Israel/Lebanon situation

[rccar328]

Yesterday, Israel's military began attacking Hezbollah targets in Lebanon in response to Hezbollah taking two Israeli soldiers hostage. The situation has been heating up very quickly, as Israel is refusing to negotiate with Hezbollah...which is no surprise, considering that Hezbollah is demanding the release of thousands of Arab prisoners being held by Israel in exchange for the two soldiers.

 

As Israel has mounted attacks against Lebanon, including the Beirut airport, military airbases, and a naval blockade, Hezbollah fighters have launched more than 70 rockets in to northern Israel.

 

France, Russia, and Greece have already condemned Israel's attacks on Lebanon, while President Bush has come out in support of Israel, saying that Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks.

 

What I don't understand about this situation is the position frequently taken by so many that when organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah stage kidnappings or suicide bombings against Israel, that Israel should just bend over and take it. A suicide bomber wantonly kills and injures Israeli civilians on a bus or in a cafe, and Israel is condemned when any Palestinian civilians are killed or injured when they retaliate against legitimate terrorist targets (btw, it is a known tactic of Hamas leaders to try to shield themselves by frequenting places where civilians, particularly women and children, are colse by, to either prevent reprisals by Israel, or make it look bad when Israel retaliates). Why should Israel just take this kind of crap from terrorists?

 

By the way, Israel has capitulated to Hezbollah in the past: "In 2004, Hezbollah exchanged prisoners with Israel in a deal that took three years to negotiate. Israel released more than 400 prisoners and returned 59 bodies of Lebanese fighters. Hezbollah released a kidnapped Israeli businessman and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers."

 

 

So...when Israel gives Hezbollah what it wants, it doesn't seem to do much good (and let's face it: 400 prisoners for 1 businessman is really generous on Israel's part...or just plain stupid, depending on how you look at it), yet when Israel decides they aren't going to put up with Hezbollah's crap any more and start taking military action against a known terrorist organization that is, by the way, supported by such benevolent, virtuous nations as Iran and Syria, they are condemned for being too harsh.

 

What gives?

[Tyrion]

While I suppose Isreal does have a fairly legitimate reason for invading Lebanon and Palestine...they're still going at it messily. So far, they've killed 53 civilians. That's a bit much to try and save two kidnapped soldiers.

 

Then there's the fact that Isreal is setting itself awfully loose. What happens if Egypt or Syria or, perhaps, Iran invades? Their only real ally in the region is going to be the United States, who's already both spread too far and has acquired the hate of too many within the region.

[rccar328]

Frankly, I think Israel's goal here is and should be about more than just rescuing their two kidnapped soldiers. Israel needs to do as much damage to Hezbollah as they can, so that the terrorist scum are no longer in a position to perpetrate more suicide bombings, kidnappings, and rocket attacks. Due to past capitulation, Hezbollah thought they could push Israel around. Now, if Israel does anything other than give a show of force and hit Hezbollah hard, it'll just make things worse for them down the road.

[Tyrion]

Frankly, I think Israel's goal here is and should be about more than just rescuing their two kidnapped soldiers. Israel needs to do as much damage to Hezbollah as they can, so that the terrorist scum are no longer in a position to perpetrate more suicide bombings, kidnappings, and rocket attacks. Due to past capitulation, Hezbollah thought they could push Israel around. Now, if Israel does anything other than give a show of force and hit Hezbollah hard, it'll just make things worse for them down the road.

 

At the same time however, it's showing to the rest of the Arabic world that Isreal will find any reason to invade a country and kill their civilians. It's an unfair observation, but I wouldn't doubt it occuring. The Gaza Strip invasion would've cooled down after a while, but adding in the invasion of Lebanon and it's very likely for others in the area to believe Isreal is on the warpath.

[rccar328]

"Any reason?" If suicide bombings, kidnappings, and rocket attacks don't constitute acts of war, I don't know what does. And it's fairly common knowledge that Hezbollah operates out of Lebanon and is supported by Iran and Syria.

 

I don't doubt that Islamofascist hard-liners across the globe will see this as unwarranted acts of aggression on Israel's part in the face of what they see as noble freedom fighters fighting for Allah's cause, but when it gets right down to it, terrorism is terrorism, and the world community has let this kind of behavior from Hezbollah and HAMAS go on for far too long, condemning Israel for reacting to terrorist attacks instead of supporting Israel's fight against Islamic terrorists. If anything, I think that this current flare-up shows that, until the civilized nations of the world take a stand against Islamic terrorism, whether it be from HAMAS and Hezbollah, al-Qaida, or greater terrorism such as what is going on in Iran, with Ahmadinejad threatening to make oil prices skyrocket if they aren't allowed to develop nuclear weapons, these radical Muslims will continue to try and push the world around. If no one takes action to try and stop these kinds of actions, there is no reason for radical Muslims not to perpetrate them again and again.

[toms]

The problem is that Israel's responses are almost alway unfocused, indescriminate and aimed as much at civilians and "innocent" third parties as those at fault.

 

Israel is one of those issues like abortion where everyone already has a firmly chosen side and nothing the othe side will say will make sense to them.

 

Lebanese civilians no more deserve to suffer and die for the actions of hezbollah than israeli civilians deserve to suffer and die for the actions of the israeli army/hardline settlers.

 

If israel's enemies are going to use kidnap and ransom against them rather than suicide bombers then I think thats a pretty big improvement personally.

 

Bush would come out in support of Israel no matter what they did. Some of the other countries you mentioned would probably come out against israel no matter what they did as well. Thats all about playing to domestic voters.

Russia is an odd one though, as it usually staunchly defends any action by nation states in "self defence", worried about attacks on its own actions in chechnya.

 

Basically I think both sides are as bad as each other, and it would have all been sorted out one way or another decades ago if it wasn't for the political situation in the US ensuring that the president has to support and bolster Israel no matter what.

(though of course it is a problem of our own making, and its basically at the root of almost all the problems we face today. )

[Point Man]

Israel is not being indiscriminate; the terrorists are intentionally spreading out among civilians. Israel needs to stand resolute in its pursuit of the kidnappers and murderers who are doing everything they can to destroy their people.

 

War is messy. The only way to clean it up is to overpower the enemy quickly and decisively.

[Nancy Allen``]

Agreed. They purposely put their military where any attack would risk harm to civillians as well. Canderous makes a comment about this in KOTOR.

 

Not that I'm justifying the Mandalorian's tactics or the killing of civillians in war, but it is rather rich to crack down on Israel for launching a war of self defence, especially when some of their opposers do so because they are 'filthy Jews' and support the genocide of Israel. I wouldn't support the genocide of Palistine, Lebenon or Syria, just to bomb those who seek to harm others.

[Point Man]

Agreed. They purposely put their military where any attack would risk harm to civillians as well. Canderous makes a comment about this in KOTOR.

I can just see Golda Meir saying, "I am the new Mandalore."

[Nancy Allen``]

Huh, touche. Seriously it is a favoured tactic for some to hide in cities, particularly places such as schools, hospitals, holy places, ect. That way even if they are killed the enemy will recieve bad publicity because they attacked or bombed a school.

[toms]

But they ARE among the civilians. Mostly because they ARE civilians.

 

Thats like saying "we could get all those damn criminals if they didn't pourposefully hide among all the civilians".

 

Where exactly should they be? They should all go out and put on criminal/terrorist uniforms and march in formation into an open field and wave at one of the biggest armies in the world?

 

Hamas and hezbollah fighters tend to be in cities becuase they live and work in cities with their families. They tend to be surrounded and travelling with women and children because they are married to women and have children. They tend to be near hospitals and schools because they RUN all the hospitals and schools.

 

Israel has repeatedly should its quite happy to kill civilians and women and children to get at a single terrorist. So its not like visitin your family offers any defence.

 

And frankly, if there are civilians around (whether purposefully as a shield or not) then tough. You don't just go ahead and bomb them anyway... thats not how civilised societies behave.

 

Israel's "collateral damage" total is about the same, if not more than their civilian death toll... and frankly there isn't much moral difference between killing 20 people to get your point across, and killing 20 people to get your point across by killing a hamas guy.

 

Everyone complains when palestinians attack civilians, but then the big response comes when they capture (not kill) a couple of solidiers?????? Makes no sense. Israeli soldiers are as legitimate a target as you can get in this kind of war....

[Rogue15]

they're sick of being on the defensive. we didn't sit and take crap when bin laden took out our trade centers, we went to afghanistan and owned the taliban.

[rccar328]

But they ARE among the civilians. Mostly because they ARE civilians.

 

Thats like saying "we could get all those damn criminals if they didn't pourposefully hide among all the civilians".

 

Where exactly should they be? They should all go out and put on criminal/terrorist uniforms and march in formation into an open field and wave at one of the biggest armies in the world?

 

Hamas and hezbollah fighters tend to be in cities becuase they live and work in cities with their families. They tend to be surrounded and travelling with women and children because they are married to women and have children. They tend to be near hospitals and schools because they RUN all the hospitals and schools.

 

Israel has repeatedly should its quite happy to kill civilians and women and children to get at a single terrorist. So its not like visitin your family offers any defence.

 

And frankly, if there are civilians around (whether purposefully as a shield or not) then tough. You don't just go ahead and bomb them anyway... thats not how civilised societies behave.

So, what, should Israel just sit on its hands and let HAMAS and Hezbollah keep on attacking them over and over just because the terrorist leaders hide behind women and children? If anything, it speaks of the inhumanity of the terrorist leaders that they would surround themselves with their wives and children after a terrorist attack when they know that they are likely being targetted by the Israeli military. Israel has to be willing to accept civilian casualties in order to take out terrorists, or they'd never be able to kill any terrorist leaders. As I said before, this is a tactic of the terrorists: it puts Israel in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position. If Israel lets the terrorsts survive because they're surrounded by women and children, then the terrorists live to plan more terrorist attacks against Israel. If Israel kills the terrorists, they look bad because they couldn't do it without inflicting civilian casualties. The only option left for Israel is to try and choose the lesser of two evils. You may disagree with the choices they make, but the Israeli government has to do what it has to do to protect its citizens.

 

Everyone complains when palestinians attack civilians, but then the big response comes when they capture (not kill) a couple of solidiers?????? Makes no sense. Israeli soldiers are as legitimate a target as you can get in this kind of war....

Yeah, it's called "the straw that broke the camel's back." As I pointed out in my initial post, Hezbollah has tried this same tactic before, and Israel released over 400 prisoners in exchange for one kidnapped Israeli businessman. Obviously, capitulation only breeds more acts of terrorism. Israel seems to be operating on the philosophy of, "if at first you don't succeed, try something that'll work next time." Capitulating to terrorists doesn't make anyone safer. Killing terrorists does. That's just a fact of life.

 

Oh, and by the way, the initial Hezbollah attack included not only the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, but the killing of eight more.

[TK-8252]

Gee, maybe Israel should learn about these things called "special forces" and "counter-terrorism" rather than BOMB BOMB ROCKET HELICOPTAR!!

 

Bombing the **** out of civilians is not going to get your soldiers back. Starting a war is not going to get your soldiers back. It's only going to lead to the deaths of MORE people.

 

Notice how when it was just one soldier captured, they could have easily deployed special forces to search for him rather than rolling out the tanks to blow the **** out of everything. Now they have lost more of their soldiers. So seriously, who the hell is behind Israel's response? "We lost one soldier, so let's start a war over it and lose MORE soldiers!"

 

You know, if the zionists who kicked the Palestinians off their land in the first place couldn't see these endless conflicts in the future, they were ignorant as hell.

 

So should the Israelis just sit back and take it? No. When our U.S. soldiers were abducted in Iraq, we didn't bomb all of Baghdad did we? No. So are we just sitting back and taking it? No. We send in special forces. Not tanks and missiles to blow up airports and schools.

[rccar328]

A huge part of the ussue is Lebanon's allowing Hezbollah to operate within their nation. If Muslim terrorists were shooting missiles into the US from Canada or Mexico and digging tunnels under our border to facilitate attacks, we wouldn't stand for it for a second - our troops would be moving into that nation to take out the terrorists. This is what Israel is doing.

 

TK, your point about Israel losing more soldiers in a military action raises this glaringly obvious question: how many more soldiers would Israel lose over time if they did nothing, or showed so much restraint that they allowed terrorists to escape?

 

Also, I've heard no mention of the fact that Hezbollah is launching rockets into Israeli cities. Israel is not the aggressor here; they are reacting to the actions of Hezbollah.

 

Oh, and one more thing about toms's comment:

the big response comes when they capture (not kill) a couple of solidiers?????? Makes no sense.

The invasion of Israel by Hezbollah and the kidnapping and murder of Israeli soldiers was an act of war (also, according to wiki, the initial attack included rocket attacks by Hezbollah). If the Lebanese weren't ready for Israel to react when provoked with an act of war, they should have given Hezbollah the boot long ago.

 

If Lebanon is going to allow Hezbollah to operate within their borders, then they'd better be prepared to deal with reprisals from Israel when Hezbollah pushes Israel too far. Critics of Israel are condemning Israel for invading a "sovereign nation" by attacking Lebanon. Well, Israel is a "sovereign nation", as well, and this current situation was started when Israel was invaded and attacked by Hezbollah - and that includes the murders and kidnappings, as well as the rocket attacks.

[TK-8252]

You know why Hezbollah is in the Lebanese government? Because Bush and the neocon movement has been pushing for democracy in the Middle East. Apparently they forgot the fact that everyone over there hates us and likes the terrorist groups HAMAS and Hezbollah.

 

Oops.

 

And to say that the U.S. would attack terrorists who cause trouble at the border, well, they're causing trouble right now. Just not Muslim terrorists. Criminal gangs and drug cartels are. And no one is doing a damn thing about it. So when it's Muslim terrorists causing trouble you blow everything to pieces, but when it's Latino crimelords, don't do anything??

 

So what should Israel do if they don't react like this you act? Well, I'd like to point out that the reason WHY they're IN this situation is BECAUSE of them doing this. If they didn't do things like blow up infrastructure, indiscriminately bombing civillian targets, etc., maybe not so many Muslims would hate Israel besides the fact that they are occupying Muslim holy land.

 

It's called diplomacy. What amazes me is how, like the neocons in power in the U.S., the Israelis just have the attitude of "we're the good guys and we don't negotiate with the bad guys!" And that attitude gets you nothing except, as we have seen, war, that only makes people hate eachother more than they already do.

 

Why did Hezbollah get involved anyway? Because the Israelis rolled the tanks into Gaza and started blowing the **** out of everything. Guess what, Bush WANTS democracy in the Middle East, and he got it. And they voted in HAMAS and Hezbollah (and don't hope for democracy in Egypt if you don't want to see the Muslim Brotherhood). So now he has to deal with it. He can't just say "I want democracy to spread... but only if you vote in guys we like!" You can't have it both ways.

[Samnmax221]

and what a small chunk of land it is. Jerusulem is the Holy city of Chistians, Jews, and Muslims, to quote a very stupid man "Can't we all just get along?".

 

Frankly the Muslims don't want to share anything with the rest of the world, the Crusades were launched because the Muslims stopped allowing Christian pilgrims access to Jerusulem.

[rccar328]

It's called diplomacy. What amazes me is how, like the neocons in power in the U.S., the Israelis just have the attitude of "we're the good guys and we don't negotiate with the bad guys!" And that attitude gets you nothing except, as we have seen, war, that only makes people hate eachother more than they already do.

What diplomacy? Israel negotiated with Hezbollah the last time they pulled this kind of stunt! They turned over 490 arab prisoners in exchange for one kidnapped businessman! And just what did it get them?

 

Samnmax is right - the Muslims don't want to share anything with the rest of the world. And these Muslims in particular have demonstrated quite clearly that they will not respond to diplomacy. Israel has given concessions, and things calmed down for a while, but there is always another attack, another suicide bombing, another kidnapping.

 

And yes, Hezbollah and HAMAS were voted into power democratically. So was Adolf Hitler. A weird little thing about choices is that they have consequences. And if Palestinian Muslims are going to vote terrorist organizations into power, then they will have to deal with the consequences of their votes.

 

If the people of Lebanon decided to vote into power members of an organization likely to commit an act of war against a nation tired of being provoked, then they'd better get themselves ready, because war is coming.

 

It disgusts me when liberals go on and on about diplomacy. Successful diplomacy requires two parties willing to negotiate, and then abide by the results of that negotiation. HAMAS and Hezbollah have shown in extremely clear terms that, over the long term, they are not willing to abide by the terms of any negotiation with Israel unless the terms include the entire Jewish population of Israel committing mass suicide. They'll take any and all concessions made by Israel, and then turn around and attack again, and again, and again. How, exactly, is diplomacy supposed to work in that kind of situation?

 

And about your comment about Israel occupying "Muslim holy land": Jerusalem happens to be holy to Jews and Christians, as well, as Samnmax pointed out. The difference is that most Jews and Christians are willing to share the Holy Land, while Muslims believe that the entire region belongs to them (the Koran states that any lands held by Muslims are to be Muslim lands for the rest of all time. Try negotiating with that.).

[toms]

they're sick of being on the defensive. we didn't sit and take crap when bin laden took out our trade centers, we went to afghanistan and owned the taliban.

 

Which was very john wayne and all, but achieved absolutely nothing.

 

You are right that the situations are depressingly similar though.

 

Party A attacks party B... party B can't attack A back, but needs to look tough. So they attack party C. It doesn't matter if they succeed or fail, or if party C have any control over party A.. as long as it looks good to the voters. Attacking anyone is better than no one.

 

PS/ The taliban are owning you right back at the moment..

[toms]

and what a small chunk of land it is. Jerusulem is the Holy city of Chistians, Jews, and Muslims, to quote a very stupid man "Can't we all just get along?".

 

Frankly the Muslims don't want to share anything with the rest of the world, the Crusades were launched because the Muslims stopped allowing Christian pilgrims access to Jerusulem.

 

I thought it was the exact opposite... but who knows. Frankly, the actions of people 100s of years ago that bear no relation to the current people involved are irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure that it was the christians who stopped access to jerusalem.. but even if it was the muslims... how on earth can you hold an entire religion accountable for the actions of whatever one leader it was that did something 100s of years ago??

Its like saying all christians are murderers just because the catholic church used to burn witches. Hey, meet stereotype, you'll like him...

 

The lebanese government has no control over hezbollah. And every untargetted attack by israel increases the support for hez-b and reduces any influence the government might have had.

 

Its simillar to the way it would be political suicide for any US government to go against the NRA, or withdraw support for Israel. The groundswell of public opinion is such that the government has its hands tied.

 

I don't exactly see how bombing power stations and roads in lebannon is going to effect hez-b... if anything it has the usual effect of increasing the support for them.

 

rccarr328: the bible states a lot of hardline stupid things as well. Like executing all male prisoners etc.. the difference is that a lot of muslims still believe the qur'an, wereas most of us in the west have evolved enough intelligence to take the bible with a pinch of salt.

 

I like the way you try and demonise the muslims as the bad guys, but it just doesn't wash. All sides are equally selfish and narrow minded... as they are in all conflicts.

 

I love that it is ok for israel to inflict collateral damage... but its evil for the underdogs to do the same.

 

If its a war then israeli soldiers are legitimate targets. If it isn't a war then israel shouldn't be launching rocket attacks on cities.

 

Every time the IRA bombed a UK city we didn't unleash harriers and their rockets on ireland or the USA, even if they had a lot of support there. We showed enough intelligence and restraint to realise that it wasn't the fault of the majority of the people there that the attacks took place... and it would only cause more sympathy for those involved if we attacked indescriminately.

 

I love that the US, as probably the country with the least number of terrorist attacks on its soil, is suddenly the expert on how to effectively respond... especially considering its response so far has been totally ineffective.

 

How does israel bombing aything help the situation......

....

...

...

...it doesn't.

All it does is prove the new presidents credentials as being "firm against terrorists" to the voters. Who cares if it makes things worse or kills a lot of people in the process.

 

-

 

How come any response is ok for the USA and israel when their territory and citizens are attacked, but for the palestinians who had their homes and lands forcibly taken from them and were effectively forced to live in squalor and detention camps its not ok to fight back. I'd love to see you guys on the front line if the USA ever gets invaded saying "no, don't fight back!"

 

NB/post made after a lot of beer. typos may exist. ignore them, they are just trying to cause trouble.

[Samnmax221]

I thought it was the exact opposite... but who knows. Frankly, the actions of people 100s of years ago that bear no relation to the current people involved are irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure that it was the christians who stopped access to jerusalem.. but even if it was the muslims... how on earth can you hold an entire religion accountable for the actions of whatever one leader it was that did something 100s of years ago??

Its like saying all christians are murderers just because the catholic church used to burn witches. Hey, meet stereotype, you'll like him...

The hundreds of years separating the Crusades and the War on Terror are insignificant. It's the same thing, Radicals in charge of Muslim states don't want to share their country with the rest of the world despite the fact that many other people place an importance on the right to make a pilgrimage to sites in that land, not to mention that the most radical Muslim groups want the world to return to a 7th century state of mind and are willing to kill anyone who gets in their way to do it.

[Nancy Allen``]

Anyone is allowed to defend themselves, even the Palestinions. But the way they did so, sending children as suicide bombers and deliberately targeting civillian as opposed to military targets, is inexcuseable. Israel may kill civillians in their attacks, and every time they do it's a tragedy, but they are fighting for their very existence since as far as people such as Hamas is concerned what Hitler started, the extermination of the Jews, they are trying to finish. Every civillian death they should be taken to task for, but you cannot have one rule for a country who kills civillians in a military attack in self defense and another rule for a country who seeks to kill as many innocent victims as they can. To think otherwise is terrorist minded and deserves to be condemned.

 

not to mention that the most radical Muslim groups want the world to return to a 7th century state of mind and are willing to kill anyone who gets in their way to do it.

 

Just saw this. Exactly, many in the world see America in particular and the Western world in general as corrupt and morally bankrupt, from allowing women to express themselves the way they do and how they flaunt themselves to paying tens of millions of dollars to actors, athletes, ect and letting the poor and disadvantaged suffer. The extremists, rather than speak out against it or tolerate it seek to destroy it, and it may very well interpret their religion that they are meant to. I know it is very easy to read passages from the Bible and take them out of context, material such as 'anyone who commits these acts must be brought to death. You must show no mercy to their people.' That is not to say to think that way is right, or wrong, but that is how some people think.

[TK-8252]

Samnmax is right - the Muslims don't want to share anything with the rest of the world.

 

Apparently the Israelis don't either. They think they have god with them and they don't give a damn about innocent life in other territories. Sounds a lot like what the terrorists think.

 

And these Muslims in particular have demonstrated quite clearly that they will not respond to diplomacy. Israel has given concessions, and things calmed down for a while, but there is always another attack, another suicide bombing, another kidnapping.

 

In this case, I say to Israel - this is the inevitable consequence for occupying Muslim land. You should have seen this type of thing happening before you put this whole "Zionism" plan into action. "Hey guys, since everyone hates us in Europe, let's go and recreate our homeland! Oh, damn, there's these pesky Muslims down there now. Oh well, they won't mind!"

 

And yes, Hezbollah and HAMAS were voted into power democratically. So was Adolf Hitler. A weird little thing about choices is that they have consequences. And if Palestinian Muslims are going to vote terrorist organizations into power, then they will have to deal with the consequences of their votes.

 

If the people of Lebanon decided to vote into power members of an organization likely to commit an act of war against a nation tired of being provoked, then they'd better get themselves ready, because war is coming.

 

So if these people are going to vote terrorist groups into power, why is Bush pushing democracy on them?

 

It disgusts me when liberals go on and on about diplomacy.

 

Funny you should inject the word "liberals" in this, because I was listening to Pat Buchanan speaking on Tucker Carlson's show on MSNBC, and his views on this matter are exactly the same as mine. All of a sudden Pat Buchanon is a "liberal" now eh? Because he's not a neocon? BTW I'm not a liberal in the sense you think of them.

 

How, exactly, is diplomacy supposed to work in that kind of situation?

 

Hey, I dunno, but how is bombing everyone and making them hate you even more, killing civilians, and starting a war going to help?

 

And about your comment about Israel occupying "Muslim holy land": Jerusalem happens to be holy to Jews and Christians, as well, as Samnmax pointed out. The difference is that most Jews and Christians are willing to share the Holy Land, while Muslims believe that the entire region belongs to them (the Koran states that any lands held by Muslims are to be Muslim lands for the rest of all time. Try negotiating with that.).

 

Yes I know it is holy land for all the religions (without religion we wouldn't have this damn problem to begin with), but that doesn't make it fair game for one religious group to take over, just 'cuz they feel like it. It was the Muslims' land when it was Palestine. Invading a country, taking it over, and kicking all the people off their land and moving in your people is not right.

[Samnmax221]

Not Israelies are Jewish, it breaks down like this

76.2% Jewish

16.1% Muslim

2.1% Christian

1.6% Druze

The rest are not classified

[rccar328]

Apparently the Israelis don't either. They think they have god with them and they don't give a damn about innocent life in other territories. Sounds a lot like what the terrorists think.

Because they retaliate against terrorist attacks? I don't know if you're aware of this, but Israel allows Muslims to live in Jerusalem. And I haven't heard the Israeli government pushing for the destruction of Islam, just for Muslim terrorists to stop killing Israeli civilians.

 

In this case, I say to Israel - this is the inevitable consequence for occupying Muslim land. You should have seen this type of thing happening before you put this whole "Zionism" plan into action. "Hey guys, since everyone hates us in Europe, let's go and recreate our homeland! Oh, damn, there's these pesky Muslims down there now. Oh well, they won't mind!"

There you go again with the "Muslim land" thing. If you're going to get into that over and over, then let's be real about it: the land belonged to the Jews long before Islam even existed. A lot of the contention in the region throughout history (including the Crusades) has been because of Muslims' belief that once they are in possession of a piece of land, it becomes "Muslim land" for the rest of all eternity...and their defense of that belief has been very bloody indeed.

 

So if these people are going to vote terrorist groups into power, why is Bush pushing democracy on them?

I can't speak for Bush, but frankly, I don't see how the neoconservative agenda to spread democracy to the Middle East excuses the behavior of HAMAS and Hezbollah.

 

Funny you should inject the word "liberals" in this, because I was listening to Pat Buchanan speaking on Tucker Carlson's show on MSNBC, and his views on this matter are exactly the same as mine. All of a sudden Pat Buchanon is a "liberal" now eh? Because he's not a neocon? BTW I'm not a liberal in the sense you think of them.

Buchanan isn't a neocon, he's a wacko. And I use the generalization "liberals" because it's liberals who have been whining about diplomacy (and ignoring the facts) for a long time now. We didn't take enough time for diplomacy to work in Iraq...even though Hussein was using the diplomatic process to toy with the world. Madeline Albright was in the news calling the recent North Korea missile test a "failure of diplomacy" on the part of the United States...so, according to her, the US failed diplomatically because we couldn't talk an insane commie dictator out of test-firing missiles? Frankly, Madeline Albright is suffering from a "failure of logic."

 

The problem with saying, "give diplomacy a chance," like I said before, is that diplomacy requires two rational parties willing to agree on a compromise. HAMAS and Hezbollah have shown in the past that they will compromise and then attack, and then compromise and then attack. About as effective as Neville Chamberlain's Munich Agreement.

Hey, I dunno, but how is bombing everyone and making them hate you even more, killing civilians, and starting a war going to help?

Simple: once the terrorists are dead, they are incapable of attacking again. The current situation is not impossible to fix, but it's definitely not going to be pretty. But as long as the Islamic terrorists are dead, it'll be better than playing at an illusion of peace. Frankly, I found President Bush's talk about "a road map to peace" to be extremely naive: the only way there will be peace in the Middle East with the Islamic radicals still there is to give them all of the land and let them institute Sha'ria law there. Then, the Middle East will be at peace, but radical Islam will inevitably spread and start threatening some other area. You seem to forget: the goal of radical Islam is not simply the re-conquest of Jerusalem, it is global domination.

 

Yes I know it is holy land for all the religions (without religion we wouldn't have this damn problem to begin with), but that doesn't make it fair game for one religious group to take over, just 'cuz they feel like it. It was the Muslims' land when it was Palestine. Invading a country, taking it over, and kicking all the people off their land and moving in your people is not right.

Like I said above, the land belonged to the Jews long before it was conquered by the Muslims.