|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 15, 2006 15:11:15 GMT -5
Laugh all you want Phil ... Neither side is anywhere near angelic in this mess. But if you look at their actions to determine who will accept actual change, and who wants nothing short of obliteration, it's rather obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 15, 2006 15:27:21 GMT -5
The only obvious thing is that there will never be
a peaceful or military solution to the Israel/palestine conflict ...
Too many fondamentalist fanatics on BOTH sides !!
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 15, 2006 16:49:23 GMT -5
But if you look at their actions to determine who will accept actual change, and who wants nothing short of obliteration, it's rather obvious.
OH ! That must be why for every small illegal settlements they dismantle
Israel continuesto build many large ones in occupied territories
and the new PM said that he would modify Israel frontiers to accomodate said settlements ...
They've all been at war for the last 50 years
and they will all still be going at it in the next 50
because Israel got the guns but Palestinians got the numbers... !
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 15, 2006 17:54:50 GMT -5
One last consideration before I exit this topic ...
The only Israeli PM who really tried
to make a serious commitment for peace
got killed by a few bullets in the back,
courtesy of an extremist Jewish settler
who, to this day, is considered to be
a national hero by many fundamentalist jews ...
Remember him ??
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jul 15, 2006 18:16:38 GMT -5
Zionism. The most terrible thing to happen to Israel ever. It's right up there with the Taliban as far as I'm concerned. Also, if Israel was so pro-peace, why did the rocket attack a refugee camp killing innocent civillians that were not harboring weapons in the so called "given back" Gaza strip?
I have a huge point of contention here as well of Israel giving land THAT WAS ALREADY THE PALASTINIANS is huge gross slap in the face and proves no peaceful resoloution at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by maarts on Jul 15, 2006 18:29:24 GMT -5
In the meantime the Lebanese prime minister, part of the true power within the country has called for a ceasefire which almost is flat out denied by Israel and the United States who won't consider such a thing until Hezbollah releases the two captured soldiers (what happened to the one snaffled up by the Palestinians? 'Oops, forgot about him?) and release al their weapons. Yeah, as if.
What irks me is the total lack of consideration they have for civilians. The Israeli claim that they only target Hezbollah-targets is bullshit- sure they pick their targets but couldn't care less about hitting civilian targets.
I see Israel's point in one aspect- Hamas and Hezbollah will keep on collecting hostages to get their way- their 'divide and conquer'-policy is pretty clear. I'm just baffled to hear civilians on either Israeli, Palestine, Lebanese, Iraqi and Iranian side hear their wish for peace and see that idea torn asunder by a handful of men who believe that pushing their political 'sound and safe' agenda merits these kind of attacks. Guess that if you want peace you have to start by overthrowing your own government.
|
|
|
|
Post by maarts on Jul 15, 2006 18:31:05 GMT -5
More than one hundred dead in Lebanon, 15 civilians dead in Israel, just to prove a point.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 15, 2006 18:53:11 GMT -5
Here's what Dov Weisglass, long-time Sharon adviser, senior Israeli official and one of the principal architects of the current disengagement plan, said in an interview with Ha'aretz two years ago about the Israeli pullout from Gaza.
Anyone still labouring under the delusion that Israel just wants to negotiate a fair settlement with the Palestinians, should carefully read Weisglass' chilling words:
"There was a very difficult package of commitments that Israel was expected to accept. That package is called a political process. It included elements we will never agree to accept and elements we cannot accept at this time. But we succeeded in taking that package and sending it beyond the hills. You know, the term `political process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The political process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The political process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem [i.e. compliance with international law]. And all that has now been frozen.
The disengagement plan makes it possible for Israel to park conveniently in an interim situation that distances us as far as possible from political pressure. [It] is actually [suspending the political process in] formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.
It places the Palestinians under tremendous pressure. There are no more Israeli soldiers spoiling their day. And for the first time they have a slice of land with total continuity on which they can race from one end to the other in their Ferrari. And the whole world is watching them - them, not us. It is making it possible for the Americans to go to the seething and simmering international community and say to them, `What do you want?' It also transfers the initiative to our hands. It compels the world to deal with our idea, with the scenario we wrote.
[Sharon] doesn't see Gaza today as an area of national interest. He does see [the illegal West Bank settlements of] Judea and Samaria as an area of national interest. The withdrawal in Samaria is a token one. We agreed to only so it wouldn't be said that we concluded our obligation in Gaza. In regard to the large settlement blocs, thanks to the disengagement plan, we have in our hands a first-ever American statement that they will be part of Israel. Sharon can tell the leaders of the settlers that he is evacuating 10,000 settlers and in the future he will be compelled to evacuate another 10,000, but he is strengthening the other 200,000, strengthening their hold in the soil. [Sharon] can say honestly that ....out of 240,000 settlers, 190,000 will not be moved from their place. Will not be moved
I found a device, in cooperation with the management of the world [the US government], to ensure that there will be no .... timetable to implement the settlers' nightmare. I have postponed that nightmare indefinitely. Because what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did. The significance is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. What more could have been anticipated? What more could have been given to the settlers? They should have danced around and around the Prime Minister's Office." (Ha'aretz, Tel Aviv, 8 October 2004)
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 15, 2006 20:46:39 GMT -5
From the BBC a few minutes ago ...
'Their bodies litter the road'
An Israeli air strike has killed at least 18 Lebanese civilians, including women and children [11 children according to AFP], who were fleeing southern border areas. It is the deadliest single attack since the bombardment began on Wednesday.
Eyewitnesses have been explaining how events unfolded.
Families in the village of Marwahin are said to have been told by the Israeli army at around 0800 local time (0500 GMT) that they had just hours to leave.
Some 100 residents evacuated and headed for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) base to seek shelter, but were refused entry after officials were unable to confirm the warning by Israel.
'Under seige'
An eyewitness to the attack, Akram Ghannam, told al-Jazeera television that after being turned away from the UN base residents were forced to leave the village.
Ghannam said a pick-up truck and two cars full of children and elderly people left Marwahin for Tyre in southern Lebanon.
He said Israeli aircraft raided the vehicles.
Two cars and a pick-up truck were hit in the raid
"The Israeli forces attacked them on the Shamma road and their bodies litter the road," he said.
Medical sources have said around half the passengers were children or teenagers.
Relatives have since blamed Unifil for the deaths, and some have pelted peacekeepers with stones in anger.
"If they had taken people in to begin with then they would never have died," Mohammed Oqla, speaking from a hospital where the injured were taken, told Reuters news agency.
Ghannam added: "We appeal to the Unifilor the Red Cross to take us in for if they do not do this while we are alive, they will be forced to collect the wounded and the dead on the Shamma road later on."
He said people in the village are now frightened.
"The people are scared and the Israelis continue to bombard the surroundings of Marwahin. Marwahin has been under siege since the morning".
How many new "terrorists" vowing revenge have just been created with this action ??
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jul 16, 2006 6:00:14 GMT -5
Laugh all you want Phil ... Neither side is anywhere near angelic in this mess. But if you look at their actions to determine who will accept actual change, and who wants nothing short of obliteration, it's rather obvious. Given the events of the past few days, the irony of this is almost too much to bear. --- This is contemptible. myopr.com/articles/2006/07/15/ap-update/d8isqfuo0.txt |
|
|
|
Post by maarts on Jul 16, 2006 7:13:26 GMT -5
Ouch!
Nice site Doc, it attacked my computer with some Phishing-missiles of its own!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jul 16, 2006 7:25:31 GMT -5
Apologies, maarts. Mine's set up to block all that kind of crap. Post edited, link changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by maarts on Jul 16, 2006 7:57:23 GMT -5
No worries, Doc. I've got Spyware Doctor installed, it took care of the business allright but it shut down all my open screens once I clicked the link.
Ridiculous the UK and USA wouldn't want to call upon Israel to at least agree to a cease fire.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jul 16, 2006 9:14:38 GMT -5
The justification, as I understand from Newt Gingrich this morning on Meet The Press, is that Israel here is the victim of continued aggression from Islamic militants, and that they are only doing what is in their best interest to protect themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 16, 2006 12:51:49 GMT -5
I don't think David Horowtiz speaks for "all conservatives" or even all hard-line pro-Israel thinkers. I do think his statement reveals a huge problem with the rhetoric about democratizing the Middle East. Even if you're not as flagrant as David Horowitz about how paper-thin the commitment to democracy is, the fact of the matter remains that anyone who views "democratizing the Middle East" as related to the "war on terror" runs up against the undeniable problem that in many places and parts of the Middle East, democracy will empower radical anti-American Islamists. And in these instances something has to give - either you have to be willing to recognize things like Hamas as legitimate democratic leaders, or you have to admit that in certain instances democracy isn't the end-all be-all goal. Horowitz's rhetoric may be particularly extreme and distasteful, but he's not really expressing anything terribly different from the reaction of current American leadership (not to mention the EU, supposedly such rabid pro-Palestinian anti-Israel appeasers) to the election of Hamas. In some ways he's just more honest about an obvious fact - when democratically elected leaders are fundamentally hostile to your ideological goals, you have to sacrifice something.
Also I see nothing to indicate that the policies of the Bush Administration are any different from Horowitz's ideological preferences. Horowitz may not speak for all conservatives, but it seems to me he does a good job speaking for Bush and Cheney.
***
On another note - as insane as it seems that America refuses to push Israel into a cease-fire, there is a certain logic at work here. America's response to 9/11 - in Afghanistan but especially and above all in Iraq - has a structural similarity to Israel's response to Lebanon. All the rhetoric about making no distinction between "terrorists" and "the regimes that support them" - that is Israel's defense here. It's not a very good defense, insofar as the Lebanese government can't possibly be held responsible for the actions of Hezbollah - but Israel can, does, and will argue that because Hezbollah holds seats in the Lebanese government (once again - democracy vs. Islamist extremism - which is it gonna be?) that it is entitled to strike back against Hezbollah by holding Lebanon itself responsible for Hezbollah's actions. If America rejects this logic, our own post-war on terror rhetoric about pre-emption, defense, enemy regimes, the whole shebang - it all starts to look pretty hypocritical and unstable.
M
|
|
