To dispel some of the myths circulating on this board . .

[msmcghee]

. . regarding who actually started this current outbreak of hostilities in Lebanon / Israel, I offer this document dated 12 July 2006 from the Permanent
Representative of Israel to the United Nations addressed to the
Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council.

I have debated with others here regarding which side of the border the kidnapping occurred and whether the missiles and artillery fired by Hizbollah were after (perhaps in response to Israel's attempts to get them back) or concurrent with the kidnapping.

Many here have stated outright that Hezbollah kidnapped the two IDF on the Lebanese side of the blue line. If that was true then Israel would be guilty of breaking international law.

Many here have also stated outright that Hezbollah only began firing the missiles in retaliation for this incursion by Israeli forces into Lebanon.

I offer this letter - the contents of which, as far as I know, have not been disputed by Lebanon, Hizbollah or the UN.

*********************************************************
July 12, 2006

It is with a great sense of urgency and grave concern that I write you this letter of strong protest about the grave events occurring today on Israel's northern border with Lebanon. This morning, Hezbollah terrorists unleashed a barrage of heavy artillery and rockets into Israel, causing a number of deaths. In the midst of this horrific and unprovoked act, the terrorists infiltrated Israel and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, taking them into Lebanon.

Responsibility for this belligerent act of war lies with the Government of Lebanon, from whose territory these acts have been launched into Israel. Responsibility also lies with the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic, which support and embrace those who carried out this attack.

These acts pose a grave threat not just to Israel's northern border, but also to the region and the entire world. The ineptitude and inaction of the Government of Lebanon has led to a situation in which it has not exercised jurisdiction over its own territory for many years. The Security Council has addressed this situation time and time again in its debates and resolutions. Let me remind you also that Israel has repeatedly warned the international community about this dangerous and potentially volatile situation. In this vacuum festers the Axis of Terror: Hezbollah and the terrorist States of Iran and Syria, which have today opened another chapter in their war of terror.

Today's act is a clear declaration of war, and is in blatant violation of the Blue Line, Security Council resolutions 425 (1978), 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006) and all other relevant resolutions of the United Nations since Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in May 2000.

Israel thus reserves the right to act in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and exercise its right of self-defence when an armed attack is launched against a Member of the United Nations. The State of Israel will take the appropriate actions to secure the release of the kidnapped soldiers and bring an end to the shelling that terrorizes our citizens.

I would be grateful if you would arrange to have the text of the present letter circulated as a document of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly, under agenda items 14 and 108, and of the Security Council.


(Signed) Dan Gillerman
Ambassador
Permanent Representative

************************************************

Note to moderators. I had a thread locked in the IP area because my topic was not a "current event". This also does not seem like a current event. If I'm supposed to post this someplace other than here please move it for me.

[elehhhhna]

1. All I know is we are feeding it, not stopping it. Shame on America.

[msmcghee]

2. I agree.

We are feeding it when we support Hizbollah. We encourage them to do it again.

[originalpckelly]

4. Settle down with the rhetoric both of you.

We are on the same side, and we can all have a reasonable debate about Israel's methods, but when we act like a bunch of fools, it cheapens the true tragedy now occurring in that part of the world.

[elehhhhna]

5. No joke. That Hizballah crack was uncalled for.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. I Have Said It A Dozen Times

It is foolish to turn this into a manichean struggle.

[msmcghee]

8. I have edited my post to remove the question . .

. . "do you want to see more dead civilians" as probably being gratuitous.

But, my point is that supporting the aggressor encourages future aggression. Anyone should be able to see that.

My insistence on this is not to prove that I'm right and others are wrong. It is that I believe it is very important for people who don't want innocent civilians to die in the world to act as an honest broker. We must always condemn those who provoke violence by initiating its use against others. If Israel had provoked this I would be just as insistent in condemning them.

I know my fellow DU'ers don't want to see innocent people killed. I'm afraid the support by many here of Hizbollah will result in just that outcome so I'm trying to persuade them to rethink their position.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. I have given up on that one

by the way DU might be a problem, Trafalgar square demonstration must really be worrying MI-5... and I would be in their place.

[mike_c]

16. "...supporting the aggressor encourages future aggression."

Ah, a point of agreement. However, I suspect we disagree about who is the aggressor, and more to the point, Hiz'bollah disagrees. Arabs in the region are responding to a long history of Israeli aggression. Taking a single event within that history as the starting point for a conflict-- in essence taking it out of all context-- is a cheap propagandist's trick.

[msmcghee]

25. Cheap propogandist's trick?

If you are not willing to condemn specific acts of aggression like this then you are a partisan who wants to see Israel defeated. Such sentiments may feel good to your religious brain centers but they will also lead to WWIII. Remember that as you watch the number of civilians killed each day in this conflict.

Your logic says that war is good because anybody who feels they were wronged in the past has the right to come back later and attack their enemies. That's nothing but a prescription for never-ending war and millions of dead civilians.

[itzamirakul]

118. A question about logic...

You say:

"Your logic says that war is good because anybody who feels they were wronged in the past has the right to come back later and attack their enemies. That's nothing but a prescription for never-ending war and millions of dead civilians."


In 1948, the Israelis wanted a land of their own because they felt they had unfairly lost that land centuries before. According to your statement, the Israelis felt that they had been "wronged." So, in essence, they came back later and attacked their enemies in order to regain that land. And finally, the U.N. allotted the Israelis some land. But that was after a great deal of fighting and many dead civilians.

According to the logic in your statement, the military activities by the Israelis in 1948 were "nothing but a prescription for never-ending war and millions of dead civilians."

So it appears that the logic is flawed only when it refers to the other side.

Unless sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. Read this cliffs notes

and it was not the Israelis by the way... in 1948 (until May 15 to be exact... there were no Israelis), but this post will give you a cliffs notes as to why Israel was craeted where it was created.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1826652&mesg_id=1831044

[itzamirakul]

127. I read your cliff notes version of events earlier today and although

I found it interesting, I didn't have any need to comment on it.

I am not going to debate who, what , when, where. I was old enough in 1948 to remember at least some of the events that took place.

When the Brits pulled out of region, the Zionists (I believe that is what they were called then, went in and a war broke out as they tried to settle in the area. The Palestinians either just ran away or they were chased away by the Jewish sabras. At any rate, the Jewish people wanted a homeland in this region because it had historical and biblical importance to them.

It was a region from which the Jews had been dispersed into the diaspora centuries before.

So, in 1948 there was a war because the Zionist Jewish people wanted to move into land that was already occupied by another group of people...regardless of what group of international people gave it to them...it was already occupied by descendants of the people who had chased the Jews into diaspora countless years before.

There was war in 1948 because of historical events...Jews being forced to relocate hundreds of years before...now trying to return...chasing out the descendants of their former oppressors...

Please go back and read the question re logic and let's not go off onto tangents...

Your post digresses from the point that I was making about logic and goes into what the Jewish people were called at the time and why the nation of Israel was created. Neither of those things has any relevance to the point that I was making.

My point is that the logic of one side is that "We can fight and kill others because of something they or their ancestors did to us at some past date and time."

But if someone else does this to us, then we claim that is wrong to start a war because of a past event.

Flawed logic is what I was discussing with the other poster and the point that when it comes to Israeli logic, 'what's sauce for the goose is definitely NOT sauce for the gander." Instead, Israeli logic seems to be, "Do as we say, not as we do."

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. So the UN had noting to do with tis

or the new state was not attacked by every arab state in the region

'kay...

Nor were extensive tracts of land bought...

And sabras are NATIVE BORN, so you telling me there were SABRAS? News to you, there have been Sabras in Israel since 70AD, continuous occupation...

No, I will not defend some of the horrible acts committed between 1948-9 by both sides, how bout you? Are you willing to defend one side? From your post, you are.

By the way, if the UN did not have that slight refugee problem and a bunch of OTHER historical confluences had not occurred I doubt Israel would have come to be.

[itzamirakul]

149. Whatever the heck you are arguing about seems absolutely

silly and absurd.

[nadinbrzezinski]

153. That the UN was a principla actor n the creation of the

state of Israel or that the middle east (modern) was created in Paris in 1919? That is absurb? Ok... if you say so

[Karmakaze]

123. Yet you dont condemn the IDF for THEIR specific acts of aggression

Like illegal overflights that intentionally generate sonic booms over populated areas to instill fear in the populace, or murdering shepards for no reason.

Your partisanship is clear for all to see.

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. This might come as a shock to you but

there are no innocents in war. (This includes both Israelis and Hisbollah)

This might also come as a shock to you... but there also are no morals in war since this is by its nature an amoral act.

What is more is that this might truly shock you, but Hisbollah does intend to destroy Israel, and would have done such already if they had the ability to do such... they also would love to kill you... assuming you are an American.

Of course Israel has done things in this case that though not pleasant... war is never pleasant, were provoked by Hisbollah... the time line did not start with that kid.. it did not start with two soldiers either (casus belli, trigger) it started shortly after the Israelis pulled out and Hisbollah started sending missiles down range... One side TRIED to break the cycle... now it will be far harder to sell pulling back... but I am sure you knew that.

And I fear as always that civilians are the ones who truly pay

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[nadinbrzezinski]

137. Genocide, any genocide enters a new spectrum of what is

not tolerable in war, but genocide conventions or our condemnation of the Holocaust have precious little to do with morality or defending the innocent in war.

After all, if we were that horrified, why didn't the US Government openly reveal what was going on in Europe as early as '44 and bomb Auschwitz? What is more, why didn't the Canadian, American, Mexican and Cuban governments refuse to allow the refugees in the ship of the damned to come ashore?

And yes they tried to break a cycle... did they go about it the complete right way? No, but they tried... you realize how hard it is going to bring some of these people to the idea that land for peace is a good idea now?

But laughs all you want... oh and continue to embrace Hisbollah... after all when Anne Coulter writes that liberals do embrace enemies of the US... now I know some do, for real... thanks for confirming this amazing fact. And in this case a group that has as its stated goal genocide.... congratulations...

[Moochy]

141. No innocents in war?

BULL FUCKING SHIT.

[nadinbrzezinski]

142. Ok maybe I need to hit you besides the head with this one

there are no innicents in any war... perchance the only innocnets are children too young to understand, but when peoople try to claim Hisbollah is a lamb under attack, they are not innocent, for they have been pressing for this. Nor is Israel innocent and both have plenty of blood. If you cannot understand this reality, it ain't my problem.


But war is not about being right or being wrong, or innocence or lack off. That is for a court of law, not a battlefield... and the sooner people disabuse their minds of these hollywood moralty play ideas, the better. After all, sooner or later this country will enter a hot civil war (the ways things are going)... perchance then you will realize what I am writing.

[Moochy]

145. Civil War here? in River City?

You seem to act as if states are monolithic moral actors, and the sins of the state are the same as those of the individual.

"After all, sooner or later this country will enter a hot civil war (the ways things are going)... perchance then you will realize what I am writing."

:nuke:

I guess the upside of a civil war in the US, would be that I'd better understand your worldview.

:eyes:

"hollywood morality play ideas"

So the basics of international law, civil rights, and the advancement of human rights are just some invention of Steven Spielberg and Orson Welles?

[nadinbrzezinski]

146. States moral actors (chuckle)

really?

they are not. They are self intereted SOBs pursuing their agendas, sometimes with the agreement of their peoples, sometimes without it... in fact most of the time against our collective interest and when you get Straussians it gets worst.

that said, and this is for another thread but the US has been in the midst of a cold civil war for over ten years now, courtesy of the cynics in the right.

As to International Humanitarian law you will find that those of us who have eforced it over our lifetimes are probably even more cynical about it than even combat vets

They AMMELIORATE the worst of combat, and if they did not exist shooting at hospitals would be done regularly for example... but they are not as enforceable as hollywood makes believe they are. In their absence wars would be ten times as bad, but their existence has precious little to do with morality... Ethics, yes, morality no... and no there is no morality in war.

Civil Rights and Human Rights are a whole different animal usually pursued in peace, which again a whole different animal... for peace time is rational soemwhat, war is pure chaos.

[Moochy]

148. Moral / Karmic

I meant to say that your view of states as moral or amoral is inconsequential here. I just wanted to nail down when exactly do individuals within a state structure lose their innocence? And what other actions of the state immediately confer to the citizens collective guilt to all members of the society?

Since you said that in a time of war, there are no innocents, I was trying to determine how and when an individual loses ones innocence in a conflict like the one in Lebanon.

Say, for instance I'm a 10 year old Jewish child of an IDF soldier, playing with my toys in my parents apartment in a Jewish town near the border with Lebanon. Am I innocent? or for instance the 10 year old child of a hezbollah fighter who is stuck behind with his aunt in the basement of a shelter. Innocent? Both pray to the supposed same god for their own mutual destruction.

[nadinbrzezinski]

152. Ah here we go into collective punishment

having been there done that if you use the collective punishment for Gaza you get partial points, Lebanon, absolutely not. Perchance my view of what a war crime and all that is colored by having interviewed victims of ACTUAL HONEST TO GOODNESS war crimes, and not what I hear on the nets. Nor that these war crimes have been prosecuted, and the source of much of the cynicism among humanitarian workers.

Israel has crossed certain T and certain Is in this war that are actually required by the Conventions that bely this charge of collective punishment which does have a very specific meaning under International law. Not that what they are doing is pleasant, but legally they made sure they crossed the proper T and dotted the proper Is. Moreover, NOBODY can evac civilians from a war zone, and you can thank the nazis for that one... even if it makes sense, you cannot

As to how fast do people loose their innocence, I suspect the American people have not lost it, but only due to their own blindness and luck that actual fighting, and the horrors of war have not been visited here... but as to two warring sides? When do they loose their innocence? Good question, and one that is philosophical at this point. Does a kid suck hate from the mother's Teat as some propagandists in every war claim? No, but do we teach to hate in schools of all stripes? Yes... and we are a social tribal animal, so is war part of who we are? Perchance yes, perchance no... but that is a whole different philosophical discussion. One thing is clear, we are animals, just like chimps and they do go to war from time to time.

by the way, the lack of outrage in the US over Abu Graib makes us unwiting actors, but actors nonetheless in that act... and collectively responsible in the eyes of the world...

but I am sure you knew that... but again to have even think that state actors are moral is the depth of naivete.

[Moochy]

154. I'm not arguing that states should be, or are moral

I'm just wondering why its you believe that in this conflict, that no citizens of either side are innocent?
Because that simple mistaken assumption seems to be the basis of further faulty logic and appeals to "real world" sensibilities and make excuses for more wanton death and destruction.

[nadinbrzezinski]

158. You are choosing to quite on purpose misread

there are innocents in any war, usually children... but when it comes to who starts what, there are no innocents and to get to a shooting match... everybody involved has something of guilt.

If you choose to believe that Hisbollah is under attack and did not provoke, not true... and by the same token if you choose to believe that Israel is the innocent victim, again not true.

That said, when the history of this is written some years down the line... hisbollah did choose to take the country of Lebanon on a strategic war against Israel... even though they are NOT the government.

Israel chose to respond to attacks it has suffered since 2000.

Yes the Israelis had a plan... surprise, surprise surprise, no military in the word goes to war without one.

But if you choose to continue to believe that there is morality in war... that is your problem

And if you choose to believe that state actors act in a moral way, they don't

I guess we have beaten this horse senseless and at this point we are talking as if we were whistling in the night.

What is true is that we had a successful strike from Hisbollah today (troops incidentally were a valid target, so I am not even talking about that one) in Haifa... and all I have seen, mostly are crickets over that one. Never mind that after Qanna we had screams of War Crimes... hence the double standard many of us have noticed.

But as they say, whistling past each other in the night... and I suspect my estrangement from certain sectors of the Left Wing will continue to increase. Hell my estrangement from this contry will continue to go on.

[Lerkfish]

21. amazing this inflammatory thread is up, while my poll got locked.

go figure. I can only assume the mods aren't awake yet.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[manic expression]

160. Who's the aggressor?

Israel has escalated the situation and has used the opportunity to collectively punish the people of Lebanon (that's the most mild way of putting it).

If you knew anything, you'd know that Israel and Hezbollah exchanged fire with artillary and rockets, it wasn't a one-sided thing (nice try, though). If you knew anything, you'd know that Israel is guilty of not only creating the circumstances which led to the incident and the present situation, not only of escalating the present situation but also of committing atrocities now that Israel has escalated it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Our tax dollars are paying for Hizbollah's weapons also?

Wow learn something new every day. :eyes:

[chill_wind]

22. A resounding amen right here. nt

[originalpckelly]

3. I don't support how Israel has handled itself, but I agree with the events

as they are depicted. Anyone who wants to fit the facts to their own beliefs, is just as delusional as any freaky right-wing nut. Democrats aren't supposed to be full of shit when it comes to facts.

We can disagree on how Israel has conducted itself during this action, but we should never forget who provoked this particular round of violence.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. My brother in law told me a piece of factoid that will go a long

way on explaining both right and left wing zealotry... guess what part of the brain fires when they talk about their deepest held believes? The same region of the brain that fires when ... you go to church, synagogue et al. In effect, it has become a religion... when he said that my god I went aha, why it is so impossible for them to accept any facts that contradict their deeply perceived views. Just like asking a jew to accept the messiah or a christian to accept at times that Christ was a jew.. no matter how much info you provide it ain't gonna happen.

[daydreamer]

64. How do you know the facts? Were you there?

http://www.chomsky.info/books/fateful01.htm

[leftchick]

9. Gillerman and Bolton are of the same cloth

neocon freaks and PNACers. Destroying Lebonon is not protecting Israel. Killing a thousand innocents and wiping a country off of the map is not protecting Israel. It will have a blowback like no other. Interesting he sites UN security resolutions. Like Israel actually honors them.

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[msmcghee]

11. I repeat . .

. . that no-one - Hizbollah, Lebanon or the UN has disputed the fact as presented in this letter.

Hatred of Israel does not qualify as facts.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftchick]

19. who hates Israel?

I get so tired of hearinging that BS. It makes no sense whatsoever. By that logic I hate America because I hate American foreign policy disasters. :crazy:

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Believe it or not there is a well known

left wing antisemitism that uses Israel and criticism of Isreel as cover. Just as there is a right wing very virulent antisemitism. The difference, at least the right wingers are a tad more honest on their final goals. Article was posted here, on these boards on it, far more extensive.

By the way being critical of Israel does not make you fall in that category automatically... there are certain very specific qualifiers that will. The moment that you cross that line, if you do I will gladly point it out to you.

[Lerkfish]

24. and you are knowingly in violation of current DU rules.

[msmcghee]

26. What rules?

[mike_c]

10. what that letter shows is that Israel took no time to deliberate...

...after the soldiers were captured by Hiz'bullah. It immediately invoked it's right to escalate the conflict to full scale war, without any attempt at negotiations first.

That letter seems a bit too pat, frankly. It gives the impression of going through the motions of legality-- informing the UNSC of Israel's intentions and the basis for them. The "evidence" it provides to bolster the contention of the OP is utterly biased-- it is just as useful as the evidence provided by the Bush administration under the IWR that war was necessary in order to contain the dire threat Saddam Hussein posed to America. Ironically, that evidence was presented in the form a short letter also, no doubt prepared well in advance, which presented lies as facts with no further justification. The world has no more reason to trust this letter than it had to trust Bush's lies.

Nor does security council authorization under Article 51 condone the deliberate collective punishment of non-combatant civilians. Even if one argues that Israeli attacks against Lebanon are justified, the nature of those attacks remains heinous.

Finally, even if this letter is true in every respect, it is not at all sufficient to explain the conflict between Israel and Hiz'bullah. It treats Hiz'bullah's actions as unprovoked acts of war, for one thing. The provocations have been discussed here endlessly.

There will never be an end to the broader conflict that this is part of until the injustices tht inspire it are redressed.

[msmcghee]

18. For the benefit of others here . .

. . who are still open minded about this I'll just point out that what you are saying is that because of things that happened in the past - Hizbollah has the right to attck Israel and kill citizens and IDF on the Israel side of the blue line anytime it wishes - because of whatever happened in the past.

Basically, you are a combatant in this conflict who wants to see Israel defeated. Any other interpretation is just ignoring reality.

[mike_c]

28. yes, I would "like to see Israel defeated" in this conflict....

Israel is the aggressor. Israel is an oppressive, apartheid state that has racked up considerable karma in its unjust treatment of Palestinians and others in the region, including the Lebanese, both now and during its nearly two decade occupation of Lebanon. Israel is in the wrong, IMO-- why would any moral person want to see them triumph?

Unless Israel implements UN Res. 242 as a start to honest negotiations, there will be no peace on its borders until it either subdues everyone in the region militarily, and at great loss of innocent lives, or until everyone involved is exhausted, with similar costs. Israel is like a bad dog kept on a long chain in a crowded neighborhood-- it savages everyone within reach, apparently without conscience. Any moral person would want to see that dog restrained, IMO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Do you wish Isreal to be destroyed too

just answer the damn question by the way... after all there ARE NO INNOCENTS here...

[mike_c]

40. short answer-- no, but whether you want to admit it or not...

...it's a rather complicated question. The most compelling arguments in favor of the existence of Israel-- a biblical right and redress for the injustices of the Holocaust-- don't argue any good reasons to forcibly impose that existence upon arab Palestinians. Most western arguments about Israel's "destruction" start from the defacto position of it's establishment, while most arab arguments start with conditions prior to the partition of the Palestine Mandate.

My personal feeling is that the only just solution is to start with Res. 242, which requires that the arab combatants recognize Israel's right to exist, but then requires Israel to withdraw from all the occupied territories and to seek a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem-- a NEGOTIATED SOLUTION, not a unilaterally imposed solution. Grinding the Palestininians under a slow ethnic cleansing is manifestly NOT a workable solution, as current events demonstrate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Yes it is rather complicated and 242 unfortunately

will not work here, but many advocate, openly or otherwise the destruciton of the state

By the way it is THE WHOLE OF THE ME which is a product of colonial map makers, not only Isreal

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. You Can Blame Ambassadors Sykes And Picot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement

[mike_c]

47. why do you say that 242 "will not work here...?"

I disagree wholeheartedly. Res. 242 would go a long way toward establishing a basis for peace. Israelis have stonewalled on 242 for decades because it will require them to join in establishing a just peace rather than simply a cessation of conflict under unilateral terms. There is no justice in that, and no peace can result from it.

Do you argue that peace can be had only when Israel fully subjegates its neighbors and eliminates the Palestinians? They've been trying that route since before the partition. It hasn't worked yet and many have suffered and died because of it, on both sides of the conflict, but disproportionately on the Palestinian and Lebanese side.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. Why will it not work?

israel DID PULL BEHIND The blue line in 2000.. yuo honestly think that you can sell a pull back behind the green line to Israelis now?


I have my own solution and in part it is a modification of this... and here it is... I could elaborate this into many a pages... but the cliffs notes will work

Yes, a two state solution with two VIABLE states (Time for me to get critical on Israel, what they are doing in the Territories and with the territories is not a solution, and at times actually does fit, partially collective punishment. Maybe because I have interviewed war crime victims I am less adept at throwing terms like they were candy... I also know the procedures and the problem the Palestinians have in the Hague with this one, even if they should not, are their ambulances that have been found carrying fighters and bombs... they were slapped by the ICRC over that one... so if you break conventions and then charge the other side... its a little hard)

Jerusalem, as was originally contemplated by the partition document, must become an independent city, an open city to the world. The best both can hope is for shared management and maybe in the future shared capital... for the moment Jerusalem has to be an International open city.

A truth and reconsolidation commission where BOTH sides will come and speak of the horrors they have done to the other. Neither is a saint, but until both acknowledge the other as real and the pain as real, forget it.

I'd even go so far as to have student exchanges with Israeli kids attending Amman University and Palestinian and Arab Kids attending Rambam. In fact, that is where I would start... I would open some spots for Palestinian kids to attend Rambam Medical School, which will increase the contact to contact and also increase commercial contacts on both sides of the border.

Disarming of ALL militias in the area... this includes settlers by the way.

Now this one includes us... the world, yes the world needs to stop enabling the conflict. This means Syria, Iran, the US, the UK et al... must refuse to sell weapons to all parties in the area. Don't hold your breath on this one.. after all how much have we just approved for SA, Bahrain and others? We have become the USSR in its last days of glory selling gear to whoever will pay, and incidentally laying out the ground work for the next war.

[breakaleg]

59. why won't 242 work?

it's the resolution agreed to by the international community. It's what the world feels is fair and just in this situation.

I'm curious as to why Israel would consider this unacceptable?

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. Read above

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. How About

"and to seek a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem-- "

How about the 850,000 Jews from Arab nations and their progeny who were kicked out of their homes with little more than the clothes on their back when Israel declared their independence and whose ranks have grown to over 3,000,000?

[mike_c]

50. well, strictly speaking 242 doesn't address them, and...

...I haven't heard them clamoring for redress-- they live in Israel now, right? Still, my personal belief is that reciprocity is necessary-- if they want to return to their previous homes they should be free to do so.

[msmcghee]

46. Israel is not there . .

. . because of the Holocaust or the bible. It is there because the UN in 1948 - primarily led by US and Britain - said they should be there.

[mike_c]

52. please-- being disingenuous doesn't do much to advance...

...this discussion. Do you think anyone here is that poorly informed?

[msmcghee]

55. I notice you have no problem . .

. . saying that I am disingenuous - but offer no evidence to show that I am wrong. Do you just want to score points - or have a serious discussion?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. Israel Exists Like Most Nations ; By Force Of Arms.

I guess Arabs if they desire have every right to try to push them off that land and Israelis have every right to resist "by any means necessary."

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. Actually he is right

I will give you a personal example to ilustrate this.

At the end of the war my father, my uncle, my aunt (May she rest in peace) and my grandpa (may he rest in peace) were the only survivors of a family whose extended mebers raeches into the hundreds (they were others... that had left for Mexico, of all places before... but they were not that close)

Now when the war started they had three businesses and a small farm. Yes they were rather rich and well to do... and the place is a town by the name of Knyshin. The house my father was born into is still standing, though the roof and other damage from the war has been repaired (he took us to visit 10 years ago... and it was an incredible experience).

Now when they tried to claim their property back the government refused to recognize their property. Aka, the antebellum situation was seemed null and void and the Polish family who took the house was demed the legal owner not only de facto but de jure.

Now my father and the rest of his family ended up in Mexico... long story how and it includes plenty of bribes. Why weren't they accepted into the US? To use the INS excuse as the time... they did not have close blood relatives... aka a brother, a mother, or a father. They did have plenty of cousins. hell I have met some of them.

Now take this example and multiply it by 4.5 million displaced persons. The nascent UN had a hell of a refugee problem. Why was Israel chosen, or rather Palestine?

Palestine was a Class I protectorate under the League of Nations rules (yes they still acted as they were in place)... and that was going to expire. They also has somewhat mismanaged it, and with the buy out of land by many Jews the UN and the rest of the world decided that this little corner of the Middle East was a perfect solution to this pesky problem of what do you do with 4.5 million displaced people. The explanation is far longer than this... after all this is quite the cliffs notes. Of cousrse there is also the promise made by Lord Balfour to Weizzman in 1917 of Palestine (before the Brits got their paws on it) if and when the Brits won WW I... and you can look at the origin of a lot of this mess at the Summer of 1919, the summer that literally formed the modern world and created the problems we have today.

The bible did enter into the equation, but minimammy. The decision to create Israel by the UN was purely a Real Politik decision... just as drawing all them borders in the ME in 1919 was real politic. At no time any of this border drawing took into account local conditions or tribal divisions... why Iraq is a royal mess, Lebanon seems ready for a second civil war, Israel has a slight problem with the neighborhood... for it is perfect for many of the leaders to use her to blow off steam... et al...

As I said, I can spend hours on this... or days... and by the way... one of my best friends of my youth happens to be a Palestinian. We used to have these discusions only through the rpism of one side. My CC believed when he forced us to be partners that either we wuold kill each other or learn from each other. I have read this history from both sides.. and why one of the first steps needed will be something akin to a truth and reconciliation commision... just to uncover all the ugliness on ALL sides over the last fifty years, or actually 100.. Haifa comes to mind, and so does Acca.

[AntiFascist]

84. Israel exists, therefore it has a right to exist....

If you begin arguing from a historical perspective then you could generate a logical argument that the United States does not have a right to exist (and I'm sure there is some support for that idea as well). You make an excellent point, though, that there should be a negotiated solution, which is exactly what the Bush neocons do NOT want. They can't wait to turn all Muslims against the U.S. and start a holy war.

There is plenty of support within the Arab community to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, but we are squandering what negotiation capital we have left by supporting aggression.

[Richard Steele]

36. So, everyone who disagrees with you is a 'COMBATANT' now?

Any other interpretation is just ignoring reality?

Yeah, RIIIIIGHT! That's some real SPECIAL logic you got there.

[malaise]

53. Bingo n/t

[msmcghee]

58. This just shows your desire to see Israel defeated . .

. . not to see innocent civilians live.

Hezbollah launched misiles and fired artillery into Israel while kidnapping 2 Israeli IDF and killing others.

What were they supposed to deliberete about?

[burythehatchet]

13. If Gillerman said it, its bullshit

There are plenty of legitimate sources for an actual timeline. It started in Gaza, where, while no one watches, civilians are being butchered.

btw, rather than dispelling myths, this post actually reinforces the myth.

[rodeodance]

17. I am curious if there was an official Lebanese letter to the UN?

[msmcghee]

41. Do some reasearch. n/t

[scarletwoman]

20. Oh yeah, Gillerman doesn't have an agenda so it MUST be true.

</sarcasm>

Gillerman is hardly a disinterested third party, he's a member of the War Party.

If you want to dispel any "myths", you'll have to do better than that. As for neither Lebanon or the UN disputing this version of events, how could they? No one appears to have any incontrovertible proof one way or another.

sw

[msmcghee]

27. Please attack ideas, not persons here at DU. n/t

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drduffy]

30. Yah, I don't find the source particularly credible either...and...

if the overall PNAC/neocon/Likud effort here is to foment general war in the middle east, fighting Syria and Iran as well -- as many many writers have asserted (and I think convincingly), then I hope Israel fails and is stymied in Lebannon. And I would like to see the neocons in Washington suffer the same fate as that they have visited upon so many innocents around the world. It couldn't happen to a better bunch of bastards.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. And if you believe there are PNACers in Tel Avid

and Likkudist in DC you are intellectually lazy. What Isreal is doing is for ISRAELI interests... not American interets. IN fact it has weakened the US position in the ME and shown to the world just how much of a paper tiger we truly are on a good day.... but the intellectual laziness is just amazing.

If they seem to match at times, does not mean they are the same.

[Swamp Rat]

56. Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al support Likud policy

I have been watching and tracking them for years... I am not intellectually lazy. And I care about what happens to Israel as much as you.

------------------------------

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030421/alterman

"This war has put Jews in the showcase as never before. Its primary intellectual architects--Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith--are all Jewish neoconservatives. So, too, are many of its prominent media cheerleaders, including William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Marty Peretz. Joe Lieberman, the nation's most conspicuous Jewish politician, has been an avid booster, going so far as to rebuke his former partner Al Gore and much of his own party."

(snip)

"To make matters worse, many of these Jewish hard-liners--"Likudniks" in the current parlance--appear, at least from a distance, to be behaving in accordance with traditional anti-Jewish stereotypes. Much to the delight of genuine anti-Semites of the left and right, the idea of a new war to remove Saddam was partially conceived at the behest of Likud politician Benjamin Netanyahu in a document written expressly for him by Perle, Feith and others in 1996. Some, like Perle, apparently see the influence they wield as an opportunity to get rich. What's more, many of these same Jews joined Rumsfeld and Cheney in underselling the difficulty of the war, in what may have been a ruse designed to embroil America in a broad military conflagration that would help smite Israel's enemies. Did Perle, for instance, genuinely believe "support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder"? Is Wolfowitz really so ignorant of history as to believe the Iraqis would welcome us as "their hoped-for liberators"?"

(snip)

-------------------------------

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1214

(snip)

"Links to Likud
In 1996, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, now administration officials, joined in a report to the newly elected Likud government in Israel calling for "a clean break" with the policies of negotiating with the Palestinians and trading land for peace. They said "Israel can shape its strategic environment…by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq…Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly." They called for "reestablishing the principle of preemption."

In 1998, 18 prominent conservatives wrote a letter to President Clinton urging him to "aim at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." Most of these experts are now officials in the administration, including Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz."

(snip)

-------------------------------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

"The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party.

In 1996, he and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe."

______________________________________

http://www.irc-online.org/rightweb/ind/feith/feith_body.html

(snip)

"“Feith, whose law partner is a spokesman for the settlement movement in Israel, has long been a fierce opponent of the Oslo peace process, while WINEP has acted as the think tank for the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which generally follows a Likud line. Also like Feith, several of the appointees were protéeges of Richard Perle, an AEI fellow who doubles as chairman until last April of Rumsfeld's unpaid Defense Policy Board (DPB), whose members were appointed by Feith, also had an office in the Pentagon one floor below the NESA offices.” (13)"

(snip)

"He is the son of Dalck Feith, a former leading member of Poland’s Likudnik Betar party."

_______________________________________

Richard Perle - Former head od U.S. Defense Policy Board and Likud supporter. Perle has denied his Likud party connections, but not his connections to Netanyahu.

I found over 100,000 links associating Richard Perle with Likud:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13564.htm

(snip)

"The love affair between Perle’s base in Likud on the hard line Israeli right and the neoconservatives of both US political parties is alive and kicking. Perle has long been associated with Likud that has been reduced to a weak rump huddling around Benjamin Netanyahu in the new Knesset. As a close associate of Netanyahu, Perle is seen as Likud’s top-ranking advocate in Europe and America with his tentacles into both political parties, the Bush White House, the Pentagon and many other leading institutions. Next year, it would not be surprising to find Perle’s name on contributors lists to Giuliani, Lieberman and Warner."

(snip)

____________________

http://www.alternet.org/story/15481

"Perle's own protege is Douglas Feith, who is now Wolfowitz's deputy for policy and is widely known for his right-wing Likud position. And why not? His father, Philadelphia businessman and philanthropist Dalck Feith, was once a follower of the great revisionist Zionist leader, Vladimir Jabotinsky, in his native Poland back in the 1930s. The two Feiths were honored together in 1997 by the right-wing Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)."

-------------------

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. Again if you believe finding things in common

means Perle et al are likudists is laziness. They don't control our governmental actions and we don't control theirs. The US acts in its own self interest (granted not the interest of the AMERICAN people at this moment, unless your name is General Dynamics) Israel acts in the name of Israel

Concordance in some policies does not mean we control them, they control us. This is intellectual laziness... in its purest form.

By the way, you DO know the Israeli Government has sold advanced Technology to China, to give an example well known. That policy advanced Israeli interests and undermined American interests whole heartedly. Oh and one more thing, when this is over (In lebanon that is) this has truly brought to bear truly just how empty of a suit the American Superpower is. Now don't expect our lovely Neocons to realize this any time soon.... but pay attention and turn to BBC or other foreign media.

Your first sign of just how much of a paper tiger we have become is Signora telling Condy to pack sand... the only reason the Israelis were a little nicer is they desperately needed JP 5 fuel and the French will not sell it to them. But I suspect when the history of this is written, an enterprising graduate student will find evidence of something similar in a declassified State Department Comunique.... call me cynical, but hey... I found some interesting things when I wrote my thesis, the kind others had ignored for quite a while.

;-)

[Swamp Rat]

105. I hope you are not implying I am lazy because I reported to you

verifiable facts. I am only one out of many to draw similar inferences. Allow me to appeal to authority and drop a few names: Seymour Hersh, Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky, plus everyone of their right wing counterparts, like William Kristol.

"you DO know the Israeli Government has sold advanced Technology to China" - red herring, though an interesting topic in itself.

Perle was head of our defense policy board (still working behind the scenes), Frum was a former speech writer for Bush (let's just throw another name in here), Wolfowitz, who studied under Leo Strauss at UC (though he denies philosophical ties) co-wrote PNAC and many other decisive policy directives, Douglas Feith is behind the mess we are in right this moment and plans to take the USA into Iran... ad infinitum. I have studied and watched these U.S. policy makers for years (the intellectuals who put ideas into the empty heads in DC who enact policy).

Why?

Because I believe and fear they (esp. their Likud cousins) are going to cause the utter destruction of Israel.

I have a few degrees myself, you know, and I am now working on a third masters and second PhD. I have read over 50,000 articles from foreign journals and newspapers (you do know I speak a few languages fluently and read a few more, right?); this means I am anything but intellectually lazy, though you are entitled to your opinion.

I don't really want to debate you nadinbrzezinski because I believe it would be a waste of our valuable time. I am more interested in painting, entertaining, and knocking around visiting knuckle-draggers here at DU.

Aleichem shalom :hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. And I think they are wrong

mostly I have had the opportunity to speak with Isrelis... and when they read these things from American intellectuals they quietly chuckle. And it is not a chuckle of... boy, oh boy, they are unto us... it is more a chuckle of that damn joke is on you if you believe this... one of them used to work for labor some years ago... for a ministry in fact. He's known some of the principals as well.

It falls in the category of... we hate bush so much that any Ally of us (even one who has spied on us, and sold us down the river with technology transfers) is seen as a neocon... because it shares some goals with us... of our current leadership. In fact, if we all survive this madness... I will be willing to make a wager right now... that we will find just how little we controlled Israel, and the other way around, well after the dust settles and reason returns.

For a far less dramatic but just as humorous of an event...actually that one WAS humorous since nobody got killed, was the Zimmerman Telegramm.. ahem incident.

By the way to add, the major problem is that people confuse support with control.

Oh and let me expand a tad on the Zimmerman telegraph

Most Secret

For Your Excellency's personal information and to be handed on to the Imperial Minister in Mexico

We intend to begin unrestricted submarine warfare on the first of February. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of an alliance on the following basis: Make war together, make peace together, generous financial support, and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement detail is left to you.

You will inform the President of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States is certain and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves.

Please call the President's attention to the fact that the unrestricted employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England to make peace within a few months. Acknowledge receipt.

Now after this reached the US... they were convinced, proof possitive that a second front (for the US) was going to open in Mexico... which was far from the truth... but it led to force mobilizations along the border and other cutsies. We were convinced, it became our truth... this the Neocons suport policies has become an article of faith and now is meant to imply that just as the Germans controlled the Carranza government the Israelis control ours.

[Swamp Rat]

109. Ah, I agree on the chuckling bit.

:D Humorous for them, sad for us. Though, I fear they will rue discounting the idiocy here and unintended consequences; the absolute incompetence of the American neocons may result in disaster for Israel as well.

Sure, Israel controls U.S. ME policy to some extent, but it is to the detriment of both countries.

The wrong people are in control of both countries, my friend.

boa noite! :boring:

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. Nah they don't control us

Though theoretically we have far more control of them... here is where the Neocons come in... you do know why in 1973 they stopped shooting? Don't you?

Well we did show both sides satellite imagery and shall we say made some threats. (they included raising the alert of nuclear forces)... now the Neo cons believe what is going in Lebanon will lead to a war in Iran. hardly... and that is why the joke is on them... and why the Israelis chuckle. The US has done the absolute minimum to APPEAR to be involved... yet everybody paying attention realizes that the US has little effect in Tel Avid. In this self deception the US government has chosen NOT to use a tool to stop this war... you want JP5 for your jets, guess what buddy, there is a table... and this self deception is also driving the debacle in Iraq... in this self deception the Perle's of the worlds do not realize they have lost everything they have worked for, and lost the American Empire. Oh historians will have fun with this one... I think since Nero nobody has been that self deluded... serious.

Now '73 is an opportunity lost and due to Watergate (I am no friend of Nixon by the way) some of the moral force that Kissinger had (no fan of kissinger either, but he recognized the real politik on the ground) the shuttle diplomacy did not go as far as it could have. Yep that year was another one of those could have, should have... but did not

[msmcghee]

34. One good thing about these threads . .

They expose the seldom stated desire of many here to see Israel destroyed or pushed into the sea - just as her Arab enemies wish. I'm glad to see such honesty finally come to the surface.

I hated to believe that people here would feel that way so I continuously gave posts the benefit of the doubt - bending over backwards to believe otherwise.

I don't think there's any justification for doubts on this any longer.

Fortunately, there are still only a minority on the far left (although perhaps a majority here at DU) who see things this way. If this gains however, and spreads to the left generally, then we can kiss any hopes of ever having another majority in congress or having a liberal president - goodbye.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[jonnyblitz]

48. i seriously think you are projecting. nt

[mike_c]

62. oh dear, it's ironic that YOU'RE the only one who has discussed...

...the destruction of Israel or it's being "pushed into the sea" in this thread. No one else has proposed that as any sort of solution. I think most of us, on both sides of this argument, realize that you cannot redress one injustice with another. The destruction of Israel would not achieve any sort of justice for anyone. Curbing Israel and forcing it to negotiate in good faith to redress the grievances of the Palestinians would, on the other hand. That's a different matter entirely. Unless, of course, you mean to suggest that a just and peaceful Israel is by definition a destroyed Israel.

[msmcghee]

63. That's a laugh.

If Israel was reduced to 10 square inches there are thousands of Arabs who would strap explosives around their waists to kill the last Israeli standing on that 10 square inches. They have boasted of this repeatedly and they heve killed thousands of Israeli civilians already. But you believe if Israel would just be reasonable then the Palestinians would live in peace with them.

Right.

[mike_c]

76. and yet you accuse us of racist motives....

Amazing.

[msmcghee]

89. Show me where I accused anyone of racism . .

. . or racist motives. Or even implied that. However, this post of yours implies that I have racist motives, doesn't it?

Care to expand on this?

[msmcghee]

65. Please see thread above . .

"yes, I would "like to see Israel defeated" in this conflict...."

[whosinpower]

66. LOL

Nice overt threat there....if I may interpret your statement -

Any further dissenting viewpoints on Israel will guarentee that democrat's will never hold a majority.

I have the impression that you feel Israel is immune to mistakes. There are those on this board that are pointing out that Israel is making a series of grave errors - and to be silent on such--enables further hatred and terrorism in the region. We dissent because we have seen it all before. If it isn't hizbollah - it will be another terror group, born out of the ashes of Lebanon's destruction.

Israels actions are enabling hatred. The dispraportianate response has already caused worldwide protests. I understand how you seek to channel that hatred towards hizbollah -- however, the numbers and destruction speaks for itself. As do the casualties on both sides of the equation.

Israel is cognizant of this. And time and time again, she uses the same tactics --only somehow hoping for a different result. Unless--there is another agenda going on. And this is what I fear more than all else. I have stated it before. The closest Israel ever got to having a lasting peace in the region was sidelined with the assasination of Rabin. He was the closest....and his own people killed him for it. WHY? If all Israel wants is a peaceful existance....why kill the one man who managed to gain peace treaties with Egypt and Jordon. Why kill the one man who was seeking a peace agreement with Syria, Lebanon and Iran?????

There were elements within Israel not ready for peace then....why? I have heard and read some that would suggest that Israel seeks a different border than the ones first imposed in 1948. Also, that right wing elements of Israeli politics that are not at all in favor of a two state solution and are aiming at driving out the palestinians once and for all. It is those same elements that are in control of Israeli politics. Those same elements that are driving this current crisis--and I cannot support it given the results.

I have stated before that personally, I am in favor of the idea of the state of Israel. I condemn the dispraportinate response in Lebanon. I condemn the hizbollah for failing to gain a political solution of underhanded Israeli incitement such as targeted assasinations within Lebanon, kidnappings, and bombing of the innocent family having a picnic. They took the bait - and are fools for it.

If I were to give a solution to the current crisis....it would involve a demilitarized zone extending 15 km of Lebanese land and 15 km of Israeli land. No one lives there - occupied and overseen by the international community. No more Israeli buffer zones that somehow get settled by people that should not be there. No more terror attacks as this is a no weapon zone--no exceptions and would be regulated with an international body with extreme screening and checkpoints....ON BOTH SIDES. See? I don't hate Israel. I want them safe too. I just see a different solution that is more equitable for the stability and safety of both nations. If this distance of 30 km is still too close--then draw the borders back even further to seperate the two.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. "He was the closest....and his own people killed him for it. WHY?"

Blaming the Israeli people for the act of a deranged lunatic is as logical as blaming all Arabs because Sirhan Sirhan shot Robert Kennedy because he wanted America to sell Phantom jets to Israel .

[whosinpower]

73. tit for tat

Blaming the entire Lebanon government for failing to rein in Hizbollah........

[AntiFascist]

85. I have seen some very liberal-minded Democrats reach a point...

of frustration where they wish that the entire Middle East could be bombed out of existance, solving the problems once and for all. How is that for true anti-Semitism? Liberal does not necessarilly mean peaceloving. Check out Will Marshall and the Third Way.

[LSK]

33. ...

Isnt this the type of non-news thread that should be moved to the I/P forum. Seems like a rehash of the tired old whos at fault argument.

[msmcghee]

35. Read the OP. n/t

[LSK]

38. why would it get locked there?

[LSK]

39. and why cant I find it in I/P?

:shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Here's a similar announcement.

President Johnson's Message to Congress
August 5, 1964

Last night I announced to the American people that the North Vietnamese regime had conducted further deliberate attacks against U.S. naval vessels operating in international waters, and I had therefore directed air action against gunboats and supporting facilities used in these hostile operations. This air action has now been carried out with substantial damage to the boats and facilities. Two U.S. aircraft were lost in the action.

After consultation with the leaders of both parties in the Congress, I further announced a decision to ask the Congress for a resolution expressing the unity and determination of the United States in supporting freedom and in protecting peace in southeast Asia.

These latest actions of the North Vietnamese regime has given a new and grave turn to the already serious situation in southeast Asia. Our commitments in that area are well known to the Congress. They were first made in 1954 by President Eisenhower. They were further defined in the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty approved by the Senate in February 1955.

This treaty with its accompanying protocol obligates the United States and other members to act in accordance with their constitutional processes to meet Communist aggression against any of the parties or protocol states.

Our policy in southeast Asia has been consistent and unchanged since 19554. I summarized it on June 2 in four simple propositions:

1. America keeps her word. Here as elsewhere, we must and shall honor our commitments.

2. The issue is the future of southeast Asia as a whole. A threat to any nation in that region is a threat to all, and a threat to us.

3. Our purpose is peace. We have no military, political, or territorial ambitions in the area.

4. This is not just a jungle war, but a struggle for freedom on every front of human activity. Our military and economic assistance to South Vietnam and Laos in particular has the purpose of helping these countries to repel aggression and strengthen their independence.

The threat to the free nations of southeast Asia has long been clear. The North Vietnamese regime has constantly sought to take over South Vietnam and Laos. This Communist regime has violated the Geneva accords for Vietnam. It has systematically conducted a campaign of subversion, which includes the direction, training, and supply of personnel and arms for the conduct of guerrilla warfare in South Vietnamese territory. In Laos, the North Vietnamese regime has maintained military forces, used Laotian territory for infiltration into South Vietnam, and most recently carried out combat operations - all in direct violation of the Geneva Agreements of 1962.

In recent months, the actions of the North Vietnamese regime have become steadily more threatening...

As President of the United States I have concluded that I should now ask the Congress, on its part, to join in affirming the national determination that all such attacks will be met, and that the United States will continue in its basic policy of assisting the free nations of the area to defend their freedom.

As I have repeatedly made clear, the United States intends no rashness, and seeks no wider war. We must make it clear to all that the United States is united in its determination to bring about the end of Communist subversion and aggression in the area. We seek the full and effective restoration of the international agreements signed in Geneva in 1954, with respect to South Vietnam, and again in Geneva in 1962, with respect to Laos..

[msmcghee]

60. This Hizbollah aggression occurred. .

along a border where UN observers are stationed in outposts and where there are numerous civilians in the area on both sides of the blue line to verify or dispute this account. So far no-one has disputed it.

If you think otherwise show me your evidence.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[msmcghee]

75. The sources you cite are virulently anti-Israel.

No-one (Lebanon, Hizbollah or the UN observers) have disputed the facts as presented to the UN in this letter.

The idea that 2 IDF reservists would be driving a lightly armored jeep into Lebanon across the heavily militarized blue line in broad daylight is ludicrous.

There is no dispute over this anywhere else except among the anti-Israel fringe elements here. You make your case look silly when you claim these things.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

79. The source you cite is virulently anti-Hezbullah.

BTW, I don't recall anyone disputing the "fact" that North Vietnames gunboats attacked American warships in the Tonkin Gulf..except the Vietnamese.

[msmcghee]

87. I remember it well. There was actually a lot of questions. n/t

[malaise]

49. (Signed) Dan Gillerman

you are not serious?

[Benhurst]

51. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The finger-pointing doesn't help.

Stop the killing NOW!

[treestar]

54. Nobody can tell who started it

One allegation is as good as another from over here.

[msmcghee]

61. Wishful thinking. n/t

[scarletwoman]

74. How is that wishful thinking any more than what you believe?

We already know the very first news reports of the capture of the Israeli soldiers stated that it happened in Lebanon. (the links showing this have been posted many times) We also already know that when an "official" narrative has been decided upon by the powers-that-be, the corporate media falls in line and sends the unapproved stories down the memory hole. We've been living witnesses to this process for years.

It's plenty fair and reasonable to withold unquestioning acceptance of state-approved "official stories" -- conversely, it's foolishly naive to NOT question.

Wishful thinking, indeed.

sw

[daydreamer]

67. Now we have the letter of the Israeli spokesman as fact?

Do we always believe what Tony Snow says?
http://www.chomsky.info/books/dissent01.htm

[breakaleg]

72. That is an interesting read.. Thanks so much for posting.

[Karmakaze]

80. Check my reply 79 for the UNIFIL report...

It shows the previous six months of activity, including when the IDF shot and killed a young shepard in Lebanon in February.

[msmcghee]

88. An armed young shepherd . .

. . that had already crossed over the disputed border twice before on that day.

[Karmakaze]

114. Many ME cultures are armed by cultural norm and you know it

add to that the UN found the weapon had not been fired and the shepard had no hostile intent. Also, if the kid had crossed the border twice before and DONE NOTHING but tend his flock, why murder him the third time while he was still in Lebanese territory?

See, once again you defend the indefensible while earlier in this thread talking about an "honest broker".

[msmcghee]

132. You are so hopelessly uninformed . .

. . about the world I am amazed that you bother to post in current event forums like this. The Shab'a farms are a completely militarized zone. They are full of Israeli military positions and OP's (observation posts) that recieve morter rounds and rocket fire from Hizbolah on a regular basis. The Shab'a farms is where Hizbollah can fire across the border with impunity without expecting a severe Israeli response - because the Shab'a farms are disputed territory (not a settled international border line like the rest of the blue line).

The Shab'a farms is where Hizbollah can show its sponsors in Iran and Syria that they are getting their money's worth - when things are relatively peaceful along the rest of the S. Lebanon border.

No sensible person would take their sheep there for grazing. No-one would go anywhere near the border there (on either side) if they valued their life. No-one would carry a gun near the border there in the open unless they had some kind of a martyrdom death-wish.

You probably have visions of peaceful innocent shepherds tending their flocks in the meadows while the cunning Israeli snipers creep close enough to get a good shot. Do you think they shot the sheep too?

[Karmakaze]

70. To dispel myths propogated by Israel....

I here proffer the report of UNIFIL on the same incident:

3. The crisis started when, around 9 a.m. local time, Hizbollah launched several rockets from Lebanese territory across the withdrawal line (the so-called Blue Line) towards Israel Defense Forces (IDF) positions near the coast and in the area of the Israeli town of Zarit. In parallel, Hizbollah fighters crossed the Blue Line into Israel and attacked an IDF patrol. Hizbollah captured two IDF soldiers, killed three others and wounded two more. The captured soldiers were taken into Lebanon. Subsequent to the attack on the patrol, a heavy exchange of fire ensued across the Blue Line between Hizbollah and IDF. While the exchange of fire stretched over the entire length of the Line, it was heaviest in the areas west of Bint Jubayl and in the Shab'a farms area. Hizbollah targeted IDF positions and Israeli towns south of the Blue Line. Israel retaliated by ground, air and sea attacks. In addition to airstrikes on Hizbollah positions, IDF targeted numerous roads and bridges in southern Lebanon within and outside the UNIFIL area of operations. IDF has stated that those attacks were to "prevent Hizbollah from transferring the abducted soldiers". At least one IDF tank and an IDF platoon crossed into Lebanon in the area of the Hizbollah attack in an attempt to rescue the captured soldiers. An explosive device detonated under the tank, killing four more IDF soldiers. An eighth IDF soldier was reportedly killed in fighting that ensued during an attempt to retrieve the four bodies. That night, the IDF issued a warning to UNIFIL that any person — including United Nations personnel — moving close to the Blue Line would be shot at.

Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (For the period from 21 January 2006 to 18 July 2006)

Not exactly as Israel described it, but I guess we can allow them some poetic licence.


Here are some other excerpts from that report which details the last six months of activity:

16. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities across the Blue Line on 12 July, the situation in the UNIFIL area of operation during most of the reporting period was tense and volatile, although generally quiet. The ceasefire was breached and heavy exchanges across the Blue Line occurred at the beginning of February and at the end of May. One Lebanese civilian and one Hizbollah member were reportedly killed, and three Israeli soldiers, three Lebanese civilians and a number of Hizbollah members were wounded in the fighting. Tension along the Line was elevated, and IDF troops were on a high state of alert during the months of March, May, June and July. Israeli air violations decreased during the first half of the reporting period, but occurred again more frequently during the second half of May. Ground violations of the Line were attributable primarily to crossings by Lebanese shepherds and continued on an almost daily basis.

17. On 1 February, IDF opened fire and killed a young Lebanese shepherd inside Lebanese territory in the general area of the Shab'a farms. IDF claimed that the shepherd had been armed and that he had crossed the Blue Line on two earlier occasions that day. A UNIFIL investigation found no evidence to suggest that the shepherd had had any hostile intentions or that his weapon had been used. The shooting incident underlined the need for IDF to act with maximum restraint and to respect fully the Blue Line. It also illustrated the necessity for the Government of Lebanon to make additional efforts to prevent ground violations of the Blue Line, including in the Shab'a farms area.

18. On 3 February, Hizbollah launched rocket attacks on a number of IDF positions in the Shab'a farms area, wounding one soldier. The attack was reportedly in retaliation for the killing of the shepherd two days earlier. IDF responded with air strikes and artillery, mortar and tank fire against Hizbollah positions in the area from which Hizbollah fire had emanated. Hizbollah responded with rocket and mortar fire in the area. UNIFIL recorded one incident of IDF firing close to a UNIFIL position near Kafr Shuba. One Lebanese civilian was wounded in the air strike. After a one-and-a-half-hour exchange, UNIFIL succeeded in brokering a ceasefire through the liaison channels with the parties.

If you read more of the article you will see that every action taken by Hizbullah and other groups were aimed at IDF positions. But for now, read this:

23. Persistent and provocative Israeli air incursions, occasionally reaching deep into Lebanese airspace and generating sonic booms over populated areas, remained a matter of serious concern. The pattern identified in my previous reports continued, whereby the aircraft would sometimes fly out to sea and enter Lebanese airspace north of the UNIFIL area of operation, thus avoiding direct observation and verification by UNIFIL. The air incursions violate Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity, elevate tension and disrupt the fragile calm along the Blue Line. A reduction in the number of air incursions in April contributed to an atmosphere of relative calm along the Blue Line, but this trend was reversed in May.

As you can see, none of these actions can truly be called "unprovoked" but are in fact the ongoing tit-for-tat killing coming from both sides, and previous to the outbreak of this war all attacks were aimed at IDF positions, although the Israel government prevented this fact from being reported, as detailed in this article from someone inside Israel.

[msmcghee]

78. Removed until I can respond better later today. n/t

Have to go.

[Karmakaze]

81. Um no, you are refering to the OTHER report I posted on another thread...

Which just proves you didnt read what was in my post.

Honest broker, MY ARSE.

On edit: Ahahahaha caught with your pants down huh? Oh well, I'm willing to wait for your "honest" explanation.

[msmcghee]

83. You're right.

I didn't read your post carefully. That's why I removed my response - temporarily.

[msmcghee]

86. You posted #76 at 10:23 AM . .

. . "To Dispel Myths Propagated by Israel"

When I wrote my response to this (#86) and posted it at a few minutes later at 10:35 AM I was in the process of leaving the house and my wife was telling me that we were late. I didn't read your post carefully.

I was afraid of being inaccurate so I re-read your post anyway. Seeing that I was wrong on the date I immediately deleted that post and notified you that I was in a hurry and would make corrections later. This was a a couple minutes later but the time stamp of the original version was retained - as it always is.

That was while you were posting your message #89 posted at 10:39 AM stating that I was dishonest and that you'd "caught me with my pants down".

Just to be sure I wasn't deceiving anyone I saw that post and with my wife really freaking out by this time I quickly wrote my post #91 at 10:40 AM admitting my mistake again and assuring you I'd correct it.

Now to the substance of your post:

The first part (para 3) describes exactly what Dan Gellerman sent to the UN in the letter that comprised my original post -

- that Hezbollah crossed into Israel after initiating artillery and rocket fire against Israeli positions. In this account the additional information is included that the firing erupted all along the blue line and was concentrated in the Shab'a farm area far from the location of the kidnapping.

This makes sense to me. If I were planning to kidnap someone at location (a) - it might be good to have a diversion at location (b).

And yet you offer this as evidence of Israel's "poetic license"? Please explain which part of that contradicts the essential elements of Gellerman's official letter to the UN. If you recall it was that some people here stated flat out that the kidnapped Israeli reservists were on the Lebanese side of the line and that the missiles were only fired when Israel entered Lebanon after the kidnapping to rescue the reservists. That was the myth I was dispelling - the myth that your own para 3 above now dispels completely.

The rest of your post copies reports that basically show that it is a very tense border as it would be since Israel was fully aware of the thousands of missiles that were being set up to fire at Israeli civilians miles south of the border. Israel's overflights were obviously to keep track of those as far as possible - and I'm sure to be a warning to Hezbollah that firing those missiles would be met with a strong response. Makes perfect sense to me - as it would to any rational person who doesn't want their children and family killed by missiles fired from across a border.

You have said nothing that disputes the gist of Gellerman's letter to the UN. In fact, your only relevant quote affirms it 100% as far as I can see. Your quote from the CounterPunch is useless. I would not quote anything from a similar discredited pro-Israeli source to support my views.

Gellerman is an official representative of the Israel government. A letter he sends describing an event will become a permanent UN record. Even if he wanted to lie that would hurt Israel in the long run as Israel's enemies would have a field day pointing out any proven substantive lies (as these would be) of his at every opportunity.

So far no credible source has contradicted Gellerman's letter - as even your para 3 above confirms. I also notice that none of the major left bloggers (who value their credibility) are making any claims that Israel started this and not Hezbollah. In fact the whole thing (the starting event) is almost not being discussed on the left blogs. Wonder why? It's because most sane people in the world and in the US see this for what it is. A provocation by Hizbollah against the state of Israel that could well be the start of a world war. If that happens they do not want their archives filled with their irrational praise and encouragement of the Hezbollah criminals who started this - nor their attacks against the nation that is legitimately defending the lives of its citizens.

Want to try again?

[Karmakaze]

120. Ok

The first part (para 3) describes exactly what Dan Gellerman sent to the UN in the letter that comprised my original post

Not really:

Israel's version:

"This morning, Hezbollah terrorists unleashed a barrage of heavy artillery and rockets into Israel, causing a number of deaths."

The independent UN observer's version:

"Hizbollah launched several rockets from Lebanese territory across the withdrawal line (the so-called Blue Line) towards Israel Defense Forces (IDF) positions near the coast and in the area of the Israeli town of Zarit."

The same event with a different spin. Although, the "barrage" didn't kill anyone, the ground attack on an IDF patrol killed 3 soldiers.

But as I said, the events as described by Israel were not totally wrong, they just took some "poetic license", which is SOP for all sides in a war.

Where the Israel version WAS totally wrong was in claiming that it was an "unprovoked attack", as I showed clearly that it was nothing more than a continuation of the consistent violations carried out by both sides for years. In fact a similar attack happened last year and on that occasion the IDF acted with a justified but restrained response. They battled the attackers, and attacked positions they came from and went to in Lebanon, but they did not begin a massive bombing campaign throughout Lebanon, killing hundreds of innocent civilians.

And yet you offer this as evidence of Israel's "poetic license"? Please explain which part of that contradicts the essential elements of Gellerman's official letter to the UN. If you recall it was that some people here stated flat out that the kidnapped Israeli reservists were on the Lebanese side of the line and that the missiles were only fired when Israel entered Lebanon after the kidnapping to rescue the reservists. That was the myth I was dispelling - the myth that your own para 3 above now dispels completely.

The poetic license is in describing several rockets fired at IDF positions that killed no one, as an unleashed barrage causing a number of deaths. What he has done is to conflate the first attack using several rockets, with the later TWO WAY barrage between the IDF and Hizbullah that occured after the two soldiers were captured.

The claim that the rockets werent being fired before this event is true to an extent - they werent being fired at Israeli cities and towns, the few that were fired wer fired at IDF positions on the border. Once again part of the consistent tit-for-tat attacks that have happened since Israel withdrew.

The rest of your post copies reports that basically show that it is a very tense border as it would be since Israel was fully aware of the thousands of missiles that were being set up to fire at Israeli civilians miles south of the border. Israel's overflights were obviously to keep track of those as far as possible - and I'm sure to be a warning to Hezbollah that firing those missiles would be met with a strong response. Makes perfect sense to me - as it would to any rational person who doesn't want their children and family killed by missiles fired from across a border.

Bullshit - the Israeli overflights began 24 hours after the IDF pulled out of Lebanon, and are one of the main causes of the tension on the border that you try to claim is natural. Secondly, if they are meant to protect civilians from the missiles, why are they done in such a provacative way? Note the part in the report about how while the IDF suspended overflights, tensions decreased, but increased again when the overflights restarted. Why would Israel do that unless they were intentionally trying to increase tensions and make it more likely those missiles would be fired?

You have said nothing that disputes the gist of Gellerman's letter to the UN. In fact, your only relevant quote affirms it 100% as far as I can see. Your quote from the CounterPunch is useless. I would not quote anything from a similar discredited pro-Israeli source to support my views.

THe author is an Israeli who lives in Nazareth. If you won't believe Israelis when they tell you the truth, why do you believe them when they tell you lies?

The last part of your letter is yet more bullshit - firstly don't make me laugh about Israel not wanting to lie in a letter to the UN. That is just downright fucking ridiciulous. Secondly I never said he "lied" I said he was taking poetic license with what actually happened to make it seem worse. Not ONCE in his letter does he mention that ALL the attacks that day were against IDF positions. Not ONCE does he mention Israeli violations of that border which occur on a daily basis (the overflights).

As for your "Hizbullah started this" crap. Let me say it again. This was part of an ongoing backwards and forwards tit-for-tat campaign. I could very easily argue that Israel started it when they killed that shepard in February, but I don't. The fact is this was NOTHING new. The only NEW event was Israel turning yet another minor skirmish on the border into justification for bombing the shit out of people that had nothing to do with it.

Let me make this clear, I am not "blaming" Israel for starting this war. I AM however blaming them for how they are carrying it out. They are killing innocent people all over the country in an attempt, supposedly, to fight 2000 Hizbullah fighters in southern Lebanon. It's wrong, and all the Israeli lies put together can't make it right.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftofthedial]

71. Two problems

1. Israel's point of view is hardlly objective

2. In a conflict this old, with hatred and distrust that runs this deep, choosing any particular recent starting date or event and ascribing the full weight of triggering conflict to that event is disingenuous.

This reads more like rationalization than reason to me.

[breakaleg]

82. the language in this letter is so inflamatory, the evidence of the bias

so strong, that it's hard to even sort out what facts it contains.

How about posting an un-biased view?

[msmcghee]

90. It's only inflmmatory if it's not true.

So far no-one here has shown it to be untrue. Which means you are wrong. Sorry.

[breakaleg]

91. it's not true

it was a border skirmish, not an "act of war"

Hezbollah is a Resistance group or Melita as recognized by the international community, not "terrorists"

but your sources are Israeli, so they are hardly impartial and I wouldn't expect them to agree. After all, if they did, they'd have to admit a little culpability...

[msmcghee]

92. This is the militia that killed 182 US Marines . .

. . in Beirut on a peacekeeping mission with one of the biggest truck bombs ever detonated. They also bombed the US Embassy.

Are you proud to say that they are not terrorists?

This is why many Americans think we are incapable of defending this country from bad people who are out to damage us. I'm liberal and I'm a Democrat and I hope anyone reading this realizes that not all Dems - especially those running for office - feel this way.

These are people here at DU IMO who hate this Republican administration so much that anything the neo-cons support (like Israel) - these people will oppose. I can appreciate that as I despise these Republicans as much as they do. I'm just not ready to give up my ability to reason because of my hatred of Bush.

[Karmakaze]

122. Operative word: MARINES

That is, SOLDIERS occupying foregin territory, ie LEGITIMATE MILITARY TARGETS.

[msmcghee]

131. That these kinds of words come from some . .

. . misguided few who believe that Israel should be destroyed or made defenseless is why many rational American voters think the left is not capable of defending this country against real enemies. How can you possibly call those Marines who were on a peacekeeping mission to prevent further civilian bloodshed "legitimate targets". Those American voters who don't trust the left could be right.

This Democratic liberal believes that putting your life on the line in the military to defend our nation from our enemies is one of the most noble things and honorable things a person could do in their life. I am ever grateful for those military personell who serve honorably in that capcity.

That is why the use of the military for crass political purposes and for lining the pockets of its supporters - like this administration has done - is one of the most disgusting and vile acts possible.

When this happens, it is American's fault for electing such vile criminals to office. It is not the fault of our military personell (like John Kerry or John Murtha) and the vast majority in uniform who serve honorably and who deserve our deepest gratitude and respect.

[Karmakaze]

133. LOL

Defending America by occupying Lebanon? BULLSHIT.

Why werent they occupying Israel? Hmm?

"This Democratic liberal believes that putting your life on the line in the military to defend our nation from our enemies is one of the most noble things and honorable things a person could do in their life. I am ever grateful for those military personell who serve honorably in that capcity."

True - so when is the US actually going to do that and nothing more? Hmm?

[msmcghee]

134. Again you are clueless.

They weren't occupying Israel because as Israel withdrew from Lebanon it was various Lebanese factions fighting Syrian sponsored groups who were killing the civilians in Lebanon. Reagan may have been stupid putting our forces in as part of an international peacekeeping force - but those marines were there for good reasons, to save the lives of innocent civilians by keeping the warring factions separated.

They were killed there by the same terrorists who started the currect conflict in S. Lebanon and who are responsible for the deaths of all the civilians that have occurred in the last few weeks. These are the same terrorists that you are now cheering on. I've seen your posts in other threads where you are gleeful that they have been given advanced Russian weapons that can destroy Israeli tanks. It's good to see the kookie left on such vivid display.

[magellan]

93. I support and engage enthusiastically

...in hiding threads like this.

[msmcghee]

94. If you can't refute the facts . .

. . using reason and argument based on your own facts then I guess "hiding" is all that's left for you.

[magellan]

95. No, I'm just tired of being part of the problem

It's taken me way less than 50 years to conclude that militancy and demonization of dissent leads us further away from peace in any matter...How about you?

[msmcghee]

97. I may have reacted too defensively to your post.

Please let me know if I misunderstood you. I guess I'm getting a little gun-shy.

[magellan]

126. You reacted as anticipated to my first post

Please think about my second.

[msmcghee]

129. Well, I think that's where we differ.

I too don't want to be part of the problem. That's why I refuse to forgive, support or apologize for those who want war, who start war and who profit from war. That would be Hizbollah and the regimes that support Hizbollah in this case. That would be those who started bringing in thousands of offensive missiles as soon as Israel pulled out of Lebanon in 2000.

That would not be Israel. Israel wanted peace and begged Lebanon not to let that happen. Israel begged the UN to do something. Israel said this would end badly in the deaths of many civilians. The world ignored Israel.

By participating in the bullshit that Hizbollah was justified by past wrongs to militarize a border with offensive weapons after the pullback - I would be supporting others in the ME who would like to try a similar strategy. That would be encouraging many more civilian deaths in the future. I don't want to be part of the problem.

Many people here could care less about civilian deaths. They just want to see Israel defeated - for the utterly stupid reason that the neo-cons support Israel. Nadine has already shown how naive that is and how facile the view of many here who think they understand the ME in these simplistic cowboy and indian terms - so I won't go into that further.

Peace requires simply that no one country or group provoke or attack another - even though there may be a million past wrongs on both sides that would justify it. Israel has shown for 60 years that when she is not attacked and when countries or groups don't threaten her - she does not threaten or attack others. She has made lasting treaties with Jordan and Egypt.

Her enemies (Hizbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Iran, Syria, Iraq) have shown for sixty years that no matter what Israel does they will threaten and attack Israel any time they think they can get away with it. Supporting those regimes makes them think they can get away with it.

Those who support Israel's enemies are a major part of the problem. A problem that would not exist without the war-making desire of Israel's enemies to see Israel destroyed or pushed into the sea - that they have openly stated many times. Some here openly agree with them. Many here agree but are not honest enough to say so directly in their posts.

I don't want to be part of the problem - so I am willing to place blame and condemn those who start wars that end in the death of innocent civilians.

[Karmakaze]

135. Yet more BULLSHIT.

So much bullshit I can't even be bothered refuting them yet again. Here is my recomendation, if you want the TRUTH about what is happening go and read the UNIFIL reports. They show clearly that Israel was no innocent victim in this or any other case along this border, but was an active participant in a low intensity conflict that they helped encourage.

Here for example is a phrase that is constantly repeated:

"23. Persistent and provocative Israeli air incursions, occasionally reaching deep into Lebanese airspace and generating sonic booms over populated areas, remained a matter of serious concern. The pattern identified in my previous reports continued, whereby the aircraft would sometimes fly out to sea and enter Lebanese airspace north of the UNIFIL area of operation, thus avoiding direct observation and verification by UNIFIL. The air incursions violate Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity, elevate tension and disrupt the fragile calm along the Blue Line. A reduction in the number of air incursions in April contributed to an atmosphere of relative calm along the Blue Line, but this trend was reversed in May."

[Phx_Dem]

147. Nice OP msmcghee....

[magellan]

159. Yes, we differ

Not in the desire for peace, but in how to achieve it. I'm very sorry.

[JackNewtown]

96. A more reliable, non-neocon source would be appreciated nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. The Isreli ambassador is a Neo Con?

this is intellectual laziness... Isreal does not have neocons, just as the US does not have likudists... nor does the Israeli government do our bidding, or controls us.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. Read this and you will see why

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1826652&mesg_id=1831221

Not going to repost the whole thing. Suffice it to say when the dust settles ... well go read it

[burythehatchet]

111. Its about privatiazation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. In the US absolutely, but everything is about privatization in the

US... it is the mantra of the right, a religion in fact.

[burythehatchet]

117. Yes, this is the reason why the back stage players

slip in and out of government. They take policy positions then they slide over to a think tank while they serve on the boards of profiteers. This is corrupting Israeli politics as much as it is corrputing US politics. You mistakenly believe that the kooky left thinks Israel and the US are in cahoots. That's false, there is acommon element between the two governments who havce jijacked public policy for their own good. That is the relationship that merits scrutiny.

[nadinbrzezinski]

119. No I don't believe the kookie left

believes the Israelis have hijacked the US government.. I KNOW the kookie left believes this... just read around this place. You may not believe this... and are a tad more informed (by quite a bit) but the kookie left actually believes this as a general statement... as to how much or exactly how it is corrupting Israeli politics I don't live there... (It is, but in whole different form than it has here... why some folks I know who USED to work for the government now no longer live in Israel, ok) But when they read from folks, the Israelis control US policy, they chuckle, the joke is on those who actually believe that.

Common interest are FAR FROM CONTROL... and that is the point. By the way... these wolves will stab each other in the back if that helps them achieve their goals. But hey that IS real politik

[Moochy]

138. Damn that Kooky Left and their Damnable Lies!!

What board is this again?

on edit mispelled Kooky!

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. And some in the cookie left have drunk the cool aide

any other questions you may have?

And the cool aid is just as strong as the one served by the right...

[Moochy]

140. Let them eat dry cake

You centrists served us dry moderate cake, and then we get in trouble for "drinking the kool aid" :sarcasm:

Have you tried this cake you are trying to feed us? It's pretty hard to swallow without the Kool-Aid!

on edit *you centrists* was really aimed at those who would call is kool-aid drinkers, and meant in jest :P

[nadinbrzezinski]

144. No I am not a centrist... but some in the kookie left

are proving Annie Coultergeist right... and sadly she will use this to prove to others why she was right and the cookie left (less than 10% by any judgment in this case), cannot be trusted, and by extension any liberal. This is what this is doing, and if you cannot see the effect in US politics it ain't my fault.

By the way I am quite the critic of the DLC... for many good reasons... but a democrat I am no longer (became an indie after the Roberts debacle), why is this the case? The DLC controls quite a bit of policy, and this is not good... and the "cookie left" for whom Israel controls the US and we must embrace Hisbollah are giving me precious few alternatives. Will I seat out the election? No... will I vote for a Republican? Not even for dog catcher... but if a DEMOCRAT shares any of these cookie left ideas about Hisbollah with the Cookie left, I shan't vote for that candidate either, for I cannot trust that candidate with my safety or the defense of this country. Fortunately candidates do not share these cookie left ideas... and as I said, if they do... they shan't get my vote. I will not vote against my self interest as the saying goes, and will look closely at third parties.

[theanarch]

98. contentious bickering over specific incidents in a long...

...continuem of events is deliberately not seeing the forest for the trees. Like it or not, the core problem is Israel's refusal to impliment UN Res.242, which virtually all Arab governments and almost all so-called "terrorist" groups recognize as the baseline precondition for any negotiated settlement of the dispute. Long before Israel achieved its independence, the preferred or ideal borders of a Jewish homeland were defined as those of Biblical Judea and Samarra--e.g., to the Jordan R. to the east, and the Litani R. to the north. With the 1967 war, Israel achieved the annexation of Biblical Judea to the Jordan R., and ever since has been trying to ethnicly cleanse the area of its Palestinian population through deliberate policies of brutalization and terror; malnutrition and dehydration; the forced exile/imprisonment/murder of Palestinian leaderships (political, intellectual and religious); repeated destruction of West Bank infrastructure (electrical grids, water/sewer systems, communication networks, hospitals, etc), driving greater numbers of Palestinians into ever-deepening levels of poverty through the disruption of trade and commerce...and this only scratches the surface of depravations and cruelties.

In 1982, Israel occupied southern Lebanon up to the Litani R., but following an 18 year war of attrition that proved prohibitively expensive, withdrew in 2000. It would appear that with the new offensive into Lebanon, Israel is returning to annex the area up to the Litani R. (in accordance with long-established national policy); and in this context, driving 750,000 to 900,000 Lebanese Shi'ia from this region is ethnic cleansing through state terrorism, for the purpose of avoiding another West Bank-type occupation.

The reason no government of Israel (Labour, Likud and now Kadima) has agreed to Res. 242 is that doing so means having to return to its pre-1967/Green Line borders, and abandoning the expansionist agenda that has driven Israeli militarism against its neighbors for more than 60 years. I am not so idealistic as to believe that Israel's implimentation of Res. 242 will automaticly bring peace to the region (it is simply the starting point to begin negotiations towards that, with no guarantees of success OR failure); but i am realistic enough to know that if Israel continues to thumb its nose at Res. 242, they will be--deliberately and very consciously--condemning everyone in the region to more decades of violence, bloodshed and war, and more generations to rage and hate.

[burythehatchet]

108. water

[theanarch]

115. perhaps, but water is a commodity...

...and Israel can negotiate a commercial contract with Lebanon for it, at a fraction of what it costs to steal it through military conquest...and ratchet down the violence and hatred in the process...but that makes too much sense, doesn't it?

[Minstrel Boy]

116. But if they control it

they can also threaten to deny it to prospective enemies.

Israel already enjoys that leverage re Jordan and the Jordan River.

It's the same as the logic of oil as motive in Iraq.

[theanarch]

125. absolutely...but in doing so, they'll be making even more

enemies, when entering into contracts could be making them trading partners, if not necessarily friends (yes, that's probably asking too much). In this context, it only goes to show how short-sighted, arrogant and domineering Israeli policy makers are...why have a business relationship with your neighbors when it's so much more fun and ego-boosting to blow them away and steal their stuff?

[AntiFascist]

155. Therein lies the whole problem regarding "Zionism"....

the expansionist agenda. Does Zionism mean Israel has the right to exist as a homeland for Jews, or does it mean that Israel has the God-given right to expand further into Arab territories? I know of some Orthodox Jews who believe Israeli terrority will eventually cover the world where the rule of God will replace anything resembling Democracy or civil rights. This is scarey, particularly in that there are plenty of "Christian" neocons who would back this up.

[theanarch]

157. wouldn't know about this 'taking over the world' stuff...

...seems to have been tried before with little success. But i do know it is politically suicidal for any Israeli party/politician to favor implimenting Res. 242, as it precludes the (apparently? obviously?) popular will to continue expanding to at least Israel's biblical borders, where weren't, shall we say, drawn with detailed precision.

[mmonk]

103. I have no idea if Gillerman is accurate

but I don't think he can hold the government of Lebanon responsible unless the government ordered the kidnappings. I don't think this justifies a total war response and invasion.

[ComerPerro]

143. To put an end to this, I offer the opinion of ONE side

:eyes:


Maybe in another thread, you can prove once and for all there there WERE WMD in Iraq, by offering up some US testimony to the UN

[Moochy]

151. Noone didnt not prove that WMDs didnt exist!! ;-)

[TheWraith]

150. Two things that this letter distorts or omits...

One is that it exaggerates the scope of the initial attack from a group of rockets fired as a distraction, resulting in one death, to an "unleashed barrage" causing "a number of deaths." (Technically one is a number, so they're not actually lying.)

Two is that the Israelis themselves have been in violation of the UNSC resolutions with regard to the Blue Line, since they're still occupying the Golan Heights, and more specifically the Shebaa Farms region of Lebanon, which is where the original attack on the Israeli outpost took place.

I wonder how the US militia types, our equivalent to Hezbollah, would feel if Mexico decided to invade Texas, stay for 15 years, then "withdraw" only to hold on to a big swath of farmland north of the Rio Grande.

[jpkenny]

156. And from where and just when were all those Lebanese prisoners

currently being held in Israeli jails come? When were they taken? Where were they taken? Is anything ever a response to previous Israeli action?

[Broken_Hero]

161. Locking

For information dealing with the I/P conflict and posting thereof

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1809690&mesg_id=1809690

If you disagree with this lock, or the rules within the link, I suggest you contact the admins. Thanks...