Some articles from the other angle

[JohnnyV]

Hi all,

I'm sorry I've been less cheerful lately, but world events have made me very depressed. It's so hard to think seriously about sexuality issues when such devastation is occurring in other countries. There have been some political debates on this site, so I feel okay sharing these three articles with you:


http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views06/0725-23.htm
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1154197701
http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk07312006.html

They can offer some of the important information that gets neglected by mainstream media.

J

[12voltman59]

Excellent articles Johnny--thanks for sharing them--I have bookmarked the websites from where they eminate...

[EludedSunshine]

All across southern Lebanon now, you find scenes like this, not so grotesque in scale, perhaps, but just as terrible, for the people of these villages are terrified to leave and terrified to stay. The Israelis had dropped leaflets over Qana, ordering its people to leave their homes. Yet twice now since Israel's onslaught began, the Israelis have ordered villagers to leave their houses and then attacked them with aircraft as they obeyed the Israeli instructions and fled.

Wow. Normally I'm pretty bloody jaded to the atrocities that people are willing to commit, but this last sentence struck me. I'd say that I'm shocked that Israel is still getting support from the US and other governments, but sadly, it's not all that surprising. Pretty disgusting, yes, but not surprising.

At the risk of making a lot of enemies, I'm going to be honest, because it's what I do. I think Israel is a crock and has been ever since the first time someone (be it the UN or someone else some thousand years ago) suggested ousting the Palestinians from "Israel's chosen land." They left, and while I can sympathize with the fact that they feel like they have no homeland, it doesn't justify their ultimatum to Palestine. It would be great if they could coexist peacefully, but it's been made pretty clear that neither side wants this. They're probably going to keep ripping each other to shreds until there's no one left to fight. I had good friends in Israel half a dozen years ago, and even then, those friends (both within and not in the military) wanted nothing to do with peaceful negotiations. I admit I don't know much about current Middle-East affairs, but the state of things are becoming much more clear to those of us who usually choose to shy away from politics.

It's far past time to pull our governments out of there. Stop supporting the territory wars. If we really want to help the Israeli people, we should do what was suggested in another thread, and offer them some land here. Sure, it isn't the same, but it's better than being blown to bits.

*Prepares her butt for any assaults*

[12voltman59]

Here's another thing the Israeli's have done--they have fired upon ambulances bearing medical symbols, Red Cross and Red Crescent vehicles--something that is very clear to see that they are due to the high tech weaponry the Israeli military uses--much of it the same stuff our troops use and some they have developed that is every bit as good or better than ours---

Earlier today--I heard a BBC reporter challenging an Israeli official on that point--the official did not answer to the question directly, instead he replied along the lines that "we only shoot on those who fire at us--perhaps there were some katusha rockets fired from that area where the vehicles had been..."

the BBC reported dogged the official for a bit but did not press the point too much--he had other questions he wanted answers to in the all too short of segment--but the official--just like what we get from our administration officials basically said--"all is justified in the name of fighting terrorism..."

[teddyboy]

Don't forget that freedom and liberty have a price...blood. Isreal has a right to defend itself. Civilians get killed during war, it's just an unfortunate by product of a war when a nation is consistently attacked for their belief system.

Atrocities??? I wonder about that. Is it not an atrocity when some muslim fascist idiot walks into a cafe or onto a bus and proceeds to blow himself up with dynamite packed in nails? I have never heard of Isreal doing that.

As far as the ambulances go..Isreal has proven many times that the terrorist leaders will often use them to escape. Should they just let them by?

[intuit2]

Haven't read these through yet...but i lived in Israel for 8 years and do research on it. I'm probably as critical of Israeli politics and policies as most on the left, but realize the leftist press can be as biased as Fox. The truth is, too many people on both sides (or should i say all sides...because this is as much about the cold war between iran and the US as it is about the Hizballah and Israel) have made very bad decisions...and the United States, other Arab states, and the European countries have all vested interests in one party or another. The real victims are the citizens on both sides, who are not only victims of the bombs, but of the insane national rhetoric that has been created by respective leaders. The situation will not change by moving the Jews...its too late for that, and anybody who knows anything about Israel will realize that Israelis are as intricatley tied to the land as the Palestinians are. The Israelis do want peace..they're just not ready to make the concessions that will get them there....but the same is true for the Palestinians and Israel's neighbors. It takes some flexible thinking to get out of the quagmire. So please, before you choose a side in this conflict, stop watching the news...which is only reving up the rhetoric for their advertising revenues...read some more and realize that in this situation there is no good vs. bad or virtuous vs. evil. Binary thinking like that is what has led to conflicts like these in the first place.

[Azrael]

At the risk of making a lot of enemies, I'm going to be honest, because it's what I do. I think Israel is a crock and has been ever since the first time someone (be it the UN or someone else some thousand years ago) suggested ousting the Palestinians from "Israel's chosen land."

*Prepares her butt for any assaults*
Agreed. Prepares with you.

[Avocado]

Israel has taken the fucking piss once again. I don't know how it can continue to be supported in the way it TARGETS civilians like this.

[intuit2]

Johnny,

Thanks for putting these articles up...but unfortunately, people...even bisexual people, who i would hope to be open minded and flexible thinkers...are not up for real political debate. I totally agree israel is in the wrong...but they are not totally responsible for what is going on in the middle east, either. This kind of name-calling and blame-placing is exactly what get's wars started. It only leads to intransigence, which is what has been going on in the middle east for decades (not millenia, as many think). If people are not able to take some kind of responsibility for their words, then perhaps, sadly, political debates should not be part of this site. I hate it when i, a strong critic of Israeli politics and policies, have to defend Israel!

[timsgfdmo]

Civilians get killed during war,

There used to be a time when the world was more civilized. That was a time when soldiers were considered war criminals for carelessly killing civilians. You cant drop a 500lb bomb in a city and not expect innocent civilians to die. To drop 500lb bombs in a city regardless of what is targeted should be considered a war crime. Infantry should be sent in to arrest or kill the enemy. That would increase soldier casualties but then they are willing participants.

WWII really brought to the mainstream of acceptance the concept that it is ok to kill civilians. The US conducted terrorist acts by firebombing Japanese cities and dropping atomic bombs. The indefensible justification to defend these acts of intentionally targeting civilians (women and children) is always to prevent American soldier deaths. So is that justification ok for the current terrorists who dont have fighter jets and tanks and fight with what they have? Just like the US in WWII it fought with the weapons it had including bombers that firebombed. The US could have conducted an invasion instead of targeting civilians but it would have meant more American casualties so the US waged war on civilians just like modern terrorists. The US and its citizens have no moral high ground to lable others as terrorists unless we come to terms with our own terrorism. This trend of careless killing of civilains continued in Vietnam. If you are a walking accross the street and a drunk hits you and makes you a quadraplegic is that ok? You dont want him prosecuted for his carelessness?

[timsgfdmo]

Curtis LeMay, the man who directed the fire bombing and atomic bombing of civilians in Japan during WWII, was heard to say that if the US lost the war he would be convicted as a war criminal. Should whether or not your side wins be the determination of whether or not your acts constitute a war crime?

[12voltman59]

It is kind of interestIng to me that in addition to coming to an understanding that I am definitely a bisexual--a few years ago during the process of my mother's mother death--we came across some family historical material that showed that one side of my grandmother's family had left an area of Germany in the late 1800's due to a pogram of some sort in that area--the point being--they were Jewish--when they came to the US--they converted to Catholicism--the reasons why for all of this is pretty much lost--

We always teased that my grandmother was a good Jewish mother for many reasons--LOL

When my mom asked her mother if we have Jewish ancestry--she shrugged her shoulders and replied "could be..."

My sis has kind of taken on this task in her spare time researching this and has she has found some interesting pieces of information---but since like most of us, my sis is very busy and her time to do the genealogical searches is limited--she only does her searching in bits and pieces...

It is no surprise to me that I apparently do have at least some partial Jewish ancestry---I have always had an interest in Jewish things and when I was a kid--had many Jewish friends and sometimes attended Temple with them and some would attend Catholic mass with me...

I had a young Rabbi take an interest in me and he encouraged me to learn more about the Jewish faith---something I did not do---but he also encouraged me to be stronger in my Catholic Christian faith but I also resisted that as well---

That said---on the situation regarding what is going on in the mideast and touching on a comment made by someone in one of the posts---

When I was young, I was pleased that the Jewish people had once again found a place to call home--but when I started to actually study how the modern state of Israel came to be--it made it harder for me to feel good about the creation of modern Israel.

So--just as "this bisexual thing" can be a source of conflicting thoughts, emotions, etc.---so are my feelings about the way the nation of Israel has conducted itself as a state and the fact that to be really considered a "good Jew"--one has to also be a confirmed Zionist it appears--the notion that anything that preserves Israel as a state is justified.

I think it safe to say that most rational people do not accept and condone acts of "terrorism," but just put your self in the shoes of a young Palestinian.

The lands upon which your grandparents lived, as did countless generations before them, were foricbly taken away in the lead up to the creation of the state of Israel back in 1948.

Your grandparents were forced to flee with basically they could carry on their backs or in a few mule drawn carriages....they were forced to live in a "temporary refugee camp"---a place your parents were born and so were you and now you look to raise a family of your own...you are forced to live in a small area with far too many other people.

Access to education is limited as are jobs and the whole gamit of economic opportunity--what little you did have was shut down by the Israeli government in recent years and now they have that damned wall going up...

So you have conditions where far too many young people have little or no hope that their lives will improve nor will the lives of their children and their children's children.

So, the only "hope" is the message of jihad--"fight and destroy the infidels" that oppress you...

When you ain't got much to lose--why not strap on a bomb on your body and prepare to meet Allah, "peace be unto him." and you become a martyr and kill some Jews or Americans or any other infidels--all to the good....

I am not justifying anything--just merely trying to consider the situation that far too many people in not only Palestine, but in other parts of the mideast also find themselves--in the case of the Palestinians--they have the Israelis to blame and to hate--in other places it is the oppresive regimes like the House of Saud that is made powerful thanks to their control over oil and close ties to the infidel, satans of America...

I guess I could not ever be a "good Jew" since I just don't accept unbridled zionism any more than I care for the blind, narrowly defined "patriotism" that is sold by the right-wing, conservative element here in America that believes that "since we are Americans--anything we do is right and just..."

As I said in a previous post--it is obvious that the use of what would appear to be overwhelming military might that is so dependent upon, whiz-bang techology might provide a whole lot of "shock and awe" both for those in its path and on the telly--sure, that high tech stuff works well out on the large scale battlefield and those not so equipped can long stand up to it--BUT--it that high tech military machine is really rather ineffectual when it is used on a low-tech, but determined and resourceful group of people who know the ground upon which they live and know how to dig in and like mosquitos--take lots of little bites out of the hide of the 10,000 pound gorilla....history provides us with many examples of small groups of ragtag "insurgents" beating a superpower--one such group was the "revolutionaries of colonial America" and the Vietcong is another.

The military moves by Israel are bogging down and meeting with a tough resistance just like we are in Iraq and increasingly in Afghanistan as well.

As I said before--it's not possible to kill each other unless we all die---the only option is to find some kind of middle ground, as hard as that seems to be to find--it is the only long term sustainable option available..........

[Avocado]

It is kind of interestIng to me that in addition to coming to an understanding that I am definitely a bisexual--a few years ago during the process of my mother's mother death--we came across some family historical material that showed that one side of my grandmother's family had left an area of Germany in the late 1800's due to a pogram of some sort in that area--the point being--they were Jewish--when they came to the US--they converted to Catholicism--the reasons why for all of this is pretty much lost--

We always teased that my grandmother was a good Jewish mother for many reasons--LOL

When my mom asked her mother if we have Jewish ancestry--she shrugged her shoulders and replied "could be..."

My sis has kind of taken on this task in her spare time researching this and has she has found some interesting pieces of information---but since like most of us, my sis is very busy and her time to do the genealogical searches is limited--she only does her searching in bits and pieces...

It is no surprise to me that I apparently do have at least some partial Jewish ancestry---I have always had an interest in Jewish things and when I was a kid--had many Jewish friends and sometimes attended Temple with them and some would attend Catholic mass with me...

I had a young Rabbi take an interest in me and he encouraged me to learn more about the Jewish faith---something I did not do---but he also encouraged me to be stronger in my Catholic Christian faith but I also resisted that as well---

That said---on the situation regarding what is going on in the mideast and touching on a comment made by someone in one of the posts---

When I was young, I was pleased that the Jewish people had once again found a place to call home--but when I started to actually study how the modern state of Israel came to be--it made it harder for me to feel good about the creation of modern Israel.

So--just as "this bisexual thing" can be a source of conflicting thoughts, emotions, etc.---so are my feelings about the way the nation of Israel has conducted itself as a state and the fact that to be really considered a "good Jew"--one has to also be a confirmed Zionist it appears--the notion that anything that preserves Israel as a state is justified.

I think it safe to say that most rational people do not accept and condone acts of "terrorism," but just put your self in the shoes of a young Palestinian.

The lands upon which your grandparents lived, as did countless generations before them, were foricbly taken away in the lead up to the creation of the state of Israel back in 1948.

Your grandparents were forced to flee with basically they could carry on their backs or in a few mule drawn carriages....they were forced to live in a "temporary refugee camp"---a place your parents were born and so were you and now you look to raise a family of your own...you are forced to live in a small area with far too many other people.

Access to education is limited as are jobs and the whole gamit of economic opportunity--what little you did have was shut down by the Israeli government in recent years and now they have that damned wall going up...

So you have conditions where far too many young people have little or no hope that their lives will improve nor will the lives of their children and their children's children.

So, the only "hope" is the message of jihad--"fight and destroy the infidels" that oppress you...

When you ain't got much to lose--why not strap on a bomb on your body and prepare to meet Allah, "peace be unto him." and you become a martyr and kill some Jews or Americans or any other infidels--all to the good....

I am not justifying anything--just merely trying to consider the situation that far too many people in not only Palestine, but in other parts of the mideast also find themselves--in the case of the Palestinians--they have the Israelis to blame and to hate--in other places it is the oppresive regimes like the House of Saud that is made powerful thanks to their control over oil and close ties to the infidel, satans of America...

I guess I could not ever be a "good Jew" since I just don't accept unbridled zionism any more than I care for the blind, narrowly defined "patriotism" that is sold by the right-wing, conservative element here in America that believes that "since we are Americans--anything we do is right and just..."

As I said in a previous post--it is obvious that the use of what would appear to be overwhelming military might that is so dependent upon, whiz-bang techology might provide a whole lot of "shock and awe" both for those in its path and on the telly--sure, that high tech stuff works well out on the large scale battlefield and those not so equipped can long stand up to it--BUT--it that high tech military machine is really rather ineffectual when it is used on a low-tech, but determined and resourceful group of people who know the ground upon which they live and know how to dig in and like mosquitos--take lots of little bites out of the hide of the 10,000 pound gorilla....history provides us with many examples of small groups of ragtag "insurgents" beating a superpower--one such group was the "revolutionaries of colonial America" and the Vietcong is another.

The military moves by Israel are bogging down and meeting with a tough resistance just like we are in Iraq and increasingly in Afghanistan as well.

As I said before--it's not possible to kill each other unless we all die---the only option is to find some kind of middle ground, as hard as that seems to be to find--it is the only long term sustainable option available..........

Sadly I don't believe the cycle of violence will end because there will always be people who don't want it to. But while I despise the Jihadists with a passion, I couldn't possibly justify the methods Israel are using in Lebanon - the war can be pro'd and conned, but not Israel's methods. That said Hezbollah must take some of the blame, in their sick twisted views of what happens to people when they die they are taking great pleasure in setting women and children up to be killed by the Israelis. That said no Hezbollah told Israel the airport wasn't civilian...

[citystyleguy]

my, my, my, what a tangled web we weave when we try to explain why humanity goes to war!

as to the current battle being waged, most speak as if it is some new war of aggression by israel against palestine; this is just another battle in a war that started approx. 2000 years ago, thanks in large part to ceasers' titus and hadrian. the interesting thing here is it might even be considered a civil war of the holy land, as the people involved are the same, the only division being religion.

war is war, and when it is waged, civilians get hurt; the hezbollah/israel battle is no more justified than the israel/hezbollah battle. all are up to their eyebrows in the bloodshed, all are up to their eybrows in the dung that clings to warmongers. as long as homo sapiens exist, we will find some excuse to wage war, in any form and by any name you wish to give the form.

as to zionism, as long as the arab islamic holds the belief that israel has no right to existence, then zionism will live. just read todays headline, from the leader of iran; eugenics is alive and well and will find a warm home where anyone believes in the annihilation of another being.

as to america's support of israel, remember the wtc act of war! the palastinians were dancing in the street drinking tea and eating cakes in celebration of the destruction of three thousand lives! definite food for thought!

then there is saudi arabia, their wealth was what paid for the destruction of the wtc and those three thousand lives; and that money largely comes from the usa's gas pumps! more food for thought!

i will say it again; my, my, my, what a tangled web we weave when we try to explain why humanity goes to war!

may the peace of the lord find warmth in your heart!

[Ashoka & Kaurwaki]

I always come in late on these things, so I end up covering a few points that have already been covered - for that I'm sorry. But, it always bothers me when one simply excuses military actions and only see's one side of a situation. No one is justified in killing indescriminatly, period. And before someone rips into me that I don't know what I'm talking about, I was in the military system for 8 years and did training with the Canadian and US military. My father is currently in the military (though going to retire soon). Does this make me an expert? No, but I'm not an idiot either. I also try to keep informed and read both left and right views of the situation to try and discover part of the truth that is burried somewhere in the middle.

Now that being said, I have some serious exceptions to what Teddyboy said, and I'm going to back them up where I can. There is, of course, other sides to the coin and I'll present those arguments as well. This is no way an attack on Teddyboy personally, just an objection to what he said.



Civilians get killed during war, it's just an unfortunate by product of a war

Where to start. My favourite is the Geneva Convetions, rules guiding what can and cannot be done in war:

Area Bombings are forbidden against indescriminat targets, period.
(Protocol I, Art. 57, section 2b and Art. 85, section 3)

Children (This one esp bothers me as we've seen pictures of children in body bags, just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time)
"Parties to a conflict must respect children, provide them with any care or aid they require, and protect them from any form of indecent assault" Protocol I, Art. 77, section 1.
More than that, there are more sections in the Convetions that cover children than I can cover. You cannot kill children, either through direct fire or through indirect action - simple as that. And children are dying in the area (on both sides of the fence) every day.

As for the killing of civilians, which you say is "part of war". The Conventions say it the best:

Civilians have special protections under Convetion VI, Protocol I and Protocol II:
They must be treated humanely, without discrimination based on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or other similar criteria.
Violence to life and person including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture are prohibited.

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. Protocol I, Art. 48

Note* (see bottom for the other side to this)




Atrocities??? I wonder about that. Is it not an atrocity when some muslim fascist idiot walks into a cafe or onto a bus and proceeds to blow himself up with dynamite packed in nails? I have never heard of Isreal doing that.

No, what you are talking about is the lone actions of terrorists and not incidents sanctioned by a government. You cannot go to war with a country because that country has terrorist within it. (If that were so, the Southern States of the US would be in a lot of trouble. I can lay out instences of acts of violence perpetrated by the KKK and various "Real American" groups of gorillas). There are ways, both political and militarily to deal with situations like this, everything from sanctions until that contries government kicks out the terrorists to tactical incursions into the country to eliminate said terrorist groups with minimal loss of human life and collateral property. Carpet bombing a city because it might have terrorist within it is wrong, period.

Second point on this - muslims are not the only religious group that do suicide bombings. They just happen to be the most covered by the media (esp given the current climate in western countries). Anyone living in North Ireland (and the UK as a whole) knows what it was like living with the IRA and Ulsters Reserves. As a whole, the Muslim religion denounces acts of violence. To target a religious group and not a country or terrorist organization bothers me, very deeply.


As far as the ambulances go..Isreal has proven many times that the terrorist leaders will often use them to escape. Should they just let them by?

Transports of wounded and sick or of medical equipment must be respected and protected in the same way as mobile Medical Units. Convention I, Art. 35

Fixed establishments and mobile medical units must be protected and respected by all sides in a conflict. Convention I, Art. 19

Medical units may have personnel who carry arms for self-defense or for the maintenance of order; may be protected by a picket, by sentries, or by an escort; may temporarily store small arms and ammunition taken from patients; may be associated with a veterinary unit; and may treat civilians. Convention I, Art. 22

Medical units may not be used to commit acts harmful to the enemy. If they do, they lose their protections under the Geneva Conventions after due warning has been given and a reasonable time limit has passed. Convention I, Art. 21

So the simple answer to your question: Yes. The second one of their supposed leaders hops into an ambulance, he is considered a patient (and considering the fighting there, he probably is injured) and is immune from further attack. UNLESS he fires at the enemy forces from inside the amulance. Then, it loses that protection.

To clarify - imagine if there is an ambulance full of injured civilians. This "guy" (leader, what ever you want to call him) is also injured and hops into the vehicle to seek medical transport and get away. You fire to kill a fleeing combatant. Not only do you kill him, you also kill the civillians, needlessly. This is wrong on so many levels, I can't even begin to understand it.

*Note from above.

The problem here is that most Terrorists (and hizballah in specific) doesn't wear a military uniform. They hid in civillian colthing and in civillian places. This makes fighting the war that much harder. In my oppinion, they are just as guilty of the loss of human life as the Israeli are. But this does not give you the right to bomb indiscriminatly just to take out one or two terrorists


My problem with the whole situation is that, it's a no-win situation. If we just pull out and leave them to do their own thing, the attrocities will pile up on both sides, and that is something that should never be done. On the other side, neither side is right. Both are wrong in this situation and continue to show that they have nothing but their own self interest at heart. So what do we do? Can we just go in there, take them over and make them live peacefully? No, that would be wrong, just as every other time it's happened, it's been wrong.

I have a hard time understanding where and why other countries react to this though. At first, the US, through Secretary Rice, was content to let Israel continue the fight, until public oppinion swung for Lebonon and then they pushed for peace. Canada, well, our government hasn't really said anything (other than that we are going to continue the mission in Afghanistan, which was our PM's way of saying - we won't send troops) and the world has been polarized by indifference. Poor Kafi Annan - he's been trying since the first rockets flew to get the UN to do anything, but the security council has been dragging it's feet.

Does something need to be done, hell yes. This kind of slaughter and fighting cannot go on forever with out dragging the rest of the middle east into it. And since the middle east is know for its stabillity, it won't be too long before that happens. More than that, the civillians in the area cannot hold out for much longer. Very soon, things are going to get very horrible with disease and other problems and no one wants to see anyone die because they've gone septic. The one body that can do anything about it (with out self interest) is locked in a quagmire, mostly because one of the permeninant members of the security council is dragging their feet (China and the USSR aren't helping the situation either).

The big problem is, that in recent years (Since September 11th) we've been so constantly bombarded with violence on the news, of places so far away - that if it's not happening to us, it doesn't matter. We go on with our daily lives and look at the TV or the newspaper and say "well, that's tragic, that's horrible. Oh look, the Jays actually won a game......". The reality of the matter is that more people cared about the outcome of the World Cup than what is happening right now. You do have a voice, and can use it. If every person who looked at the paper or TV and said "oh, this is tragic" wrote their MP, Senitor or other representation - something would come of it. Or perhaps that's me just being optimistic.

I'm sure I've pissed one or two people off. And just like Eluded said, I'm getting ready for the backlash. But hell, if I've pissed you off enough to take action against me, perhaps you'll take action in other ways as well.......
or not.

[JohnnyV]

I only want to take issue with something that someone said about all these countries "not wanting Israel to exist."

First, please understand that this extreme language is in great part a legacy of George W. Bush. In 2002 Bush defined Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the Axis of Evil and has, many times, spoken about obliterating whole groups of people whom he classifies as terrorists. Bush's philosophy was also, "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists," which he said in 2001. In Iran, the leader started regurgitating the same rhetoric in order to assure his constituents that he can counter the threat Bush poses, especially with American strongholds on either side of Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan). Bush went ahead and invaded one of the countries on this Axis list, and has made overtures about wanting to "disable" Iran as well. Iran, applying the same logic as Bush, says that it must also "wipe out" the main regional enabler of their sworn enemy (the United States). That regional enabler, as everyone knows, is Israel.

Second, you have to read between the lines in Israeli propaganda as you read between the lines in all propaganda. When Israelis say they are fighting for their existence, remember that they are fighting for their existence *as a Jewish state*. They define their world in black and white in much the same way as the United States and Iran. In 2000, the Palestinians backed out of the Camp David Accords because Israel, while willing to concede some territories for a free Palestine, was not willing to grant "the right of return" to Palestinian refugees. The logic behind Israel's decision was explicitly that *Jews must remain a decisive majority of Israeli voters.* To allow a large number of Arabs into Israel, the logic goes, would be to force Israel "not to exist anymore." They said this as they were busy resettling and naturalizing hundreds of thousands of Jews from around the world, and still denying the right of millions of Arabs already there to become citizens of Israel.

When most countries occupy land and say that they exclude large numbers of people in the terrain from citizenship, in order to preserve one ethnic group's purity, we usually demonize them. Mlosevic called it ethnic cleansing. Hitler called it German eugenics. Israel calls it "existence."

I am not sympathetic to Israel for the simple fact that Israelis structure their democracy on a racial ideology that I consider offensive. This has been their stated ideology since before the state of Israel was even created in 1948-9. Given the fact that Israel continues to flaunt its special status with the West while explicitly stating its hostility to allowing Muslims to constitute a plurality or majority of Israel (in a region containing hundreds of millions of Muslims), I can contextualize -- BUT NOT JUSTIFY -- an Iranian leader saying that they need to cease to exist.

Now, I have heard in great detail the Israeli side of this. The Jews need a homeland because of thousands of years of oppression. They want a safe haven. According to the timelines that they use to describe their history, they were always attacked first (the factoids go back and forth and a chicken-and-egg enigma results, which I don't want to go over again.) They "won those territories fair and square." "The Palestinians who chose not to fight with us left of their own free will and cannot return."

I flatly reject all the points above and therefore do not view the Israeli position as credible, in any conflict. I acknowledge the extreme brutality of the Holocaust but do not view Jews as exceptional or deserving of exceptional territorial accomodations as compensation for what Europe did. I realize that the Jews are hated in the Middle East and that is terrifying to live with when you are outnumbered. But I know that anti-Semitism was not severe among Arabs until the state of Israel was created under terms that gave Arabs a *legitimate* reason to hate Israel (not necessarily all Jews, though categorical anti-Semitism came later.)

If I were king for a day :) I would tell the Jews in Israel that they have to make Palestinians citizens and deal with the reality that they might not be the majority in Israel forever. They cannot continue to import Jews from around the world while excluding from citizenship non-Jews who are living in their vicinity. After the US Civil War or the fall of apartheid in South Africa, groups that had high levels of tension were forced to live together in a tense but, over the long run, resolvable democracy. Since I don't think the Jews are exceptional, I think an Israel that is demographically organic, rather than contrived to make Jews the majority, is the only format that could possibly bring peace to that region. To an Israeli, this means that I do not want them to exist. To me, I merely want them to coexist. If someone says that therefore I justify the obliteration of Israel, so be it, I can't spend my whole life on semantics.

Okay, so in the case of their incursion into Lebanon, the dense layers of talking points and factoids are irrelevant to me. Hezbollah sees itself as a resistance to Israeli aggression because they believe that Israel's existence, with its racist ideology of preserving its Jewishness at all costs, is a form of aggression and a constant threat. Hezbollah's logic resembles the way Bush sees the existence of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah as a constant threat even if they are not attacking us. The state of Israel as it exists is, in the eyes of many Arabs in the Middle East, an injustice. Do Arab nations also have injustices? Yes, of course. Nobody is innocent. But I'm an American citizen, and my tax money goes to gird Israel's war machine, so I scrutinize Israel's cuplability more.

You have to read very deeply into the statements you hear coming from all sides. You also can't trust the way these statements are recapitulated by the press. Everyone has an agenda.

And now, having spent an hour or so explaining everything I've written above, I have to say that Israel and Hezbollah both have blood on their hands for how they've conducted themselves. But body counts do matter. Israel has much more blood on its hands.

J

[Ashoka & Kaurwaki]

*A whole lot of well thought out ideas, that don't need to be immediatly repeated*
J

:bowdown:

Well said, well said.

I guess, for me - I don't understand exclusion, bigotry, hatred etc. I grew up in a tollerant family that accepted all my friends, no matter race, creed or colour. I mean, my family gave my Jewish aunt a menorah on christmas day.

I just don't understand hatred and exclusion for these reasons - perhaps I'm just strange......

[canuckotter]

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. Protocol I, Art. 48

Honestly, Israel's doing this. Not as carefully as they could be, true, but think about it this way... Hezbollah is deliberately hiding amongst the civilian population all through the region. Israel could make a reasonable case that virtually every civilian area in southern Lebanon hosts (or has very recently hosted) valid military targets. That makes every civilian area in southern Lebanon a valid military target. Israel has the firepower to reduce the entire area to smoking rubble, and yet they're choosing to use smart bombs, guided weapons, and precision strikes. The accuracy of those types of attacks is grossly overrated, of course, but every day, Israeli citizens are being killed by rocket attacks that could be prevented by destroying areas filled with valid military targets... and yet Israel sticks with these "precision" weapons rather than carpet-bombing the area.

I'm not saying they're not utter bastards, but a lot of people seem to like to paint them as complete monsters on the order of Hitler or Stalin. They're not even close to that, and if you think they are, you need to get your head out of your ass and stop listening to your prejudices.


No, what you are talking about is the lone actions of terrorists and not incidents sanctioned by a government. You cannot go to war with a country because that country has terrorist within it.
Unless those terrorists consistently target you and the host country does nothing to stop them and actually allows them to operate openly within their territory. Hezbollah might not answer to Lebanon, but it was the de facto ruler of that area.


Medical units may not be used to commit acts harmful to the enemy. If they do, they lose their protections under the Geneva Conventions after due warning has been given and a reasonable time limit has passed. Convention I, Art. 21

Assuming these guys have been injured enough to require medical evacuation is a pretty big assumption. One or two times, sure, I'll believe it. If we're talking scratches and scrapes that require a few stitches and a bandage and the guy can head back out... he doesn't need an ambulance. Battlefield mobility is an important part of military operations, as everyone knows... Even if Hezbollah never fires a shot from the back of an ambulance (which I doubt is true) they're using these ambulances for routine military manouvres, which is definitely an act harmful to the enemy.



The problem here is that most Terrorists (and hizballah in specific) doesn't wear a military uniform. They hid in civillian colthing and in civillian places. This makes fighting the war that much harder. In my oppinion, they are just as guilty of the loss of human life as the Israeli are. But this does not give you the right to bomb indiscriminatly just to take out one or two terrorists
"just as guilty"? They started the fighting, they're launching unguided missiles indiscriminately into Israeli cities, they're deliberately hiding behind Lebanese civilians, and you call that "just as guilty"? I'm no fan of Israel's actions, but for crying out loud man, that's just nuts. And yes, I agree that Israel doesn't have the right to bomb indiscriminately -- but as I said above, they really, really aren't.


The one body that can do anything about it (with out self interest)
Now, I'm a big fan of the UN, I think that it has the potential to bring about a lot of positive changes in the world, and it does do a lot of great things for us... But stop deluding yourself. Every member nation takes part out of self interest, Kofi Annan took the job out of self interest, everyone involved is looking out for themselves. True they try to look out for themselves while achieving fair compromises and peaceful solutions that benefit everyone involved, but the UN is entirely about enlightened self interest.

[timsgfdmo]

Honestly, Israel's doing this. Not as carefully as they could be, true, but think about it this way... Hezbollah is deliberately hiding amongst the civilian population all through the region. Israel could make a reasonable case that virtually every civilian area in southern Lebanon hosts (or has very recently hosted) valid military targets. That makes every civilian area in southern Lebanon a valid military target.

So what do you do if armed guerrillas move into your town and you govt is too weak to do anything about it? Does that make you a justifiable military target for another country? What if you live next to Boeing or General Dynamics or the Pentagon or Oceana Naval Air Station? Does that make you a justifiable military target? I am sure you will say move somewhere else. Who will buy your property if guerillas move in? Look at property values where gangs have moved in in the US. Would you be willing to walk a way from everything you own? Those people are called refugees and bad things generally happen to refugees.

Any country can make exceptions for making war or its methods of making war. The Geneva Conventions does not make exceptions for its laws by saying if folllowing these laws is too difficult you dont have to comply. Since when have combatants from any army stood out in the middle of a field and fired at each other? Killing civilians due to undue carelessness is a crime just like getting drunk and running someone over in your car. Dropping 500lb bombs in a city cant be done without undue risk to noncombatants. Israel if it is determined to kill guerillas in cities must go in with infantry and face the casualties. To carelessly kill innocent civilians to protect their own soldiers lives is cowardice of the worst degree.

Americans conducted guerilla warfare against the British in the War for Independence. The British did not attempt to murder non-combatants or burn entire cities to the ground. Would the British have been justified in doing this? Because countries have become less civilized and responsible if the American Revolution occured today I am sure the British if they followed US and Israeli ethics would have commited genocide in the colonies. Where would we be today if 80 to 90% of the colonists had been murdered, crops burned, cities burned and the population left with no means for support?

(In the War of 1812 the British did burn PUBLIC buildings in Washington. They did not destroy private property or carelessly hazzard innocent persons)

Lastly, how is bombing bridges, power plants, airports and other infrastructure making war on guerillas? That sounds to me like they are making war on Lebanon and its people. How can the Lebanese have jobs and homes if their economy is destroyed. Sounds to me like it will drive the average Lebanese into the arms of Hezbollah since Hezbollah has been a big provider of humanitarian aid in Lebanon.

[wtp09]

pay attention everyone.... this crap that is going on over there and the us involvement in the middle east is going to cause another world war.

politicians make such bad leaders!

[canuckotter]

So what do you do if armed guerrillas move into your town and you govt is too weak to do anything about it? Does that make you a justifiable military target for another country?
Yup.


Since when have combatants from any army stood out in the middle of a field and fired at each other?
Since the bow was invented. Before that they stood in the middle of fields and threw rocks at each other. It became much more formalised with Louis the 14th, during whose reign the beginnings of the modern military came into existence (including the concept of a uniform). Napolean, of course, took it to a new level. At sea, standing off and shooting each other until one boat sank was pretty much par for the course in large-scale naval battles.

Don't know much history, do you?


(In the War of 1812 the British did burn PUBLIC buildings in Washington. They did not destroy private property or carelessly hazzard innocent persons)
You, uh, don't know any history, do you? The British and the Americans burned a few of each others' cities during that war. As for the thought that war used to be more civilised... Yeah, you really need to read more history. And not the sanitised stuff. Having people get hacked to bits was only the start of the horrors that war used to offer. These days, any army that catches its soldiers raping or murdering civilians shoots those soldiers (well, most modern armies, anyway)... A couple hundred years ago, the generals would have joined in the fun, or at least rolled out a few kegs of beer to help the lads celebrate.


Lastly, how is bombing bridges, power plants, airports and other infrastructure making war on guerillas?
You really don't think that Hezbollah is using any of Lebanon's infrastructure? Hezbollah is the de facto ruling force in the area. Destroying the infrastructure weakens Hezbollah. That makes it a valid military target.

[canuckotter]

I should clarify: I'm not as bloodthirsty as that last post sounds, by any means. Ideally, I'd like to see a negotiated settlement, and if Israel has any brains, once they wipe out a bunch more of Hezbollah they'll negotiate a cease-fire, establish a neutral area along the border (giving up a bit of their own land in the process) and then offer to fund the reconstruction of all the infrastructure they've destroyed, on the condition that the Lebanese military actually patrols their own land, preferably with UN backup, to keep Hezbollah from building up their military again.

[timsgfdmo]

Canuck

Your an ass. I did not insult you so why do you insult me and my knowledge level? Once again you are an ass.

So give me the cities and the dates in the War of 1812 that all property was burned to the ground.

By the way Israel had the same goal regarding Lebanon in the 80s and failed. So why do you think they will succeed theis time? Obviously you are like Israel and the US and dont know much history or at least cant apply its lessons.

By the way I have a PhD in American history with an emphasis in military history. So fuck you.

[canuckotter]

Your an ass. I did not insult you so why do you insult me and my knowledge level? Once again you are an ass.

Uh, because you made stupid comments?

It's only been the last hundred years or so that the vast majority of warfare wasn't conducted by having large groups standing in open fields facing each other and hitting each other with whatever was handy. Skirmishes and such didn't work that way, but any decent-scale battle was, quite literally, people standing in the middle of open fields shooting each other. Sometimes a hill or something made things a little more interesting.

And I certainly do stand by my comments about what happened outside of the field of battle...

Oh, and I believe Toronto was sacked. Here's a link to a discussion, wherein it is also mentioned that most of the Niagara peninsula was razed: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=26131.45


By the way I have a PhD in American history with an emphasis in military history. So fuck you.
Then you learned only a very sanitised version of history. :(

[citystyleguy]

I only want to take issue with something that someone said about all these countries "not wanting Israel to exist."

First, please understand that this extreme language is in great part a legacy of George W. Bush. In 2002 Bush defined Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the Axis of Evil and has, many times, spoken about obliterating whole groups of people whom he classifies as terrorists. Bush's philosophy was also, "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists," which he said in 2001. In Iran, the leader started regurgitating the same rhetoric in order to assure his constituents that he can counter the threat Bush poses, especially with American strongholds on either side of Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan). Bush went ahead and invaded one of the countries on this Axis list, and has made overtures about wanting to "disable" Iran as well. Iran, applying the same logic as Bush, says that it must also "wipe out" the main regional enabler of their sworn enemy (the United States). That regional enabler, as everyone knows, is Israel.

Second, you have to read between the lines in Israeli propaganda as you read between the lines in all propaganda. When Israelis say they are fighting for their existence, remember that they are fighting for their existence *as a Jewish state*. They define their world in black and white in much the same way as the United States and Iran. In 2000, the Palestinians backed out of the Camp David Accords because Israel, while willing to concede some territories for a free Palestine, was not willing to grant "the right of return" to Palestinian refugees. The logic behind Israel's decision was explicitly that *Jews must remain a decisive majority of Israeli voters.* To allow a large number of Arabs into Israel, the logic goes, would be to force Israel "not to exist anymore." They said this as they were busy resettling and naturalizing hundreds of thousands of Jews from around the world, and still denying the right of millions of Arabs already there to become citizens of Israel.

When most countries occupy land and say that they exclude large numbers of people in the terrain from citizenship, in order to preserve one ethnic group's purity, we usually demonize them. Mlosevic called it ethnic cleansing. Hitler called it German eugenics. Israel calls it "existence."

I am not sympathetic to Israel for the simple fact that Israelis structure their democracy on a racial ideology that I consider offensive. This has been their stated ideology since before the state of Israel was even created in 1948-9. Given the fact that Israel continues to flaunt its special status with the West while explicitly stating its hostility to allowing Muslims to constitute a plurality or majority of Israel (in a region containing hundreds of millions of Muslims), I can contextualize -- BUT NOT JUSTIFY -- an Iranian leader saying that they need to cease to exist.

Now, I have heard in great detail the Israeli side of this. The Jews need a homeland because of thousands of years of oppression. They want a safe haven. According to the timelines that they use to describe their history, they were always attacked first (the factoids go back and forth and a chicken-and-egg enigma results, which I don't want to go over again.) They "won those territories fair and square." "The Palestinians who chose not to fight with us left of their own free will and cannot return."

I flatly reject all the points above and therefore do not view the Israeli position as credible, in any conflict. I acknowledge the extreme brutality of the Holocaust but do not view Jews as exceptional or deserving of exceptional territorial accomodations as compensation for what Europe did. I realize that the Jews are hated in the Middle East and that is terrifying to live with when you are outnumbered. But I know that anti-Semitism was not severe among Arabs until the state of Israel was created under terms that gave Arabs a *legitimate* reason to hate Israel (not necessarily all Jews, though categorical anti-Semitism came later.)

If I were king for a day :) I would tell the Jews in Israel that they have to make Palestinians citizens and deal with the reality that they might not be the majority in Israel forever. They cannot continue to import Jews from around the world while excluding from citizenship non-Jews who are living in their vicinity. After the US Civil War or the fall of apartheid in South Africa, groups that had high levels of tension were forced to live together in a tense but, over the long run, resolvable democracy. Since I don't think the Jews are exceptional, I think an Israel that is demographically organic, rather than contrived to make Jews the majority, is the only format that could possibly bring peace to that region. To an Israeli, this means that I do not want them to exist. To me, I merely want them to coexist. If someone says that therefore I justify the obliteration of Israel, so be it, I can't spend my whole life on semantics.

Okay, so in the case of their incursion into Lebanon, the dense layers of talking points and factoids are irrelevant to me. Hezbollah sees itself as a resistance to Israeli aggression because they believe that Israel's existence, with its racist ideology of preserving its Jewishness at all costs, is a form of aggression and a constant threat. Hezbollah's logic resembles the way Bush sees the existence of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah as a constant threat even if they are not attacking us. The state of Israel as it exists is, in the eyes of many Arabs in the Middle East, an injustice. Do Arab nations also have injustices? Yes, of course. Nobody is innocent. But I'm an American citizen, and my tax money goes to gird Israel's war machine, so I scrutinize Israel's cuplability more.

You have to read very deeply into the statements you hear coming from all sides. You also can't trust the way these statements are recapitulated by the press. Everyone has an agenda.

And now, having spent an hour or so explaining everything I've written above, I have to say that Israel and Hezbollah both have blood on their hands for how they've conducted themselves. But body counts do matter. Israel has much more blood on its hands.

J

you have an interesting way, that befits the king you wish to be, of simply dismissing all other arguments with the verbal equivalent of the wave of a hand!

as you reduce other peoples arguments, including my own, by dismissal and/or reduction to as you say, talking points and factoids, semantics, and then impower Bush with far too much influence, you only succeed in reducing your own argument(s) to nothing more than opinionated trifles.

my own arguments remain what it is, "factoids" and "semantics" as you may wish to judge them; however, i came here for talk, and whatever may follow, regarding our bisexuality, not politics, which i seek out elsewhere.

so no more on these subject(s) from me; i will keep to my own and think of you only in sexual contexts from now! a much, much more tantilizing arena!

may you find peace in search for answers!