I made this post three days ago, it was obviously half baked. Here is the completed version. Your comments on the previous version are safe and will be replied to in time . Hope you enjoy the rest of my rant.
By popular demand I bring you a controversial post. Please make the discussion heated but civil ;)
You think I'm ignoring what's going on in Gaza ? nope, however I'm not surprised, that is why I have not mentioned it at all. The most I can say is to repeat the words of a friend of mine 'both parties have blood on their hands now , they need to wake up and realise this for peace to become possible'.
Methinks with things being as they are, nothing is going to be solved for a long time to come. Maybe we should just stop caring about Palestine and let Israel crush them? Is that it ? That is the best solution? no heartache and no feeling of guilt anymore for having our hands tied.Just carry on like the international community - look the other way -I might just do that . Here is what may be my last rant about it( ps I reserve the right to change my mind of course) . When you can't beat them join them.
But here are interesting excerpts from Alarabonline, which get the blood boiling and the heart swelling and bring us back to square one.
"What the world is offering the Palestinians is a deal they are obliged to
refuse – even at the point of Israel’s murderous war machine. They are being
asked to legitimize their own dispossession as the price of living unmolested on
a few isolated patches of their ancestral land [...] I wake up every
morning and thank God I am not a Palestinian. These descendents of
the ancients who gave us the Abrahamic liturgy that still enthralls the hearts
of half the human race are being crucified because of a weird cult of Zionist
ideologues who are delusional enough about their fictional ancestry to lay claim
to Palestinian land and Palestinian prophets. "
I wanted to hear opposite arguments, but I realised that the opposite view is easier to backup (not necessarily because it is the truth) , which is what many of you have attempted to do on many blogs throughout the months.
Problem is with each escalation the original problem gets pushed back as we have to deal with a fresh situation. This again is a vicious circle.
Israel is a fact of life which many of us have accepted, wishing it would go away is just that wishful thinking. The warmongering crowd should stop their wild speculation and 'give peace a chance'.
Because each side has its own version of history and the outsiders should please stop interfering and increasing the flow of blood your comments cheering and enjoying the death of this and that are just NOT helpful. Please let the two people of the Middle-East alone.
"In that sense the crisis in Gaza is business as usual.
The Israelis and Palestinians are levelling the same accusations against each other, accusing each other of terrorism and oppression. Both believe that they are acting in self defence.
Forget whether one version is true and the other false. The important thing is that the people who hold these views believe that they are true, and their leaders make decisions based on them. "
So
"when leaders are under intense pressure, they fall back on some of the old formulas that have been tried - and which have failed - many times before. "
However,
"But in the 39 years since Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza, history has delivered a few fundamental lessons, which neither side at the moment is in any mood to absorb.
The most important lesson for Israel [and Palestine] is that force does not work. "
Moreover,
"Even if the leaders of Israel and the Palestinians agreed with this interpretation of the use of force over 40 years, it will not help this time round. The Gaza crisis is doomed to run its course, in the same way that Palestinians and Israelis are doomed to live alongside each other.
But eventually, their only chance of creating a decent future for their children is to make a political agreement about sharing the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean that is acceptable to both sides.
To do that they will both have to recognise that peace has a price. Up to now, in all the years of negotiations, neither side has been prepared to pay what is needed in lost dreams and hard choices.
You cannot do peace on the cheap. But the alternative is much more costly, for everyone."
Here is the whole BBC article , please go read it.
The alternative we've been witnessing for the last few days is "Becoming Israel's greatest enemy" and dragging the neighbours in the mess. With death on all sides ( of course the greater casualties are amongthe Arabs). So as I said above an issue drives the old one away and Lebanon has pushed Gaza and even Iraq ( that's a relief for some I bet ) out of the front page news, while the Gaza situation has lead to the Lebanese new crisis which threatens to bring in other countries. Making peace seems like a distant dream now. So sad....may God rest the dead , the dying and those about to die in Peace . It does not matter whether they are Israelis or Arabs , death is the same to all.
35 comments:
Welcome back! I haven't had time to read the updated version of the post but I will ASAP :)
I have not been able to bear to watch or read the news. Hubby is glued to the TV and in a very cranky mood! - Finally I suggested to go in the storage room and pull out a suitcase and pack it for him. He looked at me like I had gone mad - I'm married to a sofa warrior!
There is nothing much to do but pray......
glad your back highlander
as for post, did post few comments before. also to say quite disappointed with reactions of some american representatives eg john bolton at un. how he got that appointment I dont know, he is the one that warned that cuba was building biological weapons.
basically instead of trying to get a ceasefire, trying to allow this fighting to go on.
AlanK,
basically instead of trying to get a ceasefire, trying to allow this fighting to go on.
Don't know about Israelis, but this is one American that is not interested in a brokered ceasefire in Lebanon. I want Hezbollah disarmed or destroyed. Preferably destroyed. What good does following 30 year old policies of aggression/ceasefire do? Wars have to end sooner or later, the implication of which is that somebody has to actually LOSE.
How do you feel about UN resolutions calling for the disarming of Hezbollah and Palestinian militias in Lebanon having been ignored?
John Bolton is our ambassador to the UN. How do you think he should feel about that?
If the Israelis want to negotiate a ceasefire that leaves Hezbollah more of a threat than ever, that's up to them. But I certainly oppose the US (my country) trying to exert pressure on Israel to do something that is so clearly foolish, and counter to American interests. The only acceptable end to the violence to me is one that leaves Hezbollah in the dustbin of history.
Redenclave,
I have to disagree with you about the arabs have started this statement you have said.... Israelhas been esclalting its violent attacks against Gaza since Hamas took office (democratically I might add) through various means....They kidnapped/killed members of government, although there was a talk of Hamas offering an olive branch to those terrorists...In the end enougg is enough....there comes a moment where you have to make a stance....
As for HA.... Israel simply reneged on the deal they had last year with regards exchange of prisoners....Once they got the info...they stopped releasing the Lebanese and other prisoners.....The German negotiaters have stated that the terrorists (That is Israel for you PC) did not complete their side of the bargain....which is expected....they never do anyway....Just remember few years ago....when they had a deal with HA not to target civilians....guess what...first sign of tension...and they attack defenseless civilians....retarded terrorists...HA was within its right to act....it has prisoners and it needs to get them back...it is that simple....had the terrorists kept their side of the bargain....none of this shit (Sorry Highlander) would have happened...
God Bless HA/Hamas
Sameer Kintaar.....you will never be forgotten
Redneck
I'm glad that the post is here again, I was afraid I had written something so awful that Highlander decided to delete the whole post.
I disagree with the cited author that "The most important lesson for Israel [and Palestine] is that force does not work." On the contrary, the most important lesson is that insufficient force does not work. Remember what force was necessary to end WWII? Carpet bombings of German cities, nuclear bombings of Japanese cities, hundreds of thousands dead in both cases. In addition, hundreds of thousands of refugees were ehtnically cleansed all across Europe, often let with little chance to reach safety. Just to mention the 10000 Germans expelled from East Prussia (6000 of them children) who died after their ship Wilhelm Gustlof was sunk by a Soviet submarine. Have Palestinians experienced anything of the kind?
I guess you want to ask me: Do you approve such acts?
My answer: I strongly disapprove letting things go so out of control to make such acts necessary.
Possibly Bulgaria is a good example because it was pacified with much less lethal force. Like almost all European nations, Bulgarians were unhappy with the lands they had. (As I mentioned in my earlier comment, Palestinians only THINK their situation is unique, in fact it's banal.) Huge territories with ethnic Bulgarian majority were left ouside Bulgaria. With the hope of joining them, Bulgaria made two Balkan wars in 1912-13 and took part in both World wars, at the losing side. In 1944, Bulgaria was bombed by US and British forces (nothing special, several thousand dead), then occupied by USSR and given to the latter. Our representatives were told that if Bulgarians want to have some land, and if they want it beneath their feet rather than above their heads, they must sit quietly on their asses and never again think about making war. Eh well, the words may not have been exactly these, but the language must have been strong. And this strong medicine worked. The Serbs, with at least as bad record as the Bulgarians, were patted on the back because they happened to choose the winning side. This is why they set the Balkans on fire in the 1990s, and kept the fire until the bad Americans came to drop some bombs on their heads.
Another part I disagree: "Their only chance... is to... share the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean... acceptable to both sides... Up to now, in all the years of negotiations, neither side has been prepared to pay what is needed in lost dreams and hard choices."
OK, the Israelis lost the dream of Gaza and got in return what? Qassam rockets, tunnels, murders, kidnappings and pledges to continuing the struggle until "liberating all Palestine". There is no sharing of land acceptable to both sides, because the Palestinians want all the land. How can you share land with people who have on average 6 to 8 children (in the West Bank and Gaza, respectively)? A nation with such a birth rate wants, consciously or subconsciously, to push all other people off the Earth. You cannot negotiate with such people, you just have to prove them, day by day, that you disagree with being pushed off the Earth and have enough weapons to prevent it.
Besides, the Palestinians (unlike Germans, Japanese and Bulgarians at any point in history) receive money in return for the opposite of peace. UNRWA supports the Palestinian refugees for being refugees, i.e. for repeating their claims to return to Israel. Arabs and other Muslims support Palestinians for their struggle against Israel. Additionally, the West supports them for God knows what reason. As far as I know, these are the main sources of Palestinian national income. So the Palestinians are not the first people with genocidal culture (at least the Germans were before them), but seem to be the first people with genocidal economy.
How do you expect them to become peaceful? If they do, they'll watch their babies starve! Or at least they have the reason to think so.
BTW I have the solution to the Palestinian problem, if somebody's interested.
P craig
I agree that it was hezbollah fault that the crisis started by attacking the soldiers and then kidnapping them.
As for the solution, purely military means has so far not encouraged the lebanon goverment to disarm hezbollah (if it even tried, that would lead to collapse of the goverment as hezbollah is much more powerful and better armed. This is reason why UN resolution not been kept, also same reason why hamas not disarmed by fatah, before it was elected to become the goverment).
A ceasefire now could at least lead to something different, as use of military force has not proved to be deterrant to kidnapping eg gaza kidnapping response did not deter hezbollah, if fact it appears that what is happening now is exactly what hezbollah wants, as it was struggling after isreal left lebannon, as it had no reason for its existance, so it needs isreal to attack lebannon to strengthen it. In the end, hezbollah will not be destroyed as any losses it suffers eg missiles destroyed will be replaced by its backers eg Iran/Syria and to attack them, would trigger a major disaster and turn this into a bigger crisis.
as for hating america, no not so. however not big fan of certain people. condolezza rice seems to have given out a slightly more balanced approach to this crisis
redneck
god bless mass murders? a suprising choice
redneck
ok that was a little over generalised
but you do have to admit, that they do deliberately target civilians as a primary target
eg suicide bombings in cafes, target civilians without any military reason
admitedly isreal has not behaved much better in this situation, although they do tend to try to target military, not civilian targets
"Mon Jul 17, 10:44:42 PM 2006
Anonymous"
With all due respect, your argument with regards to Israel trying to hit military targets, does not have a leg to stand on....Israel in all of its wars, consistantly has targeted civilians populations in the hope that panic/civil strife etc... might break the enemy...and every time it gets it wrong....
I for one did question the logic behind HA's latest operation...did not see what benefit it woul bring...although Israel did renege on previous agreements....but once civilians started getting deliberatly getting targeted...i have changed my stance towards HA, and now hope that their missiles do even greater damage...
Redneck
PC...the more you write...the more you look like a twat...
Munich was in 1972 not 1973.... and it was a direct result of Israeli terrorism in 1971 in Jordan and Lebanon against defenseless civilians.....but of course, let us not tax our minds and contradict Steven Spielberg's version of events,his version is easier to digest for mind numb americans such as your very good self....
So here is a little assignement for you since you have been a good boy and looked up who sameer Kintaar was.....you will need to look up those names...
Wail Zuyatir
Ghassan kanafani
Bassam Abu Sharif
Anis Sayigh
Ignorance is indeed bliss for you...
God Bless HA/Hamas
Semper Fi an dall that crap
Redneck
PC...the more you write...the more you look like a twat...
The more you post, the more you look like an un-repentant terrorist :)
Careful who you say Semper Fi too. Semper Fidelis is the Marine Corps motto. A marine may say that to you right before he kills you some day.
Or, maybe I'll say it to him, right after :P
PC....I'm not exactly sure how you came to the conclusion of me being a terrorist..... Is it the fact that I disagree with your retarded arguments and have shown their shallowness....Is it too much for you to do some research on your very own, instead of depending on Fox news for unbiased reporting... I know it is hard to tax your brains, but hey you have to excersice the grey fluff between your ears....
So who is the terrorist PC??.... You know jackshit about me, yet still threatened to kill me, and infact contradicted your very own words.
"Look at what this redneck tpalestinians is saying. You think he's the only one who thinks that way? He is one of the people who dances on the streets when Jews or Westerners are killed."
and later on
"Careful who you say Semper Fi too. Semper Fidelis is the Marine Corps motto. A marine may say that to you right before he kills you some day.
Or, maybe I'll say it to him, right after :P"
Who is actually rejoicing for murder..... Yes indeed....it is the ugly american....
Honestly highlander ....what kind of psychopaths do u pull to your blog....some bulgarian girl who is openly rooting for genocide, and sees it as a bit of fun.....and a nutcase who threatens to kill people because they happen to disagree with what he believes in.... Jeeez HL...Just be careful and stay stuff
God Bless HA/Hamas
Laterzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
By the way, Palestinian Terrorist, where the hell you been the last 5 years that you think it's OK to openly support an international terrorist group? Haven't you noticed how many people are being arrested and prosecuted for doing that?
It just shows your limited intellectual capability that you dont know where the term "redneck" is derived from... You dont even know your "american" history, infact can you even point out where the hell is your country on the map? or are you as dumb as your high school students
God Bless Hamas/HA
Redneck
Redneck
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In modern usage, the term redneck predominantly refers to a particular stereotype of individuals living in Appalachia, the Southern United States, the Ozarks, and later the Rocky Mountain States.
The word can be used either as a pejorative or as a matter of pride, depending on context.
As for "Redneck" I just quoted Wikipedia, one of the most trusted and acclaimed online encyclopedias. You two seemed to have pretty differing views on the term. I did not in any way comment on how the self-nominated "Redneck" here uses the term.
And Craig, we disagree on most things but at least we agree that what Isreael are doing in Gaza and Southern Lebanon are two different things. I still am keen to hear your reply in my previous (deleted) question to you about Gaza. (The fresh-water supplies among other things).
And now, please let me ask you something which might appear off topic, but in my view, puts a perspective on things. The Hizbollah have killed hundreds of American citizens, over the last few decades. And they have killed several of your friends and you hate their F*****G guts. Fair enough.
But just how many Americans are murdered by Americans in violent crime every year? I think it is around 10.000 people, but if you have a more exact number, share it with us. Do you feel that your government is using its budget wisely, when it comes to saving American lives? What if law enforcement spending would be increased by just a tiny fraction of a fraction of what is spent in Iraq?
Hi Adam,
Discussion about whether or not a racist term is a racist term is moot. If I made a Wikipedia entry explaining how calling an arab "raghead" was actually a compliment, would that make it true? I'm going to bow out of any further discussion of the meaning of the word, as the discussion itself is racist, in my opinion. It's not a big deal. Lots of people are racist against white people in the US. It borders on being socially acceptable. I just wanted to point out (to those who may not know any better) that it is indeed a racist term, and using it around rednecks - I can say that because I could be considered one - can draw an unpleasant violent reaction. Particularly if the person you call a redneck really *is* a redneck. They aren't known as reasonable and level headed folks :)
And Craig, we disagree on most things but at least we agree that what Isreael are doing in Gaza and Southern Lebanon are two different things.
I'm not so sure we do agree on that. My position is that HAMAS and Hezbollah are unrelated entities, with unrelated goals.
I still am keen to hear your reply in my previous (deleted) question to you about Gaza. (The fresh-water supplies among other things).
I was planning on answering that comment. However, I don't recall what was said anymore. Can you reframe it for me?
But just how many Americans are murdered by Americans in violent crime every year? I think it is around 10.000 people, but if you have a more exact number, share it with us.
I have no idea what the number is. I do know it's been falling since the 80s, but America is still a violent society.
Do you feel that your government is using its budget wisely, when it comes to saving American lives?
I'm not signing off on that analogy. Criminal violence is handled by the justice system and the police. We do not have that option when dealing with acts of violence committed against us on a state level over seas. Such things are resolved by diplomacy or war. If the Lebanese government would disarm Hezbollah, and send Hezbollah criminals who have committed crimes against the US to America for trial, that would be an acceptable diplomatic solution. Likewise, if Iran would send us the thousands of so-called students who seized our embassy in Tehran and held our diplomats hostage in 1979, to be prosecuted for kidnapping, that would be an acceptable diplomatic soultion.
However, these things haven't happened. So it's war.
What if law enforcement spending would be increased by just a tiny fraction of a fraction of what is spent in Iraq?
What if it was? The quest to end crime is as endless and futile as the quest to end war.
But to go along with your thinking... a better way to reduce the murder rate would be to lower judicial standards for prosecution and conviction. Police usually know who the murderers are. The difficulty is in making a winnable legal case against them. We could just let cops haul murders off and dispose of them quietly, like other countries do. Repeat offenders are also a makor source of violent crime. The "3 strikes" law has helped tremedously (third violent felony = life in prison without parole) but violent crime almost always ends up in murder sooner or later. Criminals practice a type of progressive behavior - their crimes get worse and worse over time. Why not just lock people up forever, the first time they are convicted of a violent crime?
But that's not the way our system is set up. For better or for worse.
Even this Libyan Warrior gets to talk treason and advocate murder, until he crosses some "red line" and the feds pick him up and prosecute him. Why can't we just lock him up now? It's obvious where he's heading.
Such is life in America. And we (usually) like it that way. I'm a Libertarian myself and I generally believe the rights of the individual outweigh the concerns of the state.
Hey Craig,
neither did I assign too much importance to my Wiki reference but your (first) reaction to it was rather strong so I just wanted to explain myself. I always thought of the term as pretty derogatory. So I found the entry surprising and interesting. If they were wrong, too bad. So exit Wiki/Redneck.
As for Lebanon and Hizbollah I personally think the Lebanese (people as well as governement) would be happy too see them disappear. But they lack the means to throw them out. The Hizbollah are simply too strong, and Lebanon has been weakened by (almost) constant wars. So I say that talk like "They deserve it, they made thier own mess" is grossly over-simplified.
Hizbollah was the aggressor this time and I too would be happy to see Hizbollah disappear (by an act of God, by a glitch in the time-space-continuum or by a bit of black magic) but I find what Israel are doing today is highly unjust, counter-productive and blatantly dishonest.
Unjust because the amount of civilian deaths and distroyed infrastructure is disproportionate beyond reason to the number of Hizbollah members killed. And the suffering of the Lebanese surpasses the suffering of the Israeli by more ballparks than we can count.
Counter-productive becuase I believe that terrorism does not breed off genes (or books as some claim), it breeds off anger. Take away the anger, (i.e. let the Pallies be), and you have taken away most of the the ground that breeds terror. If you kill 20 "terrorists a.k.a freedom fighters" and 200 civilians, you have most probably created more fresh, and agry, enemies. Or simply: "War on terrorism with bombs is like war on drugs with bombs."
(OT sorry: Didn't Bush s:r declare a "war on drugs")
Dishonest, because I think that the Issies are not that stupid. They know that what they do is to some extent counter-productive. I can only conclude that they have (also) other objectives beside what they say. I could speculate on those, but I now I will stop at saying that I find it fishy.
And my previous questions to you Craig. Yes most probably a majority [of Americans] are more in favour of Israel than the Arab world, in general. Do you think that means they support all that they do now? (Yesterday a poll on cnn.com showed a slight, 55/45, majority against the latest Israeli actions, but I guess many international readers).
And returning to Highlander's start of this thread, Gaza, which frankly makes my heart bleed. What good, in your opinion, is achieved by disrupting fresh-water supplies? Or on previous ocasions, destroyng olive-plantations? Do you find it credible that the Israeli offensive had as its only objective to recapture their soldier? Personally I am convinced that the Israeli government were just waiting for a pretext to cause more mayhem. They want to weaken the existence for all Palestinians, and weaken it, no matter if Hamas is in charge or not.
LibyanWarrior, we all saw you blessing Hezbollah on this blog. Don't pretend now that you are not a Hezbollah supporter. And when you support people who murder Americans (and murdered friends of mine, on personal level) that *is* a threat against this country. I interpret it as such, in any case. Why don't you follow my advice and go down to Camp Lejeune praising Hezbollah to the Marines at the gate, and we can easliy get this issue resolved :)
You certianly don't have to accept my interpretation of what you said.
Hi Alan,
So I say that talk like "They deserve it, they made thier own mess" is grossly over-simplified.
I don't recall saying that, so I'll pass on that without comment. Maybe you intended it for somebody else?
Unjust because the amount of civilian deaths and distroyed infrastructure is disproportionate
There is no such concept as "justice" in a war. Wars are just or unjust due to the reasons they are begun. Not because of the way they are fought.
Neither is there any concept of proportionality.
The object is to destroy the enemy. Not to exact measured retribution.
Counter-productive becuase I believe that terrorism does not breed off genes (or books as some claim), it breeds off anger. Take away the anger
Well, I don't agree with you. I think it comes from indoctrinated programs of hatred. In other words, it comes from childhood.
(i.e. let the Pallies be), and you have taken away most of the the ground that breeds terror.
That doesn't seem to be a factual statement. Russians never did anything to Palestinians. Yet, Chechnyans have not spared Russia terrorist attacks. And neither did Afghans during the 80s.
If you kill 20 "terrorists a.k.a freedom fighters" and 200 civilians, you have most probably created more fresh, and agry, enemies. Or simply: "War on terrorism with bombs is like war on drugs with bombs."
Yes. Like killing Nazis just created more Nazis in World War II, right? :D
Sorry, I can't help being snarky. That's such a bizarre mindset. Let the criminals do what they want, because if you crack down on crime, you'll just create more crime. Right?
Terrorism will cease when parents stop raising their children to be terrorists. That's my belief. As for the current supply, I'm hoping muslim societies will eventually alienate them and shun them to the point where they become irrelevant. If that doesn't work, they will all have to be killed.
However, I don't think there is an endless supply of would-be Jihadis.
(OT sorry: Didn't Bush s:r declare a "war on drugs")
Nope. That was Ronald Reagan :)
Dishonest, because...
That's not for you (or me) to say. You are free to believe what you wish, but Israel has the right under international law to defend itself from attack.
And my previous questions to you Craig. Yes most probably a majority [of Americans] are more in favour of Israel than the Arab world, in general. Do you think that means they support all that they do now?
Simple answer? Yes.
It's a popular myth created outside of teh United States that the US does not stand in support of Israel. We do. We aren't like the British. We support our allies without backhanding them across the face at the same time. And we are even less like the French, who don't even know what the word "ally" means, apparrently.
Do you find it credible that the Israeli offensive had as its only objective to recapture their soldier?
Yes. To get their missing soldier back, and to encourage the Palestinians not to offer up a repeat performance. What else do you think their purpose would be?
Personally I am convinced that the Israeli government were just waiting for a pretext to cause more mayhem.
I can see that. Do all Europeans hate Israel so much? Why? If you don't mind me asking?
You say both sides have done wrong. Yet I see you only making passing reference to wrongs done to Israelis. And then you go into Israel's evil ways in great detail.
I'm really at a loss as to what your motives are.
To be honest, I don't see enough balance in your comments to even want to discuss it with you. I'd rather talk about Lebanon, as that involves my country, and I'll be happy to get partisan about that one :)
I don't want to be a defender of Israel. I'm not Israeli and I'm not jewish. I'm not going to play the pro-Israel partisan. If you want to discuss it obejctively, you'll have to at least pretend to be objective :)
I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that you guys are so anti-Israel. You don't treat America nay better. We took the same beating Israel did from the "international community" and we still do. Every single day. Israel doesn't care much about you guys any more. And, neither do Americans. But we can still have discussions, right? Just try to maintain some degree of balance. Especially if you want me to play the role of "defender" of a country that is not my own.
Maybe we can get one of the Israeli commenters from Sandmonkey's blog over here to talk about Gaza and the West Bank.
Craig wrote:
Do all Europeans hate Israel so much? Why? If you don't mind me asking?
Personally I do not. (Read what I write about Rabin further down.)I do hate their present policies. That is an important distinction that I make.
Between the Oslo agreement and the second intifada there was a good peace-proces. That was ended by Sharon's temple-mountain stunt. In my opinion that was a deliberate provocation. Stone-thowers were shot dead. And things have gone downhill since then.
You say that a majority of Americans support Israel in all that they do. So I assume that you do too. You went to great pains to replying to my post, thanks :), but you missed these qustions, so I ask for a third time: What good is achieved by disrupting fresh-water supplies and by destroying olive-plantations? I also wonder what good is achieved by settlers living on Palestinian land?
True what you say,I do focus on the wrongs done by Israel, and much less on Hamas. You wonder why. Because I am trying to figure out how you feel about them.
And about terrorism, indocrination is perhaps to some degree true, but that is the firewood. The match that lights the fire is anger over the state-of the affairs.
How can I support that?. During a two-year-period while Yitzak Rabin was Prime Minister in Israel, there was not single terrorist act. Not one, hold that thought. He was great leader of Israel, and during his moderate non-confrontational leadership there was hope on both sides. How did Rabin die? By the hands of an Israeli extremist. So sad.
(OT: Reagan's war on drugs. Was that a successful war :P)
Hi Again, Adam :)
Personally I do not. (Read what I write about Rabin further down.)I do hate their present policies. That is an important distinction that I make.
I'm not sure what you mean by that? You liked the Oslo accords? Was there any other period in the last 60 years in which you didn't hate Israel's policies?
I have to say, I don't think that's a very good testament to your objectivity. That's the same stance militant Palestinians take.
Between the Oslo agreement and the second intifada there was a good peace-proces.
Really? The resulting peace of the "peace process" was what, exactly?
That was ended by Sharon's temple-mountain stunt. In my opinion that was a deliberate provocation.
Israeli troops, Palestinians clash after Sharon visits Jerusalem sacred site
I don't see it that way. Whether what Sharon said was true, or what Ashrawi said is true, how does such a trivial thing justify the kind of violence that followed?
Again, Israel is the victim, and is portrayed as the victimizer.
Stone-thowers were shot dead.
That doesn't seem to be a factual statement, from what I've been able to ascertain:
More than 30 people, most Israeli soldiers, were hurt in the Jerusalem clashes, which began after Sharon left what Jews call the Temple Mount and Muslims call al-Haram as-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary.
Do you have some info that's better than that CNN article?
And things have gone downhill since then.
And whose fault was that?
That was 3 months before Arafat walked out on the deal Clinton brokered between Barak and Arafat. Which would have given Palestinians MUCH more than they have any hope of getting now.
You say that a majority of Americans support Israel in all that they do. So I assume that you do too.
That was my short answer, yes. That's been true all of my life, too. It's not something new.
Most Americans try to be fair, though. I used to try to be fair as well. Or at least, I tried to be detached. However, I've been abused (personally) by Palestinians and their supporters on blogs too many times. It's very difficult for me to be objective on this issue anymore. It seems quite clear to me where the hate is coming from. Also, the Palestinian/Israeli conflict has been used as a justification for attacks on my country, and my countrymen. By Osama bin Ladin, and others. If Palestinians and their "allies" insist on making the US a combatant in their war, then so be it. Nothing I can do about that.
What good is achieved by disrupting fresh-water supplies and by destroying olive-plantations?
I didn't answer because I have no idea what you are referring to. Can you provide some reputable links?
I also wonder what good is achieved by settlers living on Palestinian land?
Well, the settlers were forcibly evacuated from Gaza some time ago. Do you have information to the contrary?
However, I'll answer your question anyway. The purpose of the settlers was (best guess on my part) to tamp down on palestinian insurgency.
True what you say,I do focus on the wrongs done by Israel, and much less on Hamas. You wonder why. Because I am trying to figure out how you feel about them.
Why does it matter how I feel about them? I'm not Jewish and I'm not Israeli, as I said. I've never even been to Israel.
I want to hear how you feel about wrongs done by Palestinians. And not just HAMAS. The first time I ever even heard the word "Palestinian" was when I was watching the munich Olympics when I was 8 years old. Every time I heard the word throughout the 1970s, it was because of a plane hijacking, a massacre, or a bombing.
My perceptions have never changed. The perceptions of most Americans have never changed. Yours have. And most Europeans have. How, and why? That's what I want to know. What happened in Europe, that is different than what happened in the United States?
And about terrorism, indocrination is perhaps to some degree true, but that is the firewood. The match that lights the fire is anger over the state-of the affairs.
No. I don't agree. As I said before, I don't think it's anger. It's hate. Anger is a fleeting emotion. If the murderous hatred wasn't there, the anger wouldn't amount to any more than the anger I have towards Hezbollah. I would like to see Hezbollah destroyed. But I wouldn't extend that anger to random Lebanese (or further extend it to random arabs, or even worse, random muslims) and then set myself a mission to personally exterminate them.
Anger doesn't explain it. Brainwashing explains it.
(OT: Reagan's war on drugs. Was that a successful war :P)
Yes :)
Recreational drug use is a lot less common now than it was in the 1980s. Though drug addiction rates are not much improved.
Still not sure why you're throwing taht one out there, though. Just curiousity?
Aha Craig !
A child of -64, I knew there was something good in u! :)
Will get back l8r.
LW...Thanks for clearing up the "redneck" non-issue...once again a "foreigner" had to teach an american his own heritage/history...
Back to PC. Thanks to Adam I now know why you hate HA...On a personal level, I would not blame you...I mean probably one of your boyfriends got shafted in the blast and booked an express ticket to hell...What can I say?? Personal loss does cloud someone's judgement....but do not despair, they are only collateral damage on the way to winning the war on terror ;)...
But seriously, you really need to stop bitching and whining about HA, and look closer to home.... At the end of the day, HA is the natural response to years of f***** policies adopted locally by the goons ( That is middleast leader for your limited mind) who were supported by the successive US governments, and the external policies by the super powers.
Had the US been genuinely interseted in spreading democracy/freedom/economic prosperity in the region, then non of this shit would have had happened... but at every turn where the could have made a difference, it made the wrong choices. It is Interesting that you mention the iranian hostage crisis and then go on to bicth about law/justice.... Yet you fail miserably to mention that 25 years before that event, the Irarinans had a democratically elected that the US actively undermined and got rid of through black ops, and then went to support one of the worst dictators who managed to kill tens of thousands of Iranians... You really think that people will just forget your deeds and move on?? and what happened in the end....Iran is being governed by Mad Mullah's, and whose fault was it?? This is one of example of many that I can mention....
End of the day, if you want to play dirty, then expect your foes to reciprocate....so don't bitch and whine when they do....
HL look after yourself & stay safe ....I had enough with this buffoooooon...will be back in few weeks time
God Bless HA/Hamas
Redneck
Adam, do you see these two psychopaths who are supporters of Palestine? How am I supposed to be "neutral" when every time I see the Palestinian perspective presented on the internet, it's coming form people who want to see dead Americans? How does it make you feel, to have them as your ideological allies? It doesn't make me feel very good, to see Europeans supporting people who would like to see me dead, and my country destroyed.
LW,
How many times have you said that you support America's enemies, and want America (and Europe) to be defeated? Newsfalsh! We are at war! When you say that you want Americans to lose the war, you are saying you want us DEAD. You really aren't very bright, are you?
These aren't difficult concepts. You support our enemies during a war, you are supporting our deaths.
Nice "r u jewish" comment. You've made two completely unrelated racist attacks on me now. First you call me a redneck, then you call me jewish? What am I, a jewish redneck? And since I've said twice in this thread that I am not jewish, you also just called me a liar.
Thank you for speaking up, by the way, and for being honest. I think AlanK can look at you very easily and see what drives terrorism. You are a nearly ideal example.
Ho! Ho! Highlander has 34796 page-views, and counting! At least that is one thing that all bloggers here; Black, White, Red, Green and Yellow, must cheer for! :D
And Craig, ah well man, you ask me so many questions so I have a bit of trouble keeping up with them. Some of them will need a bit of further research, and will be answered later on, and some might trigger rebounds, others might be lost among the others, so please bear with me, and remind me if I miss an important one.
This discussion here has swayed back and forth. Highlander's thread started in Gaza and - from now on - I will try to stay on that subject :)
You wonder by what I mean with my remarks about the period 93-99-ish. And then you say that my views match those of militant Pallies. And I wonder what you mean by that. So now we begin with a total bewilderment at each others statements.
Exactly what part of my statement do you mean? The Oslo accord certainly opened up for a bit of optimism, I think. I assume you do not find the Oslo agreement wrong. (Or if it was wrong, then it must have been wrong for the Issies to sign it, and for Clinton to endorse it.) I feel that for a few years the Israeli leadership was on the right track. What extremists share that view? Since the 80’s (dunno enough ‘bout before) I think that Israeli policies mostly have been confrontational, with the exception of a few years. True I used the word hate, perhaps a trifle strong. I acknowledge the good stuff and denounce the bad. Am I an extremist?
Really? The resulting peace of the "peace process" was what, exactly?
Was what I said: two years of peace. Number of terrorist acts: nil. A brief glimmer of hope.
I want to hear how you feel about wrongs done by Palestinians.
Palestinian acts towards civilians: wrong and totally wrong. Palestinian acts within their own borders towards the IDF: self defence. But I see a lot more dead Palestinians than Israelis. You see the Palestinians as aggressors. I see the occupation as an aggression. But even if we regard the Palestinians as “aggressors”: the Israeli “response” uses excessive force, far beyond what is justifiable and productive in self-defence. (Productive? Yes, remember the peaceful two years in the mid/late 90’s)
I might be a softie, but if I see a big kid punching the wits out of a small kid in the street I feel sorry for the small kid, even if the small kid started it. If the big kid is my kid and he comes home with a bruise and the small kid goes to hospital, I tell my kid to hold his fire next time. That is what I feel. I hope this is an answer to your question.
Or as our hostess, Highlander writes: “So sad....may God rest the dead, the dying and those about to die in Peace. It does not matter whether they are Israelis or Arabs, death is the same to all.”
My question on the disruption of fresh water supplies in Gaza: The exact story in the news was destroyed power-stations that were crucial to water supplies. Does that ring a bell or shall I look it up?
Subjects to be dealt with later:
The so called "Palestininan walk-out", of that story there is a version of an Israeli walk-out. I will try to find a trusted source on that. Ideas anyone?
أتمني ان نتبنى جميعا كمدونين كلمه واحده بتاريخ واحد نحدد فيه رأينا للعالم اجمع
اتمني ان ندون مدونه واحد بتاريخ 27/07/2006
كلنا كمدونين نكرر عباره واحده
كلنا مع لبنان وفلسطين ضد اسرائيل والمحتلين
ولننشر كلماتنا القليله في جميع المنتديات والمواقع ليكون هذا اليوم يوم احتجاج
بالعربي بالانجليزي المهم نسمع صوتنا للعالم
وان لم نستطيع حمل السلاح فالنحمل الكلمه
وبأي لغة نستطيع نشرها
بالإنجليزية
We are with Lebanon and Palestine against Israel and occupiers
والفرنسية
Nous sommes avec tous le Liban et la Palestine contre l’Israel et les occupants
والألمانية
Wir sind zusammen mit dem Libanon und Palästina gegen Israel und Besatzer
والإسبانية
Somos todos con Líbano y Palestina contra Israel e inquilinos
والصينية
我们都是同黎巴嫩和巴勒斯坦对以色列占领者
واليابانية
私達はイスラエル共和国および占有者に対してレバノンおよ
びパレスチナとのすべてである
تحياتي للجميع
Israel’s historical use of violence
By Jonathan Cook
07/20/06
The general surprise that Lebanese civilians are taking the brunt of Israel’s onslaught -- and the unwillingness in some quarters of the media to report the fact -- reflects a poor understanding of Israel’s historical use of violence. Since its birth six decades ago, Israel has always been officially “going after the terrorists”, but its actions have invariably harmed civilians in an indiscriminate manner.
The roll call of dishonour is long indeed, but its highlights include: the massacre of some 200 civilians in Tantura, as well as large-scale massacres in at least a dozen other Palestinian villages, during the 1948 war that established Israel; Ariel Sharon’s attack on the village of Qibya in 1953 that killed 70 innocent Palestinians; the Kfar Qassem massacre inside Israel when 49 farm workers were gunned down at an improvised army checkpoint; a massacre in the same year in the refugee camp of Khan Yunis, in Gaza, in which more than 250 civilians were killed; attacks on dozens of Palestinian, Egytian and Syrian villages during the 1967 war; the killing of six unarmed Arab citizens of Israel in 1976; the massacre of hundreds of Palestinian civilians in the Lebanese refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla in 1982; the unremitting use of lethal force by the army against unarmed Palestinians, often women and children, during the first intifada of 1987-93; the aerial bombardment of Qana in south Lebanon in 1996 that killed more than 100 civilians; and the endless “collateral damage” of Palestinian civilians during the second intifada, including a half-ton bomb that killed a husband and wide and their seven children a week ago.
The true reasons for these deaths are concealed from credulous observers by Israel’s use of Orwellian language. When it says it is destroying the “infrastructure of terror”, Israel means it is crushing all Arab resistance to its territorial ambitions in the region. The “infrastructure” includes most Arab men, women and children because they continue to support -- against Israel’s wishes -- their peoples’ rights to self-determination without interference from the Israeli army.
In this sense, and others, there is very little difference between what Israel is doing in Gaza to overturn the democratic wishes of the Palestinian electorate and what it is doing in Lebanon to smash any hopes of a democratic future for its northern neighbour. In Gaza, it wants Hamas destroyed because Hamas is prepared to counter Israel’s unilateral policies with its own unilateral agenda; and in Lebanon, Israel wants Hizbullah obliterated because it is the only force capable, possibly, of preventing a repeat of Israel’s long invasion and occupation of the 1980s and 1990s.
By rounding up the Palestinian cabinet, Israel is not destroying terror, it is clipping the political wings of Hamas, those in its leadership who are quickly learning the arts of government and searching for a space in which they can negotiate with Israel. Through its rejectionist behaviour, Israel is only confirming the doubts of those in the Hamas military wing who argue Israel always acts in bad faith.
Similarly in Lebanon, Israel is holding Hizbullah less to account with its attacks than the Lebanese people and their government, despite the latter’s transparently shaky grip on the country. Israel’s military strikes polarise opinion in Lebanon, weaken Fouad Siniora and his ministers, and threaten to push Lebanon over the brink into another civil war.
Israel is keen to talk about “changing the balance of power” in Gaza and Lebanon, implying that it is trying to stregthen the “democrats” against the “terrorists”. But this impression is entirely false. Israeli actions are destroying what little balance of power exists in Gaza and Lebanon so that the two areas become ungovernable.
In Gaza, Israel has been engineering a debilitating struggle for power between Fatah and Hamas, while in Lebanon whatever hollow shell of national unity has existed till now is in danger of cracking under the strain of the Israeli onslaught.
Superficially at least, this seems self-destructive behaviour on Israel’s part, given that it has also been striving to detect the fingerprints of outside actors in Gaza and Lebanon.
In the case of Gaza, Israel points to Syria as a safe haven for the exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshal, to Hizbullah and Iran as sponsors of Hamas “terror” and even to a new al-Qaeda presence. In the case of Lebanon, Israel additionally identifies the strong ties between Hizbullah and Damascus and Tehran.
So why would Israel want Lebanon and Gaza to be ravaged by factional fighting of the kind that might make them more vulnerable to this kind of unwelcome interference from outside?
A history lesson or two helps clarify Israel’s reasoning
In the occupied Palestinian territories, Hamas was born during the upheavals of the first intifada and encouraged by Israel as a counterweight to the unifying secular Palestinian nationalism of Yasser Arafat.
In Lebanon, the Shiite militia Hizbullah was the inevitable byproduct of Israel’s occupation of the south and its establishment of a mostly Christian proxy militia, the South Lebanon Army, against the Muslim majority.
In both cases it is clear Israel hoped that, by Islamising its opponents in these regional conflicts, it would delegitimise them in the eyes of Western allies and that it could cultivate sectarianism as a way to further weaken the social cohesiveness of its neighbours.
Recently Israel has encouraged the slide deeper into Islamic extremism through its policies of unilateralism and its refusal to negotiate.
The same set of policies is being continued now in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon: the shattering of these two societies will only deepen the trend toward radical Islam. Islamic movements not only offer the best hope of local resistance to Israel for these weakened societies but they also offer a parallel social infrastructure of health care and welfare services as state institutions collapse.
There is immediate advantage for Israel in this outcome. With secular society crushed and Islamic resistance movements filling the void, Israel will be able to reinforce the impression of many in the West that Israel is on the front line of global “war of terror” being waged by a single implacable enemy, Islam. Israel’s ability to persuade the world that this war is being waged against the whole “civilised” Judeo-Christian West will be made that bit easier.
As a result, Israel may be able to drag its paymaster, the United States, deeper into the mire of the Middle East as a junior partner rather than as an honest broker, giving Israel cover while it carves up yet more Palestinian land for annexation, puts further pressure on the Palestinains to leave their homeland, and destablises its regional enemies so that they are powerless to offer protest or resistance.
For some time President Bush has found himself in no position to criticise Israeli actions when Tel Aviv claims to be doing no more to the Palestinians than the US is doing to the Iraqis. If the US allows itself to be handcuffed to Israel’s even more extreme version of the “war on terror”, the consequences will be dire not just for the Palestinians or the region, but for all of us.
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His book, “Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State” is published by Pluto Press. His website is www.jkcook.net
Hi AlanK,
You wonder by what I mean with my remarks about the period 93-99-ish. And then you say that my views match those of militant Pallies. And I wonder what you mean by that.
I mean exactly what I said. The only thing I've ever heard militant Palestinians say that was good about Israel, is that time period when Israel was making REAL concessions, in exchange for false promises.
That doesn't make you an extremist. It just makes you one sided in your views, in my opinion. The Oslo accords were not a victory for the peace process. They led the ME to where it is right now. Which is not peace.
Was what I said: two years of peace. Number of terrorist acts: nil. A brief glimmer of hope.
2 years, out of 60?
And Arafat abandoned Oslo as soon as he got what he milked the accords for all he could get. When it came time to close the deal, he walked out of Clintons office and declared war on Israel.
Palestinian acts towards civilians: wrong and totally wrong.
That's a very brief statement, to cover hundreds of acts of outright TERRORISM don't you think?
Don't you think that deserves a little more examination?
You asked me why teh US supports Israel. The answer is we see Israel being subjected to the *exact* same types of terrorist attack that Americans have been subjected to since the 1970s.
But I see a lot more dead Palestinians than Israelis.
Ah.... and that's the measure of who is right, and who is wrong?
The Japanese suffered far more deaths in combat opeartions than teh Americans did. I guess we were the bad guys in WW II.
Likewise, the British were the bad guys in World War II, as their casualties were very light compared to German casualties.
How many people from your country diewd in World War II? Perhaps you were the bad guys too. I'm not sure where you live, but unless you are German or Russian, you are almost certainly on the "bad guy" team, using your "losses sufferred" standard.
You see the Palestinians as aggressors. I see the occupation as an aggression.
You have to look at the root cause of a military occupation to determine who the aggressor was.
Under what circumstances did Israel occupy those lands?
Germany was occupied after WWII as was Japan. I don't think any sane person would claim that they were teh victims of aggression.
But even if we regard the Palestinians as “aggressors”: the Israeli “response” uses excessive force, far beyond what is justifiable and productive in self-defence.
We've already discussed this. Those concepts do not exist in war.
I might be a softie, but if I see a big kid punching the wits out of a small kid in the street I feel sorry for the small kid, even if the small kid started it.
Who is the "big kid" then Adam? The 5 million Israelis stuck in the middle of 150 million Arabs?
That's nuts. You must be pulling for the Israelis then, right?
And don't even tell me the Israelis were better armed. The Arabs were armed by the soviets, and soveit weaponry was superior to American made stuff until the 1980s. Most especially the tanks. The T-72 was the best tank of it's time, bar none.
And don't even get me started on teh US funding Israel either, not with all the oil money the arabs have.
I unfortunately read Libyan Warriors abusive comments before responding here, so my tempre is a bit up. Nothing to do with you. Perhaps we can continue (if you wish to) in one of the new posts that I see Highlander has posted :)
Anonymous, please link the propaganda articles from now on, instead of copy-pasting them as comments?
If you have nothing to say (in your own words) don't say anything, eh?
Is anybody still following this thread? I wish to attract your attention to the strange silence of the only Palestinian blogger I know, Nadz (nadz101.blogspot.com).
She is a young Palestinian-American and for the last several months since I know her blog, she seems to be becoming less Palestinian and more American, an evolution quite opposite to that of LibyanWarrior.
I of course expected her to comment on the Gaza operation, but she didn't, although she comments on the later operation in Lebanon (blaming Hezbollah).
I find this silence at least as meaningful as any comment could be. My guess: Nadz blames Hamas for kidnapping the soldier, and most Palestinian adults for electing Hamas and now for approving the kidnapping in opinion polls. But she cannot write, as I would, "Israel, smash the bastards". Not even, as Big Pharaoh did, "Palestinians, you are morons". Because they are her people, despite all.
I still follow this thread Maya...
Post a Comment