Lindsay’s probably not got a lot of access to a computer right now, so I’m swiping her observation that she made a couple of times while I was in New York about the news coverage of Israel waging war on Lebanon. The fear of the Wingnutteria whining has turned the mainstream media into the biggest bunch of cowards you ever saw; meanwhile the right wing press is unafraid and this has made them less constrained on the subject of this war. Case in point—today the NY Times is using weasel words like “fight” in headlines, but the NY Post happily uses the more accurate word “battle”. The Post is also unafraid of the word “invasion”. Meanwhile, as Lindsay noted over the weekend, the “objective” press was using vague language like “Border draws Israeli troops“, a phrasing that makes the border the subject and troops merely a passive object.
The mainstream position is to avoid even the hint of criticism aimed in Israel’s direction. The problem with that is when Israel does something so obviously odious as killing innocent civilians and holding them culpable for what an unsanctioned organization does, well, even just straightforward reporting is going to seem critical. It’s not just the media, either. There was a bit of a dust-up on Punkass Marc’s post on how he thinks Ned Lamont is going to be politics-as-usual because of his refusal to criticize Israel openly for what seems to be obviously wrong, which is, of course, killing innocents with such a slim excuse. In the comments, Zuzu and Norbizness rightfully pointed out that Lamont has a good reason to fear being called an anti-Semite if he does criticize Israel, and while this is certainly true, it mostly shows that Lieberman is a sleazy bastard if he’s so happy to pull out obviously untrue assertions to tar Lamont.
The problem is—if I’m free to say so without dredging up the operant conditioning debate—is that whenever the fear of having right wingers equate criticism of Israel with being an anti-Semite makes a liberal or even just a journalist engage in self-censorship, that emboldens the right and undermines our position. The short term gains (not getting deluded with email, avoiding the inevitable attempts of your opponent to ruin your reputation) are causing, or at least enabling, serious long term problems. And I would characterize this invasion as one of those problems. Right now there’s a general feeling that the two views on this “conflict” are “Kick some ass, Israel!” and “Some fringe elements seem to think it’s a shame that innocent civilians will have to suffer while Israel kicks some righteous ass.” Far be it for me to be a party pooper and wish that we could broaden the discourse just a little so that a viewpoint that allows that there’s something terribly wrong about killing innocent people could be included.
August has more. Ezra has found how those who want brainless support for Israel are going to accuse those they can’t tar as anti-Semites—apparently, they’re nihilists. This continues that process of conservatives calling everyone they don’t agree with “nihilists”, which makes me wonder if that’s a euphemism for saying they’d like to annihilate us all.
167 Responses to “Cowards ponder how to discuss the Israel/Lebanon breakdown of pleasantries”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
The mainstream position is to avoid even the hint of criticism aimed in Israel’s direction.
Oh, please. The mainstream position is to criticize Israel for picking on the innocent freedom fighters of Hezbollah and pre-emptively sneer “Oh, but I suppose you’re going to suggest I’m an anti-Semite or something”. Kind of the way ‘wingers like to jump up and down and scream “PC! PC!” to try and shut progressives up.
I’d really like to think that there is room to criticize what Israel’s doing and denounce the kililing of innocents without having to be within touching distance of the I’m Not An Anti-Semite, Why, Some Of My Best Friends Are Murdering Bastard Israel Supporting Jews crowd. Doesn’t seem to be much room over here for that on the left, though.
Who in the mainstream has this position? Can you name names? Perhaps one of the reporters who is calling this a conflict? Meanwhile, you’re free to pursue the links at the bottom to see how right wingers are calling any and everyone who thinks Israel is overreaching an anti-Semite.
Both sides in this struggle, battle, war, whatever you want to call it, are targeting civilians. Anyone who says his side isn’t, is a damn liar.
Usually I dislike the “plague on both your houses” approach—it smacks of intellectual laziness—but I can’t think of any other that applies here. Both sides disgust me. Screw the Israelis and the Arabs too. Let them slit each other’s throats until the end of time if that’s what they want.
One side is a democratic state, Bitter. Creating a false equivalency is wrong and misleading.
Ned Lamont is going to be politics-as-usual because of his refusal to criticize Israel openly for what seems to be obviously wrong
Steve Clemons said on Brian Lehrer’s show yesterday that the Dem D.C. establishment is getting antsy about the Lieberman race’s impact on Jewish support for the party, and that it accounts in part for the endorsement from Boxer et al. I wonder if Lamont is getting the same vibes.
Screw the Israelis and the Arabs too. Let them slit each other’s throats until the end of time if that’s what they want.
ignoring the false equivalency, is that the people on the ground, “getting their throats slit” really didn’t make any decision in the matter so they aren’t israelis and arabs. they’re people. getting killed because of some decision made a hundred miles away by an Arab or Israeli asshole.
the same thinking allows for “well, the insurgents are murderous fucks, and Bush is a dick, so let the US and Iraq just slug it out.”
also, Give us the money, Lebowski, or we kill the girl!
We believe in nothing, Lebowski!
I wish I could see how this bombing would actually hurt Hezbollah. When the Lebanese refugees come back to their blown-up houses, I think they’ll be very angry at the Israelis who dropped the bombs, and not as angry at the Islamic militants whom the Israelis want them to fight. It’s a process that will probably end up strengthening Hezbollah overall.
There are actual anti-semites out there, which is just damn weird.
I avoided thinking about israel/palistine for the entire duration of my college career, the acrimony and bitterness is just retarded.
I don’t think that Israel is deliberately targetting civilians - if they are they’re doing a crap job of it. War is inherently chaotic, and modern warfare places huge firepower in the hands of individual soldiers, so fuckups are much more devastating than in the good old days when people beat each other to death with rocks.
Israel *is* placing greater priority on killing Hezbollah fighters than on avoiding civilian casualties, and the fact that Hezbollah fighters are seeking cover among civilians increases the civilian death toll still further.
Unfortunately everyone concerned, including the decision makers of the parties directly involved, is working with incomplete information in an environment where both sides as well as third parties are actively spreading disinformation. The real truth will out somewhere down the line, far too late to be of any comfort to the dead, the wounded, and the orphans.
Israel has done plenty of things worthy of criticism (settlements, anyone?), but deliberate targetting of civilians in this particular conflict doesn’t appear to be one of them.
Yeah, Neil. Some of us (*cough*) think Hezbollah is probably quite aware how this will strengthen their recruitment.
Israel *is* placing greater priority on killing Hezbollah fighters than on avoiding civilian casualties, and the fact that Hezbollah fighters are seeking cover among civilians increases the civilian death toll still further.
But isn’t this close enough to targeting civilians that it doesn’t matter? If you *know* civilians are in the area, but you drop the bombs anyway?
If, in the US, there were some seriously bad gang members or mafia guys or something hiding out in an apartment complex where regular people also lived, what kind of pyrric (I’m sure I spelled that wrong…) victory would it be if the police bombed the place, killing the bad guys but also innocent women, men, and children? What kind of reaction would that cause in that neighborhood against the police?
Would it matter if killing the bad guys meant lives would be saved in the long run?
It’s a catch-22, I guess. Do you sacrifice the other person’s civilians now to save civilians where you are, later?
It gets me too depressed. I’ve been avoiding the news the past two weeks, trying instead just to enjoy life with my newborn. But as it’s found its way to Pandagon (and the baby’s napping) I guess I’m commenting on it.
If Israel isn’t deliberately targeting civilians, they have to be the most incompetent aimers in the history of armed conflict. It is not antisemitic or anti-Israel to condemn the atrocities of Israel’s hard-line, hawkish government any more than it is unpatriotic to condemn our own government’s atrocities in Iraq. Aside from being criminal and inhumane, the Israeli government’s policy of slaughtering innocents undermines any moderate voices among the Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Jordanians and Syrians. Even the Egyptian government will be under extreme political pressure internally to respond. And for some reason (possibly the “Made in USA” on Israel’s missiles), I can’t help but feel that we bear some responsibility. Damn.
Worst weasel language I’ve seen: “incident.”
“Incident” has always seemed like a trivial word to me, so applying it to mass slaughter of civilians is pretty horrifying. I’ve seen this used to describe civilian slaughter (as in children and old people in wheelchairs slaughter) in Iraq as well.
I wish to God there was a way to take the lunatic murdering assholes on both sides, lock them up somewhere, throw away the key, let them slaughter each other, and let the decent people who just want to live their lives in peace work something out that they all could live with… and a pony…
plucky - congrats on the new baby. Best wishes for health and happiness.
Well, Amanda, if waving hands and saying “the mainstream view is…” is good enough to prove your point, it damn well ought to be good enough to prove mine.
Meanwhile, you’re free to pursue the links at the bottom to see how right wingers are calling any and everyone who thinks Israel is overreaching an anti-Semite.
Therefore, anti-Semites do not exist, especially on the left. Neither do anti-Semites who try to shut debate down by saying ‘oh, I suppose you’ll accuse me of being an anti-Semite’.
There’s a reason we don’t hear as much as we used to about the Israeli left and American Jews who hate the oppression of the Palestinians but don’t hate Israel. They kind of got tired of lying down with pigs.
The major US media is completely in thrall to the IDF. Even such “liberal” media as NPR and Al Franken equivocate Israeli casualities with Palestinian and Lebanese casualties despite the over 10 fold difference in numbers.
So the direct hit on a U.N. post was just one of those silly mistakes that happen in a war?
http://tinyurl.com/g2t6x
If all of the hospitals, power plants, and columns of fleeing refugees that have been bombed were all hit by mistake, Israel must have some of the worst targeting software ever developed.
Mythago, if you’re not even willing to admit that Israel may have overreacted to the kidnapping of two (2) soldiers by launching this invasion of Lebanon, then I’m not sure why you’re even here.
Both sides in this struggle, battle, war, whatever you want to call it, are targeting civilians. Anyone who says his side isn’t, is a damn liar.
Except there are three sides here. There’re the Israelis, who are targetting civilians in response to their own civilians being targetted. There’s Hezbollah, which is targetting civilians because they’re terrorists and that’s what terrorists generally target. And there’re Lebanese civilians, who aren’t targetting anyone, and are dying at a rate of twenty to one compared to the Israeli civilianss.
A plague on both their houses? Great. Except for the highrise between them that’s starting to fill up with innocent plague victims.
Ever hear of MOVE? In 1985, the Philadelphia police killed 11 people and burned down 60 homes. You can read about MOVE here, or do your own research.
And here I thought nihilism had something to do with Kant.
I truly wonder at Israel’s tactical and strategic goals. Destroying the infrastructure of Lebanon, slaughtering civilians and bombing ambulances just don’t make any sense as anything other than punishment.
Obviously, the carnage will serve to increase the stature of Hezbellah in the Middle East. The undermining of the fledgling Lebanese democracy will only create another failed state in region for terrorists to use as a base of operations. Almost certainly the indiscriminate killing of Lebanese civilians will damage world-wide sympathy for Israel.
I certainly hold no brief for Hezbellah but Israel’s tactics seem to be simply another side of the neo-con tactics that got us into Iraq. I don’t think pointing out the evident links between American neo-cons and their counter-parts in Israel is anti-semitic. Ignoring the connections is the worst kind of PC stupidity.
Israel’s tactics seem to be simply another side of the neo-con tactics that got us into Iraq.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed that, right down to the ridiculous invader’s jingoisms about how they’re really doing this for the Lebanese, and how Lebanon will thank Israel for this once tempers cool down. Hell, I actually saw the Israeli ambassador to the UN tell the Lebanese ambassador that if he weren’t under the thumb of Hezbollah he’d be agreeing with the Israelis all the way; talk about arrogance! Thankfully, at the moment, the Israelis haven’t been quite stupid enough to try and invade Lebanon on the ground again, but there’s talk aplenty, and unlike the Republican Guard I doubt the Lebanese Army is going to melt away in the face of an invasion. And won’t footage of the IDF slaughtering the ill-trained and ill-equipped Lebanese army just win those hearts and minds.
The wingnuts have to have their slogans, because there is maybe 1 functioning brain for every 1,500 of them.
You have to go to the simplest terms when dealing with the simplest people. So anyone who dared ask why Jeffy Gannon was a WH correspondent was a “homophobe,” anyone who questions the Chimperor’s Great Patriotic War “aids the enemy,” and of course if you wonder about the excesses of Israeli operations in Lebanon, you will be an “anti-Semite.” Rove and Rush are effective disseminators of bullshit, and they have an all-too-addled audience ready to receive and act upon their marching orders.
Of course, we know that the lunatic fringe of Jesusistan believes that there can be no Rapture as long as there are Jews outside of Israel-they have to be there to get smoked, according to Revelation. Since the Chimperor happens to be one of those lunatics, I suspect we could find some pretty interesting views on the Jewish people if we could get him to tell the truth.
Mythago, do you have any empirical evidence of anti-semitism among the left? Are Jews discriminated against and underrepresented among any significant Left institution? Which ones? Can you name any predominant member of the left who is anti-semitic?
Or, as Michael Franti says:
“Fight terrorists where-ever they be found?
Why you not bombing Tim McVeigh’s hometown?”
I just don’t understand what anyone - either Arab or Israeli - thinks is going to happen in the long term.
I can understand Israel’s defensiveness, and I can understand Arab defensiveness - but I think it’s a damn mistake to equate political policy on any level with religion or race. It feeds into that horrible tendency people have to see the “other” as a homogeneous group.
Theocracies, man. Bad idea.
Israel is fighting a war. A war they did not start. Civilians get killed in wars. That’s the main reason they are so terrible.We killed millions of innocents in WWII fighting Germany and Japan. Should we have not fought that war? You have become mislead by the movies and frankly, by the competence of the US military. Precisely because of people like you, the US military has spent billions of dollars on technology and training to limit civilian casualities, but we are the only military in the world who have done so. I am far from a Zionist, I have been in favor of a Palestinian State all my life. In this case Israel is 100% in the right.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think that Israelis think this is about the number of soldiers that were kidnapped. It’s about the fact that it happened on their own soil and that their borders were violated. And to understand the Israeli perspective, you have to understand that Israelis believe that they are constantly fighting for their very survival, that their enemies deny their right to exist at all, as a nation and as people. Hezbollah’s goal is to end Israel and if necessary to kill all Israelis. (Because once Israel is ended, there will be no place for those people to go, and history suggests that other countries will not line up to take them in.) In some profound, psychological way, they see what Hezbollah did as an invasion and as really different from lobbing bombs at them from some other country. And they don’t believe that it’s equivilent when someone else invades them as when they invade someone else, because they aren’t trying to wipe out Lebanon. They’re just trying to ensure their national survival. They see this, at heart, as a struggle over whether there will be an Israel. Hezbollah invaded Israel in an attempt to end the existence of Israel. Israel has attacked Lebanon in an attempt to preserve the existence of Israel. They’re only equivilent, according to Israelis, if you’re neutral on whether Israel should continue to exist.
I don’t agree with this point of view, and I don’t think Israel’s actions are anywhere close to justified. But I think there’s some virtue in trying to understand the Israeli point of view, because otherwise it’s easy to fall into the trap of seeing Israelis as monsters. And I don’t think they are, although they do seem to be acting like it right now.
On the whole anti-semitism question: Leiberman is a grade-A asshole, and I refuse to listen to anything he says about anyone. He offends me so much, I think, because I’m Jewish. And I’m sick to death of pro-Israel types crying wolf about anti-semitism. But I do think there’s plenty of anti-semitism on the anti-Zionist left. I’ve encountered quite a bit of it personally. And it does give me pause to find that I’m making common cause with people who fundamentally hate me.
Mythago, you’re free to look at the news links, too. Mainstream papers—downplaying the violence, not commenting out of sheer fear. Right wing papers—open cheerleading. Believe me, I know some anti-Semites. They all vote for the Republicans and support the idea of expanding the state of Israel. Their motivations are a bit mercenary, to say the least.
And to understand the Israeli perspective, you have to understand that Israelis believe that they are constantly fighting for their very survival, that their enemies deny their right to exist at all, as a nation and as people.
That’s understood. But Israel has yet to understand that 1967 was nearly forty years ago; whereas now, as a steroidal nuclear-armed military powerhouse (paid by American tax dollars) it does not face an existential threat.
Some Israelis understand this. Tony Judt understands this:
Israel hasn’t come to terms with the idea that being surrounded by strong countries increases her security, and that weakening those countries with air bombardments prolongs violent resentment.
Being surrounded by strong countries does not necessarily guarantee security. Look at England, France and Spain, all strong countries - all fighting like cats and dogs during the Middle Ages.
Israel may be looking to the future where being the top dog in the region surrounded by failed states allows the country to hog all the resources. It’s a lot easier to fight failed states than it is strong countries.
Attacking Lebanon for Hizbullah activities makes, at most, slightly more sense than attacking Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda activities.
That said, the Lebanese military was not initially involved. The only way to say “the IDF reaction ought to have involved 0 Lebanese civilians” is to say “the IDF shouldn’t have reacted at all.” That doesn’t mean it’s all right to target civilians willy-nilly (as it strikes me Israel is doing), but certainly saying “back off the civilians” is a simplistic answer.
Mythago, if you’re not even willing to admit that Israel may have overreacted to the kidnapping of two (2) soldiers by launching this invasion of Lebanon, then I’m not sure why you’re even here.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think that Israelis think this is about the number of soldiers that were kidnapped
Folks, I’ve staid out of this because I am in a confusing position - I am an Israeli, I am very much against the war - but i dislike the way the Israeli side seems to be portrayed here.
First of all - this is not about the two kidnapped soldiers. This is about the fact that Hezbollah has been attacking Israel and its citizens for the past six to seven years.
Second - Israel is NOT deliberately attcking civilians. It’s trying to attack Hizbollah forces…who hide amongst civilians.
Which brings me to the next point - my (and many other Israelis’ - judging by the number of people who were with me at the anti-war demonstration last weekend) objection to the war has to do with the disproportionate force used when attacking an enemy who cannot be cleanly separated from the civilian population. Not only that, but even though something should be done about Hizbollah - attcking in such a way as to kill hundreds of civilians for each combatant is unacceptable. Moreover, the civilians involved are not even the civlian population of the enemy - Hizbollah is financed and backed by Syria and Iran, the poor Lebanese are victims just as much as Israelies are.
That’s understood. But Israel has yet to understand that 1967 was nearly forty years ago; whereas now, as a steroidal nuclear-armed military powerhouse (paid by American tax dollars) it does not face an existential threat.
Surely. But a country is not supposed to let its citizens be killed by bombs and missiles and terrorist attacks from the border and Gaza just because it’s not an existential threat, is it? Israel has been subject to weekly missile attacks for the past God-knows-how-long. It hardly makes the world news, because really - they don’t do much damage: a man killed here, a family there…. Israel won’t be destroyed by that, but a government is not supposed to just sit idly by and let citizens die here and there, killed by foreign attackers, just because it won’t be wiped off the map.
My point is that Israel is facing a threat that demands government action. Of course, my idea of government action has more to do with humanitarian aide and negotiations and land for the Palestinians and support for the Lebanese government and trade agreements and such then open warfare… but this is not a case of Israel waking up one day and attacking a peaceful neighbour: this is a case of a situation carefully and stupidly mismanaged over decades (on all sides involved, btw - there’s plenty of blame to go around), to the utter horror of a lot of civilians all around.
Sadly, I think this whole mess is the result of not having an ex-general as either minister of defence or PM: they have overreacted to compensate for being thought soft or weak, domestically. Of course, having an ex-general as MOD or PM is less than ideal too, but that ship sailed long ago.
I can’t see how Israel can ‘win’ this incursion, tho - presuming that their actual objective was to destroy the established firing positions & fixed positions of Hezbollah (along with whatever fighters & collateral damage might occur), they may weaken Hezbollahs immediate military strength, only to store up immense trouble for the not too distant future.
And, as Billmon has pointed out so eloquently, if they are visibly seen as losing, then the immediate future will become even more hazardous, as it makes them a more tempting target for every other party in the levant.
Of course, my idea of government action has more to do with humanitarian aide and negotiations and land for the Palestinians and support for the Lebanese government and trade agreements and such then open warfare
That’s all been tried before, and Israel got rocketed for its troubles. As the saying goes, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
Oh cool. Let’s quote Tony Judt who says the state of Israel is “an anachronism” and should cease to exist.
There’s a moral authority!
One thing that is fairly obvious but bears repeating; however you feel about the conflict, I think we can all safey say that it isn’t really possible to kill guerillas from the sky. Hezbollah, as an organization will not suffer. Olmert’s government in Israel won’t suffer. Lebanese and Israeli citizens will.
Considering that they decided to throw snowballs in hell a few days ago when Arab nations got together to condemn Hezbollah for its obvious unilateral aggression, I’d say the organization isn’t exactly in the good graces of many
save for the usual anti-Israel/anti-American groupies.
Ah yes, the last resort of the desperate. “But we want a condemnation!” Because wingnuts think sitting around condemning shit is a substitute for politics doesn’t make it so.
Y’know, just as “anti-Israel” isn’t the same as “anti-Semitic”*, it’s not the same as “anti-American” either.
*There’s overlap, but as noted, there’s a lot of overlap between pro-Israel and anti-Semitic too. In any case, it’s not logically inconsistant to hold one of those positions but not the other, regardless of how many people do so.
gahrie-Israel started this war when it-without provocation- shelled a Gaza beach killing a family. That’s what caused the soldiers to be captured.
Israel never claims to have started a war but repeatedly has repeatedly started them, including the 1967 war, and the 1982 invasion of lebanon that created hezballah.
Seriously, don’t pay any attention to what Darleen spouts. She thinks Heinlein is someone worth quoting when dealing with pacifist ideas. Heinlein?! HAHAHA!
Darleen, here’s a question:
Why shouldn’t the State of Isreal Cease to exist? What moral right to exist does it have?
It’s a country built on stolen land granted by Imperialist European Governments who are all to happy to export the Jews after WWII rather (and in the process gain a “Western” middle Eastern ally) than stop being racist, and it’s repeatedly shown itself to be one of the most war-mongering states on Earth.
Isreal has Nuclear Weapons they shouldn’t have, and the International Community looks the other way.
Isreal Kills innocent people almost every day.
Isreal uses Assasination routinely to manipulate Palestinian politics.
Isreal keeps Palestinians in essentially concentration camps and denies their freedom of movement.
I have sympathy for the Isreali people, but they can get by just fine without the Isreali State (propably better, as they won’t be as desirable a target for terrorist attacks).
Why shouldn’t the State of Isreal Cease to exist?
If for no other reason, then because the cessation of its existence would involve killing tens of thousands of people wounding hundreds of thousands, and the forced removal of millions. It would also create the precedent for further atrocities by other nations.
Israel isn’t a perfect country, and some on the Israeli right are outright evil. Large numbers of Israelis see no option but to support hardliners because the hardliners on the other side are so influential and persistent in their desire to exterminate Israel. The situation in the former British Mandate of Palestine is not comprehensible in simple terms - each side has its evil leaders, and each side has would-be peacemakers who are marginalized by the thugish elements. The thugs want conflict because it gives them power, advances their agenda, and creates a simplifying dynamic that their world view desperately needs.
It’s all well and good to criticize Israel, and I think Americans are in a better position to do so than most others because of opur country’s close ties with Israel, but any analysis of the situation that fails to account of the exterminationists among Israel’s enemies is hopelessly niave. Israeli forces withdrew from Gaza, and what did they get? - rocket attacks and kidnapping.
If we could go back to 1948, no doubt things could have been done much better, much needless suffering avoided. It’s not 1948, so let’s not waste time pretending the clock can be rolled back.
[…] Amanda argued that we can’t be scared of opposing Israel’s actions because of the threat of an Anti-semitism charge. Here, I’ll quote you the same bit used by the right-wing blogger in question: There was a bit of a dust-up on Punkass Marc’s post on how he thinks Ned Lamont is going to be politics-as-usual because of his refusal to criticize Israel openly for what seems to be obviously wrong, which is, of course, killing innocents with such a slim excuse. […] The problem with that is when Israel does something so obviously odious as killing innocent civilians and holding them culpable for what an unsanctioned organization does, well, even just straightforward reporting is going to seem critical […] The problem is–if I’m free to say so without dredging up the operant conditioning debate–is that whenever the fear of having right wingers equate criticism of Israel with being an anti-Semite makes a liberal or even just a journalist engage in self-censorship, that emboldens the right and undermines our position. The short term gains (not getting deluded with email, avoiding the inevitable attempts of your opponent to ruin your reputation) are causing, or at least enabling, serious long term problems. And I would characterize this invasion as one of those problems. […]
israel has no future. They insist on provoking their neighbors. They are vastly outnumbered. Sooner or later an arab country will develop nukes and eventually the US will be either unwilling or unable to back israel. Can anyone really imagine this country making it to the 22nd century?
Togolosh-> First of all, the isreali “withdrawal” was a backhanded way of stealing more land.
Second of all, I don’t think that an end to the State of Isreal has to be violent. There are exterminationists on the Palestinian side, but the only reason they have any legitimacy at all with the general public, or even inside of Hamas is because of the constant threats to Palestinian Survival and the dire poverty Palestinians are in.
If Isreal gave the PLO access to tax revenues, and gave ordinary Palestinians access to markets, they’d do more for the average Palestinian than Hamas ever could. The economic depression Palestine is suffering right now is a far bigger threat to Palestinian life right now than even the IDF. Isreal the State would never do this.
I want to believe a peaceful solution is possible, because I’m an idealist, I can’t accept a war without end, and to me, the only way peace is going to happen is if Ordinary Isrealis make Peace with Ordinary Palestinians, and pull the rugs out from under their respective corrupt and militaristic governments.
Don’t get me wrong, Iran alone is a reason for a big concentration of Jews in the Middle East to have an Army protecting them, but they need to create one that isn’t run by War Criminals.
I hate to be pedantic here, but it’s “Israel.” As in Isra (Struggles with) - el (God).
For anyone who is interested, here is a series of articles and debates about the left and anti-semitism:
http://www.zmag.org/racewatch/znet_antisemitism.htm
Why shouldn’t the State of Isreal Cease to exist? What moral right to exist does it have?
What moral right does the US have to exist? or Germany? or India (gained independence in ‘48 as well, has been a hotbed religious terror ever since)?
I have sympathy for the Isreali people, but they can get by just fine without the Isreali State (propably better, as they won’t be as desirable a target for terrorist attacks).
Of course. And which country/ies would fling open their gates to accept the millions of Israeli refugees? the US, perchance? England or Germany or France with their existing immigration problems? or perhaps the Arab countries and/or Palestine?
Israel isn’t a perfect country, and some on the Israeli right are outright evil
Yup. And some on the American right are evil as well. Some on the Palestinian side aren’t too saintly either. Not to mention the folks in Iran and Syria. I am sure there are evil Lebanese as well (present conflict notwithstanding - as I said earlier, I consider the Lebanese to be fairly innocent victims of unnecessary aggression).
I am fairly troubled by the fact that I see the existence of my country challenged here. Guys - unless you feel comfortable having the past conquests and massacres of each country in the world examined (and every country in the world is built on conquest and massacres - it’s only a matter of how far back you look), I wouldn’t rush to question Israel’s “moral right to exist” on that basis.
In fact, you seem to be saying that the only mistake that Israel made in ‘48 was NOT to totally decimate the indigenous population - as the US did with the Native Americans. Then we’d have nobody around to question our right to exist - just a bunch of reserves with a remnant population suffering from discrimination and fetishization.
People who live in glass houses etc.
::sigh:: I think that’s supposed to be “reservations,” not reserves - sorry, it’s been a long day…
Tefnut, I don’t support the moral right of any state to exist. I’m an Anarchist. And believe me, the reason I am so opposed to Isreal is because I fear that the same thing I see here in Canada, where Natives are usually treated as second-class citizens and disproportionately live in dire poverty, is what Israel will look like in fifty years. The US had Oklahoma, Isreal has the West Bank & Gaza, but the situation is bassically the same. The difference is the timeframe - we can’t go back in time and erase the murders commited while colonizing North America, but we can stop further ones from happening in the Middle East.
The idea that a terrorist threat to Isreali Citizens gives Isreal carte blanche to kill any number of non-Citizens in order to protect its citizens has been Isreal’s Policy for some time now, and what it amounts to is a belief that Isreali lives are worth more than others. I think a government that takes that position is on a dangerous path.
I’d love to see Isreal radically change direction and work towards a just Peace, but hoping for that seems absurd, given Isreal’s history. Isreal’s government has been one set of hawks after another, and I don’t really see an end to it anytime soon. I guess that propably puts me in the “one-state solution” camp, although I’d prefer a no-state solution, I agknowledge that the future of both Palestians and Isrealis depends on being able to defend themselves from outside threats.
I don’t think that Isreal neccesarily has to end, as a country, I was merely trying to explain that holding that position isn’t all that irrational, given the situation. If Isreal gets the Settlers out of the Occupied territories and starts acting like the democratic, free country it claims to be, then I’m all for it’s continued existence. If it doesn’t then a lot of innocent civilians on both sides are going to pay the price.
Pablo, we can yet hope that the surrounding Arab countries and Iran will learn to be more peaceful and stop the ceaseless violence and desire for expansion and conquest that has been happening for too many centuries
labyrus, the problem is, the violence started well before Israel was in the West Bank (incidentally, why is Israel in the West Bank? What happened that it ended up in Israel’s possession?). So why assume casually that if Israel puts itself in a far more tenuous position by handing over more land to the Palestinians that the violence would stop? What has been the result of giving land to the Palestinians so far, or the Lebanese?
Assuming you were not being rhetorical:
http://www.merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/toc-pal-isr-primer.html
Wikipedia also has a fair bit of info on what happened before and after the creation of Israel.
odd2- Israel is the one who is expansionist and treats it’s neighbors as subhumans. Yet, it is Israel’s survival that is at stake. They should be kissing ass and going the extra mile for peace but their machismo won’t let them. If they keep on that path, they’re doomed. It’s the numberrs.
D, thanks for the link. “Jordan joined in the fighting belatedly, and consequently was attacked by Israel as well.” So the West Bank ended up in the hands of Israel due to Jordan attacking Israel in 1967 and losing.
Israel stated the 1967 war.
Pablo, that’s odd, as Israel accepted partition and the Arabs did not. And even odder that right after the war in 1967, Israel offered to give back all land acquired after the Arab belligerence in exchange for peace and the Arabs all said ‘no’ (Khartoum).
It would take a very strained reading to reach that conclusion pablo. And as to Jordan and the West Bank, you would need way more than straining.
Israel struck first by attacking Egypt on june 5.
They also struck first in 1948 when the Haganah attacked the village of Palmach.
They also participated in the Suez crisis in 56.
They invaded Lebanon in 1982.
They have a habit of attacking first and then claiming victim status valiantly standing up to a bully.
Why shouldn’t the State of Isreal Cease to exist? What moral right to exist does it have?
To serve as a last ditch sanctuary for jews during the next round of actually anti-semitic pogroms, a purpose which just so happens to be deeply fucked up by Isreal playing arch oppressor in the middle east and wasting all it’s military supplies for when it actually needs to defend itself from the rest of the world.
but oh no, don’t mind that Isreal, blow up some more Lebanese, I’m sure they’ll weep for you when the International Community stops playing to holocaust guilt and smacks Isreal six ways to sunday wiht sanctions and trade embargos until it is conquered by one of its neighbours during the inevitable next pogrom.
Idiots.
You know, whenever Israel comes up, I kind of settle myself in to be frustrated, because both sides are going to say a bunch of contradictory things, and none of them will end up giving you the truth of the matter.
But, there are some things that I think should be mentioned.
First, once Hezbollah was attacking from Lebanon, something had to be done to stop the attacks immediately. Since Lebanon couldn’t do this, Israel was justified in using appropriate force to stop it. (NB: I’m not saying they used appropriate force. I’m saying that, had they used appropriate force, no one had any right to complain.)
Second, the reason the Geneva Conventions demand that a military force be identifiable is to prevent exactly this kind of situation, where Israel can’t strike at their attackers without harming civilians. If Hezbolla wore uniforms, and had their ammo only in designated storage locations, damage to the civilian populace and private residences could be minimized. Israel can’t allow their enemies to hide behind civilians… at least, not indefinitely. Not even “in the short term”, unless a solution is expected *really* quickly.
Third, whether a cease-fire is a good idea or not is hard to tell. It could give Hezbollah a chance to evacuate their fighters and move their weapons to position them for new attacks. Or, it could give some breathing room to attend to the needs of the innocent civilians caught up in the middle. Or, both.
This is why I hate the entire situation so much. What Israel is doing
1) is acceptable, if certain circumstances hold, and
2) is horribly unacceptable if they don’t.
And the pro-Israel folks are quick to say they hold, and the anti-Israel folks are quick to insist they don’t, and without a hell of a lot of information that I simply don’t have, and can’t find from reliable sources, I can’t judge one way or another.
There are certain stories I’ve heard that would be completely unacceptable. If people were fleeing the fighting, and Israel attacked them, that simply can’t be defended. But if the flight was used to cover the movement of attackers and/or weaponry, then it was defensible.
The worst problem about this is that the people most likely to defend Israel tend to be the same people who defended the invasion of Iraq, torture by the US government and its agents, and the Bush administrations insistence that laws don’t apply to Presidents who get lawyers to draft sufficiently favorable opinions. How can they be trusted to be telling the truth about anything now?
The Israeli air force has been ordered to hit 10 buildings in south Beirut - where Hezbollah has its headquarters - for every rocket the group fires at the Israeli port of Haifa.
I contend that even with Hezbollah attacking Isreal from Lebanon (which is obviously unnacceptable), Isreal’s response - killing more innocent people than Hezbollah was threatening in the process of “defending” Isreal, is unnaceptable. Killing 20 civilians to save 10 isn’t okay. Even if the IDF are doing there best to minimize civilian casualties, it is clear that their best isn’t good enough. Negligence may not be murder, but in a war, they have the same result, and if you ask me, they should have the same price.
Isreal could have chosen a more costly, less indiscrimate approach to dealing with Hezbollah, but they decided that Lebanese Civilians’ lives are worth less than Israeli Soldiers’.
pablo:
The Arab world has a habit of vociferously threatening to push the entire nation of Israel into the Mediterranean, then claiming to be shocked and appalled when Israel acts pre-emptively in order to prevent them from carrying out their threats (which everyone knows are not at all idle).
It’s a classic playground-bully faux-innocence defense, and it’s just as transparent, cynical and childish in the politics of the Middle East as it is in the schoolyard. Just because you didn’t take the first swing doesn’t mean you didn’t pick the fight.
If you stick a gun in my face, I’m not going to wait for you to pull the trigger before I break every bone in your body. I’m not going to stop if you say you were only kidding, either. I’m going to keep breaking things until I no longer see you as a credible threat. And anyone who honestly expects me to do otherwise is an asshole of the highest order.
For a country that has taken territory in every war it has engaged in, cries of vulnerabilty are bit hollow.
The goal is to convince the average Lebanese civilian that Hezbollah is directly responsible for the deaths of Lebanese civilians by setting up a one-to-one action-consequence pattern. “Hezbollah attacks Israel, Israel bombs Lebanon; Hezbollah doesn’t attack Israel, Israel doesn’t bomb Lebanon.”
This strategy has repeatedly demonstrated itself a complete and utter failure in application, but I can see the logic behind it.
Pablo:
Having taken territory in past wars is not an indicator of present invulnerability, and the fact that one’s enemies are militarily incompetent is not an indicator that they are not your enemies.
“I’m sure they’ll weep for you when the International Community stops playing to holocaust guilt”
I’m not Jewish, so maybe it’s not for me to say, but doesn’t the above cross a serious line? I’m trying to imagine substituting any other act of genocide before the word “guilt” and seeing if it’d sound acceptable, and none of of the examples I can think of does.
I have no idea if R. Mildred is in fact Jewish, but I can’t help being reminded of the resentful comments made by white Americans about being made to feel guilty about slavery.
Well, Crys, I am Jewish, and even I think that there’s a certain point at which we need to stop feeling guilty and start actively working to prevent things like the Holocaust from happening again.
There is a sizable portion of society in which the general sentiment is that feeling remorse over the negative consequences of one’s own actions is an extreme moral failing, and that actively working to prevent things like the Holocaust from happening again is for tree-hugging pussies.
Sometimes I even break with American orthodoxy so far as to think that we can actually do both at the same time. I know that I can, at least. I see a lot of people these days who struggle with holding more than one idea in their minds at a time.
Pablo, are you sure it wasn’t when they attacked the village of Irgun?
Yes Pablo, of course, that’s what started the war.
Yep, just for giggles. There wasn’t anything going on in Lebanon that may have, I don’t know, been some small reason to visit?
Far be it for me to be a party pooper and wish that we could broaden the discourse just a little so that a viewpoint that allows that there’s something terribly wrong about killing innocent people could be included.
There is something terribly wrong about killing innocent people. I just wonder why you leave out the innocent people killed by hezbollah and other terrorists organizations? You make it sound as though Israel just went into lebanon for no reason, just out of the blue, without provocation?
There’s a major part of this story you have left out. There are also several steps in logic that have been left out of the argument.
I know Mildred, right?? I mean, please, like any other country would ever react forcefully if it was having rockets sent into it from north and south, or having its soldiers killed and abducted from the north and south. No need to defend against that silly stuff–its not like Hezballah would ever actually, you know, use those 13,000 missles they have studiously brought over and hidden in homes and mosques and schools and offices and apartments. Be smarter to ignore that and wait for when they ‘actually need to defend’ themselves.
Sorry, sunshine. I didn’t bring up Hezbollah because I’m criticizing Israel for killing civilians. There is no need for me to waste space criticzing Hezbollah for killing civilians, since it’s already well understood that they’re in the wrong.
Other things I won’t make “logical errors” by not wasting space writing about:
*Why Ted Bundy shouldn’t have slaughtered co-eds.
*Why I don’t like getting my hair wet by rain right after I blow dry it.
*Why “Everyone Loves Raymond” sucks ass.
Some things aren’t controversial. Some people—like yourself—are too stupid to grasp that. This is not my fault.
The history lessons above are irrelevant and immaterial. It doesn’t matter if the Israelies just wanted peace in 1948, or if the Hebron massacres of a decade earlier destroyed any possibility of peaceful coexistence, or if the Israeli government’s insistence that “there is no partner” did the same. If we go back to history someone is bound to bring up Abraham and such and then the logical part of the argument is over.
In my opinion a major part of the problem is this insistence on history and historic rights. RIGHT NOW, Israel is a major military power. RIGHT NOW, there are Palestinians and Lebanese who deserve the right to live peacefully on their land. RIGHT NOW Hizbollah is attacking Israeli cities (80 missiles so far in the past 24 hours on Haifa, Acre, and Zfat), and RIGHT NOW Palestinians are assembling bombs and firing missiles of their own on the south of Israel.
Also, RIGHT NOW Israel exists as a sovereign state, and any attempt to change that would be a crime and an act of war in and of itself.
Finding our “who started it” is an exercise is futility that gets us nowhere. Personally? I think they started it. And I accept the fact that they think we started it, and I’M NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN RESOLVING THE QUESTION. I’m concerned with the seeming inability of anyone in this area of the world to solve very concrete problems, mostly having to do with such things as people’s rights to live on various pieces of land, without resorting to ridiculous rhetoric, invocation of deity, and vicious violence mostly targeted at civilians.
No need to defend against that silly stuff–its not like Hezballah would ever actually, you know, use those 13,000 missles they have studiously brought over and hidden in homes and mosques and schools and offices and apartments. Be smarter to ignore that and wait for when they ‘actually need to defend’ themselves.
ooo, 13,000 missiles, wowsa, that’s ALOT.
RIGHT NOW Hizbollah is attacking Israeli cities (80 missiles so far in the past 24 hours on Haifa, Acre, and Zfat)
80 missiles a day, oh my gosh, the Isreali casulaties must be atrocious…
Oh.
So basically Hezbollah are having fuck all impact on Isreal while Isreal is killing the entire casualty figure for Isreali civilians, in lebanon, everyday?
Isreal needs to occyupy Lebanon again, because… of the terrible danger the bunch of poorly trained children that Hezbollah are fielding present to the mightiest military force in the region?
Lebanon and Hezbollah are ticks on Isreal’s shoulder, not threats to Isreal’s nationhood.
Debating who started it makes me wonder if we’re all still in kindergarten.
The US mainstream media has always been “the biggest bunch of cowards you ever saw” and they have always, both the conservative and liberal media, taken a staunch pro-Israel stance, even when doing so required a suspension of all logic, compassion, and factual accuracy. The fear of being labeled anti-Semitic is real, but only because the debate has been so effectively highjacked by the mainstream media on both sides that it takes little effort to make such an accusation stick, it’s almost treated as a given, off handedly.
The real issue is the failure of mainstream media to report the truth, not only on this issue but on so many others, most notably during the buildup of the war with Iraq. The media is driven by powerful moneyed interests and by the fear of alienating readers and viewers, therefore it does not aim to shed light or inform, only to pander by seeking the lowest common denominator and promoting the views of the powerful, whom it fears displeasing.
It would be worthy of comment if a major media outlet had reversed its usual course and actually said something true that challenged the status quo. But it’s nothing new that US newspapers are supporting Israel in spite of its continued commission of atrocities. That has been happening for decades.
Why yes Mildred, yes it is.
Is that the measuring stick? Its OK to launch hundreds of missiles into a country, as long as the casualty count is below some arbitrarily defined Mildred-line? I wonder if the number would be higher than the Mildred-line if most of the the Israelis weren’t either in bunkers or moved south? Also, could you define for me how many Israelis is an acceptable number to be killed and maimed before the Mildred-line is reached?
Um, yeah, poorly trained children. That’s the ticket! The same poorly trained kiddies who were fully capable of ambushing the ‘mightiest military force’ and killing and kidnapping its soldiers, as well as launching sophisticated missiles that hit warships and kill sailors.
But even if we accept your fantastically moronic assessment that they were just poor, misguided kiddies skipping out of school during Algebra class or maybe the Jews=apes and monkeys class, they would stil be in possession of thousands of missiles of who knows what lethality. Let’s just cross our fingers and hope they don’t reach the Mildred-line!
Err, not sure exactly how much ‘fuck all’ is, but what is the level of impact when a huge portion of the entire north of Israel is either essentially living in bunkers or have had to leave? Does that qualify as ‘fuck all’ impact?
Also, how do you measure the civilian vs terrorist casualities when the terrorists live and hide among the civilians? If the terrorists shoot or hide among civilians, does that make them immune?
Um, yeah, poorly trained children. That’s the ticket! The same poorly trained kiddies who were fully capable of ambushing the ‘mightiest military force’ and killing and kidnapping its soldiers, as well as launching sophisticated missiles that hit warships and kill sailors.
If africans can do it, I don’t see why the lebanese couldn’t. Love the ignorance about child soldiers doll face.
Is that the measuring stick? Its OK to launch hundreds of missiles into a country, as long as the casualty count is below some arbitrarily defined Mildred-line? I wonder if the number would be higher than the Mildred-line if most of the the Israelis weren’t either in bunkers or moved south? Also, could you define for me how many Israelis is an acceptable number to be killed and maimed before the Mildred-line is reached?
Huh? Are you really that stupid (yes, duh) you think that there’s only two options, pound lebanese civilian centers to the ground while in no way affecting Hezbollah’s activities, or do nothing whatsoever?
It really helps when thinking, dumpling head, to not have actual shit for brains, for starters, then having a basic ability to empathise with other people, you know sweetcakes, being able to in some way puit yourself in another’s shoes, predict what someone else is going to do, that way you might be able to come up with a plan that is better than the current “HULK SMASH RAARGH!” one, one that ensures that Hezbollah won’t be using those pimply faced kiddy winks any more but will have the full backing of hte lebanese government - or what’s left of it - for full military training, not ot mention a better cash flow as the entirty of lebanon becomes very eager ot help their freedom fighters in hezbollah.
Now, I’m no general in the Marine Corps, but I think it’s a good idea in a military operations to not increase the numbers of your enemies and make them better able to fight you in so many other ways. but I’m funny like that, thinking about reality and shit while “HULK SMASH RARRGH” is jsut as good as a well thought out tactical operation to actually destory Hezbollah’s supply routes and rocket positions.
And yes the Isrealis have bunkers and time to move, they’re lucky, unlike hte lebanese who had their major exit routes (not to mention their refugee caravans) blown to shit in the initial stages of hte Isreali operation so they casulaty rate is really high. Again, why are they doing that?
And you still haven’t answered my question puffin lips, why does Isreal need to occupy Lebanon again? For those missiles that they won’t be able to find because now the entire country will hide those rockets for hezbollah is they ask nicely, as a result of hte bombing? Isreal’s invading in search of weapons of mild to negligible destruction, woo haa, the last invasion of lebanon created hezbollah, I wonder waht’ll happen this time…
I don’t think that Israel is deliberately targetting civilians
Maybe so, maybe no. But it does appear that they are directly targeting UN observers.
Put more bluntly: 1. I was very pro-Israel. 2. I think that the bastards killed one of our soldiers and his colleagues on purpose as a message to the UN. 3. I am wondering whether I have crossed a moral Rubicon on how I view the Middle East dynamic.
I also wonder whether the Israelis have figured out that killing your enemies is one thing, killing innocent civilians quite another … and killing your friends something very much different. I think they know it, but just don’t give a damn.
Sorry. Forgot to put my citation where my mouth is: http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&q=canadian%20soldier%20killed%20lebanon&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wn
“Except there are three sides here.”
Actually, there’s more than that:
1. Mainstream Israel and the IDF
2. the growing Israeli peace movement;
3. the ultrahardright settler movement, tied into the West Bank;
and
the current Palestinian Authority, which:
4. has a PLO President and
5. a Hamas government;
and
6. Hezbollah;
7. the Lebanese government which, while incorporating some Hezbollah representation would like to regain control of Hezbollah territory;
and, complicating matters,
8. the Syrians and
9. the Iranians,
both of whom arm and can control Hezbollah, but just not all of the time,
and,
10. the Americans, who are currently acting as if nothing but nothing but nothing but nothing Israel does or can ever do can ever be wrong.
And there’s probably more that I left out. Oh dear.
Mildred insulted me so ergo Hezbollah is a small group of poorly trained kids!
Africa has kids serving as soldiers, therefore a terrorist group elsewhere is comprised of poorly trained kids. Love the logic Mildred.
What else did you have to say? Blah blah stupid blah blah dumpling head blah blah shit for brains blah blah.
Right, as opposed to the current status quo which consisted of hundreds of millions of dollars of cash flow and military training from Iran, as well as arms and supplies from Iran and Syria, combined with the aggressive Lebanese efforts the last few years to squash Hezbollah by, what were those aggressive steps again? Oh right, electing them to office, putting them in the cabinet, taking no steps whatsover to limit the arms and training coming to the little cuddly kittens, err kiddies, as well as taking no steps whatsoever to stop the little harmless kiddies from setting up their own little fiefdom in the South as well as through Beirut and Tyre and Lord knows where else with an enormous assortment of weapons.
Ah yes, the old “don’t fight back, it’ll just create more terrorists” scrary theory. Much smarter to just ignore the cuddly kitties, err, kiddies, and hope they’ll go away.
Pathetic Mildred. When they destroy supply routes, you ask why they do it, how dare they!, and then you have the gall to ask why don’t they do that?
Rocket positions!! Of course, why didn’t Israel think of that? You mean I assume those rockets that are, you know, kept in homes and apartments and mosques and offices?
Oh, a question is in there!
Is it really not obvious? Have they not said it often enough? They are trying to isolate the terrorists, cut down their ability to move, remove the means to resupply. You know, the very same thing you consider all ‘well thought out’ and ‘tactical’ and stuff when you think of it. But different when those Hulk-like Jews do it.
Oh shoot, sorry Mildred, I glossed over some more of your boneheadedness.
You have no idea. Imagine the good fortune involved for so many homes and apartments and buildings to somehow have these shelters miraculously beneath them!
Can you imagine, you are wandering around your little house as rockets are falling, and viola!, over there, look honey I think it’s a bomb shelter! Such luck!
(puffin lips??)
Please try to pay attention Mildred. I am almost sure that Israel has no interest in occupying Lebanon again.
Right, as opposed to the current situation in which Hezbollah has had a very tough time finding homes and mosques and schools and apartments etc to hide weapons in, or finding a government to become a part of and let them do as they please. What you propose would be, well, what exactly is the difference you are suggesting??
I am almost sure that Israel has no interest in occupying Lebanon again.
At best, Israel is interested only in occupying the two-mile ‘buffer zone’ they keep talking about, and at worst they might seize a lot more. They’ve been attacking Lebanon with air and artillery from day one, now, and they’re entirely capable of going on until the end of time, hammering Lebanon from beyond engagement range. So why, with total air supremacy and artillery that can strike their targets from inside the Israeli border, are they massing tanks and troops along the border? Why are they going so far as to call up IDF reservists for active duty? You don’t need all those soldiers ife you’re not planning on using them, and you don’t need -that- many soldiers unless you’re planning to either invade all of Lebanon, in a fast-moving smash-and-burn campaign, or to take and hold part of southern Lebanon.
The Israelis are going to occupy Lebanon. They’ve admitted it. The only real questions left are, how much of Lebanon will they occupy, what will another occupation do to the current relatively moderate Lebanese government and the nascenet Lebanese democracy, and how many new Hezbollah supporters is that going to create.
If that were the case, you’d think they’d be better at it.
I wonder your thoughts are seeker on Hezbollah actively and frequently and intentionally using the UN sites as get-out-jail cards from which to shoot?
One example from the UN itself: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr012.pdf, where the the UN lists 5 different UN locations from whence the little children of Hezbollah have been firing.
Or this UN report that documents a UN site being fired upon by Hezbollah children: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr08.pdf
Or this UN report that mentions a UN convoy being shot at by the Hezbollah kids:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr09.pdf
I also wonder what you make of Canadian general Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie who had just received email from the Canadian who died that made clear that Hezbollah was using the UN site as a shield?
I’m probably making a huge mistake attempting to discuss this rationally in this forum, from what I’ve read, but I’ll give it a whirl:
1) The number of Israeli civilian casualties is so low is, in part, because by Israeli law nearly every single building has to have a bomb shelter. Should the Israelis not use their shelters until enough of them have been killed to make things more “proportional?”
2) The strikes on the airport, bridges, roads, and the like have two strategic purposes: to keep the Hezbollah from maneuvering and retreating, and to keep Syria and Iran from being readily able to resupply and reinforce Hezbollah.
3) If Israel were deliberately targeting civilians, they have to be the most inept military on the face of the earth. I recently heard the total number of civilian casualties in Lebanon as about 20 per day. Considering the quality of Israel’s weaponry, they’re either incredibly incompetent or just not trying to kill civilians. And judging by their performance, their efficiency is pretty damned good.
4) Hezbollah’s PRIMARY TACTIC is to threaten and attack the innocent. They kidnap. They send random, unguided missiles. They barter hostages. They hijack. And they use human shields in new, innovative ways never before seen.
5) According to the Canadian military observer who was killed in the Israeli attack (sent in an e-mail one week before his death), Hezbollah had established “static positions” in and around the UN base. There are other reports from UN “peacekeepers” of Hezbollah actively firing missiles in very close proximity to their positions. Kofi Annan KNEW that these people were being used as human shields, and REFUSED to order them to take any actions to defend themselves or withdraw them from the area entirely. Their deaths are first on the hands of Hezbollah, and secondly on Kofi Annan’s.
Finally:
6) Israel is NOT waging war against Lebanon. It is waging war IN Lebanon, specifically against a terrorist group that has de facto control over a significant portion of Lebanon, to the point where the official armed forces are afraid and unable to enter.
J.
Oh, and Pablo: that beach explosion has been pretty much conclusively been proven to have been a mine, series of mines, or a buried bomb, and NOT the result of a tank round, artillery shell, or dropped bomb. In other words, the Palestinians scored an “own goal” — whether by accident or design, we may never know. This is through analysis of shrapnel — most of which the Palestinians removed from the victims (in some cases, mutilating and endangering the survivors, who would have been better served leaving it in place inside their bodies). A few pieces were too deeply embedded in those survivors, however, and study and analysis (after they were treated in hospitals) proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the fragments did NOT come from an artillery or tank shell or aerial bomb, but were entirely consistent with land mine shrapnel.
Also, Pablo, it IS Israel’s existence that is at stake. They have won every war they have ever fought. How many of the losing nations no longer exist? Hell, even Palestine (which never really existed as a nation in history anyway) still has a quasi-state status.
Finally, Pablo, the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier (Corporal Gilad Shalit, if it slipped your mind) byHamas was to exchange him for prisoners. You probably also forgot that two other soldiers were killed in the kidnapping, and when Hezbollah kidnapped the two Israeli soldiers (Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev), they killed eight others. Hezbollah says they’re prisoners of war, but won’t let the Red Cross see them.
J.
odd2:
How silly of me not to have realized it! Because Hezbollah is bad, Israel attacking a UN post and killing a soldier from my country and three others from another country (UN soldiers who were there as part of an agreement with Israel) is okay! You’ve explained it all for me, now!
Seriously, is that the best that you can do? The pathetic, tired assumption that if I don’t support Israel’s right to kill whoever it wants whenever it wants then I must also support even more homicidal swine?
Let me spell it out for you, dickhead: The fact that Israel has enemies does not give Israel the right to kill her friends. The fact that Israel has evil enemies does not give her the right to act like those evil enemies. Would your answer be the same if Israel did the same to American soldiers or civilians who were in its way? Of course not, and therein lies one of the many hypocricies that drives the Arabs — and now at least one pro-Israel, pro-America Canadian — absolutely crazy.
Let me ask you a question, you smug, indifferent little prick:
If Israel has the right, express and/or implied, to kill whoever it wants regardless of consequence (which you and many of your ilk are arguing for) then what makes Israel different from Hezbollah or Hamas? Nothing. The problem with people like me is that when we say, “hey, we don’t want Israel to be as bad as that scum” we are tisk-tisked by the likes of you. Newsflash, fool: If Israel wants to act the same, then I can’t continue to treat Israel as if she were different.
One other thing, odd2:
Why is that Israel, despairing of Hezbollah’s activities in the south, done so much to target the infrastructure and populace of non-Hezbollah Lebanese? Why attack the Lebanese government (the first anti-Syrian one they have had in three decades) which wants to get rid of Hezbollah, but needs time and help to become strong enough to do so? Such behaviour is reminiscent of the West Bank: Israel would justly complain that the then-PLO-run Palestinian authority was not doing enough to control Hamas and their ilk, then bomb the police [read PLO army] stations who were the only ones capable of taking on those terrorists? If you really want the cops to help you, you don’t bomb the police station.
So we are left with the question, if Israel is really so damned concerned about peace and security, why has she consecutively attacked two of the neighbouring Arab institutions (the PLO and the Lebanese government) with whom they share an enemy and who are the least hostile to them?
They are either the dumbest pylons on the planet, or they have other motives. And they are not the dumbest pylons on the planet.
Israel is NOT waging war against Lebanon. It is waging war IN Lebanon, specifically against a terrorist group that has de facto control over a significant portion of Lebanon, to the point where the official armed forces are afraid and unable to enter.
Yes, Hezbollah has without doubt probably pissed some Israelis off by kidnapping (oh my god!) two soldiers, and obviously Israel now wants to defend itself. Which quite naturally it wants to do by attacking hundreds of civilians, claiming that this is necessary in order to target Hezbollah strongholds amongst those civilian populations. Is this really the way that a state, so much more powerful and internationally supported than a lot of its neighbours should behave?
As for ‘waging war in Lebanon’, I’ve never heard of anything so ridiculous, it’s ok now to wage war in another state?? Is this really true? Great, so after the terrorist attacks in Madrid, it would have been totally acceptable to go and bomb Morroccan civilian areas where some of the terrorists were hiding, oh I see, yes that makes total sense! And of course, if civilians happened to get in the way…oh well, never mind, after all, it’s the terrorists they’re targetting isn’t it? Does anyone really believe that?
But of course, the Spanish wouldn’t have targetted the Morrocans, (despite many things which I wont go into because the situation is obviously incomparable -I’m not being sarcastic!) because they don’t hate and depise them so much that they would rather see civilians dead than take a peacful route which might see the other side ‘win’. Should a nation with so much hatred for its Arab neighbours really be allowed to have the weapons it does? (I add tentatively when its neighbours have limited means to defend themselves)
So we are left with the question, if Israel is really so damned concerned about peace and security, why has she consecutively attacked two of the neighbouring Arab institutions (the PLO and the Lebanese government) with whom they share an enemy and who are the least hostile to them?
Seeker6079 - totally agree with what you say, and also ponder this question, which is very interesting to me. What’s your opinion? Is it just power-mongering? Or does Israel have other plans for the region?
Mah, those two soldiers were not kidnapped in a vacuum. Hezbollah killed several other soldiers in the same raid. They have also conducted several other similar operations over the years. They have fired rockets and missiles indiscriminately into Israel. I’ve argued that Israel’s response IS proportional to Hezbollah’s attacks — just compressed in time. What Hezbollah has done over years, Israel is returning in weeks.
The PLO was an “ally” of Israel’s? HOW? And how has Israel attacked the Lebanese government? They’ve gone to great lengths to attack not the legal Lebanese government, but the de facto government of southern Lebanon — i.e., Hezbollah.
Seeker, my condolences on the death of Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener. From all accounts, he was a decent and honorable man, and we are all diminished by his passing.
Have you seen the e-mails Magor Hess-von Kruedener sent a week before he was killed? He said explicity that Hezbollah had set up fighting positions in and around his position. He said that Israeli attacks fell within two meters of him — but he was NOT the target, and it was done of “tactical necessity” — military-speak for “they’re shooting at people almost within my arm’s reach.” Hezbollah was using the UN as human shields — THEY are the ones who hold all responsibility for his death.
J.
Jay Tea - I understand your point, of course, and nothing in this war is isolated, as there is such a complicated and painful history. But really, when is the solution ever going to entail killing so many people, families, children who cannot run fast enough? I saw the pictures on the news, and I wanted to cry. Really pitiful pictures. How can anyone with an ounce of humanity believe that the reaction of Israel is justified? Since when did a ‘terrorist’ organisation represent an entire nation, or in this case the government? Yes, the government knew Hezbollah were hiding in that area, and did nothing. They do not appear to be in league with Hezbollah, nor to support their activities. And it must be remembered, Lebanon is an extremely fragile and weak state with limited means to defend itself from outside attacks, let alone organise security within its own borders.
Besides, the government’s inaction does not make it the responsibility of those Lebanese living in that area, and moreover Israel’s warning to the Lebanese civilians followed by terrorising escape routes so that those people were trapped there to die, is inexcusable, and reeks of genocidal tactics used all over the world.
Is anyone really surprised by Hezbollah’s defence of the Palestinians, after signing a deal, Palestinian brothers, fathers, sons continue to rot in Israeli prison. What would you do? After years of seeing your brothers treated like animals and humiliated in land in which they used to live in comparative peace, and in which they had rights, I imagine you would feel angry too. Although it is true that peace begets peace, I find it easier to understand the violence on the side of those who are weak and shamed, than on those with power and support, adn I find it so all over the world, not just in this situation.
Seeker, a pleasure as always to hear from you, but you seem to be reading a bit too much from the Mildred Book. The insults and namecalling do not reflect well upon you: dickhead, prick etc.
Go back and take a look at the actual post that has reduced you to 6rd grade schoolyard language. I said almost nothing actually, other than supplying links from the UN that discuss why the horrible incident even happened, as well making mention of the fact that the Canadian man who died himself made clear what was happening and why. He made clear they were not what Israel was shooting at, but you know better, right?
I would remove ‘in its way’ and replace it with ‘who are accidentally killed’. But you are wrong in your answer.
I think it is utterly impossible to conduct this type of action against enemies, over the course of years, who insist on intentionally firing from within civilian areas, who insist on intentionally producing and hiding weaponry within civilian areas or mosques or schools without civilians unfortunately and tragically being harmed.
Do I wish that Israel could find a way to perfectly shoot at and kill only the bad guys, even as they hide amongst women, kids and the innocent? Of course.
Do I think terrorists should be able to use the UN sites or ambulances or civilian homes and apartments to shoot repeatedly at Israel with impunity? No. In that case fault must lie with those who have placed the civilians in harm’s way, with those who it appears almost seem to want their own civilians killed for the PR value
Ask yourself–why were the terrorists firing at Israel from within several feet of the UN site?
No seeker, that is not the problem. The bigger problem is that too many people like you insist on seeing Hezbollah, or Hamas or any of the dozens of other Islamic fascist groups as isolated and refuse to see it all in a bigger picture. When trains are exploded in England or Spain, or jihadis are arrested in your Canada, or hotels are blown up in Amman, or resorts are blown apart in Sharm el-Sheikh, or civilians are slaughered in Nigeria, or over 100 kids are killed in Chechnia, or tourists are killed in Bali, or etc etc etc the list can go on for quite a long while, too many to pretend that it is isolated.
Hezbollah is no different, just better armed. Their goals are no different.
To pretend that Israel, or any western liberal democracy is anything like the Islamic fascists making war with the west is obscence, and frankly seeker you should be ashamed.
Jay Tea- “Oh, and Pablo: that beach explosion has been pretty much conclusively been proven to have been a mine, series of mines, or a buried bomb, and NOT the result of a tank round, artillery shell, or dropped bomb.”
You’re wrong.
“There has been much speculation about the cause of the beach killings, but the evidence we have gathered strongly suggests Israeli artillery fire was to blame,â€? said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of the Middle East and Africa division at Human Rights Watch. “It is crucial that an independent investigative team, with the necessary expertise, verify the facts in a transparent manner.â€? ”
You have no credibility jay tea, and face it; the numbers don’t lie, Israel is doomed.
Odd 2- To pretend that Israel, or any western liberal democracy is anything like the Islamic fascists making war with the west is obscence, and frankly seeker you should be ashamed.
Does this mean that the US and Israel ARE liberal democracies. If so, please redefine liberal for me, because as far as I can see each consecutive government on both sides has been run by right-wing hawks, who, in my opinion are as close to fascists as we could possible get. Why are we so proud of our democracies when what many of them have created defies belief? Are we to include Iraq in that wonderful list of democracies? Sorry - I know this goes way off point, but is actually pretty relevant considering the smug, patronising view the West has of countries who do not uphold the same political ‘principles’ (hahaha) that our countries do. At least these ‘fascists’ as you call them are fighting for something they belive in, unlike most of the rest us, who nonchalantly accept whatever is thrown at us and moan a bit. Our view that these ‘crazy’ muslims are so far removed from us, so beneath us for their religion, their commitment to help their brothers, and desire to emerge from under the heel of the West’s boot is highly misplaced. Although often, it must be said that their tactics are brutal, unfair and hypocritical, it doesn’t make us any better for using similar or worse.
Last thing - surely you don’t think the UN uncontroversial? Represented by 5 nations, the most powerful in the world, which can be vetoed at any time by…let’s see…ah yes the US!!!!!! it is hardly representative of a ‘global’ view. I work for an organisation that works closely with the UN, and although much of the work the UN carries out has great intentions, and can be effective, and although these men were sacrificing their own lives, extremely noble as it is, and extremely sad, as sad as the death of anyone, why should Hezbollah care? At the end of the day, those men are/were representatives of a global system that doesn’t allow the people Hezbollah purports to represent/support speak. It is a system which represses them.
Yes, that is exactly what it means. Read here if you are truly curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy
A liberal democracy can be led by a right-leaning administration and still be a liberal democracy. Weird, huh? Even more, I am almost sure that a willingness to fight back against Islamic fascism does not constitute hawkishness.
If they are as close to fascist as you can imagine, then your imagination is the real issue here.
Because we don’t behead and blow up everyone who doesn’t follow our narrow and bigoted interpretation of our religion?
Yes, the Nazis, with a similar view of Jews, also believed in what they were doing when they slaughtered millions of them. Wanna give ‘em a pass because they ‘believed in’ what they were fighting for?
Also, I am pretty sure lottsa Israelis ‘believe in’ ensuring their safety and survival–wanna give them a pass therefore as they try to eliminate the terrorists launching thousands of missiles at their civilians? Or does your ‘believe in’ defense only work for Islamic terrorists?
Never said they were ‘crazy.’ Though the Islamic fascists are murderous, tyrannical, racist, homophobic, sexist, and wishing to force the rest of the world to either adapt their interpretation of their religion or die.
No, not their religion. Just the fact that the Islamlic fascists are trying to force everyone else to adapt their way or be blown up or beheaded or shot. If they merely wanted to practice their religion quietly and peacefully nobody would care.
I hope my brothers never try to help me by repeatedly firing rockets from my house, begging for a response that will leave my kids as a nice PR photo-shoot.
Or blow up trains that me and my kids may be on.
Or ram planes into buildings we may be in.
Or blow up markets or pizza parlors we may be in.
Because who needs help like that?
Exactly, because the repeated failures of the Muslim world in so many places and so many ways is the fault of the west. Couldn’t have anything to do with those countries’ own failings in any way.
As there is no comparison between the way Western liberal democracies act and the way Islamic fascists act, it is nonsensical to make any comparison between the way we act and the way they do.
Yes, I do think it is controversial.
A global view? What exactly is that, when so many countries are not liberal democracies and therefore do not truly represent their citizens? Why should we care what Syria says in the UN? And if many countries say something, does that make it right or just or true?
Hezbollah should only care to the extent that they can use UN vehicles to kidnap Israelis, that they can use UN sites as launch sites that either make them safe or offer great PR bonanzas if someone reacts, that the UN will help shield them when they kidnap Israelis. They should also care because there are dozens of Muslim countries which will rush to defend them and denounce their enemy in the UN.
Beyond that I am sure Hezbollah coniders the UN just another tool to be used towards their ends, and I am sure that they considered the 4 UN observers deaths a positive.
Well, no. What keeps people repressed are the tyrranies and dictatorships they are forced to live under. ‘The people Hezbollah purports to represent’ were given a voice when Lebanon inched towards democracy. But as Hezbollah is committed to a severe Islamic fascism, good luck with that.
odd2 - it doesn’t concern me what wikipedia says about liberal democracies, and of course you’re right, liberal can mean left or right wing….but it is the term ‘liberal’ applied to these democracies that bothers me. I don’t see much liberalism in them. ALso sincew you sent me the wikipedia link, I had a quick look and ‘representative’ governement is hardly something we can call the current US administration considering how it came to power, adn the low numbers of voters from certain representative groups. I am sorry you feel the need to make things personal, however and insult my imagination.
I agree that fascists are certainly people who impose their views onto others, and make other groups who do not support thewir views enemies, or inferiors. And i dont think there’s a current example which matches the global imperialism of the Wet and esp the US in pushing their ‘liberal democracy’ model onto others. Iraq? Afghanistan?
AS for fighting for a cause: fighting for your rights seems more like a legitimate cause when you have no nuclear weapons at your disposal, limited rights, limited economic means, limited international backing, etc etc etc. I don’t think Israel really have much to cry about in this sense. Although it can’t be nice living in a war zone, what they have is incredible measured against what some others in the region have.
I completely disagree that no comparison can be made. I think there is a good argument for it, we tear doen countries, kill innocent people, and impose our views. What’s the difference?????
OOps, I mean West of course, not wet!!
Odd2 - Last thing (again!) Well, no. What keeps people repressed are the tyrranies and dictatorships they are forced to live under. ‘The people Hezbollah purports to represent’ were given a voice when Lebanon inched towards democracy. But as Hezbollah is committed to a severe Islamic fascism, good luck with that
Again the question of democracy rears it’s head - SOuth Korea and current situation in Iraq are good examples of firstly a great dictatorship, and secondly a democracy that sucks.
But reall, I think it’s naive to think that politics is a seperate issue in each state. There are global movements, our governments make joint decisions, as do others, and there is clearly a strong system, which the UN is representative of in many ways at work. Not a conspiracy theory, a fact.
MAH, then I don’t believe you are looking very hard, or you are being coy?
It came to power by winning an election, exactly how every other adminstration has.
If you can’t imagine any thing more fascist than the US or Israel than I do either have to wonder about your imagination. But don’t take it too badly–I was called a prick and a dickhead above, so you got off easy.
Legitimate cause? Trying to force a violent, repressive form of Islam on the rest of us by extreme violent means is legitimate?
These Islamic fascist acts have been going on round the world–we could list thousands of them if we wished. What right is it exactly is it they are murdering, beheading and blowing people up for again?
Compare the tenents of a liberal democracy vs the goals and aims of the Islamic fascists and please tell me how their is any comparison at all
Compare and contrast the life expectancy and quality of life of a gay Jew in Australia vs one living under Hezbollah.
In reply to your question, I can’t compare the tenents of liberal democracy with the goals and aims of Hezbollah, but I can compare the actions of Western governments and their armies with those of terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah. My government took part in the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, and has been directly and indirectly responsible for many atrocities worldwide, which pains me, since I foolishly helped to elect them first time around. They have terrorised people, left them without water, electricity, food for days, even weeks, even months in some cases. They have killed indiscriminately and coldly, claiming that these means are necessary to make the world a better place. My notion of democracy has I admit been tainted by the current climate and by seeing a government such as the one in place here going against the electorate in every way possible, and having won by such a tiny margin, I feel it hardly fair they should have a strong majority.
As for fair electoral win - two parties, basically the same and grievances of false vote counting, and electoral corruption, and I thought it was crap here, with 3 of those wishy-washy parties, who all say the same thing in a different way.
I cannot imagine what life would be like for a gay man under orthodox muslim rule, and can only conclude it must be hell. I am grateful that where i live, although people are still beaten up and killed for their sexual orientation, it is largely safe. However, I think there are other things which are important - a basic right to education, medical care, economic stability. Compare and contrast the life expectancy of a child living now in Lebanon or Palestine to one living in Israel.
I have a feeling I’m rambling, so I’ll stop.
By the way, I’m sorry if I offended by saying I couldn’t think of a more fascist example than US/Israel, that was a mistake made under influence of over-zealousness, and I can think of plenty, but right now, it’s a strong case for me!
Trying to force a violent, repressive form of Islam on the rest of us by extreme violent means is legitimate?
I really should get a life, but just noticed this comment - I see no evidence of this at all. (apologise in advance for us/they thing, am getting a bit tired…) I think most of the people involved in these attacks would hate to see us join them, I have a feeling they have little respect for our values or way of life, and cannot imagine they have any interest in us whatsoever. I see it as a message to us to change what is happening in certain muslim countries. It is not helpful, and certainly seems misguided, and has caused a lot of deaths, but if you don’t feel you have a voice, and are frustrated and angry - what do you do? Accept your situation? Tell me, what can they do? Do you include angry Palestinians in grouping of ‘terrorists’?
Regardless of all this, after all the discussions, Israel is still continuing with its attacks, have you seen?
it’ll be interesting to see how long israeli democracy lasts when the Arab population is greater thanthe Jewish population. Of course i’m speaking of israel proper since Jews are already in the minority in the occuppied territories where the arab population is taxed but receives no vote and no services from israel.
Pablo, I am sure it’ll be just fine. After all, Israel is such a horrid, racist, fascist place that treats the Arabs so poorly, so presumably all the Arabs there will be jumping at the chance to move to Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Weird they haven’t already, isn’t it?
PS Pablo, you ever figure out that Arab village after your howler a few days ago? Aren’t you a little worried about your tattered credibility?
I can, and I imagine it would be short and painful.
Yep, those are all nice. Do you suppose the girls get the benefits of that right to education under Islamic fascism?
What about the other rights we enjoy under liberal democracies: the rights to due process, private property, privacy, and equality before the law, and freedoms of speech, assembly and religion. How many churches you reckon’ will be built under the benevolent rule of the Islamic fascists, or synagogues? Man, I looked all over Riyadh for some of the synagogues and never could find any of them. How about the right to speak out against living under Islamic fascism? I am betting someone would have a short life pursuing that.
I hear you. As soon as Islamic fascsim is eliminated, perhaps kids in Lebanon and Israel and the US and Bali and London and Spain and Jordan and Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Casablana and Turkey and India etc etc can all have better lives without the chance of being blown up or beheaded.
Nice sidestep there odd.
“PS Pablo, you ever figure out that Arab village after your howler a few days ago? Aren’t you a little worried about your tattered credibility?”
Still on that? Of course i should have said that the haganah and the palmach attacked the village of Al-Khisis, but when you type fast you need to double chech before hitting the submit tab. HEY! here’s an idea, why don’t you comb through my posts and look for grammar and punctuation errors? That would surely prove you’re right!
Pablo, no need to look for grammatical errors..you’ve made enough factual ones to make yourself look silly (though your capitalization does need some work).
PS What sidestep? I explained why Israel never has to worry about an Arab majority–why don’t you burst my bubble? What Arab would want to live in Nazi/apartheid/fascist Israel when they can partake of the joys of Syria or Saudi Arabia?
As soon as Islamic fascsim is eliminated
Good idea. So how exactly do we eliminate an idea based on a religious philosophy? We’ve been trying to eliminate Christian fundamentalism forever, and we still get Fred Phelps.
How about a list of my factual errors?
“PS What sidestep? I explained why Israel never has to worry about an Arab majority–why don’t you burst my bubble? What Arab would want to live in Nazi/apartheid/fascist Israel when they can partake of the joys of Syria or Saudi Arabia?”
I’m sure you’d love that, but they’re not giving up their land so easily. Even the palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from israel are still waiting in their refuge camps for the chance to come back to their land.
Jack, as odious as you may find Fred Phelps, at least planes aren’t flying into buildings, people aren’t being beheaded and trains aren’t exploding because of his efforts.
Ok, but then, how do we get Islamic fundamentalists to accept Western style democracy? And how is this helping? (Not work safe and extremely graphic)
pablo, keep digging. Go back and reread the comments. Your mistakes have been pointed out already. Have a nice day.
So close, and yet never heard from the furiously digging pablo: Even the Jews who were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries are still waiting in Israel for the chance to come back to their land.
Please explain why Arabs living in the racist hell-hole that is Israel remain there?
I do not have that answer. Do you? Does anybody? Not even sure it is possible.
The goal of trying to stop Islamic fascists firing missiles into one’s country has nothing to do with getting Islamic fascists to accept Western style democracy.
My point was that bombing Muslim civilians, regardless of the fact that Hezbollah is hiding within those same civilian areas, is what is fomenting the hatred. The vengence factor may work for you, and it definitely works for Hezbollah, but it is what is going to keep this war going.
Jack, believe me, I got your no-so-subtle point. But examine your point further–Israel was not in Lebanon, was not bombing Lebanon and the result was 13,000 bombs pointed at Israel and cross-border raids killing and abducting Israeli soldiers.
Six women shot at the Seattle Jewish Federation by an Islamic fascist, students rammed with a Jeep in Chapel Hill by an Islamic fascist, Van Gogh mutilated by an Islamic fascist, Bali nightclubbers bombed by Islamic fascists, dozens dead because of Danish cartoons etc. At some point, this over-arching violence has got to be laid at the feet of those who are the cause of it, and its not the West’s reactions to it that causes it.
I haven’t made the point that Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t exist, just that our response ain’t helping.
*sigh* I understand that Jack, but you can’t blame Western reactions to restrict the violence from being the cause of the violence as you certainly implied.
Islamic fascism is plaguing the world–we can blame Israel and Bali and the US and Spain and Jordan and everyone else, or we can return to reality. So, how would you JackGoff, as Israel’s newest President, suggest Israel respond to ongoing terror and 13,000 bombs pointed at you by Islamic fascists who have repeatedly said they intend to eliminate you? Difficulty #1: you can not harm any civilians ever, despite this never having happened before in the history of modern warfare.
It’s an extremely complex question. Heavy-handed approaches seldom work against guerilla warfare (and this is guerilla warfare, only urbanized). The fact that Hezbollah hides within civilian areas means they are trying to provoke an attack on themselves in order to further enrage the populace, and Israel happily complies. I will grant you that I have no clue how we should approach the problem fundamentalism in any area of society. I will also grant you there is no way to wage a militaristic campaign without the deaths of innocents. The problem is that you appeal to ignorance. “No one can prove that the Israeli bombing campaign isn’t helping their cause nor can they come up with a better solution.” True, but also misleading. I think defense doesn’t necessarily have to entail offensive strategies. Anyway, all I am saying is that the Israeli approach will, in the long run, make more enemies for itself, the type with blood fueds and debts they wish to settle.
I think it you all catch up on the news, you’ll see that Hezbollah are not hiding nor have been (at least recently) in those civilian strongholds, the attacks were made from mobile units. oops!
JackGoff & Odd2 - I will grant you that I have no clue how we should approach the problem fundamentalism in any area of society.
I don’t believe ‘we’ are in any position to believe we can solve the problem of fundamentaliam in societies that are far removed from ours, and over which we have less than no influence. Our governments can try to influence people within their own countries, and of course will try to pressure other states by bribing them and threatening them. It would be nice to think that if we all played nice, and asked those mean Muslims to back down, that they would. If we made them see the light, understand the wonderful world we live in and how great our noble leaders are, that they would rush to us, grateful…..blah blah blah. But, let’s face it, it’s not going to happen, and without force it won’t, and let’s be honest the only time the West ever intervenes is to protect its own interests anyway, and do we really want our leaders to engage us in yet another conflict that will uproot people mnany miles away from us, destroy their homes, displace them, just so we can all sleep safe in our beds? Maybe you do, I don’t.
And why does everyone think Muslim girls are these pathetic, put upon creatures, who would never ever choose to wear a hijab, let alone a burkha if they hadn’t been brain washed? I’d love for women all over the world to have equal rights, and in a perfect world Muslim women would be able to make their own decisions, and have autonomy, but presuming that the lives of muslim women are hell is so incredibly patronising. Interestingly it’s become far more popular for Muslim women in the West to wear traditional dress since the terrorist attacks started, but I expect the poor little things were either brainwashed or beaten to within an inch of their lives
Odd2 - What about the other rights we enjoy under liberal democracies: the rights to due process, private property, privacy, and equality before the law, and freedoms of speech, assembly and religion. How many churches you reckon’ will be built under the benevolent rule of the Islamic fascists,
Haha, that’s a good one! I can tell you now that in my country (and I know it’s worse in the States) rights to due process, privacy, equality before the law, freedoms of speech and religion, at least, have all been severely affected over the past few years, to the point where the idea of freedom of speech and political expression has become a joke. And who decided to make these changes to our laws? The wonderful democratically elected leaders we should all be so proud of. And I can guess your next move may be to blame the terrorists, but I’m sorry, I don’t, there is no excuse to what is happening to our countries citizens in Guantanamo, there is no excuse for Jean Charles de Menezes’ death there is no excuse for our people not being able to protest without police intervention. Freedom is becoming severely limited, and I do notblame the terrorists, I blame the government for unecessary and unhelpful measures, although i am angry they were ever given any kind of chance to do this.
I don’t believe ‘we’ are in any position to believe we can solve the problem of fundamentaliam in societies that are far removed from ours, and over which we have less than no influence.
I completely agree with you. I was not making the point we should be doing anything, as the law of unintended consequences has shown us that anything we end up doing turns out to raise a new hydra. I was merely trying to make the point that I have no clue what actions should be taken nor could I answer any other question about it other than to say this: all of our actions up to this point have failed and have only made stronger the Islamic fundamentalists. We play it as a war of us vs them and then wonder why the Islamic people don’t side with us. Of course they won’t because we portray them as the Other, the evil side in the war of good vs evil, when in fact, it’s the fundamentalism that is evil.
MAH, not sure what you read or see, but you couldn’t be more wrong. There has been quite a bit of info out there about Hezbollah armaments being hidden in homes, in mosques and in apartments. And there has been just as much info/video of firing coming from residential areas. The fact that it is a mobile launcher that is firing rockets from behind an apartment certainly does not mitigate the responsibility.
Hyperbole.
I’ll be happy to stack up the rights of liberal democracies vs those anywhere else.
I am cool with that MAH. If a women wants to wear it, wear it. As long as she is fully free to make the choice either way without repercussions either way.
My issue is more with forcing school girls back into a burning building because they are not wearing it.
Or with forcing girls to marry people they don’t wish to. Or with killing girls because dad or uncle or brother feels she has dishonored the family.
[…] As usual, I’m a bit late in my coverage of this one, but it’s been interesting to watch the various things going back and forth in the blogosphere lately regarding these wild claims of anti-Semitism flying back and forth. Amanda got the ball rolling with the radical idea that it’s possible to criticize Israel without being an anti-Semite (!). Then somehow some rightie prick managed to infer from Amanda’s post that she in fact was an anti-Semite (and anti-Christian too; she’s probably even anti-kitten, that bitch!). According to this fella, the leftist blogosphere’s bashing of Joe Lieberman is just one example of the lefts super anti-Semitism. I guess by this logic, I’m a big ol’ anti-Semite then. […]
Odd2- I read and see the news in my country every day, thanks, and realise Hezbollah have been active in that area but even the state-run news channel has been criticising the Israeli’s ‘lack of information’ re: Hezbollah’s whereabouts - pretty unbelieveable really. And i don’t think for a second that Israel did not really know that.
Odd2 - Jack, believe me, I got your no-so-subtle point. But examine your point further–Israel was not in Lebanon, was not bombing Lebanon and the result was 13,000 bombs pointed at Israel and cross-border raids killing and abducting Israeli soldiers.
Six women shot at the Seattle Jewish Federation by an Islamic fascist, students rammed with a Jeep in Chapel Hill by an Islamic fascist, Van Gogh mutilated by an Islamic fascist, Bali nightclubbers bombed by Islamic fascists, dozens dead because of Danish cartoons etc. At some point, this over-arching violence has got to be laid at the feet of those who are the cause of it, and its not the West’s reactions to it that causes it.
All this talk of ‘Muslim fascists’ - what the hell has that got to do with the deaths of 37 children? Are people really going to use ‘fascism’ as you call it as an excuse to reignite wars that truly ended only 6 years ago? I cannot see a link I am afraid between this ‘fascism’ you talk of and what is happening right now in the Middle East. Where was this ‘fascism’ in 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon? That’s right, this ‘fascism’ was borne of that occupation. And what does this ‘fascism’ (borne out of self-defence, and admittedly Hezbollah have started something out of misguided loyalty(?) in this time) have to do with bombs in bali, bombs in London, bombs in Madrid? If you knew anything about Spanish history, you would know that the reasons the bombings took place in Madrid had nothing to do with what’s happening in Lebanon, what happened in Bali is related to SE Asian relations with the rest of the world, and the situation there. What happened in NY was a reaction to Afghanistan, and what heppened in London was a reaction to Iraq. They are connected in as much as terrorists of a certain reigion anywhere are - they may share information, they may share some similar beliefs, and they probably all want to see Muslim populations treated with respect. But they are all so seperate, such different triggers and causes, that you insult not only them, but yourself if you can label them all as ‘fascists’ who are collectively respnosible for these atrocities. It is nothing more than racism. It is naive and hopeful to think they might be part of a huge network. I fear it is nothing like as simple as this.
Not really sure what any of that means. Are you saying that Hezbollah does not act in civilian areas (as well as UN posts)?
Also, you keep saying ‘your country’–it is not a big deal, but I don’t know what your country is. If you care to share, great.
Muslim fascists have been active in much of the world. In reacting to that violence, civilians have been harmed. Civilians have been harmed in every war. Why would you expect this to be any different. That does not mean it gladdens me or that I desire it, but how exactly is Israel to respond to killers hiding amongst kids?
Ended 6 years ago? Why on earth do you assert that it ended 6 years ago? People are being killed by Islamic fascism–what is your basis for saying it had ended?
It was in Lebanon already in the form of the PLO. Why do you presume Israel was there–because Beirut is so lovely in the Springtime?
Any religion MAH? That’s kinda the point isn’t it? There is only one religion that is blowing people up around the world and beheading them and shooting at them.
Do you think mosques in the US are truly worried about Jews or Methodists coming in during services and shooting?
Synagogues are forced to have extra security, their pre-schools need to use bullet-proof glass. Lock-down procedures need to be practiced. And I can assure you, it is not a fear of fundamentalist Buddhists.
MAH, you have left logic behind dude. Answer me this–were you truly surprised to find out the terrorists on 9/11 were Muslim?
The reaction world-wide to some silly cartoons in a Danish paper–one trigger, one cause (insult to Islam!), one response. Can you really picture Jews worldwide reacting with violent protests, with people being killed, because of some cartoons in Denmark? If not, what is the difference?
More than 1,000 have been killed in Thailand recently, including 40 bomb and arson attacks yesterday. Wanna guess who is responsible?
Do you truly suppose it’s just a coincidence that it just happens to be Islamic fascists behind it yet more violence?
It isn’t racism at all. I don’t believe race has anything to do with it. It is religion, and a large group of people around the world who are willing to kill, maim, blow up and behead to force the rest of us to conform to their religious views. It just so happens that all of those people are Muslim.
But you think it is just a coincidence??
Odd2 - last thing from me, you’ll be pleased to know!!
how exactly is Israel to respond to killers hiding amongst kids?
By not killing them. simple really.
I could elaborate and suggest serious pressure on the Lebanese government, in conjunction with international pressure - you know diplomacy…sometimes it works, though yes, it might take time and patience, of course. Which why would you bother with when you can just blow everyone up?. Obviously Hezbollah wouldn’t listen, but Israel/others might have put enough pressure on the government to assist in ousting them. I’m sure if faced with war or getting Hezbollah out, the Lebanese would choose the latter.
‘Ended 6 years ago? Why on earth do you assert that it ended 6 years ago? People are being killed by Islamic fascism–what is your basis for saying it had ended?’
War in lebanon - Israel’s occupation ended 6 years ago, just wondering if Israel is interested in starting again for whatever the reason might be. Wish i knew.
‘It was in Lebanon already in the form of the PLO. Why do you presume Israel was there–because Beirut is so lovely in the Springtime?’
I don’t think you and I are ever going to agree about PLO, I’m sure you can guess what i think! So I won’t go there, but just to say, invading Lebanon the first time around left a country in tatters, people who had no interest were drawn into a war they didn’t believe in, and now it seems to be happening again. Imagine how the Lebanese feel. I guess it’s ok, because two men were kidnapped, and a missile fired which didn’t hurt anyone.
‘There is only one religion that is blowing people up around the world and beheading them and shooting at them.’
And in Lebanon and Palestine the religion carrying out those things is Judaism (apart from beheading). Sorry, I hate to say that, but come on, we can’t blame a religion collectively for these things, just as we can’t blame judaism collectively for what is happening in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon right now.
It is not Islam that is doing these things.
It is different organisations, millitants, perhaps some of them crazy in some of the situations (I don’t include Palestinians, or the Lebanese who will begin to fight back I’m sure, as they have been attacked and demeaned enough to warrant retaliation). These organisations happen to be Muslim. It is a very dangerous thought that we should say it is the cause of Islam. What we will end up with (and are already seeing in my opinion, and have seen around Eastern Europe) is genocide.
I agree the cartoon thing was a bit out of hand, but I think there is growing frustration and fear amongst Muslim communities that their religion is beginning to be seen as a threat, that they will eventually become the Pariahs of the 21st Century. There’s no real excuse for attacking civilian areas randomly, but in order to stop what’s happening, reactionary, knee-jerk tactics will result in many more deaths, and a growing war. Killing those children, and civilians isn’t just tragic, it’s disgusting, as it is a completely overblown reaction, condemned worldwide by practically every side of the media, people of all political persuasions, and many governments.
‘It’s not racism’
Racism, dislike and intolerance of another person’s religion, hatred of someone who is not like you. It is all the same, and it all leads to the same end. War, hatred, isolation of those we don’t like.
Well, that is certainly a flippant and callous response. And I suspect if it was your loved ones who had the bombs landing among them, or your neighbors who were being shot at and killed and abducted, you may wish for a slightly more forceful response then ‘let ‘em go.’
The Lebanese government is Hezbollah, and if anything has assisted Hezbollah. The Lebanese government has praised Hezbollah, and promised to fight with them.
Specifically, what actions has the Lebanese government taken to keep their country free of Islamic terror groups?
Lastly, for how many decades do you suggest Israel remain patient? And how do you conduct diplomacy with terror groups? Ones whose goal is your elimination?
I agree. I think we can safely and clearly blame Islamic fascism for what is happeing in Lebanon and Israel.
And India and England and Spain and America and Thailand and Bali and Darfur and Nigeria and Tanzania and Jordan and Turkey and Kenya and on an on and on.
Truthfully MAH, do you not see any particular detail about all those doing these things around the world? If you don’t, you are either being incredibly dense or intentionally dishonest.
And yes, it is all being done by people who claim to follow Islam.
No, they don’t just happen to be Muslim, like its some grand cosmic coincidence.
There is clearly a large segment of Muslims who are violent, and who are using violence and bombs and beheadings and shooting and stabbing to foist their way on others.
They should feel that way, should they not? There is mass violence going on around the world, and in almost all cases it is being done by Islamic fascists. I wrote this above, but you ignored it. It cuts to the chase, does it not?
Any religion MAH? That’s kinda the point isn’t it? There is only one religion that is blowing people up around the world and beheading them and shooting at them.
Do you think mosques in the US are truly worried about Jews or Methodists coming in during services and shooting?
Synagogues are forced to have extra security, their pre-schools need to use bullet-proof glass. Lock-down procedures need to be practiced. And I can assure you, it is not a fear of fundamentalist Buddhists.
Why is that MAH?
Its not intolerance of someone else’s religion–its intolerance of the actionsof people, all of whom coincidentally happen to be Muslim, who insist on bombing and beheading and shooting others.
MAH, these people: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060801/481/e18efd139743410aa9a891389d97e48d
they just coincidentally happen to belong to the religion we were discussing.
Coincidence!
MAH, would you believe it? More coincidences!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060801/ap_on_re_as/thailand_southern_violence_1
What are the odds that they happened not to be Lutherans?
Do you really want to stand pat on your contention that Islam is not at the heart of things?
Of course Hezbollah are a bunch of murdering bastards and well before Hezbollah was established, the Israelis had already turned themselves into a bunch of murdering bastards - on a much greater scale. These people quite clearly exhibit homicidal racism of their own against Arabs; something which seems to have been the case right from when the Zionist extremists decided they would have a Jewish state in a country where only 80 years ago they were a 10% minority - and concluded that to do so they’d have to kill Arabs. So to bleat about anti-Semitism, even where it IS real is, unfortnately, simple hypocrisy that lends a hollow tone to their righteousness. A large portion of Israelis and of the millions of Jews worlwide neeed to purge themselves of their own demented racism towards Arabs before they can righteously point the finger at anyone.
But what’s even worse is that even intellegent Jews in supposedly open democracies push the ‘anti-Semitism’ button even where there is none, just to stifle any criticism of Israeli actions. However, this tactic, which may be some emotional knee jerk forged by past injustices visited on the Jewish people, ultimately just makes them the bullies and much worse, simply cheapens the memories of those who actually died at the murderous hands of real anti-Semitism. So those who use this tactic ironically become anti-Semitic themselves on a very deep level. Instead of being beacons for the humanity that we ought to show each other - after suffering so much at the hands of those who disregarded that humanity altogether - they instead do nothing but harm to that humanity with this tactic. The media in countries like the USA and the UK need to ignore these bullying, manipulative and ultimately destructive hypocrites and learn to criticise awful & immoral deeds whenever they happen - whether it is the random chucking into a civilian area of the odd undirected missile by a Hezbollah extremist or the indiscriminate & massive bombing of civilians by a commitee of homicidal extremists - or the direct funding of that slaughter straight out of the American taxpayers pockets by yet another bunch of immoral & duplicitous bastards. All of these actions ought to be opposed - but those Jews who invoke anti-semitism as an all purpose shield for all that Israel does, need to stop, think, remember and show proper respect to their own fallen people and never dare cheapen something that they more than anyone should know, was one of the most awful acts of human history.
When you are more critical of Israel for defending itself against terrorists who fire weapons full of nails and ball bearings with the intention of maximising civilian death more than you are critical of the actual act of fireing the weapons in the first place, that is Anti-Semitism.
Yep…it is.
An anti-Semite is someone who hates Jewish people simply because they are Jewish, no other reason, just that. I criticise both the Israeli government and Hezbuullah because of their actions, not because they are Jewish or Arab. If I sound slightly more critical of the Israeli govt, then it may be because the Israeli government kills at least twenty times the number of innocent people than Hezbullah and deserve more criticism for this alone.
At least I do criticise both - your words are one way. Hezbullah use nail bombs on civilians as you say, what you don’t say is that Israel uses cluster bombs against civilians. Look them up, see what they do. Both are absolutely despicable and both should be opposed, but the Israeli govt. is far more effective in its slaughter. That is why I criticise both and but reserve words like ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘massive’ for the actions of the Israeli government.
I’m afraid that it is testament to your own leanings that you tease only bias against Israel in words critical of both sides and in your immediate and foolish (if it weren’t so obviously instinctive) leap to ‘the accusation’.
It is also tesatment to a certain short-sightedness and lack of humanity that you would excuse the killing of civilians, including a large proportion of children and babies, with cluster bombs with the excuse ‘they started it first’ - even if that were the case.
Look to your history - this conflict didn’t start 2 months ago - we in the the West started it a long time ago when we forced Israel on an unwilling population and proceeded to evict poeple from their own homes and sent them into exile abroad. They haven’t forgotten that even if you have. A just solution has to take all of the truths into account - not just those convenient to minority extremists on either side.
I can never agree with your definition of anti-Semitism for the reasons I explained in my first post. It is a label with huge historical weight attached to it because of the actions of anti-Semites in the past, and it is a label that gets banded about far too easily by people like yourself. Each time you do this, you shave a little more of that historical weight and meaning away. This is truly unforgiveable. I absolutely oppose this diminishing of the weight and meaning those words - as you should too. I do not care if someone like you thinks I am an anti-Semite just because I criticise the actions of the Israeli government or do so more than I do Hezbullah in your eyes. But I do care that you say it publicly, because each time you do it so easily, you hurt the very cause of the humanity that all of us should strive to protect. You hurt the cause of Jewish people and you do it by lowering your standards and just not thinking what you say through.
that is Anti-Semitism
Do you hate Arabs? That’s anti-semitism too, jerk. Also, criticizing != hate, so you can take your asshattery elsewhere.
I am the last person in the world to defend Israel or to further hatred of Muslims, but I hate this argument with a passion. Today I read an editorial by a very respected lefty academic, in a mainstream newspaper, about how “the real” anti-semitism is now directed against Muslims and how Israelis are, therefore, the most significant anti-semites in the world, since Israel aims to wipe Arabs off the face of the earth. And with that, there is no way to talk about hatred of Jews. The word that has always meant hatred of Jews now means something else, and hatred of Jews is rendered totally invisible.
As far as I’m concerned, anti-semitism means hatred of Jews and only hatred of Jews. Hatred of Arabs is an equally horrible thing, but it’s a different thing, and we need a different word to describe it. Because as far as I can tell, lumping them together is done almost entirely by people who want to justify or downplay hatred of Jews.
Once upon a time there was a cat full of fleas. The cat had so many fleas that it was covered in sores and wounds, and its fleas were beginning to pester the neighbours.
One day, a neighbour got sick and tired of being bitten by the cat’s fleas and threw some anti fleas lotion on the cat’s ear. But the cat, who had lived with the fleas so long that it ended up thinking the fleas were part of itself, complained and the neighbour was acused to be a cat torturer.
The neighbour showed the people that the cat was half dead because of the fleas, and then he showed them his own body all bitten by the fleas, but they still called him a cat torturer.
Of course the right way to deal with this would have been for the cat to be cleaned by the vet. Unfortunately the vet is a very undecided person.
From an ISraelian blog. Pardon the skeevy translation, it was not originally in English.
I’d just like to ask why it’s acceptable that Israel is the only permissably racist nation on Earth? By racist I mean the self-identified Jewish race, as opposed to those who understand that Judaism is actually a religion.
Anyway, an Israeli Arab typically has much trouble owning land or a business, or indeed obtaining virtually any of the rights that an Israeli Jew possesses. There is even a set of laws governing Jew-Arab marriages, to make sure that only true Jewish Israelis hold onto the land and the power.
Yeah, I know, it sounds like a fringer rant to keep using the word Jew, even in a literal context like this. But that’s what Israel is - a Jewish state. Specifically, an exclusionary state that denies people fundamental rights solely based on their religion (though ostensibly on their ethnicity, which is just as wrong). And we don’t condemn them for that. We condemn other nations as intolerant for attempting to declare themselves Chrisitian or Muslim states, but not Israel. I’d like to know why.
As far as I’m concerned, anti-semitism means hatred of Jews and only hatred of Jews.
Sally, I’m sorry, but your wrong. You can think that all you want, but as “Semitism” is not limited to being Jewish, anti-semitism is a much bigger thing that just Jewish hatred. If you want to say hatred of jewish people, say that, don’t take wods that have meaning other than the one you assign to them and expect everyone else to see it the same way.
shite. your = you’re
Regardng the allegations of antisemitism and Israeli foreign policy, the process is, in fact, fairly simple. Follow, please:
1a. Israel is a model country, founded on respect for law (both international and internal), respect for human life and morality.
If you deny this, you are an anti-Semite.
1b. Israel may — and sometimes does — act in a way which contradicts the foregoing principles on which it was founded.
If you point this out, you are an anti-Semite.
2a. Israel is both a democracy and devoted to the ideals of democracy itself: that people be free to express their opinions, often wildly differing, within a framework of law and respect for each other.
If you deny this, you are an anti-Semite.
2b. You may disagree with or have an emotional reaction against Israeli actions.
If you exercise your rights and say so, you are an anti-Semite.
Personally, and perhaps also speaking for those of us in the “pro-Jew, pro-Israel but we still have opinions of our own and retain our right to dissent” camp, I’m getting more than a little hacked off with being tarred with offensive labels, or being told that we don’t have a right to speak, or we’re always wrong if we criticize Israel.
I’m not wrong. The word “anti-semitism” was coined in the 19th century to mean hatred of Jews. That’s still the only definition that the OED has for it, and they date it in English from 1881. (It was in use in Germany about a decade earlier.) I’m really not the one changing the definition. You may think that “anti-Semitism” *should* have been used to describe hatred of Arabs as well as Jews, but until very recently it hasn’t been.
Do you really think that it makes any analytical sense to lump Jews and Arabs together under the label “Semite”? Do you really think that hatred of Jews and hatred of Arabs are such similar phenomena that it illuminates rather than obscures them to analyze them together?
That is true Sally, on the origin of “Antisemitism,” however a Semite is:
a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs
People also called Native Americans “Indians.” It’s called a misnomer. I know most people don’t really give a shit about Arabs (not that I’m saying you do), but they are Semites. The only reason they aren’t included in the word antisemitism in the first place is because the word was first used to describe anti-Jewish attitudes in Europe. Not a lot of Arabs in Europe. Hatred of Arabs falls under antisemitism, as well, whether the specific original definition says so or not.
And yet if someone said that the Bureau of Indian Affairs should take over international relations with the Indian subcontinent, they’d be laughed out of the room.
Yes, you’re right. At the high-point of European imperialism, Europeans had no interactions with Arabs, had no negative attitudes towards them, and in fact forgot they existed.
There was plenty of anti-Arab sentiment in Europe in the late 19th century. It was different from anti-Jewish sentiment because the position of Arabs in European society was then, as it is now, different from the position of Jews. That’s why people at the time did not use the same word to describe antipathy to Arabs that they used to describe antipathy to Jews. Similarly, anti-Arab policies looked very different from anti-Jewish policies. And that’s still true, which is why it makes sense to keep them analytically distinct.
I don’t have time to argue with you about ths. But I really disagree with you, and I really don’t think you’ve thought through the implications of changing the definition of anti-Semitism.
On the semantic argument - it sems clear that the word ‘anti-Semite’ has always meant to refer to hatred of Jews rather than the more technically correct hatred of a group of peoples of which those who typically followed the religion of Judaism are a subset of.
It may upset the logical structure of the intended meaning of words but the true meaning of a word is determined by its common usage, not the intended logic. ‘Indian’ is a classic example - and now it has two meanings in the English speaking world, which is fine, even though one of them is a ‘wrong’ description of the people it describes. It may be wrong technically, but it is correct by common usage. Same with anti-Semite. As Jack points out, it is technically wrong but as Sally points out it is correct by common usage. The only way Jack will ever be 100% right on this is he persuades enough people to adopt the technically ‘correct’ form so that the common usage is the same as what is technically correct. But for that we may wait even longer than it will take for people to stop calling Native Americans ‘Indians’!
I was definitely using the phrase in the common usage as was the person who was accusing me of being one. Whereas it is a semantic argument to call that person anti-Semite too by virtue of Arabs being technically ‘Semites’, I was pointing out that this person could ironically be seen as an anti-Semite in the common sense because of his readiness to accuse others of the same, such harm does that ultimately do to the cause of those who would fight against true anti-Semitism (in the common sense!)or any other hatred based on race or religion.
Given common usage definitely views ‘anti-Semitism’ as referring to hatred of Jews, then perhaps we need a word for common usage to describe hatred of Arabs. How about anti-Arabic as the adjective and anti-Arabite as the noun? I’ve seen them both used. They follow the same construction as anti-Semitic and anti-Semite - even if technically (sorry Jack) they are not correct. But given the clear opposition between Arabs and Jews, despite their technical similarities and racial connection, it seems that commmon usage also follows common sense - because it is just too confusing to have both called anti-Semites. One being anti-Semite and the other being anti-Arabite is much easier to follow!
I really don’t think you’ve thought through the implications of changing the definition of anti-Semitism.
IMPLICATIONS? That Arabs will be treated more like humans? Oh no, can’t have that! Ok, you’re starting to sound like an antisemite more and more. Oh, and check this website. It’s an inaccurate term and has been called such by me. Arabs were not of the same size population in Europe at the time “Anti-semitism” came into usage, so you can cram your bullshit history lesson back down the hole you came from.
And Harlan, I rarely use the word “anti-semitism” because bigotry describes it all nicely. However, when someone comes up and calls me an anti-semite for criticizing Israel’s actions against those dirty Arabs, a la -Canuck-, I tend to throw their own word back in their face. I’m not sure what Sally meant by “considering the implications” of calling Arabs “Semites,” but it sounds vaguely anti-Arab to me. Also, these are all just labels we pick out to describe hatred and intolerance towards certain groups, a term excellently described by “bigotry.”
I hear you Jack - and ‘bigotry’ covers it for me - but someone will still ask you ‘what kind of bigotry?’
Not that Arabs will be treated more like humans, but that hatred of Jews will become acceptable. This isn’t a zero sum game: Arabs do not necessarily benefit when Jews suffer, and Jews do not have to suffer for Arabs to benefit.
Fascinating. Do you also have problems with the words “misogyny” and “homophobia,” or are Jews the only ones who aren’t allowed to name the specific bigotry against them?
I think it’s hilarious, incidentally, that you accused me of anti-semitism. It’s a terrible offence when defenders of Israel baselessly accuse their critics of anti-semitism, and I’m sure you’d howl if such an accusation were made here, as would I. But you think you’re completely entitled to accuse me of anti-semitism with absolutely no evidence.
you’re starting to sound like an antisemite more and more.
I wasn’t really calling you an anti-semite, just that it sounded like you were saying how terrible it was to equate Arabs with semitism…which you basically did.
Not that Arabs will be treated more like humans, but that hatred of Jews will become acceptable.
Reasoning for this other than that the default way to treat Arabs is with hatred? And you’re wrong that it isn’t zero sum, because hatred of a group is bad for all people. No one benefits from the suffering of others.
are Jews the only ones who aren’t allowed to name the specific bigotry against them?
Who said they couldn’t? Anti-semitism definitely applies to bigotry against Jewish people. It also applies to Arabs. Don’t like it? Find a new word that makes things more specific, like “misogyny” and “homophobia” are explicit. I can’t help it if etymology is against your argument, but the facts are what they are.
you’re wrong that it isn’t zero sum
should be “you’re right”
You know, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you’d jump to the conclusion that this was my motivation. If I felt like being offended, I would be really pissed off at your totally hysterical and ungenerous reading of everything I’ve said.
The term “Semite” isn’t some timeless, authentic category with basis in fact. It was invented as a term to describe a family of languages in the late 18th century, and then it was applied to a race of people in the early 19th century. This act of classifying people racially wasn’t neutral: it was profoundly tied to imperialism, to scientific racism, to an attempt to use new systems of knowledge as tools of domination. As such, the concept of “Semites” was used to oppress both Jews and Arabs, albeit in different ways. There’s no reason to treat “Semite” as a true, real, authentic category and “antisemitism” as a misnomer. They’re both products of particular historical circumstances.
As such, the question about both terms should be whether it’s useful. Does this category describe a phenomenon that seems real at the present time? Does it help or hinder our attempts to make sense of the world we live in?
I am not a linguist, but as I understand it, the concept of “semite” does have utility as a linguistic category. But the political issues we’re talking about aren’t about language. I don’t speak a word of Hebrew, but the guy I overheard in London two weeks ago talking about how the problem in Lebanon was caused by the fact that the Jews ran everything in America was definitely talking about me. I know a Lebanese-American whose only languages are English and French, but he still gets stopped at airline security. So the fact that you can talk about “semitic languages” does not mean that there’s utility to the concept of Jews and Arabs as members of the Semitic branch of the human race.
Jews and Arabs occupy different positions in the world and in Western countries. We have really different histories vis a vis Western countries: Jews have been present in the West for a millenium and for a very long time were Europe’s most visible internal minority. Arabs were approached from afar, as colonial subjects. This is not the same thing. It has led to very different patterns of prejudice. I’m not saying that either prejudice is worse than the other. I’m saying they’re different. 19th century scientific racists thought we were all defined by similar Semitic traits such as deceitfulness, clannishness, and sexual deviancy, but they applied those things differently, because Arabs were an enemy without and Jews were an enemy within.
I believe that hatred of Jews is a pretty coherent mindset. The Londoner who blamed American Jews for the situation in Lebanon was appealing to a particular set of prejudices about Jews: that we secretly control the world through our sneaky, conspiratorial cabal; that we appear to blend in to our host societies while really maintaining our own separate, selfish interests; that we are greedy and selfish and that we cheat Christians; that we only value our own lives and take pleasure in slaughtering the children of non-Jews. Those are the accusations against me now; they were the accusations against my great-grandmother in 1940; they were the accusations against Alfred Dreyfus in the 1890s.
Arabs have faced a different history of prejudice. For instance, accusations of religious fanatacism have always been a big feature. So have accusations that Arabs mistreat women, which is why the harem loomed so large in the 19th century imagination. (There was also a quasi-pornographic aspect to that: Europeans simulataneously got to celebrate their own superiority to filthy Middle Eastern types and imagine a lot of really kinky sex.) All of these things proved the inability of Arabs to self-govern and justified imperialism. They still function that way.
Now, given that prejudice against Jews and prejudice against Arabs have taken different forms and have served different functions, and given that the term “Semite” isn’t some untouchable, sacred category that exists as a timeless, ahistorical truth, I don’t think that there’s any analytical utility to lumping hatred of Jews and hatred of Arabs together. I believe that hatred of Jews needs to be analyzed as a separate and distinct thing, and I haven’t seen any good reason to change the word that has been used to describe hatred of Jews for over a hundred years.
I believe that the reason that some people today want to change the meaning of the term anti-Semitism is that they want to obscure the continuing existence of a pattern of hatred of Jews. You want to make something fairly clear and distinct into something nebulous and difficult to talk about. And that’s because, fundamentally, you don’t care about hatred of Jews. I’m willing to give this a generous reading and say that you don’t care about hatred of Jews because you don’t think it’s a problem anymore. You think that anti-Semitism, used to describe hatred of Jews, is basically a tool to justify oppression of Arabs, rather than a description of a real, continuing phenomenon. I disagree, but then there’s a lot more at stake for me here than there is for a white Christian guy like you.
And your not caring about hatred of Jews is what’s behind statements like this:
What you’re saying here is that it’s incumbant on Jews like me to replace the perfectly good term for hatred of Jews that you have declared off limits. You get to change the definition, but we’re the ones who have to deal with the fall-out. Hatred of Muslim, you’ve made clear, is everyone’s problem, but hatred of Jews is a problem for Jews alone.
Sally, I agree with your comments on the utility of the phrase ‘ant-Semitism’ as a reference to hatred of Jews specifically.
Also I agree with your comments regarding the possibility of the obscuring of the specific pattern of bigotry against Jewish people. This as you eloquently describe, has a conception and development very different to that of the prejudice against Arab peoples.
But I also think that this pattern has changed with the creation of Israel and that this is something which Jewish people, in analysis of the prejudices against them may not give due recognition to. That in turn may give rise to a tendency to read as classic prejudice against Jews, opinions and/or actions that may be informed by other considerations not part of the classic pantheon of anti-Jewish prejudice.
The specific pattern of hatred against Jews you refer to undoubtedly has run for centuries but this has alays fed off paranoia about outsiders within - always the easy scapegoats for the ills of any society, however actually caused. This attitude is familar today in regard to illegal immigrant in the UK and in the US. As well as being outsiders Jewish people suffered from envy of their perceived success allied with the Biblical and Shakespearian portrayal of money lenders as a)Jewish and b)immoral. So traditionally, Jewish people didn’t have to do anything actually wrong to generate prejudice - there was plenty coming just by them being in a place long enough. Today, however, the real anti-Semites have the extra ammunition of the actions of the Israeli government. Some of the prejudices partly made flesh. Neither Dreyfuss nor your grandmother dropped cluster bombs on civilians. There are many, like myself, who would criticise Israel for this without being anti-Semitic, but you can imagine the fuel this gives to the real ani-Semitics out there and must accept that this is bound to create new anti-Semites out of hatred of Israel for these actions alone and nothing else. In this way the pattern has changed - part of the pattern now has to accommodate hatred of Jews based on hatred of the real actions of the Israeli government. This was never a factor in the past.
With regard to your overheard conversation, you may overstate the role of the traditional pattern of hatred here in that again it needn’t be seen as a product of those typical prejudices in isolation and therefore not as actually prejudiced as it may first appear to be. Yes there have been conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the world for a long long time, but the observation that the Jewish people control US policy in regard to Israel and the surrounding region, may not be in the same fantasy league as that of Jews secretly controlling of the world. Just looking at the situation dispassionately from the outside tells you that something strange is happenng - and the thinking may go something like this: The USA regularly tops us Israel with billions of dollars of military aid, keeps the Israeli military equipped with the most up to date technology, and has even allowed and helped Israel to develop nuclear weapons in clear violation of its virulent anti-nuclear proliferation stance elsewhere. Why? Does the USA have a huge population of Jewish people who pressure for such support - well they have a population, but its not that huge. So do non-Jewish Americans have any particular reason to care much about what happens to Israel? Not really. So why does the USA especially favour one country so much more than any other? These are, I think, obvious questions that anyone looking at the situation might ask, and in the absence of a sensible answer, may well conclude that the Jewish people - those who live in the USA and/or those outside of the USA excercise an influence way above their punching weight. Are people right to think that? Of course I think the reasons certainly lie elsewhere than some secret control by a small cabal of Jews has over successive American presidencies. But there must be a huge reason why the USA supports Israel the way it does (and I haven’t even mentioned its unflinching support in the UN and the less than even handed approach of the US media). If the reason is not obvious to everyone then it is not surprising that conspiracy theories gain credence. So what is the reason? Is it simply because successive American presidencies have felt honour-bound to protect the principle of the Jewish state? Somehow I don’t think so. Is it because the USA regards a destabilised middle east as essential to retaining some control over a region that has so much of what the ruling powers of the US want - oil - and that Israel is every bit a pawn in this game as the Arab countries? Maybe. What do you think? But when an obviously one sided policy is excercised and the reasons are shrouded in obfuscation at best, those who conclude that Israel has an unusual and inordinate influence over the US policy in this area can hardly be faulted as deluded conspiracy theorists. They just need to point at that ceasless flow of military hardware and Israel’s shiny new nuclear bombs - those are real.
hatred of Jews is a problem for Jews alone.
Nope:
hatred of a group is bad for all people.
So how is it that I said that ’scool to hate Jewish people? I said you use a term that can technically be applied to many people. YOU CAN USE THE TERM BECAUSE IT APPLIES TO JEWISH PEOPLE!
they want to obscure the continuing existence of a pattern of hatred of Jews.
This is not the reason why I used the term in the first place. I WAS NOT trying to make light of anti-Jewish bigotry. I WAS trying to show -Canuck- that if he’s a bigot against Arabs, his bigotry is founded on the same principles of hatred that other bigotry is founded on.
I rarely use “antisemitism” in terms of anti-Arab prejudice, but it is technically antisemitic, since Arabs are included under the term “Semites.” I was throwing -Canuck-’s bigotry back in his face. I’m truly sorry for arguing the matter with you, because it’s pretty pointless to argue semantics instead of substance.
I disagree, but then there’s a lot more at stake for me here than there is for a white Christian guy like you.
This is just stupid. I’m white, but not Christian. You seem have your own bigotted notions as well, so let’s both just back off and agree that hatred of specific groups is bad. K?
What happend to Sally?
Hello everyone, i am an israeli civilian and i live in haifa.
I was in this city during all 30~ days of the war, of course spending most of the time in bomb shelters.
3 times some of the missiles fired by hezbalah hit as close as 70 yards from where i was staying at that time. 3 Close friends of my family (Civilians) died in this war by hezbalah missiles fired at our city. Do you know how is it to hear as many as 18 alarms during 1 day indicating incoming missiles in our area?
do you know how is it to wake up at 6am to the sounds of an alram, thinking only of running to the closest bomb shelter, not even fully dressed, just because of wanting to stay alive? Do you know how is it to have 3 brothers /cusens in the army and all of the beeing inside of the lebanese borders just for the soul purpose of letting us have a few peaceful hours to come down from the last missile firing, to get out of the bomb shelters to get something to eat/drink?
Well i do know… i lived through it…
During the war i’ve even got a few calls from my brother and a cusen of mine who serve in the army and were inside lebanon. Each of the said that while going through evacuated lebanese villages they found atlist 5klg’s of weaponery in EACH and every house they went through? along side the weapons they found pictures of Nassrala.
Go through every israeli house in the whole country and you will not find as many weapons, and all thouse weapons you will find will probably be pistoles belonging to guards in cinimatecs, resturants and malls etc…
Some of the things i’ve read here were absolutely idiotic.
When you post anti arabic/anti israeli comments atlist know your facts…
Hezbalah have been kiddnaping many soldiers over the past years, killing many more border patrols and are not even returning their bodies to be rightfully bearried on israel/jewish soil…
The 2 kiddnaped soldiers were the last straw for the israeli goverment.
1) Israel have has targeting only armed hezbalah supporters during this war.
2) Israel has been ALARMING all the civilians in the areas they were bombing to give all those who do not want to fight time to leave the area.
3) Hezbalah reporters where exaggerated on EVERY step of the war. When 3-4 extrimists were killed in bombings, hezbalah reported twice more or even 3 times more just to create and wave of spempatic left wingers to cry for them and to throw rocks at the right wingers.
4) Hezbalah HIDE in civilian buildings, in areas that were Alarmed to israeli bombings BY the israelis themselves.
5)U.N tower bombed by israelis? again… read your facts right, israeli intelligance found out that those U.N senitals were reporting EVERY step of the israeli forces to nasrala himself. Cordinats of every hizbalah missile hit on israeli territory was reported to nasrala himself by those U.N’s. yes we even knew the names of the people inside that post and ha ALL the recordings of they conversations and they transmmitions to the hebalah. Did you know that the U.N website had EVERY israeli’s force movement documanted and available to the public a few hours after those movements were done? i would say that israel had every right to warn the U.N, yes, their death was a warning, because their information cosed many more civilian deaths on israeli side.
To the creator of this article, i do not want to call you an anti-semite, and i will not.
Instad, i will call you a moron, because thats what you are. Easy to write from a safe and uninvolved location is it? especially when you dont know even 1 fact about this war.
Want to call me an anti arab? stupid right winger? call me whatever you want.
I have many israeli arabic friends, i understand the arabic language and have studied it at school for a few years. I have friends from Sudia, iran and even lebanon.
What do i want in life? i want peace, and if it can be achived without war, i will be more then happy, but it cant.
Not when some muslim children are reised to hate everything not islamic, to be suicide bombers. Not when parents send their children to blow themselves up and think that their children will go to heaven and “screw” 70 virgins.
Can you say something like that about the israeli people? even the extrimists among us cherish their children more then life itself and will NEVER send them with a mission to kill, and especially not to blow themselves up in the middle of a crowd.
Israel is 1 small jewish country with 6.5million people in it, in the middle of more then 12 muslimc-arabic countries. Those countries hate israel more then life itself and would love for evreyone in it to die (not talking about the ones that dont, they are few by there are some).
If the odds were reversed, can you say that the jewish people would have hated the 1 muslim country so much? can you say that we would have wanted them dead? hell no… even now i dont want them all dead, i just want them to stop trying to kill us.
I have nothing else i want to say to all the readers of this article, this that i wanted but forgot were probably forggoten due to me beeing a bit angry at the moment. (Article? heh,can it even be called that way?).
(Excuse my spelling/grammar mistakes, english is not my first nor is it my second or third language.) if you want to to reply to me, do it so by email, in either russian, hebrew, arabic or english, (german is also fine, but i’ll have to stay close to a dictionary to reply as i am only starting to learn it.)
Well done Dimitry for living through this awfulness. Do you think that puts you in a good position to argue rationally about what has caused this shit to happen to you personally? You in the middle of Israel with all of the one sided crap coming out of the media? Don’t expect people to sit back and say nothing because you had to run from Hezbollah missiles. For every Israeli that had to do that there are a hundred times the number in Lebanon who had to run from much worse and a hundred times more who didn’t make it. Best make your point about being part of the terror of it all to someone else on the other side who went through what the Israelis threw at them, had their relatives killed and who really knows what you are talking about - because you are right about one thing - we don’t know that here unless there are any sufferers on the other side reading this. But that’s not what this discussion is about.
The fact is all of that suffering is unbeleivably awful ON BOTH SIDES and the discussion is about why this has happened and what can be done to solve it not about what it is like to suffer as a result of the policies we are discussing. This discussion can be had without being on the receiving end of a missile and it doesn’t make anyone a moron to attempt to do so without rushing to the front line first.
As to the main point you actually make - Israel targetted only Hezbalah - you are naive in the extreme if you believe that - does Israel possess a special crystal ball? What about the carpeting of Southern Lebanon with cluster bombs - ‘targetting’ and cluster bombs just don’t go together wouldn’t you agree? or does Israel use special cluster bombs? The fact is that Israel has killed civilians and lots of them and no amount of exaggeration by Hezbalah and no amount of Israeli propaganda about targetting fighters only while they spray cluster bombs around can alter that basic fact.
You belief that the UN were somehow working with Hezbalah and that’s why they were blown up, sounds on the face of it totally ridiculous and more likely to be a product of Israeli propaganda, so please tell me what the evidence for that is - I would very much like to read it, I have seen nothing anywhere to suggest that until I read it here.
Of course suicide bombing is an evil and horrendous thing. You talk as if it is only the Arab side that is capable of such horror. But it is obvious that there are extemists on both sides. What is more extreme - giving the order to drop cluster bombs or blowing yourself up in a desparate suicide attack? Both are despicable. The disgustingness of suicide bombing is the resort of the truly desparate. Israel has by far the massive superiority in military power -and suicide bombing is the resort of by far the weaker and more desparate side. The desparateness of their situation hands influence to the extremists who manipulate young people into carrying out such acts. Arab parents don’t ’send their children’ to carry out such acts and it certainly is nothing to do with Arabs loving their children less than Israelis. It is a product of sheer desparation against superior military might.
You say the soldier kidnapping was the last straw. But this war started way before the latest round of soldier kidnapping - why do the Arab countries around Israel hate you so much? - tell me what is the root cause of this hatred? What did you do to them to make them feel this way? That ultimately is what you suffered from when you sheltered from the missiles and it is what they are continuing to suffer from as each of those thousands of cluster bomblets explodes and continues to kill civilians.
What do you think the reason for it all really is?
Not that it really matters in the end - the Israeli government and army are not interested in that discussion - because at the moment might is right. That is the way it will probably continue to be and ultimately discussions like these will change nothing. But while one side is getting its way through sheer force of military power let’s not delude ourselves that it also happens to be in the moral right and that all its enemeies in the moral wrong; the pragmatic power-mongers of the US and Israeli governments won’t even believe that, it is irrelevant to them - but they have to sell that to ordinary people like us, who do care about such things