home

Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce Possible

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 11:58:35 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has laid out conditions to end the fighting in Lebanon:

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the fighting in Lebanon would end when two soldiers captured by Hezbollah guerrillas are freed, rocket attacks on Israel have stopped, and the Lebanese army is deployed along the border. This appeared to be a concession by Israel, which had previously demanded the full dismantling of Hezbollah as a condition for ending hostilities

The Iranian Foreign Minister has arrived in Syria for talks and says a cease-fire and prisoner exchange is probably do-able.

As for Bush's recorded private conversation with Blair in which he used an expletive to describe Hezbollah, Crooks and Liars has the video and here's Bush's comment:

``See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s--- and it's over,'' Bush said while a making private remark that was picked up by an open microphone.

As for sane commentary about the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, Eric Alterman points us to Ethan Bronner's op-ed in the New York Times. Eric adds,

I don't know if my analysis would be any different, though I'm considerably less sanguine about the likely results of creating so much more hatred among people who can cause your society so much damage so easily. Actions like Israel's not only cause "disproportionate" suffering, they also strengthen the support of the extremists you're trying to destroy. Then again, no government in the world would sit still for missile attacks into its cities, and the Israeli public is probably more hawkish than its current government. Certainly, given the government we've got, we hardly have reason to criticize.

Eric also makes these points about Bush and Iraq:

Look how irrelevant Bush has made us. By backing Israel to the hilt and creating virtually nothing but hatred in the Arab world, we have as much ability to influence events in this conflict as say, Singapore, stupid swaggering aside.

....Bush's invasion of Iraq has given Iran free reign to act as a chaos-causing, peace-threatening Great Power in a way it never had before. Whatever role they are playing in encouraging the violence, the geopolitical loss of Iraq as a counter-balance has made it worse. This is just one more reason the American invasion is the worst mistake I think any American president has ever made.

< Religious Intolerance in Pompano Beach | Late Nite: Heat Wave >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce Possible | 105 comments (105 topical)
    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 12:08:33 PM EST
    Prisoner exchange? How sensible. Looks like some grownups are taking charge for a change.
    we have as much ability to influence events in this conflict as say, Singapore, stupid swaggering aside.
    That is a great line, and oh so true.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#2)
    by ras on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 12:28:32 PM EST
    "... end when two soldiers captured by Hezbollah guerrillas are freed, rocket attacks on Israel have stopped, and the Lebanese army is deployed along the border." This "news" is several days old already. Anyway, the key here is that Lebanon, not Hizbollah, take control of the country's southern region, the UN troops stationed there for just that purpose having performed according to expectations.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#3)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 01:09:52 PM EST
    It seems to me that ERic Alterman is pretty much on target. The Israeli actions will stiffen the resolve of the extremists everywhere. So they set up a buffer zone. That will only be good until the extremists get better rockets. Extremists thrive in chaos and in failed states. Lebanon was a failed state that seemed to be demonstraing some progress. Now its back to failed state. The couter-terror literature I have read from the US War college all claim that to fight extremists/insurgents/terrorists you have to politically isolate them. In other words you have to work in a way that diminishes the credibility of their claims of grievences. One way to do that would be for the Israelis to actually treat the Palestinian people as human beings who deserve as a group food, water, access to jobs etc. There has to be real carrots to go with that gigantic stick. Otherwise whats the motivation for the Palestinians to do what you want. Fear only works for so long. What is needed is a powerful adult who is willing to see both sides, repect the average person on each side,and work against the extremists on all sides. That should have been the US.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#4)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 01:18:42 PM EST
    Except for the fact that Bush is history without his own contingent of extremists to appease. Way to pick 'em wingers.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 01:29:13 PM EST
    I'm going to take something of a contrarian point of view here, so please hear me out. The immature stupidity and irrelevancy The Unit has shown in the past several days may have been just the tonic needed to stop this latest iteration of Madness in the MidEast. The Unit's making himself both ridiculous and irrelevant, as exemplified by his overheard comments to Blair and his being told off in public by Putin (The Unit's response: "Just wait" - I did better in third grade), has shown the world community and the respective leaders of the countries that they do not have any grownups in 'murca to look to any more. (At least while the Unit and Deadeye are in charge, anyway.) The prospect was one of over-the-top partisans on all sides of the row in Israel, Lebanon and Syria going nuts on each other, unsated rage, some partisans looking for any reason to draw Iranian blood, and the oil markets twitching relentlessly upward. This wasn't helped by the blatant cheerleading among those on the fundie right here in 'murca, looking for any excuse to see and proclaim that the End of Days is on us. Of these, the oil prices were the most direct threat to the governments in the other countries - as much as $80 a barrel hurts in 'murca, it wouldn't hurt any less in Europe or Asia. Faced with this set of facts, the responsible adults in those other capitols surely got the word out to all parties that it surely would be in the interests of all involved if the burner under this latest war got turned down, and quick, lest the pot boil over. It seems they may have listened. This was doubtless helped by two fundamental conditions, neither of which the US government can much control, or mess with, for that matter, and a third within its control. First, the other countries (to a greater or lesser degree) never cut off relations with Iran, at least not to the extent the US did. There was always some level of commercial intercourse between the Iranians, the Europeans, Russians, and Asia. The existence of commercial intercourse is not, in this context, usable as a club to "get the Iranians in line", nor do I think it likely the Euros, Russians and Asia even tried to do that. Rather, being entangled in a web of relations made for a fuller, more comprehensive communication between the respective governments. If diplomacy operates by and through communication, more communication facilitates depth and clarity. Backchannels, coincident interests and established relationships tend to both moderate behavior and enhance understanding. By embargoing Iran for a generation, the US has destroyed any hope of effective communication with Iran at least for another generation. They and we simply have no understanding of each other. Second, the Russians, Asia and particularly the Euros never gave themselves over to the sort of unthinking "Support Israel in All Circumstances, Impugn Arabs in All Circumstances" thinking or rhetoric so prevalent in US for so long. Rather, they criticized both sides for misbehavior - singling out instances of Israeli behavior when they deemed it appropriate to do so. For this, they were often castigated both in the US press and by the US government. But, the relative one-sidedness of US policy also made it much less possible for the non-Israeli side to have any hope of being understood or gaining anything from talking to the US, and may have encouraged the Israelis to go further, believing the US would be there to back them up. Now they're finding W's spinning the propeller on his beanie and his subordinates are about as useful. And the US has no (or few) useful suggestions and can't change that impression. Both sides in this discussion are having to grow up fast and recognize no one's riding to the rescue. Finally, by rendering the US irrelevant to the discussion, the Unit and his Admin have managed to lift the burden of international leadership from their too-narrow shoulders. Perhaps we were too young as a nation to carry it for very long, or perhaps we were too young as a nation to have developed enough discernment in choosing governments to avoid hiring knuckleheads. In either event, the rest of the world will have to shoulder (more of) the burden of keeping the peace. Superior understanding, maturity and experience may yet win out, but the US will neither have much of a part in the conclusion nor benefit much from it under the current Admin. Or, as exemplified by a discussion I had over my opposition to the then-coming Iraq war (and the merits of the French argument against same) with a friend from Texas.
    Me: Y'know, we would do well to listen to the French. They've been dealing with, and usually getting the better of the Muslims and Arabs since the days of Charles Martel. Him: Charlie don't surf. Let's just go kick some terrist ass. [Ok, actually he said "Charlie who?" and I had to explain the history, but he really wasn't listening.]
    W and his cowboys are not up to the task.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#6)
    by theologicus on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 01:32:19 PM EST
    From the Left Coaster:
    Tony Blair and UN Secretary Kofi Annan supported international forces being inserted into southern Lebanon to reestablish a safe zone and ensure no further attacks from Hezbollah. ...
    This is a way out, and it points to what is also needed in Iraq, if the US is not to stay there until at least 2016, as was reported today in the Washington Times. But is Israel serious in the "conditions" it has set? Again Steve Soto at The Left Coaster:
    ... Note however how the Israelis tipped their hands today. Olmert doesn't want international peacekeepers to take over in southern Lebanon and get rid of Hezbollah militias. Instead, he wants Lebanon's military to do it, which he knows full well is not capable of doing it. It calls into question whether Olmert wants Hezbollah expelled and the area made a safe zone, or whether he wants the ongoing pretext for invading and taking over southern Lebanon.
    We can all hope for the belligerents to climb down the ladder. But motives are murky in this conflict all around.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#7)
    by roger on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 01:44:09 PM EST
    Whet or not Olmert likes it, a multinational force should be considered. The Sinai peacekeeping foce has worked pretty well, staffed with soldiers from countries that neither side want to attack.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 01:59:39 PM EST
    I find it interesting that the Iranian foreign minister says a prisoner exchange is doable. He must have sway with the kidnappers. Why is the red cross not demanding access to the Israeli soldiers?

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#10)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 02:05:26 PM EST
    I find it interesting that the Iranian foreign minister says a prisoner exchange is doable. He must have sway with the kidnappers.
    WRT to those held by Hezbollah thats a given.
    Why is the red cross not demanding access to the Israeli soldiers?
    Do you know this to be true? I have not heard one way or another. Absence of a public demand does not mean they haven't.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#11)
    by ras on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 02:08:56 PM EST
    theologicus, Perhaps Olmert isn't interested in a UN peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon since there's already one there, for all the good it's done. Same mandate, too.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#12)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 02:09:20 PM EST
    Why do some think anything can be done about Isreal and their neighbors? The theory of diplomacy has been tried since Isreal was created. It's NEVER worked. Until Isreal either stops exisiting or kills all the militant groops trying to destroy it this will continue. What keeps this going is the militant groups know that Isreal will be held up to an un-reachable standard and so called "intelectuals" (scribe) always favor dealing with the and Isreal equally even though one deserves zero respect. Syria, Iran and their militant cousins represent everything so-called liberals despise but we're supposed to believe these countries and groups can be negotiated with. These people blow themselves up and civilians to make a point but they will understnad Kofi Annan's pleas for calm. Hezzbollah only exists for one reason. The destruction of isreal. How do you negotiate with that?

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 02:18:58 PM EST
    ras-If that were the case Olmert would have said it. He expressly said that he rejected a UN peacekeeping force on the border. Only the Lebanese army would do. In other words he was spitting in the face of both Lebanon and the UN. I guess you are too ras.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#14)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 02:19:47 PM EST
    Slado where do you get that nonsense.
    These people blow themselves up
    They are not all the same, they are not all unified. They are not all terrorists, your racist comments to the contrary. Your purposeful villification to justify your neocon philosophy is just as much a hinderence to peace since its a view held by many of the neocons. The palestinians and others need a reason to turn from the extremists. Oppressing them isn't goint to work. Many people in Lebanon support Hezbollah because after the civil wars it was them that built the schools, hospitals etc. Now Israel is once again destroying much of what was rebuilt. And you want the people of Lebanon to be nice to Israel why? This is the reason that the over reaction by Israel will bring nothing but more misry in the future.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peaches on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 02:28:53 PM EST
    The theory of diplomacy has been tried since Isreal was created. It's NEVER worked.
    And so has the theory of warfare and killing. That has not worked either. Diplomacy is not a theory. Diplomacy is an action just like warfare. There may be very litle flexibility in negotiating with hamas or othe extremists groups. There is a lot to be gained from reaching out to the palestinian people in order to marginalize the extremist groups however.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 02:58:59 PM EST
    Slado...Do you assume the Lebanese extremists enjoy using suicide bombers? I would assume they'd rather have a squadron of fighter jets like the Israeli extremists. The better to kill with. That is what the extremists want...to kill. I'm of the opinion dropping a bomb and strapping a bomb are equally extreme. Until we realize that "terrorism" is merely a new sick killing tactic in a long history of killing tactics, and start finding a way to negotiate with militant groups like Hezbollah, loads of innocents on both sides will die. Another poster said recently, the British called us savages for our guerilla tactics during the Revolution....this is no different. There will be no cease-fire until the head of Hezbollah and the head of Israel agree to one I'm afraid. Or the peoples of their respective countries take power and genuinely work for peace. I have to believe there are more for peace than war....I just have to or we are all screwed eventually.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#17)
    by ras on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 03:13:44 PM EST
    Squeaky, Of course it's the case. Follow the link I provided: it's to a UN site that describes their force in S. Lebanon, its mission/mandate/history etc. No spit needed: why would Olmert want a UN force when the UN has already demonstrated that the mission is too tough for them? Clearly they're a cosmetic non-solution, just as they were in Rwanda, and if they were right there all along doing nothing the first time, why would it be any different the next time?

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 03:14:35 PM EST
    Hezzbollah only exists for one reason. The destruction of isreal. How do you negotiate with that?
    Wonder why that is Slado. Suppose it isn't the way the Isreali's treat the Palestinians like slaves. Perhaps that might be one good reason. Or it could be that when the Palestinians exorcise there right to exist as human beings by fighting back they are called terrorists who are a threat to the humanity of Isreal's right to exist.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 03:32:07 PM EST
    So much for Bush not talking sh*t. I had hoped that Bush knew something that would be a move toward peace. Silly me. Wish I had a better grip on the history and dynamics of power over there. In time.... Here is another interpertation of Bush's military genius aka talking sh*t. Juan Cole ras- I have to get back to you after I find the articles I had read regarding the UN force and Lebanese army.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 03:36:11 PM EST
    From The Age (Australia): "Israel acting like terrorist: Lebanon PM" (Reuters, July 18, 6:29 a.m.). When nations fight terrorism with means leading to ends that look just like terrorism, is there a difference between terrorism and national defense? "Pre-emptive wars" (e.g., "Operation Iraqi Freedom") and terrorism? Are the Israelis "terrorizing" the Lebanese people any less than Hezbollah and Hamas terrorize the Israelis? Is the line between "terrorism" and "justifiable warfare" becoming finer and finer to the point of no distinction (at least there is no real distinguishable difference for their victims). I see no just alternative but the cease-fire that Kofi Annan has called for (as quickly as is "practicable"). Diplomacy can make "practicable" what otherwise has been deemed "impossible" (Blair). Why must more and more innocent people die? For the sake of humanity, the members of the UN Security Council need to act unanimously to pave the way to get Israel to agree to a cease fire (get the 2 soldiers back and Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon) so that hundreds to thousands more innocent people do not die and are not maimed and traumatized for the rest of their lives. Hezbollah and Hamas need to be "isolated" (as said earlier): but what to do about their support from Iran and Syria (each of which has their own ulterior motives in supporting (aiding and abetting/growing) terrorists? What happened to post-9/11 "War on Terror" U.S. and world policy toward countries that aid and abet terrorists? What and where is that policy now? Yet, what do we (and I include me) who have opposed U.S. invasion of/war against Iran think of this situation re: Iran's support of Hezbollah? (Which many say is their attempt to turn attention of the G-8 away from their nuclear weapons dev. program--which it has apparently successfully done as the G-8 has been preoccupied with all this). What do we make of Newt Gingrich's (risky and I hope not prophetic) comment re: this renewed conflict between Israel and Lebanon being the beginning of World War III? If the Security Council does not act faster and decisively, it could be?

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#21)
    by ras on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 03:46:42 PM EST
    Option 1: fight the terrorists Option 2: bury your loved ones after the terrorists kill them, then fight anyway.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 03:49:35 PM EST
    et al - The fallacy with all of your "diplomacy" is really simple, and easy to understand by anyone who has ever been in sales. It is called motivation to buy. What is driving the customer? In this case is it a better life? Obviously not, or they wouldn't have elected Hamas. Or if, it was Hamas, or any of the terrorist groups, wouldn't they have called for meetings? So what is driving them? The desire to kill, destroy, eliminate Israel. So the west has a choice. Either join Israel and destroy the terrorists, or continue the charade of diplomacy until the terrorists have nukes, etc., at which point all the talk about diplomacy will be pointless. These people are stone cold killers. There is no way to change them.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 03:58:37 PM EST
    ras-I thought for a moment there that you were interested in serious discussion. Oh, well so much for that. You and PPJ believe that all the muslims are terrorists. Not worth a reply.
    Option 1: fight the terrorists Option 2: bury your loved ones after the terrorists kill them, then fight anyway.
    Brilliant. You are a real thinker. Can't believe I fell for your BS sincerity.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#24)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 03:58:47 PM EST
    ppj clueless as always

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#26)
    by John Mann on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 04:07:07 PM EST
    Are the Israelis "terrorizing" the Lebanese people any less than Hezbollah and Hamas terrorize the Israelis?
    Another long-winded dissertation that doesn't say much. If you can't see the difference between being attacked by an extremely well-equipped military force (equipped entirely by the government of the United States) and being attacked by the occasional suicide bomber, you need to go back to school.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#27)
    by John Mann on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 04:12:24 PM EST
    Saddam did not leave Kuwait because the UN had superior arguments. He left because we (and the coalition) shocked and awed him.
    Wrong, as usual. Saddam left Kuwait because he was stupid enough to believe Bush the Dumb when Bush the Dumb told him his army would be not subject to attack when it retreated. Saddam was as stupid to believe Bush the Dumb as the anti-Saddam fighters were when they believed Bush the Dumb when he said America would support their struggle against Saddam.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#28)
    by John Mann on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 04:19:13 PM EST
    et al - The fallacy with all of your "diplomacy" is really simple, and easy to understand by anyone who has ever been in sales.
    Glad to hear you've found another career, Jim. Sales can be really lucrative, and I hope you'll do well. Diplomacy is not as simple as you think, Jim - unless you're talking about Gunboat Diplomacy. Then again, I suppose you are.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#29)
    by ras on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 04:25:31 PM EST
    Squeky, There's that stereotyping thing again. Do you not see it in yourself? I have never said that all Muslims are terrorists. I have said (tho not here, IIRC) that Islam needs a Reformation, a position I maintain. They might start, for ex, by removing the call to violent jihad. And we might start by not rewarding them for the violence - hello Yassir - with money, power, and ready-made excuses.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 05:00:22 PM EST
    So let me get this straight, Iran tells Hezbollah to attack Israel to put pressure on the G8 and get the attention off their Nuke's and it's somehow Bush's fault??? You really do live in your own little world, how sad.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 05:27:54 PM EST
    John Mann - For diplomacy to work, it is necessary for both sides to want it to. The terrorists do not. But you know that. You position has always been that Israel is bad.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#33)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 06:09:05 PM EST
    For diplomacy to work, it is necessary for both sides to want it to.
    Nobody wants it to work.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 06:23:27 PM EST
    . . . being attacked by an extremely well-equipped military force (equipped entirely by the government of the United States) and being attacked by the occasional suicide bomber
    and increasingly-well-equipped militias using missiles and rockets (equipped by the governments of Iran and Syria) apparently, JM left out several important words in his (intentional lack of) parallelism.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 06:49:10 PM EST
    Susan- as horrible as the hezbolla extremists are there is little comparison with the arms power of the Israeli military, at this point also an extremist group. Hezbolla force is much more to reckon with than the rag tag group they were several years ago, but still you don't really believe that they are comparable to the israelis in terms of armaments. Do you?

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 06:56:28 PM EST
    Lebanon seemed to be on a path to once and former glory. Now, Hezbolla unilaterally acts to provoke Isreal. Hezbolla had to have expected the same treatment Hamas recieved. So what interest of the Lebanese people were they serving? I don't see much support for Hezbolla's actions coming from the Lebanese people or many other Middle East countries. Hezbolla was serving their interest to increase their own power in Lebanon. Without conflict to justify their influence, they sought it.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#37)
    by roger on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 07:08:55 PM EST
    Squeeky, So, One side is worse than the other solely because of the sophistication of its weapons?

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 07:40:55 PM EST
    Thanks Roger. My point too. Squeaky: I was simply pointing out the absurdity of calling what Hezbollah and Hamas do "a few suicide bombers" in JM's distortion of what I was saying earlier. As I said in my comment in another entry too, I think it's ridiculous that people here and all over the world are "taking sides" (for Israel/against Hezbollah; for Hezbollah/against Israel; for Israel/against Hamas; for Hamas/against Israel; for Israel/against Palestinians; for . . . against). The world's leaders and the world's citizens (in the spirit of civil society) need to focus all their diplomatic efforts on getting a cease-fire to take place to save the lives and future well-being of innocent victims on all sides. I am hardly taking the side of terrorists. Even the people in the midst of the crisis in Lebanon are not playing "the blame game." (Larry King Live's interview with a young American woman visiting her parents in Lebanon illustrates this.) Neither "side" is purely in the "right"; there is enough "wrong" to go around, and "two wrongs don't make a right." If Israel's objectives are to get rid of Hezbollah and Hamas, these attacks in Lebanon and Gaza probably won't do it. Even if Hezbollah moves north into Lebanon away from the southern border of Lebanon and Israel, as some expert commentator observed earlier tonight, the terrorist group can just get rocket-propelled missiles with longer ranges in the future to attack Israel later. The soldier abducted and later killed by Hamas and then the two soldiers abducted (and being used as hostages [people assume]) by Hezbollah are now dwarfed by the hundreds of civilian casualties in Lebanon, Gaza, and Israel. The continuing call for their return (without conditions) seems totally without perspective at this point. The Middle East has historically been an "eye for an eye/tooth for a tooth" kind of society when it comes to retribution, but it really makes no sense in today's world. You take two/three soldiers, we free two/three prisoners is Cold War spy mentality that doesn't work in wars with terrorists. Terrorists have no honor (they behead kidnapped civilians and behead and castrate soldiers); Bush fears they will not honor a cease-fire agreement (with justification). Though countries have used prisoner exchanges in the past, Israel won't because it gives terrorists incentives to commit further terrorist acts. US really wants Israel to cripple Hezbollah as much as possible and is allowing the killing in Lebanon to go on in order to give Israel the ability to do that. That's why Rice won't even get to the Middle East until later this week--to give Israel time to rout Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon. Even if it does that, however, Hezbollah (and Hamas) will still be around and this will probably make them regroup and come back more ferociously in the future (supported by Iran and Syria). So what Israel is now doing is just a quick fix and really can't in any way solve the problem in the long run. So I say: just get a cease fire first however possible and figure out what to do next during it (while people are still talking to one another). Whatever Israel accomplishes in this Lebanon attack is just too short-sighted to make much difference for the future of the region. So why wait several more days until hundreds more innocent people die? The world's leaders just don't seem to care enough about the loss of innocent lives currently occurring on all sides. They shouldn't be bargaining with other people's lives, even for "a few days"; but, then, that's habitually what they do while "diplomacy" goes on (with all kinds of political maneuvering on "all sides").

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 08:20:38 PM EST
    Roger-
    So, One side is worse than the other solely because of the sophistication of its weapons?
    I do not know where you got that from. I never said that. . I was responding to Susan's quote. I was surprised that Susan even bothered to make a point that Hezbola's weapons were coming from Iran. A comparison of weapons or military power between Israel and Hezbola seems silly to me. The only point to be made about this is that Hezbola is way more organized then it was 10 years ago, has more members, and new weapons; rockets, and missiles that can reach into the borders of Israel, and also hit warships.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 08:28:05 PM EST
    Susan- I do not know how you got the idea that i was taking sides. I have been advocation all along for much of what you are saying.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 08:31:55 PM EST
    Prisoner exchange doable? Does anybody really believe the Israeli prisoners are alive? They would be all over the TV if they were alive. I doubt they were even taken alive. More likely their corpses were dragged away into Lebanon. In the past ten years, Israel has released many prisoners ALIVE. How many LIVE Israeli prisoners have been exchanged?

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 08:33:05 PM EST
    Well we demanded that Syria leave Lebanon. The side effect is that Hezbola is free from Syrian control. 40-45% of the population is Shia (1.3m people) and they support hezbola, . The Lebabese army does not control the south. Hezbola's milita does. (CNN)-- The United States on Thursday vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution for a cease fire. The demand that the lebanese army control the south is a provocation for civil war. A cease fire must be called for and UN troops at the borders.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 09:31:30 PM EST
    Squeaky--I was initially referring to a quotation from my response to JM that you took out of the context of that whole reply when you questioned it, essentially asking me to clarify, which I did. The rest of my reply alludes to many other people's comments in responses to this entry and others in TL where an awful lot of people appear to be taking one side or another. Please re-read my earlier response(s) and see what I was saying that you were quoting in the context of the whole reply (which JM disparingly calls another of my long-winded dissertations that says nothing; I doubt that he bothered to read it with any degree of attention so how would he know anyway?). At any rate, I thought I was saying something and clarified what I was saying in my subsequent reply to you. Not everything in a reply pertains to the person it's directed to in the beginning of a reply. In subsequent paragraphs, I was simply rephrasing some of my own earlier points. The reason I pointed out what I did about Hezbollah's and Hamas' militias being supplied by Iran and Syria is because JM conveniently and misleadingly chose to suppress those details in his minimizing ref. to a few suicide bombers. And the reply that you quoted a piece of was directed initially to him, not to you. In fact, in what you quoted I wasn't making comparisons of the relative strengths of armed forces or militias in support of taking one side vs. the other; that was his take, which I was responding to. I refer you back to what I said originally (before JM replied to it) and to my comments in other entries about this subject.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 10:02:34 PM EST
    John Mann says:
    If you can't see the difference between being attacked by an extremely well-equipped military force (equipped entirely by the government of the United States) and being attacked by the occasional suicide bomber, you need to go back to school.
    Firing rockets into Israel is hardly an attack by an "occasional suicide bomber." We need a cease-fire, as Susan said. As for Gingrich, I watched the repeat of Meet the Press yesterday, and he seemed most pre-occupied with North and South Korea and Iran. He really had little of consequence to say about Israel. At least that's my recollection. I think there is going to be a resolution. The conflict between Israel and its neighbors has been going on for ages. It's really none of our business. If Bush hadn't stuck us in the mix by putting us into Iraq, we'd be watching from afar. And what's up with Condi Rice? Isn't she supposed to be our diplomatic strategist? Yet, what has she done for us lately? Not much. I have real doubts as to whether she's up to the task. Or if she is, whether she is too enamored or intimidated by Bush to tell him how it really is. Let's hope for a prisoner exchange, a cease fire and an agreement that Lebanon will use its military to patrol the border and stop letting Hezbollah run amok.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 10:32:19 PM EST
    Susan-I got it. If you feel like it next time add the name so it is easy to track who you were responding to. John Mann does have an indisputable point. Israel is using disproportionate force. So what else is new. All the statistics are heavily in favor of Israel, from arms to prisoners to deaths. That is a given and historic fact. It has little to do with solving the problem. The problem is that the US hawks and the Israeli hawks involved all benefit from war. The neocons are having wet dreams every hour. Bush is waxing presidential. Just as in Iraq the muslim extremists gain big time in this kind of environment. So, hezbola wins here too. The tougher we talk and harsher we act, increases their power, That is why the grown ups have to step in. John Bolton, and all the other WH hacks are for war with Iran and Syria. It is their only hope of not losing Congress in Nov. As scribe pointed out earlier, the european community can accomplish much as they are in a cooler position, The US must agree to be bound by their decision and not the other way around. Good luck. Bolton acquiescing, ha! "Lop another few floors of the UN" Bolton?. Hard to imagine it not escalating into November. That is why all the wingnut hacks are screaming WW(((, Intense war is essential for them to avoid losing control of Congress. The fact that it is a big distraction from quagmire Iraq is very desirable at this point.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#47)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 03:42:31 AM EST
    Jewish Voice for Peace has a summary of the events up. I encourage everyone to go read.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 06:33:30 AM EST
    If Bush hadn't stuck us in the mix by putting us into Iraq, we'd be watching from afar
    With all due respect, this predates Bush. We have been in the mix since we, along with the Allies, nation- built Israel out of thin air following WWII. We've been in the mix since we decided to arm Israel to the teeth instead of being an honest broker for peace. Granted, the unnecessary invasion of Iraq has only fueled the raging inferno we call the Middle East....but there would still be war and violence in Israel, Lebabanon, and Gaza even if we hadn't.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#49)
    by Slado on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 07:58:41 AM EST
    What always baffles me about this debate is the inability of some to take sides and deal with reality. I am on the side of Isreal. Isreal is a democratic nation and ally. Their foe if you will are either dictorial Arab/Muslim governments or terrorsit groups bent on their destruction. Is Isreal exempt from criticism. Of course not. But unlike their foes they are not a militant group, or a dictorial regime that suppresses their poeple, they are a democracy. The fact that you even have Isreali peace groups criticizing thier own government should tell you who you should side with. Isreal has a superior military. Just because the bad guys have spit balls doesn't mean Isreal should hold back when they are put upon until the enemy can fight back with equal force. There should be no moral confusion here. A realistic argument can be made that the tactics are incorrect but arguing who is justified in their actions is a wast of time. Isreal is right, Hezzbollah is wrong. The only question is how should Isreal go about destroying Hezzbollah. They tried letting Lebanon do it. They tried putting pressure on Syria and Iran. They tried pulling out of Lebanon. What did it get them? What will a cease fire get them now? Nothing. The fact that so many are consumed by an unrealistic peace only shows that they aren't serious about solving the root cause of the problem. This is a case of good guys vs. bad guys and as long as the good guys hold back and pull their punches the bad guys will come back for more. When will the peace activits agree that Hezzbollah should be destroyed? When they have a nuclear weapon. When they have tanks and the death toll will be 10times as large. I say give war a chance.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#50)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 08:04:36 AM EST
    Slado's cartoon vision of foreign policy. ignore the facts, pick a side, dehumanize the opposition and kill them all without regards for blowback, and dont forget to root root root for the home team. Gee and its worked so well in the past.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 08:41:33 AM EST
    Perhaps a bit of progress?
    Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni hinted Tuesday that Israel would not object to a temporary international force in south Lebanon, despite earlier an outright Israeli rejection of such a plan.
    War & Peace and this:
    Italian PM Romano Prodi of Italy is already thinking about how to round up 10,000 UN peacekeepers to insert in the Lebanese south as a buffer between the Israeli army and Hizbullah. Russia agrees and is willing to participate.
    Juan Cole

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#52)
    by Andreas on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 09:40:37 AM EST
    The WSWS writes:
    The summit of the Group of Eight adjourned Monday on the sixth day of brutal Israeli air strikes on Lebanon, with the leaders of the major imperialist regimes effectively endorsing the pulverizing of a small nation by a US client state, armed to the teeth by Washington. As US-supplied bombs and missiles, fired by US-supplied warplanes, rained down on Lebanese cities and towns, the Bush administration took the lead in blocking even a token call for a ceasefire. While the US media seeks to present the current crisis in terms of equal suffering--Israeli civilians hit by Hezbollah rockets, Lebanese civilians hit by Israeli bombs--the reality is far different. More than 200 Lebanese have been killed and a billion dollars worth of damage inflicted on their country, compared to 24 Israelis killed, nearly half of them soldiers killed in combat against Hezbollah fighters.
    G8 powers sanction Israeli aggression in Lebanon Statement of the Editorial Board of the WSWS, 18 July 2006

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 09:49:53 AM EST
    There is no denying giving European Jews, as deserving as they were, a slice of the Middle East as compensation for their persecution at the hands of Germany and others in Europe was a collossal mistake. It was not the Allies land to give away...at least legitimately. People tend not to forget or forgive their homeland being taken, even after generations. Especially when their current existence is full of oppression and hopelessness. I know hard-core Zionists believe the boogey-man in the sky "chose" for them to live there...but that's a fairy tale, not a legitimate reason for the formation of Israel. If only the Allies had given them a slice of Germany, or US citizenship, thousands upon thousands of lives could have been spared. But anti-semitism was still prominent in Europe and the US post-war, so the Allies gave them Arab land. Nation building fails every time....bloody bloody failure.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 09:56:58 AM EST
    I agree that it would have been more appropriate to give them a slice of Germany, but don't you think that that would have created a whole different set of problems?

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#55)
    by roger on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 10:02:04 AM EST
    Granola, Hard to imagine that it would have been worse than giving half of Germany to the Soviets

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#56)
    by theologicus on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 10:03:32 AM EST
    Let's hope for a prisoner exchange, a cease fire and an agreement that Lebanon will use its military to patrol the border and stop letting Hezbollah run amok. One can always hope. But hope is a very diffeent matter than optimism. Lebanon's military is, by many accounts, simply not up to the task that would here be assigned to it. And why should that be? Perhaps it has little to do with the strangely neo-isolaitonist idea that if only Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, we could just watch this slaughter unfold from the sidelines. From Too High a Price The Nation Editorial July 14. 2006
    It is now clear that the American and Israeli strategy of trying to isolate Hamas and Hezbollah on the one hand, and Syria and Iran on the other, have backfired.
    Would the situation in Gaza have gotten so out of hand if Israel, the United States and the European Union had tried to work with the democratically elected Hamas government from the outset?
    And would Hezbollah have felt the freedom to take the reckless action it took--the deplorable firing of rockets on Israeli civilians?
    As Juan Cole points out today [14 July] on Informed Comment, "A Lebanon with no Syrian troops and Hizbullah in the government was inherently unstable. With Syria gone, Hizbullah filled a security vacuum and also was less restrained."
    ... As Cole suggests, the hasty unplanned departure of Syrian forces may have ironically given Hezbollah more freedom to act than before. A dialogue with Syria together with an effort to have a more careful planned disengagement of Syrian forces would have given the Lebanese government a better chance of establishing control over its sovereignty in southern Lebanon.


    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 10:06:43 AM EST
    Jews did comprise 30% of the population of Palestine, with 7% ownership of land. The UN gave them 55% of Palestine to start Israel. The land wars only escalated from there with Israel. Israel soon had almost all the land. What would have happened if the initial borders of Israel were proportionate to the population of jews in Palestine? Who knows. As kdog suggests the initial nod may have been the spark that set off fires still burning today. As to the "boogey-man in the sky "chose" for them to live there" idea: that idea was based on the notion of the Messiah returning and leading the jews back to the promised land. Obviously the "Messiah" has not been seen for centuries...details, details, details.......

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#58)
    by theologicus on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 10:10:30 AM EST
    Meanwhile, while we hope for that devoutly to be wished cease fire, the war crimes continue, and one might add, rather "asymmetrically." Urgent Measures Needed to Protect Civilians Amnesty International Press Release 18 July 2006
    Amnesty International today called on the UN Security Council to meet urgently in order to adopt measures to protect civilians caught up in the deepening Israel-Lebanon conflict. The organization deplored the failure of G8 member states to put the protection of civilians above politics in their discussions of the conflict and condemned continuing attacks on civilian by both Israel and Hizbullah. ...
    ... In Lebanon, it is civilians who are paying the heaviest price of the Israeli bombing campaign. At least 200 civilians, including dozens of children, are reported to be among some 215 Lebanese killed by Israeli air strikes in Lebanon since 12 July. In the same period, Hizbullah's armed wing has killed 12 Israeli civilians, including one child, in rocket attacks into Northern Israel, as well as 12 soldiers. Hundreds of others, including many civilians, have been injured on both sides.
    Israeli forces have carried out large-scale destruction of civilian infrastructure throughout Lebanon, deliberately targeting and destroying dozens of bridges, roads, powers stations, the international airport and ports, grain silos and other facilities. Tens of thousands of civilians have been forced to flee their homes, notably in South Lebanon and in the suburbs of the capital, Beirut.
    Hizbullah has also shown disregard for civilian lives by deliberately firing hundreds of katyusha and other rockets into towns and villages in Northern Israel, killing several Israeli civilians and injuring many more, and causing substantial damage to homes and other civilian properties.


    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 10:19:11 AM EST
    but don't you think that that would have created a whole different set of problems?
    Probably. But at least there was a legitimate reason for giving the holocaust victims a slice of Germany. We had troops on the ground in Germany, still do, and could have offered the new Jewish state in Germany protection and been on morally sound ground to do so. Though it would still be nation building and likely marred by bloodshed. An even better option would have been to give all the European Jews US citizenship. I think it's obvious that they would have been safer and happier here. But as I said, we had our issues with anti-semitism here too. So we screwed the Arabs instead. And as for the religous wackos who insist that god gave them "x" slice of land....they'd be on their own to sort it out with god and the current occupants. Maybe I should squat in a penthouse apt. on Park Ave. and claim god chose me to live there rent free...that would go over well.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 10:21:42 AM EST
    Squeaky...whay can't the promised land be Brooklyn? That god has one sick sense of humor...I wish I could hear the jokes firsthand.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 10:42:13 AM EST
    Squeaky writes:
    John Mann does have an indisputable point. Israel is using disproportionate force.
    Squeaky - When you fight a war you are supposed to use all of your available resources to win. et al - Where does the Left come with such nutty comments as John Mann's??

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#62)
    by Peaches on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 10:48:09 AM EST
    And as for the religous wackos who insist that god gave them "x" slice of land....they'd be on their own to sort it out with god and the current occupants.
    Kdog, Although I agree with your sentiments concerning extremists, I think it should be noted that throughout human history, tribes and people have identified and established affinity for the land they lived on. These tribes often created myths ascribing their rightful place has the caregivers and stewards of the land along with the bounty provided by God and/or nature. Afteall, the etymology of the word culture comes from the tending, gaurding or tilling of the land(e.g. agri-culture). All of this goes toward saying that the local people will always invent reasons for defending their land from invaders and occupiers and God is one of those reasons. This does not necessarily make someone a wacko. It may only make them pragmatic and evolutionarily successful. However, using God to justify an invasion force can only be accomplished by extremists and wackos.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 11:00:14 AM EST
    Peaches...I see your point. In this case, isn't Israel the invader/occupier?

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 11:22:19 AM EST
    Squeaky: of course the Kingdom of Jordan was given the majority of Palestinean land by the UN. You should demand Jordan give up their portion. What is disproportionate force? What would be proportionate force? Maybe you could give Israel a clue.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#65)
    by Peaches on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 11:28:19 AM EST
    Kdog, Tough call. I think it is possible for two tribes to make legitimate claims to the same piece of land. Then it is a matter of comprimise, or deciding which party is more legitimate. Of course, the end result is often war and both sides use religion to justify the violence toward the opposing side. In the US it was called manifest destiny. Now, the result means I make legitimate claims to my own land and I would probably resort to violence if someone unjustly invaded or attempted to occupy my land-and the war criers would be using the name of GOd to rally US citizens to put forth their lives to defend our land. This land would include all of the USA if it was really invaded. The irony is we don't truly have legitimate rights to the land since we stole it from indigenous tribes in the first place.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#66)
    by theologicus on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 11:49:24 AM EST
    While U Wait War defeats diplomacy Paul Rogers openDemocracy 18 July 2006
    A week into the war, Israel's intransigence and the United States's indulgence make the prospects for peace minimal. ...
    Tentative peace moves have been proposed, primarily from United Nations sources, but the government of Ehud Olmert is highly unlikely to call a halt to its extensive military actions. ...
    ...Israel cannot achieve physical security without political security, and that cannot be achieved except by negotiating with its adversaries and recognising the predicament of the Palestinians. In the final analysis there is no alternative to a peace settlement encompassing the creation of a viable Palestinian state.
    There is little chance of that even beginning to be recognised in the current insecure environment within Israel. It is made even less likely by the solid support from the Bush administration, due in no small measure to the political significance of Christian Zionism in the United States....
    Almost a week into the war, a weak and disunited Europe concentrates very largely on evacuating its citizens from Lebanon, and the United States displays a special sense of irony by chartering a cruise ship to do the same [and, in a beautiful gesture to free enterprise, requiring those being evacuated to sign a statement that they will pay for the cost].
    At present, the prospects for peace are minimal.


    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#67)
    by Dadler on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 11:55:20 AM EST
    Christian Zionism, I love it: the belief that Christians have to "support" Israel because, if they don't, they think they won't get to heaven otherwise, or that the Rapture can't happen, or that God will just be helpless to carry out his plan. Pure extremist selfishness masquerading as heartfelt belief and genuine concern.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#68)
    by theologicus on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 12:04:21 PM EST
    My dear Dadler, Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes an addled mind is just an addled mind.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#69)
    by Dadler on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 12:09:51 PM EST
    Theo, My mind is feeling addled like a sputtering model-T right now from this madness. I can't imagine what's inside "theirs".

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#70)
    by Slado on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 12:55:05 PM EST
    "gee it's worked so well in the past" As opposed to coddling militant groups and dictators working well? What are your solutions other then sending the UN to watch the massacre unfold? Hamas is a militant military group with 15,000 missles aimed at Isreal. Maybe you're right and they'll give them to the UN if you ask nicely?

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#71)
    by Peaches on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 01:15:19 PM EST
    Hamas is a militant military group with 15,000 missles aimed at Isreal.
    Link Please. Did you mean Hezbelloah?
    As opposed to coddling militant groups and dictators working well?
    I don't think this works well, but for the US this has been a matter of foriegn policy for years around the world and especially in the ME and Latin America. One example of many is responsible some of this whole mess in the ME and can be traced back to the CIA backed coup of Mossadegh in Iran and placing the Shah as the dictator in charge of Iraq to preserve our access to cheap oil. Others include Saudia Arabia, Panama, Chile, EQuador...

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 01:17:05 PM EST
    ppj-
    Squeaky - When you fight a war you are supposed to use all of your available resources to win.
    So what is winning? Nuke em? Would that be winning? You live in a make believe world where you imagine that confilcts exist in a vacuum and are easily solved by the party with the biggest gun. Following your logic, Israel sholld nuke Southern Lebanon and kill 1.5m people. Then China should Nuke Israel for being bad. Then we nuke China..... Last person left standing wins. I can guarantee that it will not be you.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#73)
    by Peaches on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 01:30:25 PM EST
    Last person left standing wins. I can guarantee that it will not be you.
    Actually, it might be fitting if ppj was the last man standing. I'd love to be the cockroach on his wall, recording his triumphant babbling on that day.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 01:34:58 PM EST
    Wylie-
    Squeaky: of course the Kingdom of Jordan was given the majority of Palestinean land by the UN. You should demand Jordan give up their portion. What is disproportionate force? What would be proportionate force? Maybe you could give Israel a clue.
    Jordon given the majority of Palestinian land? Bogus claim. Check your Facts Disproportionate strength has nothing to do with solving the current problem. It is a given and non issue.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#75)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 01:37:10 PM EST
    Peaches, have you read Kinzer's "Occupation: American intervention from Hawaii to Iraq" extremely depressing in that all the methods that Bush has used have been used in the past to some degree. There are many lessons to be learned from the book. One of them is Corporate welefare is more important than democratic governments. The US has apparently had little restraint in getting rid of democratic governments if they stood in the way of corporate well being

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 01:42:53 PM EST
    Peaches - You probobly wouldnt last. After all, there's no law that says insects cant turn commie.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#77)
    by Peaches on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 01:49:36 PM EST
    I have not read it. I'm still trying to find time to read Fromm's Escape from Freedom. But, it is on top of the pile. Damn, now I got to go out and get Kinzer, too. ;-) I just finished John Perkins Confessions of an economic Hitman. It probably covers a lot of the same territory as Kinzer from a former economic advisor for a big international corp - MAIN. Very interesting reading. Have you read it?

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 03:40:44 PM EST
    Squeaky: yer link don't work. Here's mine: Mandate for Palestine

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#79)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 06:56:56 PM EST
    Here's the transcript including Gingrich's full remarks, in which he includes the current conflict in the Middle East between Israel and its enemies, along with the other countries that he discusses, as part of the beginning of "World War III": Meet the Press of Sunday, July 16 (transcript):
    Mr. Speaker, what are we witnessing in the Middle East?
    MR. NEWT GINGRICH: Well, let me, let me offer three observations. First, this is not the fifth day of the war. This is the 58th year of the effort by those who want to destroy Israel. As Ahmadinejad, the head of Iran, says, he wants to defeat the Americans and eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. So we should not see this event in isolation. There is an Iran/Iraq/Syria--I mean, an Iran/Syria--was an Iraq before Saddam was replaced--Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas alliance trying to destroy Israel. Second, the Israelis withdrew from Gaza to create the circumstance of peace. The Israelis withdrew from south Lebanon to create the circumstance of peace. They now have a thousand missiles fired from Gaza, they've had hundreds of missiles fired from south Lebanon. You clearly have Iranian involvement, there are at least 400 Iranian guards in south Lebanon. Apparently it was an Iranian missile fired by Iranians which hit an Israeli warship yesterday. The United States should be saying to Syria and Iran, "South Lebanon is going to be cleared out. We are for Israel and the Lebanese government breaking the back of Hezbollah, getting rid of all 10,000 to 13,000 missiles, and we will decisively stop any effort by Syria and Iran to intervene." I mean, this is absolutely a question of the survival of Israel, but it's also a question of what is really a world war. Look what you've been covering: North Korea firing missiles. We say there'll be consequences, there are none. The North Koreans fire seven missiles on our Fourth of July; bombs going off in Mumbai, India; a war in Afghanistan with sanctuaries in Pakistan. As I said a minute ago, the, the Iran/Syria/Hamas/Hezbollah alliance. A war in Iraq funded largely from Saudi Arabia and supplied largely from Syria and Iran. The British home secretary saying that there are 20 terrorist groups with 1200 terrorists in Britain. Seven people in Miami videotaped pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda, and 18 people in Canada being picked up with twice the explosives that were used in Oklahoma City, with an explicit threat to bomb the Canadian parliament, and saying they'd like to behead the Canadian prime minister. And finally, in New York City, reports that in three different countries people were plotting to destroy the tunnels of New York. I mean, we, we are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war, and frankly, our bureaucracies aren't responding fast enough, we don't have the right attitude about this, and this is the 58th year of the war to destroy Israel. And frankly, the Israelis have every right to insist that every single missile leave south Lebanon and that the United States ought to be helping the Lebanese government have the strength to eliminate Hezbollah as a military force, not as a political force in the parliament, but as a military force in south Lebanon. MR. RUSSERT: This is World War III? MR. GINGRICH: I, I believe if you take all the countries I just listed, that you've been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you'd have to say to yourself this is, in fact, World War III.
    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#80)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 07:05:44 PM EST
    Peaches haven't read it will add it to my list/ I think the view will a little different from Kinzer's. Between the two should have a pretty complete picture. Kinzer focuses on political angles and interaction with the corporations.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 07:11:23 PM EST
    Sorry Wylie, for the broken link. Here is another go: Jordon given the majority of Palestinian land? Bogus claim. Check your Facts

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#82)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 07:35:41 PM EST
    Sorry--I forgot to identify the speaker at the beginning as, of course, Tim Russert, who was posing the questions to former Speaker of the House Gingrich and Senator Joe Biden. Russert's next question was:
    MR. RUSSERT: Senator Biden, is it our war?
    SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D-DE): Indirectly, it's our war. It seems to me it's partially our responsibility. I don't, I don't agree with the World War III analogy, but I do believe that here we had Israel get out of southern Lebanon. I was there for that election, I was "an official observer." All the talk from everyone in the parties in Lebanon, that they had to get rid of Hezbollah. The, the U.N. Resolution 1559 said that the--that as, as Israel got out, the, the army of the Lebanese people were going to move and take over that responsibility, they didn't. But I might add that we didn't do anything to help them. We didn't do anything at the time to help train them. We didn't do anything at the time to give any attention to it. And now we are, because of our lack of a prevention strategy, we're left with no option here, in my view, but to support Israel in what is a totally legitimate self-defense effort. How can they, in fact, sit still when they have all these rockets that are very sophisticated sitting on their border, knowing they're being--going to be fired at them and expect to stand there and the rest of the world sitting around? And the last point I'll make, Tim, is I find it fascinating people talk about has Israel gone too far. No one talks about whether Israel's justified in the first place. Let's assume Israel's overreacting. I want to see the world stand up and say, "By the way, this in fact, is an unprovoked effort on the part of a terrorist organization supported by two countries to undermine the democratic state." Until they say that, I think it's awful--I think it's a secondary question whether Israel's gone too far. [I added the bold print here and in the previous post.]
    Rest of the discussion follows Russert's next question, another key one:
    MR. RUSSERT: Speaker Gingrich, President Bush, should he try to intervene in this latest Middle East crisis, seek a cease-fire?
    Gringrich's answer "No" and his subsequent explanation starts with how he thinks that "Senator Biden and I are basically in agreement on this" because "it is explicitly wrong to bring pressure on the victim" (page 4 of the 15-page printout of the transcript). [I'm just reporting on what they said, not taking a position on it here. The "World War III analogy" has been/is still being discussed by many later commentators both in the MSM and blogosphere.] The rest of last Sunday's Meet the Press program includes an "exclusive" interview with Bob Novak about Plamegate as well (probably covered in other entries on TL which I haven't had time to read).

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#83)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 07:42:58 PM EST
    For those who are currently trying to reconstruct past Israeli-Palestinian history, the following may prove useful: Today NPR re-broadcast a very informative program which I happened to listen to while driving home earlier tonight; Real Audio and transcripts are accessible here.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#84)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 07:58:11 PM EST
    I've just returned to post the link to the NPR index page for its Middle East coverage, with its direct links to another report too that's very useful, with maps and timeline: here, incl. espec. "1098-2004: The Middle East and the West: A Troubled History". The various NPR series on the Middle East are documented histories in several parts.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#85)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 09:11:24 PM EST
    Via NPR's website, I noticed another useful link to CAMERA: Committee for Accuracy of Middle East Reporting in America, which is a kind of media watch group on this region. Check the "About" page for more information. Its various features call a lot of MSM reports into question. The criticism of NPR reports on the Middle East got a response from the (then) NPR ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, whose columns are accessible from links in the previous posts. In a 2002 NPR column entitled "Media Matters: NPR's Middle East 'Problem'", I found the link to camera.org. [His columns are archived; after 6 1/2 yrs. as NPR Ombudsman, Dvorkin left that post to become exec. dir. of the Committee of Concerned Journalists in Washington, D.C., just this month.]

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 05:46:32 AM EST
    Squeaky - I left out one important word, but I thought rational people would understand. Why I keep assuming that about you, and many others on the Left, I do not know.
    When you fight a war you are supposed to use all of your available resources NECESSARY to win.
    To do less is stupid. Israel does not currently need to use nukes. The US does not currently need use nukes with Iran. If we continue to wait, both of us will need to use nukes, in retaliation for the ones that have hit us. For awhile after 9/11 I thought we could avoid that. But, with the Demos using the far Left for political means, I am concerned that we will not finish the job when it would be much easier, much less costly and with millions fewer killed and wounded.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#87)
    by Peaches on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 07:16:11 AM EST
    Kinzer focuses on political angles and interaction with the corporations.
    In Confessions of an Economic Hitman, Perkins view is more anecdotal and probably supports many of the angles and interactions Kinzer points too. Perkins describes himself as a young and ambitious corporate economist who travelled around the world persuading third-world dictators to accept economic loans for development projects that would saddle them with years of debt and keep them forever under the thumb of the US and corporatocracy. If he failed in persuading the leaders, then later CIA jackels would be called in to eliminate the leader in favor of a more cooperative dictatior. Then Perkins would begin all over again. thus, the monikor - economic hitman.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#88)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:23:36 AM EST
    John Mann / Squeaky.... Israel is using disproportionate force..... So what else is new.... All the statistics are heavily in favor of Israel, from arms to prisoners to deaths. I'm sorry guys....but I have to laugh at this. THIS is the kind of mind numbing talk (logic??) coming out of the left that has the rest of the country dumbfounded! Please tell me what Israel should do? Fire one rocket back for each one fired at them? Is that the "proportionate" response you would like? Hezbollah knew full well what Israel's capabilities were but they decided to attack anyway. Whose fault is that? There's an old saying you need to learn. "You don't bring a knife to a gun fight"! It's about time somebody took these idiots out once and for all! The world will be a much better & safer place with them gone. Now.. argue that point!

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#89)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:33:25 AM EST
    BB speaking for the neanderthal splinter of the neocon factions. They may go but they will be replaced by all the other Muslims you have turned to hating the US. The Israelis drove out the PLO and they were replaced by Hezbelloah who will eventually be replaced propabley by AQ. The demand that lebanon disarm Hezbelloah is laughable on its face given that Israel couldn't do it in 13 years of occupation. This was done to force Bush's hand on Iraq. The neocons, with extensive ties to Likud, were the ones envouraging Israel. In the previous weeks articles appeared in conservatibe pubs that accused Bush of appeasement. Is there a nastier charge from the right wing? And now you have Kristol saying that this is the US's war. Well sometimes 2+2 does equal 4. So all the blood thirsty neocons will get their way. An attack on Iran, which will be followed by complete destabilization of the ME. And yes the US will use the low-yield nuclear bunker-busters which they have spent the last year deploying in th region. So neocons sit back with a martini or beer [depending if you a real neocon or a hanger-on] and get a front row seat to Armegeddon. That is what you idiots want, right?

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#90)
    by Peaches on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:40:26 AM EST
    The world will be a much better & safer place with them gone. Now.. argue that point!
    Oh no, BB, you ain't goona sucker us lefties into an argument with such a sharp wit as you. Now that would be like going to a gunfight with only a stick of bubble gum. You got us all whipped here, b-brain. We capitulate. You took us idiots out once and for all. So please don't laugh at us anymore. Have some sympathy for our inferior intellectual capacities. We're only commie leftist afterall. We can't help it that we are traiters. We want to be patriots, but we have this inherent capacity for compassion and socialistic tendencies. It's in our natures. That's why we are leftists. If only you could remove our hearts.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:16:01 AM EST
    SD writes:
    So all the blood thirsty neocons will get their way. An attack on Iran, which will be followed by complete destabilization of the ME.
    For years and years the Left criticized the US for doing business with various dictatorships. And can you guess what the US' excuse was? Fear of destabilization of the region(s). Geoploitical allies, etc. and etc. Now, in '79 Carter, quit doing business with the Shah and midwifed the birth of modern terrorism. And, btw, the absolute destabilization of the region. Now, with the ME more or less in chaos, with Iran's and Syria's proxy attacking Israel from the North and with Hamas waiting in the wings, you worry about what will happen if we take Iran out of the picture? Good heavens, SD. Where in the world were you in 1979 when we needed you?
    "President Carter, as your Sec State, I must tell you I will resign if you don't support the Shah. We must not destabilize the region. Sincerely, Soccerdad aka SD."
    Your comments would be funny if not so sad.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#93)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:27:08 AM EST
    now, in '79 Carter, quit doing business with the Shah and midwifed the birth of modern terrorism.
    ummm, fantasyland has finally become 'time to put dad in a home' land.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#94)
    by Peaches on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:44:00 AM EST
    Dearest Jim, Although I sympathize with your cabbages as the latest drought reeks havoc on gardens and farms all over CO and the Westen States, I need to point out to you that the seeds for terrorism were sown many years before the removal of the Shah. The CIA installed the Shah after they removed Mossadegh. They removed Mossadegh, because he was not doing business with our companies. The shah was installed and was consi9dered a US ally for many years. However the people of Iran eventually had enough of his thuggery and revolted. The Shah was going down with or without Carter's support.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#95)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:50:58 AM EST
    "Now, in 1979 Carter." But of course Casey, North & co. are completely blameless for selling wmds to and talking turkey with "the terrorists" behind the scene. All that's needed is the ability to diregard the evidence of one's senses (a special ability that a chosen few like Jim have), and simply accept that any foreign policy reversals in the last 30+ years were the fault of the isidious influence of the anti-war left.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#96)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:53:15 AM EST
    PPJ has finally lost all touch (there wasn't much there anyway) with reality
    Now, in '79 Carter, quit doing business with the Shah and midwifed the birth of modern terrorism.
    PPJ's ignorance of history is once again on display. Modern terrorism in the ME had as one of its roots the overthrow of the Democratic leader of Iran by the CIA in 1953 because he wanted to nationalize the oil industry and only give BP 50% of the profits. The US installed the Shah who ran a repressive regime famous for its secret police which eventually led to the Iranian revolution. Not to be out done Regean funneled millions of dollars through Pakistan to the groups fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. The Saudis were also funding the groups. Well Pakistan funded the religious fundamentalist's like Osama and Omar giving them weapons and training and helped establish the Taliban. Further destabilization of the ME will lead to an overthrow of the Pakistani government. Then you have religious fundamentalists with nukes. The problem with PPJ and his ilk is that he expects that the US should be able to do whatever it wants to whoever it wants and there should be no consequences.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#97)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    President George W. Bush plans to veto the embryonic stem-cell research bill because he will not "condone . . . murder" according to his press spokesman Tony Snow; yet Bush and his administration condone murder daily in the Middle East.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:23:07 AM EST
    Sadly this sort of crap is to be expected from the Bush WH:
    Katrina-style evacuation of US citizens from Lebanon - late, slow? Other countries are getting their nationals out faster, and the US has done it much faster in the past. What's up with this?
    Laura Rozen Meanwhile we give the nod to Israel to do whatever it wants for a week.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#91)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:48:04 AM EST
    FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting)--see "About Us" there--lists CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy of Middle East Reporting in America) as "media criticism from the right-wing of the Israeli political spectrum." CAMERA does not identify in its "about" page who actually participates in this "committee." It really needs to disclose that upfront. It describes itself as a "non-partisan" organization, but it seems "partisan"--pro-Israel--to me [and to FAIR]. Here's the Wikipedia entry on CAMERA.) It's hard (perhaps impossible) to find reporting and commentary on the Middle East that does not in some way have a bias or get accused of having a bias. One really needs to keep those biases in mind when reading media accounts (incl. blogs). The "unvarnished facts" are often hard to come by and putting them in the contexts of this very long and complicated history is really important. (E.g., Although Wikipedia articles are supposed to have "Neutral Point of View," they don't always achieve that; fierce debates occur on the talk pages of Wikipedia among its conflicting--non-professional--"editors.") One must scrutinize all media articles (in both Mainstream and alternative media) on and off the web for such biases and (lack of/presence of) so-called "neutrality." In conflicts as controversial as this one, neutrality is very hard to find and may not be attainable. (Everyone who reports on these matters is involved in one way or another, including the reporters on the scenes in the war zones.) We really have to read, watch, and listen to accounts from various points of view and kind of "add" them together to get as full a picture of the current situation as possible in evaluating the conflicting interpretations of it (including those coming from government spokespeople in the US, Israel, and Lebanon, and those speaking for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas). Important question: Whom does one trust? I find it risky to trust the viewpoints of the spokespeople for the terrorist organizations and the "facts" that they are broadcasting; but I also find it difficult to trust the viewpoints of the government spokespeople as well, such as the Israeli prime minister and those in the current US administration such as Pres. Bush and Secy' of State Condoleeza Rice. I think that Amnesty International (quoted in a post above) and the organizations and spokespeople affiliated with the United Nations (Kofi Annan's office) are perhaps the more trustworthy viewpoints at this juncture. They have been (ineffectively) calling for cessation of hostilities/cease fire. Yet here is a recent press release from UPI: Israel Lebanon war to go on full force The "international community" (UN Security Council, G8 e.g.) seems to have decided to let Israel go ahead and "finish the job" after having themselves defaulted on their prior responsiblity to enforce Resolution 1559. At least that's the message that PM Olmert is referring to. Shades of 2002-3 and impasses re: resolutions dealing with Iraq?

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#99)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 11:46:20 AM EST
    Squeaky: If you look at my link, from wiki also, (hopefully not edited by Sen Boxer's staff). You will see this was set in motion before the UN was around. The Balfour declaration was from the league of nations.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 11:52:16 AM EST
    Squeaky - If you go to the ME, please don't complain that you have a few difficulties doing anything. The US taxpayer doesn't owe you a free ride out.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 11:56:45 AM EST
    If you look at my link, from wiki also....
    It seems that most of are starting with a 1947 date here. How far back do you want to go? BTW-If you could narrow the link to a specific section of the very, very long wiki entry it would be easier for me to follow. As interesting as the subject is I do not feel like looking for a needle in the haystack you provided.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#102)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 12:24:17 PM EST
    Soccerdad... That is what you idiots want, right? No.. what we want is for radical Muslims (that are causing 99% of all the trouble in the world) stop blowing everything up in sight... and stop shooting missiles into Israel? Where is your condemnation of that? Is that so much to ask? You my friend (and people like you) are the ones that want Armageddon because you are content to wait around until these idiots get nukes (which I have no doubt they would use in a new York minute) before you chose to do something about it... then you'll have your Armageddon because it will be too late! Peaches.. So please don't laugh at us anymore. Have some sympathy for our inferior intellectual capacities. We're only commie leftist afterall. We can't help it that we are traiters Glad you see the light! LOL Try answering my question and spare me the (not so) witty comeback. Please give me an example of a proportionate response.. if you can??? Katrina-style evacuation of US citizens from Lebanon - late, slow? Please check this out: http://cedarmailer.com/americancongress/pages/archive/messagedetails.asp?ID=477 Susan H M... yet Bush and his administration condone murder daily in the Middle East It's war.. just in case you've missed it. And, when you are at war, the idea is to kill more of them then they of you. It isn't really that complicated. We actually did win a couple of wars by doing that... (WWI & WWII as a couple of examples) Most rational people wouldn't say we were "murdering" Germans on D-day. Of course the key word there is "rational"

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#103)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 12:27:53 PM EST
    BTW Susan... Speaking of murdering... I'm waiting for you to condemn Hezbollah for using civilians as shields...putting rocket launchers in the middle of apartment complexes..etc..etc. You see anything wrong with that?

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#104)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 12:34:19 PM EST
    BB-
    BTW Susan...
    you obviously haven't kept up with the thread. Or are you just being a troll?

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#105)
    by Peaches on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 12:39:48 PM EST
    Please give me an example of a proportionate response.. if you can???
    I...we...wouldn't dare. WE know what you will do--put our words in italics and then slam dunk us like Shaq on Mugsy Boggs, for all the world to see and exposing us liberal commies for the pee-brains we are overmatched against the Supersized, sperpatriot, superhero B-brain.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#106)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 12:46:03 PM EST
    It's war.
    nope, the war's over, we won, this is occupation.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#107)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 12:58:20 PM EST
    No.. what we want is for radical Muslims (that are causing 99% of all the trouble in the world) stop blowing everything up in sight...
    Then stop treating every Muslim as if they are a terrorist. Stop killing their women and children, stop collective punishment. If you think these raids will produce the result you say you want you are at best Naive, at worse a neocon.
    You my friend (and people like you) are the ones that want Armageddon because you are content to wait around until these idiots get nukes (which I have no doubt they would use in a new York minute) before you chose to do something about it... then you'll have your Armageddon because it will be too late!
    You suppose that state sponsored terroism will triumph over AQ and the like. It wont and never will. Therefore you will continue to have escaltion. What you refuse to see is that sufficient desatbilization of the ME will cause an overthrow of the government in Pakistan, they have already tried to assassinate him 3 times. Then you will have fundamentalist Muslims with Nukes. Then whats your big idea Mr Smarty Pants.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#108)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    BTW Bush's idea is to let India develop Nukes to offset Pakistan in case they are overthrown. So in fact it is Bush that is pushing all towards Armegeddon. What does he care, he believes he'll be raptured.

    Re: Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce (none / 0) (#109)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 01:06:47 PM EST
    SD, yeah and he's selling F16's to pakistan in case india is ...!?

    Israel Sets Conditions to End Fighting, Truce Possible | 105 comments (105 topical)