Attention Israel critics!

[oberliner]

Do you agree with this statement?

"Hizbollah’s provocative attack on July 12 was the trigger of this crisis. It is clear that the Lebanese Government had no advance knowledge of this attack. Whatever other agendas they may serve, Hizbollah’s actions, which it portrays as defending Palestinian and Lebanese interests, in fact, do neither. On the contrary, they hold an entire nation hostage, set back prospects for negotiation of a comprehensive Middle East peace."

-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan

I agree with every condemnation of Israel in Mr. Annan's statement, including:

Israeli operations have made it impossible for UN agencies and their humanitarian partners to reach almost any part of southern Lebanon, even to assess the needs, let alone to deliver the actual assistance needed.

Israel states that it has no quarrel with the Government or the people of Lebanon, and that it is taking extreme precautions to avoid harm to them. Yet, a number of its actions have hurt and killed Lebanese civilians and military personnel, and caused great damage to infrastructure. While Hizbollah’s actions are deplorable and, as I’ve said, Israel has a right to defend itself, the excessive use of force is to be condemned.

But, while Israel has stated its military objectives to be to “hit Hizbollah’s infrastructure and physical strength”, it has, in the words of the Lebanese Prime Minister, “torn the country to shreds”. As Prime Minister Siniora also said yesterday, “no Government can survive on the ruins of a nation”.

and every other criticism of Israel in the statement.

I also strongly agree with Kofi Annan's remarks cited at the top of this post. I don't think there is anything disingenuous in trying to convince others to agree with those words from the Secretary General.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10570.doc.htm

[villager]

1. "All are punish'd," as Shakespeare wrote

Neither side gets a pass...

[smacky44]

2. Hizbollah intended to use the captured soldiers in a prisoner trade.

Israel chose to use the incident to do exactly what they are doing.

[question everything]

7. A prisoner who, with his bare hands, killed a six year old girl

would you release such a person so he can kill again?

Would you even justify such a killing in the name of... what?

Also, read the history of the killing by Hezbollah before the kidnapping

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1757129

Would you tolerate such activity at your door?

[LeftCoast]

10. Did he ever have a trial?

??

[oberliner]

19. Yes, he did and he has admitted to the crimes many times

Kuntar was tried and convicted for the murders of Danny and Einat Haran. He has also admitted his complicity many times and expressed pride about the killings.

[ixion]

13. Israel has shown a pathological disdain for international law from day one

and now is now different.

Look, I am NO ONE'S apologist. I find BOTH sides craven and culpable in this case and many others over the years.

That, however, is not the issue. The issue is that innocent people on BOTH SIDES are being killed, and that has to stop.

And it will not stop as long as Israel is bombing anything that moves.

Nor will it stop as long as Hizbollah fires rockets at anything that moves.

BOTH SIDES need to stop. That's all there is to it.

[Lefty48197]

18. Not me.

I'd be kicking Hizbollah's ass even worse than Israel is.

[The Magistrate]

9. Nasrallah, Ma'am, Did This To Provoke Exactly What Has Occured

The unfortunate reservists involved are of importance to one save their families.

This is simply Nasrallah's bid for greater prestige as the only effective Arab champion of the Palestinians against Israel. He cares no more for a prisoner exchange than a Bhuddist cares for Baptist salvation. It is simply a marker; a demand he knew full well would be refused.

[question everything]

28. Thank you, Sir, again, for a clear way of presenting the facts (nt)

[The Stranger]

32. Actually, he was most likely trying to set up another prisoner swap.

Israel and Hezbollah have exchanged prisoners before, and there are women being held in Israeli prisons. It is exceedingly unlikely that he thought he would get what he is getting now.

[uppityperson]

3. why do you have to present it as "Israel non-fans"?

why is there this continuing pressure to chose sides? why not condemn each for the actions they have taken? I am not saying condemn each equally, but condemn for what they have done/do. Why must I chose sides, be an "Israel supporter" or an "Israel non-fan"?

[oberliner]

4. good point, post title changed nt

[A-Schwarzenegger]

5. Are you looking for "oberliner fans"?

Good luck.

[oberliner]

6. just trying to find some common ground

and feeling a bit frustrated by posts like:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1757082&mesg_id=1757082

[Skidmore]

11. Well, tough. I don't care who does it. Killing is killing and it

is brutal, violent, ugly. You can put a happy face on it or dab on a little lipstick but it still ugly. There's nothing moral about it. I believe when the commandment was given that man should not kill, it meant all mankind. Neither side can stake out a moral high ground when it comes to this unending tragedy. I'm tired of hearing excuses for continued murdering of all peoples in that region.

[Minnesota Libra]

8. One little tiny issue everyone seems to be forgetting/ignoring......

...is that every person/every country is responsible for what goes on inside their own home and what goes on inside their own country. The issue is NOT whether Hezbollah or Lebanon is responsible for the terrorist acts against Israel. The fact is those terrorist acts were carried out from inside Lebanon's borders and so Lebanon is ultimately responsible.

That is not to say I think the entire country should be reduced to rubble but if Lebanon won't deal with Hezbollah then something has got to be done. Personally, I wish the WH idiot would step in and say, "Hey, both sides stop NOW" and then go on to deal with Hamas/Hezbollah/etc.

[tocqueville]

12. so according to you, you are responsible for the US administration's

misdeeds with the rest of the US citizens. That's exactly the way Al Quaeda is "reasoning" when they attacked civilians on 9/11 : there are no civilians, only "responsibles". "They voted for Bush (twice) so ALL are a legitimate target".

sorry your post is BS

and curiously that kind of "responsible" statement above always applies to the other side...

[Skidmore]

14. Just as there are lies of commission and omission, there

are "sins of commission and omission." When there is a great wrong being committed and you sit back and allow it to happen, you are just as much in the wrong as the person actually committing the wrong.b

[tocqueville]

22. in theory yes if you are AWARE of the consequences

of what your government does. According to the original post, you are responsible just by being there. Making Americans responsible of the Iraq war and Guantanamo and Abu Grahib because they were lied to and genuinely believe that Saddam had WMDs or ties to 9/11 is preposterous. When the truth comes out people start to become "embarassed". Not all Germans were aware of the Nazi crimes, probably quite a few. Agressive nations tend to lie to their own citizens through propaganda. Can you blame the average US Joe that works 14 hours a day to put food on his family for not reading DU and listen to Randi when he comes home ? And even if you are aware, what can you do ? Many DUers here are very frustrated, don't know what to do... And they don't live (yet) in a dictatorship where dissent leads automatically to death and torture...

the silenced ones are many, heroes are few.

the theory of collective responsability is BS.

[Minnesota Libra]

23. That's what I'm saying and it applies to individuals and countries nt

[lumpy]

27. We're doing our damnest to get rid

of the people in power who have perpetuated this foul mess. No we who do not the support the warmongers are not responsible. We don't want to use force to attain that goal. Action such as that would only lead to anarchy, death, incarcerations and contribute nothing in solving problems.

[lumpy]

26. Every person of every country is responsible?

Very unrealistic. Think about it.

[mom cat]

15. SHIN BET VETOED SECRET ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE AGREEMENT

PRESS RELEASE
Drafted by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Department of International Relations, University of Sussex
For immediate release 28.7.06
SHIN BET VETOED SECRET ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE AGREEMENT
Israeli and Palestinian Sources Concur: Israel Made War Inevitable
The Omega Institute (OI), which works closely with the Institute for Policy Research for Development (IPRD), has learned from Israeli and Palestinian sources that just prior to the current crisis, senior Hamas leaders were in active dialogue with Israeli religious leaders in a round of bilateral peace negotiations. Israeli negotiators included Rabbi Menachem Froman, former deputy leader and co-founder of the Israeli Settler movement Gush Khatif; Rabbi David Bigman, head of the liberal religious Kibbutz movement Yeshiva at Ma’ale Gilboa; and Yitzhak Frankenthal, founder of the Arik Institute. Ongoing negotiations had resulted in a breakthrough peace “understanding”, which was to be announced at a press conference in Jerusalem to mark the launching of an extraordinary peace initiative. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert had been briefed extensively about the initiative by Frankenthal. Also due to attend the conference were Khaled Abu Arafa, the Palestinian Cabinet Minister for Jerusalem, Sheikh Muhamed Abu Tir, senior Hamas Member of the Palestinian Parliament, and other senior Palestinian delegates.
The meeting was to announce a joint Israeli-Palestinian call for the release of Corporal Gilad Shalit who had been abducted by Hamas in Gaza, along with proposals for the beginning of the release of all Palestinian prisoners. These measures were to precipitate unprecedented new peace negotiations on a framework peace agreement, drawn on the 1967 borders. The presence of Palestinian Cabinet Officers and senior Israeli religious leaders in contact with the Prime Minster was to underline the seriousness of this peace proposal on both sides.
Just hours before the meeting was due to start, the Israeli Shin Bet internal Security Service arrested Abu Tir and Abu Arafa and warned them not to attend the meeting, under threats of detention. The meeting, which offered a major opportunity to obtain Shalit’s release and launch a new framework for peace, was thrown into disarray. The next day, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) invaded Gaza, and the day after both Abu Tir and Abu Arafa were abducted by Israeli forces, along with a third of the Palestinian Cabinet, provoking a predictable escalation of violence.
Israel simultaneously began conducting covert incursions on to Lebanese territory, provoking Hizbollah’s capture of two IDF soldiers. Credible sources confirm that the soldiers were not abducted on Israeli territory, but inside Lebanon. Like the scuppered peace negotiations, Western officials have ignored this, and misinformed the media. However, some reports corroborate the sources. Israeli officials, for instance, informed Forbes (12.7.06) that “Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel.”
“The revelations show that Palestinian and Lebanese actors were not principally responsible for the escalation of the current conflict”, said OI Director Graham Ennis. “Contrary to the misinformation disseminated by the Whitehouse and Whitehall, Israel vetoed unprecedented peace proposals that would have initiated a promising new framework for serious negotiations, and went on to provoke Palestinian and Lebanese groups into retaliations, that now threaten to escalate into a dangerous regional conflict.”
For more information please contact
[phone] UK number, US callers; omit the zero (0)
or email: [e-mail]
http://www.gnn.tv/threads/18031/Shin_Bet_Vetoed_Secret_Israeli_Palestinian_Peace_Agreement

[cracksquirrel]

17. GNN?

Sorry, I'll wait till I see this on AP, kthx.

[Mandate My Ass]

16. I dispute that as the reason Israel attacked but, even if it was...

On Wednesday, July 12, a Hezbollah unit attacked two armored Jeeps of the Israeli army, patrolling along Israel's border with Lebanon. Three Israeli soldiers were killed in the attack and two were taken hostage. In a news conference held in Beirut a couple of hours later, Hezbollah's leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah explained that their aim was to reach a prisoner exchange, where in return for the two captured Israeli soldiers, Israel would return three Lebanese prisoners it had refused to release in a previous prisoner exchange. Nasrallah declared that "he did not want to drag the region into war", but added that "our current restraint is not due to weakness ... if they choose to confront us, they must be prepared for surprises."<1>

The Israeli government, however, did not give a single moment for diplomacy, negotiations, or even cool reflection over the situation. In a cabinet meeting that same day, it authorized a massive offensive on Lebanon. As the Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported, "In a sharp departure from Israel's response to previous Hezbollah attacks, the cabinet session unanimously agreed that the Lebanese government should be held responsible for yesterday's events." Olmert declared: "This morning's events are not a terror attack, but the act of a sovereign state that attacked Israel for no reason and without provocation." He added that "the Lebanese government, of which Hezbollah is a part, is trying to undermine regional stability. Lebanon is responsible, and Lebanon will bear the consequences of its actions."<2>


http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5248.shtml

[oberliner]

20. cool reflection over the situation?

The editorializing and selective quoting of Electronic Intifada does not, in my view, represent as neutral a presentation of info as the official statements of Kofi Annan.

Of course, putting information out there from both sources is valuable so that readers can draw their own conclusions.

[Mandate My Ass]

21. ok. dismiss whatever counters your opinions. you're good at it

*

[Emit]

24. Trying to convince

or trying to prove?

I think convincing DUers takes a lot more than repeatedly posting this Democrat's, that Official's or those news sources' views which are contrary to the beliefs of many here, and it doesn't make us all on the wrong side of the argument if we do disagree, either. Likewise, those of us who do not agree wholeheartedly with the comments of these people you've chosen to post are not necessarily making these accusations, either:

One of my intentions is to argue that those that have a perspective of the conflict which has led to accusations of being Israel apologists, neocons, or worse, are presenting opinions that are held by many prominent progressive Democrats and liberals.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1754348&mesg_id=1754763

Rather than me being worried about whether I agree with these people you've quoted, and you've quoted quite a few now, I think it is more interesting and alarming that so many of our prominent Democrats hold beliefs that fall in line with a hawkish approach to this ME conflict rather than with what the majority of their constituents might actually believe. There should come a point in time where you may want to consider why DUers hold the beliefs they do, rather than assuming it is because they are anti-Semitic, ill-informed, biased, or whatever other reasons you believe. Some believe the way they believe because they have done a lot of research on the matter. I guess you may have missed all those threads over the last 2 years that you were lurking here before joining.


edit: spelling

[oberliner]

25. your points

I agree that I have posted quotes from many Democrats, UN officials, and others which are supportive of my views. This was done partially in response to accusations and implications that holding certain opinions constituted being a neocon. Presenting statements from respected officials and lawmakers which are in line with one's own view on a subject is not an unusual means of attempting to persuade others to consider one's point of view.

In my defense, I have in addition made numerous posts with reasonable arguments presenting my own opinions on the matter and offering potential ideas for how to bring about peace.

I have never assumed that any DUer was being critical of Israel due to anti-Semitism. I do feel that it is important to call out anti-Semitic comments when I see them and there have been a number of them made during my short tenure as a member here. I have repeatedly stated that being critical of Israel does not mean a person is anti-Semitic.

I do not argue the point that many believe the way they believe as a result of the research they have done on the matter, and I most certainly did not miss those threads over the last 2 years. The I/P forum, as you can probably imagine, is one that I read quite frequently.

There are, as I hope you will agree, some readers of DU who may not have done a lot of research on these issues and may be seeking more information about the conflict.

I hope to convince those who do not have particularly strong opinions on the matter to consider some of the perspectives that I have presented.

I would of course expect those with different opinions from mine to do the same.

[Octafish]

29. kick

[JackNewtown]

30. Annan is usually right on foreign affairs issues

His comments on this crisis have been no exception IMO. Too bad we can't have someone like Annan in the White House!

[GAPeace]

31. I'd say the US-Israeli strangulation of Palestine was the inciter

But you can keep going back in history playing the blame game here. You can go back 2,000 years if you'd like.