Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[Undertoad]

All I ask is for one doctored or stage-directed photo.

It would be spectacular proof of your point, and a remarkable disproving of mine.

Just one.

[Hippikos]

Truth is the first victim in war, on all sides.

Extremist Israelis will routinely lie - are the most immoral. Remember why the US and USSR came closest to nuclear war - because Israelis lied. But again, this is the same honest Israel that 'accidently' attacked USS Liberty. Eliminate the obvious biases, then Israelis as a nation are no more honest or moral than their Arab peers.

Iraq war was directly caused by the Jewish cabal in the neocons (Feith, Abrams, Ledeen). AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is the biggest example of that.

"I think the administration has had a rather militant and absolutist notion of how to achieve peace in the Middle East, laced with overtones of black-and-white morality," said former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.

[tw]

Few countries have become so anti-Arab as the United States. From the Economist of 5 Aug 2006:

Opinion polls confirm that Americans are solidly on Israel's side. A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted on July 28th-30th showed that eight in ten Americans believed that Israel's action was justified—though a majority were worried about the scale of the action. A plurality (44%) thought that America was doing “about the right amount” to deal with the conflict. An earlier USA Today poll found that 53% put “a great deal” of the blame for the current crisis on Hizbullah, 39% put the blame on Iran and only 15% blamed Israel.

These numbers are what the administration mouthpieces have been telling Americans how to think - and are opposite of reality. Meanwhile, The Economist defined reasons for America's emotionally based response:

A Pew Global Attitudes survey taken between March and May found that 48% of Americans said that their sympathies lay with the Israelis; only 13% were sympathetic towards the Palestinians. By contrast, in Spain for example, 9% sympathised with the Israelis and 32% with the Palestinians. ...

Why is America so much more pro-Israeli than Europe? The most obvious answer lies in the power of two very visible political forces: the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) and the religious right. AIPAC, which has an annual budget of almost $50m, a staff of 200, 100,000 grassroots members and a decades-long history of wielding influence, is arguably the most powerful lobby in Washington, mightier even than the National Rifle Association.

“Thank God we have AIPAC, the greatest supporter and friend we have in the whole world,” says Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister. The lobby, which is the centrepiece of a co-ordinated body that includes pressure groups, think-tanks and fund-raising operations, produces voting statistics on congressmen that are carefully scrutinised by political donors. It also organises regular trips to Israel for congressmen and their staffs. (The Washington Post reports that Roy Blunt, the House majority whip, has been on four.)

The Christian right is also solidly behind Israel. White evangelicals are significantly more pro-Israeli than Americans in general; more than half of them say they strongly sympathise with Israel. (A third of the Americans who claim sympathy with Israel say that this stems from their religious beliefs.) Two in five Americans believe that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, and one in three say that the creation of the state of Israel was a step towards the Second Coming.

Religious-right activists are trying to convert this latent sympathy into political support. John Hagee, a Texas televangelist who believes that supporting Israel is a “biblical imperative”, recently founded Christians United for Israel. Last month he brought 3,500 people from across the country to Washington to cheer Israel's war against Hizbullah. Mr Hagee's brigades held numerous meetings on Capitol Hill; both Mr Bush and Mr Olmert sent messages to his rally.

These pressure groups are clearly influential. Evangelical Christians make up about a quarter of the American electorate and are the bedrock of Mr Bush's support. Congressmen take on AIPAC at their peril. But they deal with well-heeled lobbies every day. And the power of the religious right can hardly explain why Democrats are so keen on Israel. Two other factors need to be considered: the war on Islamic radicalism, and deep cultural affinities between America and Israel.

Seeing themselves in Israel
Americans instinctively see events in the Middle East through the prism of September 11th 2001. They look at Hizbullah and Hamas with their Islamist slogans and masked faces and see the people who attacked America—and they look at Israeli citizens and see themselves. In America the “war on terror” is a fact of life, constantly reiterated. The sense that America is linked with Israel in a war against Islamist extremism is reinforced by Iranian statements about wiping Israel off the surface of the earth, and by the political advance of the Islamists of Hamas in Palestine.

But the biggest reason why Americans are so pro-Israel may be cultural. Americans see Israel as a plucky democracy in a sea of autocracies—a democracy that has every right to use force to defend itself. Europeans, on the other hand, see Israel as a reminder of the atavistic forces—from nationalism to militarism—that it has spent the post-war years trying to grow beyond.

Americans are staunch nationalists, much readier to contemplate the use of force than Europeans. A German Marshall Fund survey in 2005 found 42% of Americans strongly agreeing that “under some conditions, war is necessary to obtain justice” compared with just 11% of Europeans. A Pew survey found that the same proportion of Americans and Israelis believe in the use of pre-emptive force: 66%. Continental European figures were far lower.

Why are Americans so 'out of touch' with what the rest of the world knows? Propaganda is alive and well in America. I am amazed how many Americans somehow know what must be done and yet - this question again - don't even know the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas.

[Undertoad]

You really show your true colors when you say being pro-Israel is being anti-Arab.

I'm pro-Israel, pro-Lebanon, very anti-Hezbollah. A year ago I started the thread I love the Lebanese. A month later I wrote Free Lebanon.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'm pro-Israel, pro-Lebanon, very anti-Hezbollah.

Then why were you so quite when Israel was murdering Maronites and Druze by the hundreds? Why were you so quite when Israel was routinely attacking other Lebanese (rather than Hezbollah) in Tyre, Sidon, Beirut, and Tripoli. You are not pro-Lebanese - except when it is consistent with a pro-Israeli attitude. I posted repeatedly about Israel attacks on Tripoli. UT remained silent because UT approves of anything that Israel does. An honest pro-Lebanese person would be screaming from the rafters about the murder of Lebanese in Tripoli - the most northern port in Lebanon. UT remained silent.

[Undertoad]

You believe Hezbollah is not in Beirut?

I asked that yesterday. Got no answer. TW remained silent. There are only two possibilities. One possibility: TW does not know Hezbollah controls large areas of Beirut. Which would be unthinkable to someone who claims to know so much about the region.

No, TW remained silent because he knows damn well there are Hezbollah in Beirut, and in Tripoli and Tyre and Sidon as well. TW wanted those attacks to be attacks on innocent Lebanese, and so he made them such. Because he disapproves of anything that Israel does and wants to paint the worst possible picture.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You believe Hezbollah is not in Beirut?

I answered your question long ago, UT. There were no Hezbollah terrorist operations in Beirut's airport. So why was that one of the first targets of Israel? Where are all this Hezbollah in Tyre or Sidon? Does not exist. Where is all this Hezbollah in Tripoli, Hermet, Galieh, Baalbek, or Halba? None. These are also northern cities attacked by Israel only because Hezbollah was in the south.

Why do you ignore these murders of Lebanese by israel when you claim to be pro-Lebanon?

No, the Hezbollah militia is in the south. Since Israel could not get them, then Israel instead murdered innocent Lebanese - and UT (Brianna and MaggieL) says this is good.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You believe Hezbollah is not in Beirut?

I asked that yesterday. Got no answer. TW remained silent. There are only two possibilities. One possibility: TW does not know Hezbollah controls large areas of Beirut. Which would be unthinkable to someone who claims to know so much about the region.

No, TW remained silent because he knows damn well there are Hezbollah in Beirut, and in Tripoli and Tyre and Sidon as well. TW wanted those attacks to be attacks on innocent Lebanese, and so he made them such. Because he disapproves of anything that Israel does and wants to paint the worst possible picture.

Of course there were Hezbollah in Beirut. The question is whether leveling the city to get to them is reasonable. It's not like the Lebanese can turn them in to the police. If someone carpet bombed my neighborhood to flush out the Republicans, I'd be pretty pissed.

Bush has already stated that Israel defeated Hezbollah. This of course is wonderful news to anyone who doesn't know any better. I'm really hoping he will declare a coalition victory in Iraq tomorrow so we can bring everyone home.

On Bush's first day back from vacation, his motorcade traveled between the White House and State and Defense departments for meetings on transforming the U.S. military, on homeland security and on the warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sectarian violence has surged in Iraq and created what some consider the greatest threat to stability there since Saddam Hussein's government was toppled three years ago. Meanwhile, efforts to get North Korea and Iran to restrict their nuclear ambitions remained stalled.

I'm so very glad he's back from vacation. Maybe Condi left a few 'while you were out' post-its on his desk.

BTW, Israel does have a right to exist and does have the right to defend itself. But instead of trying to hit the rocket sites they started an invasion which ended in a cease fire. A cease fire with an opposition force that they would have not had to acknowledge if they had simply reacted to the immediate threat.

[Undertoad]

The first thing one does in war, especially a war with Arabs, is to cut the command and control lines, so that the people in the field can't get good orders from their leaders. Thus, the airports and communications facilities.

The second thing one does is to cut supply lines so that the people in the field can't be resupplied. Thus, the bridges and roads to Syria.



From Wikipedia. Areas you have specified as not containing Hezbollah are actually pwned and operated by them.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The first thing one does in war, especially a war with Arabs, is to cut the command and control lines, so that the people in the field can't get good orders from their leaders. Thus, the airports and communications facilities.

And then we look at UT's map. The attacked targets are not even Hezbollah command and control areas. Again, he completely ignored Tripoli that is about as far from Hezbollah as one can get in Lebanon. The Economist lists Tripoli as attacked somewhere between 16 and 30 times.

Again, and that was so obvious. The Beirut airport had nothing to do with Hezbollah. But it was the crown jewel of the Lebanese people - having been built as a trophy to the end of their civil war.

Why would Israel attack Beirut Airport? Apparently Olmert's government actually thought if they attacked Beirut, then the Lebanon army would somehow disarm the only miltia with a history of expelling Israel from Lebanon.

Don't forget why Israel left Lebanon: Hezbollah. Israel is the reason Hezbollah was created. Hezbollah is in south Lebanon because that is where Lebanon's enemy is.

So instead Israel attacks cities where Hezbollah is not: Sidon, Tyre, Beirut, Tripoli, Halba, Hermel, and so many cities far north of Beirut and without any Hezbollah. Again, UT calls this justified - and yet claims to be a friend of Lebanon?

[9th Engineer]

Look at the targets they are hitting. Any large airport in Lebanon is a stratigic target, as well as seaports and industrial cities. With these targets there doesn't have to be Hezbollah in the building, if it weakens them by denying them weapons, food, or orders it's a legitimate target.
The only way I can see this ending for any length of time is the complete disarmament of Hezbolla and the reinstation of Lebanons official army.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Look at the targets they are hitting. Any large airport in Lebanon is a stratigic target, as well as seaports and industrial cities.

These are strategic Lebanese targets. By attacking them, supplies to the entire population are cut off. This is known as collective punishment. We tried it in Iraq in order to get the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam. It didn't work.

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Look at the targets they are hitting. Any large airport in Lebanon is a stratigic target, as well as seaports and industrial cities. With these targets there doesn't have to be Hezbollah in the building, if it weakens them by denying them weapons, food, or orders it's a legitimate target.

Now you have justified the illegal invasion of Cambodia, Laos, the Gulf of Tonkin, etc. For that matter why not attack Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia since that also are sources of Hezbollah support.

Meanwhile, TW instead wants honesty and facts. So much so that if anything posted emotionally bothers anyone (Brianna), well grow up. Since so many are openly lying - more egregiously then when hyping lies about WMDs - instead we have facts with supporting documentation:

Let's look at the map that UT posted. Listed is a province not in Hezbollah control (according to UT) and at least one city in that province attacked by Israel - as best I can tell using maps, news reports, etc. In most every case, the number of attacks are far more numerous; especially in provinces listed with two or more towns:
Akkar: El Aabboudieh, Aandaqt, Halba

The Hindu
Jets struck before dawn a bridge near the northern town of Halba in the remote Akkar region

Tripoli: Tripoli, El Beddaoui

Israeli Bridge Attack Kills Eleven In Lebanon
A third attack fell on a village some 12.43 miles northeast of the northern city of Tripoli, reports The Australian.

Bartroun: Al Batrun, Selaata
Aley: Ain Zhalta, Damour
Chouf: Chehim, Jiyeh

Israel's Outrageous Attacks
Israel has killed Christians, Sunnis and Shiites, old and young, men and women, from the great Phoenician cities of Sidon and Tyre to more humble towns — Chtoura and Juniyah, Damour and Naame, Jiye and Baalbek, Khiam and Batrun.
It has wrecked roads, bridges, a lighthouse, ports, tunnels, electrical pylons, water mains, fuel depots, gas stations, power plants, houses, shops, schools — and even a milk factory. It has repeatedly blasted the international airport that was the symbol of Lebanon's rebirth from 15 years of war.

Kaerouan: Jounieh, Aayoun elSimane

Lebanon's Day 6: Lebanon Death Toll Rises!
Three missiles hit an LBCI transmission station at Fatqa in Kesrouan, killing the chief employee there.

Minleh-Dinnieh: Marjahin
Koura or Bacharre : Ehden
El Metri: Sannine
Baabda: El Mdairej

According to UT logic (that has no Israeli bias?), these are Hezbollah cities only because they are Lebanese cities? They are outside of what UT says is Hezbollah areas. Therefore the poplulation must be killed by Israeli warplanes.

By my count, Akkar province alone had eight attacked cities. Who did the Akkar people elect in their 2005 elections? 3 Sunnis, 1 Alawite, 1 Maronite, and 2 Greek Orthodox. So why is Israel bombing eight Akkar cities? UT tells us this is a Hezbollah stronghold? Or maybe UT never learned how often Israel lies? Clearly fake photographs demonstrate that only Arabs lie.

One can again believe a lying American president because one feels the truth. Same president that also lied about weapons of mass destruction even after he knew those weapons did not exist. Or one can again first learn facts. There was no Hezbollah in Beirut Airport no matter what UT claims. Even UT's own maps show no Hezbollah in cities that Israeli warplanes attacked. Provided are news reports of some Israeli attacked Lebanese towns in areas even UT says are not Hezbollah strongholds. But this cannot be. Israelis don't lie - if you believe George Jr and Israeli propaganda.

[Undertoad]

Again, and that was so obvious. The Beirut airport had nothing to do with Hezbollah. But it was the crown jewel of the Lebanese people - having been built as a trophy to the end of their civil war.

If it was tactical, they cratered the runways and took out some of the infrastructure needed to get people in and out, such as roads leading to the airport.

If it was punative, they reduced the entire thing to rubble.

Ya follow?

Beirut airport can be 'reopened partly' in a week: ministers

Public Works and Transport Minister Mohammed Safadi, for his part, said the airport needed two and a half months to be fully operational but it could open 'partially within a week.'

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If it was tactical, they cratered the runways and took out some of the infrastructure needed to get people in and out, such as roads leading to the airport.

There was no tactical value to cratering the Beirut airport. Israel expected to drive out Hezbollah in two weeks. Massive military equipment from that airport and carried south was not going to resupply Hezbollah. Airport was attacked probably for same reasons that even cities northern Lebanon were attacked. For some strange reason, Israel was bombing innocent Lebanese while publicly demanding that Lebanon's army displace Hezbollah. Somehow Israel thought this would make the Lebanon army move on Hezbollah? Yes, if Lebanon blamed Hezbollah for the war. Apparently Israel actually thought that Lebanese people would blame Hezbollah.

Sounds like a decision in Israel made by a compromising committee. Well it did get Fouad Siniora's and the world's attention in a war that otherwise might have otherwise received less attention. But attacking the airport had little if any tactical purpose other than stop all commercial flights and getting attention of all in Lebanon - the airport being a crown jewel and so critical to almost all Lebanon's economy. Israel was attacking innocent Lebanese; done for a purpose. It also caused so many centrists throughout the world to start discussing "Guns of August".