A Half-Hearted Condemnation of Full-Scale Murder

So finally, at last, after a dozen days of Israeli attacks on Lebanon, ostensibly aimed at Hezbollah but in fact destroying the rebirth of a country that has suffered almost as much if not more than Israel itself from the cancer ripping apart the Middle-East, at last the British government has thought it right to condemn the Israeli bombardment in which several hundred civilians have now died.

Finally, Blair has allowed his government to reproach Israel, albeit in a half-hearted way, backing the junior foreign office minister Kim Howells in his condemnation in Lebanon of the ludicrous Israeli over-reaction, diverging from the policies of his US mentor who is even now rushing more bombs to Israel to allow it to kill yet more innocent civilians.

I hold no sympathy for the terrorist bomb-makers of Hezbollah, or their sponsors in Tehran and Damascus. If Israel had sent assassins to specifically target the terrorists I would not have shed a single tear, not have issued a word of criticism. If it had taken out the evil Syrian and Iranian men who pull the strings of groups like Hezbollah I might even have shed a sigh of relief and cheered. But bombing Lebanon from the air was not only ineffective in stopping Hezbollah, it was never intended to be. It was always about showing that the government of Ehud Olmert is not weak.

Israel likes to see itself as the brave face of democracy, right and truth, surrounded by those who would destroy it, but there was nothing brave about launching largely indiscriminate attacks on Lebanon, it was the action of a nasty little bully. Far from making Olmert look strong, it will ultimately make him weaker, failing to destroy Hezbollah, losing Israel friends and giving those in Damascus and Tehran who sought to provoke this foolish assault precisely what they wanted.

Our prolonged refusal to condemn the attacks – preferring to follow the lead of the Bush administration - has demeaned us as a nation. But there is a way of showing our true feelings, of setting us apart from the Bush administration’s willingness to fuel the fighting with yet more bombs.

The Blair government could show its independence and ban arms sales to Israel as the Thatcher government did in the wake of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Israeli F16 fighters are launching attacks on their targets using British-made heads-up displays. As I recall, this government’s ethical foreign policy was designed to prevent the use of British-made military equipment against civilians. A new ban on sales of military equipment would actually show that the British government means what it says. But don’t hold your breath.

Comments

[ARCANE]

This bloody and seemingly endless conflict in the Middle East only continues because of outside support to the protagonists. America and Britain have no credibility and are simply part of the Israeli war machine. Israel has lost any capacity for rational behaviour and is now little better than the "terrorists" it claims to be fighting.
The conflict is set to escalate and will see the destruction of moderate Muslim governments as the Middle East is further radicalised. Get set for a long long war, brought to you by Bush, Blair and their Israeli "dogs of war".

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Sir,

You may be surprised to learn that the British Government's opinions re the current pahse of the Arab - Israeli Hundred Years' war is mostly irrelevant. No one cares and no one listens in the area.

You have unmitigated gall to defend Lebanon's government who's been in bed with Hezbollah all these years. If you harbor a thug in your home, the police will break down your door and break the furniture to get him, if necessary.

1. Return the Kidnapped Soldiers

2. Stop firing missiles into another country.

and the kiling stops.

If the Arab can't handle that simple proposition, then don't lecture the victim.

[Chuck Unsworth]

An elegant juxtaposition of comment above, and a graphic illustration of this dialogue of the deaf and impotent. Sadly, neither of these two contributors will be able to offer a resolution to this new conflict.

It's completely fatuous for anyone to believe that one (whichever) side can now unilaterally institute a cease-fire. The Israelis may achieve something by temporarily driving out Hezbollah from their current positions in Southern Lebanon - or elsewhere - but the reality is that they have created huge support amongst Arab, and now other communities, world-wide. So, as Mick says, Hezbollah has gained more recruits for martyrdom and more international sympathy for their 'cause'.

Strategically and Geo-politically Olmert has simply failed. He may, possibly, have secured his re-election, of course. Like so many other political leaders Olmert would prefer the glamour of instituting a war to the dogged, tedious and unromantic hard work of negotiation. It's lazy and a quick political and personal fix. But Olmert will now never be able to fully disengage from these hostilities, nor will he ever be regarded internationally as a Statesman. He has demonstrated his own level of incompetence.

And let's not avoid the fact that Blair, Bush and others are of very similar disposition. There are actually no beneficiaries of these dubious wars, except (re)construction companies such as Halliburton, mercenaries and arms manufacturers. Where are the benefits to the ordinary Israeli or Lebanese? Who gains from all of this bloodshed and indiscriminate destruction? Certainly not the populations of either country.

The belief that somehow 'Security' can be imposed or brought about by military means is the portal to a very steep slope downwards to totalitarianism. In any event, it has been clearly shown in New York, London, Bali, Egypt, Israel and any number of other places that determined extremists will always succeed. And, once again, it is the ordinary innocent civilian who suffers.

The rush to arms by some governments over recent years is a tacit acknowledgement of abject political and diplomatic failure. Surely the mark of a civilised society is its ability to protect its citizens without presiding over the deaths of its own and other peoples.

Rather than killing individual 'freedom fighters' and many innocent others through 'unfortunate collateral damage', the task is to defeat the philosophy. That is not, to paraphrase, achieved through the barrel of a gun. A 'War on Terror' is a futile political gesture.

[MM]

Mike - you're a hypocrite!
You've written with great sympathy about the travails of British troops in Afghanistan; what are they doing there - does it have a bearing on the safety of the UK or its population?
Ever since the over-hasty retreat under Barak from southern Lebanon, Hizbollah has built up a formidable military machine which they have been using from time-to-time against Israel's northern population.
As you might know from Afghanistan & Iraq, the Arabs don't play according to the rules at Sandhurst - i.e. they lynch people, they mutilate bodies, they revel in & encourage the loss of their own as propaganda fodder, they detest compromise (and democracy) as weaknesses to be exploited - and Hizbollah's speciality is siting their missiles in heavily populated areas.
Apart from the fact that Hizb is also part of the Lebanese government and therefore the Lebanese bear responsibilty for (the many) attacks initiated from their soil. The Israel government bears responsibility for neglecting this situation for so long, hoping it would go away. Appeasement and turning a blind eye never ever works.
So far, unfortunately we know that some 300 Lebanese were killed in the hostilities although we don't know how many of these were terrorists. I'd hardly rank that with a day's worth in Iraq, as wreaked by US & UK military plus the worthy Arabs themselves on their own kind.
What would you do in the circumstances where your citizens were being attacked and under threat of extinction AT HOME? You're no better than the mealy-mouthed French who are ever-so-pacifist when it comes to pontificating about other people but play pretty rough at home. Or is this a Christian turn-the-other-cheek philosophy which applies to everyone-else except the preacher.

[Mick says: Sorry MM no hypocrisy here. I am not attacking Israel for defending itself, only for the way in which it is doing it, which is killing civilians, something that is illegal under international law. This blog has of course never defended the invasion of Iraq, which I also see as having dubious legality. As for Afghanistan, the British troops are there with UN backing and are not targetting civilians.]

[Randall]

As an American.....I clearly recall being "sucker punched" by terrorists on Sept 11 2001. My country has been fighting terrorism whole-heartedly from that day. The way that Hizzbollah fired their rockets into Israel, and launched an assault on the Israeli military.....killing, and capturing soldiers is no less of a "sucker punch" than what we recieved five years ago. Israel followed all conditions with the U.N., and watched as the U.N. failed them for two years by not enforcing resolution 1529, calling on the disarming of Hizbollah. Israel's bashing of Lebonon territory could have been prevented. The U.N. failed them. They allowed Hizbollah to exhist, and now they reap what they sowed. Israel has American support. Why? Because our own survival depends on it. As does the U.K.'s. The difference is....we Americans....unlike the U.N....will not sit back and watch as a terrorist entity overwhelms a whole nation, and then launches terrorist attacks on its innocent neighbors. Self defense my ass.....self preservation is more like it.

[cengiz aslan]

Dear Readers,

What Israel did was not right,
what hamas did was not right,
but who are the good guys,
and who are the bad guys,
hamas is not good, thats for sure,
but what now with israel?

The lifetime victims of holocaust?
sorry, not for me anymore,

Israel has to stop killing innocent people,
get the hamas, thats okay, dont get provoked by iran and syria!
Rebuild lebanon, its part of your responsibility, ...

lets have peace, we die anyway-some day,
but do we have to kill each other?
letter from a turkish born, raised up
in austria, living in germany man

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear All,

I love all the hand wringing about "peace" and casting blame on Israel because it's not perfect. Guess what sweethearts? War is hell- people get killed. When you want to whitewash it, it's "collateral damage". When you want to demonize the Jew, it's "disproportionate response".

Peace?
return the soldiers
stop bombing Israel

All else is bull excrement

[MM]

Mike. Israel is NOT targetting civilians!
As I pointed out, the Hizbullah station themselves & their armaments in civilian locations (& also mosques). I think that's also illegal under Int. Law.
Presumably, according to the same Int. Law which seems to me to have been made redundant over the last 50 years, when fired on from the mosque, town flat etc. one turns the other cheek?
This whole issue of International Law seriously needs addressing by some impartial body (there ain't one). The same Laws give immunity to the Arabs in general: i.e. they can attack Israel who beats them back & occupies some real-estate; that's illegal. So it gives it back - & they attack again - but that's fine - that's liberation. Do us a lemon!

[JD]

Hmm: in terms of viewpoints, 'the usual suspects' are bring trotted out here...

On balance, whilst I can fully understand Israel's frustration/rage/anger at the antics of Hezbollah - who, let us not forget, are Iranian/Syrian proxys - there is no doubt that the response is a propaganda own goal: both in the short term, where it is alienating many in the international community, and in the long term, where it is creating a new generation of would-be martyrs.

Given the supposed excellence of the Israeli targetting/surveillance system, I would have thought a more surgical approach might have been possible. As it is, this seems very unlikely to achieve any real long term improvement in their situation. Speaking as a very 'anti-terror' retired army officer, who has always admired Israel's willingness to do what is necessary, I've found the reports and pictures of obviously innocent, mutilated and killed children sickening: what would your reaction be as a civilian to a country who'd done that to your children?

This in no way condones Hezbollah, who do such things as a matter of course, but is to point out that the only difference between such terrorist organisations, and Israel's response here, appears to be one of relative might and organisation: Israel cannot, with any credibility, now claim the moral high ground.

Instead, for the sake of finding a short term outlet for their rage, they have played into the hands of Syria and Iran, created a new generation of would-be martyrs, and destroyed the fragile reconstruction of a basically pro-western nation on their Northern border.

The clear winners in this situation, whatever happens, are Iran: Lebanon's relatively orderly transition to democracy is destroyed, opinion is further radicalised on all sides, and Israel's international credibility is weakened. Israel should perhaps have remebered the Sicilian approach: "Revenge is a dish best served cold"...

[James]

I'm with emanuel.

Lebanon chose to go to bed with the terrorists; now she's reaping the consequences (getting pregnant with something evil).

I am thankful that there are at least one or two nations in the world which do not instinctively try to appease terrorists.

James

[JD]

Careful James: "Lebanon chose to go to bed with the terrorists" is on a par with saying that "the Irish chose to go to bed with the IRA". Some people did, some didn't, in both cases. Certainly the children missing limbs I've seen on the news made no such positive choice, and I rather doubt the Druze and the Maronites would agree with your cavalier claim that they 'chose' to get into bed with Hezbollah.

In any case, I don't recall us using bombs from jet aircraft, or artillery, on civilian areas in Northern Ireland: we finally achieved what appears to be a route to peace through a mixture of addressing justifiable grievances, very specific, intelligence led military operations, and the acceptance of the need for a political dialogue, in the right circumstances. The Irish terrorists carried out a number of attacks that were just as bad as anything Hezbollah has attempted on Israel, including wholesale slaughter on the UK mainland. The UK never found it necessary to get into indiscriminate civilian death...

I accept that the unique fear for Israel is the stated aim of its 'obliteration' by several of these mad groups - and that would concentrate the mind. But this campaign;

a) will not destroy Hezbollah - it will simply kill a proportion of the current membership, and recruit many more new zealots. I suspect the important hierarchy are already safe in Damascus/Tehran.

b) will not reduce the threat to civilian Israeli lives - I would wager it has increased the likelihood of loonies blowing themselves up on the streets of Israel over the coming months.

c) Wins Israel no points with any dispassionate moderate.

d) Will radicalise the Lebanese state, playing directly into Iran's hands.

So why on earth do it??? Strategically, in military terms, it's a stupid move. Sure, it makes you feel good to swat a hornet that's just stung you: but you don't poke a stick in a hornet's nest unless you're ready to escalate to total destruction - and that's not going to happen. I'm afraid that this appears far more about a politician's need to appease his supporters than any reasoned, logical course of action.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Mr Smith,

A continual refrain from some of your readers is the question "why do it, it might make the Arab angry"

You "do it" when your territory has been attacked. You "do it" when your citizens are killed, bombarded, your soldiers kidnapped.

Anyone even cursorily studying guerilla warfare realizes quickly that the irregular, like the Maoist fish, hides among the other fish in the pond. To get the guerilla, you drain the pond.

Horreurs! That might get Arabs killed! Well, yes, which is preferable to getting Israelis killed. I realize that is no great concern for you and some of your readers but we like our lives as surprising as it may seem to you.

The Arab has not been beaten enough because he persists on this bigoted lunacy after 60 odd years.

[Freedom]

With every further air strike at essentially civilian targets, Israel further undermines its right to exist as a separate nation. It is one thing for terrorist groups to commit such atrocities, quite another for a state which expects to be recognised by others.

The time has come for "the West" to disown Israeli and force it to make peace with it's Arab neighbours - by denying it the financial and military support it needs to maintain such a bellicose stance. If the US doesn’t come to its senses soon, we will have another Holocaust in the Middle East – and Zionists will be both the major perpetrators and the ultimate victims.

Bush and Blair will soon be gone. It is surprising that a great nation like the U.S. can be so cowed and suckered to act against it’s own best interests by such a small nation like Israel. A lot of that is down to the influence of the largely Zionist inspired Neo-cons – who are on the way out even in conservative America.

Some US fundamentalist Christians seem to think they can bring forward the date of the Second Coming by encouraging Israel down the path of Armageddon. Israel should decline the invitation to be the Crucible for the Third World War.

Israel is often touted as the only democracy in the Middle East. It is no more democratic than Apartheid was, for it has expelled the majority of its Palestinian inhabitants to live in Refugee camps and “Homelands” in Gaza, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.

Lebanon is actually the best example of a democracy in the region – because it has given the vote to all who have the right to live there. And this in spite of the blatant manipulation of its Polity by Syria, Iran, and Israel.

That is the real reason Israel wants to destroy Lebanon – because it shows that non-racist democracy can work in the region.

The time for excuses is gone. All Palestinians must be allowed to return to live and work and vote in Palestine/Israel and if that results in a Palestinian led Israeli/Palestinian Government then so be it. True democracy rules.

The Zionists who have perpetrate the current war crimes should be tried by a war crimes tribunal – probably in Nuremburg – to remind all of the gravity of the offences currently being committed.

If the World Community continues to appease terrorist states like Israel – we will all share responsibility for the next world war. And then we will all suffer the consequences of what Israel is currently doing.

[Richard Holt]

Emanuel Appel - I think you would do well to read the article before commenting. And maybe read more generally.

[Freedom]

Don't worry about Emanuel, Richard Holt. He has already been banned from David Aaronovitch's blog for his perpetual infantile racist rantings.

He promised to go away to some unmoderated Newsgroup but he likes to play on the ever polite English tolerance of all views - even though he never loses an opportunity to rant against English tolerance of the Muslims within their midst.

He denies the right of Palestinians to live in their own land and yet expects us to grant a right of return to Britain to all Israeli Zionists when things go truly wrong in Israel.

He tells us to support Israel "if only out of self-interest" - because otherwise "our neighbourhoods will be swamped by returning Jews". That is also why he wants us to "repatriate" all Muslims currently living here - they might not welcome returning Zionists with open arms.

Emanuel has been diagnosed as a paranoid delusional by Dr. Mordecai Kauffman. It is best to just let him vomit expletives in a corner of the room.....

[James]

"Careful James: "Lebanon chose to go to bed with the terrorists" is on a par with saying that "the Irish chose to go to bed with the IRA"."

---

Sure, JD, not everyone (and indeed many) in Lebanon did not want their country to become a haven for people who routinely blow up little kids with nail bombs.

But everyone in Lebanon knew that harboring such a group (and making it part of the government no less) - a group obsessively dedicated to the outright destruction of Israel, and to the murder of all Jews in it - was stupid.

Now the Lebanese are paying for their outright stupidity. (And by the way, the Irish, whom you bring up, paid over and over for not repudiating the terrorists in their midst...)

At the end of the day, the ONLY solution to all of this is that terrorism be repudiated - and for good.

Otherwise, there will be war - and righteous war at that.

Same with the United States. If some group wants to set off nuclear bombs in the US - and does - there will be a righteous war - big time.

James

[James]

"A continual refrain from some of your readers is the question "why do it, it might make the Arab angry""

---

Indeed, emmanuel. It's just more from the Neville Chamberlain school of diplomatic wimplunacy...

When you have a hornet's nest hanging from your home - you take the whole thing down (even if you get viciously stung). If you leave it, because you are afraid of stirring up the hornets, it just gets a whole lot bigger and meaner and harder to take down.

The reason we are dealing with this today is that we have appeased terrorists and the nations that support them for decades.

It's time to take down the hornets' nest and destroy it.

James

[Mick says: James, I took you to task once before over your Chamberlain jibes. As I recall Chamberlain declared war on Nazi Germany in September 1939 when all your brave ol' boys over there were saying we aint going to war. They then had to be dragged into it more than two years later by Roosevelt, and there's quite a few of your good ol' boys who havent forgiven FDR yet for dragging them into a war aimed at eliminating anyone who stood in Hitler's way, but particularly the Jews.

As for your pontifications on terrorism, we over here have dealt with terrorism time and time again, with Irish terrorism and with the terrorism dealt out by the Irgun murderers Emanuel is so keen on. Then with the terrorists in Malaya, then Cyprus, and in virtually every country that used to be coloured pink in the atlases we were given at school.

What we learned is that brute force and murder can only ever be part of the package. Unless there is a political plan to go alongside killing terrorists you will never win, and if you kill the civilians instead of the terrorists, you can only lose.

But hey I'm sorry. You guys are the experts on terrorism, because five years ago, after years of pumping money into the coffers of the IRA and telling us we were brutal colonialists, you finally learned what terrorism is all about. Since then the one thing we've learned from America is that we didnt know the first thing about being brutal colonialists. No-one does it better than you guys.

We don't need your lessons James. We know. It isnt us that doesnt understand reality, it's you. But give you a century or so and the time to relearn all the lessons we learned so painfully, you might just get it right.]

[Freedom]

Sure, James, not everyone (and indeed many) in the USA did not want their country to become a haven for people who routinely blow up little kids with airstrikes and missiles.

But everyone in the USA knew that harboring such a group (and making the Neo-cons part of the government no less) - a group obsessively dedicated to the outright destruction of Fundamentalist Islam, and to the murder of all Moslems in it - was stupid.

Now the USA is paying for their outright stupidity. (And by the way, the British, whom you bring up, paid over and over for not repudiating the Loyalist and Fundamentalist British terrorists in their midst...)

At the end of the day, the ONLY solution to all of this is that terrorism and terorist Regimes developing weapons of Mass destruction such as Israel be repudiated - and for good.

Otherwise, there will be war - and righteous war at that.

Same with Iran. If some group wants to bomb Iran - and does - there will be a righteous war - big time.

Freedom

[Frank Schnittger]

Ah yes Mick - but James might well counter that you lost all those pink coloured colonies in the process - because you appeased their wish for national self determination (aka terrorism).

Under James' strategy those countries would also no longer be colured pink. They would be coloured blood red.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear all,

I notice the usual members of the yellow brigade are here with character assassination and gossip. I'm glad that my "fans" take the trouble to follow me.

"What we learned is that brute force and murder can only ever be part of the package" Hmm!

After laying Germany and Japan flat ( you did do it-was it with force or with scones?) Neville Chamberlain was already in his grave. His name will forever be associated with limp wristed solutions to "complicated" problems.

No one here ever, ever tells the Arab to negotiate. All his vicious actions are excused even after he blows you up in your own capital. "We must find the reason for Moslem rage" the pundits cry.

They tell it you and you don't listen. They are driven by the religious fanaticism of the Imperialist.

You don't ever, ever say to them to cut it out. Only to Israel do you say that "violence" is counterproductive.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Mr. Smith,

You stated "there's quite a few of your good ol' boys who havent forgiven FDR yet for dragging them into a war aimed at eliminating anyone who stood in Hitler's way, but particularly the Jews."

You have it wrong. If FDR is not forgiven, it's only by an international crew whose only concern is animus to the Jews. This ranges from American journalists like Pat Buchanan and Bob Novak, neo Nazi David Duke, your precious George Galloway, Ken Livingstone, and David Irving, now doing time in an Austrian prison.

Some of your respondents here are the camp followers of the above gentlemen.

[Freedom]

Emanuel - seeing you use an e-mail address (irgun43@mindspring.com) modelled after a terrorist group - no one here need assassinate your character. You are the archetypal suicide blogger.

[James]

Ooh boy -

Again - as long as terrorists get their way by purposefully blowing up little kids (and people on subways, and people in skyscrapers, and people on ships, and people in airplanes, and people in discos), they will continue to do it.

The only answer to terrorism is to make sure 1) it NEVER gets people (like Islamofanatics) what they want; and 2) the price paid for committing it is so high that they never want to do it again.

There is no other way.

Appeasing evil ALWAYS causes it to grow.

Evil has to be destroyed.

If the Islamofanatics continue with their terrorist ways, they are going to be on the receiving end of the US nuclear arsenal.

It's up to them; they can put aside their evil ways at any time. If they don't, they will regret it.

James

[JD]

Oh dear, oh dear. 'James' and 'Emanuel' both appear to feel that any criticism whatsoever of Israel must come from an appeaser/fellow traveller of the islamofascists...

Unfortunately, gentlemen, the world is not so black and white. I would cheerfully support, for example, a program of assasination of Hezbollah leaders (and several other individuals I can think of, come to that...) by Israel. (Or, for example, the boobytrapping of some of their rockets: wondering whether this poorly made Iranian piece of junk was going to blow up in your face each time you set one up would soon lower the frequency of launches.) Either could be justified as a proportionate response to what Hezbollah are doing, and would not have the counter-productive effects of the present action.

I also have immense sympathy for the state of Israel, surrounded as it is by a bunch of nutters who appear to want nothing more than to destroy it: given the Jewish experience in World War 2, this creates an entirely understandable 'laager mentality'.

But the point, which you choose to miss, or are incapable of understanding, is that situations like this require calm, intelligent analysis before action. Mick is correct: the UK learned this the hard way, in something like 60 years of counter-terrorism campaigns. We had one significant over-reaction in Northern Ireland (Bloody Sunday). It has taken a quarter of a century to even begin to overcome the legacy of bitterness that caused. Certain events in Kenya are resurfacing now, nearly 50 years on, to haunt us. The point being made is not 'Israel bad, Ayatollahs good'. It is 'Israel is harming her own cause by lashing out without appearing to have a coherent reason for doing so, and causing significant casualties amongst probably the least polarised arab population on her borders'

I might also ask if these 2 individuals have ever actually seen any military service. Funny how it's always those who haven't seen the effects up close who are most enthusiastic about bombs and bullets - so long as they aren't pointed in their direction... Oh, and James - 'appeasing terrorists'. Don't even get me started on the Irish-American lobby, and the sorry history of appeasment - and funding - of terorists that your nation has gleefully undertaken for the past quarter of a century: I have relatives dead, and friends missing limbs, as a direct result of cash crossing the Atlantic to fund terrorism. You also miss the point when you claim that 'everyone in Lebanon knew that harbouring Hezbollah...' They didn't 'harbour' them - they found themselves staring down the barrel of a hezbollah gun, and uneasily opted to co-exist. In your world, I suppose some sort of Hollywood fantasy involving a Lebanese action hero would have kicked them all out.

[Freedom]

Ooh girl -

Again - as long as Zionist terrorists get their way by purposefully blowing up little kids (and people in refugee camps, and people in skyscrapers, and people on ships, and people in airplanes, and people in discos), they will continue to do it.

The only answer to terrorism is to make sure 1) it NEVER gets people (like Zionists) what they want; and 2) the price paid for committing it is so high that they never want to do it again.

There is no other way.

Appeasing evil ALWAYS causes it to grow.

Evil has to be destroyed.

If the Zionists continue with their terrorist ways, they are going to be on the receiving end of a proliferating nuclear arsenal.

It's up to us; we can put aside our evil ways at any time. If we don't, we will regret it.

Freedom

[Frank Schnittger]

Not quite JD. In James Blond's world there are no "Lebanese action heroes". Not even those Lebanese Red Cross ambulance drivers coming under direct fire from Israeli aircraft qualify as anything more than terrorist dupes and appeasers in James Blond's Hollywood fantasy land where you only have good guys and bad guys and the good guys are always the Americans and their allies.

American nukes good. Hezbollah low tech rockets bad. Israeli democracy good. Lebanese democracy - they're mostly Arabic aren't they - that is what we are trying to introduce into Iraq at the cost of many American lives, isn't it? - doesn't compute. Therefore it doesn't exist. And therefore Israel trying to destroy it doesn’t matter.

You see in James Blond's world, Evil is a matter of intent. He makes the Jesuitical distinction that if you bomb Lebanese towns and infrastructure intending to kill Hezbollah militants, then that is ok even if far more Lebanese civilians get killed instead. That just goes down as a mistake, some collateral damage, and we don't even count collateral damage in our casualty figures.

James Blond cannot understand that when you make thousands of such "mistakes" people don't trust your good intentions anymore. They don't even listen to you any more. You become a figure of fun - like "Comical Ali" - so great is the alienation between your propaganda and the reality on the ground.

But as you suggested, Emanuel (but probably not James) represent the chicken hawk tendency in the US. People who are always ready to fight to the last drop of somebody else’s blood. They just call the shots. Others do the shooting and dying.

Was it King David who once put a rival in the front line of a battle to ensure that he was killed? Israel should take care that it doesn’t happen to them. There is a bigger game being played here, and Israelis and Palestinians are the fools for allowing others to use them to play their games in their back yard – and front lawn – for that matter.

Some situations are just mistakes waiting to happen. I don’t think that incidents like Bloody Sunday are as rare in British Colonial history as you suggest. They derive from an arrogant and superior attitude of mind, and a frustration when the facts on the ground don’t quite correlate with what you hand in mind.

This is what has happened to America in Iraq. James does not have any Evil intentions, his religious faith leads him to assume that American and Zionist intentions are all good.. Ergo they can do no wrong (in the moral sense). Of course “mistakes” will happen but why can’t people just accept that America and Israel are in the right? If in doubt, the “American Nuclear Arsenal” can always be called on to prove which side God is on.

But the other side are Evil. They intend to do Evil. The fact that their inferior military capabilities leads them to inflict far fewer civilian (or any casualties) than are inflicted by the Israelis on civilians is neither here nor there, as far as James is concerned. If you believe God has granted Israel possession of Palestinian lands then anybody who opposes this is by definition “from the dark side”.

George Bush said: “If someone will tell the Syrians to tell Hezbollah to some doing this shit, the problem just goes away”. Several million Palestinians living in refugee camps and artificial homelands with no prospect of economic viability or full citizenship rights are supposed to just go and watch their lands and human rights being stolen and walk away and disappear into history.

The “promised land” is becoming a poisoned chalice. And for a religious person like James that just doesn’t compute. So it can’t be happening. It’s the bad guys who must be causing this shit. If Israel is ours, then Palestine and the Palestinians must be written out of history.

We are watching a new Holocaust in the making. And those who appease Zionism are as (morally) guilty as those who pull the triggers.

[James]

To Frank and 'freedom' -

Yes - evil has to do with intent.

When one group has the intent and proceeds to purposefully blow up little kids everywhere with nail bombs, it is the duty of all good people to stop them, by whatever means available.

(Hey freedom - did ya send your $20 off to Hezbollah yet? Or maybe you're man enough to go fight for them?)

James

[Glad_its_all_over]

I've reluctantly had to throw my shabby little hat into this particular ring, not in the expectation of changing anyone's mind, but more in a sort of vague hope that the casual reader of Mick's blog might be minded to suppose there are other sensible people around here than JD.

In no particular order, then, some points:

Point 1: Being an oppressed minority doesn't make you a good guy.

Point 2: There's no point at all trying to understand Israeli or Hezbollah or any other activities except in the context of their own world-view. We can all be neo-con, anti-Semitic, anti-Islamic, whatever and channel our rhetoric through our own particular filter of bigotry, but our analysis is essentially worthless unless we understand where all the players are coming from.

Point 3: Israel has no confidence in the ability of the current or any future Lebanese government to guarantee the security of the Northern border of Israel. Hence, strategically, the Israeli perception is that they are obliged to do so themselves. Given Hezbollah's access to long range weaponry and the vulnerability of Northern Israel to attack by these and the tactical requirement is to place the Hezbollah rocket sites sufficiently far North that they cannot reach Israel.

Point 4: Hezbollah enjoys quite wide support in Lebanon and actually participates in the Cabinet. It represents a large body of both religious and political opinion in the country and the current activities of the IDF are doing little to change that. Hezbollah is supported by co-religionists in Iran and pragmatists in Damascus and has a declared policy of driving the Jews - not, not the Zionists, not the Israelis, but the Jews - into the sea.

Point 5: The Lebanese government is all but impotent. The Army is worthless and cannot be relied upon, there are factions and stresses within the Cabinet and the country is functioning quite well under a de facto cantonised system.

Point 6: Back to Hezbollah. Increasingly sophisticated weaponry requires increasingly sophisticated and effective infrastructure - even if it's only roads - to sustain a decent tempo of operations.

Point 7: Given all this, the Israelis have probably decided that removal of Hezbollah north of the Litani River and a degradation of the infrastructure in Lebanon to the point where the logistics of running Hezbollah become difficult should be the immediate aim.

Point 8: The Israelis are catastrophically bad at PR and the Western media increasingly substitute emotion for analysis, which Hezbollah and associated types understand perfectly - being a Shi'a guerilla doesn't make you either stupid or unsophisticated.

[James]

Great post, Glad_Its_all_over. Good analysis.

And indeed, it's not just the media which substitutes emotion for analysis; many sheople people in the West now base their morality on emotion and feelings.

Sad state of affairs.

James

[JD]

"Some situations are just mistakes waiting to happen. I don’t think that incidents like Bloody Sunday are as rare in British Colonial history as you suggest. They derive from an arrogant and superior attitude of mind, and a frustration when the facts on the ground don’t quite correlate with what you hand in mind."

Frank - you're right that there are a significant number of such incidents lurking in the woodwork, of course: I simply cherry-picked a couple of relevant ones to the debate at hand. That said, I think you're being slightly unfair: Bloody Sunday was actually far more about over-reaction by frustrated young men who were being shot at, than arrogance/frustration. In fact, as Mick will be well aware, there are all sorts of questions about what exactly happened that day.

Ironically enough, when you're 'arrogant and frustrated', it tends to lead to humiliating defeats because you can't accept that the enemy are worth respect: a previous British effort in Afghanistan comes to mind, some of our more unenlightened soldiering in South Africa, and, of course, the American success in Vietnam...

That said, Bloody Sunday does provide an excellent example of part of what we're talking about: the mythology/demonisation that resulted was a significant propaganda own goal for the British, and took many years to even begin to lose its value to the IRA...

[Freedom]

No James. Unlike you I don't support terrorism on either side - even if those terrorists have a great many grievances to "justify" their actions. That is why I cannot support Hezbollah any more than I can support Israel.

Israel was born out of terrorism, expanded through ethnic cleansing, and now threatens world stability and peace through a genocidal policy against displaced palestinians under the cover of war against the awful regimes in the area who have taken up the Palestinian cause for other reasons.

Hezbollah and their ilk are the worst thing that could have happened to the Palestinian cause, because they have allowed Israel and the U.S. to cloak their imperialistic intentions in a cloak of quasi-moral respectibility provided by the "war on terror". It is this charade that you have bought into so completely.

All these actions are intentional, and thus fit your qualifying criterion for Evil.

[Frank Schnittger]

Glad_its_all_over - your points have some limited validity, but let us explore some limitations:

Point 1: BEING AN OPPRESSED MINORITY DOESN'T MAKE YOU A GOOD GUY – this could be taken to refer to Zionism as Zionists are in a minority in the Israel/Palestine region and Zionism was largely a response to Jewish oppression under Hitler, Stalin, and even “respectable” European regimes prior to 1948.

Point 2: THERE'S NO POINT AT ALL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ISRAELI OR HEZBOLLAH OR ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES EXCEPT IN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR OWN WORLD-VIEW. Helpful, but only partially true. This is how James manages to absolve Israel of all culpability because they say they don’t intend to harm civilians. Socio-economic analysis does not, for example, rely on how people see themselves or interpret their own actions. I did a socio-economic analysis of Apartheid in 1988 which predicted that it would soon be abandoned because its costs outweighed its benefits to the ruling elite. At the time De Klerk had just been elected as a noted Afrikaans Apartheid hardliner, and those who elected him certainly had no intention of his presiding over the dismantling of their exclusive hold on power.

Point 3: ISRAEL HAS NO CONFIDENCE IN THE ABILITY OF THE CURRENT OR ANY FUTURE LEBANESE GOVERNMENT TO GUARANTEE THE SECURITY OF THE NORTHERN BORDER OF ISRAEL. True. But it is easier to increase the range of missiles than it is to hold onto larger and larger tracts of hostile territory. If Israel withdraws back to its own borders, what’s to prevent Hezbollah from moving their mobile missiles further south again? (Certainly not a demoralised, discredited and almost destroyed Lebanese Government)

Point 4: HEZBOLLAH ENJOYS QUITE WIDE SUPPORT IN LEBANON AND ACTUALLY PARTICIPATES IN THE CABINET. The distinction between anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish – will become even more blurred the more bombs fall on Lebanese civilians and their infrastructure – as will the distinction between those Lebanese who do and who don’t support or tolerate Hezbollah.

Point 5: THE LEBANESE GOVERNMENT IS ALL BUT IMPOTENT. Yes – but the USA would give a lot to have a Government of even such little Authority functioning in Iraq at the moment. It’s always easier to criticise and tear things down than build them up again. Lebanon is the only country in the Middle East which give the vote to all who are entitled to live there.

Point 6: INCREASINGLY SOPHISTICATED WEAPONRY REQUIRES INCREASINGLY SOPHISTICATED AND EFFECTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE - EVEN IF IT'S ONLY ROADS - TO SUSTAIN A DECENT TEMPO OF OPERATIONS. Hezbollah isn’t equipped to fight a conventional war against Israel. It needs longer range missiles rather than better roads for its strategy to become more effective.

Point 7: GIVEN ALL THIS, THE ISRAELIS HAVE PROBABLY DECIDED THAT REMOVAL OF HEZBOLLAH NORTH OF THE LITANI RIVER AND A DEGRADATION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN LEBANON TO THE POINT WHERE THE LOGISTICS OF RUNNING HEZBOLLAH BECOME DIFFICULT SHOULD BE THE IMMEDIATE AIM. I don’t think Israel has a coherent military strategy, more a political strategy to consolidate Olmert’s hold on power and to tie the US ever more closely into supporting Israel before Bush and his “war on Terror” loses all credibility in the US.

Point 8: THE ISRAELIS ARE CATASTROPHICALLY BAD AT PR - I think they are incredibly good at it given that they have succeeded in ensuring that all western media accept the existence of a Zionist state there as a given – and the only debate is around how best it can be defended.

There is virtually no debate on whether Israel should actually implement the Palestinian “right of return” (mandated by the UN) and on whether their policy of banishing Palestinians to Refugee camps, reservations, and uneconomic “homelands” a la Apartheid is either morally just or can ever be politically stable. Zionists expect “Western” states to support a Racist Supremacist Theocratic state in most of Palestine even when all our history teaches us that attempts to create such states lead to World Wars on a grand scale.

Most “western” commentators have bought the line that Zionists have the right to expel Palestinians from their own territory and to create a state with an arbitrarily small and docile Arab minority who do not threaten the “Jewish” character of the state.

The UN never had the right the “give” a large part of Palestine to the Jews in 1948. It was not theirs to give. It was just one of those messy post imperial deals hatched by Britain and the victorious Allies to resolve the problem of what to do with the Jews (who none of the major powers really wanted – thanks to lingering anti-Semitism).

The Palestinians had no seat at the table where these decisions where being made. To dress all this up as a defence of democracy now is about the greatest PR coup of all time.

[James]

"It is 'Israel is harming her own cause by lashing out without appearing to have a coherent reason for doing so,..."

---

You are, JD, living in la-la-land.

Israel is now blasting away at the thousands and thousands of sophisticated missiles aimed at its cities from just north of its border. Those missiles, and the people who put them there and man them, ARE a coherent reason to react, and to react forcefully.

Two other quick points. The IRA eventually gave up, because it couldn't get what it wanted from Britain. Northern Ireland is still British (despite the years of the IRA's promising and devoting itself to liberating it). The same will eventually happen with the Muslim fanatics, but their learning curve is very, very slow - and much more pain (probably nuclear) will have to be meted out before they give up (which is, of course, how we got the Japanese to give up).

As for Lebanon - yeah, sure - it's a dysfunctional country which is ruled by several fief leaders of various factions. Israel is simply making clear to Lebanon that making terrorists the captains of one of those fiefs won't be accepted. If all of Lebanon falls to Hezbollah (a possibility), then the price paid will be higher. When you up the price to a high enough level, the Lebanese will be forced to choose.

Your basic thesis is that this all can be 'handled' and with intelligent thought, there is some 'better' way of dealing with Hezbollah and the idea of terrorism. There isn't.

Appeasing terroism will always make it grow, and fast. The only way to defeat it is to crush it.

James

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

To all the "sages"

This all stops if
1. The kidnapped soldiers are returned
2. The bombing of Israel stops

I realize that animus to Israel is making it difficult for some of you to focus.

To "Glad it's all over"
Good analysis with one quibble. Israel is good at PR. The difference is the attitude of the receptor. Fox News in the US has been very sympathetic.

The field reports are raw clay that 's shaped by the editor. It's no accident that British reporting focuses on the emotional pain of the aggressor. There's a bias against Israel.

To James - be prepared to be sniped at by the enemies of liberty. You'll be called an American boob who views things through simple eyes. It's true. That's America's appeal.

The "sophisticated ones" are prepared to see their fellows blown to bits by religious fanatics.
These are tyrants who call themselves "freedom".

To Mr. Schnittger and JD

Your prose is the envy of Germanic philosophy - dense,lengthy, unreadable, and untrue. The French are in no danger of losing their leading position in essay writing.

To get through your sauerbratten was tough but necessary.

First, I did military service. Also, I went to Israel at the beginning of the suicide bombing campaign and worked with the Israeli army at one of their bases. I put my body on the line like everyone there.

Second, there is a certain hypocrisy in you that is quite classic like the concentration camp guard that denies the Holocaust. Of course, that'll come out eventually.However, a cause has to be insulted by snide allegations to "King David", "Zionism", and religious fanaticism. It's a good tactic to muddy the waters.

The "promised land" is the best place for Jews to be as far away from you, the true "poisoned chalice". I'm touched that you're so solicitious for the well-being of the Jews. [passage deleted.]

What you'll have to get used to is Israel living on its own land, free of your kind and happy. Although Jews go to bed free men, you'll die gnashing your teeth that you can't control them.

[Mick says: There were elements of this post that were offensive and have been removed. Emanuel there is no evidence of anti-semitic behaviour in any of the comments here. Most have been at pains to point out that Israel is reacting to terrorism. The arguments are how you deal with terrorism and whether treating the Lebanese people as if they are all somehow responsible for the actions of the most radical members of one of that country's factions is the right way to behave. Do not start accusing people of being complicit in the Holocaust or you wont get to post here.]

[ralph hart]

i love all you self righteous critics of Israel its ok for the terrorists to kill jews, fire rockets, kill innocent people with homicide bombers but heaven forbid the jew fights back you are in uproar if you live by the sword you die by the sword. anybody condemning the iraqis killing and maiming 3000 people a month its ok for a muslim to kill a muslim but how dare a jew kill a muslim. the point is the world is mostly anti semetic

[James]

"Hezbollah and their ilk are the worst thing that could have happened to the Palestinian cause, because they have allowed Israel and the U.S. to cloak their imperialistic intentions in a cloak of quasi-moral respectibility provided by the "war on terror". It is this charade that you have bought into so completely."

---

C'mon, JD. The US has no imperialistic intentions, and Israel was willing to give the Palestinians most all of their land back (plus enough other land in Israel to make up for some Jewish settlements). In short, the Palestians were offered a very reasonable deal, and they turned back to terrorism instead (because they didn't get 100% of what they wanted). Israel gave Egypt's land back. Israel vacated Gaza. Israel vacated Lebanon. And Israel was willing to give back to Syria 98% of the land taken in the Golan Heights (but for a 1 meter strip along a lake). All that is preeminently reasonable.

As one Israeli prime minister said: "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." It's true.

Yes, I agree with you! - Hezbollah is the worst thing to ever happen to the Palestinians - just like corrupt old terrorist Yasser Arafat was.

The Palestinians will never get 100% of what they want (true in any negotiation) - and are too dumb to take 95%. For that dumbness, their futures will be ruled by Islamofanatics in Iran.

Most Palestians would just like to get on with their lives in a Palestinian state. Just as with the Lebanaese in this situation, that kind of peaceful future will only happen if they confront the terrorists in their midst - and settle for something reasonable.

Of course, that will not happen. These people are not reasonable. That's why we have war instead.

James

[emanuel appel]

a letter from america

Dear Mr. Smith,

If it quacks and walks like a duck, it's a duck.

When a man's attacked and the only thing he requests is that his wallet be returned, that the thug stop hitting him when his back's turned, takes immediate action to remedy the situation, and that is termed "unreasonble", a "crime against humanity", and "disproportionate violence", what is the victim supposed to think?

That is exactly the positon of some here, a position they'd never, ever take if the victim was an Arab/ Moslem/ Third World person.

If you bother to read between the lines, the snide insinuations, you get the real agenda which is specific animus to Israel and her people around the world. What is that called?

[Mick says: I havent seen anyone posting here who didnt make the point that Hezbollah were terrorists and should be treated as such. The post made the point that - in my view - if Israel wanted to assassinate Hezbollah terrorists they could go ahead and do it. What has happened here is the deliberate bullying of Israel's weakest neighbour with random indiscriminate killing of civilians. Of course Israel has the right to defend itself against Hezbollah attacks but it has to be proportionate and it has to target the villains rather than the innocent. Killing innocents, be they Israelis, Arabs or Americans is the behaviour of the terrorist.]

[James]

"To James - be prepared to be sniped at by the enemies of liberty. You'll be called an American boob who views things through simple eyes. It's true. That's America's appeal."

---

Oh yeah, emanuel. We Americans (You know, the ones who saved Europe from WWI, WWII and the Cold War, and who will in the end save Europe from Islamofanaticism), and who have managed to create the most powerful and free and successful country in the entire history of the world - are quite used to being condescended to by Euroweenies. It's in their blood; I don't think they can help it.

James

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America,

Dear Mr. Smith,

You write " I havent seen anyone posting here who didnt make the point that Hezbollah were terrorists and should be treated as such."

If you carefully read the insinuations of "freedom" and "Schnittger" you don't get that at all; rather , the reverse.

"The post made the point that - in my view - if Israel wanted to assassinate Hezbollah terrorists they could go ahead and do it."

That is very kind of you. I'm sure that advice of that type from Israel would have been accepted during the Falklands campaign. After all, the Argentine people as a whole were innocent of the Generals' plans. Why kill innocent soldiers when the Generals were in Buenos Aires. Why not conduct surgical air strikes there?

The fact is that Hezbollah has immense influence in Lebanese affairs, they have all the guns. The normal people either sympathize or are impotent. The same could have been written about Germans in 1939.

Ralph Hart made the good point that you, collectively,are silent when Moslems slaughter each other but get into a rage when the Jew strikes his tormentor. You better get used to being in a continual rage.

This stops if
1. They return the soldiers
2. Stop shelling Israel

That may be unreasonable or "pushy" from your standpoint. Think about it

[JD]

Well it doesn't take long for people to reveal their level of analysis, does it?

"Oh yeah, emanuel. We Americans (You know, the ones who saved Europe from WWI, WWII and the Cold War, and who will in the end save Europe from Islamofanaticism), and who have managed to create the most powerful and free and successful country in the entire history of the world - are quite used to being condescended to by Euroweenies. It's in their blood; I don't think they can help it."

Actually James, you saved no-one in the first world war: you joined in at the end, and black jack Pershing and his boys were a little surprised to learn just what it involved: your arrival was, of course, very welcome, and for all the right reasons - but it was militarily too little, too late, and came after the British and French had bled the German Army dry at phenomenal cost. You won't believe that, because it will upset your world view, so just google wikipedia or something and try to understand what 'dispassionate' means. As to World War 2 - that would be the one none of you wanted to get involved in until Pearl Harbour, would it? As I recall, Roosevelt even had to fudge 'lend-lease' because your isolationist, 'not in our back yard' attitude as a nation was so against even helping someone fighting fascism...

As to 'emanuel' - I suspect that he is actually a Hezbollah provocateur - no-one could really hold those views, or interpret the comments here as anti-semetic, surely? This is reinforced by his inability to spell 'Sauerbraten' - any self-respecting member of the Jewish faith would know the correct spelling for this dish...

But this all avoids the point - no-one else has felt it necessary to descend to name calling here: the aim is to discuss what is happening...

[Frank Schnittger]

Emanuel - you will be pleased to note that we agree on something - the Israelis are brilliant at PR. However I have to disappoint you in that I am neither German nor have I read German Philosophy. If you find my prose unreadable then please don't bother. I have long been aware that you don't understand very much of what I write. I am writing more in response to people who may not agree with me, but who do at least understand what I am trying to say.

For the record I am very concerned that all the people of Palestine/Israel should be living peacefully and happily together in a stable political and economic environment that provides security and prosperity for all. We would still be a very long way from that objective even if the current fighting with Hezbollah were to end immediately.

Your concern for the well-being of Israelis is admirable. It would be even more impressive if you displayed even the slightly concern for the well being of the Palestinian people you have displaced into concentration camps, refugee camps, reservations and totally artificial and uneconomic homelands.

Given the Jewish experience of Ghettoisation, I would have thought you would have more empathy for their plight. It is this focus on Jewish rights to the almost total exclusion of all other rights which rankles with most other independent and fair minded observers.

Unfortunately I have found previous discussions with you to be utterly pointless, so I will direct my future remarks to other contributors. Please don’t be offended if I do not respond to your posts again, and please don’t bother trying to read mine if you find them unreadable..

[James]

"Of course Israel has the right to defend itself against Hezbollah attacks but it has to be proportionate ..."

---

This is how Euroweenies (sorry Mike Smith - but it's true) deal with a situation in which they wish to not take clear sides, and to not speak of the basic underlying morality - and to not have to deal with the underlying evil - terrorism. (And then they invent their own little contrived moral rule - based on what?)

What a bunch of crock. Europe (starting with prime Euroweenietwit Jacques Chirac) is heavily compromised by its vast Muslim population and its growing loss of control over cities in its own territory. So Chirac and all the Euroweenies run around like little girlie-men screaming: "It's disproportionate! It's disproportionate!"

When a hornet stings you (or your kids), you take down the whole poisonous nest on your house. Who says you have to be proportionate?!? (One wasp stung me; so I stepped on one in return... Yeah, right...) When thugs start roving around and stealing stuff in your neighborhood, you don't go and steal stuff from them. You hunt them down and punish them, and make sure they never do it again.

America won WWII and the Cold War precisely by being disproportionate. That's how you win war! You overwhelm your adversary.

Whenever you deal with unrepentant evil, you have to overwhelm it and vanquish it. Otherwise, it just grows bigger and uglier and meaner.

James

[Freedom]

"To James - be prepared to be sniped at by the enemies of liberty. You'll be called an American boob who views things through simple eyes. It's true. That's America's appeal."

James - I think you misunderstood emanuel's comment. He says it’s true that America sees things through simple eyes, and he finds that appealing.

The reason he finds it appealing is that it makes it so much easier to manipulate America into supporting a Zionist movement which has nothing to do with America - other than the fact that it is largely funded by American money.

If Jews want to live in Palestine that's fine - provided they come to a mutually acceptable agreement with Palestinians who make up the majority of the population there. Same deal as for Jews who want to live in America.

How would you feel if Jews started to run America and changed its character into that of a Jewish state, and in the process expelled most non Jewish Americans to refugee camps in neighboring states or reservations in barren places where they were unable to make a livelihood and where they were deprived of a vote in America itself because they are now deemed to be citizens of the neighbouring state or reservation?

I suspect you would fight for your rights to live and work and vote in America even if that meant being called a terrorist – which is exactly what Palestinians are doing.

[James]

"I suspect you would fight for your rights to live and work and vote in America even if that meant being called a terrorist..."

---

Well, July, you suspect wrong. I would fight, but not for any reason would I blow up little kids with nail bombs in restaurants on purpose to get what I want. Not for any reason would I send out my own children with bombs strapped to their stomachs while I sat back at home and drank tea. I am vastly different from the Islamofanatics in the way I think, in the way I lead my life, and with regard to what I would do. Thank God (and I mean that).

My religion (Christianity) forbids such atrocious things - as does my conscience.

My country (the US) was founded by brave men who fought nobly against the extremely well-equipped armed forces of a tyrannical Great Britain - and did NOT go around slaughtering innocents on purpose.

I will NEVER be like these barbarians.

James

[alex]

I have a feeling that there are always two sides when 'bigoted lunacy' is concerned, Emanuel....

[alex]

P.S. Calling anyone who doesn't agree with the Israeli stance 'anti-semitic' is childish. Find some other way of replying. You might find that, according to this tactic, some Jews are anti-semites. It seems to be a bit of a paradox, eh?

[alex]

James - You point out that the British defeated the IRA by denying it its aims. The British were never able to crush it, and never tried to in the Israeli sense of the word i.e. Bomb large areas of civilian habitation, flood the area with troops equipped for conventional war etc. The situation is different however, due to the fact that Lebanon is not actually part of Israel, whereas Norhtern Ireland is actually part of the UK. The comparison is invalid.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

To JD,

You have a lot of cheek to to decide what I am and what I'm not. Hezbollah provocateur my foot! You have decided what Jews should do and say! Should I ask for my pound of flesh? What a crock.

Look sir, you may be used to the Left sucking types in whatever part of your corner happens to be. They are pale imitations of the real thing and I love nothing better than to give you heartburn.

To Shnittger readers - this guy cries crocodile tears as to how he genuinely "cares" for all. Bull!
He continually wishes that Israel did not exist. What if I went around wishing the UK not to exist. You'd call me a man with "problems". It's someone living in fantasy land.

To James

America is strong because people are straightforward and simple ; they don't go around saying that "things are complex" except for the New York Times.

Check out this "freedom" character and where he's going - always for the "conspiracy" where "dark forces" are manipulating America because DE JOOZ are mentally stronger.

Gee, I better start my telepathy to make George Bush give me a bigger bottle of Viagra at government expense.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from america

Dear Alex,

Holding Israel to a different standard than you would others is biased, bigoted. This tendency found in both Right and Left is based on a particular dislike for Israel and her people world wide. It's mask is "anti -zionism".

"I don't hate Jews. I just don't want them defending themselves and killing their enemies. Only we are worthy of that." Don't insult my intelligence.

Some demand that Israel pinpoint Hezbollah and kill them when they're swimming in a sea of Lebanese. It can't be done.

In 1939, you wanted to kill Hitler. Unfortunately, there were millions of Germans barring the way. You had to kill them plus the Russian Army had to fight its way into Berlin, flattening the place, before they could get to Adolph. But of course "that was a different situation". Yeah, sure.

How many humanitarian convoys with food and other supplies did you let into Germany? Zero.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from america

Dear All,

"Lebanon itself is not an innocent bystander at all. It is an accessory to genocidal terror. We heard this from the mouth of the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah himself yesterday, when he said:

‘I told them on more than one occasion that we are taking the issue of the prisoners seriously, and that abducting Israeli soldiers is the only way to resolve it. Of course, I said this in a low-key tone. I did not declare in the dialogue: “In July I will abduct Israeli soldiers.” This is impossible.’
Interviewer: ‘Did you inform them that you were about to abduct Israeli
soldiers?’
Hassan Nasrallah: ‘I told them that we must resolve the issue of the
prisoners, and that the only way to resolve it is by abducting Israeli
soldiers.’
Interviewer: ‘Did you say this clearly?’
Hassan Nasrallah: ‘Yes, and nobody said to me: “No, you are not allowed to
abduct Israeli soldiers.” Even if they had told me not to… I’m not
defending myself here. I said that we would abduct Israeli soldiers, in
meetings with some of the main political leaders in the country. I don’t
want to mention names now, but when the time comes to settle accounts, I
will. They asked: “If this happens, will the issue of the prisoners be over
and done with?” I said that it was logical that it would. And I’m telling
you, our estimation was not mistaken.’

Melanie Phillips/ Daily Mail

These are Arab prisoners in Israeli jails convicted of terrorist acts. The only fault I have with Israel is not summarily executing them. Their love of legal formality makes them smug about themselves but creates a dangerous situation where the Arab will be tempted to kidnap Israelis.

Killing the Arab irregulars quickly would have prevented this tit for tat mentality.

[Freedom]

Great James. We agree on something. You would fight, but refused to use terrorist methods to do so. Absolutely correct, and the vast majority of people around the world agree with you.

How would you feel, then, if you were fighting to recover your right to live and work and vote in America and your cause was hijacked by a much more extreme group using terrorists methods and supported by, for example, Cuba.

Would you give up and stop fighting and accept your place in a Mexican refugee camp or tribal reservation?

[Rachel]

I have to admit I have always been a supporter of Israel without ever having thought too much about it. It seems fair that they were granted their own country when it was clear during the Holocaust that they could not rely on anyone else to protect them.

But perhaps I didn't think enough about the Palestinians who were displaced by the whole process. I assumed things would be fine provided they were granted their own homeland as well.

Reading people like Emmanuel Appel and James on this blog has changed my mind. It seems clear to me now that there is too much hatred between Jews and everyone else for there ever to be peace in the Middle East or anywhere else so long as they are in power.

James says he doesn't support terrorism, but bombing civilians from the air is just as much terrorism as using suicide bombers or kamikaze pilots.

The only solution now, I think, is for the UN or the US to take over the whole place and run it as a democracy were everybody has an equal opportunity to live and work in their homeland. Both the Jews and the Palestinians have shown they are not up to the job of running a country in a fair minded way.

Maybe there is a reason God dispersed the Jews for so many years. They just don't seem to be able to get on with anybody else. Or maybe its all inevitable that the world will end with another world war centered on Palestine. It's not as if God hasn't given us fair warning in the Bible.

It is a pity that both peoples who now live in Palestine don't believe in loving their neighbour as themselves. If they did then we wouldn't have a problem at all.

[Freedom]

James - Maybe you could negotiate with the Zionists and they would let you have Omaha and Nebraska for non-Jews to live in by way of compensation. (a bit like Gaza and parts of the West bank). But some hot head leader of your campaign says nope - we won't agree unless we get Idaho as well.

Then the world turns around and says - look at these hot head Americans - they're offered 95% of what they want and they still won't compromise. They never lose an opprotunity to lose an opportunity.

And then the civil war goes on and on and gets increasingly bitter. The most extreme leaders rise to prominance on both sides promising Security and Total Victory. Terrorist methods, and detention without trial and Torture are increasingly used by both sides.

The battle gets so vicious and so protracted that people forget what the original grievance was all about. It has now become a war egainst terror or against global domination by Cuba and the Communist/Fascists. People on the sidelines whinge about "disproportionate responses" and negotiated settlements when the reality on the ground is that the hatred has become so ingrained that people wouldn't know what to do if they weren't fighting each other.

They have forgotten what peacetime is really all about and think that a state of perpetual war is normal. A new generation grows up which hasn't known anything but war and living in refugee camps. Moderates, Christians, and old-timers who remember how it all started are pushed aside by a new generation of leaders who know of no other way but to continue the fighting and who know that they would soon be pushed aside if the fighting ever did end - because they are no good at anything other than fighting.

Meanwhile your children are shot dead for throwing stones at the occupying police in your reservation. What would you do James?

[James]

Yes, Alex, that's true, but disingenuous.

The IRA simply gave up on using terrorism to attain its goal to 'free' Northern Ireland. Why? For two reasons primarily: 1) Britain didn't crack, and made it clear that it would not give in to the IRA's primary demand (no matter how many little kids were blown up), and 2) the IRA lost the support of the populace (which became revulsed by what the IRA was doing). I happen to think there was a third as well, which is: the Irish are all Christians - and they all knew what they were doing was morally wrong.

The Islamofanatics have the support of the populace (which is to be expected, since little kids are brought up to hate Jews from day one - and to believe that all their problems are the Jews' fault), and believe what they are doing (slaughtering little Jew kids in restaurants) is moral.

Unrepentant evil always needs to be crushed, or it grows.

James

[James]

"James says he doesn't support terrorism, but bombing civilians from the air is just as much terrorism as using suicide bombers or kamikaze pilots."

---

No, Rachel, they are infinitely different morally.

In one, a deliberate attempt is made to murder innocents (including children).

In the other, one is using targeted bombing to get at the ones who are murdering innocents (and after warning civilians to leave).

If 'proportionality' were really at stake, Israel would be justified in setting off nail bombs in restaurants all over the West Bank - and blowing up thousands of innocent Palestinians - on purpose. It doesnt' resort to terror, precisely because it is a far more moral people than the Muslims are. In the same way, the Islamofanatics tell us over and over again that if they get a nuclear weapon, they will use it to blow up Israel. I believe them! They will. Yet Israel possesses many nuclear weapons and has never brought them to bear on Syria, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. Why? Because the Jews are vastly more moral that the Muslims. The Muslims would use whatever means to destroy Israel; Israel has the means to destroy the Muslim nations, but doesn't.

In the situation today, Hezbollah is just lobbing bombs indiscriminately into civilian areas, whereas Israel is trying to root out terrorists and to minimize civilian casualties. There be an infinite moral difference between the two.

But on one point you're right. There is so much hatred (on the part of the Muslims) that this will not be resolved by anything other than force. Eventually, the Islamofanatics will bring down on themselves the brunt of full Israeli and US force (including, sadly, nuclear weapons), and that will end this sad story in human history.

They are stupidly playing with the worst sort of fire, and they will get cremated.

James

[James]

Yeah, freedom...

Let's see...

A large portion of the Israeli population is Palestinian, with rights to vote and to be in Parliament.

Jews in Muslim lands are hounded and murdered until they leave.

Israel was formed from land in which Jews formed the majority, and Jordan from land in which Arabs formed the majority. That was sensible (given the animosity between the two). Jews have been far more accommodating of Arabs in their midst than the other way 'round. By far.

Apart from that, the refugess who fled Israel when it was attacked a few days after being formed did lose their lands. That's often the outcome of war. They will never get them back, no matter how much they fight. And of course, the Arab nations (among the richest in the world), have tons of money to patriate them into their countries and to give them lives worth living. The Arabs refuse to do that, because they want to use the refugees as little pawns. Such is, of course, inhuman, but that is par for the course for Arabs.

Israel is a country the size of a postage stamp. Pan-Arabia extends from Mauritania to Bahrain. There is plenty of room for whatever refugees remain (and plenty of money) for them to be set up to lead good and wholesome lives anywhere in pan-Arabia.

Now - in answer to your question. I would have left the refugee camps with my family decades ago to provide them (in love) a good upbringing anywhere in Arabia - instead of fighting over some dessicated and rocky olive grove somewhere in Israel. Has injustice been done? Sure. But that is part of the price paid for trying to destroy Israel several times over. When you seek to destroy someone, and they punch back and break your nose, it's quite likely that your nose will never completely reheal. That's the price paid for trying to destroy that someone.

This whole thing exists because Arabs hate the idea that Israel exists (and on a spot once controlled by Muslims). They are also ashamed (deeply, in the Arab way) that the full force of the Arab nations has been constantly humiliated militarily when it has confroned Israel. Arab culture lives for revenge. The culture does not believe in forgiveness, or in compromise, or in mercy (to infidels). It is harsh, and Arabs like to hold onto their grievances and hatreds - forever.

They should get over it and get on with building up their countries from the backwaters they are. Of course they won't, and they will eventually be humiliated once again - in a much bigger way.

Stupidity always begets stupidity.

James

[James]

"It is a pity that both peoples who now live in Palestine don't believe in loving their neighbour as themselves. If they did then we wouldn't have a problem at all."

---

Yes, Rachel, that's true. And indeed, if that moral rule (brought to us by someone who walked this earth 2,000 years ago, and who made it apply to everyone), were followed everywhere, the entire world would be fantastically better off.

That's one of many deep reasons why I'm a Christian.

James

[JD]

I think the answer is explosively boobytrapped bagels, that have also been dipped in holy water, dropped across the entire region from the air. Everyone except Christians will thus be killed by them when they rush to pick them up - either because they're hungry Jews, or because they're starving Arab refugees. At this point, the remaining Christians will inherit the region. James'll be pleased, Emanuel can hunker down in a survivalist jewish defence bunker in Nebraska, and the world will have peace in our time... (Oh, and George Galloway will lose a cause to moan about).

Actually, I'd quite like Gorgeous George and Emanuel to debate these issues on Newsnight - can you fix this for us, please Mick?

[Mick says: Um. It's a promising idea but I think actually I would rather see James and Gerry Adams debate the Northern Ireland situation. Either debate would be worth watching.]

[Glad_its_all_over]

Mick, I'd pay folding money to see the expression on Gearoid's or Micheal's faces when James explained about everyone hating the 'Ra and them sacking the armed struggle on account of they're Christians and everything.

On a wider note, is no-one here from either flank, either the rabid Zionists or the apologists and groupies for whoever they think are the noble and virtuous Resistance willing to engage with the reality of what's going on, rather than getting all wound round the axle of "who's got the moral high ground" or "I hate the Jews, whoops, Zionists" or "USA, USA, USA!"?

[Mick says: Please yes! That was the point of original post. Not only is bullying and killing Lebanese who cant do anything to stop Hezbollah morally repugnant it is also highly ineffective in terms of getting rid of the terrorists. That's the point that needs to be addressed. James stands in the bomb them off the face of the earth camp. But while the flying fraternity has made a good deal about the ability of air power, the last two weeks have been a very good example of its limitations and dangers. How does Israel stop Hezbollah killing its own innocent civilians without killing other people's innocent civilians? Suggestions please.]

[James]

"[Mick says: Um. It's a promising idea but I think actually I would rather see James and Gerry Adams debate the Northern Ireland situation. Either debate would be worth watching.]"

---

It would be a good one, Mick.

James

[JD]

Of course not, Glad it's all over: that would require a willingness to modify one's position in the light of evidence/facts - and that's never been high on the zealots' agenda, whether they are religiously, politically or racially motivated. Far easier to keep hurling abuse and treat all disagreement as a challenge to your world view... Sadly, it's becoming the accepted method of settling disagreements across a large arc of the globe's surface.

[JD]

"How does Israel stop Hezbollah killing its own innocent civilians without killing other people's innocent civilians? Suggestions please."

1) Proper surveillance and targetting; man in the loop (ground) FACs would help.
2) Appropriate weapons.
3) Minimum necessary force.
4) Covert ops at the strategic level.
5) Support for the rational elements in the Lebanese Polity.

All too late now: the lashing out option was selected, and we're into another cycle of idiocy.

[James]

C'mon, Mick.

Israel will remove Hezbollah from the border the hard (and moral) way - which is to target bomb their buildings and headquarters and munitions, and then to go in and root them out on the ground (while trying to not harm innocents).

And actually, on the ground I think they (the Israelis) are going to try to encircle the Lebanaese villages along the border (without invading all of them), and to control what comes in and goes out of them. Either way, a safety zone will be formed in southern Lebanaon (no matter how the world squawks).

But apart from that - Israel is telling Lebanon that Hezbollah won't be tolerated. Lebanon is being forced to choose - condone and abet terrorism, or repudiate it.

That's the same choice President Bush has been forcing on many countries.

Oh the squeals...

James

[emanuel appel]

a letter from america,

Dear All,

"is no-one here from either flank, ... willing to engage with the reality of what's going on"

Mr Smith, you may have a morbid interest in the every day scenes of war. That's nice. It sells papers. Notice how large this response has been in comparison with the other topics you've written about.

Also, I've noticed names that were slithering at the David Aaronovitch blog made their way over here. Are they interested in "engaging"? Only in the most macabre sort of way.

What's going on is simple. It's war begun by a terrorist organization embedded in the Lebanese Government. It's war that is beyond you and which you can do nothing about but wring your hands in your usual impotent way.

1. Return the kidnapped soldiers
2. Stop bombing Israel

Then this thing goes away.
If that's "unreasonably Zionist" then the killing continues. And don't whine any more. I'm done.

[J Pearce]

Yeah, air power is clearly an over-hyped solution. The term "surgical strikes" is a joke, given the innocent casualties we are seeing wheeled out on the news every night (and am I the only one who finds the "human interest" angle adopted by the BBC, where they stick a camera up a grieving mans nose, just a little sick?).

Much appears to have been made of these supposed tunnels that Hezbollah use, why haven't the Israeli's disappeared down them? Would it be something to do with the fact that the Israeli army would probably take a hammering in such confined quarters and that would not play well to the folks back home? It seems to me the IDF are apeing the Yanks by investing a large amount of confidence (read: arrogance) into the supposed military superiority of their hardware and its ability to wipe out Hezbollah. Just as the septics thought bombing the crap out of everything in Afghanistan and Iraq would work.

These people never learn, do they? Fighting terrorists requires guerilla warfare, not scorched earth policy. Israel would have been better off by, maybe, amassing a large force on the Lebanese border and then dispatching small units to pick off as many Hezbollah as possible, using the supposed "military intelligence" (another joke) that one assumes the Yanks have given them access to. Isn't that what Mossad (or is it Womad, I get confused...) is for?

But then, that would require planning, intelligence, co-ordination and no small amount of bravery. Much easier just to kill indiscriminately from 20,000 feet above.

Israel won't defeat Hezbollah with its current tactics and even if it razes the entire of Lebanon, it will still fail. More Lebanese children dead means more moderate Muslims attracted to terrorist causes. Catch 22. Time for a re-think.

[James]

"Time for a re-think."

---

Root out terrorists and dispatch them.

Never appease them, never give them what they want, tell them they are shameful (For they are.), and NEVER show them respect. (I.e., don't give Yasser Arafat a Nobel Peace Prize, and don't have talks with those who support terror.]

When the world realizes that appeasing terrorism makes terror grow bigger, they will stop the appeasement.

You'd think Britain (with scores murdered on its subway, and the Lockerbie murders), or Spain (with scores murdered on its subway), or Russia (with scores of children murdered and taken hostage in a school), or Canada (with an Islamofanatic group recently arrested with plans to take over parliament and behead the Canaian prime minister), or India (with hundreds and hundreds murdered), or Jordan (with an entire wedding party blown up), or leftists in the United States (after the willful collapse of the World Trade Center [and the murder of a class of schoolchildren on those planes], or Australia (with its young people blown up in Bali), or the Philippines (with indiscriminate Muslim bombing in malls in Manila, etc. etc. would realize that you should NOT be nice to these people.

They have no intent whatsoever of being nice to you (except to get something they want, in the short term). They are hell bent on murdering your children.

James

[Frank Schnittger]

James – as one of the few bloggers here who has lived in Ireland for 50 years (and worked for reconciliation in Northern Ireland) I have taken all the Northern Irish analogies here with a little pinch of salt. I'm not saying that everything you and others have said hasn't got some truth to it, more that it has all been very one-sided. And by one-sided I don't mean pro-British or pro-Irish in this context, but rather focused entirely on the military rather than the political aspects of the conflict and its resolution.

The Northern troubles lasted over 30 years. At various stages the British Government tried to defeat the IRA militarily and always failed. However even during the worst periods of atrocities there were always private "back-channel" discussions going on between the IRA leadership and the British Government - often facilitated by the Irish Government.

Essentially the British Government ended up pursuing a twin track approach. It tried to limit the IRA as best it could militarily, and it adopted a political program aimed at addressing the grievances which resulted in the IRA being reactivated from a totally dormant organisation in the late 1960's. Don't forget the IRA were initially taunted by the nationalist population as standing for I Ran Away - when the catholic population and non-sectarian civil rights movement were subjected to vicious sectarian attacks in the late 1960's - so unprepared was the IRA for anything.

Over the years the principle Nationalist Grievances were addressed. Gerrymandering of Constituencies (to allow more Unionist politicians be elected than was warranted by their proportion of the vote) was done away with. All adults were granted the vote - previously only ratepayers - which favoured the more prosperous Unionist population) could vote in some elections. Systematic bias in the provision of social services (including housing) was addressed. The RUC police force was reformed from being basically a sectarian force to one to conformed more closely to best international policing practice and attempts were made to encourage Catholics to join (resisted by the IRA - as it threatened their effectiveness). Employers both public and private were forced to drop sectarian hiring practices. It is difficult for outsiders to appreciate how engrained discrimination was at all levels of the public service. For instance a motorway was built from Belfast going west towards the town of Enniskillen - population then c. 10,000. The main road to Dublin - population 1 Million remained single carriageway - and still is in parts!!

Eventually All the mainstream Nationalist demands for fair play were met. (Nationalist were never exclusively focussed on ending the link with Britain – and many continued to support that link throughout the troubles). In short Britain had a political as well as a military strategy, and worked in close cooperation with the Irish Government to achieve both. Blair, for all his faults deserves a lot of credit for the energy he put into this project.

The problem with the Middle East today is that both sides are focused on a military strategy to the exclusion of a political strategy. Both sides can think only in terms of “sending the Zionists into the sea” or “crushing terrorism” by military means. James even seems to think that Nuclear missiles will eventually be required to solve the problem. There are over a Billion Moslems in the world, James – many living as minorities in Non-Moslem states. How many of those do you plan to Nuke before peace breaks out, James?

Your willingness to use Nuclear weapons also disproves all your attempts at claiming that “targeted air strikes’ are more moral than suicide bombers. Nuclear weapons kill hundreds of thousands of indiscriminately. By your logic, James, it would be moral for Israel or the US to launch a nuclear Air strike at a military base in Tehran – killing many thousands of civilians – because there were a few planes there with the capability to attack Israel. Rational analysis is about effect, not intent. The history of war is littered with unintended consequences. You may cling onto your moral purity by claiming you didn’t intend to kill thousands of innocent people – including the children you always mention – the reality is that cuts no ice with either God or man – especially when you have not also tried to pursue a peaceful political solution..

And amid all the noise of war, no one actually has a strategy for addressing the very real grievances of Palestinians. James seems to think it is the responsibility of Islamic countries to settle them elsewhere. Why? They are as entitled to live in Israel/Palestine as any Jew. In many cases more so, as it is their land which was taken over. Many have not taken part in any armed conflict. Many of course already live peacefully in Israel. So why not let the rest of the Palestinians live there under a secular democratic constitution which enshrines neither Jewish nor Sharia law – enforced by a UN or US peacekeeping force if that is required?

The answer is that both Zionists and Islamic Fundamentalists are intent on maintaining exclusive racist and theocratic states. (A bit like the Unionist attempt to create a protestant state for a protestant people in Northern Ireland – and a failed attempt by some Catholics to create a Catholic state for the majority Catholic people in the Republic of Ireland). This is something which both European and American history has taught us can never be stable or just. Our responsibility, as Americans and Europeans, is to support a solution based on our bitter experience of hundreds of years of racist/religious wars: A secular, democratic constitution which outlaws any kind of racist or religious discrimination.

It would be a huge achievement if we could create that in Palestine. An even bigger one if we could achieve it in other Islamic states and throughout the world. Perhaps we should create a UN with real teeth which could enforce such a requirement on all members. But let us not try to solve all the problems of the world before we address the specific issue of Palestinians living in refugee camps and artificial homelands today. Having a political strategy to address that – combined with a military strategy to defeat terrorism – is the only way forward.

[JD]

James, you really are incapable of understanding reasoned argument, aren't you?

a) Nobody said that we should be 'nice' to Hezbollah.

b) Nobody said we should 'appease' terrorists.

c) What a number of people have said is that there is no philosophical difference between Israel's current behaviour, and Hezbollah's - both kill innocents...

[James]

"What a number of people have said is that there is no philosophical difference between Israel's current behaviour, and Hezbollah's - both kill innocents..."

---

The huge and infinite moral difference between the two is (I have no idea what a 'philosophical difference' is.), again JD, and which most all normal people who have consciences understand, is that one does it on purpose, and one doesn't.

That's exactly why, in all the courts of the Western world, there is a huge moral difference understood between manslaughter and 1st degree murder.

If an evil man takes people hostage and starts murdering them in cold blood, one by bloody one, he is committing vastly more evil than the police who come to capture and put away the evil man, and in so doing, and not on purpose, end up in their mop up operation killing a couple of the hostages.

You sound like a pure utilitarianist, where not only do the ends justify the means, but the ends tell you the morality of the means.

In your way of thinking, the man who ran over the dog by accident would be as morally culpable as a man who purposefully tortured and bled a dog to death.

James

[Freedom]

James - "Israel was formed from land in which Jews formed the majority"

What Zionist website did you get that from? Jews only formed a majority after they had ethnically cleansed a large proportion of the Palestinians from the area - and replaced them with Jewish immigrants from abroad.

"Jews have been far more accommodating of Arabs in their midst than the other way 'round. By far."

Fair enough. Jews have been treated abysmally all over the world and Arab countries are no exception. By comparison the Palestinians were relatively tolerant of the growing Jewish minority in their midst. Either way, are the Palestinians to carry the can for the Holocaust and anti-Semitism world-wide?

You speak of "Pan-Arabia from Mauritania to Bahrain". The reality is that the Arab world is as divided as the West - if not more so. Some of the more Islamofanatic ones have treated Palestinians as pawns in their wider grudge against the West. Are the Palestinians to carry the can for that as well? Are Palestinians supposed to be able to force Saudi Arabia to treat Jews and Christians fairly?

The reality is that all the main world and regional powers have used Palestinians as pawns in their various power plays. The West have used their land as a convenient place to export the "Jewish Problem", the fundamentalist Moslems have used them as cannon fodder in their Jihad against the West.

All of us have a responsibility to solve a problem partly of our making. It is in all our interests to stop this escalating into a World War. Dropping nukes about the place isn't going to solve anything – it will make things an awful lot worse.

Your supposedly Christian argument about "intent" being central to the notion of Evil would carry a lot more weight if you had actually shown any intent to resolve the problem peacefully and politically at all - as opposed to just telling Palestinians to wander off to Mauritania. Some Palestinians – those who could – have indeed managed to make lives elsewhere. It simply isn’t an option for most of them.

In the absence of any "intent" and resolve to sort this out peacefully, war is inevitable. Does that not make the resulting war and all who participate in it Evil? Ah but your starting position is that Jews and Christians are so much more moral that Moslems. And yet it is the Jews and Christians who will be dropping the Nuclear bombs. Your religion is self serving and bigoted, James. Just like the Islamofascists you love to blame for all the world’s woes..

As this blog is getting very long I have attempted to summarise the various positions below: Apologies if I have misrepresented anybody.

Israeli answer: Defeat terrorism with superior military force. Give Palestinians some marginal homelands or let the Arabs look after them. Build a wall to keep them out.

Islamofascist answer: Drive all Jews into the sea

Palestinian answer: - Divided between those who want a two state and a one state solution and divided between those who support terrorism and those who don't.

Bush’s Answer: If somebody would tell Syria to tell Hezbollah to stop doing this shit the problem goes away.

Blair’s answer: Yes master, and if you want me to go there and waffle away I will - you see I don't have to achieve anything - whereas Condi will be expected to deliver some results.

European answer: Waffle waffle, disproportionate response, waffle waffle – let’s not do any rash, let’s talk lots and do nothing

Official UN Answer: Two state solution with right of return or compensation for displaced Palestinians

James' (American Christian) and Emanuel Appel’s (Zionist) answer: Crush terrorism - using nuclear weapons if necessary. Send the Palestinians to Mauritania (not our problem). Arabs kicked Jews out of their countries. We’re only getting our own back.

My Argument: A two state solution where both states are Racist and Theocratic merely institutionalises the conflict. The Palestinian territories in the West bank and Gaza are two small, disconnected and underdeveloped to be capable of being economically viable and thus will always be a breeding ground for terrorism and Israeli military retaliation.

The only, and very difficult solution, is a secular, democratic state covering the entire area on the South African model where whites/Jews continue to dominate the economy and Blacks