A New Thread fot the Current Israel/Palestine/Lebanon mess

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1021 of them)

I have to say, I tend to be a defender of Al Jazeera (as a sort of mixed blessing but ultimately more good than bad), but their coverage has been hopelessly one-sided. The subtext of almost every article they run seems to be that Israel is a bloodthirsty nation that actually wants to kill as many civilians as it can.

This article speaks of the "chilling" message sent to Palestinians and Lebanese:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=11741

Israelis were already sent that "chilling message" many years ago. Palestinians have long considered Israeli civilians legitimage targets and have openly expressed desires to kill as many as possible, women and children included.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 16 July 2006 18:32 (nineteen years ago)

This article speaks of the "chilling" message sent to Palestinians and Lebanese:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=11741

Israelis were already sent that "chilling message" many years ago. Palestinian militants have long considered Israeli civilians legitimage targets and have openly expressed desires to kill as many as possible, women and children included.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 16 July 2006 18:32 (nineteen years ago)

Sorry for double post - note "Palestinians" in last sentence changed to "Palestinian militants." I didn't mean to suggest that all Palestinians share this view.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 16 July 2006 18:33 (nineteen years ago)

@text:cai intjw 222 jer glbh eur brt URGENT Israel attacks Israeli airport with four missiles
BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) — An Israeli warship blasted the vicinity of Beirut's airport with four missiles Sunday, setting a fuel storage tank ablaze, security officials said.
Sunday's bombardment was the fourth time Israel hit the Rafik Hariri International Airport located on the southern edge of the capital since Wednesday when it began its strikes on Lebanon.

― stet (stet), Sunday, 16 July 2006 18:48 (nineteen years ago)

and yes, that should be "attacks Beirut airport"

― stet (stet), Sunday, 16 July 2006 18:50 (nineteen years ago)

THIS JUST IN: SAME SHIT DIFFERENT DAY

― [URL]Internet casino gambling online[/URL] (eman), Sunday, 16 July 2006 19:03 (nineteen years ago)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060716/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_canadians_killed

What will come of this, if anything?

― starke (starke), Sunday, 16 July 2006 21:13 (nineteen years ago)

i'm so so so angry right now.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 16 July 2006 21:26 (nineteen years ago)

a response to what occurred with the soldiers is understandable but i'm sorry but this response is so far over the top i can't see how anyone can argue in its favor.

― gear (gear), Sunday, 16 July 2006 21:32 (nineteen years ago)

jesus fucking christ.

― gbx (skowly), Sunday, 16 July 2006 21:41 (nineteen years ago)

Meanwhile, Lebanese missiles have reached Afula, which is further South than Haifa.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 16 July 2006 22:13 (nineteen years ago)

Hezbollah is claiming now that it can reach almost anywhere in Israel. Could be a bluff. Hard to say.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 16 July 2006 22:13 (nineteen years ago)

Attacks continue, all over the shop. Tripoli in the north, Gaza city. It smells as if this has been prepared for some time, and they were waiting for a pretext to kick off

― stet (stet), Sunday, 16 July 2006 22:18 (nineteen years ago)

My friend's dad, who is Israeli, is convinced that that's the case (that Israel was just waiting to do this).

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 16 July 2006 22:19 (nineteen years ago)

sure seems like it, huh.

also, does anyone think that the captured soldiers will possibly make it out of this alive? it seems to me that the nature of the response has basically signed their death warrants (ie - why on earth would Hezbollah bother to keep them alive at this point?).

― gbx (skowly), Sunday, 16 July 2006 22:24 (nineteen years ago)

NRO world continues to perversely amuse. Basically they're saying we're finally in the grips of World War IV (III was the Cold War, you see) and wondering why more people aren't up in arms about it all. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing all of them on the front lines about now.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 16 July 2006 22:24 (nineteen years ago)

We aren't up in arms because we're sure that the NRO gang is going to enlist and take care of it for us.

― Hunter (Hunter), Sunday, 16 July 2006 22:28 (nineteen years ago)

Which is, duh, like what Ned just said if I'd just pay attention. Yes, my attention span is THAT SHORT.

― Hunter (Hunter), Sunday, 16 July 2006 22:30 (nineteen years ago)

I expect more people in the general populace aren't up in arms because everyone is sick and fucking tired of all the shit in the Middle East in general.

― ALLAH FROG (Mingus Dew), Sunday, 16 July 2006 22:37 (nineteen years ago)

I'm very shaken. Meanwhile Cliff May. I could almost agree with the first paragraph -- until the yuk-yuks he offers in the last:

More and more, it appears that Israel has determined that its goal is to cripple Hezbollah. If that trick can be managed, it will deliver a blow not only to Hezbollah but also to Syria and Iran and the entire Militant Islamist movement.

It also would produce a huge benefit for the vast majority of Lebanese who do not want their country run by Hezbollah/Syria/Iran and who do know that the Israelis have no wish to remain.

Since disarming Hezbollah is what is called for by the “international community” in UN Security Council Resolution 1559, it is hard to see how even the French could call such an action disproportionate.”

It makes one wonder what the French would regard as a proportionate response. Forming a collaborationist government in Vichy, perhaps?

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Sunday, 16 July 2006 22:56 (nineteen years ago)

yes this is clearly going to be great for lebanon.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 16 July 2006 23:01 (nineteen years ago)

meanwhile, not everybody is upset by the news

with handclaps, even!

― kingfish cyclopean ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Sunday, 16 July 2006 23:51 (nineteen years ago)

holy shit that page gets the award for "most disturbing use of emoticons ever"

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 July 2006 00:06 (nineteen years ago)

It also would produce a huge benefit for the vast majority of Lebanese who do not want their country run by Hezbollah/Syria/Iran and who do know that the Israelis have no wish to remain.

Oh, yes, this logic has proven so true for Afghanistan and Iran!

― pleased to mitya (mitya), Monday, 17 July 2006 00:07 (nineteen years ago)

Ahahah, thanks, Kingfish. That page is fantastic for a laugh.

― ALLAH FROG (Mingus Dew), Monday, 17 July 2006 00:13 (nineteen years ago)

holy shit that page is unbelievable.

omg the lady that's as giddy as a bride waiting for her bride!!! LIKE, ATTACHING THE VEIL AND SHIT.

― gbx (skowly), Monday, 17 July 2006 00:13 (nineteen years ago)

husband, whatever.

― gbx (skowly), Monday, 17 July 2006 00:25 (nineteen years ago)

meanwhile, more people died due to car accidents in the past hour in america than die of terrorist attacks in a single year in israel. why is this war happening again?

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 17 July 2006 00:54 (nineteen years ago)

And more people died of starvation on 9/11 than terrorist attacks. The actual death tolls don't really affect anything...terrorism and Israel's response are both symbolic.

― starke (starke), Monday, 17 July 2006 01:00 (nineteen years ago)

Since disarming Hezbollah is what is called for by the ?ginternational community?h in UN Security Council Resolution 1559, it is hard to see how even the French could call such an action disproportionate.

I don't think anyone disagrees with Israel attacking Hezbollah. The unfavorable response is because of:

1) the destruction of Lebanon's economy (as I noted above, they were enjoying a healthy tourist industry; those days may be over)
2) the large number of civilian casualties, including a number of said tourists
3) crippling non-Hezzbolah Lebanese infrastructure such as airports, highways, ports, bridges, power stations, etc.
4) stranding tens of thousands non-Lebanese without warning in an instant warzone, which has also created the conditions for the possible seizure of Western hostages

LEBANON ?‚ HEZZBOLAH

― Edward III (edward iii), Monday, 17 July 2006 01:17 (nineteen years ago)

...or, Lebanon does not equal Hezzbolah.

― Edward III (edward iii), Monday, 17 July 2006 01:18 (nineteen years ago)

From a friend of mine:

"The 'disproportionate' response is bullshit. It means you think they should just take it. If Canada shot rockets at the Twin Cities every day, how do you think the US should respond? What if they weren't Canadian rockets, so we couldn't blame the whole country, but instead they were "Conservative Party" rockets? What if the "Conservative Party" publicly admitted they want to destroy the twin cities? What does "proportionate" mean?"

― gbx (skowly), Monday, 17 July 2006 02:03 (nineteen years ago)

do you support or decry this analogy? (curious)

― Jimmy Mod: NOIZE BOARD GRIL COMPARISON ANALYST (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Monday, 17 July 2006 02:09 (nineteen years ago)

I am pretty much in the "disproportionate" camp.

― gbx (skowly), Monday, 17 July 2006 02:13 (nineteen years ago)

The 'disproportionate' response is bullshit. It means you think they should just take it.

Uh, no. Why does it have to be black and white? I can support your goal without supporting the means you have choosen to obtain that goal.

If Canada shot rockets at the Twin Cities every day, how do you think the US should respond? What if they weren't Canadian rockets, so we couldn't blame the whole country, but instead they were "Conservative Party" rockets? What if the "Conservative Party" publicly admitted they want to destroy the twin cities? What does "proportionate" mean?

If the missiles were short-range and all originated from Toronto, and we decided to bomb Ottowa and Montreal, causing civilian deaths unrelated to the immediate cessation of the missiles in Toronto and endangering the lives of non-Canadians who were not given the opportunity to flee the country, then yeah, I'd say our response was disproportionate. Then we'd just be throwing our weight around.

― Edward III (edward iii), Monday, 17 July 2006 02:39 (nineteen years ago)

I think this is how Israel basically sees things (I'm probably sort of repeating some of what was in that TNR piece): They've had people attacking them regularly for a long time. Until recently they've been able to keep things at a very unpleasant but manageable stalemate, knowing deep down that they have the military upper hand and could take stronger action if *necessary*. Now suddenly there's the threat of Iran developing a nuclear device and giving it to a terrorist. Iran has more or less openly expressed a desire to destroy Israel. Whether or not Iran would actually act (knowing that the U.S., if there was any evidence that Iran was behind a nuclear terrorism attack) is hard to answer, but it's not a chance Israel wants to take, especially with Iranian-backed groups on its borders. So Israel saw an opportunity to go after those groups, and maybe or maybe not after Syria and Iran as well, and took it under a pretext. It's also still possible that Israel just hopes to send a message to the rest of the Middle East and doesn't actually plan to go further.

I have some sympathy Israel's position, but I still think they're wrong. I still find it hard to believe that Ahmadinejad would actually pass a nuclear device to a terrorist knowing that he'd be the one wiped off the map afterward.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Monday, 17 July 2006 02:47 (nineteen years ago)

i was really unsure as to why israel would react to limited and local rocket attacks so strongly, until i read this: Blame by Some Arab Leaders for Fighters. the title is confusing, so i'll sum up. it's saying that other arab governments, who i assume are shitting bricks, are condemning hezbollah, and that this criticism will eventually be turned against iran. my opinion of the israeli strategists has gone from moronic to competent. it's an, er, interesting strategy, and, in my eyes, the only reasonable explanation for israel's reaction. note that i don't think it will be successful, as i don't think that israel can make a clean enough break from lebanon to avoid getting stuck.

― lf (lfam), Monday, 17 July 2006 02:48 (nineteen years ago)

If Canada shot rockets at the Twin Cities every day

How do I sh...never mind.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 July 2006 02:49 (nineteen years ago)

Not saying I disagree with you! Just thought I'd post from the Other Side. And he and I both agree that Israel is definitely throwing its weight around in order to prove that the new PM is not a softie, and that if anyone else decides to fuck with Israel (Syria, Iran), they can expect a similar response.

xps

also, re Iran's nuclear dreaming: they'll want to stay out of this, if they ever want to get into the nuclear club. And I think they will.

― gbx (skowly), Monday, 17 July 2006 02:50 (nineteen years ago)

One thing I wonder: if Hezbollah really has these longer range, more powerful missiles that it hasn't used yet, does that mean it thinks there still might be a resolution to the situation, or are they just saving them for the right moment?

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Monday, 17 July 2006 02:59 (nineteen years ago)

xpost

Thanks for the link, lf. I think you give the Israelis too much credit if you think swaying other Arab opinion against Hezbollah and Iran was key in Israel's strategy, though. I have to think Arab governments are concerned about their anti-American populations being stirred up by the figting and are concerned about their own positions, being seen as generally too friendly with the US.

― pleased to mitya (mitya), Monday, 17 July 2006 03:02 (nineteen years ago)

BTW, Israel could also be devastating its own tourism economy for a while with this:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738745.html

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Monday, 17 July 2006 03:03 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, I don't know about the "get Arab leaders on our side" strategy and I doubt that played much of a role. Israel already has relations with Jordan and Egypt that are quietly much better than with the rest of the Arab world, and any increased support Israel gains from King Abdullah and Mubarak is probably cancelled out by the rage they're stirring up in the "Arab street."

BTW, it's important to keep in mind that the majority of Lebanon is either Christian or Sunni Muslim, and that Hezbollah is associated with the largely detested Syrian hand of influence, which is why it's not guaranteed that all of Lebanon will rally around Hezbollah, (though that sort of unity is exactly what Ahmadinejad is hoping for)

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Monday, 17 July 2006 03:06 (nineteen years ago)

Meanwhile, we're all kind of distracted from what's going on in Gaza:
http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=74008

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Monday, 17 July 2006 03:11 (nineteen years ago)

Well, isn't that one of the major political problems with Israel's strikes -- given the breadth of the attacks, even if you hate Hezbollah, it will be difficult to not hate Israel more. I mean, do you see blue staters rejoicing if the next terrorist attack is in Texas?

(sorry, a bit over the top)

― pleased to mitya (mitya), Monday, 17 July 2006 03:14 (nineteen years ago)

I don't think it's a parallel situation(although you do occasionally here about some far-right nutsos that rejoiced at the towers going down or at Katrina striking New Orleans). I have heard that many Lebanese Christians in America are even somewhat pro-Israel, because they see themselves as facing the same "enemy" or something. Syrian troops only recently left Lebanon, and many believe Syria was behind the assassination of their prime minister. Hezbollah is a proxy of Syria and Iran. Which is still not to say that I'm 100% convinced that the rest of Lebanon won't turn against Israel after this, but it's hard to say.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Monday, 17 July 2006 03:18 (nineteen years ago)

It's tempting to bring up Iraq too, but the fact is many non-Sunni Iraqis WERE initially sanguine about the fall of Saddam. It was when they saw how badly we were handling the aftermath that opinion really turned against us.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Monday, 17 July 2006 03:20 (nineteen years ago)

Ugh, so much of the Arab and Israeli press, and popular opinion, are always so depressing -- it's always what "they" did to "us," and no reflection on one's own side. Plenty of self-righteous anger, plenty of rationalization that the other side is immoral but ours is not, that our actions are justified but theirs are not, "No no, you have to understand what we're doing in the larger context of what they've been doing." "Yes, in 1967 we did this, but in 1948 they did that." I guess I'm lucky to be in the States where I have some distance and perspective on the whole thing, though for plenty of people that physical distance from the situation does not equal perspective.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Monday, 17 July 2006 04:07 (nineteen years ago)

This article claims that some previously anti-Hezbollah Lebanese people are in fact coming out in support of Hezbollah. It's one of those "I live in Lebanon and this is what my friends say" pieces, so it's valuable and limited at the same time:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/fear_shopping_beirut

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Monday, 17 July 2006 04:57 (nineteen years ago)

Both the Clemons piece and the "get the arabs on our side" idea involve reading way too much into Israel's actions. While the Middle Eastern political situation has a million dimensions to it, Israel's current actions in Lebanon seem relatively straight-forward.

It's amazing that Hezbollah's getting more direct criticism from Arab countries than most of the rest of the world.

― starke (starke), Monday, 17 July 2006 07:11 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 921 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.