Red Cross demands Mid-East action

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Nono You mean the foam-at-mouth/settlers-fascist-lobby crime, I believe. Let's call a spade a spade here.

{{SIGH}} Yeah, yeah, the dastardly assassination by a religious radical, we get it. Does everything have to be an opportunity to insert mouth-foaming, spit-spraying, over-the-top rhetoric?

Quote by: Nono Well in the short term I'd send my infantry / special forces boys across to deal with the missile sites as they found them.

Which would then stretch one comprehensive operation into a lengthy, on going series of goose chases across enemy territory, with civilians still being caught in the crossfire because the Palestinian militants seem to like putting them there, for just the bleeding heart PR benefit we're seeing.

Quote by: Nono Gosh, they shoulda asked me, poor fools. I would have told them.

So would I... the Bush League too, before going into Iraq... alas, neither of them chose to put your or me on their conference calls.

Quote by: Nono Otherwise I'd pull the political rug out from under Hezbollah by declaring my willingness to clear the West Bank of settlements and do an honest deal on everything from water resources to the status of East Jerusalem, i.e. land for peace, i.e. the Geneva Initiative.

You haven't said too many silly things, Nono, but this seems to be one of them. Acquiescing to political demands because of militant violence only sends the signal the such violence works and should be increased, not decreased. And kindly recall that the clearly stated goal of both Hamas and Hezbollah is not to end settlements and create a peaceful Palestinian states, but to wipe Israel off the map.

"Here, we'll remove these settlements if you'll just please, please stop shooting rockets at us!"

Hezbollah will stop firing long enough to dance in the streets for a while, and then, ready to build on that success, they'll see what else they can attack to force even more concessions from Israel.

And if you're going to tell me that Hamas and Hezbollah would act honorably in the face of such a gesture by Israel, I'd be curious to know exactly what in the history of the region makes you think that.


.

[Nono]

Quote by: Sonart {{SIGH}} Yeah, yeah, the dastardly assassination by a religious radical, we get it.

I'm mighty glad you (plural) get it. They are dastardly; they're religious nuts (just like the Allah-Akbar you so enjoy bitching about); and they assassinated him. Yes they (pay attention, shrike). They created the requisite atmosphere and they made sure that the assassination sent the right message. Deplorable.

(...) on going series of goose chases across enemy territory, with civilians still being caught in the crossfire because the Palestinian militants seem to like putting them there (...)

OK, Sonart, let's get this straight before proceeding. We're talking about the sovereign state of Lebanon here, correct? Not the occupied Palestinian territories. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And (correct me if I'm wrong) you are saying (do correct me if I'm wrong) that nearly a thousand civilians were killed by the Israeli military in Lebanon in the summer of 2006 because Palestinian militants (or whatever militants you actually meant) put them in the firing line. Not because they were just going about their business (or trying to flee) when the IDF caught up with them?

You can't be serious. Your findings most definitely clash with those of independent groups who investigated the matter (you know, the ones not controlled by Condi Rice & Co).
Again, Sonart, a huge, wilful, wishful-thinking blind spot on your part.

Acquiescing to political demands because of militant violence only sends the signal the such violence works and should be increased, not decreased. And kindly recall that the clearly stated goal of both Hamas and Hezbollah is not to end settlements and create a peaceful Palestinian states, but to wipe Israel off the map. "Here, we'll remove these settlements if you'll just please, please stop shooting rockets at us!"

No. Sorry. I'd do it because it's right, because it remedies a historical wrong that the entire world (apart from Israel and its supporters in the US) recognizes.

It is no cheap shot to note that your reasoning is distinctly Bushian: We've painted ourselves into an exitless corner here, so we'll rationalize our pigheadedness by saying that any change or course would be "yielding to terrorists". Sorry. It don't fly.

And if you're going to tell me that Hamas and Hezbollah would act honorably in the face of such a gesture by Israel, I'd be curious to know exactly what in the history of the region makes you think that.

I'm not going to tell you that. But I am going to tell you that I believe the vast majority (non-fanatics) on all sides have had a bellyful of the round-and-round-we-go self-righteousness that you exemplify (shrike and GHook far more so), and that a true change of course would alter the political environment.

Don't forget what I said about Reagan and Brezhnev. It's a question of symbiosis. If you change the environment, the symbiosis breaks down.

[shrike]

I will not answer to the whole post but there is some point that inherently wrong that I want to refute.

Quote by: nono I'm mighty glad you (plural) get it. They are dastardly; they're religious nuts (just like the Allah-Akbar you so enjoy bitching about); and they assassinated him. Yes they (pay attention, shrike). They created the requisite atmosphere and they made sure that the assassination sent the right message. Deplorable.

It seems that extreme left only like the free speech that suits him like Holocaust denial.

And (correct me if I'm wrong) you are saying (do correct me if I'm wrong) that nearly a thousand civilians were killed by the Israeli military

Yes you are wrong
Israel admits air strike on Syria

No. Sorry. I'd do it because it's right, because it remedies a historical wrong that the entire world (apart from Israel and its supporters in the US) recognizes.

What entire world?Europe usually abstains on such matters.Or do you considers countries like NK or Russia have a right to talk about human rights at all?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Nono I'm mighty glad you (plural) get it. They are dastardly; they're religious nuts (just like the Allah-Akbar you so enjoy bitching about); and they assassinated him. Yes they (pay attention, shrike). They created the requisite atmosphere and they made sure that the assassination sent the right message. Deplorable.

That's all true, but what they are not doing is strapping explosives to their bodies and blowing up bus loads of women and children.

And if your response is that's the only weapon they have (which it is not -- I've already explained another) it's a weapon so depraved as to not be worth whatever they think they're gaining.

Quote by: Nono OK, Sonart, let's get this straight before proceeding. We're talking about the sovereign state of Lebanon here, correct? Not the occupied Palestinian territories. Correct me if I'm wrong.

This was not like Iraq, a sovereign state that was threatening no one... this was a sovereign state from across whose borders came rocket fire raining on civilian targets. If the sovereign state of Lebanon can't control it, then they shouldn't be surprised when Israel loses patience and says step aside, we're gonna solve it. Would you give a flying fig what sovereign state it was coming from if rockets were raining from across the boarder on your home?

Quote by: Nono And (correct me if I'm wrong) you are saying (do correct me if I'm wrong) that nearly a thousand civilians were killed by the Israeli military

I'm sorry, Nono, but I don't believe Israeli troops are any more evil than American troops and I don't believe they went galavanting around Lebanon going, "Oh, look, Lebanese civilians... open fire!" If nothing else it simply wasn't in their political interest to do so and they knew it.

On the other hand, I DO believe that Hezbollah has become callous enough over their years of practicing terrorism to be perfectly willing to place civilians directly in harms way for no other reason than the PR advantage their deaths would -- and did -- provide.

Quote by: Nono No. Sorry. I'd do it because it's right, because it remedies a historical wrong that the entire world (apart from Israel and its supporters in the US) recognizes.

So would I, and as you said about your OTHER discussions, I've shouted that Israel should get rid of ALL their settlements in occupied territory, the settlers be damned! But I sure as hell wouldn't do it as a direct response to attacks. Far better might be... say ...the opening round of a peace negotiation.

Quote by: Nono We've painted ourselves into an exitless corner here, so we'll rationalize our pigheadedness by saying that any change or course would be "yielding to terrorists". Sorry. It don't fly.

As it turns out, I have come to think we need to stay in Iraq, but not because of anything as selfish as slavaging "Victory". It's because we owe it to Iraq to fix what we broke. And if that means more dead Americans, than so be it... that's the price we owe for our negligent recklesness. But then, I'd also impeach the hell outta Bush and Cheney both, to inform Americans and the world of exactly who is to blame.

And it's not the Israelis who've painted themselves into an exitless corner... it's the Palestinians and their puppeteers. The Israelis are the ones defending themselves from people who want them wiped off the face of the earth...not the other way around. Egypt and Jordon made peace with Israel... so can the others.

Quote by: =Nono I'm not going to tell you that. But I am going to tell you that I believe the vast majority (non-fanatics) on all sides have had a bellyful of the round-and-round-we-go self-righteousness that you exemplify (shrike and GHook far more so), and that a true change of course would alter the political environment.

Which is why, as I stated above, I think Israel should pick THEIR moment and make a serious gesture towards peace... like really pissing off a lot settlers, and to be seen -- violently if necessary -- kicking them the hell out of settlements.

Alas, I don't believe Isreal is going to do that... certainly not pre-emptively, although I suspect a majority of Israelis would eventually approve if it were part of a peace plan.

But like you admitted, even you don't beleive Hamas or Hezbollah would act honorably to any sort of peace gesture, so until they do -- by first and foremost admitting, in writing, Israel's right to exist -- I stand by my position that the Palestinians and their puppeteers have mostly brought this upon themselves.

.

[Nono]

Quote by: Sonart And if your response is ...

I am very grateful for your constant effort to anticipate my replies. Makes things so much more convenient.

As for Lebanon, it's much more a failed state than anything else. And Israel has its share of responsibilty for that (along with the Syrians and others).

So there was some good old-fashioned blowback. I'm struck by your use of "raining on". Very revealing. As usual, the Israelis killed many-many-many times more civilians than their own casualties. Just Arabs y'know.

Back in 1996 "Grapes of Wrath" killed 154 Lebanese civilians for zero, yes zero, Israeli civilian deaths (source: Human Rights Watch).

I'm sorry, Nono, but I don't believe Israeli troops are any more evil than American troops and I don't believe they went galavanting around Lebanon going, "Oh, look, Lebanese civilians... open fire!" If nothing else it simply wasn't in their political interest to do so and they knew it.

Thank you once again for a riproaring distortion of my words.
No kidding it wasn't in Israel's interest. That's what frequently fascinates me about Israel's behaviour -- the sheer self-defeating stupidity of it.

I DO believe that Hezbollah has become callous enough over their years of practicing terrorism to be perfectly willing to place civilians directly in harms way for no other reason than the PR advantage their deaths would -- and did -- provide.

I have no illusions about Hezbollah (in case you're tempted to pin that on me as well). Only trouble is that usually the places hit were localities where their own families were living (these guys are overwhelmingly locals).

Sonart, you can't deny the appalling scale of death of innocents in Lebanon, so you cling to the comforting belief that this can't have been Israeli callousness (too paradigm-rocking a notion for you to entertain) -- it can only have been the Arabs putting their own people in harm's way.

Well, Human Rights Watch investigated this (and very conservatively too -- see their figures: only 510 civilians). HRW completely disagrees with you: Israel/Lebanon: Israeli Indiscriminate Attacks Killed Most Civilians (Human Rights Watch, 6-9-2007)

So is HRW an anti-semitic organization? Or is it simply such a trendy-lefty outfit that it suffers from kneejerk pro-Arabism and kneejerk anti-Israelism?
I mean, there has to be some mud you can throw at it, I assume, since it demolishes your cherished beliefs.

So would I, and as you said about your OTHER discussions, I've shouted that Israel should get rid of ALL their settlements in occupied territory, the settlers be damned! But I sure as hell wouldn't do it as a direct response to attacks. Far better might be... say ...the opening round of a peace negotiation.

Look, man, you asked me this: "What would you do, Nono???? "
I told you.

It's not the Israelis who've painted themselves into an exitless corner...

Of course it is. Uri Avnery stood up in the Knesset way back in 1967 and warned the government of the folly of creating settlements in the territories. Now getting them out would be like trying to unburn a burnt bridge.

Sure, you're clever enough to endlessly find ways to blame everything on the Arabs. It's a blind spot, as I say.

Egypt and Jordon made peace with Israel... so can the others.

Neither had their heartland heaving with Israeli settlers.

I think Israel should pick THEIR moment and make a serious gesture towards peace... like really pissing off a lot settlers, and to be seen -- violently if necessary -- kicking them the hell out of settlements.

But don't you see? It never will, because there will always be some dastardly act they can point to to say "Now is not the time. It would be a sign of weakness." Like I say, self-defeating.

Once again, à la Reagan/Brezhnev the Muslim nuts scratch the backs of the Jewish nuts and vice versa -- endlessly.

But like you admitted, even you don't beleive Hamas or Hezbollah would act honorably to any sort of peace gesture, so until they do -- by first and foremost admitting, in writing, Israel's right to exist -- I stand by my position that the Palestinians and their puppeteers have mostly brought this upon themselves.

(laughs) What?!!!!? Even *I* don't believe Hamas or Hezbollah would act honourably? Holy shit, what's the world coming to when even I would doubt the impeccable integrity of the Arabs I so unswervingly uhh, worship (maybe shrike can think of a stronger term LOL).

Gimme a break. I say both sides make me sick and I mean it. Not unlike it used to be the case with Northern Ireland.

You know, Sonart, you and I really aren't, indeed, that far apart. It's just that you have a huge dose of partisan zeal which you really ought to work through and discard.

[Sonart]

.
I've enjoyed the conversation, Nono, and you're an extremely capable advocate. But methinks our debate is on the verge of going circular, if it hasn't already, so this will be my last response... that gives you the last word.

Quote by: Nono Thank you once again for a riproaring distortion of my words.

Oh? And you were struck by my use of the words "raining on"? Reread you words, Nono, and see how much I really distorted them.

Quote by: Nono Sonart, you can't deny the appalling scale of death of innocents in Lebanon, so you cling to the comforting belief that this can't have been Israeli callousness (too paradigm-rocking a notion for you to entertain) -- it can only have been the Arabs putting their own people in harm's way.

No, mostly it's due to the nature of asymetrical warfare, a hi-tech, hi-firepower military trying to fight a guarilla war in an urban setting.

Here's what Human Rights Watch had to say...

--"The use of cluster munitions in populated areas caused more civilian casualties than any other factor in the... conduct of major military operations..., Human Rights Watch said."--

--"Meanwhile, 50 strikes on top... leaders failed to kill any of the intended targets, but instead killed dozens of civilians, the Human Rights Watch report revealed."--

--"...forces generally tried to avoid killing (civilians) who weren´t taking part in combat,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “But the deaths of hundreds of civilians still could have been prevented.”--

I'm sure you've guessed that they're talking about American forces fighting in Iraq. The big difference being that Americans were fighting for nothing, for reasons that turned out not to exist. At least Israel can say it was provoked by actual attacks.

Quote by: Nono Look, man, you asked me this: "What would you do, Nono???? I told you.

And I responded that giving major concessions in the face of a wave of attacks would be foolish, that it would invite more attacks. Obviously we disagree.

I once made an analogy to campaign finance reform... it's entirely reasonable for a candidate to espouse reform yet refuse to cut their own throats by unilaterally disarming themselves financially before any reform has been agreed to.

Israel has demonstrated a willingness to remove settlers... they did it in Gaza. They returned the Sinai to Egypt. So despite what you see as Israel's "aggressive settlement policy", to me the Arab League and their vicious Palestinian proxies are the aggressors and need to make a decision to accept peace.

Quote by: Nono Of course it is. Uri Avnery stood up in the Knesset way back in 1967 and warned the government of the folly of creating settlements in the territories. Now getting them out would be like trying to unburn a burnt bridge.

Yeah, and if I had it to do over again in 1967, I'd have followed my better instincts and dated Maryanne Callery instead of settling for the easier Carol Hill. Big mistake, but that was 40 years ago.

In 1967 the Arab League and their refuge camp bred Palestinians chose to invade Israel yet again. In 20-20 hindsight, yeah, the settlements were a big mistake. That doesn't justify yet another invasion 6 years later or the ensuing 40 year campaign of terrorism.

Quote by: Nono Neither had their (Egypt and Jordon) heartland heaving with Israeli settlers.

Beg pardon??? As I recall, the west bank used to be a part of Jordon, who is now at peace with Israel.

Quote by: Nono You know, Sonart, you and I really aren't, indeed, that far apart. It's just that you have a huge dose of partisan zeal which you really ought to work through and discard.

The way I see it, for both of us it's a case of sympathy for the underdog. Unfortunately, for me the underdog has always been Israel... Jews who dragged their half-dead survivors from the pyre of near annihilation in the holocaust, grabbed a teeny-tiny portion of the ancient homeland they were once driven from, and spent the next 60 years fighting off wave after wave of attacks by the much larger Arab world.

'That which does not kill us makes us stronger."

The Arabs constant efforts to kill Israel have only succeeded in making israel incredibly strong, but that doesn't turn the Arabs into the underdog.

But to you, the underdogs are the Palestinian civilian population who are suffering under the power of Israel. And they are, which is a tragedy. But Israel's defending itself is not the reason for their suffering... it's the unrelenting hatred of their leaders and their Arab puppeteers -- to say nothing of the Arab build refugee camp system -- that's put them in their plight. Again, recall that the Gaza strip is essentially a giant refuge camp created by Egypt to breed the next generation of cannon fodder.

.

[Nono]

You're right, Sonart, it's on the verge of circularity.
I accept with thanks your offer of the last word.

At least Israel can say it was provoked by actual attacks.

This is undeniable. Still, I'd prefer a tad higher elevation on my moral ground than the fact that I'm not sharing the same abyss as George "Chicken Talk" Bush.

I once made an analogy to campaign finance reform... it's entirely reasonable for a candidate to espouse reform yet refuse to cut their own throats by unilaterally disarming themselves financially before any reform has been agreed to. Israel has demonstrated a willingness to remove settlers... they did it in Gaza. They returned the Sinai to Egypt. So despite what you see as Israel's "aggressive settlement policy", to me the Arab League and their vicious Palestinian proxies are the aggressors and need to make a decision to accept peace.

For the Jewish fundamentalist nuts, Gaza and Sinai aren't in the same hallowed league as the West Bank, though we agree that it was impressive to see them being escorted kicking and screaming to the exit. Only Sharon could have got away with that.

As I say, simply stating that something resembling the Geneva Initiative would send the right message (see "hallowed league") without cutting Israel's throat in the slightest. Everybody, including the settlers, would be on notice. Say: This is what we're we'll do in exchange for unmistakably clear, iron-clad security guarantees and a realistic plan for future neighbourliness.
That would put the ball firmly in the Palestinian court.

Beg pardon??? As I recall, the west bank used to be a part of Jordon, who is now at peace with Israel.

I said "heartland". Jordan ruled the West Bank as part of the Western-dictated carve-up. But even pre-67 there were contacts between Hussein and the Israelis that showed the former to be, unlike his Arab brothers, willing to co-exist.

Still, a huge whack of Jordan's population is of Palestinian origin, and the government is walking on eggshells these days regarding its peace treaty with Israel.

The way I see it, for both of us it's a case of sympathy for the underdog. Unfortunately, for me the underdog has always been Israel... Jews who dragged their half-dead survivors from the pyre of near annihilation in the holocaust, grabbed a teeny-tiny portion of the ancient homeland they were once driven from, and spent the next 60 years fighting off wave after wave of attacks by the much larger Arab world.

I can share that view to a certain extent, though regarding the once-driven-from part, I'd say the same thing I'd say to any North American Indian: get over it; too much water has flowed under the bridge since.

But to you, the underdogs are the Palestinian civilian population who are suffering under the power of Israel. And they are, which is a tragedy. But Israel's defending itself is not the reason for their suffering... it's the unrelenting hatred of their leaders and their Arab puppeteers -- to say nothing of the Arab build refugee camp system -- that's put them in their plight. Again, recall that the Gaza strip is essentially a giant refuge camp created by Egypt to breed the next generation of cannon fodder.

I'd say unrelenting hatred comes from both sides, as does the endless round'n'round eye-for-an-eye bullshit. Actually, with all due semantic/historical respect I'd call Gaza a giant concentration camp. And Israel could do worse than offer financial inducements for some Gazans to move into the less populated territory of a new Palestinian state.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Nono This is undeniable. Still, I'd prefer a tad higher elevation on my moral ground than the fact that I'm not sharing the same abyss as George "Chicken Talk" Bush.

Sorry, but I couldn't help it... I just had to share that I literally laughed out loud at this.

Quote by: Nono I can share that view to a certain extent, though regarding the once-driven-from part, I'd say the same thing I'd say to any North American Indian: get over it; too much water has flowed under the bridge since.

Toranaga: - "There is no mitigating factor for rebellion against your liege lord."

Blackthorne: - "Unless you win."

Toranaga: - (stares at Blackthorne for a moment, and then laughs) "Very well, you may have named the one mitigating factor."

As much as anyone, Americans should know that history sometimes belongs to whoever can make it happen.

.