Who's the terrorist?

[Nirvana-Eld]

Ok I have been thouroughly disgusted by the American Media and their coverage of this latest war in the Middle East. So, naturally, I turn to you for your opinions.

Given the circumstances under which Israel has invaded the Gaza Strip and Lebanon and the manner in which they are conducting the invasion and the tactics used, I would say that Israel is in fact terroristic towards the civilians in the respective areas.

I won't dive into too much detail yet, I would rather see your opinions first and hopefully start a good discussion if not a heated debate.

[juliod]

Can the US members here tell me whether general opinion really is that partisan?

Yes, I think it is. About 50% of the US (those who support the current administration) consists of people who can't find Israel, or Lebanon, on the map (or even the UK), have no concept of what the issues are, distrust all opinions that take more than 3 seconds to explain, and merely want to be told who the goodies and who the baddies are. Once told, they will defend those opinions to the death (the death of others, naturally).

There is no concept of solving problems, merely finding the "bad people" and hating them. The "bad people" are responsible for all problems, and all solutions are simple, the "bad people" just have to stop.

Of course, no problem, domestic or international, has ever been solved this way.

DanZ

[Vladd44]

In the current scenario being played out in Lebanon, I would have to label the following people to be either actively or aiding terrorism.

Israeli Govt.
Hezbollah.
Lebanese Govt.
Israeli civilians.
US Govt.

Until the wailing wall and the dome of the rock are nothing more than tourist attractions with the properly cordoned off sections with velvet covered ropes, a few fast food restaurants and a souvineer stand we will continue to deal with this problem.

As much as I would like to see the Jewish state moved to another location (Brooklyn ?? ) it isn't going to happen. These people (both sides) are not only hung up on being the one left, but being the only one left on that particular spot of subpar land.

[MagusYanam]

I have never heard such partisan comments as the ones that Condoleezza Rice has been making during the last week.

Can the US members here tell me whether general opinion really is that partisan?

I sure hope not. My coworkers are generally pro-Israel, but they also disapprove Israel's actions toward the people of south Lebanon. Also, the way I look at it is that Hizbullah is the symptom, not the disease. If Israel stopped terrorising the refugees within its borders and acting like the big bully on the block toward the rest of the Middle East, Hizbullah would lose support because Israel would have the moral high ground.

As it is, Israel has been offered countless opportunities to show their generosity and their neighbourliness to the Arab nations (not to mention the Palestinians), toward which they seem to have taken Captain Sparrow's attitude: 'I love those moments! I love to wave at them as they pass by!'

So members of Congress express their 'shock' when the newly-elected Iraqi government is able to agree on one thing only: that Israel was in the wrong in attacking Lebanon. Don't get me wrong; Israel has a right to exist and a right to defend itself from foreign invasion. But the last invasion of Israel took place in, what, 1973? Isn't it time the Likud party just chilled out? Two kidnappings, criminal though they are, do not a weighty casus belli make.

At the same time, Hizbullah needs to go. Seriously. What their purposes are now, aside from armed conflict with Israel, are to market the casualties for which they are a primary cause and to draw attention away from Iran. And I think Rice has a point that they should withdraw from southern Lebanon; their presence there is only adding fuel to the fire. That said, I think Rice should have been doing a hell of a lot more than just pooh-poohing an immediate ceasefire. All she managed to accomplish, in truth, was to make herself and her administration look pathetic and impotent.

Oh well. Enough of my rant; I'd intended it to be my two cents on the matter, but it ended up being more like two bits.

[Sleepy]

Any war leads both sides to do things they would not otherwise do. War is a crime, and few crimes are justifiable.

Hezbollah, Lebanon, Israel, all of them are now locked in a struggle and they all view the other side as the terrorist and aggressor.

I still think in deep sorrow at the devestation wrought on German cities by the firebombing that went on in the second world war. We first bombed cities with regular high explosive then in a second wave firebombed the cities for maximum devestation. The buildings were broken up into small pieces by the first wave then set ablaze with phosphorus bombs. It was clinical in its effect. People suffocated in basements and shelters because of the oxygen consumption or burned alive. We timed bombings in line with city festivals for maximum moral effect.

May God forgive us

[youngborean]

As it is, Israel has been offered countless opportunities to show their generosity and their neighbourliness to the Arab nations (not to mention the Palestinians), toward which they seem to have taken Captain Sparrow's attitude: 'I love those moments! I love to wave at them as they pass by!'

I totally disagree with that. If anything the opposite is true. The last 10 years was preceded by the strongest movement toward peace by Israel at Camp David. This offer to the Palestinians was more than generous and was rejected outright without a counter offer. Israel has since made peace including postive trade and security relationships with Egypt and Jordan. The only obstacles that remain are the outwardly fanatical regimes in Syria and Iran, which give support to the millitant elements of Palestine. To say that Israel has passed up opportunities to be generous to their neighbors ignores all of the progress they have made with Jordan and Egypt. To say they should be generous to regimes which are supported by Iran who proposes conferences to deny the holocaust and has called to wipe Israel into the sea would be completely unrealistic. The reality is that they have moved away from peace towards force when the counterpart is unwilling to really negotiate. This isn't necessarily better than the scenario you suggest but it is more consistent with the reality of their relationships with their surrounding Arab nations.

[MagusYanam]

Youngborean,

There's an editorial you might be interested in reading, by Nick Kristof. Now, Nick is a columnist in the New York Times, which is perhaps one of the most pro-Israel papers you'll find out there, and his opinion is offered as one of constructive criticism.

Spanish Lessons for Israel
23 July 2006

In 1982, many friends of Israel vigorously supported its invasion of Lebanon, arguing that it was only assuring its own security.

In retrospect, though, that assault undermined the long-term security of Israel. The invasion spawned Hezbollah, whose perceived success in driving Israel out of Lebanon encouraged Hamas and other Palestinian groups to adopt more violent tactics.

Today again, Israel believes that it is improving its long-term security by attacking Lebanon. And once again, I believe, that will prove counterproductive.

Israel is likely to kill enough Lebanese to outrage the world, increase anti-Israeli and anti-American attitudes, nurture a new generation of anti-Israeli guerrillas, and help hard-liners throughout the region and beyond. (Sudan's cynical rulers, for example, will manipulate Arab outrage to gain cover to continue their genocide in Darfur.) But Israel is unlikely to kill more terrorists than it creates.

More broadly, one reason this bombardment -- like the invasion in 1982 -- is against Israel's own long-term interest has to do with the way terrorism is likely to change over the next couple of decades.

In the past, terror attacks spilled blood and spread fear, but they did not challenge the survival of Israel itself. At some point, though, militant groups will recruit teams of scientists and give them a couple of years and a $300,000 research budget, and the result will be attacks with nerve gas, anthrax, or ''dirty bombs'' that render areas uninhabitable for years.

All this suggests that the only way for Israel to achieve security is to reach a final peace agreement, involving the establishment of a Palestinian state (because states can be deterred more easily than independent groups like Hamas). Such an agreement is not feasible now, but it might be five or 15 years from now. Israel's self-interest lies in doing everything it can to make such a deal more likely -- not in using force in ways that strengthen militants and make an agreement less likely.

It's certainly true that if America were raided by a terror group next door, we would respond just as Israel has. When Pancho Villa attacked a New Mexico town in 1916, we sent troops into Mexico. But that expedition was a failure (just as our invasion of Iraq has been, at least so far).

On the other hand, there are two democracies that endured constant and brutal terrorism and eventually defeated it. Neither Spain nor Britain was in a situation quite like Israel's (Palestinian terrorists have been more brutal in attacking civilians), but they still offer useful lessons. And both the Northern Ireland and Basque problems were often considered insoluble a couple of decades ago, perhaps even more than those in the Middle East today.

Spain could have responded to terror attacks by sending troops into the Basque country, or by bombing the sanctuaries that ETA guerrillas used just across the border in France. (France was blas about being used as a terrorist base.) Instead, Spain gave autonomy to the Basque country and restrained itself through gritted teeth, over the objections of those who thought this was appeasement.

Likewise, Britain endured constant bombings by the I.R.A., which enjoyed support in both Ireland and the U.S. and obtained weapons and Semtex plastic explosive from Libya.

Yet Margaret Thatcher didn't bomb Dublin (or Boston), nor even the offices of the I.R.A.'s political wing in Northern Ireland. When she saw that Britain's harsh tactics were strengthening support for the I.R.A., the Iron Lady moderated her approach and negotiated the landmark Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985. At the time, that agreement was widely denounced as rewarding terrorists and showing weakness.

Frankly, neither British nor Spanish restraint was a huge or immediate success. Spain had hoped that democracy would end Basque terrorism; instead, it increased. And Mrs. Thatcher acknowledges in her memoirs that her results were ''disappointing.''

Yet in retrospect, the softer approach gave London and Madrid the moral high ground and slowly -- far too slowly -- isolated terrorists and made a negotiated outcome more feasible. That's why Britain and Spain are today peaceful, against all odds.

That admirable restraint should be the model for Israel, with the aim of making a comprehensive peace agreement more likely -- in 2010 or 2020 if not in 2007. The record of Spain and Britain suggests that restraint and conciliation can seem maddeningly ineffective -- but they are still the last, best hope for peace.

Understand, youngborean, my knowledge and opinion of Israel is coloured by what I have grown up seeing in the past ten years. I am by no means underappreciating the past efforts of Yitzhak Rabin and the Avoda Party toward peace, but like you say, we have to face realities here: Israel is a first-world nation, yet the Palestinians live in conditions that are desperately third-world. If Israel were serious about getting rid of Hamas, they would stop dropping missiles into Palestinian territories and start dropping in food, basic first-aid and clean water supplies. Hamas loses all its thunder and all its respectability when Israel stops being the enemy and starts being the good neighbour. I've gone to hear several Palestinians speak about the situation (one a Catholic priest), and they all say the same thing: the Palestinians wouldn't care about extremist ideologies or destroying Israel if they didn't spend the night hungry.

And if Israel were serious about getting rid of Hizbullah, they would not attack Lebanon and further entrench anti-Israeli sentiment. They would take the moral high ground, as Kristof suggests. Iran and Hizbullah depend on the Lebanese being angry with Israel. Once the Lebanese have no reason for anger, that anger just won't hold up against a few sensible Lebanese and Israeli efforts. Not to mention, Iran is using Hizbullah as a cover for its own nuclear ambitions - if Israel were truly concerned about its security, they wouldn't be taking such an indirect route to turn the heat on Iran.

[youngborean]

Israel could definitely be in the game of giving the palestinians more direct aid/food etc (and were doing substantially more than their arab counterparts pre-Hamas). My point would be that Israel was on the moral high ground and no one cared other than the US when Arafat walked away from the table and the intifada started. I do agree that desperation fuels terrorism. However, Israel is not the only group to blame for the desperation. The Palestianians had a wealth of financial resources under Fatah through international aid and the people saw very little of it. Instad, they turned to Hamas who also had financial resources from the Extremist elements of the middle east. I do think a plan of direct aid to circumvent Hamas would be the ideal way to try and gain public support and would be the most "moral" thing to do. But I am sure that most of the anti-Israeli sentiment from Iran/etc would find a way to spin it into infighting among the Palestinians. There was already alot of this within Palestine which probably prompted Hamas to step up it military actions. The vigor which people blame Israel for the suffering of the Palestinians should always be equally applied to the surrounding arab countries if a frank discussion about the lack of morality in the region is really going to happen. The problem is that Israel, for some strange reason, is held to a different morality than the other countries. They could ultimately do more of what you are talking about. But as long as the only role that the countries of arab league sees for them is an anti-Israeli militia, the problem won't be solved this way.

[MagusYanam]

I'm not saying Israel is solely to blame for the plight of the Palestinians, but they are in a position to do the most about it. The other Arab nations have behaved deplorably toward the Palestinians, but with the exception of Jordan and possibly Syria, they don't have to really deal with them the way Israel has to.

I agree with you completely that many anti-Israel firebrands have been playing the more radical Palestinians for fools, but I disagree with your implication that they will remain anti-Israeli pawns when they are treated with some measure of dignity by the government they have at least some reason, at present, to resent. As such, I think your conclusion is somewhat flawed. The road that Spain and Britain have laid out is not an easy one, but at present it seems to be the only road that doesn't ultimately lead to destruction.

As to holding Israel to a different standard of morality than the surrounding Arab nations, it is no such matter. You don't see Palestinians in Jordan or Syria or Lebanon demanding the overthrow of those governments, even though the Palestinians in Jordan and Syria and Lebanon are probably just as poorly off as those in Israel. The morality Israel is being held to here has to reflect its situation. Israel has an indisputable right to exist, but it also has a responsibility to legitimate that right in the eyes of the people who live there. And I argue that it can't do any such thing through oppression and violence. Israel should behave like other democracies in this regard.

I agree, however, that Arab countries should be held to far stricter standards as regards the treatment of their citizens - Palestinian, Arab, Iranian, Turkic, Coptic or Berber. Perhaps we should be holding their feet to the fire on this.

[youngborean]

The road that Spain and Britain have laid out is not an easy one, but at present it seems to be the only road that doesn't ultimately lead to destruction.

I agree that it is was a diffucult road for them. But england and spain had a very different legal standing towards those 2 groups than israel does with the palestinians. The palestinian territories are not a legal part of Israel.

, but it also has a responsibility to legitimate that right in the eyes of the people who live there.

The arab muslims and christians who live in Israel have every legal right as citizens. The Palestinians do not live in Israel.

You don't see Palestinians in Jordan or Syria or Lebanon demanding the overthrow of those governments, even though the Palestinians in Jordan and Syria and Lebanon are probably just as poorly off as those in Israel.

That wasn't exactly the point I was aiming for, although there are major tensions between the Palestinians and Christians in Lebanon, it's only that hizbullah hates israel more right now. My point was more that the Palestinians contigencies that want peace are held hostage by regimes which support terrorism and violence, and will remain that way as long as expantionist contingencies of Islam exist. There were constant attacks and fighting between the more moderate groups pf Palestine and Hamas.

but I disagree with your implication that they will remain anti-Israeli pawns when they are treated with some measure of dignity by the government they have at least some reason, at present, to resent.

I can concede that my statement was pure speculation. However, any movement towards peace charity has been underminded by violent reactions. It was not a coincidence that Hamas/Hizbullah chose the time when Abbas was proposing refferendum to accept Israel as a state and standing up for peace to commit an act of war against Israel. There are plenty of Palestinians who want accept israels existence and move on. It has always been my stance that Israel attempt to offer these individuals an opportunity at naturalization. But I think too many of them would be afraid.

The way I see it, it is in Iran's interest that all Palestinians detest Israel and that the region is destablized, because they have a clandestine view of the progress of Islam with Jerusalem being the major prize. The good Palestinians and Israelis get used in this game. This is the problem. Israel is no more to blame then their enemies in Syria and Iran who have been invested in the contiuation of the conflict. The difference is that Israel has had examples of making peace with their enemies. We have yet to see that movement from Iran and not quite in the same sense Syria. And we definitely don't see the outward severity of the racism and rhetoric directed at Iran, that Israel recieves from it's counter parts.

I'm not saying Israel is solely to blame for the plight of the Palestinians, but they are in a position to do the most about it.

I am beginning to ramble, so I will sum it up with this. I think this sentiment is one of the major complications with exterior views of this conflict. Iran, Syria, and lebanon are majorly involved in Palestine and have an extremem amount of power over the religious and political sentiments in Palestine. They are clearly equipped to do as much if not more than israel about it. Instead, they use Palestians as an impoverished militia to carry out their dirty work. If Khomeni made rumblings for true peace and the acceptance of Israel as a state, the whole conflict via lebanon would be over.

[blackfish]

Okay, what I figure is that it really isn't Israel's fault. Israel had a conflict with Hizbolah a while back (I'm not quite sure when though, at the time I didn't really care about world events and right now I'm too lazy to look it up now) and it pulled out of many areas and was promised by the U.N. that Hizbolah would be demilitarized. That didn't happen. All that happened is that Israel pulled out and the U.N. literally sat back and watched as Hizbolah stocked up on missiles. When they were ready, they started firing into Israel. Israel finally stands up for itself and everyone is yelling "CEASEFIRE CEASEFIRE!!!!!!" and calling on the U.N. to solve the problem. Now I do realize that there are civilian casualties, but that is not Israel's fault. Hizbolah not only spent the last 6 or so years (I don't know, sounds like a reasonable number) stocking up on rockets, but also fortifying civilian areas with the intention of causing an upoar against Israel if they did anything.

Also, this is by no means an Israel/Lebonan conflict. The fact that this is taking place on Lebonese soil is only a technicality. Lebonan has a standing army within their borders that is not their own! Just because Israel has to do the Lebonese government's police work is no reason Israel should be getting such negative sentements. The only way to start a path to securing a lasting peace is to demilitarize Hizbolah. And for that matter Hamas and all the other crackpot military regimes (that means you north korea)

I know there are people who will probably be outraged at my comments, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. we can't rely on the U.N. The U.N. is a joke, just like the League of Nations was a joke. Diplomacy willl do nothing in the middle east until diplomacy is valued in the middle east.

Food for thought brought to you by:
blackfish