Conflict: Israel and Lebanon part 2

here’s another view:

Israel should do this and when the dirty job is finished pass the “demilitarized” region back to the Lebanese army. I am sure most of Lebanon will be grateful including the Shia foot soldiers who do not necessarily support Hizbollah (only 14 seats in the legislature).

Sorry, I read it in the print edition. It was there. You will just have to take my word on this.

Not wanting to is not going to make any difference. If nothing is done, the difficulties we face in the future will be just that much worse.

Hizbollah has only 14 seats and they can be disarmed through force. Yes, Hamas is now a democratically elected government and will therefore have to take responsibility for its actions as will the Palestinian people. I think that more territorial loss should be on the table. That is the penalty that other governments have paid whenever they have engaged in aggression. Expel them from Gaza and send them to another Arab country. This is the historical norm. If they don’t like it then they had better start behaving. Ironic that when they were given full control of Gaza that it did not stop their violence which must mean then that Gaza will never be enough, full control of the West Bank will never be enough. They want Israel too. Now, again, we could discuss the right of Israel to exist but as long as our governments recognize that right, we have our hands tied in that department. We could always change that and that could certainly be another discussion.

I would say that while the heads of these organizations have been appointed by Bush, the vast bulk of the staff are against his policies and that if this is the case, some heads need to start rolling so that they get the point. The top comes and goes but the SOPs of these organizations can often ensure that official policy is not implemented because of the “better wisdom” of those in the ranks.

I am not going to cut and paste the whole exchange from the beginning. I do not see that you have discredited the sources that I posted. Iran IS actively trying to destabilize Iraq and gain influence. It is no friend of a democratically elected Shia government and has been aiding elements on both sides, the Baathists who are involved in the insurgency as well as Shia groups like Sadr’s.

I still stand by that statement. The vast majority of Shias in Iraq do not support Sadr. The Iranians naturally support Sadr. I am therefore not worried about the vast bulk of Shias forging some alliance with Iran. Iraq now has a democratically elected government in which the Shias form the majority and their leader as did their past leader (also Shia) have frequently condemned Iran for its interference in domestic Iraqi politics. Your point is therefore not to the point.

Strange then that the leader appointed by such a coalition would therefore condemn Iran for its interference in the country, eh?

No. I do not see that. I do not believe that the Shia elements in Iraq want to create a Shiastan in conjunction with Iran. They are Arabs first and foremost and they have a long history of emnity with the Persians regardless of their shared religion. I well imagine that many Shia groups would be happy to take Iranian money and Iranian support but that does not a linkup make.

Strange then that the new prime minister was so keen to send forces to stomp on these militias if they were all on the same side, eh? How do you explain that? The Iranian funded militias are being stomped on by the Iranian funded and supported government despite the fact that they are both in Iran’s pocket? I think that I am missing something here. Care to explain the inner workings of how this is possible or how it makes sense?

I think the author draws the wrong conclusion - the mindset is not that it’s ok ‘to trade one life for another, so long as no one overdoes it and upsets the balance sheets’ but rather that the response seems unjustified based on the situation and that another approach should have been taken.
The killing/kidnapping is of course wrong and to be condemned but to respond with war against an entire country, and that comes at the cost of the civilian population, is just wrong when only a few are responsible that did not act on behalf of the government. If the Mossad is as good as his reputation they could have found different ways to deal with it, and if Hezbollah members were getting killed during a rescue attempt I doubt anyone would blame Israel.

Otherwise it’s like saying because some US soldiers killed Iraqi civilians in cold blood it justifies war against the US (and soldiers in Iraq), something I am sure most people here would not agree with.

Such as …

  1. European led negotiations?
  2. UN troops to maintain the peace?
  3. Direct discussions?
  4. Giving the Palestinians land for peace?

Oh gee. I guess all four have already been tried. So how’s that working out then?

Picnics…they need to have more picnics.

That should calm things down.

I think that is a bunch of mumbo jumbo that the word rationalize doesn’t even begin to do justice to. So we’re to believe that yesterday’s killing of 56 Lebanese civilians and one Hezbolah is a rightous and measured response to the kidnapping of two enlisted men, i.e. not innocent civilians, which would be terrorism by the standard textbook definition. There couldn’t have been such a massive Israeli offensive if it were just rocket lobbings. They used the kidnappings as some kind of higher moral justication that gave a green light to war. But to limit the response to something less than actual warfare would be buying into a flawed kind of “tribal thinking” that is more evil than war itself. Absolutely ridiculous. :raspberry:

Kidnapping soldiers is a fair response to the arbitrary detentions Israel carries out against Lebanese people, such as this case of a doctor who was not on any of Israel’s lists of dangerous people but was kidnapped and held without trial, counsel or appeal. He was merely annoying to the Israelis.

I don’t think the word proportionality is even in the dictionaries in Israel. Who are they to tell the world what standards of proportionality to follow, or worse, to throw the idea of proportionality out the window. The world should then become like a scooter-punk gang beating session.

Despite the short term pain, in the end could this be good for Lebanon? By all admission, certain segments of Lebanese society are outward looking, sophisticated people (the Paris of the Middle East?) who’ve been taken captive by exported Islamist facism from Iran and Syria.

Ah yes bombing Lebanon’s infrastructure, killing 300+ civillians could be good for Lebanon…short term pain?..as long as you don’t feel any pain of course…this invasion is akin to invading Italy to get to the Mafia…support for Hizbullah will only grow stronger as the death toll rises …

Syria pulled out of Lebanon less than 18 months ago after 29-years……the Lebanese government, who has been held responsible for Hizbullah’s actions, is in its infancy…. Will the Iraqi government be in full control of all the armed groups within its borders after 18 months in power or do different standards apply?

Anyone who believes this should have their imamah examined.

The Hezbullah IS Syria.

Waddya mean JD? Syrian forces did leave Lebanon. I suppose it eases your concsious to think all Lebanese are a bunch a of rag headed "slamofascists, but actually, that’s simply not the case.

Good point jwcampbell. And so it goes . . again. . an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth . . .

HG

Dude, sip your coffee, don’t guzzle it.

I challenge you to find ANYWHERE on these boards where I have ever referred to any ARab as a “raghead” or “Islamafascist.”

The Hezbullah: from wiki:

Of course by then, Lebanon was run by Syria.

So let me get this straight, Hezbullah is an armed militant Lebanese group that wants an Islamic Theocracy,funded by Syria and Iran, holding several seats of power in the Lebanese government. They attack and abduct IDF troops…why? To help out their funder Iran, who is under a spotlight?

Give me a break. What nation would allow any political group, who receives funds from other countries, not to mention weapons, to serve as a representative of its people?

You want an analogy? How about the KKK being supported with money and weapons by Hitler’s Germany?

Your anger is misplaced on me bud. :slight_smile:

You’re right.

Right again! :laughing:

HG

Now to show that I’m being nice:

I think GWBush is doing a foin job!

Go to work on me.

You nailed it. Perfect analogy.

What’s an analogy for a country that keeps three million people penned up inside an arid wasteland with no natural resources and no right to freely come and go? without passports or statehood, with a 50% poverty rate and one of the highest infant malnourishment rates in the developed world and which gradually sends its citizens into that overpopulated ghetto to filch whatever scraps of desirable land are left over?

What’s an analogy for a country which provides the money, munitions and unquestioning moral support for that to occur while all the while declaring itself the keeper of democracy, freedom and human rights in the world?

what’s an analogy for going off topic? :wink:

No he’s not. It’s just a different analogy from a different perspective. Just because you disagree doesn’t mean Spook is off topic.

Going off-topic would be complaining how successive U.S. administrations feted Sinn Fein and turned a blind eye to fund raising and money being sent through Noraid to fund terrorism in the United Kingdom. Bastards.

BroonArmagh

What’s an analogy for not wanting to talk about the topic, Conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, and then bringing up the Palestinians? Can’t they get their own press?

It’s all an intertwined mess, so IMO, it was not off-topic. In this thread, there have also been numerous references to Hamas as well as Hezbollah. Hamas is Palestinian in origin no? You can’t separate the issues here. Don’t get the press comment, I’m afraid. maybe I am just less of a post-happy smart-arse, right-wing, pro-Israeli sycophant of the bomb 'em all variety. ( :wink: )

BroonAltercation