As G8 opens, pressure is on Bush to condemn Israel

[Judi Lynn]

July 15, 2006, 3:43AM
As G8 opens, pressure is on Bush to condemn Israel
Some U.S. allies ask president to push for end to Lebanon offensive


By JULIE MASON
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

ST. PETERSBURG, RUSSIA - President Bush's refusal to pressure Israel to cease attacks on Lebanon left a split Friday among world leaders gathering here for an annual summit of industrialized nations as escalating Mideast violence threatened to eclipse other issues.

Several U.S. allies, including leaders arriving for the Group of Eight summit, sharply condemned Israel's widening offensive against Lebanon, which Israel says is designed to force the release of two Israeli soldiers and halt cross-border rocket attacks.

Their vitriol left a lone position for Bush, who has staked out an arm's-length response to the Mideast clashes.

"The president is not going to make military decisions for Israel," White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters in this historic northern city.
(snip/...)

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4048296.html

[ChuckyDee]

1. unreal

so the pressure is on Bush to join the Israel-bashers and spew more hatred toward Israel for defending herself? Unreal.

[qanda]

2. No, the pressure is for Bush to acknowledge

That collective punishment is wrong. Although he would be a hypocrite for criticizing Israel when he has done the same thing in Iraq.

[ChuckyDee]

5. collective punishment - and Israel defending herself

If Israel wanted to carry out collective punishment, southern Lebanon would be a parking lot right now with thousands dead.

And yes, Israel is defending herself......imagine Mexican illegals with suicde belts pouring over the border and rockets hitting Texas, NM, and California....along with our national guardsmen being abducted. You don't think Americans would find this to be quickly intolerable and that Bush wouldn't be called upon to defend the USA?

[Totallybushed]

14. What is

"collective punishment" about it.

They are conducting a war, not engaging in a police action.

Now if they rounded up Lebanese or Palestinians and started shooting them, I would agree.

[qanda]

15. 'Fleeing refugees, including women and children, were hit on a road'

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060715/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel

Does this answer your question?

[BushOut06]

17. How exactly should Israel defend itself?

It's not as if Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist camps operate in the countryside, well away from civilian targets. They purposely place themselves in densely populated areas, knowing full well that any attack against their infrastructure is going to result in civilian casualties, which they can use to their advantage. It's working pretty damned well, I might add.

Maybe Israel should send a couple of policemen to these safehouses, knock on the door, and politely ask them to stop firing their missiles at Israeli settlements (btw, where is the international outrage over that?). Oh, and by the way, could they pretty please return the soldiers that were kidnapped?

If we had this mentality during WWII, we would be refraining from attacking German cities while V2 rockets continued to rain down on London.

[leftchick]

3. were there airstrikes on Israel?

I missed that. How does "she" need to defend herself. It sounds like something the chimp said.

[Kagemusha]

12. No but there are ground to ground missile strikes.

Those pass through the air on their way to the target. I just find it largely irrelevant.

This argument doesn't seem to really get beyond, "Jews are being attacked, Jews are fighting back, what the f*** h*** is your problem". And I can sympathize with that sentiment... without shutting my brain off and agreeing with the results. For all the good it does you, me, and the world.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackNewtown]

21. G8 anti-Israel?

Which nations in the G8 are Israel-bashing nations that spew hatred toward Israel? Russia? France? Italy? Britain? Japan? Is the Israeli foreign ministry aware of this G8, minus the US, conspiracy against Israel?

Every G8 leader has strongly condemned the Hezbollah terrorist action. The point of disagreement is whether Israel's reaction was proportionate and whether Israel is justified in targeting the new, pro-Western Lebanese government. The fall of that government and the likely chaos that would ensue is hardly in the interests of the international community.

I support Israel's right to attack Hezbollah. I hope they destroy Hezbollah forever. However, I recognize that the Lebanese government has no control over Hezbollah. I do not support attacks that will weaken the fragile Lebanese government and substantially damage the Lebanese economy via damage to critical infrastructure. This is indeed collective punishment where all of Lebanon is being punished for what rogues in the southern portion of the nation did. If Israel limited its military campaign to Hezbollah-controlled territory I would support it using any means necessary to eradicate the cancer that is Hezbollah.

Perhaps there is a valid reason why virtually every government that has commented on the issue has taken the same position...

[no_hypocrisy]

4. * likes it when he stands alone. It gives him the illusions of being a

"real leader" and of having "moral certitude" that others lack. Instead of considering whether his position is correct in contrast to other world leaders, on the contrary, their challenging his position only strengthens it and makes him more intractable. It's like once he makes up his mind, that's it. Makes him feel like the only grown-up in the room.

[LynnTheDem]

6. bush takes "credit" for Syria leaving Lebanon (where Syria had been

INVITED into Lebanon by the Lebanese for protection against guess who) and gee, soon as Syria leaves, Israel attacks Lebannon, and bush refuses to speak against Isael's OFFENSIVE against Lebanon.

But then, America has always vetoed any atrocities committed by Israel.

[ChuckyDee]

7. israel the aggressor

Right.....Israel has nothing better to do than invade Lebanon again for no reason whatsoever. Lebanon poses absolutely no threat with Hizbullah lined up across the northern border of Israel with thousands of rockets. "Nothing to see here"!!!

[LynnTheDem]

10. Hey chuckydee, so of course you agree Iraq has a right to defend herself

against her aggressors...as in us.

If you really think any nation in the ME is a "threat" to Israel...

Well of course ou have a right to your opinion, and so do I & most the rest of the world.

Have a nice day! :hi:

[BushOut06]

19. You mean the nation of Hezbollah?

I don't get it - how can a terrorist organization with THOUSANDS of rockets - with greater range than originally thought - NOT be a threat?

It's been stated before, Hezbollah has NO interest in peace. They have no desire to coexist peacefully with Israel. They want Israel destroyed, eliminated, wiped off the earth. It's only a matter of time before some terrorist organization gets ahold of a nuclear weapon - whether it's a "crude" weapon of "only" a couple of kilotons, or a stolen warhead, doesn't matter. Maybe when Tel Aviv is destroyed by a nuclear blast, perhaps Israel can fight back at that point. Maybe.

[Laughing Mirror]

22. "They want Israel destroyed, eliminated, wiped off the earth"...

Which is what Israel (or if you will, the US, which nowadays amount to about the same entity) wants of Palestine.

Consider Noam Chomsky's comments the other day on Democracy Now:

At the same time, it's partly in Gaza, and sort of hidden in a way, but even more extreme in the West Bank, where Olmert announced his annexation program, what’s euphemistically called “convergence” and described here often as a “withdrawal,” but in fact it’s a formalization of the program of annexing the valuable lands, most of the resources, including water, of the West Bank and cantonizing the rest and imprisoning it, since he also announced that Israel would take over the Jordan Valley. Well, that proceeds without extreme violence or nothing much said about it.

Gaza, itself, the latest phase, began on June 24. It was when Israel abducted two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother. We don't know their names. You don’t know the names of victims. They were taken to Israel, presumably, and nobody knows their fate. The next day, something happened, which we do know about, a lot. Militants in Gaza, probably Islamic Jihad, abducted an Israeli soldier across the border. That’s Corporal Gilad Shalit. And that's well known; first abduction is not. Then followed the escalation of Israeli attacks on Gaza, which I don’t have to repeat. It’s reported on adequately.

...

(Dan Gillerman, Israeli ambassador to United Nations) is correct that hundreds of rockets have been fired, and naturally that has to be stopped. But he didn't mention, or maybe at least in this comment, that the rockets were fired after the heavy Israeli attacks against Lebanon, which killed -- well, latest reports, maybe 60 or so people and destroyed a lot of infrastructure. As always, things have precedence, and you have to decide which was the inciting event. In my view, the inciting event in the present case, events, are those that I mentioned -- the constant intense repression; plenty of abductions; plenty of atrocities in Gaza; the steady takeover of the West Bank, which, in effect, if it continues, is just the murder of a nation, the end of Palestine; the abduction on June 24 of the two Gaza civilians; and then the reaction to the abduction of Corporal Shalit. And there's a difference, incidentally, between abduction of civilians and abduction of soldiers. Even international humanitarian law makes that distinction.

...

I don’t have to tell you that there are constant attacks going on in Gaza, which is basically a prison, huge prison, under constant attack all the time: economic strangulation, military attack, assassinations, and so on. In comparison with that, abduction of a soldier, whatever one thinks about it, doesn't rank high in the scale of atrocities.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/14/146258

Is this the elimination of a nation or not?

[President Kerry]

16. It's just not a measured response.

The kidnapping of two soldiers met with great infrastructure destruction and substantial civilian casualties (direct and indirect ) is not a wise response.

[LynnTheDem]

20. Look what 19 guys with $1.99 box cutters achieved...

America becomes a detested rogue nation losing lives & treasure every day.

[Matilda]

8. That photo tells it all ...

He looks so decisive, so intelligent, so much like a man who's on top
of it all.

Not.

[Laughing Mirror]

23. Aint it the truth

What a mess these slobs have made with the place. They've always been with us but now they've completely taken over running the shop. The fundamental problem with them all is that they are all greedy and arrogant and place no value on anybody else's lives, except that of their own.

The government is now so magnificently corrupt that all it can do is play along.

The only effective opposition to these slobs is through the free exchange of information. And we know they are trying to shut that down too.

[whistle]

9. George W. looks like such a smart ass punk!

[Judi Lynn]

24. Not NEARLY as "Presidential" as Karen Hughes claimed back in 2000.

He never has measured up to the job qualifications. What a wreck.

[MaineDem]

11. I just heard him say that it's all Hezbollah's fault n/t

[Totallybushed]

13. He

won't do it, though. If there's a pool, put me down for "never".