Many--including myself--have used the phrase "hostage" to describe the Lebanese people in the current crisis. And no doubt many of the citizens of that country are in just that position.
But not all. Although it's difficult to know the true percentages, one cannot deny that Hezbollah has a great deal of support in Lebanon.
Hezbollah, the organization that is driving the present action in Lebanon, was originally a foreign graft from Iran. But over the years it has insinuated itself so deeply and profoundly into Lebanese life that one can say that, if the Lebanese people are being held hostage, it is by an organization that many of them have supported and/or tolerated, and have been the social beneficiaries of, for decades. Lebanon has not only failed to eradicate Hezbollah, the group has grown in power in recent years and is now closely intertwined in Lebanese life and politics.
Take a look at the history of Hezbollah in Lebanon (and yes, it's from Wikipedia, but it seems to be a fairly straightforward and undisputed article). Originally arriving in Lebanon 1982 as an arm of the mullahs of Iran, devoted to the ideology of Ayatollah Khomeni and aimed at engaging the Shiite majority of Moslems in Lebanon, Hezbollah positioned itself from the start as the potential liberator of Lebanon from the Israeli occupation that began in 1982 and lasted until Israel's withdrawal in 2000. All the while, Hezbollah has been openly and unabashedly dedicated to the destruction of Israel, rather than any sort of coexistence or negotiation with it.
There is no question that the events of 2000 allowed Hezbollah to claim victory over Israel, and earned it regard throughout Lebanon for this. In 2003, for example, the Maronite Christian President of Lebanon at the time, Emile Lahoud, is quoted as saying [emphasis mine]:
For us Lebanese, and I can tell you the majority of Lebanese, Hezbollah is a national resistance movement. If it wasn't for them, we couldn't have liberated our land. And because of that, we have big esteem for the Hezbollah movement.
Like many terrorist organizations, and in the time-honored fashion of other political groups with power agendas, Hezbollah has also won over the people by establishing organizations such as schools and hospitals, filling gaps in the system of social services (much as the decidedly non-terrorist but extremely corrupt Tammany Hall did in New York City of the 1850s through 1930s).
After 2000, Hezbollah made it clear that not only did it take responsibility for the Israeli withdrawal, but that it considered said withdrawal a reflection of Israeli weakness. Ever since, Hezbollah has been consolidating its power in Lebanon and burrowing its way ever deeper into Lebanese political and military life.
The relative calm in Lebanon has enabled Hezbollah, in its role as liberator, to become the de facto army of southern Lebanon, and to seed throughout that area the Syrian- and Iranian-supplied rockets used in the present attacks, storing them in strategic locations--"strategic," in this case, being (of course!) embedded in the midst of civilians, the better to maximize Lebanese civilian casualties when Israel retaliates.
In the Lebanese election of 2005, Hezbollah increased its representation in Parliament by a multiple of three, going from a previous high of eight representatives to its present twenty- three, as well as gaining, for the first time, ministers in the executive branch of the government.
It's interesting to speculate whether those Lebanese who supported Hezbollah as liberators and social workers ever thought about the hidden Hezbollah agenda, which was to use the Lebanese people as the aforementioned hostages to score propaganda points with the press and the West when those hostages inevitably become victims. Were they aware of this plan, as well as the very clear statements by Hezbollah that their goal was not peace, but the eradication of the state of Israel? If so, did the supporters of Hezbollah care? Did they see the possible consequences for themselves?
Going back to the bank robber/hostage analogy, one might say that many of the Lebanese people are in the position of having been minor accessories to the crime--roughly analogous to those who might gain prior knowledge of a crime about to be committed but who fail to act or to alert authorities so that it might be prevented--who then find the main actor in the crime (the bank robber), a former trusted friend and accomplice, suddenly grabbing them and placing them between the police and himself. It may be a surprise to the hostage--but should it be?
It's clear that Hezbollah needs to be rooted out of Lebanon. But it's very difficult to see how this could happen if the Lebanese people themselves don't wish it to happen--and even then, it would be far from easy to accomplish at this point. Syria, as Hezbollah's main supplier, could theoretically be involved, but that has the danger of "inviting" the Syrians back into greater power in a country that's only recently begun to detangle itself from its nefarious influence.
That word "detangle" is a good one, because excising Hezbollah from Lebanon is not going to be a simple act of surgery. Many metaphors come to mind: Hezbollah in Lebanon is like a tumor without sharp borders or boundaries; a neuroma that's burrowed itself into the tissue in a deep and complex manner, a family that's too deeply enmeshed for members to individuate and separate.
This is one of the reasons that Condoleezza Rice's words at Friday's news conference were so interesting. If you read the transcript, you'll find that, over and over, she emphasizes the issue of Lebanese sovereignty, an appeal to Lebanese pride in its own autonomy. Knowing how instrumental Hezbollah was in Lebanese perception of that autonomy from Israel back in 2000, and how pleased the country is to have recently expelled the Syrians, she carefully phrases the eradication of Hezbollah from Lebanon as an issue of Lebanese sovereignty as well.
Whether this will be at all effective is unclear. But it's the right sort of rhetoric for the occasion, to be followed by tough negotiations that--as Rice herself says--don't just put into place a meaningless cease-fire that perpetuates business as usual, but some sort of lasting change for the better that damps down Hezbollah's power in the region.
Metaphors are always fun, and useful when they stimulate thinking, but almost never do they hold up in detail. In this case, there aren't any "authorities": Lebanon is a failed state that has been masquerading as a member of the Functioning Core. It could keep up the pretense for exactly as long as Hezbollah wanted the situation to continue--and that ended two weeks ago, with the kidnapping (or with the refusal to hand the IDF soldiers back, if you prefer). An Act of War on a sovereign state, by an NGO... based in Lebanon and participating in the Lebanese Government.
I have a great deal of compassion for the Lebanese, who didn't ask for this. Heck, if I were one I would've kept trying the Cedar Revolution path, rather than pushing Hezbollah directly at the risk of dire consequences. Nobody wants to provoke bombs landing on their home or their home town.
Notice also Oliver Guitta's translation of the Arabic edition of Asharq Al-Awsat:
Unverified,to my knowledge, but exactly the sort of entwining and enmeshing move that one would expect from clever and ruthless organizations like Hezbollah and the IGRC.
Detangling surgery may be what the Israelis want and what we think is best for Lebanon--but few Lebanese are going to be willing to pay the price of having their country in the targeting crosshairs for one more hour, let alone another week or month. Israel might win a staggering victory, maybe even one that sets a precondition for Lebanon to become an actual country. But there will be no thanks, only curses and deeper hatred. That's part of the genius of Nasrallah's plan.
it would be interesting if the non-hezbollah part of the lebanose government invited the u.s. in to help solve the hezbollah problem.
Lebanon's problems will end when ALL of Iran's Mullahs are DEAD. That will take some years yet, in spite of any temporary cease-fire.
It won't be the Christians who want to solve the Hezb'Allah problem. I wonder how many Lebanese see it as a problem. One reason I suspect it's not many is that those who would have already left.
I reread some of Michael Totten’s reporting and didn’t gain much hope.
Pictorial HA
Guess whos coming to Iftar
Its weapons are an affront to Lebanon’s sovereignty. Its territory looks and feels like a police state, more so than even some police states I’ve visited.
Has Hezbollah had long enough (since 1982) to do the kind of damage Saddam did in Iraq. Such that the people are unable to form a civil society, but degenerate into gangs and civil war – assuming Israel can reduce HA enough to eject the remainder to Syria and Iran.
My more hopeful scenario was:
a. Hezbollah get reduced by 2K in the field, another 2K remove to Syria or Iran, and the remainder decide to blend into the Lebanese society.
b. Once the Assorted Drama Queens get done screaming, we have 300 to 500 dead Lebanese of whom 50% were probably HA supporters or auxiliaries.
c. The rest of the tribes decide they hate being screwed worse than they hate Israel and decide to pick up the pieces.
d. Syria is no longer a strong enough presence to reestablish Hezbollah (and is cowed by IAF to east and USAF to west)
The previous main worry and objection to this was the ill feeling generated by the ‘surgery’. But now I am more worried about post operative complications.
In one of his posts that's not over the top (well, mostly not), Greg Djerejian quotes his reader James Weinstein:
Weinstein is asking the right questions, and in the right way. Disease and bank-robbery analogies won't help Israel reason her way out--and there's no punting on this one.
Weinstein is asking the right questions, and in the right way. Disease and bank-robbery analogies won't help Israel reason her way out--and there's no punting on this one.
Since we're in an analogy sort of mood ...
This is akin to the North-South situation at the cusp of the Civil War (though one hopes it will not have quite such a bloody result). Southern Lebanon is a part of the sovereign nation of Lebanon. Hezballah/Amal is a minority in the government. They are answerable to the will of the majority. They have ignored/defied that. In effect, they have seceded, though they haven't come out and said it in so many words. The question for the Lebanese now is, do they do a Lincoln holding the country together and forcing the wayward south back into line? We know from our own history that such things can be done -- despite the support the Confederacy enjoyed, they were defeated and stayed defeated. Much of it was brutal and it took generations, but the South has never risen again.
Now, I know I've oversimplified the Civil War, and this analogy is, like all analogies, imperfect. American and Arab cultures are very different animals. The South was not being influenced by outside agitators, nor did it draw the wrath of a significantly more powerful nation down upon the country as a whole. On the other hand, we had to bootstrap it all ourselves -- there wasn't a hyperpower around to do some heavy leaning on key people.
But it's much more than that....
There is an awful lot of twisted logic in there. Not to mention factual innaccuracy and hyperbolic irrelevance. Hizbollah is there and entrenched because of Israeli actions and they are clearly not proxies of either Syria or Iran.
Apart from that, the notion that Hizbollah can be excised from Lebanon is fanciful. No popular guerilla force/political movement has ever been defeated militarily. The ONLY way to deal with them is to bring them into the mainstream and moderate them, which is exactly what was happening with Hizbollah in Lebanon.
Israel's outrageously disproportionate "response" will only strengthen their popularity just as shelling Gaza provoked negative reaction to Israel and boosting Hamas' appeal has done.
Washington's not so tacit approval of Israeli violence will prove yet another wellspring to arab/muslim hatred of the US and a spur to more muslim extremism.
Isolating and marginalizing the moderates (eg the Lebanese government) is intellectually bankrupt. Just where is the point in all this posturing and violence?
At nearly any level of military operation the approach (simplified) should be: a) secure your base of operation, b) secure your flank(s), © move against the objective.
With the withdrawals and settlement removal from Gaza and most of the West Bank Israel removed its soft targets from vulnerable areas and created a free field of fire (secure your base of operation).
Current action in Hezzieland is clearly intended to secure Israel's only seriously threatened flank. If the Syrians get too uppity they, too, will be considered a flank threat and dealt with accordingly.
Is the real objective perhaps a move against Iran? If so, neutralising the Hez as a flank threat is certainly a nececcary (but not sufficient) precondition for any serious raid against Iran.
Utter horse-hockey. The Shawnee/Creek in the US (early 19th C). The Metis in Canada (late 19th C). The Moros in the Philippines (early 20th C). The Malays (mid 20th C). The Sendero Luminoso in Peru (late 20th C). To name a few scattered across about two centuries. There were plenty of others.
Metis commander Gabriel Dumont essentially wrote the book on guerrilla tactics, but in the end they were out-manoeuvred and rolled up by superior conventional forces.
Pure pig piffle. Israeli actions are not the cause of conflict between islamism and western civilisation -- they are the leading edge of that conflict.
200 dead in Bali, 200 dead in Mumbai, 200 dead in Beslan, 2 million dead in southern Sudan ... and much more. NONE of it has a single thing to do with Israel.
Every single place islam touches civilisation there is vicious conflict, all of it instigated by the islamists. That has been the case for hundreds of years except when hegemonic powers have imposed their will on islamic regions.
"justaguy" 's understanding of history is so bizarrely distorted that he'd probably even blame Mohacs (1526, Hungary) on the Hungarian Joooos of the time.
Bart Hall wrote.........all of it instigated by the islamists
I would submit that it is your history that needs brushing up on. Islam isn't the problem, the problem is that islamic extremism has seized the mantle of resistance to US/Israeli aggression.
The fact is that Israel was established on arab lands, so that created a problem for the arabs. It would you too. Subsequent aggression and expansionism has compounded the hatred, and refusal by Israel to negotiate a just solution for the displaced Palestinians is the biggest problem yet.
The atrocity in Lebanon is but the latest chapter. Each of these will attract more resentment and more opposition. US acquiescence to Israeli ambitions and tactics is the number 1 cause celebre of islamic extremism and the neocons are the best recruiters that the OBLs of this world could dream of.
Israel has no moral high ground nor will it until they return to their pre 1967 borders and negotiates in good faith. GWB has lost the US any chance of being an honest broker ever again.
This is the beginning of the end for the neocons and possibly the moment when Israel lost any credibility in the world outside the US.
You can't possibly win your way to tehran via Damascus, so you need to be realistic in seeking a solution. Nothing that this administration has ever done makes me confident that that will happen. Maybe the fundies are right to be tooling up for their rapture? Maybe Bush really is a fundie too.
justaguy:
The religious zealots are the only ones with the sand to fight both their own and foreign governments. Islamic extremists are a post Israel phenomenon. A place must be found for the displaced Arabs before there can be peace. I wonder why that important fact is ignored? 58 years of military success has failed to provide security for the Israeli people. Might be time for a bottom up review.
"After 2000, Hezbollah made it clear that not only did it take responsibility for the Israeli withdrawal, but that it considered said withdrawal a reflection of Israeli weakness."
One of the advantages that the forces of good have over the forces of evil is that evil is a consequence of ignorance and therefore the forces of evil are less capable and less competent than the forces of good. This ignorance commonly manifests itself when savages mistake tolerance and forbearance for weakness. Tolerance and forbearance are signs of strength. If you are much stronger than an adversary you can afford to forgive their misdeeds and give them a few chances to correct their behavior. Savages that know nothing of forgiveness and tolerance do not understand this. Therefore they are taken by surprise and are at a disadvantage when the tolerance runs out and the strength is unleashed.
I really don't know why people don't see this within the US. People outside the US are much better informed about the issues (and they travel far more) and are both far more cognizant of the Palestinian tragedy and far less tolerant and believing of Israeli propaganda.
The mainstream US view makes little sense when you are aware of the facts. There are very few angels in the ME on any side.
The issue though, is the shining light for the extremists to exploit. A just Palestinian solution would do more to change the dynamics for the better.
aerjahatuuyfyu6d, is the deliberate irony, paradox and hyperbole mixed with racist, supremecist hyperbole a deliberate joke? Either way I'll permit myself a snigger or two.
justaguy (#15) "People outside the US are much better informed about the issues "
Really? So far you haven't been doing a good job of proving it. I'm not trying to troll or be trite, but Bart back in (#11) took you to the cleaners. The stereotypes you use with people from the U.S. are not encouraging, and you seem very limited in your grasp of history. You also seem to be predjudiced against the Israelis. Coming from a European, perhaps that is normal?
"the problem is that islamic extremism has seized the mantle of resistance to US/Israeli aggression."
Okey Dokey. So how many other "mantles" do you need to see to understand that people looking for a jihad are going to find one? There are refugees, border skirmishes, and tribal conflict all over the world. Where primitive people are modernized, it amounts to a lot of nothing. Where they stay primitive, you get groups like Hezbollah.
Either jihad is an internal metaphysical struggle or an external real, violent one. For those who believe in a literal reading, jihad is a real, violent struggle. The issues and causes will be filled in later.
Presumably, being "much better informed" means ignoring Hamas's claims that it will "destroy the Zionist Entity, ignoring Hezbullah's claims that it will liberate Jerusalem, and ignoring the Palestinian Authority's claims that the only "just" solution is a return to the May 1967 borders, a return of East Jerusalem to the Arabs, and the return of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants to within pre-1967 Israel (which is really a polite way of saying---and they are very polite---that Hamas and Hezbullah have the right idea but should really package their message for western consumption).
While we're at it, we might as well ignore Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, ignore Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, and of course (it goes without saying) ignore Israel's offers for Palestinian statehood in July/August 2000 and January/February 2001.
Should one bother mentioning Israel's offer to return Arab lands in the months following the Six Day War? Or the return of the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for a peace treaty? Or offers to return the Golan to Syria for a similar peace treaty? No?.... Didn't think so.
Americans have a tendency to say "that's history" as a means of dismissing something. History, however, matters and the simple historical fact is that Palestine has never been an independent nation. Not even close.
Israel, by contrast, was a more or less coherent independent kingdom (or kingdoms) for some five hundred years. The fact that ‘Palestine’ has long been applied as a geographic descriptor to the entire region, including substantial chunks of what are now called Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon does not make it a "nation."
Babylonian, then Persian, then Greek, then Roman hegemony in the region arrived and faded. For a while it came next under control of the Byzantine Empire and then four (sometimes competing) Islamic dynasties: Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid, and Mamluk.
It was under the Abbasids that ethnic Palestinians became mawali (second-class muslims, lit. ‘clients’) in the 8th century. Mawali is one step above dhimmi ... the subjugated Christians and Jews who were allowed to remain in the area as long as they paid a steep tax for the privilege of not being put to the sword.
The Fatimids were displaced from Palestine by the Normans (aka ‘crusaders’) who themselves ruled for a century or so before the Mamluks took over.
In 1517 the Ottomans seized control, which they held until 1917, but Ottoman misrule of Palestine was legendary. The population of what is now Israel fell by nearly 75% in first half of the 19th century, to perhaps 100,000. The area was almost completely overrun by Bedouin bandits and less than a tenth of the arable land was actually being cultivated. Mark Twain described Palestine (Innocents Abroad, 1867) as “barren,” and “empty,” sitting “in sackcloth and ashes … desolate and unlovely.”
Between 1880 and 1914 almost 100,000 Jews moved into the area. They were (horror of horrors) Zionists – who decided to settle Israel specifically because it had been largely abandoned under the Turks. By 1930 their number was closer to 200,000 and by 1940 roughly a half million. During this time the Jews bought abandoned farmland (at exhorbitant prices) from absentee landlords and brought it into production. I am a farmer by trade and I know full well how incredibly difficult and expensive this was.
As Israel blossomed and bore fruit the farmers needed agricultural labourers, and both Arabs and Palestinians arrived by the tens of thousands to take advantage of that opportunity. Consequently the arrival of Jews in Israel was to no small degree directly responsible for the subsequent arrival of Palestinians in the area, not their removal.
Jews no more displaced Palestinians in Israel than the farmers who settled California’s Central Valley and brought it into production displaced Mexicans. They attracted them.
In 1948 some 600,000 Palestinian Arabs were coaxed and driven into refugee camps, primarily by other Arabs. At the same time the Arab nations expelled about 750,000 Jews, who settled, penniless, in Israel, their land, homes, goods, and wealth having been seized before expulsion. There was plenty of misery to go around, but the instigators and primary drivers of that misery in both cases were Arabs, not Jews.
That the militant extremists who seized upon that misery and exploited it for the purposes of their own power have been able to convince so many of the western Left that their specious arguments represent not only The Truth, but have also been able to frame Israel as the source of all islamist confrontationalism is testimony not only to the Left’s naïve ignorance of Arab and muslim culture, but to their profound gullibility as well.
When Isreal withdrew its settlements from Gaza in 2005 wealthy American Jews purchased and immense greenhouse operation from the departing Israelis to prevent it from being dismantled. Their intention was preserve hundreds of Palestinian jobs and provide economic opportunity to the Gazans, so they transferred title as a donation.
Within 48 hours the greenhouse complex had been completely destroyed by its former employees. This is an irrational hatred that seeks only one thing -- the utter extermination of the Jews. To blame their problems on the Jews is a pathological fabrication akin to blaming a cop for your speeding ticket.
With such people there is no possibility of real negotiation. Ever.
Bart hall said..
With such people there is no possibility of real negotiation. Ever.
And with that statement you've expressed your hatred and explained the utterly skewed history that amounts to Israeli propaganda.
To you, Israel is perfect and pure as the driven snow and the arabs are evil incarnate.
Pure unbridled racism.
I've not the time or energy to prosecute the propaganda point by point but Israel was not attacked in 1967. The lands that they "gave back" were not theirs to give.
The refugees in 1948 were a result of Jewish terrorism and ethnic cleansing. The exodus of Jews from arab countries was later and many of them were invited by an Israeli government desperate to establish a racial majority.
The PLO was NOT offered anything resembling "a state" at Camp David.
Your bugling of Israeli propaganda does not make me disposed to take your ancient history with anything but a pinch of salt.
Israeli is a rogue expansionist state that has militarily oppressed the very people whose land they stole. They are now progressively stealing all the natural resources of the entire region.
> Islamic extremists are a post Israel phenomenon.
So-called Islamic extremists have not always been throwing bombs for the avowed purpose of fighting the "evil Israel/US axis".
When the US CIA funded, armed, and trained the al-quaeda Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, it was not for the avowed purpose of fighting the "evil Israel/US axis". They taught those terrorists how to fight modern tanks and superpower armies not in order that they would be able to kill US soldiers, but in order that they would be able to kill Soviet soldiers.
To go back even further, the terrorist bombings and actions in Macedonia before Israel even existed could certainly be classified as so-called Islamic terrorism (except for the so-called Christian terrorism also involved).
As someone correctly pointed out, what has happened is that in recent decades many leaders of so-called Islamic terrorists have gained immense propaganda ground by claiming the mantle of fighting the "evil Israel/US axis". The recent campaigns involving (unfortunately and largely by accident) killing, torturing, and raping civilians by the US have been a godsend to this propaganda/mantle effort, and this current Israeli campaign by Israel to devastate large civilian populations will be another godsend. This seems self-evident to me; I cannot entirely fathom why people cannot see that this will happen.
Wernstein,
While there are some connections through Pakistan's ISI, the CIA support of Afghan resistance to the Soviet occupation predated the formation of Al Queda.
Justaguy, actually your version is more "propaganda" than the one you purport to refute. As just one example, in 1967 Israel preemptively began combat operations against Egypt but that was as a result of Egypt's acts of war in closing the straits of Tiran, ordering the removal of UN peacekeeping forces and moving large scale offensive forces in to the Sinai ( in part instigated by false claims of Israeli deployments against Syria advanced by the Soviets ). Hostilities in the West Bank and Golan were started by Jordan and Syria respectively.
I have seen a recent report where 70% of Lebanese supported the abduction of the two soldiers and the killing of the rest.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3281971,00.html
The only way to fix such a problem is the utter defeat of Syria and Lebanon, followed by toppling the Mullahs of Iran.
BTW Iran is sending suicide bombers to Lebanon to get a civil war cranked up. Proof positive that Iran has nothing to do with the situation.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3281418,00.html
Just a guy,
Israel gave back Gaza. There are now more rocket attacks coming from Gaza.
Look at what Jordan had to do to quiet their Palis.
Black September ring a bell?
Israel is trying to be a nice guy in a tough neighborhood.
Hama in Syria ring a bell?
=========================But I acquiesce to your brilliance. Or I will once you get Hizbolla (who are a genocidal organization) to return the prisoners and cease fire.
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/infofile/hrw_avibell_230706.html
I'm sure you have a briliant plan. How about results.
==========================BTW how does Israel make peace with an organization whose avowed purpose is to kill all the Jews in the world otherwise refeered to as genocide. (see above link).
Did I mention the attack on Jews in Argentina by Hizbollah?
Why would Hizbollah attack Jews in Argentina?
Wallace,
So far the reports of rape followed by killing are just what you have said they are. Propaganda.
Happens all the time.
Google Palliwood to see how it is done.
Or try the Jennin massacre.
Lies travel quickly. Truth requires time and evidence.
#20 just a guy,
Before there was a state of Israel there were palestinians comitting genocide on Jews.
The Palestinian Role in the Holocaust.
Arafat claimed relation with Haj Amin Hussein. Abbas is his spiritual offspring.
Please provide evidence of this statement......
I think you'll find that that is more an hysterical American view of what Hizbollah's aims are. Hizbollah isn't even considered a terrorist organization in most of the world, and they are far more than a military organization. The only way to deal with them is to moderate them by mainstreaming them.
There are plenty of examples in history where negotiations with and compacts between, resistance groups has brought about peace. What Israel is doing now won't beat them but strengthen and isolate them unnecesarily.
Let's not forget that Israel is the aggressor in all this and all the gung-ho talk about Syria and iran is, as yet, unsubstantiated dogmatic rubbish.
If this is the neocons' grand plan, it's crazy. The US has lost any moral authority by giving up any pretence that it will act justly or for democracy. Your Secretary of State has been reduced to a role of messenger girl for the zionist extremists who wish to dominate and rule the middle east.
The obscene attacks on the UN and the Red Cross as well as the targeting of civilians is terrorism on a grand scale. They have given the entire world the bird. Well F them.
Oh paliwood schmaliwood. Pathetic.
52 people died in the Jennin refugee camp, tens of thousands were displaced and Israeli soldiers used civilians as human shields.
This started long before the abductions, they were just a PR pretext for the wide eyed masses in their sponsor state.
Do you have any idea of how brutal the Israelis are?
Have a look at Shatila, Sabra, Q'ana etc etc etc.
RRAAWWK ! Hoo. Hoo.
Guy wanna cracker?
RRAAWWK !
#15 Just a guy asks,
I really don't know why people don't see this within the US.
Did it ever occur to you that Americans might have more knowledge and a better grasp of history than the rest of the world?
I know that doesn't fit in with your stereotypes, but consider this.
America is an amalgam of all the peoples of the world. America itself is a world wide operation.
How can we function so well in the world without a keen knowledge of the world, its people, and its history? Not to mention al the things we do really well. Like technology. Funny thing is, because Jews come from everywhere and are good at technology they are similarly situated.
#28,
Quite so. The Palis later admitted that the vast majority were fighters.
But what were the initial claims? Hundreds dead. Maybe thousands. A massacre.
It was a fight not a massacre.
You might want to look at how the M. Dura killing was faked as well. One of the reported was indicted in France for lying.
Or the beach bombing where one of the survivors had all shrapnel removed before being entrusted to Israeli care. Something never done when Israeli weapons are involved.
I do see where your ignorance is coming from though. Like a committed Christian no evidence to the contrary of your beliefs can be admitted.
No one can shake your belief. However, anyone willing to look can see evidence of your ignorance. I enjoy that. So help me.
Post again.
Shatila, and Sabra,
Were done by Lebanese Christians. in retaliation for what the Islamics did to the Christian community.
Sharon was convicted of negligence for not anticipating what might happen. He was not convicted of murder.
I'm not familiar with Q'ana. I'll look it up and get back to you.
OK Q'ana,
Hizbollah fires rockets from an area full of human shields.
Rockets and arty are area weapons. Pin point aim is not possible. In addition it appears that the Israelis made a mistake. (happens in war - hell it happens in peace)
Out of 38 shells 13 hit the UN camp.
Here is an excerpt from the wiki entry:
Israel immediately expressed regret for the loss of innocent lives, saying that the Hezbollah position and not the UN compound was the intended target of the shelling, and that the compound was hit "due to incorrect targeting based on erroneous data." Army Deputy Chief of Staff, Matan Vilnai stated that the shells hit the base not because they were off target, but because Israeli gunners used outdated maps of the area. He also stated that the gunners miscalculated the firing range of the shells.
Prime Minister Shimon Peres claimed that "We did not know that several hundred people were concentrated in that camp. It came to us as a bitter surprise."11 Following the attack, Lt.-Gen. Amnon Shahak, Israel's chief of staff, at a press conference in Tel Aviv on April 18 defended the shelling: "I don't see any mistake in judgment… We fought Hezbollah there [in Qana], and when they fire on us, we will fire at them to defend ourselves… I don't know any other rules of the game, either for the army or for civilians.
==========================================So Hizbollah as usual is in the human shield business. Cowards.
And you support such cowards? How brave. How European. Reverting to form.
*I know that doesn't fit in with your stereotypes, but consider this.
America is an amalgam of all the peoples of the world. America itself is a world wide operation.*
With all due respect, I've spent enough time in the US to appreciate that while it is a 'stereotype' there is a certain amount of truth to it. It is a generalization I know, but Americans are a very uncurious people, that travel rarely. Most of the nuts pushing for more and more war, will never leave the States.
The US isn't the only ethnically diverse western country and without oil you won't function quite so well. But I digress.
I don't think the US populace gets a balanced view of the Israeli/Palestinian dispute at all. Your pollies and your press are totally smitten with Israel and arabs are routinely demonized. The current islamophobic screeching is both disgraceful and unproductive. I find it an obscenity that your government won't support a ceasefire.
And, I don't understand why the love of Israel. They are an anathema to everything you supposedly stand for.
They will if you keep screwing them though.
The fact that you have brought up the al Dura killing is a testament to your propagandized view. The sick thing is the effort on the Israeli propaganda machine at the behest probably of AIPAC to create a myth around the incident. The story that it was staged is utterly false.
If you believe the Israeli version of the beach incident you are gullible indeed.
You are talking about a military force that targets the UN and the RED CROSS for gawds sake, routinely harasses aid workers, deliberately targets civilians in Lebanon and routinely practices state terror. They've been ethnic cleansing in Palestine since day 1.
Look, as I said, I don't have time to prosecute the entire obscenity, but if Israel would observe the UN resolutions and pull back to its pre 1967 borders, then, and only then can it be seen to have any moral high ground and be seen to be acting in good faith.
the current killing in Gaza and Lebanon should be condemned by all right thinking people. It is a crime against humanity.
So, you've read the Israeli propaganda. Try some other sources. Much like yesterday's outrage, they had every opportunity not to shell the camp. The statement that they didn't know there were people sheltering there was an outright lie.
There is no evidence that I have ever seen that Hizbollah uses civilians as shields. It would be counterproductive in the extreme.
As for And you support such cowards? How brave
How very sad that you think that that is some sort of argument. I don't actually support Hizbollah, but I recognize then for what they are and what created them.
If it wasn't for Israeli aggression, they wouldn't exist. The refugees that they represent would be worse off without them. It is the civilians that I support.
I have my own view of who the biggest cowards in this are.
justaguy.
I've been watching your posts with interest over the last day or two. It appears that you definitely think in absolute terms -- americans are uninformed, Hezbollah is the result of Israeli agression, support of Israel is irrational, no evidence that Hezbollah uses civilians as shields.
Absolute positions are very hard to maintain. For each of these grand statements, even if they were mostly true, there are many exceptions. Americans may be mostly dumb but you may be conversing with some smart ones, Hezbollah may also be filled with angry men looking for a fight, it may very well be in the best interests of say the Saudis to support Israel in some cases.
Instead, it may be more productive to posit a list of facts and then draw a conclusion. Bart attempted this in #19 and you responded quite hysterically. I can certainly understand your "I've not the time or energy to prosecute the propaganda point by point" statement, but geesh! There are a kazillion points that you are making that are being refuted. Bart destroyed your credibility with his history of the region and M Simon is having his way with you in regards to proposed Israeli recent misdeeds.
My point is that if you are here to persuade, pick 3-4 facts that you are willing to refute and use them to draw a conclusion. That way folks can discuss your facts and/or your conclusion. Simply labeling all opposing viewpoints stupid or biased is not much of an argument. Anybody can make this same argument for any purpose whatsoever.
I think instead of everybody getting so wrapped up about who-did-what-to-who, it is possible to ask some simple non-tainted questions: What should a country do when a NGO in a neighboring country kidnaps their soldiers at the border? Fires missiles into their cities? Announces their intent to destroy your country? What does the term "restraint" mean when fighting a armed NGO mixing with the population? In my opinion, the reader must be able to make the general point about what is acceptable or not BEFORE we get into all of this byzantine regional nonsense. Other readers can parry by saying something like "yeah, but what if Mexico did this to the US, would that be okay?" which, instead of getting into "who's the bad guy", hits at the heart of the question: in the current conflict what is the suggested best way for both parties to proceed.
My thoughts only. I've been enjoying all of it. Hopefully the posters will think more and parrot less. Thinking is always a good thing.
The creation of Israel in 1948 meant perhaps half a million people (Jews and Arabs) were displaced as a result. The degree to which the creation of Israel was part of a UN mandate, and the degree to which the displacements were indeed expulsions still generates debate two generations later.
Compare this to the UN-mandated expulsion at about the same time that removed over 15 million people from their homes (without compensation in most cases) and led to the deaths of some 1.1 to 3 million of the expellees. I’m referring to the removal of ethnic Germans from east of the Oder-Niesse line as an outgrowth of the Potsdam Conference. Ethnic Germans were also removed (again generally without compensation) from Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia, but let’s limit the discussions to what is now Poland.
Most of those areas were settled by ethnically and linguistically distinct Germans in the early 13th century and after the unification of Germany (1871) were politically German as well. After all, we’re talking about Prussia and East Brandenburg, along with Silesia, Pomerania and some other areas. You don’t get a lot more German than Prussia.
Have the Germans said Poland has no right to exist? There have been relatively recent times when it did not. Have the Germans gone on a world-wide terror campaign to wipe out Poles wherever they’re found? Somehow I missed that one. Nope. They formed the Bund der Vertriebenen (expelled-peoples federation) to advocate for some compensation and generally represent their interests. The German Federal government officially called them “territories under Polish (or Soviet) administration,” and with a stroke of the pen renounced those claims as part of re-unification.
At roughly the same time as the uncompensated forcible removal of 15 million ethnic Germans was being settled peacefully, Kuwait felt the need to expel about 350,000 Palestinians, many of whom had been in Kuwait for generations. Why? Because they had quite actively supported Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Kuwait and had been working to overthrow the government before that.
In the last 15 years has anyone heard those Palestinians calling for the “right of return” to Kuwait? Nope, but they have blamed their expulsion on Israel. Some groups seem to deal with these sorts of things in – shall we say – a civilised manner, and others choose violence.
Depending on the nature of that choice, you have to deal with the groups in two completely different manners. The Palestinians have made their choice, and even most Arab governments do not like them, except as a tool of political convenience.
Daniel Markham #36:
I'd cited a comment on a lefty Jew's HuffPo column in another thread at Winds, but it might bear repeating in this context.
You make a good point in asking,
There is another baseline question that frames the discussion.
If we answer that question "yes" and then go on to condemn Israel's methods, tactics, or strategy, we're having one debate. If we answer "no," we've then moved to a different one.
"No" is an awkward response, because Hamas, Hezbollah, and their patrons haven't been shy about the fantasy endgame: Israelis murdered en masse or forced into exile or dhimmitude. It's a bit unseemly to display petulance about a country's unwillingness to self-immolate. An answer of "Yes" leads to its own can of worms for the Israel-haters.
Understandably, then, the infantile leftists tend to prefer taking a pass on the question and its implications.
While I was composing this, I see that Bart Hall has addressed related issues (#37), contrasting the histories of Palestine and western Poland. It's an instructive comparison.
What should a country do when a NGO in a neighboring country kidnaps their soldiers...
America's response to the Tampico incident might be instructive. In the midst of the Mexican Revolution, with uprisings in the North and the South, the U.S. dispatched ships to the Mexican coast to protect Americans. The city of Tampico was under seige when Mexican federal troops arrested U.S. sailers in a whaleboat and paraded them through Tampico. The sailors were released and the Mexican government apologized, but rejected the demand for the U.S. flag to be raised and given a 21 gun salute.
Woodrow Wilson asked Congress for authority to invade Mexico (excerpts):
With Congrssional approval, the U.S. invaded Veracruz, , where almost 200 died in the fighting. The Mexican troops were probably technically not NGOs, but Wilson clearly used the incident to delegitime General Huerta's dictatorship and treat his troops as NGOs.
The point here is that the U.S. used a less serious incident to invade Mexico for fear of escalating violence encouraged by anti-Americanism.
Anyone still following this thread might want to do some research on the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseinni (there are numerous transliterations of the name).
The Mufti, revered by Palestinians, was an active collaborator in the Holocaust. In June of 1943 he wrote the Foreign Minister of Hungary (then under German control ... how would you like to have to choose between Hitler and Stalin?) urgently requesting that he stop the exodus of Hungarian Jews via Bulgaria and Turkey because they were heading to Israel.
This request was granted, and some 350,000 Hungarian Jews paid the ultimate price. One of the heroes of the modern Palestinian 'movement' is closely responsible for about 6% of all Holocaust victims, because until that point Jews were free to leave Hungary.
This is a great thread, guys.
Bart, PD, AMac -- those posts were awesome.
I especially liked the Wilson quote. Very appropriate.
It makes me wonder if it wouldn't be possible to construct a Wiki with all of this information. Next time the topic comes up, point them to the Wiki. Then in the Wiki article, the facts and various opinions can be outlined. At least it keeps from having the same conversation over and over again. There are a lot of people, such as myself, who don't have the depth of history required for this discussion. A reference that the community agrees with might be helpful. (as opposed to Wikipedia or another common net references)
*I've been watching your posts with interest over the last day or two. It appears that you definitely think in absolute terms -- americans are uninformed, Hezbollah is the result of Israeli agression, support of Israel is irrational, no evidence that Hezbollah uses civilians as shields.
Absolute positions are very hard to maintain. For each of these grand statements, even if they were mostly true, there are many exceptions.*
I've reread what I've written and I can't see how you've interpreted them as absolutist at all, frankly. I've clearly mentioned stereotyping and generalizing in the context of my statements regarding the US body politic.
I don't think that it is an unreasonable assertion that most of the proponents of more and more war are those that will never leave the US. It is easy to demonize a people that you've never met, and far easier to believe the lies and, frankly racist, hatred being spread about a people of whom you know nothing. I see someone has thrown up the "dhimmitude" canard, for example. An invention that has taken root amonst the gullible and the frightened as a "fact". And looking for present day "truths" in the alliances of 70 years ago when Palestinians were under British rule is as dishonest as it comes.
I've disagreed with Barts statements in post 19, but also said that I don't have the time or the will to prosecute the Palestinian tragedy from time immemorial to the present day. I would dispute most of what he has written as zionist propaganda with little by way of fact but I don't want to have another of those arguments which inevitably end in manic accusations of 'antisemitism' and hysterical references to the nazi atrocity. It doesn't get anywhere and is ultimately pointless and irrelevent.
If you feel that my points have been destroyed by the rote of zionist propaganda spewed by Bart, I would sincerely hope that you are never called for jury duty.
I'd refer you to Stephen Colbert's analysis of "truthiness" for further research.
The facts are that Palestinians and Lebanese are being collectively punished TODAY with your money, by a state that has little relevence to you and in most aspects is diammetrically opposed to the ideals of US liberal democracy.
AIPAC owns your congress, and you are being led down a very dangerous path. Blind Freddy's dog can see that your GWOT is an abject failure that has and will make the US less secure for decades to come (not to mention the economic costs).
Maybe that is absolutist, but I am absolutely certain of the antiUS hatred that these current conflicts are generating, and not just in the Islamic world.
justaguy (#42)
I am honestly trying to assume that most of your positions are correct, even if I do not currently supoprt them. So please give me a hand here.
Let's take a look at your posts. This last one, while addressing me personally (thank you) quoted no facts, gave no links, made no argument except that you are right and other people are wrong.
Perhaps I am unable to differentiate your comments regarding the body politic and your comments regarding individual posters. It seems like, to me, that a bunch of posters gave you a lot of facts. You chose to discount all of them with generalizations. You also said you didn't have time to go into a proper refutation.
Perhaps you have a cogent argument? By now, I think we all understand your opinion. Care to advance the discussion? I mean, after a while, "you americans never travel and all all zionist warmongers" has already been done before, right? I guess I'm back to that old "give me some facts and make a conclusion that we can discuss" point.
Here is another view of the history. I can already imagine the insults heading the authors' way.
http://www.cactus48.com/OriginMSW.pdf
The point, Daniel, was to refute your suggestion that I was being unreasonably "absolutist".
The consistent theme I think is that Israeli actions in Gaza and Lebanon are unjustified and disproportionate barbarism that will achieve the reverse of their stated aims as espoused by the Likudists and their neocon supporters in Washington i.e. defeating "terrorists". You can't defeat "terrorism" by being bigger, badder terrorists.
The US is now sidelined as an honest broker for any future peace process.
So Wilson was wrong?
The earlier poster used an example of our actions in regards to Mexico. In your opinion, that was barbaric?
Will read your link. Thanks.
I don't know anything about the incident or the situation, so I'm not in a position to comment.
I do know though, that Hizbollah was borne of Israeli action (both overt miltary and covert via client militia) in Lebanon and are a POPULAR resistance movement. Hamas was actually encouraged and funded by Israel in its formation from remnants of the Muslim Brotherhood as a foil to Arafat's PLO.
In the current light....
Are we to believe that history started the day that Hizbollah crossed the border? Israel has been stirring all this up for months, and Washington has been sabre rattling against Iran (unreasonably in my view) in the same timeframe.
Afghanistan and Iraq are out of control, there is unmitigated killing going on in Gaza and Lebanon, thousands of West Bank residents are being forcibly removed. And they want to attack Iran and Damascus on a pretext or two?
What the hell is going on here? It is madness. Attacking the UN and the Red Cross is madness, attacking fleeing civilians is madness. Using cluster bombs and phosphorus bombs is madness.
Is it mid-term congressional election madness or something else? Does the Litani River, the Sheba Farms and the Golan play a part?
I don't know what the aim is here, but it needs to stop. When a significant body of people in the US start baying for war and justifying through sick twisted 'logic' the murder of civilians, something is horribly amok in this world.
Justaguy,
Your facts are mostly inventions. But your comments about "collective punishment", propaganda and barbarism are amusing as evidently you excuse all such aimed at Israel.
*#47 from Robin Roberts on July 28, 2006 02:30 AM
Justaguy,
Your facts are mostly inventions. But your comments about "collective punishment", propaganda and barbarism are amusing as evidently you excuse all such aimed at Israel.*
Which facts are "inventions? How can Israel's actions be construed as anything but collective punishment? Taking out civilian infrastructure and deliberately targeting civilians is by its very nature, collective punishment.
I haven't excused anything aimed at Israel. ????????????
Want to call me a "terrorist sympathiser" and get it over with quickly without cluttering up the whole comments section with emotive antirational blathering?
Go right ahead.
justaguy:
You wrote in #42,
That someone would be me.
A few minutes with Google yields this precis on dhimmitude at www.dhimmi.com, a website run by the Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights, an ecumenical group whose membership can be viewed here.
A few minutes more brings up Prof. Bat Ye’or’s 1995 lecture Myths and Politics: Origin of the Myth of a Tolerant Pluralistic Islamic Society, a review of the institutions and practices of dhimmitude during the Ottoman Empire’s rule of the Balkans.
I seem to have missed the links and citations that you threw up when you labeled dhimmitude “a canard,” and placed me among the gullible and frightened. Will you support your position? Will you retract your careless and inaccurate words? Or will you skate on by, in the hope that readers won’t notice?
You also wrote:
Are you referring to yourself? No? To me? To some other commenter in this thread? Who, exactly? Which passages make you certain that your target is demonizing and has fallen for lies and frankly racist hatred about a people of whom they know nothing?
As to why Robin Roberts stated that "your facts are mostly inventions" in comment #47: I will guess that it's because your writing style doesn't display much attention to detail, and because you are not in the habit of backing up your assertions with links and citations. The 37-page pdf you reference in #44 should be a good start, as the anti-Zionist "Jews For Justice In The Middle East" who wrote it agree with many of your ideas. Of course, as Winds author Yehudit noted two years ago, there are other narratives that yield quite different interpretations (see links in her comment #14).
AMac, "Professor" Littman INVENTED the term. It is utter rubbish that she has made a career out of. Dhimmi is the term that describes the duty of protection to non-muslims under a muslim caliphate.
She won't tell you that, though, preferring to trade on her fearmongering and (understandable) islamophobia.
I don't submit the pdf document as any sort of gospel truth, but it does dispel some of the myths as presented in one of the above posts neatly sanitized version of "history".
My point is that the cut and dried "good v evil" argument is pretty much always wrong. Antisemitism in the arab world is not a cause but a result.
For every quote from a muslim nutter, I could find a quote from a rabbi or a fundy to match. None of which provide proof of any general will of entire races of people or religions. Where is the point?
In my view, Islamophobia in the US has become one of the problems. I do think it is fear related and I don't believe that it is at all justified. These extremist nutters wandering around the mountains aren't going to be invading you and oppressing you anytime soon.
Give them a few more million willing recruits and plenty of evidence of western hypocrisy, hatred and indifference and that may change decades down the track.
Why keep giving them ammunition?
BTW if the list of 'ecumenicals' supplied is pretty funny really. From where I sit, the few that I looked at all look pretty extremist and kooky to me and would only reinforce to me that this (the terrorist hysteria) is all the work of crazy people with an agenda.
justaguy #50, #51:
You elided answering the questions I posed to you in #49.
You presented no credible links and citations to show dhimmitude to be “a canard,” and thus place me among the gullible and frightened. It should be a snap: under a minute with Google gave me pages of links that support the obvious historical reality of the concept and the practice.
Instead, you make the unsupported claim that "'Professor' Littman [sic] INVENTED the term. It is utter rubbish that she has made a career out of." Again without links, you dismiss scholarship as "fearmongering" and "islamophobia."
OK. That's sufficient information for readers to use in making a judgement.
I noted that you'd written:
and asked, "Are you referring to yourself? No? To me? To some other commenter in this thread? Who, exactly? Which passages make you certain" that you're right?
You choose not to answer. OK. Again, sufficient information.
You discuss the problems with "neatly sanitized versions of 'history,'" and in the next paragraph state:
I would point out to you that this sort of cut and dried "good vs. evil" argument is pretty much always wrong.
Reading one of Professor Bernard Lewis' essays on this subject might help.
Lastly--if you are in a question-answering mode--I'd be curious about your response to the one I posed in comment #38, above:
Etymology
Dhimmi (also zimmi, Arabic ???, often translated as "protected") is the legal status of a free non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with sharia — Islamic law. The word dhimmi is an adjective (but used like a noun in English). It is derived from the noun dhimma, which means "pact of liability", and denotes the legal relationship between non-Muslim subjects and the Islamic state. "Dhimmitude" adds the productive suffix "-tude" to the adjective dhimmi, thus creating a new noun with a meaning (arguably) distinct from dhimma.
The term entered English-language use after the 1996 publication of the book "The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam. From Jihad to Dhimmitude. Seventh-Twentieth Century"1 and the 2003 followup "Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide"2 by Bat Ye'or. Widely thought to have invented the word3, others4 think she borrowed the term from the assassinated Lebanese Maronite leader Bashir Gemayel.
A google search reveals links to many well known right wing anti-islamic websites and commentators. If you take people like Horowitz seriously or Ms Littman, I fear you are lost to the dark side.
*I noted that you'd written:
> It is easy to demonize a people that you've never met, and far easier to believe the lies and, frankly racist, hatred being spread about a people of whom you know nothing.
and asked, "Are you referring to yourself? No? To me? To some other commenter in this thread? Who, exactly? Which passages make you certain" that you're right?
You choose not to answer. OK. Again, sufficient information.*
I am referring to what I perceive to be a significant body of people in the US (mainly), who may well be overrepresented in blogs I admit, but to my way of thinking, have no real understanding of the realities of the world outside their borders.
They have views regarding islam and muslims which overstate the danger to the US/Israel and idolize Israel to some elevated basttion of "liberal democracy" which is equally incorrect.
The net result is that they seem incapable of seeing muslims as human beings very similar to themselves, thus devaluing their lives and societies to the point where killing, maiming and oppression become intellectualized concepts. I don't KNOW that this is fear driven but I suspect so. I'm willing to listen to other ideas though.
One of my pet hates at the moment is the bastardisation of the T word. Terrorist! It serves to amorphize a huge array of competing/colliding/related/unrelated views, interests and groups within the muslim world, which require understanding to deal with.
To lump Hizbollah or Hamas in with Bin Laden et al, or worse Iran in with Bin Laden is as bereft of understanding as say ....trying to link Saddam to Bin Laden,
*I would point out to you that this sort of cut and dried "good vs. evil" argument is pretty much always wrong.
Reading one of Professor Bernard Lewis' essays on this subject might help.*
Fair enough I suppose, but it is my (admittedly generalized) view from 30 odd years of travelling and working around much of the world.
I've read some Bernard Lewis and I thought it to be more sophistry than sophisticated analysis. The notion that Islam as a religion cannot change is patently wrong. Look at the different strains of Islam, with varying views and interpretations. The prevailing western views are being shaped by the extremists that have little mainstream credibility. It is evolving much the same way as christianity has I imagine. There are plenty of nasty whacky christians about too, mostly in your part of the world.
In my experience most muslims are secular, moderate and have similar life aims as most westerners. Arabs in my experience are generally friendly, polite and welcoming people with a thirst for knowledge and discussion.
Whilst the mood is changing, I think it is us that is causing that change and we are contributing to driving muslims to the extremities. If I was an islamic jihadist recruiter, I'd be showing young muslims websites like Little Green Footballs and Jihad Watch and Neoneocon to convince them of inherent racism of the west, and proof positive that their lives aren't valued in the same way as ours and even more so Israelis.
Why are Palestinian property rights not recognized?
*Lastly--if you are in a question-answering mode--I'd be curious about your response to the one I posed in comment #38, above:
Sovereign States have the duty to protect their Citizens from external attacks. Is Israel a legitimate Sovereign State? Does it have that duty and right?*
That is clearly a loaded question. I think Israel's action in Gaza and Lebanon are unconscionable transgressions of law and human decency and I would like to live in a world that could try the men behind it for these crimes.
States have a right to protect their citizens, yes, but overstating threats with the aim of destabilizing, destroying and collectively punishing peoples can't be condoned.
Israel is the 3rd or 4th strongest miltary power on earth. None of their neighbours pose a credible threat. Lebanon was a fledgling if imperfect democracy that needed our support, not further cruel destruction.
Ironically, Lebanon was far more like us than Israel ever will be.
Which brings me to the question that I've asked without answer.
Why does the US have this love for Israel?
justaguy:
Did you write the description of the etymology of Dhimmi in #53, or was it pasted from somewhere? Whichever, it's pretty good, as a description of the Oppressor's perspective on the Oppressed, anyway. So I guess you were saying all along that the indefinite noun dhimmitude was invented recently. I see that in paragraph 5 of the Bat Ye'or essay I linked, she writes:
This tempest over grammar is a far cry from your earlier assertion that the inequitable treatment of religious minorities under Sharia law was (and is) "a canard". (And we should note in passing that conquered Hindus, Bhuddists, Zoroastrians, and other polytheists and hypocrites did not qualify as "People of the Book," and so lacked even those protections. I'll also state that by the standards of those times, the imposition of dhimmi status by conquerors was a relatively enlightened practice. But then, the bar wasn't set terribly high by pogroms, forced conversions, the 30 Years' War, and the like.)
And?
Who are Horowitz and Ms Littman?
Ah, thanks for the straight up answer.
I don't know if you're American or not, but your thinking seems hobbled by crudely-drawn left-elite stereotypes. Of course there are narrow-minded Americans (whatever your definition of the term may be). C'mon--none of that where you come from? Really? I could think of a dozen more terms, six good and six bad, that would fit just as well.
Weird. Israel's enemies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Aqsas Martyr's Brigade, Fatah, PFLP-GC, the Islamic Republic of Iran, to name a few) are proud of their intentions of destroying Israel, but you think it's a case of overstating the danger. You must be really smart or really dumb. Or really disingenuous.
Anyway I'm not Israeli and don't idolize it. Although it is a liberal democracy, it has a checkered history and big flaws today. Probably uncomfortably like the place you live, whereever that is.
(that'll have to serve as an answer to your question, Why do I love Israel? I don't. I respect it as a liberal democracy. They are often faced with impossible dilemmas, such as in the present case. Leftist elitists can't quite manage to see things from their perspective, only that of their noble enemies. It doesn't matter how barbaric or immoral those enemies' behaviors are--it's always about that shitty little country.
Somehow, I don't think you've read Sayyid Qutb's book "Milestones on the Road." It's online. If you have read it, I don't think you understand the lessons that Salafists and especially takfiris drew from it. If you do understand Qutb, I suppose you largely agree with him: and then we have a chasm separating our worldviews that is so wide that no amount of typing will bridge it.
I see you've written additional posts. Truth be told, the more I read the more I see that canyon. But thanks for making the effort to communicate. I'm out of time and have to get some shuteye, so g'night.
OK. I've written way more than I wanted to, but I'll take issue with two things tomorrow.
1. The status of Israel as a liberal democracy. IMO it isn't either liberal or a democracy in the true sense.
2. The tag of leftist elitist. I'm not American, but I've spent plenty of time there. I don't think the labels accurately transfer from the US to other western nations.
Oh, and Ms Littman is your Bet Ye'or. Scholarship is an interesting word to describe her 'work'. Horowitz is a leading neocon cheerleader masquerading as a journalist.
BTW It is refreshing to talk about these things without the usual sympathiser/commy/fascist/lefty/troll accusations, if you get my drift. And yes there are people like that where I come from, but not as many. People are way too skeptical in general. Our TV News and press are way more balanced too I think.
I know for a fact that you won't be seeing the same images from Lebanon as I'm seeing.
G'night.
justaguy,
This post is now off the 'front page,' and we've drifted far from the author's topic.
I'll offer a couple of concluding thoughts when I have a little time--but the topics you raise in #58 are just too broad and too contentous for this forum. There will be other threads on these subjects, though...
If justaguy spent one tenth the energy on advocating for the prosecution of Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorists for their transgressions of international and humanitarian law, he might not look like the terrorist apologist and Israel-hater than he does appear to be from his obvious misrepresentations of history.
BTW It is refreshing to talk about these things without the usual sympathiser/commy/fascist/lefty/troll accusations, if you get my drift
Well, it was. Nice one Robin Roberts. You're an intellectual.....
Have we drifted off topic? The author's essay seems to me to be about seperating Hizbollah from Lebanese democracy. I contend that that is not possible and demonstrably not going to happen at the end of the barrel of a gun. There is nothing fair or just about western policy as it stands. The Bush 'doctrine' is an arrogant obscenity doomed to fail.
This, from Beirut's Daily Star
"The Lebanon and Palestine situations today reveal a key political and psychological dynamic that defines several hundred million Arabs. It is that peace in the Middle East requires three things: 1) Arabs and Israelis must be treated equally; 2) domestically and internationally, the rule of law must define the actions of governments and all members of society; and 3) the core conflict between Palestine and Israel must be resolved in a fair, legal and sustainable manner.
"Because these principles are ignored, we continue to suffer outbreaks of military savagery by Israelis and Arabs alike. [Yet] protecting Israel has long been the primary aim of Western diplomacy, which is why it has not succeeded. For six decades now Israel has established buffer zones, occupation zones, red lines, blue lines, green lines, interdiction zones, killing fields, surrogate army zones, scorched earth, and every other conceivable kind of zone between it and Arabs who fight its occupation and colonial policies - all without success.
"Here is why: protecting Israelis while leaving Arabs to a fate of humiliation, occupation, degradation and subservient acquiescence to Israeli-American dictates only guarantees those Arabs will regroup to fight for their land, their humanity, their dignity and the prospect that their children can have a normal life one day.
"With every past diplomatic move to protect Israel's borders and drive back Arab foes, the core dispute in Palestine has gone unresolved. New buffer zones to protect Israel, while leaving Arab grievances to rot, will only prompt a greater determination by the next generation of young Arab men and women to develop the means to fight back, some day, and in some way.
"Piecemeal solutions will not work. In Israel's determination to protect itself and the parallel Arab determination to resist, we have the makings of perpetual war. Or, for those willing to be even-handed for once, an opening for a diplomatic solution that responds simultaneously to the legitimate rights of both sides.
justaguy:
It would really, really help if you could undertake the discipine of providing citations and, where possible, links, to the material you contribute. Because your correspondents can Google material and try and figure out your sources doesn't mean that they enjoy doing so. More importantly, it serves to keep the debate at a lower level than it should attain.
Your (somewhat dismissive) identification of Bat Ye'or as Ms Littman earlier in this thread is a case in point. You labelled "dhimmitude" as "a canard," etc., prompting me to demonstrate that it was nothing of the sort. Had you provided a link to whatever your source material was, it would have been clear to all that from the outset you were making a grammatical rather than a historical distinction--and one that Bat Ye'or (or Littman if you wish) would agree with. Is my going off on this side excursion a bug or a feature?
To me, it's a bug, and I wouldn't wish to send you off on an analogous snipe hunt.
As far as your hopefully accurate cut-and-paste of the Beirut Star editorial--with limited time, I haven't checked, see above--it's actually quite good. I agree with its point.
I think most Israelis would find broad areas of agreement with it, as well (my uninformed guess).
Nwow, I could use that essay as a template to write a mirror essay from the Israeli point of view. (Sorry, I won't actually do so now, let's stipulate, though, okay?) That second effort would have just as many valid points and telling arguments.
So most Israelis and most Americans of my acquaintance could see the validity and truth telling and moral imperatives of both narratives, even though they compete, and are in large part incompatible and in part contradictory.* History's like that! From what I have read, only a small minority of Europeans and a tiny fraction of Arabs and people from Muslim traditions would be able to accomplish the excercise as viewing The Other's narrative except through the most jaundiced of eyes. I think from your writing here, justaguy, that such an exercise would be well past something that you could or would accomplish, as well.
In other words, Israel as "that Sh*tty Little Country." Just die, Jews. Or become dhimmis. Or go into exile. Problem solved!
.* I'll stipulate that a plurality of Israelis and Americans wouldn't pass my 'test,' so no need to paste quotes of intolerant asses (or intolerant Zionist intellectuals either) to prove that point. But if you do, please provide links...
Anyway, this thread's stale, we should really save this discussion for another place and time... So if you respond, I'll try for the discipline to let you have the last word.
AMac
Well, I'll bite anyway despite recognizing the last word trap.
I cut and paste the Daily Star piece because it will almost certainly go off-line as the Israelis are currently targeting all press outlets in Lebanon and the comunicationns system.
I maintain that the concept of dhimmitude is an entirely false concept that has no basis in fact. It is a part of the islamohysteria machine.
The net result of this whole anti-islamic hoax gives us the outrage we have in Lebanon and Gaza today. The world's 3rd or 4th biggest military power pounding a tiny nascent democracy to rubble and indiscriminately killing a shattered people in the open prison that is Gaza.
All right thinking people would condemn this. But not, seemingly, the population of the US. Why?
I would suggest you read Mearsheimer and Walt for possible reasons. I would suggest also that many Americans have lost their moral compass to the point where ultranationalism is now one side of mainstream politics.