July 30, 2006

Stop Destroying Lebanon. This is what war looks like. WARNING: Includes gruesome images of dead civilians. Baleboosteh has images from the Israeli side, mostly of military personnel.

As always, Noam Chomsky has some important points to make on the background to the current crisis, and -- while it deals with Gaza and not Lebanon per se -- this article by Jonathan Cook asks some urgent questions about which kidnappings get attention in the press and why.

posted by scartol 18 years ago
  • "...it is not acceptable to make an intellectual difference between Israeli blood and Lebanese blood" So easy to call terrorists those that oppose your absolute truth. Damn.
  • .
  • Just curious: I wonder if global reaction would be any different if the casualty figures were reversed i.e. if 400 Israelis died and there were 20 Lebanese casualties?
  • Maybe somebody should have done something about Hezbollah before this. Resolution 1559 kind of, you know, bans them. Might have been nice if, you know, Lebanon had gotten some international assistance to bring down Hezbollah before this.
  • Just curious: I wonder if global reaction would be any different if the casualty figures were reversed i.e. if 400 Israelis died and there were 20 Lebanese casualties? That you have to ask and throw at that question displays a bit of biasis.
  • Actually, scratch that last statement. I'm just confused as to why, after it's pointed out that a bunch of Lebanese casualties occurred, you turn it around and ask "well what anyone care if this other groupd of people had a lot of people killed?" What. The. Fuck. What's your point here? Because I just saw a dead baby with a gaping bullet hole outside it's back amd I didn't care what nationallity it was. I just wish shit like that didn't happen.
  • Just curious: I wonder if global reaction would be any different if the casualty figures were reversed i.e. if 400 Israelis died and there were 20 Lebanese casualties? Yes, it would be different. Next question; something more intelligent, please.
  • Just curious: I wonder if global reaction would be any different if the casualty figures were reversed i.e. if 400 Israelis died and there were 20 Lebanese casualties? Who cares about the hypothetical. 650 civilian casualties! That is disgusting! You don't bomb babies and collateral damage is a load of bullshit. This confirms what I always thought about Israel anyway, it is a f-ing evil fascist state that has no regard for humanity outside its own "chosen" people. Zionism is nazism all over again. Disgusting on so many levels. The state needs to be dismantled because it encourages a level of fascist nationalism which threatens the entire species, because it is a nuclear power. True story. Was listening to this radio broadcast on NPR on campus once, at the muslim student organization info table. It was about Israel. Guy from Hillel table (rabbi) comes up to me and starts talking to me about "Israel's history" which (being versed in the subject) he totally distorts. The clincher is his wife comes up (an illegal settler) and describes how genocide should be practiced on all Palestinians. I think "wiped from the face of the Earth" was used. Now how is this different from a Palestinian who says Israel should be pushed into the sea. Well first Palestinians are under the boot of Israel. The do not enjoy citizenship in the occupied territories, because if they did the knesset would be filled with Muslims. The palestinians that do have citizenship do not enjoy the equality of being a national. Most live in a virtual prison system. They are given a great reason to hate Israeli's. Their hate is in direct correlation to the level of misery they live in, where as Israeli hate stems from being a fundamentalist nut job. Don't believe me? Here is a real smart dude commenting on this asshole. I would also like to point out fascism is the nastiest form of political ideology, and my relativism does not apply to fascists. I don't think it should be tolerated in any culture. I think fascists should be arrested and the real devout ones, hung from the prison walls. It is a danger to humanity, and is worse then child molestation, because it advocates genocide.
  • If guys in Canada launched rockets and killed a dozen USAian, or abducted some of US Marines, we'ld be screaming bloody murder. Bush would say "we will do our best to avoid the civilian Canadian population, but, since the terrorists who killed our civilians and abducted our soldiers live amongst them, and the Canadian government clearly cannot police its own territory, obviously there will be some unavoidable collateral damage" The pictures of the dead Canadians would come trickling in, because cruise missiles and daisy cutters don't discriminate, people would post them on Monkeyfilter making grave proclamations "THIS is what WAR looks like", and I'd say, YADDA, YADDA, YADDA. Don't care. Might have cared once, its all used up now. And so it goes. Not to mention that once the avalanche has started, its too late for the pebbles to vote. I'm telling you, Lebanon is in the wrong here. So is Israel. Two DEMOCRACIES, whose constituents are all jointly responsible for their governments actions and inactions. And there will be no peace in the region until all the people there are sick to death of death and are willing to accede to the other's demands. Since that shows no signs of happening, this is going to continue and continue and continue, and I'm not going to berate the Israeli's for being "disproportionate" when they've been being shelled by their neighbors "miscreants" (its not my fault; the terrorists I harbor are too powerful; we even voted for them in the last election is how powerful they are) since I was born in 1973. The more either side kills, the sooner this is going to be over. If only one side could simply kill enough, we could get back to far more important questions than who gets what rights to a scrap of land in the Middle East, the question of who's gonna win American Idol. If you are in Lebanon, get the hell out. If you are in Israel, get the hell out. You've had over 30 years warning that this was coming. 6 day war wasn't enough notice? Yom Kippur war didn't tell you anything? The last Israeli-Lebanese border war (1984-2000)? It lasted 16 years. The fact that there was 6 years of peace is the anomaly. People in that part of the world have been killing each other since before I was born, we could try not selling them guns, but I don't think that would work. The only solution is to sell more and better armaments to both sides. Then they can all kill each other and get it over with. Kill us too while they are at it. Lovers of death, all of them, I say give them what they all want. IN SPADES.
  • +1 constructive
  • Nothing said here is going to have the slightest affect on the war, our each others opinions. +1 Pointless
  • I'm telling you, Lebanon is in the wrong here. So is Israel. Hey as long as you don't have to take a side. As long as you don't have to argue for anything. "Look over there at them, they are all idiots. I am smarter because I don't care!" Thanx for summing America up for me. I hate my birthplace even more now. You should care, because no matter what you believe everyone of those shells are marked "Made in the USA" and you are the USA. And most of the violence that is taking place on this planet has our stamp of approval on it, your stamp of approval on it. Your crime is worse though, at least the violence mongers in the USA are clearly an enemy to be dealt with you are worse because you claim innocence while tipping your hat to the violence with a "go about your business, don't mind me." At least the war monger takes responsibility for it's advocacy you take none, but are just as guilty.
  • At what point did righteous apathy become cool?
  • Tell me glamajama, what are you doing to stop the fighting. How has it worked so far. I'd say judging from the last 60 years it has worked NOT AT ALL. I'm not apathetic, I'm fucking sick of all the stupid killing. I'm sick of Islam, I'm sick of Judaism, I'm sick of Conservatives, I'm sick of Liberals, I'm sick of namby pamby save the whales types and I'm sick of blackwater. I'm sick of death of Zionists, and I'm sick to death of Palestinians. I can't make them stop killing each other, and yeah, I am worse, because I'm so sick of it I want them gone. I want them, and their families, and their children, and their dogs, OFF THE DAMN PLANET. You are a bunch of apes, and I hate myself for sharing my DNA with you. And glamajama, you can go to hell.
  • I for one applaud the balanced, well-thought-through Israeli response to Hezbollah's terrorism. Hezbollah's popular support will dwindle and die, thanks to the admirable restraint Israel is showing.
  • You sit there with your recriminations, Israel is so bad, so evil, they deserve every bit of this, even their civilians, and you expect me to feel sorry for a Lebanese civilian? How many 6 year old Israeli's don't get to grow up with a mother or father because of a Palestinian bomb? Or a Hezbollah missile. Yeah, Israel is bad, I should pick YOUR side instead of realizing that the situation is FUBARD, innocents have been dying forever and they aren't going to stop. You want it to stop so bad, why don't you go over there and do something? You think Israel is wrong, go join Hezbollah.
  • Sorry skrik, I wasn't done being pissed at the usual bullshit from glamajama.
  • And all my anger, even if it was focussed at Israel or Hezbollah, doesn't even matter. The bomb makes will KEEP making their bombs. The USA will still have a better standard of living for people killing each other. And if WE didn't reap the profits of those weapons and the fighting, someone else, China, or Russia would. So yay us. If someone has to have a high standard of living, might as well be ... well, its not me, I don't have any of those stocks. What I get is to pay high gas prices so that I can keep a job that lets me afford high gas prices. It is completely pointless me being angry. It is completely pointless trying to achieve peace over there. The only people who can achieve that are the ones yelling most fervently for more war. Israel can not lose this battle, because the only reason it exists is because of its percieved invulnerability. Lebanon, has no power, and all it can do is surrender. I hope it does, because that might end the killing sooner. But it won't. Listening to the Lebanese ambassador, he's enraged at Israel, and is still in the help us help us mode. The world community will do nothing as it usually does without a que from the U.S., and the U.S. doesn't want to get involved. So what do you propose? Should I rail at Israel and gnash my teeth? Abandon my awareness of the utter futility of anything I can do? Maybe I should go blow up a munitions factory. Oh wait; they're in Taiwan and South Korea; they are only OWNED by U.S. companies. And even if I did, they are insured and would be back in operation even so long as there is a buyer for their product. *sigh*
  • See, here's the thing, Mord -- your nihilistic "nothing can be done" attitude is just plain wrong. Of course we can't make 4000 years of sectarian bloodshed stop just by wishing it so; but humans have had considerable success in pushing our civilization toward a less violent and more humane future. And I have faith that we can conquer even the violence in the Middle East. I understand the desperation that comes from seeing this sort of madness repeated over and over and over, especially in the Middle East (and I recognize that those conflicts are much more multifaceted than, say, the struggle to free East Timor of its illegal occupation at the hands of Indonesia, backed by the US military). But for g*d's sake, imagine how Harriet Tubman felt! Throwing our hands up and saying "oh there's no point" is really a childish non-response that seeks the easy way out. We in the imperial societies have come to think of history as a path travelled only by a few powerful leaders -- and if we're not one, then we have no power to change anything. But in reality we have a significant amount of leverage to influence our elected officials (and as much as I hate to keep bringing it up, the struggle to free East Timor is an instructive example). As for the current crisis? Palestine Campaign seems to have some good concrete steps we can take. Bat Shalom does good work; perhaps a donation is in order? As always, Amnesty International has action appeals ready to go. These steps may not be the kind of microwave-speed instant remedy we'd like to see, but please don't ever tell me that taking action for peace is "completely pointless". You're just wrong. PS. Allan Nairn once told a group of us working on East Timor issues in the US that if Indonesian troops received just one letter about a Timorese in custody, it could keep that man or woman from being killed. There's your "completely pointless".
  • Zionism is nazism all over again...The state (Israel) needs to be dismantled... Statements like this will never bring peace. Glamajama, you are part of the problem. And scartol, posts like this aren't in the spirit of monkeyfilter. This is not a soapbox for political opinions. Get your own blog.
  • What's wrong with this post, rocket? I didn't think it was over the top.
  • 1. Any post that includes "gruesome images of dead civilians" is designed only to incite emotional arguments and idiocy (see glamajama). 2. We already have four Israel/Lebanon threads on the go. This could go in one of those. 3. The problems between Israel and its neighbours are extremely complex. Most of us - especially me - know very little about it and even less about what the solution will be. The one think I am sure of, though, is that Noam Chomsky doesn't have anything even close to a rational explanation or a workable solution.
  • designed only to incite emotional arguments and idiocy Well, both sets of corpses came with caveats and articles as well. Furthermore, surely displays of emotion are inevitable given the subject matter. I see your point, I just didn't think that the thing taken as a whole was on the level of the recent "just trying to open your eyes" posts. The one think I am sure of, though, is that Noam Chomsky doesn't have anything even close to a rational explanation or a workable solution But that's just your personal prejudice, is it not? You surely wouldn't suggest that anything Chomsky-related shouldn't be posted? We already have four Israel/Lebanon threads on the go. This could go in one of those. Fair enough. But this implies that scartol need not GHOB, yes?
  • 1. Any post that includes "gruesome images of dead civilians" is designed only to incite emotional arguments and idiocy (see glamajama). This is exactly why the US media isn't allowed to take pictures of soldier's coffins. 2. We already have four Israel/Lebanon threads on the go. This could go in one of those. It's true people, this issue is SO yesterday's news. 3. The problems between Israel and its neighbours are extremely complex. Most of us - especially me - know very little about it and even less about what the solution will be. The one think I am sure of, though, is that Noam Chomsky doesn't have anything even close to a rational explanation or a workable solution. I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT MAKE IT GO AWAY!!!
  • Gee thanks, that'll help.
  • Nickdanger has done such an awesome job of re-interpreting my statements and using them to expose my idiocy and shortcomings, I'm convinced he's my ex-wife.
  • But that's just your personal prejudice, is it not? Yes, and that's why it stays off the front page.
  • No no, it's on the front page, it's up above all the comments and stuff.
  • Maybe you're having browser problems. Have you tried eating your cookies?
  • This is a well-written, politics-free article written by an American who was stuck in Beirut. http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/07/28/bourdain_beirut/
  • Statements like this will never bring peace. Glamajama, you are part of the problem. I don't think so. Apartheid South Africa was equally reviled. The only difference here is that instead of British colonial rule, something Americans can relate to, this is a state setup to make amends for the holocaust. No Israel in concept and practice sucks! It is established as a racist state in a modern world. It is manifest destiny all over again. Just because you can't make the leap to not accepting this fact because you saw Schindler's list does not make it less true. But maybe you think I mean that Israel should be destroyed, and I would say thats not my point. The Jewish state needs to be dismantled and a new state needs to be established just like in South Africa. It will be difficult but alot less difficult then trying to establish a racially pure state in the religious focal point for a great deal of the western world.
  • Yeah, you're right, I'm being an asshole. As you say, it's an emotional issue, but really, my pettily agressive sarcasm is exactly the problem rocket88's on about. FWIW I offer an apology. I think I'll take a filter-vacation until all upsetting world issues are resolved. Or until my assholitonin levels are cycling properly. Or until I've had breakfast. I don't know. (first person who says "LBN" will recieve a prize.)
  • LBN
  • What's your point here? Because I just saw a dead baby with a gaping bullet hole outside it's back amd I didn't care what nationallity it was. I just wish shit like that didn't happen. My apologies in retrospect, my comment made it look like I was dismissing civilian casualties as trivial. Should have used a bit more intelligence as HWingo said. I realize though that it is a sign that I am starting to get numb. The thought passed through my head on the weekend after the news broke out which was that 50 deaths is really nothing compared to the killing that "needs" to be done on the road to peace, regardless of who "wins". Which is to say this conflict won't stop until millions of Palestinians have died along with millions of Israelis in a nuclear exchange ten or twenty years from now.
  • Scartol, on preview thanks for that followup comment. That helped bring me back from the pessimistic side a little. Maybe a nuclear war isn't inevitable...
  • ...but then again, as i've written elsewhere, the only way out of this cycle of tragedy that i can see is for the Palestinians to adopt non-violent (i.e. not hate) methods. I just can't picture it happening though.
  • ...but then again, as i've written elsewhere, the only way out of this cycle of tragedy that i can see is for the Palestinians to adopt non-violent (i.e. not hate) methods. I just can't picture it happening though. They had for years and no one paid attention. You never heard about it on the news. You never saw it reported. Their was a period before the intifada, when Palestinians were suffering, and no one cared. Well some did. Found this great article by Dr. Menachem Klein.
  • There not their
  • Oh for fuck's sake, glamajamma, people can see both sides of a situation without being apathetic, or uncaring, or wrong. Picking sides? What are we, eight fucking years old? This isn't some fucking schoolyard thing, this is the real world where, like it or not, there is fucking nuance and everything isn't black and white. You don't have to agree with people who see both sides but you bloody well have to stop fucking reducing everything to 'us or them' or my way or the highway. Blind loyalty gets us into these fucking messes; think that maybe whatever's gotten you to be so passionate about one 'side' might also lead others to believe that multilateral action and compromise might be needed too? For fuck's sake. I'd love to read what my fellow Monkeys have to say on these current events but if I have to read one more fucking out-of-control, childish, and frankly at times racist and offensive screed I'm going to end up throwing my computer across the room. Way to get your point across. Way to sway people to your way of thinking. Godfuckingdamnit, Monkeys are reasonable people and I bet we could have one of the saner discussions on these issues as far as the Internet goes. But so long as we're policed by an eight-year-old who had his candy taken away, it's a clusterfuck. Which is not helped by this fucking comment but I'm just pissed off enough to post it rather than delete it. And those who know me know it has to be pretty fucking bad for me to lose it like this.
  • Great way to position me as a terrorist livii. But I would dare you to point out one racist comment! If you notice when I cite someone a great deal of the time they are Jews. So please refrain from that retarded argument because I have been called an anti-semite, as many other well established respected journalists and peace activists, unless they are Jewish then they are a "self-hating" Jew. If you reference this movie it discusses in depth the dangers of throwing around the term racists every time someone criticizes Israel. And yes sometimes things are two sided and gray, but this situation is not one of them. Blind loyalty gets us into these fucking messes No a lack of blind loyalty to the dictates of a humane and just world is what gets us in this mess, which you have obviously abandoned, quite some time ago. After scanning the comment though I see you don't contradict anything I said about Israel, or actually substantiated any claim against me. I guess your only claim here is that I am too impassioned. Well I guess so. Funny people don't get up in arms like this when we talk about "islamo-fascists" I guess if your white, you get away with alot more. Who am I fooling history has shown this again and again.
  • Great way to position me as a terrorist livii. Way to put words in someone's mouth. glammajamma, please take a break from this thread. I know everyone who commented here feels strongly about the issue but all it will do is lead to further argument and nothing will be resolved and it will damage the relationships between members. I know it's a sensitive issue, but I think you're so embedded in your opinion, glammajamma, that you're just making a mess here. Let's keep the Israel/Palestine stuff in one place for a while -- here or another existing thread -- and relax for a bit. Yeah?
  • Dildault Renault! oops, sorry, wrong thread
  • Hi, I'm God I have no idea who the fuck you people have been worshipping. But it's time to cut it the fuck out. I command thee Stop fighting and start foricating. That is all.
  • Ulp. Er, Sorry your . . tie . ship. Heh. Um, beautiful . . seascapes . .
  • I'm getting confused here. Is this a thread about Lebanon/Israel or Palestine/Israel? Because they aren't the same, you know.
  • There's a war on? rocket88, I didn't see a problem with this post. It shows the horrors of war, which granted, aren't all that new to us--we've been looking at this stuff since 1917 after all. But it's interesting and heartwrenching to see it nonetheless.
  • No a lack of blind loyalty to the dictates of a humane and just world is what gets us in this mess There are many people who had blind loyalty to those ideas. It didn't turn out so great. Lenin, Mao, Castro, Bin laden, Bush. They all believed that they were taking the actions necessary to make the world more humane and just. More evil has been caused by people who believed in those ideals then any other group.
  • I didn't see a problem with this post. It shows the horrors of war, which granted, aren't all that new to us--we've been looking at this stuff since 1917 f8x, I agree with your sentiment, though the historian in me wishes to point out that we (as a human race) have been dealing with the horrors of war much longer than 1917. The tools change, the essential horrors do not. (Premodern warfare was very very bad on civilian populations). I admit, though, that I am a coward. I could not bring myself to click on the link. I know that there are horrible things there, and I do feel powerless here.
  • There are many people who had blind loyalty to those ideas. It didn't turn out so great. Lenin, Mao, Castro, Bin laden, Bush. They all believed that they were taking the actions necessary to make the world more humane and just. More evil has been caused by people who believed in those ideals then any other group. First of all: You know Slavov Zizek goes in great detail discussing this very issue, in "Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism." The basic premise, whenever anyone discusses making the world better through drastic measures people say "but we don't want another Stalin." They are paralyzed into inaction. Second of all: Don't lump Lenin and Castro in with Bush and Bin Laden. You are comparing apples and oranges. Fascism and socialism are diametricaly opposed. As for Mao that is an entirely different cultural animal, and hardly within the scope of the discussion.
  • Uh, I meant Lebanon. Shut UP already.
  • I didn't know this, but apparently retalitory bombings (which is what Israel is doing in Lebanon right now - bombing areas from which rockets have come) are against the Geneva conventions. Israel could be committing actual war crimes (as in, defined as a war crime). And I don't say this lightly - every war is a crime, but there are things our nations have agreed are more criminal than other things. Not that other countries don't break the Geneva conventions all the time. But it's still deeply disturbing.
  • Yes, facism and socialism are diametrically opposed. My point was merely that extremists of all political and religious stripes always claim that it is necessary to do evil in order to acheive good. As for the idea that we have to take drastic action to make the world a better place, that's kind of a fallacious notion, depending on your definition of drastic. The fact is great big grand gestures don't usually do as much to change the world for the good as do slow painstaking small ones. For example, aid agencies have improved the status of women in many parts of the world by making very small loans or grants to individual women so they can start businesses. Each one only gets maybe a few hundred dollars at the most, but in the third world that's a fortune. The problem is these small efforts take a lot of slow painstaking work over many years. It auctully takes a much more drastic change of mindset to get people behind these efforts that don't show fruition for decades.
  • jb,the UN said that the bombings are likely to result in war crime trials. (on both sides.) http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3278907,00.html
  • If someone has some concrete action (Scartol?) that I can reasonably take, that will actually help matters any and not just prolong the conflict by keeping it on a slow simmer instead of full boil, I'd be interested in hearing it. But scartol, I really do disagree that "there is no point" is a childish non-response. Intervention has been tried repeatedly. The many sides involved do not want peace. They either want the destruction of Israel, or its dominance in the region. Until those goals are abandoned, its not going to happen. I don't think they want peace, and trying to impose it from without will be a rediculous boondoggle. If we are smart, we will butt out completely, close our borders, and let them continue on their path to hell. The forces of dogmatic religious zealotry are committed to this. My OWN government won't even listen to me. Why is Israel going to say "Oh, Mord says we should pack up and move to N. Dakota, lets go. Shalom." And we won't be unified either, witness Glamajama who wants the dismantling of Israel, and the rest of us who probably just want the Israelis to be a bit more circumspect about how they deal with terrorism, and want the Arab states to be a bit more circumspect about how they deal with terrorism. I think madness is doing the same thing again and expecting the results to be different. We need a different approach and I haven't heard one.
  • jb, yes, we've been dealing with war before 1917. But we didn't see graphic pictures of war until then. Photographs really made the horrors of war accessible by the masses not actually embroiled in conflict. But in some sense, seeing these new images (same as the old images, right?) is a two-edged sword. They're very powerful, but also since we've seen them before, they offer no solutions to the age-old questions. We look at them and shrug, because we've been saturated by violence, both real and imagined in films, and thus the overall effect is somewhat lessened, and I rather doubt that the website's moniker (Stop Destroying Lebanon) will come true because of these images. Also, I rather suspect that images like these tend to play to one side of the story. And of course, these do not at all come close to showing the full breadth and explanations and history behind the violence, which is not a black and white issue, no matter how you stand.
  • "Oh look, they're killing each other" "I know, I know" "It's so sad" "I know, I know" "You want to go get some ice cream" "Sure"
  • One of the strangest things about the Middle East is this and i use myself as an example: I have no relatives there. I don't speak nor can i read Hebrew or Arabic. I know very little about the history of the region. I have no Palestinian or Israeli friends. Of the little i do know, most of it is through third-hand sources. I have no racial or religious connection to any of the peoples or religions in that area (although i confess some curiousity about the Druze). And the strange part is that i feel compelled to have a strong view or opinion about what's going on. Stepping outside the emotional cauldron for just one second, isn't that profoundly weird?
  • So, you should only have an opinion on things that affect you directly at this moment? That strikes me as pretty short sighted, since any escalation ot the events in the middle east could affect us directly in the future. And, shouldn't we be concerned about the casualties on both sides, even if we don't see any in our home land?
  • If humankind is privileged enough to live another 1,000, 10,000 or a million years, I think the next step in human evolution will be the survival of the tribes who understand that retribution and vengeance are fatal. Turning the other cheek may seem a bit much for today's mortal, but perhaps Humans 2.0 will know that there is no just cause for agression against one's self. And hey, intelligent design people, I even threw in a biblical reference for y'all.
  • Yes, that exact feeling. We watch CNN over dinner and all those floods and quakes and attacks don't spoil our appetite. But if/when we recall that 'oh, [name] lives there...', we are instantly transported to that place, we feel what we think our acquiantances or loved ones are experiencing. Should we always feel like that? Do media makes suffering and conflicts that we have no possible leverage on uselessly immediate? Could most of us keep our lifestyles if we did dare to try and influence our governments' actions or lack of them?
  • Humans 2.0 Do they come with shiny, reflective pastel logos also?
  • Probably. Let the possibilities commence.
  • The fact is great big grand gestures don't usually do as much to change the world for the good as do slow painstaking small ones. Wow and I thought the American Revolution, French Revolution and Russian Revolution were drastic moments that affected the worlds philosophical outlook. I guess I was wrong. Of course then there were the wobblies, and the weathermen, and the minutemen, etc. etc. etc.
  • I'd like to know what Israel's long-term strategy is. They can't really believe that they're going to bomb the opposition out of existence forever. Do they foresee a future in which they repeat this kind of intervention every ten years or so? Do they hope to surround Israel with a huge buffer zone of occupied territory - or perhaps one obligingly policed by the UN? It seems evident to me that stable peace can only come if Israel achieves in the North the kind of relationship it currently has with Egypt - ie, with a strong, effective and fairly well-disposed neighbour. For that to happen, the government of Lebanon needs to be strong and secure militarily. The current campaign has obviously pushed that possibility back into the remote future at best, and put new pressure on those regimes in the region that are currently prepared to live with Israel. It seems as though the pleasure of giving the tanks a run blinds Israel to the thought that it might be damaging its own future almost as much as Lebanon's. Or is there a cunning plan I've failed to recognise?
  • > I'd like to know what Israel's long-term strategy is. i think the israelis would too. some commentators have suggested that israel was trying to send a message to the lebanese middle class that lebanese security is dependent upon removing or at least seriously downgrading hezbollah. this made sense for the first few days of bombardment, but i don't buy it anymore: the damage is too extensive and the horrific mistakes (e.g. bombing civilians in qana, again) are too many. hezbollah is gaining support among the lebanese. to be honest, i don't think there's even a medium-term plan at this point.
  • The many sides involved do not want peace. But the problem here is that "many sides" is monolithic and unifaceted. There are people on both sides of the fence (I've spoken to them; they really do exist!) who seek a negotiated, non-militaristic, just peace. Just as there have always been rational, decent people willing to work for sensible solutions to humanity's most intractable problems. Again -- how reasonable did it seem to Frederick Douglass to try and change the mindset of slaveowners in the US? He took action because he knew there was no other choice but to resist such atrocity. The same is true for us. As for whether the actions I listed before will do real good or simply "prolong the conflict by keeping it on a slow simmer," you must judge. All I can say is that our actions do matter -- not a large amount, perhaps, but significant to be sure.
  • Here's my theory: Until a few weeks ago Lebanon was doing great. Good economic growth, getting rid of (most of) the Syrian influences and next on the agenda was the pacifying of Hezbollah. A few weeks later, and the country is basically being destroyed, with people becoming more and more militant. So why would they do this? I think everyone agrees by now that it's not just that one kidnapping incident. I think Israel simply cannot tolerate prosperous and succesful arab states around itself. After all, if a rich neighbour with a decent army would suddenly decide to become hostile, that would be more of a problem than the current failed states. That is why they've been undermining Fatah, Hamas and are now preventing Hezbollah from becoming a respected, integrated political party. Of course, the failure in this kind of thinking is that it strengthens the hardliners, gives the people more reason to hate them and so continues the spiral of violence. That's my attempt at mindreading. Never been that good at it, though. /Are you thinking of bananas?
  • Yes! holy shit, that was amazing!
  • So, you should only have an opinion on things that affect you directly at this moment? No, I was more thinking about *how* we end up with such strong opinions when in fact most of us are getting our "facts" third hand from people who have their own spin on things.
  • No, I was more thinking about *how* we end up with such strong opinions when in fact most of us are getting our "facts" third hand from people who have their own spin on things. On those grounds we don't know if the holocaust occurred.
  • That is why they've been undermining Fatah, Hamas and are now preventing Hezbollah from becoming a respected, integrated political party. Actually, Hezbollah does a good job of preventing itself from becoming a respected, integrated political party by being a bunch of dicks. In the parlance of our time... (i.e., they're a violent, virulently anti-Israel militant group vaguely disguised with the trappings of political posturing).
  • I can't believe that in both his first and most recent posts in this thread Glamajamma has invoked Nazis and the holocaust and yet he hasn't been called on this. WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!! THIS IS AN INTERNET DISCUSSION, FER CHRISSAKES!!!
  • I didn't get the impression that StoryBpread was saying we should or shouldn't think any one particular thing, but that it's just a fascinating process that we do. I'm probably wrong. I know I'm incredibly sleepy.
  • > On those grounds we don't know if the holocaust occurred. that's bollocks. it's still possible to hear first person accounts of conditions in camps and there's a huge body of second person material. > hezbollah ... are a violent, virulently anti-Israel militant group vaguely disguised with the trappings of political posturing. unfortunately, what you refer to as "the trappings of political posturing" are deeply embedded in lebanese society. there's an awful lot more to hezbollah than violent anti-Israeli militancy. underestimating the organization or dismissing them as "terrorists" is unwise.
  • I believe Mr. Jamma was asked to "take five" as you with-it jazz musicians say. To StirfryBpread's point, I agree that it's very interesting that what we learn about the external world either comes from first-hand communication with someone or through our experience of media. Perhaps George Washington really is the founder of these United Steaks, but all I know is to cross-check sources and ultimately filter things through my own experience and common sense. To that end, I find it fascinating that ultimately the Arab-Israeli situation is a metaphor for my own daily expereince with that total asshole who cut me off in traffic - yeah that's right a BMW driver. Pffft. Frickin BMW drivers, am I right people?? Hey f8x!
  • I suspect Mr. jammies has been down this road before.
  • You're right about those effing BMW drivers though. Every freakin time i get cut up, I don't even need to look anymore, I just know...
  • Very subtle, fish tick.
  • I suspect Mr. jammies has been down this road before. Did you even read those threads? Do you contradict anything I said in them. Is it a surprise that I spend alot of time on politics. I don't think any of you monkeys have spent as much time as I have reading about Israel/Palestine (since 99 by the way). I am not ashamed of anything I wrote in that thread. If you want to learn something about the Russian revolution maybe you should read the whole thread. I would also recommend this book. Was that supposed to be some sort of personal attack? How was that even relevant. That is your stance.... "look over here he is arguing politics over here as well." I can't believe that in both his first and most recent posts in this thread Glamajamma has invoked Nazis and the holocaust and yet he hasn't been called on this. Invoked the most horrible regime to exist? Or the event that changed view towards man. Yes we shouldn't learn from some of the biggest world events and most dangerous movements. *puts on his safe American political gloves* the point of the post is to point out the ridiculousness of his postmodern little quip: No, I was more thinking about *how* we end up with such strong opinions when in fact most of us are getting our "facts" third hand from people who have their own spin on things. This to Adorno is the twisting of philosophical movements by the left to prevent dialog from progressing any further and excusing their own inaction. It drags the discussion to a quibble over what we really know. I know 650 dead Lebanese civilians, no one has denied this! I know around 50 Israeli's dead, most of them soldiers in Lebanon, an invading force! I know these things to be true! Here are some other subjects you may take offense to:
  • Parsifal. Oops sorry wrong thread.
  • In September of 1884, Robert and Joseph Miller, members of a Shaker sect in Mifflin county, Pennsylvania, paused reflectively and through even breathing patterns were thus made calm. . . . there was something about them enjoying an evening breeze, but frankly that part may be a bit of exaggeration by later historians.
  • Small anecdote: Jos. Miller was a member of the Communist party.
  • Just like that rascally Lenin!
  • Visions of Two Lebanons The nation of Lebanon is a study in contrasts -- the southern half is largely Shiite Muslim, and whole towns and villages are controlled by Hezbollah. But to the north, the country is dominated by Christians. The capital of Beirut is a microcosm of that ideological contrast. Hezbollah dominates many suburbs in the southern part of the city, and hundreds of civilians have been caught in the crossfire as Israeli jets target strongholds from above. The northern part of the city, again dominated by Christians, is largely untouched. But in the tightly woven fabric of the city and the nation, everyone is feeling the effects of the battles between Hezbollah and Israel. There are an estimated one million refugees fleeing the fighting, many with nowhere to go. Stephanie Sinclair, a freelance American photographer living in Beirut for the past two years, captured images of both sides of a nation in crisis.
  • there's an awful lot more to hezbollah than violent anti-Israeli militancy. underestimating the organization or dismissing them as "terrorists" is unwise. Clearly, just as there's a lot more to a football team than the uniforms. But let's face it, the uniform does make the team rather distinctive, does it not? That's all I'm saying. That's neither understimation or dismissal. hey pete!
  • glammajamma, you seem to have overlooked the fact that I asked you (politely) to take a break. I see you've calmed down slightly but I think you're looking for an argument where there isn't one -- you seem to be ignoring actual comments in favour of your view that no one here a) understands or b) cares. I'll ask you again to take a break from this thread. Go an enjoy something shallow for a while. There is more to life than arguing politics on a blog, honestly. Let me say it in bold, in case you missed it the first time: glammajamma, take a break from this thread, please.
  • (since 99 by the way) Bwahahahaha!
  • But the problem here is that "many sides" is monolithic and unifaceted. There are people on both sides of the fence (I've spoken to them; they really do exist!) who seek a negotiated, non-militaristic, just peace. Just as there have always been rational, decent people willing to work for sensible solutions to humanity's most intractable problems. Well lets make it tractable and less monolithic. Yes, of course there are individual people who want peace, who live there, and are involved. And the onus is on them to start the political change they wish to see. Disregarding the non-democracies for a moment. Peace loving Israeli's MUST stop their government, just as peace loving Americans MUST vote out our current government at the next available opportunity. Each side in this conflict has the power to stop it, and if they are democracies, that power rests with the individual. Whether or not *I* have any power over my government, and I have despaired of late of that, than the average, assumedly peace-loving, Israeli citizen must have more than I in controlling their country. So if they do want peace, then why the conflict? Clearly they do not have the power to get what they want, or they do not want what they say they do. Now 30 years of donations to Amnesty International et al., have succeeded in freeing political prisoners, and saving some individual lives. Perhaps hastening political change in some venues where the local will was such that it was possible. What has it accomplished in Israel? I don't know the details of E. Timor but I suspect its a very different situation. In the Middle East we go to great lengths to move the peace process forward, only to have a terrorist attack, an Israeli response, and the cease fire is broken. The terrorists don't want peace, correct? Do the Israeli's want it badly enough to stay their hand in reprisal and accept the death of their civilians and their eventual withdrawl from the Middle East as the cost of peace? Or would that constitute appeasement? The anti-Israeli factions within its neighbors want the complete dismantling of Israel. Glamajama agrees that that is a solution, and yes, it *may* bring peace, and I happen to think people's lives are more important than any *particular* piece of land, but it does smack mightily of appeasement. Do we reward killers by giving them what they want? Israel has to want peace more than it wants its borders. Or it will continue to be attacked, reprise, be attacked and reprise. Either that or what authority exists among the Palestinians has to disavow violence as a means to political change. Again -- how reasonable did it seem to Frederick Douglass to try and change the mindset of slaveowners in the US? He took action because he knew there was no other choice but to resist such atrocity. The same is true for us. The people involved in it still want it to continue, and slavery was abolished with the bloodiest war in history. The south was utterly beaten and sick of death. That is what ended it and the idea of strong states rights. Not the "right thing" winning against the establishment. Essentially the abolishment of slavery was an accident of disastrous experiment in states rights. Now the civil rights movement is a different story, but that was done through peaceful resistance; not by blowing up people. Likewise, if the slaves were, once freed, returning to kill their former masters, would slavery have ended? And would it be right for me to help free them?
  • As for whether the actions I listed before will do real good or simply "prolong the conflict by keeping it on a slow simmer," you must judge. All I can say is that our actions do matter -- not a large amount, perhaps, but significant to be sure. Giving money, even as humanitarian aid, to the Palestinians helps reduce the burden on Hamas who has the stated goal of pushing Israel to the ocean. Any money given to Israel that isn't spent on air-fare to remove a settler, just prolongs the conflict, AND helps offset Israel's defense costs. The rest is just more attempts to change the minds of people who live there, and that has failed for more than 30 years. Its throwing good money after bad. Attempting to change the minds of the Palestinians, well, what would you think of some rich white guy from a foreign land telling you not to kill your oppressors? Likewise, how would you react to someone telling you that its time to give up your "homeland" because you will never stop dying and debasing yourself by defending it at all costs. I can try to influence my government, but what should I tell it to do? I do oppose giving any more aid to Israel, because it makes me culpable in this, and obviously they have enough money if they can afford to spend it on killing civilians.
  • There was a time when you could email [email protected], but no more. You can, however, still talk to Cheney at [email protected]. I guess George got tired of me bitching at him, but Dick is of sterner stuff. What are the odds that the generalized whitehouse-site messages ever get passed on?
  • slavery was abolished with the bloodiest war in history. I assume that was supposed to be "the bloodiest war in American history. Especially since the U.S. Civil War was far from the bloodiest war in world history.
  • berek, what would you personally consider the bloodiest war in human history? inquiring minds want to know. /one imagines that the Thermopylae scene must have been pretty drenched...
  • I pretty much consider the civil war the bloodiest in history. It of course depends on how you define bloody. In terms of deaths per participant, I would rather have been involved in WWII than be a confederate soldier. On the other hand, we could quibble about things like the 30 years war in the 16th century, and goings on in Uganda, but for sheer scale and bad odds of seeing it to the end, civil war is the front runner in my mind.
  • On the other hand, if you just care about numbers killed, civilian and otherwise, yeah, WWII wins, hands down. Not to mention that two cities were vaporized. I think you'll still take my point. There was nothing peaceful about the abolishment of slavery.
  • The American Civil War had a high level of battlefield mortality, but turning to my resident military expert he says "I have to check the statistics" but he's doubtful that the American Civil War was as deadly to soldiers as the First World War, and he points out that there were many European Wars (for example, the wars of Italian Unification) which were equally bloody. But that said, it's something to be said that even those who lived through the very bloody wars of the late 19th century were shocked at the massacre that was the First World War. Nine million military dead. The American Civil War had a total of just about 200,000 military dead. I don't know how those relate to population, but the sheer devastation (and over a similar geographic area). And in terms of numbers of civilian dead compared to numbers of combatants, he thinks probably the Rwandan civil war, or the Taiping Rebellion (20-40 million dead in 10-20 years, though many died indirectly due to starvation). The Thirty Years Wars (which was actually in the early 17th century) killed a third of Germans. Dreadnought also points out that when we think of WWII, we think of the Western Front. The eastern front was a very, very bad place to be. As was the Pacific front, for the Japanese. The American Civil War does have a very siginificant place in the American psyche, similar to that which WWI holds in the British or Canadian (or NZ, or Aust) minds, and for much the same reason - incrediably violent, but also nation forming/changing moment. Perhaps that's why Americans are more aware of it.
  • There was a time when you could email [email protected], but no more. WTF? What, was Dumbya getting too much "tranny slut" spam? Was the person reading that mailbox constantly whining about the horribly mean things nerds on teh Intarwebs were writing about them? Is it some sort of state secret now? Ooo nobody will figure out the POTUS' secret email address now?! The fucking veep is still "[email protected]" fer cryin' out . . Argh! Goddamn that's unnecessarily and fuckheadedly wrong. And I missed the point about why a bloody war matters to the discussion here. Sorry. Got distracted with the whole hatin'-on-W thing. Please, do go on . . .
  • It's the electronic equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and yelling "La la la, I can't hear you..."
  • I'd have to check the statistics too, but WWI wasn't even in the running, you were too likely to survive it. But then, even the statistics have an US'ian slant, I don't think they incorporated overall WWII fatality rates for all combatants, just the US side. That said, the civil war, your odds of dying on the confederate side were about 13%, and in WWII theaterwide the average was around 10%. So if somebody wants to argue that WWII was the worst, I won't dispute it. The wars right before antibiotics and modern surgical techniques I suspect are going to have the highest mortality rates; the weapons have gotten really powerful and the ability to treat the wounds they cause hadn't kept up.
  • Here's what Guinness says: The Bloodiest War Of course, then (just by total deaths) The 4 Bloodiest And Yahoo Answers
  • Mord - Yes, I would say those statistics are seriously flawed. The US didn't even join the war until the last year and many Americans did not see active combat. Whereas the rest of the countries had already seen three years of bloody trench fighting (and that's one of the reasons peoplr from those countries can get a little touchy when Americans talk about the first world war, since they weren't really active for most of it). More than 90% of the soldiers from Newfoundland were wounded or died in the first few minutes of the Somme. Let's just agree that the Civil War is the bloodiest war in American history, and leave it at that.
  • Actually, I think I agree, after looking at the numbers for WWI, I don't think the civil war can compare, and you were much more likely to come home from WWII. WWI http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004617.html WWII http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html American Civil War http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html I get a 15% fatality rate for Civil War 13% for WWI (across the board, but with high variance), ignoring wounded, just looking at fatalities. Again, it depends how scrambled the numbers are. Do we count civilians? Do we count guys that died as a result of infections?
  • WWII comes in at about 9%, but it ignores Soviet losses because we don't have figures on how many people were actually fighting.
  • Let me say it in bold, in case you missed it the first time: glammajamma, take a break from this thread, please. Darn, I was just gettin' started. Only had a chance to deploy my ridiculous postmodern quip, didn't get the satisfaction of putting my thang down. Or slinging the whipass, pushpinning the jello, twisting the protuberance etc. Sincerely, StirfryPbread
  • This thread and this issue has prompted me to start boning up on the history of the Middle East. (That "quip" I posted was more about my own ignorance than anything else although it's kinda ironic that it was misinterpreted (although also understandable because i didn't make it clear). I just started reading Righteous Victims: A history of the Zionist-Arab Conflict" and I'm about half way through. It is a very good read. So hey, what other books have you folks read on the Middle East?
  • It's not about the Israel-Palestine conflict, but Sattareh Farman Farmaian's autobiography, Daughter of Persia in a fascinating book about a remarkable woman, who lived through much of the recent history (including the 1953 coup and the 1979 revolution).
  • glammajamma, you seem to have overlooked the fact that I asked you (politely) to take a break. I see you've calmed down slightly but I think you're looking for an argument where there isn't one -- you seem to be ignoring actual comments in favour of your view that no one here a) understands or b) cares. I'll ask you again to take a break from this thread. Go an enjoy something shallow for a while. There is more to life than arguing politics on a blog, honestly. Let me say it in bold, in case you missed it the first time: glammajamma, take a break from this thread, please. Was this polite? I find this very condescending. I see nothing wrong with glamma posting comments in this thread. He has in fact offered some interesting perspective (although I may not agree with it). it will damage the relationships between members?? Please, have more confidence in members of your board. Sure, you can say what you want because *this* is yours afterall, but reading your comments have pushed me away from Monkeyfilter more than glamma's highly opinionated commentary may have. Perhaps you are the one that needs a break? On with the show!
  • *ruffles Lord F's hair*
  • Well, LF, I'd start by saying that you have a rather high opinion of yourself, but you've done that for me by calling yourself Lord. So instead, just these instructions: Get yourself to a crowded theatre and yell "fire!". And on with the show!
  • "There was a time when you could email [email protected], but no more." Yes, but thank goodness the site still has instructions on how to send gifts to the White House!
  • Do they still accept pretzels?
  • How about a Segway?
  • Well, every president needs a bicycle.
  • Israel/Palestine Israel: A Colonial-Settler State Chomsky Reader I don't care for Chomsky, but it gives some background in the beginnings of Israel. What shall I do With This People Storybored books Library of Congress Culture Studies. The Case Against Israel I have more but I tend to give these types of books away, as educational material. *tips hat to Lord Foetus*
  • so, break time is over, and we can all retire to the blog.
  • RTTBFW.
  • WTF? What, was Dumbya getting too much "tranny slut" spam? Was the person reading that mailbox constantly whining about the horribly mean things nerds on teh Intarwebs were writing about them? Is it some sort of state secret now? Dude, did you know that back in the olden times, Presidents didn't even have email addresses? Freaking nuts!!
  • He'd never use a Segway - too fuel-efficient.
  • Thanks for the book list, glamma. I will check it out once i finish reading "Righteous Victims" (the book is 700 pages and I'm currently half way.) To keep things lively in the meantime I've got a question for you. You've mentioned before that the solution for the Middle east is the "dismantling" of Israel. Now what does this exactly mean?
  • Nice link, Abiezer. The lead editorial Is Israel any safer now? has a nice summation: Both parties to this dispute are engaging in fundamental lies which are killing innocent civilians every day.
  • You've mentioned before that the solution for the Middle east is the "dismantling" of Israel. Now what does this exactly mean? South Africa did not accept a 2 state solution. Essentially the apartheid state was dismantled for a brand new state. This is the example we should follow.
  • The reason why I think it would be hard to dismantle Israel in the same way as apartheid South Africa is because of the demographics. In South Africa, 80% of the population are black. The ruling apartheid class was 20% of the population. If you add in the moderate whites, over 80% of the population of South Africa wanted an end to apartheid. The sheer numbers dictated inevitable internal social change. In Israel, the numbers are the exact reverse. 80% of the population is Jewish. Eighty percent of the population favor a continuation of the Jewish state. Which means the only way you can dismantle Israel is through external force.
  • But those numbers don't reflect the occupied territories.
  • If you don't count those that are in refugee camps outside Palestine and just focus on those in the occupied territories you get a number around 3,700,000 or 2,490,000, which drastically changes the figures. This leaves you with 4.7 million Arabs and 5 mill jews.
  • But the people in the occupied territories don't want a single state answer either. The saddest realisation I have had recently was that in 1947 there was a proposed splitting of the area into Israel and Palestine - with Jerusalem as a neutral city. But the Palestinians at the time refused to accept it - and in the end have ended up with far, far less than they would have had in 1947.
  • Glama, the majority of the Palestinian population is in the Occupied Territories while majority of the Jewish population is not. This is not like the situation in South Africa where the blacks were mixed in with the whites (despite the attempts to set up black "homelands"). Israel (outside of the occupied territories) comes as close to being a monolithic state as you can get. If you propose using external force to change the status quo, as Hezbollah does, it will lead to total destruction for the Palestinians. Israel has nuclear weapons. It's as simple as a mushroom cloud. Hezbollah realizes the danger and yet they are still going ahead with their attempt to "dismantle" Israel. This would be an irrational move to any military strategist but it says plenty about Hezbollah. They would appear willing to accept millions of deaths to achieve their goals.
  • The saddest realisation I have had recently was that in 1947 there was a proposed splitting of the area into Israel and Palestine - with Jerusalem as a neutral city. Here's another sad thing: From this book I'm reading, "Righteous Victims": In 1939, the British who were administering Palestine issued a White Paper on the future of the region. They proposed a ceiling on Jewish immigration (which had been a sore point with the Palestinians) and then an independent Palestinian state with majority rule within ten years. The Palestinian leadership (led by Amin Al-Husseini) turned it down. The slogan at the time was "The English to the sea, and the Jews to their graves". Following this blunder, Al-Husseini sealed the Palestinians fate by collaborating with Nazi Germany, even going so far as to move to Berlin and reportedly helping to recruit for the Waffen SS. The Zionists on the other hand, even though the British denied them their wishes for Partition, chose to side with Britain and the Allies. How did all this matter? When the war ended, the Palestinians were on the outside looking in. The overt anti-Semitism of the Palestinian leadership made it all the more easy to justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in post-1948 Israel. The cycle once started has never stopped.
  • But the Palestinians at the time refused to accept it - and in the end have ended up with far, far less than they would have had in 1947. The slogan at the time was "The English to the sea, and the Jews to their graves". Yes all the indigenous populations should just come to realization that colonization is something they must accept. white is right and if white wants to live there "Deal with it!" As for the mushroom cloud argument. you do realize that Israel is about the size of New Jersey. Israel would bring massive fallout on itself if not direct destruction, of it's own population. The Zionists on the other hand, even though the British denied them their wishes for Partition, chose to side with Britain and the Allies. Wow because it was the zionists who chased out the British via terrorism, via the irgun. Glama, the majority of the Palestinian population is in the Occupied Territories while majority of the Jewish population is not. This is not like the situation in South Africa where the blacks were mixed in with the whites (despite the attempts to set up black "homelands"). Israel (outside of the occupied territories) comes as close to being a monolithic state as you can get. you do realize there are settlements all over the occupied territories.
  • As for the mushroom cloud argument.... Israel would bring massive fallout on itself if not direct destruction, of it's own population. Absolutely. What I'm saying is that there are enough extremists on *both* sides who would if pushed, take the nuclear option, even if it meant their own destruction. If Hezbollah had a nuclear bomb would they use it? Why wouldn't they if they embrace death as the road to salvation? And the way Israeli military retaliatory policy works, it'll be 5 million Palestinian dead vs 1 million dead Israelis. (Actually thinking about it, maybe this is the only way peace will be achieved, given the current mindset on both sides. At the end of it the Zionists will win at terrible cost). Yes all the indigenous populations should just come to realization that colonization is something they must accept. The Jews were part of the original indigenous population of the Middle East. Wow because it was the zionists who chased out the British via terrorism, via the irgun. Yes, wow. After the war ended, the Zionists turned on the British. The Irgun, one wing of the Zionist movement (but not the only wing) embarked (as you know) on a series of terrorist attacks that made the Brits throw in the towel and hand the matter of Palestine over to the UN. What I find surprising is the shift of alliances that have happened over the years. The British in the 1930s and 40s were pro-Arab. The Arab Legion based in Jordan who fought against Israel in the first Arab-Israeli war was led by British officers. The Soviet Union, later an ally of the Arabs, voted in favour of the creation of Israel in the crucial UN vote of 1947. Britain abstained. The United States opposed Israel in the war over the Suez in 1956. Israel had two allies in that conflict. One of them was France. The other was (surprise) Britain.
  • Mefi has a new post. I didn't want to start a new thread but god damn this crap is so good, it is tempting. I am feeling quite vindicated by the way.
  • > god damn this crap is so good glamajamma, i get the distinct impression you're overlooking the human factor in all of this. specifically, the people (lebanese and israeli) who have died, been bereaved, or been injured.
  • Don't marginalize my feelings on the situation. My political struggle is a humanitarian one.
  • I am feeling quite vindicated by the way. Not clear on the vindication part. None of those posted articles advocate the dismantling of Israel.
  • But they do discuss the conflict between Israel and Lebanon not being new, which hints at this response being more political then defensive.
  • > Don't marginalize my feelings on the situation. My political struggle is a humanitarian one. really? i think you're arguing for the sake of argument and have been doing so for some time. you treat the destruction of lebanon as a way to score some weird form of internet debating points and further your anti-israel agenda.
  • Then you haven't been paying attention!
  • are you on drugs?
  • I am feeling quite vindicated by the way. Such a telling comment.
  • Wow, first I am attacked for my views, which I have backed up, then attacked for my "lack of knowledge" which I have demonstrated otherwise, and now I am being accused of trying to win debating points! I have a question, how long have you worked on this game of condescension and insults? Pathetic!
  • I am feeling quite vindicated by the way. Such a telling comment. Yes it is when I have already argued that Lebanon has faced aggression from Israel for years, it is just not reported. Unfortunately I had not found a link that stated otherwise. So yes it was vindicating, that I could substantiate, what I knew to be true. Of course this isn't what you meant.
  • > I have a question, how long have you worked on this game of condescension and insults? Pathetic! you've become a parody of yourself.
  • And you have contributed nothing and degraded the thread into petty squabbling and straw man attacks. This is what you guys call "the throwing of the monkey poo" correct?
  • > I didn't want to start a new thread but god damn this crap is so good, it is tempting. that was it. right there was where i stopped believing you care one jot for the people affected by the middle east conflict. petty squabbling from me? where? straw man attacks by me? where? you're coming across like some sort of troll-bot. /enough
  • Stawmen make wise kings.
  • Yes I shouldn't care about the truth being revealed! Not all! I shouldn't care, and I shouldn't be happy about it. I should have spent more time mourning the death of another piece of propaganda. I celebrate the victory of information spreading. I celebrate the truth, if you don't I pity you. Because the truth can stop these activities. The truth can reveal evil to be evil, as this act of aggression by Israel is. You actually think I give a damn about what your or my status is in this discussion. Get a life dude.
  • So, you don't have time to respond to jb and dreadnaught over here, but somehow have the energy to respond in this thread seven times since then? I guess posting things like "Get a life dude" is easier after a long night of DJing than responding to jb's well-reasoned thoughts.
  • the_bone is right. Instead of blustering around over here, try actually arguing your point. It's getting annoying. If you can't discuss it reasonably, don't comment in the Lebanon-related threads.
  • the_bone is right. I've been waiting my entire life to hear those words!
  • Yeah, and look who said it. Now you can put your feet up on the coffee table all you want!
  • glammajamma - I'd love to be able to parse your arguments to see whether you've persuaded me that you're right. But, unfortunately, the spew of rhetoric, with links buried in like citron in a fruit cake, give me a headache every time I try to consider whether you might have a point. And, well, the heat wave here in California seems to have fried my internet access, so do me a favor, since I'm back on dial-up. Could you give me a list of the links you've posted in the two Lebanon threads? I'd really like to be able to check them out at my leisure, and to be able to do some research on their validity. No editorialising, please, no interpretion, just a list. You may be right in your opinions, but you're not giving me a chance to ponder. The facts can stand on their own. And, I wonder, do you have a middle eastern background? Arabic family? So relax, and assume that your research will hold true. Pure hard facts, are the standard.
  • glama: It might surprise you to learn that the people you've been arguing with - in this thread and the other - aren't necessarily anti-Hezbollah, or pro-Israel (either wrt this conflict or in general). It's just that, unlike you, they're reasonable people who don't see everything in black-and-white terms...where everything they don't like is evil and fascist and everything they agree with is a shining beacon of pure goodness. You seem unable to comprehend that some of the things Hezbollah is doing are unjustified. It's wrong of them to be targetting Israeli civilians (yes, they are) and it's wrong of them to be advocating the complete destruction of the Jewish state of Israel (yes, they are). It's also obvious that the most likely road to peace in the region doesn't start with your assertion that Israel be dismantled as a Jewish state. If that is your highest priority then obviously peace is not your goal. You seem to hate Israel so much that you would accept the deaths of millions just to see it gone from the region. Even if they were as evil as you claim, I wouldn't want to see that happen.
  • Such a fucking shame.
  • Israeli raid 'breaks' ceasefire You know, I really thought it would be Hezbollah who would break it. Live and learn.
  • Must say I didn't. Ye know, I haven't read or heard the word peace used in this connection yet without the word fragile being coupled to it. Apparently now there are strong peaces and fragile peaces. Just as it is apparently possible to send clear signals or to send opaque signals in the political context. I do wish these people would get the hell out of the metaphor business altogether, for propagandists are hostile to the attachment of particular meaning to particular words by anyone still listening.
  • Thx, H. The article had this good point: When Israel kidnapped Adolf Eichmann, the mastermind of the Final Solution, in the 1960s, the Israelis gave the Nazi a defense counsel, a public trial, and a chance to confront his accusers. That was a moment of greatness for Israel because it provided a graphic demonstration of the difference between a terrorist state and a civilized nation. Israel gave a mass murderer due process and, in the course of events, provided the ultimate condemnation of the Nazi regime. Now we have the spectacle of Hizbullah acting with statesmanship and restraint while the Israelis destroy their credibility among the international community.
  • I managed to watch No Reservations last night. It was more than I had expected. In fact, it was quite moving. Bourdain and his crew caught something that documentaries attempt to crochet after-the-fact. I wanted to cry watching that episode. Having many Lebanese friends, I could relate to the energy and excitement that Anthony's initial host displayed - - and then, the utter disappointment as gunfire broke. Poignant moment in the episode was when Anthony himself had the telling realization of his circumstances - his relative safety and comfort in the confines of the luxury hotel, with a panoramic view of the destruction below...
  • Should Israel foot the bill for the clean-up?
  • Yes. And provide any labour they can to help.
  • I agree, jb. But I don't think we're going to see such a sane and fair solution to anything that happens in such troubled waters. Reading this piece by Amira Hass in Haaretz, I was very much reminded of some of the comments made in this thread.
  • In a bizzare twist of fate I have been seeing an Israeli girl for the last week.
  • That's priceless. Thanks for bringing a sense of humor to the discussion, glama.
  • Is she hot? Does she have a 'phant?
  • I have been seeing an Israeli girl for the last week. Oh yeah? Well, i've almost finishing reading all those books on the Middle East!
  • I just broke up with her. She was not happy. She bulldozed my home. No seriously we are still friends.
  • Million Bomblets Not cute though.
  • I was just about to post that, petebest. What an unutterable nightmare.
  • At least 19 Palestinians were killed and 40 wounded when five Israeli shells hit a row of houses in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun this morning. The dead and injured - including nine children, four women and six men - were sleeping when the first shell hit at around 6am local time. Many of the victims were taken to hospital in their pyjamas. In response to the attack, Hamas called for attacks on the US. “America is offering political, financial and logistic cover for the Zionist occupation crimes, and it is responsible for the Beit Hanoun massacre. Therefore, the people and the nation all over the globe are required to teach the American enemy tough lessons,” the Islamist group said in a statement sent to the Associated Press.
  • Ohhhhhh I get it now. That is why they hate us. Nader on Democracy Now! AMY GOODMAN: What about what's happening in the Middle East, in Israel, Palestine, Lebanon? The latest attack on Beit Hanun has killed something like eighteen people, thirteen of one family. You certainly spoke out over the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. Will this ever become a major issue in the US Congress? RALPH NADER: Certainly the Democrats are not going to make it a major issue. Nancy Pelosi and others have been with the pro-Israeli lobby for years. Certainly Bush and Cheney aren't. They don't understand that the greatest move toward national security in our country and in the so-called effort against terrorism would be to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The majority of both people would like a two-state solution. There are extremists in Israel that would like to continue to dominate the West Bank and harass Gaza and block an exit of the people there for traveling and for export of goods. So it's just -- it’s now a steady state, destruction every day of innocent people, as you say, thirteen in one family. The Israeli military know how to pacify Gaza. They know they could take over that town, where these primitive rockets that are wildly inadequate are fired. But it serves the interest of certain political interests in Israel to continue this kind of conflict. This is an eminently resolvable conflict. There's a lot of former Israeli military and intelligence people who know how to do it, people in the Knesset who know what needs to be done. But as long as the US basically says to whoever is in charge, “You can do whatever you want over there, and we'll still pump $3 - $4 billion and cluster bomb weapons, etc.,” there's not going to be a resolution. As long as there's no resolution, there’s going to be an inflammation increasing all over the Islamic world, and our national security will be compromised.
  • They [Bush & Cheney] don't understand that the greatest move toward national security in our country and in the so-called effort against terrorism would be to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I disagree. I think they know it very well.
  • Okay, I admit that I don't understand that much about the finer points of politics, but W.T.F. Former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton says the US deliberately resisted calls for a immediate ceasefire during the conflict in Lebanon in the summer of 2006 I ... just ... what the .. bzuh? "[He] told the BBC that before any ceasefire Washington wanted Israel to eliminate Hezbollah's military capability. Mr Bolton said an early ceasefire would have been "dangerous and misguided" ... Mr Bolton, a controversial and blunt-speaking figure, said he was "damned proud of what we did" to prevent an early ceasefire." Wha?? He did ... wha? ... *head asplode* More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians and an unknown number of Hezbollah fighters were killed in the conflict. Israel lost 116 soldiers in the fighting, while 43 of its civilians were killed in Hezbollah rocket attacks. .
  • Jinx smt!
  • mothninja, my head just asploded the same moment as yours... It's sickening, to me.
  • Wow, nice synchronized asplodin' there you two. And I wish I could be surprised by that, but I sorta figured it even as Shrubby was biscuit-chewingly gabbing to The Blairster that Syria should "quit doin' this shit *munch* *smack*" And Mr. And Mrs. Bush-Voter are fine with it, y'know. Why should America actively work to stop hostilities in the Middle East? 9/11! (*chomp* *smack*)
  • ... Washington wanted Israel to eliminate Hezbollah's military capability So we're supposed to believe that they don't have a fucking clue about guerilla warfare? That neither Israel nor the U.S. has any understanding of how to engage militarily with Hezbollah? Or what Bolton, if he was genuinely blunt-speaking, should've said was ...before any ceasefire Washington wanted Israel to eliminate as many Lebanese citizens as possible, in the hopes that this would sway public opinion against Hezbollah... (I watched Bolton on BBC last night, and although he got his posterior handed to him on a number of occasions, he was still nauseating.)
  • Tens of thousands of Israelis have rallied in Tel Aviv, calling for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to quit over his handling of last year's Lebanon war. Organisers estimated that about 100,000 people filled Rabin Square for the protest, which brought together secular and religious Israelis from all sides of the political divide.
  • Seymour Hersh was on CNN this morning talking about what's happening in Lebanon now (scroll down).
  • This was a good one: HERSH: You know, Hala, you're assuming logic by the United States government, but that's OK. We'll forget that one right now. And, We're in the business now of supporting the Sunnis anywhere we can against the Shia, against the Shia in Iran, against the Shia in Lebanon, that is Nasrullah, et cetera against -- so the game is really, as you could call it, almost -- the Arabic word is Citna (ph), civil war. And I might add: Monkeyfilter: The enemy of our enemy is our friend. Thanks for posting! Personally, I'm waiting for Osama to come full-circle. One of these day's we'll be supporting him again to fight groups we currently fund and train, and so on... and on...