what we still don't understand

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I'm still mystified by being characterised as a 'supporter' of terrorism.

You're not the only one.

[jordanianprincess 0]

I agree, enough with the insults.

I'm still mystified by being characterised as a 'supporter' of terrorism.

You're not the only one.

I'm in that boat too....

[*Robert* 2]

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

The real estate war

By Gideon Levy

Haaretz Columnist

This miserable war in Lebanon, which is just getting more and more complicated for no reason at all, was born in Israel's greed for land. Not that Israel is fighting this time to conquer more land, not at all, but ending the occupation could have prevented this unnecessary war. If Israel had returned the Golan Heights and signed a peace treaty with Syria in a timely fashion, presumably this war would not have broken out.

Peace with Syria would have guaranteed peace with Lebanon and peace with both would have prevented Hezbollah from fortifying on Israel's northern border. Peace with Syria would have also isolated Iran, Israel's true, dangerous enemy, and cut off Hezbollah from one of the two sources of its weapons and funding. It's so simple, and so removed from conventional Israeli thinking, which is subject to brainwashing.

For years, Israel has waged war against the Palestinians with the main motive of insistence on keeping the occupied territories. If not for the settlement enterprise, Israel would have long since retreated from the occupied territories and the struggle's engine would have been significant neutralized. Not that a non-occupying Israel would have turned into the darling of the Arab world, but the destructive fire aimed at Israel would have significantly lessened, and those who continued to fight Israel would have found themselves isolated.

The war against the Palestinians is therefore unequivocally a territorial war, a war for the settlements. In other words, in the West Bank and Gaza, people were killed and are getting killed because of our greed for land. From Golda Meir to Ehud Olmert, the lie has held that the war with the Palestinians is an existential one for survival imposed on Israel when it is actually a war for real estate, one dunam after another, that does not belong to us.

The situation is different with Syria. For 33 years, the Syrians gave up the military effort to reinstate their occupied lands. Israel can pass a dozen Golan Heights laws to annex it, but occupied territory remains occupied territory. During those three decades, the prevailing view in Israel was that there was no need for peace with Syria: The Syrians sat quietly anyway, so why give them back the Golan?

This is the same dangerously foolish thinking that characterized the first 20 years of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinians sat quietly, surrendered under the Israeli occupation boot, and it did not occur to anyone to return their territory. Instead, Israel established the settlements. Only when the Palestinians woke up and realized they were going to lose their lands forever did they begin a violent campaign; and only after blood was spilled, did Israel wake up from its dreams and realize that it could not hold onto all of the territories forever. Thus, with regrettable delay and years of bloodshed, the recognition of the PLO, the Oslo accords, the disengagement and the convergence were born - all partial and fake solutions meant to postpone the end of the occupation.

We did not need all of that with the Syrians - after all, they sat quietly all of these years. Now comes the war in Lebanon and proves that this was a mistake. Although the Syrians sat on the sidelines, the danger from that direction was not removed and the delusion that the Golan would forever remain in Israeli hands, without our being asked to pay for its occupation, is now slapping us in the face.

But the current war could yet turn out to be only an appetizer for the coming wars, which will be far more dangerous. The saying that time is on our side is another delusion. The Arab and Muslim world has armed, in all of this time, and the danger of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles is already hovering over our heads. The only response to that is maximum neutralization of the flashpoints, before the bomb arrives. But Israel has chosen to close its eyes and build its future on a horrifyingly temporary quiet, or on more and more war operations.

Just when territory is losing its military importance because of the development of new fighting technology, Israel is using security excuses to stay in the territories. Former-prime minister Ehud Barak criminally missed the opportunity to sign a peace treaty with Syria after he got "cold feet," as witnesses said, and retreated at the last minute. That's how it works with us. When the other side is quiet, why return territories? And when they do go to war, "there's nobody to talk to," and certainly not while we are "under fire."

While we are ready to jump on any war bandwagon, as in this time, we endlessly procrastinate when it comes to peace negotiations. Now, too, when Syria, pushed around by the U.S., desperately wants to return to the "family of nations," is an excellent time to try to make peace with it - but there are those who say now is not the time. What will the Americans say? They, after all, are against any deals with Bashar Assad of "the axis of evil."

So, there it is, another excuse to miss a golden opportunity, another mendacious excuse. As in the case of the peace with Egypt, the move that has guaranteed Israel's security for years far more than any war, and which was put together behind the America's back, America would not be able to oppose a peace agreement with Syria. Now, after we've hit Hezbollah and ruined Lebanon, the prime minister of Israel should declare: the Golan for peace. That could contribute a lot more to our security than a thousand useless daring operations in Baalbek, but it would take a lot more courage than going off to fight another unnecessary and useless war.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746698.html

[*Robert* 2]

Let's face it... will we ever really understand?!

Why don't we have Dr. Phil go inside the Hezbo-blah-blah and find out... maybe after some time on the couch they will see the error in their ways and give up peacfully.

Go Dr. Phil!!!

[Fandango 1,439]

Like immigration, it is all about intent. If the intent is to kill civilians...that's quite different than accidentally doing it. If hezballah is firing missles into crowds of civilians, I can't understand how anyone can retort with 'well Israelis have killed civilians so fair's fair'

that's just insane

The problem you can have so many 'accidents' that people think you are either doing it on purpose or worse, that you simply don't care. Either way its good for Hezbollah and its backers (who are winning this conflict on a propagandistic level), less good for Israel.

But it's especially good for them so that they can cry 'oh Israel is so horrible, they take innocent lives....hrmm...we'll do the same!'

hardly a logical argument is it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Like immigration, it is all about intent. If the intent is to kill civilians...that's quite different than accidentally doing it. If hezballah is firing missles into crowds of civilians, I can't understand how anyone can retort with 'well Israelis have killed civilians so fair's fair'

that's just insane

The problem you can have so many 'accidents' that people think you are either doing it on purpose or worse, that you simply don't care. Either way its good for Hezbollah and its backers (who are winning this conflict on a propagandistic level), less good for Israel.

But it's especially good for them so that they can cry 'oh Israel is so horrible, they take innocent lives....hrmm...we'll do the same!'

hardly a logical argument is it?

It doesn't have to be logical - Hezbollah and the folks behind them knew exactly how Israel would react to provocation.

As civilian casualties on both sides mount up (with Lebanese dead in the majority by many tens to one) their position will become increasingly difficult to justify. Does anyone really think that Hezbollah doesn't know that the majority of its rockets won't hit anything?

Edited August 7, 2006 by erekose

[mawilson 2,133]

Give me a break. If Israel's intentions were to kill civilians, they would have killed a lot more by now.

So the 900 people that are dead , 3000 wounded, and 1 million displaced is not enough? Compare that to 62 Israli deaths which around 24 were civilians. (These numbers were as of Thursday)

Its not even a fair fight.

If you want this to be a fair fight, then Israel should start firing rockets - at random - into Lebanon's

populated areas, with the sole intention of killing civilians. 100-200 rockets a day. Then it'll be fair.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Give me a break. If Israel's intentions were to kill civilians, they would have killed a lot more by now.

So the 900 people that are dead , 3000 wounded, and 1 million displaced is not enough? Compare that to 62 Israli deaths which around 24 were civilians. (These numbers were as of Thursday)

Its not even a fair fight.

If you want this to be a fair fight, then Israel should start firing rockets - at random - into Lebanon's

populated areas, with the sole intention of killing civilians. 100-200 rockets a day. Then it'll be fair.

How many Israeli civilians have been displaced as a result of Hezbollah's rocket attacks?

[jordanianprincess 0]

Give me a break. If Israel's intentions were to kill civilians, they would have killed a lot more by now.

So the 900 people that are dead , 3000 wounded, and 1 million displaced is not enough? Compare that to 62 Israli deaths which around 24 were civilians. (These numbers were as of Thursday)

Its not even a fair fight.

If you want this to be a fair fight, then Israel should start firing rockets - at random - into Lebanon's

populated areas, with the sole intention of killing civilians. 100-200 rockets a day. Then it'll be fair.

They are firing them into populated areas and killing civillians. You just said what I wanted to say but the other way around. Give Hizballh the same technology Israel has.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Give me a break. If Israel's intentions were to kill civilians, they would have killed a lot more by now.

So the 900 people that are dead , 3000 wounded, and 1 million displaced is not enough? Compare that to 62 Israli deaths which around 24 were civilians. (These numbers were as of Thursday)

Its not even a fair fight.

If you want this to be a fair fight, then Israel should start firing rockets - at random - into Lebanon's

populated areas, with the sole intention of killing civilians. 100-200 rockets a day. Then it'll be fair.

They are firing them into populated areas and killing civillians. You just said what I wanted to say but the other way around. Give Hizballh the same technology Israel has.

Actually that sounds pretty cracked to me

Regardless of any 'balance' this might bring, I'm not about to justify the international arms trade.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

A Nice Little War Gets Out of Hand

by Uri Avnery

August 1, 2006

It is the old story about the losing gambler: he cannot stop. He continues to play, in order to win his losses back. He continues to lose and continues to gamble, until he has lost everything: his ranch, his wife, his shirt.

The same thing happens in the biggest gamble of all: war. The leaders that start a war and get stuck in the mud are compelled to fight their way ever deeper into the mud. That is a part of the very essence of war: it is impossible to stop after a failure. Public opinion demands the promised victory. Incompetent generals need to cover up their failure. Military commentators and other armchair strategists demand a massive offensive. Cynical politicians are riding the wave. The government is carried away by the flood that they themselves have let loose.

That is what happened this week, following the battle of Bint-Jbail, which the Arabs have already started to call proudly Nasrallahgrad. All over Israel the cry goes up: get into it! Quicker! Further! Deeper!

A day after the bloody battle, the cabinet decided on a massive mobilization of the reserves. What for? The ministers do not know. But it does not depend on them any more, nor on the generals. The political and military leadership is tossed about on the waves of war like a boat without a rudder.

As has been said before: it is much easier to start a war than to finish one. The cabinet believes that it controls the war, but in reality it is the war that controls them. They have mounted a tiger, and can't be sure of getting off without being torn to pieces.

War has its own rules. Unexpected things happen and dictate the next moves. And the next moves tend to be in one direction: escalation.

Israeli Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, the father of this war, thought that he could eliminate Hezbollah by means of the air force, the most sophisticated, most efficient, and the generally most-most air force in the world. A few days of massive pounding, thousands of tons of bombs on neighborhoods, roads, electricity works and ports – and that's it.

Well, that wasn't it, as it turned out. The Hezbollah rockets continued to land in the north of Israel, hundreds a day. The public cried out. There was no way round a ground operation. First, small, elite units were put in. That did not help. Then brigades were deployed. And now whole divisions are demanded.

First, they wanted to annihilate the Hezbollah positions along the border. When it was seen that that was not enough, it was decided to conquer the hills that dominate the border. There, the Hezbollah fighters were waiting and caused heavy casualties. And the rockets continued to fly.

Now the generals are convinced that there is no alternative to occupying the whole area up to the Litani River, about 15 miles from the border, in order to prevent the rockets from being launched from there. Then they will find out that they have to reach the Awali River, 25 miles inside – the famous 25 miles Menachem Begin talked about in 1982.

And then? The Israeli army will be extended over a large area, and everywhere it will be exposed to guerrilla attacks, of the sort Hezbollah excels in. And the missiles will continue to fly.

What next? One cannot stop. Public opinion will demand more decisive moves. Political demagogues will shout. Commentators will grumble. The people in the shelters will cry out. The generals will feel the heat. One cannot keep tens of thousands of reserve soldiers mobilized indefinitely. It is impossible to prolong a situation that paralyzes a third of the country.

Everybody will clamor to storm forwards. Where to? Toward Beirut in the north? Or toward Damascus, in the east?

The cabinet ministers recite in unison: No! Never ever! We shall not attack Syria!

Perhaps some of them really don't intend to. They do not dream of a war with Syria. Definitely not. But the ministers only delude themselves when they believe that they control the war. The war controls them.

When it becomes clear that nothing is helping, that Hezbollah goes on fighting and the rockets continue to fly, the political and military leadership will face bankruptcy. They will need to pin the blame on somebody. On who? Well, on Syrian President Bashar Assad, of course.

How is it possible that a small "terror organization," with a few thousand fighters altogether, goes on fighting? Where do they get the arms from? The finger will point toward Syria.

Even now, the army commanders assert that new rockets are flowing all the time from Syria to Hezbollah. True, the roads have been bombed, the bridges destroyed, but the arms somehow continue to arrive. The Israeli government demands that an international force be stationed not only along the Israeli-Lebanese border, but on the Lebanese-Syrian border, too. The queue of volunteers will not be long.

Then the generals will demand the bombing of roads and bridges inside Syria. For that, the Syrian air force will have to be neutralized. In short, a real war, with implications for the whole Middle East.

Ehud Olmert and Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz did not think about that when they decided three weeks ago in haste and lightheartedly, without serious debate, without examining other options, without calculating the risks, to attack Hezbollah. For politicians who do not know what war is, it was an irresistible temptation: there was a clear provocation by Hezbollah, international support was assured, what a wonderful opportunity! They would do what even Sharon did not dare.

Dan Halutz submitted an offer that could not be refused. A nice little war. Military plans were ready and well rehearsed. Certain victory. The more so, since on the other side there was no real enemy army, just a "terror organization."

How hotly the desire was burning in the hearts of Olmert and Peretz is attested by the fact that they did not even think about the lack of shelters in the northern Israeli towns, not to mention the far-reaching economic and social implications. The main thing was to rush in and gather the laurels.

They had no time to think seriously about the war aim. Now they resemble archers who shoot their arrows at a blank sheet and then draw the rings around the arrow. The aims change daily: to destroy Hezbollah, to disarm them, to drive them out of south Lebanon, and perhaps just to "weaken" them. To kill Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. To bring the captured soldiers home. To extend the sovereignty of the Lebanese government over all of Lebanon. To establish a new-old security zone occupied by Israel. To deploy the Lebanese army and/or an international force along the border. To rehabilitate deterrence. To imprint into the consciousness of Hezbollah. (Our generals love imprinting into consciousnesses. That is a wonderfully safe aim, because it cannot be measured.)

The more the nice little war continues, the clearer it becomes that these changing aims are not realistic. The Lebanese ruling group does not represent anybody but a small, rich, and corrupt elite. The Lebanese army cannot and will not fight Hezbollah. The new "security zone" will be exposed to guerrilla attacks, and the international force will not enter the area without the agreement of Hezbollah. And this guerrilla force, Hezbollah, the Israeli army cannot vanquish.

That is nothing to be ashamed of. Our army is in good – or, rather, bad – company. The term "guerrilla" ("small war") was coined in Spain, during the occupation of the country by Napoleon. Irregular bands of Spanish fighters attacked the occupiers and beat them. The same happened to the Russians in Afghanistan, to the French in Algeria, to the British in Palestine and a dozen other colonies, to the Americans in Vietnam, and is happening to them now in Iraq. Even assuming that Dan Halutz and Udi Adam are greater commanders than Napoleon and his marshals, they will not succeed where those failed.

When Napoleon did not know what to do next, he invaded Russia. If we don't stop the operation, it will lead us to war with Syria.

Condoleezza Rice's stubborn struggle against any attempt to stop the war shows that this is indeed the aim of the United States. From the first day of George Bush's presidency, the neoconservatives have been calling for the elimination of Syria. The deeper Bush sinks into the Iraqi quagmire, the more he needs to divert attention with another adventure.

By the way: one day before the outbreak of this war, the Israeli minister of national infrastructures, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, took part in the inauguration ceremony of the big pipeline that will conduct oil from the huge Caspian Sea reserves to the Turkish port of Ceyhan, just next to the Syrian border. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline avoids Russia and passes through Azerbaijan and Georgia, two countries closely aligned with Israel, like Turkey itself. There is a plan to bring a part of the oil from there along the Syrian and Lebanese coast to Ashkelon, where an existing pipeline will conduct it to Eilat, to be exported to the Far East. Israel and Turkey are to secure the area for the United States.

Must the sliding into a war with Syria happen? Is there no alternative?

Of course there is. To stop now, at once.

When President Lyndon Johnson felt that he was sinking into the morass of Vietnam, he asked his friends for advice. One of them answered with five words: "Declare victory and get out!"

We can do that. To stop investing more and more in a losing business. To be satisfied with what we can get now. For example, an agreement that will move Hezbollah a few kilometers from the border, along which an international force and/or the Lebanese army will be deployed, and to exchange prisoners. Olmert will be able to present that as a great victory, to claim that we have got what we wanted, that we have taught the Arabs a lesson, that anyway we had no intention of achieving more. Nasrallah will also claim a great victory, asserting that he has taught the Zionist enemy a lesson it will not forget, that Hezbollah remains alive, strong and armed, that he has brought back the Lebanese prisoners.

True, it will not be much. But that is what can be done to cut losses, as they say in the business world.

That can happen. If Olmert is clever enough to extricate himself from the trap, before it closes entirely. (As folk wisdom says: a clever person is one that gets out of a trap that a wise one would not have got into in the first place.) And if Condoleezza gets orders from her boss to allow it.

On the 19th day of the war, we must recognize that soon we will be faced with a clear choice: to slide into a war with Syria, intentionally or unintentionally, or to get a general agreement in the north, that will necessarily involve also Hezbollah and Syria. At the center of such an agreement will be the Golan Heights.

Olmert and Peretz did not think about that in those intoxicating moments on July 12, when they jumped at the opportunity to start a nice little war. But then, were they thinking at all?

Uri Avnery is a longtime Israeli peace activist. Since 1948 has advocated the setting up of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. In 1974, Uri Avnery was the first Israeli to establish contact with PLO leadership. In 1982 he was the first Israeli ever to meet Yassir Arafat, after crossing the lines in besieged Beirut. He served three terms in the Israeli Parliament (Knesset), and is the founder of Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc).

http://www.antiwar.com/avnery/?articleid=9449

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

and RCH99 did the same thing last year, making up a new account just to agree with himself. (I believe CindyShah, and others, can confirm that incident.)

Did I? You are a liar. I was banned for 24 hours (because fishdude ratted me out) so I made a new account as rch999 to defend myself. Not hiding a thing. Get your stories straight.

This is about terrorism. Not Muslims. People like you always pull the religion card. Please search and find ANY post where I was bashing Muslims. I dare you.

Cindy called me a terrorist.. remember that. Or did you forget? (fishdude, of course, didn't rat out Cindy).

I'm still mystified by being characterised as a 'supporter' of terrorism.

I just asked you if you were and you beat around the bush. I never actually accused you of it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Did I? You are a liar. I was banned for 24 hours (because fishdude ratted me out) so I made a new account as rch999 to defend myself. Not hiding a thing. Get your stories straight.

I didn't rat 'you' out - I reported a thread which had been taken over by personal attacks and backbiting. The fact that you continually hold me accountable for breaking some sort of 'playground code' when I have no control over the running of this site or the decisions of the admin guys is getting to be a little childish.

This is about terrorism. Not Muslims. People like you always pull the religion card. Please search and find ANY post where I was bashing Muslims. I dare you.

You keep making it about muslims. You defend racist a$$holes like Risto who keep posting links to extremist hate sites, the whole purpose of which is to slander muslims and their religion with as wide a brush as possible.

Cindy called me a terrorist.. remember that. Or did you forget? (fishdude, of course, didn't rat out Cindy).

Again I didn't report "you".

I just asked you if you were and you beat around the bush. I never actually accused you of it.

Actually I gave you my opinion fairly clearly, on several occasions.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

You keep making it about muslims. You defend racist a$$holes like Risto who keep posting links to extremist hate sites, the whole purpose of which is to slander muslims and their religion with as wide a brush as possible.

Many people on this board will not say a negative thing about terrorism. Ever. I see Risto as balancing the equation. Where is your outrage for the terrorist-lovers?

I wish Muslims on this board had similar outrage against terrorists hi-jacking their religion. If I help only one 'open their mind' I have succeeded.