15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 02:45 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I would prefer to be judged as I am (you missed that chance in May Laughing ).

As a country - well, not sure what will be in 2007, but in the early 1940's we were in the majority not on the good side of most scales.
Can't change our historic past.


No Germany can't change what once was any more than the USA can change the history of slavery and other unsavory pieces of our own history. We can remember it so that we learn from it and become better. But we can rise beyond it. And to judge us by what we once were and no longer are would be to judge us wrongly.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 02:57 pm
I believe it is just as incorrect and foolish to declare that "the UN is useless" as it is to assert that it is the sole source of international justice and law in a world that remains as troubled as it has been throughout history. The UN is merely the formal representation of the belioefs, policies, contradictions, hypocrisy and greed of the nations that make it up.

When it is convenient to them, members wrap themselves in the cloak of UN resolutions and the like, even though this sometimes amounts to a renunciation of their own moral and historical responsibilities. This is the case for Britain, France, Germany, Italy and most of the European states as it relates to their positions on the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. In other situations member nations decry the corruption and venality of the UN when it suits them to pursue policies different from the least-common-denominator solutions favored by the UN. This is often the case with respect to US policy in the Mideast and other areas of the world. In short every major nation willingly demonstrates whatever hypocrisy is needed to rationalize their perceived self-interest, particularly on mattere involving the UN.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. The UN has no life, meaning, political or moral force of its own: it is the creature of its members, and its "policies" are merely what they can agree on. The very real hypocrisy, inconsistency, and venality of the UN are merely the visible manifestations of the limited agreement the member nations can achieve on important issues. Appeals to the moral or political primacy of the UN are intrinsically deceitful, in that these things are themselves illusions. Indeed it is often the case that those nations that appeal to them most frequently are themselves among those most accountable for the lack of meaningful agreement on practical policy for the UN.

The present difficulties in the Mideast have roots that go back centuries to the struggle between the Christian nations of Eurioe and the Moslem world that once seriously threatened it. They also touch the persistent persecutions of Jews throughout Europe and the resultant formation of the Zionist Movement. Beginning in the 19th Century, they involve European colonialism (chiefly by Britain and France) of the Moslem world. The 20th Century saw the deliberate destructuion and colonization of the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France; the attempted extermination of European Jews by Germany (often with the passive acceptance of occupied countrys); the resultant rebirth of Zionism and the Jewish plantation in Palestine - a result of their own historical aspirations and the duplicitous promises of British Colonial authorities. After WWII, the (perhaps understandable, but hardly laudable) relluctance of many Europeans to welcome back the "Displaced Persons" after the ravages of the War, contributed to the Jewish exodus to Palestine; while the understandable political activities of the undecimated Jewish population of the United States influenced U.S. policy towards the newly self-proclaimed state.

All of these factors are directly in play in this struggle in the Mideast. All reflect the unbalanced self-interest of the various players in this game. It has lately become fashionable to describe this Mideast Problem as solely the result of Israeli ambition & aggression and blind U.S. support for a client state. This is, in my view, the most blind, self-serving hypocritical element in this whole unhappy story.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 03:00 pm
foxfire wrote :
"No Germany can't change what once was any more than the USA can change the history of slavery and other unsavory pieces of our own history."

both germany and germany needed time to change - how long did it take the united states to overcome segregation etc ?
how much time to we want to give the palestinians ?
what help will the palestinians be given so that they can live a peaceful and orderly life ?
destroying what little they have every few years is surely not going to make them any more peaceful . after all , what have they got to loose - heaps of rubble ?

i don't think we should forget that many (most ?) palestinians have been cooped up in camps for decades . no wonder some of them will start to behave like caged animals after a period of time .
of course , the israelis alone cannot be blamed for that .
i think much blame can be shared by the oil-rich arab states who could have come to the help of the palestinians a long time ago .
i understand that palestinians can enter saudi-arabia only with special visas , but aregenerally refused entry .
the way i see it , the saudi government is happy to see the palestinians kept far away in their camps , so they won't cause any trouble to the saudi ruling class .
hbg
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 03:07 pm
georgeob :
you are stating it the way it is !
even with all the difficulties and with the mistakes the united nations organization is making , i think the world is better off with the UN than without .
thanks for your post , georgeob !
hbg
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 03:43 pm
hamburger wrote

Quote:
both germany and germany needed time to change - how long did it take the united states to overcome segregation etc ?
how much time to we want to give the palestinians ?
what help will the palestinians be given so that they can live a peaceful and orderly life ?
destroying what little they have every few years is surely not going to make them any more peaceful . after all , what have they got to loose - heaps of rubble?


The factor you're leaving out of the equation is that Germany did not voluntarily change. It did so at the business end of very large tanks, etc. driven by people willing to reduce Germany to rubble had there been no surrender and agreement for reorganization under a very different system.

And the Confederate states did not change voluntarily either but did so after a long, bloody war that left a whole lot of rubble and burned out cities. Again the victors were quite willing to reduce the entire South to rubble had there been no surrender and agreement for reorganization under a very different system. England did not give up her New World territory until it was no longer militarily feasible to hold onto them.

Now when the Germans and Americans and British, none of which were necessarily religious or ideological fanatics, had to be bludgeoned into submission, how can we expect the terrorist organizations of the Middle East to be any different? In this case we are dealing with what is within the prism of some pretty telling history.

We can hope that more war won't be necessary and I am very very big on hope. But history is not on the side of voluntary peace when you're dealing with people who resist diplomatic solutions.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 03:53 pm
georgeob1 writes
Quote:
I believe it is just as incorrect and foolish to declare that "the UN is useless" as it is to assert that it is the sole source of international justice and law in a world that remains as troubled as it has been throughout history. The UN is merely the formal representation of the belioefs, policies, contradictions, hypocrisy and greed of the nations that make it up.


I don't necessarily disagree with this or at least I didn't until recently when it seems the UN goes from one embarrassing crisis/fiasco to the next and we're not seeing much accomplished that is positive in any way. But seriously, if the UN is to be mostly a toothless, ineffective, inefficient megalithic dinosaur, is it worth keeping? When it resists or flat out won't agree to anything to enforce its own resolutions, and those who decide to unilaterally enforce them are condemned, shouldn't we sort of suggest/encourage/require that we get our money's worth out of our contributions to this?

I hate it when the same war is fought again and again every so many years. I hate war with a passion, but if you're going to have one, do it with overwhelming force, get the job done, have it over with, and then everybody can be friends. It seems to have been that way once at least for some of us. Is it too much to ask now?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 04:00 pm
I think that we can all agree that, so far, the UN has been a nullity in the present crisis. We should also agree that the Bush administration has failed to show any leadership in resolving it.




MIDDLE EAST
Failing the Test

U.S. policy in the Middle East "is the basic test of America's capacity to exercise global leadership," former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinksi said this week. If the United States does not succeed in its Middle East challenge, he argued, "the U.S. will lose its capacity to lead." President Bush does not grasp this reality. Nearly two weeks of spiraling violence passed before Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was dispatched to the region for meetings in Beirut, Jerusalem, and Ramallah. Her trip ended yesterday in Rome, where "perhaps the most stark aspect" of the gathering of diplomats was "how isolated the United States appears." Rice has repeatedly stated the administration's refusal to accept the "status quo ante," the "old Middle East"; she sees in the current crisis the "birth pangs of a new Middle East." But these visions of a new Middle East have not been matched with a new Middle East policy, to replace the one that helped foster so much of the current instability. Instead, the Bush administration has "stuck to its playbook" during the crisis, "giving a tacit blessing" to the escalating violence "and maintaining a studied silence: We do not negotiate with bad guys like Syria and Iran." The result: Rice's visit concluded "without any plan to end the escalation, restore order, and put all the parties back on the road to security, stability, and peace."

NO NEW APPROACH TO REGIONAL STABILITY: Stretching back decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have seen a vital United States interest in working aggressively with the international community to contain violence in the Middle East. Former President Clinton urged yesterday, "It's important for us to get some kind of ceasefire now." The Bush administration has rejected this approach. In Rome, Rice bucked the "entreaties of nearly all of her European and Arab counterparts" to push for a ceasefire. Her basic position -- "We won't call for a cease fire unless we can be sure the fighting won't ever start up again" -- is ideologically-driven, and signals that the U.S. is "willing to push ahead with their vision even at great sacrifice of political stability and human life."
--AmericanProgressAction
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 04:03 pm
Good question, Foxfire. I generally would recommend hamburger's formulation above. Namely, that, despite its many limitations, the world is marginally better off with the UN than without it.

The problem arises - on both sides of these disputes - when the complaining party (usually hypocritically) implicitly asssumes that the UN ought to be or could possibly be a consistent source of justice or accepted international law in the serious disputes that infect the world. Neither condition is a fact or even a possibility, given the UN's own charter, and the overriding self-interest that affects the decisions and policies of member nations, including the US, our European critics, developing nations, and even such self-styled 'perfect' nations, supposedly above the greed and sectarianism that so affects others, such as Canada, Switzerland, and a few others.

We all use the UN for our own purposes and blame it when the collective self interests of other members puts it in opposition to what we want. The real issues are the competing self interests of the various members. Some are more often in the general interest than others, but no nation has an exclusive lock on either truth or justice - not the US and not even the EU (despite its proclivity to even greater high-minded, but self-obsessed hypocrisy than often characterizes the U.S.). (I was very amused the other day to hear the EU trade minister blame the recently failed Doha Trade talks on the reluctance of the U.S to put forward more generous concessions on agricultural imports from developing nations - when in fact it is the EU that is the chief barrier to such free trade in the world by a huge margin.)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 04:31 pm
hi george...nice to see you.

That's a fine post up above. Eight or ten of those and we'd have a good looking fence.

We Canadians have a thing for the UN. During the time when Lester Pearson was PM, we played a significant role in peacekeeping missions around the world. And not having imperial ambitions, international institutions seemed a fine way of achieving a necessary end - the minimizing or tempering of powerful but self-serving state entities with imperial tendencies. We thought (and still think) of the UN as an institution quite comparable to the police or the fire brigade or Congress.

Of course, a police force or a fire brigade or an elected Congress/Parliament can demonstrate a rich variety of human failings, and sooner or later, each one will. But it doesn't seem to me any sort of improvement if we solve that problem by dissolving police forces, fire brigades or Congresses.

The recent SC ruling which held that the US must abide by article 3 of the Geneva Convention represents an acknowledgement of the necessity of enforced codes of conduct between nations. To move away from such codes is a retreat from 'civilized' conduct, to everyone's eventual disadvantage.

Earlier, I mentioned to foxfyre that when China (or some block including china/pakistan/russia or whomever) surmount the US in power and in wealth, then we all will wish for international codes and the institutions to support them.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 05:58 pm
blatham wrote:
Earlier, I mentioned to foxfyre that when China (or some block including china/pakistan/russia or whomever) surmount the US in power and in wealth, then we all will wish for international codes and the institutions to support them.


Nice to hear from you as well old friend.

That must make at least three or four of my posts of which you approve !

Well I wouldn't bet on any of the players you mentionned, including China, significantly surpassing us for a century or more. There are many political hurtles the Chinese must overcome before they achieve the internal political stability they will need to match (or even equitably distribute) their growing economic wealth.. I agree the massive wealth transfers associated with the pertoleum trade are a factor that the west must grapple with (Canada is immune from that as long as they are willing to exploit their tar sands (something our environmentalists won't permit with respect to our oil shales.). Despite its mineral wealth Russia is depopulating very quickly, due both to unusually low birth rates and (amazingly) a rapidly decreasing life expectency. (I don;t know or understand all the cause factors in this, but the result suggests something profoundly amiss there.).

Canada's choices vis a vis the UN were particularly in line with its national needs and policies, both during the Cold War and subsequently. Certainly the appeal and support of an international "authority" was and is a useful thing for any country with a more populous and powerful neighbor, even when that neighbor is an ally offering protection from a dangerous foe. I don't mean to suggest that it was necessarily or uniquely self-serving, but only that in this respect, the same has been true of US policy towards the UN. A mistrust of such an international "authority" is similarly not surprising on the part of a large and particularly powerful nation that finds itself the frequent object of the fears, envy, and greed of others.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 06:42 pm
Somebody this week--I honestly can't remember who--Paul Harvey maybe?--was citing figures that the net gross increase in the U.S. economy since the Bush economy/tax cuts kicked in exceeds the net GDP of China for the same period. I wasn't paying close attention to the broadcast, but I'think he added the GDP of some other countries to China too. Anyway the numbers, whatever they were, were impressive. I think the only cause for concern there is a) If China chooses military exploitation in which case I doubt the UN will be in any way effective in changing their minds, or b) If Chine should initiate a capitalistic system along with basic human rights and free trade. Either would present challenges for the USA to meet that are not a particular worry at this time.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 06:47 pm
Gold Sacks estimates that China wil surpass the US of A in GNP by 2042 and India one dcade later. Sweet dreams Fyre.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 06:53 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Gold Sacks estimates that China wil surpass the US of A in GNP by 2042 and India one dcade later. Sweet dreams Fyre.


Surpassing Us or Mars or anybody else in GNP will not fix what ails China.

They're currently missing about 60 million women due to their idiot one-child law. They're going to need a flag with a hammer, a syckle, and a pink flamingo on it...
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 07:50 pm
Syria demands truce, prisoner swap in Lebanon crisis Wed Jul 26, 8:58 AM ET
DAMASCUS (AFP) - Syria has called for a ceasefire, an exchange of prisoners and Israel's withdrawal from occupied Arab lands in order to resolve the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

"To resolve the crisis in the region it is necessary to decree a ceasefire, proceed with a prisoner exchange and for Israel to withdraw from all occupied Arab territory," Information Minister Mohsen Bilal said Wednesday. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060726/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictsyria_060726125851 Iranian president wants Lebanon cease-fire
VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
Associated Press http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/15127394.htm Rice warns Iran, Syria over ceasefire
From correspondents in Doha
July 27, 2006
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has cautioned Syria and Iran that they face further isolation if they try to scupper US-led attempts to get a ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel.
Ms Rice was speaking to reporters flying with her from Rome where US, Arab and European ministers agreed to work with the "utmost urgency" to get a ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel but disappointed Beirut and others by not demanding an immediate end to hostilities.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19927208-1702,00.html
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 11:01 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
That must make at least three or four of my posts of which you approve !


I'm in your fa club as well.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 11:26 pm
Some British now openly show their dislike of how their government handles the ME crisis:

'It seems we and Uncle Sam think that shooting people is a good idea'
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2006 05:32 am
Changing Reaction Tide of Arab Opinion Turns to Support for Hezbollah



Drawn out Lebanon crisis will boost militants across Arab world, PM fears
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2006 06:08 am
The "hiding among civilians" myth

Quote:
Jul. 28, 2006 | The bombs came just as night fell, around 7 p.m. The locals knew that the 10-story apartment building had been the office, and possibly the residence, of Sheik Tawouk, the Hezbollah commander for the south, so they had moved their families out at the start of the war. The landlord had refused to rent to Hezbollah when they requested the top floors of the building. No matter, the locals said, the Hezb guys just moved in anyway in the name of the "resistance."

Everyone knew that the building would be hit eventually. Its location in downtown Tyre, which had yet to be hit by Israeli airstrikes, was not going to protect it forever. And "everyone" apparently included Sheik Tawouk, because he wasn't anywhere near it when it was finally hit.

Two guided bombs struck it in a huge flash bang of fire and concrete dust followed by the roar of 10 stories pancaking on top of each other, local residents said. Jihad Husseini, 46, runs the driving school a block away and was sitting in his office when the bombs struck. He said his life was saved because he had drawn the heavy cloth curtains shut on the windows facing the street, preventing him from being hit by a wave of shattered glass. But even so, a chunk of smoldering steel flew through the air, broke through the window and the curtain, and shot past his head and through the wall before coming to rest in his neighbor's home.

But Jihad still refuses to leave.

"Everything is broken, but I can make it better," he says, surrounded by his sons Raed, 20, and Mohammed, 12. "I will not leave. This place is not military, it is not Hezbollah; it was an empty apartment."

Throughout this now 16-day-old war, Israeli planes high above civilian areas make decisions on what to bomb. They send huge bombs capable of killing things for hundreds of meters around their targets, and then blame the inevitable civilian deaths -- the Lebanese government says 600 civilians have been killed so far -- on "terrorists" who callously use the civilian infrastructure for protection.

But this claim is almost always false. My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians. Much smarter and better trained than the PLO and Hamas fighters, they know that if they mingle with civilians, they will sooner or later be betrayed by collaborators -- as so many Palestinian militants have been.

For their part, the Israelis seem to think that if they keep pounding civilians, they'll get some fighters, too. The almost nightly airstrikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut could be seen as making some sense, as the Israelis appear convinced there are command and control bunkers underneath the continually smoldering rubble. There were some civilian casualties the first few nights in places like Haret Hreik, but people quickly left the area to the Hezbollah fighters with their radios and motorbikes.

But other attacks seem gratuitous, fishing expeditions, or simply intended to punish anything and anyone even vaguely connected to Hezbollah. Lighthouses, grain elevators, milk factories, bridges in the north used by refugees, apartment buildings partially occupied by members of Hezbollah's political wing -- all have been reduced to rubble.

In the south, where Shiites dominate, just about everyone supports Hezbollah. Does mere support for Hezbollah, or even participation in Hezbollah activities, mean your house and family are fair game? Do you need to fire rockets from your front yard? Or is it enough to be a political activist?

The Israelis are consistent: They bomb everyone and everything remotely associated with Hezbollah, including noncombatants. In effect, that means punishing Lebanon. The nation is 40 percent Shiite, and of that 40 percent, tens of thousands are employed by Hezbollah's social services, political operations, schools, and other nonmilitary functions. The "terrorist" organization Hezbollah is Lebanon's second-biggest employer.

People throw the phrase "ghost town" around a lot, but Nabatiya, a bombed-out town about 15 miles from the Lebanon-Israel border, deserves it. One expects the spirits of the town's dead, or its refugees, to silently glide out onto its abandoned streets from the ruined buildings that make up much of the town.

Not all of the buildings show bomb damage, but those that don't have metal shutters blown out as if by a terrible wind. And there are no people at all, except for the occasional Hezbollah scout on a motorbike armed only with a two-way radio, keeping an eye on things as Israeli jets and unmanned drones circle overhead.

Overlooking the outskirts of this town, which has a peacetime population of 100,000 or so -- mostly Shiite supporters of Hezbollah and its more secular rival Amal -- is the Ragheh Hareb Hospital, a facility that makes quite clear what side the residents of Nabatiya are on in this conflict.

The hospital's carefully sculpted and trimmed front lawn contains the giant Red Crescent that denotes the Muslim version of the Red Cross. As we approach it, an Israeli missile streaks by, smashing into a school on the opposite hilltop. As we crouch and then run for the shelter of the hospital awning, that giant crescent reassures me until I look at the flagpole. The Lebanese flag and its cedar tree is there -- right next to the flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

It's safe to say that Ragheh Hareb Hospital has an association with Hezbollah. And the staff sports the trimmed beards and polite, if somewhat ominous, manner of the group. After young men demand press IDs and do some quick questioning, they allow us to enter.

Dr. Ahmed Tahir recognizes me from a funeral in the nearby village of Dweir. An Israeli bomb dropped on their house killed a Hezbollah cleric and 11 members of his immediate family, mostly children. People in Lebanon are calling it a war crime. Tahir looks exhausted, and our talk is even more tense than the last time.

"Maybe it would be best if the Israelis bombed your car on the road here," he said, with a sharp edge. "If you were killed, maybe the public outcry would be so bad in America that the Jews would be forced to stop these attacks."

When I volunteered that the Bush administration cared little for journalists, let alone ones who reported from Hezbollah territory, he shrugged. "Maybe if it was an American bomb used by the Israelis that killed an American journalist, they would stop this horror," he said.

The handful of people in the town include some from Hezbollah's political wing, as well as volunteers keeping an eye on things while the residents are gone. Off to the side, as we watch the Israelis pummel ridgelines on the outskirts of town, one of the political operatives explains that the fighters never come near the town, reinforcing what other Hezbollah people have told me over the years.

Although Israel targets apartments and offices because they are considered "Hezbollah" installations, the group has a clear policy of keeping its fighters away from civilians as much as possible. This is not for humanitarian reasons -- they did, after all, take over an apartment building against the protests of the landlord, knowing full well it would be bombed -- but for military ones.

"You can be a member of Hezbollah your entire life and never see a military wing fighter with a weapon," a Lebanese military intelligence official, now retired, once told me. "They do not come out with their masks off and never operate around people if they can avoid it. They're completely afraid of collaborators. They know this is what breaks the Palestinians -- no discipline and too much showing off."

Perhaps once a year, Hezbollah will hold a military parade in the south, in which its weapons and fighters appear. Media access to these parades is tightly limited and controlled. Unlike the fighters in the half dozen other countries where I have covered insurgencies, Hezbollah fighters do not like to show off for the cameras. In Iraq, with some risk taking, you can meet with and even watch the resistance guys in action. (At least you could during my last time there.) In Afghanistan, you can lunch with Taliban fighters if you're willing to walk a day or so in the mountains. In Gaza and the West Bank, the Fatah or Hamas fighter is almost ubiquitous with his mask, gun and sloganeering to convince the Western journalist of the justice of his cause.

The Hezbollah guys, on the other hand, know that letting their fighters near outsiders of any kind -- journalists or Lebanese, even Hezbollah supporters -- is stupid. In three trips over the last week to the south, where I came near enough to the fighting to hear Israeli artillery, and not just airstrikes, I saw exactly no fighters. Guys with radios with the look of Hezbollah always found me. But no fighters on corners, no invitations to watch them shoot rockets at the Zionist enemy, nothing that can be used to track them.

Even before the war, on many of my trips to the south, the Lebanese army, or the ubiquitous guy on a motorbike with a radio, would halt my trip and send me over to Tyre to get permission from a Hezbollah official before I could proceed, usually with strict limits on where I could go.

Every other journalist I know who has covered Hezbollah has had the same experience. A fellow journalist, a Lebanese who has covered them for two decades, knows only one military guy who will admit it, and he never talks or grants interviews. All he will say is, "I'll be gone for a few months for training. I'll call when I'm back." Presumably his friends and neighbors may suspect something, but no one says anything.

Hezbollah's political members say they have little or no access to the workings of the fighters. This seems to be largely true: While they obviously hear and know more than the outside world, the firewall is strong.

Israel, however, has chosen to treat the political members of Hezbollah as if they were fighters. And by targeting the civilian wing of the group, which supplies much of the humanitarian aid and social protection for the poorest people in the south, they are targeting civilians.

Earlier in the week, I stood next to a giant crater that had smashed through the highway between Tyre and Sidon -- the only route of escape for most of the people in the far south. Overhead, Israeli fighters and drones circled above the city and its outlying areas and regular blasts of bombs and naval artillery could be heard.

The crater served as a nice place to check up on the refugees, who were forced by the crater to slow down long enough to be asked questions. They barely stopped, their faces wrenched in near panic. The main wave of refugees out of the south had come the previous two days, so these were the hard-luck cases, the people who had been really close to the fighting and who needed two days just to get to Tyre, or who had had to make the tough decision whether to flee or stay put, with neither choice looking good.


Just as a note: I am not sure what to make of this.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2006 06:13 am
It isn't a myth and whoever believes that is living in a fantasy.

However we will never know why most of the 'targets' are considered just that....some are obvious, most are not.

My opinion is Israel has done enough spying over the years to know what facilities have something to do with the Hezbollah network which is sewn into the fabric of Lebanon.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2006 06:24 am
Brand X wrote:
It isn't a myth and whoever believes that is living in a fantasy.

However we will never know why most of the 'targets' are considered just that....some are obvious, most are not.

My opinion is Israel has done enough spying over the years to know what facilities have something to do with the Hezbollah network which is sewn into the fabric of Lebanon.


Israel thought they knew all about Lebanon the last time they invaded, but as Armitage said, they were wrong.

Quote:


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/27/armitage-mideast/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 02/26/2025 at 11:48:47