 |
|
|---|
“It has been more than a week that Israel has been pounding Lebanon with hundreds of tones of explosives, all with the noble goal of dismantling Hezbolloah, a well-known terrorist organization. Of course, Israel has one of the most advanced armies in the world, meaning that they can surgically strike the Hezbollah targets, while keeping down civilian casualties to an absolute minimum. As the Israeli military actions were provoked by kidnapping of two of its soldiers, the international community, including many in the Arab world, but with the obvious exception of Syria and Iran, have been blaming Hezbollah for the crisis, and thus condone the Israeli initiative. Israeli action is even more-so justified as Hezbollah has been ruthlessly bombarding civilian targets in northern Israel with hundreds of rockets over the past week, killing over a dozen Israelis …”
This is a brief picture of the new “Mideast Crisis” as seen on the mainstream US news channels. It is amazing how every sane commentator or (ex-) diplomat is simply happy with the Israeli reaction, with a few exceptions; those who look crazy. Of course, there are other clues that you may pick on. For example, the number of Lebanese dead is some factor of twenty higher than the Israeli side, while the numbers of injured are comparable! But more important than the number of casualties, for Israel, is the nobility of the end goal. In the words of the Israeli ambassador to the UN: “In the getting rid of this terrorist organization, we are not just doing a favor to Israel, or Lebanon, but rather to the whole civilization …” It is truly a noble undertaking … or is it?
In observing this display of politics and power, it is hard not to wonder if there is more going on behind the scene that is visible to the naked eye. Is this all a devious plan by the Iranian policy makers in order to divert attention from their ongoing nuclear weapons program? Although this seems to be a common theory, I somehow think that we are giving the “Iranian policy makers” too much credit, by assuming that they could predict such a domino effect. Or may be they just got lucky!
On the other hand, there is an eerie familiarity about how events are unfolding in “the only democracy of the middle east”. Something about a new leader, starting a new noble war in order to avoid domestic problems or gain credibility (and credibility is what he gets). A not-so-distant war, in a not-so-distant country …
It is no secret that American and Israeli governments (and publics) enjoy close implicit and explicit ties. While the true underpinning of this close relationship is beyond the interest (and intelligence) of this piece, it is not hard to imagine why the politics of these two countries may become increasingly similar over time. An interesting side effect is that whenever you hear Israeli politicians on American TV, it is as if they are talking to their own constituents, as if it is the American public that is going to vote for them. In fact, I doubt that there would be many US elected officials who are as well-spoken as their Israeli counterparts, appearing on US news channels. Of course, when it comes to western politics, as always, selling the most hypocritical policies with the right choice of words is the name of the game.
Apart from this side, and coming back to the crisis at hand, the similarity between the Israeli latest offensive on Lebanon, and what we know as the “Operation Iraqi Freedom” are subtle, but yet unmistakable. Talking to a few Lebanese reveals that Hezbollah is far more than an extremist terrorist group, but rather intimately intertwined with the fabric of the Lebanese society. They are considered as the pride of the Lebanese society who are credited for ending Israeli occupation, and are popular, not only with the Shia muslims, but also with Sunnis and Christians. In fact, more than two thirds of the Lebanese public somehow benefit from the services of Hezbollah. Therefore, it is not hard to imagine that destroying Hezbollah takes nothing less than destroying Lebanon, and putting it back together from scratch.
Sounds familiar? Add to it the fact that Saddam Hussein was such an unpopular dictator, and yet US is in so much trouble for removing him. On the other hand, Hezbollah is the most popular political group in Lebanon (whose popularity increases by the minute).
I assume that the majority of the Israeli public have already made peace with the moral implications of the policies of their elected government (some of which bring about significant suffering and death, among other things). After all, this is a democracy. What this young democracy is constantly overlooking is the long term effects of using brute force to remove their enemies, in the process of which more bystanders are hurt. This is only a recipe for making more enemies.
For example, creation of Hezbollah was a direct byproduct of the occupation of Lebanon by Israel in order to remove PLO, some twenty years ago. While, depending on your moral criteria, this might have been justified, in the long run, it left Israel with a stronger enemy to deal with. Is there any question that the children who are raised under the Israeli bombardment will grow up to make the next, may be more brutal reincarnation of Hezbollah? Of course, many of the Israelis who have to deal with this problem are yet to be born, and thus cannot impact the undoubtedly high approval rating of the current Israeli prime minister.
The analogy of Iraq may again be used to predict what may happen in the next few months if the hostilities continue at this rate. There is no question that the US has made many enemies in Iraq, most likely more than the new friends it might have made. However, most Americans have the luxury of living on the other side of the globe, where most of these enemies cannot harm them. Unfortunately, most Israelis don’t enjoy this luxury when it comes to their newfound enemies.
Dear Niayesh,
Generally a nice article, thank you.
A democracy is not beautiful nor acceptale without ethics. Even if we accept that Israel is a democracy in absence of the original land owners it has kicked out during the last decades, it is surely an unethical democracy, killing MANY civilians including kids. The media as a whole is sadly biased to the Israel's side and what we hear is almost an Israeli version of the story!
Yes, violence will not eventually bring peace for Israelis, nor for the others.
Best Wishes
However, most Americans have the luxury of living on the other side of the globe, where most of these enemies cannot harm them.
No we don't. One Iranian nuclear weapon could destroy our largest city and kill 10 million Americans.
Don't forget what this is all about.
Also, you seem to overlook the amount of American blood Hezbollah has on it's hands. I have not. I lost frineds to Hezbollah in 1983. My country has not forgotten who Hezbollah is either. And we have not forgotten who Hezbollah's masters are. There will be an accounting. You and all Iranians will eventually have to deicde whether you want to stand with your criminal government, or whether you want to stand apart from it.
As for "mass murdering" - Israel has quite a ways to go before it has killed as many Lebanese as Yasser Arafat did. Quite some ways to go.
Unfortunately, most Israelis don’t enjoy this luxury when it comes to their newfound enemies.
Newfound enemies, is it? Which of Israel's current enemies is new?
We will stand with Israel. Even if we stand *alone* with Israel. Their enemies are also ours. And I can't think of better company. Or better allies.
Where are Iran's allies? Will anyone stand with Iran, when the accounting comes?
"One Iranian nuclear weapon could destroy our largest city and kill 10 million Americans."
- We all know which country is offensive and which country has killed tens of thousands of civilians by atomic weapons. Which country has Iran initially attacked during the last decades?
"Where are Iran's allies? Will anyone stand with Iran, when the accounting comes?"
- In this world, ally politicians come from money not honesty.
"American blood Hezbollah has on it's hands"
- Were they civilians? What would you do with our troops if they came to US to meddle in your afairs? Why do you overlook the civilians killed by your government and by Israelis? Every government including Iranian government may have had crimes which are condemned, but the amount of crimes of Iranian government is not one in several thousands of crimes of US government and choosing between them is easy for ethical people who know the facts and numbers (not for greedy politicians and people only hearing one special versions of the stories). How many civilians have US government killed during the last century or the last three decades? How many have Iranians killed? The numbers differ so vastly that justifications regarding situations seem funy, let alone logical!
Armin,
- We all know which country is offensive
Yes. We do. We know which country is causing the death and destruction in Lebanon (and Gaza) right now, with it's offensive proxy war. We all do. You. Me. And the rest of the world. Somebody will answer for it, sooner or later.
- In this world, ally politicians come from money not honesty.
Interesting. Iran has money. Why doesn't Iran have allies?
- Were they civilians?
Not only civilians, but diplomats, with diplomatic immunity. Hezbollah car bombed the US embassy in Beirut not once, but twice. Once in 1982 and once in 1983. Most of Hezbollah's victims have been innocent civilians. College professors, journalists, tourists.... Hezbollah makes no difference in who they kill to serve their masters in Iran.
If you refer to the Barracks bombing which killed 241 Americans on 23 OCT 1983, they were peacekeepers. The fact that Hezbollah massacred peacekeepers will be remembered as well. Lebanon will get no peacekeepers this time... the game is playing out to the bitter end. Iran will also not recieve peacekeepers, if the need should ever arise. You'll be on your own. No peacekeepers for the murderers of peace.
In the meantime, while your government continues to exist: be thankful the rest of the world doesn't treat Iranians as Iranians treat everyone else. Your diplomats would all be dead or in prison, and Iranians couldn't go anywhere in the world without being subject to being held hostage.
Niyayesh Afshordi,
I feel there are some issues from your article that must be addressed.
Before I attend to deal with them I would like to state that this war is between good and evil, simple as that, no cliches intended.
Israel, a nation which desire to live peacefully is fighting existential war against people that desire to murder her citizens not because of the Israeli-Arab conflict, but because of a murderous religious ideology of Islam.
Hizbollah, a terrorist organization fights and provokes Israel with no justification and is playing the role of the Iranian extension in our region.
If Israel surrender herself to the extortion of Hizbollah that would be a precedent that will mark the end of the western free society since this will give rise to more extortionist actions by other Muslim terrorists that will have their way in europe and the U.S, forcing their will by using terror just as Muhammad ordered them to do in quite a few verses which regard the infidels.
Most of the Hizbollah crimes against Israel are ideologically oriented from what Islam teaches about Jews. They have nothing to do with the general Arab-Israeli conflict over territory and the bulk of that ideology is coming from the religious islamic Iran that already declared what they want to do with Israel.
Lebanon is playing a double game of whining about their sovereignty being breached by Israel in the latest actions but Lebanon shouldn't have let a terror organization settle on her southern border in the first place!
Lebanon should have carried out the UN security council resolution 1559 long ago and PUT HER ARMY ALONG THE BORDER WITH ISRAEL!
The fact that Lebanon didn't do that shows she does not practice her sovereignty, It shows that Lebanon is just another country like many in the world that didn't earn their independence and she seems to not deserve it.
Now to the nonsense you said, which I wish to address:
1.
"Israel has one of the most advanced armies in the world, meaning that they can surgically strike the Hezbollah targets, while keeping down civilian casualties to an absolute minimum."
It's a bit hard to keep civilian casualties to minimum when Hizbollah are using civilians as human shields, when Hizbollah place road blockes in the few roards that weren't bombed, intentionally preventing civilians to exit the south.
It's hard to keep civilian casualties to minimum when Hizbollah uses their homes to store rockets and launch them, it's hard when Hizbollah uses the main civilian roads, airports and seaports to transfer more ammunition and other war supplies.
The civilian buildings that Israel bombarded were in Shia Muslim neighborhoods which are the human and logistic infrastructure of the Hizbollah and the public that supports them. These were the homes of the Hizbollah leaders and their families. Their offices and rooms of operation were also there but there is also one more thing that these buildings were used for and thats for storage of Katyusha rockets and other weaponry. The Hizbollah soldiers also used the roofs of these buildings to launch the missiles toward Israel.
Israel has decided to bomb these buildings as a pure strategic action to eliminate the storage they held, to remove optional missile launch locations, to destroy the Hizbollah homes and offices and hurt its native infrastructure.
Israel has dropped leaflets warning of the coming attack in each location in order to minimize the civilian casualties and allow them to evacuate the area. The fact that some were stupid enough to stay is one issue. On the other hand, many that stayed (not only in the Neighborhoods), especially those that stayed to fight and died, are registered in the Lebanese ministry of interior affairs as civilians because Hizbollah is not part of the Lebanese army.
*There was no advanced surgical weapons used on those civilian buildings.
*Those buildings HAD to go down once the entire north of Israel became hostage of the Katyusha and Iranian made Fagar rockets.
*Once you drop the leaflets warning of the upcoming bombardment YOU EXPECT the civilians (with all the difficulties involved) to show responsibility and GET OUT OF THERE!
2.
"Israeli action is even more-so justified as Hezbollah has been ruthlessly bombarding civilian targets in northern Israel with hundreds of rockets over the past week, killing over a dozen Israelis"
The true number is three times a dozen! and a much greater number of maimed and wounded (by the hundreds at the moment)
3.
"it is hard not to wonder if there is more going on behind the scene that is invisible to the naked eye"
I can tell you whats behind the scene.
*Israeli soldiers reporting of Hizbollah militants shouting to each other in PERSIAN (!) in the battlefield.
*Hizbollah using state of the art anti aircraft, tank and boat weaponry with a protruding label that says: 'Made in Iran'.
*Hizbollah firing at Israel Fagar and Katyusha rockets that were made in Iran and Syria.
4.
"starting a new noble war in order to avoid domestic problems or gain credibility"
This is so untrue that you're pathetic.
*If you are looking for someone that started this violence in hope for popularity I can give you his name: HASAN NASRALLAH !
*The war was developed out of no choice situation, due to the extortion and the terrorist nature of the Hizbollah on the border.
*Israel retreated her presence from Lebanese land 6 years ago and because of that the Palestinian intifada emerge.
*Thats how you rag heads work: You think you see your rival show sign of weakness and you jump on the 'opportunity' to hit while he seems to be weak (from your perspective) and Israel cannot afford that another time. Enough is enough!
*For the last 6 years Israel had no presence at all in Lebanon and was still attacked by Hizbollah on many occasions but this one was by far the worst.
*The so called Lebanese prisoners in Israel that Hizbollah hopped to release in a deal are terrorists with innocent Israeli CIVILIANS blood on their hands!
*Following the provocation of Hizbollah (killing of 8 Israeli soldiers, kidnapping of 2 and wounding of others) Israel decided to remove the Hizbollah outposts that were practically sitting of the border fence because these kind of outposts allowed the Hizbollah to execute the provocation. Israel bombed these outposts. As 'retaliation' Hizbollah begun to bomb northern Israel and that pulled Israel to respond deeper in Lebanon. In essence its Hasan Nasrallah that started this war and NOT the Israeli PM which seeked credibility as you describe it.
5.
"Of course, when it comes to western politics, as always, selling the most hypocritical policies with the right choice of words is the name of the game."
This is pure, rethoric and obvious propaganda against western culture in general. Where did you learn to do it soo well?
6.
"What this young democracy is constantly overlooking is the long term effects of using brute force to remove their enemies, in the process of which more bystanders are hurt. This is only a recipe for making more enemies."
Muslim text books contain verses that preach hate against other religions and Jews in particular, these verses (which I can quote if you ask) describe Jews as the lowest life forms on earth and call for their murder. Because of that, the warnings of 'making new enemies' or 'increasing the hate' toward us lost their power. True Muslims that were educated on the books of Islam will hate Israel anyway and that's been proven. They will strive to fight Israel no matter the lengths at which Israel be prepared to go to please them.
["Well, I read it;" you might say, "now let's close it!"]7.
"Is there any question that the children who are raised under the Israeli bombardment will grow up to make the next, may be more brutal reincarnation of Hezbollah?"
Is there any question?
The wars aren't what educate generations of Muslims to hate Israel! The real reason is the religion and it shows very clearly when children educated on Islam in Muslim countries can't even locate Israel on the map but they still hate her with religious passion.
Craig,
1. You again ignore the statstics regarding offences of the countries. If we want to talk from proxies, US record is much more dark than most/all of the other countries.
2. Iran's money (GDP) is about one fiftieth of US which means politicians support US.
3. "peacekeeper" is only a journalist name given to those soldiers to decrease the shame and fool people like you. They were soldiers with arms and with evil politicians behind them. If hezbollah has killed civilians in front of embassy, that's another matter I do not support, but you can count how many civilians they have killed and compare that to civilians killed by Israel (or US). They have killed much much less.
4. Iranians threat nothing but Israel's crimes, and in this case the threat is indirect. Do not extend your (Israel's) problem to the other countries. We have no probem with them. Statistics show that Iran has been among the most peaceful countries, in contrary to warmonger US and Israel.
5. You surprisingly say: "be thankful the rest of the world doesn't treat Iranians as Iranians treat everyone else. Your diplomats would all be dead or in prison, and Iranians couldn't go anywhere in the world without being subject to being held hostage."
- This much brainwash is astonishing, so according to your analogy the other diplomats having something to do with Iran should have been dead and other people can't come to Iran!!! While we have been even peaceful enough to release your spies!!! Statistics highly opposes your claims.
Statistics (e.g. the number of civilians killed) says: Iran has been among the most peaceful countries, not US, not Israel. Propaganda is useless against the facts.
And one word to the islamophobic Ben who does not understand the peaceful religion of Islam, nor its respect for Jews: just answer how many civilians each side have killed to find out who is evil and who is terrorist. Some mistakes aside, hezbollah is defending thir country from psychomad criminals who attack civilians, including kids and women, because of arresting two soldiers. How can you even think about talking of human rights when you do such crimes? Terrorism has a simple definition: Those who kill civilians. The number one terrorist is US, followed by Israel. Terrorism is forbidden in Islam.
Terrorist has a simple definition: Those who kill civilians. The number one terrorist is US, followed by Israel. Terrorism is forbidden in Islam.
(evidently not talking about normal court issues)
Even Noam Chomsky, the number one intellectual in US, regretfully anounces what he calls extraordinary violence of US government in its history. Good that you have some people to help you understand this simple fact under propaganda and blind nationalism!
Terrorism is not the killing of civilians. It is the deliberate targeting of civilians. Sadly, the minds of some Readers cannot grasp this not so subtle difference.
Dear Ron, Ben and Craig,
I persoanlly think this article is not really worth responding to. It comes from a particular mind set. A mind set that is very well known to those who have lived in Iran and comes directly from a certain core.
I think, as long as this glorification and support of a murdering terror group like Hizbollah is only in words it needs and defintely deserves no reaction.
AIS,
Agreed.
"There is nothing new under the sun."
-Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) 1:9
Ron,
It is the deliberate targeting of civilians
I'd say it's the deliberate victimization of the innocent, for ideological gain.
It's the nature of the act and the motivation both that make the difference between simple crime and terrorism.
I do agree with "A Reader" though - it is prohibted by Islam. Unless Islam is satanic. Because the God of Abraham definately doesn't murder, rape, kidnapping, torture, etc done in His name. Nope. Not my God, that isn't.
AIS, good advice I guess. This is the first time I've adressed what's going on in Lebanon on an Iranian blog. As I recall, I pointed out to Armin some months ago how much of a problem Hezbollah was for Iran when it comes to US relations. He didn't believ me then, he doesn't believe me now... maybe he'll believe me when all surviving members of the IRI are on trail for terrorism at some future date.
But nah... who am I kidding? He'll just be bitching and moaning about unjust prosectutions.
Israel is a newly-founded country and it has its own sovereignty and defense system. in case an external terrorizing force, Hezbollah in this instance, violates and threatens or challenges this national security and defense structure, it's the task of Israelis to face that threat. Israel rightfully bought the lands in Israel and gradually formed a governance structure and a nation-state for the Jews. it's a totally legitimate government, and recognized by the International community, the United Nations, etc. Hezbollah on the other hand is based on bunch of scattered religious and ideologist fanatics who have no way for making their presence magnified in the field except by kidnapping soldiers or terrorist activities.
Craig,
The problem here is moral clarity. Some people seem to have their head stuck so far up their ass that they they've confused right for wrong and evil for good. I'm not sure what to call this phenomenon, but it seems to be epidemic these days. Or maybe it was always there, but recent developments (9/11, the internet) have made it more noticeable. In any case, AIS is right in saying that it's a waste of time to argue against this point of view, but I'm still interested in knowing how it works. Who knows, there might be a Nobel Prize for the one who can cure it :)
Armin, did you forget the number of civilians killed by the Iranian governement? The number of women raped and killed in prisons? Sure the US killed a lot of civilians, but do not forget the number of civilians killed by the Iranian governement from the revolution to nowadays. The number of people criminalized and jailed for things you are free to do in most other countries. And for Iran being one of the most peaceful countries, this must be a joke. Sure Iran never had the power to start a "regular" war, but what is with the support of different militia'S throughout the mid east, destabilizing most countries? Is this what you call a peaceful country? What is with the rethorics of Ahmedinejad? Do you think it helped solving the problems of the region in any way?
Craig,
Muslim textbooks teach the ABC of violence, they are the road map to turning our world to a living hell where infidels are second class citizens that suffer terror on behalf of Muslims and assumed criminals are beheaded or various parts of their bodies are cut off.
Islam teach its acceptable to rape children and to plunder, to torture and to maim, to discriminate women and non-muslims.
Islam not only permit to terrorize, there are explicit instructions provided by Islam that encorage its followers to practice terrorism and also how to practice it.
If the mythological Satan from christian faith ever existed, he must've been involved in the creation of Islam for it is truly an evil 'religion'.
1) Kill one innocent civillian and you are a criminal
2) Kill ten and you are a terrorist
3) Kill 340 inncocent civillians and you are a decorated war hero.
aside from Islam( since I don't really wanna go to religion that much), Iranian culture is very belittered. the very culture of the ordinary iranians is void of democratic practices, respect for the individualism and independence, and an extreme materialism and sense of rivalry. such traits are very vivid not only in the whole community but also in every family unit in some respects. for Iran to overcome its current problems, I think, the United States as a hegemon, should not count very much on internal democratization by the Iranian civil society or even the indifferent self-hating expatriate Iranian community abroad. I believe that the United States should try to keep up, inevitably, with the militiary operations in the middle east and eliminate and demolish the terrorist groups as solidly as it can.
4) kill yourself with a bomb and you're a martyr
5) cut off people heads and you're a saint
6) rape 6 year old girl and you're a prophet
If peace is to exist in Israel, the first thing that must be accomplished is the destruction of all terrorist organizations that engage in violence as part of a quest for the destruction of Israel. How should Israel accomplish this task?
Dear Craig, Ron, and Ben,
You have not yet answered Armin's question regarding the statistical comparison of the offences of the countries!
Dear Ron, as you may be interested in "recent developments (9/11, the internet)", please have a look at the following page:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14069.htm
Here is one more "recent development" !!!!:
http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/
You have not yet answered Armin's question regarding the statistical comparison of the offences of the countries!
That's because his question was stupid :P
By the way, Mehrdad, I didn't load your links either! Just so you know :O
The US has been being bombarded by propagandists a lot better than you for 3 years now. What are you going to do to us? Iran is the only country in eth world more hated than the US right now. Not an enviable position for you! You don't have any superpower status to conuter-balance all that hatred. That means, you're in a world of hurt.
Craig, have you ever thought there is something wrong with your country that has made it the focus of such critical bombardments for the past 3 years?!
I, personally, believe Iranian government has been wrong in many instances and thus deserves being hated. However, as long as you consider statistics stupid, I prefer not continue this discussion with you.
On the historical side, the Israel-Palestin-Lebanon conflicts is due to the dispute on lands and territories. It does not have any thing to do with the clash of Muslims, Jews, Cristians or whatever ideology you may recall. Generalising this conflict to the problem of religions or clash of civilisations is not true. Perhaps such a generalisation is misleading to resolve the problem. This means that we, as the external observers,
1) Should see and understand the right of the Palestinian refugees to go back to the Palestinian territories.
2) Should protest that the state of Israel has occupated some parts of the Palestinian territories,
3) Should protest against any rhetorical attack to the state of Israel by presidents of other countries.
4) Should protest against the state of Israel when she rhetorically declars the third world war.
I think that it is not hard to single out some sentences supporting violence in ANY BOOK which had been scripted thousands years ago. Isn't that preferred if the discussion remains on how we could find some solutions to resolve the dilemma?
On the historical side, the Israel-Palestin-Lebanon conflicts is due to the dispute on lands and territories. It does not have any thing to do with the clash of Muslims, Jews, Cristians or whatever ideology you may recall. Generalising this conflict to the problem of religions or clash of civilisations is not true. Perhaps such a generalisation is misleading to resolve the problem. This means that we, as the external observers,
1) Should see and understand the right of the Palestinian refugees to go back to the Palestinian territories.
2) Should protest that the state of Israel has occupated some parts of the Palestinian territories,
3) Should protest against any rhetorical attack to the state of Israel by presidents of other countries.
4) Should protest against the state of Israel when she rhetorically declars the third world war.
I think that it is not hard to single out some sentences supporting violence in ANY BOOK which had been scripted thousands years ago. Isn't that preferred if the discussion remains on how we could find some solutions to resolve the dilemma?
Ben,
Thanks for completing the equations. I agree with your additions and given your numbering, it seems you agree with mine.
Brave New World,
Dont try to steal my consent.
The three sentences we both wrote are rhetorical when they stand by themselves and that was my point, however, mine are supported by a long comment that came before them. Yours are not.
All of Hizbollah fighters are civilians and there is no way to kill them without being accused of killing civilians. Technically they are and damned they be.
Brave New World,
Another thing that I'd like to add is that Hizbollah use Lebanese as human shield by hiding ammunition in civilian homes, by firing rockets from their homes and by blocking roads, preventing them to flee.
Mehrdad,
Craig, have you ever thought there is something wrong with your country that has made it the focus of such critical bombardments for the past 3 years?!
yeah. We're not letting ourselves be murdered anymore without fighting back. The horror!!
I, personally, believe Iranian government has been wrong in many instances and thus deserves being hated.
You're damn right about that.
However, as long as you consider statistics stupid
I don't consider statsitics to be stupid. I consider people who misuse statistics to "prove" ridiculous assertions to be stupid :P
I prefer not continue this discussion with you.
Fine by me! I don't remember initiating the silliness of comparing the US to Iran. I was perfectly happy ignoring Armin's absurdities.
ghasem,
On the historical side, the Israel-Palestin-Lebanon conflicts is due to the dispute on lands and territories.
But we aren't talking about that. We're talking about Hezbollah, Iran and the United States. At least, that's what I am talking about. None of the things you mentioned is going to help my country destroy Hezbollah, Syria and the IRI. Also, none of your suggestions will help Hezbollah, Syria and the IRI destroy Israel and/or the United States.
We need to be realistic about who the combatanats are and what their objectives are. Lebanon has nothing to do with it, and neither do Palestinian Territories.
Craig:
1- So you agree that the main problem is lands and territories. It is not due to the crash of the ideologies.
2- Why do you try to involve Iran and other countries? The goverment of Iran was supporting Hezbollah before its recent attack to Israel. There is no proof -and I think that no acceptable logical reasoning- that Iran is going to benefit from this war. I do not see if US is involved in this conflict, I mean at least directly.
ghasem,
1- So you agree that the main problem is lands and territories. It is not due to the crash of the ideologies.
No, I don't agree. I think it's about Iran waging ideological proxy war, entirely unrelated to the territorial claims of Palestinians. Or of Lebanese, for that matter.
2- Why do you try to involve Iran and other countries? The goverment of Iran was supporting Hezbollah before its recent attack to Israel.
Yes. Iran created Hezbollah. Iran has been in control directly or indirectly of Hezbollah since it's inception in 1982.
That's kinda why I "involve" Iran! Who the hell do you think Hezbollah is working for? The Lebanese government!?
There is no proof -and I think that no acceptable logical reasoning- that Iran is going to benefit from this war.
I don't think Iran will benefit from this war. I think Iran has made a fatal mistake.
But, Iran has been *threatening* to wage war on Israel through it's Arab proxies for over a year now. When somebody threatens to do something, and then they do it, that's pretty good proof, in my humble opinion!
I do not see if US is involved in this conflict, I mean at least directly.
Not yet. Soon, I hope. The target of the US will not be Hezbollah, though. Nor will it be Syria. I think the proper method of disarming and defanging Hezbollah is to go after their masters.
The US has been involved directly in the past though. Hezbollah has committed many acts of terrorism directly against the US, at the behest of Iran. Hezbollah is what qualifies Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. And the US is formally at war with international terrorist groups and their sponsors.
The IRI might have survived if it had abandoned it's nuclear program. I don't think there is any chance of that outcome, any more. The regime's days are numbered.
Craig,
"yeah. We're not letting ourselves be murdered anymore without fighting back. The horror!!"
Well, this is exactly what Hizbollah is doing, too. However, I believe both Hizbollah and you are equally wrong if you think you can stop the violence in this way. The soaring number of Americans killed during the past three years, and since you have come up with the novel idea of murdering in return for murder, has proved this.
"That's because his question was stupid :P"
Mr. Superpower!, arguing that something is stupid but not giving any reasons for one's assertion is even more stupid than a stupid argument.
Mehrdad,
Well, this is exactly what Hizbollah is doing, too. However, I believe both Hizbollah and you are equally wrong if you think you can stop the violence in this way.
The only correct way to counter violence is with violence. What would you do if I punched you in the face? Ask me not to do it again? Or would you run away? What if I could run faster than you? What if I let you run away but then turned my attentions to your family? You would rely on appealing to my humanitarian instintcs, if I was a predatory thug completely lacking in anything like compassion?
Sorry, man. That's another silly statement. I apologize for using such a graphic illustration of the absurdity of this idea, but I've been accused by you of calling ideas "stupid" without explaining why.
The soaring number of Americans killed during the past three years, and since you have come up with the novel idea of murdering in return for murder, has proved this.
Soaring numbers of Americans killed? 2500 in 3 years?
Lets see. 1000 troops killed per year. 2,500,000 troops in the US military.
In 2497 years the US military will be destroyed.
More Americans were killed in 1 day in 2001 than in 3 years of war.
Craig:
"I think it's about Iran waging ideological proxy war, entirely unrelated to the territorial claims of Palestinians. Or of Lebanese, for that matter."
The international comunity has accepted that there is a body of the land for Palestinian. They call that body as the "Occupied Palestinian territories". For example look at terminology here [+]. Therefore I afraid that I have to inform you what you are refering to as "some claim" are infact ratified and accepted international facts.
"Yes. Iran created Hezbollah. Iran has been in control directly or indirectly of Hezbollah since it's inception in 1982."
1- Iran did not created what you are facing with at this time. The Hezbollah was a direct consequnce of occupying Lebonan and the quest of the people of Lebonan for something to force back Israel to its border.
2- I think from the moment that it would be proven that Hezbollah is controled by any other forgien states then Hezbollah will not be popular in Lebonan any more. If you have proofs that Hezbollah is a poppet of other states then share them with people of Lebonan instead of bombording them.
"Iran has been *threatening* to wage war on Israel through it's Arab proxies for over a year now. When somebody threatens to do something, and then they do it, that's pretty good proof, in my humble opinion!"
The doctorian of Iran, as has been approved by her leader and has been mentioned so many times is not to erease or to fight with the state of Israel. It is to support by words and politically the rights of Palestinian people. I agree that there is a controvercy between what Ahmady nejhad talks about and the iranian ironic policy in last decade. Ahmadynegad words might be understood but could not justified by couting how many times Isreal has threatened to attack and to invide Iran.
"The target of the US will not be Hezbollah, though. Nor will it be Syria. I think the proper method of disarming and defanging Hezbollah is to go after their masters"
I am afraid that the target of US is peace. I am repeating myself. Hezbollah does not have any master otherwise it could not had been so successful. What it had was some foriegn supperters. What it gains every moment is more and fan in Lebonan more and more she is destructed.
"Hezbollah is what qualifies Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. And the US is formally at war with international terrorist groups and their sponsors."
There is a big difference between Hezbollah and a terrorist group like Alghade. However many countries, including many European countries, have not included the name of Hezbollah in the list of terrorist groups. I have not searched for it, please correct me if you know that I am not right. Thus I may conclude that your remarks that Hezbollah is a terrorist group is far premature. Note that I do disapprove the blind murdering by Hezbollah and also I do disapprove the mass murdering by Israel. Are you sure that the acts of Israel agianst civilians might qualify her for being a terrorist?
"The IRI might have survived if it had abandoned it's nuclear program. I don't think there is any chance of that outcome, any more. The regime's days are numbered."
There is no regime in Iran. There is a goverment elected by the Iranian people. You could think whatever you wish. I respect you that you are thinking. However let us think more ;)
Behold, the value Iran has to their own peoples lives:
"Teams of Iranian suicide bombers were heading for Lebanon’s war zone last night in a terrifying bid to spark meltdown in the Middle East" , “They have received adequate training to fight beside their Lebanese brothers. They will identify Zionist targets and attack them with actions of martyrdom.”
Ah.. Islam..What a peaceful religion, it values human lives so much..
The article says they trained to do this.. I just dont understand how you can train on killing yourself.
well maybe only the instructor showed them how to do this like Here: Muslim Teacher Blows Himself Up In Class
Now I ask you a question..
what land belonging to Iran has Israel ever occupied or is occupying ?!?
Ghasem,
There is a big difference between Hezbollah and a terrorist group like Alghade.
Yes. Hezbollah has state backing (Iran/Syria). It's better organized, better funded, has better weaponry. It's potentially more dangerous than Al Qaeda.
Prior to September 11th 2001, Hezbollah was responsible for more terrorism against Americans and more deaths of Americans than Al Qaeda was.
I'm not going to discuss your revisionist history re: Hezbollah. I was there when Hezbollah was born. Were you? If so, then you're telling lies. If not, then you are still telling lies, although you might actually believe them to be true :D
I'm also not going to discuss the "merits" of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I really do not wihs to discuss history. It is what it is - the history is why we are, where we are. The issue at hand is what happens next.
Craig,
"The only correct way to counter violence is with violence. What would you do if I punched you in the face?"
Does everyone in your country believe in this? Do all people in the civilized west treat each other in this way?
"Soaring numbers of Americans killed? 2500 in 3 years?
Let's see. 1000 troops killed per year. 2,500,000 troops in the US military.
In 2497 years the US military will be destroyed.
More Americans were killed in 1 day in 2001 than in 3 years of war."
Well, I see you are getting used to statistics little by little! Let me remind you that more Japanese were killed in one day in Hiroshima than in 30 years in the USA.
However, I still believe the approach to kill as many as you can in revenge for those you have lost is going nowhere, no matter how many soldiers you have in your army.
"What would you do if I punched you in the face?"
Watch and listen to this, not right to the point though:
http://www.firozshroff.com/Sand%20and%20Stone%20.pps
Does everyone in your country believe in this? Do all people in the civilized west treat each other in this way?
Yes. That's what keeps us civilized. I hope you are watching events in Lebanon closely. That's the fate Iran is heading for. Full speed ahead.
Speaking of which, 3000 Americans were killed on Day One at the battle of Tarawa. More than in 3 years in Iraq. And that's not even the only time in WW II that the US lost more troops in a day than we've lost in 5 years fighting the war on terror.
300,000 American troops were killed in 4 years in WW II. It would take 100 years in Iraq to match that number.
And the US had some of the lightest casualties in that war. The Soviets had 9 million soldiers killed.
Don't try to frighten anybody throwing numbers around. We can play this game literally forever, against the kind of oppostion we've been facing.
Unless Iran gets nukes. Which is why Iran will not get nukes. It's just common sense. You know what that is, right?
By the way, Mehrdad, since you like statistics so much... how many Iranians died fighting Iraq? Comparing yoyr losses vs Iraq to US losses vs Iraq might be a pretty good statistical indicator of likely future outcomes, wouldn't you say?
And another thing! :P
I did notice your veiled threat that a single nuke could inflict more damage on the US than it has ever sufferred before. You spell your own doom, with talk like that.
Apparrently, Ahmadinejad is not the only Iranian who wants to see his country laid waste.
Craig:
"Hezbollah has state backing (Iran/Syria). It's better organized, better funded, has better weaponry."
This does not prove that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. The European Union does not list Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization". Have you ever asked yourself why?
"I was there when Hezbollah was born. Were you?"
No, I was not there. But I used to read and listen to the stories of all sides of any conflict.
"I'm also not going to discuss the "merits" of the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Fair enough. Also do not curse Iran.
"I really do not wihs to discuss history. It is what it is - the history is why we are, where we are. The issue at hand is what happens next."
The issue is what strategy brings a long lasting peace. Morality and any long lasting peace requires applying the same sets of the international rules to all parties involved in the conflict.
Craig,
I would like to repeat my previous statement that the approach to kill as many as you can in revenge for those you have lost is going to nowhere. All the statistics you provided do prove this. Did Japan, Russia, Iraq, Iran, or Hizbollah become civilized by killing others? Nor will do the USA.
"I did notice your veiled threat that a single nuke could inflict more damage on the US than it has ever suffered before."
I am afraid but I have to say you were absolutely wrong in guessing my attitude towards a nuke Iran.
"Apparrently, Ahmadinejad is not the only Iranian who wants to see his country laid waste."
…and, Bush is not the only American who wants to see his country laid waste, either. I am against both of them.
Ghasem,
This does not prove that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. The European Union does not list Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization". Have you ever asked yourself why?
You must be mistaking me for somebody who cares about what EUropeans think :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_847
Germany released the only one of those hezbollah hijackers to have been arrested, last year. He has since been put back on the FBI's most wanted list. He has not yet been tried in an American court for the murder of passenger Robert Dean Stethem, the American killed and thrown out onto the tarmac in Beirut, live on television.
If you want more, Hezbollah is charged ith hundreds of acts of international terrorism.
Do a google search :)
But this is not a topic of discussion, as far as I'm concerned. Hezbollah must be destroyed, for their crimes, and Hezbollah's masters must be destroyed.
The issue is what strategy brings a long lasting peace.
America is at war. We do not want peace. We want to win. Wars typically end when one side or the other loses. Victory is the path to peace, during a war.
I would like to repeat my previous statement that the approach to kill as many as you can in revenge for those you have lost is going to nowhere.
The object is not to extract revenge. The objective is to end terrorism. Just like Nazism was ended. And in case you don't know this, Americans have a hatred for terrorists that exceeds any hatred we have ever had for any other enemy, including the Nazis and the Japanese. And Iran is the leading state sponsor of international terrorism.
…and, Bush is not the only American who wants to see his country laid waste, either. I am against both of them.
I hope your self-proclaimed neutrality is of some comfort to you in the future.
"I hope your self-proclaimed neutrality is of some comfort to you in the future."
Sorry, I am not neutral. I am against Ahmadinejad and Bush who both think they can win only when the other loses. I am in favor of those who are looking for a win-win situation. I am in favor of those who feel sympathetic both to the Japanese who were killed in Hiroshima and to the Americans who lost their lives in 9/11. Only reactionary Fascists can ignore one side completely and reserve the right to win for themselves.
Ah Mehrdad,
Why don't you shut up?! We all got your nonsense "logic". Give it (and us) a rest.
Go play with some candies. Good boy.
Now enough nonsense:
An article that says it all as it is (for a change.)
Only for the clarification: The European Union list of terrorists includes several individuals of Lebanese origin, but makes no reference to Hezbullah. [ Look at the end of section 4.1 of the EU's relations with Lebanon]
Ghasem,
Thats because Europeans are asleep.
Don't worry tho, they will wake up, sooner or later.
Probably later.
I have talked with many Europeans. Indeed many of the them have been evaluating and are evaluating the policy of Israel toward the Palestinans in the Occupied Palestinans territories as explicit and obvious examples of voilation of Human rights. Some declare in a clear way that the state of Isreal has not fulfilled the duties which the Fourth Geneva Convention imposes on the Occupying Power in the Occupied Territories.
Far a few people, may be no one, support Hezbullah acts. However most of the people whom I talked to consider the recent attack of Israel as a collective punishment which is prohibited by human rights and humanitarian norms. They do not support Isreal at all. Some critisize the way that US is supporting Isreal.
I do not allow myelf to call these people as asleep people. They are so active and very independent.
Ghasem,
You seem to have missed my point, maybe because I wasn't specific enough. In any such case, these Europeans that you mentioned aren't asleep. They are just blind radical leftists and I didn't talk of them, save them for the margins where they belong. I talked about Europeans as a whole.
Ben: Some of them are leftists but no one is blind or radical. Every one is rational. However when it comes to the human rights then all agree that the act of Israel is in clear voilation with the human rights and humanitarian norms.
I think this was a beutiful article from beautiful mind.
Ghasem,
You can continue arguing about the current state of mind of europeans all you want but this isn't an argument about an opinion that I have. It's about an event which is inevitable to happen because native europeans share the same desire for freedom as the americans and israelis, and the likes of you have been exploiting that for immoral ideologies and agendas for far too long on european soil.
Regarding the "human rights", you and your friends should attend your attention to what's going on in Iran rather than in Israel.
It is an Iranian court that sentenced raped women to death by stoning for being raped, it is an Iranian court that sentenced a man to have his eyes gouged out in a surgical operation and another to have his limbs cut off.
You and your european friends, have no moral authority to judge Israel actions against her enemies which don't mind about "human rights" themselves, and are killing and maiming innocent Israelis on the one hand and are using their own innocent civilians as human shields on the other.
Dear "An Impolite Student"-AIS,
Are you the representative of "all" or you just liked to be since you were a kid!?!
Here is a story link for those who are curious about what the US and Israel have in store for Iran.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10962352/iran_the_next_war/1
It's a great article, AIS, Thanks
It really articulates how many people abdicate their responsibility to make moral judgement, an example of which is people posting here who count corpses on each side to see who is in the right.
Mehrdad I thought you had said you preferred not continue this discussion, but it seemed that was your way of not answering points where you had no answers to give.
Anyway, you have a point about not speaking for everyone. So here I publically ask anyone who is still deprived of the the blessing of your rock solid logic to SPEAK OUT and ask for enlightenment.
And don't bring my childhood into this. I was a nasty kid. Nothing the greates logical mind after Aristotle should waste time with.
Ron,
yes it is a great article. Mellanie Phillips writes very well and always to the point. I read her all the time.
What I lked most about this article was the fact that it was the only one I have seen to have noticed the catastrophic impact of the Western media bias on people from the Middle East and the Islamic world. I see it very clearly among iranians for instance. Nobody, not even the hardliners, takes the official IRI media seriously. But many still fully trust the BBC or the Guardian, and this is what is being fed to them.
And that is just despicable. Have you for instance seen the video of how Snow of Channel Four treated Israeli Ambassador after the beginning of Gaza bombings? ( here ) crazy isn't it? Where is the West going to?!
Indeed the most absurd repeated mantra is this comparison of the fatalities of the two sides. One wonders how many Israelis should have died as well for these people to be satisfied, for their pereverted sense of justice to be satiated?
It is mind-paralysis believe me. The moral side of their minds is so hampered it just doesn't function. believe me.
Ron,
Counting corpses on each side is an accurate indicator of who is in the right. However, the only difference between you and me is that you believe the side which has inflicted more is in the right, while I think exactly the opposite.
Craig,
The following is a proof that the black-and-white approach of "“you’re either with us or against us” is such a naive one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5211840.stm
"Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji declined to meet White House officials during a visit to the US, he has told the BBC."
…
"In a speech last week in Washington DC, he also criticized US policy in Iraq, saying: "You cannot bring democracy to a country by attacking it"."
…
"He added that the war in Iraq had helped Islamic fundamentalism and hampered the democracy movement in the region."
I am glad, however, that such a mentality is hitting a new low record of 31% even in the USA, let alone the rest of the world.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-08-bush-approval_x.htm
… and the over 60 comments posted for this article well shows the support of "all" for somebody's perception that "this article is not really worth responding to."
Mark,
Here is what Iran had long before the USA or Israel were born:
The First Charter of the Rights of Nations
Cyrus, The Great, 539 B.C.
Founder of The First Persian Empire
I am Cyrus.
King of the world. When I entered Babylon... I did not allow anyone to terrorise the land... I kept in view the needs of Babylon and all its sanctuaries to promote their well-being... I put an end to their misfortune.
http://www.farsinet.com/cyrus/
Ben: It seems you accuse any one who does not share your ideas.
¨...native europeans share the same desire for freedom ...¨
1- Classifying people based on their being native or not being native is in obvious contradiction with human rights. I disagree with this classification. However to be informative I should add that some of the people you classify as native disagree and oppose the attitude of Israel in the Occupying territories against the Palestineans. We share the values of human rights and we believe that the constant violation of the human rights by the state of Israel tend to accumulate such that, each day that they are not dealt with, their concequences increase in gravity and effect. I am not an expert in Human rights I looked at what experts have said. For example it has been argued constantly in various reports, at least, since 1998 that ¨the combined effect of closure, land confiscation, house demolition, systematic expansion of settlments and by-pass roads and discrimination against workers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories has caused apparently growing sense apparent anger that is being directed not only agianst to Israel as the Occupying Power but also their own Palestinian Authority [before the recent election]and specially agianst the international community in connection with its inability to offer effective protection.¨ Indeed, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms must be considered part and parcel of any viable peace process as they are a conditio sine qua non of any enduring peace.
¨you and your friends should attend your attention to what's going on in Iran rather than in Israel.¨
We are worried about the voilation of human rights in Iran, we are opposing. We are all human beings. Thus we should not close our eyes to the violations of the human rights by Israel in the Palestinan Occupied territories and Lebonan.
¨You and your european friends, have no moral authority to judge Israel actions against her enemies ¨
You are wronge. The experts in the field of human right have judged Israel action against what she refere to as her enemies. What I and my friends are doing is to study and to compare the arguments of the state of Isreal and the human right reports versus the international rules. Like any other human being we have the authority to express our just and independent thoughts and ideas on the subject which we study.
Ghasem,
"Classifying people based on their being native or not being native is in obvious contradiction with human rights. I disagree with this classification"
I said that "native europeans share the same desire for freedom as the americans and israelis".
That is a very legitimate classification.
I am just showing you where the desire for freedom is inherent, at least in the past few centuries and thats in europe, and was constituted by native europeans.
Even to this day, you can see that many muslim countries still struggle inside themselves with these ideas and that just shows that they aren't ready for it, something the Americans didn't realize yet.
What did you want me to say, that freedom is in the minds of native middle eastern arabs/muslims?
It sure doesnt look like it with the institutionalized gouging of eyes and amputation of limbs, the imprisonment of people for things which aren't considered as crimes in the west on the one hand, and the religiously "legalized pedophilia" on the other.
No sir, these countries, and their people dont have the desire for freedom.
Native europeans which were born and educated in europe do.
The palestinian anger that you talk about is not the result of the israeli actions because these actions that you talk about only came as a response to terror that was before them.
The root cause of the anger that palestinians have is plain religious hate and to understand that it's enough to look at the Koran verses that preach against Jews, to see the religious anger Iranians and other muslims that have no contact with Israel have against her on a religious basis which is against jews.
Human Rights:
Your european friends never had to deal in a war with the enemies Israel fights, and when they will have to, and they will, they will be much less worried about human rights and make Israel look like a saint. Mark my words..
Your days of exploiting them and their ignorance are numbered and numbered by the behavior of your kind and no one else.
Ben:
Human rights includes freedom exlusivley. Look at the universal declaration of Human Rights. You will realise freedom a pedibus usque ad caput in the universal declarition of human rights.
"The palestinian anger that you talk about is not the result of the israeli actions"
A mandate of the specail Rapporteur was stablished by Commission on Human Rights resultion 1993/2 of 19 Feburary 1993 to investigate the Israel's violation of the principles and bases of the international law, international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 Aufust 1949, in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967 and to report to the Commision until the end of the Israeli occupation of those territories. I went through many of the reports given by this mandate. All the special rapporteurs whom I read their reports never have said that "the anger that palestinians have is plain religious hate". On the other hand they clearly have stated, many times not once, that the anger is due to the unjust behaviour of Israel and the constant violation of Human rights of the Palestinian persons by the state of Israel.
Ghasem,
I didn't check that human rights link you posted but if it's what I think it is, then you should send it to your friend Ahmadinejad.
Palestinian anger:
It's chronologically impossible that the palestinian anger began as a result of Israeli defensive actions because these actions only came after there was already anger that led to terror.
You can selectively read all rapporteurs that you want but that doesn't change what happens in reality.
Jews in Israel suffered from palestinian terrorism long before modern Israel was founded in 1948 and the roots of the Israeli defence force were created from small groups of defence guards that the Jews had to sustain in late 19th century and early 20th century Israel for self defence against raging armed muslim mobs that used to kill and destroy anything in their paths in waves of violence that were very similar to the recent muslim waves of violence in France.
The americans did nothing to make the 9/11 hijackers angry. They were made angry by their religious leaders. Those that suicided in 7/7/2005 in London didn't suffer any actions by the British army. Nor did the suicide bombers that killed hundreds of spanish people in the 3/11 madrid train bombings.
This was all done by religious hate, by following verses in Islam permitting to do this.
Your religion is an evil religion of hate, presented by exiles like you as 'religion of peace' to unsuspecting westerners.
But thats "ok", since the self proclaimed "prophet" permit lying to infidels.
It's enough to watch videotaped mosque friday sermons on the internet to see the hate being baldly preached to the muslim masses. It's also very easy to notice the inferiority complex that muslims and arabs suffer from. The Germans suffered from this same inferiority complex before the two world wars erupted. This psychological illness is most dominant in Iran and Saudi Arabia and will cause a world wide catastrophe if not dealt with by the world as a whole.
Palestinian anger is the direct result of education of hate and inferiority complex that sprung from Islam.
Russians used to totally flatten whole Chechen villages as a response for isolated acts of terror.
The Americans gave Al Qaeda camps in Afganistan and Insurgent camps in Iraq "leveling treatment".
Israel drops leaflets in Gaza and now also in Lebanon, saying which exact area is going to be bombed, asking people to leave beforehand.
Israel attacked in Gaza the buildings which are used as launching pads for Qasam rockets, and uses lazer guided missiles and expensive intelligence gathering to do her best at surgically killing only the terrorists and not civilians.
All of these actions by Israel are actions of self defance and not of provocation..
If palestinians develope anger against someone who is protecting himself from their violence then let it be.
The same type of hate that you can see in the eyes of palestinians, exists in the eyes of Iranians that volunteered to suicide in Israel although Israel has done them nothing wrong.
It's the same type of hate that was in the eyes of those that attacked European embessies all over the muslim world after the Muhammad caricatures were published.
This anger is the result of brainwash, of incitement, of collective psychological instability, of Islam.
Ron:
"It's chronologically impossible"
The chronology you refer to is not right. The anger you are referring to had been in the Palestinian Territory and Israel when the first settlements arrived there. Those anger manifested themselves as groups which UK referred to as riots groups. Even at that time it had been special investigation by UK to identify the cause and roots for this riots groups. The report said that the concern was land and territory not the clash of the ideologies.
"You can selectively read all rapporteurs that you want but that doesn't change what happens in reality."
I tried to read every reports by that mandate. I am still reading the rest of the reports. If you know other reports by experts in the field let me know.
"The Americans did nothing to make the 9/11 hijackers angry... as a whole."
No one supports 9/11 or 7/7 acts. They are obvious terrorist acts which had been condomed globally.
"This anger is the result of brainwash, of incitement, of collective psychological instability, of Islam."
That is not about the anger in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The expert in field of Human right have said repeatly that that anger is the result of continuous and consecutive violation of Human rights by the Occupying Power in the Occupied Palestinian Teritories. For example look at article 76 in page 19 of this report . This article relates the growing anger toward the Occupying Power to sense of hopelessness and passive discouragement due to the violation of human rights by the Occupying Power. Article 39 of same reference states that the Palestinian juveniles are arrested on the charge of stone-throwing and are sentenced to periods usually from one to six months. Article 37 of the same reference states that Israelis mostly settlers who killed Palestinian are sentenced more often two between four and six months of imprisonment. Read article 39 and Article 37.
The report that I was reffering to is this one
Ghasem,
"The report said that the concern was land and territory not the clash of the ideologies."
Fear of growing numbers of new arrivals was more common than complaint over territory used by the Arab representatives against the jewish population in Israel in front of the British mandate.
But that doesn't counter my argument, in fact, you helped to make my point even more obvious because at that time, there were no F16 blowing up houses or targeted assassinations.
There were only Jews that settled in Israel out of ideology, religious motives and those that settled in Israel to flee the horrors of WWII.
Those that came from abroad the country either settled in land that they bought from local arabs for a very high price or settled in a land that already belonged to jews that lived there for hundreds and thousands of years.
Arabs began to worry about the coming numbers of Jews and were instructed by their mufti that dwelled in Jerusalem to go on the riots.
These riots were orginized and were motivated and directed by preachers of religion just as the recent riots in france were.
At that time there was no military occupation on the jewish behalf to give them any reason for the riots.
That is the correct chronology, the jewish community in Israel had no military capabilities at all until there was necessity to create them BECAUSE of riots that risked their lives, riots that came before there was IDF to occupy 'palestinian land' -- which by the way may I remind you, was occupied during wars the were imposed on Israel.
Sometimes losers can't make peace with their loses that were won by their victims fair and square and thats a shame.
That is also where the anger comes from, it relates to a proud and arrogant religion that can't afford being so humiliated, and then the inferiority complex kicks in.
"No one supports 9/11 or 7/7 acts. They are obvious terrorist acts which had been condomed globally"
Very nice.. I'd also like to remind you that the suicide bombers which palestinians send to explode in israeli busses and coffee shops are also acts of terror, and that the launching of Qassam missiles that palestinians use to bomb Israel every day with (even today) are also acts of terror.
And these acts of terror have no difference from what happened in New York, London or Madrid. They are also the same as the bombing in Bali and in India.
They were all done by religious people of Islam, because of Islam, by direct instructions of Islam.
Mehrdad,
Please do explain how you know what I believe without me saying it. Are you psychic?
Deciding which side is right or wrong based on casualty numbers cannot even be called lazy thinking, because there is no thinking involved. It is a naive, black-and-white approach used by people who for some reason can't or don't want to contemplate the motives and intentions of each side.
Ben : Point me to one report that states that the acts of Arabs -as a whole not individuals- within the boarders of Israel has violated the human rights of Israeli citizens!
Ron,
"Please do explain how you know what I believe without me saying it."
Well, I apologize if I have prejudged your belief.
"It is a naive, black-and-white approach used by people who for some reason can't or don't want to contemplate the motives and intentions of each side."
I do include the motives and intentions of each side in determining which side is right or wrong. However, the problem in many instances of such ethnic and religious wars is that the motives of both sides are nothing but stupid ideas of the leaders or other special interest groups. As for example, during eight years of Iran-Iraq War, both Iranians and Iraqis thought they were fighting for God. I never say Hezbollah is in the right just because it has inflicted fewer casualties in comparison to Israel. I say the country which has caused less casualties based on unjustifiable ideas throughout history should be considered in a better position. Take the invasion of Iraq by America, for example. Was that for finding WMD which were never found there? Or was that for hampering the terrorists who were behind 9/11 but were not Iraqis? Or was it all just for establishing a democracy while the closest friends of the US in the region, including Saudi Arabia and United Arabs of Emirates, are governed in an obviously non-democratic way? Although the United Arabs of Emirates was the only country which did officially support Taliban after 9/11, Bush administration insisted on granting this country the control of some of America's most important ports. So far over 34,000 Iraqis, as well as nearly 3000 Americans, have lost their lives in the so-called war on terror. Can you see any reasonable motive behind this?
Ben: I also would like to draw your attention to Article 57 of the report submitted by John Dugard on 18 August 2005, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, in accordance with Commission resolution 1993/2 A and 2005/7 which states that
"The Government of Israel is determined to defer final status negotiations for as long as possible to enable it to establish as many facts on the ground as possible before such negotiations begin. The international community should be aware of this obvious fact and do its best to ensure that such negotiations commence forthwith. Only a resolution to the conflict which ends Israeli occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the construction of the wall, the expansion of settlements and the de-Palestinization of Jerusalem will lead to an environment in which there is hope for respect for human rights."
This statement is clear as it is.
Ghasem,
"Point me to one report that states that the acts of Arabs -as a whole not individuals- within the boarders of Israel has violated the human rights of Israeli citizens!"
What kind of nonsense question is that? Why do you use the phrase: "as a whole"? If thats so, I can switch the words Israelis and Arabs in your question and you wouldn't be able to answer it because you can't include all Israelies as a whole for what one of them does.
Suicide bombers in buses, coffee shops, gunners ambushes in civilian high ways, rockets that land in Israeli cities every day from south and north.
All these are violation of human rights of Isreali civilians. No need for report about this, just read the news.
"I also would like to draw your attention to Article 57 of the report submitted by John Dugard..."
The wall which you're referring too is there to decrease the ability of suicide bombers to cross the border into Israeli cities.
You don't like it? too bad, I like it, it lowered the suicide bombings to a 1/10 of what their numbers used to be.
Between the human rights violation the wall is causing to individual palestinian land owners and the significant gain of life in the Israeli side, I choose saving life.
It's funny seeing how you select reports of commissions that grasp nothing in reality and didn't earn their legitimacy to discuss the Israeli-Arab conflict in the first place.
You're manifesting an educated example to why muslims didn't advance in modern age at all.
Instead of taking these 'human rights' reports to try and better your own society, you cynically use them to harass countries that are fighting existential war with your fellow muslims that decided to practice their religion according to the book and have no considerations to human rights at all.
You guys seem to give much importance to creating more suffering in the world than first curing your own people, much the same way as you don't regard human rights violations that happens in Iran and other muslim countries, much the same as Saddam Hussain and Yaser Arafat both used all foreign aid they recived for terror financing and deadly weapons.
Instead of understanding what human rights are, you take the base assumtions to justify Palestinian terror and direct allegations against Israel.
"The wall ... the border...."
The wall is not on the border of the state of Israel. Principle part of that it within the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In fact it is tearing apart the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The International Court held that "the United Nations and especially the General Assembly and Security Council should consider what further action is required to bring an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime" (A/ES-10/273, advisory opinion, para. 160).It was confirmed by the General Assembly in resolution ES/10-15 of 20 July 2004 that the United Nation is under legal obligation to take action to bring an end to the construction of the wall.
"...individual palestinian land owners and the significant gain of life in the Israeli side..."
Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are illegal. They violate article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention and their illegality has been confirmed by the International Court of Justic in its advisory opinion on the wall. There can therefore be no justification for the retention of settlements. A fortiori, the expansion of settlements must be completely unacceptable to the internation community (Article 21 of special reports A/60/271, 18 August 2005). There is a distinction between legitimate security measures and illegitimate security measures. The construction of the Wall, within the Occupied Palestinian Territories as opposed to along the Green line or within Israel is an illegitimate security measure and should be discontinued immediately and not relegated to the realm of permanent status talk. Failure to do so will provide FURTHER evedince of Israel's intention to annex Palestinian territory and jeopardise a fragile truce. (Report of special Rapporteur E/CB.4.2005/29/Add.1 3 March 2005)
"It's funny seeing how you select reports of commissions that grasp nothing in reality and didn't earn their legitimacy to discuss the Israeli-Arab conflict in the first place."
The Quartet, comprising the United Nations, the European Union, the United States of America and the Russian Federation, appears to prefer to conduct its negotiations with Israel in terms of the so-called road map with no regard to the advisory opinion. The road map seems to contemplate the acceptance of certain sections of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the inclusion of major Jewish settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in Israeli territory. This process places the United Nations in an awkward situation as it clearly cannot be a party to negotiations that ignore the advisory opinion of its own judicial organ. (Last Pargraph in the summary report of Special Repporteur 05-4690 (E) 080905, A/60/150)
This suggests that the Quartet and the road map process to which it is committed are not premised on the rule of law or respect for human rights. If this is so, the road map runs the risk of repeating the failures of the Oslo process which likewise took no account of human rights considerations. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur is to report on violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This mandate must surely extend to the attitude of States and international organizations to the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This compels the Special Rapporteur to question the approach of the Quartet. (Article 55 of report of Special Repporteur 05-4690 (E) 080905, A/60/150)
Ghasem,
Very nice and tidy, but you and the reports lose any legitimacy when not refering to the acts of terror that palestinians practice and the religious connection which is present in these attacks.
That wall prevents palestinian terror and saves lives of Israelis. You dont regard that, you only regard the fake suffering and fake victimizations of palestinians: People who elected a terror organization to be their government, people that have a dominant majority that supports terror acts against Israel and any other western country in the world, a nation of people where the mothers celebrate the deaths of their sons in 'shahada' acts of suicide bombings.
Palestinians send rockets and suicide bombers into israel. If Israel concerned herself with every human rights issue that is created by the wall and defensive measures that it uses, she would act as a suicidal democracy.
Ghasem, also have to ask yourself why the U.S and Russia and the governments of EU countries don't wave those reports that you do? You have to ask yourself why those reports have no influence on what happens in the field. Perhapes no one is willing to fight for them, that's because their legitimacy is disputed, very much in light of Palestinian terrorism and the growing phenomenon of world wide muslim terrorism.
Quoting hallucinogenic reports that have no ties to reality has become an art in your hands, congratulations.
"...the reports lose any legitimacy ..."
The international rules to which Israel is a singnatory define the legitimacy. Thus the reports are legitimate. Note that the highest humanitarian councils in the field have reported them.
"Ghasem, also have to ask yourself why the U.S and Russia and the governments of EU countries don't wave those reports that you do? You have to ask yourself why those reports have no influence on what happens in the field."
That is the question we must ask and we must keep asking. As a free human being, I share the side with the Special Rapporteurs to question the approach of the Quartet.
"Terrorism is forbidden in Islam."
Do Muslims know that? Why are Mulims behind all the terrorism? Why do Muslim leaders say they want to convert the world via war to Islam? Which one is it? I would like to know...
Ghasem,
Israel didn't sign anything which restraints her from fighting against terrorists.
My second question that you refer to was rhetorical, if you couldn't understand that, may god help you.
A Reader,
Terrorism is not forbidden in Islam, in fact, Islam inspires encourages terror.
A number of facts question the premise of the current situation being the consequence of, rather simply put, a territorial dispute. For instance -
1. The PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) was formed in 1964 to reclaim the lands occupied by Israel. This is three years BEFORE the 1967 war where the Arab armies lost 67000 sq kilometres of land to the Israelis, lands that everyone NOW refers to as the 'Occupied territories). What were they fighting for in 1964, when nothing was occupied, save the land granted to Israel by the 1947 Partition Plan by the United Nations? (This plan was rejected by the Arab League, which incidentally was not because they wanted more or less territory - the UN plan specified 55% of the area for jews, 45% for arabs, with Jerusalem being a neutral territory. The Arabs went to war to block the creation of a Jewish state - in their own words.)
Before I go on to more points, I'd like to mention that I am an Indian. We've had just as much experience with terrorism, Islamic or otherwise, State sponsored or indigenous, as Israel or the United States. The current standing toll, officially, of Kasmiri terrorism is 35,000 civilians. Just Kashmir. Let's not even go into the multiple Bombay bombings, the Delhi bombings, the Attack on Parliament, the Coimbatore bombings...
A rather morbid fact is that the casualties due to terrorism are the least now since 1989 because of the current Indian doctrine of response, which is - First eliminate the terrorists, then the cause. Not spectacularly successful, even vague considering the intertwined response between the causes and the acts of terrorism, but somehow reducing the human cost, the cost of civilians who has nothing to do with any issue.
Do we feel happy that our soldiers are killing people with less discretion than they should exercise? No.
Do we feel safer? Yes.
A very VERY disturbing state of events.
}{at: "... armies lost 67000 sq kilometres of land to the Israelis"
In 1967 the United Nation Security Counsil passed resulotion 242 calling Israel to withdraw from the Occupied Territories and Israel has yet to comply.
[Source Video]
Yes, Ghasem. They have not complied. But most of the captured land belonged to other sovereign countries - Egypt, Jordan and Syria. And the national boundaries changed again after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In fact, at the current time, a majority of the lands have been given back, including Gaza. But, unhappily, that did not change the level of terrorism an ounce.
But this is not the point I was trying to make. I wonder if any political solution that does not include the dissolution of Israel is acceptable to the Palestinians, who currently and ironically, do not recognise Israel. And the refusal of the Arabs, especially Jordan, to assimilate the Palestinians begs questioning. Never before has such a large displaced population been refused asylum by countries they themselves call supporters and allies, for such a long duration.
H you said:
"at the current time, a majority of the lands have been given back, including Gaza. But, unhappily, that did not change the level of terrorism an ounce."
I disagree. It has quite evidently increased the level of terrorism manyfolds. For a simple reason. The aim of Arabs and mulsim lands is teh annihaltion of Israel, and ultimately the defeat f teh West. Its has always been an ideological-genocidal aim. All the nonsense talk about "palestinians" is just teh cover excuse to give it superficial justification and appeal. As Israel withdraws, they percieve it only as weakness and increase their assault.
We are talking of an ideolgy worse than Nazism here. The only reason it hasn't "achieved" as much yet is because it lacks order, discipline and technical knowledge, otherwise it is definitely worse.
AIS,
It is both funny and ironic to me that whether we approach the current situation as a territorial dispute OR a jihad, the ultimate and only acceptable solution to the Palestinians and the regional hegemonies seems to be the dissolution of Israel.
IF it be a Jihad, then the only lasting solution I see is to enlighten the public against indocrination, which would require publicly subjecting the texts of the Koran and the rationale of Islam to the same critical analysis and study that the other texts have enjoyed. But this cannot happen without the removal, forceful or otherwise, of the forces whose only claim to legitimacy and authority stem from Islam and the Koran. And THIS can only be done by external intervention, a forceful regional RESET, if you will.
If this be a territorial dispute, the solution is more straightforward, and requires little or no intervention. The waves of terrorism will keep breaking themselves on the rocks of an organised and successful nation until the costs become untenable for the terrorists. The lack of basic amenities, food and future will finally take precedence over idealism and fanaticism and the people will resign themselves, if nothing else, to the reality of Israel and then strive for their own betterment as the nation of Palestine.
The last comment was mine.
I'm sure it is not a territorial dispute. But territory comes in it firstly because of the same genocidal ideology that is islamism. It's aim is domination and subjugation and that means territorial hegemony as well. (again like teh Nazis and their Lebensraum). It is also useful for recruiting disposessed and deliberately unassimilated "refugees" and turning them into human missiles and of course as I said there is the amazing PR use they are making of it to sell it to teh idiots and the gullibles the world over for legitimacy...with great success unfortunately.
Ghasem,
"In 1967 the United Nation Security Counsil passed resulotion 242 calling Israel to withdraw from the Occupied Territories and Israel has yet to comply"
You are ridiculous. Why should Israel return land which was gained in wars that were imposed on her?
Do you think you can intentionally cause a war, lose, and then ask for what you lost back?
No sir, this is not a childish game, so if they want land back, they must agree for permanent peace. Few understood this point already. some didn't and it's only their lose.
Ben: Please do not practice selective morality! We all should respect the international rules.
"You are ridiculous."
Thanks ;)
Ghasem,
International laws also prohibit the use and support of terrorism so stop your support of it and I'll stop calling you ridiculous.
Thanks ;)
whoever thinks god is on their side is responsible!
unfortunately hizbollah has made things worse throughout the recent decades.. israel, on the other hand, is "a country for jews!" the whole idea is racist!! think about it..
lets rethink everything.. forget what media tells you and use your brain!
http://www.voltairenet.org/article142429.html
---------------------------------------------
i need to correct myself:
whoever says god is on their side ...
thinking is believing! war is all about
+ power and pride
which are meaningless upon
+ believing in god or not being stupid!
saman a,
You said:
"israel, on the other hand, is 'a country for jews!' the whole idea is racist!!"
Well, you've got a 'tiny' hole in your theory, you see, Jews have no race.
The only things that Jewish people have in common are their belief, tradition and the fact that they are being persecuted by people like you.
Israel consists of Jews from 104 countries (in the last count) and they were all fully assi