Israel v Lebanon

[El Salsero Gringo]

Hope this helps - an unbaised view (if one exists)
http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

An interesting site. Unbiased? Couldn't say, since like everyone, I view things through my own preconceptions. This line however jumped out at me: "Syria and Iran will fight Israel to the last Lebanese and the last Palestinian."

[Msfab]

An interesting site. Unbiased? Couldn't say, since like everyone, I view things through my own preconceptions. This line however jumped out at me: "Syria and Iran will fight Israel to the last Lebanese and the last Palestinian."

"Unbiased" - I mean it claims to states the facts of history! Its been written by people from many backgrounds working together to educate and inform!

Sorry ESG I couldnt find that line youve picked out

[azande]

He is just taking the ****, that sentence is not on the website.

[El Salsero Gringo]

"Unbiased" - I mean it claims to state the facts of history!

It claims to, sure, but even what it states as "facts" can be seen differently according to your point of view. (I'm not referring to anything in particular, I just don't trust any single source as authoritative or unbiased.)

The quote is from this page:

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000487.htm

I've no idea who Ami Isseroff is, but he sounds fairly left-wing Israeli in outlook. (And no, that's not intended to be perjorative!)

[stewart38]

Hear, Hear.

Iran and Syria, need to wake up to themselves and realise that they have bigger internal issues to deal with (in terms of health care, womens rights, justice) than Israel and that their citizens would benefit more from this than another prolonged draw out battle.

Lani

Lost me on that one ?

Might benefit the citizens but not the government who would do far better to preach about a ‘holly war’. If they want to keep power

[WittyBird]

Might benefit the citizens but not the government who would do far better to preach about a ‘holly war’. If they want to keep power

Is that the one where they were fighting the Ivy?

[Gus]

Agreed, but are you talking about Lebanon or Israel?

Wasn't aware that Lebanon had actualy done anything? Hizbollah isn't Lebannon in exactly the same way the IRA isn't Eire, hence my previous analogies .... or am I uninformed? Thats an honest question as I don't profess to be an expert on the socio-political situation out there

People seem very easy to make statements like its X's fault or Y's prvocation ... doesn't change thfcats, innocent people are being targetted. by all means eradicate the extremists (if you can) but don't use that aim as justification for the suffering of innocents. If you have actualy seen the terror and suffering a war brings then you would have second thoughts about ignoring their plight .,.. and yes, I have seen first hand the effect of a (civil) war ... it tends to make you averse to any conflict .

[MartinHarper]

ahh, deleted.

[bigdjiver]

I regret I do not have the links, but a look of the changing maps of the Middle East over the past century and a bit tells a big part of the story. If you add to that that those maps were drawn against the objections of many, if not most, who lived there under the auspices of the "Super Powers".

One example, a map of "Kurdistan" (allegedly):

http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/Pol...distan/map.gif

[MartinHarper]

I find it hard to take seriously claims that Hizbullah are using civilians as human shields. IDF actions suggest that non-Western civilians do not have a significant shielding effect. A more accurate phase might be "human camoflage".

[Dreadful Scathe]

Wasn't aware that Lebanon had actualy done anything?

They have if they are sponsoring Hezbolah, who then become "agents of the state" if you like. Israel certainly seem to believe this, and I would doubt its on a whim - but if you have insider information that says otherwise, please share
I find the assumption that Israel are in the wrong to be strange as there is so much conflicting evidence out there.

[bigdjiver]

I now recall the searches I made, it was for images of maps of "Persia", "Arabia", Kurdistan", along with the newer arrivals "Kuwait","Israel".

On the ground it is "This street is ours, that street is theirs, for now."

[stewart38]

"human camoflage".

Thought 'collateral damage' was ok

[El Salsero Gringo]

I now recall the searches I made, it was for images of maps of "Persia", "Arabia", Kurdistan", along with the newer arrivals "Kuwait","Israel".

On the ground it is "This street is ours, that street is theirs, for now."

Remember that Jordan is a "new arrival" too - although not many people know that. It was Created in 1920 (as the Emirate of Transjordan) with the stroke of a British pen, out of the eastern 80% of Mandatory Palestine. It achieved full independence not until 1946.

The tribe that the British saw fit to install on the (new) throne - the Hashemite dynasty - was not representative of the majority population there either.

[Msfab]

Please dont shoot me down for saying this (im not even sure i should write this but it is how I feel about). The problem with the whole of the middle east region (arab and jew) are the external influences over the years! They should be there to help yet they have helped noone but gained for themselves!

This 'Holy' Land that we fight over - Who wants a land full of innocent blood? 'We've' lived there for many years in relative peace/side by side before lands were separated! Would 'God/allah' (both the same) want to see his people fighting?

How about -
Give jews a land, Get rid of the palestines?
or Give palestinian a land, get rid of israelis?

None of these solutions will ever work!

Sorry - not sure what came over me there!

[El Salsero Gringo]

Here's a question: Pretty much unarguably, organisations like Hizbullah and Hamas gain credibility on the street and thus political leverage on high by being "firm", "tough", "standing up to Israel", not negotiating, refusing to compromise, maintaining rocket attacks, and so on, regardless (or perhaps because) of civilian casualties caused.

Is it not the case then that Israel too can earn "respect" - by being tough on Hizbullah, despite the obvious civillian casualties? Or is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander?

Is Israel always doomed to fall between the two stools - of being held to Western standards by its friends, yet being judged according to Middle-Eastern standards by its enemies?

[Clive Long]

An interesting site. Unbiased? Couldn't say, since like everyone, I view things through my own preconceptions. This line however jumped out at me: "Syria and Iran will fight Israel to the last Lebanese and the last Palestinian."

I guess that any country that for its whole existence has been concerned about, or at least believed, its neighbours' desire to destroy it:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...845402,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4378948.stm

would feel quite at liberty to do anything to protect itself - and stuff "world opinion".

However, and I can't find your post where you wrote something along the lines of - Israel is unique in that no other country is vulnerable to the stated aims of its opponents to destroy it. And something else along the lines of all other nation-nation conflicts (generalisation there) were to secure national borders. Please find the link if I have misrepresented you.

Israel cannot (unfortunately) claim to be in a uniquely vulnerable position it in this world to attempts to destroy it, which is uses to justify its behaviour. If we extend a little bit to areas that assert their right to autonomy but have been subject to systematic attempts at destruction from other states:

Russia over Chechnya
Sudan over Darfur
Iraq over the Kurds
Rwanda betwen the Hutus and Tutsis
Various Balkan cleansings
probably lots more

or can Israel claim unique status above those?

I can understand why Israel acts the way it does. I don't think its responses currently are proportionate.

Clive

[MartinHarper]

Pretty much unarguably, organisations like Hizbullah and Hamas gain credibility on the street and thus political leverage on high by being "firm", "tough", "standing up to Israel", not negotiating, refusing to compromise, maintaining rocket attacks, and so on, regardless (or perhaps because) of civilian casualties caused.

As I recall, until recently Hamas were undertaking a voluntary unilateral ceasefire against Israel. It lasted from Feb 2005 till June 2006: over a year. That doesn't match your description of an organisation refusing to negotiate or compromise.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/5065982.stm

[El Salsero Gringo]

I guess that any country that for its whole existence has been concerned about, or at least believed, its neighbours' desire to destroy it:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...845402,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4378948.stm

would feel quite at liberty to do anything to protect itself - and stuff "world opinion".

However, and I can't find your post where you wrote something along the lines of - Israel is unique in that no other country is vulnerable to the stated aims of its opponents to destroy it. And something else along the lines of all other nation-nation conflicts (generalisation there) were to secure national borders. Please find the link if I have misrepresented you.

I didn't say it was unique in the entire world. Nor did I say it was actually vulnerable. (I think you're referring to my post no 58 in this thread, above).

Israel cannot (unfortunately) claim to be in a uniquely vulnerable position it in this world to attempts to destroy it, which is uses to justify its behaviour. If we extend a little bit to areas that assert their right to autonomy but have been subject to systematic attempts at destruction from other states:

Russia over Chechnya
Sudan over Darfur
Iraq over the Kurds
Rwanda betwen the Hutus and Tutsis
Various Balkan cleansings
probably lots more

or can Israel claim unique status above those?

Gus was saying that Israel doesn't appear to understand the lessons that the Americans learned in Vietnam, and that the British learned in Ireland - that, in the end, you have to sit down and talk to your enemy. (Although I think he's oversimplifying both of those conflicts just to suit his own purposes).

In response I said that Comparing Israel to the US and to Britain (in those respective conflicts) wasn't any help because Britain and the US aren't denied legitimacy by those they are fighting. (The IRA was not trying to drive the British from Britain etc etc.) It's very hard to compromise on the fact of your existence - you either do or don't exist, not something you can fudge, really.

By contrast, Clive, you appear to be inverting Gus's comparison: likening Israel to the Chechens and the Kurds. That's an interesting way of looking at it, but I think it also falls down. Israel is an established national entity, member of the UN and has vastly more firepower than either of those two groups. Yes, it faces a collective enemy that vastly outnumbers it, but that collective is riven with its own political turmoils and is incapable of united action on pretty much any issue.

There are lots of conflicts the world over - and if you set your parameters loosely enough you can make all of them fit the same mould - sort of. But to turn round to one side in a conflict and ask "Haven't they learned the lessons of..." - and you can insert your favourite in the space - is pretty weak.

I can understand why Israel acts the way it does. I don't think its responses currently are proportionate.

Clive

On a strict definition of proportionate to the provocation that set off this conflict then no, they're not. Proportionate to six years of rocket fire? Maybe more so. But in the end is proportionality the supreme test of right and wrong? I don't know how to answer that, except to say that it's terribly terribly easy to sit here in the (peaceful) UK, or in the UN debating chamber and say that's the only thing that counts.

[Barry Shnikov]

I don't think it's important to anyone with their finger behind the trigger as to whether you're mystified or not.

That was sort of addressed to you, rather than those perpetrating the - um - events.

You appeared to be advancing the suggestion that Israel's goal was to prevent Hezbollah doing whatever it is that Israel doesn't like, whereas the attacks on Beirut appear to be rather surplus to that requirement.