Thoughts regarding Israel and Hezbollah.

[demgurl]

I have stayed out of all arguments until now and I suppose this thread will lead to some unhappy people but I must make certain observations.

First, it has been firmly established that Hezbollah is a terrorist group. I understand that and it is fine. Israel is a country and that, too, is fine.

I know people are going on about both sides and some are upset that so many citizens are being killed in Lebanon. Some are stating that Israel has a right to defend itself. I can see both sides but I believe what part of the problem is that Israel and the * cabal are so buddy buddy that whatever Israel does is automatically suspect. Some folks may even wonder if there is a US agenda in the attacks Israel is making.

I have always heard that those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Georgie declared a war on terror and then he went and attacked Iraq. First of all, even if Al Queda was there, they blend in. We have done more harm (even according to the CIA) by producing more terrorists there. Even our own soldiers say it is near impossible to fight a war when there is no exact enemy and everyone is suspect.

To my way of thinking, the Israel/Hezbollah conflict is the exact same situation. You have a terrorist group who blends in and a nation who says they are defending themselves. If we can all agree that our war on terror can not be won because you can not fight word/thought/ideology then we should be able to apply the same rules to this particular conflict. It can never be won and look at all the carnage involving regular citizens - many who are women and children.

I am not saying Israel doesn't have a right to defend themselves. They can send in spies and infiltrate the enemy and bring them down that way. At one point in time the world valued conversation over action. When 9/11 happened to our country we made fools of ourselves sending in military and going after anything that remotely came across as a terrorist. When a murder happens you do not see the police arresting anyone who even looks like a murderer. The police follow clues and arrest those responsible. In the case of Georgie's war on terror it is setting off a missile to kill a tiny fly. It is overkill and it is not how you deal with this sort of person.

George should have taken a cue from President Clinton. When a terrorist action happened, on his watch, he went ahead and investigated it and caught the people responsible. He did not go off half cocked creating even more enemies for us to deal with in the future.

People always have a right to defend themselves but there are varying degrees of defending yourself. And to defend yourself you must address that to your enemy not innocent people who your enemy is hiding among. This is a new age and if we are to fight these types of fights (not wars, these are fights) then we need to adopt whole new strategies - ones that will not hurt the innocents of the world.

Just my thoughts.

[Tom Joad]

1. Lebanon also has a right to defend itself.

[demgurl]

16. Yes, I agree Lebanon has a right to defend itself.

I do look at Hezbollah and Lebanon as two different entities, though. That is partly what is so bad about this situation. Israel, in attacking Hezbollah, is attacking a whole country.

Everyone has a right to defend themselves but it would be great if they tried to protect themselves by working diplomatically. I remember once reading something by a Canadian. The person was talking about the drum beating by the Bush Cabal in regards to Iran. The author said that even the best estimates said that Iran is at least ten years from having a working nuclear bomb and that ten years was plenty of time to work out negotiations rather than immediately talking about attacking the region.

There are steps in which you can take before you go to all out war, especially when the 'enemy' is so well hidden.

[bloom]

2. I do think that to defend Israel - NOW - in what they are doing

is the same as defending BushCo, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc. They are all in this together.

And I oppose it.

[k_jerome]

8. I think that to defend terrorists is worse. And I oppose it. nt.

[bloom]

11. I think that Israel and the US are essentially terrorists.

And I oppose what both are doing.

[k_jerome]

12. take security in your world view...nt.

[demgurl]

17. More so than opposing Israel....

We should all be opposing the lunacy of such a situation. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. The ONLY way a war on a hidden enemy can be won is if you demolish the whole area and destroy everything. By this, I mean, a nuclear bomb. The only way you can be sure you cleared away the enemy is to kill every man, woman and child. Now that is crazy!

[jonnyblitz]

3. I don't think it has been firmly established Hezbollah is a terrorist

group mainly because that word gets used to describe anybody deemed the enemy by the "powers that be" that has the "audacity" to fight back when we fuck with them. In my mind it hasn't been firmly established, anyway, especially when the people who label them this are no damn better than they, if not worse. I just don't enough yet to take people whom I never trusts' word for it.

[Laotra]

7. Yeah

And what is a terrorist group, besides the most commmon usage (= demonized bad guys), what are the objective criteria?

A group (or state) that has occasionally used or is using terror tactics (prototypically indiscriminate killing of civilians, plane hijacks etc.) but overwhelmingly uses other tactics against "legitimate targets" (guerilla etc. warfare)? That would make a whole lotta terrorist groups (and states), so that the term would cease to be distinctive enough to be meaningfull.

A group that overwhelmingly or solely uses terror tactics would thus seem a better definition. In that sense, Hizbollah is clearly not a terrorist group.

Does strategic bombing fall into category of war crime or terror tactics or both, I'll leave that to those even more semantically inclined...

[oberliner]

13. Questions

1. Do you believe that the AMIA bombing in Buenos Aries was a terrorist attack?

2. Do you believe that Hezbollah was responsible for that bombing?

[demgurl]

18. Perhaps they are not a terrorist group.

Goodness only knows these people can spin a story. But no matter what, I think we can all agree that like Iraq's "insurgents", Hezbollah is invisible when looking for targets. Israel has such a blood lust that they are destroying everyone for the point of getting a few. This is as unwinnable as the war on terror even if they are not terrorists.

We can not go into the future fighting every "terrorist" organization in this way. That is just insane. If there is to be a true "war to bring peace" then we need to change the way we look at these things and the way we root out groups such as this. Do I have the solution? No, but that does not mean they should go out and kill thousands of civilians until I come up with a solution. They have to take a step back and stop something if it does not work. You don't keep going ahead with the wrong solution making everything that much worse.

[Bretttido]

20. Terrorist is almost exclusively used for enemies that are Arab

Do you hear the militia in Darfur being called terrorists? Nope, but if they were Arab and lived in Syria, you know damn well they'd be labeled terrorists. I'm not saying a portion of Hezbollah are not terrorists; the use of the word just irks me.

[iamjoy]

4. I Would Expand Upon It

I have often heard the so called Conservatives disdain the Geneva Convention & state it doesn't work in the war on terror.

I think we need to have a new convention, a conference of nations discussing how to defeat the type of terrorism we now face, while respecting civil and human rights.

How do you fight an enemy that hides amongst civilians without taking a horrible and unforgiveable toll on non-combatants?

How do you protect your intelligence sources and methods while allowing fair trials to those accused of terrorism?

and all the other excuses we give in this so called war on terror.

[bloom]

5. And I agree that to stamp out "terror"

(which is really to oppose people who angry about being disenfranchised - for the most part - and esp. in this case)

...you would have to kill all of your enemies - at least those willing to fight. And the more you killed - the more you would make. It's not a winning proposition.

[JudyM]

6. I agree in principle, but Israel didn't have the luxury of time to in-

filtrate hezbollah, with missile after missile raining down on its population. It had to take some action, IMO. Georgie, OTTH, had time to do something like that because we weren't under continuous attack.

[Laotra]

10. Please

Correct your facts. The strategic bombing of northern Israel was in response to strategic bombing of whole Lebanon. Before Israel decided to escalate the level of violence with the pretext of the latest border skirmish, Hizbollah was aiming only at military targets.

But from what I've read, Hizbollah militant wing seems impossible to infiltrate - they don't accept members from outside, but raise their fighters from young age - to great frustration of Mossad.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Hmm I swear Kryak Shmona is NOT a military

target, but maybe I need to be corrected on this...

[Laotra]

22. My point

is based on the info presented by the the Israel apologists on DU about Israel casualties from last six years, which I have no reason to doubt. Almost all military casualties, very few "collaterals". Not on what Israeli talking heads spew for propaganda purposes - plus there is military censureship in Israel, understandably they don't want to give Hizbollah information where their rockets hit, so they could aim better.

[deaniac21]

9. You have an incredible geopolitical mind and what I would call

a perfect grasp of international politics through the ages!

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. What needs to happen is for the cycle to be

broken. The crass way, one side will cry uncle... the less crass way... they will both be rational about it in the end and decide peace is best (Yes some may laugh but in the end they will all end up in a room forced to talk to each other)

Some of the hisbollah langauge is a classic of Arab nationalism (drive the jews to the sea, nasser was the best at saying this)

Now there are some major differences... Hisbollah is not only a terrorist organization but the next wave of arab nationalism, which is comming up from the masses... so there is far more at stake for all in the area than just Israel and Hisbollah, and why arab capitals are lookign at this with dread and I suspect even cheering the Israelis on... for they have populations in their midst that would love to do what hisbollah is doing, albeit to them.

[Bretttido]

19. Thank you Demgurl, for the well thoughtout post, K & R

[meganmonkey]

21. Err...I wouldn't use Clinton as a positive role model when it comes to

Israel and their military methods. As Chomsky puts it:

Meanwhile the US continues to "enhance terror," to borrow the President's words, by providing Israel with the means for terror and destruction, including a new shipment of the most advanced helicopters in the US arsenal (Robert Fisk, Independent, 7 April). These are standard reactions to atrocities by a client regime. To cite one instructive example, in the first days of the current Intifada, Israel used US helicopters to attack civilian targets, killing 10 Palestinians and wounding 35, hardly in "self-defense." Clinton responded with an agreement for "the largest purchase of military helicopters by the Israeli Air Force in a decade" (Ha'aretz, 3 October, '01), along with spare parts for Apache attack helicopters. The press helped out by refusing to report the facts. A few weeks later, Israel began to use US helicopters for assassinations as well. One of the first acts of the Bush administration was to send Apache Longbow helicopters, the most murderous available. That received some marginal notice under business news.

http://www.zmag.org/content/Mideast/chomskyapril9.cfm

I got that article on a quick Google search, there is much more history there.

I was with ya until the Clinton part :)

[demgurl]

23. That was more about the attack here in the US.

When we were attacked (what, 7 days after Clinton took office?) Clinton went ahead and hunted down those responsible and he also tried to take extra measures to keep the US safe from further terror attacks. Those measures, by the way, were thought to be wasteful spending by a majority rule of Republicans. The measures were not passed to at least try and keep us safer. President Clinton even went so far as to warn the * cabal, when they were about to come into their power, that the most pressing issue of the day was terrorism and they would need to really get on that!!!!!

Then look at how * handled 9/11. He blamed "terrorists" who we later find out are alive and well overseas and were never even over here. Did they ever follow up on that to make sure the right people were blamed? He has all but forgotten about Osama and he used 9/11 to further his own agenda while making us much less safe.

We can safely compare both of these since they both happened here and they show how differently they were handled. President Clinton tried to make us safer and * is like a bull in a china shop. President Clinton handled the attack, on our own soil, my tracking down those responsible and in a reasonable way. There were no more attacks for the rest of his tenure and there was no need for Gitmo or torture. Pretty amazing at how safe we were without withdrawing from things like the Geneva convention. Guess that pretty much disputes any of their claims that we need all of that for our safety.

[meganmonkey]

24. I am referring, however, to the overall US policy toward Israel

which has been perpetuated through presidencies of both major parties. We cannot isolate events like these - these attacks are symptoms of long-term issues and if we don't view them historically, we will never grasp them, let alone solve them. And Clinton's part of this history HAS, in fact, contributed to keeping the region inflamed and keeping America less safe. While he may have handled that one incident better than Bush handled 9/11, the bigger picture is vital to understanding what is going on. I think we need to be very careful with dichotomous thinking and pay more attention to nuances or we are no better than CNN or Faux News.

HEre's a link to a study which gives an interesting historical overview of the relationship of the US and Israel and the influence of Israeli lobbyists on US policy. It was written by professors at Harvard adn U of Chicago:

During the Clinton administration, Middle Eastern policy was largely shaped by officials with close ties to Israel or to prominent pro-Israel organisations; among them, Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of research at AIPAC and co-founder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP); Dennis Ross, who joined WINEP after leaving government in 2001; and Aaron Miller, who has lived in Israel and often visits the country. These men were among Clinton’s closest advisers at the Camp David summit in July 2000. Although all three supported the Oslo peace process and favoured the creation of a Palestinian state, they did so only within the limits of what would be acceptable to Israel. The American delegation took its cues from Ehud Barak, co-ordinated its negotiating positions with Israel in advance, and did not offer independent proposals. Not surprisingly, Palestinian negotiators complained that they were ‘negotiating with two Israeli teams – one displaying an Israeli flag, and one an American flag’.


http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

[demgurl]

25. Clinton may have made a mistake.....

and I will read your link a little later tonight, but * has not done anything right - nothing at all. We have to look at what has been done right (such as how the terrorist attacks were handled the first time) and continue to do what works.

We do have to look at the situation now and see what wrong things have been done and how best we can correct them. We can not learn, or advance, if we do not do these things.

Without reading the link, I will speculate that it does not have Bill Clinton bombing people left, right and center trying to figure out who attacked us and trying to kill the enemy. That is what * is doing right at this very moment in Iraq. That is happening now. We can look directly at it and say that after 30 times of 'turning the corner' we have come full circle and gotten nowhere except to create more enemies everywhere in the world. We can look at what is happening right now and say that * is one of the most insane people on earth if he says he wants to wage war on an idea. Yeah, Georgie, how's that workin' for ya? Seen any flowers and chocolates for the liberators yet? We can see, for a fact, that this direction is wrong and does not work and, yet, they keep doing it. That does not make sense at all.

We can then go on to see that Israel is attacking an enemy that might as well be invisible. Israel is repeating the pattern that we did and if it continues we will only see more and more pictures of dead civilians that had nothing to do with Israel or the attack on Israel.

If we are bright enough we can take a step back and figure out that these situations are crazy and there can be no winners on any side. We can use what little influence we have left and maybe send Carter or Clinton over there to bring the parties to a table and talk. That can be a winning situation for everyone.

[meganmonkey]

26. There is no question that bush has f*cked everything up

to the highest degree, but I fear you are missing my point.

We must look at the big picture - the history of our relationship to the middle east - before we can even imagine what we can do to fix it, or to at least stop making it worse. And to send someone like Clinton who, to the people of most Arab countries, is just another corrupt imperialist representing the interests of the US and Israel, would be almost as ineffective as sending bush or Condi.



We tend to make everything about us vs. them in politics, as you are framing this about Bush vs. Clinton. But this is about the fact that our ENTIRE gov't has been highly influenced by lobbyists for Israel for DECADES.

It's like walking toward a cliff. Bush gets us there really quick - Clinton or other Dems may slow it down a little. But we're still heading toward the cliff, and we're still going to fall off. If we don't change direction completely we are screwed.