From: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org (idealcopy-digest) To: idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Subject: idealcopy-digest V9 #202 Reply-To: idealcopy@smoe.org Sender: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk idealcopy-digest Friday, August 4 2006 Volume 09 : Number 202 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: [idealcopy] O.T: Israel........... ["Clements, Bruno - BUP" ] [idealcopy] RE: O.T: Israel........... ["Jason Rogers" ] Re: [idealcopy] RE: O.T: Israel........... ["Jason Rogers" ] Re: [idealcopy] RE: O.T: Israel........... ["Jason Rogers" ] Re: [idealcopy] RE: O.T: Israel........... ["toiler on the sea" ] Re: [idealcopy] O.T: Israel........... ["Uri Baran" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:52:41 +0100 From: "Clements, Bruno - BUP" Subject: RE: [idealcopy] O.T: Israel........... I think concern was expressed for the safety of Giluz, and one or two of us posted hand-wringingly useless comments about the futility of it all. To those sitting in air-conditioned offices a long way from it all, it seems glib to pass much comment along the lines of 'why can't states of any religious persuasion or ethnic population just get on with living happily side-by-side?' Obviously it looks quite different to those living with the situation. The roots of all this strife do go back a long way, far from helped by British colonialism and international carve-ups of territory to which local populations had little say (long before the creation of the state of Israel). As Ari says, you only have to look at the situation in Ireland to see that bad/insensitive/cruel decisions taken decades or generations ago still cause big problems and that's on a tiny scale (the size of Ireland being tiny, that is). The partition of India was an even bigger nightmare. Bring me out of the freezer when Utopia arrives (ie never). Bruno - -----Original Message----- From: owner-idealcopy@smoe.org [mailto:owner-idealcopy@smoe.org]On Behalf Of Ari Sent: 02 August 2006 20:18 To: idealcopy@smoe.org Subject: [idealcopy] O.T: Israel........... .... I know this isn't a 'political' list but when the war in Iraq broke many of us were dismayed at the actions taken by our 'dear' president. Since the outbreak of war between Israel and Hizbolla there has been no mention on this list probably due to the fact that some of us are Jews. Two weeks ago I recieved an email from someone on this list that I regard as a very dear friend, he berated Israel and suggested that the world would be a better place if Israel didn't exist. I responded at the time that Israel has every right to exist and that the Jews 'need' a homeland other than 'somewhere else', I still stand by that statement but I am appalled at her actions insofar as she seemingly has no regard for the lives of the 'ordinary' Lebanese citizen.She seems to be bent on making enemies of all arab peoples for the next 20 years. Oh I know the 'arguments' about 'self defence' and I know a lot of what's happened viz the Palestinians was Arafats lack of vision, none the less it seems to me that a people with 'our' history should know better than to do what she is doing and expect to solve them with violence upon violence. Depending on one's world view one could say the world would be better off if America didn't exist, or, if you're Irish you might replace that with the U.K and so on. I strongly support 'Israels right to exist' but feel equally strongly she has taken this too far. Just though I'd 'break the ice' and throw it open to discussion. Ari Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.clearswift.com ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 02:12:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Ari Subject: [idealcopy] O.T: Israel I too am an athiest, can't understand how so many people can believe in superstition, but that's another discussion and not for here. I agree fully with Uri strangely enough, and with those of you that emailed me off-list, all of whom so far have similar views, I do think however Israel should have 'gone in on the ground' first, it would have cut down on civillian casualties. In situations like this I don't always hold that my opinion is the right one, as Uri says in any war people will get hurt, I'm always open to other peoples opinion and it seems to me not enough people on both side of this horror are. Ari Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:50:51 +0000 From: "Jason Rogers" Subject: [idealcopy] RE: O.T: Israel........... >Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 12:18:13 -0700 (PDT) >From: Ari >Subject: [idealcopy] O.T: Israel........... > >.... I know this isn't a 'political' list but when the >war in Iraq broke many of us were dismayed at the >actions taken by our 'dear' president. >Since the outbreak of war between Israel and Hizbolla >there has been no mention on this list probably due to >the fact that some of us are Jews. >Two weeks ago I recieved an email from someone on this >list that I regard as a very dear friend, he berated >Israel and suggested that the world would be a better >place if Israel didn't exist. >I responded at the time that Israel has every right to >exist and that the Jews 'need' a homeland other than >'somewhere else', I still stand by that statement but >I am appalled at her actions insofar as she seemingly >has no regard for the lives of the 'ordinary' Lebanese >citizen.She seems to be bent on making enemies of all >arab peoples for the next 20 years. >Oh I know the 'arguments' about 'self defence' and I >know a lot of what's happened viz the Palestinians was >Arafats lack of vision, none the less it seems to me >that a people with 'our' history should know better >than to do what she is doing and expect to solve them >with violence upon violence. >Depending on one's world view one could say the world >would be better off if America didn't exist, or, if >you're Irish you might replace that with the U.K and >so on. >I strongly support 'Israels right to exist' but feel >equally strongly she has taken this too far. > Just though I'd 'break the ice' and throw it open to >discussion. Ari >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com > The deaths of Lebanese civilians is unfortunate, but, for the most part, they are casualties of Hezbollah's tendency to store weapon caches, hideouts, etc. in heavily civilian populated areas. The fanatical Islam common practice of using "human shields" is something that must be acknowledged, but, ultimately, not used as a reason not to take action against Hezbollah. It's interesting to me how Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, etc. never ever ever make mistakes in the eyes of many when it comes to civilian deaths. People are quick to point out U.S. transgressions against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan; whenever a stray bomb hits a residence, etc., the news media has a field day here. The same can be said for much of the media treatment of Israel's actions. The side of Hezbollah is the side that is willingly launching hundreds of missiles into civilian-populated areas, though, without concern of any civilian safety...just as fanatical Islamic fronts have engaged in suicide bombings against civilians in Israel and just as terrorists willingly killed civilians here in the United States on 9/11. I know that Israel is not entirely innocent and I have had mixed feelings about their actions in the past, but I'm inclined to firmly take to their side in dealing with rogue terrorists who have no concern whatsoever for civilian lives. At least the United States, Israel, and others have taken most possible steps to minimize civilian casualties. The fanatics who use human shields and who willingly attack civilian targets...well, much of the media seems to think that they are exempt from "mistakes", but I don't. Just my two cents. Jason ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 12:32:46 +0100 From: Andrew Walkingshaw Subject: Re: [idealcopy] RE: O.T: Israel........... On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:50:51AM +0000, Jason Rogers wrote: > The deaths of Lebanese civilians is unfortunate, but, for the most part, > they are casualties of Hezbollah's tendency to store weapon caches, > hideouts, etc. in heavily civilian populated areas. A favourite Hezbollah tactic is to launch attacks from Christian towns - so the retribution brings a third side into the conflict. The whole thing is just unutterably tragic. There are no glib answers, and both sides are at *best* morally slate-grey... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 08:35:01 EDT From: MarkBursa@aol.com Subject: Re: [idealcopy] RE: O.T: Israel........... Jason, You're missing a key point here - Israel is a sovereign state; Hizbollah is a terrorist orgaisation. Israel's position as a nation should be always to maintain the moral high ground - yet its response to terrorism consistently fails to do so. It lowers itself to the level of the terrorists by killing hundreds of innocent civilians. Parallels are drawn to the Northern Ireland situation - imagine if the UK government had sent the RAF to indiscrminately bomb parts of Belfast, or border towns in the Irish Republic, without thought for civilian casualties, because it believed IRA terrorists were hiding out there. There would have been outright condemnation of Britain for such an action. Yet Israel gets away with this - because the US blocks UN censure of Israel. Israel's response to Hizbollah has been entirely disproportionate. It has killed hundreds of civiilians. It has killed UN inspectors. I'd hoped replacing Sharon would have produced a more diplomatic approach. In fact the opposite has happened. The more Israel is seento bomb a muslim state, the more young, impressionable muslims will sign up for hizbollah and other terriorist gangs. The Northern Ireland situation proves that deep-rooted problems can be solved, but it takes a great deal of diplomacy and patience, and the ability to ride major setbacks. That's not going to happen until there is regime change in the US, and a president is installed who is prepared to engage with the world. The supreme irony here is that the US is calling for a special envoy to be appointed to unscramble the mess. Who do they want? Step forward Bill Clinton. If it wasn't for America's rotten "democracy" and the quite pointless two-term limit on a president, it's quite possible that none of this would have happened. It might also help you to take a broader look at how America is perceived in the world. Try reading non-US media. Then you might not come up with stuff like "At least the United States, Israel, and others have taken most possible steps to minimize civilian casualties" which is patently wrong. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 17:00:06 +0300 From: giluz Subject: Re: [idealcopy] RE: O.T: Israel........... Well, Mark, I was just going to reply to the previous mails when I read yours and saw you've done it for me already. I totally agree - Israel is a sovereign state and cannot resort to these kind of actions. This kind of disproportionate reaction would not bring any security to both sides and will just make the situation worse in the long run. Unfortunately, most Israeli politicians and parties are extremly right-wing, including the labour party (who's a member of the current government) and even some members of the social-democratic party (Meretz), especially concerning security issues, so there will not be any changes in policy in the next generation, I think. Being the only Israeli here, I must stress that this view is an extreme minority view where I come from and represents only a very small percentage of people, usually referred to as moonstruck. cheers giluz On 8/3/06, MarkBursa@aol.com wrote: > > Jason, > > > You're missing a key point here - Israel is a sovereign state; Hizbollah > is > a terrorist orgaisation. Israel's position as a nation should be always to > maintain the moral high ground - yet its response to terrorism > consistently > fails to do so. It lowers itself to the level of the terrorists by killing > hundreds of innocent civilians. > > Parallels are drawn to the Northern Ireland situation - imagine if the UK > government had sent the RAF to indiscrminately bomb parts of Belfast, or > border > towns in the Irish Republic, without thought for civilian casualties, > because > it believed IRA terrorists were hiding out there. There would have been > outright condemnation of Britain for such an action. Yet Israel gets away > with > this - because the US blocks UN censure of Israel. > > Israel's response to Hizbollah has been entirely disproportionate. It has > killed hundreds of civiilians. It has killed UN inspectors. I'd hoped > replacing > Sharon would have produced a more diplomatic approach. In fact the > opposite > has happened. The more Israel is seento bomb a muslim state, the more > young, > impressionable muslims will sign up for hizbollah and other > terriorist gangs. > > The Northern Ireland situation proves that deep-rooted problems can be > solved, but it takes a great deal of diplomacy and patience, and the > ability to > ride major setbacks. That's not going to happen until there is regime > change in > the US, and a president is installed who is prepared to engage with the > world. > > The supreme irony here is that the US is calling for a special envoy to be > appointed to unscramble the mess. Who do they want? Step forward Bill > Clinton. > If it wasn't for America's rotten "democracy" and the quite pointless > two-term limit on a president, it's quite possible that none of this > would have > happened. > > It might also help you to take a broader look at how America is > perceived in > the world. Try reading non-US media. Then you might not come up with stuff > like "At least the United States, Israel, and others have taken most > possible > steps to minimize civilian casualties" which is patently wrong. > > Mark > - -- Now playing: http://www.last.fm/user/giluz/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:59:05 +0000 From: "Jason Rogers" Subject: Re: [idealcopy] RE: O.T: Israel........... I routinely check up on non-American news sources and well aware of the perceptions of America from around the world, but I maintain that America and Israel work to minimalize civilian casualties to a much greater degree than the people that we have been dealing with. Civilian casualties will never be eliminated in the "fog of war", of course. Considering that, in WWII, our bombing campaigns were fortunate if they struck the right cities in the first place, America and our allies have come a long way. Still some inexcusable transgressions by U.S. troops towards civilians and prisoners, but we at least cater to the wish to do more good in the Middle East than we have done wrong. Granted, you do make a good point about sovereign states having a moral responsibility obviously not shared by terrorists who do not bind themselves to a nation. It's fair to say, though, that Israel has, in the past, made good attempts to solve the problem through diplomatic process. The bottom line is that there are people who want the Jewish population eliminated...driven into the ocean, driven out entirely. Should Israel continue to deal with the cyclic attacks on civilians that have occurred there over the years or should Israel finally stay the course and take the war to the Hezbollah perpetrators that they are trying to contain. Israel can either deal with the situation or not deal with the situation and the former option may be the safest option for all. Jason >From: MarkBursa@aol.com >To: inspectorjason@hotmail.com, idealcopy@smoe.org, >idealcopy-digest@smoe.org >Subject: Re: [idealcopy] RE: O.T: Israel........... >Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 08:35:01 EDT > >Jason, > > >You're missing a key point here - Israel is a sovereign state; Hizbollah is >a terrorist orgaisation. Israel's position as a nation should be always to >maintain the moral high ground - yet its response to terrorism consistently >fails to do so. It lowers itself to the level of the terrorists by killing >hundreds of innocent civilians. > >Parallels are drawn to the Northern Ireland situation - imagine if the UK >government had sent the RAF to indiscrminately bomb parts of Belfast, or >border >towns in the Irish Republic, without thought for civilian casualties, >because >it believed IRA terrorists were hiding out there. There would have been >outright condemnation of Britain for such an action. Yet Israel gets away >with >this - because the US blocks UN censure of Israel. > >Israel's response to Hizbollah has been entirely disproportionate. It has >killed hundreds of civiilians. It has killed UN inspectors. I'd hoped >replacing >Sharon would have produced a more diplomatic approach. In fact the opposite >has happened. The more Israel is seento bomb a muslim state, the more >young, >impressionable muslims will sign up for hizbollah and other terriorist >gangs. > >The Northern Ireland situation proves that deep-rooted problems can be >solved, but it takes a great deal of diplomacy and patience, and the >ability to >ride major setbacks. That's not going to happen until there is regime >change in >the US, and a president is installed who is prepared to engage with the >world. > >The supreme irony here is that the US is calling for a special envoy to be >appointed to unscramble the mess. Who do they want? Step forward Bill >Clinton. >If it wasn't for America's rotten "democracy" and the quite pointless >two-term limit on a president, it's quite possible that none of this would >have >happened. > >It might also help you to take a broader look at how America is perceived >in >the world. Try reading non-US media. Then you might not come up with stuff >like "At least the United States, Israel, and others have taken most >possible >steps to minimize civilian casualties" which is patently wrong. > >Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 14:35:43 EDT From: MarkBursa@aol.com Subject: Re: [idealcopy] RE: O.T: Israel........... >>I maintain that America and Israel work to minimalize civilian casualties to a much greater degree than the people that we have been dealing with.<< Naturally - they have considerably more sophisticated weaponry. >> Civilian casualties will never be eliminated in the "fog of war", of course. Considering that, in WWII, our bombing campaigns were fortunate if they struck the right cities in the first place, America and our allies have come a long way. << Comparing what's going on now to WW2 is utterly irrelevant. >> Still some inexcusable transgressions by U.S. troops towards civilians and prisoners, but we at least cater to the wish to do more good in the Middle East than we have done wrong.<< Really? You obviously swallow the US Government's line about "bringing democracy" to the poor downtrodden people of the middle east. Shame they don't act the same way in, say, Zimbabwe. Oh, sorry - forgot. There's NO OIL there. >>It's fair to say, though, that Israel has, in the past, made good attempts to solve the problem through diplomatic process.<< Under Rabin, yes, some progress was made. But look where that got him. >> The bottom line is that there are people who want the Jewish population eliminated...driven into the ocean, driven out entirely. << The hsitory of the region is highly complex, as I'm sure you're aware, and can't be rationalised down to a simple statement like that. >> Should Israel continue to deal with the cyclic attacks on civilians that have occurred there over the years or should Israel finally stay the course and take the war to the Hezbollah perpetrators that they are trying to contain. Israel can either deal with the situation or not deal with the situation and the former option may be the safest option for all.<< It's not black and white though, is it. "By "deal with the situation" do you mean slaughtering women & childern? Taking out cars full of refugees with precision missiles? Not exactly solving the problem, is it. There's no easy answer. But whatever it is, it ain't what Israel is currently doing. Violence against muslims, for wahetever reason, is used by the radical factions within the muslim community to grow terrorists, suicide bombers etc. We saw that at first hand here with the 7/7 London bombers - who nobody suspected were extremists, but had been indoctrinated by extremists within UK muslim communities. Israel's actions will not deter Hizbollah, or other muslim terrorist groups. Indeed, it's arguable that Israel's previous incursions into Lebanon in the 80s caused Hizbollah to come into being.... Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 22:22:22 +0300 From: giluz Subject: Re: [idealcopy] RE: O.T: Israel........... On 8/3/06, Jason Rogers wrote: > > but we at least cater to the wish to do more good in the Middle > East than we have done wrong. Huh? where did you get that idea? It's fair to say, though, that Israel has, in the past, made > good attempts to solve the problem through diplomatic process. Hardly, and what's been done is far from enough. Let me just remind you of Israel's negative answers to two recent diplomatic peace proposals - the Saudi proposition of 2002 and Syria's request to negotiate a peace settlement a few months ago, completely ignored by Israel. Even the Oslo process was doomed to failure, because its goal was to keep most of the settlements in the West Bank, something that no Palestinian would agree to. Israel's talks with Syria in Camp David from a few years ago failed only because former PM Barak got cold feet just when the Syrians were ready for peace. The bottom > line is that there are people who want the Jewish population > eliminated...driven into the ocean, driven out entirely. Can they really do that? Israel is quite far from being seriously threatened. It has the strongest army in the area, the best weapons, US support and an atomic bomb. The last time it was seriously threatened was in 1973, and the chance for a similar situation today are almost non-existent. Should Israel > continue to deal with the cyclic attacks on civilians that have occurred > there over the years or should Israel finally stay the course and take the > war to the Hezbollah perpetrators that they are trying to > contain. Israel > can either deal with the situation or not deal with the situation and the > former option may be the safest option for all. > I'm not saying nothing needs to be done - just that Israel overreacted and that the way it conducts its attacks is counterproductive. It is quite clear that a diplomatic solution would have to be reached eventually, but in the meantime, the Israeli actions only serve to further complicate the issues and not necessarily to Israel's advantage. The escalation of the conflict just serves the political purposes of Hezbollah and has even managed to unite the Lebanese factions against Israel, and this in a country that has been in an active or passive civil war for the last 30 years. giluz - -- Now playing: http://www.last.fm/user/giluz/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:18:05 +0000 From: "Jason Rogers" Subject: Re: [idealcopy] RE: O.T: Israel........... >From: MarkBursa@aol.com >To: inspectorjason@hotmail.com, idealcopy@smoe.org, >idealcopy-digest@smoe.org >Subject: Re: [idealcopy] RE: O.T: Israel........... >Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 14:35:43 EDT > >Really? You obviously swallow the US Government's line about "bringing >democracy" to the poor downtrodden people of the middle east. Shame they >don't act >the same way in, say, Zimbabwe. Oh, sorry - forgot. There's NO OIL there. > There's no real perceived threat to the U.S. there, either, with respect to the harboring of terrorist factions within a country that pose a threat to us. Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc....like the other poor areas listed in the yearly U.N. World Wealth Reports, are the countries that tend to shun capitalism and/or shun diplomatic attempts and generous donations to aid the populations who fall prey to dictators who keep them starving in order to control them. Like all other countries, though, the United States sets priorities on a global involvement basis depending on which countries and which terrorist factions represent the greatest threat at the moment. Also, like other countries, we have dealt with priorities in the past in a manner that has bitten us in the tail later on (CIA involvement in Guatemala affairs in the 50's, aid during the Iran/Iraq 80's skirmishes, etc.)...much like Israel's dealings with Lebanon in earlier decades where the consequences are being felt now. The U.S. has tended to back Israel because, in part, Israel acts as a watchdog of sorts for the United States in that region. Like any other watchdog, Israel does unfavorable things at times...pissing on the rug, attacking the mailman, etc. Overall, though, they have worked as a watchdog to a reasonable extent in the past. Israel's priorities and the U.S. priorities in dealing with Islamic fanatacism are coinciding more often these days for obvious reasons, of course. I won't argue with you about the oil statement, as I'll be the first to admit that our consumption of foreign oil is a recipe for disaster. Americans don't want oil drilling in their backyards, though, even if it is a relatively unobtrusive oil drill in the Artic plains where ice-paved construction will minimally affect the natural state of that region. Unfortunate, but true. Makes me glad that I've always driven Toyota Corollas. > >It's not black and white though, is it. "By "deal with the situation" do >you >mean slaughtering women & childern? Taking out cars full of refugees with >precision missiles? Not exactly solving the problem, is it. > Of course not. When one must deal with an enemy, though, and the enemy is in the practice of hiding behind human shields, the choice has to be made, however, unfortunate, of our civilians vs. their civilians. General MacArthur once stated that one life of an American or of an American ally is worth a thousand lives on the other side. To most of us, this comes as a shockingly callous sentiment. Our military forces that are charged with the responsibility of keeping us safe, however, must think in these terms at times. They can't lose focus of who they are ultimately trying to protect. I brought up the WWII analogy to show that the money that the U.S. and other countries have pumped into our defense industry over the decades has saved lives by making the way for more precise instruments of battle and, therefore, by making headway in minimalizing civilian casualties. We don't use human sheilds either, thankfully. Jason ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 00:14:40 +0300 From: giluz Subject: Re: [idealcopy] RE: O.T: Israel........... On 8/3/06, Jason Rogers wrote: I don't much care for being an instrument in the US war against the fundamentalist Islam, especially since the Israeli-Arab conflict has territorial disputes at its core - the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Syria will stop funding and arming the Hizbolla if a territorial agreement is reached, and one of the organisation's excuses for attacking Israel is the Palestinian problem. The US does not want Israel to negotiate with Syria - - to me this sounds like Israel and the US do not have the same interests in the area. > > MacArthur once stated that one life of an American or of an American ally > is > worth a thousand lives on the other side. So far the Israeli-Lebanese balance is ten to one - ten dead Lebanese civillians to one Israeli, with a larger ratio of wounded and just plain wreckage. And even after weeks of fighting, the Hizbollah is still bombing Israeli cities, so one keeps wondering if the price of civillian's lives was really worth it. I brought up the WWII analogy to show that the money that the U.S. and other > countries have pumped into our defense industry over the decades has saved > lives by making the way for more precise instruments of battle and, > therefore, by making headway in minimalizing civilian casualties. We > don't > use human sheilds either, thankfully. Precise instruments of battle? What's precise about them? As for using civillians as human shields, the Israeli army did that in Jenin a few years back, and even after the high court ruled against it (it was an official policy) there were still reported incidents when this kept happening. Killing civillians used as shields by terrorists isn't much better and must be done as a last resort, only in very extreme situations. I certainly don't feel that's the way the Israeli army behaves. cheers giluz - -- Now playing: http://www.last.fm/user/giluz/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 17:08:41 -0700 From: "toiler on the sea" Subject: Re: [idealcopy] RE: O.T: Israel........... meanwhile....doctor jeep - ----- Original Message ----- From: "giluz" To: "Idealcopy" Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [idealcopy] RE: O.T: Israel........... > On 8/3/06, Jason Rogers wrote: > > I don't much care for being an instrument in the US war against the > fundamentalist Islam, especially since the Israeli-Arab conflict has > territorial disputes at its core - the West Bank and the Golan Heights. > Syria will stop funding and arming the Hizbolla if a territorial agreement > is reached, and one of the organisation's excuses for attacking Israel is > the Palestinian problem. The US does not want Israel to negotiate with > Syria > - to me this sounds like Israel and the US do not have the same interests > in > the area. > >> >> MacArthur once stated that one life of an American or of an American ally >> is >> worth a thousand lives on the other side. > > > So far the Israeli-Lebanese balance is ten to one - ten dead Lebanese > civillians to one Israeli, with a larger ratio of wounded and just plain > wreckage. And even after weeks of fighting, the Hizbollah is still bombing > Israeli cities, so one keeps wondering if the price of civillian's lives > was > really worth it. > > I brought up the WWII analogy to show that the money that the U.S. and > other >> countries have pumped into our defense industry over the decades has >> saved >> lives by making the way for more precise instruments of battle and, >> therefore, by making headway in minimalizing civilian casualties. We >> don't >> use human sheilds either, thankfully. > > > Precise instruments of battle? What's precise about them? As for using > civillians as human shields, the Israeli army did that in Jenin a few > years > back, and even after the high court ruled against it (it was an official > policy) there were still reported incidents when this kept happening. > Killing civillians used as shields by terrorists isn't much better and > must > be done as a last resort, only in very extreme situations. I certainly > don't > feel that's the way the Israeli army behaves. > > cheers > giluz > > > > -- > Now playing: > http://www.last.fm/user/giluz/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 22:02:16 -0400 From: TnA Subject: [idealcopy] Politics/Israel/Hezbollah Off the cuff thoughts; don't mind if anyone contradicts, adds, corrects or continues 1. So much wrong has been done over the years by so many on both sides that I think it would be fruitless to try to go back to the 'original' problem to solve the current situation. 2. A large, well-equipped modern army can be fought to a standstill by a small insurgency operating on their home ground. (See U.S. vs. North Vietnam, or U.S. vs. Iraq). This war will not be won by might; there must be a political solution. 3. Israel is actually making Hezbollah a more popular entity amongst certain pro-Arab communities with each passing day, and may soon join America in its 'least respected major nation' status. 4. There is no excuse for the death of civilians or the destruction of Lebanese cities. The Lebanese people do not support Hezbollah the way most Israelis seem to support the IDF. The Lebanese government cannot begin to take its place among the nations of the world if there is no country left to work with. On the other hand, Israel is a country, it will remain where it is and its people deserve to live in peace and prosperity as much as anyone else. 5. Hezbollah might accept a return to the 1967 borders as an incentive to stand down. Israel would have to be big enough to concede the territory. t ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:03:01 +0100 From: "Uri Baran" Subject: Re: [idealcopy] O.T: Israel........... Rather hesitantly on a music list, I would like to respond to Ari in a manner that he is familiar with from me (and we're mates by the way) I'm also Jewish and an Atheist. I know, a strange combination of acceptance as one should be one or other. I'll just repeat a few things some of which have been mentioned in the more thoughtful minority press in the UK. When the Israeli's miss their target, civilians might get hurt When Hezbollah miss, no civilians get hurt The Israeli's have no policy of targeting the UN or Civilians and that when they do get hit, there has most likely been Hizbollah activity very close by very recently. Whyever else would they behave in this manner? Name one country inhabited by anyone on this list who would not be doing EXACTLY what the Israeli's are doing when their populace is being killed by rockets and being forced out of large areas where they live by a neighbour whose government cannot or will not control a massive foreign backed paramilitary organisation within its borders whose aim is to wipe out its neighbour. Hezbollah appear to be using the populace as shields behind which to operate. That cannot be a reason not to attack hezbollah. They are just trying to use the western press to their own advantage and unfortunately, they are being successful in this. Hezbollah is responsible for the tragic civilian losses, the Israeli's are doing their best to limit them without losing sight of what they must do. With Iran and Syria supporting a proxy guerilla army that supports their aims and Iran apparently developing nuclear weapons, not dealing firmly and permanently with hezbollah is national and international irresponsibility of the highest order. Israel's future is at stake here, this is part of a much bigger issue and anyone that attempts to deny a country its freedom to defend itself in a practical manner should have a good think about their basic reasons for their double standards. The argument about proportionalty is spurious. This isn't about trading casualties, it's about long term survival in the face of attack. What realistic choice do the Israeli's have? U. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ari" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 8:18 PM Subject: [idealcopy] O.T: Israel........... > .... I know this isn't a 'political' list but when the > war in Iraq broke many of us were dismayed at the > actions taken by our 'dear' president. > Since the outbreak of war between Israel and Hizbolla > there has been no mention on this list probably due to > the fact that some of us are Jews. > Two weeks ago I recieved an email from someone on this > list that I regard as a very dear friend, he berated > Israel and suggested that the world would be a better > place if Israel didn't exist. > I responded at the time that Israel has every right to > exist and that the Jews 'need' a homeland other than > 'somewhere else', I still stand by that statement but > I am appalled at her actions insofar as she seemingly > has no regard for the lives of the 'ordinary' Lebanese > citizen.She seems to be bent on making enemies of all > arab peoples for the next 20 years. > Oh I know the 'arguments' about 'self defence' and I > know a lot of what's happened viz the Palestinians was > Arafats lack of vision, none the less it seems to me > that a people with 'our' history should know better > than to do what she is doing and expect to solve them > with violence upon violence. > Depending on one's world view one could say the world > would be better off if America didn't exist, or, if > you're Irish you might replace that with the U.K and > so on. > I strongly support 'Israels right to exist' but feel > equally strongly she has taken this too far. > Just though I'd 'break the ice' and throw it open to > discussion. Ari > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of idealcopy-digest V9 #202 *******************************