Why do people accuse DU of bad mouthing Israel, yet they won't respond

[jsamuel]

to reasonable,logical posts opposing Israel's action. Why are these ignored?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1712265

"Suicide Anti-Terrorism" - States getting involved in invasions and blowing each other up in order to stop terrorism.

By using this policy, countries just end up killing themselves and sparking more terrorism and create more terrorists. Also, they end up killing (however inadvertent - or as Tony Snow puts it, collateral damage) extreme numbers of civilians.

INVADING/BLOWING UP A COUNTRY DOES NOT STOP TERRORISM

While I can understand, on principle that Israel has a right to defend itself, the problem is that their METHODS are WRONG. Let me remind everyone of two little countries... Iraq and Afghanistan.

This false choice of either invading a country or taking the hits from terrorists has to stop in American and world politics. The simple fact is that by invading/blowing up a country, it does not defeat terrorism, instead it only makes it stronger. I think anyone only has to look as far as Iraq and even Afghanistan to see this truth laid bare.

So, by supporting invasions to stop terrorism, we are SUPPORTING TERRORISM by giving it the avenues for growth.

There are many voters known as "domestic Democrats" out there, but it seems to me that many voters are "foreign Republicans". I think we have only ourselves to blame for not proving this point on a national stage. Instead of trying to look strong on national security, lets be strong. No one can agree with you if you never make your argument.

In order to respond to those who say I offer no alternatives, I will suggest the following.

Why couldn't Israel work with their close friend Lebanon in routing out Hezbollah WHILE WORKING WITH Lebanon instead of invading it? Lebanon's army is weak, so that is where Israel could help out supplying support to the Lebanese government/military. Limited of course. They would overwhelm Hezbollah from the inside. The Lebanon government would be boosted with support from Israel and the international community. Lebanon would become more stable.

(I have heard people such as Tim Russert saying that Hezbollah has "significant" control of the Lebanese government. It is quite inaccurate to argue that as they have a total of 2 seats in that government.)

Is it because people here are more concerned with sturing up trouble for DU than for actually trying to discuss or solve the problem?

[MADem]

1. You're not reading all the threads on the subject, obviously. NT

[jsamuel]

2. what do you mean?

[MADem]

4. There are plenty of thread discussing the issue you are concerned with NT

[jsamuel]

5. they seem to break down into name calling

which seems to be what is going on in a lot of those threads

One side call the other side ____ and then the other side calls that side a ____.

[bigtree]

3. I got hit hard several times, regained my footing

and the critics disappeared when we got to the substance of my post. Frustrating.

Most folks here are more than willing to discuss the issues, though.

[QUALD]

6. Because, if we argue with that point of view...

...and with many others here, we'll get thrown off the board. Maybe some can get away with it if they have over a thousand posts--but not most of the rest of us.

[Quantess]

7. LOL!

Welcome to DU. The littlest thing can get your head bitten off when you're a newbie. Good luck.

[tnlefty]

10. Welcome QUALD!

Hang in there! :hi:

[porphyrian]

8. The Arab-Israeli conflict is past rational discourse for many.

Even the post you link to, which you may think is a reasonable, logical post, still takes stabs at those who have sided with Israel for whatever reason. If you want reasonable, logical discourse, you first have to treat both sides with equal respect and fairness. It is apparent that you've already chosen a side, however, so either get a fight or ignored.

[jsamuel]

9. what side have I chosen?

?

The terrorists' side or the Israeli's side?

answer: neither, I have not taken sides

[porphyrian]

11. Well, that's not how it comes across.

I don't give a shit where you stand, I was trying to help answer your question. If you don't like what I have to say, ignore it.

[jsamuel]

13. Sorry if I made you angry.

But if I don't like what you have to say, I respond. I don't think ignoring things is ever a good idea.

Sure I have an opinion, but I just wanted to stress that I did not take sides, rather I criticized the current policy. I think that is an important distinction.

Thank you for trying to answer my question.

[porphyrian]

15. You didn't make me angry. You'd have known it if you had. - n/t

[applegrove]

12. Its really only lately that any DUers are bad-mouthing Israel. Used to

be the odd link to an outside website..that cross a line...but not the DUers themselves.

I wonder why?

[jsamuel]

14. maybe because the strong anti-war sentiment caries over to other wars

[applegrove]

16. Exactly. Why * likes "wars".

[oberliner]

17. response

My response is that your proposal could not have worked because Lebanon had no interest in work with Israel in routing out Hezbollah.

I would agree with General Clark who condems the Bush administration for not attempting to recognize the problems Hezbollah were creating and not working with the Lebanese government to address the issue.

Lebanon certainly would not have welcomed any support for it's government or military from Israel. The international community in general and Bush in particular failed in helping to assist Lebanon after it's so called Cedar Revolution in dealing with the Hezbollah issue.

I agree that we should be focussed on discussing the problem and proposing solutions.

[jsamuel]

19. ok, we agree mostly

It seems you did not address the issue of the failed anti-terrorist policy. However, other than that I can mostly agree. I would like to know what you think about the current anti-terrorist policy.

[oberliner]

20. agree with your thesis, but here's my dilemma

I agree with your statement in bold that invading/blowing up a country does not stop terrorism.

There was terrorism before the invasion, there will be terrorism after, and tragically, as you indicated, probably even more of it.

The whole notion of a "War on Terror" is a ridiculous conceit as you cannot fight a war against a concept.

The important dilemma I see for Israel is the incompatibility of the aims of Hezbollah and their supporters with the existance of the Jewish state.

Statements are routinely made to that effect by Hezbollah leaders that desires for the liberation of Palestine are not confined to the Occupied Territorries but to the whole of Israel.

If Hezbollah's only aim was getting Israel to withdraw from Lebanon why have they not disbanded?

People have decried calling the taking of two soldiers in Israel a "kidnapping" saying rather that they were captured in conflict. But what was the conflict? The occupation of Lebanon had ended. Hezbollah led parades proclaiming this fact and taking the credit for driving Israel out of the country.

So I would return to your main point and ask - would anything end terrorism?

The dilemma for Israel is their perception (which obviously people can agree or disagree with) that no matter what concession is made, it will not be enough.

Maybe it's paranoia. Maybe if Israel removed all settlements and left the West Bank completely there would be peace. But then what about Jerusalem? What about the right of return?

None of is meant as an excuse or justification for what is happening to innocent Lebanese civilians.

It just seems to me that the whole Middle East cannot be finally resolved until either Israel ceases to exist as a country or the people who want Israel to no longer exist as a country no longer feel that way.

I wish I knew of some way for that second option to be achieved.

What's happening now certainly isn't it.

[Rex]

18. Some people love Lebanon, some people love Israel.

They can only see one side of the argument, anything else causes their brains to hurt IMO.