galanter wrote:

Gramsci wrote:Ok, time to eat some words.

Israel are being total cocks about this. What they are trying to achieve is necessary but they are totally fucking it up, killing innocent people and stirring up a world of shit for everyone.

What they are doing is wrong and fucking stupid.

This change of heart is the result of a long debate with a friend.

I still think Israel has the right to exist and the right to defend themselves, but what they are doing at the moment is short-termist and fucking evil.

Thanks for your time.

And the process of Hezbollah building up fortifications and 10,000's of rockets over a period of years to do the bidding of Iran and Syria, against the peace treaties? Israel pulls out of Lebanon and this is their reward?

You do understand that it is the intent of Hezbollah to draw fire against Lebanese citizens to create internal support and external sympathy right?
How evil is that?

You're being played my friend.

You're condoning a massacre. Your arguments are akin to Victorian colonialist thought: "We know better. We're killing you and your country for your own good. It's for the best, trust us."

It was an evil lie then, and it is an evil lie now.

sparky wrote:You're condoning a massacre. Your arguments are akin to Victorian colonialist thought: "We know better. We're killing you and your country for your own good. It's for the best, trust us."

It was an evil lie then, and it is an evil lie now.

This knee-jerk colonialist accusation doesn't even make sense in this situation.

Do you condone Hezbollah violating the peace treaty, stocking up 10,000's rockets for their publicly stated policy of wiping out Israel, and acting as an agent for Iran to (1) divert attention from their nuclear weapons program and (2) continue to destabilize the region and make it impossible for a two state solution to ever happen?

galanter wrote:You think it was a cooincidence that this all started on the day of the deadline for Iran to respond to various countries (including European countries who have insisted, for years, that negotiation will work with Iran...and keep failing) regarding their nuclear weapons program?

Interesting. So now you're totally comfortable making assumptions with absolutely no proof of anything to back them up. You're implying that it's not a coincidence. You have no basis to do so, other than your hunch.

Next thing you know, you'll be saying something like "You think it was a cooincidence [sic] that terrorists attacked the Pentagon on Sep 11th, when the construction to reinforce that same section of the Pentagon was to be completed on Sep 12th?"

No you won't. Because your statements here are so very heavily biased.

I'd like it if you would address this point that Cranius made, which you glossed over completely and continued to refer to Hezbollah as a terrorist organization...

Cranius wrote:They are perpetrating 'terror' against Israel, but are only regarded as a terrorist organisation by three countries: The United States, Israel and Canada. The EU does not list hizzbullah as a terrorist organization.

scott wrote:

galanter wrote:You think it was a cooincidence that this all started on the day of the deadline for Iran to respond to various countries (including European countries who have insisted, for years, that negotiation will work with Iran...and keep failing) regarding their nuclear weapons program?

Interesting. So now you're totally comfortable making assumptions with absolutely no proof of anything to back them up. You're implying that it's not a coincidence. You have no basis to do so, other than your hunch.

Next thing you know, you'll be saying something like "You think it was a cooincidence [sic] that terrorists attacked the Pentagon on Sep 11th, when the construction to reinforce that same section of the Pentagon was to be completed on Sep 12th?"

No you won't. Because your statements here are so very heavily biased.

I'd like it if you would address this point that Cranius made, which you glossed over completely and continued to refer to Hezbollah as a terrorist organization...

Cranius wrote:They are perpetrating 'terror' against Israel, but are only regarded as a terrorist organisation by three countries: The United States, Israel and Canada. The EU does not list hizzbullah as a terrorist organization.

Iran funds Hezbollah to the tune of 150 Million per year. The rockets they use are made by Iran and Syria. Many feel the missile used against an Israeli ship required direct operation by Iranian technicians. Most experts, not just those on the right wing, agree that Hezbollah does not make a major move without getting at least a sign-off from Iran. They wouldn't have crossed the border to kill and capture Israeli soldiers without such approval. It happened on the day of the deadline for Iran to respond regarding nuclear weapons.

I can't explain why anyone. let alone the EU, wouldn't consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. They are quite public as to their intentions.

Do you condone their absolute rejection of a 2 state solution, and their vow to destroy Israel by any violent means necessary?

Do you condone the revisionist history Holocaust denial of their Iranian sponsors?

Again, if you care about the Palestinians and the Lebanese the arms that need to be twisted are in Iran and Syria. Hezbollah and Hammas are their puppets, and the Palestinians, Lebanese, and Israelis their victims.

There are a few things that have not been mentioned (every other christing thing has), so I will mention them.

Hezbollah's "rockets" are called "rockets" because they are both too puny and too inaccurate to be called "missiles." Many of them are kitchen-table affairs, while some are actual munitions. I suspect that the Electrical Audio building could sustain direct hits from, oh, 100 of these rockets and still remain structurally sound. One Israeli artillery round has more TNT in it than an entire rank of these rockets. You could disgorge the entire Lebanese arsenal of 10,000 of them on this block of Belmont Avenue and not notice it in Wicker Park. To continue to raise the terrifying spectre of "rocket attacks" is grossly inflating their threat. They are fucking fireworks.

There's a consistent tone to some posts that "what you see happening isn't what's really happening," and it reminds me of several specious arguments I've heard in my life which substitute counter-intuitive, tortuous thinking for otherwise obvious positions.

It's almost as if the right wing wants to convince us that it is capable of convoluted thought, and has therefore thought things through, and is therefore right, however ridiculous its conclusions are:

1): The poor aren't poor because they don't have enough money. They're poor because rich people don't have enough money. The poor depend on the rich to pay them, and if the rich had more money, then they would pay the poor more. We must lower taxes on the rich. This argument arrives at the same solution -- the poor end up with more money -- but insists on the secondary steps that the rich handle it first and then decide to pass some portion of it along to the poor.

2): Marriage will be weakened as an institution if we allow two people of the same sex to be married. Marriage must remain strong as an institution for the benefit of children, therefore we must not allow same-sex marriages. This argument fails to tells us what "weakening" means, or by what mechanism my neighbors' marriage will "weaken" mine, and ignores the children who belong to same-sex couples, who still qualify as children, the focus of such thinking.

3): If we make public schools compete for funding -- punish the poor schools and continue funding the good ones -- then the schools will be forced to improve, and then they will be worth what we spend on them. This argument ignores that schools in poor areas have less funding to start with, and more problematic students, and will therefore be "worse" than schools in rich neighborhoods. The proposed solution to this, give them even less money, seems ridiculous on its face. It also presupposes that schools are run on a profit motive rather than as public institutions like firehouses and police stations, a more apt analogy. We don't cut funding to areas that need better policing, and we don't close firehouses in neighborhoods that burn often.

Which brings us to:

4): People defending their home territory are doing so because they intend to draw fire from an invading army and thereby embarrass the invading army by forcing it to kill civilians. This argument fails to explain how the defending force could defend territory from anywhere else but inside it, or how embarrassing an invading army would be better than killing a lot of its soldiers, the more obvious aim of shooting them.

Oh, I forgot the most ridiculous one:

We shouldn't have a cease-fire because it may not last, and then it will not have accomplished anything.

Jesus fuck, you idiots. If the cease-fire only holds for two days, that will be two days -- two whole days -- without anybody being shot.

If you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. If you continue digging, the hole will undoubtedly get deeper, but if you stop, even for a moment, then it won't ever get quite as deep as it would have otherwise.

However, if you dig a hole to take a shit in, it can't get deep enough.

galanter wrote:Here is the real conspiracy. The Palestinians still don't have their own country because countries like Iran and Syria don't want them to have their own country.

Whenever there is motion towards peace...even unilateral concessions made by Israel like pulling out of Lebanon and Gaza...Iran and Syria act through their agents Hammas and Hezbollah to destabilize any progress through acts of (not so) random violence.

Yes, 'Israel and the US always act in enlightened self-interest, to the benefit of all but extremists and fascists.' It's like Phil's posts are beamed in directly from the American State Department.

History has never been a friend to imperialist apologists. Just ask historian and former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami.

The reality on the ground [circa '48] was that of an Arab community in a state of terror facing a ruthless Israeli army whose path to victory was paved not only by its exploits against the regular Arab armies, but also by the intimidation and at times atrocities and massacres it perpetrated against the civilian Arab community. A panic-stricken Arab community was uprooted under the impact of massacres that would be carved into the Arabs' monument of grief and hatred.

Historians (e.g. Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim) agree that Israel was founded through a process of not just territorial conquest but, crucially, "ethnic cleansing." The Zionists were confronted with the task of carving out a Jewish ethnic state in a place where, in 1906, there were approx. 700 000 Arabs and 50 000 Jews. Like the great American patriots of N. America, racist genocide proved the final solution. Geronimo and Crazy Horse were terrorists.

Now, how has Israel behaved since?

The settlements. These are illegal under international law. There is no dispute over this. "Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it's illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories." The Palestinian leadership, at Camp David and Taba, has been prepared to concede 50% of these. By rights, that is 100% more than they need to.

Settlements not withstanding, the land isn't Israel's to control or occupy, by rights. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war and the World Court upheld this position in 2004. Again, no dispute under law. But again, the Palestinian leadership was willing to make concessions on the borders, accepting much less than is legally owed.

Included in this territory is Jerusalem, which Israel has no legal right to as I understand it. Again, the Palestinian leadership has been prepared to concede roughly half of Jerusalem.

And then there's the right of return. Same deal. No dispute under international law here. And once more, the Palestinian leadership has been prepared to accept massive concessions.

And, following the deliberate bombing of UN observers and Red Cross ambulances, let us not forget that Zionist paramilitaries assassinated the first-ever UN mediator of the dispute, Folke Bernadotte, in 1948. Days later, his proposals for a lasting peace were published and included:

--To grant the Negev desert to the Arab state and the Galilee to the Jewish state
--To internationalize Jerusalem
--To grant control over the Arab sections of Palestine to the Arab states (in effect, Transjordan)
--To ensure that the port in Haifa and the airport in Lydda serve both the Jewish and Arab sections of the country, and the neighboring Arab states
--To return the Arab refugees to their homes
--To establish a Reconciliation Committee as the first step toward achieving a lasting peace in the region.

Historical amnesia has always been the preferred chaser to the racist and genocidal project of nation-building (I should mention, again, that this doesn't mean I support Hezbollah or its tactics. I don't. Nor am I calling for the destruction of Israel, or, Phil, for Stalinism). So let's please be serious.

Phil has said he is a "math and science guy" and a "philosophy guy" and an "art and music" guy. That's right-renaissance of him. Maybe if he became a "history guy" or a "no-CNN-speak guy" I wouldn't see this guy whenever I read one of his posts:

Albiz has written:

It's almost as if the right wing wants to convince us that it is capable of convoluted thought, and has therefore thought things through, and is therefore right, however ridiculous its conclusions are.

Si.

Si, my four thousand year old friend. You have put this well.

Anyway, yes, to Albiz and the others, we can thank the Christians, not the Arabs or anyone else, for giving us the most virulent and sophisticated form of anti-semitism the world has ever seen, with its theories about international Jewish banking conspiracies on top of many others, from Christ-killing to biological warfare (in fact I can't think of an earlier accusation of biological terror attacks than that made by Christians against the Jews during the outbreak of the plague in the fourteenth century -- maybe someone can offer an earlier example). Christianity has had theological problems with Judaism from almost the very beginning -- problems that Islam has never had (until, arguably, very recently, and even then they hardly relate to theology) and problems, in an inverted sort of way, just as perverse as the eschatology that underpins American evangelical political support of Israel.

Maybe we are monsters to each other by nature. Had, say, the Russians been supplying the monks of Tibet with the world's most powerful planes and missiles for the last fifty odd years, I'm sure even these Buddhists, they would have blown the shit out of central China by now -- to, I'm just as sure, mixed reviews by people ten thousand miles from the action and even further from the truth of what's going on.

Is Israel in the midst of a terrorist attack? It depends on how you define terrorism. In the original sense of the word, which first came into use in the French revolution, the answer has to be yes: Israel is using violence to pursue political aims.

Maybe we no longer accept such a broad definition.

If most people nowadays use terrorism in reference to stateless organizations that use violence to achieve political objectives, then the answer is no, on what may be the trivial grounds that Israel is recognized (by all except of course many of the people it attacks) as a legitimate state.

But even if you go with the second definition, which at various times would describe Irish nationalists, English Catholics, and American Patriots (to pick only examples that are close to home), then you would have to recognize that the first generation Israelis are among the most successful terrorists of modern times. Their violent actions against British occupation won them statehood.

The true believers in what the US and Israel are doing in the middle east will not be convinced that reasoning this way matters since they -- both the believers and these countries -- are only concerned about terrorism, in its narrower definition, as it exists at this very moment. So maybe the better question has to do with the long-term consequences of Israel's actions. The US in Iraq has caused, so far, the worst man-made humanitarian disaster in this already miserable century. In much the same spirit of misguidedness, ambition, and a malfunctioning sense of self-preservation, Israel has, in just two weeks:

destroyed Lebanon's infrastructure (in a part of the world where infrastructure is one of the keys to modernization and stability and therefore, so the thinking runs, democracy);

it has killed, on average and by conservative estimates, 45 Lebanese civilians a day for the last two weeks (Galanter, you think the Europeans are naive for taking Iran at face value yet you seem just as willing to believe the view of hardline Israelis that Arabs in the hot zones in and around Israel are soldiers in plain clothes -- this, to me, is as implicitly racist as anything Clocker Bob has said),

and it has nearly destroyed its long-running alliance with the Christian Lebanese while bringing the Shiites and Sunnis closer together.

It strains every cell in even the fantasy-believing part of my brain to imagine a good outcome to what Israel is doing.

The arms that need to be twisted right now, at this moment -- and it only ever seems to be the present moment that war hawks care about -- are in Israel.

Steve,

I'm going to ignore 1-3 as they have nothing to do with me, and I'm going to only mention the remarkable contortions Chomsky-like writers will go through to find moral equivalency where none exists.

On topic, the peace deal was that Lebanon was to have an army and Hezbollah was to disarm. Hezbollah instead bulked up for 6 years as an ally of Iran, in violation of even EU expectations, and dominating the weak democracy of Lebanon.

Hezbollah is not defending Lebanon. They are endangering Lebanon by acting as Iran's agents and are pledged to the destruction of Israel and the undoing of any possible 2 state solution.

Even if you have no sympathy of Israel, the best thing that could happen for Lebanon, not to mention the Palestinians, would be for Hezbollah to be disarmed.

(As for the bit about it being a standard technique for guerilla-terrorist forces to draw fire so as to create civilian casualties and thus come to be seen as protectors rather than instigators...this was old and established doctrine well before Hezbollah. They are just using the same old playbook. Over the weekend I heard a not-conservative writer explain this very thing on not-conservative NPR.))