My View of War on Terror--Please Pick This Apart

[Cary]

The threat from terrorists is real and we need to deal with that threat. Unfortunately certain individuals, including the current administration, have used and abused this fact. This abuse includes the removal from power of Saddam Hussein and the occupation of Iraq. Certain individuals took the extreme position that we should engage in this war because Saddam is a bad, dangerous man and we should assert ourselves as a super-hegemon to keep him and anyone like him in line. Another influential component of this is the military industrial complex which just happens to make tons of money off of perpetual, low grade warfare. And, of course, the energy industry had a financial, conflict of interest stake here as well.

The abuses are unfortunate because there truly is a terrorist threat and we do need to deal with that threat. The Israelis understand this far more acutely since they are far more exposed to this threat and have had to deal with it and live with it as part of their daily existence. It is clear that Hezbollah, a definite part of the terrorist threat, has acquired sophisticated weaponry including RPG-7 shape charges that can punch through armor or concrete walls, even more advanced RBG-7VR that can punch through thicker armor and thicker concrete, perhaps RPG-29 with even greater capabilities, anti-tank guided missiles ranging from the Sager to more state of the art laser guided, can't miss, missiles like the Kornet, shape-charged IED's, and shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles like Stingers and the Russian SA-7s.

We have all heard of the upgrades from Qassams and Katyushas rockets. Moreover Hezbollah's prior strategies were effective enough to cause Israeli troops to hunker down, less effectively, in Lebanon and eventually the IEDs, that are now even more effective, caused the Israelis to leave. The powers that are arming Hezbollah are thus motivated to arm other organizations and to have these other organizations cause similar or even greater trouble in the future.

In short the threat from terrorists is real, and growing.

The magnitude of the blunder that was the invasion of Iraq cannot be understated. The lies and distortions used to sell that invasion alienated a huge percentage of the population whose support for effective strategies to combat terrorism and diminished the administration's credibility both domestically and abroad. The incompetence in planning and implementing the occupation of Iraq, along with the criminal behavior of this administration, further diminished the administration's credibility. I would guess that I am fairly representative of the population as a whole in that I have no confidence this administration.

On the other hand, I firmly believe that Israel is currently fighting serious components of the real enemy in its battles with Hezbollah and Hamas. I deplore the civilian casualties but it is clear that the Israelis have made efforts to minimize civilian casualities whilst Hezbollah and Hamas feel that they have every right and duty to inflict as many casualties, civilian and non-civilian, as possible.

Hezbollah is in fact firmly intertwined with civilians, which is part and parcel of their strategy. Hezbollah and Hamas are not interested in any peaceful coexistence with Israel. They are interested in destroying the State of Israel.

It seems that the line is drawn here. An Israeli failure and a Hezbollah success will embolden terrorist movements. An Israeli success and a demonstrable Hezbollah failure would demoralize terrorists and hopefully encourage them to soften their extreme position. Left unchecked, matters will only get worse.

My greatest regret here is the damage caused by the Bush administration, which has made this threat worse in every conceivable way.

[bryant69]

1. Enjoy your flames

But I will point out that there is little evidence that Israel is really seeking to minimize civilian casualties. They say they are doing that, but I don't know that they actually are.

Of course the flip side to that is that every rocket Hezbollah fires is intended to kill Israeli civilians.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Cary]

9. Toward what end should I get flames? I don't claim special insight.

But your reply is not a flame and I appreciate your thoughts.

My understanding is that there is a lot of evidence that Israel is seeking to minimize civilian casualties. The ratio of refugees to casualties is perhaps the greatest evidence in and of itself.

You can't expect to go to war and not have civilian casualties and Hezbollah does have to take responsibility for its strategy of interweaving itself into the civilian population. How do you get around that?

[Phx_Dem]

2. Agree 100%

nice post, KnR.

[imouttahere]

3. Where's the evidence that a Hezbollah failure....

will demoralize terrorists? We're always hearing, after big raids and campaigns in Iraq (like Fallujah) that the insurgents are in "their last throes." And what about the Taliban. Oh, I beg to differ. If you have nothing, you have nothing to lose.

[Cary]

10. They don't have nothing.

Israel withdrew from Lebanon. What did Israel get for that?

[imouttahere]

70. Huh????

[Spazito]

4. Very few countries have deemed Hezbollah a terrorist organization

They are the US, Israel, Canada, UK (although as pointed out below, only the military arm of Hezbollah is listed in the UK.

"The United States, the United Kingdom and Israel, are among the very few countries that have designated Hizbollah as a terrorist organization (and even the UK has limited its designation to Hizbollah's military wing or “External Security Organization, ” Unlike, Hamas, which was added to the EU's list of designated terrorist organizations in September 2003, there are no special EU restrictions on Hizbollah's financial or other activities in Europe. So, while the US is striving to clamp down on funding for Hizbollah, such activities are not illegal per se, and can be openly pursued in most European countries."

http://www.law.case.edu/centers/igslp/entry.asp?entry_id=2995

It seems only a SMALL minority of countries agree with your contention that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, the VAST majority of countries believe otherwise.

Given that, your contention about Israel fighting terrorism is only from the perspective of those who believe the SMALL minority of governments' that have deemed them so.

[treestar]

5. I was wondering about that - if Hezbollah can fire weaponry

then are they more an army and less a terrorist organization? Terrorist used to refer to those who take hostages and make demands (911 and the suicide bombings are strange in that no one from the organization seems to make any actual demand) but Hezbollah actually seems to be organized along military lines, so could it be deemed an army rather than terrorists?

It does not make them right or any less evil, etc. but the method does not seem to be terrorism but actual military attack.

[Spazito]

13. It seems the majority of countries see Hezbollah as a resistance

organization, formed to resist the occupation of Lebanon by Israel as opposed to a terrorist group like al Qaeda. As long as Israel holds any Lebanese land, Hezbollah is seen to be resisting that occupation aka the Shebaa farms and now that Israel is back on Lebanese soil with the Litani River, again, the dividing line, I cannot see any countries changing their position from seeing them as a resistance organization to a terrorist organization.

[Cary]

12. I base my contention on the fact that Hezbollah has fired missiles. . .

and crossed illegally into Israel to kidnap Israelis. If Hezbollah was part of the government of Lebanon, then Hezbollah was clearly engaging in an act of war. But since this is extra-governmental action, I can see it as nothing less than terrorist.

Talk to the average Israeli and ask them whether they think they're being terrorized. That's the real measure.

[Spazito]

14. You may base your contention on what you will, my point was

that your take that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization is held only by a VERY FEW countries. As long as Israel holds the Shebaa farms, Israel has NOT left Lebanon and are, indeed, back occupying more Lebanese land.

The average Israeli may see them as terrorists but others do not, the majority around the world do not.

[Cary]

18. If the sovereign nation of Lebanon has a grievance, then that . . .

grievance should be aired by the sovereign nation of Lebanon in a civil manner. There is plenty of precedent for this.

[alvarezadams]

22. Yet...

... whenever it HAS aired its grievances, it has been completely and utterly ignored.

To add insult to injury, the usual effects of its remonstrations has been a fly-over by Israeli jets.

[Cary]

30. I don't know if any of that is true.

However I'm sure the Israelis are very tough. I'm also sure that a lot goes on behind the scenes and that we never hear about it. I'm less sure, but I suspect, that the relationship between the sovereign government of Lebanon and the sovereign government of Israel would be quite different if Lebanon acted more like Egypt and Jordan.

You know, there is another side I never see adequately addressed. Aside from the notion of sovereign nations there are 1 million Arab-Israeli citizens who live peaceful lives in Israel proper. They didn't have to leave. So how did so many come to be "refugees", and how do you expect there not to be refugees?

How many Israeli citizens are refugees from Arab countries? How well were they treated there? My understanding is: not very. Why so much concern over the plight of "Palestinian" refugees and no mention whatsoever of the Jews who have been in the region forever?

[alvarezadams]

32. Israeli Arabs?

Now THERE'S a happy bunch! I've spoken to quite a few when in Israel... they're "2nd class citizens".

For my POV on the whole affair: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/alvarezadams/16

[Spazito]

26. The same could be said of Israel, yet bombs reign down on

Lebanon.

[Phx_Dem]

29. shebbe farms is Syrian territory....

[Spazito]

85. Actually, the only thing certain is that it DOES NOT belong to

Israel, that is very clear. As to whether it is Syrian land or Lebanese land or where the border between them re Shebaa Farms is contentious and has yet to be settled.

If Israel believes it belongs to Syria then why hasn't Israel returned it to Syria?

[malaise]

63. BIngo

one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

[alvarezadams]

15. Real measure?

Why not ask a Lebanese while you're at it?

Or if you are so inclined, note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Bombing

Or howsa 'bout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_And_Awe ?

States commit far greater terror crimes, often with far weaker justifications.

[Cary]

19. Fine. How do you deal with this?

[laura888]

44. Exactly. Well stated. n/t

[treestar]

23. Your real measure makes every army into terrorists

Just because the label sounds bad doesn't make it helpful to use it. Why not just call Hezbollah "child molesters" then? Or anything else negative you can think of. The Israeli air force are terrorists too, since you can be sure that if you ask the average Lebanese person if they think they are being terrorized, the answer is yes.

[alvarezadams]

27. Army=terrorists?

Not necessarily. If armies do what they are legally constrained to do - actually defend a nation from invasion - the likelihood of terror is minimal.

But then again the rw has reinterpreted international law once again with their "preemptive wars" and a very stretched view of the Caroline Incident...

I wonder if the OPer knows about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon#Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

[Cary]

31. And so is the IRS, by your definition.

You beg the question. A sovereign nation has the right to defend itself. You may think it goes too far in the process, but the sovereign nation still has that right.

A militia, operating extra-governmentally, has what right to invade a sovereign nation?

[alvarezadams]

34. You want rights?

If you want to go down the legal road, self-defense must be proportionate.

As for your militia question - it has no "rights". Yet an insurgency too will act in self-defense.

[alvarezadams]

36. FWIW

We've wandered from the OP thread, which was almost predictable considering the framing.

Isn't it ironic that as we move into details, moral arguments, etc.- the "core problems" are forgotten? Is it any wonder that the intellectually-challenged ideologues on the right get themselves (and the rest of us) into so much trouble?

[Cary]

39. The framing was that it was my opinion; nothing more and nothing less.

I'm not concerned that it would wander. Serious criticism is welcomed.

[alvarezadams]

42. No prob

I just thought it might be a good idea to go back to the OP at some point because the moderators are prone to move threads when they get too "Israel/Palestine".

[Cary]

38. I don't understand this term: "proportionate".

If you go to war, you go to war. It can be no other way. You set your military goals and then you do what you have to do to achieve them. War sucks. What can I say?

I agree with rightists on this too. However you have to strike a balance here and it is in fact desirable to avoid war, if you can. I don't share their passion for war.

[alvarezadams]

43. Ah, the "war's hell" justification.

That's a pretty dangerous slippery slope you're negotiating. It is often used to justify any number of crimes.

[alvarezadams]

6. It seems to me that you're following

the RW's framing of the problem.

I don't mean that as an insult and I certainly am not accusing you of being a rwinger. The problem is that the rw framing machine is all-pervasive and it is difficult to discuss the subject without thinking in terms of "terra".

Terrorism is a TACTIC. It is also a symptom of a disease that neither the US nor Israel care to address. The lack of self-determination and the economic colonialization/distance between the haves and have-nots need to be addressed or terrorism can only get WORSE.


To fight terrorism militarily is, as we have seen, both inefficient and counterproductive - terror should be treated as the crime that it is. By waging "war" against terror groups we are raising them on a pedestal and according them a virtual status of equality. And with every episode of collateral damage, with every extrajudicial murder that we commit we are empowering those bastards.(1)

One of the problems behind the rw's framing of the question is that it follows a disconcerting trait; their world-view is based on wrong-headed ideological interpretation. They see the success of Western democracy, draw an unwaranted conclusion that social and economic ills can and will be cured by its expansion, and have developed this inanity into PNAC. "Imposing democracy" - oxymoron.

What is even worse is to note the cognitive dissonance of these folks - failures are attributed to anything except their own actions and interpretations.

The admin/neocon take on Hezbollah is a case in point. Hezbollah's goals are: "an withdrawal from South Lebanon and the Western Bqa’ Valley, a withdrawal from the Golan, and the return of the Palestinian refugees.” An additional objective is the freeing of prisoners held in Israeli jails, some of whom have been imprisoned for eighteen years" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah)." While it is indeed anti-Zionist and is allied with the Palestinians, its raisson d'etre is centered on Lebanon - and the admin tries to paint the org as being virtually an Al Qaeda.

The b&w view of reality is absurd. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys", there are varying shades of gray. To interpret world politics in such an absolutist light there is only one way to go, the rigid application of international law (which the admin has thrown out the window).

So in a nutshell - we indeed have to deal with the threat. This means, IMHPOV, the application of legal means and diplomacy... while simultaneously addressing the root causes.




1. "According to a poll released by the "Beirut Center for Research and Information" on 26 July during 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, 87 percent of Lebanese support Hezbollah's fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February. More striking, however, is the level of support for Hezbollah's resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hezbollah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis.<135>, while according to another poll, from July 2005, 74 percent of Christian Lebanese viewed Hezbollah as a resistance organization<137>." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah)

[The Stranger]

8. This could be the best post I have read on DU in months.

Thanks.

[Cary]

16. To some extent, yes. I do accept the right wing's framing.

I don't think our interests and Israel's interests are identical. Nor is our exposure identical, which should be obvious.

Hezbollah's goals notwithstanding, what is Israel to do about Hezbollah? How do you handle a power, that is not a sovereign state, waging war against you from across your border?

One thing is clear to me. The threat is growing. Isreal will have to deal with it.

And why does Hezbollah have anything to say, directly, about issues between the sovereign government of Israel and the sovereign government of Lebanon? How can this have any order to it?

[alvarezadams]

20. What to do?

The Lebanese president put it clearly enough: once Israel returns the remaining land under occupation and addresses the prisoner question, Hezbollah will no longer have any reason to exist as an armed force. He made it quite clear that Lebanon, with international aid, would disarm the group (if it doesn't do so unilaterally) once these aims are achieved.

Hezbollah has tremendous support in Lebanon, partly because of its social work (remember "root causes"?) and partly because it stands up to Israel. Once the points of contention disappear, the problem disappears.

What does Hezbollah have to say with regards to "sovereign" governments? There's the crux - Lebanon's government is weak (which was one of Israel's objectives during their previous occupation, btw); how can a government with no power deal with a regional power that regularly invades?

Put this in terms of 1776 if you will. Or in terms of 1944-45 with the Resistance, Vichy and Germany.

[Cary]

24. Then according to you Lebanon itself is waging war against Israel.

Lebanon cannot have it both ways. Weakness is not a legitimate excuse.

The points of contention have existed from day 1, when the Israelis accepted the UN's partition and the Arabs unanimously rejected it and opted for war instead.

[alvarezadams]

28. Can't it?

Obviously the Lebanese electorate supports Hezbollah. That the government realizes that it doesn't have the force to stand up to Israel is a key point.

What does the UN partition have to do with Lebanon?

And your pov regarding Israel is incredibly one-sided, based on a putative "day 1" that in fact started long before... know Balfour?

[Cary]

35. Sure Lebanon can wage war against Israel.

But that's a different equation.

The UN partition pertains to Lebanon because Israel has technically always been at war with every Arab nation other than Egypt and Jordan. If Lebanon does not recognize Israel, then Lebanon is at war with Israel and Lebanon is going to have to live with the consequences of that.

No, Lebanon cannot have it both ways.

[alvarezadams]

41. And Mexico or Venezuela or Cuba or...

...can wage war against the US?

See, it is NOT a different equation. What can be done when there are greivances so strong that people are willing to kill and die for them, and no legal, diplomatic or even classical military approaches have a chance to succeed? Remember our own Revolution.

And I'm not defending Hezbollah. BOTH sides are wrong in this. I just hold Israel to a higher standard.

Why do you see the UN partition as somehow giving legitimacy? You need to go back in time to the 1st Balfour Declaration, "succinctly summarized by Arthur Koestler who wrote that the declaration amounted to "one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration%2C_1917

[Cary]

47. I think "legitimacy" is a poor choice of words.

Recognition is a prerequisite to any civil action. War is the complete breakdown and a direct consequence of refusal to recognize.

Property rights are property rights because everyone recognizes them as such. When others fail to recognize your property rights, you have recourse because our government will enforce your rights. Otherwise you have the Wild West.

The UN partition pertains because there really isn't much of a starting point as long as Lebanon refuses to recognize Israel. It is a given that Hezbollah refuses to recognize Israel. Is it not?

As far as Mexico, Venezuela, or Cuba, if they had the same thing going as Lebanon and Hezbollah, they might very well be invaded. It depends on things like the scale of the threat and those countries' attitudes toward dealing with the problem.

Israel has what? 2% of our population? That is a factor when you consider scale.

[alvarezadams]

52. Rattle that saber

if it makes you happy.

CYA

[imouttahere]

71. Because Hezbollah has numerous seats in the Lebanon govt!...

as does Hamas...

[imouttahere]

73. Phenomenal post!

We need to pass this one around to as many people as possibe!

[ItNerd4life]

82. Nicely said, however this terrorism isn't caused by have's vs. have-nots

it is a religious idealogy that is what is causing it. Arabs (whether they are wealthy or poor) don't want Israel to exist.

However, I agree strongly with your ideas on the definition of terrorism and how to combat it. Nicely said.

[alvarezadams]

88. Religion?

First off, the OP was about terror in general, not Israel in particular.

Second off, religious ideology wouldn't have a leg to stand on if the majority of Muslims had iPods, colour teevees and neat cars. It should be remembered that the West in general and the US in particular fomented Islamic fundamentalism as a counterweight to Socialism, Communism and even... liberal democratic opposition to the repressive regimes that we've propped up for decades.

Lastly, with regards to the fact that most Arabs don't want Israel to exist, two points:

- This is an extreme, radical POV even if it is common. Such POV's naturally arise when frustration reaches critical levels and are often fomented by special interest - just as OUR admin was able to use 9/11 to justify invading Iraq. If a fair solution was found for the Palestinian problem this POV would fade away - just as the support for Bush and his war have faded away.
- The rw has often used the "Arabs don't want Israel to exist" as a missile weapon. They insinuate that the Arabs would perpetrate a 2nd Holocaust when (for the most part) the concept is a POLITICAL one. IOW, the "state" of "Israel" shouldn't exist, not that "Israel should be incinerated". It is tantamount to Bush's "regime change". This misinterpretation was particularly striking when applied to the Iranian president's rhetoric.

Personally I support Israel's right to exist. Not de jure but de facto.

[The Stranger]

7. They are defending their country -- that is not "terrorism" and it

sure isn't a threat to the U.S. (or to the existence of Israel (which is the world's fourth most powerful military and a nuclear power), for that matter.

This is more fear-mongering about the "threat" and "the enemy" and "emboldening the terrorists" and "wanting to do us harm" and "hating us for our freedoms." These are the terms used by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

Nearly everything you posted is based on this. Do we have to waste our time addressing this, or can we better spend our time figuring out how to liberate nations and the world from the war-mongering, fear-mongering, hate-mongering Neoconservatives?

[Cary]

17. What standing does Hezbollah have?

Who gave them authority to wage war against Israel?

[The Stranger]

21. During the 19 years of Israeli occupation of Lebanon?

Who gave them the "authority" then?

[Cary]

37. Israel is a sovereign nation at war with its neighbors.

Do you recognize no distinction? If you don't, then you advocate chaos. Either way the result is what you see. Israel is going to do what Israel thinks it has to do, regardless of the shrieks and howels.

At least that's my opinion.

[The Stranger]

45. Israel has invaded a sovereign nation. Do you at least acknowledge that?

[Cary]

48. Sure. But tell me why it is important to you to get me to "acknowledge"?

[The Stranger]

55. It answers the question you asked in Post No. 17.

And you did that all by yourself.

[Cary]

58. I think not.

Israel is a sovereign nation. It has every right to invade another sovereign nation if that nation is warring against it.

Hezbollah is not a sovereign nation. The individuals have no right to band together and invade another sovereign nation.

This distinction and the ramifications of it ought to be obvious.

[Phx_Dem]

75. Hisbullah attacked a sovereign nation, agreed?

edit sp

[Cary]

78. I thought of asking that too.

But I rejected that question because I don't believe it is relevant.

The question is, what do you when you are being attacked by a non-sovereign militia that exists in a sovereign state?

If you have good, healthy relationships with the sovereign state you work with them to eliminate the problem. If you don't, you have to do something else.

Also you have to defer in large part to the discretion of the sovereign state that has been attacked.

Please note here that Lebanon has stepped up after 4 weeks of being under attack and finally suggested that it might do something about Hezbollah. This is a start, but why did it take an invasion? Why so long after the invasion?

What am I missing?

[The Stranger]

83. You're missing everything.

There is no "right" to invade another's land, whether you are a "sovereign nation" or something else entirely. It is the ancient crime of trespass.

There seems to be some kind of absurd theme that you and PhxDem are now trying out here about "sovereign nations" being able to invade other countries.

Where did this come from? Didn't I get the memo?

[Cary]

87. History is replete with invasions.

It is a sad commentary on our species, but we have only had a dozen or so years of recorded history without war.

It is the way it is. It is, unfortunately, the way a lot of problems are resolved.

[alvarezadams]

46. I advocate no such thing.

In fact, I reject war. I reject oppression. I reject crime.

Israel can have peace when it wants it. It clearly doesn't - and it is also clear that a section of the Likkud (and worse) want a larger Israel.

Israel, like the US, can and will do what it wants. The US is already waging an illegal war for example. As is Israel right now.

Any number of pretexts are used. But the facts remain:

1. Wars don't solve problems, they make new ones or exacerbate old ones.
2. Undermining international law can only lead to future abuses.
3. "An eye for an eye" makes an awful lot of blind people.

Jingoism, nationalism, the sabre-rattling; age-old tricks by the right to keep people's mind off of meat and potatoes. Goerring knew his stuff:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

[Cary]

51. There are Israelies who want a greater Israel.

They wouldn't have a voice if Israel's enemies employed different tactics.

Surely Arafat knew that he doomed Barak by rejecting Barak's offer. Surely the "Palestinians" knew that they ensured Sharon's election.

Hell, they even converted me. I actually sympathized with the "Palestinians" before that. Now all I really see is that they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

This Israelis are being attacked. Try living there for awhile. I'd bet that would change your perspective a little, too.

[alvarezadams]

I live in Madrid

so don't tell me about terror.

As for Barak's offer, you should take a closer look at the thing. Israel too never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity, albeit with far better PR and spindoctors.

The Lebanese are being attacked. Try living THERE for awhile. Somehow, though, I don't think that your perspective would change.

[Cary]

56. Madrid's a wonderful town.

The terror there, thank God, is nowhere on the same scale as it has been in Israel.

I'm sure my perspective would be different if I were Lebanese. I'm not. I am Jewish though.

I've looked at it, alvarezadams. I don't think you are correct about Israel. They have in fact opted for peace. In fact I don't see how you can credibly argue otherwise.

[alvarezadams]

60. Look at the maps

Madrid's kewl, but I had my windows blown in by an ETA blast in the Plaza de Ramales a few years back. If I'd left for work on time I wouldn't be here - as it was I watched as they took a body off a 1st story terrace.

I've spent considerable time in Israel too. I like it, and if you read the blog entry describing my pov you'll see that I recognize Israel's right to exist.

For true peace one must have FAIR peace. Barak's proposal was the best yet presented, but it was hardly fair - with numerous limitations including basics such as access to water. It also writ off the aspirations of the lion's share of refugees.

As for Israel's sincerity, the entire colonization question kinda makes it clear: highly touted destruction of one colony, the untouted construction of 5 more.

Neither side is right, both are wrong. Israel should be held to higher standards inasmuch as it is a sovereign state, a democracy, etc. It consistently fails in this regard and its failures are, IMO, directly attributable to the rw mindset - so similar to our own GOP/DLC.

[Cary]

61. The "Palestinians" can conquer Israel just by their population alone.

You can't rightfully expect Israel to agree to any solution where that will happen.

The right of return isn't going to happen. Period. It is unacceptable. Too bad.

You don't see any reciprocal rights for the Jewish refugees of Arab states. Israel isn't going to ask for it, either.

This line of reasoning, whether you accept it or not, is objectively reasonable. The "Palestinians" have lost all the wars. I know you don't like that fact of life, but it's true and it's relevant.

The "Palestinians" could have had the U.N. partition in 1948. They opted for war instead. Having lost the wars, they aren't in a position of strength. Hence they just aren't going to get as much as they got then.

What's wrong with the idea of accepting what they get and then working with the Israelis to develop a peaceful relationship of trust and coexistence? The Israelis have in fact done this in the past. They are ultimately very reasonable people. But they are very, very tough when they have to be.

On the other hand the "Palestinian" leadership has advocated terror and has been generally inept and corrupt. Sorry, but this just isn't a formula for any kind of peaceful arrangement.

[alvarezadams]

65. You missed the irony

Considering that at the begining of the last century there were hardly any Jews at all in Palestine...

The Palestinians "could have had the UN Partition"... which means - "look - we're about to steal 55% of your land so you'd better take it or leave it."

You seem to think that might makes right. I'm sincerely sorry you feel that way, it makes you part of the problem and not of the solution.

"On the other hand the "Palestinian" leadership has advocated terror and has been generally inept and corrupt."

Israel itself was founded on terror. Selective memory, strange rationalizations - the hallmark of the right wing in all places and all times.

[alvarezadams]

66. ???

"Fiasco" Author Says Israel Allows Missile Attacks for PR Purposes
Topics: war/peace | propaganda
Source: CNN Reliable Sources, August 6, 2006
On his CNN TV program, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post interviewed Thomas Ricks, the Post's Pentagon reporter and author of the book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq. Ricks told Kurtz, "One of the things that is going on, according to some U.S. military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon." Kurtz responded, "Hold on, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of its fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here?" Ricks replied, "Yes, that's what military analysts have told me." Kurtz remarked "that's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here." Ricks replied "It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well."

http://www.prwatch.org/node/5066

[Cary]

72. I sure did miss the irony, because I don't believe your point is true.

There were always Jews in the region called "Palestine". There were Arabs, too, but mostly there was nothing. Your use of the word "steal" in these circumstances doesn't impress me.

As for "might makes right", you can cry about that one all you want. That will do about as much as my acknowledgment that this is a fact of life, which is absolutely nothing. It just happens to be a fact of life. You can acknowledge it, or not. <another shrug>

I am neither a part of the problem nor of the solution. You are clearly confused, as you about the reality of winning wars. I am a poster on an internet bulletin board. You may be something more than that in terms of having any say in these matters. I am not.

More reality: I'm quite certain, too, that Israel is going to do what it's going to do regardless what I may say.

[alvarezadams]

80. Patent untruths don't do you any favours

"1922 First British census of Palestine shows total population 757,182 (11% Jewish):.
1930 Second British census of Palestine shows total population of 1,035,154 (16.9% Jewish)."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/brits.html


"Your use of the word "steal" in these circumstances doesn't impress me."

Je suis desolee

"As for "might makes right", you can cry about that one all you want. That will do about as much as my acknowledgment that this is a fact of life, which is absolutely nothing. It just happens to be a fact of life. You can acknowledge it, or not"

As I said, you're not a part of the solution.

[alvarezadams]

81. I'm through

We have departed from the OP. The disccussion is no longer about terror of the state or criminal variety. And I will not debate with someone who clearly believes in war.

[High Plains]

67. What with the quotation marks around "Palestinians"?

Are you trying to make some subtle Zionist point?

[alvarezadams]

69. Edit

You wrote: "Are you trying to make some subtle Zionist point?".

It should read: "Are you trying to make some subtle "Zionist" point?"

There's nothing subtle about it. If you ever go to an Israel/Palestine board you'll see the strangest collection of misinterpretations and outright falsehoods from the Israeli rw. It reminds me of Franco's old anti-Jewish/Communist/Freemason drivel.

[Cary]

74. As far as I can tell, "Palestinians" are Arabs.

The nationality is Arab. There is no nationality that is "Palestinian".

The region was named by the Romans. "Palestine" has never been anything more than a region.

I do not believe that calling someone an "Arab" is an insult, any more than I am insulted by being called a "Jew". I am from a region generally known as "Chicago". I do consider myself to be a "Chicagoan", but if I moved to "New York" I would be a "New Yorker".

Whether I would move because of choice, or because I found that most Chicagoans released too much flatulence, I would not go claiming any rights based on any alleged ethnicity.

Moreover the number of "Palestinians" don't add up. Also moreover you clearly have the creation of the "Palestinian" people after the 1967 war, by Nasser and Arafat. What claim did Arafat have to any such ethnicity when he was born in Egypt before 1948?

As long as these things are true I will place quotes around the term "Palestinians".

I also don't appreciate the "Zionist" thing as I have seen this kind of rhetoric from anti-Semites, as in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. You may or may not be an anti-Semite but you are channeling their rhetoric and at least some of their nastiness.

Since you are clearly sensitive, perhaps you can see fit to make an adjustment? Thank you in advance for your kind consideration.

[alvarezadams]

79. Lol! It had to come

"The nationality is Arab. There is no nationality that is "Palestinian"."

Nation: A politically organized body of people under a single government

And now the 2nd typical talkingpoint: "What claim did Arafat have to any such ethnicity when he was born in Egypt before 1948?"

"I also don't appreciate the "Zionist" thing as I have seen this kind of rhetoric from anti-Semites, as in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion"

What on earth are you on about? Zionism is a political philosophy, an ideology. It exists, it can be defined.

And now we get the zinger - the "anti-semite" aspersion.

I'm sorry if I extrapolate from your posts. I am a veteran of open boards and I have seen the stock responses so often that it grates me when I see them. YOU may too be sensitive (although your defense of war belies this) so get off your high horse. The blog I posted shows my pov - and your defense of violence shows yours.

[Cary]

86. Usage has a great deal to do with it.

And the anti-Semitic rhetoric is replete with the same kind of rhetoric you employed.

I did not accuse you of being anti-Semitic. Rather, I accurately pointed out to you the sad history of the rhetoric you employ. I pointed to the word "Zionists" in the context you used that word. I did not suggest that "Zionism" didn't exist or that it couldn't be defined. However, since you bring it up, you and the rhetoric you spew do not completely or accurately represent the concept of "Zionism". And that, sir, is a big part of the problem.

Apparently you are not as sensitive. I do know what I am talking. I have spent wasted more time talking to folks like this than I care to think about: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/

Anti-Semitism exists. Anti-Semitism is virulent, yet you casually dismiss it and accuse me of being on some "high horse".

Yes, this is a diversion. Why don't you dispense with the rhetoric, the dubious generalizations, the righteous indignation, and address the points? The nationality is indeed "Arab". Talking point or not, I question the whole concept of "Palestinian". I question the why and wherefore of who they are and where they came from. I question their legitimacy as a whole and I have an objectively reasonable argument.

Do you have an objectively reasonable argument?

[mmonk]

11. It's simple.

The terrorism issue is cover for a war for empire. That's not to say Americans shouldn't support fighting terrorism. It's that through propaganda, all moves the US will engage in will be labeled fighting terrorism even when it isn't and all foes will be labeled terrorists even if they aren't.

[leesa]

25. You blow people up you make more terrorists...simple as that.

Any war on terrorism is nonsense.

[Phx_Dem]

33. Yeah, if people were robots....

[LSK]

68. do people have families, wives, children, sons, daughters....

[Phx_Dem]

76. Yeah, so what's the point?

OK, I know what your point is, but the causes of terrorism are complex, it's not some simple cause and effect calculus.

[Cary]

77. Very good point.

The causes of terrorism are complex. I doubt that there is a simple solution.

The rightist believe in war, war, and more war. I don't, but I don't think you can dismiss war altogether either.

[Cary]

40. I agree, to an extent.

On the other hand this idea that you can gain an advantage by hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings, or worse, has to be suppressed.

[alvarezadams]

49. What about the idea of

countries holding the threat of war, nuclear bombs, economic destruction, induced coups d'etat, over other countries or peoples?

That's the rub.

People want JUSTICE, they don't get it very often. People sometimes go mad - and elect a moron quasi-falangist for president, support a Hitler, or join cults, or become criminals.

So your solution is - fvck the problem, wage WAR on the bastids. They feel cheated? Wait and see how they feel after we knock his city down on his head. THAT'LL teach him a lesson.

Problem is - wrong lesson.

[Cary]

53. I don't have a "solution".

I don't believe in ideologies. Human existence doesn't reduce itself to any kind of formula. What is required is a great deal of skill and luck.

Our current leaders are so devoid of skill in anything other than getting elected that they don't even put themselves in any position to be lucky.

Say what you want about Clinton and his blow jobs. He is skilled.

[leftofthedial]

50. the threat from "terrorists"

is so much less than the threat from states that wage military war and class war

that it is insignificant.


"Terrorism" is a smoke screen used by totalitarians to hide their real intentions.

[Cary]

54. The problem is that extraordinary weapons are more and more. .

available to ordinary people.

The problem is only going to get worse. I do believe our survival as a species is on the line. Maybe that is only just. I do think our species is pretty damn stupid.

[leftofthedial]

57. bush, likud and other cynical extremists

who seize power and wage war (and destroy the earth through corrupt economic policies)

are far more immediate a threat to the species than all the terrorists who will ever live.

[Cary]

59. Bush is a huge problem. No doubt.

That has nothing to do with the real problem of terrorism.

[leftofthedial]

62. Globally, the real criminal problem of terrorism

is roughly equivalent to the real criminal problems of mugging, or armed robbery or drunk driving. Terrorists kill fewer people, but do it more spectacularly. Terrorism is perceived as a huge threat because totalitarian regimes and their propaganda machines spend huge sums of money marketing terrorism.

It pales to insignificance next to the real problems the world faces: global warming; hunger, poverty and other crimes of the class war; rampant corporatism; wars of economic conquest and control . . .

Those real problems may well kill us all.

[Swamp Rat]

64. "War on Terror" is an abstraction.

[Francine Frensky]

84. It's simple: you don't kill mesquitos with a gun!

Let's say your backyard was suddenly full of mesquitos. This is not only annoying, but can also be deadly (west nile virus). So you need to deal with this serious problem. But here's the republican response: get your shotgun out and start firing in all directions. Sadly, the end result of this show of force will be: damage to your neighbor's property (and your own), and - doh!- you might kill a few innocent people (like your neighbor's kids) while the skeeters fly around freely.

Now here's the logical, democratic response to mesquitos/terrorists: figure out where they are living/breeding, and eliminate their breeding grounds and food (standing water and low brush). And set up some basic protections for yourself while you're at it (like bothering to secure the borders and have stronger local police, etc). So all the rethuglicans like rush limpaw who like to mock dems for trying to UNDERSTAND the terrorists are missing the point big time: the only way to succeed is to ELIMINATE THE ROOT CAUSES OF TERRORISM. Trying to kill every terrorist one by one is not going to work. And for every bullet/bomb that misses and kills an innocent, obviously new terrorists will be formed over night. The republican strategy is a never-ending game of gotcha. The only winner is the guy who makes the bombs.

I'm just saying the same thing you are in a shorter way.