A sensible ME policy for the US that we should embrace.

[msmcghee]

At this critical time in the Middle East, I believe that when Israel’s security is threatened, the United States must unambiguously stand with our ally to be sure that it is safe and secure. On this principle, Americans are united.

All Americans want the kidnapped soldiers to be returned and this cycle of violence to end, based on the principles of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 of 2004, which calls for Hezbollah militias to be disbanded and disarmed, with the government of Lebanon taking full control of all of its territory. It is not for the United States to dictate to Israel how it defends itself.

[JuniperLea]

1. I don't think America should stand by terrorists

No matter how long they have been our allies. Likewise, I don't think any other nation *cough*Britain*cough* should stand by the US when the US is engaged in terrorist activity.

More talk and NO BOMBS is the only hope.

[dkofos]

2. Or warmongers

[msmcghee]

6. How do you define warmonger? nt

[JuniperLea]

11. Easy one... could have answered myself, but I like providing proof of

logical though processes.


http://www.miriamwebster.com/dictionary/warmonger


Main Entry: war·mon·ger
Pronunciation: 'wor-"m&-g&r, -"mä-
Function: noun
: one who urges or attempts to stir up war

[dkofos]

13. That works

[msmcghee]

15. So you are saying that . .

. . kidnapping a legal patrol not threatening anyone and killing six members of that patrol, then ambushing the platoon sent to rescvue them and kiolling eight more - are not the actions of a warmongering nation.

Yet the original patrol checking its border for infiltrators are actions of a warmongering nation.

Seems a little backwards to me.

[JuniperLea]

16. Again, do NOT put words in my mouth!!!!

THAT was also an act of terrorism.





TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT!!!!

But we all should have learned that as a toddler.

[msmcghee]

17. So it was wrong for Hizbolahh to kidnap and kill.

But it was equally wrong for Israel to use force to try to get them back and prevent Hizbollah from removing them from the area?

[JuniperLea]

27. Name one action Israel took to get them back!

It was horribly wrong for Israel to do all that damage and kill all those people. It is especially wrong for them to do that under the guise of an attempt to get their own people back.

Bogus bullshit. They should be using brains instead of braun. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid... not to mention evil as all hell.

[msmcghee]

3. What is your definition of terrorists? nt

[JuniperLea]

8. I like Miriam's definition

Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion


Israel is trying to coerce via terror.

Bush is trying to coerce via terror.

[msmcghee]

10. So, you think that an Israeli patrol . .

. . driving along its own border and threatening no-one is terror?

[JuniperLea]

12. Don't put words in my mouth

That is a defensive action. Try again.

[scarletwoman]

4. An even more sensible policy: enforce UN Resolution 242. (nt)

[msmcghee]

7. Re: 242 - A matter of interpretation.

Following the June '67, Six-Day War, the situation in the Middle East was discussed by the UN General Assembly, which referred the issue to the Security Council. The key issue was the insistence of the Arab states on a provision for total Israeli withdrawal. After lengthy discussion, the wording "withdrawal from territories conquered.." rather than "withdrawal from the territories conquered" was adopted. Advocates of the Arab cause chose naturally to interpret the two as equivalent. The United States, advocates of this wording, chose to interpret it as allowing for minor border adjustments. The Israeli government interpreted "minor border adjustments’ in a rather liberal way. The Palestine Liberation Organization chose to reject it entirely. The final draft of the Security Council resolution was presented by the British Ambassador, Lord Caradon, on November 22, 1967. It was adopted on the same day.

http://www.mideastweb.org/242.htm

[JuniperLea]

9. Old bones will not help the situation

We need to start with today and move forward if this is ever to be settled.

[Xeric]

5. I'm sorry but

I don't unequivocally stand by an ally when they are committing war crimes by using collective punishment against an entire population any more than I would stand by America's own policy of war crimes in Iraq.
As to UN Security Council Resolutions, there are more than a few concerning Israeli actions that have yet to be fulfilled. That fact should not stand in the way of a cease fire either. The hypocrisy of selectively picking which UN resolutions we should demand to be enforced shows the world that US holds the UN in contempt and uses it only as a political ploy.
And since the US pays for much of Israel's security we have every right to be involved in how it uses that money. The only "dictating" going on seems to go the other way. Isreal makes demands on us all the time.
It's time for a more evenhanded approach. Israel right or wrong doesn't work for me any more than my country right or wrong.

[JuniperLea]

14. Nicely said

Happy to see logic here.

[crispini]

18. Here's some additional food for thought.

Number of Lebanese killed since July 12
300 ....The vast majority of the dead were civilians. More than 1,000 have been injured.

Number of Israelis killed since July 12
15 civilians and around 350 wounded.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." -- Ghandi.

[msmcghee]

19. My OP was bit disingenuous.

Now that you have all managed to give me so many reasons why my OP is wrong and mis-guided - and no-one here has agreed with it. I should tell you that it is actually . .

. . taken directly from Ned Lamont's website - the section on the Mideast Situation. That is Ned Lamont's statement and beliefs.

Here's the link if you want to check it out.

http://nedlamont.com/issues/627/situation-in-the-middle-east

My point is that we at DU need to use some sense on this issue. It will kill us in the end depending on how well the pukes use our own words against us - to show us as being out-of-touch and weak, even permissive, of terrorism.

Please think about this.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. Israel had conducted far more border violations against Lebanon

"Israel responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong

The assault on Lebanon was premeditated - the soldiers' capture simply provided the excuse. It was also unnecessary

George Monbiot
Tuesday August 8, 2006
The Guardian "

link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1839281,00.html

snip:"Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns.

In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation".

On May 26 this year, two officials of Islamic Jihad - Nidal and Mahmoud Majzoub - were killed by a car bomb in the Lebanese city of Sidon. This was widely assumed in Lebanon and Israel to be the work of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. In June, a man named Mahmoud Rafeh confessed to the killings and admitted that he had been working for Mossad since 1994. Militants in southern Lebanon responded, on the day of the bombing, by launching eight rockets into Israel. One soldier was lightly wounded. There was a major bust-up on the border, during which one member of Hizbullah was killed and several wounded, and one Israeli soldier wounded. But while the border region "remained tense and volatile", Unifil says it was "generally quiet" until July 12."

snip:"But there is no serious debate about why the two soldiers were captured: Hizbullah was seeking to exchange them for the 15 prisoners of war taken by the Israelis during the occupation of Lebanon and (in breach of article 118 of the third Geneva convention) never released. It seems clear that if Israel had handed over the prisoners, it would - without the spillage of any more blood - have retrieved its men and reduced the likelihood of further kidnappings. But the Israeli government refused to negotiate. Instead - well, we all know what happened instead. Almost 1,000 Lebanese and 33 Israeli civilians have been killed so far, and a million Lebanese displaced from their homes."

link to full article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1839281,00.html

[msmcghee]

21. Oh, I see it all now.

If at sometime in the past a state did something to you that was bad - at any time in the future you have the right to go into that state and kill some of their people.

You have just cleared away all the fog of gray-area morality from the debate and have justified, in one post, never ending war. Of course, both sides have hundreds of such justifying acts from the past that they can call upon to justify whatever actions they decide are justified. How downright simple it all becomes.

Of course, the primary tenets of the UN declarations of rules of conduct between lawful nations will have to be edited a bit - actually, thrown out. But, it will be great step forward for peace in the world. Any sensible person could see that.

I've always had a warm place in my heart for circular reasoning, especially when it's used to justify murder. :sarcasm:

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. I am NOT justifying the murder of Hezbollah

I am questioning the disproportionate response -- 44% to 50% of American agree -- which has wrecked a whole country, killed hundreds of innocent civilians, destabilized a region and will quite likely sow the seeds of hatred and terrorism for a long time to come.

If Israel and everyone else for that matter started observing their internally recognized borders - well established by international law, affirmed by numerous UN resolutions and world court decisions - it would do a lot to lesson hatred and terrorism.

link:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/235.php?nid=&id=&pnt=235&lb=hmpg1

[msmcghee]

25. Oh, so now we get to judge . .

. . how much defense is moral and how much is immoral.

Let's see when someone crosses your border and kills 12 of your citizens, you only get to kill 12 of theirs? But, what if you lose some in trying to kill their 12? Does that give you some "dead enemy" credits that you can collect right away?

If you wait six months do you lose them - or do you get interest? Like can you then kill 16 or so?

Do you get more credits if the enemy is firing missiles into your cities and killing your citezens while you are just trying to cash in your original 12 kill credits? How many seriously injured on your side equals one kill credit on theirs? How many seriously injured on their side equals one kill credit on yours?

Your clear-headed morality is getting a little confusing. Maybe you could write up some treatise on this that explains just how you will judge the morality and legality of one nation's defense of its borders from deadly attack in terms of the number of enemy kills one gets to exact while remaining within the rules.

:sarcasm:

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. well lets just have everybody move back to their internationally

recognized borders -- That would be a start

If one is going to justify terrror on one side -- it gives license to the other side. Lebanonese and Palestinians - just like Israelis - are human beings too.

[lumpy]

23. The bottom line

Israel has been tramping on Lebanon's land since they supposedly withdrew from Lebanon in 2000.

[scarletwoman]

43. Thank you for posting this! This is one of the best commentaries I've read

The last 2 paras:

Israel's assault, then, was premeditated: it was simply waiting for an appropriate excuse. It was also unnecessary. It is true that Hizbullah had been building up munitions close to the border, as its current rocket attacks show. But so had Israel. Just as Israel could assert that it was seeking to deter incursions by Hizbullah, Hizbullah could claim - also with justification - that it was trying to deter incursions by Israel. The Lebanese army is certainly incapable of doing so. Yes, Hizbullah should have been pulled back from the Israeli border by the Lebanese government and disarmed. Yes, the raid and the rocket attack on July 12 were unjustified, stupid and provocative, like just about everything that has taken place around the border for the past six years. But the suggestion that Hizbullah could launch an invasion of Israel or that it constitutes an existential threat to the state is preposterous. Since the occupation ended, all its acts of war have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive.

So it is not hard to answer the question of what we would have done. First, stop recruiting enemies, by withdrawing from the occupied territories in Palestine and Syria. Second, stop provoking the armed groups in Lebanon with violations of the blue line - in particular the persistent flights across the border. Third, release the prisoners of war who remain unlawfully incarcerated in Israel. Fourth, continue to defend the border, while maintaining the diplomatic pressure on Lebanon to disarm Hizbullah (as anyone can see, this would be much more feasible if the occupations were to end). Here then is my challenge to the supporters of the Israeli government: do you dare to contend that this programme would have caused more death and destruction than the current adventure has done?

(my emphases)

sw

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. What makes Israel "our ally"?

Why are we obliged to stand "unambiguously" behind Israel and "make sure it is safe and secure"?

Are we similarly bound to our other "allies" such as Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Ukraine, El Salvador, Albania and Estonia? (Members of the "Coalition of the willing" of which Israel was not.)

What exactly is our stake in Israel's well being?

Just asking.

[msmcghee]

26. Ask Ned Lamont. See post #19. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. I'm asking you.

Since you posted Lamont's platitudes, I assume you agree with them.

[msmcghee]

31. That will require a longer answer than I have time for now.

I'll meet you in another thread on another day and we can discuss this. It's a good question.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. I'm looking forward to it.

I think it's a question that needs to be asked of all our "alliances".

[JuniperLea]

32. Well done!

Very clever indeed!

Playing Devil's Advocate is a beautiful way of getting a point across. I doubt you could have done this better any other way.


Thanks for this.

[msmcghee]

35. Thanks. You make some good points too. nt

[LiberalEsto]

28. We should also stop subsidizing Israel

with billions of our tax dollars. If what Israel does is its own business and nobody else's, then it can pay its own way.

[msmcghee]

29. Tell it to Ned. nt

[patdem]

36. This post should be locked...it does not follow the new rules:

1. ORIGINAL POSTS MUST BE ABOUT A CURRENT EVENT, AND CONTAIN NON-INFLAMMATORY, SUBSTANTIAL CONTENT
If you wish to start a thread in the General Discussion forum about the Middle East situation involving Lebanon, Israel, and the surrounding countries, it must be based on a current news story. The moderators may lock threads which are started with substance-free posts (for example, nothing but a link), or threads started with posts which contain inflammatory rhetoric.

2. DEBATE THREADS WHICH ARE NOT BASED ON A CURRENT NEWS STORY WILL BE MOVED
If you start a thread in General Discussion which is not based on a current event or news story, it will be moved to the Israel/Palestine forum where the thread will be subject to the special rules of that forum. (Yes, we know the name of the forum isn't entirely appropriate, but that's the least of our concerns at the moment.)

3. KEEP IT CIVIL
If you decide to persist in calling people who are attempting to have a reasonable discussion about these issues anything along the lines of terrorists, Jew-haters, Jew-lovers, neo-cons, Nazis, or any other red-hot rhetoric, then you may face further disciplinary action. There are plenty of other places on the Internet where you can have discussions like that. But not here.

[msmcghee]

37. Yes, but the I/P zone also requires . .

. . a current event reference.

While GD guidelines states the rules will be interpreted loosely re: IP.

But mods, if this is in the wrong zone please move it. And please explain where we can discuss general opinions re: Israel / Palestine / Hizbollah.

[JuniperLea]

39. It's more about Ted Lamont than it is about Israel

I think it should stay.

And I also think we need to do some serious checking into Mr. Lamont! Not that I think Lieberman should remain in office...

[msmcghee]

41. You are right on about the thread.

But, please look at the websites of all major Dems. I think they are all pretty much in line with Ned's.

[patdem]

40. I simply asked if the people who support the Lebanese invasion by

Israel also supported America invading Iran...THAT IS at least as important as this...since the US supporting Israel is a given, and my question was locked immediately.

[JuniperLea]

38. You're wrong

This thread is about Ted Lamont, not Israel. See post #19.

[msmcghee]

42. Thanks for the discussion folks. I have to run.

We're off to catch the big ferry for the big city for a BBQ today at a friend's place. (Seattle)

Just wanted you to know I wasn't bugging out.