Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah Crisis Thread was the "Is Israel right" thread

Dirk Gently

billy the squid wrote:

Anyone else hear this conversation picked up during the G8 conference on the subject of Israel and Lebanon. What do people make of it.

Seen it on the news today. I don't think it makes either of them look bad (anymore than usual that is). If I was a conspiracy head like yourself I would even be thinking that it was a planned deliberate act, where bush and Blair can get to speak plainly while looking like a genuine private discussion. What do we get from the conversation, ...... we know bush likes coke (well we all knew that anyway but I meant the soft drink), Blair likes to brown nose him by giving him gifts (we know this already too), bush thinks Russia is a big place (probably a moment of clarity on his part but nothing new to the rest of us) and they both think Hezbollah are to blame for the violence and that only they can end it by handing over the captured soldiers. Privately*cough* they are of the opinion that Israel is justified but publicly through the G8 they had to give a more balanced statement.

Looking at it from a face value view point the word to best describe it is "meh" as it didn't really reveal anything everybody doesn't alreadyknow. Putting my conspiracy theory hat on I would be thinking that they were frustrated with the other G8 nations who might have been pushing to restrain Israel and used this opportunity to let their feelings known bluntly. In fairness though I don't think Blair is that good of an actor to have nailed the astonished look on his face when he copped the mic turned on.

A non-event really, I wouldn't exactly call it a fuck up or embarrassing as they didn't really say anything controversial that’s likely to get them into trouble, it just confirms that Bush talks ****e both privately as well as publicly.

Manic Moran

You know, I found it very refreshing that it proves that they can speak just like you or me. Bush quotes overheard but not in the transcript above: "Yo! Blair! Are you going?" and "Yeah, I need to go fairly quickly. The longer I stay here, the more trouble I cause for the Russian security teams." (Or something very close to that). If only they spoke as plainly and directly to us in speeches as they do to each other 'off-mike' Politics would be so much more tolerable.

NTM

Zebra3

kaiser1 wrote:

I can see where your arguments are coming from...and once upon a time my sympathies leaned more towards the plight of the Palestinians.
But then I saw the videos of the Americans Jack Hensley,Nick Berg and Briton Ken Bigley.These men died a horiffic death all in the name of "Islam".

These people along with Hamas , Islamic Jihad and Al-Queda all have just one goal and that is to destroy OUR ideals and values and to impose upon us the ideals and virtues of a religion that is stuck in a place in time that the rest of the modern world left behind hundreds of years ago.I dont intend to let this thread go off on a tangent but Id just like to justify my last claim.

Where as at one time in history the Christian Church used to burn people at the stake for being "Witches" or torture them to confess crimes against God(i.e during Turqemada s time as head of the Spanish Inquesition),we as a modern,civilised group of nations left that sort of barbarity behind along time ago.....i.e the church developed and changed with time,whereas the Islamic faith hasnt. I remember reading an article in a paper a couple of years ago about a young man on trial in Iran. He was accused of throwing a jar of acid at his friend which hit the victim in the face...the result was the young man lost sight in one of his eyes. The trial (if you could call it that) Judge ordered that according to Shria Law the victim was entitled to an "eye for an eye"....there for the accused was to be surgically blinded!!!
And we all know what happens in Saudi Arabia(beheadings), female mutilation in Nigeria...and we have all seen what those pleasent group of people called the Taliban used to get up to!!

This IMHO is absolute savagery.We look to the Legislature and Judiciary of nations to develop fair,civilised and protective laws.....none of which are evident in countries goverened by extremist islamists.

Isreal is a country that has had to fight for its very existence from the word go....The Jewish people as a race have been the target for destruction at least 5 times in the last 75 years,so no one could blaim them for being a lil bit heavy handed at times.

Now as far as the shelling of the beach I totally agree that was wrong but so was the countless number of times suicide bombers walked into shopping centres,nightclubs,bars and killed countless numbers of people.Isreal did not creat the sucided bomber theIslamic faith did.

The only thing that keeps countries like Syria and Iran in check is Isreal...her Nuclear deterent is what has kept the balance of power firmly in her hands and as far as Amed Denejhad Im sure the offices of Mossad and Shin Bet are a flurry of activity as about how to rid the world of this idiot.

Jordan as a country accepted the existence of Isreal as a nation and has only benifited from it. Its a stable peace loving country and probably one of the only countries in the middle east I would have any intrest in visiting.

Im sorry this spirialed off but its just something I feel stronly about.

Meanwhile the Christian fundamentalists in control of America invade countrys, murder their civilians, set up puppet states, support terroroism, and steal oil from middle eastern countrys.

'We' are so perfect. :rolleyes:

N Korea fires a few rockets at no-one and America is outraged.

Israel fires rockets that kill 150+ civilians and America is proud of them.

:mad:

fly_agaric

Sand wrote:

It would be wrong and no right thinking human being could support it? But directing policy on the basis of appeasing an Arab opinion which devours books like Mein Kampf and sends its kids to blow you up? Youve heard of Chamberlain and all that havent you? You cant reason with evil hatred like that which underlies radical extremist Islam. You cant make them like you when theyre claiming you drink the blood of babies. Give peace a chance, yeah, but have a fallback plan.

Refraining from attacking Lebanon's civilian infrastructure and inflicting massive damage on its economy would not be an example of basing policy on "appeasing an Arab opinion which devours books like Mein Kampf and sends its kids to blow you up". It would just be an example of behaving morally, doing the right thing etc.

If "Arab opinion" == Radical Islam/hatred as you suggest - why are you squeamish about the level of civilian casualties since there is no possibility of peace?

Sand wrote:

AFAIK because Hizbollah operates in South Lebanon unchallenged and has been launching attacks on Israel from there, including killing 8 of its soldiers and kidnapping another two?

If anything, the targeting of Hizbollah may hopefully weaken it to the point where the Lebanese Army and Government can disarm it and take over responsibility for the entire territory.

Why is Israel attacking the Lebanese Army as part of its air-war then?
Is it in case they fight (not much they could do really but...) if Israel decides it has to invade Lebanon again?

I say again, I think that Israel actually wants its neighbours kept in a perpetual state of undemocratic rule, internal strive, poverty, and chaos because they have made a calculation that their security will be best assured by this.

The bombing and embargo etc is a means to that end and "destroying Hizbollah" provides the perfect PR excuse (especially given the US's "war on terror"/radical Islam etc) to carry out that wider policy.

Sand wrote:

That is so ironic. Did you even read the article? He highlighted that Europe failed to send peacekeepers to secure the border, ignored the Hizbollah buildup and attacks on Israel, and only offered kneejerk condemnation of Israel exercising its right to defend itself, with no suggestions on what a proportionate response would have been. Oh apart from another little mantra - the policies of the Israel govt. are always wrong!

Yes I did read it. It would come down to "peace-enforcement" rather than peace-keeping IMO. I doubt Israel would be very encouraging towards the idea of any powerful force it doesn't have total control over operating so close to its border. It'd probably end up being attacked by both Hizbollah and Israel (the latter would be, as always, *regrettable* and *unfortunate* I'm sure). Countries are self-interested - so they are not jumping at the chance to volunteer their troops for an utterly thankless bit of altruism where they get to have both sides shoot at them!

As for European countries suggesting what a "proportionate response" is - they do. That's the problem for the author isn't it? Israel mostly doesn't like the answer and wants to hear exactly the same messages it get from the US (do whatever you judge is necessary).

Sand wrote:

You wouldnt even hear about it [Israeli deaths if Hizbollah bombed Israel]. Unless its Palestinian suffering its not newsworthy...

That's alot of crap, and you must know it (since Hizbollah are attacking Israel and we are hearing about Israeli deaths!) - so why write it?

Sand wrote:

To the point where Israels right to exist is questioned whilst shooting schoolkids is justified ....wooops sorry, understood.... by the quest for Palestinian nationhood...

Can you point me to statements by any EU govt's along those lines Sand?
That's what we were discussing wasn't it AFAIR? The policies and attitudes of EU govt.'s towards Israel.

Sand wrote:

Whats wrong with that statement? Wouldnt a French-UK military response to the occupation of the Rhineland or the Sudetenland, disproportionate to the provocation as it would be, have been a better option than WW2? An Israeli response to Hizbollah rocket attacks now is better than waiting for Iran to give them nukes...

So Chamberlain gets dug up again.
And you say I "trot out" analogies that are "rubbish"?
There is far more wrong with that one than there is with the one I was using.

I was using that statement to illustrate the labelling of Europeans by the author as deluded appeasing peace-niks. You agree with that label. Fair enough. No shock there.

Deleted User - see above for some reasons (I know, ultimately they are excuses) as to why countries could be very reluctant to put strong forces on the Lebanese border. Easy to wag the finger and say - maybe very difficult to do.
Also, I'll just tackle two bits of your post I'd take issue with:

Deleted User wrote:

Perhaps you should read it again (the sig.), and apply it to the groups that you seem to wholeheartedly support.

I don't "wholeheartedly support" said groups or their actions. Didn't even know I'd "seemed" to. Maybe you are confusing my posts with someone elses?

Funnily enough - on another thread here I said that the EU were dead right to cut off the PA's money supply after Hamas got control and I naturally got stick for that too!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054940096

Deleted User wrote:

The force applied seems similiar (I've read this in a number of articles) to the Coalitions lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

You might have guessed I think that the attack on + invasion of Iraq was an absolute and utter disgrace as well and may yet be the biggest foriegn policy disaster ever for both the US and Europe.

Pazaz 21

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060718/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel

Why the hell are Israel bombing Lebanon military forces if they want them to stop hezbollah. Correct me if i'm wrong but if you blow up the army, how the hell are they supposed to stop hezbollah. WTF !!!

All the Israeli's seem to be doing is weakening the Lebanon government by blowing up their country around them and showing them for how weak they really are.

This cannot continue !!:mad:

All the Israeli's seem to be doing is weakening the Lebanon government by blowing up their country around them and showing them for how weak they really are.

This cannot continue !!

From what I've seen the Lebanese government has done a fair showing of how weak they are all by themselves. Where has the Lebanese military been brought in against Hezbollah?

Israel probably sees the Lebanese Government/Military as being very similiar to hezbollah simply because they have done nothing to restrict their actions in this conflict. hezbollah have pushed Lebannon into a war, and the Lebanese government are unable or unwilling to crack down on them.

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote:

I don't "wholeheartedly support" said groups or their actions. Didn't even know I'd "seemed" to. Maybe you are confusing my posts with someone elses?

Sorry. My bad. I jumped to conclusions without valid reasoning there.

You might have guessed I think that the attack on + invasion of Iraq was an absolute and utter disgrace as well and may yet be the biggest foriegn policy disaster ever for both the US and Europe.

Agreed. We've yet to see the true reprecussions of that action.

You don't have any objections to any of the rest of my responses?

soma

Deleted User wrote:

From what I've seen the Lebanese government has done a fair showing of how weak they are all by themselves. Where has the Lebanese military been brought in against Hezbollah?

Lebanon was ravaged, absolutely ravaged, by civil war for many years. Before the current decimation of their country, they were just about standing on shaky legs economically & having finally gotten rid of Syrian physical occupation (altho of course Syria, as well as Iran, still try to dictate things from afar).

The reason the Leb army could not be "brought in" against the hezbollah was that:

(a) it would ignite another civil war
(b) the hezbollah are a superior military force to the Leb army.

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote:

You don't have any objections to any of the rest of my responses?

Well, I disagree with you about Israeli policy.
I've basically said why on this thread - but I didn't feel there not much point going through it again. Agree to disagree and all that.

Perhaps it would be good if, as the article you posted suggests, "Europe" took a more active (military) role in what has been going on, but I don't think it is realistic.

The problem is that while "Europe"/"the EU" is a large economic power, the more militarily powerful countries in it disagree over their approach to a given situation - and taken individually I wonder if they are capable of the kind of actions that article was suggesting. This is the same "Europe" that couldn't put a stop to a genocidal war going on within its borders in the 90's.

So Europe - good to provide aid [e.g. France helping with reconstructing Lebanon mentioned in the article, EU aid to the Palestinian Authority during the Clinton presidency when it looked like peace might have a chance] and threaten and promise economic carrots and sticks [as with Iran now]; not so good for military actions.

Deleted User wrote:

can't say I blame them, since Iran has made no attempt to disguise their desire for the destruction of Israel. Whether it be rhethoric by top politicians, or weapons supplied to terrorist factions attacking Israel, Iran has made its position quite clear. A Nuclear Iran would be a definite threat to their existance.

There were no ideas in that article for dealing with Iran. Just criticism of Europe. What exactly would Israel expect Germany/the UK/France/Russia etc to do other than what they have been doing?
Attack Iran for Israel now and save them the trouble? Listening to the Israeli Internal Security minister last night on Newsnight it seems to be what they will be expecting of the Americans at some point in the future anyway. I've a feeling they could be disappointed on that score. They don't have any more of a clue what to do about Iran or how to stop it working on its nuclear program than Europe does.

Ohyeah

Considering Haifa is getting the brunt of the rockets on the Israeli side I thought this was an interesting short piece in Daily Ireland about Haifa today.

http://www.dailyireland.com/home.tvt?_ticket=XGASLVE9CHVR6JL1HONDNOVE9LLDNVP5TRRIVQNAGN0FINNBJKVFURUQ4YZ9ANWRALKACJ5HWQRFK1QP9NTGNZX9CHUT6ZQFIQ0NKMTEDWFSPGSGX4WEIOQL4AFDALONBHSMYQRFOXMAAQ47VZ&_scope=DailyIreland/Content/News&id=9715&opp=1

Minister Ahern said today this could end up in ww3!!:eek:

von Bismarck

Israel has absolutely no right!!

For the last 50 years they have been nothing but agitators in the Middle East. It was their policies that forced OPEC to start the Oil Crises of 1973 and 1979.

The only reason that they can continue with these wars on all their neighbours is because of the support from the United States.

During the Oil Crisis of 1973 the EU (or ECC at the time) condemned their policies and recognised for example the Palestinian State.

The EU alone could stop Israel by placing trade barriers on the country's exports ... and it should, in the name of humanity!

Bookee

It was refreshing to hear the Israeli Ambassador to the US saying that they're "with" the Lebannon (Sky News, tonight); Does that mean they'll help Lebannon rebuild it's infrastructure when the time comes....? !!

A Dub in Glasgo

This is so fecking wrong and the parents of these children should be ashamed of themselves.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m24753&l=i&size=1&hd=0

Rock Climber

Agreed.

It's so like the hate thats still there on part of our island.

tallus

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

This is so fecking wrong and the parents of these children should be ashamed of themselves.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m24753&l=i&size=1&hd=0

That's despicable. Who ever actually allowed kids to write on those rounds of ammunition ought to be taken to task, it's that kind of behaviour that perpetuates the cycle of hatred that has people killing each other in that region.

Manic Moran

Well, why not? Surely it makes sense to have the population fully support the troops that are fighting on their behalf, no? Writing messages on munitions is a long-standing tradition, not just in Israel.

Besides, maybe they're just addressing them towards Hezbullah.

"Forget the bullet with your name on it. It's the one addressed 'To whom it concerns' that you want to worry about"

[Edit] It's actually a series of photos. Most of the writing is in Hebrew, obviously enough, but one visible is in English. "To Nasrallah with love from Israel and Danielle." I guess Danielle was thoughtful enough to consider the possibility that Nasrallah speaks more English than Hebrew...

NTM

tallus

Manic Moran wrote:

Well, why not? Surely it makes sense to have the population fully support the troops that are fighting on their behalf, no? Writing messages on munitions is a long-standing tradition, not just in Israel.

Besides, maybe they're just addressing them towards Hezbullah.

"Forget the bullet with your name on it. It's the one addressed 'To whom it concerns' that you want to worry about"

NTM

the population can support the troops without the involvement of kids writing on bombs, and it may be a long standing tradition, but show me one more picture that shows young girls writing messages in bombs like that.
And by the way, just because it's a military tradition doesn't make it right and/or moral.
Pretty sickening in my opinion, but you're welcome to disagree with that of course.

Sand

Refraining from attacking Lebanon's civilian infrastructure and inflicting massive damage on its economy would not be an example of basing policy on "appeasing an Arab opinion which devours books like Mein Kampf and sends its kids to blow you up". It would just be an example of behaving morally, doing the right thing etc.

If the Lebanese attack or facilitate attacks on Israel, then it is perfectly morally correct and right for Israel to respond militarily. Israel has attacked transport infrastructure such as bridges, the airport, ports but they are all perfectly valid military targets.

NOT responding militarily for fear the Arab opinion would turn *more* against Israel? Thats bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

If "Arab opinion" == Radical Islam/hatred as you suggest - why are you squeamish about the level of civilian casualties since there is no possibility of peace?

You seem to consider only two options - A) never ever ever engaging in military action even if your soldiers are being held by enemies and rockets are landing on your towns or launching some final genocidal war of reckoning...

Why is Israel attacking the Lebanese Army as part of its air-war then?

It hasnt apart from attacking some Lebanese facilities that the Israelis claim are being used by Hizbollah, which is perfectly feasible given the co-existence between Hizbollah and the rest of Lebanese society. Israel has stated as one of its aims that the Lebanese Army should be deployed in South Lebanon to prevent rocket attacks.

I say again, I think that Israel actually wants its neighbours kept in a perpetual state of undemocratic rule, internal strive, poverty, and chaos because they have made a calculation that their security will be best assured by this.

Patent bollocks tbh. Israel is best served by a strong, anti-syrian government in Lebanon. Chaos in Lebanon invites in the influence of Hizbollahs main backers, Syria and Iran. And Syria and Iran are no friends of Israel. Israel has refrained from taking apart the Lebanese government though it is quite capable of doing so and has concentrated on Hizbollah, with the pretty obvious aim of weakening Hizbollah to leave a vacum in South Lebanon that the Lebanese government and Army can fill.

Yes I did read it. It would come down to "peace-enforcement" rather than peace-keeping IMO. I doubt Israel would be very encouraging towards the idea of any powerful force it doesn't have total control over operating so close to its border.

Obviously peace enforcement would be required. What would be the point of sending sightseers to South Lebanon to merely observe Hizbollah at work blowing up Northern Israel? Other than providing Hizbollah with human shields against Israeli counter attacks of course.

As for European countries suggesting what a "proportionate response" is - they do. That's the problem for the author isn't it? Israel mostly doesn't like the answer and wants to hear exactly the same messages it get from the US (do whatever you judge is necessary).

They dont - unless you mean "negotiate with the terrorists, encourage further kidnappings!" which would probably be as smart as their advice "Withdraw from South Lebanon, Hizbollah will vanish! Honest!"

That's alot of crap, and you must know it (since Hizbollah are attacking Israel and we are hearing about Israeli deaths!) - so why write it?

No its not. Youre only hearing about Israeli casualties or attacks on Israeli towns (700+ rockets fired in the last few days alone) as a mere footnote in 2-3 page spreads about the evil Israeli oppression of the victimised Lebanese. If there was no Lebanese or Palestinian deaths, there wouldnt even be a footnote. Its important to eliminate context from Israeli actions, so as to portray them as crazed evil warmongering arab haters...

Before Israel counterattacked in Gaza and Lebanon, was it world news that Israeli towns were being constantly attacked by terrorist rockets launched over the border? Nope. Only front page news when Israel could be called nasty names.

On June 11th 2006 alone, 14 rockets were fired into Israel, in September of the previous year 30 were fired in one day from Gaza into Israel. There was a constant stream of attacks on Israel, but it never became a issue for the world media until now...

Can you point me to statements by any EU govt's along those lines Sand?
That's what we were discussing wasn't it AFAIR? The policies and attitudes of EU govt.'s towards Israel.

Well, you described Europe and Europeans ( and generally European opinion) as being dismissed by Israelis. If you meant only EU govts, well then you should have said. Im sure though, with the power of google I could find statements by nations like France praising Hizbollah (a militia and resistance group apparently, despite deliberate attacks on civillians...and the IDF are war criminals if any civillian at all at all dies in their operations, regardless of whether it is accidental or not) and Hamas whilst criticising Israel, but cant be arsed really.

So Chamberlain gets dug up again.
And you say I "trot out" analogies that are "rubbish"?
There is far more wrong with that one than there is with the one I was using.

If you believe so - personally, Im struck by the similarity of reaction to totalarian idealogy in our time and in the 30s and 40s. The "IDF does bad things, hence radical jihadist terrorism is no worse than valid military action" is particularly similar to Orwells note on the "England not good, hence Nazis no worse than England" views he encountered. Hell, Senator David Norris was out cheerleading for Hizbollah despite the fact he wouldnt last long in their world order. Youve got to admire idealogies that can count on the services of even those it despises.

billy the squid

Israeli ground troops have entered southern lebenon according to CNN.

This israeli response is like using a wrecking ball to open a halloween nut. the israeli response to this is totally over zealous.

Manic Moran

billy the squid wrote:

This israeli response is like using a wrecking ball to open a halloween nut. the israeli response to this is totally over zealous.

I think that's the point.

Got to admit, it's certainly calling attention to the area. There was no great international impetus to do anything about Southern Lebanon before, there sure as heck is going to be one now.

NTM

Morlar

Manic Moran wrote:

Got to admit, it's certainly calling attention to the area. There was no great international impetus to do anything about Southern Lebanon before, there sure as heck is going to be one now.

NTM

Wow - you almost sound like you are saying it is ok for israel to use violence against a civilian population to get what it wants. Kind of like terrorism in my opinion.

Diogenes

Manic Moran wrote:

You know, I found it very refreshing that it proves that they can speak just like you or me. Bush quotes overheard but not in the transcript above: "Yo! Blair! Are you going?" and "Yeah, I need to go fairly quickly. The longer I stay here, the more trouble I cause for the Russian security teams." (Or something very close to that). If only they spoke as plainly and directly to us in speeches as they do to each other 'off-mike' Politics would be so much more tolerable.

NTM

What!!! I'm at the opposite, I think Blair refering to the trade talks as the "trade thingy" shows how they dumb down and over simpifly serious issues.

I'm facinated how Blair pretty much begged to be sent there as a negotiator, and Bush stopped him, and said Condi will go. Lets you know how the special relationship works.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Morlar

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

"At least 270 Lebanese - mostly civilians - have died in the conflict.

Twenty-five Israelis have died, including 13 civilians killed by Hezbollah rocket attacks. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5193662.stm

I know its all relative but I'd say they arent doing too bad a job of killing innocent civilians when compared to Hizbollah would you ?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

the_syco

Morlar wrote:

"At least 270 Lebanese - mostly civilians - have died in the conflict.

Twenty-five Israelis have died, including 13 civilians killed by Hezbollah rocket attacks. "

Isreali military are in a military base. The Hezbollah military stay with lots of civilians. Human shields don't work when you piss someone off enough, tbh.

Morlar

Your statistics are easily mis interpereted - you might want to clarify that Israel still kills FAR FAR more palestinians than palestinians kill israelis. As mentioned in the last week its


israel killed 270 civilians in Lebannon (not to mention the number of palestinians killed in gaza during that same time)

hizbollah killed 25 israelis

Not to mention that on one side you have a terrorist organisation - and on the other you have a so called civilised country using state of the art military hardware, satellites air support, tanks, naval forces etc - supplied in part by the united states.

Despite all of the above do you really think that we should hold israel to the same standard as a terrorist organisation ?

Are you saying that their behaviour is acceptable so long as it can be compared favourably (by using statistics that in my opinion give a skewed misleading impression of the numbers) to a terrorist organisation ?

My vote would be that we should compare their behaviour to civilised countries in assessing whether their response is proportionate or not - and in this case it's clearly not.

Morlar

the_syco wrote:

Human shields don't work when you piss someone off enough, tbh.

I think that that depends on the morality and respect for human life of the persons being pissed off. And as displayed Israel has zero respect for non jewish civilians - they are way too busy painting themselves as the eternal victims to care about dead lebaneese civilians.

sceptre

Morlar wrote:

Your statistics are easily mis interpereted

All statistics generally are. At least when they're not quoted in reasonably complete context which people tend not to do (including, I may stress, in this thread).

New_Departure06

Ironic what I heard Tom McGurk say on RTE Radio 1 this morning, about Israelis dropping leaflets telling Lebanese to leave and then blowing up the roads so they can't! :rolleyes: