permalink for this thread :
TheBoy999 Posted on 16/7 9:22

I don't see what choice they have, to do what they are doing. They did the right thing and withdrew from Lebonan and what happened, Hizbollah spent the time arming themsevles to the teeth with the aid of Syria and Iran. If Lebonan can't control Hizbollah then someone has too, i can see this ending with a UN peace keeping force station there. Overall i think Isreal are being a little restrained, i'm suprise they havn't gone after Syria, maybe its just a matter of time. The sh-it will really hit the fan when these soilders turn up in Iran.

big_galoot Posted on 16/7 9:40
re: Isreal

Go on,spoil my morning! Iwas in a great mood till i read this post!

deganya Posted on 16/7 9:41
re: Isreal

they kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and their response was to bomb the hell out of Lebanon killing innocent civilians.

Hardly a proportionate response!

BobUpndown Posted on 16/7 9:49
re: Isreal

I agree with Putin.. of the major world leaders I've heard talk on the subject..


President Putin has suggested Israel has ulterior motives in Lebanon rather than simply the return of abducted soldiers.

"We condemn any terrorist act including hostage-taking but we have the impression that besides the return of its abducted soldiers, Israel is pursuing other, wider goals," he said on Saturday.

even the Israeli press question the Israeli gov's tactics and motives..


What we have here is not an attempt to rescue Cpl Shalit and bring him safe to his family and not an attempt to stop the firing of the Qassam rockets but a move aimed at destroying the Hamas government in the hope that next time the Palestinians will choose a responsible government that will negotiate with Israel.

The_Commisar Posted on 16/7 9:58
re: Isreal

The soldiers won't turn up in Iran. The only place they will turn up in is a body bag.
Israel wants to break Hamas and Hezbollah, just as they broke the PLO when they invaded Lebanon last time.
Israel perceives more benefits to be gained from going to war than not.
I don't think there are any innocent parties in that area once you get past the avaerage citizen in the street. Everytime you think they are close to sorting themselves out another new group sticks it's head above the parapet and we're back to chaos. It would have been better if Israel had never existed. But I susoect there would still have been trouble.

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/7 10:00
re: Isreal

They violated the Isreali border, what do you want them to do say 'please give us the soilders back, please'. Surely they have a right to defend themselves.

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/7 10:04
re: Isreal

Of course Isreal have ulterior motives they'd like to destroy Hizbollah, they won't succeed but they will severly damage them. The only way to stop them is to cut of there support i.e Iran and Syria.

The_Commisar Posted on 16/7 10:08
re: Isreal

re Hizbollah/Hamas - or to reach a settelment with the vast majority of palestinians such that they have no popular support on the ground.
The last thing the world needs is an adventure into Iran of Syria based on "intelligence information".
Heres a crazy idea, leave all of them too it.

BrokenLance Posted on 16/7 10:10
re: Isreal

I love the way lefties and the media blame Israel for all this. Hamas kidnaps one soldier, Hezbollah invades Israel, kills a few people and kidnaps two more. It's all Israel's fault, of course.

I don't like a lot of the things Israel does, but most of it is in retaliation for arab states constantly chipping away at it's borders, daily rocket attacks and frequent suicide bombings I praise Israel for it's restraint. If I'd been in charge, I'd have wiped out the Palestinians years ago. They elected a terrorist organisation as their legal government FFS.

Everyone kisses the arab's @rse because they have the oil.

borobadge Posted on 16/7 10:29
re: Is real ?


Boro_Gadgie Posted on 16/7 10:37
re: Is real ?

So if the RAF had bombed the Falls Road during the troubles in Northern Ireland, would that have been ok?

tlfapprentice Posted on 16/7 10:41
re: Is real ?

Israel are telling the people in lebonan to evacuate the area they are bombing or to stay indoors, there intention is only to stop the transport of the hostitages, not harm innocent people.

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/7 10:45
re: Is real ?

The IRA's purpose wasn't the complete destruction of the UK. Israel's existance depends upon their army and controlling their borders. The situation bares no resemnblance to the one in N Ireland.

--- Post edited by TheBoy999 on 16/7 10:45 ---

Boro_Gadgie Posted on 16/7 10:50
re: Is real ?

Still not sure it gives them the right to target civillian areas just because a few terrorists are there.

The aims of Hamas and Hizbollah might be different to those of the IRA but that doesn't justify bombing innocent people out of their own homes.

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/7 11:07
re: Is real ?

Its not deliberate targeting of civilians, but what hizbollah is doing is deliberate targeting, but no-one seems to bat an eyelid at that. Also Hizbollah deliberately operate in civilain areas so collateral damage is inevitable.

ospreyheights Posted on 16/7 11:23
re: Is real ?

if your family belived that they were thrown out of their own land wouldnt you fight with all your being to at least get a part of it back.
hezbollah are a bunch of ideological extremists but to many palestinians they standup for palestinians.
only a just settlement based on the pre 1967 borders will stop this ongoing war.

green_beret20 Posted on 16/7 11:27
re: Is real ?

I love the way the left like to compare this situation to Ireland as though to say it can all sorted out in private and board meetings. It's wishful thinking at its worst.

For a start we never faced a war to "purge the British Isles of English". We (MI5) used some of the dirtiest tactics going for thirty years and imprisoned thousands but because it was all subterfuge and without warplanes then it seems to be regarded as clean.

Had they had the capabilities to strike England's major cities with the capacity Hizbollah do right now (courtesy of Iran, whom just so happen to be in the SCO organisation with their big buddy Putin) we would have seen the same response we're watching right now.

This is just the on going continuation of the war to "purge the land of Jews" which started in 1967, to even compare this to Ireland is ridiculous.

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/7 11:30
re: Is real ?

Your wrong ospreyheights, only the complete destruction of Israel will satisfy Hizbollah and Hamas.

The way Israel was born was bad for the Palistinians but thats gone now, it happened and rocket attacks and hostage taking aren't going to change that, it'll just heap more misery on the populus.

--- Post edited by TheBoy999 on 16/7 11:31 ---

Revol_Tees Posted on 16/7 11:40
re: Is real ?

Whatever Hizbollah's aims are, its means of achieving them are absolutely tiny compared to the immense power of the Israeli state.

"what hizbollah is doing is deliberate targeting, but no-one seems to bat an eyelid at that."

Are you kidding? You might not have noticed, but Israel have declared war over there. The US has gone out of its way to condemn Hizbollah. When did you last hear the US or Britain condemn Israel for its banal brutality? Hizbollah are murderers, but they're not even in the same league as Israel simply because they can't do it on the same scale. I'm surprised anyone is willing to defend a state machinery that can starve people, terrorise them, shoot civilians, bomb them repeatedly, destroy infrastructure, kidnap and torture children, steal land and property, pass racist laws, promote anti-Arab racism in schools, kidnap Palestine's government, threaten to assissinate democratically elected leaders, and treat its Arab citizens with overall contempt ... its long list of crimes is well-documented. The fact that this is being done by a "democracy", backed by the major Western powers, should outrage people even more. Not a good advert for so-called Western values is it?

Boro_Gadgie Posted on 16/7 11:42
re: Is real ?

I'm certainly not condoning the terrorist actions of Hamas and Hizbollah, but Israel have a lot to answer for. The Palestinians do have a just cause, but then again Israel has the right to exist peacefully.

ospreyheights Posted on 16/7 11:45
re: Is real ?

you know the crazy thing about this war is that jews and arabs have co-existed better in muslim counties than what they have done in the west (i dont think i need any examples here).
hamas hezbollah are a poisonous manifestation of despair hatred and lack of power. arab people are no different to us they want to live watch tv play football have a laugh etc and given a just peace these thugs will whither and die.
isreal is a country that will remain but its in their interest to create a fair peace not dictated by might.

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/7 11:54
re: Is real ?

"Whatever Hizbollah's aims are, its means of achieving them are absolutely tiny compared to the immense power of the Israeli state."

When the Arabs thought they had the power they tried to wipe out Israel, 3 times. Is it no wonder Israel are suspicious of the Arabs. If your neighbour was intent on destroying you and your house would you be inviting him round for tea?

"threaten to assissinate democratically elected leaders"

Would that be the ones who are ordering suicide bombers and hostage taking?

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/7 11:54
re: Is real ?


--- Post edited by TheBoy999 on 16/7 11:54 ---

The_Commisar Posted on 16/7 11:58
re: Isreal

You can add into the heady brew of Arab/Israeli mutual distaste the sub plot of Shiaa/Sunni hatred.
OK, on ALL the sides it's a minority pulling the strings, but that minority has no desire to settle for anything less than total victory based on what ever ideology they happen to believe in.
If nothing else it should make us think that building as many nuclear power stations as we need to provide our energy needs for the foreseeable future, has significant merit.

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/7 12:01
re: Isreal

Or maybe invading the lot, its not that far fetched.

ospreyheights Posted on 16/7 12:05
re: Is real ?

999 im not being cheeky but you strike me as a person who would have justified the democracy in the former reublic of south africa.
being an intelligent type you surely realise that planted population almost always seek to destroy the native people, thankfully these days some people are aware of injustices on all sides and speak up so that the recent past of palestine is not forgot. as an oppressed people the israeli should be the best placed to understand displacement.

The_Commisar Posted on 16/7 12:06
re: Isreal

There are no "innocents" within the leadership of the various parties, Israel and the arabs have all used calculated terror and assassination as weapons to fight this war.

Invade the lot ?
We havn't got the bottle or resources for it. We might win any engagement or battle, but theres no way the west can keep troops in a battlefield that would stretch from the shores of Gibraltar to Bangladesh.

Revol_Tees Posted on 16/7 12:26
re: Isreal

"Or maybe invading the lot, its not that far fetched"

I think that tells you something about the mentality of Boy999.

moxzin Posted on 16/7 12:43
re: Isreal

Ehud Olmert comes out of this very well. Question marks were definetely over him, as, from being from the Sharonist movement that withdrew from Gaza, and with the promise of withdrawal from the West Bank, and a Palestinian state whether he'd be tough enough to defend Israel against these acts of war. He's certainly proved that he can. Its time to destroy the military wings of Hamas and Hezbollah.

crisboro Posted on 16/7 12:54
re: Isreal

I wasnt aware of syria's involvement in this.

Revol_Tees Posted on 16/7 12:58
re: Isreal

Hezbollah is apparently backed by Syria. There's an interesting commentary of the situation on today's Observer:

"In 1982, I was very clearly anti-Israel," lawyer and presidential candidate Chibli Mallat said yesterday, saying openly what many Lebanese won't. "They invaded us for no reason", after 12 months without a single cross-border attack by the PLO, "and killed thousands of people. But this offensive has been provoked by a blatant violation of the Blue Line," the UN-drawn demarcation line along the Lebanese-Israeli border, "and the abduction of soldiers. In this particular crisis, I cannot put the blame on the Israelis. They did not start it."

Few Lebanese accept Hezbollah's claim that its intent was to barter the release of the handful of Lebanese still held in Israeli jails. They blame Hezbollah for plunging Lebanon back into war, without consulting a government of which it is now part, for reasons that have nothing to do with Lebanon: the need, imposed by its own raison d'etre, to show solidarity with suffering Gaza and, more reprehensibly, the desire of its Iranian and Syrian sponsors to show that they are regional powers indispensable to peace.

But there is fury, too, towards Israel, whose wildly disproportionate use of force risks economic collapse in a country where the national debt is twice the national income and possibly, in a worst-case scenario, new civil war as positions polarize around Hezbollah.

"Hezbollah caught two soldiers; let Israel attack soldiers!" architect Simone Kosremelli said as civilian deaths in Lebanon passed the 70 mark (compared with two in Israel). "They blame the Lebanese government for not controlling Hezbollah. Is Italy able to control the Mafia? Is Israel able to control Hamas? Could England control the IRA? Israel must know that 50 years of conflict have not been able to reach a solution. There must be another way."

Link: Back to the terrible year of 1982

crisboro Posted on 16/7 13:06
re: Isreal

Thanks Revol.

moxzin Posted on 16/7 13:12
re: Isreal

He sort of argues against himself there in the last paragraph by admitting that Lebanon cannot control Hezbollah. Well, thats the basis of this war.

Revol_Tees Posted on 16/7 13:27
re: Isreal

I thought you said your position on the whole Israel/Palestine conflict had softened since last year, mox? It sounds to me like this is a war that you're glorying in. Does it matter how many civilians are killed for futile and heavy-handed military objective of destroying/controlling the militant wing of Hezbollah?

It depresses me that human beings are dying over there, in the usual ratio of 5:1 (at least) in favour of Israel.

"In Lebanon as in Gaza, it is not Israel's right to protect its civilian population from terrorist aggression that is at issue. It is the way Israel goes about exercising that right."

ospreyheights Posted on 16/7 13:41
re: Isreal

it seems that you are a little gung ho on this subject- winning losing, without being sensible enough to realise that REAL people are dying, is it good that three families were shot up fleeing the south of lebanon (children and all) or that 9 blokes putting in a shift at work in a train station were blown to smithreens in haifa.

your pro-israeli approach is really flawed if you think that by blasting lebanon to bits the "problem" will be sorted, not!
People have very long collective memories that go back thousands of years in the middle east a new generation will be brought up with hate in their hearts ready to fight the long war. Also as in constantinople in the 15th century the israelis only need to loose one war to loose everything the arab people can keep probing away waiting for a change in circumstances.

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/7 15:04
re: Isreal

Revol do you think its that far fetch that one day the Americans will take control of most if not all of the middle east either by force or politics, i certainly don't, so what does that tell you abot my mentality? By the way i wasn't advocating 'Invading the lot' i was just saying its a possibility.

Osprey your banging on about Israel killing inocent civilians what about hizbollah killing inocent Israeli civilians, deliberatly, don't they count?

Lets remember whose the aggressor here. If it wasn't for Hizbollah/Hamas violating the border, taking hostages and fireing rockets none of this would be happening, just because Israel can strike back with overwhelming force it doesn't make it their fault.

I must admit the civilian causulalties in Lebonan are worrying, maybe Israel should do it properly and send ground forces in rather than the air bombarment we're seeing now.

Osprey i certainly did not support the S.African goverment. Typical that, if you don't support the terroist 'freedom fighter' you must be racist or something.

The Jews aren't a planted population, they arrived their through imigration something we (the British) tried to stop, even though we'd given them the green light in the 1st place. I can see the palistinians anger at how Israel was born but thats gone now, If you keep scatching through history then you'll see why the Jews demanded palestine as their homeland after being forceably dispersed from there since the time of the Romans. Both sides need to move on and accept that Israel is here to stay.

--- Post edited by TheBoy999 on 16/7 15:14 ---

--- Post edited by TheBoy999 on 16/7 15:53 ---

ospreyheights Posted on 16/7 16:37
re: Isreal

read my threads properly 999 they are different to what you assume they say.

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/7 17:42
re: Isreal

I see what your saying but you seem quick to condem Israel and to justify Hizbollah, although you do call them 'thugs'. I think you underestimate the will of the average Arab to annilate Israel. Of course Hizbollah/arab people are in part pawns being used by Iran. We seem to be entering a new phase of proxy war, an echo of the cold war.

How do you come to the conclusion that i'm a racist from my threads?

ospreyheights Posted on 16/7 17:57
re: Isreal

i dont justify hezbollah at all, but i understand how they came about, there again i have followed this crazyness since a young boy during the conflicts in the 1970,s.
as others have said israel has a right to defend itself but what is happeneing now though isnt helping the long term future for israel, whether they flatten the whole of lebanon or not.

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/7 18:25
re: Is real ?

"if your family belived that they were thrown out of their own land wouldnt you fight with all your being to at least get a part of it back."
"hezbollah are a bunch of ideological extremists but to many palestinians they standup for palestinians.
only a just settlement based on the pre 1967 borders will stop this ongoing war."

I maybe reading to much into it but that sounds like a justification to me.

I don't believe either side has compatible peace terms, the main stumbleing block being the destruction of Israel, why would they agree to that?

irishjohn Posted on 16/7 18:26
re: Isreal

Hamas and Hizbollah`s agenda is to rid the world of the state of Israel.
I would imagine this will escalate until Israel uses the ultimate force or deterent as we call it, before they obtain it and use it.....I can see it happening.

ospreyheights Posted on 16/7 19:35
re: Isreal

999 when you learn to play chess at first you learn how to play your own game and try to beat the other player by making better moves, when you become a very good chess player you play your opponents game as well as your own, noting strategies and patterns, BUT that doesnt make you become your adversary.

in respect to the conflict in the middle east thankfully i am a detatched observer playing neithers "sides" game but hopefully taking in the bigger picture.

why dont you give it a go yourself, you might become
less dogmatic-and hopefully
learn something in the process.

zaphod Posted on 16/7 19:39
re: Isreal

In my opinion, this latest crisis has been deliberately engineered by Hamas and Hezbullah, because things were getting too peaceful and that doesn't suit their policies. Unfortunately, both groups knew that Israel ALWAYS over-reacts and escalates and they relied on that.

BillHicksBoro Posted on 16/7 20:01
re: Isreal

To be honest I was thinking what zaphod thought, but almost the other way round.

Hamas took a step towards recognition of the concept of a state of Isreal two weeks ago, by signing up to the two state solution.

However, a minority of people on both sides are far too willing to jump to their guns at the first sign of trouble.

I've got friends out in Isreal and they thought until this happened that 'Isreal' was turning a corner in its attitude towards the palestinians, and they hoped the situaion would slowly heal.

Unfortunatly its always the civilians who seem to get hurt, if this is a 'war' then why does it only appear to be the civies who are dying?

I personally believe the lot of them need their heads banging together, but Bush's total support for the Isrealis no matter what, makes that difficult to achieve.

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/7 20:18
re: Isreal

Osprey i have no alligence to Israel, i too can stand back and see things as they are, thats how i've drawn my conclusions. I really can't see how you can say i'm dogmatic, I state my reasons quite clearly. My opinions are formed from years of reading and watching.

I know Israel is hard line but i don't think they have a choice, how do you negotiate with a group that are intent on your destruction, its an impossible situation. The very existance of Israel proves their hard line policy works.

As i said in the 1st post i think a UN force in Lebonan is the only way forward . That looks like a distinct possibility now.

--- Post edited by TheBoy999 on 16/7 20:21 ---

ospreyheights Posted on 16/7 20:27
re: Isreal

fair do,s 999 just differing opinions, you know that just before rabin was assassinated a settlement was within sight i remember reading articles about how the middle east was on the verge of a flourishing future. it all seems a long time ago, it will take years before any progress can be made now.

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/7 20:57
re: Isreal

I don't think there's many subjects that split opinion more than this.

moxzin Posted on 16/7 21:35
re: Isreal

Firstly I think a little bit of context is needed. For all the lamentable civilian deaths so far, I don't think the total death toll in this entire crisis matches, for instance, the 181 killed by suicide bombs in Iraq on 3rd March 2004, for instance, and many of the same people we see criticizing Israel recently would be of the same type who were praising the 'heroic resistance' of the Iraqi insurgents. So lets not go crazy pointing fingers and calling names all just yet.

Its also a point worth making that Israel is not killing civilians indiscriminately, but bombing targets that are known to be used by Hezbollah. The fact that these sites, including bomb and rocket making factories, recruitment centres, media centres, are placed deliberately inside dense population centres, even near schools, by Hezbollah shows more about their mentality than anything else.

Principles are tough things, when you have them. Because the time will come when those principles are put under severe test and strain. This is one of those times. The Iraq war was another example. But whereas in the latter case, where those people who called themselves anti-Baathist, pro-democracy and 'friends of the Kurds' not 15 years ago went running and rallying under the "Not in My Name" banner as soon as the word 'America' became involved, because it was too messy and inconvenient to support an American war, any American war, the former principle can not so easily be used and abused, taken up and discarded depending on where the wind is blowing.

It is the principle that Israel must exist, it is a necessity for the Jewish people of the world. That fact needn't impinge on the Palestinians own, inaugural, state aspirations; nor must it write Israel a blank cheque for violence or aggression. It doesn't automatically make one a religious fundamentalist, or a pro-Western Islamophobe. But its a principle that demands that when the time comes, the State of Israel must be able to protect its soverignity and territorial integrity, against anyone who infringes it by cross-border attacks. When those parties who do so happen to be Islamic fundamentalist terrorists linked to the same ones we are fighting in Iraq... that just about shores up the case for action. Hitting Hezbollah targets is justifiable strategy, I only wish there was away to do this without costing an innocent life, but until terrorists stop hiding behind women and children thats going to be hard. Send in troops instead? Better not, might be accused of another Jenin massacre.

There are some who hate Israel no matter what it will do, perfect example, when Israel had settelements in Gaza it was total colonisation of prime Palestinian land. When Israel pulled out, well, lets use red_rebel's words, it is now "useless scrub" anyway.

But for those who like to call things how they see them, and are principally in favour of a Zionist, Jewish-majority state in the Middle East, it really is hard to see how else they could have reacted, apart from turning their guns on Hezbollah after serious provocation.

--- Post edited by moxzin on 16/7 21:36 ---

Revol_Tees Posted on 16/7 21:55
re: Isreal

Talk about principles - I bet Hezbollah dream of aspiring to the kind of brutality which you seem to support as a right of self-defence. But thank you all the same for that articulate defence of Israel, the state which uses its power to starve, terrorise, and shoot civilians, bomb them repeatedly, destroy their infrastructure, kidnap and torture their children, steal their land and property, pass racist laws, promote anti-Arab racism in its classrooms, and treat its Arab citizens with overall contempt. Until it stops, you're right, people won't shut up about Israel and its many wrongs. Hezbollah militants are criminal thugs, just like much of Israel's ruling class. I'd like to see them all in the dock for crimes against humanity.

moxzin Posted on 16/7 22:01
re: Isreal

Okay, your last post is very contentious and distinctly lacking of examples. But lets take it as correct for the moment. The answer to all those concerns, would, surely, to be the formation of a strong and upright Palestinian state. That can face up to Israel when required but more importantly, live alongside and work alongside Israel in peace the rest of the time.

I'm sure I can take your agreement on that.

Now can you explain to me how the actions of the Hamas and Hezbollah in any way advance those aims, or the Palestinian cause as a whole?

--- Post edited by moxzin on 16/7 22:01 ---

green_beret20 Posted on 16/7 22:20
re: Isreal

You could point out about twenty states at least where you can find similar circumstances but yea I forgot, Israel, it's an American protectorate therefore their easy game for the left to throw their spontanious and carefully staged outrage, which come on, half of its just a convenient cover for your real distaste of America.

It's not like I see any posts on say Russias latest news in Chechnya.

--- Post edited by green_beret20 on 16/7 22:22 ---

Long_Live_Zombies Posted on 16/7 22:21
re: Isreal

I know it's easy to stray off the track but to try and and sort out the affairs of the middle east on a football web site FFS

Revol_Tees Posted on 16/7 23:07
re: Isreal

green_beret20: I don't think I've seen you express outrage on this board over anything other than WW2 military history trivia. If you're so worried that we're neglecting state terror across the globe by focussing on Palestine, why don't you do your best Kofi Annan impression and enlighten us all on where we should be concentrating our efforts?

mox - I just typed out an answer for you, but the bastad computer deleted it. Those things I said are hardly contentious, and quite well-documented. Check Amnesty International's online library, or other human rights NGOs such as Human Rights Watch or Palestine Monitor.

Again, I don't think there's much point in arguing because it boils down to the same thing as ever: I think the onus is on Israel, while you think it's on Palestine/Hamas/Hezbollah etc. IMO the formation of a strong and upright Palestinian state is being actively supressed by Isreal, through actions such as those listed above. I think Israel's worst fear is a strong and upright Palestinian state that it can't control economically or militarily. It comes back to what we were saying last week, when I cited the top Israeli diplomat who said that Israel's intention was to keep Gaza paralysed in formaldehyde. A strong and upright Palestine is impossible in the face of such repression.

As for your last question, I don't think the violent actions of Hezbollah or Hamas aid the cause of Palestine at all, although it's not hard to see why such groups would gain strength. Extremism feeds on the kind of human misery which Israel is all too keen to perpetuate with its continuing use of wildly disproportionate force.

green_beret20 Posted on 16/7 23:30
re: Isreal

Erm, exactly where have I mentioned WW2 on this thread?
You seem confused, it ended in 1945.

I don't feel the need to pretend to care for the innocents like present company, just trying to figure out why the Israel conflict seems to preoccupy the resident leftys here more so than your average state terror around the globe? Perhaps next time try and answer it rather than throw in your average copout slur, give it a try sometime maybe?

I guess the fact that the usual American bad feeling spouted here and the fact Israel is an American protectorate must be just a huge coincidence as to why they seem to get number one priority in the tired old clichés list.

--- Post edited by green_beret20 on 16/7 23:31 ---

Revol_Tees Posted on 16/7 23:41
re: Isreal

I've seen you in action on this board before, beret. We're arguing about Palestine here, so quit the snide digs about "the left" this and "the left" that.

"Perhaps next time try and answer than throw in your average slur, give a try sometime."

I answered the question about 12 hours ago, before you'd even asked it. You should read more carefully. I'm pissed off about human rights abuses all over the world, but the fact that this is being done by a "democracy" backed by the major Western powers should outrage people even more - it's not a good advert for so-called "Western values" is it?

br14 Posted on 17/7 0:12
re: Isreal

The "revenge" attacks by Israel on Lebanon and Gaza are driven by many factors, not least the new Prime Minister of Israel needing to look strong so he can get re-elected.

They only withdraw from areas they cannot successfully defend. Hence the withdrawal from Gaza for example. Their primary aim is to consolidate land grabs during the 67 war and secure water and resources.

Israel is not fighting Hamas because it wishes to negotiate with a less extreme Palestinian government. Exactly the opposite is true.

Hamas offers the first chance in years of actually producing a real peace since they are the most extreme Palestinian group and therefore the one with the most to lose.

Hamas was not elected because of it's extreme position, but because it was less corrupt than Fatah and was instrumental in providing social needs where elected municipally.

Israel does not want peace. It clearly hopes by a process of attrition to hold on to and expand it's borders at the cost of it's neighbours. Apparently they consider the occasional moderate loss of life acceptable, providing they're killing 10 times as many Palestinians.

Israelis are Gods chosen people and they will inherit the promised land - one way or another.

Postscript: I am far from a lefty. I just think it's about time the west stopped pandering to Israel - sorted out the injustices - and removed one of the major cause of "terrorism" (whatever that is).

--- Post edited by br14 on 17/7 0:15 ---

Revol_Tees Posted on 17/7 0:18
re: Isreal

Personally I think you're absolutely spot on with your analysis, br14.

green_beret20 Posted on 17/7 0:22
re: Isreal

Yea Im a maniac you see, this explains my previous actions (whatever they may be)?

I guess I must have missed that answer by the way!

Why the emphasis on democracy and western, is war a different class is it then? Should it be cleaner?

Oh and exactly why is war less outrageous when its in third world or in the Arab world? I’d love you to explain that one.

I’d have actually thought that the mass repression, tyranny and fundamental theocracies would actually be more worthy of peoples attention, especially since a vast majority the globes population live under it. No offence but a lot of whats being said here is just tired on mantra, nod at the Arab world and swing hard on the west. No offence but a lot of it really just boils down to the fundamental distaste for the western (capitalist) way of life which we’ve all read a thousand times before.
Deny it sure but it's links are there.

Revol_Tees Posted on 17/7 0:27
re: Isreal

Well it's obvious that we won't agree, so there's not much point in arguing. Yes, I'm just as pissed off about repression and tyranny in fundamental theocracies - and not just because most of 'em are armed and financed by the United States, I promise...

br14 Posted on 17/7 0:31
re: Isreal

Revol_tees: I am fortunate enough to have a few friends of Jewish background, but while I respect and admire their culture, they are completely and utterly blind to Israels manifestly brutal attitude toward the Palestinians.

There are people claiming Jewish origin all around the world, often having ancestors going back centuries in their resident countries, and yet they all almost without exception believe in Israel as a right - even where they have no intention of living in Israel.

br14 Posted on 17/7 0:37
re: Isreal

Green Beret: while what you say may be true, what is America trying to do about the problem.

Yes, they invaded Iraq to attempt to democratise part of the middle east in a somewhat idealistic geo-political power play, but the Arabs aint buying it, because right on Iraqs doorstep is the most obvious example of western hyprocisy.

If Israel is a democracy then how come so many of it's inhabitants dont get to vote?

When a British reporter asked Putin this week about corruption, he replied that corruption was a problem in a number of G8 countries. I wonder what he meant?

If we're going to sell the product, we damn well better believe in it ourselves.

green_beret20 Posted on 17/7 0:38
re: Isreal

It comes down to the point that people tend to blame Muslim radicalism on the West. Personally I take the differing view point and that their way of life needs to change quite frankly.

The west isn't perfect but it has brought more freedom to people than ever in human history, something of which the Arab/muslim world long need to grasp.

Until we make weapons to distinguish the rifle and the man get use to a lot more killing.

--- Post edited by green_beret20 on 17/7 0:41 ---

br14 Posted on 17/7 0:43
re: Isreal

You wont find me blaming Islamic fundamentalism on the West.

Islamic fundamentalism feeds on the injustices of many Arab states. The West is culpable in the sense that it supports and feeds these Arab states, and in a number of cases is responsible for their existence - but it's not responsible for the actions of those states.

Like I said, Bush claims (and his idealogue advisors certainly believe) that democratising Iraq would lead to the spread of democracy throughout the middle east.

The problem is that Bush and his lap dog Tony dont like necessarily like what the people vote for. (Hamas/Chavez/the guy in Bolivia etc).

Eddie_Catflap Posted on 17/7 1:38
re: Isreal

Too many people being killed on both sides. Not going to debate the rights and wrongs, whats the point? I did think though that the Lebanese Govt was much more pro Western now after kicking the Syrians out, and that they clearly can't get rid of Hezbollah by themselves. I don't see how Lebanese infrastructure can be classed as legitimate Hezbollah targets either. I'm no fan of Hezbollah either, but the Lebanese seem to be caught up in the middle of all this.

Just dismayed that we are now in 2006 and this is still going on. Kids being blown up FFS. Too many people are blase about civilian deaths on both sides. How anyone can see pictures like the ones linked here and not think there should be an immediate ceasefire is beyond me.

Link: Lebanese bus bombing (graphic pics)

br14 Posted on 17/7 3:37
re: Isreal

Not debating the rights and wrongs. Who are we to decide what is right and wrong anyway?

The fact is that the powerful rule - sometimes by consensus often by coercion. Who is powerful today may become weak tomorrow and vice versa.

The Israeli Prime Minister cannot be elected except by coalition and some of that coalition are the equivalent of Islamic fundamentalists. (Proportional representation?).

They believe that the Jewish people have a god given right to Israel and that the rest of us are second class citizens. It is this powerful lobby that pushes for the establishment of settlements in the West Bank etc.

Unfortunately, too many non-extreme Jews bith in Israel and around the world are willing to allow this extreme minority to dictate policy - to the detriment of us all.

When Islamic terrorists blow up tube trains in London it is in part because of perceived (and real) prejudice toward Islam shown by the west over Palestine.

You can hardly blame the Arabs when the UK chooses a middle east envoy named Lord Levi. I wonder which side he would favour?

The_Commisar Posted on 17/7 6:23
re: Isreal

the positions taken by some posters on this thread make Israel, Hamas and Hizbollah seem like wooly liberals who would compromise at the drop of a hat.

red_rebel2 Posted on 17/7 7:37
re: Isreal

Jesus, what have I missed? It's carnage up there.

TheBoy999 Posted on 17/7 8:45
re: Isreal

"Their primary aim is to consolidate land grabs during the 67 war and secure water and resources."

Do you mean the war where they countered a planned attck by Syria, Jordan and Egypt who where intent on their destuction. Strange that they face off aggrestion from 3 neighbouring countrys, win themselves some 'buffer zones', return 95% of the land back to its original countrys and yet unbelievable its the Israelis who get criticised!

"Israel does not want peace. It clearly hopes by a process of attrition to hold on to and expand it's borders at the cost of it's neighbours.

Unbeleivable, a sovereign country wants to hold on to its borders. Lets not forget the border that was breached by Hizbollah was recognised by your beloved UN. If they are intent on expanding there borders(and who could blame them when hostage taking, rocket attacks and sucide bombers are lauch from neighbouring countrys) then why have they constanly handed land back that they have captured when under attack.

All this talk of Israel being sponsered by America ammuse's me. It was the Americans in 56 that insisted on British/French withdrawl from Suez and Israeli withdrawl from Sinai. The US only came in strongly on Israels side when the USSR started sponsoring Egypt with thier despot president Nasser who was intent on the destruction of Israel. Without American support the 67 war could have been very differant. God knows what a Arab army would have done once it occupied Israel, it doesn't bare thinking of.

"I think the onus is on Israel, while you think it's on Palestine/Hamas/Hezbollah etc."

What the onus is on Israel to accept that Hamas/Hizbollah has the right to work towards the complete destruction of Israel????!!!!
As i said before, why would they agree to that?

BrokenLance Posted on 17/7 10:24
re: Isreal

Before the League of Nations legally ratified the creation of the modern state of Israel, let's not forget that most of the land in then-Palestine was bought quite legally by jews. Sold to them quite happily by the Palestinian Arabs, who thought the place desolate, and they had no use for it, and so were quite happy to take the Jews' money. It was only once they saw how the Jews cultivated the land, that they suddenly decided 'it's OUR land...' again.

Since it's creation, Israel has been on it's own, surrounded by Arab enemies who continually try to destroy it. The whole world laughs at the UN, who can't be relied upon to be any sort of effective peacekeeping force (that delusion ended in Bosnia). Israel has offered an olive branch to it's neighbours on numerous occasions, but it is spurned every time. It has no option but to respond with greater force, when threatened. It has had nukes for years, and yet has refrained from using them. What is going on currently, whilst bad enough, is mild by what could happen.

The Lebanese President last night called for a ceasefire, so his troops could regain control in Southern Lebanon. Seems he has had opportunity to do this before, yet eithere refrained, or was not able, to control Hezbollah.

If Hamas and Hezbollah want the current carnage to end, hand back the kidnapped soldiers. It's a simple solution.

br14 Posted on 17/7 14:47
re: Isreal

The Boy and Broken Lance, you simply reinforce my point about the attitudes of Israeli sympathisers. You see no wrong in the mass destruction of Lebanese infrastructure for the sake of a couple of soldiers who were grabbed.

Noone is suggesting that Hezbollah were in any way justified in their actions, but clearly Israel had an opportunity at that time to take choose diplomacy over violence - and chose violence. Hezbollah doesnt give a damn about Lebanon, and Lebanon can do nothing about Hezbollah.

In doing so they played right into Hezbollah's hands. You think they didnt realize what would happen? Why do you think they waited to do this until Sharon was out of the picture?

Hezbollah want the rest of the Arab world pulled into this battle and Israel is doing it's best to give them what they want.

The Israeli Prime Minister may win this one but at what cost to the middle east and the rest of us.

BTW before ratification of Israel - 40% of the population was Israeli and they were given 60% of the land as a state. Plus I'm not sure that land ownership is the only criteria for the existence of a state.

TheBoy999 Posted on 17/7 15:01
re: Isreal

"Israel had an opportunity at that time to take choose diplomacy over violence."

Diplomacy, what with Hamas/Hizbollah, they are demanding the release of 1000's of prisoners. Anyone who believes they is a chance of diplomacy with these groups is sadly deluded.

"Hezbollah doesnt give a damn about Lebanon, and Lebanon can do nothing about Hezbollah."

In the main that is true, but what do you want Israel to do, say 'oh well there's nothing the Lebonese govermant can do so we'll have to just allow Hizbollah to rain rockets down on us and violate our border'. Maybe Israel should be going after Syria and Iran, would you be happy with that, after all they can do somthing with Hizbollah.

"BTW before ratification of Israel - 40% of the population was Israeli and they were given 60% of the land as a state. Plus I'm not sure that land ownership is the only criteria for the existence of a state."

Not sure what you mean by this. I think your trying to say Israel has no right to exist, well your allowed an opinion.

--- Post edited by TheBoy999 on 17/7 15:02 ---

br14 Posted on 17/7 15:36
re: Isreal

"I think your trying to say Israel has no right to exist, well you're allowed an opinion."

See there you go again, anyone who has a contrary opinion must believe Israel has no right to exists. Not what I said. What I said was in response to your comment about the Palestinians giving up their birthright (shades of Esau and Jacob eh?).

I have no opinion as to whether Israel should exist or not any more than I have an opinion about any country. They do exist and thats all there is to it. Thank you for allowing me a mere Gentile an opinion though .

You have to be pretty biased or an Israeli to think the allocation of land following ratification of Israel was anything but unfair.

Whether you like it or not, as long as a single Palestinian or Islamic militant exists, Israel is going to have a problem. So Israel either ethnically cleanses the middle east; sits down and negotiates how it can live in peace with it's neightbours; or of course, they could carry on with the current course and have a policy of building walls and using force when they deem necessary.

I wonder what would happen though if the Saudi's or other Arab states got pulled into a more regional conflict. It might be interesting to see the US angst. Very sad for the inhabitants of the area of course - but then life is cheap in the middle east.

TheBoy999 Posted on 17/7 17:38
re: Isreal

"Whether you like it or not, as long as a single Palestinian or Islamic militant exists, Israel is going to have a problem"

And as long as Israel exists there will be Islamic militants.

As i've said twice before how can you negotiate with a group that are intent on your destruction, surely the first step would be for Hamas/Hizbollah to recognise that Israel has the right to exist. Maybe then a negotiated settlement might be a slim possibility. But they're not going to do that because the reason they exist is because Israel exists, catch 22.

moxzin Posted on 17/7 19:35
re: Isreal

Might be worth non-violent, secular Palestinian groups forming and uniting as well, to provide an alternative to Hamas, the PLO or Fatah. As soon as Israel has someone to negotiate with, they will negotiate, as shown by the handover of the Sinai, and Barak's famous "you can have it all" peace offer of 2000 (which was rejected). Until then, Israel will do what it does best - act unilaterally. Unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, unilateral intervention in Lebanon when the Lebonese can't keep their southern houses in order.

Everyone knows that for peace you need a partner. Kadima's election winning platform was for a lasting peaceful solution to the problem. And Hamas, I'm afraid, is not a partner for peace, and probably never will be. The sad thing is, this was well-known to the Palestinians when they voted them in, which says a lot about the contrast between the mentalities of the Israeli and Palestinian electorates.

--- Post edited by moxzin on 17/7 19:36 ---

BrokenLance Posted on 18/7 10:22
re: Isreal

br14, I agree, Israel's predictability is being used against them, though it's hard to imagine a better time to wipe out Hezbollah, who have given them the perfect excuse. Israel has had to sit on it's own side of the Lebanese border and put up with the rocket attacks, whilst knowing the Lebanese government were just sitting by and letting Hezbollah operate. I'm more a hawk than a dove, and don't believe you can reason with terrorists. Violence is the only language they understand, so I'm all in favour of wiping them out. Same with Hamas. If they want to be credible politicians, then disarm. In any land war, the Israeli's have to be favorite. Perhaps then the Arabs will leave them alone and sort their own problems out. It's only their oil, and it's value to the rest of the world, that prevents the Israeli's from going nuclear, and flattening a few places in the Middle East.

I'm getting out of Dodge tomorrow-purely coincidentally.

TheBoy999 Posted on 18/7 10:32
re: Isreal

I saw an interesting interview on the news lastnight with an ex Lebanese army officer. He said 60-70% of the Lebanese army was Shia Muslims and there is no way they would go and disarm Shia militants. Seems the Israeli thought of the Lebanese being unwilling rather than unable rings true afterall.

ferencpuskas Posted on 18/7 11:31
re: Isreal

Anyone who criticises Israel is a Nazi and an enemy to the free Western world.

moxzin Posted on 19/7 18:14
re: Isreal

An interesting development, but I didn't think warranted a new thread, is that Hezbollah now seemed to have rocketed Nazereth. Very little strategic or Semitocidic aims there, as its a mainly Arab town. But it sure is going to wind up the American Fundamentalists who will see it as an attack on one of Christianity's most holy places. The longer this goes on the more I think Hezbollah is gunning for a larger conflict, as if they want to descend into the brink and drag all sides down there with them. Keep rocketing Nazereth, then all you need is a few Hamas led attacks in Bethlehem or Jerusalem and suddenly there is intense pressure on the US administration to extend Israel's lease.

Hezbollah, to state the obvious, seem suicidal.

markofdboro Posted on 19/7 18:21
re: Isreal

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Albert Einstein’s

TheBoy999 Posted on 19/7 19:39
re: Isreal

They are obviously after a wider conflict. At the moment its tettering at the edge of the 1st stage. Stage 2 would involve a rocket attack on Tel Aviv which could spark an Israeli attack on Syria or even Iran. Stage 3 would be Israeli and Syrian regulars fighting each other.

crisboro Posted on 19/7 20:56
re: Isreal

I cant see how israel could justify attacking syria. It would prob cause them more trouble to do so.

--- Post edited by crisboro on 19/7 20:58 ---

moxzin Posted on 19/7 21:06
re: Isreal

I don't think there's much need to go after Syria though. If Israel can destroy Hezbollah in this stroke, and sometime down the line, knock out Iran's nuclear capability, which it will do, the power for Iran and Syria to make trouble with Israel, and later on destroy Israel, has been pretty much neutralised.

Meanwhile if it can demonstrate to Hamas what the rest of the world already knows - that they'll advance nothing with violence, and would only lose the battle - get Hamas to renounce terrorism and start reigning in Islamic Jihad and the like, and then Israel and Hamas can get down to the business of creating a Palestinian state - Kadima's vision. In fact I think the first ever Israeli party to win an election on the promise of a Palestinian state.

With Israelis electing a bi-state party for the first time, Hamas for the first time suggesting it could recognise Israel, before this crisis we were surely at one of our most rapprocheful and encouraging times. But now this violence has been foistered on Israel, we can rely on them to destroy the Islamic militants that threaten this whole deal, once and for all.

TheBoy999 Posted on 19/7 21:09
re: Isreal

If they knew of supplys coming in from Syria or any sort of Hizbollah traffic to and from Syria, it could be on the cards. Although i think the longer this goes on the less likely it is.

This will probably end within a week with the deployment of a large UN force.

moxzin Posted on 19/7 21:36
re: Isreal

Hopefully, militarising the southern zone to make up for the negligent job the Lebanese did which precipitated this crisis. Lets just hope the blue caps have a bit of teeth, eh? I think we've seen that the Islamic terrorist movement has no more love or respect for the UN than it does the US.

TheBoy999 Posted on 19/7 21:42
re: Isreal

Teeth? the UN? Since when has the UN had teeth? Too frightened of offending anyone. I still think a UN force in a 'buffer zone' is the best solution.

Revol_Tees Posted on 19/7 22:14
re: Isreal

... Meanwhile, lest we forget, brave Israel has started using toxic weapons on civilians in Gaza. Tanks and bulldozers have also started razing agricultural land, just to make absolutely sure of malnutrition and starvation on a large scale. That's in addition to the milk and medicine factories which appear to have been targetted across Beirut.

I suppose it's quite an effective way of killing terrorists - just target everyone and then you're bound to get some.

Link: Toxicity

moxzin Posted on 19/7 22:31
re: Isreal

Can you elaborate more on these toxic weapons, Revol? Mr Doctor in that article is a little cagey, got another?

--- Post edited by moxzin on 19/7 22:32 ---

Revol_Tees Posted on 19/7 22:36
re: Isreal

I can't elaborate any further, mox. If you can't remove your pro-Israeli blinkers for a moment and bring yourself to believe the word of a surgeon who is struggling with injuries which cause "internal combustion", then what hope is there? Deny everything, and all bets are off.

Revol_Tees Posted on 19/7 22:53
re: Isreal

Here's more bedtime reading from a few cagey pinko human rights organisations who don't think any war against terrorism justifies the incarceration, torture and ill-treatment of civilians, including kids, by the brave Israel state:

Link: From Haifa with love

crisboro Posted on 19/7 22:57
re: Isreal

Thats a disturbing image revol.

Revol_Tees Posted on 19/7 23:24
re: Isreal

Very disturbing, as is the one below - a now infamous USA Today clipping from shortly *before* September 11th 2001.

I think it shows the brutalising effects of the conflict on many ordinary people on both sides of the divide. We hear all too often, including on this thread, about the ugly extremism of the Palestinian terrorists who hate Israel; I think it's only fair that we also draw attention to the extremism of those leading political figures on the other side who refer to Palestianians as "cockroaches in a glass jar" and such like.

Link: Bad news from Israel

crisboro Posted on 19/7 23:32
re: Isreal

I agree revol.

br14 Posted on 20/7 3:13
re: Isreal

Always a little worrying when people use the term "terrorism" as a justification for anything.

Here's the definition from

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

You can lump Israel, Dubya's USA and Tony's Britain into that definition.

Moxzin you are completely deluded.

All Israel is doing is fuelling generations of Islamic fundamentalists who will take their justice where they can get it. Lets just hope that we dont pay for this abject stupidity.

Dont you think Hezbollah/Iran/Syria would have anticipated Israels response. In addition by attacking relatively neutral Christian and Arab Lebanese, Israel has provided all the provocation anyone would ever need.

Hundreds of civilians on both sides killed because a couple of soldiers were killed or kidnapped. The entire infrastructure of a sovereign nation destroyed. All because an idiot Israeli politician wants to get re-elected.

--- Post edited by br14 on 20/7 3:19 ---

DuzyPies Posted on 20/7 6:21
re: Isreal

"I don't think there's many subjects that split opinion more than this."

Making a car park of Iran might... ;-)

TheBoy999 Posted on 20/7 10:14
re: Isreal

Revol do you really expect us to believe something that came from a Website entitled Palistinian news network. Of course you'll believe anything that fits your agenda.

Can you blame tha Israelis for hateing Hizbollah, if Hizbollah got the chance they'd kill every Israeli in cold blood. I don't suppose they're to keane on ordinary Palistians either, the cheering, whooping and partys that followed scuds landing on Tel Aviv may have something to do with that.

Ok the young girls writeing on the bombs isn't nice, but its not as bad as babies dressed as suicide bombers is it?

If you want to see some real sick pictures take a look at the aftermath of suicide bombers or the pictures of lynchings.

--- Post edited by TheBoy999 on 20/7 12:02 ---

moxzin Posted on 20/7 10:49
re: Isreal

Revol - not denying anything, let alone "everything". Just wondering if you had any more sources. After all, the use of chemical weapons by Israel on Palestinians would cause an absolute storm like you well know. Just wondered if you had any more sources, thats all? Because its very serious. Didn't think there was anything too sinister in asking that.

Revol_Tees Posted on 20/7 11:50
re: Isreal

Fair enough, mox.

TheBigot999 - now you're really showing yourself up. You refuse to believe a story solely because it comes from a website called the "Palistinian news network"? I wonder what you find objectionable? Is it the fact that it's Palestinian? Of course, in that case they must be lying. Not that your assumption is prejudiced or racist in any way, oh no. You remind me of something Ehud Barak said:

"They are the products of a culture in which to tell a lie ... creates no dissonance. They don't suffer from the problem of telling lies that exists in Judeo-Christian culture. Truth is seen as an irrelevant category..."

Link: Teaching children to hate

TheBoy999 Posted on 20/7 12:00
re: Isreal

Here we go i'm a bigot because i don't support the terroist 'freedom fighter'. I suppose i'm a racist too because i condem suicide bombings and lychings, oh and i must be part of a zionist plot to take over the world as i sympathise with the Israelis. You calling me a bigot is like me calling you an anti-semitist.

Do you really believe that report? Do you really believe that Israel are useing chemical weapons? Do you really believe that the worlds press wouldn't get hold of this info? Do you really believe a Palistinian website wouldn't lie to discredit Israel?

--- Post edited by TheBoy999 on 20/7 12:01 ---

crisboro Posted on 20/7 12:06
re: Isreal

boy999 --- And do you believe israel are an innocent party and justify there actions?

red_rebel2 Posted on 20/7 12:08
re: Isreal

On the positive side, HAliburton may get the billion dollar contracts to rebuild the smashed infrastructure.

--- Post edited by red_rebel2 on 20/7 12:27 ---

TheBoy999 Posted on 20/7 12:11
re: Isreal

I believe they have a right to defend themselves. The civilan causualties do concern me and i think Israel needs to seriously consider its actions and make every effort to avoid civilian causualties. Israel has made mistakes and done some bad things but they are backed into a corner. At the end of the day if Hizbollah/Hamas denouced violence and recognised Israels right to exists all this would stop.

Lucky_Alf Posted on 20/7 12:15
re: Isreal

Why would Halliburton get involved in rebuilding some blocks of flats and houses?

More likely to be the Bin Laden group.

crisboro Posted on 20/7 12:15
re: Isreal

'I believe they have a right to defend themselves'
Thats a difficult one because by that statement Hizbollah also have a right to defend themselves now. Peace cannot be reached by bombings and war and israel knew this.

Revol_Tees Posted on 20/7 12:20
re: Isreal

"i'm a bigot because i don't support that terrorist 'freedom fighter'. I suppose i'm a racist too because i condem suicide bombings and lychings, oh and i must be part of a zionist plot to take over the world as i sympathise with the Israelis."

WTF are you talking about? Nobody has suggested anything of the sort. Why don't you stop making an arrse out of yourself and just calm down?

You don't appear to have understood what I said. Let me spell it out. Palestine News Network attempts to corroborate an official report about the use of toxic weapons with quotes from a named medical source claiming that the injuries he has treated appear to be consistent with the use of such weapons. (What else can they do, short of writing a nice letter to the Israeli government asking them to confirm it?) I would be perfectly willing to accept that this was a mistake if proof to the contrary were offered. You, on the other hand, seem to reject it out of hand (presumably branding all 3 involved agents as liars) on one basis alone: that they're Palestinian.

Revol_Tees Posted on 20/7 13:31
re: Isreal

I've just been reading a few pieces which cast some doubt on the logic of claims that Israel is acting purely in self-defence...

The Guardian on Saturday: "The prisoners Hizbullah wants released are hostages who were taken on Lebanese soil. In the successful prisoner exchange in 2004, Israel held on to three Lebanese detainees as bargaining chips and to keep the battle front with Hizbullah open. These detentions have become a cause celebre in Lebanon..." It also goes on to claim that Hizbullah's targets have previously been predominantly military, not civilian - I'm not sure how much truth there is in this, but I've read elsewhere that for this reason some Israelis have a grudging respect for Hizbullah compared with other more indiscriminate terrorist organisations who operate in the area.,,1821036,00.html

There are also a series of claims widely reported last month in The Times, Haaretz and elsewhere that the Israel intelligence agency Mossad has been carrying out operations in Lebanese territory for years - including targetted assassinations in car bombings. The irony, of course, is that such actions amount to acts of terrorism probably by Israel's own definition of the word.,,251-2227831,00.html

By god, it's a vicious cycle...

TheBoy999 Posted on 20/7 13:39
re: Isreal

"Nobody has suggested anything of the sort."

Let me just remind what you said

"TheBigot999 - now you're really showing yourself up. You refuse to believe a story solely because it comes from a website called the "Palistinian news network"? I wonder what you find objectionable? Is it the fact that it's Palestinian? Of course, in that case they must be lying. Not that your assumption is prejudiced or racist in any way, oh no."

Now if you can't see were you suggested i'm a Bigot and racist then your blind.

If you wish to believe to believe some biased Website than thats up to you but i don't beleive one word of it.

By the you can resort to name calling and petty comments all you like, it just makes you look childish.

Revol_Tees Posted on 20/7 13:47
re: Isreal

You still haven't grapsed it. Jesus.

"i'm a bigot because i don't support the terroist 'freedom fighter'. I suppose i'm a racist too because i condem suicide bombings and lychings, oh and i must be part of a zionist plot to take over the world as i sympathise with the Israelis."

1. Where did I call you a bigot for not supporting terrorists?
2. Where did I say you were racist because you condemn suicide bombings and lynchings?
3. Where did I say you were part of a zionist plot to take over the world because you sympathise with the Israelis?

Er, I didn't. You made it all up. My only accusation was that you rejected a news report on grounds of race - that its origin and sources were Palestinian meant that it must be lies.

green_beret20 Posted on 20/7 13:56
re: Isreal

Get a grip, you tend to find when any country is in the grip of war it tends to brake the set rules of war, which in itself is a ridiculous notion. Unless you failed to realise the gentlemen’s conduct of chivalry played by rich noble generals died in about the times of William Wallace.

Look at any conflict in the past 100 years at least and you'll find most sides breaking the general rules of warfare of the time and swift condemnation from those whom are safely away from the battle. Look at the League of Nations, it was a political ideal that crashed to earth when the simple reality of warfare kicked in.
Why people suddenly expected and still expect the same ideal to work again only a few years later puzzles me.

To think you quoting some rule breaking set out by the UN in some dusty book is some sort of vindication to your point really needs to get a grip. What you call terrorism I call pre-emptive strategically valid targeting.

TheBoy999 Posted on 20/7 14:13
re: Isreal

So your conclusion that i'm a racist and bigot comes from the fact that i rejected a report from a palistinian website, pathetic.

TheBoy999 Posted on 20/7 14:17
re: Isreal

Would you accept a report of Hizbollah useing chemical weapons from a website entitled Israeli news network? I dout it, you'd expect them to be biased and would wait confirmation from a neutral news network.

Revol_Tees Posted on 20/7 14:22
re: Isreal

TheBigot999 - with an open mind, I would take it seriously if it was corroborated by a named Israeli doctor who claimed that the injuries he treated were consistent with those contended. Simple. I wouldn't reject it out of hand simply because of the race, ethnicity, national origin (etc.) of the journalists, sources or networks involved. You did and you can't even see what's wrong with that. Pathetic.

moxzin Posted on 20/7 15:16
re: Isreal

Its an old maxim, that used to be applied to the Arab nations, but I believe in it still:

If the terrorists laid down their weapons, they'd be no more war.
If Israel laid down their weapons, they'd be no more Israel.

I was wondering if I could get a bit more consensus from Revol, rebel et al, about the fact that before these two crises, the opportunities and encouraging signs seemed to be everywhere. Hezbollah, an army set up to harass Israel in Lebanon post their 1982 invasion, acted in a genuinely unprovoked way, and Israel has responded in a provoked but disproportionate way.

I have faith in the IDF as a responsible fighting force (Revol_Tees stop laughing at the back...) and really don't see what they could have to gain by indiscriminate carpet bombing. I was rather hoping for their intelligence services, among the best in the world, to pinpoint the Hezbollah targets and the response to be surgical.

But 300 are dead. The only hope I can have to come out of this will be that the moderate, weary Lebanese population will never want this to happen to them again and ostracise Hezbollah. That the liberal, peace-seeking community of the world will recognise what an opportunity was lost and cut off Hezbollah, both financially and intellectually. And I just hope that Hezbollah is having the stuffing knocked out of it. And that the Palestinians are cursing the very name of God's Army for effing it all up.

There is a lot of hope in seemingly a hopeless situation.

Link: Should be denounced by liberal society

TheBoy999 Posted on 20/7 15:32
re: Isreal

Have you read the rest of the website, its completely biased and uncredible, thats why i don't believe it. The name tells you what its agenda will be.

Its typical this, if your not jumping up and down screaming 'its the Americans and their imperialistic allies fault' your accused of being a racist. By the same token i could call you a bigot and racist, but i'm not that pathetic.

You choose to believe it, i don't. If you beleive that makes me a racist/bigot then its you who needs to address your problem of prejudice.

crisboro Posted on 20/7 15:44
re: Isreal

Have searched moxin for the answer to this question to no avail. Where were these two soldiers taken from and was this israeli soil as set out by the UN?

TheBoy999 Posted on 20/7 15:52
re: Isreal

Yes they crossed the border as recognised by the UN.

moxzin Posted on 20/7 15:54
re: Isreal

According to Wikipedia, the attack took place in Za'rit, a village nearby the Lebanon-Israeli border. Now, this would be in Israeli proper, and is close to, but not in, the Golan. Therefore, it wasn't in any sort of disputed territory. Without digging out any UN resolutions, I am pretty confident that the pre-1967 borders of Israel, of which Za'rit would be a part, have been confirmed and framed by international resolutions. Certainly, whenever a resolution is called asking Israel to withdraw from Gaza or the West Bank, it is always to the borders as of April 1967.

As far as I can see then, and I'm willing to be corrected, all evidence points to Israeli convoys being attacked on internationally agreed Israeli soil.

moxzin Posted on 20/7 15:54
re: Isreal

So good I said it twice.

--- Post edited by moxzin on 20/7 15:55 ---

crisboro Posted on 20/7 16:01
re: Isreal

Thanks for the info.
That confirms for me that they are both as bad as each other. Sad to see more reports of deaths today including children. Its very sad.

Revol_Tees Posted on 20/7 16:18
re: Isreal

TheBigot999 - well done, you've finally cited something other the website's name as a justification for dismissing it out of hand. However, I still doubt whether you've actually read it. I've just had another flick through myself and I can't find anything in the articles section that is controversial by the standards of Western media, except a few stories about Palestinian non-violent resistance which obviously doesn't fit the usual "terrorist" stereotype.

mox: thanks for that considered response. As I mentioned a few posts back, I deplore the killings carried out by Hizbollah but I'm also sceptical about Israel's justification that it is merely defending itself in the face of provocation. It's overall record is bad and I understand it has been holding Lebanese prisoners, kidnapped from Lebanese territory, for years. Not that this justifies counter-kidnappings, but it's a vicious circle and no one seems to want to play by the rules. Apart from that, as you know, I disagree with your view that Israel's overall policy of late has led to opportunities and encouraging signs. I think it's been more hardline in many respects, particularly the way it holds Gaza like a pickle in a jar.

But anyway, we could be here all night arguing about who started it, so i want to say something about Hizbollah and Hamas. See what you think. br14 made the best point on the thread about 80 posts ago:

"Hamas offers the first chance in years of actually producing a real peace since they are the most extreme Palestinian group and therefore the one with the most to lose. Hamas was not elected because of it's extreme position, but because it was less corrupt than Fatah and was instrumental in providing social needs where elected municipally."

You may think this is controversial, but I think the current escalation could have been avoided if Israel, the US, Britain and the EU hadn't acted so uncompromisingly towards Hamas when it was elected. That presupposes that Hamas is held in any respect by Hezbullah. You simply have to negotiate, no matter how extreme the other party is; you've got to bring them in from the cold. Demanding that Hamas formally renounce violence and scrap its committment for the destruction of Israel was, in the circumstances, pigheaded and unrealistic, especially since some of its leading figures (both political and military) had already informally done so. I understand that the parts of Hamas's charter which call for the obliteration of Israel are seen by many in the organisation as redundant; its modern programme apparently calls only for withdrawal from territories captured in 1967, and also for the UN-sanctioned return of Palestinian refugees to their former homes in Israel. Its refusal to renounce old extremist rhetoric is merely a way of keeping extremists in check.

These things are quite often about saving face, but I think Israel wanted total submission and humiliation for Hamas and its supporters, rather than compromise. If you think all this sounds crazy, please bear in mind that the IRA was once in favour of the destruction of the union between Great Britain and N. Ireland - and the union is still in tact today, while the large-scale violence has ended. That's because negotiations brought them in from the cold without totally humiliating them on the world stage. British statesmen knew they had to negotiate with "extremists" (in secret if necessary) because otherwise the vicious circle would continue.

--- Post edited by Revol_Tees on 20/7 16:26 ---

DuzyPies Posted on 20/7 16:39
re: Isreal

"According to Wikipedia..."

Always a bastion of accuracy. ;-) Until very recently, you could pretty much enter anything in Wikipedia with minimal fact checking or accuracy ensured. It's probably correct in this instance, but Wikipedia is often not a particularly reliable reference.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 20/7 16:41
re: Isreal

All was well and good, and then the last paragraph. If you think that the IRA gave into 'negotiations' your living in cloud cuckoo land. They gave in because the Irish community in the US could not be seen to finance a terrorist organisation after 9/11. Bush say all terrorists will be attacked where ever, and bobs your uncle the IRA lay down their arms and become a democratic party.

TheBoy999 Posted on 20/7 16:46
re: Isreal

Any news article that calls "Saraya Al Quds" the "armed resistance wing of the Islamic Jihad party" has little credibility with me. Every article is about how Israel oppress' the Palistinians bar one which gloats "Armed resistance wing of Islamic Jihad hits Israeli town of Sderot". You believe it, i don't lets just leave it at that.

"Demanding that Hamas formally renounce violence and scrap its committment for the destruction of Israel was, in the circumstances, pigheaded and unrealistic"

What do you want them to do say 'come on, lets negotiate, its ok for you to continue training and useing suicide bombers though, oh and that thing about you wanting to completly destroy us, we'll just pretend we don't know about that. So you keep spouting it and we'll discuss how we can help you.'

Look what happened when Israel withdrew from Lebonan. Iran/Syria spent the time supplying and training Hizbollah so they could violate the border, take hostages and fire rockets into Israeli towns. Is it no wonder they are reluctant to 'negotiate' with terrorists.

I do beleive that the current situation with civilian causualties is unacceptable. Israel needs to be more stragtigic with its response.

--- Post edited by TheBoy999 on 20/7 16:46 ---

--- Post edited by TheBoy999 on 20/7 17:29 ---

blotonthelandscape Posted on 20/7 16:55
re: Isreal

Why are suicide bombers so young, are their fathers too frightened to do it?

I have always thought that the minimum age to go to any war should be 45. Wars would then never happen.

crisboro Posted on 20/7 16:56
re: Isreal

You again amke this statement 'Iran/Syria spent the time supplying and training Hizbollah so they could violate the border, take hostages and fire rockets into Israeli towns'.

Where do you keep getting this from?

TheBoy999 Posted on 20/7 18:08
re: Isreal

I don't think even Revol would deny that Iran and Syria supply Hizbollah. In its early days Iran quite openly supplied them. 2000 Revolutionary guards were sent there in the eighties to aid the 'rsistance'. Many of Hizbollahs weapons are of Syrian make and lets face it someone has to be supplying them, you don't get vehicle mounted rocket lauchers from the co-op. It doesn't take a genius to work out were they're coming from. Its thought that Iran has placed rockets in Lebonan capable of hitting Tel Aviv, along with 100 men to opperate them.

Revol_Tees Posted on 20/7 18:54
re: Isreal

TheBigot999 - I'm not sure how you would expect the Palestine News Network to refer to Saraya Al Quds. Perhaps the "terrorist wing of the Islamic Jihad party" would better suit? That would almost be like asking Haaretz to describe Mossad or the IDF as the "terrorist" wing of the Israeli state, which I suppose it could with a lot of justification.

I don't think it's worth arguing with you anymore, but I am heartened to see that you've been quietly backtracking on more than just your dismissal of that news report. I've just compared some of your first posts on this thread with your last one, and although your spelling hasn't improved, your position seems to have softened a little:

"Overall i think Isreal are being a little restrained, i'm suprise they havn't gone after Syria, maybe its just a matter of time..."

"Its not deliberate targeting of civilians, but what hizbollah is doing is deliberate targeting, but no-one seems to bat an eyelid at that. Also Hizbollah deliberately operate in civilain areas so collateral damage is inevitable..."

"I do beleive that the current situation with civilian causualties is unacceptable. Israel needs to be more stragtigic with its response..."

Impressive. It's interesting because Israeli military strategy hasn't changed at all, even if the carnage is more evident after several days. I don't blame you for getting a bit squeamish now the consequences of the heavy-handed policy you support are splattered all over our TV screens. I think it's quite symptomatic - the bloodthirsty reactionaries appear to be losing the argument all over the place, which is encouraging, but I just hope it can somehow translate into real political action.

--- Post edited by Revol_Tees on 20/7 18:59 ---

TheBoy999 Posted on 20/7 19:17
re: Isreal

I'll be honest with you and say that i didn't expect this level of intensity to continue for this length of time. I still believe that Israel is not deliberately targeting civilians and that Hizbollah are, and deliberatly placeing military targets in populated areas. I think any reasoned person should be concerned at civilian casualties and realise the situation can't go on forever.

"I'm not sure how you would expect the Palestine News Network to refer to Saraya Al Quds. Perhaps the "terrorist wing of the Islamic Jihad party" would better suit?"

Thats exactly my point, they are Palistinian and have a agenda to stick too, reiterated by their use of softening language. I would describe them exactly as you have above.

"and although your spelling hasn't improved"

Now we get to the real crux of the matter, my spelling. Is that what you have to resort to my spelling mistakes. It always confirms i've won the argument when someone has to comment on the spelling rather than the subject at hand. Thank you.

--- Post edited by TheBoy999 on 20/7 20:23 ---

moxzin Posted on 20/7 19:32
re: Isreal

I think TheBoy has hit the nail on the head, when he says: "i didn't expect this level of intencity to continue for this length of time". I don't think anyone did, not even Kadima or the Israeli military.

All I can suggest from my amateurish opinion is that the initial bombardments haven't been seen to hurt Hezbollah, judging by the rockets falling on Israel to this day. And, therefore, the Israeli response has been simply to crank up the bombings.

I'm not losing heart. I still think Hezbollah can and should be destroyed completely as it is a danger to Lebanon and the Palestinians. I'm not losing nerve. One thing I can never agree with the majority of the liberals in this country with is the renunciation of violence in the face of violent terrorism. There are some things that can be negotiated with, and somethings that can't.

Just as an aside Revol, what do you think of the International Brigades, who went off to fight Franco in Spain? Do you eschew their use of violence, think they should have negotiated at a table with the Fascists, or do you agree that there are some things that require violence?

If we focus in on Hezbollah, and compare them to the IRA, than Israel totally aceded to Hezbollah's demands by withdrawing from every inch of the territory of Lebanon, not withstanding the occasional prisoner and the violation of sovereignity to make some 'hits' (which lets face it is not unusual. Argentina, Norway, England and countless other nations have seen Mossad operations).

Am I the only one that sees this as the equivalent of Britain ceding Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland? And the IRA a few years later still bombing Manchester?

Back to the issue hand, I haven't lost heart or nerve, but I am starting to lose faith that Israel is operating a) morally or b) effectively.

It says it all that last week, at the pub at our weekly Thursday night drink-up, it felt very difficult but very necessary to be the sole defender of Israeli action. (yes as you can see a night out with me is a blast....)

I could never have imagined that 7 days later, 300 would be dead and it would still be continuing. Its going to be very hard to defend Israel tonight.

Israel has one of the best armies, one of the best special forces and some of the best military hardware in the world. But bombing civilians seems to be its best response to a terror attack.

Either ground troops must be sent in to Southern Lebanon to rip Hezbollah apart, special forces should be sent in to whack the leadership, or there should be a massive and sturdy military build up on the border. Either way, the bombings, surely, have to stop.

--- Post edited by moxzin on 20/7 19:34 ---

Revol_Tees Posted on 20/7 20:25
re: Isreal

Fair enough mox, but I think it's quite an indictment that one of Israel's biggest supporters is now starting to lose faith that it is operating either morally or effectively. That definitely sounds to me like you're losing heart.

For what it's worth, as you know, IMO the bulk of Israeli policy is immoral and ultimately ineffective. I've stated my reasons for that above. There will always be those in the Middle East who despise Israel's existence, just as there might always be those in Ireland who despise the existence of a union with Britain. How should Israel minimise the effect and influence of these extremists? Not by using its awesome power to starve, terrorise, shoot, bomb, kidnap, torture, steal land and property, pass racist laws, promote anti-Arab racism in its classrooms, and treat its Arab citizens with contempt. That's a brutal state apparatus that Franco would probably envy.

It only fuels more hatred and more extemism, and if you can't bring yourself to condemn that course of action morally, then I hope you're now beginning to realise how counter-productive or ineffectual it is in terms of peace. It's time Israel sat around a table with Hamas, listnened to the more reasonable of its demands, and carried them out in full.

--- Post edited by Revol_Tees on 20/7 20:28 ---

crisboro Posted on 20/7 20:30
re: Isreal

boy999--- 'I don't think even Revol would deny that Iran and Syria supply Hizbollah' ---- It must be true then.
The point I was trying to make to you was that you make a very broad sweeping and quite possibly totally inaccurate statement.
OK so arms may come from syria and iran, I would be suprised if they didnt to be honest. But infering that syrians are training Hizbollah to attack Israeli's ??? have you just made this up?

TheBoy999 Posted on 20/7 20:48
re: Isreal

Its common information and not that hard to believe considering until recently a large Syrian force was based in Lebonan. Also as most of the weapons are of Syrian origin somebody had to train them how to use them. You don't just get hold of a rocket launcher and start blasting it about. Remember that Syria has a border with Lebonan and that the Syrian goverment are close allies of Hizbollah.

Revol_Tees Posted on 20/7 21:08
re: Isreal

Washington Post reports: "Israel on Thursday told Lebanese residents to leave the southern sector of the country below the Litani River within 24 hours. The warning came a day after punishing airstrikes killed more than 50 people across Lebanon in the deadliest day since hostilities erupted July 12..."

That's a sizeable chunk of Lebanese land.

"To the north, the Litani river, to the northeast, the Wadi 'Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to Wadi al 'Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan..."

[Ben Gurion on the borders of "Eretz Israel"]

br14 Posted on 21/7 0:19
re: Isreal

A number of events correlating here...

1. Hezbollah had acquired around 4000 rockets.

2. The rockets were donated by Iran and manufactured in Syria and Iran.

3. Syria was forced recently, partly by Lebanese Christians partly by international pressure to remove it's troops from Lebanon. Many Lebanese rejoiced over this (I wonder how they feel now!).

4. Israel reacted to the hostage taking of its troops by destroying all roads and bridges in the area, bombing dozens of apparent Hezbollah hideouts, and destroying much of Beirut and Southern Lebanon.

I'm no strategic military planner, but I doubt you could organise this kind of action in 5 minutes. Clearly it's been on the cards for a months and Israel was just waiting for the provocation to act. As well, it's clear that Bush and perhaps Blair were aware of these plans.

No doubt it is why Syria was put under so much pressure after being in Lebanon for so long.

The trigger for the Syrian withdrawal was the assassination of a Lebanese politician. At the time this was blamed on Syria - though they denied all knowledge. Could this have been an elaborate Mossad plan to remove Syria from the scene thereby clearing the way for their action against Lebanon?

What is also interesting is that even with the rockets, for some time Hezbollah has not used them, preferring instead to gain some bargaining chip in their dealings with Israel. It was Israels aggression that forced the use of these rockets - clearly this was a deliberate strategy on Israels part.

TheBoy999 Posted on 21/7 7:54
re: Isreal

The initial act of aggression was from Hizbollah when they crossed the border killed several Israeli soilders and took 2 haostage.

Syria have been implicated in the assination of Hariri by the UN, which i very much dout would publically implicate them without serious evidence.

"3. Syria was forced recently, partly by Lebanese Christians partly by international pressure to remove it's troops from Lebanon. Many Lebanese rejoiced over this (I wonder how they feel now!)."

Many Lebanese took to the streets in pro Syria rallys too.

red_rebel2 Posted on 21/7 9:06
re: Isreal


This phrase is at the heart of the differing perspectives on here.

"I was wondering if I could get a bit more consensus from Revol, rebel et al, about the fact that before these two crises, the opportunities and encouraging signs seemed to be everywhere"

What was encouraging about the millions of innocent civilians open prison of Gaza being squeezed economically and politically, having their funds frozen, their water turned off, their democratic decision ignored,having their infrastructure smashed?

What was encouraging in the on-going progress of the wall building, making concrete an illegal land grab in defiance of international opinion and reshaping the borders unilaterally?

You make it sound as if poor peaceloving Israel are reluctently responding to some spontaneous act of unacceptable violence, that a lasting peace was on the table and that only the 'terrorists' are opposed to Israel's plan.

You make it sound as if somehow the punative slaughter of innocent civilians in another country is not only justifiable but neccessary.

Much as it suits the apolgists for zionism to blame 'the terrorists' for this outrage or that outrage and seize the moral high ground, the current crisis can not be separated from the rest of the story. Israel can not shrug off its own share of responsibility for the violence.

ospreyheights Posted on 21/7 9:29
re: Isreal

red rebel there seems little point in debating the issues ongoing in the middle east with someone whos views are so fixed and inflexible as 999. while i admire his tenacity in defending his own people i do find it rather strange that 999 berated piggy nicol for going to watch a bullfight!
as i see it there is more cruelty in the jackboot diplomacy of israel as perpetrated in lebanon and the gaza strip than killing and eating of a bull. there again the life of 100 arabs in the middle east are worth less than 1 iraelis. beware the propaganda of this mindset it is very dangerous.

Revol_Tees Posted on 21/7 9:42
re: Isreal

Well said, r_r. Life in Gaza were bad enough before the current crisis. Now it's even worse. This is how brave Israel "defends" itself:

"Gaza’s sole power station, three key sewage treatments plants and more than one hundred municipal wells are not working properly. Around 1.4 million Palestinians are living in dire humanitarian conditions with sporadic water and electricity supplies. Fresh food is scarce."

Link: Christian Aid: Gaza Under Siege

Revol_Tees Posted on 21/7 9:45
re: Isreal

From the LA Times: "Israel also kept up the pressure from the sea, shelling a key coastal road used by emergency vehicles and others..."

Just to make sure the wounded stay wounded...?

Revol_Tees Posted on 21/7 9:51
re: Isreal

From the Sydney Morning Herald: "While the Israeli Defence Force claims that it does its best to avoid harming civilians, it insists on its right to attack the terrorists who, it says, are using the population as 'human shields'. Its list of self-declared legitimate targets expanded yesterday to include all trucks south of the Litani River and all 'structures used by terrorists'.

"Yesterday morning aircraft even attacked two trucks in the heart of Christian east Beirut that were reportedly carrying well-digging equipment. Judging by the list of actual targets hit so far, what Israeli security experts term 'the target bank' includes, in practice, civilian homes, minibuses and cars, as terrified families try to run away.

"No one in south Lebanon feels safe. Streets and roads are almost deserted, and the few cars still daring to flee north out of Tyre career towards Beirut at breakneck speed, filled with frightened women and children waving white rags at the sky.

"Bombing intensified yesterday morning - massive aerial bombs working up and down among the houses on a ridge line to the south, while closer to town sporadic bombs and rockets sent up clouds of debris and plumes of smoke.

"There was no answering fire: Tyre is too far north to be a suitable launch site for Hezbollah missiles targeting Israel, and the city has no defence against air attack."

Link: Dying in the killing zone

TheBoy999 Posted on 21/7 9:54
re: Isreal

Osprey thats such a lame argument yet again. Because they're worst things going on in the world it makes certain other things ok? That resoning isn't worth a response really but you know i can't resist.

"while i admire his tenacity in defending his own people"

I may be wrong but it sounds like your trying to insult me by suggesting i'm a Jew, you'll obviously deny this and claim the moral high ground. The underhand anti-semitism on this thread astounds me.

PumpingGnome Posted on 21/7 10:03
re: Isreal

I was going to stay out of this one until I read "The underhand anti-semitism on this thread astounds me."

That is disgraceful. Absolutely disgraceful. I haven't detected a single anti-semitic hint in all of this discussions. It's the last refuge of the bankrupt, when all the arguments are lost. I've seen it many times before. When all's lost play the anti-semitism card.

Disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

red_rebel2 Posted on 21/7 10:03
re: Isreal

Anti-zionism is NOT anti-semitism.

Most of the biggest anti-zionist organisations in the metroplitan countries are led by and financed by jews. either secular liberal jews embarrassed by what is done in their name or religious jews angry at having their beliefs hijacked by fndementalists.

Calling those who oppose Israeli militarist policies and constant breaches of international law or who dare to defend the Palestinians right to statehood "anti-semitic" - the first response for the zionist state an dits defnders - is a grave insult that betrays the shallowness of their intellectual position.

TheBoy999 Posted on 21/7 10:47
re: Isreal

Pumpingnome i've twice been accused of being a Jew as an underhand insult. There is talk of elborate Israeli conspiracys(where do they come from) and talk of apolgists for zionism in amongst the blated anti Israeli bias.

I've been accused of being a racist/bigot but i suppose thats ok because i'm defending an American ally so i guess i must be.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 21/7 10:47
re: Isreal

RR, I disagree I think that there is an inbuilt anti-semitism within the left, similar to what the Met were accused off on racism.

As I told you once before, in my late teens and early 20's I was on the fringes of some of the left debate and went to quite a few meetings, I was basically a piece of crap on their shoes as I had not been to University and shocked by the inteligencia of the lefts attitute to the 'council house' classes, and the complete distain on Israel and what was seen as a Jewish problem.

--- Post edited by blotonthelandscape on 21/7 10:54 ---

red_rebel2 Posted on 21/7 11:54
re: Isreal

Blot, I have been around the left for over 25 years. I have NEVER heard Israel described as "a jewish problem".

As you know we on the left have a thing about those jews- Marx,Trotsky, Luxembourg, Tony Cliff. Most of the early communist tradition in Europe was based on jewish intellectuals and organisation. Ironically the entire zionist movement came from exactly the same roots.

I can assure you that there is no anti-Semitism in the Britsih left. There may be some clumbsy terminology thrown around at times (Mox is as guilty as anyone in blurring the definitions) but never any anti-semitism.

If there was an upsurge of anti-semitism in Teesside, if synagogues were being firebombed say, who do you tink would be the first to line up condemning it and pointing to the culprits as racist nazis? It would be the usual suspects, all us wooly pinko liberal guardianistas.

--- Post edited by red_rebel2 on 21/7 11:57 ---

blotonthelandscape Posted on 21/7 12:28
re: Isreal

This is the second thread today where I seem to be a leading light of the Right, I am beginning even to doubt myself.

However, when at any of your meetings over the last 5-10 years have you invited someone to give the case for Israel? What are we going to do; allow a group of freedom fighters to live beside them who's political objective is to wipe out Israel, send all Israelis to one of the Indonesian archipelago’s,accept that they have a right to live? or ....

red_rebel2 Posted on 21/7 13:44
re: Isreal


There are several pro-Israeli factions within the left, and especially within the Labour party. Israeli socialists and trade unionists have often addressed the LP conference trying to sell international solidarity to a mixed reception.

The big debate within the left is not pro/anti Israel but whether national liberation struggles can be transformed into socialist ones. Most leftist groups say 'yes' and argue that because liberation movements are anti-imperialist in character then the struggle can somehow magically be transformed into an anti-capitalist and once in power they will press for socialism.

This is naive at best. And also contrary to the basics of Marxism. Socialism can't be given by an armed group, it must be taken in a mass popular uprising.

The theoretical position of most left groups was cast when the template for liberation movements were the PLO or the ANC. They were popular, had a strong 'marxist' faction and used the rhetoric of the left - but that was opportunistic and stemmed from the fact these groups were being armed by Moscow.

Now that template has changed and liberation movements in the region are increasingly religious in perspective and funded by Islamists. That makes it difficult to explain for many leftists tied uncritically to the anti-imperialist struggle.

The left is now in flux on this question. Only the SWP are really openly in favour of the Iraq insurrection for instance.

Most serious leftists know any solution on our terms will revolve around the Israeli working class. That will be difficult because they have a priveliged position based on the zionist-military state but that is the only realistic way forward.

There is a growing peace movement and trade union agitation. The people you know as Militant have a strong section there, European Social Democrat/Labour Parties are building brdiges there but these things take time and are difficult in times of war.

red_rebel2 Posted on 21/7 14:38
re: Isreal

Thread killed deader than an innocent Lebanese civilian!

blotonthelandscape Posted on 21/7 14:55
re: Isreal

Work got in the way, and on a Friday too.

The whole issue is very sad, I sometimes wish that you could put 1000 pregnant women and children in a line from every religious grouping wearing only shorts or dresses, and then say to the head of Israel and Hamas, right, today were killing 300, and let them chose.

There are many towns in Israel where Arab and Jew live perfectly together, amybe they should be the model to use.

Lefty3668 Posted on 21/7 15:03
re: Isreal

I have a question, naive as it may be. Please, no long answers as ploughing through the Israel threads takes some doing when you aren't well versed in the topic.

Would there really be all this strife if the people of Palestine were as wealthy as the people of Israel?

Revol_Tees Posted on 21/7 15:26
re: Isreal

That's the million dollar question, lefty. We might never know.

Some will say "yes" and claim that Israel will always be plagued by Palestinian/fundamentalist terrorists who wish to see its destruction, whether Palestinians are wealthy or not.

Some would say "no" (although wealth isn't the only factor). If Palestine was freed, its economy allowed to thrive and its resources fairly distributed, the terrorists would find themselves marginilised, isolated and no longer able to function effectively.

Unfortunately, Israel is taking no chances anyway. As even the World Bank predicted, when Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip militarily, it retained its strange-hold on the territory's economy. The poverty rate is somewhere around 65% and unemployment 35%.

--- Post edited by Revol_Tees on 21/7 15:29 ---

Lefty3668 Posted on 21/7 15:35
re: Isreal

I think I'll go with your 'no' Revol. And I'll extend that to the rest of the Middle East, Latin America, the Phillipines ....

TheBoy999 Posted on 21/7 16:33
re: Isreal

So what do you advocate Lefty, international Socialism?

ospreyheights Posted on 21/7 16:51
re: Isreal

so im anti-semite eh 999 and piggy is cruel what are you so touchy about are you hiding something?

crisboro Posted on 21/7 16:59
re: Isreal

So many new words for me to learn today on this thread. And am starting to get a real feel as to why these conflict materialise in the first place. Rights and wrongs, lefts and rights, single mindedness (sp)etc . Very interesting.
Sad to see Israel preparing for a ground invasion today.

Lefty3668 Posted on 21/7 17:33
re: Isreal

Maybe 999. What is it?

To answer your initial point 'I don't see what choice they have, to do what they are doing'.

If they decided to take some of their wealth and commenced a vast spending programme of social welfare in Palestine - housing, health, education, roads etc. I think that that would probably do the trick.

Revol_Tees Posted on 21/7 17:39
re: Isreal

Not for the first time, Israeli soldiers have been using civilians (including children) as human shields, according to B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights organisation.

Link: Human shields

TheBoy999 Posted on 21/7 18:03
re: Isreal

Maybe if the Palistians denouced violence and their will to destroy Israel, then maybe the Israelis would be willing to invest in Palistine, but with the current status quo why would they give aid to an enemy.

International Socialism, the thought amoung many socialists/marxists is that socialism will only work if most the world embrace it and that one socialist country can not stand alone. Lenin set up the Comintern (Communist internatinal) which was concerned with sparking revolution in other countrys.

ospreyheights Posted on 21/7 18:26
re: Isreal

where do you stand in relation to the terrorist atrocities carried out by future israelis prior to the partition of palestine 999, there again you operate from the year zero when the state of israel came into being so i dont expect that this will register on your terrorismometer.

red_rebel2 Posted on 21/7 18:32
re: Isreal

Unless there were quantem leap advances in technolgy and seismic changes in world geo-politics real socialism could not hope to survive in one country.

Except maybe a single super-power with the military power to fight off the attempts of capital to strangle it at birth. Come on Comrade Uncle Sam, do it for me!

That said, there is no reason why hybrid forms of left reformism of one kind or another can't make significant popular social and political changes in a whole range of countries.

Any system that is based on participatory democracy, social and economic equality and a commitment to the peopel before profit has got to be worth a crack, eh?

TheBoy999 Posted on 21/7 18:40
re: Isreal

Osprey you really are talking out your backside and showing yourself up now. Your attempt to insult me by suggesting i'm a Jew is pathetic and racist.

If you want to have a discusion on the birth of Israel than we can do so, but don't bring your anti-semetic views anywere near me.

ospreyheights Posted on 21/7 18:50
re: Isreal

why should it be an insult to be called "jewish" you are a very touchy fella, but seems you raise the issue are you jewish?
if you are swell.

TheBoy999 Posted on 21/7 18:50
re: Isreal

Rebel i agree but i think socialism and democracy aren't particulary compatiable. The upheavles that a working socilaist model would need, would take years of reform and maybe hardship, people just wouldn't stand for it. The only other option is a one party state, which in theory should work but in reality doesn't take into account the human element, ie megalomania, greed and sheer evilness. As communist countrys demonstrated you usually end up with a dictatorship. I fear we're doomed to capitalism.

zaphod Posted on 21/7 18:54
re: Isreal

I've normally been quite critical of Israel, but the latest crisis is not largely Israel's fault (though they have reacted in their normal predictably brutal manner). I reckon that this current flare-up has been deliberately engineered by Hezbollah and Hamas, because they're afraid that Ehud Barak and his party are genuinely willing to negotiate a settlement and if they can't negotiate one, they'll impose a settlement on Israeli terms like they have done in Gaza. Peace or something close to it is the last thing Hezbollah and Hamas want.

moxzin Posted on 21/7 23:10
re: Isreal

"Sad to see Israel preparing for a ground invasion today."

Disagree entirely, for me this has been good news. The bombings were doing no-one any good and were killing innocents left right and centre. To defeat terrorism you need troops on the ground. IDF troops have shown themselves to be very brave and skilled at house-to-house, search and destroy missions in densely populated areas, and I back them to destroy any Hezbollah who dare to stay south of the river - and to keep the Lebanese public out of it. They will be inconvenienced, they will be scared - but they won't die. Bombs aren't very precise but highly trained and well equipped ground soldiers are. The conflict has progressed and has now entered its next, and final, stage - the destruction of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon.

--- Post edited by moxzin on 21/7 23:10 ---

jd1973 Posted on 21/7 23:24
re: Isreal

Israal seem to be using disproportionate force to rescue their 2 soldiers from the clutches of whoever has them.

They know that Lebanon is a relatively unprotected country and that none of the Arab states can yet stand up to them due to the Israeli nuclear capability, and they are using this fact to perpetrate atrocities on the people of Lebanon.

Israel has turned into a an aggressive ntaion state that bullies it's neighbours - if their enemies were on an equal footing in terms of the available deterrent (nuclear weapons) the I am sure we would see a meeker and more conciliatory nation.

Unfortunately the support of the US seems to be driving Israel and their opponents towards the day we hoped would never occur, with the use of nuclear strikes against one or other of the key protagonists.

I just hope and pray, forlornly, that all sides involved will pull back from the brink when this situation eventually unfolds, and that the ultimate nightmare does not becomne reality.

moxzin Posted on 21/7 23:45
re: Isreal

I think its past the issue of the 2 soldiers. Its about destroying an Islamic terrorist organisation that was operating a few miles from, and even in, Israel. So what if Israel had negotiated the two soldiers out of the clutches of the terrorists, what would have prevented it happening again in two weeks time? Or more rockets falling next month? This is all about solving the problem once and for all.

This is Operation Peace for Galilee Mark Two.

jd1973 Posted on 21/7 23:49
re: Isreal

Solving which problem - Hizbollah or the nation of Israel?

The way it is going Israel will win the battle, but mankind will lose the war.

crisboro Posted on 21/7 23:50
re: Isreal

moxin--'Disagree entirely, for me this has been good news'

Sorry we come from completely different angles with this and none of this is 'good news' to me. I respect your opinion but I feel differently.

Revol_Tees Posted on 22/7 0:05
re: Isreal

crisboro: "Sorry we come from completely different angles..."

Completely different planets more like, or at least that's how it sometimes feels when the boy mox comes out with things like this:

"IDF troops have shown themselves to be very brave and skilled at house-to-house, search and destroy missions in densely populated areas..."

In whose eyes have they showed themselves brave and skilled? Are these really the same brave IDF troops who are internationally famous for shooting civilians and using them as human shields? All I'll say in their defence is that it's not their fault - they're trained in the ways of state terrorism.

moxzin Posted on 22/7 0:10
re: Isreal

I would say why I think that, but it would mean mentioning the "J" word, which sends everyone massacre crazy. Not a place we should go.

br14 Posted on 22/7 0:14
re: Isreal

This was never about 2 Israeli soldiers. Whatever your perspective you surely dont believe in that particular myth.

You do not prepare the sort of offensive Israel has launched overnight. They have known about the rockets for a long time, and have been waiting for the opportunity to act. Any act of provocation would have done.

The dictionary defines anti-semitism as discrimination or hatred of Jews. But Semitic typically pertains to the language of both Jews and Arabs (i.e. descendants of Shem).

It is evidently a sin to discriminate against Jews but the term anti-semitism does not extend to Arabs - even though they are Semitic peoples. Just as well otherwise Israel would be the most anti-semitic nation on earth.

So Israel is massing ground forces, and the President of Lebanon threatens to go to war against Israel if they invade en masse.

Cant see that causing any problems then...

By the way people of Middlesbrough. We are invading tomorrow to remove Mackems - please leave your homes since our bulldozers will be sorting out the Mackem problem - once and for all.

Revol_Tees Posted on 22/7 0:25
Speaking of bravery

Five Israeli human rights organisations; five witnesses to human rights abuse and state terror. And the courage to speak up about it:

- B'Tselem

- Public Committee Against Tortue in Israel

- Hamoked

- The Association for Civil Rights in Israel

- Physicians for Human Rights

TheBoy999 Posted on 22/7 8:19
re: Speaking of bravery

"Israel has turned into a an aggressive ntaion state that bullies it's neighbours - if their enemies were on an equal footing in terms of the available deterrent (nuclear weapons) the I am sure we would see a meeker and more conciliatory nation."

You're very wrong. If an Arab nation had access to nuclear weapons we would see a flattened and destroyed nation(Israel).

"Unfortunately the support of the US seems to be driving Israel and their opponents towards the day we hoped would never occur, with the use of nuclear strikes against one or other of the key protagonists."

Be honset, this is the main issue here, US support. If it wasn't for the fact that US supported Israel all these liberals wouldn't bat an eyelid.

"You do not prepare the sort of offensive Israel has launched overnight. They have known about the rockets for a long time, and have been waiting for the opportunity to act. Any act of provocation would have done."

I would imagine, as Israel is a nation surrounded by hostile countrys, they will have a number of plans in place which concern differant senarios. I would imagine one will include fighting a defences war on several fronts like its done in the past when under threat of invasion. I would also imagine one will include the invasion of southern Lebanon, but as yet it hasn't been put into practise and only 'search and destroy' missions are being carried out.

Revol_Tees Posted on 22/7 10:54
re: Speaking of bravery

"Be honset, this is the main issue here, US support. If it wasn't for the fact that US supported Israel all these liberals wouldn't bat an eyelid."

Make your mind up. We were all "anti-Semitic" earlier on, now apparently we're just anti-American. Which one is it, and which one do those five Israeli human rights organisations fall into?

PumpingGnome Posted on 22/7 11:36
re: Speaking of bravery

"Peace for Galilee Mark Two". Just as well Peace for Galilee Mark One worked so well, themn, isn't it? Without Mark I there wouldn't be a Hizbollah. Hizbollah may well be destroyed, as was the Palestinian presence in PfG 1, and maybe with fewer massacres of the innocents as in Sabra and Chatila, but in a few years we'll be looking at Peace for Galilee Mark 3. PfG I was agaisnt guns, PfG 2 is being fought against rockets, does anybody think PfG 3 will be fought with sticks and stones?

Btw, moxy and friends, I was a big fan of Israel until 1982, I had (and still might have) friends in Haifa, then the war criminal Sharon opened my eyes.

TheBoy999 Posted on 22/7 13:02
re: Isreal

Where did i say you were all anti-semitic? i didn't.

br14 Posted on 22/7 19:26
re: Speaking of bravery

"If it wasn't for the fact that US supported Israel all these liberals wouldn't bat an eyelid."

I resent the fact you are grouping me with a bunch of lefty liberals.

I'm just an ordinary human being that thinks that everyone deserves a fair crack at a decent life, believes that strength should be excercised with responsibility, and that violence begets more violence. (Though dont insult me if I've had a few beers ) .

As a nation Israel couldnt give a damn about the Palestinians or any other of its neighbours and would happily kill them all if the US would let them. I wonder why Dubya is allowing the current action. Perhaps he's trying to woo over the Jewish Democratic vote in time for the next set of elections. I doubt it will help.

littlejimmy Posted on 22/7 19:42
re: Speaking of bravery

Did I miss much?
Did anyone move from their positions?
Has it all just gone round and round in circles.

Revol_Tees Posted on 22/7 19:53
re: Speaking of bravery

Hi there lj. Hope you've enjoyed reading the shenanigans on this thread! By Thursday TheBigot999 finally expressed some reservations, presumably after the brutality of what he was supporting began to hit home. And mox openly admitted he was losing faith that Israel was acting either morally or effectively. However, as far as I can see, both were momentary aberrations - although the bombing part was hard for them to stomach, the final stages of Israel's invasion of Southern Lebanon are eagerly awaited.

littlejimmy Posted on 22/7 19:59
re: Speaking of bravery

Now then, RT. I couldn't be arsed to read it all, TBH. I've just driven 9 hours from Pembrokeshire through flooding roads and electrical storms.
I reckon it'll all calm down in time, and things will go back to the way they were. Isreal are just flexing their muscles and the Islamic extremists are just poking the wasps' nest. All these extremists being funded by sinister foreign powers, eh? It's telling that the US and their lap-dog are the only countries not calling for a cease-fire.

moxzin Posted on 22/7 23:59
re: Speaking of bravery

"As a nation Israel couldnt give a damn about the Palestinians or any other of its neighbours and would happily kill them all if the US would let them"

Its simplicity like that, that drives me insane. Not all Israelis are rabid settlers, AK47 slung around their shoulders, Torahs in hand, likening the Palestinians to "lice".

In fact, the evidence points to the contrary. The vast majority of Israelis were in favour of the Gaza disengagement, marginalising the settler movement. Kadima won the latest election on a platform of a lasting peace and further disengagement, instead of ethnic cleansing. In Israel, there are large movements for peace, such as Peace Now and a newspaper very critical of the government and militarism, Ha'Aretz. And I've met lots of Israelis in holidays in Greece and latterly, Australia, and they just seem young, hip and cosmopolitan, secular and progressive, just like normal 20 somethings. They just happened to have a few years of military experience behind them too, didn't stop em drinking their Vodka red bulls.

And people slander the Palestinians too. Saying that if "they" had "their way" they would kill every Jew profaning Palestine.

All of it outrageous distortion. For every photograph Revol digs up of the most extreme right-wing Hebron settlers, I could dig out one of those famous pics of a Palestinian dressing his young toddler up in suicide bomber wear. Or the Palestinian street parties on September 11th.

I think a few years down the line we may look back upon this crisis as a turning point. When the provokers and the jihadists bit off a little too much and were destroyed, and the proper peace process will begin. If it takes a buffer zone in Lebanon for the Palestinians and the Israelis to talk terms, let's roll. This is history we're about to make. To use Galloways own turn of phrase, lets swat those flies that are trying to stop us draining the swamp.

By the next Israeli election, there will be a State of Palestine. And I just think that is wonderful.

Revol_Tees Posted on 23/7 12:25
re: Speaking of bravery

Anti-war rally in in Tel Aviv, attended by Israeli Jews and Arabs. As I mentioned earlier, not everyone in Israel supports the brutality of "Operation Peace for Galilee Mark Two" (c) moxzin.

'Alongside chants of "We will not kill, we will not die in the name of Zionism" there were chants of "We will not die and
will not kill in the service of the United States," and slogans condemning President George W. Bush.'

Link: Anti-war Tel Aviv rally

Revol_Tees Posted on 23/7 12:31
re: Speaking of bravery

Huge anti-war rally in your old stomping ground too, mox.

Link: Aussies say Free Palestine

crisboro Posted on 23/7 12:36
re: Speaking of bravery

I had previously supported America nad Britain but I feel I no longer can. The bigger agenda, hypocrasy and support of innocent civilians and children being injured and killed is too much to stomach (sp). I found it interesting to hear Bush implicting Syria and Iran in this, claiming they support hizzbolah (this is denied in syria by a silent government). It was as if he wanted to drum up hatred towards these two also.
I wonder where Israel get their arms from? and are Britain and America the only countries to be supporting Israel in these brutal and innefective attacks?

--- Post edited by crisboro on 23/7 12:46 ---

teesvillains Posted on 23/7 13:01
The eye of the hurricane

i'm in 2 minds on this one....

on one hand i think that Hizbollah, who say that they do not recognise Israel, are not satisfied with Israel being out of Lebanon, but will never rest until they have gone further and will in fact have destroyed Israel, and they believe they can do this within 12 years. And if you don't believe this, this was from a world respected correspondant who has met resitance group leaders from all over the world and unfortunately states that these are amongst the most racist that he has ever met. They actually took him to the Israeli border and showed him pockets of settlement where they would start first. They believe that teh Qu'ran states that Jews are the conspirators of the world and must be wiped out.....

.....On the other hand, I can't help but wonder how this has happened since the illness of Sharon who, although appearing to be an aggressor to all outside of Israel, was a strong man who lead his own country. I am wondering if more darker, influential hands are pulling the strings now, and if they are making the decisions under the pretence of a less than far right guise. My conspiracy theory is that it suits some to have Sharon in a coma.

These influential puppeteers wouldn't be too dissimiliar to those that make Bush agree with everything that the Israelis do

The ultimate question is that it a handful of people on both sides that are influencing the fate of a whole region, which equally is polarising the rest of the world between east (china, russia, korea, muslim and north africa) and the west (usa, europe, australia). The ast majority of these billions of people do not have anyting against the others, SO WHY DO OUR DESTINIES LIE IN THEIR HANDS?

TheBoy999 Posted on 23/7 13:50
re: Speaking of bravery

I find it a bit sick the way the picture of the girl writing on the bombs is being used for propaganda purpose's. Ok its not nice, but she's a young girl who knows little of the world and she's probably only doing what she's been told . The message 'Israeli kids send gifts of love to Lebanese kids' is pretty sick and misleading. I'm sure the girl thinks the bombs will land on Hizbollah and has little concept of their impact.

Many of the people on these anti-war rallys have a different agenga and some of the tactics are sick and underhand.

--- Post edited by TheBoy999 on 23/7 13:51 ---

Revol_Tees Posted on 23/7 15:17
re: Speaking of bravery

TheBigot999 - you obviously (and conveniently) missed the slogan along the bottom of the poster: "Who is teaching hate and racism?" Nobody is blaming the girls. We all know they're doing what they've been brought up to do. It's a comment on their parent culture, not the children themselves.

Excuse me while I laugh at the irony of objections to the use of these pictures, when for years apologists for Israel have been only too happy to evoke images (photographic or otherwise) of gun-toting, terror-loving Palestinians who dress their young as suicide bombers. That is acceptable but the other side of the story clearly isn't. It's the same double standard evident in much British media coverage, as well as on this thread: the Isreali state's grievances are accepted as fair and just, and we're encouraged to react with horror and outrage at the sight of terrorist carnage and triumphalism; meanwhile evidence of Palestinian/Arab grievances are taken as underhand, distorted or propagandistic.

I have no problem condemning terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians and calling for them to cease, as I have many times; it's just shameful that some people have such difficulty doing the same with regards to the well-documented state terrorism meted by Israel for decades.

Revol_Tees Posted on 23/7 15:21
re: Speaking of bravery

From the BBC: "The UN's Jan Egeland has condemned the devastation caused by Israeli air strikes in Beirut, saying it is a violation of humanitarian law. Mr Egeland, the UN's emergency relief chief, described the destruction as 'horrific' as he toured the city. He arrived hours after another Israeli strike on Beirut. Israel also hit Sidon, a port city in the south crammed with refugees, for the first time. In Haifa, two people were killed amid a volley of rockets on the Israeli city..."

From the Guardian: "Britain dramatically broke ranks with George Bush last night over the Lebanon crisis, publicly criticising Israel's military tactics and urging America to 'understand' the price being paid by ordinary Lebanese civilians... Speaking to a BBC reporter before travelling on for talks in Israel, where he will also visit the missile-hit areas of Haifa and meet his Israeli opposite number, Howells said: 'The destruction of the infrastructure, the death of so many children and so many people: these have not been surgical strikes. If they are chasing Hizbollah, then go for Hizbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation.' The minister added: 'I very much hope that the Americans understand what's happening to Lebanon.'"

Link: UN appalled by Beirut devastation

TheBoy999 Posted on 23/7 15:30
re: Speaking of bravery

The point about the girl is that its not her fault(as you agree) but its her face thats going all over the world, it'll be her who has to live with this. Do these 'peace protesters' consider that?

moxzin Posted on 23/7 17:38
re: Speaking of bravery

Its not indiscriminate bombing, its just that we here in Britain are not party to all the information in the mainstream media. All we hear is that Israel has bombed Lebanon and we see the craterous remains of a building. How barbaric. The BBC are no mouthpiece for Israel and aren't going to publish their justifications for the attacks, blow-by-blow. But those justifications do exist, which is encouraging.

Israel National News -

IDF Conquers Hizbullah Strongholds, Continues Onward
By Ezra HaLevi

IDF forces conquered Hizbullah strongholds, destroyed missiles batteries and located missile caches inside a mosque over the weekend and early Sunday.

IDF forces took a ridge overlooking the Hizbullah stronghold of Bint J’bail Sunday. The village is northwest of Maroun A-Ras, the site of heavy battles, which was conquered over the Sabbath.

Maroun A-Ras was taken by IDF ground troops Saturday after days of fierce battles in the area. The Hizbullah bunkers in, around and below the village have all been raided and the IDF has now stationed troops in the village. Security forces in the area report they found scores of Katyusha shells, missile storage rooms and missile-launchers concealed in the village's mosque.

In addition to all residents of Lebanon living south of the Litani Rover, members of ten additional villages from which rockets have been fired were warned to evacuate their homes by 7 PM Saturday, ahead of IAF air strikes.

The Sayed al-Zahra facility in Sidon, run by a Hizbullah associated Islamic leader, was directly hit. This was the first time a target was hit in Sidon. Beirut was also hit early Sunday morning, with Hizbullah’s strongholds south of the city bearing the brunt of IAF bombs. A Hizbullah compound in Baal Beck was also struck, and the nearby Nabi Sheet.

Over the weekend, air strikes in Lebanon destroyed a building described as “Hizbullah Headquarters,” a half-dozen missile launchers, communications lines and a cache of long-range missiles, anti-tank missiles and guns. Several television broadcast facilities were also hit, presumably due to their complicity in broadcasting Hizbullah's Al-Manar television channel.

More than 1,800 targets have been hit by Israel's Air Force since the beginning of the Reengagement War.

Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said the air strikes will continue as long as they have to. "It takes time to hit at terrorism," he told reporters Friday. "We will fight terror wherever it is, because if we do not fight it, it will fight us - if we don't reach it, it will reach us."

Halutz added that Hizbullah has made a practice of using mosques to hide their Katyusha missile launchers.

Just as an aside, note that last paragraph. How long before we hear "disgraceful Israelis attack Mosques" ?

Back in the English news, heard that Israel would accept a NATO force on the Lebanese border. So much for being uncompromising and unilateral. A NATO force would be a perfect solution, providing they can also go in hard on Hezbollah when they need to. This will allow Israel to have its northern frontier safe, and when that is safe, it wil press on with making its others safe too - and that means a Palestinian state.

br14 Posted on 23/7 17:42
re: Speaking of bravery

Moxzin - my comment was "As a nation". From what I read there are a number of groups in Israel that are disgusted at what is happening in their name.

However, as long as the Israeli election system allows extreme minorities to drive the agenda, Israel "as a nation" will place an extremely low value on the individual lives of it's neighbours. Proportional representation anyone? Imagine what the B-N-P could do with PR. (Still amazes me what is considered "bad language").

TheBoy999 - you have a pretty weird sense of what is sick. "Many of the people on these anti-war rallys have a different agenga and some of the tactics are sick and underhand."

I suppose dropping a bomb on a block of flats isn't so sick and underhand. Do you consider the disembodied entrails of women and children exploded over the walls as being normal?

br14 Posted on 23/7 17:51
re: Speaking of bravery

Well we can always rely on the "Israel National News" for unbiased reporting of middle eastern events.

Of course Israel is ready to accept a NATO (why NATO?) peace keeping force.

After all their friends in Washington are starting to get a bit worried about the lousy PR their foreign policy approach has produced and are now placing pressure on Israel to do something.

green_beret20 Posted on 23/7 17:53
re: Speaking of bravery

Perhaps if some of you stopped reverting to the moral high ground this conversation might end.

Person A was killed by Israeli bomb therefore Israel = bad.

I'm willing to bet that most people on 'these rallies' probably have an anti development, anti-capitalist axe to grind anyway and use this as another excuse to vent their carefully orchestrated anger at.

The RAF probably killed more innocents whom never voted for Hitler in the Bombing runs in the 1940's than the British army did full blooded Nazis. It still stands to reason it was nessecary evil that had to be done.

--- Post edited by green_beret20 on 23/7 17:57 ---

br14 Posted on 23/7 18:02
re: Speaking of bravery

You seem to be taking the moral high ground there Green Beret.

My guess is you'd feel differently if someone lobbed a few artillery shells at you for happening to live in the wrong place.

green_beret20 Posted on 23/7 18:09
re: Speaking of bravery

Yes I'd be damn pi**ed off but just because of that it doesn't mean I'm suddenly an expert on Israeli diplomacy, the middle east crisis or my that my points are suddenly bomb proof (no pun intended).

Most of what your doing to counter any point here is use emotional arguments rather than logical ones. The left rarely appear to have any qualms about exploiting war deaths involving western powers in order to strengthen their dubious message of anti capitalism or anti Americanism, such as comments similar to <<try telling that to the family of 'X' who was recently killed by 'Y'>>.

--- Post edited by green_beret20 on 23/7 18:13 ---

Revol_Tees Posted on 23/7 18:12
re: Speaking of bravery

green_beret20 Go and play with your toy soldiers will you? Or get back to your beloved WW2 history books.

crisboro Posted on 23/7 18:12
re: Speaking of bravery

excuse my ignorance but whats 'the left' got to do with anything?

green_beret20 Posted on 23/7 18:16
re: Speaking of bravery

Bloody hell, what an astute piece of reasoning that was.

Tune in next week folks.

Revol_Tees Posted on 23/7 18:17
re: Speaking of bravery

mox - that's an interesting article. I particularly like this line:

"Several television broadcast facilities were also hit, presumably due to their complicity in broadcasting Hizbullah's Al-Manar television channel."

"Presumably" Quality journalism. In the absence of an eye-witness or an official source to corroborate the story, just have a guess. No journalist can ever claim to be objective, but you'd think they'd at least be subtle. I suppose one consolation is that it proves they haven't *entirely* copied their report from the press releases on the IDF's official website (

--- Post edited by Revol_Tees on 23/7 18:36 ---

br14 Posted on 23/7 18:30
re: Speaking of bravery

Green Beret - I'm fed up of being called a lefty on here. On almost any other topic I'm right on side with you true blues.

My concern is that Israeli policy is driven by the Jewish equivalent of the B-N-P. (Perhaps Zionists are not quite that far right but they're almost there)

They believe passionaltely that they have a God given right to all the land in the area, including Gaza, parts of southern Lebanon and Jordan. Unfortunately they represent a significant part of the Isreali population and a government cannot get elected unless it's wins their support.

Ehud Olmer cannot rely on a previous record of military or terrorist activity like Sharon and so is taking a harder line that Sharon would have.

Pretty dumb really but there you are - what some people will do to get elected.

Revol_Tees Posted on 23/7 18:54
re: Speaking of bravery

The news about Israel's willingness to have a NATO/UN force in there is interesting.

"ISRAEL would support the deployment of a temporary international peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon to ensure Hezbollah is removed from its border, Defence Minister Amir Peretz said. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had initially brushed aside the proposed peacekeeping force as premature..." (

Does this mean the Israeli government wants an international "peacekeeping" force to go in there and defend its conquered territory, legitimising its occupation of southern Lebanon if it sets up a "buffer zone"? Clever move. World condemnation might finally be hitting home. Or, more likely, they've realised more agression means more counter-aggression/resistance, and they no longer want to take the rap alone.

Link: Israel backs temporary 'peace'

green_beret20 Posted on 23/7 18:57
re: Speaking of bravery

Maybe you could try dropping the term "Zionist” as a fill-in for them for a start? Are you going to term every aggressive action by someone whom just so happens to be jewish as aggressive Zionism?

Again, emotional blackmail.

--- Post edited by green_beret20 on 23/7 19:00 ---

br14 Posted on 23/7 19:14
re: Speaking of bravery

Green Beret. If you're responding to my post, please reply to what I actually said and not to what you want to think I said.

If you're not referring to my post - then apologies for my incorrect assumption.

--- Post edited by br14 on 23/7 19:19 ---

Revol_Tees Posted on 23/7 19:21
re: Speaking of bravery

I've just read this ominous prediction from Gilbert Achcar, the prominent Lebanese/French political scientist, in an interview on Znet:

"The double standard of Western media presentations of the situation and the hypocrisy of Israel's statements are so glaring that they constitute by themselves a moral aggression - for example, the capture of one soldier by the Palestinians becomes Israel's justification for a murderous and destructive assault on Gaza, while Israel holds close to 10,000 Palestinian prisoners in its jails, most of whom are civilians abducted by Israel in the territory that it occupies since 1967 in total violation of international law...

"And the fact is that if this hypocrisy can go unnoticed for an average audience in Western countries, you can be sure that in the overwhelming majority of Third World countries - and, of course, in Muslim countries, and even more so in Arab countries -the double standard is conspicuously and outrageously obvious...

"Instead, what we are seeing right now is that the hatred toward not only Israel but the United States, and all the other Western countries backing Israel and allying with the United States, is reaching heights which are far beyond what existed before September 11, 2001. In other words, the United States and the state of Israel are preparing for the rest of the world, including their own populations, nightmarish events, compared to which 9/11, I'm afraid, will be only a foretaste..."

Oh buggger.

Link: A population held hostage

br14 Posted on 23/7 19:34
re: Speaking of bravery

Revol Tees - that is exactly my concern.

Even though I'm pretty sure the attacks on Lebanon have very little to do with a couple of hostage soldiers and a lot more to do with 1000's of Iranian and Syrian rockets, the optics for Israel are very poor.

My impression is that public opinion (with some notable and respected exceptions on this board) is against Israel. I can only imagine the way this will play in Islamic countries.

When are politicians in the west going to understand that rightly or wrongly their attitudes toward Israel play right into the hands of the terrorist recruiters?

At least publicly they should be coming out against these attacks even if privately they think they are justified. The problem is that a number of western leaders have significant Jewish interests at home.

Revol_Tees Posted on 23/7 19:49
re: Speaking of bravery

Spot on again br14, except IMO the part about Western leaders having Jewish interests at home. I think it's more to do with their continued desire to have (in the shape of Israel) a "cop on the beat" in the Middle East, a strategically important area rich with natural resources which they need to influence/control, although I'm sure pro-Israeli lobbyists play a role too. But that's another argument...

green_beret20 Posted on 23/7 19:49
re: Isreal

"My concern is that Israeli policy is driven by the Jewish equivalent of the B-N-P. (Perhaps Zionists are not quite that far right but they're almost there)"

I'll check again, yep it seems pretty clear. Anybody supporting the current policy must be a zionist or staggeringly far right.

--- Post edited by green_beret20 on 23/7 19:50 ---

TheBoy999 Posted on 23/7 20:36
re: Isreal

That 'prediction' from Gilbert Achcar sounds more like a threat to me.

jd1973 Posted on 23/7 20:49
re: Speaking of bravery

"Israel has turned into a an aggressive ntaion state that bullies it's neighbours - if their enemies were on an equal footing in terms of the available deterrent (nuclear weapons) the I am sure we would see a meeker and more conciliatory nation."

You're very wrong. If an Arab nation had access to nuclear weapons we would see a flattened and destroyed nation(Israel).

Maybe you are right - the point I was trying to make is that Israel has turned into the agressor because it has the upper hand due to it's nuclear capability. If conventional weapons were available to both parties then I'm 100% positive this situation would not have developed.

"Unfortunately the support of the US seems to be driving Israel and their opponents towards the day we hoped would never occur, with the use of nuclear strikes against one or other of the key protagonists."

Be honset, this is the main issue here, US support. If it wasn't for the fact that US supported Israel all these liberals wouldn't bat an eyelid.

No it's not the main issue. The States have the opportunity to come out and categorically denounce the attack on the Lebanon, yet they have chosen not to so. Don't you remember Iraq launching an attack on Kuwait that led to the first Gulf War.

Apart from the taking of 2 Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah, what is the difference between the 2 offensives? Don't forget in that particular conflict the US backed and ultimately liberated the attacked nation......why should it be any different in this situation?

littlejimmy Posted on 23/7 21:01
re: Speaking of bravery

"Anybody supporting the current policy must be a zionist or staggeringly far right."

And anyone criticising it is an anti-American, anti-capitalist lefty. Am I right?

TheBoy999 Posted on 23/7 21:21
re: Speaking of bravery

"Apart from the taking of 2 Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah, what is the difference between the 2 offensives? Don't forget in that particular conflict the US backed and ultimately liberated the attacked nation......why should it be any different in this situation?"

You have this all mixed up. Israel was attacked first(don't forget that even before this Hizbollah regulary lauched rockets into Northern Israel). Just because it can defend itself doesn't make it the aggressor. If Kuwait was powerful enough and able to defend itself i'm sure America would have still backed it.

jd1973 Posted on 23/7 21:31
re: Speaking of bravery

You have it mixed up. Hezbollah is not a nation. Lebanon has been attacked on the pretext of Israel rooting out Hezbollah.

If the Lebanonese government had ordered the capture of the Israeli soldiers then they would be the aggressor.

They haven't, and yet Israel have still chosen to attack, kill and damage the infrastructure of a neighbouring nation.

Let's get one thing absolutely straight - Lebanon is absolutely NOT the aggressor in this one-sided conflict, yet their innocent men, women and children are apparently the collateral damage that the Israeli, US, British and other states are effectively willing to condone.

crisboro Posted on 23/7 21:43
re: Speaking of bravery

Thanks for your 19.21 post revol, it makes alot of sense to me.

TheBoy999 Posted on 23/7 22:08
re: Speaking of bravery

Maybe the Lebanese Army should have done something about Hizbollah then Israel wouldn't have to. If the Lebanese goverment can't or more likely won't do anything about Hizbollah then someone has to, because you can't just let terrorists hide behind the border of another country breeching the border, taking hostage's and lobbing rockets over whenever they feel like it.

jd1973 Posted on 23/7 22:12
re: Speaking of bravery

Isn't that what Israel have been doing for years?

By the same token we should have started firing rockets at Dublin, and then invading whilst killing thousands of innocent civilians in the late 60's and early 70's.

--- Post edited by jd1973 on 23/7 22:13 ---

Revol_Tees Posted on 23/7 22:25
re: Speaking of bravery

"you can't just let terrorists hide behind the border of another country breeching the border, taking hostage's and lobbing rockets over whenever they feel like it."

Yep, that accurately describes what Israel has been doing to its neighbours for decades, most recently in Gaza.

In other news, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, does not belong to "the left" by any stretch of the imagination, but has revealed today:

"British diplomats at the UK Mission to the United Nations in New York - people I know personally - are putting massive effort into working against a ceasefire. They have the ultimate weapon that they and the US can veto any resolution at the Security Council, but are bending their backs into heading the sybject off the agenda..."

"We now remember the Security Council Resolution which calls for Hizbollah to disarm, but have forgotten all the other SCRs on the Middle East, most notably the Security Council's demand that Israel returns to its 1967 borders. Our policy now is to slavishly follow the Bush line that Israel may unilaterally define its own borders."

Link: Craig Murray on Lebanon

ospreyheights Posted on 23/7 22:26
re: Isreal

i am pleased that some good people in israel are standing up and saying that they are against the obliteration of lebanon.
also read an article today by gerald kauffman exlabour mp and prominent israel supporter (and jewish by birth, no anti semetism here i hope) stating that the war against lebanon is not in israels interests. thats good enough for me

TheBoy999 Posted on 23/7 22:28
re: Speaking of bravery

We've been through all this JD, there is no comparison between Ireland and this. Starting with the IRA weren't intent on the entire destruction of Britain.

jd1973 Posted on 23/7 22:35
re: Speaking of bravery

I'm sure they weren't.

Just as I'm sure that the Lebanon isn't intent on the destruction of Israel.

Just as in Ireland there are certain elements currently residing within the political borders of the Lebanon that wish to unleash terror on innocent civilians in the name of religious injustice, oppression or any other excuse they can come up with.

Let's get one thing absolutely crystal clear - Israel have reacted disproportionally and acting in a cowardly, bullying, aggressive manner.

I'm ashamed as a Briton that our government has not condemned this attack.

crisboro Posted on 23/7 22:37
re: Speaking of bravery

me too jd.

moxzin Posted on 24/7 0:32
re: Speaking of bravery

"Even though I'm pretty sure the attacks on Lebanon have very little to do with a couple of hostage soldiers and a lot more to do with 1000's of Iranian and Syrian rockets, the optics for Israel are very poor.

My impression is that public opinion (with some notable and respected exceptions on this board) is against Israel. I can only imagine the way this will play in Islamic countries."

I'm intrigued by this notion that we should be concerned about how things "play" in the Islamic world. As if nations such as Israel, America and ourselves should seemingly change our defence policies and jeapardise our security, or turn our back on our allies, in order for good PR in the Arab world. I think its incredibly naive to think that Islamic fundamentalist terrorism derives from political aims. The reasons behind such terror groups have been done to death, lets not go there again, but lets use a micro example - Gaza. Gazan terrorists were allegedly, according to some, fighting their brutal terror campaigns legitimately in order to free themselves from the occupation. Now then, Israel has left Gaza, surely, you would assume, some sort of disbandenment of the extremists groups in that region, if the terror groups were purely political? The Islamic extremists burned the synagogues on Disengagement +1 and haven't looked back since. Now Gaza is used as a launch pad for rocket attacks, weapons smuggling and now, of course, military operations into pre-1967 Israel proper. So now what are we to think? That this brutal terror campaign is legitimate resistance to what? Israel just being there? How exactly do we acede to that demand?

I'm personally of the opinion that if we are making Islamic extremists angry, its generally a good sign that we are doing the right thing, because it means, fortunately, that we seem to be the Islamofascist's anathema, which is a preferable position to being their ally.

This thread is long and as a discussion it has been lively. But it seems there are really 4 different groups at the table here. Some are deeply against Israel as a US proxy in their wider war against the capitalist system as part of their economic and historical philosophic beliefs. Some are notionally against Israeli retaliation. Some are notionally for a response. A singular position it seems, is the one where someone is desperate for a Palestinian state and has really got to the stage where they are prepared to have no mercy on all those who now oppose it - the Shia agent provocateurs who want to live in constant conflict and keep the Palestinians in their misery, and hell, why not bring the Lebanese too, anything to keep the Jihad alive.

The forces we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, and who Israel are now fighting in Lebanon and Gaza, are the natural enemies of liberal democracy, and in any other forum would have the utter disdain and revulsion of the left and the far left. Sadly the only ones who are prosecuting this war against them are America, Britain, Israel instead of the world community (though not for the want of trying) so its all become a Capitalist-Imperialist thang. Instead of socialists uniting together from all corners of the world to go and fight Fascism and free a country far away, its the British Army, which, of course, is a totally different matter, and makes the whole thing neo-colonialist and er, sorry, I've ran out of buzzwords, I'll get back to you on that.

All I would ask is, say Israel lost this war. Say Hezbollah and Hamas, with armies from Syria and Iran defeated Israel, America shrugged its shoulders and Israel was wiped out. The US and the UK get defeated by the Jihadists in Iraq and the country is taken over by radical Islamic clerics who impose Sharia. And then, the Taliban score a victory in Afghanistan and sweep back to power.

Do we have a better world? Then say, if Israel was able to secure its borders and then push through a Palestinian state? Then say, if the Coalition eradicated the terrorists and was able to build a free democracy in Iraq? Then if the Taliban is crushed and becomes just another ecclesiastical fascist regime of history replaced by a free system?

Yes or no, I'm intrigued. Because most of the left seeming to be gunning for the Coalition and its allies to lose, or withdraw, and that can only mean, in my eyes, the other side winning. How does that, in any way, advance the left-wing cause?

--- Post edited by moxzin on 24/7 0:34 ---

Stepper_T Posted on 24/7 0:55
re: Speaking of bravery

Israel have reacted to a group of terrorists acting in a coeardly manner with no thought for human life. I think they are within their rights to react the way they have. The EU may continue to pander to Hezbollah woried about upsetting the situation in the middle east, but they are terrorists, nothing more. They should be destroyed first, then maybe the peace process can be achieved.

br14 Posted on 24/7 1:38
re: Speaking of bravery

Moxzin I dont necessarily disagree with you on the subject of Islamic extremism.

My issue is that Jewish extremism is also part of the problem yet gets remarkably little airtime.

There can be no peace in the middle east until Israel sorts out it's religious right.

When that happens, sensible moderate Israeli politicians will be able to negotiate with Palestinians without worrying about whether they will be reelected.

How for example would you resolve the vexed question of the governance of Jerusalem, for example?

br14 Posted on 24/7 1:42
re: Speaking of bravery

Stepper_T - Israel consistently responds to so called terrorist action by using disproportionate force. They are just as bad as any terrorist group.

Why for example did the bomb Beirut airport? Did they think Hizbollah had rockets hidden under the runway?

Revol_Tees Posted on 24/7 2:32
re: Speaking of bravery

mox - I don't even know where to begin with that. I know we've had this argument before, but it boils down to the same issues essentially...

At the end of the day, I think it does come down to what you think are the causes of terrorism and fundamentalism. It's not about wanting the Israeli army to lose. It's about believing that their ongoing offensive is making things worse. You've got to ask yourself what it is that creates the bitterness, resentment and desperation on which religious fundamentalism and terrorism feed. If Palestine was allowed to thrive, its own people would see to it that the terrorists were marginalised and hounded out. But I've littered this thread with the examples you asked for earlier, of how Israel uses its immense state apparatuses to starve, terrorise, shoot, bomb, kidnap, torture, steal, discriminate etc. If that's the behaviour of a "liberal democracy" then it's no wonder Islamic fundamentalism appeals to so many of those who are on the receiving end of it. And so the vicious cycle continues.

All the way through this thread certain people have resorted to petty insults about "the left" and their "agenda" but it really dosen't cut much ice anymore, because I think there is a growing consensus on all sides of the spectrum that Western foreign policy is the real driving force behind the growth in terrorism and fundamentalism. Western policy makers have known this for a long time, but there's been a spate of recent reports and high profile cases that confirm this view.

Chatham House (formerly the "Royal Institute of International Affairs") last year suggested that Blair's support for the invasion of Iraq had boosted al-Qaeda and consequently put the UK more at risk from terrorist attack; Sir Christopher Meyer, a former British ambassador to the US, echoed the same view; and the Foreign Office's top civil servant warned back in 2004 that British foreign policy was a "key driver" behind recruitment by extreme Muslim groups at home. More recently, Parliament's own Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that the threat to the UK from al-Qaeda was likely to have increased since the Iraq war, a conflict which had almost certainly provided a boost to extremist groups; and even a police report leaked a few weeks ago cited foreign policy as a key motivation.

But my all-time favourite is from a US Pentagon advisory panel report which came out with the revelation that "in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering." And it then came out with following classic quote:

"Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [...] The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy [...] US actions appear... to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination."

Now that's what I call From The Horse's Mouth.

--- Post edited by Revol_Tees on 24/7 2:42 ---

TheBoy999 Posted on 24/7 8:46
re: Speaking of bravery

So on the one hand you're saying we shouldn't be in Iraq/Afghanistan and should just leave tham to it, but on the other hand we should interfere with Israel and stop them?

"If Palestine was allowed to thrive, its own people would see to it that the terrorists were marginalised and hounded out"

I don't believe that. In my opinion there will always be people in the middle east who will fight for the destruction of Israel. As one group recognise's Israel, another will form that doesn't. Also they will always be a minority of Muslims who to take the meaning of Jihad literally, as there will always be Christians who take the words of the Bible literally.

One thing Israel knows is that for nearly 60 years it has survived through armed struggle. Without that armed struggle it would not have survived.

Revol_Tees Posted on 24/7 10:06
re: Isreal

If you don't believe that - and neither do the Israelis - it's tantamount to admitting that peace is impossible and the illegal occupation and terror over Palestine must always continue.

Meanwhile, I see brave Israel has now fired on/bombed the Red Cross and the United Nations.

"UN troops in Lebanon have come under heavy fire in the past 24 hours, while plans are afoot for their families to be evacuated. In another incident Israeli aircraft attacked a convoy of 26 Red Cross ambulances which the UAE was sending by road into Lebanon.

"Israeli warplanes fired close to UNIFIL, or the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, positions on at least fifteen occasions, scoring a direct hit on one position near the village of Marwahin. UN officials said there was material damage, but no casualties. French army Maj. Eric Minoli, who is commanding a UNIFIL contingent, said he is sickened by what he has seen..."

Link: Israeli warplanes hit UN troop positions

glippy Posted on 24/7 10:21
re: Isreal

I blame Lawrence of Arabia for all this.

Revol_Tees Posted on 24/7 10:28
re: Isreal

Max Hastings, conservative military historian (hope you're reading green_beret20), writes in The Guardian today:

"It is hard to overstate the practical consequences of the west's moral erosion ... Hizbullah is a profoundly unpleasant and violent movement, which has inflicted as much grief upon the people of Lebanon as the Israelis. But as long as Israel continues to deny justice to the Palestinians, Hizbullah's actions will be deemed by many to possess more legitimacy than its own. Higher standards are expected from a sovereign state than a terrorist organisation..."

"The defeat of terrorism is best achieved through an unglamorous cocktail of politics, diplomacy, intelligence, bribery, police work and special forces operations. Above all, a successful campaign offers the society from which the terrorists are drawn a just political dispensation ... Northern Ireland today may not be a satisfactory place, but it owes its relative tranquillity to politics and economics rather than to 30 years of counter-terrorist campaigning..."

"Israel's attempts to quell opponents by the use of superior force may briefly appease its own public opinion, but contribute nothing to the nation's lasting security - indeed the reverse."

Link: Moral erosion and the war on terror

Lefty3668 Posted on 24/7 11:05
re: Isreal

'kinell. Was it too hot to go out over the weekend?

green_beret20 Posted on 24/7 11:06
re: Isreal

Yep, just a mere shame that these same digital cameras used to photograph the emotional arguments of war (what else do you expect to find in a war zones?) weren't around back when every other sovereign in the world were securing their borders, carrying out the same evils that allow you sit to on your arse googling all day.
I doubt you’ll be rejecting those comforts any time soon will you?

--- Post edited by green_beret20 on 24/7 11:09 ---

ospreyheights Posted on 24/7 13:56
re: Isreal

these days it is difficult to hold a traditional left wing position in relation to "the west the middle east and islam". this tension is found in the writings of Nick cohen (the observer) and David Aaronovich (once of the guardian now with some rightwing paper).
Cohen remains based on the critical left but stands firmly as a supporter of the war in iraq. While i disagree with him on this one issue it hard to refute his sincerity the man is a giant like a latter day george orwell.
Aaronovich once a passionate advocate for the removal of saddam (and all that went with it) now has recanted somewhat in the face of the horrors of what has happened in iraq.
The broad left in britain has dignity because it thinks and debates often with little perceptible influence on those in power, and this may be why there is revulsion of this latest one sided war, where i stand and i hope others stand is with those people who are victims of state abuse. today this is made real by the stupidity of israels blitz on lebanon, in the past this support was rightly used to support persecuted jewish people and one day these people may need support again. i would then feel it it necessary to spend my time defending the right of the people of israel to exist, but not before they stop their brutal ongoing repression in gaza the west bank and now lebanon. , i refuse to be boxed into an anti israeli/jewish box by those who give support for this war. ,