Hezbollah night-vision gear manufactured in Britain

[DanaC]

If you just want to see them overrun, be honest enough to say so openly.

I have no desire to see Israel overrun. I do however see Israel as the primary aggressor in that region. I do not believe that Israel should be destroyed. I do however, believe they should cease their illegal occupation of and consistant human rights abuses within Palestine. I also believe that if that were to occur, most of the aggression from other states, sympathetic to the Palestinian cause would die out. Hizb'allah is intrinsically linked to Palestine, they are of the same origin. Whilst it can be argued that Hizb'allah started this particular round of fighting with israel, it`can also be argued that their actions were in direct response to the aggression of Israel in Palestine.

Yes, I see them as an equivalence. No that does not mean I think Israel should be destroyed. Much of what is said relating to the 'total destruction' of Israel is empty rhetoric. Israel is far too powerful and well armed for Hez'bollah to do more than graze their edges. As indeed has been seen in this recent conflict. Meanwhile, Israel has launched such a devastation on the Lebanon that it's hard not to see it in terms of 'collective punishment'.

As I said earlier, weapons are being sent to both sides of this conflict.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I have no desire to see Israel overrun. I do however see Israel as the primary aggressor in that region. I do not believe that Israel should be destroyed. I do however, believe they should cease their illegal occupation of and consistant human rights abuses within Palestine.

"Palestine" is another pseudonational entity that has sworn their destruction. Transjordan was supposed to be the original "Palestinian homeland", and now they're back for yet another slice. And another, and another...they won't stop until Israel is gone, they've *said* so repeatedly.

Israel was sucessfully withdrawing from the West Bank and Gaza, but that was intolerable to generations of foreign-funded professional terrorists, who would have nobody left to kill but each other. So it was tunnels, missles and kidnapping, and the "primary agressor, moral equivalance" Greek chorus fires up yet again whenever Israel tried to stop it.

"Primary agressor" is meaningless here, unless you simply mean they are militarily stronger than any one individual identifiable group in the whole "kill the Jews" shell game. But what good is that if their hands are tied from defending themselves?

There's no "human rights abuse" like having a Semtex-n-shrapnel vest go off next to you on the bus or in the pizza shop. How'd you like to have somebody "grazing the edges" of Halifax with random missiles and suicide bombers? If you wouldn't tolerate that, why should Israel?

[DanaC]

There's no "human rights abuse" like having a Semtex-n-shrapnel vest go off next to you on the bus or in the pizza shop

How about having your home demolished whilst you are still inside it? Orhaving your child shot at by snipers as they walk to school?

I would not like Halifax to experience what Israel is experiencing. But I would also be appalled if my Government and military were acting the way Israel is.

I think this is one of those issues on which we are never going to find even the tiniest little piece of common ground.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I would not like Halifax to experience what Israel is experiencing. But I would also be appalled if my Government and military were acting the way Israel is.

What would you have them do?

Just smile, turn yet another cheek and be "tolerant and understanding of the plight of their adversaries"? Turn over yet more land? They've already said they won't rest until they have it all and the Jews are gone. At least when appeasing Hitler there was an excuse for beleiving he'd be satisfied with each next demand he made. Here there is not even that.

The Israelis just want to be left the hell alone, but that isn't in the cards; their very existence is overt anathema to their enemies. They are "non-competitive states" in the sense of Ralph Peters essay. Israel's enemies are devoted to outdated cultures that simply do not function--by any objective measure you can name--and it is unnecessary to "understand them fully" to see this. So their response is to pronounce both Israel and those in the West (cultures I feel certain they do not "understand fully") evil and condemn us to death in fatwas.

Perhaps we shall never find common ground on this; that much seems likely. i And perhaps suicide murders and random jihadist violence in the country towns nestled in the hills around Hallifax may remain only a disturbing hypothetical that you can push off the stage and into the back of your mind. In "A View From The Eye Of The Storm", Haim Harari writes

If part of the public supports it, others tolerate it, many are afraid of it and some try to explain it away by poverty or by a miserable childhood, organized crime will thrive and so will terrorism. The United States understands this now, after September 11. Russia is beginning to understand it. Turkey understands it well. I am very much afraid that most of Europe still does not understand it. Unfortunately, it seems that Europe will understand it only after suicide murders arrive in Europe in a big way. In my humble opinion, this will definitely happen. The Spanish trains and the Istanbul bombings are only the beginning. The unity of the Civilized World in fighting this horror is absolutely indispensable. Until Europe wakes up, this unity will not be achieved.

But to most places in Israel these murders are not hypothetical. Nor on the streets of Manhattan. Nor the London Underground. I don't think blaming those victims is a viable strategy.

[JayMcGee]

During the 60s and 70's , Israel wa fighting for its survival via the 6-days war, the constant PLO hi-jackings et al. Most of us rooted for them in those days. Occupy the West Bank and the Golan Heights, turn them into buffer zones.... sure , wise move that.

And then the settlers moved in...... and now Israel is no longer protecting it's homeland but the illegal setttlements as well.

[Aliantha]

It's fairly clear that both sides of this conflict are guilty of criminal activity. Both sides are at fault.

The other thing that's pretty clear is that Israel is supported by some states and Lebanon et el are not simply on the basis of religion.

That is criminal.

There must be a better answer than this!

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

It's fairly clear that both sides of this conflict are guilty of criminal activity. Both sides are at fault.

That's the "moral equivalance" argument again, and I say it's bullshit. There's no equivalance here.

[9th Engineer]

I would say that the UN is in no position to tell either side what to do untill it can manage to secure the region militarily. It's like two people who refuse to keep punching each other, even if one of them wants to stop they know that doing so will only mean getting an even more severe beating.
I've been wanting to scream this for a while so I'm going to get it off my chest:
WHY THE HELL DO WE THINK THE U.N. IS STILL CAPABLE OF DOING THEIR JOB IF THEY CAN'T EVEN SEND 20,000 TROOPS TO SECURE A SMALLISH AMOUNT OF LAND!!!!

They make the current administration here look like a bunch of Cambridge scholors for pete's sake!

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

That's the "moral equivalance" argument again, and I say it's bullshit. There's no equivalance here.

That's right. One side is innocent and the other is not. One side has killed no civillians and the other has. One side has always acted in a 'christian' manner. The other has not. One side is better than the other...more worthy...more honest.

That's a bigger load of BULLSHIT if you ask me.

[Ibby]

9th Engineer summed up exactly why I refuse to commit to a side in this conflict. I'll defend either side just as readily as I'll denounce them, because both sides are EQUALLY in the wrong. Neither side can stop until the other does, and neither side will stop first. It's just a vicious cycle of destruction. I don't give a flea's fart about "moral equivalance", whatever the fuck that actually means. Both sides are in the wrong. This has been going on too long to even try to determine who started it or whos fault it is or who is in the right, but it is possible to determine that both sides should have stopped by now. I blame both of them.

[MaggieL]

This is one of the central flaws of liberalism. Faced with violence, enacting their core psychodramas lead them to be driven by a need to become visibly and dramatically verklempt with "compassion for a victim". Unfortunately this somehow robs them of the ability to be dispassionate long enough to reason out who is actually responsible for the violence.

When Hezbollah kills civilians by hiding among them after an attack, it's the Israelis who are to blame rather than Hezbollah, who has turned their homes into missile emplacements and mosques into armories and munitions magazines. When a teenager is killed helping a drug dealer commit a burglary, it's the farmer defending his home and property who is somehow at fault, rather than the career felon corrupting the morals of a child.

When the absurdity of the outcomes of this political correctness becomes unsupportable, they trot out the last line of defense: the "everyone is to blame/equally at fault" moral equivalance song.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

When the absurdity of the outcomes of this political correctness becomes unsupportable, they trot out the last line of defense: the "everyone is to blame/equally at fault" moral equivalance song.

Now wait just one cotton-pickin' second here... I'm not trying to use that as a 'last line of defense' or as moral equivalance or anything like that. I think that Israel is totally in the right in this partucular scuffle. Hisballah IS totally wrong to do what they are doing, I completely agree. But in the more general "everyone in the area VS. Israel" game, I think both sides need to shut up and stop.

Are you understanding my argument at all now?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Now wait just one cotton-pickin' second here... I'm not trying to use that as a 'last line of defense' or as moral equivalance or anything like that.

That comment wasn't directed particularly at you.

But it certainly seems to me that the outcome of "both sides need to do ${X}" pronouncements is that Israel, being a nation, gets enormous international pressure to do ${X} and its enemies continue to do pretty much exactly what they please, because there is just about zero accountability for them...they're all operating as militias or terrorist cells or surrogates or factions or quasi-political-parties.

Hezbollah is a perfect example of this. When somebody knocks at their door for accountability, nobody's home, because they're not a nation. But turn around and everybody's telling you how "legitimate" they are because they have elected members in Lebanon's parliament. But when Israel respond to their military attacks, suddenly it's cast as an "unprovoked attack on Lebanon". It's just part of the same old shell game; high-stakes three-card monty.

[Hippikos]

More complicated it gets with this situation. US supplied Stingers to the Mujaheddeen to get rid of the USSR helicopters, this turned the war in Afghanistan around. Currently 1500 Stingers are still in the possession of the (Muslim) Mujaheddeen and some have been used against El Al airplanes (Africa). How about that, MaggieL?

Bush Sr channelled $ 5 Bio through CIA´s Chile contacts to sponsor Saddams arms supplies.

War needs suppliers and it´s utterly hypocrite to condemn one side.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

War needs suppliers and it´s utterly hypocrite to condemn one side.

But the UN isn't supposed to be "one side". They were supposed to be monitoring the peace while Lebanon disarmed Hezbollah. Now they're supposed to be doing it again, and already France and Lebanon are wimping out, since Hebollah got what *they* wanted.

What was supposed to be "no weapons" has somehow morphed into "no visible weapons"; i.e. Hebollah will still be armed, but we'll play another "don't ask don't tell" game.

Untll Iran needs another distraction, anyway. That should be in about 30-60 days, I'd guess.

I just don't consider contravening multiple UNSC resolutions to arm a terrorist militia surrogate of a third party nation, concealing itself in a civilian population to be the "moral equivalant" of directly selling arms to a legitimate government for its own defense.