stoptorture.org.il//eng/images/uploaded/publications/80.pdf
So some are more equals than others? 


As for the treatment:


> Based on official data, GSS agents interrogated thousands of Palestinians per year during the Intifada, and over 200 at any given moment. In July 2002, the GSS related to the press that 90 Palestinians were defined as 'ticking bombs' and were tortured (that is, were exposed to 'physical pressure'). Research by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel shows that the number tortured is actually much greater; and that GSS agents who interrogate Palestinian detainees torture them, degrade them, and otherwise ill-treat them routinely, in blatant violation of the provisions of international law, mainly in the following manners:
> 0. Violence: Beating, slapping, kicking, stepping on shackles; Bending the interrogee and placing him in other painful positions; Intentionally tightening the shackles by which he is bound; Violent shaking._
> 0. Sleep Deprivation._
> 0. Additional 'Interrogation Methods': Prolonged shackling behind the back; Cursing, threats, humiliations; Depriving the detainee of essential needs; Exposure to extreme heat or cold._
> 0. Secondary Methods: Isolation and secrecy; Imprisonment under inhuman conditions.
> The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel estimates that a considerable portion of all interrogees, if not most, had been exposed to interrogation methods which include "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental." In other words these methods, as applied, cause, at least in their combination and accumulation over time, the level of gravity and cruelty that constitute torture as defined in international law.
> 
> In contrast with the years 2000-2001, the years 2002-2003 saw a deterioration in the treatment of Palestinian detainees by the GSS:
> 0. Each month, hundreds of Palestinians were subjected to one degree or another of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (ill-treatment), at the hands of the GSS and bodies working on its behalf. By way of comparison - in September 2001 we estimated that the total number of detainees being subjected to torture and other ill-treatment reached 'only' dozens. The numbers have thus increased dramatically._
> 0. Each month, the ill-treatment reaching the level of torture as defined in international law was inflicted in dozens of cases, and possibly more. In other words - torture in Israel had once more become routine.
> Information obtained by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel shows that official sources admitted using many torture methods, including slapping, 'bending,' shaking, sleep deprivation, and prolonged shackling.
> 
> 'Rubber Stamps' for the GSS: The HCJ, The Attorney General, and The State Prosecutor's Office
> 
> The bodies which are supposed to keep the GSS under scrutiny and ensure that interrogations are conducted lawfully acted , instead, as rubberstamps for decisions made by the GSS.
> 0. The High Court of Justice did not accept even one of the 124 petitions submitted by the Public Committee Against Torture against prohibiting detainees under interrogation from meeting their attorneys during the years 2002-2003._
> 0. The State Prosecutor's Office routinely transfers the complaints made by interrogees to a GSS agent for investigation, and it is little wonder that he did not find in even a single case that GSS agents tortured a Palestinian 'unnecessarily'._
> 0. The Attorney General grants - wholesale, and with no exception - the 'necessity defense' approval for every single case of torture.
> The result is a total, hermetic, impenetrable and unconditional protection that envelops the GSS system of torture, and enables it to continue undisturbed, with no supervision of scrutiny to speak of. The achievements of the HCJ ruling of 1999, which was to have put an end to large-scale torture and ill-treatment, limiting it to lone cases of 'ticking bombs,' have worn thin. The 'defense of necessity' has also become no more than a veneer. From the research undertaken by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, it is clear that torture is carried out in an orderly and institutional fashion. We know that cases termed 'ticking bombs,' do not involve a lone interrogator improvising "in the face of an unforeseen event," as the High Court stipulated. Interrogators appeal to their superiors in an orderly fashion, receive approval in advance, and employ certain methods repeatedly, at least some of which (including the 'bending' method) require cooperation between a number of interrogators.
> 
> The 1999 HCJ ruling constituted a significant and bold step in the right direction, but the HCJ failed in not prohibiting torture and ill-treatment absolutely, and leaving intact the legal - and moral - concept, according to which a GSS interrogator is authorized to consider, albeit in extreme situations 'only', torture as a legal and legitimate ant legal option. The achievements of the ruling are wearing down due to those failures, due to the GSS' policy of torture, and due to the fact that the HCJ, the State Prosecutor's Office, and the Attorney General have, regarding this matter, transformed themselves from guardians and protectors of the law into sentries at the gates of GSS torture chambers.


http://www.stoptorture.org.il//eng/background.asp?menu=3&submenu=3
Maybe we should use such a model in Canada?


This brief demonstrate the reality of “Palestinian Political Prisoners in Israel” - 18 April 2006


> Between February 2005 and March 2006, after the so-called “calm period” was announced, Israel arrested 4,000 Palestinians. During that same period, Israel also detained hundreds of students for several hours or for a few days at checkpoints and detention centers.
> 
> The Bureau found that since the start of the intifada, more than 4,000 Palestinian children have been arrested. Currently, 330 children are held by Israel. According to the Bureau, 70 children are ill due to the lack of basic medical attention. The majority (309) of the incarcerated children are from the West Bank. Children make up 3.5 percent of Palestinian political prisoners held by Israel.
> 
> Furthermore, Palestinian children receive the same treatment as adult prisoners. They are subject to torture, solitary confinement and/or overcrowded cells. They are deprived of sleep, adequate education, medical treatment, family visits and recreational programs.
> 
> Defense for Children International and Save the Children have stated that Palestinian children are being "physically and mentally abused." They confirm Palestinian accusations that children are denied access to their families and legal representation during interrogation and are held in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions.
> 
> According to the Mandela Institute for Human Rights, 855 Palestinians are being held in administrative detention. Israeli law allows its military to hold Palestinians under administrative detention for up to six months without charge or trial. Israel routinely renews the detention orders and may do so without limitation, thereby holding Palestinians indefinitely without charge or trial. Mandela has documented 117 Palestinians who are held solitary confinement.
> 
> In the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, 13 Palestinian political prisoners were elected to the Palestinian Parliament in absentia. The two most well-known jailed Palestinian lawmakers are Marwan Barghouthi, the popular leader of the Fateh party, and Ahmed Saadat, secretary-general of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). In March 2006, Israel kidnapped Saadat from a Palestinian prison under U.S. and British supervision in Jericho and moved him to Israel for a retrial.
> 
> According to an official in the Palestinian Ministry of the Interior, there are 80 Palestinian political prisoners in Palestinian jails.
> 
> In 1999, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that only "some" methods of interrogation used against Palestinian detainees were illegal and unacceptable. By not fully banning torture, the Israeli Supreme Court has legally condoned some forms of torture, which is in violation of international law. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This principle was ratified by the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
> 
> Israel insists that it will not release Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis. However, in most cases, Israeli courts fail to prove a detainee's direct responsibility for the death of Israelis.
> 
> According to B'Tselem, "Security is interpreted in an extremely broad manner such that non-violent speech and political activity are considered dangerous…. [This] is a blatant contradiction of the right to freedom of speech and freedom of opinion guaranteed under international law. If these same standards were applied inside Israel, half of the Likud party would be in administrative detention."


http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/informationbrief.php?ID=160

Now, before you get in a huff, I do see the need some measures taken by Isreal - it's the lack of balance that seems missing.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> As for the UN, Here's an excerpt from and article in <I>Dissent</i>


I think that the UN question with regards to Isreal has been uneasy at times, it would be unfair to say it's been completely biased against Isreal.

The conclusion from http://www.unwatch.org/atf/cf/{6DEB65DA-BE5B-4CAE-8056-8BF0BEDF4D17}/una-uk_report.pdf do point out a few items.


> On the basis of the UNSC and UNGA Resolutions assessed, the United Nations was found to be palpably more critical of Israeli policies and practices than it is of either Palestinian actions or the wider Arab world. However, criticism is not necessarily a product of bias, and it is not the intention here to suggest that UNGA and UNSC reproaches of Israel stem from prejudice. From the perspective of the UN, Israel has repeatedly flouted fundamental UN tenets and ignored important decisions. Omitting a recognition of Israel’s breach of international law in subsequent resolutions would diminish the credibility of UN authority and of its legitimacy as the primary guarantor of international peace and security. Whether or not the decisions themselves are based on completely accurate interpretations of events is an entirely separate issue.


----------



## ArtistSeries

*Antisemitism*

In addition to the article that nxnw has pointed out here are a few more that open out the debate a lttle more
Past Revisited 
Reflections on the Study of the Holocaust 
and Contemporary Antisemitism 
http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/occasional/2003-06/paper.pdf


> Criticism of Israeli policy cannot be seen, clearly, as synonymous with anti-Zionism, let alone antisemitism. Israeli public opinion is itself profoundly divided over the central issues concerning peace and war with the Palestinians; in the recent Israeli Supreme Court decision regarding whether Israeli soldiers could claim the status of conscientious objection in their refusal to serve in the West Bank and Gaza, for example, the decision cited explicitly the fractious, divisive nature of the Israeli polity with regard to Palestinian policy as a reason for its decision turning down the soldiers’ petition. It reminded the petitioners that it was not inconceivable that soldiers might be told in the future (as they were in the wake of Israel’s peace treaty with Egypt) to remove Jewish settlers from the territories in anticipation of an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, and then soldiers hostile to this policy could, in turn, object to following these orders. Israel is profoundly, deeply divided over its relationship, now and in the future, with the Palestinians, and there is no reason why Jews or others elsewhere shouldn’t be expected to weigh in, shouldn’t be expected to care about and debate these matters that have an impact on the world’s security, on the fate of lands deemed holy by all the West’s major faiths, on an issue with significant, complex moral implications.


And there is Michael Neumann more controvertial one


> Well, let's be good sports. Let's try defining antisemitism as broadly as any supporter of Israel would ever want: antisemitism can be hatred of the Jewish race, or culture, or religion, or hatred of Zionism. Hatred, or dislike, or opposition, or slight unfriendliness.
> But supporters of Israel won't find this game as much fun as they expect. Inflating the meaning of 'antisemitism' to include anything politically damaging to Israel is a double-edged sword. It may be handy for smiting your enemies, but the problem is that definitional inflation, like any inflation, cheapens the currency. The more things get to count as antisemitic, the less awful antisemitism is going to sound. This happens because, while no one can stop you from inflating definitions, you still don't control the facts. In particular, no definition of 'antisemitism' is going to eradicate the substantially pro-Palestinian version of the facts which I espouse, as do most people in Europe, a great many Israelis, and a growing number of North Americans.


What is Antisemitims
http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0604.html


----------



## MacDoc

We should be thankful our "displaced indigenes" who we've generally treated awfully have been by and large non violent in their attempt to redress wrongs.
We have NO moral high ground to stand on to lecture Israel.
We've done our share of disenfranchising, dsiplacing imprisoning etc etc - we're not exempt from UN censure on it either even now.

AS has a good point about there being no "single unified view" and it speaks well of Israel that this very difficult situation has multiple views within the nation.
There ARE no easy answers, my guess there are NO answers that can be engineered to create peace.

Even Cyprus still has a wall.


----------



## ArtistSeries

MacDoc said:


> We should be thankful our "displaced indigenes" who we've generally treated awfully have been by and large non violent in their attempt to redress wrongs.


That is true and I'm saddened about the Kelowna agreement.
Let's not forget the aboriginals in Australia. 



MacDoc said:


> We have NO moral high ground to stand on to lecture Israel.
> We've done our share of disenfranchising, dsiplacing imprisoning etc etc - we're not exempt from UN censure on it either even now.


Just like many spoke out against aparthied in South Africa, I have no qualms about pointing out abuses in Israel. 
Up to what point to you want to be responsible for the sins of your forefathers? You and only ensure that it does not happen again and work towards a resolution/redress.


----------



## Vandave

MacDoc said:


> We should be thankful our "displaced indigenes" who we've generally treated awfully have been by and large non violent in their attempt to redress wrongs.
> We have NO moral high ground to stand on to lecture Israel.
> We've done our share of disenfranchising, dsiplacing imprisoning etc etc - we're not exempt from UN censure on it either even now.
> 
> AS has a good point about there being no "single unified view" and it speaks well of Israel that this very difficult situation has multiple views within the nation.
> There ARE no easy answers, my guess there are NO answers that can be engineered to create peace.
> 
> Even Cyprus still has a wall.


If you point out the negatives, you also have to look at the positives. Canada has also done a lot of things to rectify wrongs with natives.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

United States to Israel: you have one more week to blast Hizbullah

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1823817,00.html


----------



## HowEver

Your sources are incredibly suspect. Perhaps one day you'll make a reference to a reputable, refereed (it's an academic term) source. Until then, it's just hatred spread around by people with internet access. Aim higher.




ArtistSeries said:


> National Law review report
> http://nlg.org/programs/mideast/al_aqsa_intifada.pdf
> I wonder what justification can be used for discrimination.
> Association for Civil-Rights in Israel
> http://www.acri.org.il/english-acri/engine/story.asp?id=305
> I am grateful for certain human right groups in Israel. But have to wonder if status is only given to Jews and not Palestians – does this not seem like some kind of legal Apartheid?
> http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/background.asp?menu=3&submenu=1
> http://www.mossawacenter.org/en/projects/legal_status.html
> Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
> http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/docs/62chr/ecn4-2006-95-Add3.doc
> http://www.stoptorture.org.il//eng/images/uploaded/publications/80.pdf
> So some are more equals than others?
> As for the treatment:
> http://www.stoptorture.org.il//eng/background.asp?menu=3&submenu=3
> Maybe we should use such a model in Canada?
> This brief demonstrate the reality of “Palestinian Political Prisoners in Israel” - 18 April 2006
> http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/informationbrief.php?ID=160
> Now, before you get in a huff, I do see the need some measures taken by Isreal - it's the lack of balance that seems missing.


----------



## ArtistSeries

You know However, there is no credible source for you - such is your indoctrination. 
Typical of "there can be no valid criticism of Israel"....


----------



## ArtistSeries

Vandave said:


> If you point out the negatives, you also have to look at the positives. Canada has also done a lot of things to rectify wrongs with natives.


Kelowna agreement???


----------



## Vandave

ArtistSeries said:


> Kelowna agreement???


Please... As if $5 billion is magically going to make everything better. 

Before we start shoveling more money off the truck, let's do a full audit of current spending.


----------



## HowEver

ArtistSeries said:


> You know However, there is no credible source for you - such is your indoctrination.
> Typical of "there can be no valid criticism of Israel"....


Nonsense. You know there are libraries with actual books in them that have been researched and verified. They aren't all good books, but there are reviews by people with experience in the area. There is a ton of research done by people who are very careful throwing 'facts' around. This thread is a perfect example of how unsubstantiated information can be posted on the internet and then taken as fact.


----------



## ArtistSeries

:yawn:


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> series of posts re: antisemitism, the UN, and unfair treatment of Arabs


I am not going to try to defend everything Israel does, or try to respond to your shotgun approach of pulling together every allegation under the sun. There are things that are alleged that are not true or exaggerated unfairly. There are allegations that may be more accurate, but refer to situations that are defensible in the circumstances. There may well be warranted criticism, too. You know, Israelis criticize their government, just as we criticize ours and Syrians and Iranians don't dare criticize theirs. 

What was most striking, however, is what happened to your jumping off point, your original malign of Israel's courts as "kangaroo courts". Your quotes, on the other contrary, refer to the Israeli "High Court of Justice" protecting Palestinian interests. They also refer to Israelis fighting for Palestinian interests. And this is society which is the target of your rancour. Next time, why not save a few drops of bile for Hamas or Hezbollah? 

On the UN, your quote argues that Israel's rejection of certain UN resolutions would "diminish the credibility of UN authority and of its legitimacy as the primary guarantor of international peace and security". Unfortunately, the UN lost that legitimacy by not being an honest broker in the first place, as detailed in the Dissent article, and therefore had no credibility to diminish.

Finally, I have not ever said that criticism of Israel = antisemitism. This is what I quoted, and agree with:


> At what stage does political and moral criticism of Israel, even vehement criticism, become anti-Semitic? Nearly all those involved in the issue, including rightists like Jerusalem mayor Ehud Olmert, emphasize that not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. But Olmert and Melchior agree that anti-Semitism can be hidden behind yet another aphorism: "criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic."
> 
> ... But when there is incessant criticism of Israel that does not include criticism of other regimes in the region and human rights abuses in those countries, the question must be asked if Israel is not being judged separately, with different criteria than any other state in the world. And that [is] already close to the anti-Semitic red line."


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

What would Jesus do?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

chilling image

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/eve...oDMTA5bGcyMWMzBHNlYwNzc25hdg--?sp=-1&lsp=6000


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

I don't often agree with former Defence Minister, Bill Graham, but in this case I must:


> http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/18/graham-israel.html
> 
> *PM's rhetoric hurts Canada's peacemaking chances: opposition*
> Last Updated Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:12:58 EDT
> CBC News
> 
> Ottawa's strong support of Israeli actions against Hezbollah could damage Canada's credibility as a future peacemaker in the region, opposition leaders said Tuesday.
> 
> "It's a Canadian tradition to work in the Middle East for long-term peace by being able to work with all sides of the conflict," said interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham.
> 
> Harper has sided firmly with Israel since it began military air strikes against the Lebanese-based Hezbollah militant organization seven days ago.
> 
> The operation was triggered by a July 12 Hezbollah raid, in which the militant organization killed eight Israeli soldiers and seized two soldiers.
> 
> Hezbollah has countered with persistent rocket attacks in northern Israel.
> 
> As many as 230 Lebanese and 24 Israelis have been killed in the exchanges.
> 
> UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have called for an international security force to be deployed to the Israel-Lebanon border to help end the violence.
> 
> Speaking from France on Tuesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he believes it is too early to send in such a force.
> 
> There are "several things that have to take place to bring about a ceasefire and for the ability to keep peace. And we are not very close to that possibility at the moment," said Harper.
> 
> NDP Leader Jack Layton, who held a news conference in Ottawa on Tuesday, dismissed Harper's position, saying Canada should call for an immediate ceasefire and quickly commit to a role in a future peacekeeping force.
> 
> "Mr. Harper needs to make clear that Canada is calling on all sides to implement a ceasefire now," said Layton.
> 
> Harper has called Israel's response "measured," saying the Jewish state had a right to defend itself. He called on Hezbollah and the Palestinian militant group Hamas to release Israeli prisoners and recognize Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Canada no longer neutral: NDP
> 
> Graham, who spoke from Vancouver, said Harper's public support for one side is a change to traditional Canadian foreign policy.
> 
> "We strongly urge the prime minister to reconsider some of his rhetoric and his language, to look at the G8 communique he signed and see what's in there."
> 
> Layton said Harper's statement has "changed Canada's role as a neutral country."
> 
> His position will make it difficult for Canada to play the role of an international peace broker, he said.
> 
> Graham said Canada must have credibility among all sides in the region if it is to participate in a future stabilization force.
> 
> "If our credibility as a potential peacemaker in the region has been destroyed, we won't have the credibility to participate," he said.
> 
> Graham said Israel has a right to defend itself following a "vicious" attack from Hezbollah, but said its response has consequences throughout the region.
> 
> "There's a geopolitical issue at risk here in the Middle East," said Graham.
> 
> "Canadians want their government to offer a balanced response to the crisis. Canadians want us to help everyone in the region come together."



Again what harm is there in calling for a ceasefire? The leaders of the UK, US, and Canada could easily call for a ceasefire. It's as if Stephen Harper wants the violence to continue. No wrong can come for calling a ceasefire, calling for cool heads, and for peace.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> What was most striking, however, is what happened to your jumping off point, your original malign of Israel's courts as "kangaroo courts". Your quotes, on the other contrary, refer to the Israeli "High Court of Justice" protecting Palestinian interests. They also refer to Israelis fighting for Palestinian interests.


Nxnw, you criticized democratical elections inferring that it did not necessarily make the government right or just (you’ll have to elaborate your exact thinking).

Israel prides itself on being the only democracy in the Middle East and in it’s declaration of independence stated” "will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex” – I guess there must be some nuances that are lost in the translation.
http://www.stateofisrael.com/declaration/

Yes Israel does have courts – and a “High Court of Justice”. Does is mean that discrimination towards the Arab is not entrenched in Israel? South Africa had a high court, and yet whites still oppressed much of the population. 

The National Law Review points to laws discriminating against non-Jews, your argument is to say “but Israel has a High Court of Justice”.

The “High Court of Justice” refused to give equal status to Palestinians married to Israeli citizens or resident. Instead of seeing it for the discrimination that it is (some call it racist), you argue “but Israel has a High Court of Justice”.

When the High Court of Justice rules that some torture is illegal you argue “but Israel has a High Court of Justice”. So hiding behind the High Court of Justice is your excuse for human right abuses? As long as it is institutionalized, you’ll agree with it? 

The fact that there is a High Court of Justice, does nothing to protect people in Israeli custody who are not considered citizens. There are two set of rules and laws in Israel.

How many legal battles were fought in the US before many of the Segregation and disfranchisement laws (Jim Crow laws) were struck down? The presence of a “High Court of Justice” does nothing to guarantee fairness or justice.


----------



## ArtistSeries

MACSPECTRUM said:


> chilling image
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/eve...oDMTA5bGcyMWMzBHNlYwNzc25hdg--?sp=-1&lsp=6000


The images are there but there has been cast some doubt about them. Not that they are not authentic - yes those are "messages of love" on the projectiles. 

The circumstance in which they were taken is what is being debated... After boredom of being in shelters and with some encouragement of journalists for a photo-op, the children wrote on the projectiles.

So it's not really an issue of hate, more like bad parenting.


----------



## nxnw

Your criticism of certain laws, ArtistSeries, does not contain anything that remotely shows that the Israeli courts are kangaroo courts. The laws passed by governments, do not reflect in any way on the quality and fairness of the courts. If you were discussing Canada, you would not be condemning the courts because you don't like the country's laws. Israel's Arab citizens, as well as Palestinians, regularly seek relief from Israel's justice system, receive fair hearings and are often successful.

As for Israel's laws, it is a fact that its Arab citizens have (among other things) the right to vote, access to the courts, the right to hold elected office and, frankly, far better lives, far greater freedom, and better human rights than they would have in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Suadi Arabia, Egypt, etc. Demonizing Israel's laws as, "Jim Crow", in the circumstances is unreasonable. 

I did not criticize democratic elections. I criticized the fact that you impute morality and demand respect for "democratically elected" Hamas, despite its wilful and overt embrace of terrorism, its charter calling for Israel to be "obliterated", and a genocidal, racist agenda that is well documented, all of which it refuses to renounce. 

This is just one of many hideous statements in the Hamas Charter:


> "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."


... yet you denounce *Israel* as racist because it does not offer citizenship to Palestinians on an equal footing to others. While this does discriminate against Palestinians and one can certainly make an argument that it is unfair, one can certainly also make a compelling case that the discrimination is reasonable in the circumstances. Suggesting that *this* is racism, while you elevate venomously racist Hamas, is the kind of attitude I find troubling.

By the way, Israel's Declaration of Independence is quite a refreshing change from the Hamas Charter, too.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

Ever wonder about the size Israel.










It sort of puts it into perspective. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if a new Israel had been founded in a country with wide open spaces that was barely populated.


----------



## HowEver

Actually, I've also always wondered about the size of Vancouver Island.

Thanks though.


----------



## Dr.G.

Paul, look at maps of the original nation of Israel. Each time an Arab "neighbor" or "neighbors" attacked them, they were able to expand their borders. The first attack came 8 hours after they became a nation by a coalition of 6 Arab nations, and it was expected that Israel would be defeated within 2 weeks. 

I remember speaking with someone who was 5 in 1948, living in Israel, and he recalled how he worried what would happen to him had his parents died in these attacks. When we spoke, he was 30, and he said that he realized that had this happened he would not have been in a position to worry about being left an orphan. The cry of "drive them into the sea" was a battle cry for the soldiers of these 6 Arab nations. 

As well, each time was attacked, they were willing to give up land they took from their attackers for peace, and each time it was rejected. Shalom, my friend.


----------



## da_jonesy

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Ever wonder about the size Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sort of puts it into perspective. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if a new Israel had been founded in a country with wide open spaces that was barely populated.



This raises an interesting question... Is a person any less Jewish if they don't live in Israel? The corollary in Canada would be is a person any less native if the don't belong to a band or live on a reserve?


----------



## Dr.G.

Those who are eligible for the Law of Return are immediately granted citizenship. The controversy arises whether all should be given Jewish status as citizens. Jewish status is granted according to the traditional definition of being Jewish-- if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish as well (conversions to Judaism can also occur).

I have both a traditional birth certificate from the City of New York, having been born in Gotham Hospital in Manhattan. I also have a Jewish birth certificate, given to me by a Rabbi at the time of my bris, when I was 8 days old. Both my mother and father were Jewish.


----------



## HowEver

da_jonesy said:


> This raises an interesting question... Is a person any less Jewish if they don't live in Israel? The corollary in Canada would be is a person any less native if the don't belong to a band or live on a reserve?


I'm wondering if you've ever asked a question like this about any other kind of persons, I mean, as in, _ever_.

I'm sure you didn't intend this to be an inflammatory request, but regardless of how one self-identifies (I'm a Canadian, for example), this seems especially and uniquely without forethought.

For sure, the tens of thousands of Italian-descended people celebrating into the late night on St. Clair West after the World Cup win self-identified a certain way, and I can just imagine what would have happened had you wandered into the crowd and asked aloud if anyone thought of themselves as "less Italian" because of where they were located. Of course, there's no chance you would do _that_.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Dr.G. said:


> Those who are eligible for the Law of Return are immediately granted citizenship. The controversy arises whether all should be given Jewish status as citizens. Jewish status is granted according to the traditional definition of being Jewish-- if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish as well (conversions to Judaism can also occur).


The Law or Returns insures that Jews will always have a home. Part of this mindset came about because of discrimination against Jews. Canada (and many other countries) is guilty of not accepting enough Jews during WW2 and adding to the suffering. 
In recent times, if I remember correctly, there was an influx of Russian Jews. 

Apart from Dr. G’s, controversy, there is another one because if gives higher social rights and civil status to some than to Israeli Arabs - a form of discrimination under it’s declaration of independence.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> .....while you elevate venomously racist Hamas, is the kind of attitude I find troubling.
> 
> By the way, Israel's Declaration of Independence is quite a refreshing change from the Hamas Charter, too.


You hate the Hamas charter (rightfully so) but is it the charter of a country? 
There are a few political parties that have unsavory charters also.

So, is the Hamas charter hateful? No question about it – it’s disgusting piece of crap. Heck, I wonder how any reasonable person could even write something like that.


----------



## darkscot

Does the Conservative Party charter become the Charter of Canada when they are elected in? Not officially, but it sure says a lot for the country.

Hamas Charter is not a charter of a country because a Palestinian country does not yet exist. If one were to be created do you think Hamas would change its charter?


----------



## da_jonesy

HowEver said:


> I'm wondering if you've ever asked a question like this about any other kind of persons, I mean, as in, _ever_.
> 
> I'm sure you didn't intend this to be an inflammatory request, but regardless of how one self-identifies (I'm a Canadian, for example), this seems especially and uniquely without forethought.
> 
> For sure, the tens of thousands of Italian-descended people celebrating into the late night on St. Clair West after the World Cup win self-identified a certain way, and I can just imagine what would have happened had you wandered into the crowd and asked aloud if anyone thought of themselves as "less Italian" because of where they were located. Of course, there's no chance you would do _that_.


Yes, I have asked this often... and it is only inflammatory to people who are in someway insecure about this issue.

For example... My wife was born in Uganda, is now a Canadian citizen but identifies herself as being East Indian. At no point has she ever visited India or become interested in Indian politics or affairs.

My reason for asking the initial question is... what does the land have to do with anything? Does having the land make someone more or less than their ethnic/religous self?


----------



## nxnw

> Apart from Dr. G’s, controversy, there is another one because if gives higher social rights and civil status to some than to Israeli Arabs - a form of discrimination under it’s declaration of independence


It is regrettable that you would characterize the law of return as anti-Arab discrimination, as seems to be your purpose in your gratuitous reference to the declaration of independence.

It give a particular right of citizenship to Jews, as opposed to everyone else, not only Arabs. It was enacted as a response to anti-Semitism, recognizing what you downplay as "Canada (and many other countries)... not accepting *enough Jews* during WW2". By "not enough", Canada's response to Jews seeking refuge was "None is too many":


> Canada likes to think of itself as a sanctuary for the oppressed. But, as we see in this CBC Television clip, the Canadian government did everything in its power to bar the door to European Jews trying to flee Nazi persecution.


Canada's (and other countries') refusal of refuge to Jews during the Holocaust did not merely "add to the suffering". Rather, it sent countless Jews to the gas chambers while Hitler took delight and support in the knowledge that Canada and others didn't want Jews either.

The St. Louis was a notorious episodes.

One of Israel's most vital roles is as a Jewish refuge and sanctuary. It has been this for Russian Jews, Ethiopian Falashas and others, and will be in the future for more. As long as there is an Israel, no Jew will be stateless. You can cast it in a negative way if you like, but it is close to our hearts and very important to us.

Let me add, by the way, that I welcome the foundation of a peaceful Palestinian state, that would be justified in having a similar right of return for Palestinians.


----------



## HowEver

Okay, well, here's the thing.

The push for a homeland kind of came to a head after WWII, but it had been hoped for for thousands of years beforehand. The nation was very much seen as a way of preventing another Holocaust. So the land was important for that reason, very much a security thing and also with the hope that it would be a safe place to live. There would have been 2 new states if every Arab nation hadn't immediately declared war on the new nation of Israel. And as mentioned above, Arab countries haven't ever considered giving up their own land to create a Palestinian state, even though tens of thousands of Palestinians reside--to this day---stateless, with no citizenship or rights, within the borders of these Arab states.

I think if people self-identified as human beings first, they'd find more in common than in difference, and this might end. I have no faith that this will ever happen when more people are interested in killing each other than in getting along. I remember reading in the early 1990s that young men were, as they say, 'acting out' more since they had less options for participating in war and such. Sadly, that's no longer the case--lots of opportunities now.

The rise of nationalism in the early 19th century--it didn't exist as a notion before--began in Germany, ironically.




da_jonesy said:


> Yes, I have asked this often... and it is only inflammatory to people who are in someway insecure about this issue.
> 
> For example... My wife was born in Uganda, is now a Canadian citizen but identifies herself as being East Indian. At no point has she ever visited India or become interested in Indian politics or affairs.
> 
> My reason for asking the initial question is... what does the land have to do with anything? Does having the land make someone more or less than their ethnic/religous self?


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> You hate the Hamas charter (rightfully so) but is it the charter of a country?
> There are a few political parties that have unsavory charters also.
> 
> So, is the Hamas charter hateful? No question about it – it’s disgusting piece of crap. Heck, I wonder how any reasonable person could even write something like that.


The Hamas led government has been asked to renounce the more heinous elements of this "disgusting piece of crap" as a condition of recognition by Canada and others. It refuses. As such, this "disgusting piece of crap" certainly is the stance of the present Palestinian government.

This kind of stuff is, moreover, taught to kids in Palestinian schools, as well as in schools in various Islamic countries, even the more "friendly" Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Beej

nxnw said:


> One of Israel's most vital roles is as a Jewish refuge and sanctuary.


An important piece of context when considering this whole matter. You may say, "It will never happen again", but the historical context suggests a serious risk. The attitude of some of Israel's neighbours does indeed confirm that the risk is still real.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> It is regrettable that you would characterize the law of return as anti-Arab discrimination, as seems to be your purpose in your gratuitous reference to the declaration of independence.


Sigh…
Is there not a debate within certain Jews and Israelis whether or not the Law Of Return is discriminatory. And does part of that debate not refer to Israel’s declaration of independence? 


nxnw said:


> .... recognizing what you downplay as "Canada (and many other countries)... not accepting *enough Jews* during WW2". By "not enough", Canada's response to Jews seeking refuge was "None is too many":


I was looking for numbers (500) and thank you for the clarification – you distorted what I wrote again. I deliberately wrote Canada but that does not seem enough for you. Canada’s record was extremely shameful until 1948 when it comes to the question of Jewish immigration. I cannot be responsible for the sins of those before us, be we can insure that it does not happen again. 

Now to add some background perspective :


> In the 1930's, Canada cl*osed its doors to all immigrants.* Though the door was closed to everyone, Canada has had a *race-based immigration *policy since the end of World War I. This policy was based upon stereotypes of what type of immigrant would benefit Canada the most. At the bottom of the list were the Chinese, the Japanese and the Jew. It was the feeling that Jewish settlers were unsuitable because they wanted to live in the city, while Canada wanted to attract people to farm and settle the rural areas.
> 
> Prime Minister Mackenzie King was responsible for Canada's immigration policy throughout the 1920's and during WWII. It was his immigration department, under Director of Immigration, *Frederick Blair, that prided itself on its success at keeping Jewish immigrants out of Canada.* Even as the plight of the Jews in Nazi Germany became more apparent, *Blair refused to open Canada's doors to Jewish refugees*. He did not want Canada to become 'the dumping ground for 800,000 Jewish refugees'.were to find a home (in Canada) they would likely be followed by other shiploads. No country could open its doors wide enough to take in the hundreds of thousands of Jewish people who want to leave Europe: the line must be drawn somewhere".


http://www.whitepinepictures.com/seeds/iii/36/sidebar.html



nxnw said:


> Let me add, by the way, that I welcome the foundation of a peaceful Palestinian state, that would be justified in having a similar right of return for Palestinians.


And what do you say to Palestinians who would like to return to "their" land that is in Isreali "territory"?



Shall we start to debate Benny Moris and the 'Transfer principle' Theory? (Let's leave that one for another day...)


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> And what do you say to Palestinians who would like to return to "their" land that is in Isreali "territory"?


I say that their land will be in a Palestinian State. Otherwise, a two state solution means a Palestinian state and another Palestinian state, with no more Israel. 

What do you mean by Israeli "territory", anyway? It's a country and it has a name. People use this kind of language to delegitimize its existence.

As for Morris, you know he is dishonest, that he deliberately misquoted and distorted source material in order to fraudulently advance his thesis, that his writings and credibility have been devastated by critical review by more legitimate historians. He has also written much, recently, that is diametrically opposed to his earlier writings.


ArtistSeries said:


> Is there not a debate within certain Jews and Israelis whether or not the Law Of Return is discriminatory.


It is discriminatory, but the question is whether it is, nonetheless, justifiable. Lots of laws are discriminatory in the US, in Canada, in the UK, but that does not necessarily make them offensive. It is true that there is debate in Israel on this issue (in fact, my favoured Israeli paper, Ha'aretz, advocated its abolition some time ago), but the consensus is that it remains justified in this world:


> Hurrying down the steps outside the Merkaz Hatorah school in the Paris suburb of Gagny, they did not want to stop, let alone give their names. "We're to go straight home, we're not to travel alone, we're to cover our kippas with baseball caps," said one teenager. "We're not to draw any attention to ourselves and if we get any, we're to ignore it."
> Each had tales to tell: spat on in the station, skullcap torn off in the street, cries of "dirty Jew" on the train. They put on a collective show of bravado, but the arson attack on their private school last weekend had plainly shaken them. "When you see all that twisted metal, the scorched bricks, it evokes... certain things, it's scary," another boy said. "You get a vision of where all this could end."


Don't expect Jews to give up our guaranteed refuge where, even after the vast majority of Europe's Jewish population was slaughtered, we still have arson attacks on Synagogues and Jewish schools in France, Belgium, and elsewhere. And that's in the enlightened West. 

By the way, Jews are leaving France and there has been a significant upsurge in French Jews immigrating to Israel. They are grateful they can go there, and so am I.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> Jul. 19, 2006 1:04
> Lebanese death toll so far: 229 people killed
> By ASSOCIATED PRESS
> 
> At least 229 people have been killed in Lebanon and more than 450 wounded since the fighting began one week ago, according to figures reported by Lebanese police and the military. Among the dead are 20 Lebanese army soldiers and three Hizbullah guerrillas.
> 
> Among the civilian deaths are eight Canadians, two Kuwaiti nationals, one Iraqi, one Sri Lankan, and one Jordanian, police have reported.


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886038853&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull


----------



## Vandave

ArtistSeries said:


> I was looking for numbers (500) and thank you for the clarification – you distorted what I wrote again. I deliberately wrote Canada but that does not seem enough for you. Canada’s record was extremely shameful until 1948 when it comes to the question of Jewish immigration. I cannot be responsible for the sins of those before us, be we can insure that it does not happen again.


Playing devil's advocate here...

Is it really discriminatory to selectively pick where immigrants come from?

It's true that many Jewish people ended up dying due to the policy of that day and for that reason, it is shameful. But, let's put that aside and look purely at whether selective immigration is morally wrong. Tell me, why do you think it is wrong.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> I say that their land will be in a Palestinian State. Otherwise, a two state solution means a Palestinian state and another Palestinian state, with no more Israel.
> 
> What do you mean by Israeli "territory", anyway? It's a country and it has a name. People use this kind of language to delegitimize its existence.


Just as Jews regard Israel has their home, some Palestinians regard land in Israel their home also. They feel unjustly displaced. My term "Israeli "territory" was not written to de-legitimize Israel, but point out that some Palestinian view Israel as "home" also. We've heard about refugees in camps that still have their house keys to dwellings in Israel. 
In some cases, the stories can be touching and give hope for peace (The Lemon Tree: An Arab, A Jew, and the Heart of the Middle East" is such a story).





nxnw said:


> As for Morris, ....has also written much, recently, that is diametrically opposed to his earlier writings.


That's why I said the debate would wait until another time. 




nxnw said:


> It is discriminatory, but the question is whether it is, nonetheless, justifiable. Lots of laws are discriminatory in the US, in Canada, in the UK, but that does not necessarily make them offensive.


I think that the Law of Return can coexist with equal rights for Israeli Arabs. 




nxnw said:


> It is true that there is debate in Israel on this issue (in fact, my favoured Israeli paper, Ha'aretz, advocated its abolition some time ago), but the consensus is that it remains justified in this world : Don't expect Jews to give up our guaranteed refuge where, even after the vast majority of Europe's Jewish population was slaughtered, we still have arson attacks on Synagogues and Jewish schools in France, Belgium, and elsewhere. And that's in the enlightened West.


I'm uneasy with the concept of a democratic society saying some are equal, but some are more equal than others. As stated above, I can see the coexistence of the Law of Return but only when Israeli Arab citizens have equal rights. 

The Guardian article that you site is interesting and problematic in many ways. 


> Is anti-semitism rampant in France? The evidence is inconclusive. Police figures show physical and verbal attacks on Jews have fallen sharply, to 96 in the first 10 months of 2003, against 184 in the same period last year. The number of insults and threats fell from 685 to 129, and the number of police investigations into alleged anti-semitic offences fell from 129 to 29.
> 
> The figures are not disputed by the Jewish community, although some point out that a hostile climate cannot necessarily be measured in numbers. They note that teachers, for example, are expressing increasing alarm at the way terms like "dirty Jew" have become routine playground insults.
> 
> But not even the most radical French rabbi would accuse Paris of standing by as anti-Jewish sentiment inexorably mounts: parliament unanimously passed legislation earlier this year that allows far more severe penalties for offences inspired by racial or religious hatred, which become classified as "hate crimes".


Even if the numbers seem to indicate less anti-Semitic behavior, there seem to be an anti-Semitic tension on the rise that is not quantifiable. 
Blaming it on disaffected Arab youths is right but (and here is the difficult part) partly seems reactionary to middle-East violence. So would we see this as part of Israel-Palestine conflicts as described by Michael Neumann? People like LePen are anti-Semitic. Maybe my quandary is that I see shades of grey at times. From what I have read, there seems to be various degrees also and I'm struggling with all sensibilities. I've been called "a Maudit Anglais" but took no offensive to it. I've seen some Palestinians depictions of Jews and found them repulsive in their hatred and anti-Semitism. 




nxnw said:


> By the way, Jews are leaving France and there has been a significant upsurge in French Jews immigrating to Israel. They are grateful they can go there, and so am I.


And so I'm I - there is no reason to life in fear because of your religion.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Vandave said:


> Playing devil's advocate here...
> 
> Is it really discriminatory to selectively pick where immigrants come from?
> 
> It's true that many Jewish people ended up dying due to the policy of that day and for that reason, it is shameful. But, let's put that aside and look purely at whether selective immigration is morally wrong. Tell me, why do you think it is wrong.


The horror is that they were singled out because of religion.


----------



## Vandave

ArtistSeries said:


> The horror is that they were singled out because of religion.


I am not talking about religion, but rather nationality.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Sorry VD. I made a bad association because the previous article stated that Canada discriminated by "At the bottom of the list were the Chinese, the Japanese and the Jew". Two of those are nationalities, one a religion. 

You mayby opening a can of bad juju there. 
I find it discriminatory to pick - yes.


----------



## nxnw

In message 286, it seems that you inadvertently inserted a smiley in my quote. Could you please correct the quote?


----------



## Vandave

ArtistSeries said:


> Sorry VD. I made a bad association because the previous article stated that Canada discriminated by "At the bottom of the list were the Chinese, the Japanese and the Jew". Two of those are nationalities, one a religion.
> 
> You mayby opening a can of bad juju there.
> I find it discriminatory to pick yes.


I suppose I am, but if it is so morally reprehensible, then my questions should be quite easy to answer.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> In message 286, it seems that you inadvertently inserted a smiley in my quote. Could you please correct the quote?


The smiley was inserted because of the colon "D" in the original text - it's been corrected.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Vandave said:


> I suppose I am, but if it is so morally reprehensible, then my questions should be quite easy to answer.


I picked "yes" - it's the arguments of the "no" side that I can see as being... :yikes:


----------



## Vandave

ArtistSeries said:


> I picked "yes" - it's the arguments of the "no" side that I can see as being... :yikes:


I was more interested in the rationale, rather than just a simple yes or no.

I don't understand why we need to treat people from other countries on equal footing. Within the country... yes... but why outside?


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> Just as Jews regard Israel has their home, some Palestinians regard land in Israel their home also. They feel unjustly displaced.


That's fine, and their justice will be a state of their own, just as the the 1,000,000 Jews unjustly displaced from Arab countries made homes in Israel.

For that matter, there are also the homes my grandparents owned in Warsaw and Ostrowiec before they were gassed (sadly, I don't have their *keys*), and the homes Native Canadians and Americans lived in before they were displaced. Does everyone get their home back (well, it will virtually never be _their_ home at this juncture, as opposed to their parents', or more likely grandparents', or great grandparents' home, etc.), or do we find a reasonable way to have two states - Israel and a Palestinian state - that live side by side in peace?

I reiterate that what you suggest results in a perversion of the two state solution, one Palestinian state in the west bank and gaza, another Palestinian state where Israel is now, but no Israel. That will make Hamas and Hezbollah happy, that's for sure.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

*Universal Declaration of Human Rights*



> http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
> 
> *Article 13.*
> 
> (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
> 
> (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.



Did Israel vote for this Universal Declaration of Human Rights?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

> Originally Posted by *ArtistSeries*
> And what do you say to Palestinians who would like to return to "their" land that is in Isreali "territory"?





nxnw said:


> I say that their land will be in a Palestinian State. Otherwise, a two state solution means a Palestinian state and another Palestinian state, with no more Israel.


Well Israel should give Palestinians their state then. Why drag it out? There is absolutely nothing stopping Israel from saying "Here is your fecking state. End of discussion. We will no longer collect taxes on your behalf. We will no longer have anything to do with the admistration or occupation of it. If you attack us we will respond 10-fold, but it is your state. You are your own country. Good luck." They don't even have to apologise for the 50+ plus year occupation.



nxnw said:



> What do you mean by Israeli "territory", anyway? It's a country and it has a name. People use this kind of language to delegitimize its existence.


At one point Israeli was only ever a territory before the concepts of nationhood was invented. We have territories within Canada. Each province is a territory of a sort. Each region is a territory. Each native government is a territory belonging to some group. Each city each town has it's territory. Even man, woman, and child has their stomping grounds, their homes, their individual territory. None of this delegitimized the idea that country called Canada exists. The same is true for every country on this planet.


----------



## HowEver

So you agree that Quebec can separate if they wish to? The PQ will be happy to hear this. Good, then there is no need for every Quebecer to hunt you down and kill you. Of course that isn't the case, this is Canada, right?

As for Israel, it was agreed in 1948, and many times after, including the Oslo accord not that long ago, that Palestine should be a state. Israel agreed. Israel still agrees. They agreed before, and they agree now. Every time they negotiate, they agree. The problem is the people they are agreeing with, who live in the other place, have as their sworn duty and motto the idea that they should kill every Israeli, and once they walk away from the table, their maps do not even include Israel. They are taught this in their schools and they elect governments who have this sworn mission as well. Did you notice that Israel stopped occupying Gaza? Have you noticed that Palestine didn't exactly declare itself a state? That's because their idea of a state includes Israel. They can't accept the idea that they are a state that doesn't include Israel, so the brokered deals like the Oslo accord get torn up, and not by Israel.

It's painful to read in 2006 that "Israel should give Palestinians their state then," as if the negotiations of the last number of decades never took place. History bites?




Paul O'Keefe said:


> Well Israel should give Palestinians their state then. Why drag it out? There is absolutely nothing stopping Israel from saying "Here is your fecking state. End of discussion. We will no longer collect taxes on your behalf. We will no longer have anything to do with the admistration or occupation of it. If you attack us we will respond 10-fold, but it is your state. You are your own country. Good luck." They don't even have to apologise for the 50+ plus year occupation.
> 
> 
> At one point Israeli was only ever a territory before the concepts of nationhood was invented. We have territories within Canada. Each province is a territory of a sort. Each region is a territory. Each native government is a territory belonging to some group. Each city each town has it's territory. Even man, woman, and child has their stomping grounds, their homes, their individual territory. None of this delegitimized the idea that country called Canada exists. The same is true for every country on this planet.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

If the Quebecois democratically want to separate, that must be respected. Canada is a democracy. I respect that. Do you?

Palestine is not a state. Palestine is controlled and occupied by Israel. Every product made in Palestine and exported is labelled "Made in Israel" by the Israeli government. Israel collects taxes on behalf of Israel. Which they now refose to give to Palestine. Newsflash, Israel is very much back in Gaza. Hadn't you noticed that?

Who cares if Palestine walks out of negotiations. Israel can unilaterally say "Palestine is not Israel. Palestine is not part of Israel. Palestine will no longer be occupied by Israel. Palestine is it's own nation (and here are it's borders). We will no longer subject Paletinians to our laws, our administrations, or collect taxes for them. It is it's own nation. If Palestine attacks Israel, we will repond 10-fold. Good luck. Feck off and goodbye."

That's it. End of story. Enforce the borders thereafter. That's. Finally, there would be 2-states. But it's up to Israel to give up Palestine, not just *SAY* it will given it up. And it looks like they were and are moving towards doing that... very slowly. How many decades has it been now?

Like the nike people say, "Just do it".


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

HowEver said:


> It's painful to read in 2006 that "Israel should give Palestinians their state then," as if the negotiations of the last number of decades never took place. History bites?


It is painful to read that paragraph. If Israel had already given up Palestine decades ago... why have their been DECADES of negotiations to give up Palestine ever since? You can't blame the Palestinians for not giving up Palestine as they don't truly have it yet. It's up to the nation who has total military control of it to give it up... and that's Israel. History bites, but its teeth marks are all over your statements.

And no, I don't include Israel's core as part of a Palestinian state.


----------



## HowEver

Paul O'Keefe said:


> It is painful to read that paragraph. If Israel had already given up Palestine decades ago... why have their been DECADES of negotiations to give up Palestine ever since? You can't blame the Palestinians for not giving up Palestine as they don't truly have it yet. It's up to the nation who has total military control of it to give it up... and that's Israel. History bites, but its teeth marks are all over your statements.
> 
> And no, I don't include Israel's core as part of a Palestinian state.


I feel a bit lazy quoting wikipedia, but here you go, with respect to the 1993 Oslo accords which would indeed have created an independent Palestinian state, agreed upon at the negotiating table:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords#Loss_of_credibility



> In Israel, a strong debate over the accords took place; the left wing supported them, while the right wing opposed them. After a two day discussion in the Knesset on the government proclamation in the issue of the accord and the exchange of the letters, on September 23, 1993 a vote of confidence was held in which 61 Knesset members voted for the decision, 50 voted against and 8 abstained.
> 
> The Palestinian reactions to the accords were not homogeneous, either. The Fatah accepted the accords, but the Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which were known as the "refusal organizations", objected to the accords since the groups completely denounce Israel's right to exist.
> 
> On both sides there were fears of the other side's intentions. Israelis suspected that the Palestinians were not sincere in their desire to reach peace and coexistence with Israel, but relate to that as part of the Ten Point Program (which is called in Israel Tokhnit HaSHlavim or Torat HaSHlavim). For evidence they brought expressions of Yasser Arafat in Palestinian forums in which he compared the accord to the Khodeyba agreement that the prophet Muhammad signed with the sons of the tribe of Quraish. Those expressions could be understood also as an attempt to justify the signing of the accords in accordance with historical-religious precedent. The Israelis trust in the accord was undermined also by the fact that after the signing of the accord the terrorist attacks against Israel did not cease and even intensified, which could be explained as an attempt of the terror organizations to thwart the peace process.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

*Civilian Death Toll in Lebanon Passes 300*

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200607/200607200001.html



> On the eighth day of Israel's military campaign in Lebanon Wednesday, the Lebanese death toll passed 300, almost all civilians.


----------



## nxnw

This is truly a tragedy. 

Do you view Hezbollah in any way culpable for exploiting populated areas for its arsenals? For firing something in the range of 1,500 missiles into Israel, every one aimed at civilian targets with no ostensible military connection? For its completely unprovoked attacks on Israel - chronic missile attacks of the last 6 years, and a flurry of rocket attacks combined with its incursion into Israel, that was the immediate trigger to the current conflict?


----------



## nxnw

As well Paul, a few things for you to consider (and this is not remotely everything). 

1. The current Israeli government was elected on a platform of unilateral disengagement (like your suggestion, here is the border, go form a state) if continued efforts to negotiate peace are not successful. Abbas (the PA president) and much of the Arab world says that unilateral disengagement is unacceptable. On the other hand, Hamas, which forms the government says in its charter:


> Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.


2. What happened after Israel left Gaza was that Hamas and friends regularly breached the Gaza-Egypt border (manned by Egyptian and international personnel) with tunnels and on several occasions, smashing through it with heavy equipment, in order to smuggle weapons illegally across the border. Gaza has, throughout, been a launching point for rocket attacks against Israel and, of course, when Israel responds to this aggression, it is immediately condemned from certain quarters.

3. Think of the geography. Remember that Israel is comparable in size to Vancouver Island, as someone pointed out, and the west bank carves out a large area in the centre. Assuming the majority of the west bank becomes a Palestinian state, every part of Jerusalem is within the range of the crudest rockets available and Tel Aviv is well within the range of Katyushas. Indeed, there would be no part of Israel that would be safe from rocket attack.

4. These rockets are portable and are fired off from orchards, playgrounds, olive groves - any place that suits those who launch them. The only viable responses are to strike at the arsenals, at those who fire the rockets, and at those who send them. As in Lebanon, all of these have universally been in populated areas.

This just scratches the surface. It would be nice if your glib solution to the conflict would bring peace to the region, but if peace were so easy, it would have been achieved long ago.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> Do you view Hezbollah in any way culpable for exploiting populated areas for its arsenals? For firing something in the range of 1,500 missiles into Israel, every one aimed at civilian targets with no ostensible military connection? For its completely unprovoked attacks on Israel - chronic missile attacks of the last 6 years, and a flurry of rocket attacks combined with its incursion into Israel, that was the immediate trigger to the current conflict?


What about Hezbollah's attacks on Israel?

Hezbollah is sending rockets into Israeli populated areas without accurate guidance systems and is therefore reckoned to be attacking civilians. According to Human Rights Watch: "Deliberately attacking civilians is in all circumstances prohibited and a war crime."

And Hezbollah's reaction?

Hezbollah has argued that its initial raid was to capture the Israeli soldiers to be bargained for and that it has retaliated with rockets because of strikes against Lebanon and its civilians. The Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said: "When the Zionists behave like there are no rules and no red lines and no limits to the confrontation, it is our right to behave in the same way."

What defines "proportionality"?

In this case, the issue is whether Israel's actions following the capture of its soldiers were justified by their scale and tactics.

What is Israel's response?

An Israeli official said: "We feel that proportionality should be judged in terms of the threat we face. This is not just an issue of the kidnappings. Hezbollah has a huge arsenal and has fired 1,000 missiles at us. We are acting in self-defence.

"We are targeting only military objectives, including transport facilities that Hezbollah can use, but you have to remember that Hezbollah often hides in civilian areas. We sent flyers and gave other warnings to civilians to leave before our attacks."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5198342.stm


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

Do you two assert that at ever every Israel bombing, shelling, and attack on a Lebanese building or convoy which killed innocent citizens that that site contained a Hezzbolah rocket laucher or member?

We KNOW that completely innocent people are dying that are nowhere near legtimate Israeli targets. We KNOW Israel warned them in some cased to get out, and then the convoys of refugees were bombed despite having taken the warning to heart.

We KNOW Hezzbolah unguided rockets are hitting targets indiscriminantly. That is the nature of the weapon, and we all condemn it.

However what we DON'T KNOW is the accuracy of Israeli missiles/bombs/shells, etc. How often do they hit legitimate targets? How often do the hit civillian/innocent targets That are completely illegitimate targets? Quite alot if we go by the independent news coverage and the death tolls. By the news coverage alone we KNOW that Israel is indcriminantly killing more civillians than Hezzbolah. This despite the fact that Israel has guided weapons. If the goal of this war is to see who can kill the most civillians, Israel is winning by a landslide.

When we do hear in the news reports that when apartment building X was bombed out completely and 7 civillians were killed that Hezzbolah rocket launchers were being fired from the 3rd floor or the court yard. We never get confirmation that any of this Lebonese civillians causulties were indeed in the direct vicinity of Hezzbolah (the legitmate targets).

*And here's a big WHAT IF...*
Israel has stated that the attacks and the bombardments will continue until the 2 captives are released. *What if* the captives have died already from Israel's massive attacks on Lebanon? Should the war go on forever?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

Calling for a ceasefire has NO downside. Ending the violence has no downside. Our minority Prime Minister shows a real lack of leadership and compassion by not calling for an immediate ceasation of hostiles from both sides.

Calling for a ceasefire may protect Canadians and civillians in Lebanon. Giving Israel and Hezzbolah the approval to "have at it" for a while does the opposite.


----------



## Beej

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Calling for a ceasefire has NO downside. Ending the violence has no downside. Our minority Prime Minister shows a real lack of leadership and compassion by not calling for an immediate ceasation of hostiles from both sides.


It is generally meaningless hot air, especially from Canada. It's like calling for everyone to just get along, pretty please, while avoiding any difficult position. The, "Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who" approach to foreign policy. All short-term fuzzies, no long-term view, no concept of what is needed, no substance. That is not leadership or compassion.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

nxnw said:


> This is truly a tragedy.
> 
> Do you view Hezbollah in any way culpable for exploiting populated areas for its arsenals? For firing something in the range of 1,500 missiles into Israel, every one aimed at civilian targets with no ostensible military connection? For its completely unprovoked attacks on Israel - chronic missile attacks of the last 6 years, and a flurry of rocket attacks combined with its incursion into Israel, that was the immediate trigger to the current conflict?


The die has been cast.
The only thing left is to count the dead.

Do you have a count of the number of air launched missiles and artillery shells launched by Israeli forces into Lebanon? 1500 at least?


----------



## Vandave

I think the only solution to this is to have the UN go into Lebanon in a big way and be more of a peace making force than a peace keeping force. Definately would be controversal.

Israel isn't going to accomplish much by continuing this campaign or re-occupying Lebanon. If they couldn't disarm Hezzbolah over 18 years, what makes them think they can do it now? They definately aren't going to do it by bombing from the air. Blowing up the civilian infrastructure, blockading the country, etc... is only going to turn the Lebanese against them. 

Bush is right... if Syria and Iran stopped supporting this, it would end.

The third alternative if for Israel to expand the war and punish Syria and Iran. Not a great option either.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

the UN has been effectively de-fanged by the US invasion of Iraq
any UN resolution can easily be defeated by a US veto


----------



## da_jonesy

MACSPECTRUM said:


> the UN has been effectively de-fanged by the US invasion of Iraq
> any UN resolution can easily be defeated by a US veto


Technically it never had fangs since the permanent members all had veto power.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Vandave said:


> Bush is right... if Syria and Iran stopped supporting this, it would end.


What a one-sided view of the conflict....

Bush showed his true style of governing and I'm glad you like like soundbytes...
"If the poor just had money, we would not have a poor problem".
"What you have to do, is tell people to get smart"
Thanks Bu****es...


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

Beej said:


> It is generally meaningless hot air, especially from Canada. It's like calling for everyone to just get along, pretty please, while avoiding any difficult position. The, "Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who" approach to foreign policy. All short-term fuzzies, no long-term view, no concept of what is needed, no substance. That is not leadership or compassion.


Encouraging the fighting is worse. That is what our national leader is doing instead of calling for a ceasefire and pressuring the US and the UK to do the same.

When more nations come together to voice for a ceasefire, it is more likely to happen. Or is the United Nations just blowing meaningless, hot air?



> http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/20/mideast-diplomacy.html
> 
> United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has condemned Hezbollah's "provocative attack" and Israel's "disproportionate" response, while calling for an immediate end to hostilities.
> 
> ...
> 
> Annan said Hezbollah's attack was a "clear provocation" that has resulted in the entire nation of Lebanon being held hostage and has set back peace talks in the Middle East.
> 
> He also slammed Israel's strong military response.
> 
> "While Hezbollah's actions are deplorable, Israel's excessive use of force is to be condemned," said Annan.
> 
> Israel's "disproportionate use of force and collective punishment" of the Lebanese people must stop, the captured Israeli soldiers must be freed, the International Red Cross given immediate access to them and humanitarian aid workers must be allowed safe passage through the area, said Annan.


Beej, If the UN had a resolution today, calling on a ceasefire and and end to hostilities from both sides, would you have Canada vote against it, vote for it, or abstain?

There is no harm in calling for a ceasefire. It can only potentially do good. While sending no calls for a ceasefire is tatamount to encouraging the hostilities.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Beej said:


> It is generally meaningless hot air, especially from Canada. It's like calling for everyone to just get along, pretty please, while avoiding any difficult position. The, "Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who" approach to foreign policy. All short-term fuzzies, no long-term view, no concept of what is needed, no substance. That is not leadership or compassion.


No but by giving complicit approval in what Israel is doing not the equivalent of approval?
I think that there was condemnation of Israel's over reaction. It seems that this will stop when the US indicates that Israel should... 
You have to go "uhmm" when Putin makes to most sense of this whole affair...


----------



## Beej

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Encouraging the fighting is worse. That is what our national leader is doing instead of calling for a ceasefire and pressuring the US and the UK to do the same.
> 
> When more nations come together to voice for a ceasefire, it is more likely to happen. Or is the United Nations just blowing meaningless, hot air?
> ......
> Beej, If the UN had a resolution today, calling on a ceasefire and and end to hostilities from both sides, would you have Canada vote against it, vote for it, or abstain?
> 
> There is no harm in calling for a ceasefire. It can only potentially do good. While sending no calls for a ceasefire is tatamount to encouraging the hostilities.


The UN blowing meaningless hot air? NEVER! :lmao: 
................
That depends upon the wording. If it just said, "Stop" I'd question their intelligence (their relevance is already widely questioned). 

I would fully have expected Martin to breathlessly jump in front of a camera and proclaim what you want and be very proud. At best, doing that would be meaningless, especially from Canada. 

The concept of, "no harm" that you're promoting only applies when looking at foreign policy as a thing of the daily news cycle and doesn't take into account, well, pretty much anything. 

And this: "While sending no calls for a ceasefire is tatamount to encouraging the hostilities." is just plain strange. I think even Star Trek episodes may have dealt with this issue in a more meaningful manner.


----------



## Beej

ArtistSeries said:


> Putin makes to most sense of this whole affair...


Not to everyone.


----------



## nxnw

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Do you two assert that at ever every Israel bombing, shelling, and attack on a Lebanese building or convoy which killed innocent citizens that that site contained a Hezzbolah rocket laucher or member?


Israel is exclusively targeting strategic targets. It is fair to argue that it's intelligence may be incorrect in some instances, but I believe every single target was intended and believed to be strategic. Israel also says that it has destroyed approximately 5,000 missiles so far. 

You can assume that the reporting from Lebanese sources will claim otherwise, and that there is very little genuinely independent or objective reporting on the ground in Lebanon at this time.


Paul O'Keefe said:


> We KNOW that completely innocent people are dying that are nowhere near legtimate Israeli targets. We KNOW Israel warned them in some cased to get out, and then the convoys of refugees were bombed despite having taken the warning to heart.


I do not believe there is even one convoy, not to mention multiple "convoys" as you claim to "KNOW", that was bombed. I have heard claims of a bus being hit, but I searched for a credible source and could not find one.

That being said, if it happened, it would be as a result of an intelligence failure rather than intentional targeting of civilians. Large vehicles are used to transport missiles and are potential targets.

Horrible as the casualties are, if Israel were not making profound efforts to avoid civilian deaths (short of not fighting back), the civilian casualties would be monumental.


Paul O'Keefe said:


> *What if* the captives have died already from Israel's massive attacks on Lebanon? Should the war go on forever?


Israel's stated objective is to destroy as much of Hezbollah's arsenal as possible, and then enter into a ceasefire that provides meaningful assurances that the Lebanese government will take over control of the south, as it agreed to do when Israel left its buffer zone in 2000. Israel will likely engage in negotiations for a prisoner exchange, but I do not believe they will accept an exchange as one sided as they have been in the past. If the captives are dead, Hezbollah should return their bodies to their families.


----------



## Beej

ArtistSeries said:


> You have to go "uhmm" when Putin makes to most sense of this whole affair...


You have to go uhmm?

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Display...uly/middleeast_July249.xml&section=middleeast

“The kingdom sees that it is time for those elements to alone shoulder the full responsibility for this irresponsible behavior and that the burden of ending the crisis falls on them alone.”



beejacon


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> You can assume that the reporting from Lebanese sources will claim otherwise, and that *there is very little genuinely independent or objective reporting on the ground in Lebanon at this time*.I do not believe there is even one convoy, not to mention multiple "convoys" as you claim to "KNOW", that was bombed. I have heard claims of a bus being hit, but I searched for a credible source and could not find one.


It like to hear more the control of the press in Lebanon - (as opposed to free Israel). Seems that you like to taint alot.... 



> The United Nations' emergency relief co-ordinator, Jan Egeland,aid that neither Hezbollah nor the Israelis seemed to care about civilian suffering, adding that nearly a third of the dead or wounded were children and the wounded could not be helped because roads and bridges had been cut by Israeli air strikes.
> 
> "The Israeli military attacks are all over the country. There are aerial bombardments which are in hundreds of places really. I think it is a disproportionate response, really," Mr Egeland told the BBC.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5197186.stm


----------



## nxnw

And here's something that we have not seen reported in the news:


> Lebanon: Hezbollah Rocket Attacks on Haifa Designed to Kill Civilians
> 
> ... the warheads used suggest a desire to maximize harm to civilians. *Some of the rockets launched against Haifa over the past two days contained hundreds of metal ball bearings that are of limited use against military targets but cause great harm to civilians and civilian property*. The ball bearings lodge in the body and cause serious harm.
> ...
> On Sunday, a Hezbollah rocket killed eight workers in Haifa’s main railway depot. Doctors who treated the wounded told Human Rights Watch that the rockets contained metal ball bearings. The ball bearings have increased the number and seriousness of injuries from rocket fire, the doctors said.
> 
> “In my medical opinion, they [these rockets] are supposed to injure as many people as possible,” said Dr. Eran Tal-Or, director of the Surgical Emergency Room at Haifa's Ramban Hospital. “If you wanted to bring down a building, you would make a weapon with a heavier blast. And you wouldn't bother with the balls inside that don't do much harm to buildings; just to people.”


http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/18/lebano13760.htm

Not newsworthy, I guess.


----------



## Vandave

ArtistSeries said:


> What a one-sided view of the conflict....
> 
> Bush showed his true style of governing and I'm glad you like like soundbytes...
> "If the poor just had money, we would not have a poor problem".
> "What you have to do, is tell people to get smart"
> Thanks Bu****es...


Not really. Hizzbullah started it by kidnapping soldiers and launching rockets at civilians. Iran and Syria are supplying them with these weapons and likely gave the green light for the current conflict. Iran sees this as a good distraction from their nuclear program.


----------



## Beej

Interesting article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5188468.stm

........
Hezbollah has a number of motives: 


It wants to strengthen its position in the Lebanese political arena, and in particular deflect pressure on it to disarm - as a UN resolution, passed in 2004, requires it to do. 

It wants to show its support for the Palestinians, and in particular for the Islamist group Hamas, and so present itself as a champion of the anti-Israeli struggle. 

Last but not least, it is sending an unmistakable message to the United States on behalf of its regional allies, Syria and Iran - squeeze us, and we will make trouble.
.........



It then goes on to analyse the current situation and risks.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> Not newsworthy, I guess.


Just like this one


> The Israel Defense Forces should provide details *about a bombing* on Saturday *that killed 16 people in a convoy of civilians fleeing a Lebanese village* near Israel’s border, Human Rights Watch said today. Under international humanitarian law, all parties to an armed conflict must take all feasible precautions to protect civilians fleeing areas at risk.


http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/17/isrlpa13756.htm


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> It like to hear more the control of the press in Lebanon - (as opposed to free Israel). Seems that you like to taint alot....


It's not the press, its the reporting. Remember the screaming Palestinian woman the CBC gave air time to, during Jenin? "They've taken all of the men!!!", she said, dutifully broadcast on our TVs on the National. 

It was a lie. A huge, despicable, slanderous lie.

So, just because somebody says something, it doesn't mean it's true. At this juncture, the situation is chaotic and there is a lot of hearsay, double-hearsay, triple hearsay. After things cool down, hopefully soon, there will be more opportunity for more objective reporting.

And, by the way, I do see an anti-Israel bias, and a significant one, from many western news publications, particularly in Europe.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> Not newsworthy, I guess.


Just like this one


> Lebanese media reports state that *Israel used phosphorus incendiary bombs and vacuum bombs* that suck up air and facilitate building collapses. The use of incendiary weapons against civilians has been banned by Protocol III to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons


http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/07/lebanon-claims-israel-using-banned.php


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> And, by the way, I do see an anti-Israel bias, and a significant one, from many western news publications, particularly in Europe.


Oddly, I see an anti-Arab bias in many western news publications, particularly in the US.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> It's not the press, its the reporting.
> 
> So, just because somebody says something, it doesn't mean it's true. At this juncture, the situation is chaotic and there is a lot of hearsay, double-hearsay, triple hearsay. After things cool down, hopefully soon, there will be more opportunity for more objective reporting.


I agree with you on this.


----------



## Beej

I see an anti-PC bias on ehmac.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

nxnw, you seem to take it on FAITH that when Israel strikes illegitimate civillian targets that their intelligence indicated they there it was a valid target. I propose another alternative: Israel also indiscrimently bombs and shells Lebanon and says they are valid targets.

You seem to believe that Israel bombs the wrong target, but with good intentions. Why can't you admit that Israel can be wrong from time to time?

Being wrong in this case amounts to murder of innocents. Israel being wrong though, doesn't make Hezzbolah any more right though.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

So, Beej, since you choose to avoid my question (which is quite clear its wording), I must assume you abstain from calling for a ceasefire. You would refrain from calling for an end to violence.

The least, the absolute least that any of us can do with are limited power is to call for end to the violence, and you refrain from doing so.


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> "parties to an armed conflict must take all feasible precautions to protect civilians fleeing areas at risk."


Yes, and HRW has asked for information and has not made any accusation. We do know, from many reliable sources, that:
- Israel has given prior warnings of attacks in populated areas, giving innocents an opportunity to escape, at the expense of prejudicing the military effectiveness of the attack by giving Hezbollah advance warning;
- Israel even bombed Hezbollah headquarters at night, when no personnel were likely to be there.

Contrast this with 
- Hezbollah's exclusive and intentional targeting of civilians;
- It's *documented* use of missiles that are designed to kill people, rather than destroy military targets. 

I am confident that the allegation made in "Lebanese media reports" are false. It will not be the first time that Israel has been slandered by false claims in the Arab press and, sadly, I doubt it will be the last time you use unsubstantiated allegations to fuel hatred against Israel.


----------



## Beej

Paul O'Keefe said:


> So, Beej, since you choose to avoid my question (which is quite clear its wording), I must assume you abstain from calling for a ceasefire. You would refrain from calling for an end to violence.
> 
> The least, the absolute least that any of us can do with are limited power is to call for end to the violence, and you refrain from doing so.


"Fighting bad." Ok. Thank-you children's delegation. And now back to the news...


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

Was that so hard to say?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

nxnw said:


> Contrast this with
> - Hezbollah's exclusive and intentional targeting of civilians;
> - It's *documented* use of missiles that are designed to kill people, rather than destroy military targets.


The last I heard was that missles and bombs and shells are designed to kill people too. All too well.


----------



## Beej

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Was that so hard to say?


Maybe we can agree that Canada should send an intentionally diverse set of school children to the UN to make a statement on behalf of children around the world. 

Great photo-op (unless Putin goes at them  ) and it doesn't push our real foreign policy into the vacuum.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Pro-Isreali stories = Good
Israeli government news releases = the truth
Neutral stories that vindicate Israel = good

Neutral news sources that vindicate stories of Israel abuses = lies
Lebanese government news releases = slander (let remember they are not even fighting here)

So basically any story, report, observation, photo, that shows Israel in a negative light will always be countered as being slander by nxnw?


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> - Israel even bombed Hezbollah headquarters at night, when no personnel were likely to be there.


So what you are saying is that Hezbollah's offices work from 9 to 5 and then they all go home?



> Israel bombed Hezbollah headquarters in south Beirut in a bid to kill the group's leader as soldiers fought with gunmen from the Islamist movement on the Lebanese border.
> 
> Israeli warplanes dropped about 23 metric tons of explosives on the compound late yesterday, the army said, acknowledging that Hezbollah's Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah may have been inside a bunker there. Hezbollah issued a statement today saying none of its leaders was harmed.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJ7BpjTzzzAk&refer=


----------



## nxnw

Paul O'Keefe said:


> The last I heard was that missles and bombs and shells are designed to kill people too. All too well.


This disingenuous comment, excusing Hezbollahs' use of missiles loaded with ball bearings, should embarrass you.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

Beej said:


> Maybe we can agree that Canada should send an intentionally diverse set of school children to the UN to make a statement on behalf of children around the world.


That sort of tone is unappreciated and uncalled for. Many Canadians share a common value that Canada should be an enabler of peace. You insult them when you patronize them and their beliefs.

So far the leaders of the Liberal and NDP parties support this view in regards to the crisis in Lebanon and Israel. I'm not sure about the Bloc, but one would suspect that they would be the most concerned about Canadians in Lebanon, many of whom are citizens of Quebec. That only leaves the governing *minority* Conservative Party who feel no need to call for and end to violence.


----------



## HowEver

Vandave said:


> Not really. Hizzbullah started it by kidnapping soldiers and launching rockets at civilians. Iran and Syria are supplying them with these weapons and likely gave the green light for the current conflict. Iran sees this as a good distraction from their nuclear program.


You left out the part about the 8 Israeli soldiers who were killed, in Israel, when Hezbollah started/continued this current mess and kidnapped the other two. No doubt unintentionally. They seem to have been forgotten in much of this discussion.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> This disingenuous comment, excusing Hezbollahs' use of missiles loaded with ball bearings, should embarrass you.


Of course lets not talk of Israelis' arsenal... 

And no I don't approve of ball-bearings in missiles.


----------



## Beej

Paul O'Keefe said:


> That sort of tone is unappreciated and uncalled for.
> ..............
> So far the leaders of the Liberal and NDP parties support this view in regards to the crisis in Lebanon and Israel. I'm not sure about the Bloc, but one would suspect that they would be the most concerned about Canadians in Lebanon, many of whom are citizens of Quebec. That only leaves the governing *minority* Conservative Party who feel no need to call for and end to violence.


I found the tone appropriate to the content, but acknowledge that it was rude.
.........
The Liberal leadership candidates show some diversity of opinion. Regardless, there is more than one issue. You do realize that it isn't just about the Canadians in Lebanon? A leader should know this and balance his actions with today and tomorrow in mind. Furthermore, even for that one consideration, there a variety of debatable appraoches. 

Please do not continue to grossly oversimplify this matter, as you have done a fair bit recently.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

nxnw said:


> This disingenuous comment, excusing Hezbollahs' use of missiles loaded with ball bearings, should embarrass you.


That's a disingenuous coment, are not Israel bombs, sheels, and missiles designed to kill also.

I ask you to retract your statement. I do not excuse Hezbollah's use of missiles or rockets loaded with ball bearings. I strongly condemn Hezbollah and it's actions.

Nor do I excuse Israel for targeting/murdering (take your pick) of a Canadian family and hundreds of other innocent civillians. You may excuse Israel for that, if it suits your beliefs.


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> Pro-Isreali stories = Good
> Israeli government news releases = the truth
> Neutral stories that vindicate Israel = good
> 
> Neutral news sources that vindicate stories of Israel abuses = lies
> Lebanese government news releases = slander (let remember they are not even fighting here)
> 
> So basically any story, report, observation, photo, that shows Israel in a negative light will always be countered as being slander by nxnw?


My comments speak for themselves and your bald, groundless distortions are nothing but hot air, generated by your animosity.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> My comments speak for themselves


Unfortunately, they have.


----------



## nxnw

Paul O'Keefe said:


> That's a disingenuous coment, are not Israel bombs, sheels, and missiles designed to kill also.


No, Israeli bombs are designed to explode and cause maximum damage to military targets, like missiles, bunkers and strategic infrastructure. The Hezbollah missiles were designed specifically to cause greater damage to soft tissue, i.e., people, at the expense of explosive force. 

I regret your inability to see the distinction.


----------



## Vandave

Paul O'Keefe said:


> That's a disingenuous coment, are not Israel bombs, sheels, and missiles designed to kill also.
> 
> I ask you to retract your statement. I do not excuse Hezbollah's use of missiles or rockets loaded with ball bearings. I strongly condemn Hezbollah and it's actions.
> 
> Nor do I excuse Israel for targeting/murdering (take your pick) of a Canadian family and hundreds of other innocent civillians. You may excuse Israel for that, if it suits your beliefs.


That's not the full story.

Israel takes major precations against civilian casualties. Hezbollah are directly targeting civilians. There is no moral comparison. 

There will always be collateral damage in wars. If you provoke a war, as Hezbullah has done, this is going to happen.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

Thank you, Beej. I accept your acknowlege and must admit myself, I've be trying hard to convince you of the merits of my arguments. Perhaps I pushed too hard at times.

I humbly admit that the solution is not simple, but the journey of a thousand miles starts with a first step. My "step" is very general in nature, and as this is a message board and not a political science thesis, I think it was a valid and desirable first step. 

For example when I call upon a union and employer to get back to the bargain table and sort through their issues so that services may be returned, I do not offer to draw up the plains of a tentative agree. That is for others in higher offices than myself.

I hope this explains my simplistic calls for action and foreign policy stances.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

nxnw said:


> No, Israeli bombs are designed to explode and cause maximum damage to military targets, like missiles, bunkers and strategic infrastructure. The Hezbollah missiles were designed specifically to cause greater damage to soft tissue, i.e., people, at the expense of explosive force.
> 
> I regret your inability to see the distinction.


As I regret your seeming inability to retract your false statement that I excuse Hezbollah.

Human beings are targets too. Last I heard, these Hezzbollah rocket launchers are very mobile and operated by people. People who can move them around quite easily. Since these rocket launchers and their operators are acknowledge targets, it's no leap of logic to say that the Israel weapons are meant to kill people too.

This is especially true when Lebannon is shelled indiscriminantly. And you can't say it doens't happen because it does. Artillery is used on an area, not for pin point sniper accuracy. You want me to take it on faith that Israel carefully plans and aims precisely every bomb, missle, and shell at only legitimate targets. I'm telling you, from understanding human nature, that that is not the case 100% of the time. I don't even know if the targets are legitimate 50% of the time. 

Yes some weapons are meant to kill more than others. But regardless of who fires them, military weapons, regardless of who fires them are meant to kill. You may refuse to see this if you want.


----------



## Beej

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Thank you, Beej. I accept your acknowlege and must admit myself, I've be trying hard to convince you of the merits of my arguments. Perhaps I pushed too hard at times.
> 
> I humbly admit that the solution is not simple, but the journey of a thousand miles starts with a first step. My "step" is very general in nature, and as this is a message board and not a political science thesis, I think it was a valid and desirable first step.
> 
> For example when I call upon a union and employer to get back to the bargain table and sort through their issues so that services may be returned, I do not offer to draw up the plains of a tentative agree. That is for others in higher offices than myself.
> 
> I hope this explains my simplistic calls for action and foreign policy stances.


It's good to see the substance behind your thoughts. Thanks.

In the union example,if there's a strike, what is a first step: sit down at the bargaining table or stop the strike AND sit down at the table? You can see how things can get immensely more difficult, depending on how the employer is hurting financially, union/company history, past negotiations, judges orders etc. Suddenly, sitting down and talking may not be enough to start change.


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> So what you are saying is that Hezbollah's offices work from 9 to 5 and then they all go home?


I was referring to the bombing of the headquarters in Beirut, early in the conflict. I think there were 2 or 3 casualties so, I guess the building was pretty empty.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> I was referring to the bombing of the headquarters in Beirut, early in the conflict. I think there were 2 or 3 casualties so, I guess the building was pretty empty.


Thanks for clarification - I take back my sarcasm.


----------



## nxnw

Paul O'Keefe said:


> As I regret your seeming inability to retract your false statement that I excuse Hezbollah.
> 
> Human beings are targets too. Last I heard, these Hezzbollah rocket launchers are very mobile and operated by people. People who can move them around quite easily. Since these rocket launchers and their operators are acknowledge targets, it's no leap of logic to say that the Israel weapons are meant to kill people too.
> ...


I did not mean to say that you are content with Hezbollah's acts. You are, however, asserting equivalence between hezbollah's open, willful, intentional targeting of civilians and Israel's demonstrable efforts to _*not*_ kill civilians, despite their proximity (by Hezbollah's design) to military targets.

Israel has the right to fight back, to seek to destroy Hezbollah's arsenal, and to damage Hezbollah. If you can think of a way that it has a prayer of doing so without civilian casualties among the Lebanese, I'd love to hear it.


----------



## nxnw

Paul O'Keefe said:


> nxnw, you seem to take it on FAITH that when Israel strikes illegitimate civillian targets that their intelligence indicated they there it was a valid target. I propose another alternative: Israel also indiscrimently bombs and shells Lebanon and says they are valid targets.


How about this: 

1. We have clear, indisputable evidence that Hezbollah is using weapons designed to mazimize human casualties and is deliberately targeting civilians.

2. Hezbollah hates Jews and repeatedly states that there must be a Jihad, and the Jews killed and driven from Israel. 

Regarding Israel:

1. There have been many civilian deaths, which some have chosen to extrapolate into "proof" that these were intentional and targeted. This is not fair.

2. Israel has given prior warnings to Lebanese civilians of intended attacks, in order to reduce loss of life, even though these warnings have been to Hezbollah's advantage and therefore prejudiced Israel militarily;

3. I do have faith in Israelis, but it is not blind faith. I know Israelis and I know Israeli society.

4. The primary cause of civilian deaths (aside from Hezbollah initiating the conflict) is Hezbollah's placement of strategic targets in civilian areas - no mention from the UN about how positioning of military installations in residential areas is considered a war crime, as defined by Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Convention, article 51(7). It could be even worse. This is from ynetnews (the website of Israel's largest circulation daily. We'll see if it can be corroborated further, but I wouldn't hold my breath for the UN to make a big deal about it:


> The IDF has found that Hizbullah is preventing civilians from leaving villages in southern Lebanon. Roadblocks have been set up outside some of the villages to prevent residents from leaving, while in other villages Hizbullah is preventing UN representatives from entering, who are trying to help residents leave. In two villages, exchanges of fire between residents and Hizbullah have broken out.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> 2. Israel has given prior warnings to Lebanese civilians of intended attacks, in order to reduce loss of life, even though these warnings have been to Hezbollah's advantage and therefore prejudiced Israel militarily;


Of course if you try and escape on what is left of the roads, we may hit you with missiles...



nxnw said:


> no mention from the UN about how positioning of military installations in residential areas is considered a war crime, as defined by Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Convention, article 51(7).


And if you read the statement by Louise Arbour, it is carefully worded. 
http://www.ohchr.org/english/press/media.htm
What you'd like is a one sided denunciation of Hizbullah - noting less would be neutral in your view.

As you know, Israel is does not adhere to the first Protocol. 

You are very quick to believe the IDF - how would you feel if I started to quote Hizbullah press releases? 

Lebanese statements have to credibility with you, but IDF sources are gold.

Seems that many are of the opinion that


> Until the roots of the friction are comprehensively dealt with, things will remain the same.


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3278934,00.html
And that does not mean unilaterally...


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> Of course if you try and escape on what is left of the roads, we may hit you with missiles...


That's what I mean by slanderous.


> You are very quick to believe the IDF - how would you feel if I started to quote Hizbullah press releases?


I'm sorry you find the IDF and Hezbollah equally credible.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> I'm sorry you find the IDF and Hezbollah equally credible.


Never even said that and you are well aware ....


----------



## Beej

ArtistSeries said:


> Never even said that and you are well aware ....


Ok, but what is your answer to this question:
So AS, do you think that violence is never a part of any solution?


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> Never even said that and you are well aware ....


In that case, I miss the point of you saying


> You are very quick to believe the IDF - how would you feel if I started to quote Hizbullah press releases?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

nxnw said:


> No, Israeli bombs are designed to explode and cause maximum damage to military targets, like missiles, bunkers and strategic infrastructure. The Hezbollah missiles were designed specifically to cause greater damage to soft tissue, i.e., people, at the expense of explosive force.
> 
> I regret your inability to see the distinction.


you might want to ask 8 dead Canadians (part of 300+ dead civilians) about that "distinction"


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

*Fighting could amount to war crime*

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...le&cid=1153345816532&call_pageid=970599119419



> UNITED NATIONS—The UN's top human rights official issued a strong warning
> yesterday that killings of innocent civilians in Lebanon and Israel could amount
> to war crimes.
> 
> "International humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligation to protect
> civilians during hostilities," said UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise
> Arbour. "This obligation is also expressed in international criminal law, which
> defines war crimes and crimes against humanity."
> 
> Arbour, who left Canada's Supreme Court to take the United Nations post, is the
> former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal who indicted
> Yugoslavia's former leader Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes.
> 
> The death toll in Lebanon has reached 300, and in Israel 29, since the Lebanese
> militant group Hezbollah took two Israeli soldiers and killed seven others in a
> July 12 cross-border raid, and Israel responded with waves of bombings. The
> differences in casualty figures have sparked criticism of Israel for a
> "disproportionate" response.


----------



## nxnw

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you might want to ask 8 dead Canadians... about that "distinction"


Are you claiming that Israel wanted to kill these people? Do you not appreciate the distinction between casualties of war and intentional targeting of civilians?

I'm sorry you read Louise Arbour's comments as an accusation against Israel, but some people see what they want to see.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

and dead is dead regardless of "intention"
and you only see what you want to see no matter how high the death toll


----------



## nxnw

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and dead is dead regardless of "intention"


That is true enough, but intention is relevant to the ethical issues being discussed.

Would you say there is no difference between a person who hunts down and murders a child, and a a person who kills a child in a car accident? Both children are dead, right?


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> That is true enough, but intention is relevant to the ethical issues being discussed.
> 
> Would you say there is no difference between a person who hunts down and murders a child, and a a person who kills a child in a car accident? Both children are dead, right?


Ahh the "collateral damage" angle. Thus moving the debate from the actions taken and "Proportionality". Good analogy, wrong situation.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

nxnw said:


> That is true enough, but intention is relevant to the ethical issues being discussed.
> 
> Would you say there is no difference between a person who hunts down and murders a child, and a a person who kills a child in a car accident? Both children are dead, right?


your car analogy is flawed as cars are not designed as weapons
artillery shells and air to surface missiles have no other purpose other than death and destruction
now if you want to consider a drunk driver, we have a much better analogy

a policeman fires his weapon at a suspected criminal and kills an innocent bystander - isn't that officer subject to criminal charges of some sort?


----------



## nxnw

MACSPECTRUM said:


> a policeman fires his weapon at a suspected criminal and kills an innocent bystander - isn't that officer subject to criminal charges of some sort?


OK, you have a point, but your analogy is also not quite there. How about: 

1. a person who shoots at someone pointing a gun at him, but accidentally kills a bystander.

2. someone who stalks and murders a child.

Would you say there is no difference between them?

By and large, depending on the precise circumstances, I don't think the gun killing (however tragic) would be a crime. Under no circumstances could I see it being considered murder.


----------



## Wisechoice

nxnw said:


> OK, you have a point, but your analogy is also not quite there. How about:
> 
> 1. a person who shoots at someone pointing a gun at him, but accidentally kills a bystander.
> 
> 2. someone who stalks and murders a child.
> 
> Would you say there is no difference between them?
> 
> By and large, depending on the precise circumstances, I don't think the gun killing (however tragic) would be a crime. Under no circumstances could I see it being considered murder.


Suppose it was in a crowded street. Do we really have to use these analogies to see the reality? Israel is being reckless. Like Hezbollah, they are inured to the terrible effects they unleash on their own people, not to mention civilians on the other side. Unlike Hezbollah, they have the capability to destroy everything around them.



> Contrast this with
> - Hezbollah's exclusive and intentional targeting of civilians;


Would you care to restate that? After all, they supposedly started this conflict by "kidnapping" and killing SOLDIERS. But I suppose some of us want it both ways when it comes to Israel.


----------



## Wisechoice

Nobody who cares about the facts can afford to miss this tiny paragraph...

From The Observer (UK) on June 25:



> *Gaza Strip arrests*
> 
> Israeli forces have detained two Palestinians, who the army said were Hamas militants, in the Gaza Strip, in what *observers said was the first arrest raid in the territory since Israel pulled out of the area a year ago*.


This was the day before the Israeli *soldier* was "kidnapped" by Hamas (which was termed an _unprovoked_ attack by Israel and most of the press here). It received no more than one sentence, and there was no mention of this intrusion anywhere else.

Source

Further reading, very informative:



> But what about the Palestinian attack: did it not have a cause too? According to the British media, apparently not. Apart from making vague references to the Israeli artillery bombardment of the Gaza Strip over the previous weeks, Johnstone and other reporters offered no context for the Palestinian attack. It had no obvious cause or explanation. It appeared to come out of nowhere, born presumably only of Palestinian malice.
> 
> Or as a Guardian editorial phrased it: “Confusion surrounds the precise motives of the gunmen from the Islamist group Hamas and two other armed organisations who captured the Israeli corporal and killed two other soldiers on Sunday. But it was clearly intended to provoke a reaction, as is the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel.” ('Storm over Gaza,' 29 June 2006)
> 
> It was not as though Johnstone or the Guardian had far to look for reasons for the Palestinian attack, explanations that might frame it as a retaliation no different from the Israeli one. In addition to the shelling that has caused some 30 civilian deaths and inflicted yet more trauma on a generation of Palestinian children, Israel has been blockading Gaza’s borders to prevent food and medicines from reaching the population and it has successfully pressured international donors to cut off desperately needed funds to the Palestinian government. Then, of course, there was also the matter of the Israeli army’s violation of Palestinian-controlled territory in Gaza the day before.


 Kidnapped by Israel


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

nxnw said:


> OK, you have a point, but your analogy is also not quite there. How about:
> 
> 1. a person who shoots at someone pointing a gun at him, but accidentally kills a bystander.
> 
> 2. someone who stalks and murders a child.
> 
> Would you say there is no difference between them?
> 
> By and large, depending on the precise circumstances, I don't think the gun killing (however tragic) would be a crime. Under no circumstances could I see it being considered murder.


you really know your argument is flawed, unless of course you are a lawyer for the NRA

what about that same person that keeps shooting into the crowd killing 300+ innocent bystanders and is still shooting?

when does an "accident" become an predictable "side effect"?

the only peaceful solution is for the UN to be respected and a peace keeping force to be installed and the UN create a Palestinian state as it did an Israeli state

the US must start supporting the UN and must start supporting a peaceful, long term solution

We've had 50+ years of this violence in the region
It's time for a different solution

"insanity" - repeating the same action, expecting a different result


----------



## Macfury

MACSPECTRUM said:


> "insanity" - repeating the same action, expecting a different result


"Insanity"--expecting that the UN will do something effective where it has consistently failed to do so in the past.

Better to have them run some sort of oil-for-food program where their achievements at self-enrichment are demonstrable.


----------



## MannyP Design

Insanity: Constantly believing you're correct and everyone else is wrong.


----------



## nxnw

MACSPECTRUM said:


> the only peaceful solution is for the UN to be respected and a peace keeping force to be installed and the UN create a Palestinian state as it did an Israeli state


Well, the UN was in Lebanon already, before the current conflict, and it didn't seem to stop Hezbollah from firing rockets into Israel. 

It's easy for you and "wisechoice" to challenge an apt analogy from your safe comfort here. I have not the slightest doubt that if you were in a crowded market with your children and somebody started shooting at you, you would fire back, if you had the ability.

And, of course, neither of you have been willing to respond to the key question of "Would you say there is no difference between them?"

Wisechoice, the Hamas attack was made via a 300 metre tunnel. You can choose to believe the tunnel was excavated and the attack carried out for the purpose of responding to an arrest the day before, but I don't think you would argue that point. I suspect, as well, you may not know that Israel has been bombarded by Qassam rockets fire from Gaza since it evacuated. Perhaps you might consider that to be an acceptable reason for the arrests, as I assume you are not one of those who say that Israel should let its civilians be killed without takings steps to protect them.

Finally, the restriction of travel in and out of Gaza has a history too. 30 years ago, I worked on a Kibbutz in the Negev for a summer. It was no more than 2 miles from Gaza (tangentially, it has been a target for Qassam rockets over the last few years, one recently of which hit the preschool playground - the children were, fortunately, inside at that moment).

Among the labour force on the Kibbutz was a large contingent of Palestinians from the Gaza strip. They travelled to and from the kibbutz freely. Indeed, Palestinians worked throughout Israel at the time. When Palestinians started boarding busses with bombs strapped to them, blowing up people in pizzerias, at Passover seders, the climate changed. 

Reasonable people will connect the dots and recognize that terrorism has led to, and justifies travel restrictions, and that terrorism has been catastrophic for the Palestinian population (although not for their leaders).


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> I have not the slightest doubt that if you were in a crowded market with your children and somebody started shooting at you, you would fire back, if you had the ability.


my primary concern would be to find safe haven, regardless of my ability to fire back
the image of myself standing up firing back, while muttering; "Feel lucky, punk?", while the crowd scattered is far too "Dirty Harry" for my persona

perhaps that 'not the slightest doubt' applies to you and your actions

i only hope you don't have a concealed gun permit

the UN needs support of the US instead of veto votes, instead the US spend billions in Iraq
i don't think that peace will ever be reached in that region

too many weapons and too many people all too willing to use them


----------



## nxnw

MACSPECTRUM said:


> my primary concern would be to find safe haven, regardless of my ability to fire back


What if the shooter is firing indiscriminately in your direction, and others are being hit while he fires at you? Will you fire back then?


----------



## Macfury

Spec posits a world without weapons. You can probably create an intricate scenario where Spec says he'll fire back. In real life, he and those under his protection wind up as canon fodder if they don't run fast enough.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> What if the shooter is firing indiscriminately in your direction, and others are being hit while he fires at you? Will you fire back then?


Ask the UN....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

nxnw said:


> What if the shooter is firing indiscriminately in your direction, and others are being hit while he fires at you? Will you fire back then?


i guess my only reaction would be to call in an air strike and blow away the surrounding 100 square meters

i would then explain to the families of the innocent civilians i killed that their deaths were tragic and that i had dropped leaflets earlier warning them to move away


----------



## Macfury

Spec: If your position is that you're a pacifist, regardless of the level of provocation, just say so.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Macfury said:


> Spec: If your position is that you're a pacifist, regardless of the level of provocation, just say so.


Being a pacifist does not curtain self-defense. 

Now, of course, to some the definition of "self-defense" is rather creative....


I would expect a pacifist, or at the very least anti-war stance from a wanna-be libertarian.


----------



## Vandave

ArtistSeries said:


> Being a pacifist does not curtain self-defense.
> 
> Now, of course, to some the definition of "self-defense" is rather creative....


You've thrown a lot of criticism at Israel. It's easy being a backseat driver.

What would you do if you were Israel and your citizens got kidnapped and a group started launching rockets at your civilians?


----------



## ArtistSeries

VD, you are describing different situation (launching rockets, kidnappings). 
And as nxnw illustrated a few post back, this is part of a complex situation.
I don't think that the limited response I could post here would satisfy you or elucidate an answer to your satisfaction. 
I could give you two simple answers that would likely cause a flurry of accusations from certain circles.
What I would like is peace in the region but this may not be the goal of either side. That is not to say Israel does not want peace on its borders just that it's method of getting it may not please residents of the Gaza Strip. Unilateral peace plan will not work.


----------



## Macfury

Some pacifists support the notion of self-defense, others run like hell. What I'm saying is, don't be afraid to identify your stance instead of dancing around it.

AS: a Libertarian approach to war is neither specifically pacifist or anti-war. It is anti-conscription and would limit the ability of a government body to declare war without provocation.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Macfury said:


> What I'm saying is, don't be afraid to identify your stance instead of dancing around it.


Much better - thanks. Now back to berating Spec...


----------



## Vandave

ArtistSeries said:


> I don't think that the limited response I could post here would satisfy you or elucidate an answer to your satisfaction.


Very convincing. :clap:

Yet, you are quick to provide all sorts of counter responses against Israel's actions.


----------



## ArtistSeries

How about this:
Because of Israeli actions over the years, they have help the situation in the Gaza strip. The government of Israel policies and oppression of the Palestinian population is responsible for the rise of militants in that region. 
Unilateral retreat is a failure because it does not take into account Palestinian wishes for a state. It's akin to treating them like children. Further, the disengagement does not address the root conflicts. It's not a fair deal and all sides seem to know this. 
On the other side, whatever elected government (be it Hamas or some other) has to enforce control over the various factions if ever they want to be taken seriously as the legitimate government. A sustained and sincere campaign and enforcing of non-violent means will show good faith (it's a learning process that is not going to happen overnight). 

It other words, work on eliminating the causes of the problem. The anti-Israeli propaganda would not find such wide acceptance amongst Palestinians if conditions were better. Terrorist groups can learn to operate/morph peacefully into politics - Irgun is an example. 
Hamas, on the surface, was voted because they seemed to be able to get things done - not necessarily for their ideology.

In other words, this is not about one incident but part of a bigger timeline and series of incidents.

Now, you'll want comments on Hezbollah - 
At that will have to wait....


----------



## martman

Interesting that in what I have seen of this discution (admittedly I have not read all 39 pages of this topic) no one is talking about the 500,000 + displaced civillians. It seems only the injured and killed are worth talking about.

Isreal does indeed have a right (and a duty) to protect its people from terrorism but it does not have a right to contrviene the Geneva conventions but since it is a puppet state of the USA why should they feel any obligation to uphold its obligations vis avis the 4th Geneva conventions to which Isreal is a signiator?
To say that Isreal is trying to minimise civilliuan damage is disengenious. How many civillians have been killed trying to flee to Syria? How many Canadians?
I suppose the Canadians were terrorists too?
When the death toll was at 200 Lebanese it was reported only 2 were Hezzbolah. This is an effiency of 1%. 
The aforementioned Geneva conventions specifically dissallow the bomboing of the bridges and powerplants as well as the resedential areas in a situation such as this. 
This talk of minimising civillian casualties sickens me. There has been no such thing and now more than half a million people have been displaced because two soldiers were abducted. On top of all this Harper has the nerve to call the response measured.

Here are Thursday's numbers:


> DEATH TOLL:
> 
> LEBANESE Total Yesterday
> Civilian 268
> Military 4
> ISRAELI
> Civilian 15
> Military 14
> HEZBOLLAH 5
> OTHERS 13


From the looks of this it is not the Isrealis who are worried about civillian deaths.

The above mentioned Geneva conventions prohibit the actions of Isreal even if Hezzbolah were the government of Lebanon (which they aren't).
In the end it seems to me that Isreal is helping to recruit more members for Hezzbolah. This at a time when Lebanon was finally looking to solve its Hezzbolah problem. Now they will be entrtenched for a lot longer. Nice move.


----------



## Wisechoice

> It's easy for you and "wisechoice" to challenge an apt analogy from your safe comfort here. I have not the slightest doubt that if you were in a crowded market with your children and somebody started shooting at you, you would fire back, if you had the ability.


This actually makes you sound like a lunatic.



> I suspect, as well, you may not know that Israel has been bombarded by Qassam rockets fire from Gaza since it evacuated. Perhaps you might consider that to be an acceptable reason for the arrests, as I assume you are not one of those who say that Israel should let its civilians be killed without takings steps to protect them.


I would be most interested in reading your sources, if you could provide them.

Let me also say that I'm glad you weren't harmed during your stay in Israel. Since you were so close to it all, can you tell us how much the Palestinian workers earned? Enough to pay off the indignity of occupation? Or the indignity of not being able to find work at home?



> Traditionally, Palestinians seek work inside Israel as a result of the lack of work opportunities in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and because the wages offered there are higher. On the other hand, Israeli employers benefit from this cheap labour force. Before the Oslo Peace Process, over one third of West Bank and Gaza workers were employed in Israel, the majority of which in construction. With Israeli policy of closure, which was formalised in 1993 by Rabin and institutionalised with Oslo, the number of workers dropped significantly (see table). Closure consists of banning movement of labour, goods and the factors of production between the Occupied Territories and Israel, as well as between, and within, the West Bank and Gaza.
> (...)
> Many international organisations and NGOs have pointed to the inhumane conditions under which workers are required to undergo security checks. These involve long hours of waiting, submission to daily humiliation and personal risk at checkpoints. One worker died from suffocation at Erez checkpoint in early 2004 as a result of these conditions. Moreover, numerous violations of the rights of workers have been signalled, including daily hire or not being officially registered as employed. These practices mean they are denied the rights provided for workers under Israeli law, such as severance pay, benefits or insurance. Workers also face direct and indirect discrimination in terms of salaries and working conditions. Palestinian workers have no job security, and may be subject to pressure by their employers, capable of dismissing them or withdrawing their work permit without constraint.


http://www.medea.be/index.html?page=2&lang=en&doc=284


----------



## Wisechoice

And furthermore, it is precisely my own safety - and the safety of my children - that concerns me. "Reasonable people" as you call them, should realize that allowing others to inflict senseless destruction and terror indiscriminately on whole populations must not be sanctioned. Because that puts all of us at risk.

We are dependent on one another to speak out against violence without proportion, violence without wisdom, violence born of hatred, fear and vengeance, untempered by any sense of compassion or restraint. Otherwise we are doomed, and words - analogies - do us no good whatsoever, no matter how they decorate our actions or how convoluted the calculus behind them.

There must be a ceasefire now. Reasonable people must call for it.



> It's easy for you and "wisechoice" to challenge an apt analogy from your safe comfort here.


----------



## krs

martman said:


> Interesting that in what I have seen of this discussion (admittedly I have not read all 39 pages of this topic) no one is talking about the 500,000 + displaced civillians. It seems only the injured and killed are worth talking about.
> 
> Israel does indeed have a right (and a duty) to protect its people from terrorism but it does not have a right to contravene the Geneva conventions..............In the end it seems to me that Isreal is helping to recruit more members for Hezzbolah. This at a time when Lebanon was finally looking to solve its Hezzbolah problem. Now they will be entrtenched for a lot longer. Nice move.


I haven't read every post either, but I pretty well agree with martman.

It's pretty amazing that anyone (well, that is anyone who is not an Israeli) supports this agression...not only bombing powerplants and bridges, but also hospitals according to CNN.
And all because two soldiers were kidnapped.
Has anyone ever thought why they were kidnapped in the first place?
Do perhaps hundreds of Lebanese prisoners come to mind that Israel has held for years without due process? One of them for 27 years!


----------



## nxnw

Wisechoice said:


> "Reasonable people" as you call them, should realize that allowing others to inflict senseless destruction and terror indiscriminately on whole populations must not be sanctioned. Because that puts all of us at risk.


Well said. Unfortunately you seem to believe that Israel must allow Hamas and Hezbollah "to inflict senseless destruction and terror indiscriminately" on the whole Israeli population. 

Your request for sources about Qassam attacks launched from Gaza, a notoriously well known fact, signals a lack of awareness. It is hurtful when people take vociferous anti-Israel positions such as yours, when they apparently have never heard of a Qassam.

Finally, there is no question that the restrictions on movement cause hardship. What I tried to explain was that these restrictions were a response to terrorism, and these restrictions did not exist 30 years ago, before children were slaughtered at Sbarro's in Jerusalem, or elderly people were murdered in a hotel ballroom, during their Passover seder.


krs said:


> Has anyone ever thought why they were kidnapped in the first place?
> Do perhaps hundreds of Lebanese prisoners come to mind that Israel has held for years without due process? *One of them for 27 years*!


I see that you firmly believe that Mr. Kuntar is as innocent as the day is long. Maybe after he is released, you will have him over or introduce him to your sister, to demonstrate your admiration. Or maybe not:


> Immediately after the Hezbollah attack, the organization's Al-Manar television station began broadcasting clips calling on Israel to release Lebanese prisoners held in Israel in return for the soldiers.
> 
> *The group in particular emphasized the release of Lebanese militant Samir Kuntar...*


 8 soldiers killed, 2 snatched in Hezbollah border attacks


> Samir Kuntar ... is a Lebanese who participated in a terrorist attack on Israeli civilians in 1979. He has been held in Israeli jails under a four-times-life sentence since his conviction in 1979 on charges of murder and terrorism, for killing 2 Israeli civilians and two Israeli policemen.
> 
> On April 22, 1979, Samir Kuntar led a unit of four infiltrators who entered Israeli waters from Lebanon and beached their watercraft in the coastal town of Nahariya. The four killed a policeman who ran across them and were able to break into the apartment of the Haran family before police reinforcements had arrived. The unit took 28-year-old Danny Haran hostage along with his four-year-old daughter Einat. Kuntar killed both the father and the four-year-old girl during the ensuing shootout. The wife, Smadar Haran, was able to hide in the attic with her two-year-old daughter Yael, but while trying desperately to keep the girl quiet, ended up suffocating her.


Wikipedia

And this is from an article by Mrs. Haran, whose family was murdered by Kuntar:


> Abu Abbas, the former head of a Palestinian terrorist group who was captured in Iraq on April 15, is infamous for masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro. But there are probably few who remember why Abbas's terrorists held the ship and its 400-plus passengers hostage for two days. It was to gain the release of a Lebanese terrorist named Samir Kuntar, who is locked up in an Israeli prison for life. Kuntar's name is all but unknown to the world. But I know it well. Because almost a quarter of a century ago, Kuntar murdered my family.
> 
> It was a murder of unimaginable cruelty, crueler even than the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, the American tourist who was shot on the Achille Lauro and dumped overboard in his wheelchair. Kuntar's mission against my family, which never made world headlines, was also masterminded by Abu Abbas...
> 
> It had been a peaceful Sabbath day. My husband, Danny, and I had picnicked with our little girls, Einat, 4, and Yael, 2, on the beach not far from our home in Nahariya, a city on the northern coast of Israel, about six miles south of the Lebanese border. Around midnight, we were asleep in our apartment when four terrorists, sent by Abu Abbas from Lebanon, landed in a rubber boat on the beach two blocks away. Gunfire and exploding grenades awakened us as the terrorists burst into our building. They had already killed a police officer. As they charged up to the floor above ours, I opened the door to our apartment. In the moment before the hall light went off, they turned and saw me. As they moved on, our neighbor from the upper floor came running down the stairs. I grabbed her and pushed her inside our apartment and slammed the door.
> 
> Outside, we could hear the men storming about. Desperately, we sought to hide. Danny helped our neighbor climb into a crawl space above our bedroom; I went in behind her with Yael in my arms. Then Danny grabbed Einat and was dashing out the front door to take refuge in an underground shelter when the terrorists came crashing into our flat. They held Danny and Einat while they searched for me and Yael, knowing there were more people in the apartment. I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades. I knew that if Yael cried out, the terrorists would toss a grenade into the crawl space and we would be killed. So I kept my hand over her mouth, hoping she could breathe...
> 
> As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.
> 
> By the time we were rescued from the crawl space, hours later, Yael, too, was dead. In trying to save all our lives, I had smothered her.
> 
> The next day, Abu Abbas announced from Beirut that the terrorist attack in Nahariya had been carried out "to protest the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty" at Camp David the previous year.


I don't agree with you, krs, that the release of Mr. Kuntar justified the incursion into Israel and the kidnap and killing of Israeli soldiers.


----------



## Vandave

krs said:


> I haven't read every post either, but I pretty well agree with martman.
> 
> It's pretty amazing that anyone (well, that is anyone who is not an Israeli) supports this agression...not only bombing powerplants and bridges, but also hospitals according to CNN.
> And all because two soldiers were kidnapped.
> Has anyone ever thought why they were kidnapped in the first place?
> Do perhaps hundreds of Lebanese prisoners come to mind that Israel has held for years without due process? One of them for 27 years!


I am not Israeli or Jewish, but I support their offensive. I feel that blowing up the airport runway, having the blockade and taking out KEY bridges is reasonable from a military standpoint. However, blowing up bridges within the country that are not key, taking out powerplants and hospitals is mostly punishing the population and has little strategic value. In fact, it will have the opposite effect and turn the Lebanese population further against them.

It wasn't accidental that those two soldiers were kidnapped and that Hezbollah was able to launch hundreds of rockets into Israel. This seems to be a deliberate provocation. I doubt Israel is going to achieve much by bombing from the air. There are only so many available targets and Hezbollah is well hidden amongst the population. 

The only way for Israel to come out on top in this conflict is to put boots on the ground and go from building to building and tunnel to tunnel. It will be bloody and likely to have little effect. They couldn't do it in 18 years, so there will be no quick victory.

The way I see it is that Israel has lost this round.


----------



## Beej

krs said:


> It's pretty amazing that anyone (well, that is anyone who is not an Israeli) supports this agression


What does that have to do with it? Do you think support could only be some form of blind patriotism? 

And of course, there's support for every single action (even ones as yet unknown) and support for the general level of force and... well, let's just try to get beyond my first couple questions becaues your statement strikes me as, er, odd.


----------



## Beej

Vandave said:


> I am not Israeli or Jewish, but I support their offensive. I feel that blowing up the airport runway, having the blockade and taking out KEY bridges is reasonable from a military standpoint. However, blowing up bridges within the country that are not key, taking out powerplants and hospitals is mostly punishing the population and has little strategic value. In fact, it will have the opposite effect and turn the Lebanese population further against them.
> 
> It wasn't accidental that those two soldiers were kidnapped and that Hezbollah was able to launch hundreds of rockets into Israel. This seems to be a deliberate provocation. I doubt Israel is going to achieve much by bombing from the air. There are only so many available targets and Hezbollah is well hidden amongst the population.
> 
> The only way for Israel to come out on top in this conflict is to put boots on the ground and go from building to building and tunnel to tunnel. It will be bloody and likely to have little effect. They couldn't do it in 18 years, so there will be no quick victory.
> 
> The way I see it is that Israel has lost this round.


Some interesting thoughts there Vandave. 

Just bombing won't work, the other option (boots on the ground) may work for a bit, doing nothing obviously doesn't work, giving back land didn't work and the list goes on. Canada debates various elements of domestic fiscal policy and social programs (to varying degrees of substance) and Israel has to grapple with what looks like an unsolvable situation that can't just be ignored.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis
By DAVID S. CLOUD and HELENE COOPER
The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of
precision-guided bombs to Israel, which some military
officers see as a sign of a longer campaign ahead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/world/middleeast/22military.html?th&emc=th


----------



## Beej

From an editorial in the Globe and Mail:
..................
Harsh as this sounds, if the international community forces Israel to halt its offensive in Lebanon before it finishes dealing with Hezbollah, whose cross-border attacks started the current round of fighting, nothing will have been accomplished. Once the fighting stops, Hezbollah will simply filter back into southern Lebanon to attack Israelis again. Israel will be forced to respond, as it has so many times before. 
..
Enough is enough. No country can go on and on for decades with hostile forces gathered on its border, poised to attack at any moment and frequently doing so. After all the bloodshed and terror of the past weeks, it would be tragic to let things lapse into the old pattern. Something lasting must be done, Israelis feel, to keep their northern border secure.

The international community should be equally committed to a long-term solution. Rather than call for an immediate end to the fighting, world leaders should focus on what is going to happen after it stops.
..
This is not an impossible dream. In UN Security Council Resolution 1559, the international community has already expressed its strong interest in a peaceful southern Lebanon. It calls for Hezbollah to be disarmed in the south and for the Lebanese army to take its place there. 
..............


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> He [Kofi Anan] told the UN Security Council this week that hostilities in the Middle East should stop immediately. The European Union said the same.


 G & M, July 22, 2006

seems the US and Canada don't see eye to eye with Europe on peace vs. war
can all those European countries be wrong?
since they experienced two world wars in their front yards perhaps they know a thing or two about war?


----------



## ArtistSeries

Beej said:


> What does that have to do with it? Do you think support could only be some form of blind patriotism?


No, support does not have to be blind patriotism but sure looks like it has a lot to do with it here. 
Israel's response has been beyond "measured", 500 000 refugees, destroyed economy and as Pat Buchanan has said "imposing judgement on a whole people". 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOyo-DNlXDQ

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51116


----------



## nxnw

macspectrum said:


> ...since they experienced two world wars in their front yards perhaps they know a thing or two about war?


Please remind me which European country (other than Axis powers) wanted the US to go home and stop fighting the Nazis.

"hostilities in the Middle East should stop immediately"

It would be a treasure beyond measure if "hostilities" could stop immediately.

I asked this in another thread: Do any of you honestly think that Hezbollah will voluntarily cease its attacks on Israel, under any circumstances, other than to rearm so it can resume its attacks another day?


----------



## NBiBooker

MACSPECTRUM said:


> G & M, July 22, 2006
> 
> seems the US and Canada don't see eye to eye with Europe on peace vs. war
> can all those European countries be wrong?
> since they experienced two world wars in their front yards perhaps they know a thing or two about war?


No but they can be blatantly anti-Israel even in the face of overwhelming justification for the current Israeli action.

Frankly, what everyone neglects to mention is that we're talking about Hamas and Hizbollah, two groups who don't want a Palestinian-Isreali two state solution, they want Israel destroyed and the Jewish people wiped out. If anything, the western world should be signing up to help Israel destroy the capablities of these two terror groups.


----------



## Macfury

MACSPECTRUM said:


> can all those European countries be wrong?
> since they experienced two world wars in their front yards perhaps they know a thing or two about war?


With the exception of England, two of them know how to dish out, and the rest know how to knuckle under.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Vandave said:


> I am not Israeli or Jewish, but I support their offensive. I feel that blowing up the airport runway, having the blockade and taking out KEY bridges is reasonable from a military standpoint. However, blowing up bridges within the country that are not key, taking out powerplants and hospitals is mostly punishing the population and has little strategic value. In fact, it will have the opposite effect and turn the Lebanese population further against them.


Let's not forget that Israel is not at war with Lebanon. 
Yes the IDF should be after Hezbollah.


----------



## NBiBooker

ArtistSeries said:


> Let's not forget that Israel is not at war with Lebanon.
> Yes the IDF should be after Hezbollah.


Well, if they after Hezbollah it's to a Lebanon they must go.


----------



## Macfury

I suppose if EhMacers were allowed to debte democratically on what Israel should do, it would be sitting there right now, getting pummeled into submission. The search for inflammatory incidents that might have occured two weeks ago, 60 years ago, or 2,000 years ago is academic at this point. No matter who made who angry, the point, as I see it, is that:
* Hezbollah is Lebanon's guest, 
* They have weapons they don't mind using on Israel

Israel has been fully aware of this, essentially not going into Lebanon as the buildup occurred. I think that qualifies as restraint. At this point, Israel is already across the border, already on the move, already facing the brunt of criticiam from the world's oh-so-peaceful nations--I see little incentive for them to stop until they perceive the job is done. 

UN promises? To quote Bullwinkle "This time the trick will really work, Rocky"


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

ArtistSeries said:


> Let's not forget that Israel is not at war with Lebanon.
> Yes the IDF should be after Hezbollah.


I believe that the Lebanese PM has already said that if Israeli forces cross into Lebanon, they will be met with Lebanese military. A defacto state of war will then exist between Lebanon and Israel.

and General Dynamics/Ratheon/Lockheed Martin laughs all the way to the bank not to mention the oil companies who are enjoying more profits thanks to an ever more destablized middle east

where was the electric car brochure?



> "Syria proved it is a terror government by nature. It is a government that supports terror and encourages murderous acts by terror groups within and outside its territory. Necessary measures will be taken against the Syrian government," Olmert said.
> 
> Defense Minister Amir Peretz said that "the State of Israel considers the Lebanese government responsible for the attack in the north. The government is also directly responsible for the fate of the abducted soldiers and must operate immediately and firmly in order to locate them, prevent any harm from being done to them, and return them to Israel."
> 
> "The Lebanese government, which allows Hizbullah to operate freely against Israel from within its sovereign territory, will bear full responsibility for the consequences. The State of Israel considers itself free to act in any way it sees fit, and the IDF has been instructed accordingly," Peretz added.


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3274385,00.html

I guess that's the reason for that "rush" order of new weapons


----------



## Macfury

Spec: The Lebanese army should have dealt with Hezbollah years ago.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Macfury said:


> Spec: The Lebanese army should have dealt with Hezbollah years ago.


That's a rather simplistic statement not taking into account the reality - 
(why does your statement remind of Bush at the moment)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

Macfury said:


> Spec: The Lebanese army should have dealt with Hezbollah years ago.


I'm sure you'll parrot the same opinion when Israel invades Syria


----------



## Macfury

AS: If, indeed, the Lebanese army is ready and able to defend itself agains Israel, why could it not have done something about Hezbollah?

Because it didn't want to?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

NBiBooker said:


> No but they can be blatantly anti-Israel even in the face of overwhelming justification for the current Israeli action.
> 
> Frankly, what everyone neglects to mention is that we're talking about Hamas and Hizbollah, two groups who don't want a Palestinian-Isreali two state solution, they want Israel destroyed and the Jewish people wiped out. If anything, the western world should be signing up to help Israel destroy the capablities of these two terror groups.


so all of the European Union is anti-Israel?
you realize that makes you sound paranoid if not crazy


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

nxnw said:


> Please remind me which European country (other than Axis powers) wanted the US to go home and stop fighting the Nazis.
> 
> "hostilities in the Middle East should stop immediately"
> 
> It would be a treasure beyond measure if "hostilities" could stop immediately.
> 
> I asked this in another thread: Do any of you honestly think that Hezbollah will voluntarily cease its attacks on Israel, under any circumstances, other than to rearm so it can resume its attacks another day?


there isn't going to be an opportunity to put that question to the test
Israel and the US have already made the all too obviously clear

with the new rush order of arms it's obvious that the current campaign will be prolonged and expanded, probably into Syria, according to Israel's PM


----------



## krs

I don't think anyone is arguing that Israel has no right to go after the Hezbollah. 
It's just done in such a crude way killing hundreds of innocent civilians on the way and destroying a whole country that is the issue.
Someone posted that there were currently 6 confirmed Hezbollah deaths out of 600 total or a hit rate of 1%. 
I thought Israel had this wonderful secret police that can infiltrate terrorist groups and eliminate them from within - that's certainly what one reads in the newspaper occasionally. Why have they not used that capability more effectively over the years. 
Israel must be held responsible over this unnecassry carnage that they have created; I think they also need to pay for the cost of evacuating all those canadians and other nationals from Lebanon - why should i as a taxpayer fund that effort?
There are terrorist groups all over the world, and surprise, surprise, they do live in various individual countries. That doesn't mean that one country can simply attack another one unilaterally as Israel has done...in fact, Icannot recall anywhere else where this has happened - no wonder that at this point world opinion is 100% against Israel with the exception of the US; not sure where Canada stands.


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> Israel's response has been beyond "measured", 500 000 refugees, destroyed economy and as Pat Buchanan has said "imposing judgement on a whole people".


Given that Pat Buchanan is a complete ass (and please don't dispute that you think the same) I would not expect you to care what he says about anything. It is just hostile rhetoric. 

While there is significant destruction, the Israeli attacks in Lebanon have been in relatively restricted areas. Beirut airport, for instance, could be operating in short order, because the towers and radar have not been attacked. The runways need to be repaved. Most of Beirut is untouched - most of the bombing was within an area of a few blocks and reports indicate that there were few casualties in Beirut.

It is lazy and unfair to measure the proportionality by statistics. The proportionality will only be measurable with any degree of intellectual honesty after the smoke clears and there is a basis for the individual attacks to be better understood. In the interim, however, Israel can defend its response (and I don't claim this is the last word) by the fact that:
- Lebanon had an obligation to disarm Hezbollah and take over control of Southern Lebanon - Hezbollah's launching ground - but has failed to do so in the 6 years since Israel evacuated;
- Hezbollah has been firing Katyushas into Israel for the past 6 years, despite Israel's evacuation;
- Hezbollah triggered the immediate conflict by attacking Israel;
- Hezbollah had built up an arsenal of 10,000 rockets, including longer range rockets produced in Syria and Iran, with more powerful warheads, and warheads loaded with ball bearings to maximize death and injury. There were eyewitness reports of Israel hitting a truckload of 10 Zilzal missiles - advanced guided missiles with a range claimed to be up to 200 km - I figure that at least 80% of the Jewish population of Israel is within the range of these powerful weapons;
- Hezbollah has now fired something approaching 2,000 missiles into Israel since the crisis began, making Haifa, among other places, into ghost town;
- Hezbollah has taken steps (aside from the obvious - instigating the conflict) that have increased Lebanese casualties. Particularly, it launches its missiles from populated areas and stores its arsenal in populated areas;
- Israel has demonstrably taken measures to reduce Lebanese casualties, including broadcasting and dropping leaflets, announcing targets in advance. This gives hezbollah a strategic advantage, as it can take advantage of these warnings. Hezbollah, of course, provides no such warnings.

Again, I don't claim that this is the last word, but it is lazy and dishonest to claim that the numbers prove that Israel's response is not proportionate to the threat.


----------



## HowEver

This is worth repeating over and over to those who disregard the history of the last 60 years or so in the area. I asked it earlier in the thread: how many decades of bombs being sent in to Israel should be suffered before it was time to go after the people doing it? What other country on earth has ever been told to sit back and just take it? What other country would?

When Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and more, call for complete annihilation of Israel and Israelis, what is a "measured" response? When Lebanon freely allows Hezbollah to fire missile after missile at Israel, what is a "measured" response?

Israel occupied lands after it was attacked in 1967. Given that all the other countries involved refused to even _say_ they wouldn't go on killing Israelis if the land was given back, until recently, Israel had to suffer decades of abuse while trying to stay alive. Israel controlled land in Lebanon for a long time for the same reason they may soon control the same land again. If it stops the rockets, kidnappings, and unprovoked attacks, perhaps they should just keep it.




Beej said:


> From an editorial in the Globe and Mail:
> ..................
> Harsh as this sounds, if the international community forces Israel to halt its offensive in Lebanon before it finishes dealing with Hezbollah, whose cross-border attacks started the current round of fighting, nothing will have been accomplished. Once the fighting stops, Hezbollah will simply filter back into southern Lebanon to attack Israelis again. Israel will be forced to respond, as it has so many times before.
> ..
> Enough is enough. No country can go on and on for decades with hostile forces gathered on its border, poised to attack at any moment and frequently doing so. After all the bloodshed and terror of the past weeks, it would be tragic to let things lapse into the old pattern. Something lasting must be done, Israelis feel, to keep their northern border secure.
> 
> The international community should be equally committed to a long-term solution. Rather than call for an immediate end to the fighting, world leaders should focus on what is going to happen after it stops.
> ..
> This is not an impossible dream. In UN Security Council Resolution 1559, the international community has already expressed its strong interest in a peaceful southern Lebanon. It calls for Hezbollah to be disarmed in the south and for the Lebanese army to take its place there.
> ..............


----------



## martman

nxnw said:


> whose family was murdered by Kuntar:I don't agree with you, krs, that the release of Mr. Kuntar justified the incursion into Israel and the kidnap and killing of Israeli soldiers.


I don't believe that the soldiers were kidnaped:
http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/12/ap2873051.html


> Associated Press
> Hezbollah Captures 2 Israeli Soldiers
> By JOSEPH PANOSSIAN , 07.12.2006, 05:41 AM
> The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them.
> 
> The forces were trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity.
> 
> The Israeli military would not confirm the report.
> 
> Earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called an emergency Cabinet meeting and said Lebanese guerrillas would pay a "heavy price" for Wednesday's attacks.


Funny how the story changes...


----------



## martman

Macfury said:


> AS: If, indeed, the Lebanese army is ready and able to defend itself agains Israel, why could it not have done something about Hezbollah?
> 
> Because it didn't want to?


Just because they talk big doen't mean they can realistically defeat Isreal or defeat Hezzbolah without starting a major civil war.
Get real!


----------



## ArtistSeries

Macfury said:


> AS: If, indeed, the Lebanese army is ready and able to defend itself agains Israel, why could it not have done something about Hezbollah?
> 
> Because it didn't want to?


It's going to be a slaughter - but they will be defending their pro-American democratic country. Recently, Lebanese ejected Syria from their country. These are incremental positive changes.


----------



## nxnw

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Do any of you honestly think that Hezbollah will voluntarily cease its attacks on Israel, under any circumstances, other than to rearm so it can resume its attacks another day?
> 
> 
> 
> there isn't going to be an opportunity to put that question to the test.
Click to expand...

So why don't you just answer it honestly instead of evading it. If your purpose is not simply to engage in intellectually dishonest diatribe, this question is surely at the heart of the issue.


----------



## nxnw

krs said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing that Israel has no right to go after the Hezbollah.


I think you do, actually. The statements you have made about casualties, world opinion, etc. are also serious distortions, falsehoods and exaggerations. You have doubled the number of casualties. You have failed to consider that Hezbollah is not reporting its casualties, and, perhaps most important, you have no regard for how many Israelis would be dead if, for instance, even one of those Zilzal missiles had been fired.


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> Recently, Lebanese ejected Syria from their country. These are incremental positive changes.


So, if they can eject Syria, why can't the eject Hezbollah?


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw said:


> Given that Pat Buchanan is a complete ass (and please don't dispute that you think the same) I would not expect you to care what he says about anything. It is just hostile rhetoric.


Anything that points out the obvious is a hostile to your beloved Israel - that's the bottom line.
If an ass, like Pat Buchanan, is able to state the obvious makes you wonder about IDF and American rhetoric....
Maybe you would prefer Fisk:


> What's happening is obviously the mass punishment of a whole people, the Lebanese,


Your "story" seems to change with every passing day, always apologizing for Israel and only adding nuances after behaviour you decried comes to light.



nxnw said:


> While there is significant destruction, the Israeli attacks in Lebanon have been in relatively restricted areas. Beirut airport, for instance, could be operating in short order, because the towers and radar have not been attacked. The runways need to be repaved. Most of Beirut is untouched - most of the bombing was within an area of a few blocks and reports indicate that there were few casualties in Beirut.





nxnw said:


> It is lazy and unfair to measure the proportionality by statistics.


It estimates that about 500,000 people — almost half of them children — have been driven from their homes by the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah that is now into its second week.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=891de83e-9c7d-4456-ae41-b51f9bbf0ad9
I'm glad they are only statistics to you - I'll have to remember that one

So, when you inform us how many rockets are launched, we should really be looking at the destruction they inflicts on Israel? You seems outraged by the sheer numbers - so was it unfair on your part? 



nxnw said:


> The proportionality will only be measurable with any degree of intellectual honesty after the smoke clears and there is a basis for the individual attacks to be better understood.


So what will be issued? Opps we are really, really, really sorry? Please don't be angry? 



nxnw said:


> Again, I don't claim that this is the last word, but it is lazy and dishonest to claim that the numbers prove that Israel's response is not proportionate to the threat.


Maybe this is more sobering


> Terrorist, terrorist, terrorist. There is something perverse about all this, the slaughter and massive destruction and the self-righteous, constant, cancerous use of the word "terrorist".
> 
> No, let us not forget that the Hizbollah broke international law, crossed the Israeli border, killed three Israeli soldiers, captured two others and dragged them back through the border fence. It was an act of calculated ruthlessness that should never allow Hizbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, to grin so broadly at his press conference. It has brought unparalleled tragedy to countless innocents in Lebanon. And of course, it has led Hizbollah to fire at least 170 Katyusha rockets into Israel.
> 
> But what would happen if the powerless Lebanese Government had actually unleashed air attacks across Israel the last time Israel's troops crossed into Lebanon? What if the Lebanese air force then killed 73 Israeli civilians in bombing raids in Ashkelon, Tel Aviv and Israeli West Jerusalem? What if a Lebanese fighter aircraft bombed Ben Gurion airport? What if a Lebanese plane destroyed 26 road bridges across Israel? Would it not be called "terrorism"? I rather think it would. But if Israel was the victim, it would also probably be Word War Three.
> 
> Of course, Lebanon cannot attack Tel Aviv. Its air force comprises three ancient Hawker Hunters and an equally ancient fleet of Vietnam-era Huey helicopters. Syria, however, has missiles that can reach Tel Aviv. So Syria — which Israel rightly believes to be behind Wednesday's Hizbollah attack is not going to be bombed. It is Lebanon which must be punished.
> 
> The Israeli leadership intends to "break" the Hizbollah and destroy its "terrorist cancer". Really? Do the Israelis really believe they can "break" one of the toughest guerrilla armies in the world? And how?
> 
> There are real issues here. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1559 — the same resolution that got the Syrian army out of Lebanon — the Shia Muslim Hizbollah should have been disarmed. They were not because, if the Lebanese Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora, had tried to do so, the Lebanese army would have had to fight them and the army would almost certainly broken apart because most Lebanese soldiers are Shia Muslims. We could see the restarting of the civil war in Lebanon — a fact which Nasrallah is cynically aware of — but attempts by Siniora and his cabinet colleagues to find a new role for Hizbollah, which has a minister in the government (he is Minister of Labour) foundered.


http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve06/1282fisk.html


----------



## martman

nxnw said:


> So why don't you just answer it honestly instead of evading it. If your purpose is not simply to engage in intellectually dishonest diatribe, this question is surely at the heart of the issue.


What would you know about "honest debate"?
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=428159&postcount=48
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## krs

nxnw said:


> I see that you firmly believe that Mr. Kuntar is as innocent as the day is long.


Sorry, nxnw, I didn;t see you comment earlier - your post was just too long.

I never said or even implied that I thought Mr Kuntar is innocent - I have no idea where you get that from.
The point was that Israel has held these Lerbanese prisoners without due process - reminds me of Guantánamo Bay, just less visible and on a smaller scale.


----------



## martman

nxnw said:


> So, if they can eject Syria, why can't the eject Hezbollah?


Syria left sort of voluntarily. Hezzbolah will not be so easy. 

The problem is your question. Why? 
Because you knew the answer to it as well as I did. This is a disshonest way to argue.


----------



## krs

nxnw said:


> Again, I don't claim that this is the last word, but it is lazy and dishonest to claim that the numbers prove that Israel's response is not proportionate to the threat.


So the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is lazy and dishonest..............

This is getting better all the time

Quoted on the CNN website
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/21/mideast.diplomacy/index.html


> And while he (Annan) blamed Hezbollah for sparking the conflict by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid July 12, he said that "the Israeli response has been excessive and disproportionate."


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> ...


Fisk, eh. You sure know how to find your rabidly anti-Israel sources.

What I do know is that I have cited material facts and you are unable to respond to them without distorting and falsifying my views. My posts speak for themselves.

The long article you posted is written for the biased and ignorant - and based on a loathsome pretence that Israel's incursion into Lebanon (in response to and for the purpose of suppressing Hezbollah attacks), is equivalent to: 
- Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel for the past 6 years without provocation - with the UN not giving a damn
- Hezbollah launching its recent attack without provocation, and 
- Hezbollah's overt purpose to destroy Israel and its people.

Your refusal to acknowledge this or recognize its relevance taints your criticisms as bald, biased and unfair.


----------



## martman

nxnw said:


> Your refusal to acknowledge this or recognize its relevance taints your criticisms as bald, biased and unfair.


And your refusal to consider statistics taints your criticisms simillarily.


----------



## nxnw

krs said:


> Sorry, nxnw, I didn;t see you comment earlier - your post was just too long.
> 
> I never said or even implied that I thought Mr Kuntar is innocent - I have no idea where you get that from.


That's your problem. Depth and knowledge is "too long".

You lambasted Israel for holding a Lebanese prisoner for 27 years without trial. I see you still don't know who you were talking about - it was Kuntar, who murdered an Israeli 4 year old girl by smashing her head in, after killing her father. By the way, he did have a trial.

Why don't you read the article?


----------



## nxnw

martman said:


> And your refusal to consider statistics taints your criticisms simillarily.


I never said they were irrelevant. I said that they are not proof of anything on their own, and that there is a broad range of other relevant facts.


----------



## krs

I was looking for some current statistics on casualties and came across this CNN article. I assume the information that CNN published here is factual...it clearly shows that the Israeli military is specifically targetting civilians and hospital contrary to what they claim.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/21/perry.tyre/index.html

The reason I was looking for casualty statistics is that something seems incredibly loopsided;

Last I looked, Israel had kileed somewhere around 400 people of which 6 were Hezbollah...that with their precision guided rockets and bombs

Hezbollah in turn had killed around 30 - 40 Israelis with more than half Israeli soldiers, and that with crude rockets without precision guidance systems.


----------



## krs

nxnw said:


> Your refusal to acknowledge this or recognize its relevance taints your criticisms as bald, biased and unfair.


I thought personal attacks were not tolerated in this forum. Has something changed in that respect?


----------



## Macfury

krs said:


> So the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is lazy and dishonest..............


I'd vote "yes" on that.


----------



## krs

nxnw said:


> You lambasted Israel for holding a Lebanese prisoner for 27 years without trial. I see you still don't know who you were talking about - it was Kuntar, who murdered an Israeli 4 year old girl by smashing her head in, after killing her father. By the way, he did have a trial.
> 
> Why don't you read the article?


Man - you have a way in jumping to conclusions.........the wrong ones usually.

I always knew who I was talking about. But forget about Samir Al-Kuntar (or Quntar) for a minute.

I was surprised to read that Israel is still holding over 8600 Palestinian and Arab detainees illegally including over 300 children under 16 and about 120 women.
According to article 77 of the Geneva Convention, most of these should have been handed over to a different authority which Israel has refused to do.

For some reason Isreal thinks they're above International laws and treaties. How many countries are supporting Israel in this current episode? Not even the US...they come up with a whimsy statement that Isreal has a right "to defend itself". Bush must be using his own private dictionary when it comes to the definition of "defend yourself". But that's nothing new - he has demonstrated his command (or better lack thereof) of the English language many times in the past.


----------



## krs

Macfury said:


> I'd vote "yes" on that.


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: 

I guess that includes the French president as well. Didn't he say essentially the same thing?


----------



## martman

krs said:


> I thought personal attacks were not tolerated in this forum. Has something changed in that respect?


He attacked your ideas not you. 
This is him attacking a preson.
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=428299&postcount=50

Then again maybe what he said to you is also personal attack. I guess it is for someone else to decide...


----------



## nxnw

krs said:


> Man - you have a way in jumping to conclusions.........the wrong ones usually.
> 
> I always knew who I was talking about. But forget about Samir Al-Kuntar (or Quntar) for a minute.


I'm sorry to hear that. So when you criticized Israel for holding him, and said the following, you knew you were talking about a convicted murderer, who smashed a little girl's head in:


krs said:


> Has anyone ever thought why they were kidnapped in the first place?
> Do perhaps hundreds of Lebanese prisoners come to mind that Israel has held for years without due process? *One of them for 27 years*!


Doesn't look good on you.

And I don't want to forget about Kuntar, especially when, according to al manaar, his release was a primary objective of the Hezbollah attacks.

Also, being a woman or young does not make one innocent. Here are some examples:


> Vafaa Idris, a nurse murdered an Israeli citizen and injured ninety additional civilians in a suicide bombing on Yafo street in Jerusalem on 27.1.02:
> ...
> 
> Iat Alacharas, an 18 year old girl murdered 2 Israeli civilians and injured twenty two civilians in a suicide bombing in a supermarket in Kiryat Yovel in Jerusalem on 29.3.02:
> ...
> 
> Andaliv Takataka, 21 exploded in proximity to a bus in the Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem on 12.4.02 and murdered four Israeli civilians and two foreign workers from China and injured 60 additional civilians.
> ...
> 
> Haba Azam Dra'ama, a single student, suicide bomber of the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization blew herself up at the Amakim mall in Afula on 19.5.2003. The terrorist attack killed 3 civilians and wounded 50 others.
> ...
> 
> Hanadi Jaradat, 29, a lawyer and suicide bomber of the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization in Jenin blew herself up at the Maxim restaurant in Haifa on 4.10.03 killing 21 civilians and wounding 48 others.
> ...
> 
> Rim Tzalach Riashi was in dispute with her husband and family and carried out a suicide terrorist attack on behalf of the Hamas terrorist organization. The terrorist attack was executed at a Terminal where workers pass at the Erez industrial area. The terrorist attack killed 3 soldiers and one civilian and injured 10 others.
> ...
> 
> Achlam Tmimi, 20 disguised herself as a tourist in order to injure innocent civilians. She murdered fifteen Israeli civilians and injured a hundred and seven civilians when she aided a suicide bombing at the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem on 9.8.01:... she was also responsible for placing an explosive device which was disguised in a beer can in a supermarket in Jerusalem on June 30, 2001. Achlam was drafted to the Hamas terrorist organization in June 2001. In her investigation, she confessed that she committed herself of being ' liable to die as a martyr'.
> ...
> 
> Daah Jeyosi, a 21 year old student who smuggled a suicide bomber into the city of Netanya checked other possibilities of carrying out a terrorist attack in the area of the boardwalk and the mall, but finally selected the local market. The result was the murder of three Israeli civilians and wounding fifty nine civilians on 19.5.02:
> ...
> 
> Amnaa Munah, 26, a student and reporter persuaded an Israeli boy in the internet to meet with her in order to murder him on 17.1.01:
> ...
> 
> Imao Asah, 27, married and the mother of two children placed an explosive device in the Tel Aviv Central Bus Station on 3.8.01... The explosive device was discovered by security forces before it had the chance to explode. Iman consented to the request of her husband who was suspected of collaborating with Israel, to execute a terrorist attack of placing an explosive device in order to "clear his name", as well to improve his family relations.


----------



## martman

nxnw said:


> I'm sorry to hear that. So when you criticized Israel for holding him, and said the following, you knew you were talking about a convicted murderer, who smashed a little girl's head inoesn't look good on you.


Here you go putting words in people's mouths again. Again a disshonest way of arguing. He said he thought Samir Al-Kuntar (or Quntar) was being held without proper trial. He never said he was innocent and you know it.
Can't you argue properly or must you always rely on falicies, distortions and putting words in people's mouths?

Doesn't look good on you!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

nxnw said:


> So why don't you just answer it honestly instead of evading it. If your purpose is not simply to engage in intellectually dishonest diatribe, this question is surely at the heart of the issue.


you pose questions of situations that won't happen and then ask "what if?"
that's being intellectually dishonest

300 dead lebanese civilians and counting is NOT theoretical and really DID happen

"what if" israel paused their attack for a day or two to see what would happen?
i guess 300 dead lebanese will never know


----------



## nxnw

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you pose questions of situations that won't happen and then ask "what if?"
> that's being intellectually dishonest
> 
> 300 dead lebanese civilians and counting is NOT theoretical and really DID happen
> 
> "what if" israel paused their attack for a day or two to see what would happen?
> i guess 300 dead lebanese will never know


No, you are being intellectually dishonest. The honest answer is that Hezbollah will not honour a ceasefire. It will rearm. It will resupply it's arsenals in civilian areas, and and it will resume its attacks on Israel. Your agenda and hostility prevent you from admitting this obvious truth, because you know where it leads.

As for your "what if", here's the answer: Hezbollah will rearm. It will resupply it's arsenals in civilian areas, and and it will resume its attacks on Israel. 

In either scenario, when Israel fights back, you will condemn it.


----------



## nxnw

martman said:


> Here you go putting words in people's mouths again. Again a disshonest way of arguing. He said he thought Samir Al-Kuntar (or Quntar) was being held without proper trial. He never said he was innocent and you know it.
> Can't you argue properly or must you always rely on falicies, distortions and putting words in people's mouths?


No, I didn't put words into his mouth. I quoted him. Read it yourself.

Frankly, I don't believe for a second that he had ever heard of Kuntar before today. There's nothing wrong with that. It is wrong for him to lambaste Israel when he is not adequately informed and has serious misapprehensions about the facts.

What he did, though, was rather than admit that he doesn't know everything about the subject (when he appears to know very little), when he criticized Israel for holding Kuntar *"for 27 years!"* (i.e. that he was a convicted murderer who had killed a little girl and her father in cold blood), he pretended to be better informed than he actually is. 

If he actually knew that Kuntar was a convicted murderer who had killed a little girl and her father in cold blood, as he claims he did, yet criticized Israel for holding him, as he certainly did, it would be very unfortunate.


----------



## ArtistSeries

nxnw, how about expanding your news source beyond state controlled censored media? 
Very quick to attack the messenger and not the message - go Hawk, go!
Fisk has been measured in his article - only your pro-Isreal bias blinds that. 
To you, only savage, virulent condemnation of Hezbollah and tacit approval of any grievous acts by Israel without context is neutral and fair. 

So basically what you are saying that Israel lied and only used the 2 soldiers as a pretext? 

This is more than disarming Hezbollah.
Hezbollah was formed in reaction to Israel's invasion of Lebanon. Let's not forget what that invasion caused to Lebanon.
And since Israel pulled out of Lebanon
- How many times did Israel cross the blue line?
- How many times did Israel violate Lebanese Air Space?
- Did Israel murder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin (yes he's Hamas)?
- How many "targeted interception" has Israel done?
- Has Israel dropped bombs in Gaza with the intention of murdering?
- How many Katyusha rocket has been shot in the last 11 months before this war?

How many times most we read this:


> Bertrand Ramcharan, expressed deep concern over Israel's continued use of assassination in the occupied Palestinian territory. In a statement issued in Geneva, Mr. Ramcharan said that while there is no doubt that Israel has a right to defend itself, this must be done within the rule of law.


http://domino.un.org/unispal.NSF/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/cb710ee41effd1ef85256e6000501683!OpenDocument

Uri Avnery seems to have a clear idea:


> THE REAL aim is to change the regime in Lebanon and to install a puppet government.
> 
> That was the aim of Ariel Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It failed. But Sharon and his pupils in the military and political leadership have never really given up on it.


http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html

I've heard this so many times from all spectrums:


> Whoever longs for a solution must know: there is no solution without* settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict*. And there is no solution to the Palestinian problem without negotiations with their elected leadership, the government headed by Hamas.


http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1153268185

Even inside Israel there are voices saying this is too much


> Former Education Minister Shulamit Aloni, who spoke in the demonstration, said that "the government has allowed the destructive powers of the army to drag us into the killing. The Defense Forces cannot be tuned into the army of occupation and killing. We must call in international forces, negotiate and make peace."


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3279792,00.html

To paraphase the leader of the free world
"See the irony is what they need to do is get the USA to get Isreal to stop doing this sh** and it's over."


> The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz has just published a long, authoritative study of Olmert’s motives, drawing on sources very close to the Prime Minister. It reveals that “Olmert has another consideration, of which he is not speaking [in public]. He wants to set a precedent for the convergence plan in the West Bank, to show that Israel won’t accept terror from beyond the fence after it withdraws.”
> 
> He knows the deal he plans to impose on the West Bank will be unacceptable to Palestinians. Not just to Islamic Jihad, but the vast majority. He has been proposing to seize strategically valuable chunks of the West Bank by annexing them to Israel since as long ago as 1978, after all. So he is trying pre-emptively to terrify them now so they will not dare fight back.
> 
> So here it is, the kernel of emotional truth behind this war. Its clearest expression can be found in the speeches of Ze’ev Jabotinsky, figurehead for the right-wing of Zionism, the man Olmert was raised to revere. Talking of the Arabs in 1923, Jabotinsky insisted, “A living people makes enormous concessions … only when there is no hope left.”


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/story.jsp?story=699319

You talk about Hezbollah as if they are the constitution of Lebanon.
Does Israel not have radicals amongst it's ranks?
Yitzhak Rabin murdered by Yigal Amir. He claimed din rodef and din moser to justify his actions. 

I was reading about Lea Tsemel (she was defending a right-wing settler). On the way out of court, there was crowd around a man that was accused of attempting to kidnap a Palestinian for ransom. 


> "Kidnapped for ransom?" said Lea Tsemel as we rushed off. "The members of that settlement usually kill the Palestinians that they capture."


And this juicy quote - Veiling it as news is only thinly disguised racism.


> "Hizbullahniks." Others threw garbage bags at the activists and shouted: "A good Arab is a dead Arab," and "If only a rocket fell on you."


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3279792,00.html

How long this Israel take to ban Kach? How many followers of Kahanism?
Should I post some of their intentions here?
How many right-wing Israelis hope for Greater Israel and by what means? 
What are Betar's goals? "_Betar has set as its central objectives for the coming period the conyinuation of the struggle for the wholeness of the Land of Israel and Jerusalem, together with the continuation of work on the social front and continuing the educational work taking place in the Community Action Centers."_
Gush Emunim? 
Mafdal?
What about some of the spiritual leaders? Noam Federman, he's still free in Israel after at least 20 cases many involving terrorism... 


Oddly a judge had this to say about Federman ""man should be punished for his own crimes, not the crimes of others." - I'm sure Lebanese citizens appreciate that today... 

Maybe if Isreal's actions were "moderate" they would avoid what you view as a backlash.

And if you decite on a rebuttal - I'd prefer that you don't start to pick and choose snippets out of context (as you are apt to do) and find the bigger picture.


----------



## HowEver

You know, AS, maybe it's as simple as Israel being tired of being bombed and its citizens killed. How about that?


----------



## ArtistSeries

HowEver said:


> You know, AS, maybe it's as simple as Israel being tired of being bombed and its citizens killed. How about that?


You know, HE, maybe it's as simple as Palestinians being tired of being oppressed and murdered. How about that?

If only it were that simple - without dialogue, it's not going to happen.


----------



## Beej

ArtistSeries said:


> maybe it's as simple as Palestinians being tired of being oppressed and murdered


I can see how your response formed regarding However's post but this is such a...

Heck, it's Saturday. I'll just say this symbolises, within the context of being a response to the previous post, your thought process. It doesn't describe your thought process, and you have many details behind said process, but it is symbolic of what is, in my opinion, an error in judgement.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Beej said:


> Heck, it's Saturday. I'll just say this symbolises, within the context of being a response to the previous post, your thought process. It doesn't describe your thought process, and you have many details behind said process


See post 5, 7, 13, 15, 33, 43, 47, 66, 145, 154, 159. 181, 193, 204, 212, 236, 248, 265, 282, 305, 356, 383, 387, 422 and 442......


----------



## HowEver

.


----------



## nxnw

ArtistSeries said:


> _more of the same_


The above is typical of your prevarication and distortion. The existence of a right wing that continues to aim for annexation of the west bank merely means that Israel is a free country and people can hold whatever opinions they want. The vast majority of the electorate does not agree with this point of view and voted for the current government and parties to its left.

Likewise, your dredging up extremist Israelis is bizarre. Extremist anti-Arab political parties have been outlawed and extremists who have attacked Arabs or committed other crimes not only belong to fringe elements, but are arrested and jailed for their offences. AntiSemitic, genocidal psychopaths in Gaza and Lebanon, in contrast, either control the government or control the territory proximate to Israel. They are not condemned, but lauded and encouraged.


----------



## krs

nxnw said:


> No, I didn't put words into his mouth. I quoted him. Read it yourself.
> 
> Frankly, I don't believe for a second that he had ever heard of Kuntar before today. There's nothing wrong with that. It is wrong for him to lambaste Israel when he is not adequately informed and has serious misapprehensions about the facts.
> 
> What he did, though, was rather than admit that he doesn't know everything about the subject (when he appears to know very little), when he criticized Israel for holding Kuntar *"for 27 years!"* (i.e. that he was a convicted murderer who had killed a little girl and her father in cold blood), he pretended to be better informed than he actually is.
> 
> If he actually knew that Kuntar was a convicted murderer who had killed a little girl and her father in cold blood, as he claims he did, yet criticized Israel for holding him, as he certainly did, it would be very unfortunate.


Would you care to show me where I ever said or implied that Kuntar was innocent.

My information of Palestinians and Arabs held in Israeli jails without due process comes from the same sources you use, ie the media and maybe the Net.
This particular information came from the Toronto Star - I doubt that you have any direct first hand knowledge of anything you have posted here on this subject either.

One thing becomes very obvious after researching this general subject for only a short while - it's next to impossible to get the real facts. They are constantly distorted depending on the source and the writer.

The facts as I understand them now is that the kidnapping of two soldiers was used by Israel as the reason for their current attack which according to today's paper has so far left 34 Israelis dead, including 19 Israeli soldiers and also killed more than 345 Lebanese civilians and 6 Hezbolah fighters with more than 500 000 Lebanese displaced and the country in a large part in ruins.
How anyone can condone that and call it a "measured response" is beyond me.


----------



## krs

martman said:


> He attacked your ideas not you.
> This is him attacking a preson.
> http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=428299&postcount=50
> 
> Then again maybe what he said to you is also personal attack. I guess it is for someone else to decide...


The earlier quote I referenced was actually a personal attack on ArtistSeries, not me.


----------



## SINC

I have a question. I do not to know anything about this topic, but the question begs to be asked.

From all I have heard and read, I gather there are some 40,000 plus "Canadians" in Lebanon.I have also heard reported that some 10,000 of those "Canadians" insisting our government return them to Canada, not only do not have a home here, but no job or anything tying them to their so called "homeland", ie "Canada".

Seems to me if one has left their homeland to "become a Canadian" and then return to that homeland knowing full well it is in a war zone or an area with a history of violence, they have placed themselves in harms way themselves and have no right to call upon the government of Canada to bail them out.

Sorry if this offends anyone, but many Canadians are asking this hard question and have little sympathy for their plight.


----------



## nxnw

krs said:


> Would you care to show me where I ever said or implied that Kuntar was innocent.


What you did was criticize Israel for holding him "for 27 years!". Surely his continued incarceration is warranted for killing a man in cold blood, while his little girl watched, and then murdering her by smashing her head into a rock. Not only that, but other innocents have been killed in an effort to free him, including an elderly Jewish man who was thrown off a cruise ship in his wheelchair. 

Kuntar would be not free in Canada. In fact, he would have been sentenced to life with no right to apply for parole for 25 years (minimum sentence for murder), and he would not get parole.


krs said:


> One thing becomes very obvious after researching this general subject for only a short while - it's next to impossible to get the real facts. They are constantly distorted depending on the source and the writer.


It's not next to impossible, but it is true that you need to look at a lot of sources, study the history, and take what you read with a grain of salt. Sometimes it is distorted, sometimes it is accurate, sometimes it is mistaken, and far too often it is just lazy and sloppy. This is why you need to keep reading. For instance, the assertion that Lebanon is in ruins has been reported, but it is hyperbole, a gross exaggeration.


krs said:


> The facts as I understand them now is that the kidnapping of two soldiers was used by Israel as the reason for their current attack...


 It was the immediate catalyst, the last straw, and rescuing the hostages was an important objective, but to characterize it as a pretext is not fair or accurate.

Hezbollah has been firing missiles into Israel for the past 6 years since Israel left Lebanon, as well as before. Hezbollah has been building an arsenal that includes long range zilzal missiles with advanced guidance and large warheads. These factors, and others, are relevant to what is an appropriate response.


----------



## da_jonesy

SINC said:


> Seems to me if one has left their homeland to "become a Canadian" and then return to that homeland knowing full well it is in a war zone or an area with a history of violence, they have placed themselves in harms way themselves and have no right to call upon the government of Canada to bail them out.


I don't think that is a fair statement or assumption. Canada being a multicultural society, with thousands of refugees who are now a Canadian citizens, there are numerous groups which come from area of the world where there is conflict.

I don't think anyone could have foreseen the issues in Lebanon progressing at the speed with which they have. Lebanon has been at relative peace for the past 6 years. 

That's like saying that our health care should not cover smokers because they are endangering their own health...


----------



## SINC

da_jonesy said:


> That's like saying that our health care should not cover smokers because they are endangering their own health...


If that is so, why do so many of them have neither homes, houses, apartments or full time employment in Canada? That is my question.


----------



## Wisechoice

> If that is so, why do so many of them have neither homes, houses, apartments or full time employment in Canada? That is my question.


How many, SINC? Give us a reliable source on this one.


----------



## krs

SINC said:


> I have a question. I do not to know anything about this topic, but the question begs to be asked.
> 
> From all I have heard and read, I gather there are some 40,000 plus "Canadians" in Lebanon.I have also heard reported that some 10,000 of those "Canadians" insisting our government return them to Canada, not only do not have a home here, but no job or anything tying them to their so called "homeland", ie "Canada".
> 
> Seems to me if one has left their homeland to "become a Canadian" and then return to that homeland knowing full well it is in a war zone or an area with a history of violence, they have placed themselves in harms way themselves and have no right to call upon the government of Canada to bail them out.
> 
> Sorry if this offends anyone, but many Canadians are asking this hard question and have little sympathy for their plight.


There was an article in the toronto Star a few days ago specifically adressing that issue. It basically said that Canada had a legal obligation to bring back anyone who is a Canadian citizen and is caught in a war zone. There is a detailed Canadian government procedure covering this...the requirement is to be a "Canadian Citizen"...that's it. There was also some discussion about dual citizenship and when Canada started to allow that many years ago, it created this situation (to some degree at least....Canadians living outside Canada permanently) 

I was surprised as well as to the number of "Canadians" stranded in Lebanon.


----------



## SINC

krs said:


> There was an article in the toronto Star a few days ago specifically adressing that issue. It basically said that Canada had a legal obligation to bring back anyone who is a Canadian citizen and is caught in a war zone. There is a detailed Canadian government procedure covering this...the requirement is to be a "Canadian Citizen"...that's it. There was also some discussion about dual citizenship and when Canada started to allow that many years ago, it created this situation (to some degree at least....Canadians living outside Canada permanently)
> 
> I was surprised as well as to the number of "Canadians" stranded in Lebanon.


Time for a policy change. Big time.


----------



## martman

I have to strongly dissagree with you.

and KRS I think putting Canadians in quotes is not fair. There is no degree of Canadianness and there should never be. Canadians often live in other countries.
The third largest Canadian city is Los Angeles so suck it up! This is who we are.


----------



## SINC

martman said:


> I have to strongly dissagree with you.
> 
> and KRS I think putting Canadians in quotes is not fair. There is no degree of Canadianness and there should never be. Canadians often live in other countries.
> The third largest Canadian city is Los Angeles so suck it up! This is who we are.


It remains there are in fact "Canadians" of convenience and having been a real one for over 62 years, I will call them as I see them, hyphenated or "in quotes", thank you.


----------



## martman

SINC said:


> It remains there are in fact "Canadians" of convenience and having been a real one for over 62 years, I will call them as I see them, hyphenated or "in quotes", thank you.


Nice of you to judge thousands of people you never met. 
That's not prejudice...


----------



## SINC

martman said:


> Nice of you to judge thousands of people you never met.
> That's not prejudice...


Nope, it IS reality though.


----------



## martman

SINC said:


> Nope, it IS reality though.


Only in a ******* world.


----------



## MacDoc

Strange I never really understood *Sinc* before.....


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> Strange I never really understood *Sinc* before.....


Once again with the ridicule simply because you disagree with my position. Nice.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

SINC said:


> It remains there are in fact "Canadians" of convenience and having been a real one for over 62 years, I will call them as I see them, hyphenated or "in quotes", thank you.


SINC, you really crossed the line on this one

I was born in Canada and am just as Canadian as anyone else even though I consider myself a Ukrainian-Canadian. I am very wary of heritage and of my birthright.

I am insulted that you would even consider hyphenated Canadians being in some way lesser Canadians. Your "opinion" smacks of hate mongering 

I just hope it's the recent Alberta heat wave that has turned you into a red neck.

Perhaps you need to live in a multi-cultural city like Montreal or Toronto or Vancouver to see how diverse cultures and backgrounds can mesh together into the multicultural tapestry that is Canada.


----------



## MannyP Design

I think the cross-section of Lebanese-Canadians/Canadian-Lebanese people is far to complicated to simply describe them all as "Paper Canadians" who live and work in Lebanon and conveniently have citizenship in Canada. Let's not forget that people who hold dual citizenships usually have to spend a significant amount of time in both countries in order to maintain that citizenship. There are also those who travel there to stay with family, study, and a variety of other reasons.

Is it not unheard of to sublease or move out of your place of residence before traveling abroad for an extended length of time? What if they have personal or business affairs that need them to be there for an extended length of time?


----------



## SINC

« MannyP Design » said:


> I think the cross-section of Lebanese-Canadians/Canadian-Lebanese people is far to complicated to simply describe them all as "Paper Canadians" who live and work in Lebanon and conveniently have citizenship in Canada. Let's not forget that people who hold dual citizenships usually have to spend a significant amount of time in both countries in order to maintain that citizenship. There are also those who travel there to stay with family, study, and a variety of other reasons.
> 
> Is it not unheard of to sublease or move out of your place of residence before traveling abroad for an extended length of time? What if they have personal or business affairs that need them to be there for an extended length of time?


See folks?

Instead of calling me names, this is an intelligent reply to my post offering me some reasons as to why the situation is, as it is.

Thanks for that Manny, I had never considered that might be the case and gives me cause for further thought.


----------



## krs

martman said:


> I have to strongly dissagree with you.
> 
> and KRS I think putting Canadians in quotes is not fair. There is no degree of Canadianness .................


Martman - Unfortunately, there actually is.
If you are a Canadian by birth, nobody can strip you of your Canadian citizenship - the same is not true if you are a naturalized Canadian. You read about that in the papers every once in a while.
Before 1977 there were several reasons why you could lose your Canadian citizenship, living outside the country for more than 10 years was one for example.
Many of these rules/laws were changed, but under certain conditions, the Canadian government still has the right today to revoke your Canadian citizenship if you are a naturalized Canadian.


----------



## ArtistSeries

SINC said:


> See folks?
> 
> Instead of calling me names, this is an intelligent reply to my post offering me some reasons as to why the situation is, as it is.
> 
> Thanks for that Manny, I had never considered that might be the case and gives me cause for further thought.


SINC, I think that you are being disingenuous. 
We had a similar thread *last evening* and spoke about similar themes
http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=42771&page=4

I bet you if these Canadians did not have names like El-Helou, this would not be a topic at the moment. I think the ethnic background is what irks some.
Instead, racism and xenophobia rears its head at what you call "Canadians" of convenience. 

If you don't like the Canadian nationality law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_nationality_law or Dual Citizenship laws http://www.cic.gc.ca/EnGlish/citizen/dualci_e.html they can be changed. 

Reality SINC, is that these are Canadians.
It does not matter where they live or where they pay taxes. 
You may be surprised at the numbers but Canada has welcomed many Lebanese over the years.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc: If you're going to steal copyrighted artwork to place here, could you find a better illustrator?


----------



## MannyP Design

SINC said:


> See folks?
> 
> Instead of calling me names, this is an intelligent reply to my post offering me some reasons as to why the situation is, as it is.
> 
> Thanks for that Manny, I had never considered that might be the case and gives me cause for further thought.


Ne pas de problème, SINC. I have several friends who immigrated from the Middle East (Iran and Lebanon), one of which had his mother stay in Iran for almost a year to deal with legalities concerning a municipality that wanted to build over their land without proper compensation.


----------



## SINC

MACSPECTRUM said:


> SINC, you really crossed the line on this one
> 
> I was born in Canada and am just as Canadian as anyone else even though I consider myself a Ukrainian-Canadian. I am very wary of heritage and of my birthright.
> 
> I am insulted that you would even consider hyphenated Canadians being in some way lesser Canadians. Your "opinion" smacks of hate mongering
> 
> I just hope it's the recent Alberta heat wave that has turned you into a red neck.
> 
> Perhaps you need to live in a multi-cultural city like Montreal or Toronto or Vancouver to see how diverse cultures and backgrounds can mesh together into the multicultural tapestry that is Canada.


Wrongo Spec.

I did not say all hyphenated Canadians are lesser. I simply state that in my opinion, there are "Canadians" hyphenated or not, who use the current system to their advantage to live outside this country too much of the time. That is fact and that is the part of citizenship I would like to see revoked so it is not possible.

I have no issues with your heritage, or for that matter mine or any other. My grandfather was a Scot, but my father was born here, as I was I, and calling myself a hyphenated Canadian would be less than honest, so I choose not to do it. One can be aware of their heritage without the hyphen thanks.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

We've seen similar commentary from you before SINC
I recall the distasteful story you told about workers in the hospital where your wife works and had, in your opinion, the audacity to speak a language other than English.

Canada is a multicultural country, or at least for now, until certain elements do away with multicuturalism. See the National Pest for more details.


----------



## Macfury

Spec: Multi-culturalism is a meaningless concept, since it's true of all nations. Expecting something from Canadians who live here--even if it's the simple effort to learn one of our official languages, or discussing some limits on the benefits accruing to Canadians who don't live here--has nothing to do with multiculturalism.


----------



## MacDoc

MF it's royalty free so you are allowed to apologize now. I'm all ears.


----------



## da_jonesy

SINC said:


> If that is so, why do so many of them have neither homes, houses, apartments or full time employment in Canada? That is my question.



People are free to seek a living anywhere where they can. Just because I was born in Canada doesn't mean I cannot work elsewhere in the world.

If I relocate to somewhere else to work... am I no longer Canadian?


----------



## da_jonesy

Macfury said:


> Spec: Multi-culturalism is a meaningless concept,


You haven't been reading your Canadian constitution or Charter recently have you?

Between language rights, Section 15 of the Charter and the section which mentions school boards I think that there is a fare bit pertaining to multi-culturalism that is ingrained in our society. If you choose not to participate... well that is you choice.

It is pretty easy for the white male to come up with statements like that, try interacting a little more closely with people who are not white males and you will understand pretty quickly that Multi-culturalism is NOT a meaningless concept.


----------



## ArtistSeries

MacDoc said:


> MF it's royalty free so you are allowed to apologize now. I'm all ears.


It's easier for MF to quip when he wants to divert a subject....


----------



## Vandave

da_jonesy said:


> People are free to seek a living anywhere where they can. Just because I was born in Canada doesn't mean I cannot work elsewhere in the world.
> 
> If I relocate to somewhere else to work... am I no longer Canadian?


And those countries are free to accept you or not.


----------



## da_jonesy

Vandave said:


> And those countries are free to accept you or not.


meaning?


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc: It's royalty-free if you pay for it. However, when you click on the thumbnail at www.fotosearch.com, the items come up with copyright symbols all over it. So my apology would be contingent on whether you can prove you paid USD $29.00 for the right to reproduce it--royalty free.


----------



## Macfury

I'm stating that all nations are now multi-cultural. Nothing special. And it doesn't confer on the "multi-cultural" any special rights or privileges. It just states, that one culture is as good as another.


----------



## Macfury

da_jonesy said:


> try interacting a little more closely with people who are not white males and you will understand pretty quickly that Multi-culturalism is NOT a meaningless concept.


What assumptions are you making about my cultural, or racial background Jonesy? That certain ideas could only come from people who associate primarily with white males?

Shame on you, pandering to the idea of multiculturalism, then turning on it when it suits you.


----------



## da_jonesy

Macfury said:


> What assumptions are you making about my cultural, or racial background Jonesy? That certain ideas could only come from people who associate primarily with white males?
> 
> Shame on you, pandering to the idea of multiculturalism, then turning on it when it suits you.


Methinks you are confused...


----------



## Macfury

No, Da-Jonesy--you don't wiggle out of it that easily, with a "What-Me-Worry" grin and your thumb up your ass. 

You told me that I should "try interacting a little more closely with people who are not white males." Explain yourself.


----------



## da_jonesy

Macfury said:


> No, Da-Jonesy--you don't wiggle out of it that easily, with a "What-Me-Worry" grin and your thumb up your ass.


TMI...

Listen, I will not entertain whatever scatalogical fantasies you may have about me... that might be your thing, but it ain't mine. :lmao: 



Macfury said:


> You told me that I should "try interacting a little more closely with people who are not white males." Explain yourself.


That is pretty self explanatory now isn't it. I made a blanket statement... I inferred that you being a white male... who very likely (for the most part) only interacts with other white males... most likely fails to understand exactly how important multi-culturalism is in a secular society.

And please, try to respond with something more intelligent than white male reverse discrimination nonsense. Oh yeah you can also forget about throwing in the "I have a friend who is [fill in race here]" comment, because if he is that close of a friend, then you would know that multi-culturalism is important.

PS. Don't forget... keep your scat fantasies to yourself you perve (we don't want to know about them).


----------



## ArtistSeries

SINC said:


> I did not say all hyphenated Canadians are lesser. I simply state that in my opinion, there are "Canadians" hyphenated or not, who use the current system to their advantage to live outside this country too much of the time. That is fact and that is the part of citizenship I would like to see revoked so it is not possible.


SINC, you called it a scam - what scam is that.
What advantages are those? How are they bending the system?
I'd really like to see your facts....
This is only being talked about at the moment because of festering racism. 

If ever you have lived in another country, I think you'd realize that many of those advantages that you are alluding to get revoked quickly and you have to re-qualify for them. 

So SINC, how to you feel about the "snowbirds" that winter (some year round) in Florida and Arizona? Are they taking advantage of the system?


----------



## da_jonesy

SINC said:


> I did not say all hyphenated Canadians are lesser. I simply state that in my opinion, there are "Canadians" hyphenated or not, who use the current system to their advantage to live outside this country too much of the time. That is fact and that is the part of citizenship I would like to see revoked so it is not possible.


So what do you do with all the seniors who live in Florida or Arizona? revoke their citizenship because they are "snow birds"?


----------



## Macfury

Thanks for that embarrassing post Da-Jonesy. It's clear you aren't able to extricate yourself from the mess you've gotten youreslf into with any degree of grace or intelligence.


----------



## da_jonesy

Macfury said:


> Thanks for that embarrassing post Da-Jonesy. It's clear you aren't able to extricate yourself from the mess you've gotten youreslf into with any degree of grace or intelligence.


WHAT? Grace? Intelligence? This coming from the guy with the "thumb in ass" comment? LMFAO! :lmao: 

Well done... :clap: You've just just given us a real world lesson in the definition of hypocrisy.

hypocrisy |hi?päkris?| noun ( pl. -sies) the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.


----------



## martman

I just want to point out something to SINC and any other "more Canadian than thou" types posting to this topic: Dual citizens are required to pay taxes in BOTH countries.
Taxes paid = services owed. It is as simple as that. You try and take away one of my citizenships, I will fight you tooth and nail. You call me less Canadian than you I will call you a bigot.


edit: What could be more Canadian than that?


----------



## da_jonesy

martman said:


> I just want to point out something to SINC and any other "more Canadain than thou" types posting to this topic: Dual citizens are required to pay taxes in BOTH countries.
> Taxes paid = services owed. It is as simple as that. You try and take away one of my citizenships, I will fight you tooth and nail. You call me less Canadian than you I will call you a bigot.


Well said :clap:


----------



## martman

krs said:


> Many of these rules/laws were changed, but under certain conditions, the Canadian government still has the right today to revoke your Canadian citizenship if you are a naturalized Canadian.


Really? 
Please tell me what they are. I've never heard of this.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> the Canadian government still has the right today to revoke your Canadian citizenship if you are a naturalized Canadian.


hence the hypocricy of naturalized "citizen"
not all citizens are created equal


----------



## ArtistSeries

martman said:


> Really?
> Please tell me what they are. I've never heard of this.


Loss of Canadian citizenship

Under current law there is no provision for involuntary loss of Canadian citizenship except:
- naturalized Canadians can be deprived of citizenship if convicted of fraud in relation to their citizenship application, or their original admission to Canada as an immigrant

- second-generation Canadians by descent may lose Canadian citizenship automatically on their 28th birthday if they do not meet the requirements for retention

Many Canadians lost Canadian citizenship prior to 15 February 1977 through:
-naturalization in another country
- long residence overseas (prior to 1967)
- if a child, based on a parent's loss of Canadian citizenship



A Canadian citizen who holds another nationality may in some cases renounce Canadian citizenship voluntarily.

Source Wiki


----------



## martman

ArtistSeries said:


> Loss of Canadian citizenship
> 
> Under current law there is no provision for involuntary loss of Canadian citizenship except:
> - naturalized Canadians can be deprived of citizenship if convicted of fraud in relation to their citizenship application, or their original admission to Canada as an immigrant


AS I thought other than by frauduallantly applying in the first place you can't revoke a Canadain's citizenship. I have no problem with that.


----------



## SINC

ArtistSeries said:


> SINC, you called it a scam - what scam is that.
> What advantages are those? How are they bending the system?
> I'd really like to see your facts....
> This is only being talked about at the moment because of festering racism.
> 
> If ever you have lived in another country, I think you'd realize that many of those advantages that you are alluding to get revoked quickly and you have to re-qualify for them.
> 
> So SINC, how to you feel about the "snowbirds" that winter (some year round) in Florida and Arizona? Are they taking advantage of the system?


Snowbirds are by and large seniors who have completed their role in the every day work world and have more than earned the right to escape harsh Canadian winters for months at a time. Taking that theory to the extreme, what about those folks in the work force who spend three weeks every winter at Club Med?

And no, I have never lived in another country, but my bet is that if a Canadian immigrated to a middle eastern country they would be forced to live by the rules and customs of that country, not allowed to change society as they have done here in Canada. My bet is there would be no cowboy hats allowed if you joined their police force, unlike the way it is here.

Their citizens simply would not stand for it and would tell them conform or get out, an interesting practice indeed. Maybe we should adopt that kind of policy to save some of our own heritage?


----------



## martman

SINC said:


> Snowbirds are by and large seniors who have completed their role in the every day work world and have more than earned the right to escape harsh Canadian winters for months at a time. Taking that theory to the extreme, what about those folks in the work force who spend three weeks every winter at Club Med?


Good point.



SINC said:


> And no, I have never lived in another country, but my bet is that if a Canadian immigrated to a middle eastern country they would be forced to live by the rules and customs of that country, not allowed to change society as they have done here in Canada. My bet is there would be no cowboy hats allowed if you joined their police force, unlike the way it is here.


No cowboy hats here in Toronto I'd have to say.
You are probably right but most other countries are not officially multicultural.



SINC said:


> Their citizens simply would not stand for it and would tell them conform or get out, an interesting practice indeed. Maybe we should adopt that kind of policy to save some of our own heritage?


Excellent so if you don't do a Sun Dance ceremony and a vision quest, go back to Europe! Oh I'm sorry you come from a foreign culture too.
Can't you see the hypocracy of your statements?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> You are probably right but most other countries are not officially multicultural.


i believe only canada and australia have official multi-cult policies


----------



## ArtistSeries

SINC said:


> Snowbirds are by and large seniors who have completed *their role in the every day work world* and have more than earned the right to escape harsh Canadian winters for months at a time.


Are you trying to say that to be Canadian, you have to pay taxes in Canada? Have to work here? Is that the "role"?




SINC said:


> And no, I have never lived in another country, but my bet is that if a Canadian immigrated to a middle eastern country they would be forced to live by the rules and customs of that country, *not allowed to change society as they have done here in Canada.* My bet is there would be* no cowboy hats allowed* if you joined their police force, *unlike the way it is here*.


I'm sure you will be ripped apart for those comment. So much for tolerance. I do find it odd that you assume that the cowboy hat is a symbol of Canada. The only cowboy hat around here is worn by Chuck Guite....

You don't like the turbans? Should we be banning any other "foreign" symbol? 
I'm accepting of others "rules and customs" so long as they obey Canadian law.
Maybe we should ban all mosques and synagogues.

Maybe we should deport that Philippino kid and his family because he ate with a spoon instead of a fork.

I'm glad that Canada is a more tolerant society. We seem to forget that most of us are descendant from immigrants. 

Sorry SINC, but my Canada has never been white anglo saxon. 
Should we get rid of Quebec? You know, they do have French people here and a lot of those Lebanese-Canadians... Heck, we even have a large Hatian-Canadian population in Montreal. Maybe the solution is to seal off Montreal and ship everyone back "home". 



SINC said:


> Their citizens simply would not stand for it and would tell them conform or get out, an interesting practice indeed. Maybe we should adopt that kind of policy to save some of our own heritage?


New immigrants work hard at adapting here. Harder than you think and often they have to learn on their own. It's not easy.

And the same time, I am grateful for what they bring to Canada. I see no reason why not to adopt what some of them bring. There is a cultural richness that benefits the Canadian tapestry.

Canadian culture and heritage is something I do care about. It seems in greater danger of erosion by American assimilation. Some of their police do wear cowboy hats, coincidence or not?


----------



## Macfury

I have a great suggestion for EhMac. When it comes to platitudes and stories we have to hear over and over, why don't we just create a repository for comments we are likely to repeat.

Instead of AS weeping with gratitude over his love of the Liberal Party, he can post a link to a fixed set oftalking points. Instead of creating new links to two dozen news stories, he can point us to a page of links that go nowhere, but indicate that his ideas have broad support.

Whenever someone else wants to qualify a comment by telling us (again) that they are married to an immigrant--just supply the link!

If i want to tell others that I don't agree that the public funding of their pet project is a national imperative--there's the link again!

Beej: Why don't you link us to something and tell us how you feel about the idea?


----------



## Beej

martman said:


> Taxes paid = services owed.


Aside from the question of what 'no taxes paid' equals, dual citizens don't pay a double tax burden, so should services be proportional? Aren't they already in a practical sense? I seem to remember there being time limits on how long you can be outside Canada before losing health coverage. Does anyone know the details on how and to whom this applies? 

Maybe we should focus on Federal services to be clearer because, I believe, those are the taxes that may be paid when overseas.

Under the circumstances, the Canadians in Lebanon need to be evacuated (if they choose), but the larger question is of dual citizenships or spending many consecutive years overseas, which can raise troublesome issues. On citizenships, should Canada simply state that a requirement of Canadian citizenship is renouncing all others? It creates difficulties, but so does the current system. Not clear-cut, but I don't mind the current system. It's frustrating but, to date, manageable.

There are lots of interesting aspects to this issue (citizenship-residence-programs-assistance) and I think this topic can be discussed without rancor. Of course, I also think many crazy things.


----------



## Beej

Macfury said:


> I have a great suggestion for EhMac. When it comes to platitudes and stories we have to hear over and over, why don't we just create a repository for comments we are likely to repeat.
> 
> Instead of AS weeping with gratitude over his love of the Liberal Party, he can post a link to a fixed set oftalking points. Instead of creating new links to two dozen news stories, he can point us to a page of links that go nowhere, but indicate that his ideas have broad support.
> 
> Whenever someone else wants to qualify a comment by telling us (again) that they are married to an immigrant--just supply the link!
> 
> If i want to tell others that I don't agree that the public funding of their pet project is a national imperative--there's the link again!
> 
> Beej: Why don't you link us to something and tell us how you feel about the idea?


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: 

My link would be to some cynical quotes regarding harsh realities. Or, you could just use beejacon .


----------



## SINC

ArtistSeries said:


> Are you trying to say that to be Canadian, you have to pay taxes in Canada? Have to work here? Is that the "role"?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you will be ripped apart for those comment. So much for tolerance. I do find it odd that you assume that the cowboy hat is a symbol of Canada. The only cowboy hat around here is worn by Chuck Guite....
> 
> You don't like the turbans? Should we be banning any other "foreign" symbol?
> I'm accepting of others "rules and customs" so long as they obey Canadian law.
> Maybe we should ban all mosques and synagogues.


That last point is just plain silly AS. Of course we should not ban their churches.

My point is that when one tiny portion of this country who wear a turban can and do force changes as long and standing as the RCMP stetson and the no hat rules in the Legions halls of our country, things have gone too far.

That is my opinion and it is shared by more Canadians than you can count. There is a limit to multiculturalism and those two acts exceed the limit in my view. Simple as that. You of course are entitle to your opinion, but I am not racist because I oppose those two changes. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Conform or stay out of the RCMP and the Legions.


----------



## da_jonesy

Macfury said:


> I have a great suggestion for EhMac. When it comes to platitudes and stories we have to hear over and over, why don't we just create a repository for comments we are likely to repeat.


I wouldn't say that was a great suggestion.

That seems to be the problem (and is a pretty common conservative approach these days) if you link to a repository of quotes than every argument you make is dogmatic. Why not just send out a list of "talking points" to make sure you are "on message".

If that is what you want... I think I'll pass.


----------



## Macfury

I agree with you SINC. If all dissenting views are incorporated into structure, then structure ceases to exist.


----------



## da_jonesy

SINC said:


> My point is that when one tiny portion of this country who wear a turban can and do force changes as long and standing as the RCMP stetson and the no hat rules in the Legions halls of our country, things have gone too far.


The RCMP is a public institution and as such needs to reflect the make up of this country. Our society, as outlined in the Charter IS inclusive to all groups.

Now as for the Legion, that is a different story. The legion is a quasi-private organization, and as such can make their own rules. Unfortunately I think it is ignorance to think that a Sihk wearing a turban into a Legion Hall is the same as someone wearing a baseball hat.



SINC said:


> That is my opinion and it is shared by more Canadians than you can count. There is a limit to multiculturalism and those two acts exceed the limit in my view. Simple as that. You of course are entitle to your opinion, but I am not racist because I oppose those two changes. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Conform or stay out of the RCMP and the Legions.


Actually Sinc... 20 years ago I had this same argument with my wife prior to us getting married. I felt very strongly that Sikhs should not be allowed to wear turbans. I now feel much differently on the subject and the issue comes down to your comment on Conforming. Conform? how is it that someone has to give up a vital part of their religion to join a part of the public service of Canada.

People cannot help/change what they were born to be? At one time women were not allowed into the RCMP... is it fair to say to a woman "you can't join because you are not a man"? Is it fair to say to someone who is Jewish that you can't teach in the Separate School board because you are not Catholic?

Sinc your views may not be racist, but they are certainly intolerant.


----------



## da_jonesy

Macfury said:


> I agree with you SINC. If all dissenting views are incorporated into structure, then structure ceases to exist.



That's a funny statement coming from the guy who just suggested that we should all have a repository for our "on message" comments.


----------



## Macfury

DaJonesy: You'll have to elaborate. You aren't making very clear points today.


----------



## Macfury

Sin: I think the same problems occurs when you have someone say they want to be a police officer but their inherent belief in non-violence means the force will have to make some changes on their behalf. Woe is me! Why should this person have to give up an essential part of him/herself just to be able to join the police force!


----------



## krs

martman said:


> Dual citizens are required to pay taxes in BOTH countries.



That is simply not true. A dual citizen in general does not pay income taxes or any other taxes in both countries.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Macfury said:


> Instead of AS weeping with gratitude over his love of the Liberal Party, he can post a link to a fixed set oftalking points. Instead of creating new links to two dozen news stories, he can point us to a page of links that go nowhere, but indicate that his ideas have broad support.


MF - FIND ONE POST WHERE I LOVE THE LIBERAL PARTY AND WEEP GRATITUDE 

UNTIL THEN F**KOFF


----------



## Beej

ArtistSeries said:


> MF - FIND ONE POST WHERE I LOVE THE LIBERAL PARTY AND WEEP GRATITUDE
> 
> UNTIL THEN F**KOFF


Geez AS, have a Kit Kat. It's not like he's implying that you're a bigot or anything.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Beej said:


> Aside from the question of what 'no taxes paid' equals, dual citizens don't pay a double tax burden, so should services be proportional? Aren't they already in a practical sense? I seem to remember there being time limits on how long you can be outside Canada before losing health coverage. Does anyone know the details on how and to whom this applies?


Health coverage is a provincial issue. The same applies for drivers permit in many cases.
Yes there are limits before you can re-qualify. 

As for the tax burden, it's a little more difficult than that. If you have a company that is Canadian operating in the US (branch office) and you are shipped there for an extended time, your tax situation will different than going to work for US company in the US. Your work permit/visa determines part of that. 

And in a sense, if I'm following your argument, if I'm in the US working, I'm not "using" the Canadian road infrastructure (for example).


----------



## krs

martman said:


> AS I thought other than by frauduallantly applying in the first place you can't revoke a Canadain's citizenship. I have no problem with that.


If you're interested, I would suggest you read the Citizen and Immigration act and research a few actual cases rather than relying on the Wiki.
It's not quite as straight forward as that. That's why these cases usually end up in front of the courts.

But we're really getting off topic here...................


----------



## Beej

ArtistSeries said:


> And in a sense, if I'm following your argument, if I'm in the US working, I'm not "using" the Canadian road infrastructure (for example).


Yes, so if 'services' are going to be discussed, it's really just Federal, such as evacuation. 

Thanks for the tax info.


----------



## ArtistSeries

SINC said:


> My point is that when one tiny portion of this country who wear a turban can and do force changes as long and standing as the RCMP stetson and the no hat rules in the Legions halls of our country, things have gone too far.


It can go too far, SINC, I do agree. 
The no-hat rules sounds like PCness gone too far (I don't know the Legions halls rules). 

On the turban, we don't.


----------



## martman

krs said:


> That is simply not true. A dual citizen in general does not pay income taxes or any other taxes in both countries.


I don't know what planet you live on but I live on Earth. In this planet Canada makes dual citizens pay taxes in Canada. All ex-pat Canadians are required to pay income tax on money earned outside of Canada. Some countries have a tax treaty that makes special provisions but still taxes are payed if amounts are high enough (not very high). On this planet USA makes dual citizens pay tax to USA EVEN if they are Canadian. I'm sure most if not all other nations require the same.


edit: Apparently Germany doesn't require its citizens to pay tax on foreign erned moneys but I'm sure this is not 100% cut and dry either...
In one article I read a "Lebanese-Canadian" was upset at people making this claim about his "Canadianness" because he's been paying 400,000 a year in taxes.

Now I know about this because I am a dual citizen (USA_Canada). Those of you claiming we (dual citizens) don't pay a higher tax burden please state your other nationality or at least why you know that we don't pay the piper twice.
thanks


----------



## krs

martman said:


> I don't know what planet you live on but I live on Earth. In this planet Canada makes dual citizens pay taxes in Canada. All ex-pat Canadians are required to pay income tax on money earned outside of Canada. Some countries have a tax treaty that makes special provisions but still taxes are payed if amounts are high enough (not very high). On this planet USA makes dual citizens pay tax to USA EVEN if they are Canadian. I'm sure most if not all other nations require the same.


Are you telling me if I work in the US, I'm paying income tax on my salary twice - once in the US and again in Canada? I find that hard to believe.
If one had to pay income tax twice you wouldn't have much left to live on.

I worked in Europe as an ex-pat for four years and only paid income tax in Canada, not a nickel in Europe.


----------



## Beej

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/indivi...orting-income/lines101-170/104/foreign-e.html

There are various rules, the link mentions a part of them. Taxes are paid but, it does not seem, a "full" amount. Nor do you receive "full" services. Interesting topic.


----------



## martman

Beej said:


> http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/indivi...orting-income/lines101-170/104/foreign-e.html
> 
> There are various rules, the link mentions a part of them. Taxes are paid but, it does not seem, a "full" amount. Nor do you receive "full" services. Interesting topic.


Exactly.
Last time I looked if you (your familly) earn more than $50,000 you must pay in both countries (this is for US-Canada). Where they really get us Canadain living Americans is capital gains taxes. 
Point being is dual citizens do pay taxes and should expect services without people questioning their "Canadianness" beyond a passport or certificate. I'll add that speculation on this issue by those who are not dual citizens and/or haven't actually looked at the law is not informed and is not helpful to this particular discussion. Why don't you just call me a lier and be done with it? It would be just as informed.
It seems to me that people don't want to let go of anti-ethnic perjudices on this issue.


----------



## krs

Beej - If you drill a little further down into the link you posted, you will find this statement:



> Canada has tax conventions or agreements -- commonly known as tax treaties -- with many countries.
> 
> A tax treaty is designed to avoid double taxation for people who would otherwise pay tax on the same income in two countries.
> 
> Generally, a tax treaty determines how much each country can tax income such as:
> 
> pensions
> wages
> salaries
> interest


----------



## Beej

Yes, and my understanding is the treaties avoid double taxation (paying full amounts in both areas), not 'top ups'. I'm sure there are areas (Cayman?) that have handy treaties.


----------



## Beej

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/indivi...leting/deductions/lines409-485/431-433-e.html


----------



## martman

Beej said:



> http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/indivi...leting/deductions/lines409-485/431-433-e.html


Again exactly.
Now perhaps if anyone actually has REAL information on Lebanon / Canada tax law for dual citizens they may be able to produce more directly rellevant info besides "dual citizens don't have a higher tax burden because I say so."
tptptptp

Now when I was wrong I admitted it just ask nxnw. 


> nxnw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the same kind of reading from which you came to believe that Iraqis are not Arabs?
> 
> 
> 
> I corrected myself months ago. Yes I was under the missimpression that Iraqis were also Persians.
> This is a fallacy called a red herring and has absolutly nothing to do with the topic at hand other than to show that you have nothing of substance to say and need to resort to fallacious attack.
> next!
Click to expand...

Your turn. (i'll even accept a lecture after the admission of error like I gave nxnw)


----------



## krs

martman said:


> Again exactly.
> Now perhaps if anyone actually has REAL information on Lebanon / Canada tax law for dual citizens they may be able to produce more directly rellevant info besides "dual citizens don't have a higher tax burden because I say so."
> tptptptp
> 
> Now when I was wrong I admitted it just ask nxnw.
> 
> 
> Your turn. (i'll even accept a lecture after the admission of error like I gave nxnw)


I love your "exactly"

I'm NOT a Canadian/Lebanese dual citizen...let's just make that perfectly clear up front.

There is a signed tax treaty between Canada and Lebanon, however it is not yet in effect (from what I read)
http://www.fin.gc.ca/news99/data/99-007_1e.html

You can read through it if you wish......employment income (which is what I focused on because it applied to me and is also the most common) is *guaranteed* to be only taxed once, either by Canada or by Lebanon or partially by each depending on where it is earned; some other specific income may be taxed in each country, depending how the income is generated and what the "other" country decides.
I don't think there is any income that is *guaranteed* to be taxed in both countries, but it's certainly possible.


----------



## martman

Here is the key part of your reply...


krs said:


> however it is not yet in effect (from what I read)



Also this:


> is guaranteed to be only taxed once, either by Canada or by Lebanon <B>OR PARTIALLY BY EACH</B> depending on where it is earned; <B>some other specific income may be taxed in each country</B>, depending how the income is generated and what the "other" country decides.


You have failed to make a convincing case that dual citizens should not be entitled to services because of their tax status. In fact you have made my point for me.

I'll add that even if this was in effect right now it would still back up my argument because this is a reciprocal treaty so whatever benefit Lebanese-Canadians recieve from tax exempt status in Canada, Canadain-Lebanese also recieve in Lebanon.


Quite frankly this argument is reminding me of George Orwell's Animal Farm where the pigs post a notice on the barn: "all animals are equal" which is later amended to "but some are more equal than others."


----------



## krs

martman said:


> You have failed to make a convincing case that dual citizens should not be entitled to services because of their tax status. In fact you have made my point for me.


Are you confusing me with someone else?

I never said or suggested that "dual citizens should not be entitled to services because of their tax status"


----------



## martman

krs said:


> Are you confusing me with someone else?
> 
> I never said or suggested that "dual citizens should not be entitled to services because of their tax status"


Not exactly but it is my mistake. It seems you jumped in again at the time SINC was sugesting that the policy that is casing us to evacuate thousands of Canadian from Lebanon needs to be changed. I asumed you were trying to forward his whole argument when you chimed in about dual citizens don't pay tax in two countries. Anyway sorry, I made a bad assumption. Please accept my apologies.

All that aside, you did say that dual citizens don't pay taxes (you specified Income and other taxes) in two countries which as we have both shown is not the case unless there is a reciprocal tax treaty in place. Even then there are often taxes that are applicable to both nations. As I pointed out earlier the US Capital Gains Tax can be particularily burdensome if you live in Canada and pay most of your taxes here. 

Also it seems to me you are saying you worked in the EU but are not a citizen of the EU. Is this correct? Just wondering if you might have ended up paying more tax if you were also a member of the EU? Out of curiosity did you get free healthcare too? What country(ies) were you wroking in? Were you on a millitairy base as a civillain?


edit: spelling


----------



## Beej

martman said:


> Anyway sorry, I made a bad assumption. Please acccept my apologies.


Very honourable and too rare online. Your apology is not directed at me, but thank you anyway.


----------



## krs

martman said:


> Please accept my apologies.


No need to apologize.



> Also it seems to me you are saying you worked in the EU but are not a citizen of the EU. Is this correct? Just wondering if you might have ended up paying more tax if you were also a member of the EU? Out of curiosity did you get free healthcare too? What country(ies) were you wroking in? Were you on a millitairy base as a civillain?


We are really moving off topic here. I think the key bit of information, also posted on the Government of Canada site, is that each situation is different even if they seem to be the same.
In my case I was a citizen of the EU; worked for a Canadian company in Europe, paid regular Canadian income tax, but of course EU consumption tax. No free health care. Work was civilian, countries were England, France, Germany and Switzerland.
This was from 1986 to 1990.


----------



## martman

I'm surprised France didn't provide healthcare. I've known two people who were vacationing in France and needed hsopitalisation and were never billed in any way.


----------



## krs

martman said:


> I'm surprised France didn't provide healthcare. I've known two people who were vacationing in France and needed hsopitalisation and were never billed in any way.


They might have...I never needed any and so never found out.
I do remember paying in Germany and Switzerland I think, but it was nothing significant. This was almost 20 years ago...in any case, if I had to spend money on healthcare, the company reimbursed me so it was never an issue.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> At least 384 people have been killed in Lebanon, including 20 soldiers and 11 Hezbollah fighters, according to security officials. At least 600,000 Lebanese have fled their homes, according to the WHO - with one estimate by Lebanon's finance minister putting the number at 750,000, nearly 20 percent of the population.
> 
> Israel's death toll stands at 36, with 17 people killed by Hezbollah rockets and 19 soldiers killed in the fighting.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5970731,00.html


----------



## martman

MACSPECTRUM said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5970731,00.html


(sarcasm)MACSPECTRUM, numbers and stats are meaningless(/sarcasm)

11 dead Hezbolah. Nice to see the Isrealis are going after Hezbolah and doing ALL they can to avoid civillians. - NOT!

600,000+ displaced civillians. This is not measured, this is ethnic cleansing of the south.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

The irony.

Lebanese with dual citizenship with other nations (including Canada) are being driven into the sea.


----------



## HowEver

Throwing around terms like "ethnic cleansing" in this situation is offensive to all the people who have actually gone through it, their families and the people who knew them.

So is the 600K number. If you don't know, don't say.



martman said:


> (sarcasm)MACSPECTRUM, numbers and stats are meaningless(/sarcasm)
> 
> 11 dead Hezbolah. Nice to see the Isrealis are going after Hezbolah and doing ALL they can to avoid civillians. - NOT!
> 
> 600,000+ displaced civillians. This is not measured, this is ethnic cleansing of the south.


----------



## HowEver

Paul O'Keefe said:


> The irony.
> 
> Lebanese with dual citizenship with other nations (including Canada) are being driven into the sea.


As opposed to what? Having rockets rain down on their heads?


----------



## Beej

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/o...54404800&en=42faac5a85fd1a00&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Interesting article. The relevance is questionable, but those questions can be fun.


----------



## krs

HowEver said:


> So is the 600K number. If you don't know, don't say.


Could you explain what you mean by that?

Nobody here on ehMac knows the *real* numbers - everyone is quoting from news reports...and the news reports don't agree either.

The point is the general magnitude, not a specific number and the concensus on that is between 500 000 and 750 000.


----------



## krs

Beej said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/o...54404800&en=42faac5a85fd1a00&ei=5070&emc=eta1
> 
> Interesting article. The relevance is questionable, but those questions can be fun.


Glad you posted that - there is a lot of truth in that article.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Beej said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/o...54404800&en=42faac5a85fd1a00&ei=5070&emc=eta1
> 
> Interesting article. The relevance is questionable, but those questions can be fun.


Nations feeling the byproduct of a neurological quirk to perceived pain? Interesting. And it talks of the "wayback" machine - Bingo  

When two siblings fights, there is usually a parent that breaks it up, except in the case of negligent parents... Damn these analogies...


----------



## martman

HowEver said:


> Throwing around terms like "ethnic cleansing" in this situation is offensive to all the people who have actually gone through it, their families and the people who knew them.
> 
> So is the 600K number. If you don't know, don't say.


600,000 comes from Todays Star.

I find it offensive too. You know NOTHING about my familly background: surprise!
My dad is Jewish! So don't go giving me that attitude.


----------



## krs

"Nations" don't make decisions - individuals who run the "Nation" do


----------



## ArtistSeries

krs said:


> "Nations" don't make decisions - individuals who run the "Nation" do


Feisty... There was irony in my response. Beej gave warning ahead of the relevance..


----------



## Beej

Maybe the questions can't be fun.


----------



## krs

ArtistSeries said:


> Feisty... There was irony in my response. Beej gave warning ahead of the relevance..


Is there such a thing as an 'irony' smilie?


----------



## ArtistSeries

beejacon


krs said:


> Is there such a thing as an 'irony' smilie?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

HowEver said:


> As opposed to what? Having rockets rain down on their heads?


The irony is that anti-Israel militants often claim that they want to drive Israel into the sea... yet Israel is forcing the Lebanese with dual citizenship into the sea (as refugees). The double irony is that the militants who are fighting Israel are staying, while the innocent are being driven out.


----------



## The Gripper

doesn't make it right for Hezbollah to be able to acquire 13000 rockets to basically point in the general direction of Israel City and fire... oh...yer a civilian? sorry. not!

At least with the Israeli air force they have "targets"... loosley defined though they may be.


----------



## Beej

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/25/un-lebanon.html

More facts need to come in, but this will require further scrutiny if true. And no, it's not 'proof' of various slurs that pass as criticism but, like what happened with the U.S. pilot and Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, it will need to be examined.


----------



## ArtistSeries

I wonder what will be said about the Canadian who died there....


----------



## martman

I doubt Harper will adress it directly (at least in public). Remember this is a measured response.

Wonder what the Chinese will say.


----------



## Wisechoice

> At least with the Israeli air force they have "targets"... loosley defined though they may be.


No, that only disguises the obvious nature of what they're doing. Hezbollah's attacks are supposedly not targeted, yet kill fewer citizens than Israel, whose attacks are targeted. Israel is engaging in "asymmetrical" warfare. Translation: Lebaneses civilians bear the cost of retaliation, instead of Israeli soldiers.

Here's the Star's report. It seems the CBC didn't see fit to include more of what Kofi Annan said about the attack:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...424&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154


----------



## HowEver

What is your basis for assuming that you know what is in the mind of "Israel?" Your assumption is that their intention is to kill more civilians, while they actually target military installations (with today's obvious error the U.N. post, if it was Israeli fire that killed the 2 U.N. forces caught in the middle of a firefight), and while Hezbollah directly targets civilians with thousands of Katyusha rockets, shows a rather limited understanding.

Do you really believe that if Hezbollah had fighter jets with 1000-tonne bombs they wouldn't be dropping them onto civilians in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem?

If you're so much in favour of them, I guess you could join up, or send them support--except that you'd go to jail, since belonging to or supporting terrorist organisations including, specifically, Hezbollah, is against the law in Canada, and has been for a long time. It's a terrorist organization. They "kill fewer" you said, but not as many as they want to. That said, there are fewer Hezbollah terrorists today than there were a few weeks ago.




Wisechoice said:


> No, that only disguises the obvious nature of what they're doing. Hezbollah's attacks are supposedly not targeted, yet kill fewer citizens than Israel, whose attacks are targeted. Israel is engaging in "asymmetrical" warfare. Translation: Lebaneses civilians bear the cost of retaliation, instead of Israeli soldiers.
> 
> Here's the Star's report. It seems the CBC didn't see fit to include more of what Kofi Annan said about the attack:
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...424&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154


----------



## MacDoc

> Translation: Lebaneses civilians bear the cost of retaliation, instead of Israeli soldiers.



.....Lebanese civilians bear the cost of THEIR government's inability or unwillingness to deal with a terrorist organization operating on Lebanese soil.
If Hezzbollah is not viewed as a terrorist organization and tolerated or supported by Lebanon then the government is culpable for acts undertaken.

If they are unable to control Hezzbola then where is the invitation to the UN etc to do so?
Arms and missiles of that level come through the country..

I may not like Israel's approach but it's clearly understandable.

If the neighbour can't control the dogs, you shoot the dogs when they attack your kids in your yard. If the pack is living and breeding under the house with full knowledge of the neighbour.......said house and anyone in it is very likely going to get the brunt of removing rabid pack......after you've asked the neighbour to deal with it.
Neighbour can't or won't.......you DO deal with it.

Citizens do bear the cost of their government's foreign policy.....just as we bear the risk of the Canadian's policy in Afghanistan.

My question is why is Harper denying Canadian troops as a NATO or UN force when Israel has requested it?
Make in Middle East solution is fine in theory......but...how unlikely is THAT!?

My take is as another sovereign nation you DO go when ASKED....not pass the buck.

Yes there needs to be a home made solution in the long run but in the short term an international force seems to me to be of great aid to the weak Lebanese armed forces and a surety for Israel.


----------



## martman

MacDoc said:


> .....Lebanese civilians bear the cost of THEIR government's inability or unwillingness to deal with a terrorist organization operating on Lebanese soil.
> If Hezzbollah is not viewed as a terrorist organization and tolerated or supported by Lebanon then the government is culpable for acts undertaken.
> 
> If they are unable to control Hezzbola then where is the invitation to the UN etc to do so?
> Arms and missiles of that level come through the country..
> 
> I may not like Israel's approach but it's clearly understandable.


I'd be a lot more open to this argument if the civillian vs Hezzbolah casualy rate weren't what it is. The argument that this is about getting rid of Hezbolah rings hollow when I see the numbers. It also rings hollow when you see they also attacked Christian areas of Lebanon. I find it hard to believe the Christians support Hezzbolah. Don't you?


The idea of a multinational force is a much better solution than killing Lebanon's entire infrastructure. It isn't a good long term solution IMNSHO but it is better than the status quo.

I bet the next time the Hezbolah problem comes up in Lebanese parliment they won't make quips about solving Israel's problems for them.


----------



## krs

There were previously also reports of Israel bombing both hospitals and ambulances...now a UN post.
You'd think they can do a lot better with the sophisticated weapons they have.

Anyone know how many Hezbollah fighters have been *confirmed* captured or killed so far after two weeks of fighting. Seems to me it's less than a dozen. At this rate it's going to take months to achieve the Israeli objective and Lebanon is going to resemble the moon when they are finished.
Not that it will come to that........


----------



## martman

HowEver said:


> That said, there are fewer Hezbollah terrorists today than there were a few weeks ago.


That's right 11 fewer.


----------



## Wisechoice

> What is your basis for assuming that you know what is in the mind of "Israel?" Your assumption is that their intention is to kill more civilians, while they actually target military installations (with today's obvious error the U.N. post, if it was Israeli fire that killed the 2 U.N. forces caught in the middle of a firefight), and while Hezbollah directly targets civilians with thousands of Katyusha rockets, shows a rather limited understanding.


Why the scare quotes around Israel? Am I mistaken in thinking that they are involved?

The rest of your ridiculous personal attacks are below a response from me.

The broader context of this is that Palestine is being annhialated. Arab governments did nothing while 1. Palestine's democratic government was isolated and blockaded, causing suffering for countless civilians; 2. Palestine's sovereignty was violated by Israel when two civilans were removed from Gaza (immediately before the "unprovoked" capture and killing of Israeli soldiers); 3. Dozens of elected members of Palestine's government were kidnapped; 4. Infrastructure was wiped out while Palestinians continue to exist in a worsening state of helplessness and are unable to secure the basics of life.

Arabs cried out for something to be done about this and Hezbollah answered. No, I don't "support" them. I am not a "terrorist".

But I do understand that Israel will survive this violence, while Palestine almost certainly will not. That's why Israel and Hezbollah must both stop the violence and return to a framework of law.

Meanwhile, Canada must reverse its one-sided policy with regard to Palestine.


----------



## Wisechoice

> Anyone know how many Hezbollah fighters have been confirmed captured or killed so far after two weeks of fighting. Seems to me it's less than a dozen. At this rate it's going to take months to achieve the Israeli objective and Lebanon is going to resemble the moon when they are finished.


Yet they deem their air strategy to be very effective. How strange...

Let me say that Israel's policies are very detrimental to their own people. That is often said about terrorists, and it's obviously true when such a staggering concentration of violent capability exists on one side. It is also true of Israel's actions though.

Israelis have a right to be angry when they are fired at from across their border. Yet terrorists do not represent a credible threat to Israel's existence, only to the value of Israel's continued domination and liquidation of Palestine. Making life unliveable for so many in northern Israel is a high price to pay for occupation of Palestine. If I were an Israeli, I wouldn't think it was worthwhile.

How many (internal/external) refugees from Lebanon and Palestine? Hundreds of thousands at least.


----------



## HowEver

How do you know what a country is "thinking?" That's why it was in quotation marks.

How is Israel annihilating Palestine? They pretty much created Palestine. Palestinians live in Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, elsewhere. The only country that gave them land is Israel.

If arresting two people bothers you, you obviously care very little about what they might have done.

All of what you say is Israel's intervention in Palestine would cease if there was any intention on the Palestinian side of not continuing with killing Israelis. But you don't call for that to stop. Why would that be?

Palestine won't survive, but Israel will? No. Despite the stated intentions of Palestine's current Hamas government to kill Israelis and destroy Israel, Israel continues its policy not to occupy Gaza. So they can govern themselves, and have made the choice to elect a government that is at war with Israel.

Meanwhile, women and children under Hamas have no rights, the opposite to the situation in Israel where Arabs vote and hold positions in the government.

Amazing what people believe these days. And why. 





Wisechoice said:


> Why the scare quotes around Israel? Am I mistaken in thinking that they are involved?
> 
> The rest of your ridiculous personal attacks are below a response from me.
> 
> The broader context of this is that Palestine is being annhialated. Arab governments did nothing while 1. Palestine's democratic government was isolated and blockaded, causing suffering for countless civilians; 2. Palestine's sovereignty was violated by Israel when two civilans were removed from Gaza (immediately before the "unprovoked" capture and killing of Israeli soldiers); 3. Dozens of elected members of Palestine's government were kidnapped; 4. Infrastructure was wiped out while Palestinians continue to exist in a worsening state of helplessness and are unable to secure the basics of life.
> 
> Arabs cried out for something to be done about this and Hezbollah answered. No, I don't "support" them. I am not a "terrorist".
> 
> But I do understand that Israel will survive this violence, while Palestine almost certainly will not. That's why Israel and Hezbollah must both stop the violence and return to a framework of law.
> 
> Meanwhile, Canada must reverse its one-sided policy with regard to Palestine.


----------



## HowEver

The bold part below shows true colours: liquidation? Try the real world for a while and then get back to us.



Wisechoice said:


> Israelis have a right to be angry when they are fired at from across their border. Yet terrorists do not represent a credible threat to Israel's existence,* only to the value of Israel's continued domination and liquidation of Palestine.* Making life unliveable for so many in northern Israel is a high price to pay for occupation of Palestine. If I were an Israeli, I wouldn't think it was worthwhile.


----------



## HowEver

There are all kinds of "reports." Even the U.N. personnel deaths was reported first at 4, and then at 2 a few hours later. This is a terrible place to be getting one's news.

Here is the Israeli response:


> Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the United States, said that "UNIFIL obviously got caught in the middle" of a gunfight between Hezbollah guerillas and Israeli troops.
> 
> "We do not have yet confirmation what caused these deaths. It could be (Israel Defense Forces). It could be Hezbollah," he said.
> 
> UNIFIL sent a rescue-and-medical team to the city of Khiyam, and the team was trying to clear rubble early Wednesday. Attacks in the vicinity continued as rescuers tried to reach those killed or injured, UNIFIL said.
> 
> UNIFIL said there had been at least 14 incidents of fire close to the post since Tuesday afternoon.
> 
> U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he was "deeply distressed" by the "apparently deliberate" strike.
> 
> "This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long-established and clearly marked U.N. post at Khiyam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that U.N. positions would be spared Israeli fire," he said in a statement.
> 
> "Furthermore, General Alain Pelligrini, the U.N. force commander in south Lebanon, had been in repeated contact with Israeli officers throughout the day on Tuesday, stressing the need to protect that particular U.N. position from attack."
> 
> *Ayalon called Annan's statement "outrageous," while Israel's U.N. ambassador, Dan Gillerman, said he, too, was "deeply distressed" that Annan alleged that the strike was deliberate.
> 
> "I am surprised at these premature and erroneous assertions made by the secretary-general, who while demanding an investigation, has already issued its conclusions," Gillerman said in a statement.
> *


The U.S. claimed that Iraqis were pulling babies out of incubators in Kuwait. More of the same.




krs said:


> There were previously also reports of Israel bombing both hospitals and ambulances...now a UN post.
> You'd think they can do a lot better with the sophisticated weapons they have.
> 
> Anyone know how many Hezbollah fighters have been *confirmed* captured or killed so far after two weeks of fighting. Seems to me it's less than a dozen. At this rate it's going to take months to achieve the Israeli objective and Lebanon is going to resemble the moon when they are finished.
> Not that it will come to that........


----------



## martman

HowEver said:


> There are all kinds of "reports." Even the U.N. personnel deaths was reported first at 4, and then at 2 a few hours later. This is a terrible place to be getting one's news.


Where do you see this. My source is the Toronto Star online:


> Canadian reported among 4 UN observers killed
> Jul. 25, 2006. 11:24 PM
> (AP-CP)
> 
> BEIRUT (AP-CP) — An Israeli bomb destroyed a UN observer post on the border in southern Lebanon on Tuesday, killing four peacekeepers, a UN official said. One of the victims is believed to be Canadian.
> 
> UN chief Kofi Annan said Israel appeared to have struck the site deliberately.
> 
> The dead included observers from Canada, Austria, China and Finland, a senior Lebanese military official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information to the media.


I guess the Toronto Star is not a good source?


----------



## Wisechoice

Well, the fact that you misquote me reveals your first mistake. Nowhere did I refer to what Israel was "thinking" (nor did you put thinking in quotes), only to what they are *doing*. If you can't make that distinction...

I understand there is a policy on this board of NOT slandering other members. Would accusing me of being a terrorist qualify?



> How is Israel annihilating Palestine? They pretty much created Palestine. Palestinians live in Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, elsewhere. The only country that gave them land is Israel.


Explain. I am genuinely curious as to how you arrive at this interpretation of history. Please document your sources.



> Israel continues its policy not to occupy Gaza. So they can govern themselves, and have made the choice to elect a government that is at war with Israel.


Wrong. They have "arrested" over 60 members of the Palestinian government. What are the charges? In which court will they appear?

They have built a wall that reaches inside the recognized borders, creating a situation that resembles apartheid South Africa. This is part of why I use the term "liquidate".

You wondered at "why" I believe what I do. Well, just go ahead and tell me why I believe what I do. It would doubtless be a lie, for any mistakes I make are out of simple ignorance, not malice toward you or anyone else.

Israel has never recognized a Palestinian state, as was demanded of Hamas. Israel has never renounced violence against Palestinians, as was demanded of Hamas. Israel has not complied with international law, as was demanded of Hamas. Yet your criticism does not even mention Israel. They are, in your eyes, faultless. They are gods who bestow upon Palestinians their very existence and can also rightfully take it away.

You don't even admit there is an occupation! How can a conversation continue from there?


----------



## Wisechoice

> All of what you say is Israel's intervention in Palestine would cease if there was any intention on the Palestinian side of not continuing with killing Israelis. But you don't call for that to stop. Why would that be?


It should stop. There is an urgent need for it to stop.

Now you go ahead. What else should stop?



> If the neighbour can't control the dogs, you shoot the dogs when they attack your kids in your yard. If the pack is living and breeding under the house with full knowledge of the neighbour.......said house and anyone in it is very likely going to get the brunt of removing rabid pack......after you've asked the neighbour to deal with it.
> Neighbour can't or won't.......you DO deal with it.


How... by bombing the neighbor's house? Using "bunker busters" to make sure you get to the dogs in the basement? Blowing up their car? Burning their furniture? Ignoring police demands to stop? 

It wasn't children who were attacked btw, it was soldiers. Proportionality is an entirely appropriate question. The annihalation of Hezbollah is not going to happen. There are still avenues of disarmament available for Hezbollah and Israel (what a strange idea, I know), but only if both sides agree to a ceasefire.

Problem #1 with your analogy is that it's simplistic. Problem #2 is that it endorses the idea that ANY response is appropriate to perceived wrongs.

Military and paramilitary organizations will continue to exist... Israel will not be able to remove Hezbollah completely, almost every educated observer has said this. Whether or not they are labeled "terrorist" doesn't change the fact that violence will beget more violence. The escalation is not good for Israel or anyone else in the region.


----------



## Vandave

MacDoc said:


> If the neighbour can't control the dogs....you DO deal with it.


Good analogy. Very apt.



MacDoc said:


> My question is why is Harper denying Canadian troops as a NATO or UN force when Israel has requested it?
> Make in Middle East solution is fine in theory......but...how unlikely is THAT!?


Harper isn't as stupid as you think. He knows very well a made in Middle East solution won't happen. 

Much of the Arab world likes to use the Israel, the US and the West as a scapegoat for their problems. If they start to take responsibility for Middle East issues, then they lose the ability to point the finger. All of a sudden it would become very apparent who the real problem is. That's why it will never happen and I'm glad Harper challenged them on the issue.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

ArtistSeries said:


> I wonder what will be said about the Canadian who died there....


collateral damage


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

by macdoc;


> My question is why is Harper denying Canadian troops as a NATO or UN force when Israel has requested it?
> Make in Middle East solution is fine in theory......but...how unlikely is THAT!?
> 
> My take is as another sovereign nation you DO go when ASKED....not pass the buck.


because harpo et al support peacemaking (a la Afghanistan), not peacekeeping (which is being proposed for the Israeli-Lebanese border)

and what if NATO does agree to send in a force
isn't Canada obligated to comply since we are members of NATO?


----------



## Vandave

MACSPECTRUM said:


> by macdoc;
> 
> 
> because harpo et al support peacemaking (a la Afghanistan), not peacekeeping (which is being proposed for the Israeli-Lebanese border)
> 
> and what if NATO does agree to send in a force
> isn't Canada obligated to comply since we are members of NATO?


I don't think so. NATO allies are obligated to comply when a member country is attacked. That obviously doesn't apply here, so I imagine it would be voluntary.


----------



## Wisechoice

NATO has something called the Mediterranean Dialogue which includes Israel.


----------



## HowEver

I had some problems following along here because of the use of pronouns ("they" did this or that) isn't always clear, so this reply may be similar.

For the record, I didn't say you were a terrorist. I was suggesting that apolgists for terrorists might as well join up--except that in Canada, Hezbollah is specifically named by governments as a terrorist organization. Supporters, including those who send them money, are breaking Canadian law.

You're wrong about Israel not recognizing that there should be two states. They just won't negotiate with groups that call for the destruction of every Israeli and who themselves don't believe there should be two states. Israel negotiated the Oslo accords and the "road map" which both would have given full statehood to the territories. Palestinians answered with the intifada, and more homicide bombers, each time.

Unlike the Israeli soldiers who were ripped limb from limb and paraded through the streets in Gaza, those persons arrested by Israel are held and tried.

As for the "wall," which internationally recognized borders are you talking about? Recognized by whom?

Any other country would keep the land it acquired in a defensive war. Can you think of examples where the opposite is the case? Or should the usual double standards apply?



wisechoice said:


> You wondered at "why" I believe what I do. Well, just go ahead and tell me why I believe what I do. It would doubtless be a lie, for any mistakes I make are out of simple ignorance, not malice toward you or anyone else.


Nice to know there's no malice, at least.

.


----------



## Greenlion

Would we really be surprised if Israeli Defense Forces had struck a UN outpost purposefully? What better way to discourage any proposed UN peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon? Who wants to send troops now? Anyone, anyone?

Oooops! Sorry!!!

Reminds me of what the US said after firing a missile into the Al Jazeera offices in Baghdad.

Well actually at first come the denials and outrage at such a suggestion. 

"How dare you suggest such a thing! Blasphemer!"

Then its an accident.

Then everbody forgets.....then it happens again.

Hey However...has the Israeli government or military ever done anything that you couldn't defend?


----------



## Beej

HowEver said:


> Any other country would keep the land it acquired in a defensive war. Can you think of examples where the opposite is the case? Or should the usual double standards apply?


I can think of an old example.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_ante_bellum

As for Israel, the problem with negotiating with groups that want you dead as their #1 goal is that transferring land is always the PR cover for the terrorism. 

"We kill for land X." When land X is transferred, "We kill for land Y/grievance A because Israel only responded when we killed." That's all PR (for their audience and to influence world opinion), the goal is to destroy Israel. Sometimes they're even quite honest about this.


----------



## HowEver

Greenlion said:


> Hey However...has the Israeli government or military ever done anything that you couldn't defend?


"Have you stopped beating your wife lately?"

Perhaps you have a less vague question you'd like to ask? And if I wasn't writing about specific examples, I meant to be.

As always, a thread about Israel demonizes the people and the nation. It's tiresome, it's predictable. This isn't exactly the St0rm-fr)nt forums (nor have I spent any time there other to confirm what it is--I won't write the actual name) but it sure feels like it from time to time.


----------



## martman

Not negotiating with terrorists is a smoke screen. Truth is eveyone negotiates with terrorists. This is how peace is won. USA does it Israel does it terrorists do it.
Not negotiating with terrorists is just posturing and convienence. If your enmies are "terrorists" then to get peace you will negotiate, with terrorists. Hence the Oslow accords. USA even negotiated with the Taliban and gave them money because they stopped opium production when they controlled Afganistan. http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/561/context/outrage


> Bush Gives Taliban $10 Million To Fight Opium
> Run Date: 05/26/01
> 
> (WOMENSENEWS)—The Bush administration has given Afghanistan $43 million including $10 million for “other livelihood and food security programs,” a reference to the ruling Taliban's ban on poppy cultivation that dramatically changed the economy of the war-torn nation. The poppy is the source of opium and the crop had provided significant revenues to Afghan farmers. The aid was described as humanitarian.
> 
> In addition to being an ally in the U.S. war against drugs, the Taliban also has banned the education of girls and women. It has banned women from professions and from most outside-the-home employment, even with international relief agencies. It has banned women from seeing male doctors and it prevents women from practicing medicine.
> 
> Colin Powell, in announcing the gift, said the administration hoped that the Taliban "will act on a number of fundamental issues that separate us: their support of terrorism, their violation of internationally recognized human rights--especially their treatment of women and girls--and their refusal to resolve Afghanistan's civil war through a negotiated settlement." He also called on other nation's to join the U.S. with “dispatch and energy.”



If you want peace you negotiate. If you want war you fight. Simple as that and all the usual rhetoric to the contrary is just that.


----------



## Beej

martman said:


> If you want peace you negotiate. If you want war you fight. Simple as that and all the usual rhetoric to the contrary is just that.


Nope. Sometimes you have to fight for peace and sometimes fighting is a part of establishing a better negotiating position, especially if you don't like the "destruction of Israel" or "continued terrorism whenever and whereever we want" starting position of the other side. 

Although, saying "Simple as that and all the usual rhetoric to the contrary is just that." was a nice debating tactic.


----------



## martman

That doesn't counter my argument in the slightest. When it is time for peace you will negotiate. If you are fighting for a better negotiaion position you are wanting war. You will still need to negotiate at the end to stop the fighting unless you completly wipe out the enemy (seldom practiced these days).


----------



## martman

Beej said:


> especially if you don't like the "destruction of Israel" or "continued terrorism whenever and whereever we want" starting position of the other side.


That is unfair. Why? OSLO
Of course Oslo showed that people in the Middle East and their supporters don't want peace hence the assiantions of Sadat and Rabin by extremists in their own camps and the celebrations when they were killed.

(Remember that ass__le on tv news from NYC going on about what a mitzva it was to have killed Rabin? I sure do).


----------



## Beej

martman said:


> That doesn't counter my argument in the slightest.
> .......
> When it is time for peace you will negotiate.
> ......
> If you are fighting for a better negotiaion position you are wanting war.
> ......
> You will still need to negotiate at the end to stop the fighting unless you completly wipe out the enemy (seldom practiced these days).


A disagreement.
......
On what terms? Complete surrender to the wishes of the other side? Otherwise you get accused of "wanting war" (see below)? What if you resist a little? You just wanted a little war or perhaps a non-genocidal peace? Lots of black and white in your argument with no backup.
......
You might want to think that one through a little better.
......
There are many options and note, "negotiate at the end". At the end of "wanting war"?


----------



## martman

Beej said:


> A disagreement.
> ......
> On what terms? Complete surrender to the wishes of the other side?


I believe I said negotiate. Please show me ANYWHERE I said "Complete surrender to the wishes of the other side". 
Oh I didn't! Did I? 
This is completly disingenuous.

I add more examples: remember the hostage taking in Iran after the return of Kohemni (spelling I'm sure)? US negotiated and the Republican party negotiated seperatly as well.

Negotiations with IRA have led to peace in Norther Ireland.


----------



## Beej

martman said:


> I believe I said negotiate. Please show me ANYWHERE I said "to the wishes of the other side.
> Oh I didn't! Did I?
> This is completly disingenuous.


If you haven't established a good negotiating positions ("want war" as you put it) then your only negotiating position may be how much time you have to surrender. 

Again, the following creates artificially clear distinctions (simple as that  ):
If you want peace you negotiate. If you want war you fight. Simple as that and all the usual rhetoric to the contrary is just that.

And the deepened explanation didn't help:
When it is time for peace you will negotiate. *If you are fighting for a better negotiaion position you are wanting war. *You will still need to negotiate at the end to stop the fighting unless you completly wipe out the enemy (seldom practiced these days).



If your negotiating position at the start is from bad to nothing, you are "wanting war" to improve your position? No, you will tolerate war because you want better terms for you and/or your people. Those starting terms could (have been in the past) be: not being taken over and not being slaughtered. The terms currently offered to Israel, in practice (as opposed to on paper) are continued terrorism. Maybe the current approach will not improve that (nothing they've done seems to have worked, including ceding land), but to characterise this as "wanting war" misses too much.


----------



## martman

Beej said:


> The terms currently offered to Israel, in practice (as opposed to on paper) are continued terrorism.


That's funny I though the current starting position of the Palestinians was withdraw to 1966 positions and have two states. 
The Israeli position is stop all conflict and we'll talk and never retreat to 1966 positions.
This is the place negotiations start from. Now (if peace is truly wanted) the compromises on both sides start. 

I never saw anything about "we'll be free to keep lobbing rockets at you or sending suicide bombers."
Where did you read this?

edit: spelling


----------



## HowEver

Nope. Now that Hamas is in charge of what you call "negotiatins" the start and end point is the destruction of Israel. It's in their charter, and they are not at the negotiating table anyways.



martman said:


> That's fuuny I though *the current starting position *of the Palestinians was withdraw to 1966 positions and have two states.
> The Israeli position is stop all conflict and we'll talk and never retreat to 1966 positions.
> This is the place negotiations start from. Now (if peace is truly wanted) the compromises on both sides start.
> 
> I never saw anything about "we'll be free to keep lobbing rockets at you or sending suicide bombers."
> *Where did you read this?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> The news.
> 
> .


----------



## martman

HowEver said:


> The news.
> 
> .


Please provide a link. I haven't seen anything recent about Hamas's curent position. All you have provided is more rhetoric.


----------



## martman

HowEver said:


> The news.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait I get it. You can't know the thoughts of Israel's government but can know the thoughts of the gov't elected by the Palestinians.
> http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=429583&postcount=562
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HowEver said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what a country is "thinking?" That's why it was in quotation marks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's good for the goose...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Beej

martman said:


> That's funny I though the current starting position of the Palestinians was withdraw to 1966 positions and have two states.


That is a distinction between what many people may want and what the terrorist organisations are going for. This is back to PR. The terrorist organisations may say they're fighting for the land, but their record speaks differently. I don't have links on hand, but it shouldn't be hard to find examples of one of the local terror groups bragging about territory gains and how their attacks resulted in the gains (ie. continue supporting/turning a blind eye to us). 

Yet, for Israel, they've had to forcefully demonstrate that they can not be wiped out and will not be subjected to constant and significant terrorism ie. assert a negotiating position that is presumed for most nations. 

The vast majority of people in the area may want or, given the choice, choose a reasonable solution with various minor skirmishes over small spots of land into the future. The current terrorist organisations will communicate to that but it isn't their goal.


----------



## martman

Beej said:


> The current terrorist organisations will communicate to that but it isn't their goal.


The same could be said of Israel. Neither side has negotiated in good faith except maybe Oslo.


----------



## Beej

martman said:


> The same could be said of Israel.


Noted, but the 'same' can almost always be said. That doesn't mean much.


----------



## HowEver

"The news."

In the news for the last many decades has been the onslaught of homicide bombers sent by Hamas and others into Israel and the now-dismantled settlements killing not just Jewish people, but also Arabs and Christians and others. Surely you don't need these events listed out here, surely you have paid some attention to them, despite how they became routine before Israel built the wall, and how non-routine (but still ongoing) they have become since.

Again, the double standard: let it happen once on your campus, bus route or children's restaurant, and see how long it takes you to call for the arrest and detainment of those who armed and sent the persons responsible, no matter how oppressed you see them to be.

So long as it's happening in Israel, as this thread demonstrates, it will defended and argued for. As has been the case, in the news, for decades.

Where are the demonstrations for the bus suicide/homicides to stop, the demonstrations for the respectful return, if possible, of the bodies of Israeli soldiers kidnapped or otherwise? Nope, not seeing a lot of those. Even in this thread, there is disbelief that they were even kidnapped, or if they were, they must have been on an incursion inside Lebanon, even if on the news you saw Israeli bulldozers taking down the security fence on the Israeli-Lebanon border before they went into Lebanon, weeks after their soldiers were killed.

So much for the news.




martman said:


> HowEver said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait I get it. You can't know the thoughts of Israel's government but can know the thoughts of the gov't elected by the Palestinians.
> http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=429583&postcount=562
> 
> 
> 
> What's good for the goose...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## martman

Beej said:


> The terrorist organisations may say they're fighting for the land, but their record speaks differently.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The current terrorist organisations will communicate to that but it isn't their goal.


I'd have to dissagree if by "the terrorists" you are refering to groups whose aim it is to create a Palestinian state.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again I see no more evidense of this than I do of Israel wanting peace or trying to get at Hezzbolah in the current conflict.

Again it is clear those leading on both sides are not men of peace. Their decisions make that abundantly clear.


----------



## martman

HowEver said:


> "The news."
> In the news for the last many decades has been the onslaught of homicide bombers sent by Hamas and others into Israel and the now-dismantled settlements killing not just Jewish people, but also Arabs and Christians and others.


LOL at izzy asper's "homicie bombers" All bombers are homicide bombers.

Yes I've seen the reports and do not dispute them. I've also seen the response which in every case results in more causalties on the other side. Every case. I see settelers killing people (even children) just the same. Quite frankly it sickens me that both sides are pretending they have a moral high ground. Neither has anything to be proud of. In fact quite the opposite.
http://nigelparry.com/diary/closures/kormanwrap.html


> AP Worldstream
> 
> January 21, 2001; Sunday 6:57 AM Eastern Time
> 
> HEADLINE: Jewish settler gets community service and fine for killing Palestinian boy
> 
> BYLINE: JACK KATZENELL
> 
> DATELINE: JERUSALEM
> 
> BODY: An Israeli court on Sunday sentenced a Jewish settler to community service and a fine for the beating and kicking death of an 11-year-old Palestinian boy. The boy's father expressed outrage and accused the court of issuing a ''license to kill.''
> 
> The Jerusalem District Court sentenced Nahum Korman, 36, to six months of community service and a 70,000 shekels (dlrs 17,500) fine for the killing of Hilmi Shusha in the West Bank in October 1996.
> 
> Judge Ruth Or said she was not sending Korman to jail because the Supreme Court had convicted him only of ''manslaughter by negligence.''


I could do this all day for both sides. How can anyone claim moral superiority here.

Maybe this story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5217176.stm


> Israel troops 'ignored' UN plea
> 
> UN personnel carry the body of a colleague killed in an Israeli air strike
> The UN deaths have provoked an international outcry
> 
> The UN post
> UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon contacted Israeli troops 10 times before an Israeli bomb killed four of them, an initial UN report says.
> 
> The post was hit by a precision-guided missile after six hours of shelling, diplomats familiar with the probe say.
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> Israeli regrets
> 
> The four unarmed UN observers from Austria, Canada, China and Finland, died after their UN post in the town of Khiam was hit by an Israeli air strike on Tuesday.
> 
> 
> The UN report says each time the UN contacted Israeli forces, they were assured the firing would stop.
> 
> A senior Irish soldier working for the UN forces had warned the Israelis six times that their bombardment was endangering the lives of UN staff, Ireland's foreign ministry said.
> 
> Had Israel responded to the requests, "rather than deliberately ignoring them", the observers would still be alive, a diplomat familiar with the report said.
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has expressed "deep regrets" over the deaths.
> 
> Israel is conducting an investigation into the incident.
> 
> It has rejected accusations made by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan that the targeting of the UN position was "apparently deliberate".
> 
> White House spokesman Tony Snow said "something went really wrong" to cause the deaths, but also said there was no reason to suggest the bombing was deliberate.
> 
> The UN Security Council is meeting to discuss the incident.


----------



## martman

HowEver said:


> Any other country would keep the land it acquired in a defensive war. Can you think of examples where the opposite is the case? Or should the usual double standards apply?
> 
> .


You mean like USSR annexed Japan? Or do you mean like USA annexed Italy?

I see nothing about this in the Geneva Conventions. Please show me the applicable regulations.


----------



## martman

ArtistSeries said:


> I wonder what will be said about the Canadian who died there....


Turns out we were all wrong:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...l_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News


> PM wants to know why UN post still manned
> Jul. 26, 2006. 03:53 PM
> CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> HOPEWELL CAPE, N.B. — Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Israel's deadly attack on a UN observation post in Lebanon that killed a Canadian soldier was a "terrible tragedy."
> 
> But he added that he doubts the bombing was deliberate.
> 
> Harper, speaking to the media in eastern New Brunswick, said the Canadian military will consult with the UN and the Israeli government to find out what happened.
> 
> The prime minister also said he wants to know why the post was still manned by UN observers even though it was in the middle of an obvious war zone.
> 
> UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has suggested Israel deliberately targeted the UN outpost.
> 
> But Harper said the facts suggest otherwise.
> 
> "I certainly doubt that to be the case, given that the government of Israel has been co-operating with us in our evacuation efforts, in our efforts to move Canadian citizens out of Lebanon and also trying to keep our own troops that are on the ground involved in the evacuation out of harm's way," he said.
> 
> "We want to find out why this United Nations post was attacked and also why it remained manned during what is now, more or less, a war during obvious danger to these individuals."



Harper's answer = "It's the UN's fault."


----------



## Greenlion

HowEver said:


> "Have you stopped beating your wife lately?"
> 
> Perhaps you have a less vague question you'd like to ask? And if I wasn't writing about specific examples, I meant to be.
> 
> As always, a thread about Israel demonizes the people and the nation. It's tiresome, it's predictable. This isn't exactly the St0rm-fr)nt forums (nor have I spent any time there other to confirm what it is--I won't write the actual name) but it sure feels like it from time to time.


WTF is that supposed to mean? Beat my wife? Take a valium man. 

Here's another question you'll like. 

Do you ever answer a direct question? 

What is the storm front forum? Or whatever it is you are trying to type? I'm guessing you're calling me a wife beater and a Nazi in the same reply?!? 

My question was....and it's quite simple and clear..... Has the government of Israel or it's military taken any action that you have objected to? 

My observation is that, those who criticize Israel, seem able to admit that the many of the actions taken against Israel are immoral, reprehensible etc. However, posters such as yourself, clearly a staunch supporter of Israel, seem unable to find any fault with whatever Israel does.

I'm not really seeing how my attempting to clarify this point makes me a target for riduculous vitriol and slander, but then again, maybe you just helped make my point.


----------



## martman

Greenlion said:


> =
> 
> My observation is that, those who criticize Israel, seem able to admit that the many of the actions taken against Israel are immoral, reprehensible etc. However, posters such as yourself, clearly a staunch supporter of Israel, seem unable to find any fault with whatever Israel does.
> .


Exactly! This is the symptom of a fanatic.


----------



## HowEver

I didn't call you anything.

"Have you stopped beating your wife lately?" is an example of a classic question that is asked that has no right answer, since as soon as you start to object you appear guilty of wrongdoing. It's what I was saying you were doing (to spell it out: saying that you were asking similar questions that could not be 'answered') and it's what I see now you are saying I've been doing.

Saying that these forums _feel_ like something doesn't _accuse_ you of anything. It says, they feel like something. There was no intention to infer anything about you, and there was no statement about you.

My question still stands, too: why accuse Israel of these things, and let the rest of world go unexamined, unpunished and unfettered? Why expect Israel to respond in a way that no other country, least of all the one in which you reside, would be expected to behave?






Greenlion said:


> WTF is that supposed to mean? Beat my wife? Take a valium man.
> 
> Here's another question you'll like.
> 
> Do you ever answer a direct question?
> 
> What is the storm front forum? Or whatever it is you are trying to type? I'm guessing you're calling me a wife beater and a Nazi in the same reply?!?
> 
> My question was....and it's quite simple and clear..... Has the government of Israel or it's military taken any action that you have objected to?
> 
> My observation is that, those who criticize Israel, seem able to admit that the many of the actions taken against Israel are immoral, reprehensible etc. However, posters such as yourself, clearly a staunch supporter of Israel, seem unable to find any fault with whatever Israel does.
> 
> I'm not really seeing how my attempting to clarify this point makes me a target for riduculous vitriol and slander, but then again, maybe you just helped make my point.


----------



## vimy

This seems like such a hot topic so why not put my two cents in. 

For possibly the first time ever, I totally and entirely agree with what HowEver has to say on this topic. You have hit the nail on the head, keep up the good work on this topic.


----------



## martman

HowEver said:


> I didn't call you anything.
> 
> "Have you stopped beating your wife lately?" is an example of a classic question that is asked that has no right answer, since as soon as you start to object you appear guilty of wrongdoing. It's what I was saying you were doing (to spell it out: saying that you were asking similar questions that could not be 'answered') and it's what I see now you are saying I've been doing.
> 
> Saying that these forums _feel_ like something doesn't _accuse_ you of anything. It says, they feel like something. There was no intention to infer anything about you, and there was no statement about you.
> 
> My question still stands, too: why accuse Israel of these things, and let the rest of world go unexamined, unpunished and unfettered? Why expect Israel to respond in a way that no other country, least of all the one in which you reside, would be expected to behave?



I though the implication was clear. 
You still haven't answered his question. 

"Has the government of Israel or it's military taken any action that you have objected to? "

As to your question people like you and nxwx are perfectly capable of presenting a pro-Israeli stance there is plenty of people presenting that side of the conflict. As for you assertion that Israel is being held to a different standard than say the USA (or Canada): This is complete BS at least as far as I am conserned. I make it plenty clear I expect better of my governmnets. I hold my people up to no less a standard than I would ANY nation. Notice that I have several times in this thread placed the blame squarely on all the involved parties.


----------



## Beej

martman said:


> Notice that I have several times in this thread placed the blame squarely on all the involved parties.


That's part of the disagreement. Placing blame everywhere doesn't necessarily equate with much more than idealism. Under the same circumstances (not just the events of the last week) that Israel is under, how do you think the usual suspects (Canada, U.S., UK, France, South Korea, etc.) would react, even considering such expected reactions? 

The Afghanistan question is still out there. It took a lot less to get a large portion of the world's nations to support the U.S. than what Israel has and is going through. So, do you think Israel is significantly out of line with what other major nations would do under the same circumstances? A difficult and highly subjective question.


----------



## Wisechoice

HowEver, I understand that you "feel" this forum is like a notoriously racist white supremacist website (though you are not drawing a direct parallel because you've never been there - fair enough). I take that to mean you feel persecuted here. I'm sorry, because it's a terrible feeling.

If your claims about Palestinian terrorists are true - that they want the destruction of Israel, nothing less - I still don't think anyone _here_ wants the destruction of Israel. Nobody has argued for it. As far as I can tell, most people who argue with you here seek peace for both sides.

Still, I have to agree that more often than not it is you who come across as a fanatic, in your steadfast refusal to ever admit that criticizing the _policies and actions of a state_ - not a people - is appropriate. You should by all rights agree with that. I have never thought to criticize all Europeans, even though it was Europeans who trafficked in African slaves, or all white people, even though it was white people who ruled apartheid South Africa, or all Germans, even though it was Germans who perpetrated the holocaust, or all Muslims, even though it was Muslims who destroyed the World Trade Centre, or ... you get the idea.

Yes, occupation is also a terrible evil. You must admit that. No, I do not seek to equate all those things - each is a singular and terrible event in its own right. I see an injustice in Palestine. That motivates me to bring certain facts to the attention of - and argue with - those who support the policies and actions of the state of Israel. Perhaps Internet forums don't allow the depth of consideration and response that a conversation like this deserves, likely not. But this war actually keeps me awake at night.

As for being an "apologist" or wanting to support Hezbollah, I do not. I only say - in critique of Canada's policies of open support - that the state of Israel perpetrates the greater terror, and that we should recognize it.


----------



## arminia

However does everything except say it directly. Anyone who criticizes Isreal about anything is anti-semetic.


----------



## vimy

arminia said:


> Anyone who criticizes Isreal about anything is anti-semetic.



That seems a little brash.


----------



## martman

Beej said:


> That's part of the disagreement. Placing blame everywhere doesn't necessarily equate with much more than idealism. Under the same circumstances (not just the events of the last week) that Israel is under, how do you think the usual suspects (Canada, U.S., UK, France, South Korea, etc.) would react, even considering such expected reactions?


Unfortunaly idealism is all that is applicable here. How would Canada react? Probably (if Harpur wasn't in power) try and negotiate a settlement without all the bizzare pre-conditions we usually see from those who don't want peace. Harper's Canada would probably invite the US millitairy in to mop up. USA would be like Israel or more so. Does this justify Israel's actions?
No!



Beej said:


> The Afghanistan question is still out there. It took a lot less to get a large portion of the world's nations to support the U.S. than what Israel has and is going through. So, do you think Israel is significantly out of line with what other major nations would do under the same circumstances? A difficult and highly subjective question.


I think this is the wrong question given that I completly dissagree with the invasion of Afganistan in the first palce. I've said before and I'll say it again regime change should only be attempted by elections or in a last resort under the auspecies of the UN. Quite frankly I don't care what "other" nations would do. I would be critcal (and am critcal) of any nation breaking the geneva conventions. For more see my critisisms of the USA in that regard.


----------



## Beej

martman said:


> Unfortunaly idealism is all that is applicable here.
> ........
> I would be critcal (and am critcal) of any nation


I would say it's one of the least relevant things here and can actually do more harm than good, but I'm pretty sure that's a quick discussion: a basic disagreement. Paul O and myself went down this route.
.......
So it may seem odd that the volume of criticism does not seem to reflect the situation. Perhaps that's just offsetting a perceived 'unbalance' in the discussion, but it appears like a bias towards criticising Israel or, maybe in other situations, the U.S., more. 

I call this a part of the Sinistro mistake. beejacon


----------



## martman

As I pointed out there are plenty of people here presenting the Israeli side of the issue. In other forums where I am debating this issue and <b>real</b> anti-semites are posting I am debating them too.
here is an example:


another forum said:


> agent-smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> ncidentally, if you look at a map it's clear that they aim to ethnicly cleanse the entire coutry either by driving them out or killing them,
> then annexing lebanon onto the zionist "state"
> 
> 
> 
> Now come on!
> Your read of Isreal is pretty poor if you actually believe that.
> Isreal will never expand to a larger state than at it hight in the Bible. The Likud types wouldn't stand for it. It is all about the scripture. At least try and be somewhat realistic in your paranoia.
Click to expand...


----------



## Beej

Thanks for the perspective. So it's more of contributing towards what you see as a more balanced and reasonable discussion? If so, we don't agree on what is balanced and reasonable regarding this topic, but I think I understand where you're coming from. If not, let me live in my idealistic dreamworld.


----------



## martman

I think you are correct here. I believe that peace comes from understanding and that fanatics hamper this understanding no matter what they believe on the issue. I believe it is clear that anyone who is incapable of critisizing Israel or Hamas/Islamic Jihad/Fatah is a fanatic. I will always argue with fanatics to present a differing view of their black and white world.


----------



## martman

Beej said:


> If so, we don't agree on what is balanced and reasonable regarding this topic, but I think I understand where you're coming from.


I don't expect everyone to believe exactly the same as me.


----------



## krs

martman said:


> Turns out we were all wrong:
> Harper's answer = "It's the UN's fault."


I can't believe the garbage Harper is coming up with. It's beginning to be embarassing to have him as leader of our country. He sounds more and more like Bush every day.

Unless something went wrong with the technology (which nobody has suggested yet as far as I know), there is no question that this was a deliberate attack on this target. The only question is why?
Did the Israelis think it was a different target?
Or was it targetted to discourage countries from signing up for the peacekeeping force as was suggested by someone here earlier? Interestingly, CNN in their latest broadcast about an hour ago suggested that as one possibility as well.
Israel's contention that Hezbollah was launching missiles from the vicinity of the UN post was refuted by the UN observers at that post. 
I doubt if we ever find out the real truth.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> I doubt if we ever find out the real truth.


truth; one more dead Canadian


----------



## MacDoc

Wow - I was surprised by this poll on the CTV site..



> How would you describe the Israeli attack on a UN post in Lebanon?
> 
> An accident	1386 votes (14 %)
> 
> Reckless 1766 votes (18 %)
> 
> *Intentional 6415 votes (67 %)*


 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate


and this from the Globe



> Has your opinion of Prime Minister Harper changed because of the adamant pro-Israel position he has taken in the current Mideast crisis?
> 
> Yes, for the better (22%) 2533 votes
> 
> *Yes, for the worse (72%) 8214 votes*
> 
> No, it's still the same (6%) 722 votes
> 
> Total votes: 11469


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...ays=no&hub=Front&subhub=VoteResult&vote=53530

Pretty big disconnect here.


----------



## martman

MacDoc said:


> Pretty big disconnect here.


Please explain why you think this is a disconnect.


----------



## MacDoc

Harper's stance......that's no small number.....



> Has your opinion of Prime Minister Harper changed because of the adamant pro-Israel position he has taken in the current Mideast crisis?
> 
> Yes, for the worse *(72%) 8214 votes*


----------



## Beej

From Lewis MacKenzie in the Globe and Mail:
...............
This is what we call "veiled speech" in military jargon. It means hiding the truth in lingo that outsiders would not necessarily understand. What he is saying translates roughly as: "We have Hezbollah fighters all over our position engaging the IDF and using us as shields. They will probably stay, hoping that the IDF won't target them for fear of hitting us."

Surprising? Not really.

I have served in another mission where one side constantly set up its weapon systems, including mortars, in and around hospitals, medical clinics, mosques and, yes, UN positions, knowing full well that, when it engaged its enemies and received return fire, it would make for compelling TV as the networks covered the civilian carnage. (When they took up positions around my soldiers, I advised their leaders that I would authorize my soldiers to kill them within the hour if they didn't withdraw. Fortunately, as I was not an unarmed observer, I was in a position to do that.) In many cases, the weapon systems were moved immediately after firing, and their positions around civilians were abandoned before innocents paid the price for their despicable techniques. You have to admit this technique helps to win the PR war, which often is as important as the fighting one.
.............


----------



## Beej

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2006/07/26/clinton-halifax.html

Some comments from Clinton.
.............
Clinton said that, like Hamas in the Palestinian territories, Hezbollah has followed a strategy of, "when it suits us we'll be a political party and when it suits us we'll go to war," thereby violating a UN resolution to disarm.

However Clinton wasn't wholly supportive of the weight of the Israeli response to the capture of two soldiers and the killing of eight others on July 12.

"I understand why they wanted to degrade [Hezbollah's] military capacity, but I question whether it was worth it to wreck the airport because the airport was the symbol of the new Lebanon."

Clinton characterized the build-up of Hezbollah's military capabilities in recent years as "alarming."
...............


----------



## adagio

Thanks, Beej.

This is why I've been sitting quietly on the sidelines. My first impulse is to agree with most posters at ehMac. No one wants to see civilian casualties and it makes me ill to see so much destruction.

However, I'm sitting here cozy and safe in Canada. I am not in Lebanon. There is no way that I can truly see what is happening and sadly I cannot believe any of the press anymore. I've seen first hand, from personal experience, how a story can be manipulated and distorted. I trust NONE of the mainstream news.

IF it is true that the UN troops were being used as human shields then I also question why they were still there. These were unarmed observers? Heads should roll that these poor soldiers weren't removed from such a dangerous position. There is a bloomin' war going on in that area, for cripes sake!!!


----------



## krs

Beej said:


> From Lewis MacKenzie in the Globe and Mail:
> ...............
> This is what we call "veiled speech" in military jargon. It means hiding the truth in lingo that outsiders would not necessarily understand. What he is saying translates roughly as: "We have Hezbollah fighters all over our position engaging the IDF and using us as shields. They will probably stay, hoping that the IDF won't target them for fear of hitting us."
> 
> Surprising? Not really.
> 
> I have served in another mission where one side constantly set up its weapon systems, including mortars, in and around hospitals, medical clinics, mosques and, yes, UN positions, knowing full well that, when it engaged its enemies and received return fire, it would make for compelling TV as the networks covered the civilian carnage. (When they took up positions around my soldiers, I advised their leaders that I would authorize my soldiers to kill them within the hour if they didn't withdraw. Fortunately, as I was not an unarmed observer, I was in a position to do that.) In many cases, the weapon systems were moved immediately after firing, and their positions around civilians were abandoned before innocents paid the price for their despicable techniques. You have to admit this technique helps to win the PR war, which often is as important as the fighting one.
> .............


Beej - Is the first paragraph a quote from the Globe or only the second? I can't read the actual article since I'm not registered on the Globe site.

If it is a quote by Lewis MacKenzie, he sure is jumping to conclusions. It also doesn't make any sense since we are talking about a precision-guided bomb that hit the UN post and at least ten warnings by UN observers communicated to IDF just before this happened.


----------



## krs

adagio said:


> IF it is true that the UN troops were being used as human shields then I also question why they were still there. These were unarmed observers? Heads should roll that these poor soldiers weren't removed from such a dangerous position. There is a bloomin' war going on in that area, for cripes sake!!!


If there were any truth in this at all, don't you think the Israelis would have mentioned that?
In all the interviews with the IDF that I listened to yesterday on CNN, the only comment I ever heard was that this was "obviously not a targetted strike".


----------



## krs

"The world has given Israel the green light to continue the war"

From the Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060727.wmideast0727/BNStory/International/home

Last time I checked, the "world" was pushing very hard for a cease-fire.
The US (and maybe Canada) were the only countries against it.


----------



## Beej

krs said:


> Beej - Is the first paragraph a quote from the Globe or only the second? I can't read the actual article since I'm not registered on the Globe site.


It's all from a column he wrote.


----------



## Beej

I've included the preceding paragraph in MacKenzie's column:
..................
The penultimate paragraph of Major Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail is prophetic, to say the least: "The closest artillery has landed within two metres of our position and the closest 1,000-pound aerial bomb has landed 100 metres from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity."

This is what we call "veiled speech" in military jargon. It means hiding the truth in lingo that outsiders would not necessarily understand. What he is saying translates roughly as: "We have Hezbollah fighters all over our position engaging the IDF and using us as shields. They will probably stay, hoping that the IDF won't target them for fear of hitting us."
..................


----------



## adagio

I haven't questioned that it was somehow a deliberate strike. I've questioned the "why". There has to be a purpose. I've tried to see the benefit of deliberately targeting a UN position. There had to have been a good reason. There is no political or tactical gain unless it is as the Globe article mentioned.... human shields.

I'm NOT pro Israeli. At this point I am sickened by both sides. Hiding your arms and artillery behind the skirts of women and children is despicable. I had much sympathy for the "oppressed" before this war began. I have lost faith in them. It seems more obvious than ever that even though most of us have been screaming for a cease fire the folks involved in this squirmish have no desire for peace. There is something happening there that none of us in our peaceful society can ever understand.


----------



## SINC

Seems I am not the only one who think there are "Canadians of Convenience" critical of our government:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Bell_Rick/2006/07/21/1695087.html


----------



## ArtistSeries

SINC, you know when you get the main source of news from a Newspaper that features a p.3 Girl as the main feature......

This one should appease your sensibilities...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060726.wxpassports26/BNStory/National/home


> Ottawa to review help for non-resident citizens
> 
> Canada will re-examine the practice of paying to rescue its citizens who have made lives in other countries, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said yesterday as the evacuation in Lebanon winds down.


I'm curious SINC, how come there was no cries of review when we rescued Canadians after Katrina?
Do you have numbers ( you know, the exact details) of how many "sub-Canadians" we have rescued?

If I were you SINC, I'd be very pissed at this at the moment:


> China to Canada: Dalai Lama award could hurt ties
> 
> China said on Wednesday that Canada's decision to bestow honorary citizenship on the Dalai Lama could hurt commercial relations between the two countries, which have been steadily growing stronger.


http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/07/26/canada.dalai.china.reut/index.html


----------



## SINC

ArtistSeries said:


> SINC, you know when you get the main source of news from a Newspaper that features a p.3 Girl as the main feature......
> 
> This one should appease your sensibilities...
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060726.wxpassports26/BNStory/National/home
> 
> I'm curious SINC, how come there was no cries of review when we rescued Canadians after Katrina?
> Do you have numbers ( you know, the exact details) of how many "sub-Canadians" we have rescued?


No, I have no information to document anything you question and I can't be bothered with history. I refer to now and the numbers involved have been widely quoted in various media so are no secret to anyone.

As for Sun Media, their columnists are entitled to their opinions just as you are. Does that surprise you?

For the record, many of those very columnist have never supported the girly shot on page 3 as you refer to it, which by the way, to keep you informed, now runs on the back page of the sports section here in Edmonton and has done so for the past 10 years or so.


----------



## ArtistSeries

SINC said:


> For the record, many of those very columnist have never supported the girly shot on page 3 as you refer to it, which by the way, to keep you informed, now runs on the back page of the sports section here in Edmonton and has done so for the past 10 years or so.


Thanks SINC - kind of betrays the last time I bought the SUN. I do read some columns online, mostly when I need a laugh...


----------



## SINC

ArtistSeries said:


> Thanks SINC - kind of betrays the last time I bought the SUN. I do read some columns online, mostly when I need a laugh...


That's when I read the Globe and Mail!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

posted by SINC;


> As for Sun Media, their columnists are entitled to their opinions just as you are.


true, but one must also ask these same columnists to explain why they singled out certain non-resident canadians


----------



## ArtistSeries

MACSPECTRUM said:


> posted by SINC;
> 
> 
> true, but one must also ask these same columnists to explain why they singled out certain non-resident canadians


Why even ask that when you are pandering to your audience..


----------



## krs

Beej said:


> I've included the preceding paragraph in MacKenzie's column:
> ..................
> The penultimate paragraph of Major Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail is prophetic, to say the least: "The closest artillery has landed within two metres of our position and the closest 1,000-pound aerial bomb has landed 100 metres from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity."


The UN observers at that post specifically stated a number of times that there were no Hezbollah fighters in their immediate vicinity.
Thus I don't understand MacKenzie's comment that there was a tactical necessity to fire artillery to within 2 meters (that's 6 feet!!!) of the UN position and drop a bomb within 100 meters.
Nothing I have heard or read in the media supports what MacKenzie is saying.


----------



## SINC

MACSPECTRUM said:


> posted by SINC;
> 
> 
> true, but one must also ask these same columnists to explain why they singled out certain non-resident canadians


Because they were of the opinion that they were "using" the system and should not be entitled to rescue using Canadian tax dollars perhaps?


----------



## krs

adagio said:


> I haven't questioned that it was somehow a deliberate strike. I've questioned the "why". There has to be a purpose. I've tried to see the benefit of deliberately targeting a UN position. There had to have been a good reason. There is no political or tactical gain unless it is as the Globe article mentioned.... human shields.


Let me get this straight........the political and tactical gain is to kill four UN observers who are supposedly used as human shields..........

That makes a lot of sense.
:lmao:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

SINC said:


> Because they were of the opinion that they were "using" the system and should not be entitled to rescue using Canadian tax dollars perhaps?


one could make a similar comment for snowbirds or cdn. senators living in mexico


----------



## SINC

MACSPECTRUM said:


> one could make a similar comment for snowbirds or cdn. senators living in mexico


The senator thing was a one person one time thing, not thousands of people.

Snowbirds by law must reside more days in Canada than escaping the cold in the US. There is a huge difference in "escaping the cold" versus "exploiting the system" to live full time in another country and does not even come close to being comparable IMHO.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

snowbirds make sure they have cdn. residency for 1/2 year + 1 day for socialized medical coverage purposes

cdn. is cdn., but not according to the sun chain of *cough* newspapers


----------



## ArtistSeries

SINC, we have many Canadians living in the USA, full time. Never heard a cry before - now that they are from the Middle East.....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

ArtistSeries said:


> SINC, we have many Canadians living in the USA, full time. Never heard a cry before - now that they are from the Middle East.....


unfortunately there is a cabal of canadians that just don't like people that don't "look/act" the same as regular canadians

just ask don cherry and his opinions of "kwee-beck"


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> Thu Jul 27, 1:46 AM
> JERUSALEM (CP) - UN observers in Lebanon telephoned the Israeli military 10 times in six hours to ask it to stop shelling near their position before an Israeli attack destroyed their border outpost, killing four observers and sparking widespread international anger with Israel.


http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://b...ivilian_casu.html&sa=X&oi=news&ct=result&cd=1


----------



## Beej

krs said:


> The UN observers at that post specifically stated a number of times that there were no Hezbollah fighters in their immediate vicinity.
> Thus I don't understand MacKenzie's comment that there was a tactical necessity to fire artillery to within 2 meters (that's 6 feet!!!) of the UN position and drop a bomb within 100 meters.
> Nothing I have heard or read in the media supports what MacKenzie is saying.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060718/mideast_lebanon_UN_060716/20060718/

The full email. Note it is the observer's opinion that:
"This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity."

MacKenzie appears to be interpreting that. Why was the term "tactical necessity" used?


----------



## Beej

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/27/zawahri-tape.html

Al-Qaeda has weighed in.


The PR "justification":
.............
Al-Qaeda won't stand idly by as Israeli shells "burn our brothers" in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, the militant group's second-in-command warned Thursday.
.............

The Goal:
.............
The struggle against Israel by Hezbollah and Palestinian forces will not be ended with "ceasefires or agreements," he said.

"It is a jihad for God's sake and will last until [our] religion prevails. We will attack everywhere."
.............


----------



## ArtistSeries

The relationship between the UN and Israel has not been easy.
This is not the first report of tension between both parties this war. An Australian journalist was commenting on some of the "games" that Israeli played with the UN (bombing road near their convoy).

The UN base was well known, repeated pleas were made to stop bombing the UN station. Our government should be asking for an investigation instead of issuing statements excusing the act.


----------



## Beej

ArtistSeries said:


> Our government should be asking for an investigation instead of issuing statements excusing the act.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060726.wmidea0726/BNStory

"Our Government fully intends to investigate the circumstances that led to this tragic incident. I have asked our military to investigate and work in conjunction with the Government of Israel and the United Nations to determine what occurred."


----------



## ArtistSeries

Thanks Beej.


----------



## krs

Beej said:


> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060718/mideast_lebanon_UN_060716/20060718/
> 
> The full email. Note it is the observer's opinion that:
> "This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity."


Yes - I read that yesterday. It's not really clear to me when this happened, the artillery 2 meters from the UN post and the bomb 100 meters away.
It was after CNN ran a clip how these laser-guided bombs work that I came to the conclusion that this had to be deliberate targetting unless there was a technical glitch - and nobody has suggested that so far.


I guess for me everything starts to come together if you look at some of the other things that have been reported.
Israel targetting ambulances
Israel targetting a hospital
Just today, the Star reported that Israel targetted three trucks that were carrying food and medical supplies killing two of the truck drivers.


----------



## martman

(sarcasm)Of course Israel will never negotiate with terrorists(/sarcasm)
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...l_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News


> Confusion over reported release of soldier
> Translation problems blamed
> Jul. 27, 2006. 12:54 PM
> 
> ROME (AP) — A Palestinian legislator and a spokesman for the Hamas military on Thursday denied that the release of a captured Israeli soldier in the Gaza Strip could be imminent.
> 
> Earlier, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had been quoted by an official Italian translator at a news conference as saying there could be an “imminent solution” for the release of the soldier, captured June 25. He had translated Abbas from Arabic into Italian.
> 
> However, according to an Associated Press translation, Abbas said only that intense negotiations were under way to free the soldier.
> 
> “I have told the prime minister regarding the issue of the captured soldier that we are undertaking intensive efforts to end this as soon as possible,” he said at the news conference.
> 
> The prime minister he was referring to was Italian leader Romano Prodi, who was standing next to him.


As I said before EVERYONE negotiates with terrorists and any claim otherwise is just rhetoric. It's tireing to hear this mantra as it is only used for propaganda value.


----------



## Beej

martman said:


> As I said before EVERYONE negotiates with terrorists and any claim otherwise is just rhetoric. It's tireing to hear this mantra as it is only used for propaganda value.


Before, you said:
If you want peace you negotiate. If you want war you fight. Simple as that and all the usual rhetoric to the contrary is just that.

Now you said:
EVERYONE negotiates with terrorists and any claim otherwise is just rhetoric. It's tireing to hear this mantra as it is only used for propaganda value.


Your new statement allows for negotiating and warring without "wanting war". That is quite different. Thanks for the revision.


----------



## martman

Beej said:


> Before, you said:
> If you want peace you negotiate. If you want war you fight. Simple as that and all the usual rhetoric to the contrary is just that.
> 
> Now you said:
> EVERYONE negotiates with terrorists and any claim otherwise is just rhetoric. It's tireing to hear this mantra as it is only used for propaganda value.
> 
> 
> Your new statement allows for negotiating and warring without "wanting war". That is quite different. Thanks for the revision.


You are not looking at all my posts because I have said this in the past. You need to look beyond yesterday.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton has blocked a Security Council
> resolution condemning Israel's killing of four UN observers in Lebanon. UN
> commanders say that Israel ignored 10 calls to stop attacking the UN base.


when you have a permanent UN security council member like the U.S., as a patron, who needs the UN?


----------



## Beej

martman said:


> You are not looking at all my posts because I have said this in the past. You need to look beyond yesterday.


The post with that quote talked about negotiating, and I didn't disagree with that part. I disagreed with the part I've pointed out.

Do you think it's possible to negotiate and fight (simultaneously) without "wanting war"? Do you think it's happening now?


----------



## martman

I think demanding a stop to all hostilities BEFORE negotiations is usually unrealistic (this is my major beef with Israeli policy). So yes but not without wanting war and yes (except the without wanting war part)


----------



## MacDoc




----------



## MACSPECTRUM

*Tories dropping in polls over foreign policy*

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...le&cid=1154037039350&call_pageid=970599119419


> OTTAWA—A new poll suggests Stephen Harper's post-election surge in popularity has dissipated and dimmed his chances of turning his minority government into a majority.
> 
> According to the Decima poll made exclusively available to The Canadian Press, support for all the parties had returned to almost exactly the same levels that produced the Conservative minority in January.
> 
> Nationally, the Tories had the support of 36 per cent, the Liberals 30 per cent and the New Democrats 17 per cent.
> 
> In Quebec, the BQ had 43 per cent, up five points since a Decima poll in May, while the Tories had slipped six points to 23 per cent. The Liberals had 18 per cent and the NDP 8 per cent.
> 
> And in Ontario, the poll found the Liberals had 43 per cent support, compared to 33 per cent for the Conservatives and 18 per cent for the NDP.



even the Calgary Sun, aka Harpocrite country
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/07/27/1705903-cp.html


> In the two provinces that will determine whether Harper can turn his minority into a majority, the Conservatives had lost the ground they gained during a post-election honeymoon.
> 
> In Quebec, the province Harper has wooed most assiduously, the poll found the BQ had rebounded to 43 per cent, up five points since a Decima poll in May, while the Tories had slipped six points to 23 per cent. The Liberals had 18 per cent and the NDP eight per cent.
> 
> And in Ontario, where the Tories and Liberals had been neck and neck as recently as mid-June, the poll found the Liberals had pulled into a nine-point lead with 43 per cent support, compared to 33 per cent for the Conservatives and 18 per cent for the NDP.



yet back on may 23 of this year, the harpocrites could taste majority as per

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=0cad14a6-eaed-457b-bbb9-3c252bbc355b&k=78274


> Currently, 43 per cent of Canadian voters support Harper's Conservatives, up by five percentage points since a mid-March Ipsos Reid poll.
> This gives the Tories a stunning 18-point lead over their chief rival, the Liberal party, which has fallen by three percentage points and now has the support of 25 per cent of voters.


[emphasis mine]

"The times they are a changin' "


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...jul28,0,2104186.story?coll=ny-worldnews-print



> JERUSALEM - As Israel decided to call up tens of thousands of reservists to prepare for war in Lebanon, the Lebanese government announced that up to 600 civilians are believed to have been killed in the Israeli offensive
> 
> In Lebanon, Health Minister Muhammed Jawad Khalifeh said there are 382 civilians confirmed dead and the rest are either known to be buried under the rubble of buildings or are missing, a large jump over previous reports of 377 civilians killed. Fifty-five soldiers or guerrillas have also been reported killed.
> 
> Fifty-two Israelis have been killed in 16 days of fighting, including 33 soldiers and 19 civilians who died in Hezbollah rocket attacks into northern Israel.


----------



## ArtistSeries

MACSPECTRUM, the cons are having a fundraising drive based on their Mideast stance - maybe they have internal focus group polls that indicate this is a good thing?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060728.wFundraise0728/BNStory/National/home


> Moral clarity feels a lot better than the endless equivocation we found with our previous government.


----------



## Beej

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/28/lahoud-interview.html

.........
Hezbollah and its fiery leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, have the complete backing of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud.
..
Lahoud cited a Lebanese poll claiming that Hezbollah has the support of 86 per cent of the country in its battle with Israel. He hailed Nasrallah for his campaign the past several years to fight for the rights of the southern Lebanese. 
.........

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hassan_Nasrallah


----------



## MacDoc

The Cons are slipping in the polls actually.



> Tory popularity slipping: Poll
> Jul. 28, 2006. 01:00 AM
> JOAN BRYDEN
> CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> OTTAWA—A new poll suggests Stephen Harper's post-election surge in popularity has dissipated and dimmed his chances of turning his minority government into a majority.
> *According to the Decima poll made exclusively available to The Canadian Press, support for all the parties had returned to almost exactly the same levels that produced the Conservative minority in January.*
> Nationally, the Tories had the support of 36 per cent, the Liberals 30 per cent and the New Democrats 17 per cent.
> In Quebec, the BQ had 43 per cent, up five points since a Decima poll in May, while the Tories had slipped six points to 23 per cent. The Liberals had 18 per cent and the NDP 8 per cent.
> And* in Ontario, the poll found the Liberals had 43 per cent support*, compared to 33 per cent for the Conservatives and 18 per cent for the NDP.


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...geid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1154037039350

.....as I said earlier.......big disconnect between Harper and the majority of voters. But then that's the Con turf 1/3 of Canada.

•••

If 86% of the populace of Lebanon and it's legit gov openly support Hez .....sow the wind....reap the Israeli whirlwind.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

macdoc,
you may want to look 4 posts earlier
not reading the thread are we?


----------



## Macfury

Spec: There's no clear link there between foreign policy and a normalizing of poll numbers--only that the poll was taken during the conflict when tempers run hot. It certainly wasn't a one-issue poll. Mr. Harper has had a particularlly stellar honeymoon period. I should hope he will continue dismantling the federal power structure.

Beej: Now that we know Hezbollah has the proud and unwavering support of the government of Lebanon, we will, predictably, fall to a second-tier string of arguments:

* Yes, the support of the _president_, not the support of the Lebanese _people_.
* We all know the government of Lebanon is run by Syrians with no regard for the Lebanese people.
* Who would stand up for the Lebanese people, if it weren't for Hezbollah?
* It doesn't matter who runs which government, or who supports Hezbollah--did you see what Israel did last week (year, decade, century, millenium?)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> We all know the government of Lebanon is run by Syrians with no regard for the Lebanese people.


got that from your tin foil hat did ya?


----------



## Beej

MACSPECTRUM said:


> got that from your tin foil hat did ya?


Comprehension difficulties? Don't worry, it's part of aging.


----------



## Macfury

Poor ol' spec has a little difficulty reading in context, but the pigeons in the park love that old guy.


----------



## Beej

I think he got so riled up from not understanding what was going on, that he switched to default mode.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Bottom line: Israel has lost.

Instead of negotiation or removing the reasons for Hezbollah the "bully" of the region has shown itself weak. Some will say that Hezbollah is just a terrorist organization and yes they do have that part but they are also active politically. 

Hezbollah is still able to push back Israel at times, fire rockets, they are still able to put up a fight. Even when they will loose this little battle, they have won. Hezbollah has proven harder to stop than anticipated....

Like a weak bully, Israel's stature has suffered. A prisoner swap looks good about now....


----------



## ArtistSeries

Macfury said:


> I should hope he will continue dismantling the federal power structure.


Only if taxes go down in proportion - Seems that Harper will find ways to spend that money instead (and I can almost bet that it will be on rich friends)....


----------



## Beej

ArtistSeries said:


> Bottom line: Israel has lost.


In the world court of public opinion, yes.

Outside of that, for their possible tactical goals, it also doesn't look good. They have destroyed some possibly large share of the weapons Hez built up (while the world was in committees being 'balanced') but, with the world court of public opinion, it may not take long for Hez to come back stronger. We'll see if other things happen, in particular regarding Syria and Iran, but right now things look bad. The PR campaign (I'll run a hospital if we can promote hate speech and still get your support) is working.


----------



## Macfury

AS: With all due respect it isn't clear who has won or lost at all. I think that "stature" in the international community is a prize not worth fighting for. Our current obsession with media seems to focus almost entirely on this conflict as a PR battle.

But if we were to replay the scenario differently--Israel refused to react to all provocation (for the sake of argument, we won't try to decide whether the provocation was real or imagined) Would Hezbollah then have lost--and Israel won?


----------



## krs

Currently on the CNN webpage:

*Lebanon: Hezbollah backs peace proposals*

Saturday, July 29, 2006 Posted: 1443 GMT (2243 HKT)

BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- Hezbollah representatives and Lebanese cabinet ministers have reached an agreement in general -- but with some major reservations -- on a proposal to end the crisis in the Middle East, high-ranking Lebanese government officials say.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- who arrived in the region Saturday -- said it initially appeared the Lebanese plan included "some very good elements."

*Israel on Saturday rejected a request by the U.N. for a three-day cease-fire in Lebanon to deliver humanitarian supplies and allow civilians to leave the war zone,* The Associated Press reported.


----------



## Greenlion

*George Just Can't Keep a Secret*

Although this falls short of confirming my fears about the larger picture, it moves things in that direction:

http://news.google.ca/news/url?sa=t....com/report.asp?NewsID=1044385&cid=1108300468

I love how his desire to rid Lebanon of "foreign influence" is made with presumably straight face. What business to the countries next door have meddling in the region. That perogative is reserved for Washington, who claim the entire planet as their own.

This is not about captured soldiers, nor is it about rockets fired into northern Israel, and it sure as **** isn't about freedom and democracy!! 

This is about U.S. imperial designs on the Middle East. The rest is just fortuitous timing and seized opportunity.

The evangelical wack jobs and arm chair apocalyptics are cheering in the aisles!


----------



## Macfury

Greenlion: I suspect Mr. Bush is referring specifically to Iran and Syria, but didn't want to say it at that time. I don't believe that the U.S. has ever predicated its foreign policy on the notion that countries should have no influence in other countries.

I'm not arguing at this point, but if the U.S. has "imperial designs" on the Middle East, make it clear what you are talking about. What do you imagine they hope to achieve inside this framework?


----------



## MacDoc

Reduced threat to oil supplies - what else.


----------



## Greenlion

Macfury said:


> Greenlion: I suspect Mr. Bush is referring specifically to Iran and Syria, but didn't want to say it at that time. I don't believe that the U.S. has ever predicated its foreign policy on the notion that countries should have no influence in other countries.
> 
> I'm not arguing at this point, but if the U.S. has "imperial designs" on the Middle East, make it clear what you are talking about. What do you imagine they hope to achieve inside this framework?


MacFury,

The least ambitious design is simply to have the IDF loosen Iranian/Syrian foothold in Lebanon and push back whatever military gains Hizbollah has been establishing in the years since the withdrawal of IDF from Lebanon.

The most ambitious scenario - with greatest risk for escalation - is the US using the current military conflict to set the stage for military adventures in Iran and/or Syria. 

I could be wrong about the latter - the former being already evident on the ground - but the Bush administration has yet to disappoint in its efforts to actualize their "idealistic" foreign policy.


----------



## HowEver

Who would stand up for Lebanon? The group that locates its headquarters *downtown.* Nice move for the Lebanese people. Same as firing at the Israelis from within a few metres of a U.N. post. Smooth.

Can someone remind me _why_ Hezbollah exists, that is, does it have any other purpose than killing people who live in Israel?

As for Israel "losing" something, perhaps in this thread, it has, perhaps not. If their purpose was to stand up to a group that for the last 6 years has been firing rockets into Israeli territory with practically no response, they seem to have provided a response.

Similarly, they seem to have made a statement to the rather weak Lebanese government, if there is such a thing: harbour terrorists and Israel will go after them regardless of where they set up their rockets, offices or supply paths.

Hezbollah is supported by countries that have also sworn to destroy Israel, and have issued racist statements like "Every Jew must die." Why align yourself with that?




Macfury said:


> Beej: Now that we know Hezbollah has the proud and unwavering support of the government of Lebanon, we will, predictably, fall to a second-tier string of arguments:
> 
> * Yes, the support of the _president_, not the support of the Lebanese _people_.
> * We all know the government of Lebanon is run by Syrians with no regard for the Lebanese people.
> * Who would stand up for the Lebanese people, if it weren't for Hezbollah?
> * It doesn't matter who runs which government, or who supports Hezbollah--did you see what Israel did last week (year, decade, century, millenium?)


----------



## ArtistSeries

HowEverCan said:


> someone remind me _why_ Hezbollah exists, that is, does it have any other purpose than killing people who live in Israel?


I think you know more than this narrow view you are trying to project....


----------



## ArtistSeries

Macfury said:


> AS: With all due respect it isn't clear who has won or lost at all. I think that "stature" in the international community is a prize not worth fighting for. Our current obsession with media seems to focus almost entirely on this conflict as a PR battle.


Why care about stature in the international community? What matters is in the Arab/radical/Muslim world....


----------



## Macfury

AS: If we limit it to the Middle East, I don't think Israel is very interested in its stature there. They can't win any popularity contests no matter how hard they might try.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> As for Israel "losing" something, perhaps in this thread, it has, perhaps not. If their purpose was to stand up to a group that for the last 6 years has been firing rockets into Israeli territory with practically no response, they seem to have provided a response.


wow, hundreds of dead lebanese, of which an overwhelming majority are civilians, are still not enough
scary, very scary

good thing AIPAC is doing its job very well


----------



## Macfury

Spec: Help us on this one. How do you tell a Hezbollah soldier from a Lebanese civillian? Don't tell me it's the uniform...


----------



## Beej

krs said:


> Currently on the CNN webpage:
> 
> *Lebanon: Hezbollah backs peace proposals*
> 
> Saturday, July 29, 2006 Posted: 1443 GMT (2243 HKT)
> 
> BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- Hezbollah representatives and Lebanese cabinet ministers have reached an agreement in general -- but with some major reservations -- on a proposal to end the crisis in the Middle East, high-ranking Lebanese government officials say.
> 
> U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- who arrived in the region Saturday -- said it initially appeared the Lebanese plan included "some very good elements."
> 
> *Israel on Saturday rejected a request by the U.N. for a three-day cease-fire in Lebanon to deliver humanitarian supplies and allow civilians to leave the war zone,* The Associated Press reported.


http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/29/mideast-wrap.html

.........
"There is no need for a temporary, 72-hour ceasefire because Israel has opened humanitarian corridors to and from Lebanon," Pazner told reporters.

"It is Hezbollah who is deliberately preventing the transfer of medical aid and of food to the population of southern Lebanon in order to create a humanitarian crisis, which they want to blame Israel for," he said.
.........

So, who has a feel for what's actually going on?


----------



## krs

HowEver said:


> Same as firing at the Israelis from within a few metres of a U.N. post. Smooth.


Where does this come from all of a sudden?
The UN observers at that post have stated repeatedly that there were no Hezbollah in the immediate vicinity of the post, much less a few meters from it. 



> Can someone remind me _why_ Hezbollah exists, that is, does it have any other purpose than killing people who live in Israel?


Turn on the news or read a newspaper and take off your blinders. The Hezbollah militia is a very small part of that organization.


----------



## krs

Beej said:


> http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/29/mideast-wrap.html
> 
> .........
> "There is no need for a temporary, 72-hour ceasefire because Israel has opened humanitarian corridors to and from Lebanon," Pazner told reporters.
> 
> "It is Hezbollah who is deliberately preventing the transfer of medical aid and of food to the population of southern Lebanon in order to create a humanitarian crisis, which they want to blame Israel for," he said.


I have read that as well. Trouble is that there is no independant confirmation that this is true.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

Macfury said:


> Spec: Help us on this one. How do you tell a Hezbollah soldier from a Lebanese civillian? Don't tell me it's the uniform...


easy, most of the dead lebanese are civilians

the bigger question is how do you bomb a UN outpst that has been in place for years after giving assurance that you would not and had radio contact with 6-10 times earlier that day and that you bomb more than once

now, THAT'S a good question


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

krs said:


> Where does this come from all of a sudden?
> The UN observers at that post have stated repeatedly that there were no Hezbollah in the immediate vicinity of the post, much less a few meters from it.
> 
> 
> Turn on the news or read a newspaper and take off your blinders. The Hezbollah militia is a very small part of that organization.


it's called spin
just like listening to CFRB they repeatedly claimed the damage was caused by Israeli artillery when CBC had confirmation that it was an Israeli airstrike

and of course the Israeli airforce has U.S. guided precision air to surface munitions


----------



## macpablo

there is something going on between lebanon and israel?

wouldn't it be nice if world leaders could solve there problems by meeting behind the gym after school.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Macfury said:


> Spec: Help us on this one. How do you tell a Hezbollah soldier from a Lebanese civillian? Don't tell me it's the uniform...





> The "hiding among civilians" myth
> Throughout this now 16-day-old war, Israeli planes high above civilian areas make decisions on what to bomb. They send huge bombs capable of killing things for hundreds of meters around those targets to destroy them, and then blame the inevitable civilian deaths -- the Lebanese government says 600 civilians have been killed so far -- on "terrorists" who callously use the civilian infrastructure for protection.
> 
> But this claim is almost always false. My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians like the plague. Much smarter and better trained than the PLO and Hamas fighters, they know that if they mingle with civilians, they will sooner or later be betrayed by collaborators -- as so many Palestinian militants have been.


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/28/hezbollah/index_np.html


----------



## Macfury

AS: I agree that there are all sorts of opinions on this--but no fact. The answer is, we don't really know how many civillians were killed. We may prefer one tally over another, but that isn't proof. The actual numbers may come out later.


----------



## Greenlion

*Condi's coming back!*

Most of the world press is still too dim to figure this one out, so they get all excited when they hear Rice has been dispatched back to the region for "talks".

Sending Condoleeza Rice to negotiate peace is like sending an arsonist to put out a fire!!


----------



## Beej

Greenlion said:


> Sending Condoleeza Rice to negotiate peace is like sending an arsonist to put out a fire!!


Or talking with Hezbollah. They will stop fighting in order to build up more weaponry to fight in the future.


----------



## Dr.G.

"Or talking with Hezbollah. They will stop fighting in order to build up more weaponry to fight in the future." Sadly, Beej, past history has proven that your point is well made.


----------



## krs

Macfury said:


> --but no fact. The answer is, we don't really know how many civillians were killed. We may prefer one tally over another, but that isn't proof. The actual numbers may come out later.


Do the precise numbers really matter?

CNN reports today that "Since fighting began, about 421 Lebanese people have been killed, according to security forces. Israel reports 52 deaths, 33 of them soldiers."

Far too many Lebanese civilians considering Israel has precision-guided weapons.

Where the numbers vary widely is the number of Hezbollah fighters than have been killed. Israel claims more than 200 and Hezbollah implies around 35, although they have never stated specific numbers.


----------



## krs

Dr.G. said:


> "Or talking with Hezbollah. They will stop fighting in order to build up more weaponry to fight in the future." Sadly, Beej, past history has proven that your point is well made.


I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I think it would also help if Israel complied with earlier UN resolutions and finally withdrew from the rest of the non-Israeli territories they still occupy.


----------



## Macfury

krs said:


> Do the precise numbers really matter?


Sure, if they're wildly disparate it matters--but many of the arguments here are presented with numbers as an important part of the post.


----------



## Beej

One interesting experience I had in negotiations was with a chart that was shown to us, on the spot, to demonstrate a point (their number). I immediately pointed out a glaring error in their model that was demonstrated in the chart and they suddenly wanted to keep the discussion at a 'high level' and not get into the numbers. Years later, a decision was finally made.


----------



## krs

Macfury said:


> Sure, if they're wildly disparate it matters--but many of the arguments here are presented with numbers as an important part of the post.


Agreed, but the numbers are pretty consistent.
The Israeli ones are always the same, at least the ones I read each day in a wide variety of different media; the Lebanese ones vary a bit but less than 5%.

The only numbers that vary wildly are the Hezbollah militia killed and the Lebanese civilians that may be buried under the rubble.


----------



## Macfury

krs said:


> The only numbers that vary wildly are the Hezbollah militia killed and the Lebanese civilians that may be buried under the rubble.


Yes, but that distinction is at the heart of many of the arguments.


----------



## HowEver

krs said:


> Where does this come from all of a sudden?
> The UN observers at that post have stated repeatedly that there were no Hezbollah in the immediate vicinity of the post, much less a few meters from it.


It was pointed out to you in post #641 above that the Hezbollah were using the U.N. post as a shield. The Canadian at the post confirmed it.

This doesn't excuse bombing the post directly, if that's what happened, but it does show what Hezbollah is capable of. Their headquarters are in cities. The Lebanese government didn't kick them out--if it could.

Here is what the Canadian wrote about the Israelis trying to defend themselves against Hezbollah rockets:



> What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. *This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.*


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

Is that a journalist who wrote that or the Canadian Peacekeeper who was stationed at the site (and subsequently died)?


----------



## krs

This came from an email CTV claims was sent by the Canadian UN observer at the post that was destroyed by the two Israeli bombs.



> The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.


"due to tactical necessity" doesn't mean that the Hezbollah were using the UN post as a shield. 

In fact, after the bombing, UN observers specifically stated that there were no Hezbollahs in the immediate vicinity of the post - Israel has also never suggested that the UN post was bombed because it was used by Hezbollah as a shield. The latest I read was that two groups in the Israeli military are blaming each other for the bombing of that UN post.


----------



## gastonbuffet

hoot hoot!!!
over 50 dead today, at this rate this whole mess will wear itself out in ........mmmmm killing ....dead.....counterstrike.....more dead......killing....two months hiatus for peacetalks......killing.......pope delays 2 days of massive murders........more killing......omg they killed Kenny........more dead......Iran comes to play......lots of killing...........oil runs out....killing...dead.......few people at this time know what the hell they are killing for.....more killing......last being standing blows itself up.........quiet......mmmmmm i say 148 years. 

sorry for that sheeet, but that's all I can say about this whole disaster with no winners anywhere.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

the death toll mounts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/29/AR2006072901175.html



> IN LEBANON:
> At least 458 have been killed _ including 403 civilians confirmed dead by the Health Ministry, 20 Lebanese soldiers and at least 35 Hezbollah guerrillas. The health minister says 58 others are known to be buried under the rubble of buildings and 150 more are missing and believed dead.
> ...
> IN ISRAEL:
> Fifty-two Israelis have been killed, including 33 members of the military and 19 civilians, according to authorities. More than 55 soldiers have been wounded, and more than 335 civilians, according to rescue officials.


----------



## William

*Not all Israelis are morally insensitive*

The following is an article written by Gideon Levy, a reporter on the staff of Ha'aretz, a highly respected Israeli newspaper. It was published today, July 30. I think it is important that Canadians do not succomb to the temptation to lump together all Israelis (if not indeed all Jews). I suggest it be read slowly and carefully. The article makes some statemes that refer to persons and public events in Israel that are not well known to most of us and may be difficult to follow.


Days of darkness
By Gideon Levy

In war as in war: Israel is sinking into a strident, nationalistic atmosphere and darkness is beginning to cover everything. The brakes we still had are eroding, the insensitivity and blindness that characterized Israeli society in recent years is intensifying. The home front is cut in half: the north suffers and the center is serene. But both have been taken over by tones of jingoism, ruthlessness and vengeance, and the voices of extremism that previously characterized the camp's margins are now expressing its heart. The left has once again lost its way, wrapped in silence or "admitting mistakes." Israel is exposing a unified, nationalistic face.

The devastation we are sowing in Lebanon doesn't touch anyone here and most of it is not even shown to Israelis. Those who want to know what Tyre looks like now have to turn to foreign channels - the BBC reporter brings chilling images from there, the likes of which won't be seen here. How can one not be shocked by the suffering of the other, at our hands, even when our north suffers? The death we are sowing at the same time, right now in Gaza, with close to 120 dead since the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, 27 last Wednesday alone, touches us even less. The hospitals in Gaza are full of burned children, but who cares? The darkness of the war in the north covers them, too.

Since we've grown accustomed to thinking collective punishment a legitimate weapon, it is no wonder no debate has sparked here over the cruel punishment of Lebanon for Hezbollah's actions. If it was okay in Nablus, why not Beirut? The only criticism being heard about this war is over tactics. Everyone is a general now and they are mostly pushing the IDF to deepen its activities. Commentators, ex-generals and politicians compete at raising the stakes with extreme proposals.


Haim Ramon "doesn't understand" why there is still electricity in Baalbek; Eli Yishai proposes turning south Lebanon into a "sandbox"; Yoav Limor, a Channel 1 military correspondent, proposes an exhibition of Hezbollah corpses and the next day to conduct a parade of prisoners in their underwear, "to strengthen the home front's morale."

It's not difficult to guess what we would think about an Arab TV station whose commentators would say something like that, but another few casualties or failures by the IDF, and Limor's proposal will be implemented. Is there any better sign of how we have lost our senses and our humanity?

Chauvinism and an appetite for vengeance are raising their heads. If two weeks ago only lunatics such as Safed Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu spoke about "wiping out every village where a Katyusha is fired," now a senior officer in the IDF speaks that way in Yedioth Aharonoth's main headlines. Lebanese villages may not have been wiped out yet, but we have long since wiped out our own red lines.

A bereaved father, Haim Avraham, whose son was kidnapped and killed by Hezbollah in October 2000, fires an artillery shell into Lebanon for the reporters. It's vengeance for his son. His image, embracing the decorated artillery shell is one of the most disgraceful images of this war. And it's only the first. A group of young girls also have their picture taken decorating IDF shells with slogans.

Maariv, which has turned into the Fox News of Israel, fills its pages with chauvinist slogans reminiscent of particularly inferior propaganda machines, such as "Israel is strong" - which is indicative of weakness, actually - while a TV commentator calls for the bombing of a TV station.

Lebanon, which has never fought Israel and has 40 daily newspapers, 42 colleges and universities and hundreds of different banks, is being destroyed by our planes and cannon and nobody is taking into account the amount of hatred we are sowing. In international public opinion, Israel has been turned into a monster, and that still hasn't been calculated into the debit column of this war. Israel is badly stained, a moral stain that can't be easily and quickly removed. And only we don't want to see it.

The people want victory, and nobody knows what that is and what its price will be.

The Zionist left has also been made irrelevant. As in every difficult test in the past - the two intifadas for example - this time too the left has failed just when its voice was so necessary as a counterweight to the stridency of the beating tom-toms of war. Why have a left if at every real test it joins the national chorus?

Peace Now stands silently, so does Meretz, except for brave Zehava Gal-On. A few days of a war of choice and already Yehoshua Sobol is admitting he was wrong all along. Peace Now is suddenly an "infantile slogan" for him. His colleagues are silent and their silence is no less resounding. Only the extreme left makes its voice heard, but it is a voice nobody listens to.

Long before this war is decided, it can already be stated that its spiraling cost will include the moral blackout that is surrounding and covering us all, threatening our existence and image no less than Hezbollah's Katyushas.

"


----------



## Beej

Who would think "all Israelis are morally insensitive" regardless of the article?


----------



## HowEver

.


----------



## Macfury

William said:


> Long before this war is decided, it can already be stated that its spiraling cost will include the moral blackout that is surrounding and covering us all, threatening our existence and image no less than Hezbollah's Katyushas.


Again, even this article admits that the threat from within is equal to the threat from without. So what should Israel be doing?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

HowEver said:


> What did you determine, for yourself, after following the link provided and reading the article?


I was replying directly to your post (#697) which quoted krs. I did not see a link. Was it a journalist offering his opinion or the Canadian Peacekeeper who was stationed at the post who is now dead?


----------



## HowEver

Paul O'Keefe said:


> I was replying directly to your post (#697) which quoted krs. I did not see a link. Was it a journalist offering his opinion or the Canadian Peacekeeper who was stationed at the post who is now dead?


The peacekeeper, himself, wrote in a lengthy email quoted by CTV that it appeared that Israel was bombing nearby out of "tactical necessity," which implies that their forces were being fired on from within close range of the observers' station.

See Beej's post #641:



Beej said:


> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060718/mideast_lebanon_UN_060716/20060718/
> 
> The full email. Note it is the observer's opinion that:
> "This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity."
> 
> MacKenzie appears to be interpreting that. Why was the term "tactical necessity" used?


----------



## Wisechoice

> The peacekeeper, himself, wrote in a lengthy email quoted by CTV that it appeared that Israel was bombing nearby out of "tactical necessity," which implies that their forces were being fired on from within close range of the observers' station.


In that "lengthy email", how much of it was about the "tactical necessity" or even their coming under fire?

The writer, while making a point that he is there to observe and report everything he sees NEUTRALLY, can't come up with more than two ambiguous words about being fired on directly. In fact, he doesn't even claim they are being fired on directly, but rather that "tactical necessity" makes for close calls. This was days before Israel started bombing the UN post directly and multiply - something very different.

Using a UN post as a shield would be a war crime. But what evidence do we have of that? Nothing. Only two words that are entirely ambiguous.

On the other hand, firing on the UN post knowingly would also amount to a war crime, and the fact of it being used as a shield would not excuse the crime under international law.

Let's lay this supposition about "tactical necessity" to rest. Was our soldier also an Israeli commander? No.

Don't make apologies when you don't know the facts.


----------



## HowEver

You're simply wrong.

In fact, the observer (I shouldn't have called him a "peacekeeper"--it's a different mission) is limited to using euphemisms because they are not allowed to give away information about military operations.

That said, this is an exact quotation:



> T*his is all the information of a non-tactical nature that I can provide you.* I cannot give you any info on Hezbollah position, proximity or the amount of or types of sorties the IAF is currently flying. Suffice to say that the activity levels and operational tempo of both parties is currently very high and continuous, with short breaks or pauses. Please understand the nature of my job here is to be impartial and to report violations from both sides without bias. As an Unarmed Military Observer, this is my raison d'etre.
> 
> *What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.*


I don't make any apologies for anybody, despite what you said. But as you say, I can't know exactly what Israel was firing at, but I can say that the Canadian said it was within *metres *of the U.N. observer-station. You can choose to disregard that, or read it ambiguously, but that's what he said.

"Tactical necessity" is hardly ambiguous anyways. Retired Canadian general Lewis Mackenzie knew exactly what it meant, and so do most people. It's just my opinion, of course, but I think it means "they are trying to kill the people firing on them."

As for not knowing the facts, for all you know the Canadian and others were killed when the Hezbollah fired. Israel wasn't close enough to know this isn't the case, and terrorists have been known to kill their captives in the past and have it look otherwise. Like you said, let's wait for the facts. How many months was it before the mistruths about Jenin were revealed as total fabrications? And there are still those blaming Israel for killings at refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982 (actually carried out by Lebanese Christian militia) where what they had done was simply remove themselves.






Wisechoice said:


> In that "lengthy email", how much of it was about the "tactical necessity" or even their coming under fire?
> 
> The writer, while making a point that he is there to observe and report everything he sees NEUTRALLY, can't come up with more than two ambiguous words about being fired on directly. In fact, he doesn't even claim they are being fired on directly, but rather that "tactical necessity" makes for close calls. This was days before Israel started bombing the UN post directly and multiply - something very different.
> 
> Using a UN post as a shield would be a war crime. But what evidence do we have of that? Nothing. Only two words that are entirely ambiguous.
> 
> On the other hand, firing on the UN post knowingly would also amount to a war crime, and the fact of it being used as a shield would not excuse the crime under international law.
> 
> Let's lay this supposition about "tactical necessity" to rest. Was our soldier also an Israeli commander? No.
> 
> Don't make apologies when you don't know the facts.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> Large numbers fled the south after Israelis dropped leaflets warning of attacks. Others have been unable to leave, often because they have not found the means. The Israelis have taken that to mean that they are therefore Hezbollah.
> 
> Israeli justice minister Haim Ramon announced on Israeli army radio Thursday that "all those in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah."
> 
> Justifying the collective punishment of people in southern Lebanon, Ramon added, "In order to prevent casualties among Israeli soldiers battling Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, villages should be flattened by the Israeli air force before ground troops move in."


http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34158

the obvious corollary to the israeli justice minister's statement is that there will no longer be any civilians deaths, since anyone left in southern lebananon is hezbollah


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> As for not knowing the facts, for all you know the Canadian and others were killed when the Hezbollah fired.


oh? is that why Israel apologized?


----------



## krs

HowEver said:


> "Tactical necessity" is hardly ambiguous anyways. Retired Canadian general Lewis Mackenzie knew exactly what it meant, and so do most people. It's just my opinion, of course, but I think it means "they are trying to kill the people firing on them."


It was irresponsible for Retired Canadian General Lewis Mackenzie to make such a statement.
Don't you think the Israelis would have told the world that they tried to bomb Hezbollah positions near the UN post and targetted the UN post in error?
After this all happened, UN observers at that post specifically stated that there were no Hezbollah in the vicinity of the post.

As far as I know, this incident is still under investigation. The only other comment related to this is that two groups of the Israeli military are blaming each other for bombing the UN post.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

krs said:


> It was irresponsible for Retired Canadian General Lewis Mackenzie to make such a statement.
> Don't you think the Israelis would have told the world that they tried to bomb Hezbollah positions near the UN post and targetted the UN post in error?
> After this all happened, UN observers at that post specifically stated that there were no Hezbollah in the vicinity of the post.
> 
> As far as I know, this incident is still under investigation. The only other comment related to this is that two groups of the Israeli military are blaming each other for bombing the UN post.


exactement


----------



## HowEver

Exactly but for different reasons.

What the Israelis told the world was sorry if they did it, but having Kofi Annan simultaneously blame them and call for an investigation kind of prejudiced the results--with prejudice being the operative word.

Has the U.N. condemned the rocket attacks, kidnappings and killings by the Hezbollah? How soundly? Or have they called for them to stop as they would all invasions and killings inside other countries sovereign borders?




krs said:


> It was irresponsible for Retired Canadian General Lewis Mackenzie to make such a statement.
> Don't you think the Israelis would have told the world that they tried to bomb Hezbollah positions near the UN post and targetted the UN post in error?
> After this all happened, UN observers at that post specifically stated that there were no Hezbollah in the vicinity of the post.
> 
> As far as I know, this incident is still under investigation. The only other comment related to this is that two groups of the Israeli military are blaming each other for bombing the UN post.


----------



## arminia

the obvious corollary to the israeli justice minister's statement is that there will no longer be any civilians deaths, since anyone left in southern lebananon is hezbollah[/QUOTE]
They bombed the airport, roads and bridges gas is in short supply or non existant. How are they supposed to leave?


----------



## krs

HowEver said:


> Exactly but for different reasons.
> 
> What the Israelis told the world was sorry if they did it, ?


"If they did it????????????"

I must start reading and listening to the news reports a bit more carefully - didn't realize there were other groups involved in this conflict that had precision-guided bombs.


----------



## Wisechoice

HowEver...

When several Israeli bombs hit a clearly marked UN post over a period of hours, with constant reminders of the position and function of that base, it is very likely (or "apparently" in Kofi Annan's words) deliberate. At what level the deliberations took place is unclear. It is not prejudiced to say that, it's just sound reasoning. Do not go so far as to deny atrocities that have been well-documented in the press and admitted to by Israel.

Your comments imply that if Hezbollah was using the UN post as a shield, then Hezbollah is responsible for the deaths of the observers. Not so. Hezbollah may be committing war crimes by using civilians as shields (though this has not been entirely verified by journalists as far as I know, only claimed by military sources). Nonetheless, if the Israeli air force knowingly attacked the UN post, or attacked a Hezbollah unit with the understanding that the consequences would be the destruction of the UN post, then the Israeli air force is responsible under international law. That could not be clearer.

Your comments seem designed to "defuse" the absolutely relevant questions of proportionality, responsibility and unilateral action in relation to Israel's behaviour. The recent atrocity in Qana underlines just how urgent those questions are.

You can't pretend to answer those questions because, of course, you can't read Israel's mind. Nonetheless, the questions must be posed here and elsewhere so that we have an understanding of *why* things happened the way they did, once the facts come out about *what* exactly happened. We also need to know which facts are important so that we can judge whether our leaders and authorities are acting properly.

Your remarks are almost pure justification, and in that regard resemble the communications coming out of the White House in recent years. You build supposition upon assumption in a strange gymnastics that only a fanatic can appreciate. The difference between you and the White House is, you have nothing to hide. So why continue to make apologies while cutting everyone else down, instead of adding some relevant questions of your own?


----------



## HowEver

Are you young, wisechoice? How many times in the past has one group been blamed for horrendous acts and then, either somewhat later or even many years later, been totally exonnerated? I keep mentioning Jenin for a reason; same with the Lebanese refugee camps. From time to time, terrorists kill their captives. How hard would it be? Obviously, it looks like Israeli bombs were responsible here, and Israel appears to be taking that responsibility, but in a thread where blame is levelled unmercifully on a country which appears to be taking overdramatic steps to defend itself--as attacks could come, and have come in the past, from every side, on a people outnumbered 1000 to 1--perhaps someone needs to draw these things to your attention. It isn't all that far fetched to ask who killed them, either. This would by no means be the first time that terrorists killed people in order to have it look like someone else's fault. Take note that in Qana, Israeli bombs fell on the building between 1 and 2 in the morning. Further blasts brought the building down at 8 a.m. No Israelis were said to be shelling at the later time.

This 8000 mile microscope you appear to possess requires a suspension of disbelief on all sides. Or is it "guilty until proven...Israeli"?


----------



## Greenlion

HowEver said:


> Are you young, wisechoice? How many times in the past has one group been blamed for horrendous acts and then, either somewhat later or even many years later, been totally exonnerated? I keep mentioning Jenin for a reason; same with the Lebanese refugee camps. From time to time, terrorists kill their captives. How hard would it be? Obviously, it looks like Israeli bombs were responsible here, and Israel appears to be taking that responsibility, but in a thread where blame is levelled unmercifully on a country which appears to be taking overdramatic steps to defend itself--as attacks could come, and have come in the past, from every side, on a people outnumbered 1000 to 1--perhaps someone needs to draw these things to your attention. It isn't all that far fetched to ask who killed them, either. This would by no means be the first time that terrorists killed people in order to have it look like someone else's fault. Take note that in Qana, Israeli bombs fell on the building between 1 and 2 in the morning. Further blasts brought the building down at 8 a.m. No Israelis were said to be shelling at the later time.
> 
> This 8000 mile microscope you appear to possess requires a suspension of disbelief on all sides. Or is it "guilty until proven...Israeli"?



You're really clutching at straws now....Maybe someone else did it?....Israel has already admitting bombing the post, the question is only of intent or accident. So why would you still be trying to argue that Israel may not be responsible?? Try and stay with the tour will ya!

As for killing then blaming it on someone else as a terrorist tactic you're absolutely right about that. Now, according to the IDF it's Hezbollah's fault that all those Lebanese people ended up dead.


----------



## MacDoc

There was a brilliant cartoon in this week's Economist showing the evolution of the "shield" in war, wicker, then wood, then bronze etc......you can imagine what the last image looked like.......a bunch of kids and civilians bound together with a rocket armed fighter crouching behind them.  

•••

another visual










and another










http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/07/human-shields.html

I'm posting these images not commenting on them pro or negative.


----------



## ArtistSeries

MacDoc, you can do better than link to a site that has this:










The image that you show has very little context.

http://mideasttruth.com/ is another biased site....


----------



## MacDoc

II put it up for comment - where I link to is my business - your comments are yours.
I made no pro or con statement either way.....neither was the Economist..they were "observing reality".


----------



## Beej

ArtistSeries said:


> http://mideasttruth.com/ is another biased site....


You've made some valuable contributions in this thread that got me, and I hope others, thinking. I thank you. 

But, the "identify bias source" game is not one you should get into. It is not the strength of your approach.

I am in no way defending MD. He won't hug me therefore he is on his own.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Beej said:


> But, the "identify bias source" game is not one you should get into. It is not the strength of your approach.


:yawn: tptptptp 
Beej, if I started to post and quote from Iranian sources and images you'd be the first one up in arms....

And I do find some http://mideasttruth.com/ post offensive, vulgar and sophomoric….


----------



## Wisechoice

> This 8000 mile microscope you appear to possess requires a suspension of disbelief on all sides. Or is it "guilty until proven...Israeli"?


No, that seems to be your wisdom to offer. Are you so old and tired that you have stopped paying attention to your own words?


----------



## Greenlion

I imagine if Hamas and Hezbollah had the latest fighter aircraft, helicopter gunships and were armed to an isane level like the IDF, they might not require such tactics.

These are guerilla fighters yes?! What are your expecting them to do? Mass in the middle of an open field and yell Charge!

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing moral in these tactics, but I find it a little disingenous when this is used as evidence of what? Moral inferiority? Dirty, sneaky cheating?

Let's not forget that Israel's military is one of the most modern, technologically advanced and best funded on the planet! The force they are fighting has no aircraft, no armoured vehicles, and largely inaccurate artillery. 

It really is David and Goliath, except Israel is now cast in the role of Goliath.


----------



## da_jonesy

Greenlion said:


> I imagine if Hamas and Hezbollah had the latest fighter aircraft, helicopter gunships and were armed to an isane level like the IDF, they might not require such tactics.
> 
> These are guerilla fighters yes?! What are your expecting them to do? Mass in the middle of an open field and yell Charge!
> 
> Don't get me wrong, there is nothing moral in these tactics, but I find it a little disingenous when this is used as evidence of what? Moral inferiority? Dirty, sneaky cheating?
> 
> Let's not forget that Israel's military is one of the most modern, technologically advanced and best funded on the planet! The force they are fighting has no aircraft, no armoured vehicles, and largely inaccurate artillery.
> 
> It really is David and Goliath, except Israel is now cast in the role of Goliath.


A very apt commentary Greenlion. To assume that conflict is honorable is a fools errand... to that end history tells us that tactics are a means to an end. The Wikipedia entry on Guerilla Warfare sums it up nicely...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerilla_war


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

*Iggy speaks*



> He [Ignatieff] was asked if a turning point came when Israel bombed the Lebanese village of Qana on Sunday, with 54 civilian deaths, 37 of them children.
> 
> "It wasn't Qana," replied Ignatieff, formerly head of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University. "Qana was, frankly, inevitable, in a situation in which you have rocket-launchers within 100 yards of a civilian population. This is the nature of the war that's going on.
> 
> "This is the kind of dirty war you're in when you have to do this and I'm not losing sleep about that."


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...geid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1154470210037
human rights and human rights lite

and this idiot wants to be PM of Canada?

"Iggy the Piggy" seems very appropriate


----------



## Beej

From the article:
..............
"It wasn't Qana," replied Ignatieff, formerly head of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University. "Qana was, frankly, inevitable, in a situation in which you have rocket-launchers within 100 yards of a civilian population. This is the nature of the war that's going on.

"This is the kind of dirty war you're in when you have to do this and I'm not losing sleep about that."

Now, however, the combatants are on the verge of tripping "escalation thresholds" and creating extreme danger.

"The longer this goes on, the greater the risk of regional conflict drawing in Iran and Syria," Ignatieff said. "At this point, there has to be a diminishing set of returns in Israel's legitimate pursuit of security."

Without a ceasefire, he said, "the chief concern I have is the possibility that Hezbollah may be tempted or green-lighted by Iran or Syria to use long-range weapons against Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and that would be catastrophic ... an all-around disaster."
..........

He's drawing attention to the huge risk he sees that many aren't talking about (regional escalation). For someone with so much critical to say of politicians, your approach is why soundbite twits like Bush get power -- voters behaving like idiots looking for the 'headline' instead of thinking.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> "This is the kind of dirty war you're in when you have to do this and I'm not losing sleep about that."


i know neo con bullsh*t when i read it and from someone supposedly concerned about human rights is most concerning, not to mention wanting to be PM of Canada

hundreds of people killed don't cause him to lose sleep


----------



## Beej

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i know neo con bullsh*t when i read it and from someone supposedly concerned about human rights is most concerning, not to mention wanting to be PM of Canada
> 
> hundreds of people killed don't cause him to lose sleep


I don't think your powers of comprehension are as good as you presume.

Do you have a problem with people not losing sleep over this? Is anyone in the world (with access to news) who hasn't lost sleep over this somehow 'bad' in your "mind"?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

i do have an huge problem with someone that claims to be interested in human rights and wants to run for PM of this country saying he doesn't lose sleep over the carnage we are witnessing in the Middle East

anyone not losing sleep shouldn't run for public office, especially the highest elected office in our country


----------



## Beej

MACSPECTRUM said:


> anyone not losing sleep shouldn't run for public office, especially the highest elected office in our country


We all have our priorities when making the important and difficult decision of whom to vote for. You have bravely identified a priority for yourself. Thanks. :clap:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

Beej said:


> I don't think your powers of comprehension are as good as you presume.
> 
> Do you have a problem with people not losing sleep over this? Is anyone in the world (with access to news) who hasn't lost sleep over this somehow 'bad' in your "mind"?


so i put the questions to you
are you ok with someone with designs on the highest elected office in the land not losing sleep over the deaths of hundreds of civilians, some citizens of your own country, in a military conflict?
is this the kind of PM you would like to see?


----------



## Beej

MACSPECTRUM said:


> so i put the questions to you
> are you ok with someone with designs on the highest elected office in the land not losing sleep over the deaths of hundreds of civilians, some citizens of your own country, in a military conflict?
> is this the kind of PM you would like to see?


I'm am less worried about a politician's sleep and more worried about what they will do when awake. Maybe that's just me. But your typically loaded question was Spec-tacular. 

Demanding that an elected official lose sleep over something of your choosing is ridiculous. I don't think Ignatieff is a good politician in the way that he doesn't speak in a collection of mild soundbites for the simpletons who choose to focus on such. Despite people disliking how politicans double-speak, too many leap all over them when they don't, yet are still hypocritical enough to continue complaining. Unless he goes through more effective training in how to speak like a politician that Canadians are accustomed to, he could be too easy to attack without any policy actually being discussed. He is one of the few candidates who is less media-friendly than Harper.


----------



## Macfury

In full context, this piggy's comments are thoughtful and AOK with me...I'm not losing any sleep over it.


----------



## Wisechoice

Ignatieff speaks about these issues as if he's planning to rearrange the furniture in his living room. He uses complicated words, but they are meant only to placate the listener.

A politician who can speak of an atrocity like Qana as being "inevitable" does not have the moral stamina to govern.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

Macfury said:


> In full context, this piggy's comments are thoughtful and AOK with me...I'm not losing any sleep over it.


I guess you must believe, as it appears does Iggy, in; "dead" and "dead lite"


----------



## Beej

Wisechoice said:


> Ignatieff speaks about these issues as if he's planning to rearrange the furniture in his living room. He uses complicated words, but they are meant only to placate the listener.
> 
> A politician who can speak of an atrocity like Qana as being "inevitable" does not have the moral stamina to govern.


He sounds like an academic. That's not a coincidence. This will continue to cause him trouble.

Politicians need to, regardless of the facts before them, convince voters that there's some reason we need them as an individual and, when appropriate, as a team. That somehow, without really thinking about, we would be better off with them. Their limited ability to influence events and superficial claims are not relevant as long as they sell us the notion that they're ideas feel better.


----------



## Beej

http://michaelignatieff.ca/MiCommunity/blogs/ontherecord/archive/2006/08/01/3126.aspx

I don't think his solution is particularly strong (his attempts to walk the political line are there) but he lays out much more thinking on the matter than other politicians. A good piece for discussion from those interested in more than soundbites.


----------



## Macfury

Ignatieff's approach is sure to kill him. It isn't what he's saying, it's just that much of what he says provides "handles" for his detractors to grab and shake him. Even on this humble forum I watch the subliminal/intentional "fine-tuning" of quoted material to suit the poster. If Ignatieff delivers a sentence that can only be understood in the context of a thesis, he's dead meat politically.


----------



## Beej

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR2006073100923.html

Carter's take, for discussion.


----------



## Beej

From Allan Rock. 
Locked content. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060803.wrock03/BNStory/National/home

.............
Canada has been a leading contributor to humanitarian assistance and to peace efforts in Darfur, under both the Martin and Harper governments. Despite the current preoccupations in the Middle East, we must remember that urgent needs elsewhere have not gone away. Our influential voice should be raised now, in a renewed effort to save the many lives being lost each day in Darfur's tragic conflict. 
...........


----------



## Beej

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/kinsella/index.html?post=4033

Warren Kinsella (aka The Prince of Darkness).

............
A skill-testing question, or a riddle, depending upon your point of view: what do we call a one-sided ceasefire? 
..
Since Qana, however, certain media commentators have taken up a tuneless ceasefire chorus – one that requires Israel to lay down its arms, more or less unilaterally. Hezbollah, it is assumed, will cheerfully comply with a polite request that they stop firing rockets at Israeli civilian targets. 
..
And therein lays the rub – and the answer to the riddle at the outset. What do we call a one-sided ceasefire? 

Well, we call it suicide. Hezbollah certainly would. 
............


----------



## Macfury

The targeted ads on this page keep pushing tourist packages to Israel, failing to contextualize their merchandise offerings entirely.


----------



## da_jonesy

Beej said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR2006073100923.html
> 
> Carter's take, for discussion.



Interesting language... _"With American backing, Israeli bombs and missiles rained down on Lebanon. Hezbollah rockets from Syria and Iran struck northern Israel."_
Nice to see an American admitting to be part of the problem.

Once again why I think Carter is so well respected throughout the world, but not in his own country... _"It is inarguable that Israel has a right to defend itself against attacks on its citizens, but it is inhumane and counterproductive to punish civilian populations in the illogical hope that somehow they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking the devastating response."_

Why is it so easy for him to the issues yet so hard for the exsisting Administration... _"There will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key U.N. resolutions, official American policy and the international "road map" for peace by occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians."_

Jimmy Carter should be the one trying negotiate a cease fire, a statesman and diplomat, with a keen intimate understanding of the issues in that region. Carter was having his hat handed to him by the Iranians decades before Secretary of State Rice was embarrassing herself by being unable/unwilling to do anything... _"A major impediment to progress is Washington's strange policy that dialogue on controversial issues will be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and will be withheld from those who reject U.S. assertions."_

Simply put Rice is not qualified to be the us envoy in that region as she has had little to no formal training in Mideast violence. _"She was a specialist on the former Soviet Union and gave lectures on the subject for the Berkeley-Stanford joint program led by UC Berkeley Professor George Breslauer in the mid-1980s. She also was an avid reader of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, and reportedly once told a friend she leaned toward the latter in her world view. She has written or collaborated on several books, including Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995), The Gorbachev Era (1986), and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984)."_


----------



## da_jonesy

Beej said:


> http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/kinsella/index.html?post=4033
> 
> Warren Kinsella (aka The Prince of Darkness).
> 
> ............
> A skill-testing question, or a riddle, depending upon your point of view: what do we call a one-sided ceasefire?



LOL... that was pretty funny. Isn't it ironic that in response to "what do you call a one sided ceasefire" he completely overlooks and fails to mention that Israel this weekend would/could not honor its own statement that it would stop its air raids for a 48 hour period.


----------



## Greenlion

*Facts? Who needs them?*

One of the most troubling aspects of the media coverage and subsequent back and forth here, on radio or in the paper, is how little concern there is for the facts and what has and is happening.

Case in point - and this is fundamental to drawing supportable conclusions and forming grounded judgements about the current mess- is that everyone seems to forget the order in which key events have occurred. Most importantly, Hezbollah rockets DID NOT start flying into Israel until Israel commenced the bombardment of Lebanon!!! 

So to all those who argue that a ceasfire is pointless because "how can we be sure the rocket attacks will stop if we stop" or follow the line of argument that says "Israel has a right to defend itself against rocket attacks and that's why the IDF is doing what it's doing" have it backwards. 

The order of events involving Hezbollah - not talking Gaza here - was: 1) Soldiers killed/captured, 2) IDF crosses border in attempt to rescue soldiers and loses more men in the battle, 3) Israel commences air strikes, THEN 4) Hezbollah starts launching their rockets.

No doubt many will say this is irrelevant, but in the current context it is central, because all the arguments for not negotiating, not calling for an immediate ceasefire are premised on Hezbollah being too rabidly terrorist and insane to even bother talking with, and after all "they started it" They did kill and capture soldiers first, but it was the IDF that turned a border skirmish into a major conflict for its own purposes; the least of which being an effort to have their soldiers returned. 

This is not an Israeli response to these incidents, this is Israel seizing the opportunity of a supportable (in their view) pretext to launch a major offensive condoned (at minimum) by the US. The positions of Tel Aviv and Washington are one and the same.

And now - it sickens me to say - we can add Ottawa to the list.


----------



## krs

Greenlion said:


> One of the most troubling aspects of the media coverage and subsequent back and forth here, on radio or in the paper, is how little concern there is for the facts and what has and is happening.
> 
> Case in point - and this is fundamental to drawing supportable conclusions and forming grounded judgements about the current mess- is that everyone seems to forget the order in which key events have occurred. Most importantly, Hezbollah rockets DID NOT start flying into Israel until Israel commenced the bombardment of Lebanon!!!
> 
> So to all those who argue that a ceasfire is pointless because "how can we be sure the rocket attacks will stop if we stop" or follow the line of argument that says "Israel has a right to defend itself against rocket attacks and that's why the IDF is doing what it's doing" have it backwards.
> 
> The order of events involving Hezbollah - not talking Gaza here - was: 1) Soldiers killed/captured, 2) IDF crosses border in attempt to rescue soldiers and loses more men in the battle, 3) Israel commences air strikes, THEN 4) Hezbollah starts launching their rockets.
> 
> No doubt many will say this is irrelevant, but in the current context it is central, because all the arguments for not negotiating, not calling for an immediate ceasefire are premised on Hezbollah being too rabidly terrorist and insane to even bother talking with, and after all "they started it" They did kill and capture soldiers first, but it was the IDF that turned a border skirmish into a major conflict for its own purposes; the least of which being an effort to have their soldiers returned.
> 
> This is not an Israeli response to these incidents, this is Israel seizing the opportunity of a supportable (in their view) pretext to launch a major offensive condoned (at minimum) by the US. The positions of Tel Aviv and Washington are one and the same.
> 
> And now - it sickens me to say - we can add Ottawa to the list.


Glad you posted that. This is the order of events as I recall them as well.

And the same thing just happened again - Israel resumed the bombardment of Lebanon and in response to that Hezbollah launched the more rockets in a single day than ever before.


----------



## HowEver

.


----------



## da_jonesy

HowEver said:


> I couldn't agree more. Absolutely nothing happened in the years between 2000 and 2006, when Israel had ceased occupying a narrow strip of southern Lebanon as a buffer against previous attacks. In fact, Israel provoked the kidnapping and killing of its soldiers by the Hezbollah a few weeks ago, and all of that groups actions prior. Furthermore, they forced Hezbollah to stockpile 13,000 katyusha rockets in recent years, received from Iran, and Iran never claimed that Hezbollah will do its bidding and wipe every Israeli off the face of the earth.
> 
> It all started with the recent killings and kidnappings. Day one. July 12, 2006.


Sarcasm aside, However is correct on this point. That being said, the most recent issues regarding the Israeli air-strikes did escalate way out of proportion with this most recent incident.


----------



## Wisechoice

Saracasm aside, HowEver has no facts to back up his argument, let alone sources for those facts.


----------



## Greenlion

Hey! 

I never said I could figure the whole thing out 

(I can read the date on the top of the newspaper though)

Speaking of papers....you gotta love the US press, in this case the Washington Post.

http://news.google.ca/news/url?sa=t...006/08/03/AR2006080300886.html&cid=1108472802


The headlines reads "threatens Tel Aviv, but the first sentence describes an offer to end attacks for a reciprocal move from Israel. That's one of those, what do u call them again....ceasefires.

Ya! That's it, a ceasefire!

There will be no takers...I gloomily predict.


----------



## HowEver

,


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> Furthermore, they forced Hezbollah to stockpile 13,000 katyusha rockets in recent years, received from Iran, and Iran


obviously you never bothered to watch the amy goodman piece in which Israel's military budget and armament buildup are discussed

why let facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?

one more time for the "hard of reading"

where do Israel's weapons come from?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14141.htm


----------



## Beej

MACSPECTRUM said:


> why let facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?


:lmao: What a keeper!

Perhaps you, the expert by practice on the matter, can provide perspective on why you think facts shouldn't get in the way of a good rant.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Beej said:


> :lmao: What a keeper!
> 
> Perhaps you, the expert by practice on the matter, can provide perspective on why you think facts shouldn't get in the way of a good rant.


I notice that you are still giving glib comments instead of commentary - are you sure you don't want that moderator job?


----------



## Macfury

Glib?


----------



## Beej

ArtistSeries said:


> I notice that you are still giving glib comments instead of commentary - are you sure you don't want that moderator job?


You don't think it was a little rich for 'Spec to say that? 

Well, I guess for someone that tosses around serious insults as Sinc but gets quite angry when accused of Liberal worshipping, you would have a unique perspective on these matters.  

And, in case you didn't notice, I provided a couple articles that discussed the matter from different perspectives as well as a quote from Allan Rock pointing out what isn't being discussed that is a major issue elsewhere. I'm looking for some good discussion here but haven't seen anything new to ad. And your recent contribution seems to be...nothing.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

Beej said:


> You don't think it was a little rich for 'Spec to say that?
> 
> Well, I guess for someone that tosses around serious insults as Sinc but gets quite angry when accused of Liberal worshipping, you would have a unique perspective on these matters.
> 
> And, in case you didn't notice, I provided a couple articles that discussed the matter from different perspectives as well as a quote from Allan Rock pointing out what isn't being discussed that is a major issue elsewhere. I'm looking for some good discussion here but haven't seen anything new to ad. And your recent contribution seems to be...nothing.


excellent neo con spin BJ
shoot the messenger and ignore the message
David Frum would be so very proud

I see that you are also ignoring the Amy Goodman piece


----------



## Beej

MACSPECTRUM said:


> excellent neo con spin BJ
> shoot the messenger and ignore the message
> David Frum would be so very proud
> 
> I see that you are also ignoring the Amy Goodman piece


"why let facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?"

Spec, as I've pointed out before, your own words apply so well to you. 

And now, "shoot the messenger and ignore the message", is what you just did with, "excellent neo con spin BJ". 

I guess me posting a couple articles for discussion isn't up to your high standards. 

As for, "ignoring the Amy Goodman piece", I'll let you whip up some wicked theories on why your gem isn't getting the focus you'd like.


----------



## Beej

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060803.wcomment0803/BNStory/National/home

Stephane Dion.

...............
If, in a few months, it clearly appears that the current crisis has made possible real progress for the security of both Lebanon and Israel, I will be overjoyed and will gladly recognize that we were mistaken in our analysis.

If, on the contrary, it is clear that it has produced only death and destruction and not really improved anybody's security, then perhaps those who criticize us today will recognize that, by worrying about Lebanon's fate, we were being lucid friends of Israel.
...............

Agree or disagree with his opinion and focus, I think his comment (not just the excerpt) is well worded.


----------



## Macfury

Beej: Spec thinks his "link" is bigger, yet nobody wants to discuss it. Can you sense the frustration here?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

*FAUX spin machine in action*

Fox News Continues to Suggest Israel Did Not Bomb Qana



> Four days after the Israeli government admitted to, and apologized for, mistakenly bombing a civilian apartment building in the Lebanese town of Qana and killing 60 innocents in the process, American right-wingers continue to scramble, trying to create a parallel universe explanation where fungible facts show it wasn't Israel's fault at all. In fact, Israel's the victim of a massive Qana hoax. Naturally, Fox News' high-profile hosts and guests are leading the delusional charge.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

Macfury said:


> Beej: Spec thinks his "link" is bigger, yet nobody wants to discuss it. Can you sense the frustration here?


for neo cons reality is a bitch

now, moving out of the reality distortion field



> Since the fighting started, 68 Israelis have been killed, 41 soldiers and 27 civilians.
> ...
> An Associated Press count shows at least 525 Lebanese have been killed, including 450 civilians confirmed dead by the Health Ministry, 25 Lebanese soldiers and at least 50 Hezbollah guerrillas. Five of the civilians were reported dead Thursday in airstrikes. Hezbollah also reported four deaths but did not say when the fighters were killed.
> ...
> In a televised speech broadcast Thursday night, Nasrallah, for the first time, offered to stop firing rockets into Israel if it stops its airstrikes. However, he threatened to launch missiles into Israel's commercial center of Tel Aviv if Israel hit Beirut.
> 
> "Anytime you decide to stop your campaign against our cities, villages, civilians and infrastructure, we will not fire rockets on any Israeli settlement or city," he said in a taped statement broadcast on Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV.
> 
> Speaking directly to Israelis, Nasrallah said, "The only choice before you is to stop your aggression and turn to negotiations to end this folly."
> 
> Israeli officials shrugged off the offer, saying Hezbollah was on the defensive and was looking for a breather.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060803...Hu73zys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

*Satellite photo of Beirut, before and after*

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060803/...Y4GsksUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bGk2OHYzBHNlYwN0bXA-


----------



## krs

Beej said:


> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060803.wcomment0803/BNStory/National/home
> 
> Stephane Dion.
> 
> ...............
> If, in a few months, it clearly appears that the current crisis has made possible real progress for the security of both Lebanon and Israel, I will be overjoyed and will gladly recognize that we were mistaken in our analysis.
> 
> If, on the contrary, it is clear that it has produced only death and destruction and not really improved anybody's security, then perhaps those who criticize us today will recognize that, by worrying about Lebanon's fate, we were being lucid friends of Israel.
> ...............
> 
> Agree or disagree with his opinion and focus, I think his comment (not just the excerpt) is well worded.


I would like to hear some rational arguments why this analysis is not right on the money....with one exception perhaps - "it is clear that it has produced only death and destruction and not really improved anybody's security" -

I think it has made the security in the region much worse, forget about not improving it.

And now, according to the news reports this morning, Israel is doing their damndest to drag Syria and the rest of the Middle East into this conflict.


----------



## Beej

krs said:


> I would like to hear some rational arguments why this analysis is not right on the money


One thing: it sets a standard of 'in a few months' for a complicated mess that's been around for decades. 

We could also go through the Dion piece and play devil's advocate to our pre-existing positions...it's often a useful exercise and can help us understand each other better.


----------



## krs

Beej said:


> One thing: it sets a standard of 'in a few months' for a complicated mess that's been around for decades.


I suppose one could argue that this "complicated mess" was created by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947, but I think this current military approach by Israel has exactly the opposite effect they had expected.

Lebanese and other Arab parents don't need to "teach their children to hate Jews" as someone posted in this thread a while back - the Israelis are doing a great job of that all by themselves.


----------



## Beej

krs said:


> but I think this current military approach by Israel has exactly the opposite effect they had expected.


What do you think Israel expected? 

If they expected to be loved more (hated less), then I would agree. I doubt that's what the government was going for.


----------



## krs

Beej said:


> What do you think Israel expected?
> 
> If they expected to be loved more (hated less), then I would agree. I doubt that's what the government was going for.


Beej - are you trying to be funny?

At the beginning Israel stated over and over again what their objective was in this war. They haven't been too vocal about this lately because it doesn't look as if they will meet their objective.


----------



## Beej

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060804.MIDEASTPLAN04/TPStory/

Interesting read regarding U.S. and France involvement.


----------



## Beej

krs said:


> Beej - are you trying to be funny?
> 
> At the beginning Israel stated over and over again what their objective was in this war. They haven't been too vocal about this lately because it doesn't look as if they will meet their objective.


No. What do you think Israel expected?

Note that public objectives and expectations aren't the same thing (for starters, a certain optimism must be communicated) and from this post:
...............
I suppose one could argue that this "complicated mess" was created by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947, but I think this current military approach by Israel has exactly the opposite effect they had expected.

Lebanese and other Arab parents don't need to "teach their children to hate Jews" as someone posted in this thread a while back - the Israelis are doing a great job of that all by themselves.
...............


I'm not clear on what you think Israel expected. I am actually interested in understanding this better.


----------



## krs

Beej said:


> No. What do you think Israel expected?
> 
> I'm not clear on what you think Israel expected. I am actually interested in understanding this better.


Beej - It's not what "I think Israel expected" - I'm talking about Israel's stated objective for this war as stated publicly by Israel's president and the various Israeli ambassadors.


----------



## MacDoc

....disconnect


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> Harper's backing of Israel is costing him support at home, particularly in Quebec, where many immigrants from Lebanon and other Middle Eastern nations live. A Strategic Counsel poll of 1,000 people published Aug. 1 in the Globe and Mail newspaper found that just a third of Canadians agree with Harper's stand on Israel; among Quebeckers it's 17 percent.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a0UmS.xEOJ2g&refer=canada



> "I think the position we have, properly understood is exactly the position of Canadians," Harper said


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=509939ff-ac7a-4ef5-981a-bc87c9bc4ecb&k=67083



> When asked who Canada should support, a majority, 77 per cent, said Canada should be neutral. Sixteen per cent said Canada should support Israel, while only one per cent said Hezbollah. Six per cent didn't know or declined to answer.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060728/mideast_poll_060731/20060801?hub=Canada

Harper isn't in touch with the majority of Canadians and may have cost his party their big chance at a majority gov't


----------



## Macfury

I'm always amused to watch opponents of Mr. Harper grasping at straws like this one. Headlines scream: 

* Harper loses support of Lebanese-Canadians: government may fall

How about:

* Harper eats cod with chips: BC salmon fishers tip election balance

Sheesh!


----------



## MacDoc

It's always amusing watching Harper apologists putting on spin......I guess the Star editorial cartoon was "misplaced attention" as well.
I guess we know who is the hardcore 1/3.


----------



## Macfury

Doc: "Spin" refers to trying to put a better face on something that isn't so good. What's the spin here?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

Macfury said:


> Doc: "Spin" refers to trying to put a better face on something that isn't so good. What's the spin here?





> How about:
> * Harper eats cod with chips: BC salmon fishers tip election balance
> Sheesh!


spin and deflect


----------



## krs

Macfury said:


> Doc: "Spin" refers to trying to put a better face on something that isn't so good. What's the spin here?


Your definition of "spin" is not really correct.
Take a look in a dictionary or on-line

Spin: To provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway the public.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

*Israeli pilots 'deliberately miss' targets*

Looks like there is going to be a few job openings in Israeli military intelligence.



> At least two Israeli fighter pilots have deliberately missed civilian targets in Lebanon as disquiet grows in the military about flawed intelligence, The Observer has learnt. Sources say the pilots were worried that targets had been wrongly identified as Hizbollah facilities.


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1838437,00.html


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

*The war has backfired for Israel - Eric Margolis*



> Nasrallah taunted Israel's new triumvirate of PM Ehud Olmert, Defence Minister Amir Peretz, and Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, sneering they were "small" compared to Ariel Sharon. "Adding fuel to the fire," said Rosenblum, Nasrallah "emphasized the 'small' with his fingers."
> 
> According to Rosenblum, "bad-tempered" Olmert, Peretz, and "arrogant Halutz" flew into rages at this grave insult to their manhood, and sought to prove they could out-Sharon Sharon by turning a minor skirmish into an all-out war.
> 
> Sounds bizarre, but remember, George Bush Sr. invaded Panama after Manuel Noriega called him as a "wimp." Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait after its crown prince suggested Iraq's war widows be sent to Kuwaiti harems. Adolescent behaviour springs eternal.
> 
> Israel's old Lebanese curse just keeps getting worse.
> 
> A number of press agencies have reported the skirmish that triggered this war didn't actually occur in Israel but just inside Lebanon. If true, this would sink Israel deeper into the hole it has already dug itself after laying waste to much of Lebanon and killing dozens of civilians at Qana (with a U.S.-supplied missile).
> 
> Israel first said it was targeting missile launchers firing from Qana. But Israel's military now admits there were no rockets being fired from Qana the day of the attack. A decade ago, Israeli artillery killed 106 civilians there.


http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2006/08/06/1721268.html


----------



## krs

Wow - 

There are a lot of different news reports that the Israeli soldiers that were captured or killed and triggered this war were actually well inside Lebanon.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_solders.html


----------



## HowEver

.


----------



## krs

Forget the actual web site.
Look at the links.

Here is another interesting link - Israeli censorship of the foreign press.

http://www2.boomantribune.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2006/7/22/1040/17359


----------



## Beej

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060807.wopposition0807/BNStory/Front

Update on the U.S./France initiative.


----------



## krs

Beej said:


> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060807.wopposition0807/BNStory/Front
> 
> Update on the U.S./France initiative.


Thanks - good article.

But I feel unless both Israel and Hezbollah buy into this resolution, it's not worth the paper it's written on.
Right now it's also somewhat one-sided.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

Hezbollah has already rejected the "resolution in waiting" out of hand
I don't think, in contrast to Rice-a-Roni would like us to believe, that Lebanon or Hezbollan would accept it if it did become a UN resolution

talk is that Putin has a trick or two up his sleeve being a permanent (veto power) member of the security council at the UN

Israel has 10,000 troops in Lebanon
this thing is quite a way from over
"We're through the looking glass, Alice"

any agreement Lebanon would sign would require the immediate withdrawl of Israeli soliders from Lebanese land, something that ain't gonna happen real soon

and now some in the U.S. are questioning Israel's value as a U.S. ally
uh oh, the boys and girls at AIPAC can't be happy about this latest Seattle Times editorial....

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003176311_krauthammer07.html



> U.S. confidence in Israel at stake in Lebanon
> 
> But that was decades ago. The question, as always, is: What have you done for me lately? There is fierce debate now in the U.S. about whether in the post-9/11 world Israel is a net asset or liability. Hezbollah's unprovoked attack on July 12 provided Israel the extraordinary opportunity to demonstrate its utility by making a major contribution to America's war on terror.


----------



## krs

Rice-a-Roni ?????????????????

You're not nice


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

krs said:


> Rice-a-Roni ?????????????????
> 
> You're not nice


any sec. of state that puts shopping for shoes ahead of visting a storm bashed new orleans deserves what she gets

"Rice-a-Roni" - not bad, eh?
some days the neuro transmitters work better than others


----------



## Beej

Meanwhile, in Canada

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060806.wlebbprot0806/BNStory/National/home

...................
“Israel terrorist, Harper accomplice,” members of the crowd shouted in unison as marchers left a downtown park on their journey through city streets.
..
“Yo Stevie, they're only dead Arabs,” read one sign hoisted by Asem Samhat, whose home village on the Lebanese border has been turned into rubble by Israeli attacks.
..
“Our country has the right to live,” the 35-year-old construction worker said, denying Canada's assertion that Hezbollah is a terrorist group.
..
“Israel learned from Hitler and the student has surpassed the master,” read one sign.
..
Some of the loudest ovations were received by some ultra-religious Jews who denounced Israel's actions and its right to exist.

“We are totally in opposition in every step of the way to what the state of Israel is doing,” said Rabbi Israel David Weiss, a New Yorker with Jews United Against Zionism.

“The actual existence of the state of Israel is forbidden by the torah (Jewish bible).”

Rabbi Weiss marched near the front row of the demonstration, locking arms with Sayed Nabil Abbas, a representative of the Islamic Shiite Supreme Council in Canada.

“We don't have any problems against the Jews, our problem is with the Zionists,” said Mr. Abbas.
...................


----------



## ArtistSeries

I'm not what you message you are trying to put across Beej....
This weekend, I did see full page ads in some major Quebec newspapers put out by the Quebec-Israel Committee, their message seems to be that Hezbollah are akin to Nazis.
www.qic-cpi.org


----------



## Beej

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm not what you message you are trying to put across Beej....
> .....
> This weekend, I did see full page ads in some major Quebec newspapers put out by the Quebec-Israel Committee, their message seems to be that Hezbollah are akin to Nazis.
> www.qic-cpi.org


Nothing in particular. More, "Canadians say the darndest things."
.....
"their message seems to be that Hezbollah are akin to Nazis."

That message is quite a bit more credible (less crap) than comparing Israel to Nazis.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hassan_Nasrallah

Didn't nxnw also have sort of a policy statement from Hezbollah?

In the end, while cheap nazi visuals are not very convincing, there is much more of a case for Hez-as-Naz than for Is. This is one place where the 'equivalency' approach falters.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Beej said:


> "their message seems to be that Hezbollah are akin to Nazis."
> 
> That message is quite a bit more credible (less crap) than comparing Israel to Nazis.


That's highly debatable and a slippery slope. We'll leave it for another time. 



Beej said:


> Didn't nxnw also have sort of a policy statement from Hezbollah?
> 
> In the end, while cheap nazi visuals are not very convincing, there is much more of a case for Hez-as-Naz than for Is. This is one place where the 'equivalency' approach falters.


The message may falter when it comes to you but if your target audience is Jewish, quite convincing. I did not quote the text but it had a few nose stretchers..

nxnw quoted part of the Hamas charter. I could easily quote a few right-wing Israeli political party charters that are as offensive.


----------



## Beej

ArtistSeries said:


> The message may falter when it comes to you but if your target audience is Jewish, quite convincing.
> 
> nxnw quoted part of the Hamas charter. I could easily quote a few right-wing Israeli political party charters that are as offensive.


Fair point. Again, I see the equivalency error. As with the slippery slope, we can leave that for another time. I guess we can agree on not liking the cheap nazi comparisons?


----------



## ArtistSeries

Beej said:


> I guess we can agree on not liking the cheap nazi comparisons?


Yes agree on that. 
At least Conrad Black is not holding back on his words...


> Cockroaches of the Middle East


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=b328e904-8a64-4a62-b029-f1072dd3d73f&p=1


----------



## Macfury

I enjoyed Conrad Black's sassiness for awhile, but his pronouncements don't sound quite as saucy delivered from a sinking island.


----------



## da_jonesy

Macfury said:


> I enjoyed Conrad Black's sassiness for awhile.


Did that go along with your affinity for Kenneth Lay? Oooppss quick get the message out with you KBR/Haliburton decoder ring. Seriously can you give me one redeeming quality that Conrad Black had?


----------



## Macfury

Black was very amusing, particularly while renouncing his Canadian citizenship. I enjoyed his acerbic wit--he certainly has a way with language. But as his desperation grows, his abilty to engage in witty repartee has left him. You need a certain cockiness to deliver his type of quips.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

ArtistSeries said:


> Yes agree on that.
> At least Conrad Black is not holding back on his words...
> 
> http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=b328e904-8a64-4a62-b029-f1072dd3d73f&p=1


is lord tubby declaring his national pest columnist income?
perhaps U.S. investigators want to know
might mean they'll have to increase his bail amount...

i'm glad this a$$hole is no longer a Canadian
i'd be even more glad if he was no longer breathing by "natural causes" of course
:heybaby: :heybaby: :heybaby:


----------



## Beej

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i'd be even more glad if he was no longer breathing by "natural causes" of course
> :heybaby: :heybaby: :heybaby:


Another death penalty supporter? Et tu, 'Spectacle?


----------



## Macfury

At the very least, Spec is dealing himself very bad Karma.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

Macfury said:


> At the very least, Spec is dealing himself very bad Karma.



oh, i'm way in the back of the line behind lord tubby, dick cheney, usama bin laden as far as bad karma goes


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

Beej said:


> Another death penalty supporter? Et tu, 'Spectacle?


not at all, just like ken lay


----------



## Beej

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06301298.htm

Photoshopping fun. The example didn't seem egregious but why was it done? Very disappointing.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

cbc newsworld reports over 1`000 deaths since the beginning of this latest conflict

very disappointing

mannyp please note; no raccoons have been reported killed during the conflict


----------



## Beej

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060808.wmideast-main08/BNStory/Front

............
“The government expresses its readiness to send a 15,000-member Lebanese army force after occupation forces withdraw. . . . The army is ready and we are not making nonsense statements,” Information Minister Ghazi Aridi told reporters in Beirut.
............

That's good to see. Why weren't they doing this before? Still, some form of active (not just observer) international force would help.


----------



## Macfury

The Lebanese should just draft the many willing Hezbollah militants into their armed forces where they will presumably act in the best interest of Lebanon under the government's control.


----------



## da_jonesy

Macfury said:


> The Lebanese should just draft the many willing Hezbollah militants into their armed forces where they will presumably act in the best interest of Lebanon under the government's control.


Being glib again MF?

BTW... how well did that work for the US in Iraq?


----------



## Macfury

Not being glib at all. Why would that not be possible, Jonesy?


----------



## krs

Beej said:


> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060808.wmideast-main08/BNStory/Front
> 
> ............
> “The government expresses its readiness to send a 15,000-member Lebanese army force after occupation forces withdraw. . . . The army is ready and we are not making nonsense statements,” Information Minister Ghazi Aridi told reporters in Beirut.
> ............
> 
> That's good to see. Why weren't they doing this before? Still, some form of active (not just observer) international force would help.


That was actually a question that came up during the interview with the minister. The reply was that all of the different Lebanese groups including Hezbollah were in the middle of negotiations to do just that when the border skirmish happened.
And then, instead of treating this like many of these border skirmishes before, Israel decided on a full scale assault.


----------



## Beej

krs said:


> That was actually a question that came up during the interview with the minister. The reply was that all of the different Lebanese groups including Hezbollah were in the middle of negotiations to do just that when the border skirmish happened.
> And then, instead of treating this like many of these border skirmishes before, Israel decided on a full scale assault.


Why weren't they making it a priority to begin with, regardless of negotiations, as a normal priority of any nation interested in its neighbour's well being in connection with local problems? This comes back to the question of what is expected of Canada, UK, U.S., France, Germany etc. and what is expected of Israel. I know we disagree on the weight of this argument, but I think it's fertile ground for meaningful discussion.


----------



## krs

Beej said:


> Why weren't they making it a priority to begin with, regardless of negotiations, as a normal priority of any nation interested in its neighbour's well being in connection with local problems? This comes back to the question of what is expected of Canada, UK, U.S., France, Germany etc. and what is expected of Israel. I know we disagree on the weight of this argument, but I think it's fertile ground for meaningful discussion.


Beej - All I can say is "I don't have a clue!"

I think one of the realities is that we, ie the "Western World", don't understand at all how that part of the world operates. 
When I read about the 'warlords' in Afghanistan, the concept of suicide bombers...how that gets you into paradise...as somewhat said the Israeli fight to live; the Hezbollah fight to die.......
it's a totally different way of life and I don't think the leaders of any of the countries you mention above have the slightest clue what this is really about.

I lived in Europe for many years and I found that the Americans in general don't even understand the Europeans and vice versa....and they're both part of the "Western World?

This destruction of Lebanon isn't going to do anything to resolve the long ongoing disputes between these ME countries...in my opinion it has made the situation a lot worse. Israel is dreaming in technicolour if they think they can solve this problem militarily.

Did anyone listen to the interview on CNN with the Queen of Jordan a while back? That was an eye opener...I think she hit the nail on the head with her analysis and solution to the problem.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> Did anyone listen to the interview on CNN with the Queen of Jordan a while back? That was an eye opener...I think she hit the nail on the head with her analysis and solution to the problem.


missed that one
can you offer a synopsis?


----------



## MacDoc

For a perspective consider what Britain would do had the IRA lobbed ONE rocket into English soil
Consider also what they DID do with far less pretext.

A reminder



> 1974: 'Troubles' death toll hits 1,000
> *The conflict in Northern Ireland has claimed its 1,000th victim.*
> The milestone has been reached amid a spate of killings and shootings over the past two days.
> 
> They culminated in the death earlier today of a petrol station owner James Murphy in County Fermanagh.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/20/newsid_2525000/2525369.stm

and that 400 year old conflict is STILL uneasy.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

but ultimately there is a peace brought about by negotiation with all parties


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

*British MP speaks*

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14391.htm


----------



## Beej

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060809.wmideast0809/BNStory/International/home

..............
Israel's security cabinet on approved Wednesday a wider ground offensive in southern Lebanon that was expected to take 30 days as part of a new push to badly damage Hezbollah, a cabinet minister said.
..
“The assessment is it will last 30 days. I think it is wrong to make this assessment. I think it will take a lot longer,” he said.
..
Diplomatic efforts were moving slowly, and Israeli cabinet ministers pushing for a wider offensive said there's no guarantee that a ceasefire deal would, in fact, neutralize Hezbollah. Israel is particularly skeptical of a Lebanese proposal to dispatch 15,000 soldiers to south Lebanon after a ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces.

“We will not agree to a situation in which the diplomatic solution will not promise us stability and quiet for many years,” Mr. Peretz told visiting German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
..............


It looks like a negotiating position regarding the Arab League-Lebanon proposal versus the U.S.-France proposal. 

Given the two proposals, do ehmacers favour one or the other and see a likely resolution (not necessarily successful)?


----------



## krs

Beej said:


> Israel's security cabinet on approv... northern Israel even if pushed back 29 km's.


----------



## ArtistSeries

krs said:


> What happened to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz promise that this will all be wrapped up in 10 days, 14 days max? And that was just a few days ago.


They lied. ooops....


----------



## Voyager

krs said:


> What happened to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz promise that this will all be wrapped up in 10 days, 14 days max? And that was just a few days ago.


If the information in this link is accurate, it may explain what happened.
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/9116.htm

Voyager


----------



## Greenlion

Voyager said:


> If the information in this link is accurate, it may explain what happened.
> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/9116.htm
> 
> Voyager


Very interesting read! Not only does it offer an apparent insider view of the political wranglings, but it also confirms that this military campaign has been in the planning for years (so no more crocodile tears for the "kidnapped" soliders).

On top of that it further confirms that Bush's administration is the most dangerous and deranged bunch of sick ****ers to imperil the globe in a long time!! 

Green light to attack Syria!!! 

"Yo! Olmi! Bring on the Syrians!!!"

Apparently the compromise plan for the IDF is to bomb every piece of civilian infrastructure available so that Beirut can end up a hotbed of "insurgency" and terrorist breeding ground just like Baghdad and Kabul.

Good strategy George! Did God deliver it to you personally?

Nice ****in work!!! 

Where are the Oswalds, and Sirhan's when you really need one?

Hell, I'd settle for a Squeakly Fromme right now!


----------



## Voyager

In light of the Lebanese PM's desire to have the Lebanese Army take over the patrolling of the Lebanese/Israel border to replace the IDF, the following story does give one pause. These are the troops who are going to "secure" the border?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,20074368-28737,00.html

Another interesting story. http://www.nbc6.net/ikesinsights/9646351/detail.html?taf=ami

Voyager


----------



## Beej

Voyager said:


> In light of the Lebanese PM's desire to have the Lebanese Army take over the patrolling of the Lebanese/Israel border to replace the IDF, the following story does give one pause. These are the troops who are going to "secure" the border?
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,20074368-28737,00.html
> 
> Another interesting story. http://www.nbc6.net/ikesinsights/9646351/detail.html?taf=ami
> 
> Voyager


Not surprising that Israel wants an international force in there. Otherwise it could just be time for Hezbollah to get more weapons (again). Israel waits while Hez reloads; More death, but not today. On the surface, things seem peaceful. A good "look at our accomplishments" solution for some politicans to brag about while accomplishing less than nothing. Still, would Lebanon's army be that bad, or would there only be isolated incidents?

This part is well known although there are deniers.
.........
In the case of Beirut and other parts of Lebanon under the control of terrorists, Hezbollah usually runs daily press tours, making sure reporters and photographers see the worse that Israel has inflicted -- killing civilians, etc. -- in order to slate the coverage, but never reveals that Hezbollah uses private homes, mosques, schools, hospitals and other public buildings for their headquarters or to launch their lethal missiles. 

Then there's the danger factor if a reporter angers his terrorist tour guides. Christopher Albritton, a freelance contributor for Time magazine, wrote in his blog a couple of weeks ago, "To the south, Hezbollah is launching Katyushas, but I'm loathe to say too much about them. The Party of God has a copy of every journalists' passport and they've already hassled a number of us and threatened one." They also take pictures of all journalists, warning they better follow the ground rules or else. Terrorists in that part of the world have been doing this for years. 
.........


----------



## Voyager

Greenlion said:


> Very interesting read! Not only does it offer an apparent insider view of the political wranglings, but it also confirms that this military campaign has been in the planning for years (so no more crocodile tears for the "kidnapped" soliders).


Greenlion, what do you think armies do? I will wager that every army in the world that has a potential foe on their border does exactly the same thing. You don't think that the USSR has plans to invade Europe during the Cold War or that NATO didn't have the equivalent? In Israel's case, they knew it wasn't if, but when, based on the confessed policy of Hezbollah.

Voyager


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

you think Canada has some sort of secret plan to invade the U.S.?
(apart from Micahel J. Fox, Jim Carey and Pam Anderson)

oh look the invasion has begun;
http://www.listology.com/content_show.cfm/content_id.17012


----------



## Beej

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/08/09/nasrallah-haifa.html

...........
Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah warned Israeli Arabs to clear out of Haifa as he threatened to increase attacks on the city.

"I call on you to leave this city. I hope you do this … please leave so we don't shed your blood, which is our blood," Nasrallah said in a televised speech.
...........


So it isn't just about attacking Israel in support of Lebanon, but about non-Arabs (primarily Jews?). Surprise. At least he is honest about what Hezbollah is about, unlike some of its supporters.


----------



## Voyager

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you think Canada has some sort of secret plan to invade the U.S.?
> (apart from Micahel J. Fox, Jim Carey and Pam Anderson)
> 
> oh look the invasion has begun;
> http://www.listology.com/content_show.cfm/content_id.17012



Do you think the U.S. is a foe?

Voyager


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

Voyager said:


> Do you think the U.S. is a foe?
> 
> Voyager


i believe your words were;


> I will wager that every army in the world that has a potential foe on their border does exactly the same thing.


you may want to ask some cdn. workers formerly employed in the softwood lumber industry about that

note that i didn't make light of an american invasion of Canada
i know it's "gamed" scenario in the building with 5 sides


----------



## Beej

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you may want to ask some cdn. workers formerly employed in the softwood lumber industry about that
> 
> note that i didn't make light of an american invasion of Canada
> i know it's "gamed" scenario in the building with 5 sides


:clap: Another keeper.

Really 'Spec, seek help. Aromatherapy, herbology, real help, whatever. Get help.

By the way, despite our disagreements *AS*, do you at least agree that this is a clear example of a flawed equivalency approach?


----------



## krs

Voyager said:


> You don't think that the USSR has plans to invade Europe during the Cold War or that NATO didn't have the equivalent?


Yeah, but they didn't whenever there was a border skirmish.

One interesting tidbit I came across on the net (I need to start linking to those like everyone else) was the number of border violations that the UN observed at the Israeli-Lebanese border.
The number of Lebanese violations were 1000 (over the last six years I assume...and I thought that was terrible, and then when I read on, it stated that the Israeli violations were more than 11 000. They had a precise number published but it escapes me.
Maybe someone came across the same information and can publish a link.
It's just mind-boggling, an average of five border violation by the Israelis every single day for the last six years.


----------



## Voyager

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i believe your words were;
> 
> 
> you may want to ask some cdn. workers formerly employed in the softwood lumber industry about that
> 
> note that i didn't make light of an american invasion of Canada
> i know it's "gamed" scenario in the building with 5 sides


So a softwood dispute equals a potential foe in a military sense and we have to plan to counter an invasion?

I agree with you that the U.S. , as a government, my not have our best interests at heart but you can't compare the U.S. /Canada situation with the Lebanon/Israeli situation.

Voyager


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

Voyager said:


> So a softwood dispute equals a potential foe in a military sense and we have to plan to counter an invasion?
> 
> I agree with you that the U.S. , as a government, my not have our best interests at heart but you can't compare the U.S. /Canada situation with the Lebanon/Israeli situation.
> 
> Voyager


if you believe that Michael J. Fox, Jim Carey and Pam Anderson constitute an advanced strike force

then again, maybe you do


----------



## Beej

MACSPECTRUM said:


> if you believe that Michael J. Fox, Jim Carey and Pam Anderson constitute an advanced strike force
> 
> then again, maybe you do


You seem to really enjoy digging. Well, continue if you must.


----------



## Vandave

This conflict isn't looking very good for Israel right now. They took a chance by striking hard at Hezbollah at the expense of world support. 

Their air campaign hasn't stopped the rockets from being launched. As I said at the start of this, a ground campaign is the only way to stop the attacks. However, their first ground attacks into Lebanon have resulted in heavy casulties. Today they lost another 15 soldiers trying to push further into Lebanon. Hezbollah wants this to happen, which is why they provoked Israel to begin with.

I don't see how a peacekeeping force would be able to stop the rockets. The Lebanese army won't be able to do it either considering that Israel couldn't do it over 18 years.

A peacemaking force might be able to stop Hezbollah, but would be seen in the Arab world as an ally of Israel, rather than an impartial force.

Israel doesn't have many options left.


----------



## Voyager

Vandave,

Israel struck hard from the air but was probably too small on the ground. I've read that Israel could still defeat Hezbollah but they will have to commit a lot more ground troops and be willing to accept significant casualties ie, about a 1000 dead. (In terms of casualty to population ratio, the equivalent to 5000 Canadian or 50 000 American casualties.) Only time will tell if Israel feels that threatened.

Ultimately, I hope that a way can be found for a lasting peace soon. However, I'm not too optimistic given the positions of those involved in this war.

krs,

UNIFIL observed all those border violations (although I think the total is suspect. A real link would be appreciated) and they did what? Recorded them in a book probably - and did nothing! That's mind boggling!

Voyager


----------



## Vandave

Voyager said:


> Vandave,
> 
> Israel struck hard from the air but was probably too small on the ground. I've read that Israel could still defeat Hezbollah but they will have to commit a lot more ground troops and be willing to accept significant casualties ie, about a 1000 dead. (In terms of casualty to population ratio, the equivalent to 5000 Canadian or 50 000 American casualties.) Only time will tell if Israel feels that threatened.


I believe they would have high casualties as well.

I think their response goes just beyond being threatened. I think a bigger factor is denying their enemy victory.


----------



## krs

Voyager said:


> UNIFIL observed all those border violations (although I think the total is suspect. A real link would be appreciated) and they did what? Recorded them in a book probably - and did nothing! That's mind boggling!
> 
> Voyager


A google search of course brought nothing. There is just far too much about this conflict on the net to have any hope of finding a link again.
But I assume these average five violations per day are probably referring to this

"What we are forgetting is that ever since our withdrawal from Lebanon, the Israel Air Force has conducted photo-surveillance sorties on a daily basis in Lebanese airspace. While these flights caused no casualties, border violations are border violations. Here too, morality is not on our side."

from:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/742257.html

I have no trouble believing that Israel violated Lebanese airspace on average five times per day over the last six years.
The other article just quoted specific numbers of border violations, not what they were........I wasn't thinking of "airspace" either.........and UNIFIL reported them to the UN who in turn did nothing about that.
I assume 'reporting' was UNIFIL's only mandate.


----------



## krs

This pretty much matches my understanding of the situation - also the root cause and the author mentions that Israeli border violations were 10 times the ones from the other side, although she doesn't provide actual numbers.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...989&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795


----------



## krs

Vandave said:


> This conflict isn't looking very good for Israel right now. They took a chance by striking hard at Hezbollah at the expense of world support.
> 
> Their air campaign hasn't stopped the rockets from being launched. As I said at the start of this, a ground campaign is the only way to stop the attacks. However, their first ground attacks into Lebanon have resulted in heavy casulties. Today they lost another 15 soldiers trying to push further into Lebanon. Hezbollah wants this to happen, which is why they provoked Israel to begin with.
> 
> I don't see how a peacekeeping force would be able to stop the rockets. The Lebanese army won't be able to do it either considering that Israel couldn't do it over 18 years.
> 
> A peacemaking force might be able to stop Hezbollah, but would be seen in the Arab world as an ally of Israel, rather than an impartial force.
> 
> Israel doesn't have many options left.


Hezbollah are going to be stopped when *they* want to be stopped.
Let's not forget, they might be equipped like an army and have a structure like an army, but they consider themselves freedom fighters.....not only that, freedom fighters who are assured paradise (or whatever Muslims call it) if they die on the battlefield.

I think the Lebanese government, Lebanese people and the Lebanese army have the best chance of accomplishing that. Forget about force in this situation - it has not worked in the past and won't work now...it's just making this whole situation worse.


----------



## Greenlion

Voyager said:


> Greenlion, what do you think armies do? I will wager that every army in the world that has a potential foe on their border does exactly the same thing. You don't think that the USSR has plans to invade Europe during the Cold War or that NATO didn't have the equivalent? In Israel's case, they knew it wasn't if, but when, based on the confessed policy of Hezbollah.
> 
> Voyager


The point being made was that all the media discussion - and much of the debate here on ehmac - continues to operate on the assumption that Israels military offensive is in response to the kidnapping of soldiers!!! When in fact, as I (and others) have stated in this thread, the capturing of the soldiers was used as pretext to launch the planned offensive. This is pursuing things a good deal further than running some scenarios just in case. 

It also renders all the hand wringing and so called "morale debate" entirely moot. Right! So the tortured back and forth wondering if Israel's response is "measured" or "going too far" based on what Hezbollah did is meaningless. The offensive initiative has been taken by Israel not Hezbollah, who likely thought they were setting up another prisoner swap.

As for the "rearming" and stock piling of rockets, I'm guessing it might have something to do with trying to insure that the IDF doesn't decide to come back and stay in Lebanon for another 18 years to create a "security buffer". I mean really, how in hell are Katushya rockets ever going to "drive Israel into the sea".


----------



## Greenlion

Vandave said:


> This conflict isn't looking very good for Israel right now. They took a chance by striking hard at Hezbollah at the expense of world support.
> 
> Their air campaign hasn't stopped the rockets from being launched. As I said at the start of this, a ground campaign is the only way to stop the attacks. However, their first ground attacks into Lebanon have resulted in heavy casulties. Today they lost another 15 soldiers trying to push further into Lebanon. Hezbollah wants this to happen, which is why they provoked Israel to begin with.
> 
> I don't see how a peacekeeping force would be able to stop the rockets. The Lebanese army won't be able to do it either considering that Israel couldn't do it over 18 years.
> 
> A peacemaking force might be able to stop Hezbollah, but would be seen in the Arab world as an ally of Israel, rather than an impartial force.
> 
> Israel doesn't have many options left.


This is exactly what I'm trying point out in my response to Voyageur! 

"the air campaign hasn't been able to stop the rockets" true enough, BUT let's remember the facts people! There were no rocket attacks UNTIL AFTER Israel commenced the air campaign!! 

So was Israel attempting to stop rocket attacks when it began bombing the airport and the seaport and the highways?!?!?!?!

Hezbollah may have a functioning PR and propaganda department, but they sure aren't penetrating the fog in the western media! 

Into the memory hole it goes......WMDs, the yellow cake uranium.....


----------



## Vandave

Greenlion said:


> how in hell are Katushya rockets ever going to "drive Israel into the sea".


Katushya's today... guided missiles tomorrow. The potential for Hezbollah to be given more powerful weapons over time is the real security threat. The guided missile that destroyed the Israeli gunship is a glimpse to what the future holds (IMO). If you can land Katushya's, you can also land chemical or biological weapons on Israeli cities. Scary stuff.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Vandave said:


> Katushya's today... guided missiles tomorrow. The potential for Hezbollah to be given more powerful weapons over time is the real security threat.


Of course it is - then again, Israel can always negotiate peace and remove the reasons for Hezbollah's existence....


----------



## krs

Greenlion -

All very good points,

What I would really like to know is where the two Israeli soldiers were captured. On Lebanese soil as was initially reported or on the Israeli side which is the current main stream media story.


----------



## Vandave

ArtistSeries said:


> Of course it is - then again, Israel can always negotiate peace and remove the reasons for Hezbollah's existence....


How do you negotiate peace with a group that refutes your right to exist?

I think negotiated peace will only be the first step on the way to real peace. It will take a long time for social values and racism to change in the region.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Vandave said:


> How do you negotiate peace with a group that refutes your right to exist?


Maybe they have support of the population for other reasons....


----------



## Voyager

Vandave said:


> How do you negotiate peace with a group that refutes your right to exist?
> 
> I think negotiated peace will only be the first step on the way to real peace. It will take a long time for social values and racism to change in the region.





ArtistSeries said:


> Maybe they have support of the population for other reasons....


How do you negotiate with groups who want to drive you into the sea? That is the stated policy of both Hezbollah and Hamas. That is what Israel has faced since 1948. Hezbollah and Hamas do not consider the state of Israel as a reality but something to be destroyed over the near and long term. And that mindset is going to be changed how?

By the way, this is only a part of something bigger and you need to keep this in mind. There is no mention of who was arrested but...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/10/us.security/index.html


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

interesting this should happen ONE day after Lieberman (a huge suporter of the war and Bush) was defeated in the democratic primary in CT and the only realy issue was his support of the Iraq war


----------



## Voyager

MACSPECTRUM said:


> interesting this should happen ONE day after Lieberman (a huge suporter of the war and Bush) was defeated in the democratic primary in CT and the only realy issue was his support of the Iraq war


 So the whole plot to destroy aircraft is just a right-wing diversion. Thanks for clearing that up. Here I thought all along it was fanatics out to get us because they despise Western culture.

Voyager


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

Voyager said:


> So the whole plot to destroy aircraft is just a right-wing diversion. Thanks for clearing that up. Here I thought all along it was fanatics out to get us because they despise Western culture.
> 
> Voyager


hey' that's "right" out of the White House talking points
you on their mailing list?


----------



## Voyager

MACSPECTRUM said:


> hey' that's "right" out of the White House talking points
> you on their mailing list?


No, actually. ( But I will phone George up and have my name out on the list. )
I do, however, have some idea what the radicals of the _religion of peace_ think of us and our western culture. You should do some research on what the radical elements really think of us. And it isn't because of Israel. Israel is only their first step because of its proximity.

Voyager

P.S Oh, by the way, the President of Iran has predicted that there will be a flash of light over Israel on August 22. He was very specific about the date. Hopefully, MACSPECTRUM, it isn't what has gone through my mind.


----------



## Macfury

Spec: "The talking points?" This from the king of the Noam Chomsky sound-byte?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

Voyager said:


> No, actually. ( But I will phone George up and have my name out on the list. )
> I do, however, have some idea what the radicals of the _religion of peace_ think of us and our western culture. You should do some research on what the radical elements really think of us. And it isn't because of Israel. Israel is only their first step because of its proximity.
> 
> Voyager
> 
> P.S Oh, by the way, the President of Iran has predicted that there will be a flash of light over Israel on August 22. He was very specific about the date. Hopefully, MACSPECTRUM, it isn't what has gone through my mind.


actually george doesn't take those calls, but I am sure Karl "i might be in the big house soon" Rove will

of course the problems in the middle east have nothing to do with the U.S. staunch backing of Israel to the tune of billions of dollars and vetoing just about every UN resolution aimed at Israel, the US led invasion of Iraq, the constant US meddling in middle east, the creation (CIA training and oodles of money / wepons) of Usama bin Laden by the US when it was geo-politically convenient, Abu Ghraib and the lack of a Palestinian state for about now 60 years?

none of that could be reasons?
no, just "they despise Western culture"

perhaps you believe as does Tony Blakley - Wash. Times, that the UN is anti-semitic? 
http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=537

as for "flashes of light" I am sure Israel with it's stockpile of US supplied nukes (uh oh, did I just release an IDF secret?) would be flashing the "thousand points of light" themselves

but i'm sure it will be labelled a "defensive action" and that leaflets will be dropped beforehand


----------



## Macfury

EhMax warned of "strange behaviour" over the next 48 hours...


----------



## Voyager

MACSPECTRUM said:


> actually george doesn't take those calls, but I am sure Karl "i might be in the big house soon" Rove will
> 
> of course the problems in the middle east have nothing to do with the U.S. staunch backing of Israel to the tune of billions of dollars and vetoing just about every UN resolution aimed at Israel, the US led invasion of Iraq, the constant US meddling in middle east, the creation (CIA training and oodles of money / wepons) of Usama bin Laden by the US when it was geo-politically convenient, Abu Ghraib and the lack of a Palestinian state for about now 60 years?
> 
> none of that could be reasons?
> no, just "they despise Western culture"
> 
> perhaps you believe as does Tony Blakley - Wash. Times, that the UN is anti-semitic?
> http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=537
> 
> as for "flashes of light" I am sure Israel with it's stockpile of US supplied nukes (uh oh, did I just release an IDF secret?) would be flashing the "thousand points of light" themselves
> 
> but i'm sure it will be labelled a "defensive action" and that leaflets will be dropped beforehand


Have U.S. actions added to the situation? I can't disagree. Governments don't always think of long term ramifications, but that does not eliminatethe the radicals basis beliefs. They will exist no matter what.
Is the UN anti-semitic? No, I would never accuse the UN of being anti-semetic, just one sidedly pro-Palestinean. If the UN were serious about a just peace to the Middle East, they would be serious about banging the heads of *all parties involved* and backing it up with something other than useless resolutions that are never enforced. In my opinion, the UN has become just another League of Nations and will be swept aside be events as it was, unfortunately.

Voyager


----------



## Macfury

Perhaps if the UN dignitaries intermarry, we will achieve a certain international stability--oh, wait, we already tried that.


----------



## krs

Voyager said:


> No, I would never accuse the UN of being anti-semetic, just one sidedly pro-Palestinean.


Where do you get that idea?
Were they not supposed to get their own homeland more than 50 years ago? last time i checked they were still waiting.


----------



## Voyager

krs said:


> Were they not supposed to get their own homeland more than 50 years ago? last time i checked they were still waiting.


Define "Homeland"? According to Hamas, as recorded on Arabic television, the Palestinian homeland goes from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-7kid5yFhw. It seems to have originally came from http://www.memritv.org./ Israel happens to be in between those two points. How can you negotiate with those who hold that viewpoint? The Oslo accords, while not perfect by any means, were a starting point, but Yasser Arafat walked away from them and started the second Infatata. He felt he could get what he wanted by more violence. 

Voyager


----------



## krs

"Homeland"?
I was thinking about something like the original UN partition plan.
Israel agreed to it at the time I believe.

I say "something like", because the people who came up with this partition must have been drunk when they did it.










Israel today


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

there's that damn UN again
trying to make a reasonable solution
i doubt Israel will every give up control of Jerusalem

making Jerusalem into some sort of UN protectorate would have been a good idea


----------



## Voyager

krs said:


> "Homeland"?
> I was thinking about something like the original UN partition plan.
> Israel agreed to it at the time I believe.
> 
> I say "something like", because the people who came up with this partition must have been drunk when they did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel today


Can I have what they were drinking in 1947?:yikes: It's never going to work now. After going through wars in 1948-49, 1956. 1967, 1973-74, and 1982 Israel will not even begin to agree to that division.

Voyager


----------



## krs

What I found amazing is that *both* the Arab state and the Israeli state ended up as divided countries.
I don't think that ever works. 
Germany was divided after the first World War with Poland in between and this eventually led to the second World War.


----------



## krs

Voyager said:


> Can I have what they were drinking in 1947?:yikes: It's never going to work now. After going through wars in 1948-49, 1956. 1967, 1973-74, and 1982 Israel will not even begin to agree to that division.
> 
> Voyager


I didn't realize this is the sixth war since the creation of Israel, roughly one every ten years.


----------



## Voyager

krs said:


> I didn't realize this is the sixth war since the creation of Israel, roughly one every ten years.


The 1982 war was, indirectly, courtesy of the King of Jordan. The PLO was originally in Jordan(which, by the way has a large Palestinean population) and was fomenting unrest so the King unleashed the army who drove the PLO out of Jordan and they shifted their operations to southern Lebanon where they continued to attack settlements in northern Israel with the result of 1982 war.


----------



## Wisechoice

While we're getting the maps out... here's the West Bank today (click to enlarge):

<a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/maps/fence10.jpg"><img height=760 width=400 src="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/maps/fence10.jpg"></a>

and here's the West Bank being planned:


----------



## krs

Whose ridiculous plan is that?
It puts the Palestinians in a prison with Israeli guards and that is supposed to help the peace process in the Middle East?


----------



## Wisechoice

krs said:


> Whose ridiculous plan is that?
> It puts the Palestinians in a prison with Israeli guards and that is supposed to help the peace process in the Middle East?



That's the Israeli plan as of April this year.

Don't ask me what it's "supposed" to do... I'd hate to make controversial analogies.


----------



## krs

That was of course a rhetorical question.


----------



## Dr.G.

"A U.N. deal to end Israeli-Hezbollah fighting passed the Security Council with a unanimous vote Friday. As part of the deal, up to 15,000 U.N. troops would be deployed to the area, joined by 15,000 Lebanese troops. The Israeli and Lebanese governments have indicated they will accept the plan, but Hezbollah has so far not said whether it will stop its attacks."
CNN.com


----------



## krs

Long time in coming but better late than never.

I'm glad everyone was able to compromise and the Lebanese government's objections to the earlier drafts was taken into consideration.

As to Hezbollah ageeing to it or commenting on it, they probably decided to wait until the have official confirmation from the Government of Lebanon on Saturday and Israel on Sunday. 
I would think that they would stop launching rockets and missiles, since that activity was always in response to an Israeli offensive, both at the beginning of this war and also after the two day semi lull.


----------



## Dr.G.

We shall see, krs. We shall see. One thing about Hezbollah rockets -- they are targeted for anywhere there are people within their range. The Air Force of Israel have made some terrible mistakes in their bombings, but they have not, to the best of my knowledge, merely bombed civilians. Hezbollah rockets are aimed at civilians. 

So, we shall see. Hopefully, both sides will "give peace a chance." Paix, mon ami.


----------



## HowEver

Dr. G., you'd think so, but the apparent amnesia here about Hezbollah's activities for the last 6 or 20 years is intense.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Dr.G. said:


> ...but they have not, to the best of my knowledge, merely bombed civilians.


:yawn:


----------



## Dr.G.

HowEver, when you stop to think that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is among the most battle-trained armed forces in the world, having had to defend the country in six major wars, it is amazing that Israel still exists. There has been no other country in my lifetime (I was born 6 months after Independence for Israel) that has had to defend itself this often.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Hey Dr G what's this? Not targeting civilians - right?


> An Israeli drone fired missiles into a convoy of refugees fleeing attacks in the southern town of Marjayoun, killing and wounding as many as 15 people, witnesses and security officials said.
> 
> The convoy, consisting of more than 100 civilian vehicles and those carrying a detachment of 350 Lebanese soldiers and police from the area around Marjayoun, was hit near Chtaura on the west side of the Bekaa Valley.
> 
> Two armored UN peacekeeping vehicles had led the convoy out of Marjayoun Friday afternoon, but it was not known if they were still accompanying it when the attack occurred.


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3289889,00.html


----------



## krs

I'm sure Israel will make a statement that "they will investigate this incident fully"

Whatever happened to the "full Israeli investigation" of the UN post that was targeted, killing four UN personnel including a Canadian?
Did I miss the results of that investigation?


----------



## krs

HowEver said:


> Dr. G., you'd think so, but the apparent amnesia here about Hezbollah's activities for the last 6 or 20 years is intense.


I think we need to focus on the present and the future. You can always find autrocities on both sides, just depends where and when in the past you chose to look.
I honestly haven't followed any of the Hezbollah activities in the past; read a bit about it recently on the web.
But after I read that Hezbollah was believed to be responsible for the Beirut bombing of the marine barracks and then found out later that Hezbollah was only founded two years after that event....I sort of quit reading about the past.
We can't even be 100% sure about what is happening now, never mind what happened years ago.


----------



## Voyager

krs said:


> I think we need to focus on the present and the future. You can always find autrocities on both sides, just depends where and when in the past you chose to look.
> I honestly haven't followed any of the Hezbollah activities in the past; read a bit about it recently on the web.
> But after I read that Hezbollah was believed to be responsible for the Beirut bombing of the marine barracks and then found out later that Hezbollah was only founded two years after that event....I sort of quit reading about the past.
> We can't even be 100% sure about what is happening now, never mind what happened years ago.


krs,
Hezbollah seems to have been formed in *1982* although *"not officially an organization until February 1985"*. The Marine barracks were bombed in *1983* (as was the U.S. Embassy in Beruit.)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1983_U.S._Embassy_bombing 
(third paragraph)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing see (Aftermath)


Voyager


----------



## ComputerIdiot

krs said:


> I'm sure Israel will make a statement that "they will investigate this incident fully"
> 
> Whatever happened to the "full Israeli investigation" of the UN post that was targeted, killing four UN personnel including a Canadian?
> Did I miss the results of that investigation?


Undoubtedly it is being put on hold in order to investigate this latest ... er ... "incident."

I'm figuring the time span for either investigation is going to be about equal to the time it takes the average Canadian governmental commission to put together a report.

Maybe I can get the results of the "investigations" forwarded to me at the old folks' home....


----------



## ArtistSeries

ComputerIdiot said:


> Undoubtedly it is being put on hold in order to investigate this latest ... er ... "incident."


Louise Arbour seems to want to get some questions answered:


> Thus, I reminded all belligerents that war crimes and crimes against humanity may be committed even by those who believe, accurately or not, that their combat is a just one and their cause a worthy pursuit.
> 
> Yet, almost on a daily basis, information from the field indicates an alarming pattern in the scale and choice of targets by all sides in the conflict. The deaths of hundreds of civilians in documented and corroborated incidents, involving either random or targeted attacks on civilian vehicles or buildings, strongly suggest the indiscriminate use of force.
> 
> On 30 July, the world was shocked by the Israeli attack on the residential building in Qana that killed scores of civilians, including a large number of children, who had sought shelter there. Hundreds of people have died in Lebanon, while the survivors have endured and continue to endure large-scale destruction of critical infrastructure and utter devastation. But, to date, Israeli attacks affecting civilians continue unabated.
> 
> After the destruction of the last bridge over the Litani River, I am particularly concerned by the humanitarian situation of the population remaining in the south of Lebanon. They are in dire need of food, water, and medical assistance, which humanitarian workers are no longer able to deliver.


http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/KKEE-6SKSYJ?OpenDocument

Maybe Dr. G can do some more cheerleading for the IDF....


----------



## Vandave

ArtistSeries said:


> Hey Dr G what's this? Not targeting civilians - right?


Israel also said that they would bomb any moving vehicle in Southern Lebanon based on the assumption it might be used by Hezbollah. 

I supported Israel's response at the start of this conflict, but now I feel they haven't done a very good job of differentiating between civilian and military targets. I said earlier the only way that Israel could disarm Hezbollah was to put feet on the ground. However, Israel wasn't willing to accept the troop losses that would come with that approach and instead opted for massive aerial bombing.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

Israel also assured the personnel in th UN outpost they wouldn't be bombed.
Oops, they did it again...


----------



## krs

Voyager said:


> krs,
> Hezbollah seems to have been formed in *1982* although *"not officially an organization until February 1985"*. The Marine barracks were bombed in *1983* (as was the U.S. Embassy in Beruit.)
> 
> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1983_U.S._Embassy_bombing
> (third paragraph)
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing see (Aftermath)
> 
> 
> Voyager


Where do you see that Hezbollah "seems to have been formed in *1982*" in either of the two links you posted.
I copied all the text of each article into Word and did a search for "1982" to make sure I didn't miss it. There is nothing.

I also don't understand how an organization can "seem to be formed" three years before it is formed.........that is really creating something out of nothing.

While I was trying to figure out the 1982 date, I came across the 1982 War Wiki.
Talk about history repeating itself. From the Wiki:



> On 10 July 1981, after a period of peace, violence erupted in South Lebanon. According to the U.N. Secretary-General, the Israeli air force bombarded Palestinian targets in south Lebanon, and later that day Palestinian elements fired artillery and rockets into northern Israel. However, according to the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, "Israel responded to PLO rocket attacks on northern Israeli settlements by bombing PLO encampments in southern Lebanon."[1] The United Nations Secretary-General noted, "After several weeks of relative quiet in the area, a new cycle of violence has begun and has, in the past week, steadily intensified." He further stated, "There have been heavy civilian casualties in Lebanon; there have been civilian casualties in Israel as well. I deeply deplore the extensive human suffering caused by these developments." The President of the Security Council, Ide Oumarou of Niger, expressed "deep concern at the extent of the loss of life and the scale of the destruction caused by the deplorable events that have been taking place for several days in Lebanon."[2] [3] On July 24, United States envoy Philip Habib brokered a shaky ceasefire, but incidents continued. Over the next 11 months, Israel charged that the PLO staged 270 terrorist actions in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and along the Lebanese and Jordanian borders, in which 29 Israelis were killed and more than 300 were injured.


----------



## krs

ArtistSeries said:


> Hey Dr G what's this? Not targeting civilians - right?
> 
> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3289889,00.html


ArtistSeries - you should have posted the whole article or at least included the very last paragraph:



> Daher said there was a second attack on Red Cross and civil defense vehicles rushing the aid of the stricken convoy. It was not known, he said, if any rescuers were hurt.


One would think that a few people in Israel will be charged with war crimes when the dust settles.


----------



## krs

Vandave said:


> Israel also said that they would bomb any moving vehicle in Southern Lebanon based on the assumption it might be used by Hezbollah.


However, CNN reported on the news tonight that the Israelis had given clearance for this convoy to proceed. Right now the Israelis deny that, but they were certainly aware it was happening since they controlled this particular camp.


----------



## HowEver

Perhaps paying attention to five historical minutes here and there would be helpful.





krs said:


> I think we need to focus on the present and the future. You can always find autrocities on both sides, just depends where and when in the past you chose to look.
> *I honestly haven't followed any of the Hezbollah activities in the past; read a bit about it recently on the web.
> *But after I read that Hezbollah was believed to be responsible for the Beirut bombing of the marine barracks and then found out later that Hezbollah was only founded two years after that event....I sort of quit reading about the past.
> We can't even be 100% sure about what is happening now, never mind what happened years ago.


----------



## krs

HowEver said:


> Perhaps paying attention to five historical minutes here and there would be helpful.


I see you're grasping at straws.


----------



## Voyager

krs said:


> Where do you see that Hezbollah "seems to have been formed in *1982*" in either of the two links you posted.
> I copied all the text of each article into Word and did a search for "1982" to make sure I didn't miss it. There is nothing.
> 
> I also don't understand how an organization can "seem to be formed" three years before it is formed.........that is really creating something out of nothing.
> 
> While I was trying to figure out the 1982 date, I came across the 1982 War Wiki.
> Talk about history repeating itself. From the Wiki:




This is where I saw the 1982 reference. Left it out by accident. See INTRODUCTION and History.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah (Although I disagree with the idea stated in the first paragraph that it has in any way moderated its postion on revolution or on anything else.)

See reference to Hezbollah here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Jihad (Although there is a caution at the top.)

Also see this in Aftermath of Beruit bombing reference.

*Aftermath

It is uncertain as to who is responsible for the bombing although several radical Shiite militant groups claimed responsibility for the attacks, and one, the Free Islamic Revolutionary Movement, identified the two suicide bombers as Abu Mazen and Abu Sijaan.[3] Despite the fact that they were not officially an organization until February 1985, many (notably the U.S. government) believe[citation needed] that the Hezbollah, a Lebanese based militant group backed by Iran and Syria, was responsible for this particular bombing as well as the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April. Hezbollah, Iran and Syria have denied any involvement.*

Although, I guess in the end, you will believe what you will choose to believe.

Voyager


----------



## HowEver

krs said:


> I see you're grasping at straws.


Really? You admitted that you never paid attention to Mid-East history many times in this thread, and you have demonstrated it over and over as well. This disrespects all the people involved, and you have been rude repeatedly to posters here too.

It's been said that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Of course, since history is so unimportant to you, after a period of time you won't remember that.


----------



## krs

Voyager - I just don't understand the logic in anyone saying that an organization was responsible for anything if that organization didn't even exist when the event happened.
I'm just trying to stick to the facts as best I can, although in this whole Midlle East scenario facts one day become fiction the next.
I don't really want to take this thread off on a tangent, but were the actual suicide bombers even ever identified?

The only rationale (that this was a "Hezbollah" attack) I can think of is that the people involved in the bombing were later somehow involved in the Hezbollah organization. But that is pure conjecture on my part.
But even assuming that is true, that still does not make it a "Hezbollah" attack.


----------



## krs

HowEver said:


> Really? You admitted that you never paid attention to Mid-East history many times in this thread, and you have demonstrated it over and over as well. This disrespects all the people involved, and you have been rude repeatedly to posters here too.
> 
> It's been said that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Of course, since history is so unimportant to you, after a period of time you won't remember that.


Sorry - I don't reply to personal attacks.


----------



## Voyager

krs said:


> However, CNN reported on the news tonight that the Israelis had given clearance for this convoy to proceed. Right now the Israelis deny that, but they were certainly aware it was happening since they controlled this particular camp.



_From CNN

Lebanese security sources are accusing Israel of bombing an army convoy that had been joined by about 1,000 civilian vehicles in the Bekaa Valley, killing at least four civilians and wounding 24 others Friday. (Watch CNN's Michael Ware describe "a scene of appalling carnage" -- 2:24)

Israel Defense Forces confirmed the attack, carried out "on the suspicion that these were Hezbollah terrorists transporting weaponry" and that it was *"along a route forbidden for travel."* (My bold)

Whether the convoy, escorted by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, was granted IDF permission to proceed is in dispute.

The IDF said Saturday it did not grant permission for the convoy.

But a spokesman for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, Milos Strugar, said the Israeli army cleared the convoy for travel along a specific route to Zahle.

The convoy was full of civilians from southern Lebanon who has sought shelter at a Lebanese base in Marjeyoun, Lebanese security sources said.

*UNIFIL initially escorted the convoy but was no longer with it during the attack.*_(My bold) Seems strange that they stopped escorting the convoy, isn't it?

Also the convoy supposedly started off as 100-150 vehicles but then swells to 1000 (as in some reports). It seems a lot of people found out about this convoy in a rather short period of time and had readily available transport.

A regular army identifies itself by wearing a uniform. Hezbollah likes to go casual and blend it with innocent civilians. But, hey, that's okay as they are seen by some as the "good guys" in this.

[iHowEver[/i] is correct. When we, as a society, fail to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. 

As an aside, for those who might have forgotten, there was a strong link between elements of Islamic society and Nazi Germany in the 1930s. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a close ally of Hitler. The retoric used by elements of extreme Islam today mirrors that of the Nazis. Also compare photos of Nazi rallies and extreme Islamic rallies and tell me there are no striking similarities. But of course all of this is just coincidence.

Voyager


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

about 1,000 dead Lebanese might see things differently


----------



## ArtistSeries

Voyager said:


> As an aside, for those who might have forgotten, there was a strong link between elements of Islamic society and Nazi Germany in the 1930s. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a close ally of Hitler. The retoric used by elements of extreme Islam today mirrors that of the Nazis. Also compare photos of Nazi rallies and extreme Islamic rallies and tell me there are no striking similarities. But of course all of this is just coincidence.


Wow. full blown Spec mode - where is the Beej to tap on your fingers? 

Care to also elaborate on the strong ties between Islamic society and the rest of the Western world? I'm sure Lawrence of Arabia would be laughing about now...


----------



## ArtistSeries

Now that a imminent freeze to the hostilities is in the works, I've noticed that Israel is going all out....


----------



## HowEver

krs said:


> Sorry - I don't reply to personal attacks.


It's not an "attack." I'm just re-stating what you yourself have said, about yourself, repeatedly in this thread: that you don't know the history of the region. But you sure do like to comment on it nonetheless.



krs said:


> I didn't realize this is the sixth war since the creation of Israel, roughly one every ten years.





krs said:


> I think we need to focus on the present and the future. You can always find autrocities on both sides, just depends where and when in the past you chose to look.
> I honestly haven't followed any of the Hezbollah activities in the past; read a bit about it recently on the web.
> But after I read that Hezbollah was believed to be responsible for the Beirut bombing of the marine barracks and then found out later that Hezbollah was only founded two years after that event....I sort of quit reading about the past.
> We can't even be 100% sure about what is happening now, never mind what happened years ago.





krs said:


> Beej - All I can say is "I don't have a clue!"
> 
> I think one of the realities is that we, ie the "Western World", don't understand at all how that part of the world operates.
> When I read about the 'warlords' in Afghanistan, the concept of suicide bombers...how that gets you into paradise...as somewhat said the Israeli fight to live; the Hezbollah fight to die.......
> it's a totally different way of life and I don't think the leaders of any of the countries you mention above have the slightest clue what this is really about.


You claimed that the UN observers said that Hezbollah weren't a few metres away, firing at the Israelies, when the Canadian UN observer stated the exact opposite.

You quote conspicuously bogus news stories about where military operations have occurred, and who they were by, and attribute motivations to the Israelis that even the Hezbollah and Palestinians don't teach their children.

You ignore the kinds of targets each side is aiming at.

You refuse to consider anything before July 12, 2006. And when all of this is pointed out to you, you respond that it must be a "personal attack." Meanwhile, if your recommendations were followed to their logical conclusion, that countries have no right to defend their borders, their citizens--and in this case, those citizens have Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and many other backgrounds--would be decimated. You even suggest that those borders are phony, and that the state must negotiate borders while the rockets are falling with the people sending those rockets, and blowing up their buses and restaurants.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what this suggests, and it's hardly a "personal attack." No other country has to defend itself this way, both from the rockets and the specious arguments about how it should just sit there, watch the bombs fall, cease fighting back, and, presumably, self-destruct.

Hezbollah's record _within_ Lebanon is one of assassination and decimation. They also run social programs, and they take part in government. Their social programs win people over, and this is why they can place their military headquarters deep inside Lebanon.

You even wrote that Israel is trying to draw Iran and Syria into the conflict--as if Israel forced them to supply weapons to the Hezbollah.

Perhaps what you forget, or as you might say, never knew, is that Christians and Arabs also take part in government in Israel.

The main difference between these people is that if a Palestinian walked through a Jewish part of town in Israel (as there are also many Arab communities there), they would be greeted or ignored or offered a job or waved to or whatever.

If a Jewish person walked through Gaza or south Lebanon or some Palestinian district in Egypt or wherever, they would be stoned or shot or otherwise set upon. And many have had their bloody corpses paraded through the streets.

Remember too that the Hezbollah and Palestinians aren't demanding their chunk of land from Egypt or Syria or Jordan, despite the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have lived there for centuries. Those countries don't negotiate giving them land; the subject doesn't even come up. They are quite happy to have all this anger directed at Israel instead.

Meanwhile the many different communities in Israel peacefully co-exist. And will continue to do so wherever the rockets originate.


----------



## Stonehead

A picture taken in 1943 of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, reviewing Bosnian Muslim Fundamentalist troops - a unit of the "Handzar [Scimitar] Division" of the Nazi's Waffen SS which he personally recruited for Hitler.
See Ex-Mufti, Criminal Ally: Arafat's Nazi Uncle
On Israel and Peace: The Ugly Truth I've always found this "settlement" issue a sick joke. Like everything else we have one rule for Israel and no rules for Islamic terror states, Islamic fascists, and their followers. In 1948 650,000 Arabs fled what is called Israel today under orders of their leaders to make killing Jews easier. They also warned those Arabs that sought protection from or sided with the Jews a similar promise of death. Some Arabs, such as the Druze, sided with the Jews and are Israeli citizens today and fight in the army.
Since 1948 850,000+ Jews were stripped of their property and expelled from surrounding Islamic fascist states. Nobody is advocating they be allowed to "return" to their homes or be paid for their stolen property. It's also funny (sick) that nobody complains about the 650,000 "Palestinians" that were expelled from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War (for treason) back to their "Palestinian" state of Jordan.
It's also ironic that Arafat was born in Egypt (and raised there) and was a paid Egyptian terrorist. One of his relatives was the wartime Palestinian leader and Hitler's ally Haj Amin al-Husseini, who in 1944 urged the Arabs over Radio Berlin: "Kill Jews wherever you find them for the love of God, history, and religion." This Islamic Nazi was wanted for war crimes in Yugoslavia as the "spiritual" head of the Nazi Bosnian Muslims. The Bosnian Muslim Nazis along with Croat Nazis murdered almost one million Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies. What else is new for the Arafat family? The PLO was founded in 1964 by the Egyptian/other governments to conduct guerrilla warfare against Israel.
This is the very same thing with Hizbollah in Lebanon. They are the paid terrorists of Syria and Iran. Nobody cares about the 100,000 Christians/others killed in Lebanon by Islamic thugs and the Arafat/Egyptian PLO. Arafat ended up in Lebanon after he was kicked out of Jordan in the 1970s for trying to overthrow that government. The illegal occupation of Lebanon by Syria continues to be ignored despite being another Arab violation of the UN. See Syrian Occupation of Lebanon Ignored at UN Update: the Syrian annexation of Lebanon has ended in May 2005.
In general, the left does not care about women, independent judiciaries, minorities, democracy, gays or almost anything else for which it marches. They hate God, they hate capitalism, and just hate Western Civilization in general. They will support anything no matter how evil to attack the West while living the good life and enjoying the freedom it has to offer. Anti-Semitism runs rampant on our college campuses while slavery, rape, and religious genocide committed by Islamic fascists like Sudan ON BLACK PEOPLE is ignored while Jews are called racists. The UN is a pile of dog dung and mouthpiece for the multiculturalists and moral nihilists. The US should withdraw all support from the UN.

Then of course ther is this:


The Führer's Mufti: After World War I, the Great Powers of Europe jockeyed for influence in the Middle East's oil fields and trade routes, with France and Britain holding mandates throughout most of the region. In the 1930s, the fascist regimes that arose in Italy and Germany sought greater stakes in the area, and began courting Arab leaders to revolt against their British and French custodians. Among their many willing accomplices was Jerusalem Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini, who fled Palestine after agitating against the British during the Arab Revolt of 1936-39. He found refuge in Iraq – another of Her Majesty's mandates – where he again topped the British most wanted list after helping pull the strings behind the Iraqi coup of 1941. The revolt in Baghdad was orchestrated by Hitler as part of a strategy to squeeze the region between the pincers of Rommel's troops in North Africa, German forces in the Caucuses and pro-Nazi forces in Iraq. However, in June 1941 British troops put down the rebellion and the Mufti escaped via Tehran to Italy and eventually to Berlin.

Once in Berlin, the Mufti received an enthusiastic reception by the "Islamische Zentralinstitut" and the whole Islamic community of Germany, which welcomed him as the "Führer of the Arabic world." In an introductory speech, he called the Jews the "most fierce enemies of the Muslims" and an "ever corruptive element" in the world. Husseini soon became an honored guest of the Nazi leadership and met on several occasions with Hitler. He personally lobbied the Führer against the plan to let Jews leave Hungary, fearing they would immigrate to Palestine. He also strongly intervened when Adolf Eichman tried to cut a deal with the British government to exchange German POWs for 5000 Jewish children who also could have fled to Palestine. The Mufti's protests with the SS were successful, as the children were sent to death camps in Poland instead. One German officer noted in his journals that the Mufti would liked to have seen the Jews "preferably all killed." On a visit to Auschwitz, he reportedly admonished the guards running the gas chambers to work more diligently. Throughout the war, he appeared regularly on German radio broadcasts to the Middle East, preaching his pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic message to the Arab masses back home.

To show gratitude towards his hosts, in 1943 the Mufti travelled several times to Bosnia, where on orders of the SS he recruited the notorious "Hanjar troopers," a special Bosnian Waffen SS company which slaugh-tered 90% of Bosnia's Jews and burned countless Serbian churches and villages. These Bosnian Muslim recruits rapidly found favor with SS chief Heinrich Himmler, who established a special Mullah Military school in Dresden.

The only condition the Mufti set for his help was that after Hitler won the war, the entire Jewish population in Palestine should be liquidated. After the war, Husseini fled to Switzerland and from there escaped via France to Cairo, were he was warmly received. The Mufti used funds received earlier from the Hilter regime to finance the Nazi-inspired Arab Liberation Army that terrorized Jews in Palestine.

The Arab Embrace of Nazism: Husseini represents the prevalent pro-Nazi posture among the Arab/Muslim world before, during and even after the Holocaust. The Nazi-Arab connection existed even when Adolf Hitler first seized power in Germany in 1933. News of the Nazi takeover was welcomed by the Arab masses with great enthusiasm, as the first congratulatory telegrams Hitler received upon being appointed Chancellor came from the German Consul in Jerusalem, followed by those from several Arab capitals. Soon afterwards, parties that imitated the National Socialists were founded in many Arab lands, like the "Hisb-el-qaumi-el-suri" (PPS) or Social Nationalist Party in Syria. Its leader, Anton Sa'ada, styled himself the Führer of the Syrian nation, and Hitler became known as "Abu Ali" (In Egypt his name was "Muhammed Haidar"). The banner of the PPS displayed the swastika on a black-white background. Later, a Lebanese branch of the PPS – which still receives its orders from Damascus – was involved in the assassination of Lebanese President Pierre Gemayel.

The most influential party that emulated the Nazis was "Young Egypt," which was founded in October 1933. They had storm troopers, torch processions, and literal translations of Nazi slogans – like "One folk, One party, One leader." Nazi anti-Semitism was replicated, with calls to boycott Jewish businesses and physical attacks on Jews. Britain had a bitter experience with this pro-German mood in Egypt, when the official Egyptian government failed to declare war on the Wehrmacht as German troops were about to conquer Alexandria.

After the war, a member of Young Egypt named Gamal Abdul Nasser was among the officers who led the July 1952 revolution in Egypt. Their first act – following in Hitler's footsteps – was to outlaw all other parties. Nasser's Egypt became a safe haven for Nazi war criminals, among them the SS General in charge of the murder of Ukrainian Jewry; he became Nasser's bodyguard and close comrade. Alois Brunner, another senior Nazi war criminal, found shelter in Damascus, where he served for many years as senior adviser to the Syrian general staff and still resides today.

Sami al-Joundi, one of the founders of the ruling Syrian Ba'ath Party, recalls: "We were racists. We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in reading Nazi literature and books... We were the first who thought of a translation of Mein Kampf. Anyone who lived in Damascus at that time was witness to the Arab inclination toward Nazism."Arab Mufti Greets Nazis, 1944

These leanings never completely ceased. Hitler's Mein Kampf currently ranks sixth on the best-seller list among Palestinian Arabs. Luis Al-Haj, translator of the Arabic edition, writes glowingly in the preface about how Hitler's "ideology" and his "theories of nationalism, dictatorship and race… are advancing especially within our Arabic States." When Palestinian police first greeted Arafat in the self-rule areas, they offered the infamous Nazi salute - the right arm raised straight and upward.

The PLO and notably Arafat himself do not make a secret of their source of inspiration. The Grand Mufti el-Husseini is venerated as a hero by the PLO. It should be noted, that the PLO's top figure in east Jerusalem today, Faisal Husseini, is the grandson to the Führer's Mufti. Arafat also considers the Grand Mufti a respected educator and leader, and in 1985 declared it an honor to follow in his footsteps. Little wonder. In 1951, a close relative of the Mufti named Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa el-Husseini matriculated to the University of Cairo. The student decided to conceal his true identity and enlisted as "Yasser Arafat."

Writers: Paul Longgrear, Raymond McNemar 

flags 
Christian Action for Israel
For questions or comments on this site's content, contact Alan C. Lazerte
Site Construction & Maintenance: Martin Business Services
Copyright © 1996-2000 CFICEJ. All Rights Reserved.


----------



## Voyager

ArtistSeries said:


> Wow. full blown Spec mode - where is the Beej to tap on your fingers?
> 
> Care to also elaborate on the strong ties between Islamic society and the rest of the Western world? I'm sure Lawrence of Arabia would be laughing about now...


Care to give me some examples of those strong ties - other than our money going to them for oil?

Voyager


----------



## krs

Hezbollah leader agrees to cease-fire, with reservations



> Saturday, August 12, 2006 Posted: 1746 GMT (0146 HKT)
> 
> 
> BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said on Saturday that his militia will agree to a U.N. call for a cease-fire with Israel once a deal on timing is reached.
> 
> "When the Israeli aggression stops, then the reaction by the resistance will stop," he said in a televised address.
> 
> But he said the Security Council resolution passed Friday is biased toward Israel, neglecting to blame it for what he described as "massacres" and "war crimes" during the month-long conflict.
> 
> The governments of Israel and Lebanon have yet to react formally to the U.N. resolution, which calls for a cease-fire and then a massive increase in U.N. troops in southern Lebanon. (Full story)
> 
> http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/12/mideast.main/index.html



Well, that's finally some good news from the region.


----------



## ArtistSeries

krs said:


> Well, that's finally some good news from the region.


This is at best a stop gap measure - I expect flare ups...



> A senior administration official in Crawford, Tex., where Mr. Bush is on vacation, said that it increasingly seemed that *Israel would not be able to achieve a military victory*, a realization that led the Americans to get behind a cease-fire.
> 
> The Lebanese are also likely to be unhappy with the resolution’s *failure to order Israel to relinquish control of Shebaa Farms*, an area of the border that it seized in 1967 and that, while declared to be part of Syria by the United Nations, is claimed by Lebanon.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/12/w...ec06a836c5c&hp&ex=1155441600&partner=homepage


----------



## krs

The NY Times states: 
The resolution does not order the return of abducted Israeli soldiers, an original reason Israel cited for going to war, nor does it meet Hezbollah requests for release of prisoners held by Israel.

I read the UN resolution yesterday and I thought it explicidly requires that the two Israeli soldiers be returned.
Anyone know off hand where the link on CNN to the UN resolution went?


----------



## krs

ArtistSeries said:


> This is at best a stop gap measure - I expect flare ups...


I take a stop gap measure now instead of more death and destruction.
Maybe Israel and Hezbollah are finally hurting enough to consider a political settlement.


----------



## Voyager

krs said:


> Hezbollah leader agrees to cease-fire, with reservations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's finally some good news from the region.



Really? 
It's more of a Catch-22 situation. Israel has to stop fighting and leave Lebanon before Hezbollah stops fighting, as Nasrallah himself has stated. Israel won't leave until the peacekeeking troops are there to replace them. Will the enhanced peacekeeping troops be moved in under fire? What about Shaba Farms? Nasrallah still considers it part of Lebanon. (And yes, I know about the 30 days deal with the UN.)
The cease-fire is supposed to go into effect Monday 7:00 A.M. local time Only time will tell if it is real. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. 

Voyager

P.S, A version of the resolution can be found on this Lebanese blog site. See Aug. 11 http://www.beirutbeltway.com/

Also here http://newsinfo.inq7.net/breakingnews/world/view_article.php?article_id=14873

see: _"PP3. Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers;_


----------



## krs

krs said:


> The NY Times states:
> The resolution does not order the return of abducted Israeli soldiers, an original reason Israel cited for going to war, nor does it meet Hezbollah requests for release of prisoners held by Israel.
> 
> I read the UN resolution yesterday and I thought it explicidly requires that the two Israeli soldiers be returned.
> Anyone know off hand where the link on CNN to the UN resolution went?


Ahh...I found the text of the resolution here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060812&articleId=2947

And man...the guy from Global research commenting on it is not too happy!

BTW - the UN resolution does call for the unconditional release of the Israeli soldiers - or do I read this wrong?


----------



## Voyager

krs said:


> Ahh...I found the text of the resolution here:
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060812&articleId=2947
> 
> And man...the guy from Global research commenting on it is not too happy!
> 
> BTW - the UN resolution does call for the unconditional release of the Israeli soldiers - or do I read this wrong?


Nope ! _"PP3. Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers;_

Voyager


----------



## krs

Voyager said:


> Really?
> It's more of a Catch-22 situation. Israel has to stop fighting and leave Lebanon before Hezbollah stops fighting, as Nasrallah himself has stated.


Voyager - Where do you read that?

The UN resolution states:



> *1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;*


I read this as Hezbollah has to stop fighting and Israel can continue as long as it is defined as "defensive" not "offensive".
Pretty much the exact opposite of what you stated.


----------



## krs

Voyager said:


> Nope ! _"PP3. Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers;_
> 
> Voyager


I assume you take this to mean to "negotiate the release of the abducted Israeli soldiers"

You could well be correct.


----------



## krs

krs said:


> I assume you take this to mean to "negotiate the release of the abducted Israeli soldiers"
> 
> You could well be correct.


Ooops, maybe not.
Here is one of Israel's interpretation of the UN resolution:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the...urity+Council+Resolution+1701+12-Aug-2006.htm



> The preamble of the resolution:
> 
> clearly puts the blame for the current crisis on Hizbullah
> *calls for the unconditional release of the Israeli hostages*, and
> calls for the implementation of UNSC Resolution 1559


----------



## Beej

Stonehead said:


> Since 1948 850,000+ Jews were stripped of their property and expelled from surrounding Islamic fascist states. Nobody is advocating they be allowed to "return" to their homes or be paid for their stolen property. It's also funny (sick) that nobody complains about the 650,000 "Palestinians" that were expelled from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War (for treason) back to their "Palestinian" state of Jordan.



Thank you for the post. I have only highlighted one item that demonstrates the logical inconsistencies/double standards. The whole post was interesting, but I can't speak to the detailed history, so I'll leave it as is. Thanks again.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Yeah Beej, you have to love a post that uses Bu****es catch phrase of Islamic fascist...
Imagine the outrage if I started to qualify Israel with a few complimentary words like that...


----------



## ArtistSeries

Beej the source of the quote looks like it comes from Lewis Loflin
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/index.htm
I'm sure you'll enjoy other ramblings...


----------



## MacDoc

My view of the entire fertile crescent is that this is an ongoing Malthusian event playing out.
The conflicts are merely symptoms of those growing and EVER PRESENT pressures.


----------



## ArtistSeries

You can have a more nuanced view here Beej
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands


----------



## Voyager

krs said:


> Voyager - Where do you read that?
> 
> The UN resolution states:
> 
> 
> 
> I read this as Hezbollah has to stop fighting and Israel can continue as long as it is defined as "defensive" not "offensive".
> Pretty much the exact opposite of what you stated.


The link is an israeli site but an *AP* story http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749638.html

First paragraph: _ Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said on Saturday that the militant organization would abide by the UN cease-fire resolution *but continue fighting as long as Israeli troops remained in south Lebanon.*_

Doesn't a cease-fire mean you stop fighting? Unless *Associated Pres*s is misquoting him.


----------



## Voyager

krs said:


> I assume you take this to mean to "negotiate the release of the abducted Israeli soldiers"
> 
> You could well be correct.


As I have said, the devil is in the details. I guess in the end we will see what it really means.

Edit: What is on paper and exists in reality can be two very different things. We're still waiting for Resolution 1559 to be implimented even though it has yet again been stated in Security Council Resolution 1701. Words are sometimes cheap. It's the actions that cost.


----------



## We'reGonnaWin

MacDoc said:


> My view of the entire fertile crescent is that this is an ongoing Malthusian event playing out.
> The conflicts are merely symptoms of those growing and EVER PRESENT pressures.


Hi Jared Diamond


----------



## Beej

Thanks for the links AS. So, in your opinion: 
is the writeup broadly manipulative; 
error-filled;
have some errors; and/or (clause on each statement)
roughly gets it right?

Either way the wiki link provided doesn't explain why the arguments used against Israel rarely, if ever, take in to consideration some important factors that inherently weaken the arguments. 

So here we are, staring at a conflict that can't be ignored like many other regional conflicts, even if we wanted to ignore it (why would we?). Of course, Kashmir isn't exactly a 'contained' mess, under some forseeable scenarios, by any stretch of the imagination either.


----------



## krs

Voyager said:


> The link is an israeli site but an *AP* story http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749638.html
> 
> First paragraph: _ Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said on Saturday that the militant organization would abide by the UN cease-fire resolution *but continue fighting as long as Israeli troops remained in south Lebanon.*_
> 
> Doesn't a cease-fire mean you stop fighting? Unless *Associated Pres*s is misquoting him.


This is the quote from cnn.com related to that.



> Nasrallah said Hezbollah will help refugees return home and will support the Lebanese Army and the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon.
> 
> But he said "we are still in a war," and Hezbollah "will continue to defend" itself.
> 
> "As long as our land is occupied, we will continue the resistance," he said.
> 
> Media reports say Israel plans to stop fighting in Lebanon at 7 a.m. Monday (midnight ET). But Reuters news agency quoted a senior Israeli official as saying that troops will continue battling Hezbollah in areas where the IDF is operating.


So Hezbollah 'continues to defend' and 'continues the resistance as long as their land is occupied'..........does that include the sheeba farm area?

And Israel 'continues battling Hezbollah in areas where the IDF is operating'
Battling where the IDF is operating? So just keep doing what we were doing but not expand to other surrounding countries.

You're right, that sure doesn't sound like a cease-fire.

We shall see, right Dr. G?


----------



## Beej

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060812.wCeasefife0812/BNStory/Front

Some Israeli perspective on the ceasefire's weakness. 

I hope it somehow does go through, but can see how there are real problems with it, no matter how nice the word "ceasefire" sounds. 

Hezbollah must be disarmed otherwise there will be more war. I don't know if this will work. Maybe I'm more optimistic about foreign matters because I know less about them, whereas regarding domestic fiscal and environmental policy, I'm a little pessimistic from seeing too much.


----------



## krs

Beej said:


> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060812.wCeasefife0812/BNStory/Front
> 
> Some Israeli perspective on the ceasefire's weakness.
> 
> I hope it somehow does go through, but can see how there are real problems with it, no matter how nice the word "ceasefire" sounds.
> 
> Hezbollah must be disarmed otherwise there will be more war. I don't know if this will work. Maybe I'm more optimistic about foreign matters because I know less about them, whereas regarding domestic fiscal and environmental policy, I'm a little pessimistic from seeing too much.


I love the caption:



> JERUSALEM — For Israel, the U.N. ceasefire deal is far from perfect.


Had it been perfect for Israel, it would have been so one-sided that Lebanon would never have agreed or compromised.
Now both Israel and Lebanon are both a bit unhappy, but they have indicated they can live with the resolution. The 1701 resolution is probably the best that could have been hoped for under the circumstances.
The question really is "What is Hezbollah going to do?"


----------



## Beej

krs said:


> The question really is "What is Hezbollah going to do?"


Paraphrase Brain:
The same thing they do every night, krs. Plot the destruction of Israel!

Sorry, I think a little humour was needed. This big ol' thread could use a few moments of diversion and laughter. Otherwise we will weep.


----------



## krs

Beej said:


> Paraphrase Brain:
> The same thing they do every night, krs. Plot the destruction of Israel!
> 
> Sorry, I think a little humour was needed. This big ol' thread could use a few moments of diversion and laughter. Otherwise we will weep.



:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
I agree


----------



## krs

On cnn.com



> Israeli U.N. Ambassador Dan Gillerman said it would not be enough for Hezbollah to simply lay down its weapons. The Security Council "expects southern Lebanon to be totally free and clean of any Hezbollah presence," he said.


http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/12/mideast.main/index.html

Has anyone else read the UN resolution? I don't recall this being mentioned or even implied.


----------



## ArtistSeries

Beej said:


> Hezbollah must be disarmed otherwise there will be more war. I don't know if this will work.


And Israel has to address/retify the root problems.... Good luck on that.


----------



## krs

What happened to this post from yatko?

Seymour Hersh: U.S. involved in Israeli plans to invade Lebanon 
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Seymour_Hersh__U.S._involved_in_0813.html

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
***************


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

> The Pentagon consultant noted that there had also been cross-border incidents involving Israel and Hezbollah, in both directions, for some time. “They’ve been sniping at each other,” he said. “Either side could have pointed to some incident and said ‘We have to go to war with these guys’—because they were already at war.”


from the new yorker article


----------



## HowEver

Unfortunately those in the actual Pentagon tend not to comment for stories like this, leaving the author to quote someone who may once have had a friend whose cousin knew someone who worked at the Pentagon, or a related facility.




MACSPECTRUM said:


> from the new yorker article


----------



## krs

On cnn.com this morning:



> Just hours into the cease-fire, the Israeli military reported that its soldiers had identified and fired upon Hezbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon. One of the guerrillas was reported to have been hit. No other details were immediately available.


If true, then Israel has violated the cease-fire and the UN resolution already.

Or does an incident like that not count?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

maybe it's like golf and they're taking a mulligan


----------



## ArtistSeries

Of course it does not count - Israel was the one doing the violation...
Now if Hezbollah had.....well... Beej would be writing how they can't be trusted and....


----------



## HowEver

Disingenuous clipping as usual. While you finally quote from a source that on occasion checks its sources, you snip the bits that make the quotation meaningful. Perhaps next time you'll put a little more effort into the sleight-of-hand.

Here is your quotation:



krs said:


> On cnn.com this morning:
> If true, then Israel has violated the cease-fire and the UN resolution already.
> Or does an incident like that not count?





CNN quoted by krs said:


> Just hours into the cease-fire, the Israeli military reported that its soldiers had identified and fired upon Hezbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon. One of the guerrillas was reported to have been hit. No other details were immediately available.


*Here is the original context*

From just above what you clipped:



CNN said:


> "IDF forces are still operating on a defensive basis as Hezbollah terrorists are still in the area," an IDF statement said.


And then the full statement from below:



CNN uncensored said:


> *Israel reports two shootings since cease-fire*
> 
> Just hours into the cease-fire, the Israeli military reported two shooting incidents between Israeli forces and Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon.
> 
> *Israeli forces shot an armed man who approached Israeli troops in the village of Farun, the IDF said.
> 
> Earlier, Israeli forces identified an approaching group of gunmen and opened fire, possibly hitting one, the IDF said.*
> 
> In the meantime, Israel promised to keep a tight rein on the region with military officials saying the army will continue enforcing the air and sea embargo on Lebanon.
> 
> Israel said some of its forces were withdrawing from southern Lebanon but gave no details.
> 
> "The IDF will respect the cease-fire, but will continue to defend its forces and the citizens of Israel," an Israel Defense Forces statement said.


----------



## HowEver

This looks so good in light of the post above.





ArtistSeries said:


> Of course it does not count - Israel was the one doing the violation...
> Now if Hezbollah had.....well... Beej would be writing how they can't be trusted and....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

um, do we trust EVERYTHING the IDF says?
isn't the truth the first casualty of war?

I don't believe EVERYTHING the Lebanese gov't says either.

Let's fact it; military lie, full stop, period.
it's an axiom

did you really expect the IDF to annouce; "Yes, we violated the cease fire"
like I hardly expect Hezbollah to announce the same


----------



## HowEver

You know, it's not like they had to say anything at all.

Does that not occur to you?


----------



## krs

HowEver said:


> Disingenuous clipping as usual. While you finally quote from a source that on occasion checks its sources, you snip the bits that make the quotation meaningful. Perhaps next time you'll put a little more effort into the sleight-of-hand.


However - *Don't you ever accuse me of selective snipping or quoting again!*

When I read cnn.com early this morning, the quote I posted was all there was. It says right in the quote I published *"No other details were immediately available"*

Didn't you read that!

Now CNN has expanded on that by publishing an IDF statement.
But who knows how true that is.
And even if you take it at face value - there was no mention that the IDF was being attacked or shot at.
The way it stands right now it's still a violation of the cease-fire and it doesn't make the earlier quote from CNN invalid.
That would only be the case if these armed men opened fire at which point IDF could claim their action was defensive.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

i did hear an IDF spokesman use the phrase; "we only had seconds to react and make a decision" which is usually code

saw a u.s. newscast that is now reporting 6 alleged hezbollah killed by IDF today


----------



## HowEver

Actually, no.

When armed people come toward you in this situation, it is assumed that they are not friendly.

Tell that to all of the Canadians who have been killed in Afghanistan.

In most of the circumstances, it is because they either allowed or could not otherwise prevent the approach of the persons with guns, bombs or in one case, a hatchet.

The Israelis were quite clear in stating that they were acting in self-defense. You choose to ignore that based on what?

Also, the Israeli forces didn't confirm that they had hit anything.


----------



## HowEver

Code for what? Armed gunmen approaching and self-defense.



MACSPECTRUM said:


> i did hear an IDF spokesman use the phrase; "we only had seconds to react and make a decision" which is usually code
> 
> saw a u.s. newscast that is now reporting 6 alleged hezbollah killed by IDF today


----------



## MACSPECTRUM

as for sources i trust; democracy now
have a gander at the amy goodman interview with seymour hersh
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1358255

i know democracy now isn't the IDF, but you might want to watch/listen
i don't believe that goodman and hersh are anti-semitic, but i could be wrong
perhaps you have sources that could shed light on that?

what does abe foxman of the ADL say about them?


----------



## Greenlion

Seymour Hersh and the New Yorker would no longer be printing these articles if the best source they had was "friend whose cousin knew someone who worked at the Pentagon, or a related facility."

Hersh was scoffed at when he first broke the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, as he said to Blitzer on CNN "Iran is far from a done deal" but make no mistake on the reality of a very strong desire on the part of Cheney et. al. to make Iran the next military target. Hersh likens it to the Iraq situation, in that Iran has become an "idée fixé" for the neo con nucleus that runs that government.


----------



## Beej

Greenlion said:


> "Iran is far from a done deal" but make no mistake on the reality of a very strong desire on the part of Cheney et. al. to make Iran the next military target. Hersh likens it to the Iraq situation, in that Iran has become an "idée fixé" for the neo con nucleus that runs that government.


They probably don't want another North Korea on their hands. Of course, given their track record, they'll probably just make things worse.


----------



## Kosh

An Israeli-Hezbollah ceasefire!?! Yeah, right. What a farce. Let's put 15,000 peacekeepers in the middle of a war is more like it. How stupid can the U.N. be. They should have pushed for the return of prisoners on both sides, the disarmament of Hezbollah, and the imprisonment or exile of the top Hezbollah leaders. This isn't going to be a ceasefire, but a pause while both sides get more ammunition to continue fighting. Hezbollah are terrorists, as long as they exist there will be war between them and Israel.


----------



## RevMatt

Kosh said:


> Hezbollah are terrorists, as long as they exist there will be war between them and Israel.


And as long as the only answer is violence, there will always be a Hezbollah. Maybe, maybe, by a different name, but it will always be there. But I agree that this agreement, if there is no more to follow, will fail.


----------



## Voyager

I wonder which Nasrallah will consider the more tempting target, the Israelis in southern Lebanon or Lebanon. Or maybe he thinks he can do both.

http://www.beirutbeltway.com/

Voyager

Edit: You may find something here as well. http://web.naharnet.com/default.asp


----------



## krs

Does anyone know if there is any website where one can read an accurate verified translation of Nasrallah's speeches?
I hate these articles where the writer interprets what is being said without any actual quotes.
Even the 1701 UN resolution is being interpreted in different ways when you read the various papers and websites or listen to the news channels. There at least there you can read the actual resolution.


----------



## HowEver

Even when the President of Iran was on 60 Minutes on Sunday, avoiding Mike Wallace's questions about his repeated calls for the destruction of Israel and death to every Jewish person everywhere, he brought his own translator.

But there was no reason to believe that the translator got anything wrong. The President's command of English turned out to be pretty good.


----------



## Voyager

krs said:


> Does anyone know if there is any website where one can read an accurate verified translation of Nasrallah's speeches?
> I hate these articles where the writer interprets what is being said without any actual quotes.
> Even the 1701 UN resolution is being interpreted in different ways when you read the various papers and websites or listen to the news channels. There at least there you can read the actual resolution.



Only place I can think of right away is here. http://www.memritv.org./ They provide translations of various Arabic speeches and programs. You may find what you want there.


Voyager

Edit You may find something here a well http://web.naharnet.com/default.asp


----------



## Vandave

HowEver said:


> Even when the President of Iran was on 60 Minutes on Sunday, avoiding Mike Wallace's questions about his repeated calls for the destruction of Israel and death to every Jewish person everywhere, he brought his own translator.
> 
> But there was no reason to believe that the translator got anything wrong. The President's command of English turned out to be pretty good.


Strange how he was passed some notes a few times. Wallace mentioned it once, but you could tell he was reading stuff at other points in the interview. I wonder what they really said. Doubtful it was about his jacket.


----------



## krs

Voyager said:


> Only place I can think of right away is here. http://www.memritv.org./ They provide translations of various Arabic speeches and programs. You may find what you want there.
> 
> 
> Voyager
> 
> Edit You may find something here a well http://web.naharnet.com/default.asp


Thanks Voyager - The first link is just what I was looking for.


----------



## krs

Has interest in this topic fizzled out?

The commando raid of the Israelis 15 km inside Lebanon peaked my interest again and today Israel decides it won't let the Lebanese army take control of the last 2 km at the border unless accompanied by UN forces.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/20/mideast.main/index.html

Seems to me both are violations of UN resolution 1701 - at least I couldn't find anything in the resolution allowing those two actions.

And whatever happened to Israel's full investigation of the UN post bombing where four UNIFIL personnel died and the other bombing attacks that Israel was going to fully investigate? Any report on those?


----------



## ArtistSeries

krs said:


> Has interest in this topic fizzled out?


http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=43734
No - just moved a little....


----------

