HEZBOLLAH AND ISRAEL WIDEN THE CONFLICT

Your entire (typically rightwing and willfully blind) proposition falls on its face with the first sentence.



The Palestinians were their own population based on the territory they seized in 1948. So you need to amend your sentence to read: "Israel has looked after the interests of those members of its population who were Jews."--and then rethink your position.

Set, thanks again for your continued historical perspective. I appreciated them greatly, as always, but don't think the history has much bearing on the sequence of recent events.

My apologies for my overboard response. It was I who had had a few to drink before posting. My sentiment remains largely unchanged but my articulation was deplorable. (That doesn't apply to my charge of anti-Semitism, which I believe was spot on, though not directed at you).

Good read, thanks. But it does nothing to alter my opinion. I consider a nuclear Iran a far greater threat to the world than ANY proposed solution.

I think it's high time for Bush to address the Nation and explain Iran's role in recent support for terrorists, and officially put them on notice that further activities of this kind will be considered as an attack against the United States... demanding an overwhelming retaliatory response. Ahmadinejad isn't the only one who can make great threats, be they bluffs or not. It may not yet be time for the Giant to strike, but it's certainly time for it to growl.

Set said:

"It is entirely possible to accept that the nation of Israel exists without signing on to any of the long list of monumentally stupid policies which they have inflicted upon the Palestinians and their neighbors. Israel is Israel's worst enemy."


I agree with that in many ways......(insofar as I understand the history, which is by no means well, I admit immediately) but do you not think that the Palestinians have also been their own worst enemies in many ways? Not to mention the continuing lack of acceptance of the existence of Israel, or rhetoric and posturings in relation to appearing not to accept this existence, has been the region's worst enemy?

I am wondering to what extent what I gather to be an honour/shame based culture and the very different emotional and cultural presence and impact of history plays in this seeming ongoing lack of pragmatism? (As well as the ongoing lack of care for the Palestinians from both sides.)


I agree, lord help us, with Freedom4free, that the terrible history experienced by the Jews has made this debate for the west as emotional and difficult to conduct in a rational manner as it is for the Arab world.

It seems Israel wants to render Lebanon ungovernable and irrelevant and so open up a front directly with Iran, and possibly also Syria.

Shalom.

Almost missed this one. Great article Blatham and a pretty damn good idea. Seconded.

Also coming to the thread late, and just read it all. Find myself in the cognitive dissonant position of agreeing with most - and sometimes seemingly conflicting views.

I don't think it is spiraling out of control - yet. I think that it is highly controlled (except for the poor Lebanese).

I don't think that Israel had a real choice - even though the odds are great that they are in a no-win situation. I am afraid that the Lebanese populace will be fools and gravitate more to Hezbollah, in no small measure because of past identification and ties with Syria. I think that Syria is weak and is being used by Iran (and before, Iraq) for their own respective agendas.

I believe that the Lebanese government was too weak, indecisive, and conflicted about Hezbollah to get off the dime and act. They should have been crying bloody murder to the international community for help for many years - but did nothing.

And I can't believe that Israel really expects the US to take out Iranian nuclear capabilities because they aren't stupid, and know how nearly impossible that would be, even with ground troops.

Iran is like a child with an inferiority complex, but one who has enormous potential power at the same time. At the moment, they are power broker wannabees, and doing a damn good job of it. Exceedingly dangerous.

I don't think that Israel is naive. Their aim is to hurt Hezbollah badly - to set them back drastically. The fact that Palestinians have been streaming into Gaza from Eqypt should be a big worry. Two fronts would not be good at all.

And sorry, boss, I do not lay the existence, or strength, of Hezbollah, on Israel's past actions vis-a-vis Lebanon.

The hatred runs too deep and is far too complex.

In many ways it is even beyond Islam vs. Israel, but encompasses elements of haves vs. have nots, class warfare, old vs. new, democracy vs. other forms of government.

But power above all else; authoritarian, masculine, fear of weakness and powerlessness, psychologically-driven posturing.

And without the ability to accurately anticipate the consequences of actions, but with actions having to be performed in any event.

Nor do I think it really has anything to do with prisoner exchange - not this time. The stakes are much higher.

At least, those are my hunches.

,

"Seized"?

Israel is a Jewish state. I think you are looking at the issue with too much bias Set. THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL

On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved the following proclamation, declaring the establishment of the State of Israel. The new state was recognized that night by the United States and three days later by the USSR.

Thanks for posting those articles, Endymion. (just now catching up on this thread & am a few pages back, still ...) Exactly my reaction at the time.:

Palestine: A war on children
15 Jun 2006
In a cover piece for the New Statesman, John Pilger describes how the US and Israel have finally resolved the problem of the Palestinians, who voted for the "wrong" government. They are to starve them while missiles are fired at their homes and picnickers on a beach.

Arthur Miller wrote, "Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied."

I remain bewildered & angry at the notion that bombing the the hell out of Lebanon & killing so many innocent people will resolve the problem of Hezbollah. This is madness.

Are you really trying to assert that it is a certainty that if Israel had not invaded Lebanon there would not be an Islamic terrorist group in Lebanon today with the specified goal of exterminating Israel?

Why did Israel invade Lebanon in the first place? Because they wanted their particular brand of coffee all for themselves?

This is an incredibly simplistic view of history.

If the South had not fired on Fort Sumptner, there would have been no civil war, and the South would not have been defeated and there would still be slavery in America.

If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, the US would not have gone to war in the pacific, imperial Japan would not have been crushed, and China would now be simply a province of the Japanese Empire.

Etc etc etc.

From The Guardian: .

Since the Hizbollah/Israel conflict started in Lebanon news of events in Palestine have been sparse. Has Israel secured the release of Gilad Shalit through its destruction of Palestinian infrastructure, and its reoccupation of Gaza yet?

No, but it has blown up a big power station, removing electric power from the whole region.
(affecting hospitals, sewerage provision, water supply, etc...)

Calling me anti-semite is cheap as Bill and you know it

Here in Europe Germany have a whole new generation - who cannot be blamed for the attrocities inflicted on the Jewish back in WWII

There for it stands to reason that Israel , like Germany, should be seen to be a nation that can only be judged on its actions now days.

You do know do you that there is a large movement in Israel who want to end all this ****? Jewish people who do not agree with their Government's ideals?
Its you who patronise Israel.
I see them as victims of the US - who took a troubled nation and made them a US outpost in the Middle East- by playing on their fears.

(Just like Britain is a European outpost for them - but hopefully, not for much longer).

And Bill?
You don't have a f*** clue what you're talking about when you label others - so stop doing impersonations of George Bush and go read some history.

I have no doubt that Bush gave "limited green light" to do stuff. I also think that Israel is strong enough and independent enough to act unilaterally, at least in the short term, if it felt compelled to do so. Israel is hardly a puppet.

But I also wish that I were a fly on the wall inside the halls of power in Tel Aviv. Exactly what do they think will be the consequences of what they are doing in Lebanon, other than the planned upon damage and pain to Hezbollah in the extreme southern portion of the country?

I do imagine that Israel is concerned about Gaza. Thus far, only 3 of the 4 predominant players have been on stage, with Hamas largely absent. Hunkering down, waiting for money and resupplying? From whom? Via what means?

I have to agree with Finn on a lot of this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/where-have-all-the-archit_b_25309.html?view=print


"Where Have All the Architects of War Gone?

In his terrific post on the hornets' nest we've kicked open in the Middle East, Gary Hart makes the point that as the fighting spreads, we have seen precious little of "the nation's wisemen, those neoconservative idealists who saw the great American empire imposing democracy on the Middle East at the point of a bayonet."


And, indeed, in the wall-to-wall coverage of the latest Middle East carnage -- and the analysis of said carnage -- the neocon architects who brought us the invasion of Iraq and the promise that it would bring democracy and stability to the region have been notably absent from the discussion.

Where have you gone Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, et al? A nation turns it anxious eyes to you.

In the run up to Shock and Awe, these guys were all over the place, singing from the same song book, letting us know that the fall of Saddam would bring good things throughout the Middle East. With their every pronouncement, you could hear the sound of Arab dominoes falling.

The neocon fantasy was summed up by Dick Cheney, a charter member of the Project for a New American Century brigade, in August 2002: "Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region: extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad, moderates throughout the region would take heart, and our ability to advance the Israel/Palestinian peace process would be enhanced."

Wolfowitz was just as optimistic, predicting the invasion of Iraq "will be an act that will bring more stability to the region." According to pre-war Wolfie, "With Saddam Hussein out of the picture, it'll be a much better atmosphere for peace."

Same with Doug Feith, who assured us that a democratic Iraq would be "inspirational for people throughout the Middle East to try to increase the amount of freedom that they have." He also suggested that success in Iraq "would be impressive and influential" and allow others in the region to look at the Iraqi example and say, "'If the Iraqis can have these benefits, perhaps we can get some of these benefits for our own people.'" And he was confident that the ousting of Saddam would "influence the thinking of other states about how advisable it is for them to continue to provide safe harbor or other types of support to terrorist organizations." (Maybe Tommy Franks knew what he was talking about when he called Feith the "stupidest guy on the face of the earth.")

As for Richard Perle, six months after the fall of Saddam (and months into the insurgency), the so-called Prince of Darkness was still seeing nothing but blue skies: "I think others in the region will look at Iraq and say, 'Why can't we rid ourselves of a regime that's rather similar in some ways to the Iraqi regime?' So the precedential effect of liberating Iraq may assist in bringing about democratic reform elsewhere."

It hasn't exactly turned out that way, has it? The extremists are as committed to jihad as ever, the Israel/Palestinian peace process has been declared officially dead and buried by the Arab League, "democratic reforms" in the region have led to the rise of fundamentalists in Iraq, Hamas in Palestine, and the legitimization of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iraq has indeed proved "inspirational" -- to al Qaeda and its fellow jihadists.

Could the wise men's crystal balls have been any cloudier?

But an admission that they were wrong -- or a stirring defense of why, despite all appearances, they were actually right -- has been harder to come by than a Y chromosome at a Melissa Etheridge concert.

In his post, Gary Hart wrote, "Democracy does not work without accountability." But no one is holding these guys accountable. Especially not the media -- which the neocon shills used so effectively when selling the country on the wider benefits of war in Iraq.

The cable and Sunday shows -- where so much prewar misinformation was disseminated -- need to haul in the war triumphalists and ask them to account for the gulf between their rosy predictions and the bloody reality.

It would be interesting to see how they would react. Would they belatedly go the way of Francis Fukuyama and disavow their notions of war in Iraq leading to peace in the region or would they pull a Bill Kristol and use the current upheaval as the perfect justification for expanding the war in Iraq to Iran and Syria?

When last we heard from Perle, back in June, he was using the Washington Post to wag his finger at Bush -- dreaming of the next war, the one in Iran, and clearly not feeling any obligation to explain the sectarian chaos that's become of the current one in Iraq.

Wolfowitz has been hard at work at the World Bank, posing as the Second Coming of Mother Teresa and doing all he can to whitewash his past. His official World Bank bio extols the role he played in "the successful liberation of Kuwait" but expunges any mention of his role in the failed occupation of Iraq or his forecast that the people there would "greet us as liberators."

For his part, Feith has retreated to the halls of academia, landing a job at Georgetown's school of Foreign Service, where he will teach a course on the Bush administration's antiterrorism policy. Supply your own syllabus-related punchline (here's Jesus' General's). Feith's last TV appearance was in August 2005, on Geraldo, right before leaving his post as Undersecretary of Defense. He clearly owes the nation an update.

These men were the architects of the administration's imperialist policies in the Middle East. It's time to hold them accountable for the fatally flawed blueprint and the woefully shoddy workmanship."

Good post, sumac. I often wonder these very things myself.

I do not deny that an unwillingness to accept the existence of the state of Israel has been and continues to be a serious problem on the part of some of the Palestinians. However, it is hard to escape the image of Israel practicing "ethnic cleansing" since 1948. Although it is appropriate to point out that the use of the term is anachronistic in situations occuring prior to its coinage, it is nonetheless relevant: the term comprehensively describes how the Israelis have treated the Palestinians; the Israelis began the process immediately after the Second World War, when the concept of national self-determination was very much on the lips of diplomats and government leaders through the coalition of victorious allies who were nevertheless willing to turn a blind eye to the plight of the Palestinians.

Israel's neighbor's have reluctantly recognized the right of the state of Israel to exist, whether in the de jure sense of the Egyptians and Jordanians, or the de facto sense of the Syrians and the Lebanese. Jordan expelled the Palestinians who had arrived after the 1967 war because they had the military power and security forces to accomplish the purpose, and Syria could pass them along to the Lebanon because they had the competence. Once in the Lebanon, however, the PLO were secure in a nation which hadn't the stability and the military and security expertise to deal with them. So they attacked Israel (the PLO did), and the invasion of the Israelis restarted a civil war which had been ended by the Syrian occupation, and occupation requested by the President of the Lebanese Republic. Israel waged war in the Lebanon for four years before Hezbollah came into existence. O'Bill can bury his head in the sand if he wants, and make a silly remark about history not being relevant, but that doesn't change a fact, which, to put in terms O'Bill may understand, is that Israel has made its bed, and is not obliged to lie in it.

From 1917 to the present, Arabs and Muslims in the middle east (not all Muslmis are Arabs) have felt with damned good reason that they have been consistently exploited and betrayed. The revolution in Iran succeeded the imposition of a Shah in the Second World War for the convenience of the Allies; then a democratically elected government which threatened to overthrow the Shah in 1953 was undermined and toppled by MI6 and the CIA while Britain actively embargoed Persian oil; and finally it succeeded upon years of warfare in the Lebanon, the majority of the population of which is Shi'ite, when the Persian air force cadets no longer feared the Shah's Savak (secret police) and were willing to topple that regime in favor of a theocratic state. The Savak was formed in 1957 by the CIA and the Israeli Mossad (Israeli security and intelligence service), and the Persians damned well knew it.

I'm sure O'Bill wants to ignore history. Then he doesn't have to address the issue of why the Persians would hate the United States and Israel. Then he doesn't have to address Israeli responsibility for the mess in which they find themselves. Finally, ignoring history will allow him to ignore that the 1978 invasion of the Lebanon by Israel failed to destroy the PLO, and that the evidence is very good that they will fail to destroy either Hamas or Hezbollah. In the process, however, they will assure another generation of Palestinians and Lebanese Muslims who will hate Israel deep in their bones.



As ought to be obvious, i consider that this is one of the paramount issues. Israel wont' back down, and neither will Hamas nor Hezbollah.



I consider that not all Israelis are rabid Zionists. Many came to Israel from Muslim nations and from the old Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. Their children were born in Israel, and are now Israeli and natives of the middle east, and nothing else. Nevertheless, Zionists within Isreal and elsewhere in the world have exploited western unease about the European holocaust to quash criticism of the state of Israel. By no means should anyone think that i endorse the wacky and (in my opinion) anti-semitic conspiracy theories to which that member commonly subscribes, as the evidence of this forum demonstrates.

The "Arab World" (a term which ignores that not all Muslims are Arabs, and that not all Muslims are alike or have the same religious confession) has greivances aplenty with the west without Israel. When Israel is added to the mix, and when one considers the military humiliations suffered by Israel's neighbors and the activities of Mossad in the middle east (and elsewhere in the world when the targets were those alleged by Israel to be enemies of the Israeli state), it is not only not to be wondered at that there is so much hatred of Israel, it is even more wonderful that Egypt, Jordan and Syria have been brought to a point of accepting, however grudgingly, the existence of Israel.

Another factor which it is important to keep in mind is that there is an allegation that Iran and Syria are puppet masters to Hezbollah. Blair and Bush have discussed this, and a conversation which was overheard between them had them contending that Syria and Iran are pulling the strings. Yesterday, the Shrub stated explicitly that Syria and Iran are responsible, and that people should continue to work to isolate Iran. There is no good reason to think that Hezbollah is being controlled by Syria and Iran, and it is the height of idiocy to claim that Iran can be effectively dealt with by isolating them. I have no reason based on the situation to believe that anyone but Hezbollah took this decision.

When the 1989 settlement in the Lebanon finally resulted in the end of their strife, one of the provisions was that the militias were to be disarmed. Syria eventually agreed to withdraw from the Lebanon, and Israel eventually (very recently) agreed to negotiate the return of territory in south Lebanon which they have held since the 1978 invasion. The completion of agreements between Israel and Syria, and the willingness expressed by Iran to agree to the results of such negotiations, and to disengage from the Lebanon, have likely alarmed Hezbollah, which has said they will only disarm when Lebanese held in Israeli jails are freed, and the disputed territory returned. If the territorial dispute is settled, the release of Hezbollah prisoners in Israel might well be (very likely would be) dropped by Syrian negotiators, and Iran is showing no inclination to continue to support Hezbollah on this point. The final piece of the puzzle is that Israel will insist that the Lebanon complete the 1989 settlement and disarm Hezbollah.

So, i think that Hezbollah has acted on their own in what they see as their own best interest. I do not consider that Syria and Iran can control them, and the focus of the Shrub on them is yet another example of the terrorist hysteria rhetoric which serves both western nations and Israel so well in bringing their populations along in these destructive and counterproductive actions.

This is worth reading to get a Lebanese (non-Hizbullah) viewpoint. A diary of a woman living in Beirut.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1823660,00.html

It appears to me that your bias is showing. "The Jewish People's Council" cannot be said to represent the interest of people in Palestine who are not Jewish.

Thank you, McWhitey, for making my point.