If Israel has the right to use force in self defence, so do its neighbours

[Big Ig]

Originally Posted by Roast Beef Don't think describing Israel as a puppet US state is quite right.

US as a puppet Israeli state would be more accurate

Adam - in my view, Israel needs to be bullied and coerced into conceding enough land to create a viable Palestine, following which half the battle's won... The supply chain for extremist groups will wither and die if enough Palestinians are approaching being happy and prosperous. The state that Gaza and the West Bank are in now, and with the Israelis being so heavy handed, randomly firing missiles into civilian areas (Gaza, not Lebanon) and say killing 75% of your family, becoming a suicide bomber isn't that big a step. A man with a job, a family, food and water on the table, prospects for his kids and safety for his family will not take that step.

[redrosetints]

Originally Posted by Roast Beef The difference being that Hezbollah and Hamas 1) don't recognize Israel's right to exist, 2) Want to completely destroy Israel, and will do anything to provoke conflict, hence the border incursion and kidnapping of two soldiers, and hence the indiscriminate rocket attacks on a civilian population. Regardless of what you think of Israel and the IDF, they were dropping leaflets telling people the airport was going to be attacked, etc. That's the difference; it's a matter of intention. Whether you think that there's any functional difference between a well armed army that won't deliberately attack civilians but knows that they probably will kill many with their attacks, and a not so strongly (but covertly, by Iran and Syria) funded militia/terrorist organization, that deliberately targets civilians, is up to you.

Yes, but Im talkig about the historical birth of Isreal as a state. After the scond world war, Palestine was the destination for many jews fleeing persecution, which is fair enough. But they then wanted to take over palestine and embarked on an ultimatley succesful terrorist campaign against the British/Palestinian rulers. Havingt been worn down by the war and under alot of pressure from Truman, we gave soverignty of the land to those who had orchestrated the terrorism. After that, they, the govt, openly embarked on ethnic cleansing. Prior to taking control in 47 their leader Ben Gurion (IIRC) talked of the lack of safety from just a 60% jewish population, bascially saying Jews needed to live only with Jews. Later after coming to power and literally driving thousands of palestinians into the sea he stated in 48 that now once one entered isreal you saw no arabs only jews.

Thats how they took power, thats what they did when they took power. Terrorism and ethnic cleansing. Since then they have settled illegally on Palestinian land, occupied vast swaths of neighbouring countries after the 67 initiative and continually breach basic geneva convention rules, such as not interferring with essential civillian services.

Of course there are two sides to a story and of course one can understand the Jewish feelings of insecurity and wanting to build their own state.

But those are surely the same for the Hezbollah and Hamas ?

[RSM]

Originally Posted by redrosetints Yes, but Im talkig about the historical birth of Isreal as a state. After the scond world war, Palestine was the destination for many jews fleeing persecution, which is fair enough. But they then wanted to take over palestine and embarked on an ultimatley succesful terrorist campaign against the British/Palestinian rulers. Havingt been worn down by the war and under alot of pressure from Truman, we gave soverignty of the land to those who had orchestrated the terrorism. After that, they, the govt, openly embarked on ethnic cleansing. Prior to taking control in 47 their leader Ben Gurion (IIRC) talked of the lack of safety from just a 60% jewish population, bascially saying Jews needed to live only with Jews. Later after coming to power and literally driving thousands of palestinians into the sea he stated in 48 that now once one entered isreal you saw no arabs only jews. Thats how they took power, thats what they did when they took power. Terrorism and ethnic cleansing. Since then they have settled illegally on Palestinian land, occupied vast swaths of neighbouring countries after the 67 initiative and continually breach basic geneva convention rules, such as not interferring with essential civillian services. Of course there are two sides to a story and of course one can understand the Jewish feelings of insecurity and wanting to build their own state. But those are surely the same for the Hezbollah and Hamas ?

Well put.

[Roast Beef]

Originally Posted by redrosetints Yes, but Im talkig about the historical birth of Isreal as a state. After the scond world war, Palestine was the destination for many jews fleeing persecution, which is fair enough. But they then wanted to take over palestine and embarked on an ultimatley succesful terrorist campaign against the British/Palestinian rulers. Havingt been worn down by the war and under alot of pressure from Truman, we gave soverignty of the land to those who had orchestrated the terrorism. After that, they, the govt, openly embarked on ethnic cleansing. Prior to taking control in 47 their leader Ben Gurion (IIRC) talked of the lack of safety from just a 60% jewish population, bascially saying Jews needed to live only with Jews. Later after coming to power and literally driving thousands of palestinians into the sea he stated in 48 that now once one entered isreal you saw no arabs only jews. Thats how they took power, thats what they did when they took power. Terrorism and ethnic cleansing. Since then they have settled illegally on Palestinian land, occupied vast swaths of neighbouring countries after the 67 initiative and continually breach basic geneva convention rules, such as not interferring with essential civillian services. Of course there are two sides to a story and of course one can understand the Jewish feelings of insecurity and wanting to build their own state. But those are surely the same for the Hezbollah and Hamas ?

Fair points. I agree that the establishment of Israel wasn't pretty. Fast forward to Hezbollah and Hamas, and I still think there are some differences.

If we're talking about the Palestinian movement per se, then yes, there are very clear parallels with the establishment of Israel: striving for their own state, self-determination, and so on. Likewise, Hezbollah was initially created in order to get Israel out of Lebanon.

However, Hezbollah and Hamas are no longer movements solely concerned with self-determination. They don't recognize Israel's right to exist, something that even the Arab League has toyed with (at their 2002 summit). The PLO (and by extension, Fatah) currently recognize Israel's right to exist, Hamas does not. Even though Israel did use illegal tactics when the state was first formed, they did not want to kill all arabs as such, whereas Hamas and Hezbollah would be quite happy with no more Israeli's, and no more Jews in general.

[Paul]

I caught the tail-end of an interview on Channel 4 news last night with an Israeli dude who said that the US is basically an inappropriately permissive parent to Israel. It allows them to do almost anything they want, no matter what the cost, but he felt that that policy isn't really in Israel's best interests. This bloke was basically saying his country needs reigning in, but the Bush administration isn't up to the job.

[RSM]

A boy who was killed in an Israeli aircraft attack lays inside a destroyed house in a south Lebanon village, July 16


A member of the Lebanese Red Cross walks past a badly burnt body in Beirut's port, which was targeted by Israeli warplanes, July 17




TEIR HAFRA 2 SOUTH) JULY 15



holds a body that was badly charred and destroyed after an Israeli missile hit a van carrying passengers on a road in southern Lebanon, July 15


About 300 Lebanese, most of them civilians, have been killed in the violence. Thirty Israelis, including 15 civilians, have also been killed.

[Stu Monty]

The fact that this is being allowed to carry on is a disgrace.

[RSM]

Hizbullah, like Hamas, has mass support. It cannot be written off as a "terrorist" organisation. The Arab world sees its forces as freedom fighters resisting colonial occupation.

There are 9,000 Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli gulags. That is why Israeli soldiers are captured. Prisoner exchanges have occurred as a result. To blame Syria and Iran for Israel's latest offensive is frivolous. Until the question of Palestine is resolved and Iraq's occupation ended, there will be no peace in the region. A "UN" force to deter Hizbullah, but not Israel, is a nonsensical notion.

[M_B]

Some questions for everyone. Thought I'd put them here rather than in a new thread.

1: If Palestine becomes a state incorporating the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel releases political prisoners and allows equal religous access to Jerusalem will the violence against\committed by Israel stop ?

2: If not then what is the solution ?

3: Also who would benefit from preventing the situation in question 1 from arising ?

[Jose Jones]

Originally Posted by RSM Hizbullah, like Hamas, has mass support. It cannot be written off as a "terrorist" organisation. The Arab world sees its forces as freedom fighters resisting colonial occupation. There are 9,000 Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli gulags. That is why Israeli soldiers are captured. Prisoner exchanges have occurred as a result. To blame Syria and Iran for Israel's latest offensive is frivolous. Until the question of Palestine is resolved and Iraq's occupation ended, there will be no peace in the region. A "UN" force to deter Hizbullah, but not Israel, is a nonsensical notion.

Are you quoting here, or is this what you think?
Can you explain to me how Iraq's occupation ending is related to Israel killing Lebanese civilians? Maybe you can also think about who is killing the most civilians in Iraq at the moment? It sure ain’t the occupying forces.
Also, perhaps take a look at this article below (apologies for the large copy and paste) regarding Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. You have some decent points, and I’m not arguing with you that the Israel treats the Palestinians generally like shit, and is committing atrocities in Lebanon. But there are two sides (and more) to this shit, and I think maybe you need to open your eyes to that.


The Middle East is home to many unusual alliances, but one of the oddest is the enduring partnership between Syria and Iran. Syria portrays itself as a champion of secular Arab nationalism, although in practice it is a minority-dominated military dictatorship. Iran, in contrast, rides under the banner of revolutionary Islam, although as a Persian country, it is often at odds with the Arab world, particularly since the vast majority of Iranians are Shiites, while most Arabs are Sunnis. Syrian President Bashar Assad's father and predecessor, Hafez Assad, gunned down thousands of revolutionary Islamists in the 1970s and early '80s to prevent an Islamic revolution in Syria. Iran's religious elite has often criticized Arab leaders as despots who have turned away from true Islam—a description that could easily apply to Assad's Syria.

But geopolitics has brought Iran and Syria together despite these many differences. In a strategic partnership that would have made Metternich proud, the two nations banded together against Saddam's Iraq, which both saw as an immediate threat to their security. Israel, too, provided a common foe. Iran's revolutionary ideology saw Israel as anathema; Syria also opposed the Jewish state, especially after its humiliating defeat in the 1967 war, since when it has strived to regain the Golan Heights. The United States is hostile to both regimes, producing further incentive to cooperate. Both countries worry that the chaos in Iraq will creep across their borders, but they're also keen for the United States to suffer a bloody nose to dampen its enthusiasm for regime change. Finally, both nations have few allies, making the other's support especially valuable.

Iran provides a strange sort of legitimacy for the Baathist regime in Damascus. Syria is dominated by Alawites, a minority sect of Islam that is even more hated and even less accepted by militant Sunnis than is Shiism. Some Shiite religious leaders have bolstered the Damascus regime by claiming that the Alawites are simply part of the larger Shiite family—a claim that does little to appease highly chauvinistic Sunnis but appeals to those with a wider view of Islam.

These many common interests have come together in Lebanon. Initially, Syria was wary of revolutionary Islam. However, after Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, Damascus welcomed Iranian help. Iranian officials nurtured Hezbollah, helping to unite various Shiite factions and providing the movement with training, money, and ideological support. Syria also backed the new movement, and with their help, Hezbollah became the edge of the sword against the Israeli invaders. In 1985, Hezbollah attacks led Israel to withdraw from all but a sliver of Lebanon. Fifteen years later, Israel left completely.

During this time, Iran used Hezbollah to keep its hand in the Israeli-Arab struggle. For Tehran, being a player in this game was vital to maintaining its self-image as the world's defender of Muslims. Iran wanted to undermine the peace process by supporting terrorism—Tehran opposed peace on ideological grounds and also believed, correctly, that a comprehensive Israeli-Arab peace would further isolate the clerical regime. Hezbollah became a key proxy, conducting attacks and training Palestinian groups to make them more effective. Tehran also worked with Hezbollah operatives around the world to attack dissidents, supporters of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and Israeli targets. Even today, Tehran and Hezbollah work together to maintain a deterrent capability to dissuade the United States from attacking targets in Iran. So, for example, if the United States were to conduct a major attack on Iran, Hezbollah might respond by attacking U.S. targets abroad on Tehran's behalf.

Syria's goals are more local. Like Iran, Syria wanted Hezbollah to pose a threat to Israel that Damascus could calibrate according to its needs. This served as an inducement for Israel to agree to Syrian demands at the bargaining table. As Middle East expert Michael Doran has noted, "Syria has played this game of being both the arsonist and the fire department." This double role has had mixed results. Although continued attacks did contribute to Israel's decision to negotiate with Syria during the 1990s, they also led to lasting Israeli hostility toward Damascus, which in turn doomed hopes for peace.

Hezbollah's importance to Syria has, if anything, grown in recent years. Bashar Assad, Syria's callow ruler, is said to admire Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Even more important, when the "cedar revolution" forced the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon in 2005, Hezbollah became the most important champion of Syrian interests in the country.
Hezbollah is increasingly growing out of its role as a proxy and becoming more of a partner with both Tehran and Damascus. The organization has a strong Lebanese base, and Iran's and Syria's influence are waning there. Hezbollah still looks to Iran for ideological and strategic guidance, and it would not cross Damascus on important issues such as attacking Israel, but it is increasingly capable of asserting its independence.

Hezbollah's foreign backers may be the key to ending the current crisis. President Bush's private aside to British Prime Minister Tony Blair at the G8 summit captured an essential truth. Not realizing a microphone was turned on, Bush remarked, "See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over." As Bush noted, Hezbollah is often more responsive to the needs of its foreign patrons than to those of its Lebanese supporters. Western pressure on Damascus and Tehran, while difficult to assert, may eventually lead to a settlement.

[RSM]

Israeli girls write messages on a shell at a heavy artillery position near Kiryat Shmona, in northern Israel, next to the Lebanese border, Monday, July 17, 2006.(AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner)

[Paul]

Serious point - could people please stop posting pictures of dead babies? I do not need to see this fucked up shit to realise it is fucked up. Post a link, by all means, but at least allow us a choice as to whether we look or not. I don't want this stuff on my work computer, but more to the point, I don't want it in my head. If others do, that's fine, but I can't look at shit like that without imagining my own kids in the same situation - and that genuinely disturbs me. Please don't force this on those who don't want to see it.

[Section_31]

These pictures are gruesome indeed but only show one side of the situation. It reminds me of Soviet era propaganda, 'the west/east don't love their children like we do, they're not the same as we are'

I think we're all grown up and intelligent enough to know there are evil deeds being commited by all sides in this war, and that schoolchildren aren't being bussed en mass to missile signing ceremonies.

[Kopite]

Originally Posted by Paul Serious point - could people please stop posting pictures of dead babies? I do not need to see this fucked up shit to realise it is fucked up. Post a link, by all means, but at least allow us a choice as to whether we look or not. I don't want this stuff on my work computer, but more to the point, I don't want it in my head. If others do, that's fine, but I can't look at shit like that without imagining my own kids in the same situation - and that genuinely disturbs me. Please don't force this on those who don't want to see it.

Well said that man. There is no need for any of that.