Can you say that in concise bullet-point format, please?:p

Once again you have spelled out the basis of the conclusion, that you misstated as fact.
Oh well, I tried. sigh

But again, that is the point. There are no 'both' sides. Numerous parties AND many parties that can be considered part of multiple groups.

For example, a UN resolution called for the disarming of Hezbollah. Are Druze, Shi'ites, or Maronites guilty of not enforcing that UN resolution? Yes. They did not do the job. But no. They were not required to do that job. Maybe that was Israel's job. Or maybe the Arab league failed to perform the task. You tell me? Which party is and is not guilty? Add a pragmatic point that they could not do the job and maintain a new Lebanese democracy. I have only answered a question about UN Resolution 1559. How much more concise should I have been?

There are no nice concise points because waters are that muddy. Of course we can lay blame. We can lay blame on any religious person who declared any part of the Middle East selected for god's chosen 'people'. Do we blame crusaders? Or we can lay blame on the British for how they created Palestine. Or on Nazis for creating the 'need' for a Jewish homeland. Or we can lay blame on the worst type of Zionists who regards the Middle East as Americans once regarded North America. Based upon what criteria do we define blame? Muddy enough. Welcome to the Middle East where everyone has an agenda and so few consider others as equal - especially because religion is involved.

Previously I mentioned Kahlil Gibran? Did you grasp the meaning? No, if you think answers are concise and simple. But again, your family probably does not have enough fingers and toes to count the number of sides. Which are 'both sides’? Ironically many sides have no feud. It is a minority called extremists that, for example, had to murder Menachin Begin to drive centrists into the ranks of extremists. So are those centrists now extremists or are they still centrists? But again, which is 'that' side. Again, appreciate how waters get more muddy with each new fact. Appreciate that your questions cannot be answered without layers of definitions of 'each side'. A good idea. But that is not possible since we attacked the Franco / British invasion of Egypt; rescued the Lebanon government in the 1950s; overthrew the government of Iran and installed a Shah; developed an essential alliance with the Saudis; liberated Kuwait, promised to leave, and lied; bought an Israeli Egyptian peace treaty; are involved in Tunisia, Libya, and Morocco; invaded Afghanistan; use (waste) so much oil as to even desperately need a Caspian Sea oil pipeline; etc.

We cannot be out and yet we should temper how much we are in. An answer that requires a number where no quantitative standard exists. In short, an above answer that is accurate considering how muddy those waters are.

Up until 2000, the US was doing a fairly job of negotiating where required and leaving things alone when necessary. We were an honest broker once we realized the Palestinians also had legitimate gripes. The 'well proven by history' concept called containment works. Like any international problem, a solution cannot be imposed - pre-emption. The Arab Israeli conflict came so close to being solved through the Oslo Accords only because two major power brokers wanted it. How many remember when there was no longer any Middle East violence? No suicide bombings. No Israeli jets attacking someone every month? How many remember why Menachin Begin was murdered only to recreate instability (ie intafada II) because that is what minority extremists so wanted.

But again, you tell me how any of this can become part of a concise set of points? Each point would be different for each party's perspective - for each of how many different sides? And then peripheral problems such as Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, the K'stan nations, Syria, etc need be considered.

We even exempt Pakistan, Israel, and India from what was once a major US priority - limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons. So which is it? Are we for or against proliferation of nuclear weapons? In this case, a standard for all should exist. But it does not. Do we argue that it is not our problem? Again, show me how even this question can be answered in concise and clear 'bullet points'. I don't have a clue because, again, the issue is so muddied. Too many parties. Too many perspectives. Too many agendas. Too much religion. And too many Americans who don't even know the different between Hezbollah and Hamas. Too many Americans who don't even know the diference between Muslim Brotherhood (the movement), Muslim Brotherhood (the political party) and Al Qaeda.

Only final solution may be that everyone gets armed equally until loses on all sides are just like the American Civil War. Only then would a resulting peace settlement be so final. Only then would those who hate then remember what happened the last time they hated. On paper and based upon some lessons of history, it is a good solution. But again, there are too many variables meaning it could end up another '1914 in Serbia'.

I can propose a long list of solutions. And yet the consequences (risks) are so great that none are acceptable. Brianna could not understand something so trivial and typically uneventful as kidnapping of Israeli border guards. She actually thought that a major event. Even trivial events such as soldier kidnapping sometimes explode into war that kills millions.

Pre 2000 Middle East demonstrated the beauty of and reasons why containment was so successful. First and foremost, those so many parties must settle it themselves. And yet we cannot remain fully disengaged. So how engaged or disenaged should we be? Welcome to the Middle East where everything is muddy; where the answer to that question is 'yes, maybe, and no' - depending on perspectives. Again, the more we learn, the muddier it gets. Only when all those parties are ready to take war to a negotiation table (which is the purpose of war), only then might we ever get back to what the Oslo Accords almost created.

Never forget a major reason for the Oslo Accords failure and the murder of Begin - Ariel Sharon and his extremist Likud party. But he and Likud were, at minimum, only one of so many parties (still a minority) trying to manipulate events back to war and violence. The expression 'both sides' will never apply to the Middle East.

Previously defined was what has happened including a US policy of pre-emption. Previously asked was what will happen once Israel invades Lebanon - as they must to stop Hezbollah attacks. Previously noted is that all warring parties deserve the violence they are now suffering. For example, if so biased as to think Israelis are the good guys, then remember why 5,000 Palestinian women and children were massacred in an Israeli invasion of Lebanon, why Maronites eventually caused death of 200+ American Marines, AND why Israelis intentionally murdered 52 Americans aboard the USS Liberty. They are all examples of god's chosen people - what happens when religion becomes part of any conflict. Just more mud. What concise bullet should I use for that part of history?

And that is the short answer. The one and only thing we know works is a policy of containment. America is even violating that well proven lesson from history. It would then take a miracle to accomplish what the Oslo Accords almost did because pre-emption makes things worse. Does a need for a miracle mean the Middle East needs more religion?

Wasn't that Yitzhak Rabin?

I don't know why Junior is so obsessed with Hizbollah as it doesn't pose any threat for the US, or even international terrorism.

Hezbollah itself is guilty for continuing to arm; Iran and Syria are guilty for continuing to arm them.

18 words, two minutes. That was easy, give me another one.

One theory is that Israel must clear out the threat from the north so that if they have to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran can't use that area to stage further launches.

Oh I see, it's that easy. You must be a genius.

Unfortunately history learns that we never learn from history, especially the US. One would think that after the Iraq disaster the US and Israel would rethink their pre-empt wars and listen less to desktop warriors like Feith, Ledeen and Cheney or Airforce Generals who always promise they can do the job. Unfortunately there are always gullible people who believe these nonsense.

War is like a gamble. Bad players/generals/politicians can't take their win when the time is right and keep on hoping luck will turn their way. Olmert should have taken the St.Petersburg summit to cry victory, negotiate and get their kdnapped soldiers. Now he's drawn further and further into the quigmire which eventually leads to war with Syria.

It's not my theory. It's A theory. Some have advanced. (I heard it from Mickey Kaus on bloggingheads.tv, but bloggingheads.tv seems to be down right now)

I don't have a position on whether Israel is doing the right or wrong thing in this case. History will tell. Maybe.

The issue was not the kidnappings. The issue was the 13,000 missiles. When someone has a loaded gun and they're pointing it at you, for reasons that appear to be nonsense (Shebaa Farms), and they have a history of insanity, that has to be addressed. The UN failed to address it in a permanent/realistic way. What would you do?

:corn:

That makes sense. When W pre-emptively invades Iran from both Afghanistan AND Iraq, he doesn't want Syria attacking from behind. Ridding southern Lebanon of Hizb'allah will keep Syria's eyes on Israel, not the rear guard of the US military, as it enters Iran. Then, he can pre-emptively attack Syria, with a little help from Israel on Syria's Western Front. Hmmmm - conspiracy.

Pssssst - I heard Syria has tried to get yellow cake from an unamed African Nation - but don't tell Valerie Plame.

Ah, there it is. Mickey Kaus's theory, on bloggingheads.tv (video, 44 secs, broadband only)

Issue is that Hizbollah was created during Israel's disastrous 80's Libanon campaign from the secular Amal party. Just as the Mujahedeen were created by Russia's Afghanistan invasion and al-Qaeda by the CIA. History learns etc, etc.

The USSR had pointed thousand of nukes at the US, yet Reagan negotiated peace as soon as the opportunity was there.

Peace in N.Ireland was negotiated, not by war.

Israel needs to make peace with it's neighbours, that's what I would do, but I'm not an Israelian, never can be, cause I'm not a Jew.

The Germans have an appropriate saying "Sieg bis zum Tode" (Victory until death). Israel is very vulnerable for a first strike. It can have victories but at the end it may well be the beginning of the end for them.

Oh dear, another desktop general. US military is in no way prepared for another attack as it has no ready, strategic forces available and is already stretched to the limit. As soon as the US enters Iran, missiles will rain on Israel, it's exactly the excuse Iran is waiting for. For this read my remark above about first strike.

Yep, they can use it together with Saddams WMD's burried on the Golan Heights (acc.the Mossad of course).

I wonder why Iran hasn't simply bought missiles and nukes from North Korea? Or maybe they have...and need to have something that looks plausibly like thier own nuclear program so NK has deniability when they finally launch one.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd trust an NK missile, especially with a critical payload like a nuke. Go upscale to Chinese; the reliability is worth the extra cost.

C'mon - why not another "invasion lite"? Rational concerns have never stopped this administration before now. :cool:

Assuming that we can't turn back time to when we all enraged those otherwise peaceful religous fanatics, your current answer to "What would you do?" is to negotiate with terrorists whose end position is that you should cease to exist.

Zat yer final answer?

BTW, you can be naturalized without being Jewish. That criticism is, I think, a thing of the past.

That's a thing of the past. The general consensus in the Arab world is that if Israel pulls back behind the 1967 borders, a lasting peace can be reached.

Re terrorist, depends on which side you are. Ones freedom fighter is the others terrorist. Many of Israels Prime Ministers started their carreer as a terrorist.

Until now the policy of Israel is of military arrogance. The present war with Hizbollah will show if this arrogance is justified. Fighting with an asymetrical oppenent is quite different as to what they learn on West Point et all (as shown in Iraq).

I think Maggie's link, while it has a pro-Israel slant, was very helpful. I have no reason to dispute its accuracy. Check it out.

I'm afraid not. With the current stream of Russian immigrants a growing demand of striking the extended Law of Return is visible.

With only religious marriages recognized in Israel, the halachic issue raises certain dilemmas. How, for example, would a young man whose immigrant mother wasn't Jewish, but who served in the army and lives like any other secular Israeli, marry a girlfriend who is accepted as Jewish?

That is not the position of Hezbollah or Hamas or Iran; and what do you make of the fact that they are being attacked at precisely the borders where they've pulled back, Lebanon and Gaza?

Mags, do you have moral equivalency police duty this week?

That's a pretty daunting assignment, mostly because the recividism rate appears to be 100%. There was even a comment earlier to the effect that criticisms of moral equivalance are just a conservative ploy..."the moral equivalance card".

I'm not sure that isn't self-referential.

Oops, I forgot to check the passports on the dead babies, my bad.

When the right plays the card they occasionally get it right, like when Jay is just being an anti-American bigot. Usually, however, it is played to limit the parameters of the discussion, absolving the US or her client States of all responsibility for their actions because we are good and have never ever done a morally questionable act, which could lead some brown folks to hate our guts.

Straw man.

Sorry but that's the way you guys come off.

"You guys"? Who exactly is that?

Is there no space between "good and have never ever done a morally questionable act" and being morally equivalant to a terrorist who deliberatedly murders civilians? Or is defending oneself (in any way other than will meet the approval of folks who don't particularly give a shit) sufficient to establish this equivalance?

Because I don't buy that theory. It may float in societies where you can be convicted of assault for defending yourself from attack by a burglar in your own home, but we're not required to "lie back and enjoy it" here yet. I'm not Christian enough for the "let him who is without sin" deal.

"Moral equivalency" is often a strawman, too. Usually used to say that you can't criticize one side for doing something if another side does something worse.

When you and UT defend Israeli and American actions you generally don't acknowlege the downside. That makes your arguments sound less credible. Of course an isolationist like myself finds almost all American actions in the mid east absurd. I don't know why the left has such a problem with militarism after all the Balkan idiocy.

Was it in this thread or the other where I admitted I don't know if the current action is a good idea?

Responding to your edit:

"It may float in societies where you can be convicted of assault for defending yourself from attack by a burglar in your own home, but we're not required to "lie back and enjoy it" here yet. "

Weak comparison. When you defend yourself by killing your neighbors along with the burglar, you have a problem. Both sides are killing innocents. Israel accepts that innocents will die when the fire artillery into civilian populations where the crazies hide. Hezbolah does target civilians directly, that is worse intent but Israel kills more civilians, that is worse effect.

PS We are most definitely not in our home.

I could have missed it. I screw up alot.

It was this one, #189:

apology proferred

Thanks man. You know, you're always one of the good guys, no matter what happens.

a good guy?

after this

'When the right plays the card they occasionally get it right, like when Jay is just being an anti-American bigot'


I'l never be able to hold my head up in socialist circles again....

I was referring to your earlier unfounded contention that the US controls Israels actions and your unique interpretation of the Constitution. There is influence, but Israel lives in that awful neighborhood not us and would obviously put her needs first. Besides, for the sake of the argument I had to distance myself from your position which from my perspective looks like the mirror of Maggies.

mmmmmmm........ I never meant to say that the US controls Israel per se just that it heavily influences it and could exert realistic pressure to end the current situation. Feel free to quote me back words to the contrary..... after all, they're just words........

There are several outcomes that could "end the current situation". A premature ceasefire isn't one of them...that would in fact pretty much assure that "the current situation" that has persisted since IDF withdrew from Lebanon the last time would continue. They won't tolerate it anymore, nor do I see any reason they should.

Then come up with another idea, maggie. Preferably one that does not involve the deaths of hundreds of Lebanon civillians....

That possibility is vanishingly small as long as Hezbollah thinks it's OK to use those civillians as human shields while bombarding Israel with rockets.

....and presumably you think it's ok to bomb the civilian population 'cos the terrorists are hiding among them? Dd you not read the first post in this thread?

I read it. Your WWII parallel has nothing to do with the current situation. The IDF isn't "randomly punishing civilians". You need to actually read the relevant laws of war...which Hezbollah is violating flagrantly.

There is no question that hezbollah is in breach.........

But the Convention also stipulates that the belligerant's must ensure that they do not target civillians.... this is what the IDF is not only failing to do, but failing to do with the purpose of putting pressure on the local authoritiies to aquiese with their demands...... ie collective punihment.

IDF is not targeting civilians, nor would it be to their advantage to do so. They are doing their best to attack only military targets. Note that the convention states:

Meanwhile Hezbollah rains down rockets quite literally randomly on Israel without the vaguest pretense of attacking anything military thereby. All IDF is doing is trying to stop them, which is their right.

color mine for emphasis
I do acknowlege that the present administration would seem to wrongly conflate personal with national interests, in general if not specific to this. tw has a point about the complexity of this situation. It pushes me further into the camp of those who would pull back from a world which will damn us no matter what we attempt. Nurturing hate world-wide isn't good for our people or our business. Bailing Europe out three times has cost us our soul, now we are becoming what we fought.

I'm sorry, how could I forget y'all live on moral highground.

Meanwhile the IDF is killing Lebanese civillians randomly with a rate of 40:1. Reminds me of Lidice.

This remark shows that either the IDF is making a complete mess of it, or you eat all propaganda the Israeli government is spooning you...

The IDF "precision" bombs a place from where it thinks Katusha rockets has been fired, no matter if and how many civillians are killed. Not only the Arabs but especially Israel has a long list of collateral damage.

A neighborhood in Beruit. Images taken two weeks apart.

Stolen from Washington Post.

Are you claiming that image is representative of the entire city? Or is that the site of a military target cherrypicked from available data?

I note that the surrounding area appears to be untouched.

"...show the level of destruction in this area of Beirut"

Sometimes you have to "fix" the AP caption.

C'mon! That's on the back lot of a hollywood studio, right beside the Tranquilty Base and holocaust sets [/sarcasm]

Source please? Especially for the claim of "randomness". Speaking of eating propaganda.

Of course if there's 80 civilians clustered around every rocket launcher with a crew of two that wouldn't be surprising. The "60 civilians" at Quana turned out to be actually 20 women and children. Curiously enough there were *no* men killed. I'm sure that's the IDF's fault too; they obviously have a weapon that preferentially kills women and children.

Maybe that launcher only needed one terrorist to load it and 20 women and children to shield it.

No, all it takes to control the spin is the power to write the caption.

Well. I linked to the article it came from, but going back to it now, I see the Post has changed it around some, and dropped the description that accompanied the pic. In fact, the pics are gone from the site. I'm glad I stole them.

Anyway, the article said that Israel claims this neighborhood is a Hezbollah stronghold, and has bombed it repeatedly.

I posted the pictures because they add information to the discussion. The one neighborhood in the center has been pretty much flattened, but the surrounding areas are pretty intact (from space anyway.)

Steal the CNN caption too...or there will be one more urban legend in the infowar. The images don't "add information to the discussion" without the explanation as to why that area has been flattened.

I didn't get them from CNN.

The link I provided gave that explanation. It has since been changed. Complain to the Post, not to me.

The image you posted bore a caption: "Two images [times taken] show the level of distruction in Beruit". I'd call that pretty misleading, even if the more complete story was once at the other end of a link. Obviously it's way far from representative, yet standing alone it claims to show THE level of destruction.

Yes, I know, you didn't write that caption either. But you did sever the pic from it's actual context, which should accompany the image. Since the WaPo page has Joined the Choir Invisibule, the CNN caption will do.

The large print giveth, the small print taketh away.

I love it when Mag quotes the Bible.*


*Bible according to the Magster.

http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages...HIC/index.html

NYT does so much a better job here, it's just plain not funny!

Be sure to hit the LABELS button and see exactly what was hit.

Notice the PRECISION with which the IDF DIDN'T destroy churches, schools, and municipal buildings.