Bill Maher, on a recent appearance on the tonight show, posted on this website, posed a hypothetical in justification of the Israeli response. The hypothetical was flawed but it went something like 'what would US do if a bunch of terrorists occupied a part of Canada and started shooting bombs at US?' Let me pose an opposing and what I think is a more relevant hypothetical: 'What would US do if Canada or Mexico forcefully occupied a portion of its territory?' The answer is very obvious and within it lays the justification for Hezballah's resistance over the year, something which Americans and, I think, many in the west find very hard to comprehend.

Most Americans find it hard to comprehend because it's utter bullshit. Israel only occupied territory from which groups like Hezbollah were launching attacks.

And no matter how many times you say it, terrorism is not 'resistance'. It's just terrorism.

When we say occupied territory, are we honestly talking about Sheeba Farms as the last remaining pretext for the existence of Hezbollah? Are you saying that if Israel were to give up Sheeba, that Hezbollah consider the conflict over and pack up their missles and go home? I dislike what Israel is doing in Lebanon, but let us be honest about Hezbollah's view of what the Middle East should look like and what they are willing to do to get it to that point.

Average_Joe, What is the difference between terrorism and resistance?

Most Americans find it hard to comprehend the difference because they are unaware of all of the facts. They live in the 'reality' as presented by CNN, MSNBC and FOX. They have no clue what the rest of the international community, ie the world, is saying about such matters.

The fact that Israel establishes permanent settlements on arab land exposes a motive that goes way beyond preventing attacks. Where does it end. Those who say Israel is just protecting itself will have to explain the settlements if they are to be taken seriously. It is hypocritical for them to ask arabs to abide by U.N. resolutions when they also refuse to abide by them.

'What would US do if Canada or Mexico forcefully occupied a portion of its territory?'

54'40" or fight! Remember how the USA went to war with Canada (Britain) in the 1840's? Oh wait... There was the Treaty of Oregon that made a compromise and there was no war.

You can't point the finger at Israel for taking over lands that hezbollah uses as ground for launching rockets. every time Israel gives them a peice of land, they shoot rockets from it. There is no concept of peace on the arab side. When there is peace at last they will find a way to end it.

what about UN resolutions 242, 338, and 194?

@robomace

The force of your argument is greatly weakened seeing as how a few months prior to the Treaty of Oregon America had declared war on Mexico.

P.S. Somewhere there's a native American from the Pacific Northwest shedding a tear--what would the US do if somebody forcefully occupied part of its territory, indeed.

norm,a point and a question regaring your phrase"permanent settlements on arab land." assuming you're not one of those people that considers all of israel"arab land"(are you?),i assume you're referring to what the world refers to as the "west bank",and possibly also to what israel and the world refers to as the "golan heights"(i dont know what the syrians call it-occupied southern syria,i suppose).point:your use of the term permanent could be criticized as redundant, since all settlements are intended to be permanent,but i think, in light of the recent gaza evacuation, the term is simply wrong. question:i assume that you, as an educated, open minded person with a not inconsiderable knowledge of the area of the world you seem so concerned about are aware of the ancient and deep jewish connection to the land of the "west bank". you may assume that i also, having an interest in said area, am not unaware of the arab connection to this land. we both know that it was jordanian land, though captured by israel in 1967, until very recently, when king hussein washed his hands of it and relinquished ALL jordanian claims to it. so my question is, what makes this "arab" land,that is, more arab than jewish? furthermore, ALL the land in question is arab OR jewish by the ancient laws of conquest. and if you dont hold by those, than arab claims on most of the middle east come into question-not to mention just about anybodys claims to anywhere. just wondering.

sorry,forgot to sign that last one. it was me.

Jonathan,

Why, because they are occupied territories and because the Geneva Conventions prohibit settlement of occupied territories. I suppose I could also point to rulings of the International Court of Justice and numerous U.N. Resolutions.

Article 47 Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

look, im not trying to be a nudnik:)i just dont get it. you say because its occupied therefore its arab? and,given that jordan has no claims on it, and there is not, as yet, a palestinian state, just who is it"occupied" from?no argument with the holy scriptures(i mean geneva conventions),really.but you must admit its a rather bizarre case.

It is/was a de facto Palestinian State. There is a government in place, democratic elections that it hasn't been recognized by some is irrelevant, but I agree an interesting question.

norm, knowing how you think a little bit from reading your most excellent blog, i wouldn't accuse you of intellectual laziness.YOU must know what you mean by "de facto".if it means what i think it does, than the claim could be made with equal validity that the west bank is part of the state of israel. after all, there is an israeli (military) government there, investment in infrastructure, etc. when the cops pull you over for speeding,they're israeli cops (damn them all). but what do you mean by "was/is"? to the best of my knowledge the palestinians themselves never declared such a state, and it was therefore not recognized by anyone. if i remember correctly, the declaration of statehood was a card that arafat always kept in his pocket as a threat, never used. the oslo accords,and in fact every serious peace plan since the "2 state solution" became acceptable to the vast majority of israelis (even the most right wing parties,including the hated likud,now have it as part of their platforms) mentioned the necessity and spoke of the means to acheive it,but have not,in themselves, created a state (yet). as i said, up until a few years ago the most logical and legitimate arab claim to this land would have been that of jordan. so i ask again, respectfully,and leaving out the claims of "palestinians" and "israelis", why do you feel the west bank is arab land,and not jewish land?

"What is the difference between terrorism and resistance?"

I always suspected you didn't know the difference, but to have you come right out and admit it ...

For your edification:

terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Terrorism is primarily concerned with terror. There is generally no 'end goal' in sight, or if there is, it is nebulous and impossible to achieve, e.g. "the destruction of Israel" or "the re-taking of the occupied lands", etc. Terrorists hide among their own people to cause casualties, which they know will be blamed on any retaliatory effort of the people they are terrorizing. Terrorists primarily target civilians (since they are the easiest to terrorize).

resistance: An underground organization engaged in a struggle for national liberation in a country under military or totalitarian occupation.

Resistance generally has a concrete goal (freedom from an occupying force, regime change, etc). The targets are generally strategic and military. In most resistance efforts, civilians are not targeted nor do resistance fighters hide among them. Few resistance fighters force children at gunpoint to construct bunkers from which to shoot at random people of different religion. Few resistance fighters strap bombs to their chest, go to crowded theaters, ululate, and blow up a bunch of children and grandparents.

As for occupation: Iraq is not 'occupied'. There is a government in place and they are far more concerned with making a liveable society for their people than the terrorists are (the terrorists' act is just a mask for sectarian violence and an attempt to revert to religious fundamentalism and dictatorial control). Lebanon is certainly not 'occupied'.

By definition the Palestinian territories are occupied, but you never seem to address the reason WHY (because every time they get it back they launch rockets at Israel from it). When they have the land they blow up people from there; when they don't, the blow up people from five miles back. Do you really believe if they get the land back this time they'll stop fighting? You need to read some history.

Your type always clamor for 'understanding' of the terrorist (the underdog you fantasize yourself protecting) yet you never seem willing to do the reverse and consider what the life of an Israeli must be like. These people absorb daily terrorist bombings, and any time they act to defend themselves they are yelled at by the world community for not 'working for peace'. It's such double-standard bullshit. Because Israel is developed and has a military they have to let the terrorists blow them up occasionally? That's only 'fair'? Give me a break.

You want to see how uneven this playing field is? Look at what happened with the peace resolution, how the Arab League forced a rewrite:

In the days before the united Nations Security Council passed its Lebanese ceasefire resolution, a group of Arab League emissaries flew to New York to demand last-minute revisions in the French-U.S. draft resolution. The Arabs' objection: the draft emphasized the security of Israel's border without demanding the immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops and called for an international force with real power, which Lebanon opposed. The Arab delegation pressed its case—and finally won.

Withdrawal of Israeli troops and no

oops:

Withdrawal of Israeli troops and no police force to make sure Hezbollah follows the law ... again? Truly a win-win situation.

Rest assured, when an argument is made over 100 in prominent forums, Bill Maher then might pick it up and use it as if he's the first person to think of it. Calling the guy an intellectual lightweight streches the term 'understatement'.

Sure, if people in Canada were shooting rockets at the U.S. the government would have to do something about it. The people would demand it. But there would be a range of alternatives given the situation. Most Americans would not want to occupy Canada, they probably would not want to bomb all of Canada, and they may not see much point in going over the border to play cat and mouse with the enemy. In short, we would be justified in defending ourselves but it wouldn't be prudent or justified to respond in any imaginable way. Which is exactly the same situation Israel is in.

Hezbollah is not really a resistance movement. Israel is not occupying Lebanon anymore, and so they really have no legitimate claim to that title. It's another example of the Palestinain-Israeli conflict being used by countless people for their own ends.

But once Israel attacks the Lebanon, a very weak country with few means of retaliation, Hezbollah instantly gains the status of a resistance movement again. If we're so keen on analogies with U.S. and it's neighbors, why don't we imagine if that the U.S. is very weak militarily. The Minutemen go crazy and start an inept operation against Mexican border towns, which kill a half dozen people or so. The Mexican government then sends bombers to Seattle, Salt Lake, and Denver to bomb Minutemen hideouts. Most Americans wouldn't like that, and they would start to side with nutty Minutemen who at least have the ability and will to fight back. These right wing people are demanding that Lebanese people side with their attackers rather than extreme elements within their own country, which is incidentally what they excoriate their own leftists for doing.

jonathan, w/all due respect to Norm, him being "educated and open minded" etc., I do think his de facto recognition of the west bank as Arab land ONLY is, like his recognition of a de facto Palestinian state, a specific example of intellectual laziness. You can't really blame him, though, its a mistake made in good faith by most of the civilized world. More than intellectual laziness, it's wishful thinking, caused by a real desire to see justice done. I hope he'll be big enough to admit this. One possible answer to your question is this: The west bank, known historically as Judea/Samaria, is Arab land by virtue of the fact that Arabs have been living there continiously, no matter how few and no matter whether they governed themselves or not, since the Arab/Muslim conqest in the 6th century. And it is Jewish land by virtue of the "ancient and deep" Jewish connection you mentioned, no matter that they were forcibly exiled from it some 2000 years ago. What it is NOT is Israeli land (never having been annexed, and in spite of those "permanent" settlements. Also in spite of those "ancient laws of conquest" you mentioned-yes, you're right of course, its not fair, but this is the modern world, and i hope you'll admit that the de-legitimization of conquest as a way to acquire territory is an improvement. Also what it is NOT is Palestinian land, there being no Palestinian state to excercize sovereignity. It can't be Palestinian land just because they say it is, just like it can't be Israeli land just because some Israelis say it is. SO: The deal is like this. The entire world, including America and including the overwhelming majority of Israelis has decided, rightly or wrongly, that MAKING the west bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem into Palestinian land- the creation of a Palestinian state out of these pitiful, geographically unconnected bits- is the ONLY way to prevent those oppressed, suffering, crazy, violent Palestinians from dragging us all to Armageddon with them (by inflaming and inspiring world jihad and turning this whole "Islam vs. the West" thing into WW3). And, of course, to see that Justice is done. This is why Norm, and well-meaning people like him use inappropriate terms like "Arab land" and "Palestine" for these disputed territories. They're thinking ahead. They wish the foolishness were over already. capische?

Jonathon,

Having not made a study of the history of the middle east a life-long hobby and not really having a dog in the fight. I'll accept Sharon's characterization of the issue. I would put, to see justice done, ahead of his only way characterization, but don't find much to disagree with in his analysis.