castledoom.com

[JuntaJoe]

Israeli warplanes are pounding Lebanon and Merkova tanks are rolling through Gaza. The usual "inside" sources are stating that Israel isn't in the mood for diplomacy for a while. They want to thrash Hamas and Hezbollah a bit more.

The usual peaceniks are crying for a stop to the Israeli attack. They claim it is a "disproportionate" response.

What do you think?

[TriBeCa]

I, for once, will go with Bush on this: "The irony is, what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this crap, and it's over.'

Brilliant analysis.

And that's a direct quotation, in a conversation with Tony Blair at the G8 summit.

http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2006/07/17/afx2882558.html



Seriously though, I thought about this exact question when I found out that the Israelis had killed 8 Canadians (I'm from there, though I live in NY) who were vacationing in Lebanon. And honestly, my response was, tough crap. It's really unfortunate, yes. But as a nation, which (despite the admittedly unusual way in which Israel became a nation) Israel is, you can not allow attacks on your country to be ignored.

I am concerned, however, that it's not entirely clear what Israel hopes to gain by it's current attacks.

Frankly, until very recently I have been very poorly informed as to what's going on, and for the most part I still am. Several years ago I sort of threw up my hands and stuck my head in the sand. But I recently read a fantastic article in the New Yorker which cast an excellent backdrop on the state of US Intelligence prior to the 9/11 attacks (the article unveils the fact that the CIA, for reasons that are unclear, deliberately withheld information from a specific FBI agent on several occasions which likely would have prevented the 9/11 attacks from occurring--most notably the fact that they knew there were 2 Al-Quaeda operatives in the US...as one FBI agent was quoted as saying, "if these guys are in the US, it's not to go to Disneyland."

Anyway, I'm generally in support of Israel at the moment, but I'd really, really like to know what they hope to accomplish. Anyway, Bush is right...if "they" (whoever they might be) could stop Hezbollah (and all the other extremists...) from "doing this crap," the problem would go away. But just how that might actually happen is way, way beyond me.

[JuntaJoe]

I think Israel is using the kidnappings as a premise to thoroughly weaken those organizations.

I think that most diplomats and politicos in the area recognize this.

I'm also seeing lots of Arab countries keeping quieter about this.

Other than Syria and Iran, most of the governments there are less accusatory.

Sure, they all are making noises about peace talks, but far less of those noisy "hate Israel" declarations.

I think we are seeing a bit of a rift growing because Hezbollah is Iranian/Shiite backed. The Arabs are also seeing Iran push for nuke power and meddle in Iraqi politics.

Perhaps the Arabs would like Hezbollah taken down a peg so that Iran has its tentacles clipped back a bit in the region?

[TriBeCa]

Yes, good points. Though I did read a story in the New York Times after the initial Israeli retaliations which was taking almost the opposite position from what you're saying. Basically, that this kind of conflict strengthens extremist groups as they garner popular support following military attacks that affect civilian targets, and furthermore that both Egypt and...uhhh...the other Islamic country that has a formal peace treaty with Israel (can't recall who that is atm, and the Times article is old enough that it's no longer available for free online and my wife has recycled the paper itself) are feeling pressure from other Islamic countries to do something. It was explicitly unclear what they might do, but something.

Also, the Iran situation kind of fascinates me. There was a recent article in Harper's by an Iranian saying that the people there don't seem particular interested in the Iranian nuclear program, certainly not the way people in India and Pakistan felt after their respective countries succesfully tested nuclear weapons. But these same people (she was speaking mostly of the middle class) are also resigned to the fact their government will do what it's going to do, and they're basically along for the ride.... They also discussed the fact that there have been a couple of papers written about the military options available to the US in Iran if diplomacy fails and there's 'no other option.' While there are several options, the view seemed to be that all of them would simply strengthen Iran's resolve to produce nukes, and ultimately commit the US to a war that would drag on for decades. One analyst went so far as to say that a war with Iran would ultimately destroy the US's position in international politics entirely, as the international community would eventually condemn a war on the scale that would be required to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear power.

[TriBeCa]

lol, i just realized this forum edits the 's' word to 'crap'...but bush said the 's' word in that quote above....

[s_stabeler]

well,perosnally, I think they are only saying it becasue they KNOW that they are going to be next. and good riddance, I say. this could be a wau for the US to use force against iran WITHOUT international condemnation. irnaian revolutionary guard kidnap an isreali soldier- go to UN, geyt resolutioon authorising regime change (do it at a tie when china and russia aren'tin attendance) and then, take the iranian leadership down, and install a democratic government ( remember the iranian government aren't exactly popular).

[TriBeCa]

Not that I know anything about it, but the prevailing view in both of the papers that have been published on the US's military options with Iran seemed to think that any conflict would drag on for 20 or 30 years. I don't think it's as simple as dismantling the Iranian leadership...they're a much more established country than Iraq.

And then there's the fact that regardless of whether the US were to cripple Iran's economy, focus on destroying facilities critical to their nuclear program, or cripple their military, Iran would still be able to cut off roughly 20% of the world's oil supply by blocking traffic through the straight of hormoz.

[s_stabeler]

yawn. maybe they could, but really, theyare hurting themselves more that the US by taking oil off the market. adftre all, it would cripple their economy and the Scan simply source oil elsewhere.

[JuntaJoe]

Oil is what's killing those countries. It keeps the governments from having to tax their populace for revenue, which in turn prevents the populace from having power to influence politics.

On another note, it seems that Saudi Arabia is standing behind Israel on the Hezbollah issue. The Saudis do not have a formal peace accord and give quite a bit of money to the Palestinians. But Hezbollah and Iran worry the hell out of the Saudis. Oil money for nukes, international terror proxies, and latest generation conventional weapons gives Iran the power to stifle the Saudi power system and economy.

[Eddy]

I think the fact that Iran is involved is why the other Arab states (and the US) are being fairly quiet about this. It's one of those situations where they hate the Israelis, so if a few are killed during this conflict, they won't shed a tear, but terrorists are hated by everyone especially when they are close by.

Personally, my theory is that Israel is being tested and they have to present a strong front considering that everyone around them would love to drive them into the sea and have indeed tried it several times. A lack of response would be seen as weakness.

[Waray]

My idea is that Israel is trying to "show off" in a sense. Public opinion in Israel have been divided by giving up the settlements in occupied land, but no clear counter-offer by the Palestinians has been made. Then with Hamas coming into power the situation would look like Israel was loosing grip on the peace process.
Now, Hezbollah thought they could "support" the Palestinians by also attacking military outposts & killing and kidnapping military.

Israel responded with force. With a big sign above their tanks saying "Can't mess with this". Public opinion is total support for the action taken by the military.
________
Roll blunts

[JuntaJoe]

In past military actions, the Israeli populace has been less than enthusiastic.

Not this time. Olmert's opnion polls are going sky high.



Personally, I think the Hamas leadership blew it. Whatever their ambitions, they were known for no corruption. The Palestinian people have been living in the dirt for decades even though everyone was sending them massive foriegn aid. If they had simply said that they will refrain from attacking Israel publicly and be willing to review the idea that Israel has the right to exist then the money would have poured in. If they had spent it wisely on infrastructure then everyone would have been fat, dumb, and happy today.

As for Hezbollah, kill them all and let Allah sort them out.

[Waray]

JuntaJoe wrote: As for Hezbollah, kill them all and let Allah sort them out.

Amen.



Seems an all-out war is about to happen between Israel and Lebanon.
________
California dispensaries

[JuntaJoe]

Not against Lebanon, Waray. Hezbollah.

There is a very distinct difference.

Lebanon even said they would mass their pitiful army against Syria should the latter come into Lebanon to assist Hezbollah.

[JuntaJoe]

Time for a little history.

This will take a bit, so pull up a chair.


In the early part of the 20th century, there was a fluid territorial situation on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. In prior centuries, it was part of the vast Ottoman Empire that stretched from modern day Turkey down into Egypt.

The Ottomans sided with the Germans in WW1 and eventually lost.

WW1 saw the German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires carved up quite liberally following their defeat.

The Allies were given "mandates" to govern as they saw fit by the fledgling League of Nations.

Britain was given the Levant and Egyptian regions to govern. The Levant is classically termed the region that runs between the Med Sea and the Jordan River from the Sinai desert north to Antioch.

The ancient region called the Levant was cut into four administrative regions: Syria (mostly Muslim), Lebanon (mostly Christian), Trans-Jordan (the Hashemite kingdom), and Palestine (half Jewish and half Muslim merchants around Jeruselum). These four regions were cut this way to inhibit religious and secular turmoil.

Palestine, as we know Israel today, was a rocky desert coastline was so named because the Brits used the old Roman reference to Palestine, so named by the Romans as a derisive term to mock the natives who claimed bloodlines to the ancient Philistines who were the virtual masters of the Med a millenia before the Romans arrived. In truth, the non-Jewish natives were a polyglot that drifted over the millenia from all over the Middle East to trade in the Jeruselum markets and along the coast.

There really is no true Palestinian ethic group and never has been one. The region of Palestine and Trans-Jordan had 3 groups of natives. The Hashemites on the eastern side of the Jordan river, The Jews on the western side, and the polyglot "others" population.

During WW2, the Brits were forced to pull most of their troops and administrators out of the Levant in order to reinforce other parts of their empire to combat the Nazis. The locals in all four administrative zones became semi-autonomous as a result and began thinking about becoming their own countries. An exhausted Britain, after WW2, was facing the reality of empire evolving into the Commonwealth. They were eager to divest themselves of rebellious regions and focus on the Anglo-centric portions who were eager to remain loyal to the homeland. But, that didn't mean that they didn't enforce their mandate orders at the formation of the United Nations. It's natural to reassert territorial rights after a war simply to be able to make leaving these mandated areas an easy process.

The end of WW2 saw Britain realize that the Holocaust requiring a proper reckonning. So they pushed their allies at the UN to cut Palestine in half vertically and relinquished their mandate to the Jews for the coastal portion and left the rest for a buffer zone between the Jews and the Hashemites. This area was a token given to the polyglot group to avoid leaving that group to the mercies of the Jews and Hashemites. It was now the renamed Palestine.

The Arabs were enraged and didn't want a non-muslim group so close to Jeruselum for fear they would tear down muslim holy sites built atop jewish and christain holy sites that they had destroyed earlier.

A lot of back room dealing ensued and the fledgling state of Palestine was recruited with promises of land, arms, and money to be used as a staging ground for a massive assault upon Israel in the 1960's. The results of that war were well known. Israel pushed the invaders out and occupied lands that gave them strategic boundaries.

The now named Palestinians were pushed into the Hashemite kingdom. They were pretty rude guests and even tried to overthrow the Jordanian throne. The Jordanian king put down the coup ruthlessly and pushed the Palestinians into Lebanon.

An important interlude happened here. In Saudi Arabia, a radical muslim sect called the Wahabiists formed a secret cabal called the Muslim Brotherhood. They knew now that open war against the Israeli state would fail. They also realized that Islam had finally reached its peaceful zenith of expansion around the globe. Any more gains would require force, but conventional force would surely fail amongst the rapid industrialization going on around the globe. The capitalists and communists held all the power cards. It was decreed that the Brotherhood would go out in the world and sow dissention in all these post WW2 governments that were beholdened to the two great powers on the planet. Religious schools in poverty zones preaching zealotry to the young poor would slowly build a global force of fanatical nihlists who believed that the only way out of their condition was the overthrow of many governments and the reformation of the Caliphate that the Ottoman Empire had once been. By using terror, suicide, political agitation, and religious fervor then enough countries would succumb and be the backbone to form their global Sharia law based empire.

Now back to the Levant region. Lebanon has been a Christian enclave since Saul wandered north and recruited followers for the new Christian religion. These people were Christians before the Holy Roman/Catholic Empire had a clue. While Roman Christians were hiding in the sewers of pagan Rome, the Levant Christians were building churches and tending the flocks.

But the influx of the Palestinians changed the demographic. At the same time, Iran fell to the radical muslims. The Muslim Brotherhood co-opted with Iran and Syria to encourage muslims to breed vigorously and agitate for political power. If Lebanon went radical muslim and the Western supported dictator presidents of Egypt could be felled in a revolution then Israel would be again surrounded with countries willing to crush the Jewish state by any means necessary. It would be a war-by-proxy with no "rules of war" niceties.

In the late 70's, the muslim population of Lebanon had reached a tipping point into the majority. Palestinian breeding and immigration by mass "believers" from all over the Middle East had put Lebanon facing a shift in power in its democracy. Instead of simply surrendering the polls, the Christians went to war. That was the excuse needed for Syria to insert itself as a peacekeeper force and other muslim states to fund an indigenous political/militia group comprised of native muslims, Palestinian holdovers who didn't evacuate, and tens of thousands of foriegn Arab immigrants. That civil war was the reason America and its allies sent peacekeeping troops into Beruit. Most people you ask today will have no clue as to really why we sent peacekeepers there. Our leaving back in 1983 was a very tragic idea, but Reagan was worried that if he told America that he was leaving the troops in to repel the muslim invasion that our oil situation would collapse as Middle East countries turned off the spigots. Please remember that the 1970's gas crisis was very fresh in everyone's memory at the time. Reagan felt Congress would not back him up as citizens screamed for gasoline and threatened their representatives with removal. It was an awful decision, but inevitable. Reagan wanted to stay, but knew it wouldn't play in the polls. So we Westerners ended up trading a christian country for cheap gas.

In any case, that new indigenous political/militia group was called Hezbollah. The Iranians and Wahabiists supported them simply to continue the proxy war program and Syria supported them because they knew that world pressure would force them to withdraw eventually. But that "eventually" lasted far longer than they had ever hoped to dream of and lasted for over 20 years into the new millenium. It has only been in the last couple years that they have been pressured out.

There's an interesting irony in that the Syrians staying so long has caused Hezbollah to get far too grounded in the country and has become a distinct semi-ethnic group instead of a proxy war militia force. Instead of toppling the Lebanese government and rushing into Israel, they have become a political entity with geographic "baggage" that keeps them from simply using Lebanon as a disposable staging ground for war. Where once they were a border-free force, they must now defend a homeland that houses their families.

It was their militia creed to go after Israel at prime opportunities. They saw the Gaza incursion as an excellent opportunity to do what they had been founded to do. But they forgot that they had become settled as a community instead of being the "mujahedin" style army of bachelor fanatics that they originally were and still believed themselves to be.

It will be this fact of becoming settled in Lebanon as an ethnic group that will expose their vulnerability in this new conflict. Hezbollah will be decimated and will call for support from all over the region.

That call for help will be the tipping point.

Will the other muslim countries dare coming to their aid?

To do so could turn this into a very nasty regional war like was seen in the early 1960's.

Or will they blink and stand back from overt military aid?

That could crush Hezbollah for good.

Of course, that event could start an entire new jihad campaign all over southwestern Asia.


We live in interesting times as the old Chinese philospher said once.

[s_stabeler]

it is going to be a tipping point. althouhg syria has alreayd said that if it threatens damascus, then they'll intervene ( imlied on hezbollah's side, but if it is hezboollah that threaten damascus................) and iran has said isreal has pushed the button for it's own demise, so I reckon it'll be the other countries ( palestine, etc) that matter in what will happen. why do i think a nuke might be used if it gets to all-out war?

[JuntaJoe]

Don't listen to what they all say, because the players will say anything to gain an advantage.

Just look at what they do.

[JuntaJoe]

Ok, time to put your news source to the test.

So when you see the news tomorrow of the tens of thousands of refugees fleeing southern Lebanon and their horrific plight then immediately see what they say about Israel.

We've all seen these refugee stories, right?


But have you seen a story about Israeli refugees yet?

Did you know that 250,000 Israelis have fled from Haifa and are camping in various distant towns as refugees in parks, school yards, truck stops, etc?

That many only have the clothes on their backs and a few sheckels in their pockets?

Does their migrant misery make the news?

No.

Why? My question isn't rhetorical. Why are Hezbollah/muslim refugees deserving of coverage and Israelis aren't. It can't be because of Israeli censorship because Israel is a free press democracy. It can't be because war danger because they seem to operate quite well north of the border in the war zone.

The New York Times is almost taking a news vacation in this conflict. It just so happens that the prime demographic in NY that reads the morning Times happens to be predominantly the liberal Jewish community. You can bet the Times doesn't wish for an attitude shift in their reader base towards the right.

And the broadcast news seems to point cameras on the refugee waves in Lebanon while they point cameras at the Israeli military actions.

This people is a prime example of media bias if there ever was one.

Disgusting, imo.


Just watch the evening national news tomorrow for yourself if you doubt me.

[Waray]

We recently had a anti-Israel demonstration in Amsterdam. Turn-out: not more then a thousand people or so. A palestinian spokesman spoke of the "mass murder" committed by the "Israelian oppressors".
Amusing since the Lebanese christians are probably "guilty" of more palestinian deaths then Israel.

I also get annoyed lately by a belgian politician wanting to form a Europian Arabic League as government party. He didn't quite succeed since the community from Morocco tends to be around 80% Berber instead of Arabic :P
But funny that they take every opportunity to talk crap about Israel.

But maybe I shouldn't be talking here aswell, I'm also quite onesided :P
________
New jersey marijuana dispensaries

[JuntaJoe]

OMG, a Euro with a firm opinion! Well that's just unacceptable.

You are required to mumble, dissemble, flip-flop, procrastinate, prevaricate, and firmly fence-straddle every issue.

That's what it said in your EU Constitution.


Oh wait......I forgot that it wasn't ratified. So I guess you can opinionate all you want. :lol:

Now for the news:


Saudi says Israel attacks threaten wider war


Egypt and Saudi Arabia, facing popular anger over Israel's offensive in Lebanon, toughened their stance on Tuesday, warning the United States that Israeli militarism could lead to a wider conflict in the region.

"Saudi Arabia warns everybody that if the peace option fails because of Israeli arrogance, there will be no other option but war," state-owned media quoted Saudi's King Abdullah as saying before a meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

His remarks were unusually forthright for the world's top oil exporter, which has called for ceasefire but blamed Lebanon's Hizbollah guerrilla group for the crisis that has so far killed at least 413 people in Lebanon and 42 Israelis.

The comments also appeared to be aimed at the United States, Israel's ally which has resisted calls for an immediate ceasefire.

Analysts say Washington's Arab allies, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, fear popular anger against Israel could escalate and force them to take a tougher stance.

Mubarak took a swipe at U.S. policy telling reporters in Cairo: "What is happening in the region is destructive chaos, not creative chaos."

Washington has rebuffed calls for an immediate ceasefire, arguing that would allow Hizbollah to re-arm and attack Israel again in future.

Mubarak left Saudi Arabia after meeting King Abdullah without speaking to the media. Officials said the talks were to prepare for a meeting in Rome on Wednesday to try and end the fighting.

"The Arabs have declared peace as a strategic choice ... and put forward a clear and fair proposal of land for peace and have ignored (Arab) extremist calls opposing the peace proposal," the king's statement said. "But patience cannot last forever."

He was referring to an initiative, proposed by Saudi Arabia and adopted in a 2002 Arab summit, offering Israel comprehensive peace in return for land it seized in a 1967 war.

Arab governments have said that since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war they have decided to pursue peace as a means to end disputes over occupied land and the status of Palestinians, who are state-less.

King Abdullah's comments suggested that Arab governments could rethink that approach, although analysts say there is no likelihood that Arab states would go to war with Israel.

CONCERN OVER IRAN

The government of Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia sees Hizbollah, which is backed by many ordinary Arabs, as a tool for Shi'ite powerhouse Iran to expand its influence.

But most Arabs see Israel, which does not want to return all of the Arab territories it seized in 1967, as more of a threat than Iran, whose help is welcomed.

"I think they (Arab governments) are scared of being against public opinion which could turn against them," said a Western diplomat in Riyadh.

Israel launched its offensive after Hizbollah killed eight soldiers and abducted two others in a July 12 border raid.

Saudi Arabia pledged $500 million to rebuild Lebanon and $250 million for the Palestinians. The kingdom will also transfer $1 billion to Lebanon's central bank to help its economy.

The diplomat said the financial support was a sign of a tussle for influence once the fighting stops in Lebanon between Iran, backing Hizbollah, and Arab states, behind the government.


Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited.



Looks like the Arab governments are running out of procrastination time themselves.

Israel had better hurry up.