Hezbollah quote

[nicky g]

Following the debate on terrorism vs war etc, I was in a bookshop and noticed a small volume called "Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction" in the Oxford University Press Very Short Introductions series, which are usually pretty good. Here's what the author (Charles Townshend, a British academic) has to say about Hezboolah vs the Israeli army:

Hezbollah "became a signigicant force with the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which has provided its actual, as distinct from rhetorical, targets, and generated its substantial public support. Many of its operations, especially in its early phase - the bombing of the US embassy in Beirut in 1983 and the colossal truck-bombing of the US marine and French forces headquarters that October (killing over 300 troops) - and its later hostage-taking period, may fit the label "terrorist" which is universally applied to the organisation. Even these activites, however, have a recognisably military dimension. Many others have been highly discriminate guerilla attacks on the positions of the Israeli army (IDF) and its ally the South Lebanon army. (And nothing so indiscrminate as the Sabra-Chatila massacres, the IDF's shelling of Beirut, or indeed the US navy's bombardment of September 1983)."

Thought that stood out as an interesting comparison. Fire away.

[MMMMMM]

Maybe Hezbollah does indeed concentrate its attacks largely on militarily significant targets.

Still, it doesn't change my opinion that we should forcibly eliminate any armed organization whose "slogan was, is, and will always be: Death To America!"--quote by Nasrallah,leader of Hezbollah

[Gamblor]

If Hizbullah's attacks were exclusive to armed targets, I would agree with you nicky.

But they're not. They kidnap soldiers, yes. But they also kidnap civilians.

They fire rockets on bases, yes. But they also fire rockets at civilian automobiles.

They shoot at soldiers, yes. But they also shoot at farmers, and truck convoys.

Don't get me wrong. They have whatever right they want to fight if they don't like something. But if you call it war, then the Zahal has the right to fire back. Harder, if necessary.

It is war, Nicky.

[Gamblor]

I suppose I must address the issue of civilian casualties.

The IDF, nor the Israeli government, not even Ariel Sharon have neither declared nor called for the destruction of the Palestinian people. On the other hand...

Israeli civilian casualties are the result of the Palestinian demand for the destruction of the state. Palestinian civilian casualties are the result of the Palestinian demand for the destruction of the state. Just a little more abstractly.

[Chris Alger]

Typical: if their slogan is politically incorrect, we should kill them.

[Chris Alger]

Nor has Hezbollah or Hamas ever called for the destuction of the Jewish people. Their calls for the destruction of the Jewish state are mirror images of Israel's 50-year policy (and your) of refusing to recognize or tolerate the legitimacy of Palestinian nationalism.

[MMMMMM]

Their slogan and actions make it clear that they are oh-so-much-more than merely politically incorrect; they are violently aggressive towards us, and they swear they will always be. Drop Daisy Cutters on their camps. They have attacked us on numerous occasions; why wait around for them to engineer and fulfill a more devastating attack on us? That was the mistake we made with al-Qaeda during the Clinton years.

[Gamblor]

Have you not figured out that Palestinian nationalism and Israeli nationalism are mutually exclusive?

[Chris Alger]

When has Hezbollah been "violently aggressive" towards us, or is this just another version of your theory than acts that we call self-defense by the US or its clients are fairly defined as "agression" when official "enemies" do them?

[MMMMMM]

Well you know of their attacks better than I, Chris: are you claiming that all of Hezbollah's attacks on the U.S. were in "self-defense"?

[Chris Alger]

Hezbollah's claim to "self-defense" is certainly stronger than such claims by Israel in the OT's or the U.S. in Iraq. Formed in 1982, it didn't exist until Israel's repeated incursions into Lebanon and it's history of attacks, mostly against military targets, paint them as retalliatory. Hezbollah is blowback. Israel and the U.S. have no one to blame but themselves.

[MMMMMM]

You skirted the question a bit, I believe.

Hezbollah has indeed attacked non-military targets, according to you. You also seem to consider Hezbollah as "blowback." Well, whatever. Hezbollah has attacked the U.S. repeatedly and vows to do so forever. Partial blowback or not, that is not acceptable, IMO.

[Chris Alger]

About as rational as saying that German and Jewish survival are mutually exclusive. Moreover, it means that everything you've said on this topic is a waste of time. If the two nationalisms are mutually exclusive, then favoring one over the other has to be based on some notion of national superiority, ultimately an arbitrary and unprincipled favoritism. Accordingly, it appears that you favor Israel's aggression against the Palestinians simply because you're Jewish. If you were Palestinian, you'd be just as likely to favor the destruction of Israel. Therefore, the next time you condemn this or that Palestinian atrocity, you should add: "but if I were on the other side, I'd disagree with myself."

[MMMMMM]

With 989 times the land mass of the Israelis and many times the population as well, the Arabs aren't in any danger of destruction. With a worldwide Jewish population of a mere 15 million, a tiny home country, and a history of rampant prejudice and oppression aganst them, the same cannot be said with such confidence regarding the Jews.

If the Arabs, Russians and Europeans had not oppressed the Jews for centuries and longer, Israel would not be necessary. It is the fault of racists and oppressors worldwide throughout history (including Arab oppressors) that makes the haven of Israel necessary. It is a pity for the displaced Palestinians, but most of the originally displaced are no longer living anyway.

The Arab states could easily resettle the others (especially Jordan which is predominantly Palestinian) and I'll bet the USA, Israel and world organizations would gladly contribute plenty of money to do so. The Palestinians could be resettled and given homes and money to start a new life. Think they'd take it? Or do you think they'd prefer to fight on and live in hatred and misery?

[Derringer]

Actually, war should involve the military AND civilians. Nations go to war, not armies. When we start to separate the two, then what we have is a "football approach" to war, where we expect the civilians to watch safely on the sidelines while the the two teams battle it out on the field. This is indeed more perverse than Roman gladiator spectacles. This does not work in the short or long run. In order for war to meet its logical conclusion and objective, which is peace, there must be a complete and unequivocal dominance of one party over the other. Victory by one, defeat of the other. Right now neither side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is willing [Israeli side], nor capable [Palestinian side], of engaging in this type of warfare. Until one side is, there will be no lasting peace.

Hit & run tactics by Hezbollah, or any other "terrorist" entity will not suffice, nor will "measured responses" by Israel or other 1st World powers.

Is this not clear?

Derringer
West Point Class of 1980

[Gamblor]

If the two nationalisms are mutually exclusive, then favoring one over the other has to be based on some notion of national superiority, ultimately an arbitrary and unprincipled favoritism.

You are partially correct. For those who haven't experienced the war first hand, I don't expect much more than being able to form an opinion by reading whatever authors you decide, arbitrarily, conform more to your world view. But for those who know the way the IDF operates, who understands the principles behind every decision every officer in every battalion in every brigade makes, and who understands, having personally interacted with Arabs, both Israeli and otherwise, both anti-Israeli and otherwise, both terrorist and otherwise, choosing a side is easy.

Accordingly, it appears that you favor Israel's aggression against the Palestinians simply because you're Jewish.

I would like you to rephrase that to read "...Israeli's aggression against the Palestinian terrorists simply because..."

That is an oversimplification. It is because my survival as a Jew depends on Israel's victory in this war.

If you were Palestinian, you'd be just as likely to favor the destruction of Israel. Therefore, the next time you condemn this or that Palestinian atrocity, you should add: "but if I were on the other side, I'd disagree with myself."

If I were a Palestinian, I would probably realize that despite all my hardships, my own buddies are making it too hard to for me to live here, and I would either kill them, or find somewhere I'm accepted. Jordan, for example. For Jews, there is quite obviously, no matter what Americans or British or whoever say, there is nowhere they are accepted as equals by everybody. These organizations like Hamas, IJ, AAM, all thrive because people are still willing to join them and still willing to carry out bombings, shootings, stabbings. It is not some group entity, it is individual people joining these organizations for the express purpose of murdering Israelis, and in some cases, Jews.

[MMMMMM]

That is correct. The terrorists need to be thoroughly defeated.

[Gamblor]

THANK YOU.

This is what I've been trying to say, you just articulated it.

I can claim as an Israeli ex-patriate, that Israel has the moral high ground, and anyone else, for whatever reason, can claim the opposite.

But once there is war, there can be no peace. The only way to peace is victory. If you don't believe that, then you have a very messed up view of history. I can't think of a single peace deal in the history of the world that has involved equal happiness on both sides.

The closest, in my opinion, is Israel-Jordan, in which Jordan happily unloaded the Palestinian problem on the Israelis, and Israeli happily ensured at least temporary survival.

[ACPlayer]

If I were a Palestinian, I would probably realize that despite all my hardships, my own buddies are making it too hard to for me to live here, and I would either kill them, or find somewhere I'm accepted. Jordan, for example.

Allow me to rephrase:

If I were a <Israeli>, I would probably realize that despite all my hardships, my own buddies are making it too hard to for me to live here, and I would either kill them, or find somewhere I'm accepted. <Canada>, for example.

[nicky g]

"It is because my survival as a Jew depends on Israel's victory in this war. "

You don't even live there! Most Jews don't live in Israel.

[nicky g]

"I can't think of a single peace deal in the history of the world that has involved equal happiness on both sides."

Right. That's what' known as compromise . There have been plenty of peace deals in history, and ones that have worked. What you mean by "victory" is the expulsion of millions of people from their homes. That's not a necessary outcome to any war.

[nicky g]

M,

you've got to stop looking at this as if it were simply two opposing groups, Israel on the one side and "Arabs" on the other. Palestinians are real people, not just representatives of some "Arab" group. The point isn't that the Arabs can afford to give up a small proportion of all Arab lands - it's that the people who live there are have been made to leave their homes . How can you possibly justify that? Those people have rights as individuals that supercede any notional territorial swap between "Jews" and "Arabs".

[Gamblor]

Name one peace deal in which both sides signed without duress on one part (i.e. under a wave of terrorism), in which both parties today say "I'm happy we signed that deal"

[Gamblor]

You don't even live there! Most Jews don't live in Israel.

Agreed.

That doesn't mean I will never need to go there when the world (once again) goes to hell and they all blame the Jews and the Canadian government suddenly decides that Jews control too much media, money, whatever, and kicks them out.

[Gamblor]

You don't even live there! Most Jews don't live in Israel.

Agreed.

That doesn't mean I will never need to go there when the world (once again) goes to hell and they all blame the Jews and the Canadian government suddenly decides that Jews control too much media, money, whatever, and kicks them out.

How many times has it happened before?

[Gamblor]

<Canada>, for example.

You think I'm accepted in Canada? Temporarily, and grudgingly, at best.

It's 2003, and I've still encountered blatant anti-semitism, in elementary school, no less, in the last 15 years.

No matter how enlightened everyone thinks they are, they still blame the Jews when things go to hell.

And when the Arab world went to hell, they blamed the Jews.

[nicky g]

I don't care if they're both happy. I'm sure many Israelis would be very unhappy with any solution to the confilict that didn't involve the expulsion of all the Palestinians. That's tough. What matters is acheiving an end to the conflict without seriously infringing on anyone's rights. Neither side (including me) are particularly happy with the Northern Ireland Good Friday Agreement, but things are a hell of a lot better because of it.

[Gamblor]

that the people who live there are have been made to leave their homes .

It's 55 years on. Consider it an easement.

Those people have rights as individuals that supercede any notional territorial swap between "Jews" and "Arabs".

Can those rights not be better accomodated by "Arabs", their own brethren?

Why is it Israel's responsibility to accomodate their own murderers?

[MMMMMM]

As before, most who gave up "their homes" are no longer living.

Anyway, only an IDIOT would prefer to fight an impossible battle and live and die in hatred and misery rather than be resettled comfortably. I'm not saying they're all idiots and I don't think they've truly been offered that choice. But if the opportunity were to present itself, they WOULD be idiots not to take it.

Also it isn't as if they're the only people throughout history who have been displaced. Countless others have made it in foreign lands; why can't they? Also Jordan isn't really 'foreign' to them; Jordan is mostly Palestinian anyway.

Some people choose to get stuck on the right or wrong of a situation rather than moving on with their lives. The Palestinians, if they insist on returning to ALL of Israel, are doing just that. Imagine if every displaced people throughout history refused to give up their claims on what they saw as their land and would be willing to fight to the death over it for centuries to come. Every square inch on the globe would probably be a place of combat, or most of the world's population would be wiped out.

The Palestinians have lost and the only thing that keeps them from utter defeat is the restraining influence of the U.S. on Israel.

Sometimes it's time to move on.

[MMMMMM]

This is because the average louts in the world tend to blame the more successful people when they get frustrated or envious. It's all about protecting the ego and taking the blame off one's self. But only emotionally immature or stupid people fall prey to this kind of thinking. Of course that doesn't stop this kind of thinking from tragically victimizing others, sometimes on a vast scale. Again it all boils down to a lack of rationalism on the part of most humans throughout history. That is why I say we must teach logic in our school systems starting at an early age.

[nicky g]

Ignoring the question of the refugees - you're advocating the deportation of all the Palestinians in so-called "Greater Israel", - ie including thos ein Gaza and the West Bank, are you not? Certainly M has advocated this many times.

[Chris Alger]

This is called the "George F. Will" game: (1) assume that one of the two competing nations has no legitimate national identity; then (2) lump the victim together with some larger group elsewhere, with more land, etc., and argue that (3) the victim group should either move elsewhere, be dominated by the master group, kill themselves, etc.

Make it simpler: despite their presence in Palestine for over 1,0000 years, the Arabs of Palestine have inferior national rights to the land because Jews dominated the land for a long time ending 2,000 years ago. Why should the Palestinians alone be picked to suffer the consequences of Zionism? Must be bad luck. Certainly racism plays no part.

[nicky g]

"Also it isn't as if they're the only people throughout history who have been displaced. Countless others have made it in foreign lands; why can't they?"

Because this is now , when little things like human rights and so on are supposed to be protected, certainly by a supposed "democracy" such as Israel. Countless people have been massacred in the past, maybe the Palestinians should put up with that too.

[MMMMMM]

I'm mostly talking pragmatically here. I think a paid-for resettlement and significant additional money to get well-established in a new locale would be the most practical solution for all parties, and the least bloody.

[MMMMMM]

nicky it has always been "now."

[nicky g]

How is this pragamatic? It would involve the forcible deportation and resettling of millions of people, who would violently resist, and would almost certainly continue to attack Israel from within Jordan or wherever you want to send them, as the first generation of refugees did from Egypt etc. Wouldn't a more pragmatic solution be to end the occupation? How difficult can that possibly be?

[MMMMMM]

Why should they violently resist if they are guaranteed enough money for a house and a bank account to get established in, say, Jordan? That's a hell of a lot better than how and where they are living now. Also most of them wouldn't have anywhere to go in Israel anyway since they never lived there even one day in their lives. If you were living in squalor and someone said to you: here is money for a house, and a bank account to get started, wouldn't you jump on it instead of living in a hell-hole of a refugee camp?

[nicky g]

I can't believe we have to argue over such simple concepts as this. Look: Yes, it has always been "now". But we , the people alive today, have no power over what's happened in the past; those things can't be changed. We can make decisions about now and the future, and the decision you are advocating goes directly against the universally recognised values we have now, even if such things have happened in the past. The fact that they have happened previously does not legitimise them - do you see?

[MMMMMM]

Of course, but it is "now" in the sense that things don't always really change that much. This conflict really appears virtually and truly unsolvable. So a pragmatic solution such as I suggest might work best of all.

[nicky g]

We're arguing about different things here; you're talking about the refugees outside the Occupied Territories, I'm talking about the current inhabitants of the occupied territories. Yes, although in princile what was done to them was wrong (and it would be good if you could admit that) adn they should have the right to return, it's too late and many of the refugees will have to be resettled elsewhere (and many have been), though I see no reason why none should be allowed to return, given that Israel plans on allowing millions of Jews to immigrate. But the logic of Zionism, and what you and Gamblor seem to advocate, although you won't always come out and say it, is that all Palestinians should up and leave to Jordan or wherever, simply because heck, it's only a small part of total Arab lands.

[Gamblor]

50 years later, they are not refugees.

50 years!

They would be a lot better off if they realized Israel is going nowhere.

[nicky g]

Parts of it may seem unsolvable, such as the refugee problem. However, the solution to the main cause of the conflict is that the Israelis do what international law, and straighfoward modern morality, tells them to do and stop annexing and expropriating Palestinain land, stop building settlements, and end the occupation.

[Gamblor]

Must be bad luck. Certainly racism plays no part.

Bad luck in that they decided to steal the land Jews were evicted from, yes.

Racism would imply that Israel could not sign peace with Egypt, or Jordan. Let alone allow Arabs to be Israeli citizens. Let alone allow one to serve as a representative in the Knesset.

[nicky g]

You have the nerve to joke about 50 years when you claim that people have a right to land their coreligionists left 2000 years before?
They are refugees. They should not have been for 50 years, and their host countries bear a lot of responsibilty for that as well as Israel, but the simple fact is that they are, and live as, refugees.

[Gamblor]

Wouldn't a more pragmatic solution be to end the occupation? How difficult can that possibly be?

Ending the occupation = permission to continue attacking Israel.

Only way to deal with terrorists no matter what you call them (freedom fighters, whatever) is to defeat them.

End of story.

[MMMMMM]

Well I do see the need for a small people that has been oppressed throughout history to have a safe haven of their own.

As far as the occupied territories I would say that the same thing would probably be better for all concerned too. Also there is the problem of deep-rooted Palestinian commitment to violencxe to retake all of Israel. Enough of the Palestinian population holds this view and supports terrorism that it is and will be a huge problem. I don't see that allowing this population, INCLUDING all the murderous suicide-bombers and their supporters, to return to Israel proper, is going to do much other than get Israel suicide-bombed 20 times every day or so. The Palestinians chose evil in their response and embrace of terrorism and now a death-cult has taken hold amonst many of them. That means it would be foolhardy for Israel to trust them by allowing them at will into the heart of Israel. There are sti;ll far too many who have not renounced the Hamas Charter, with its religious calls for genocide against the Jews and its religious claim to all of Israel. There are too many fanatical Palestinians so they all must suffer or be displaced because they cannot be trusted and would certainly wreak havoc within Israel. That's what they proudly proclaim they will do anyway and they've clearly demonstrated they mean it. It doesn't matter if even most Palestinians don't feel this way; there are so many that do that the numbers and wreckage would be intolearable. Too bad for a people that embraced the worst forms of resistance and the evils of death-cultism.

[nicky g]

"Bad luck in that they decided to steal the land Jews were evicted from, yes."

Do you seriosuly believe that noone should have lived in Israel after the Jews were forceed out? That some of the most fertile lands of the world could or would have remianed unpopulated, waiting for the descendants and coreligionists, no spread and settled across the world, to come back? Do you seriosuly beleive that constitues "theft"?

"Let alone allow one to serve as a representative in the Knesset. "

One. Despite Arabs constituting a fifth of the population. And they tried to ban him.

[Gamblor]

Israel is allowing Jews in because Israel is a haven for Jews.

There is no other haven for Jews.

If you are not Jewish, you apply for citizenship via other democratic means. Doesn't mean you can't get in.

When this Basic Law was written - the Law of Return - why were none of you shouting from the rooftops?

Cause everyone felt bad about the Holocaust. But everyone forgets 50 years later and they start up with "racism" and crap. Problem is, when Holocaust happens to you, you don't forget, ever. So, you're Jewish, you get in. You're not, you have to apply.

[nicky g]

"Only way to deal with terrorists no matter what you call them (freedom fighters, whatever) is to defeat them."

Why? When have terrorists ever been defeated militarily? WHy should someone with a just cause be denied his rights because someone else plants a bomb in his name? Why can't Israel follow the example of other societies that have ended terrorism by compromising with the communities, who have legitimate rights, that the terrorists come from. What makes Israel so special that it has the right to deport millions of people to end terrorism when noone else does?

I'm going home. You guys are crazy.

[Gamblor]

One. Despite Arabs constituting a fifth of the population. And they tried to ban him.

Every Arab is entitled to the same number of votes as Jews. One.
And he still got in, didn't he? Compare to the number of black politicians in America in the 1920s, if racism is so rampant in Israel. Now imagine one actually getting in, even with 20% of the population. Now imagine him advocating attacks on whites at the front of the bus.
They tried to ban him because he made statements supporting Hamas.

Exactly what I mean by people holding Israel to a higher standard, and nitpicking at Israeli policy, when they probably should focus on Tibet, Chechnya, or [censored] it, how about the US systematic discrimination of Spanish?

When did the Spanish bomb the White House?

[nicky g]

"When this Basic Law was written - the Law of Return - why were none of you shouting from the rooftops?

Cause everyone felt bad about the Holocaust."

Precisely; at least that's one of the reason; the fact that the Zionists were European and longstanding anti-Arab racism had a lot to do with it. Not because such a law was fair or right. Good night.

[Gamblor]

compromising with the communities, who have legitimate rights, that the terrorists come from.

Israel is not fighting those people. Israel is fighting the terrorists.

What makes those rights legitimate? What rights are you referring to?

[Gamblor]

Yes, it has always been "now". But we , the people alive today, have no power over what's happened in the past; those things can't be changed. We can make decisions about now and the future, and the decision you are advocating goes directly against the universally recognised values we have now, even if such things have happened in the past

YES NICKY.

EXACTLY.

That is why Israel does not continue to wallow in self-pity over the Holocaust and instead will not allow itself to be put at risk for a similar catastrophe by allowing 3 million Arabs within its borders, building fences, and building the fastest, strongest man-for-man army in the world.

[Gamblor]

What makes it Arab land any more than it is Israeli land?

Because a Arab says it belongs to him?

It's disputed territory, not occupied territory.

Even the UN recognized that in '67.
There is no reference in any UN resolution at the time to any specific occupied territories. In fact, Israel fulfilled its end of the resolution, if I'm not mistaken, when it returned occupied Sinai to Egypt.

But revisionism has changed that.

[Derringer]

Nicky,

The problem is that THEY care whether or not THEY are "happy". You'll note that my earlier post is not taking sides with either Israel or Palestine, but only conveys the utlimate objective of war, and it's logical conclusion - peace. Most peace "deals", however, do not work, which is why WW1 fed into WW2, and which is why WW2 fed into several other wars: SE Asia, Korea, Cold War, etc.

In those historical cases where peace accords have worked, it has been only been because both sides became depleted as NATIONS. Take a look at the wars resulting in the Peace of Westphalia and the Treaty of Utrecht. Europe had nothing left, it was drained, peace was the only option, and it is a lasting peace that ended religious wars, and set Western Civilization on the road to secularism [it was not the 1st Ammendment of the U.S. Constitution].

And because Islam has had no such treaties in its history, nor secularism, for Westerners to assume that "religion" does not make up a component of their policy towards Westerners is not only arrogance on our part, but also naive of us. We can not expect a non-Western culture to adopt our liberal views simply because these views are logical to us [by "liberal" I do not mean political views, but liberal in the classical sense of the word].

The case of N. Ireland cited earlier, is not a "religious" war. It is a war of colonialism based on the socio-economic wealth of Scottish/English vs. the indigeneous Irish. There is still no "peace" there, war is simmering, and willl continue too, like it did and has in the Balkans.

Regards,