MERGED--> all discussion of Israel/Lebanon conflict

[STING2]

almost as hilarious as equating Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the US invasion of Iraq. do details like, i dunno, the permanent membership status of the US and the UK on the Security Council as well as the weight of the US in the world mean nothing to you?

would that the world worked in such stark parallel lines as you see them. if it did, your mindless, convenient equivocation (nice to see you toss out the UN Security Council process when it doesn't fit your rubrick) might actually make a modicum of sense.

you know, like comparing Jenin to the Iraqi Civil War that even Colin Powell admits exists.

or comparing World War 2 to the Iraqi Civil War that even Colin Powell admits exists.

Wow, so your suggesting that the United States and the United Kingdom are above the rule of international law because their permanent members of the security council? The United States gets a free pass because of its position in the world?

You have two invasions, the UN condemned and called for the withdrawal in one of them because it found it illegal. In the other, the UN had already approved of the invasion prior to its start and then approved the occupation that resulted from the removal of the countries government during the invasion.

No one ever compared the Jenin to the conflict in Iraq. What was compared was the analysis and recording of civilians deaths. Same with World War II and the Iraq Conflict. Specific events in prior conflicts have important lessons and information to be considered when analyzing todays conflicts. Unfortunately, some people prefer to remain ignorant of history.

I look forward to more analysis and information from the HUFFINGTON POST and Mrs. Ariana Huffington. You got read Huffington Post to have any real understanding of what todays leaders are thinking and considering as well as what policies will best lead the world to peace and stability.

 

[Irvine511]

Wow, so your suggesting that the United States and the United Kingdom are above the rule of international law because their permanent members of the security council? The United States gets a free pass because of its position in the world?

yes, this has been the position of the current administration.


[q]You have two invasions, the UN condemned and called for the withdrawal in one of them because it found it illegal. In the other, the UN had already approved of the invasion prior to its start and then approved the occupation that resulted from the removal of the countries government during the invasion.[/q]

Kofi Annan, the president of the UN, believes the occupation is illegal because it was never approved of from the start and the wording of 1441 bears this out, as we have repeatedly seen.

and a resolution in response to the invasion was passed -- only it retroactively made the current occupation (not the invasion) legal because what else was there to do? what would have been gained? i daresay that the members of the UN are able to discern differences between an American invasion and an Iraqi invasion. the mere presence of a resolution condeming this action or that action does not determine the legality of the action itself.

what a standard you've set. it's only illegal if the UN passes a resolution declaring it to be so?


[q]No one ever compared the Jenin to the conflict in Iraq. What was compared was the analysis and recording of civilians deaths. Same with World War II and the Iraq Conflict. Specific events in prior conflicts have important lessons and information to be considered when analyzing todays conflicts. Unfortunately, some people prefer to remain ignorant of history.[/q]


i'm well-versed in history and am well aware when historical parallels are appropriately invoked and when others are blatant attempts at equivocation and grabbing at straws. your invocation of the deaths of 20,000 french civilians during WW2 as somehow applicable to the 50,000 deaths of Iraqis in the current Civil War lacks any sort of nuance or historical perspective.

and it was the same kind of UN commission that determined that there wasn't a massacre at Jenin is what has determined that over 6,000 Iraqis have been killed in the Civil War in May and June of 2006 alone.

I look forward to more analysis and information from the HUFFINGTON POST and Mrs. Ariana Huffington. You got read Huffington Post to have any real understanding of what todays leaders are thinking and considering as well as what policies will best lead the world to peace and stability.

your criticisms of Huffington are, at best, a great example of the pot calling the kettle black.

however, you'll notice that the one time i've invoked that blog was to attributed a specific quote to a specific person. i've not used the blog as any sort of reference point to anything beyond the fact that Colin Powell believes that Iraq is in the middle of a Civil War.

but, by all means, keep mocking the blog. that seems to be the only arguments you've got left (along with hysterics about "leftists" and "michael moore" who i have never, ever written about).

 

[STING2]

yes, this has been the position of the current administration.


[q]You have two invasions, the UN condemned and called for the withdrawal in one of them because it found it illegal. In the other, the UN had already approved of the invasion prior to its start and then approved the occupation that resulted from the removal of the countries government during the invasion.[/q]

Kofi Annan, the president of the UN, believes the occupation is illegal because it was never approved of from the start and the wording of 1441 bears this out, as we have repeatedly seen.

and a resolution in response to the invasion was passed -- only it retroactively made the current occupation (not the invasion) legal because what else was there to do? what would have been gained? i daresay that the members of the UN are able to discern differences between an American invasion and an Iraqi invasion. the mere presence of a resolution condeming this action or that action does not determine the legality of the action itself.

what a standard you've set. it's only illegal if the UN passes a resolution declaring it to be so?


[q]No one ever compared the Jenin to the conflict in Iraq. What was compared was the analysis and recording of civilians deaths. Same with World War II and the Iraq Conflict. Specific events in prior conflicts have important lessons and information to be considered when analyzing todays conflicts. Unfortunately, some people prefer to remain ignorant of history.[/q]


i'm well-versed in history and am well aware when historical parallels are appropriately invoked and when others are blatant attempts at equivocation and grabbing at straws. your invocation of the deaths of 20,000 french civilians during WW2 as somehow applicable to the 50,000 deaths of Iraqis in the current Civil War lacks any sort of nuance or historical perspective.

and it was the same kind of UN commission that determined that there wasn't a massacre at Jenin is what has determined that over 6,000 Iraqis have been killed in the Civil War in May and June of 2006 alone.




your criticisms of Huffington are, at best, a great example of the pot calling the kettle black.

however, you'll notice that the one time i've invoked that blog was to attributed a specific quote to a specific person. i've not used the blog as any sort of reference point to anything beyond the fact that Colin Powell believes that Iraq is in the middle of a Civil War.

but, by all means, keep mocking the blog. that seems to be the only arguments you've got left (along with hysterics about "leftists" and "michael moore" who i have never, ever written about).

The current US administration had done more to strengthen the UN as well as to help enforce its resolutions than any of the more recent administrations.

The wording of 1441 was primarily written by the United States and then approved by the entire Security Council in a 15-0 vote. Kofi Annan does not write the resolutions nor does he get to vote on them! The wording authorizes military action just as resolution 678 from 1990 authorized military action, without actually using the words "military force". Serious Consequences in the circumstances of November 2002 can only mean "military force", because every serious "non-military" sanction that could be used against Iraq was already in use. The only further consequence that Iraq could suffer from its non-compliance was military action.

Resolution 1483 was passed to approve the occupation. But the UN would NEVER pass a resolution approving an occupation brought about through illegal means. Once again, where is the UN resolution approving the occupation of Kuwait by Saddam's military?

Sure, the UN was able to discern the differences between the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait and the coalition invasion of Iraq. One invasion was an illegal unprovoked attack on an independent country and the other was a UN authorized invasion to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions. The mere presence of a resolution condemning and action does in the eyes of the UN determine the legality of a given action. That is precisely what the UN did in its first resolution in regards to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

Its only illegal ACCORDING TO THE UN if it passes a resolution declaring it to be so!

I've generally only used the example of the 20,000 French civilians who died during the the opening week of the D-Day invasion to show that the accidental deaths of innocent civilians does not alone make a military action unjustified. I'm not sure what comparison your claiming that I made.

The UN commission that determined what happened in Jenin actually went into the town with forensic experts and examined every inch of the town looking for bodies and doing full forensic study of each one to determine the cause of death. I've not seen anything that shows that is what the UN had done in Iraq in regards to the death of Iraqi civilians. The latest information shows that they have simply accepted data from the Iraqi government on the issue without doing any more investigative research.

 

[Irvine511]

okay, i really am done.

when work calms down and i have time i'll deal with Iran and how the Iraqi Civil War (as described by Colin Powell) has emboldened the current regime.

 

[deep]

Here is one American
that is asking the right questions.

WHERE ARE THE CHRISTIANS?

Pat BuchananWed Jul 19, 6:50 AM ET

?

When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert unleashed his navy and air force on Lebanon, accusing that tiny nation of an "act of war," the last pillar of Bush's Middle East policy collapsed.

First came capitulation on the Bush Doctrine, as Pyongyang and Tehran defied Bush's dictum: The world's worst regimes will not be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons. Then came suspension of the democracy crusade as Islamic militants exploited free elections to advance to power and office in Egypt, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Iraq and Iran.

Now Israel's rampage against a defenseless Lebanon -- smashing airport runways, fuel tanks, power plants, gas stations, lighthouses, bridges, roads and the occasional refugee convoy -- has exposed Bush's folly in subcontracting U.S. policy out to Tel Aviv, thus making Israel the custodian of our reputation and interests in the Middle East.

The Lebanon that Israel, with Bush's blessing, is smashing up has a pro-American government, heretofore considered a shining example of his democracy crusade. Yet, asked in St. Petersburg if he would urge Israel to use restraint in its air strikes, Bush sounded less like the leader of the Free World than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights.

What Israel is up to was described by its Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz when he threatened to "turn back the clock in Lebanon 20 years."

Olmert seized upon Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers to unleash the IDF in a pre-planned attack to make the Lebanese people suffer until the Lebanese government disarms Hezbollah, a task the Israeli army could not accomplish in 18 years of occupation.

Israel is doing the same to the Palestinians. To punish these people for the crime of electing Hamas, Olmert imposed an economic blockade of Gaza and the West Bank and withheld the $50 million in monthly tax and customs receipts due the Palestinians.

Then, Israel instructed the United States to terminate all aid to the Palestinian Authority, though Bush himself had called for the elections and for the participation of Hamas. Our Crawford cowboy meekly complied.

The predictable result: Fatah and Hamas fell to fratricidal fighting, and Hamas militants began launching Qassam rockets over the fence from Gaza into Israel. Hamas then tunneled into Israel, killed two soldiers, captured one, took him back into Gaza, and demanded a prisoner exchange.

Israel's response was to abduct half of the Palestinian cabinet and parliament and blow up a $50 million U.S.-insured power plant. That cut off electricity for half a million Palestinians. Their food spoiled, their water could not be purified, and their families sweltered in the summer heat of the Gaza desert. One family of seven was wiped out on a beach by what the IDF assures us was an errant artillery shell.

Let it be said: Israel has a right to defend herself, a right to counter-attack against Hezbollah and Hamas, a right to clean out bases from which Katyusha or Qassam rockets are being fired and a right to occupy land from which attacks are mounted on her people.

But what Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, collective punishment on innocent people, to force them to do something they are powerless to do: disarm the gunmen among them. Such a policy violates international law and comports neither with our values nor our interests. It is un-American and un-Christian.

But where are the Christians? Why is Pope Benedict virtually alone among Christian leaders to have spoken out against what is being done to Lebanese Christians and Muslims?

When al Qaeda captured two U.S. soldiers and barbarically butchered them, the U.S. Army did not smash power plants across the Sunni Triangle. Why then is Bush not only silent but openly supportive when Israelis do this?

Democrats attack Bush for crimes of which he is not guilty, including Haditha and Abu Ghraib. Why are they, too, silent when Israel pursues a conscious policy of collective punishment of innocent peoples?

Britain's diplomatic goal in two world wars was to bring the naive cousins in, to "pull their chestnuts out of the fire." Israel and her paid and pro-bono agents here appear determined to expand the Iraq war into Syria and Iran, and have America fight and finish all of Israel's enemies.

That Tel Aviv is maneuvering us to fight its wars is understandable. That Americans are ignorant of, or complicit in this, is deplorable.

Already, Bush is ranting about Syria being behind the Hezbollah capture of the Israeli soldiers. But where is the proof?

Who is whispering in his ear? The same people who told him Iraq was maybe months away from an atom bomb, that an invasion would be a "cakewalk," that he would be Churchill, that U.S. troops would be greeted with candy and flowers, that democracy would break out across the region, that Palestinians and Israelis would then sit down and make peace?

How much must America pay for the education of this man?

 

[joyfulgirl]

Here is one American
that is asking the right questions.

Democrats attack Bush for crimes of which he is not guilty, including Haditha and Abu Ghraib. Why are they, too, silent when Israel pursues a conscious policy of collective punishment of innocent peoples?

Not all Democrats are silent. Hilary, for example, attended a rally yesterday in support of Israel's rampage. If she runs for President, she just lost my vote.

 

[yolland]

Please start a new thread if you want to discuss Iraq. Thanks.

Also--STING--please do not quote the entire post you're replying to unless you're responding to every point in it. It really gets hard on the eyes after awhile to have every other post start with a quote box the size of Texas.

 

[maycocksean]

Where does the government of Lebanon come from? The people of Lebanon. This isn't playing a blame game on the "average powerless Lebanese citizen" - this is the reality that Hezbollah (the poor, misguided, tries to do good, tried to kill Jews organization) operates with at least passive approval of the people. As maycocksean acknowledges, the unwillingness to deal with Hezbollah is at least a possibility. Given the strength of anti-Semitism in the area, I'd say this is something more than a possibility.

If Lebanese citizens started blowing themselves up, we would get at least a smattering of understanding for their anger (as we see with Palestinians). Too bad that anger isn't directed a little sooner. We are not dealing with a country of pure victims.

Yeah, but we're NEVER dealing with a country of pure victims. Nonetheless, the standard of demanding mass nationwide protest is asking a lot, in my opinion. When it happens, it should be applauded, of course, but it shouldn't be a given. This isn't the U.S. where you can oppose the actions of the government and expect to stay alive (much less opposing a brutal terrorist organization). I think you're points about anti-Semitism and sympathy for Hezbollah are well taken, but I think the reasons "the people of Lebanon" haven't "risen up" are more complicated, and have as much to do with just trying to get through the day, as any other reasons. I don't think you can argue that "the people of Lebanon" are in enthusiastic league with Hezbollah. I'd guess the average Lebanese person doesn't care that much about extinguishing the nation of Israel. It's not as black and white as you'd like to paint it.

 

[maycocksean]

I think a lot of Hezbollah's support comes from the population being intimidated by their power.

Thank you!

 

[Irvine511]

I don't think you can argue that "the people of Lebanon" are in enthusiastic league with Hezbollah.

but it makes it so much easier to excuse 300+ dead Lebanese civilians if you deem them all guilty of supporting Hezbollah.

they had it coming, i'm sure.

 

[maycocksean]

Not all Democrats are silent. Hilary, for example, attended a rally yesterday in support of Israel's rampage. If she runs for President, she just lost my vote.

What a pathetic attempt on her part to curry favor with the voting public.

 

[nbcrusader]

Historically, Democrats have been the party that strongly supported the current state of Israel. The current conflict is not some recent political manifestation. If the outrage is truely sincere, perhaps we should have looked at our policies for the last 5 decades.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Here is one American
that is asking the right questions.

Despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was] an individual of great courage.... Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.
-- Pat Buchanan

Strange bedfellows indeed, as a matter of record the strikes against infrastructure do seem an overreaction but going after a terrorist group attacking civilians and soliders when the other state is unable to is a valid self-defence.

Who is whispering in his ear? The same people who told him Iraq was maybe months away from an atom bomb, that an invasion would be a "cakewalk," that he would be Churchill, that U.S. troops would be greeted with candy and flowers, that democracy would break out across the region, that Palestinians and Israelis would then sit down and make peace?

Well thats obvious

 

[Irvine511]

i think i recognize that guy from "Passion of the Christ" ...

 

[nbcrusader]

Yeah, but we're NEVER dealing with a country of pure victims. Nonetheless, the standard of demanding mass nationwide protest is asking a lot, in my opinion. When it happens, it should be applauded, of course, but it shouldn't be a given. This isn't the U.S. where you can oppose the actions of the government and expect to stay alive (much less opposing a brutal terrorist organization). I think you're points about anti-Semitism and sympathy for Hezbollah are well taken, but I think the reasons "the people of Lebanon" haven't "risen up" are more complicated, and have as much to do with just trying to get through the day, as any other reasons. I don't think you can argue that "the people of Lebanon" are in enthusiastic league with Hezbollah. I'd guess the average Lebanese person doesn't care that much about extinguishing the nation of Israel. It's not as black and white as you'd like to paint it.

I'm not painting it black and white, but I am not wrapping up the issue with a dose of Western victimization rationale either.

If the people of Lebanon are being manipulated by a Iran and Syria financed Hezbollah, why is the outrage not directed at Iran or Syria, instead of at Israel (other than the obvious)?

I bet there are plenty of Lebanese citizens who are not fans of Hezbollah. I guess the actual pointing of weapons at Israel is better than the potential pointing of weapons at self. If that is a fair and natural response, so be it.

 

[deep]

Historically, Democrats have been the party that strongly supported the current state of Israel. The current conflict is not some recent political manifestation. If the outrage is truely sincere, perhaps we should have looked at our policies for the last 5 decades.

every point is correct

i read the article joyful mentioned yesterday

it was a New York event
with mostly NY dems

it would be political suicide not to voice strong support for Israel in NY

Bill Clinton had a more even-handed approach to MidEast, but still got more support from U. S. Jewish voters than W and the GOP will ever get.

They prefer a stronger separation of Church and State, because Jews know what it is like to be thrown on the fire

and Joyful, in Nov 2008 you can choose either A or B

in 2000 people who voted their principals (Nader) helped to put us in this hell hole

perhaps, vote principals in the primary
vote to save the planet in Nov?

 

[joyfulgirl]

in 2000 people who voted their principals (Nader) helped to put us in this hell hole

I completely disagree with this but that is another argument which will go nowhere.

The problem I have with Hillary (which is certainly not limited to the current crisis in Lebanon) is that I truly think she cares only for her own political advancement. She's got no soul, no spine, no passion about anything she truly believes in. Of course you're right that it would be political suicide in NY not to support Israel--I appreciate that--yet there is a way to show support for Israel without agreeing with its current decimation of Lebanon. But the election is a ways off, lots can happen, and I didn't mean to get off topic with my moment of disgust with Hillary.

 

[nbcrusader]

Any reports of how many Hezbollah deaths?

0

15

300

?

 

[Judah]

If the people of Lebanon are being manipulated by a Iran and Syria financed Hezbollah, why is the outrage not directed at Iran or Syria, instead of at Israel (other than the obvious)?

I bet there are plenty of Lebanese citizens who are not fans of Hezbollah. I guess the actual pointing of weapons at Israel is better than the potential pointing of weapons at self. If that is a fair and natural response, so be it.

Well, last year, or the year before, the Lebanese came out in thousands protesting against Syria's involvement in Lebanon and in the assasination of the Lebanese ex-PM (or was it ex-President?...something like that). So, they're not shy about standing up for their country.

I think the Lebanese, overall, feel they're hopelessly again caught in the cross-fire of mid-east geopolitics, and are hoping that an eventual Israeli-Palestinian peace will neuter Hezbollah somewhat, or at least undercut its progadandist anti-Israel foundation.

 

[A_Wanderer]

One should also note that Hezbollah came out in support of Syria during the Cedar Revolution, it's unfortunate that the Lebanese government is unable to remove them.

 

[all_i_want]

If the people of Lebanon are being manipulated by a Iran and Syria financed Hezbollah, why is the outrage not directed at Iran or Syria, instead of at Israel (other than the obvious)?

Other than the obvious???

The obvious problem is the biggest problem here isn't it? Israel, bombing a free country. I had represented Israel in MUNs before, discussed these things with their consulate here for preparation. And don't get me wrong, I understand the Israeli point of view, I just don't accept it.

Let's see, the Lebanese government is unable to disarm Hezbollah. Doesn't matter how much you force them to do it, they can't, its not a matter of willingness, its a matter of capability.

I know Hezbollah is firing missiles into Haifa. So does that mean Israel has the right to bomb Lebanon in return? Do you equate a militant terrorist group with an apparently democratic, sovereign nation? Has Israel sunk that low?

The Lebanese elected this government last year, against the pro-Syrian tendencies within the country. They've shunned the future that lies with Hezbollah and chose something else. It is a good example of Bush's favorite little concept 'democracy in the middle east'.

Now, Israel, just because a radical group has kidnapped a couple of soldiers, is bombing the hell out of a sovereign nation. You can't justify bombing airports, power stations, roads and other infrastructure. You can't justify bombing civilians. If Israel wants to extract Hezbollah and destroy it, bombardment en massé isn't the way to do it. They need to strenghten the Lebanese government to deal with it. Instead they are doing the exact opposite.

The Lebanese people ARE the complete victims here. All those people who are now dead were innocent. All the infrastructure, the brand new airport a nation gave its all to build is now destroyed. Who paid for these things working two jobs sometimes? It wasn't the Israeli army who seems to destroy them at their leisure. Who is going to pay for their rebuilding? Not the government of Israel, who was quick to unleash all kinds of hell against an already fragile country. It's easy to say 'oh they had it coming' if you were born in a country that was never bombed by jetfighters.

Lebanon is weak. Israel is angry. Let them take their anger on the Lebanese. And let us all be silent bystanders, because it is the state of Israel doing this, with the open approval of the US, so it must be ok.

Don't bullshit me.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Or direct their anger at the source, Bashir al Assad not the Lebanese people.

 

[Irvine511]

good post, A_I_W.

as i've said before, Israel has every right to exist and to defend itself in the manner in which it chooses. however, the manner in which Israel is currently defending itself is making a bad situation worse and, as always, it's innocent civilians who are suffering and dying.

 

[nbcrusader]

Interesting Development

If Lebanon is powerless to stop Hezbollah, why are they so confident that they can stop Israel?

Lebanese President Emile Lahoud told CNN the Lebanese army is "ready to defend" the country's territory if Israel launches a full-scale ground invasion.

"Of course, the army is going to defend its land," he said.

While the army "cannot be strong enough to be against Israel on the frontier," he said, "inside Lebanon, they can do a lot."

"We are not going to let anybody take our land. We are not going to let them come back and take it," he added.

Is it a matter of power or willingness?

 

[joyfulgirl]

Re: Interesting Development

If Lebanon is powerless to stop Hezbollah, why are they so confident that they can stop Israel?



Is it a matter of power or willingness?

What the hell else are they supposed to do? Of course they're going to fight back and talk like they can defend themselves.

 

[nbcrusader]

If you read the comments in this thread, it appears that many felt Lebanon was powerless to stop Hezbollah from operating within their borders. Turns out that this may not really be the case.

 

[Irvine511]

If you read the comments in this thread, it appears that many felt Lebanon was powerless to stop Hezbollah from operating within their borders. Turns out that this may not really be the case.

did you read and then think about that article before you posted it?

 

[verte76]

Israel has the right to defend itself, but the way it's defending itself now is totally unacceptable. It's destroying an innocent country.

 

[deep]

good post, A_I_W.

as i've said before, Israel has every right to exist and to defend itself in the manner in which it chooses. however, the manner in which Israel is currently defending itself is making a bad situation worse and, as always, it's innocent civilians who are suffering and dying.

Is the Israeli Government committing War Crimes?

To take an action that will knowingly kill civilians is a war crime.

 

[maycocksean]

If you read the comments in this thread, it appears that many felt Lebanon was powerless to stop Hezbollah from operating within their borders. Turns out that this may not really be the case.

To be frank, the Lebanese gov. can't stop the Israeli army from operating within it's borders either.

Of course, they'll fight back, talk tough, of course they'll "show resolve"--there is a difference between rising up to defend your own country and rising up to defend another (particularly one that invaded and occupied your country for 18 years). People--and gov--are more inclined to do the former than the latter.

Furthermore, the only way that Lebanon would be able to "fight back" if Israel were to roll into Lebanon would be guerrilla warfare. Hezbollah, already being guerrillas, are much harder to "defeat" by the organized government (of either Lebanon or Israel).