http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5188420.stm

Certainly not this one anyway. This is not a just war.  

How about this one? Worth any civilian deaths to stop?

But that doesn't answer the question. Any war you approve of?

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

"Excuse me but this kind of rationale disturbs me greatly. You just explained away the murder of innocent men, women and children too easily for my palette. I can't swallow the term 'collateral damage' as easily you. So the rockets come from homes so that makes it ok to vapourise everything around them? Susan asked me earlier to try and think more objectively and from my point of view that kind of rationalisation for killing innocents comes close to the bullsh*t rhetoric that bin laden comes off with. I'm sorry. All killing of innocents is wrong, I can't be more objective than that."

so in other words, if Israel is getting shot with missles by a guy sitting on a rooftop of a house with people in it, Israel should just accept it and not fire back because of the risk of casualties? Are you serious? Is that the case with all wars or just this one?

I did not explain away the murder of innocent people - I told you what and how it happens, and then I implied that I blame the person firigin the missles, and not on Israel who is just defending herself. You should be taking up your complaints with the guys sitting on rooftops of homes putting those people in danger and not with Israel. There's a reason for rules of war, and when people start breaking them by surrounding themselves with innocent bystanders, then the problem lies with person surrounding themselves with innocent people who is putting these people's lives at risk. No instead people complain about Israel being too mean. Now, if Israel is specifially targeting innocent people simply to kill, I'd have an issue with that but the fact of the matter, as far as I've seen thus far, that has not happened.

Jordan .

No. My point is that photos of carnage and war's devastation without context is meaningless.

And you didn't answer my question?

Which war did you last approve of?

Any?

Well, it appears that James has left the room for the time being.  I'm not trying to be cantankerous but I just want to establish a point of departure.  WWII is generally an agreed upon "good" war but millions upon millions of innocent people died, some killed, some murdered.  A distinction.  Dead all the same but you cannot reasonably equate all civilian deaths even in that war. 

Por ejemplo, many concentration camp survivors later expressed that they would have wanted the allied troops to bomb the camps even though it would have meant certain death for some of them.  

If your stance is that of a pacifist, one wonders why suddenly with this latest outburst in the Middle East, it is the violence by Israelis that has you outraged?  Couldn't find any other examples in the past few months of immoral killing?  

I'm here to help!  I can give several recent examples going no further back than a week or so when 200 innocents riding the trains into Bombay were blown to smithereens.  No Israelis involved but you know who was.  Usual suspects -- Islamist terrorists.  Pretty sure this group was more concerned about ending the "occupation" of Kashmir more than the Palestinian territories, too.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Sorry I went to the cinema to watch superman.

I'm reluctant to answer your question Susan as I don't think its relevant to the overall discussion. But the last war I supported was the war in Afghanistan. Its a pity the alliance got distracted and didn't properly finish the job.

Jordan- Which middle east crisis are you watching? I'm watching this one:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5179434.stm

 People fleeing from the area are being killed, tourists have been killed. You think all those people are just hanging around bad neighbourhoods?

Aside from ending lives, why do they feel the need to put 'Lebanon's economy back twenty years' by bombing the hell out of its infrastructure?

At the end of the day, this situation is larger than just the current fallout. There is an almighty power stuggle going on for the whole region and there are those on both sides that that stand to benefit. You know who they all are.

James, I can't imagine how your view of what is a "moral war" couldn't be relevant to the discussion. I wanted to make sure you weren't against all war -- any war -- and why the civiiian deaths are different in this one.

Is it specifically the number of civilian casualties -- ie. "disproportiate?"

The fact that any civilians are dead or wounded?

Israelis are responsible?

They shouldn't have bombed the airport, roads and Hezbollah homes and headquarters? 

The fact that BBC has photos?

Here's some info from the war you supported. At first. BTW, that war is still ongoing, so maybe it's wise to hold off on gauging its success. Maybe the objective you have in mind (killing Osama? ending the Taliban control?) will still happen.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

LetsRoque - I'm confused here - who do you see is at fault for the most recent crisis? Israel? Hazbelouah?

ISrael had its soldiers kidnapped by a terrorist group that is being supported by individuals in a number of countries in the region. And to make it worse, this happens right after Israel had pulled out of Gaza and was making huge steps toward trying to create some sort of peace, and then this happens, and we can't be blaming Israel for it, nor should we be admonishing Israel for doing what they have done in self-defense.

So I ask what do you expect them (Israel) to do?

"There is an almighty power stuggle going on for the whole region and there are those on both sides that that stand to benefit"

Precisely. I agree, and that is exactly why I support Israel in what they are doing. If there is going to be a power struggle, then it's Israel I'm hoping will come out on top.

Jordan .

Thick as a brick like I am, I too cannot understand having any other point of view as to which side prevails, Jordan.  But I am always eager to hear a persuasive view.

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Yo, Blair!  Wonderful.  Glad to see that we're having much more complex discussions here on the TPG than Tony and George have...

Items in brackets are The Independent's........

quote - 'I picked up sympathy from the previous sentence about "Many people in the UK sympathize...".  '

Ok, I can see how you may have gotten empathy from that statement, but maybe I should explain my background a little. I live in Northern Ireland which is a part of the UK under british rule, but I would not call myself British if you get me. I watch UK television and I know there are lots of muslims over there, and a recent poll suggested that approximately 10% of british muslims support al-qaeda.

Susan - I knew you were going to do that thats why I was reluctant to get into this. Of course innocent civilians die in any war, just or not. Innocent Israeli's have been murdered too in this current crisis and that is abhorent. The crucial difference is the continued targeting of innocents as well as 'suspected' terrorists by Israel which is a nation-state and has responsibilities under international law. This from a blog by on the Gaza beach massacre for your perusal (I do read sources less sanitised than the BBC)

'Targeted assassination is premeditated slaughter; it has no place in civilized societies. There’s no link between justice and murder; the two are polar opposites. Security concerns should not be allowed to transform the law into a weapon for autocrats.

Never the less, targeted assassination is a central part of Israeli policy in the territories. As a result, incidents like the one on the beach in Gaza occur with increasing frequency. This leads us to question whether or not Israel has a policy of killing civilians. '

The whole article : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13633.htm 

Jordan - Two kidnapped soldiers could end with a firy hell for the rest of us. The blame game, aside from being crude and base it is very dangerous. You really think that without US backing Israel would dare to try recklessly firing rockets at neighbouring nation-states? The US administration has given the green light for this, and as such this crisis has  larger ramifications for the rest of the world. I hope kissing a picture of machiavelli every night brings you comfort and aids a restful sleep because for me, I am fearful of where these chain of events will lead to. This new culture of pre-emptive war and disregard for international law that the bush administration has so disasterously ushered in will not result in peace in the middle east. Only dialogue and engagement with those who have influence in the region will bring that 'elusive peace', not continued bombardment and further alienation of the people who actually live there.

"This new culture of pre-emptive war and disregard for international law that the bush administration has so disasterously ushered in will not result in peace in the middle east. Only dialogue and engagement with those who have influence in the region will bring that 'elusive peace', not continued bombardment and further alienation of the people who actually live there."

First, implying that Bush or Iraq was the stepping stone for this is just illogical considering that these whole thing has been going on since 1947, and well beyond that. You sound like Howard Dean yesterday who said that if Democrats were in office this would not have happened, which is an extremely stupid statement because that would suggest that things were all hunky-dorey in 90s during Clinton, and as we all know it wasn't.

And once again, you make my head spin. You once again "BLAME" Israel for continued bombardment and "further alienation of the people." Oh you may say you were talking about both sides, but I think we both know you were thinking of Israel here. So just as a reminder (to make sure we are both watching the same thing) - both sides are throwing missles at each other. You really think that if Israel just stopped everything would be okay? That's what Israel had basically done the past two years and yet here we are once again. Until these terrorist groups are destroyed there will not and cannot be peace. THAT is the answer to this elusive peace. Not sitting down with nations who use (or can't control) these terrorist groups.

The major diffeence between you and me is that I've come to the belief (for right or wrong) that dialogue and engagement is going to fail until the ME countries deal with their people and put the hammer down on these terrorist groups. These terrorist groups DO NOT want to sit down and have a talk - they still think we are in the Middle Ages and are following a religious book to a degree that is dangerous for Israel and the West.

In this situation, this is NOT about pre-emptive war. ISrael was attacked FIRST by soldiers being kidnapped so you can throw that argument out the window. And because we are dealing with people who don't believe in international law, we've got to handle things very differently than in previous years when couintries paid attention to international law and the lines between who is "bad" and "good" was more clearly defined by military colors nad flags.

I'm sorry, and I know I'm going to get hit upside the head with this, but Europe (and many in N America too) has got to come to a realization that sitting down and talking is NOT the answer to every thing. It's that kind of wait and see attitude that allowed Hitler to get into power and run over countries for domination. The world needs to wake up and realize that we are on the brink of a new world war in which one side is fighting from a religious point of view, which as we all know, makes them extremely dangerous. I've been reading a detailed history book of the US recently, and it's funny to see some of the attitudes of people in the US in the run up to the US Civil War and to the run up to the REvoluionary War because all the signs were there if people had paid attention (and some did), and the lines were being drawn, and there was a certain head in the sand attitude, all of which I am seeing right now with so many people when it comes to where we are in this stage of the world. This world war is very different. It's not necessarily nation vs nation, but nation vs groups of people who have been allowed to have great power and other nations are "secretly" using these groups to do their bidding. Europe knows itself really well, and in Europe, negotiation tables work great. BUT not everyone has the same attitude as the West and Europe. Not everyone thinks sitting at a table is a good thing. And because of this, you can't just say, "we need to have talks" and then believe everything will be okay - not until all parties (ALL PARTIES) come to the table and are willing to stop fighting, but because we are dealing with rogue groups who have strong religious views, negotiation tables be damned! It ain't gonna work until these groups are destroyed.

"Two kidnapped soldiers could end with a firy hell for the rest of us. The blame game, aside from being crude and base it is very dangerous."

Thanks for not answering the question. It is NOT dangerous to answer a question and come to teh realization that one side started this most recent mess while Israel was doing much of what it was being demanded to do by world opinion. Here's my problem with the world opinon right now - they are blaming Israel for something that they did not do, and I'm sickened by it. I am so sick and tired of people admonishing Israel for defending herself against terrorist groups. The US would not sit by and let some group in Canada do this (of course Canada would help us out). NO COUNTRY would do this. We know Russia wouldn't based soley on the type of heavy hand they dealt to some of the break away countries. We know China woudln't. NO COUNTRY WOULD (except for France maybe), and yet here we are, the world demanding ISrael do something that they themselves probably would not do. AT least the US isn't hypocritical in this regard.

"You really think that without US backing Israel would dare to try recklessly firing rockets at neighbouring nation-states? The US administration has given the green light for this, and as such this crisis has larger ramifications for the rest of the world."

Uhm....yeah, I think Israel has enough fire power to handle things themselves. Do you think that if it was not for the US that Israel would even exist today?

"I hope kissing a picture of machiavelli every night brings you comfort and aids a restful sleep because for me, I am fearful of where these chain of events will lead to. "

Not sure how to take that so I won't take it either way. I'm assuming I know but since I've already assumed once in this post, I won't dig my grave deeper by assuming a potential personal attack.

---

At least Israel is nice enough to warn people as to not where to go .  More than you can say about the other side, huh?

Jordan .

I agree completely. But I'd like to see the source of those statistics and the exact question asked. 

Lets Roque, you said: "I watch UK television and I know there are lots of muslims over there"...I'm sorry but that sounds so incredibly lame. Please tell me that statement isn't the basis for your argument about pro-Al-Qaeda support in the UK?

x-ray
if your back's against the wall, turn around and write on it...

Ray, I think he is referring to this poll:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-2254764_1,00.html

Here's some snippets:

"The Populus survey for The Times and ITV News has found that more than one in ten thinks that the men who carried out the London bombings of 7/7 should be regarded as “martyrs”. Sixteen per cent of British Muslims, equivalent to more than 150,000 adults, believe that while the attacks were wrong, the cause was right."

"13% of British Muslims think that the four men who carried out the London Tube and bus bombings of July 7, 2005, should be regarded as “martyrs”

7% agree that suicide attacks on civilians in the UK can be justified in some circumstances, rising to 16 per cent for a military target

16% of British Muslims say that while the attacks may have been wrong, the cause was right

2% would be proud if a family member decided to join al-Qaeda. Sixteen per cent would be “indifferent”"

There's also some positive inforamtion in this poll too. But a little over 10% of British Muslims view the 7/7 bombers as marytrs and the fact that 18% would like or would feel be proud if their family member was Al Qaeda should scare anyone.  

Jordan .

Thanks Jordan, whilst it makes alarming reading for anyone who regards themselves as British - its nice to see some empirical data. I guess the flipside is that 90% of British Muslims did not agree to that question.

Like I said before, I agree with CCC's comment. these people should forfeit their UK citizenship. 

x-ray
if your back's against the wall, turn around and write on it...

Jordan .

Wow, a lot of water under the bridge since I went to bed last night.

The first thing that I will comment on, James, is the sad sad reliance on informationclearinghouse as any kind of a truthful, objective, or rational source. Please, please, please -- more BBC if this is your less "sanitized" source. I know this website well because I've accessed it for lunacy in a project I'm working on -- 9/11 conspiracy theories. This site and others like it are big Israeli haters blaming the Iraq War on Israel and 9/11. If I'm not mistaken they were big on the "5 dancing Israelis" link to proving the Mossad's culpability in 9/11. There are so many loosey goosey connections in their material that I don't know where to start.

But bringing it back to Gaza and the Israelis love of murdering civilians as on the Gaza Beach, this is a perfect example of that website disseminating an already long discredited story as if it were true. The myth of the Gaza beach "massacre" of innocent picnicking civilians will go down in the long collection of what they would term "atrocities committed by Israelis" such as the Jenin "massacre." Only thing is they are not TRUE. I haven't checked but my guess is they probably also use the Mohammed Dura story -- young child killed in crossfire between Israelis and Palestinian gunmen which the Arab (and far leftist sources) claimed was an example of israeli snipers picking off a small child. A full impartial investigation was later done by Atlantic Monthly magazine which proved the child was killed by Palestinian fire.

If you read legitimate news sources and I'd very much include the BBC in there, then go on and cross reference with Al jazeera and the New York Times and the Jerusalem Post -- in other words, a UK-Euro view, a mainstream Arab view, the US newspaper of record and the mainstream Israeli newspaper (hell, throw in Haaretz, if you prefer the Israeli left mainstream paper!) -- at that point you should have enough information to compare and contrast and draw a reasonable conclusion.

All I can say, is it is no wonder you express such negativity about israel if "informationclearinghouse" is a source you consider at all reliable.

It would take a few days, but if we were sitting together in the same (comfie) computer room, I could take you through each and every charge they recklessly (that website is where "reckless" truly applies) hurl and give you the counter-view, the updated most recent opinion and you would be able to discern how much of what they write is pure drivel.

BBC may have a slant that doesn't coincide with mine. They may highlight different aspects than I might and undervalue that which I think of greater import, but they ARE a genuine news source. informationclearinghouse is not.

+++++++++++++

If you think Israel's existence depends on US aid, I'd say you're sadly mistaken. In fact, many US Jews would like to end that financial aid as it is A. not necessary and B. allows for Israel's enemies to constantly harp on the notion of Jews controlling the US. It was initially given to Israel as a result of the Egypt-Israel peace accords. (Didn't I say this before?) Israel, as it often has, gave up disputed land with EGYPT. That was land won in war. That happened to be the only land in Israel that had OIL. The deal made with the US was (and still is) that both ISRAEL and EGYPT would receive a large and EQUAL sum in US aid for their participation in that deal. There are still relations between Israel and Egypt as a result of that accord.

Now, would Israel exist without US aid? Could they fight their many enemies if need be? I've said this before as well, but the proof was in the 1948 pudding. Many of the new Israelis joined with the others whose families had been there since the 19th century -- some whose families had been there forever -- this rag-tag group of non-military men, many of whom had survived the hardship of Nazi camps and abuses, fought FIVE invading Arab countries. They invaded the day Israel was declared a state by the UN. There was NO US AID. There were NO US WEAPONS. They prevailed. It is, in my opinion, folly to imagine Israel would dissolve without the US. BUT, it's also a moot subject as that is not likely to happen any time soon. Support of Israel in more ways than financial aid is one thing that nearly all Democrats and Republicans are in agreement with. May it stay that way forever.

Personally, I would think it might serve Europe well to consider leaning more toward Israel in these battles.

Nuff said for the moment. I want to go back and reread all that was written since yesterday.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Since you may not be looking for the full truthful story of the Gaza Beach "massacre" and who was responsible and why the Palestinians rushed to remove all shrapnel from the scene and would not allow any one to photograph the beach nor examine the bodies forensically, which they may have desired had it been clear the Israelis were at fault, here's a counter view which you may add to the mix.

You may dismiss the source since it's Israeli. But what i would suggest is that when Israel DOES kill civilians accidentally, they freely admit it, express their regrets and always strive to avoid such casualties. When any IDF member has been deemed reckless or worse, they are put through the judicial process. Had that been the case with the Gaza Beach incident, I've no doubt they would have admitted it.

One (such as one who writes for informationclearinghouse) would have to ask why a country that is so often reviled in the Euro/UK press, would find picking off civilians on a Palestinian beach would be in their best interest either militarily or public relations wise. It's truly nuts. How does that serve Israel???

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I'd imagine most of Europe does. 

x-ray
if your back's against the wall, turn around and write on it...

Okay guys, I just finished listening to George Friedman of Stratfor (and The Book I recommended way back when) and here are some of his thoughts and predictions that I quickly took notes on:

Israel's goal has been more about KNOCKING OUT THE HEZBOLLAH INFRASTRUCTURE than anything else.

Today, for the first time since this began, Hezbollah's rocket firing into Israel has declined.

Israel is dropping leaflets -- GET OUT OF SOUTH LEBANON.

Sooner, rather than later, PROBABLY BEFORE THE END OF THE WEEK, Israel will go into Southern Lebanon but not to stay.

Leaflets have 2 purposes:

Hezbollah forces may flee with civilians but THEY CAN'T TAKE THEIR LARGER IRANIAN SUPPLIED MISSILES WITH THEM.

Israel laid the groundwork for the invasion by taking out the roads so that no large trucks with missiles could traverse. They will have to leave them behind even if they can carry some smaller Katush rockets with them.

Israel will not be able to completely dismantle Hezbollah, but they can set them back and buy some time. Couple of years, he figures. And just how HUMILIATING will that be? ((((big smile)))))

++++

Israel is sticking with its 3 Conditions for a ceasefire. Diplomacy is going on but more as a head fake at this point.

1. Soldiers released

2. Rockets into Israel stop.

3. Lebanon needs to control Hezbollah. Which they cannot at this stage.

++++++++

Meanwhile, in Iran:

Ah, the perils of totalitarianism. Sigh.

Ahmadinejad miscalculated his support in the Muslim/Arab world. There is a strange lack of denouncement of Israel and the US -- no more than the ordinary, that is. BUT, there is GREAT ANGER TOWARD IRAN and a MASSIVE ANTI-HEZBOLLAH BACKLASH. The others in the region are seeing that Iran has dropped others into the grease while they are safe and sound. Iran is only making speeches. Iran doesn't take risks. Iran puts others into risk.

Iran said (extraordinarlily), "We'd be happy to see a ceasefire." Iran expected to cause a split between the US and Europe. Instead people are feeling Hezbollah is responsible. Iran is feeling the heat. Iran miscalculated by ordering Hezbollah to kidnap the soldiers and ratcheting up the hostilities with Israel.

Others in Middle East are asking Iran – WHY HAVEN'T YOU PUT YOURSELVES AT RISK??? Myself, I think that the fact that there is an underlying hostility between Iranians and Arabs, this plays into the concept that many Arabs have of the iranians having superiority complexes. Arabs are not keen to have Iranians in charge -- the super power in the region. They distrust that configuration as well they should.

+++++++

And then IRAQ, which, yes, does very much factor into the mix...

Two big things:

++++

And what about Hamas???

Friedman thinks Hamas is watching and saying, "OHMYGAWD!" They were delighted at Hezbollah's move at first. Saw it as solidarity. But they had not expected either Hezbollah's move or the extent of Israel's reaction and Friedman thinks they are not happy about what one week ago was a cause for sweets in the streets.

Pretty interesting stuff, no?

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

geopolitics sure are complicated. :)

"Iran said (extraordinarlily), "We'd be happy to see a ceasefire." Iran expected to cause a split between the US and Europe. Instead people are feeling Hezbollah is responsible. Iran is feeling the heat. Iran miscalculated by ordering Hezbollah to kidnap the soldiers and ratcheting up the hostilities with Israel."

If that is the case, then there must be a lot of behind the scenes stuff going on that we are not aware of for Friedman to be suggesting this. Because publicly, all I seem to hear is "stop being so mean, Israel." 

Everything seems to kind of make sense. Will be interesting how this turns out in a few days.  

Jordan .

doub le post and speaking of Iran....this just in:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/18/D8IUHG880.html

The speaker of Iran's parliament warned Israelis on Tuesday that no part of their country is safe from Hezbollah attack.

The comments by Speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel called into question Tehran's official position that it is not involved in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

"The towns you have built in northern Palestine (Israel) are within the range of the brave Lebanese children. No part of Israel will be safe," Haddad Adel told thousands of anti-Israel demonstrators in Palestine Square.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki indicated that Iran may be playing a covert role in the fighting when he said Monday that a cease-fire was feasible. He spoke after talks with the Syrian government in Damascus.

Iran and its ally Syria are the principal backers of Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group that provoked the current fighting when its guerrillas seized two Israeli soldiers last week. On Monday, Israeli military officials said their planes had destroyed a long-range missile in Lebanon, named "Zelzal," that Hezbollah had received from Iran.

Israel has alleged that 100 members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards are in Lebanon acting as advisers to Hezbollah. Iran has denied the accusation, saying Hezbollah is strong enough to defend itself.

In his speech, Haddad Adel praised Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, calling him a "brave lion," and said the Palestinians and Lebanese had every right to fight Israel.

Referring to the Israeli offensive in Gaza that began after militants captured an Israeli soldier, Haddad Adel said to Israel: "If you have the right to start a massacre to free one prisoner, Palestinians and Lebanese have far more right to fight you to free hundreds of their prisoners, including Cabinet ministers and lawmakers."

The speaker, who is not among the most influential officials in Iran, also scoffed at reports of a division within Lebanon between Hezbollah supporters and those who criticize the group for provoking Israel into a destruction campaign in Lebanon.

He said Israelis "want to turn the Lebanese people against Hezbollah and disarm it, but they are unaware of the fact that Lebanese people know the value of resistance, and the value of Hezbollah's weapons, more than they did beforehand."

He also warned that there would be no peace until the United States stopped supporting Israel.

Addressing Washington, he said: "Either cut your support for Israel, or don't expect peace and compromise with the world."

The crowd responded with chants of "Death to Israel!"

Jordan .

You know what I wonder?  And what I'd love to have been watching on some strategically placed Nanny-cams over the past few years -- is WHAT THOSE BLUE HELMETED 2000 UN TROOPS HAVE BEEN DOING IN SOUTH LEBANON WHILE LIVING AMONG HEZBOLLAH!

Boy, I'd love to know what a typical day in the life of one the UN peacekeeping forces in the Bekka Valley is. Do they interact with the Hezbollah hoi-polloi or do they mostly stick to themselves?  Do they need to ask favors from Hez-boys or vice versa?  Is it one big happy family?  Are they still down there or have they been evacuated to Cypress? 

That's a story I'd be interested in.

I also wonder how it will help to add another thousand or so to the already impotent group.

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Jordan .