Israel/Lebanon Conflict (Split from 'Cyprus, Refugees...'

[lemec]

Hello,

I see there are alot of stranded tourists.


Does anyone here, have friends or relatives in the areas where the fighting is taking place?


What do you think of what is going on in the Middle East?

[Morgan Kane]

OK, i try :

No, I have no friend or relative in the zone war... Happily, I add.

On the conflict:

Conditions for peace are:

- A mutual recognizing. It is useless to try to impose the Palestinians to recognize Israel if Israel does not recognize the right of the Palestinians to a state.

- The acceptation by Israel of the frontiers of 1967, with some adjustments similar to those negotiated in the informal talks of Geneva.

- That the Israelis and Palestinians give up the laws and declarations about the right to return with a financial compensation for Palestinians.

And to sop the discussion about mutual wrongs and killings ……

I don’t want to speak about international law and history at this time.

One of the problem is that we have two fanatisms opposing each other.

[Doc]

I have a friend whose family lives right by the Beruit airport. She says everything is fine, but she is worried continually. I have several friends in other war zones, too.

With respect to Israel, I'm a bit torn on recent events. Given the Bush doctrine of international military action, it is nearly impossible to say that Israel is out of bounds. At least this action isn't entirely pre-emptive. A group actually did act against them, in what could be constued as an act of war. I also think that they see it as a good justification for doing what they have wanted to do for some time.

While I am horrified, and see possibilities for the worst to happen , part of me thinks that this is just business as usual in that part of the country. Over the last five years, many of us have been led to believe that the line between terrorism and warfare is clear-cut, and the differences between terrorists and everyone else was even clearer. Anyone who has lived in that region would laugh at such over-simplifications. 9/11 only changed perceptions for the US.

What bothers me most is that the US has no credibility in the region to do anything about all of this. So much for stabilizing that region.

[voilodian ghagnasdiak]

Lemec Wrote

What do you think of what is going on in the Middle East?

I think that the financial support being supplied to Hezbollah and Hamas by Syria and Iran is a sign of escalation, and very ominous.They start out throwing rocks, which builds up to bullets, next bombs, then conventional missiles.How long before one side or the other uses nuclear weapons?Its a known fact that Israel has nukes.An Iranian supported Palestine would most likely have access to the same.Partially enriched uranium can still create a warhead with force equivalent to the bomb used on Nagasaki.If such weapons do go into effect what will the global reaction be?How much military support will be provided by outsiders including the US? North Korea is just itching for a chance to provoke the US,why give it to them?It would be a shame to see a thirld world war started, especially over the Gaza Strip.Take all the Hatemongers from both sides to a deserted island with a 2 month supply of food/water and wooden crates full of swords.In this manner they can sort out their differences like brave men, not cowards killing civilians, children, women and the elderly.Oh, and dont forget the shovels to bury the dead.

[Morgan Kane]

One of the problem is that from the begining one of the aim of Israel was the annexion of all Palestine.

The implantation of colonies in Palestinian territories after the 1967 war, decided by Golda Meir had the objective of creating a no return situation. It was condemned by international instituions not to avail.

Colons in palestininan territories are not innocent civilians but colons with all that means.

Reasonnable israelians agrre that peace is not possible if there is not a return of colonies blocks to Palestine.

I don't excuse terrorism but palestinians are treated as animals in a a too little cage.

The creation of Israel has been a great injustice to palestinian people.


And last point : Israeli attacks innocent civilians and libanese infrastructures in repraisal to attacks by Hamas and that is a war crime by international law.
The U.S. governement is the only entity that can have an influence on belligerents. If he quits his unilateral way of acting.

For other details on my opinion, you can refer to may preceding post.

[Oren]

Morgan Kane wrote:

And last point : Israeli attacks innocent civilians and libanese infrastructures in repraisal to attacks by Hamas and that is a war crime by international law.

MK, firstly get your facts right. The Israeli attacks in Lebanon are a reprisal to attacks by Hezbollah, and not by Hamas. Secondly, who is the one targeting innocents: Hezbollah which fires rockets all over northern Israel, specifically aiming at masses of population (e.g. Haifa today with a population of over 250,000), or Israel which targets the Hezbollah headquarters, the infrastructure used by them to smuggle weapons and their arsenal depots, while spreading leaflets from the air warning innocent civilizans to stay out of soon-to-be-bombed areas?

As a Lebanese politician said a few days ago: Syria gives the orders, Iran supplies the weapons, Hezbollah executes, Israel retaliates and Lebanon pays the price.

Morgan Kane wrote:

Conditions for peace are:
- A mutual recognizing. It is useless to try to impose the Palestinians to recognize Israel if Israel does not recognize the right of the Palestinians to a state.

The last few Israeli government all recognized the right of Palestinians for an independent state. Does the Hamas-ruled Palestinian Authority recognizes the Israeli state? No, on the contrary: the Hamas charter calls for the complete eradication of Israel!

Morgan Kane wrote:

The creation of Israel has been a great injustice to palestinian people.

If anything, it was a great justice for the Jewish people. Most countries, including France, also thought so, voting in 1947 in the United Nations for the partition of the area into Jewish and Arab states. The Jewish one, Israel, and the Arab one Jordan. Injustice? I hardly think so.

[Morgan Kane]

1 ) Exact, i confused Hamas and Hezbollah. And killings civilians is reprehensible for everybody.

2 ) When Israel sends bombs on Beyrouth and kills civilian Linanon pays the price : true ! We agree.

3 ) To recognize the right for an independant state is one thing, but to veto when the palestinian authority wants to act is another thing and a state needs a coherent territory.

Hamas, even for propaganda reasons has made ouvertures...... under condition of the respect of the frontiers of 1967.

4 ) An act of justice for Jewish people can be an act of injustice for others ......

5 ) You don' t deny my other points.....

[David Mosley]

What you have to understand, MK, is that whatever happens in the Gaza Strip or Southern Lebanon none of it is the fault - or responsibility - of Israel. Of course, civilian Lebanese men, women and children will be killed by Israeli bombing of civilian population centers but it's inappropriate to blame the Israeli army (or IDF) for any of that. You see, only Israel understands where the real blame for everything lies. Hezbollah guerillas may have captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid but Israel don't specifically hold Hezbollah responsible for that action, instead they hold the Lebanese government responsible. That's why they're justified in targeting civilian areas, roads, and power installations - even the International airport. They believe by bombing the hell out of Southern Lebanon they can force the Lebanese government to deal with the problem of their hostages. Assuming that they're even alive that is.

Now, the cynical might argue that such a stance means that Israel isn't actually interested in achiving a solution - peaceful or otherwise - to the current crisis. They might argue that it's like someone burgles your home and your response being to hold, say, the police responsible for the theft. After all, it's clearly their fault that there are criminals at large in their town. If the police did their job properly then you wouldn't have to organise a protest outside the police station calling on your property to be returned. Others might remark that you're only going to get your property back from the person who actually stole it, but of course, you don't know where they live, so you can't actually deal with them. You do know where the police are though so isn't it much easier to attack them. Easier perhaps, but probably futile since that's not really going to get your property back any quicker.

Even if you accept that Israel has been provoked into the current crisis - and that raises the whole 'He says, she says' blame game, which goes all the way back to 1948 - and is really a 'chicken and egg' thing - - the ease in which Israel can be provoked is a problem for all of us, since it increases the likelihood that we're all - even countries which aren't normally associated with the Middle-East conflict - going to get sucked into something that's going to violently spiral out of control. One day this sort of thing will happen again and the usual excuses will be made by both sides and Israel will be provoked into attacking one of its neighbours which will then be the excuse necessary for, say, Iran (once its developed weapons-grade nuclear capacity) to fire a nuke at Jerusalem.

Scare-mongering? Perhaps but I can see it happening that's all. Everytime Israel responds in the way it constantly does in these situations they're playing into the hands of people who would like to see them destroyed. Unfortunately, I think there are too many people with vested interests with Israel in encouraging these sort of punative responses that anyone with moderate views on how to deal with the crisis gets shouted down.

Previously the US would have been able to urge restraint on Israel - encourage them to 'turn the other cheek' so to speak - but Bush's 'War on Terror' and his pre-emptive invasion of Iraq (supposedly as a result of 9/11) means that Israel feels confident to engage in similar tactics of its own, because sadly the US has lost any moral high-ground it once maintained.

[Doc]

Previously the US would have been able to urge restraint on Israel - encourage them to 'turn the other cheek' so to speak - but Bush's 'War on Terror' and his pre-emptive invasion of Iraq (supposedly as a result of 9/11) means that Israel feels confident to engage in similar tactics of its own, because sadly the US has lost any moral high-ground it once maintained.

Bingo! Wouldn't Bush seem like a bigger hypocrite than usual if he tried such rhetoric now? People seem to expect the US to get involved, but how can we?

(BTW, I appreciate the irony of Bush going through the UN to deal with this, Iran, and North Korea, after sending John Bolton to the UN to "clean up that irrelevant organization.")

[lemec]

Doc,


I hope your friends and their families will be ok and are safe.


Thanks for all the interesting discussion, everyone.


It is a difficult subject.

[Oren]

5 ) You don' t deny my other points.....

That's right. I believe that the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza were a mistake by Israel, although the historical context that lead to them (e.g. the Six Day War) should be taken into account. It's always easier to look at things in hindsight and categorize them as "wrong". The fact that Israel has recently removed all its settlements from the Gaza Strip means that it is also beginning to understand this historical mistake.

By the way, the current situation is Lebanon is not directly related to the Palestinian problem. While many people tend to think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the heart of all evil in the Middle East, I disagree.

As to Israel's campaign in Lebanon, I see several reasons for it:

1. As David said, to apply pressure on the Lebanese government to exercise its sovereignty in the south of Lebanon, as per UN resolution 1559 (from 2004).

2. To substantially cripple the Hezbollah's ability to harm Israel by destroying the arsenal of weapons it has been accumulating since Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000.

3. To return the 2 captured Israeli soldiers. One of the reasons Israel bombs airports and roads is to prevent Hezbollah from smuggling weapons into the country and smuggling the captured soldiers out of the country.

4. To renew Israel's determent ability that seems to have been damaged in the last few years. In the volatile Middle East determent is of utmost importance.

As Voilodian mentioned, the fact that Syria and Iran are both supplying weapons to the Hezbollah (while usually denying it officially) is ominous. While Israel can deter an enemy country from nuking Tel Aviv (the "Samson Option"), what would happen if the nuclear weapons are used not by a country, but rather by a terror organization like the Hezbollah? Who then will be held responsible? The country from where the nukes were launched (e.g. Lebanon)? The country that supplied the weapons? How would you prove that exactly? Were the weapons supplied by Iran? Pakistan? North Korea? Perhaps they were stolen from the former Soviet Union? Who do you then retaliate against? This can become a very, very tough situation. And it seems that terror-supporting countries understand that, which leads them to using groups like the Hezbollah instead of acting directly.

[Morgan Kane]

1) If i kill somebody, whatever the reasons, i am responsable. Whatever the reasons, Israel is responsable of the death of civilians in Lebanon. Guilt is another thing.

The libanese governement has not the military and political means to disarm hezbolla.

as you say campaign in Liban will not achieve his objectives.

2) As long as Israel occupies palestinian territories, Israel is responsable of the situation. From a israelian point of view, colonisation was not a mistake but a strategy and if Olmert wants to restitue some territories, he wants to keep large pieces.

3) the only solution Israel is interested is in capitulation of palestinian in a system similar to apartheid.......

I know that i may be seem provocative but if it was not teh case, Israel would have made an offer along the lines defined in a preceding post.

The referendum the palestinian president wanted to organize was along these lines. The Hamas governement blocked the referendum because it would have been a success but made an opening along the same lines.

Most of palestinians want peace and dignity.

If Israel made an offer along these lines, Palestinian authority would be oblige to take a clear position. If the offer is refused, things are clear, if it is accepted, te peace processus can go on.

In the present situation Israel has the initiaitve and can use it.

I would remind you that the last important peace processus was stopped by Sharon provocation at Jerusalem and that a new intifadé leading to the present situation was launched.

Last, i am conscient that even if i speak of israelis or palestinians they are not a monolithic block.

But, for me, whatever their wrongs, palestininans are oppressed people.

[Oren]

The libanese governement has not the military and political means to disarm hezbolla.

Yet they agreed without reservation to the UN resolution asking them to do so. If they realized they are not up to the task, they should have asked for international help. There's no excuse for Lebanon not disarming the Hezbollah, which by the way controls 1/6 of the Lebanese parliament, and is responsible for the murders of thousand of people from varying nationalities, including 241 U.S. Marines and 58 French soldiers back in 1983.

3) the only solution Israel is interested is in capitulation of palestinian in a system similar to apartheid.......

Apartheid? In Israel, where Arabs (calling themselves Palestinians) are citizens with full rights leading several parties in the parliament? Nah, try elsewhere.

I would remind you that the last important peace processus was stopped by Sharon provocation at Jerusalem and that a new intifadé leading to the present situation was launched.

As most Israelis see it, the peace process ended months earlier when Arafat spurned Ehud Barak's generous offer at Camp David and Taba.

Last, i am conscient that even if i speak of israelis or palestinians they are not a monolithic block.

It's, of course, always important to understand that, and to be able to see the situation from several viewpoints.

[David Mosley]

I would remind you that the last important peace processus was stopped by Sharon provocation at Jerusalem and that a new intifadé leading to the present situation was launched.

As most Israelis see it, the peace process ended months earlier when Arafat spurned Ehud Barak's generous offer at Camp David and Taba.

Like I say, as far as Israel is concerned it's always the other fella's fault.

[L'Etranger]

I think all parties and especially those behind them (USA, Iran) are lying, persistently, thoroughly and passionately. Otherwise the individual Israeli and Palestinian would wake up and see they are just pawns in the games or profit deals.
I know of so many cases in history and presence where a peaceful co-existence (didn't say "easy") was and is possible, but that doesn't make certain thugs rich.