So you think that this justifies the Hezbollah? What question does this answer for you?

It isn't a guerilla movement, its a movement where one of its fighters goes and kills a family of three. What horror.

Nasrallah's just keeping Israel to her word, huh? Do you really want to be making that argument?

Nasrallah's just keeping Israel to her word, huh? Do you really want to be making that argument?

Firstly, I didn't know Israel was a she. I thought Israel was a he. There are many countries deemed a specific gender. Great Britian is a she; as is Brazil. Argentina, Costa Rica, Yemen and China all are just some examples of countries considered he's. I think, though, many countries in the Middle East are referred to as a he.

Secondly, what the hell are you talking about? Nasarellah's keeping his promise to to "capture Israeli soldiers until the men were freed?" Or the Isreali promise to free Arab prisoners?

I think the crux of the article--you missed it--is a theory--bolstered loosly by some quotes--that there's a Syrian backlash over Lebanon for legitamatly electing Syria out, for which the US, Bush, prasied Lebanon . The article doubts the very statement that Nasarellah is keeping his promise but rather keeping Hezbollah from becoming a political bloc of lebanon.

Hezbollah has faced mounting pressure, from the West but also at home, to lay down its arms and become a purely political organization

But, the US don't like it when you mess with its girlfriend Israel, our costliest ally. And, the article posits, Israel's attacks is a Hezbollah/Syrian gain.

So you think that this justifies the Hezbollah? What question does this answer for you?

It explains why they kidnapped the Israeli soldiers. They felt like Israel had partially failed to keep a promise.

Nasrallah's just keeping Israel to her word, huh? Do you really want to be making that argument?

"Firstly, I didn't know Israel was a she. I thought Israel was a he."

Bush was the one that said "Israel has a right to defend herself."

So instead of the release of 400+ Arab prisoners (who were still living) in exchange for four dead bodies...Nasrallah got the release of 397+ prisoners in exchange for four dead bodies. What an injustice on Israel's part. :/

If your boss promises you $400 a week and only pays you $397 do you consider it just?

Norm how about a more apropos analogy?

If you EXTORTED your boss for $400 and your boss gave you only $397, do you consider that just?

I do think Israel’s response has been disproportionately excessive but if my boss short changed me $3 my response wouldn’t be to steal $3 worth of his things. It would be to publicly humiliate him and embarrass him into giving me the $3 dollars. By getting into a pissing match with my boss and attempting to seek revenge by destroying $10 worth of his stuff and he reacts by fining me $1000 so I respond by destroying $2000 worth of his stuff… and all the while George Bush is encouraging my boss to destroy me all together.

you may not consider it just but you do consider it diplomacy and a (great) deal to secure a better life for hundreds for four dead men. i am surprised that on this site the sympathies shown to the palestinian people is extended to hezbollah. hamas and hezbollah are not the same thing. hezbollah has its own interests and (literally) provoking israeli response along its northern border does damage to those with a claim to land in israel. every serious politicial in israel acknowledges that the palestinians have such a claim. hezbolla is viewed as an iranian proxy army, which it is, whose mandate (again, literally) is to roil the region. i am not a lock step supporter of israel, but i do believe that given the circumstances here, they have actually mustered an appropriate response (at the same time - 400 lebanese casualties is 400 too many). to put it another way - imagine if a radical military group from a neighbouring country attacked the united states. what is the appropriate response? well, we have the answer: you invade the sovereign state of mexico to chase after pancho villa.

I hope I'm not stepping over proper blogging bounds here, but maybe people should actually read the article before posting. I'm talking to you, Mr./Ms. drizzle. Had you, you'd find out that indeed the article states the relationship between Hezbollah and Syria. Note:

Operation Truthful Promise was also, in part, a service rendered to Hezbollah's patrons in Damascus and Tehran...

This statement parallels our own about the vicarious military actions taken by Hezbollah.

Also, if you'd pay attention, you'd notice folks on this blog empathize with Lebanon and its people, not Hezbollah. Israel's response is to mercilessly attack the Lebanon infastructure, which is a bullying tactic. Israel insists Lebanon do what it cannot do, control the Syrian/Iranian back Hezbollah.

It's not too much to ask...pay attention before offering your two cents. And, learn punctuation (tip to Norm).

Double standards 101 by Bibi Netanyahu

"AS ISRAEL wages war against Hezbollah “terrorists” in Lebanon, Britain has protested about the celebration by right-wing Israelis of a Jewish “act of terrorism” against British rule 60 years ago this week.

The rightwingers, including Binyamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister, are commemorating the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of British rule, that killed 92 people and helped to drive the British from Palestine."

read the whole story: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2277717,00.html

its dtizle not drizzle, a bit of a mistake from the guy who bitch-slapped Mithras over pronouns(?). anyways - it is bad blogging form to make points of others opinions when you misread them. the crux of the Nation article was definitely not "a theory... that there's a Syrian backlash over Lebanon for legitamatly (sic) electing Syria out". the article spoke to hezbollah's calculations of israeli response regarding its daring actions. and having read the article doesn't mean that you must agree with it. of course the lebanese are going to be distraught over the bombing and furious with israel. but the israeli campaign is designed as a deterrence tactic and a political strategy - namely that while the lebanese and hezbollah may have a common enemy in israel, they have neither similar interests nor the same allies; and they need not share the same fate. furthermore, israel's tacit demands that lebanon reign in hezbollah is not something it cannot do. with an army something around three times the size of hezbollah's forces, why should israel not try and force lebanese compliance with resolution 1559. after all the idf pulled out of lebanon in the expectation that there would not be hundreds of missles raining in over the country on a daily basis. i mean - thats not even an exaggeration. there are hundreds of missles that aren't laser guided to targets, but aimed at civilian centres, that are being fired by a force that holds a fifth of the seats in lebanon's parliament. and israel's response is merciless? maybe we shouldn't empathize with lebanon, and instead just with its people? and while my views are my own, does it not seem likely that nasrallah would be as surprised with israel's response as the rest of the world? unlike norm, this article did nothing to answer any questions i had. punctuation notwithstanding of course.

The off-topic comments will stop. Consider this your last warning.

israel's tacit demands that lebanon reign in hezbollah is not something it cannot do.

If Hezbollah has Iran and Syrian backing, as you so pointed out, then how can Lebanon fight that?

Hi Josh, your first comment seems to apply more readily to the actions of the Israelis in 1948 and the US in Iraq.

Based on the number of civilians dead by their hands, the Israelis and the US takes first and second spot in the Middle East.

By that reckoning, the Israeli and US are the worst offenders of committing terrorist acts.

===

I have not post on any Israeli-related threads because there is no point in attacking the views of the pro-Israel views with regards to this recent outbreak of hostilities.

These pro-Israeli stands are weakened everyday by the victims of Israeli military aggression and terrorism, which includes foreign visitors to Lebanon with no ties to Hezbollah.

This clearly refutes any claims that Israeli is employing surgical strikes against Hezbollah, and for that claim Hamas, and their resources.

Israel is simply using indiscriminate military force to terrorise an entire population by the degree of national devastation it can rain down on an entire country.

750 Lebanese civilians have died at the hands of Israelis while only 24 Israeli civilians have died as a result of resistance by the Hezbollah points clearly to who is the biggest terrorist state in the Middle East.

And ironically is the first nation in the modern Middle East era to use such terrorist methods. That’s also Israel by the way : >

Norm, just a suggestion on creating s separate thread with Philipa's article.

Sme Israel apologists have denied that Zionist Jews in Palestine were the first to use public bombings against civilians to achieve political ends like forming a state of Israeli.

The post by Philippa is timely as it shows that Israelis can even commemorate terroist acts as long as it's done by Israelis against non Jews:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2277717,00.html

Norm, I have to say, in a blog filled with interesting and insightful posts, this particular one is your silliest yet. You really think this is why Hezbollah provoked this crisis? You really think this had anything to do with prisoner exchanges? Come on! These guys have no qualms about blowing themselves up any day of the week. You really think this wouldn't have happened if Sharon had played nice?

The funny (sad?) thing is Israel could do all this spotlessly and you'd always dig up some occurence where Israel coughed in the wrong direction and use that as a pretext to justify Hamas/Hezbollah actions.

And anyway, Norm, I thought two wrongs don't make a right? If Sharon was such a meanie, arent you the one who thinks Nazrallah should have just turned the other cheek? Hmmm. Guess that rule only applies to Israel.

Yes, I think Norm is missing one thing: the prisoner-exchange "shortchanging" might conceivably serve as a rationale for the Hezbollah raid on Israel.

But it in no way is an explanation for it -- certainly Nasrallah was under no obligation to kill and kidnap soldiers after having received only 397 prisoners in exchange for three dead bodies and a civilian. One must still seek to understand what motivated the particular strike -- was it an appeal to power within Lebanon, a move to forestall criticism of Hezbollah amid an anti-Syrian atmosphere, a bid for greater Iranian involvement? I don't know, but I'm quite sure that this piddling issue played no role in the actual decision.

In a conflict there is often one item in a list of demands that is a trigger. The trick to negotiating a conflict is to find that trigger, because the trigger is always hidden amongst alot of other rhetoric (i.e. demands). It appears by Norms post that the trigger for Hezbollah was one of the three prisoners that Israel did not release in 2004. I would suspect that Hezbollah could care less about the other 399. In the news you will hear a whole bunch of reasons spouted by talking heads as to why Hezbollah captured Israeli soldiers, but I would hazard a guess that if someone (Rice?) were to negotiate a settlement to this recent increase in violence to this conflict, a major bargaining chip would be the release of the other three prisioners that Israel has. History has shown that Hezbollah could probably care less about all he other demands they may or may not be making.

For example, when the "Shining Path" took over the Japanese embassy in Peru their main objective was (most likely) the release of Shining Path's leader's wife from prison where she was being held as a political prisoner. I say "most likely" because we will never know for sure because the president of Peru sent his storm troopers in as killed everybody, including (I believe) a couple of Japanese hostages.

Violence and bravado always get in the way of finding the root cause to the conflict.

I forgot to mention that the release of the Shining Path's leader's wife was number six on their list of ten demands, however, most people believe this was the key to unlocking the crisis.

The article does not blames the prisoner exchange for current situation. If you read into it, you'll find Syria is mad at Lebanon for being booted out. Re:

The Syrian President warned former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, in their last meeting before Hariri's assassination, that if he pushed for Syria's withdrawal Assad would "break" Lebanon.

This is one reason why Nasrallah is attacking Israel, to create military backlash on Lebanon (and also to avoid becoming a legit political party). Hezbollah's a puppet of Syria, it's said, in the article, then, that Syria found a way to "break" Lebanon via Hezbollah antagonizing Israel--they're letting Israel do all the work: revenge for Lebanon elections that booted Syria military control.

It's not about prisoner exchange...

Why Israel's response is reasonable and proportionate.

There is no democracy in the world that should tolerate missiles being fired at its cities without taking every reasonable step to stop the attacks. The big question raised by Israel's military actions in Lebanon is what is "reasonable." The answer, according to the laws of war, is that it is reasonable to attack military targets, so long as every effort is made to reduce civilian casualties. If the objectives cannot be achieved without some civilian casualties, these must be "proportional" to the civilian casualties that would be prevented by the military action.

This is all well and good for democratic nations that deliberately locate their military bases away from civilian population centers. Israel has its air force, nuclear facilities and large army bases in locations as remote as anything can be in that country. It is possible for an enemy to attack Israeli military targets without inflicting "collateral damage" on its civilian population. Hezbollah and Hamas, by contrast deliberately operate military wings out of densely populated areas. They launch antipersonnel missiles with ball-bearing shrapnel, designed by Syria and Iran to maximize civilian casualties, and then hide from retaliation by living among civilians. If Israel decides not to go after them for fear of harming civilians, the terrorists win by continuing to have free rein in attacking civilians with rockets. If Israel does attack, and causes civilian casualties, the terrorists win a propaganda victory: The international community pounces on Israel for its "disproportionate" response. This chorus of condemnation actually encourages the terrorists to operate from civilian areas.

While Israel does everything reasonable to minimize civilian casualties –- not always with success -– Hezbollah and Hamas want to maximize civilian casualties on both sides. Islamic terrorists, a diplomat commented years ago, "have mastered the harsh arithmetic of pain... Palestinian casualties play in their favor and Israeli casualties play in their favor." These are groups that send children to die as suicide bombers, sometimes without the child knowing that he is being sacrificed. Two years ago, an 11-year-old was paid to take a parcel through Israel security. Unbeknownst to him, it contained a bomb that was to be detonated remotely. (Fortunately the plot was foiled.)

This misuse of civilians as shields and swords requires a reassessment of the laws of war. The distinction between combatants and civilians -– easy when combatants were uniformed members of armies that fought on battle-fields distant from civilian centers -– is more difficult in the present context. Now there is a continuum of "civilianality": Near the most civilian end of this continuum are the pure innocents -– babies, hostages and others completely uninvolved; at the more combatant end are civilians who willingly harbor terrorists, provide material resources and serve as human shields; in the middle are those who support the terrorists politically, or spiritually.

The laws of war and the rules of morality must adapt to these realities. An analogy to domestic criminal law is instructive: A bank robber who takes a teller hostage and fires at police from behind his human shield is guilty of murder if they, in an effort to stop the robber from shooting, accidentally kill the hostage. The same should be true of terrorists who use civilians as shields from behind whom they fire their rockets. The terrorists must be held legally and morally responsible for the deaths of the civilians, even if the direct physical cause was an Israeli rocket aimed at those targeting Israeli citizens.

Israel must be allowed to finish the fight that Hamas and Hezbollah started, even if that means civilian casualties in Gaza and Lebanon. A democracy is entitled to prefer the lives of its own innocents over the lives of the civilians of an aggressor, especially if the latter group contains many who are complicit in terrorism. Israel will –- and should -– take every precaution to minimize civilian casualties on the other side. On July 16, Hasan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, announced there will be new "surprises" and the Aska Martyrs Brigade said that it had developed chemical and biological weapons that could be added to its rockets. Should Israel not be allowed to pre-empt their use?

Israel left Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. There are not "occupied" territories. Yet they serve as launching pads for attacks on Israeli civilians. Occupation does not cause terrorism, then, but terrorism seems to cause occupation. If Israel is not to reoccupy to prevent terrorism, the Lebanese government and the Palestinian Authority must ensure that these regions cease to be terrorist safe havens.

by Alan M. Dershowitz

Zak, indeed two wrongs don't make a right, but then I never claimed they did. I said the prisoner issue was an explanation for not a justification of Hezzbollah's action. It would be nice is you could read more carefully what I say. On the issue of the reasonableness of Israel's actions, even the United States has admonished them to be more careful. The rest of the western world is calling like it is, excessive. I think Israel believes they are using only necessary force. I think it is clear that they are not.

Norm,

Why do you believe Operation Truthful Promise, in the first two paragraphs, explains Hezbollah's action, when, in the very next paragraph (where you stopped the quote), the author puts a big 'but'?

Here's the big 'but':

Still, questions linger as to the timing and location of Operation Truthful Promise...

Are you saying that the only important thing to take from this interesting article is the Hezbollah premise for its attack, which the author clearly believes to be ruse?

Perhaps it sounds too much like a conspiracay theory to you?

The author makes an interesting point. He writes on the attitudes of Hezbollah, and how they waited for the right moment to strike, making it seem as though this escalation was planned and premeditated:

Hezbollah undertook an audacious act of brinksmanship that was bound, if not designed, to escalate tensions with Israel.

I know that Hezbollah isn't nearly as fanatical as some other organizations in the Middle-East, but they are still a relatively conservative bunch. Recently it seems they've given up on imposing their views over the Lebanese in favor of their fight against Israel, but don't forget that in the past they've been known to enforce strict fundamentalist practices on villages in the southern region of Lebanon where they operate. And their initial platform did call for the creation of Iranian-style Islamic republic in Lebanon. I often disagree with Israel's reactions to surrounding governments and organizations, and I think this raid on Lebanon was a total mistake, but I just wanted to add a little bit perspective. Because I think when the Israel bashing starts, sometimes as liberals we forget that the other side isn't exactly the type of group we'd like to support. In fact, if these guys were Christians, we'd be all over them like white on rice. They're not exactly big on Women's rights, Gay rights, freedom of speech, or the separation of church and state. You know, the issues we really care about. Anyway, it's something to think about...

Perhaps I should have been more clear. What the article explained was the pretext for the attack. How can anyone who is not part of Hezbollah's inner circle KNOW what their motivation was. I hadn't heard any rationale for the attacks,other than the standard Israeli, they're evil fucks, end of discussion rant.

Norm,

End of ranting? Who's ranting? Am I a ranter? Is my character really the issue here or are we talking about Hezbollah's motive through logical debate? One doesn't want the stink of Ad Hominem.

But if that's the route you want to go, I can argue with the wall of my home and get as far. Or, you could examine the argument and address its points. Or, you could continue with this reducto ad absurdum--a fallacy of which states that there's no point in discussing the argument because there's a possibility it leads to delible conclusion.

Your conclusion has done nothing to address the soundness of the argument.

I think it's interesting that the premise for Alan Dershowitz's argument above is that Israel has the right to defend itself from rocket attacks on Israeli civillians...

But Israel launched the FIRST attacks on civilians in this conflict. The initial Hezbollah attack was on Israeli soldiers. Israel retaliated by bombing the civillian airport, civillian bridges, and civillians themselves. The Hezbollah rockets were fired in retaliation.

It's driving me nuts that Israel's apologists are getting away with this distortion of the facts.

I suppose I shouldn't be so surprised.

Jared, Hezbollah began this mess by launching missiles into Israel (the country that pulled out of Lebanon in 2000), crossed the Israeli border, killed some Israeli soldiers that were not a threat to them and kidnapped a few more. THAT's what started this. When they launched their weapons, they didnt try to make sure not to hit civilians. They aimed them at a city and be damned with the consequences. Now we know the consequences.

To suggest that Israel started this conflict is unbelievable. Israel may be overreacting now, but to suggest that anyone other than Hezbollah started this mess, is the height of absurdity.

It's driving ME nuts that apologists for Islamic fascists are getting away with this distortion.

Honestly, if you want to stand with these loonies, by all means do it. These are the guys who are allied with Syrian dictators and Iranian fascists. You really want to be defending their actions? Unbelievable.

zakdegrassi,

Thank you for providing such a wonderful example to support my point.

In fact, the first Hezbollah rockets were not fired until AFTER Israel started bombing civilian areas of Lebanon.

The attack which STARTED the present ordeal was the ambush and abduction of the Israeli soldiers.

My entire point is that Hezbollah did not start this conflict with an attack on Israeli civilians. They attacked soldiers.

Israel responded with attacks that have now killed nearly 400 Lebanese. Mostly civilians.

Both sides show no regard for civilian life on the "enemy" side, that much is obvious.

I don't recall ever defending what Hezbollah did. I'm with the majority of the Lebanese people - the people most harmed and affected by this tragedy - I think Hezbollah needs to go.

I just don't see why the Lebanese people are the ones being punished. How any decent human being, Pro-Israel or not, could possibly rationalize Israel's aggressive response is simply beyond my comprehension.

Marco,

What is the argument you think I'm making? I have presented no argument. I simply noted that the prisoner exchange was one rationale given in the article for Hezbelloh's actions. I have made no claim to the truth or falsity of the claim. I have drawn no conclusion other than the prisoner exchange was a rationale for the taking of Israeli soldiers. A simple statement of fact and not an argument at all. I suppose if you want to argue we could argue whether or not that was one of the reasons offered, but I don't think that is in dispute. I did not accuse you personally of ranting. The statement I made was that I hadn't heard any rational other than Hezbollah is bad Israel is good, and while I agree that much of what Hezbollah is doing is bad I find much of how Israel is responding repugnant. The attack on you if there is any is that you have mischaracterized my position repeatedly. So put your logic text back on the shelf, take a deep breath, and tell me what argument it is you think I'm making, and remember my initial statement was nothing more than " this answers a few questions I had" and that is not an argument.

Hi Jared, thanks for making the point that rocket attacks by the Hamas and Hezbollah only APPEARED AFTER ISRAELI'S INVASION INTO THE GAZA STRIP AND AIR STRIKES INTO THE LEBANON.

Pro-Israeli people like Zak always tries to make use of the rocket attacks byt he Arabs as a provocation to war, rather than the Arab's response to Israeli's act of wars.

The kidnappings is almost always forgotten in their claims, because they are acts of crimes, not wars on the part of Arab militants.

People like Zak needs to be reminded that no one is going to fall for their BS propaganda from Israel on events that happened a few weeks ago.

To Zak, it is perfectly reasonable for Israel to kill more 750 Lebanese civilains by nation-wide air bombings to retaliate against a kidnapping along South Lebanon.

To Zak, it is also proportionate for Israel to equate the 25 Israeli civilains killed by Hezbollah rocket attacks in response to Israel's air bombings to the deaths of 750 Lebanese civilains.

Let's get back to the real world.

Why Israel's response is insane, unreasonable and gorssly disproportionate.

1] There is no democracy in the world that occupies land belonging to other countries by military invasion and occupation, expell millions of the local inhabitants from their lands to refugeehood and expect that these locals will not fight back.

2] The question of the use of civilian shields by the Arabs are nothing but an Israeli smokescreen because of the following factors.

• Israeli Jews have always targeted civilains and civilain areas for rocket atatcks and bombings. The Jews were in fact the first to use terrorist bombings in the Middle East in the 1940s, which killed 92 innocent civilains.

• Israel has never showed any regard for the sanctity of civilain lives as it unilaterally escalated a kidnapping case in Southern Lebanon to a nation-wide air bombing of entire Lebabon, indiscriminately targeting all civilian infrastructures in Lebanon, even though the newly elected democratic government of Lebanon has nothing to do with the Hezbollahs nor have any control over it.

Even foreign travellers and United Nations positions are bombed by the Israelis with 4 UN peacekeepers killed yesterday.

• Israel was the one who brought the war to civilain areas by illegally occupying the lands of the Lebanese as well as the Arabs of West Bank, Gaza and Palestine, who are merely fighting to regain their ancestral lands from an illegal military occupier who has received 22 United Nations resolutions condemning its rogue state activities in the Middle East.

Only a fool will expect the Arabs to line themselves up on a desert waiting for the Israeli aircraft to destroy them all.

The Israeli war machine as brought war, occupation and disrenfranchisement to the Arabs in these lands and on these lands they will fight back.

===

Zak, you con continue to lie to protect Israeli with no credible proof or facts and attack those who oppose your views.

You are also free to keep lying for Israel for decades until the ned of your lives.

Because unlike your critics, we do not have to answer to our Maker for engaging in a lifetime of lies.

To protect Israel who since its forming in 1948, had killed thousands of Arabs, destroyed hundreds of Arab settlements and forced 8 million Arabs into refugee camps while denying them the right to return and to form a viable state with the abilitity to defend itself.

But no worries, in 2048, the Arabs will grow to become the democractic majority within Israel itself.

Maybe then, we will see true democracy in the form of Arab State of Israel.

P.S. Kindly don't give us any more BS of why the world has turned its back on the Jews.

The Jews are the ones who turned their backs on the worlds by violating every principle in the UN chater on democracy as well as bandoning their European homelands by closely working with the Nazis in Germany to get themselves repatriated to the Middle East in the 1930s.

And the Jews in Palestine were the ones who started the use of terrorist bombings and killings of innocent civilaisn to achieve political means such as forming the state of Israel on Arab lands.

The Jews got what they deserved, frankly speaking.

kes has returned to spout off his nonsense. wonderful.

israel is not targeting civilians. it is targeting areas where hezbollah "troops" and hezbollah rockets are. if hezbollah chooses to hide within civilian areas and install rocket launchers in populated areas, it is hezbollah that is responsible for the death of those civilians. if i kidnap someone and the police shoot an innocent bystander in an attempt to extricate by kidnap victim, I am responsible, not the police.

hezbollah purposely targets Israel cities. it is not targeting army installations in haifa because there arent any in haifa. it is targeting civilians. is it not obvious to you that hezbollah, like common criminals, purposely surrounds itself with civilians so as (a) to make it difficult for their enemies to root them out, and (b) so that when they are rooted out, their enemies are condemned by simpletons like you who don't even recognize this tactic for what it is?

As for you kes, Hamas rocket attacks happened BEFORE Israel returned into Gaza. But nice of you to try slip that bullshit in. Unbelievable.

And enough with your "Jews in Palestine" started the terrorism. Look it up. Look it fucking up. Arabs began killing Jews in the 1920s and 1930s.

"In March 1920 anti-Jewish riots broke out in Jerusalem ("Bloody Passover"). The British military authorities gave the Arabs a free hand, while arresting the Jewish defenders, led by Vladimir Jabotinsky, who were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. In April 1920, the Jewish settlements in Upper Galilee were attacked by Arabs. ... In May 1921 an outbreak of violence in Jaffa was followed by large scale attacks on Rehovot, Petah Tikva, and other places. 47 Jews were killed and 140 wounded. Arab casualties were 48 dead and 73 wounded, mostly due to action by British troops."

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/concepts/d2.html

Kes said "...even though the newly elected democratic government of Lebanon has nothing to do with the Hezbollahs nor have any control over it"

Kes, it was my understanding that there are members of Hezbollah in the lebanese government.

Sigh

You posted a fact, which is what exactly? That: Israel welshed Hezbollah in the eighties; Nasrallah is calling this Operation Truthful Promise? Yes, those are true. Nasrallah is calling this action a revenge for the prisoner exchange (or lack of) and had you read the whole article, the author doesn't believe him. The article argues the Hezbollah's offering a PR campaign, a ruse.

You can see how one might confuse your stance, which is contrary to the authors (I'm not saying he's correct, I'm just saying it's a good argument).

When you post an opinion, and you take bits from it, it makes it seem as though if I were to read the whole article, I'd understand from where you're coming. Maybe you shouldn't link to it without saying "the rest is shit, I think. But this little gem is important. Just the little bit I posted. That's all."

By the way, I haven't picked up a "logic"--nice generic term-- book since I took a philosophy course, Principles of Sound Reasoning, two years ago. It might be hard to believe information retention is possible--I did have to look up the spelling with a online dictionary, however.

Oops. My bad. I read all of your response...I usually read the first and last sentence of a paragraph, a habit from reading newspapers.

Sorry, Norm.

The fact: that Nasrallah declared they were reserving the right to capture Israeli soldiers until the men were freed.

Are you disputing that is a fact? Do you dispute that it is one rationale for the attacks, though I acknowledge that there most likely are others?

Please read what I write If you have a question as to what I mean ask. Don't make unwarranted assumptions and then criticize those. They are nothing but straw-men arguments. I'm sure you remember what those are.

Yes, I didn't pay enough attention to what your position is and I apologize for my misrepresentation of it.

And, I appreciate that you give creedence to other logics for the attack. Actually, there's really not much more to say. I figured that if Hezbollah were to attack on a non-gives-us-back-our-prisoners pretext, then that would eliminate the gives-us-back-our-prisoners pretext for war. However, that would be a False Dilemma.

Hi Jo Ann, the newly democractic government has to incorporate the Hezbollah as a minor member out of necessity because Hezbollahs is internationally credited for wearing down the Israeli's occupation of South Lebanon with their fierce resistance.

The Hezbollah are considered national heroes and they had to be invited into the Lebanese government at Beirut, which had no control or affiliation to the Hezbollah, which is backed by Syria.

There is no common ground between the Beirut government and the Hezbollah in South Lebanon as Lebanon's government and people desires independence from Syria

However tha new government of Lebanon is weak militarily and cannot even spare a decent military force to police SOuth Lebanon, let alone disarm Hezbollah, which is one of the objectives of the Lebanese government.

The government of Lebanon are so weak that the government can't even beat back or respond in token resistance to Israel's air bombing. Do we see news of Israeli aircrafts opr rockets knocked from the sky by Lebanese defence forces?

There is none, unless one sees the Police as a credible military force of the Lebanese government when it is never meant to fight any war.

And Jo Ann, I took a break from this blog recently because I was asking myself why I even bother.

Why was I spening so much time locating and posting links and facts and proof for my statements about the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts when the Pro-israeli crowd doesn't even bother.

I'm also saddened also see people so quick to condemn the entire Lebanese country for anti-semitism without even bothering to read up credible sources before speaking up.

Why bother talking to these people? They have made up their minds already, irespective of the truth or reality.

I don't really care or know any Arabs for the record. But I will always sympathise with a victim who is being mugged by a much stronger bully who seems to be above the law regardless of what the bully does.

On record, I support a military war crimes tribue to trial both Arab and Israeli parties for war crimes and atrocities with equal punshiment.

However, I will expect to see that all illegal immigrants and settlements be abolished or returned to their country of origin with the land rights of each piece of land in Israel and Palestine be determined based on legal and univeral rules of tenancy and prior ownership.

That's what I believe in.

Zak seems to enjoy compulsive liar who likes to “fuck people” for criticising Israel.

First, Zak distorts my point that the Jews in Palestine was the first to use terrorist bombing to kill civilians in public places to achieve the political end of setting up a Jewish state in Palestine. That’s history and a fact that the Jews in Israel still commemorates after 60 years this terrorist act of killing 92 civilians which outnumber any single act of Arab suicide bombing:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2277717,00.html

To refute this point, Zak wants to use Arab riots in the 1920s and 1930s as if it’s some form of terrorism to prove that Arabs were the terrorists.

I will like to remind him that the Jews have nothing good for the Arabs while the Muslim civilisation during the Golden Age of Islam from the 9th century onwards protected the Jews from Christian prosecution. Kindly read up on the history of Moorish Spain and how it gave these Jewish refugees a home, a place of learning and official posts in the government.

The 1920s and 1930s riots against the Jews were Arab resistance to large scale illegal immigration of Jews from Europe into Palestine, without the approval of the local Arab population which was the dominant majority and owned most of the lands in Palestine. This so-called immigration is worth condemning as the Jews in Europe collaborated with the anti-Semite Nazis to get Jews repatriated to the Middle East.

The unwelcome Jewish immigration was seen as an attempt to colonise Palestine without the consent of the local Arab indigenous majority which is within the rights of the Arab. Btw, the British facilitated this large scale immigration in to Palestine, most of which was illegal.

===

Claims that Israel is not targeting civilians with its nation-wide bombing of Lebanon COMES with no proof. Especially when Hezbollah is operating in Southern Lebanon

Has Israel produced any proof for their claims that the Hezbollah fighters were hiding in that area just before they bomb it?

Has Israel explained why it even bombs fleeing civilian cars, if not to maximise fatalities in the typical show and aw approach to carpet bombing

Has Israel given adequate explanation for targeting non-Hezbollah positions and institutions like the Lebanese airport and the United Nations building?

If Israel provides no proof, then Israel deserves the same moral condemnation that US enjoys for going to way on false premises and fake intelligence.

And please note that the sustained rocket barrage from the Hezbollah in South Lebanon HAPPENED AFTER ISRAEL BOMBED ALL OF LEBANON INDISCRIMINATELY.

Israel bombed all of Lebanon because of a single kidnapping case in Southern Lebanon, which was not instigated by the Lebanese government. That's the fact.

Gandhi commented quite clearly on the Arab-Jewish riots and on Jewish colonisation of Palestine in the 1930s.

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds." Mahatma Gandhi, quoted in "A Land of Two Peoples" ed. Mendes-Flohr.

Kes, welcome back. I don't think that you are wasting your time. There is a lot to be learned from reading the exchanges between you and Zak and others. I think that both of you are good people who take out the time to post what you know and truly believe. My feelings on this subject are mixed. In the end, I think that the Nation State of Israel had problems from the beginning and there will always be problems and there is no solution. And this is really sad to me because there are so many innocent children in Israel who now have to pay for the sins of others. There are so many Palestinian children who have to pay for the sins of others. I feel so horrible for the Palestinians and the Israelis that life has been so unfair to them. I have a country to call my own (which was taken forcibly from the Indians). But the Palestinians and the Israelis have to fight for even a piece of land to live on. So sad, so very sad. :(

I think it's very clear what Israel can do to set up a state on legitimate grounds. Buy and lease lands legally instead of seizing Arab lands basedon surprise attacks

I was reading this article about the fact that Israel had the cheek to ask US for US$10 billion to resettle SOVIET JEWS on stolen Arab lands:

"Relations between the first President Bush and his Israeli counterpart, Yitzhak Shamir, hit a low point when Mr. Bush refused Israel $10 billion in loan guarantees to resettle Soviet Jews. And Mr. Baker, as secretary of state, was once so frustrated with Israeli officials that he scornfully recited his office phone number and told them to call when they were serious about peace in the Middle East."

The Jews must find their own land. They cannot set up a state on the lands of other people, focring 8 million to live as refugees. With US$4billion in direct aid and military supplies from US, they have the resources to buy or lease land to create their own state. There is no way about it. If a military tribunal try both Palestinians and Israelis, the leaders of both sides will go behind bars BUT the refuggees will be accorded the right to return to their own lands. The United Nations has established an agency and a resolution affirming the right of these millions of Plaestinian refugees to return.

The only thing to do is to put the Israeli-Palestine question back to the United Nations with no veto to be given to any member of the United Nation for this matter. The decision should be binding based on the general consensus or majority opinion of the General Assembly of all of UN members.

Hi Jo, thanks for the kind words.

Sorry for not replying here much sooner as I was helping out with the collections for the Lebanaese war refugees.

It's not much but I am trying to persuade the Red Cross to donate some stuff to the kids like books and toys since I noticed that few people shop at the Red Cross Deport in my country.

But transportation of supplies is a big issue since the Israel refuses to a ceasefire or even stop bombing temporarily for humanitarian groups to ship supplies to Lebanon whether by air drop or by freight.

You can't even wire money to any banks in Lebanon because most of them have been bombed and you do not know who to wire to.

Last time, you can at least use the UN observer buildings as a place to funnel money and supplies.

But since Israel, with the unwavering support of its supporters here, bombed the crap out of the UN position in South Lebanon, there has been a quiet withdrawal of UN personel to unknown locations, along with foreign embassy stuff.

So you can imagine just how frustrated I am with what little I had done.

You have money but you can't wire it to Lebanese war victims.

You collect supplies but you can't sent it to the Lebanese refugees.

On top of that, I have to face smear campaigns by Israeli supporters here, who attack me personally to avoid answering to my historical statements as they lack the proof to rebut my statements against Israel's false claims.

Article on Israeli attempts to settle Soviet Jews in Midlle East:

Bush’s Embrace of Israel Shows Gap With Father. 2 Aug 06

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/washington/02prexy.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th