A moderate arab's point of view on the lebanese conflict

Just to clarify, the cite given does not specifically blame Hezbollah for the initial strikes, but ‘unknown’ Lebanese terrorists. They also talk about ‘unknown’ terrorists firing on Israeli positions. However, they state that this in the context of discussing how Hezbollah controls southern Lebanon:

The UN report says that the followup attacks came from in/around the village of Hula, which, the UN cite states, has had a strong Hezbollah presence. Hezbollah denied that they were responsible for the attacks coming from their territory, and the UN was (evidently) unable to confirm or deny that. But the UN’s lack of definite knowledge is not surprising, as Hezbollah was attempting to control UN access to their territory:

Other sources, like the the NY Times, however, reported that after Israel retaliated against the group they believed to be responsible for the rocket attacks, mortars and rockets were launched at Israel and that the IDF found Hezbollah to blame for those attacks.

I find several things likely: that the group that launched the first rocket strikes did not intend to launch a full offensive. I base this on the fact that no group took responsibility or stated that they would launch further attacks. For all practical purposes, after Israel responded to those attacks, the conditions of the cease fire were back in effect. Israel did not continue its offensive, and conducted rather limited strikes in retaliation for the rocket attacks. But then, of course, forces from Hezbollah controlled areas joined in and launched attacks. In my view, this makes Hezbollah equally guilty of breaking the ceasefire as whatever group it was that launched the original rocket attacks, especially as Hezbollay simply joined in the fun without having been attacked themselves. But I’d wager that reasonable people can differ on that point.

So I suppose that one not only had to read the cite but also other news reports to know that the most likely situation was that certain militia groups attacked Israel, and then after Irael responded and ceased attacking militant targets held responsible for the rocket attacks, Hezbollah took the opportunity to attack. I would certainly view that as Hezbollah violating their part in the ceasefire, but I’d wager that reasonable people can disagree on that point.

Just wanted to make that clear and make explicit my conclusions and the logic behind them. .

(yeesh, that’s a lot of ink spilled)

To add to this debate;There is a picture in this morning’s Chicago Tribune of a picture doctored to make it look like the Israeli strike was worse than it was.

All wars have their propaganda,but the press that favors Hezbollah and it’s ilk can try to sway public opinion. The Lebanese were warned in many ways to get out of certian areas as Isreal intended to bomb there. Some say the People were too poor to leave and some say Hezbollah made them stay as shields so they could use them for propaganda.

Terrorists do not care who gets hurt or killed, they just want things their way,even if it means giving a little bread to a poor man to gain support. There is no question that Hezbollah wants the end of Isreal and will do all in it’s power to see that it happens. Iran 's leader has openly stated such, and is giving Hezbollah support. Israel is trying to stop the way the arms come to Hezbollah and have warned people to leave the area, some refused to do so.

Israel is fighting to exist,Hezbollah just wants to kill all Jews, it is no different than the Nazis.

Monavis

To wit:

And this is why we should trust a negotiated settlement with Hezbollah, which is crying foul and for an immediate ceasefire:

I think you mean “…should not trust…”

You don’t get off that easy. Yes, it was conjecture, and I made very, very sure to state that I was treating it as conjecture, but you removed that caviat to make your own point, Bad form.

Yea, you have been polite. But legions of posters have amply demonstrated thet you are full of shit.

If you must withdraw, go ahead. But before you do, I would appreciate it if you would answer the questions that I asked. Can you do that? I’ll limit my responce to one burning question:

Riddle me that, Batman, and I’ll be satisfied. Oh, and if you want to be honest, you’ll answer my other questions too. You’re a self proclaimed moderate arab, prove it. What is your response to this?

Running away makes your position weak. Shore it up, this is your chance.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/40033/ The truth is in the middle.

Just for future reference…as a rule of thumb I’ve found that web sites that have pictures of GW bhuk nakid (shudder Isn’t THAT something stomach churning first thing in the morning?? Yikes! :eek: ) and wearing a crown on their front page to, perhaps, not be the most unbiased sources of information available. YMMV.

:stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

What a load of leftest crap. You really need to learn the definition of the “middle”, friend.

And you are out of line.

Do not launch personal attacks against other posters in GD–take it to the Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

News agencies are now reporting that Iranian fighters have been found among the Hezbollah dead. Of course, it is the Israelis that are reporting this, and there is no outside proof yet, but if it is correst? Layers upon layers, but so much for a UN-brokered cease-fire if true.

Just FTR, Scott Ritter, author of the linked article, is a former marine who served as Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq 1991-98. He was one of the few people who correctly predicted that we would find no WMDs in Iraq. You can certainly disagree with him, but his arguments deserve attention, and shouldn’t be dismissed as if he were some ill-informed blogger.

Pick out what you think is relevant to the OP then and lets discuss it. I’ll be honest…considering the posting history of gonzomax/Least Original User Name Ever (whichever one is which…they seem interchangable), I took one look at the obviously biased web site and dismissed it as yet another drive by cite of dubious worth. Not worthy of my time to hash through (I did so early on with his drive by’s, much to my embarrassment).

So…if you think his cite is relevant to the discussion, pick out the parts you want to discuss and post em in here.

-XT

Most of Ritter’s points have already been made in these and other threads about this issue. I was only making a drive-by posting because I admire Ritter, and I think he’s a guy who shouldn’t be dismissed.

There wasn’t anything personal about it Tom. He’s been posting nonsense. I didn’t say he was a shit, I said he was full of shit. There is a big difference. He’s been posting that shit throughout this thread. I thought we were allowed to dismiss what a person posts here, but not the person themself. Have you changed the rules again?

The expression “you are full of shit” is a direct personal insult. If you wanted to claim that the arguments were worthless, you could have said that his argument/position/logic/whatever was full of shit. It would have been one more pointless, inflammatory comment, but it would have been within bounds for this Forum.

Since I have not changed any rules in the past, it is unlikely that I would begin changing rules now. Implying that I have changed rules, either on past occasions or on this one, may help you rationalize getting caught breaking a rule, but it does not change the event.

I believe we are at an impasse. My answer to your answer would be the exact same answer I gave you before. I shall leave it for each reader to decide who’s right about this.

Once again, I shall leave that to the readers. I did mean it when I said I was done debating.

What’s the point? You’d have to answer my answers and It’ll be like I didn’t withdraw. But hey, I’ll humor you anyways if it’s just a couple of last questions.

1- I think about the only thing I’m sure of is that Israelis should never have allowed all those religious zealots to start their illegal settlements in Gaza and the west bank. They should have done everything possible to weaken Hamas and Hezbollah. I’m not sure their helicopter raids, bulldozings, tanks invasions and missiles have been very successful. I could be wrong of course. Maybe they were successful. Maybe this is the very best outcome for Israel. Who knows.

That said, an Israeli man of moroccan origin once told my father that the conflict had been somewhat beneficial to Israel in the early years because people unite against external threats. Israelis, he said, were from vastly different countries and backgrounds and each clique (french jews, russian jews, american jews, etc.) tended to keep to itself. I’m not sure if the guy knew what he was talking about but it wouldn’t be all that surprising to me if the policy makers knew and used this on some level (IE: mandatory military service. I could boost patriotism and create bonds between citizens of different backgrounds I suppose). I seem to remember european kings sometimes declared wars to distract the populace from something or other. So maybe this is the light version?

Riddle me that, Batman, and I’ll be satisfied. Oh, and if you want to be honest, you’ll answer my other questions too. You’re a self proclaimed moderate arab, prove it. What is your response to this?

2- I don’t like the idea of a wall. Whether it be between Israel and Palestine, in the middle of germany or between the U.S and mexico. We should be creating bridges, not barriers. Besides, tunnels can be dug under walls so what’s the point…

Read the title of the thread. This is not called " You’re all wrong and I’ll show you why!". I’ve given my point of view. Some people have read it. Maybe a few thought it was a positive contribution to this board. That’s all I set out to do. I already knew I knew I wasn’t going to change anybody’s mind about all this of course.

aaaand it took me 90 minutes to write this answer…you tricked me. Never again!

Well Gozu, the Israelis did not exactly want to build the wall, although I’ve been saying that they should for years.

Walls historically have been more symbolic than a real defensive barrier, well mainly I’m thinking of China and Hadrian’s Wall.

An Israeli once described the settlements as ‘pepper’, they were a provocation, but I’m not sure that the people living there were religious nutters, more they appreciated cheap accomodation - land and housing is rather expensive in Israel, especially for new immigrants.

I suppose your Moroccan Jewish guy had a sort of point, racially the Israelis are incredibly diverse, you will find black guys, Indians, the whole lot, it is kind of handy having ‘race’ passed through the mother.

You’ll also be a bit surprized by the ‘Arabs’, having servicemen over there during and prior to WWII had some interesting effects.

It would be interesting to do some mass DNA analysis.

Certainly, the universal draft is a great social unifier - that’s something we’re actually quite proud of. And yes, outside enemies can bring a country closer together than it would be otherwise. But to say that an Israeli government would start a war in order to create solidarity and benefit from it shows a distinct lack of understanding of our political culture. Believe me, if the Israeli voters start to believe that the government is needlessly throwing away Israeli lives, you bet your ass it will unite - against the Israeli govenment. That’s a little quirk of living in a parliamentary democracy with a notoriously argumentative press.

The thing about bridges is, that they’re usually built over rivers. Rivers are excelent barriers. If there was a river betwen Israel and its enemies we wouldn’t have to build walls - we’d build bridges.

Well, drawbridges.

We are in agreement.

Lol.

How about when we want a war ( and we do) we have a vote. Then the army is composed of people that voted for it only. Committed soldiers no horrible peaceniks.
All roads and bridges are dual purpose… They were built to link one place to another. Not to make a road for arms. Someones strategic target is someone elses avenue to church, school ,work and hospitals. And relatives they move back and forth too.