Why Israel is Wrong

[Avatar4321]

Israel has a right to defend itself from attack, and it was attacked, but its response is wrong. What they're doing is only going to help Hizbollah in the long run.

If things were going the right way for Hezzbollah they wouldnt be trying to ceasefire.

 

[Semper Fi]

Okay, your patriotism has blinded your here. Just because I say that Israel did not respond correctly, does not mean that I am a terrorist sympathizer. That label is too often slapped on liberals without carefully considering their ideas.

I am not defending Hezbollah's existence or its actions. I'm simply saying that this invasion, and the destruction that has followed, plays right into the hands of Tehran. I think it was a bad tactical decision by Israel.

As I've said before, terrorism will never be destroyed in the Middle East militarily. It is simply too widespread and has too many fanatical followers. While Israel will weaken the terrorist group, they will NEVER be safe from the suicide bombers, which is really the ultimate threat to their security.

1. Right, my patriotism to America blinded me in my defense of Israel...sounds "logical"....either way, better to be blinded by patriotism than poisened by media propaganda. I would say that the label I gave you does fit your position. Israel is fighting terrorism, and you claim it wasnt appropriate. Better yet, I'll ask you how Israel should respond to ANY terror attack? Turn a blind eye? Yeah that does wonders for stopping terrorism...

2. It was a good tactical decision for Israel. How can it not be? Will Tehran really have the balls to bring the fight to Israel? I really dont think so, in my lifetime I've seen nothing but hollow threats from the arabs in the mid-east. Even still, let's say Iran does get involved, just another justification for war, but we dont want THAT now do we?

3. Terrorism will be destroyed in the middle east by the hands of Israel and what remains of the strength of western nations. I'm not sure what point you're arguing here. Are you saying that because terrorism 'will never be defeated,' that we should just let it be? Are you pessimistic enough to say that the whole idea is damned after 20 some-odd days of trying? Thats the vibes I'm getting from you.

You're last point rings true, actually. If Israel followed you're advice and, well stopped fighting, then you're absolutely correct, terrorism will never end.

 

[theHawk]

1. this war began in 1947 when arabs killed jews on the first day the un created the nation of israel

And did the UN really have the authority to take this land and give it to zionists?

Both sides have errored.
There is no way to win this war. The arabs of the area never freely gave up the land, so the Arabs will never accept them. So unless they want to be at war forever the Zionists should just give up their pipe dream and get the fuck out of middle east. It was stupid to set up their state there, and I for one don't want to die for their pipe dream.

 

[KarlMarx]

1) The crime does not fit the punishment. This entire war began with the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. They were being held as hostages in a failed attempt to exchange them for Hezbollah supporters imprisoned in Israel. If we think back to the late 70s, when Iran invaded the US embassy and took hundreds of hostages, the US did not resort to total warfare. We realized the consequences of such actions, and exerted as much diplomatic strength as possible.

I think you're ignoring the context. This war isn't about the kidnappings. The kidnappings were just the straw that broke the camel's back. Israel has been victimized by Hezbollah for years.

Israel has exposed the depth of its arsenal to the more dangerous enemy--Iran and Syria. Because of this, Iran will be better prepared to combat Israel in this inevitable showdown.

I think that will actually make Iran think twice about it. The whole purpose of an arsenal is to use it if you need to defend yourself.

Israel has finally alienated the entire Arab world. While most of Lebanon was obviously not fond of Israel, the strongest opposition was Hezbollah. Yet, Israeli attacks have killed, injured, and displaced countless Lebanese citizens. When they look to their homes and businesses, which have been reduced to debris, they will always remember that Israel is responsible. They do not see this as a casualty of war; instead, this only fuels their hatred to a new level.

The Arab world hates Israel no matter what they do. I think Israel has more important things to worry about than what their neighbors think of them, e.g., defending their very right to survive.

Besides Lebanon, the rest of the Islamic world turns on the tv to see the lifeless bodies of innocent children. They realize that their blood is worthless and are degraded as human beings. They instinctively demand revenge. Plus, they see Israel's ground-war as an imperial threat (even though this is not Israel's intention).

I wonder what the rest of the Arab world and the world in general thought of Hezbollah when they turned on their TVs and saw Israeli school children's lifeless bodies? I don't believe Hezbollah worried about that. Hezbollah is getting what's coming to them.

This animosity plays right into the hands of Iran, whose goal it is to unite the Islamic world under its leadership to recapture the Middle East. Initially, this goal would've been more difficult because Iran is overwhelmingly Shiite, while the rest of the Islamic world favors the Sunni sect. This difference, though, becomes minimal after Israel's latest attacks. Thus, most of the Middle East will strongly support Iran, which creates a tremendous problem for the Jewish nation due to its location on the map.

The Arab world is already united in its opinion against Israel.

Israel has destroyed not just Hezbollah, but Lebanon itself. This was a potential partner in peace (as it was fairly democratic), but Israel has obliterated the capital, which will scare tourists for years to come and, therefore, deplete the Lebanese economy. This creates a breedingground for instability and invites the same radical insurgencies that we see in Iraq.

The sovereign nation of Lebanon has been a non-entity for decades. Syria destroyed Lebanon, not Israel. They did it by occupying Lebanon with their armies and supporting Hezbollah's operations in that country.

Israel is not vulnerable to a military encounter with Hezbollah. Their resources dwarf any attack that the terrorist organization can make. It is the suicide bombing which will forever plague Israel. The peace and security that they hope for on their own land cannot be achieved by adding fuel to the fire. Yes, they can weaken Hezbollah, but no matter what, there will ALWAYS be countless martyrs waiting to meet their virgins.

I think the argument that there are countless martyrs waiting to meet their virgins is a stereotype. I don't believe that the average Joe on the Arab street thinks that dying for the cause of the terrorists is something they aspire to or desire regardless of how they feel about Israel. Like you and I, they'd rather be living their lives than getting themselves killed.

If the cause of the Palestinians brings war to the doorstep of the average Arab, it will also help to turn their opinion not only against the Israelis but against the cause of the Palestinians.

After a while, the number of people who are dumb enough to become canon fodder for the cause of Hezbollah will diminish through attrition and that will be the death of Hezbollah. I don't think "join Hezbollah and meet a certain death" is a very good slogan for recruitment.

 

[Mr.Conley]

If things were going the right way for Hezbollah they wouldnt be trying to ceasefire.

Sure, it hurts them until the war is over, but when it is finished, Hizbollah will be the hero of the Arab street, savior of Lebanon from the Zionists, ready with aid for the poor and dislocated after the battle. The Israelis are really just shoring up support for Hizbollah.

 

[Redhots]

4) Israel has destroyed not just Hezbollah

Actually Israel really hasn't caused that much harm to them...

The response was not wrong. The response was the one available to them. As long as Israel is killing them, it isn't going to help Hezbollah one wit.

Hitler and Stalin both used collective punishment and lopsided body counts during their reigns, didn't work out too well for them. It hasn't worked too well for many past leaders...

Israel has followed their model for decades now and its changed nothing. I think they do it more out of habit / reflex at this point.

 

[red states rule]

While Israel certainly has a right to defend itself, here are some reasons why their actions are wrong:

1) The crime does not fit the punishment. This entire war began with the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. They were being held as hostages in a failed attempt to exchange them for Hezbollah supporters imprisoned in Israel. If we think back to the late 70s, when Iran invaded the US embassy and took hundreds of hostages, the US did not resort to total warfare. We realized the consequences of such actions, and exerted as much diplomatic strength as possible.

2) Israel has exposed the depth of its arsenal to the more dangerous enemy--Iran and Syria. Because of this, Iran will be better prepared to combat Israel in this inevitable showdown.

3) Israel has finally alienated the entire Arab world. While most of Lebanon was obviously not fond of Israel, the strongest opposition was Hezbollah. Yet, Israeli attacks have killed, injured, and displaced countless Lebanese citizens. When they look to their homes and businesses, which have been reduced to debris, they will always remember that Israel is responsible. They do not see this as a casualty of war; instead, this only fuels their hatred to a new level.

Besides Lebanon, the rest of the Islamic world turns on the tv to see the lifeless bodies of innocent children. They realize that their blood is worthless and are degraded as human beings. They instinctively demand revenge. Plus, they see Israel's ground-war as an imperial threat (even though this is not Israel's intention).

This animosity plays right into the hands of Iran, whose goal it is to unite the Islamic world under its leadership to recapture the Middle East. Initially, this goal would've been more difficult because Iran is overwhelmingly Shiite, while the rest of the Islamic world favors the Sunni sect. This difference, though, becomes minimal after Israel's latest attacks. Thus, most of the Middle East will strongly support Iran, which creates a tremendous problem for the Jewish nation due to its location on the map.

4) Israel has destroyed not just Hezbollah, but Lebanon itself. This was a potential partner in peace (as it was fairly democratic), but Israel has obliterated the capital, which will scare tourists for years to come and, therefore, deplete the Lebanese economy. This creates a breedingground for instability and invites the same radical insurgencies that we see in Iraq.

Israel is not vulnerable to a military encounter with Hezbollah. Their resources dwarf any attack that the terrorist organization can make. It is the suicide bombing which will forever plague Israel. The peace and security that they hope for on their own land cannot be achieved by adding fuel to the fire. Yes, they can weaken Hezbollah, but no matter what, there will ALWAYS be countless martyrs waiting to meet their virgins.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...k/4077881.html
July 27, 2006, 9:35PM
Stop demonizing of Israel for merely defending itself


By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER


What other country, when attacked in an unprovoked aggression across a recognized international frontier, is then put on a countdown clock by the world, given a limited time window in which to fight back, regardless of whether it has restored its own security?

What other country sustains 1,500 indiscriminate rocket attacks into its cities — every one designed to kill, maim and terrorize civilians — and is then vilified by the world when it tries to destroy the enemy's infrastructure and strongholds with precision-guided munitions that sometimes have the unintended but unavoidable consequence of collateral civilian death and suffering?

Hearing the world pass judgment on the Israel-Hezbollah war as it unfolds is to live in an Orwellian moral universe. With a few significant exceptions (the leadership of the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and a very few others), the world — governments, the media, U.N. bureaucrats — has completely lost its moral bearings.

The word that obviates all thinking and magically inverts victim into aggressor is "disproportionate," as in the universally decried "disproportionate Israeli response."

When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it did not respond with a parallel "proportionate" attack on a Japanese naval base. It launched a four-year campaign that killed millions of Japanese, reduced Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a cinder, and turned the Japanese home islands to rubble and ruin.

Disproportionate? No. When one is wantonly attacked by an aggressor, one has every right — legal and moral — to carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one's security again. That's what it took with Japan.

Britain was never invaded by Germany in World War II. Did it respond to the blitz and V-1 and V-2 rockets with "proportionate" aerial bombardment of Germany? Of course not. Churchill orchestrated the greatest land invasion in history that flattened and utterly destroyed Germany, killing untold innocent German women and children in the process.

The perversity of today's international outcry lies in the fact that there is indeed a disproportion in this war, a radical moral asymmetry between Hezbollah and Israel: Hezbollah is deliberately trying to create civilian casualties on both sides while Israel is deliberately trying to minimize civilian casualties, also on both sides.

In perhaps the most blatant terror campaign from the air since the London blitz, Hezbollah is raining rockets on Israeli cities and villages. These rockets are packed with ball bearings that can penetrate automobiles and shred human flesh. They are meant to kill and maim. And they do.

But it is a dual campaign. Israeli innocents must die in order for Israel to be terrorized. But Lebanese innocents must also die in order for Israel to be demonized, which is why Hezbollah hides its fighters, its rockets, its launchers, its entire infrastructure among civilians. Creating human shields is a war crime. It is also a Hezbollah specialty.

On Wednesday, CNN cameras showed destruction in Tyre. What does Israel have against Tyre and its inhabitants? Nothing. But the long-range Hezbollah rockets that have been raining terror on Haifa are based in Tyre. What is Israel to do? Leave untouched the launch sites that are deliberately placed in built-up areas?

Had Israel wanted to destroy Lebanese civilian infrastructure, it would have turned out the lights in Beirut in the first hour of the war, destroying the billion-dollar power grid and setting back Lebanon 20 years. It did not do that. Instead, it attacked dual-use infrastructure — bridges, roads, airport runways — and blockaded Lebanon's ports to prevent the reinforcement and resupply of Hezbollah. Ten-thousand Katyusha rockets are enough. Israel was not going to allow Hezbollah 10,000 more.

Israel's response to Hezbollah has been to use the most precise weaponry and targeting it can. It has no interest, no desire to kill Lebanese civilians. Does anyone imagine that it could not have leveled south Lebanon, to say nothing of Beirut? Instead, in the bitter fight against Hezbollah in south Lebanon, it has repeatedly dropped leaflets, issued warnings, sent messages by radio and even phone text to Lebanese villagers to evacuate so that they would not be harmed.

Israel knows that these leaflets and warnings give the Hezbollah fighters time to escape and regroup. The advance notification as to where the next attack is coming has allowed Hezbollah to set up elaborate ambushes. The result? Unexpectedly high Israeli infantry casualties. Moral scrupulousness paid in blood. Israeli soldiers die so that Lebanese civilians will not, and who does the international community condemn for disregarding civilian life?

Krauthammer is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist based in Washington, D.C. ([email protected])

 

[liberalogic]

1. Right, my patriotism to America blinded me in my defense of Israel...sounds "logical"....either way, better to be blinded by patriotism than poisened by media propaganda. I would say that the label I gave you does fit your position. Israel is fighting terrorism, and you claim it wasnt appropriate. Better yet, I'll ask you how Israel should respond to ANY terror attack? Turn a blind eye? Yeah that does wonders for stopping terrorism...

2. It was a good tactical decision for Israel. How can it not be? Will Tehran really have the balls to bring the fight to Israel? I really dont think so, in my lifetime I've seen nothing but hollow threats from the arabs in the mid-east. Even still, let's say Iran does get involved, just another justification for war, but we dont want THAT now do we?

3. Terrorism will be destroyed in the middle east by the hands of Israel and what remains of the strength of western nations. I'm not sure what point you're arguing here. Are you saying that because terrorism 'will never be defeated,' that we should just let it be? Are you pessimistic enough to say that the whole idea is damned after 20 some-odd days of trying? Thats the vibes I'm getting from you.

You're last point rings true, actually. If Israel followed you're advice and, well stopped fighting, then you're absolutely correct, terrorism will never end.

Just because I believe that Israel has acted inappropriately does not mean that they should turn a "blind eye." That's twisting around what I'm saying and making an unimplied assumption. Reread my posts: Never did I say that they should ignore Hezbollah. My personal opinion is that their actions, the way they've handled this situation, will lead to destructive consequences in the future. But in no way does that mean they should simply ignore the threat. Also, I never said that they should stop fighting at this point. The damage has already been done.

My problem with western policy in the Middle East is that we assume that war is always the best solution. Yes, war is often necessary, but no war will ever erradicate radical Islam. It may weaken it, but it will never end it.

Since Israel is surrounded by enemies, they will always be subject to heinous suicide bombings by insurgents. Since their military dwarfs those of its Islamic opponents, the biggest threat to their security will always be the martyrs. The only way to eliminate this, or at least reduce it, is to somehow try to achieve some sort of peace. While a full-scale war may weaken the military base of terrorist organizations, it will never eliminate the suicide bomber.

 

[red states rule]

Liberals never learn from history...........


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDBhMzg5Mzk4NjQ5MjM5OTJhZjRjMWQ4OWMzNDhmMzk=

The Brink of Madness
A familiar place.

By Victor Davis Hanson

When I used to read about the 1930s — the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany, the appeasement in France and Britain, the murderous duplicity of the Soviet Union, and the racist Japanese murdering in China — I never could quite figure out why, during those bleak years, Western Europeans and those in the United States did not speak out and condemn the growing madness, if only to defend the millennia-long promise of Western liberalism.

Of course, the trauma of the Great War was all too fresh, and the utopian hopes for the League of Nations were not yet dashed. The Great Depression made the thought of rearmament seem absurd. The connivances of Stalin with Hitler — both satanic, yet sometimes in alliance, sometimes not — could confuse political judgments.

But nevertheless it is still surreal to reread the fantasies of Chamberlain, Daladier, and Pope Pius, or the stump speeches by Charles Lindbergh (“Their [the Jews’] greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government”) or Father Coughlin (“Many people are beginning to wonder whom they should fear most — the Roosevelt-Churchill combination or the Hitler-Mussolini combination.”) — and baffling to consider that such men ever had any influence.

Not any longer.

Our present generation too is on the brink of moral insanity. That has never been more evident than in the last three weeks, as the West has proven utterly unable to distinguish between an attacked democracy that seeks to strike back at terrorist combatants, and terrorist aggressors who seek to kill civilians.

It is now nearly five years since jihadists from the Arab world left a crater in Manhattan and ignited the Pentagon. Apart from the frontline in Iraq, the United States and NATO have troops battling the Islamic fascists in Afghanistan. European police scramble daily to avoid another London or Madrid train bombing. The French, Dutch, and Danish governments are worried that a sizable number of Muslim immigrants inside their countries are not assimilating, and, more worrisome, are starting to demand that their hosts alter their liberal values to accommodate radical Islam. It is apparently not safe for Australians in Bali, and a Jew alone in any Arab nation would have to be discreet — and perhaps now in France or Sweden as well. Canadians’ past opposition to the Iraq war, and their empathy for the Palestinians, earned no reprieve, if we can believe that Islamists were caught plotting to behead their prime minister. Russians have been blown up by Muslim Chechnyans from Moscow to Beslan. India is routinely attacked by Islamic terrorists. An elected Lebanese minister must keep in mind that a Hezbollah or Syrian terrorist — not an Israeli bomb — might kill him if he utters a wrong word. The only mystery here in the United States is which target the jihadists want to destroy first: the Holland Tunnel in New York or the Sears Tower in Chicago.

In nearly all these cases there is a certain sameness: The Koran is quoted as the moral authority of the perpetrators; terrorism is the preferred method of violence; Jews are usually blamed; dozens of rambling complaints are aired, and killers are often considered stateless, at least in the sense that the countries in which they seek shelter or conduct business or find support do not accept culpability for their actions.

Yet the present Western apology to all this is often to deal piecemeal with these perceived Muslim grievances: India, after all, is in Kashmir; Russia is in Chechnya; America is in Iraq, Canada is in Afghanistan; Spain was in Iraq (or rather, still is in Al Andalus); or Israel was in Gaza and Lebanon. Therefore we are to believe that “freedom fighters” commit terror for political purposes of “liberation.” At the most extreme, some think there is absolutely no pattern to global terrorism, and the mere suggestion that there is constitutes “Islamaphobia.”

Here at home, yet another Islamic fanatic conducts an act of al Qaedism in Seattle, and the police worry immediately about the safety of the mosques from which such hatred has in the past often emanated — as if the problem of a Jew being murdered at the Los Angeles airport or a Seattle civic center arises from not protecting mosques, rather than protecting us from what sometimes goes on in mosques.

But then the world is awash with a vicious hatred that we have not seen in our generation: the most lavish film in Turkish history, “Valley of the Wolves,” depicts a Jewish-American harvesting organs at Abu Ghraib in order to sell them; the Palestinian state press regularly denigrates the race and appearance of the American Secretary of State; the U.N. secretary general calls a mistaken Israeli strike on a U.N. post “deliberate,” without a word that his own Blue Helmets have for years watched Hezbollah arm rockets in violation of U.N. resolutions, and Hezbollah’s terrorists routinely hide behind U.N. peacekeepers to ensure impunity while launching missiles.

If you think I exaggerate the bankruptcy of the West or only refer to the serial ravings on the Middle East of Pat Buchanan or Jimmy Carter, consider some of the most recent comments from Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah about Israel: “When the people of this temporary country lose their confidence in their legendary army, the end of this entity will begin [emphasis added].” Then compare Nasrallah’s remarks about the U.S: “To President Bush, Prime Minister Olmert and every other tyrannical aggressor. I want to invite you to do what you want, practice your hostilities. By God, you will not succeed in erasing our memory, our presence or eradicating our strong belief. Your masses will soon waste away, and your days are numbered [emphasis added].”

And finally examine here at home reaction to Hezbollah — which has butchered Americans in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia — from a prominent Democratic Congressman, John Dingell: “I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah.” And isn’t that the point, after all: the amoral Westerner cannot exercise moral judgment because he no longer has any?

An Arab rights group, between denunciations of Israel and America, is suing its alma mater the United States for not evacuating Arab-Americans quickly enough from Lebanon, despite government warnings of the dangers of going there, and the explicit tactics of Hezbollah, in the manner of Saddam Hussein, of using civilians as human shields in the war it started against Israel.

Demonstrators on behalf of Hezbollah inside the United States — does anyone remember our 241 Marines slaughtered by these cowardly terrorists? — routinely carry placards with the Star of David juxtaposed with Swastikas, as voices praise terrorist killers. Few Arab-American groups these past few days have publicly explained that the sort of violence, tyranny, and lawlessness of the Middle East that drove them to the shores of a compassionate and successful America is best epitomized by the primordial creed of Hezbollah.

There is no need to mention Europe, an entire continent now returning to the cowardice of the 1930s. Its cartoonists are terrified of offending Muslim sensibilities, so they now portray the Jews as Nazis, secure that no offended Israeli terrorist might chop off their heads. The French foreign minister meets with the Iranians to show solidarity with the terrorists who promise to wipe Israel off the map (“In the region there is of course a country such as Iran — a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region”) — and manages to outdo Chamberlain at Munich. One wonders only whether the prime catalyst for such French debasement is worry over oil, terrorists, nukes, unassimilated Arab minorities at home, or the old Gallic Jew-hatred.

It is now a cliché to rant about the spread of postmodernism, cultural relativism, utopian pacifism, and moral equivalence among the affluent and leisured societies of the West. But we are seeing the insidious wages of such pernicious theories as they filter down from our media, universities, and government — and never more so than in the general public’s nonchalance since Hezbollah attacked Israel.

These past few days the inability of millions of Westerners, both here and in Europe, to condemn fascist terrorists who start wars, spread racial hatred, and despise Western democracies is the real story, not the “quarter-ton” Israeli bombs that inadvertently hit civilians in Lebanon who live among rocket launchers that send missiles into Israeli cities and suburbs.

Yes, perhaps Israel should have hit more quickly, harder, and on the ground; yes, it has run an inept public relations campaign; yes, to these criticisms and more. But what is lost sight of is the central moral issue of our times: a humane democracy mired in an asymmetrical war is trying to protect itself against terrorists from the 7th century, while under the scrutiny of a corrupt world that needs oil, is largely anti-Semitic and deathly afraid of Islamic terrorists, and finds psychic enjoyment in seeing successful Western societies under duress.

In short, if we wish to learn what was going on in Europe in 1938, just look around.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.

 

[liberalogic]

The Arab world hates Israel no matter what they do. I think Israel has more important things to worry about than what their neighbors think of them, e.g., defending their very right to survive.

I wonder what the rest of the Arab world and the world in general thought of Hezbollah when they turned on their TVs and saw Israeli school children's lifeless bodies? I don't believe Hezbollah worried about that. Hezbollah is getting what's coming to them.

The Arab world is already united in its opinion against Israel.

Again, of course the muslims hate the jews. That's a given. My entire point has been that Israel's waging of war will narrow the gap between the sunnis and shiites, which will foster a union of destruction led by Iran. That gap was much wider before this war began.

And I agree with you 100%: Where were the condemnations of Arabs when Israeli children were killed? You're right, it's an unbalanced scale. But there's a reason for that. We are not dealing with civilized people; they are fanatical monsters driven by erroneous beliefs in salvation. That certainly doesn't excuse their actions, but it should make us think twice about how we handle the situation if we hope to stabilize the region.

 

[Annie]

Again, of course the muslims hate the jews. That's a given. My entire point has been that Israel's waging of war will narrow the gap between the sunnis and shiites, which will foster a union of destruction led by Iran. That gap was much wider before this war began.

And I agree with you 100%: Where were the condemnations of Arabs when Israeli children were killed? You're right, it's an unbalanced scale. But there's a reason for that. We are not dealing with civilized people; they are fanatical monsters driven by erroneous beliefs in salvation. That certainly doesn't excuse their actions, but it should make us think twice about how we handle the situation if we hope to stabilize the region.

How do you propose to deal with them. Obviously, reason will not work. Money has not worked. Sooo????

 

[Semper Fi]

Just because I believe that Israel has acted inappropriately does not mean that they should turn a "blind eye." That's twisting around what I'm saying and making an unimplied assumption. Reread my posts: Never did I say that they should ignore Hezbollah. My personal opinion is that their actions, the way they've handled this situation, will lead to destructive consequences in the future. But in no way does that mean they should simply ignore the threat. Also, I never said that they should stop fighting at this point. The damage has already been done.

My problem with western policy in the Middle East is that we assume that war is always the best solution. Yes, war is often necessary, but no war will ever erradicate radical Islam. It may weaken it, but it will never end it.

Since Israel is surrounded by enemies, they will always be subject to heinous suicide bombings by insurgents. Since their military dwarfs those of its Islamic opponents, the biggest threat to their security will always be the martyrs. The only way to eliminate this, or at least reduce it, is to somehow try to achieve some sort of peace. While a full-scale war may weaken the military base of terrorist organizations, it will never eliminate the suicide bomber.

Most times, war is the best solution. If you havent noticed, the arabs are stuck in the 18th century as far as diplomacy goes. Not to mention it's against our beliefs to NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS. I'm really quite appalled at how quickly this nation can go from rolling up her sleeves to putting out her arms for hugs. I'm not sure where you were on September 11th, but the events I witnessed that day have stuck with me ever since. It's a shame you can forget so easily.

Have you ever heard of General Pershing? I believe he ended a chapter of islamic extremism through...wait for it...war!

General Pershing was in charge of a U.S. garrison in the Philippines in 1911. It seems his soldiers were subjected to a series of terror attacks by Filipino Muslims. Pershing did not try to put together a "road map." Nor did he set up study groups to find out why the Muslims hated the Americans. Nor did he offer them a series of "good will gestures." Nor did he put up a giant wall to keep them out. Instead, he captured fifty of those Muslim terrorists. He then had them dig their own graves. He then tied all up to posts execution style. He then dipped fifty bullets in pig's blood. You see, Muslims murders may not have a problem with soaking their hands into Jewish blood but NO WAY do they want anything to do with the skin, blood or 'guts' of a pig. Should they be contaminated by any of these pig parts, they will go to Muslim Hell, not Muslim Paradise!

And so, on the count of three, all but one of those Paradise-seeking Islamists were shot dead! Their bodies were them wrapped in the skins of freshly-killed pigs and dropped into the giant hole. Above them were poured the entrails and other porcine remains. You may ask, "Why was one Muslim spared?" The answer is simple. This sole surviving Muslim was released and sent back to his fellow 'mujahedin' to report what he had just witnessed. For the next 42 years there was not a single Muslim attack!

http://www.masada2000.org/bacon.html

 

[theHawk]

How do you propose to deal with them. Obviously, reason will not work. Money has not worked. Sooo????

There is no way to deal with them. Its either the Jews get out of the middle east or we will end up fighting this war until virtually every last Muslim is dead.
The question is are we willing to fight this war for Israel?

 

[Annie]

There is no way to deal with them. Its either the Jews get out of the middle east or we will end up fighting this war until virtually every last Muslim is dead.
The question is are we willing to fight this war for Israel?

So you think the destruction of Israel is the solution? Then we will have peace?

 

[Semper Fi]

The question is are we willing to fight this war for Israel?

No, thats not the question at all. We fought/ are fighting our part, and Israel is doing theirs. Simple as that. I havent heard any talks of US intervention.

 

[theHawk]

So you think the destruction of Israel is the solution? Then we will have peace?

Yes, until the state of Israel is literally destroyed by Islamic fundamentalists, or disolved and Jews mass exodus out. Or until all the Arabs are destroyed. Until either option happens, there will always be some state of war between the two. Don't you agree?

 

[theHawk]

No, thats not the question at all. We fought/ are fighting our part, and Israel is doing theirs. Simple as that. I havent heard any talks of US intervention.

And what happens when Israel gets its ass kicked? If Syria and Iran are drawn into the conflict?
Are you ready to die in the trenches for the zionists pipe dream?

 

[Avatar4321]

There is no way to deal with them. Its either the Jews get out of the middle east or we will end up fighting this war until virtually every last Muslim is dead.
The question is are we willing to fight this war for Israel?

Jews have been in the middle east for the past 4000+ Why on earth should they have to leave? Sure there have been more showing up since Israel was created. But its there home. Why should they have to move just because they have intolerant Neighbors?

Also, if you havent noticed Iran and Syria are the only real hostile nations against the Israelis. (Palestinians dont count because they arent a nation). They havent had a dispute with Egypt, Jordan, or any other nation for a while.

I dont think a majority of Muslims hate jews. There are a large number in some countries because they have authoritarian regimes that blame everything on the jews all the time. When freedom starts spreading in the middle east, and it will, then you will see it change.

And you also have it backwards. We arent fighting the war for Israel. Israel is fighting the war for us because there are too many of us who dont have the resolve to defeat terrorism.

 

[theHawk]

You're right, not all Jews necessarily need to leave. But I would think most of the Zionist ones in Israel would have to.

And Israel is not fighting a war "for us". They are fighting for the preservation of their own state, period. Terrorism is just a tactic an enemy uses. I fail to see how the fact that Hezbollah uses terrorism has anything to do with our resolve.

 

[Annie]

Yes, until the state of Israel is literally destroyed by Islamic fundamentalists, or disolved and Jews mass exodus out. Or until all the Arabs are destroyed. Until either option happens, there will always be some state of war between the two. Don't you agree?

So you see the war by terrorists, only as Israeli based? If that is gone, the world will be at peace.

In my opinion Israel is the excuse, not the cause. When it's gone, their cause will still exist.