Do people think that Israel is becoming just like the terrorists in that it does not seem to care much if innocent women and children are killed along with the terrorists.
Hving watched the news today and seen children with apalling injuries due to the israelis bombing the refugee camps it makes me angry that they dont seem to give a toss.
One child today was shot about 20 times ,surely they can tell the difference between a grown man and a child.
And they also seem to regard united nations resolutions as something to ignore.
It looks to me like they are a law unto themselves,and I tell you this if I was a palastinian I woul'd consider becoming a suicide bomber if it meant my family coul'd live in peace and safety.

The State of Israel grew out of a typically messy piece of British and French map-making in 1919 that gave us Palestine and much of the current map of the Middle East. In general, if you see a couple of European diplomats with a map showing your country, be very afraid.

Seriously, though, IMHO Israel's current attitude has grown out of it's uncertain early history when the Arab nations repeatedly tried to obliterate the state of Israel, and a reluctance, on the part of the West, possibly at least partially fuelled by guilt about the plight of the Jews in the Holocaust.

Israel behaves appalingly - as do it's opponents. I guess the problem now is that so much blood has been spilt, and with so much vehemence, that for either side to back off will be viewed as weakness by the other.

Israel is a democracy; however it operates outside international law in an overt manner and as such should receive the admonition and sanctions of the international community. But at the same time it's neighbours need to acknowledge that Israel has a right to existence, and the Israelis need to acknowldge that a self-governing, reasonably sized and accessible Palestinian Homeland is essential to the process of normalising the Middle East.

So....I'm not sure what the answer is. The Israelis behave like barbarians, as do the Palestinian extremists. Both sides need to be restrained by those who can - the West and the US for Israel, Syria, Iran and the rump Palestinian authority for Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Not a very definite answer, I'm afraid....

Joe

You make some good points joe which by and large I agree with.
I think the only country which can hope to resolve this impasse is the U S but with the jewish lobby being so strong over their im not too sure if they will .
As for the palastinians I agree they and the other middle eastern countries have to accept the state of Israel has the right to exist.
I think we need to have the 2 state solution,with guarenteed security for both sides and I think that the U N coul'd have an important bearing on this provided it gets the backing of the U S.
Still I dont like to see Israel behaving with impunity,they need to restrain their actions.

Originally posted by JoePritchard
possibly at least partially fuelled by guilt about the plight of the Jews in the Holocaust.


I wonder whether the West will ever feel real guilt about the plight of the Palestinians. Their lobby group is not powerful enough.

Of course the arabs dont have to the muscle of the israelis,to get that you ned to have the backing of the united states.

Interesting topic. I've been thinking about the paradoxes in the Middle East for some time. The USA won't intervene to prevent Israeli excesses because they want a pro-western state there as a buffer. The arab states won't overtly back Palestine because they need the west to supply them with arms with which to subjugate their own people. The whole thing's a mess, which goes back to biblical times rather than 1919 Joe, imho.

You're right though that one of the factors preventing the west's intervention is the guilt felt by many nations over the holocaust.

Israel is a terrorist state, in my mind. A terrorist state funded by $4 billion of US money each year. It is one of the huge double-standards of the western world.

I could write for an hour about all the awful things that Israel do, but i'm tired. Also, it would take hours to write out all the UN resolutions that they have taken no notice of. They are the ones that the US don't use their veto on. :rolleyes:

I did find a post i made before on the subject though that lists broken resolutions... http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&postid=143973#post143973

Well for once I am in agreement with snook,the state of israel woul'd probably not exist without the funding it gets for the united states.
As for U N resolutions I think they are in breach of quite a few,not too sure exactly how many though.
I have to say I as suprised to see that even Sharon was willing to compromise on the settlements issue but he was stopped in his tracks by members of the likud partywho seem even more reactionary that hitler ever was.

Theirs an amazing comic called the 411 for peace about an Israeli fighter pilot whose daughter is killed by a suicide bomber and how he copes with the pain. It was meant to be a three part series but it got pulled mid series because it coincided with the Iraq war and Marvel didn’t want to be accused of being un patriotic.

Joe Sacco’s Palestine is an excellent account of life in the occupies territories well worth tracking down.

We wont see any progress at least until after the presidential elections and then I have my doubtd if we will see much progress.
The democrats are certainly more in hock to the jewish lobby then the republicans so lets hope that bush wins.

I think the poll question is a tad misleading - it is hardly the clearest way to ask the question.

The amount of money and technology that has been pumped into Israel since the second world war has given the Israelis a feeling that no one can touch them.
This is TRUE as Israel is a strategic area in the middle east that America can use as a base to achieve its goal as the dictators of the world.

I am not anti-American but it seems that if a country does not comply with what America says then Bahm! economic sanctions, or military intervention!

The Israeli's have their heads screwed on ......they dictate to America because of their position as a strategic military position!

Israel's WMD program has not been documented but theory has it that they have enough power to blow the middle East and parts of the west to kingdom come.

This gives them an edge to the rest of the Middle East that are not allowed neuclear capability....Take Iran for instance!

Wasn't there a situation some years back when Israel threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran?

One of the problems is that both Israel and the USA have far right governments. It's only 5 years ago that there was a chance of peace in the area.

Israel developed a nuclear weapon program fairly early on, and there are all sorts of weird and wonderful stories from the world of money laundering about how it was financed.

I believe the closest they came to using them was in the 1973 war when they got as far as loading tactical nuclear weapons on to aircraft and were preparing to go and drop them on Arab capitals when the US and USSR put their feet down with their relevant unruly charges.

Today they have a good tactical arsenal of weapns in the 'screwdriver state' (where all that's needed to make them in to live bombs is a screwdriver and a little time) and delivery systems to match. Their policy for wepons release has been described as 'The Sampson Option' - like the biblical Sampson who pulled down the temple on himself and his enemies.

I don't know about threatening against Iran, but they do have a policy of stopping any state who they viuew as antithetical to them from developing nuclear capability. For instance, they bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor just before it went live in 1979 / 1980.

I think part of the problem with Israel is that they are totally surrounded by people who want to kill them. If I was in that situation I would understand their attitude. Until the rest of teh world get around to ensuring a reasonable level of security for both the Israeli state and the Palestinian proto-state, there will continue to be problems.

Joe

I woul'd also like to add that the palastinians have not had the leadership to help there situation.
Looking back when barak was premier they had the real chance of a peace settlement and arrafat blew it .
One wonders if they will be afforded the chance again,let us hope so for the sake of peace and stability in the region.

Yes. Isreal is/was a terrorist state!

I remeber the news when I was a kid.

Always going on about another sky-jacking (as they were called then) by..... The Isrealis!

Originally posted by sccsux
Yes. Isreal is/was a terrorist state!

I remeber the news when I was a kid.

Always going on about another sky-jacking (as they were called then) by..... The Isrealis!

Ummm.....you're kidding, right?

Some sort of ironic commentary?

Please say yes.....

Joe

it is a fact, however, that the Zionists used terrorism against the British army during their 'struggle' to create a Jewish state.

I think you are correct with regard to the terrorism ,I think the leader was mr begin who later became the first leader of the state of Israel.
Just goes to show dont it that direct action works.

Yup, the Israelis had a group called the Irgun who were responsible for various terrorist attacks on British troops. Menachen Begin was one of the members of the Irgun.

Direct terrorist action only works when the people you are fighting against get sickened with the fight or lose the confidence of the people - very few terrorist / resistance groups have succesfully overthrown their 'opressors' without outside assistance or the target government losing the support of the people.

In Israel I think we were quite keen to get out, like we were in India around the same time.

Joe

Originally posted by DerekH

Israel's WMD program has not been documented but theory has it that they have enough power to blow the middle East and parts of the west to kingdom come.

Western politicians and "Intelligence" know all about Israel's WMD but there is a conspiracy of silence. They are the 6th largest nuclear power in the world but have never been inspected ! They probably have 300-500 nuclear weapons. They have 3 submarines probably adapted to carry nuclear-armed cruise missiles.
The Nes Ziona site is one of the worlds largest chemical and biological weapons manufacturing facilities. Why are our politicians silent?
Why did the Dutch government say so little when a crashed El-Al plane dispersed depleted uranium and 10 tons of chemical weapons ingredients over a housing estate in Amsterdam?
47 dead, thousands poisoned, increased cancer and birth defects.
Why no quest for UN inspections in Israel?

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Yup, the Israelis had a group called the Irgun who were responsible for various terrorist attacks on British troops. Menachen Begin was one of the members of the Irgun.

So was Dr Ruth Westheimer - she was a sniper!

There were other jewish terrorist groups around at the same time.

I woul'd have thought that the arab members of the united nations woul'd have brought this to the attention of the wider world?
I find it hard to beleive that president assad of Syria woul'd have not been shouting this from the rooftops.
It seems to show that there are certainly double standards in the security council.

its always been a terrorist state,even at its birth...remember the stern gang that murdered the british soldiers who were trying to help set up their new land ? you could go on for ever with this thread no one will listen the governments are in israels pockets as is the media...how could this small state survive without the billions of pounds and dollars etc. it gets from the west,but even though they take no notice of the u.n no one will apply sanctions on them

I think everyone knows who bank rolles the israeli state,ie the united states.
It still seems hard to take in that no one single country has brought this up at the UN.
I think it is probably due to the power of the united states and the jewish lobby.
The children of god are trully the masters of the world.

This topic seems to come up in various threads, and always ends up derailing the existing threads so I thought I'd start on off specifically about Israel.

Two interesting articles (part of a series) in the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1703245,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1704037,00.html

What to people think ????

Architects threaten to boycott Israel over 'apartheid' barrier

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article344510.ece

Israel is more than an apartheid state, it is a country which has displaced the majority of the indeginous population to refugee camps and a life of hopeless squalor through it's military and economic policies. The Zionists seemed to imagine the Palestinians would just shut up and go away and the Arab world would turn a blind eye, and the Americans bankrolled these dangerously deluded policies.

Now - as the Americans say - it's payback time, and we're all going to get dragged into the chaos that has grown from the seeds of the Palestine/Israel conflict into hardened and widespread hatred of the west so clearly demonstrated in the recent cartoons farce.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4948262.stm

So after destroying a prison and and bringing international condemnation, its turns out that the Israeli courts have said exactly what the Palestinian courts stated which was that there was insufficient evidence.

Turns out that HAMAS was actually right in stating that a man who hadn't been found quilty of a crime shouldn't be locked up in prison!

As usual, all these so called high profile operations are nothing more than political marketing for the Israeli politicians wanting to show their populaces that they are 'tough', however, the result is that the gulf in reaching a fair and equitable peace is ever widened.

Z

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4948262.stm

So after destroying a prison and and bringing international condemnation, its turns out that the Israeli courts have said exactly what the Palestinian courts stated which was that there was insufficient evidence.

Turns out that HAMAS was actually right in stating that a man who hadn't been found quilty of a crime shouldn't be locked up in prison!

As usual, all these so called high profile operations are nothing more than political marketing for the Israeli politicians wanting to show their populaces that they are 'tough', however, the result is that the gulf in reaching a fair and equitable peace is ever widened.

Z


They'll have him assasinated if they cant prove his guilt.

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-2277717_1,00.html)
British anger at terror celebration
By Ned Parker and Stephen Farrell
The commemoration of Israeli bombings that killing 92 people has caused offence

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.

They have erected a plaque outside the restored building, and are holding a two-day seminar with speeches and a tour of the hotel by one of the Jewish resistance fighters involved in the attack.

Simon McDonald, the British Ambassador in Tel Aviv, and John Jenkins, the Consul-General in Jerusalem, have written to the municipality, stating: “We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated.”

In particular they demanded the removal of the plaque that pays tribute to the Irgun, the Jewish resistance branch headed by Menachem Begin, the future Prime Minister, which carried out the attack on July 22, 1946.

The plaque presents as fact the Irgun’s claim that people died because the British ignored warning calls. “For reasons known only to the British, the hotel was not evacuated,” it states.

Mr McDonald and Dr Jenkins denied that the British had been warned, adding that even if they had “this does not absolve those who planted the bomb from responsibility for the deaths”. On Monday city officials agreed to remove the language deemed offensive from the blue sign hanging on the hotel’s gates, though that had not been done shortly before it was unveiled last night.

The controversy over the plaque and the two-day celebration of the bombing, sponsored by Irgun veterans and the right-wing Menachem Begin Heritage Centre, goes to the heart of the debate over the use of political violence in the Middle East. Yesterday Mr Netanyahu argued in a speech celebrating the attack that the Irgun were governed by morals, unlike fighters from groups such as Hamas.

“It’s very important to make the distinction between terror groups and freedom fighters, and between terror action and legitimate military action,” he said. “Imagine that Hamas or Hezbollah would call the military headquarters in Tel Aviv and say, ‘We have placed a bomb and we are asking you to evacuate the area’.”

But the view of the attack was very different in 1946 when The Times branded the Irgun “terrorists in disguise”. Decades later, Irgun veterans are unrepentant. Sarah Agassi, 80, remembers spying in the King David Hotel.

She and a fellow agent posed as a couple. They danced tangos and waltzes, sipped whisky and wine while they cased out the hotel.

On the day her brother and his fellow fighters posed as Arabs delivering milk and brought seven milk churns, each containing 50kg of explosives, into the building. Ms Agassi waited across the street until her brother rushed out. She said that she then made the warning call to the British command in the hotel.

Sitting in the luxurious hotel lobby, she expressed no regret. “We fought for our independence. We thought it was the right way . . . If I had to fight for Israel, I swear even now I would do anything.”

The original wording:

The Hotel housed the Mandate Secretariat as well as the Army Headquarters. On July 1946 (sic) Irgun fighters at the order of the Hebrew Resistance Movement planted explosives in the basement. Warning phone calls had been made urging the hotel’s occupants to leave immediately. For reasons known only to the British the hotel was not evacuated and after 25 minutes the bombs exploded, and to the Irgun’s regret and dismay 91 persons were killed.

The amended version

. . .Warning phone calls had been made to the hotel, the Palestine Post and the French Consulate, urging the hotel’s occupants to leave immediately.

The hotel was not evacuated, and after 25 minutes the bombs exploded. The entire western wing was destroyed, and to the Irgun’s regret 92 persons were killed.
This kind of thing puts Israel’s claims that it is engaged in some kind of global 'war on terror' as opposed to a local war for land and resources into context.

Well can we arrest Netenyahu the next time he lands in London on a fund raiser ?

Z

Well can we arrest Netenyahu the next time he lands in London on a fund raiser ?

Z

Fat chance. 'glorification of terrorism' only applies to normal folk and people against 'freedom' ;) not israeli leaders. :thumbsup:

I can now watch him speak about terrorism and know he is a hypocrite.

This kind of thing puts Israel’s claims that it is engaged in some kind of global 'war on terror' as opposed to a local war for land and resources into context.
Indeed - though I'm curious as to whether the Israel-Palestine thing engenders a bit of schizophrenia on the left. My impression is that most left-wingers side with the Palestinians et al but, on the other hand, being anti-Israeli might be construed as being anti-semitic.

We Europeans have to treat the Jews with kid gloves unless we be thought of as being nasty holocaust/Nazi types. It could be argued though that: Israel is a very small country; Jews have been victimised throughout history; Israel is just trying to defend itself against nasty Arab/Muslim terrorists...

What's the definitive view from the left?

Indeed - though I'm curious as to whether the Israel-Palestine thing engenders a bit of schizophrenia on the left. My impression is that most left-wingers side with the Palestinians et al but, on the other hand, being anti-Israeli might be construed as being anti-semitic.

We Europeans have to treat the Jews with kid gloves unless we be thought of as being nasty holocaust/Nazi types. It could be argued though that: Israel is a very small country; Jews have been victimised throughout history; Israel is just trying to defend itself against nasty Arab/Muslim terrorists...

What's the definitive view from the left?


From what I've read, the 'left' were the biggest supporters of Israel up until the 70's, for the very same reasons given. i.e. its a small country etc.

However, I think thats changed now. Its also worth noting that there are many Jewish people who are highly critical of Zionism including many Israeli's.

Zionism does not equal Judaism, although the zionists do their best to equate the two.

Z

anti-Israeli might be construed as being anti-semitic.


Anti Israeli isn't anti semetic but anti zionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Zionist_Movement)

Anti jew is anti semetic :thumbsup:


Irgun the jewish terrorist group that carried out the bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun)

Zionism does not equal Judaism, although the zionists do their best to equate the two.

Z

Good point, I think they are trying to merge the two so if anyone is anti zionist they are against all JEWS. :thumbsup:

Indeed - though I'm curious as to whether the Israel-Palestine thing engenders a bit of schizophrenia on the left. My impression is that most left-wingers side with the Palestinians et al but, on the other hand, being anti-Israeli might be construed as being anti-semitic.

We Europeans have to treat the Jews with kid gloves unless we be thought of as being nasty holocaust/Nazi types. It could be argued though that: Israel is a very small country; Jews have been victimised throughout history; Israel is just trying to defend itself against nasty Arab/Muslim terrorists...

What's the definitive view from the left?
Who do you mean by ‘the left’ everyone who’s not in the BNP, everyone to the left of the Tories, left of Labour…?

Anyway it doesn’t really matter what definition of ‘left’ you use as there’s no such thing as a ‘definitive’ view on most issues from such a diverse group of people (aside from being anti-fascist) never mind on something as divisive as the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Incidentally the argument that ‘Israel is just trying to defend itself against nasty Arab/Muslim terrorists’ doesn’t really help anyone defending the attack on King David Hotel unless of course they classify British troops, administrative staff & Christian, Jewish & Muslim civilians as terrorists.

Lebanon, one of the very few democracies in the middle east, has been set back decades due to Israel's invasion and subsequent destruction of the ailing economy's entire infrastructure. It will cost billions for the economy to return to pre-invasion conditions, if it ever does. What do Sheffield forum members think? Should Israel be made to pay for the death and destruction it has caused?

Absolutely! The conflict is between Israel and Hezbollah, not Israel and Lebanon.

i hope britain is putting a bill in for the use of the navy,then theres the lost income of those who were forced to flee , yeh.....right............:rolleyes:

i cant believe its still happening....the israelis arent achiveing anything atm...and the joke hat was the UN meeting in Rome yesterday just stalled the ceasefire....

i really hope it ends soon..its awful

i cant believe its still happening....the israelis arent achiveing anything atm...and the joke hat was the UN meeting in Rome yesterday just stalled the ceasefire....

i really hope it ends soon..its awful

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5219360.stm

And now their 'Justice' minister is saying that they think they've got the green light from the Rome meetings to cause more deaths and devastation across the rest of the country. :loopy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5219360.stm

And now their 'Justice' minister is saying that they think they've got the green light from the Rome meetings to cause more deaths and devastation across the rest of the country. :loopy:

That's shockingly outrageous!

I think that Israel, Syria and Iran should pay a third each as long as a credible peace force (definitely NOT U.N.) is allowed into the border region.
As for that Israeli minister's comments, they were incredibly stupid.
He can think what he likes I suppose but he should have had enough sense not to say it.

Do you think Israel would have done this is Syrian forces were still in Lebanon?

The plan envisages an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and is expected to propose a "just" solution to the issue of Palestinian demands for the return of refugees to land now inside Israel.

Hey zafar do you think that this sentence about the return of refugees might have been one of the main dealbreakers ?
I do.

Possibly, but like all negotiations, if parties are serious about reaching an agreement something can be hammered out.

Like I said, it was the first time that the Arab League had as a whole made this offer, and if the Israeli's were serious about reaching a lasting peace then they really shouldn't have rejected it out of hand.

In the end, the question of refugee's has to be addressed.

Over the years, the Israeli position on refugee's has shifted. First there weren't any, then there were 'some' and then it was something like 'it was a long time ago'.

If Israel is still making claims for compensation from WWII, then its kind of ironic that they wont recognise the claims of people who were cleansed post WWII.

Anyhow, if it did come down to some financial deal, I'm sure Uncle Sam would bankroll any deal. However, I feel Israel is still sticking to its propoganda that there was no 'ethnic' cleansing or alternatively that the Arabs 'voluntarily' left their homes.

We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985

"We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return."

--David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, July 18, 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar's "Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet," Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

"[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat."
-- Yitzhak Rabin, explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land without stirring a world outcry. (Quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen's remarks to the Knesset's foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16.)


Z

In pictures: Israeli strike on Qana

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/5228392.stm

Z

In pictures: Israeli strike on Qana

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/5228392.stm

Z
Question 1.
What is the point of you showing such links?

All of us have seen this on TV news, we don't get to see much coverage of the Israeli suffering !

Question 2.
As I previously mentioned your postings are just lumping the blame for this conflict and consequential death and misery onto the Israelis, were is your balanced awarness ?

Question 3.
I don't agree with bombing civilians, but the Israelis need to stop the Hisbollah terrorists raining rockets onto their populace. They have leafletted the lebanese to advise them to get away from the hisbollah rocket sites. But for some strange reason they stay there ,or are they coerced into doing so by Hisbollah?
The Hisbollah terrorists will bomb civilians , and to do so they hide within the populace of Lebanon.

Question 4.
Should the Lebanese people and its Government really want to live in peace with their neighbours Israel, then why have they not prevented Hisbollah from leeching itself onto their society and infrastructure?

I realise that you can debate as one sided as you like, your option, but it would be nice to see you answer these four questions in a straight forward manner. Hopefully showing some balance.

No I support the idea of a single state where jews/christians and muslims can live together. I certainly dont support a racist apparteid state which believes that the Arabs are animals.

The sad truth is that the longer the above doesn't happen, when the tide turns against Israel (which it eventually will) things will get really nasty.

Z
This single Arab/Jewish state would be run by a secular government with no emphasis given to religion I take it.
Run along the lines of the British government, who founded modern parliamentry practice?

No? I thought not.

'Negotiation will not help.'

But aerial bombardment of small groups of fighters dispersed through a civilian population will? I think not. How about some proper pressure from the governments of this country and the USA?
" Small groups of fighters dispersed through a civilian population"
Are we admitting then that Hizb'allah planned it this way, to use civilians as a human shield fro propaganda purposes?
And should this "small group of fighters" be allowed to carry on abducting soldiers on foreign territory and sending rockets on civilian populations in Israel.?

Am I the only one who found Israel's decision to suspend air offensive action for 48 hours following this atrocity (as reported on tonights BBC news) rather a cheap and even insulting offer? ''We've just killed a load of kids, so we'll wait a bit before we kill a shedload more?''
You found it cheap and insulting????
I bet the people in Qana didn't stop to think about that, I bet they were just pleased that it stopped!

" Small groups of fighters dispersed through a civilian population"
Are we admitting then that Hizb'allah planned it this way, to use civilians as a human shield fro propaganda purposes?
And should this "small group of fighters" be allowed to carry on abducting soldiers on foreign territory and sending rockets on civilian populations in Israel.?

Why not send the ground forces in and root them out, urban warfare. The easy way is to drop big bombs from the air won. The reason they won't go in is because they know they will take heavy losses.

To be fair, if they feel its okay to kill that number of civilians in one strike to get a number of Hezbollah, then they deserve everything they get aswell. Just list it under 'collateral damage', as that makes it all alright.

Well time will tell, but, they hardly have a track record of telling the truth.

Qana was in the news today because of the 60 civilians that Israel killed.
Well 10 years ago, a UN base in Qana was bombed and over 100 civilians were killed.

The Israeli's said it wasn't a deliberate act, however, after the UN investigation it turned out that it was a deliberate act.

Z
I thought the UN were useless? so why should we take notice of their findings, or are they only useless when you want them to be?

No, of course it wouldn't be any better if the casualties were equal on both sides, but surely bomb shelters are only part of the story - Israel is massively militarily superior. Regardless of your opinion of Arab leaders, a negotiated settlement, in which all parties concede some ground is the only way forward. How can the Arab leadership ease the plight of the Palestinian people in isolation? Israel will have to make some concessions as will those who are fighting against her. Stopping killing each other would be a good place to start.
How many efforts by Arab nations to ease the plight of the Palestinian people can you quote?

Good gracious I find myself in total agreement with you.
Didn't Israel though concede the Gaza strip but were subjected to constant bombardment from there after the withdrawal ?
The qasam rockets coming from the very areas which ahd been evacuated!

GLAD if terrorists were operating next to a school with kids in it, is it;

1) Fine to bomb that school.
2) Not fine.

Its a simple question 1 or 2.

Why not send the ground forces in and root them out, urban warfare. The easy way is to drop big bombs from the air won. The reason they won't go in is because they know they will take heavy losses.

To be fair, if they feel its okay to kill that number of civilians in one strike to get a number of Hezbollah, then they deserve everything they get aswell. Just list it under 'collateral damage', as that makes it all alright.
What do you mean, they won't go in, they are in and have been for the last 2 weeks!

What do you mean, they won't go in, they are in and have been for the last 2 weeks!

Not in the areas they are bombing.

The reason is simple a ground campaign would mean the loss of more Israeli lives, and put simply they believe Lebanese civilians are worth less than Israeli army lives.

Do you think Israel would have done this is Syrian forces were still in Lebanon?

Perhaps they want to provoke Syria, which could be the perfect excuse for the Yanks to get directly involved in the conflict. :huh:

What do you mean, they won't go in, they are in and have been for the last 2 weeks!

Not into urban warfare, picking their targets rather then just blowing whole blocks to bits.

How many efforts by Arab nations to ease the plight of the Palestinian people can you quote?

Don't know about the Palestinian plight, but Saudi Arabia put US $1bn into the Lebanese Banks to help support the economy.

GLAD if terrorists were operating next to a school with kids in it, is it;

1) Fine to bomb that school.
2) Not fine.

Its a simple question 1 or 2.

Since GLAD hasn't got round to it, I'll answer this one if I may; the answer is plainly 2) Not fine by any stretch of the imagination.

After deciding that Part 1 of this thread was getting a bit unworkable, instead of reopening the old thread I have instead decided to open Part 2. I've moved much of the recent discussion over to this thread so hopefully there will be a seamless transfer.

Can everybody keep it respectful please, and not carry the personal arguments from Part 1 forwards.

Thank you.

Lebanon, one of the very few democracies in the middle east, has been set back decades due to Israel's invasion and subsequent destruction of the ailing economy's entire infrastructure. It will cost billions for the economy to return to pre-invasion conditions, if it ever does. What do Sheffield forum members think? Should Israel be made to pay for the death and destruction it has caused?

No. No other countries have to pay compensation for damage (as far as I know) caused in war so why should Israel?

The environmental disaster caused by the selfish Israelis is amazing as well. Amassive oil slick causing untold damage while having the joint effect of ruining Lebanons tourist beaches.

And for what? They hate Hezbollah so they destroy massive fuel tanks for the entire populace.:rant:

I thought is the one who started the war who have to pay reparation.
Therefore it will be Lebanon who are liable for the costs (given of course that Israel win!)

I thought is the one who started the war who have to pay reparation.
Therefore it will be Lebanon who are liable for the costs (given of course that Israel win!)

Lebanon didn't start the war, no more so than the Irish were responsible for the IRA.

Z

I thought is the one who started the war who have to pay reparation.
Therefore it will be Lebanon who are liable for the costs (given of course that Israel win!)

Are you implying that Lebanon started the war? That's the most ludicrous presumption! I find myself partly agreeing with Chuffinell on this issue in that Israel and Hezbollah (via Syria/Iran) should compensate the Lebanese for turning their country into a battle field. However, I wouldn't say they are all equally culpable. Israel, as the primary aggressor in this case, should be the one made to foot most of the bill.

Possibly, but like all negotiations, if parties are serious about reaching an agreement something can be hammered out.

Like I said, it was the first time that the Arab League had as a whole made this offer, and if the Israeli's were serious about reaching a lasting peace then they really shouldn't have rejected it out of hand.

In the end, the question of refugee's has to be addressed.

Over the years, the Israeli position on refugee's has shifted. First there weren't any, then there were 'some' and then it was something like 'it was a long time ago'.

If Israel is still making claims for compensation from WWII, then its kind of ironic that they wont recognise the claims of people who were cleansed post WWII.

Anyhow, if it did come down to some financial deal, I'm sure Uncle Sam would bankroll any deal. However, I feel Israel is still sticking to its propoganda that there was no 'ethnic' cleansing or alternatively that the Arabs 'voluntarily' left their homes.

We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985

"We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return."

--David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, July 18, 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar's "Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet," Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

"[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat."
-- Yitzhak Rabin, explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land without stirring a world outcry. (Quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen's remarks to the Knesset's foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16.)


Z
zafar, it's easy to bring in quotes from various sites for/against whoever you happen to support, but in answer to your quotes about ethnic cleansing , here are just a few from the other side.
Egytian daily newspaper Al Akbar April 18th 2001. " Our thanks go to the late Hitler, who wrought in advance, the vengeance of the Palestinians upon the most despicable villains on the face of the earth. However, we rebuke Hitler for the fact that vengeanse was insufficient" Israel and Egypt signed peace agreements in 1979!
Morrocco. Al Usbu Oct.1996
" the jews are a special kind of human being by virtue of being spiteful and criminal and congenitaly dishonest"
1982, shortly after Israel returned the sinai back to Egypt under the peace agreement:
" The Israelis are Israelis and their favourite drink is Arab blood"" Sanctifying War and Hating Peace"by Salemal-Yamani,Al Gumhuriyah, June 22nd 1982
Egyptian writer Anis Mansour 197 " Peaople all ove the world have come to realise that Hitler was right, since Jews...are bloodsuckers.. interested in destroying the whole world..which has .........expelled and despised them for centuries....and burnt them in Hitlers crematoria.....one million....six millions. Would that he had finished it" Al Akhbar. August 19th 1973.

1953 Sept 18th. Al Mussawar no 1510, anwar Sadat publish an open letter to Hitler, hoping he was still alive and sympathising with his cause.
I could bring countless other quotes about things that have been said for centuries from both sides. All this may give a better understanding of how the situation arose, but it doesn't alter the fact that as I have mentioned several times in previous posts, to negotiate peace you have to sit down and talk without a memory, which is hard for all sides concerned and pretty impossible right now for the people suffering in Lebanon and Israel to various extents. The situation right now has to be addressed to ensure peace in the region,since I think the people involved would find it difficult to say the least, it remains in the hands of other powers to do so, and since the other powers all have their own interests I think the best we can hope for is another few years of quiet before it all breaks out again

GLAD if terrorists were operating next to a school with kids in it, is it;

1) Fine to bomb that school.
2) Not fine.

Its a simple question 1 or 2.
No downtroad, it's not fine and I didn't say it was, but also if the hizb'allah want to fight, shouldn't they at least have some responsibilty NOT to endanger the very people they are " protecting"

zafar, it's easy to bring in quotes from various sites for/against whoever you happen to support, but in answer to your quotes about ethnic cleansing , here are just a few from the other side.
Egytian daily newspaper Al Akbar April 18th 2001. " Our thanks go to the late Hitler, who wrought in advance, the vengeance of the Palestinians upon the most despicable villains on the face of the earth. However, we rebuke Hitler for the fact that vengeanse was insufficient" Israel and Egypt signed peace agreements in 1979!
Morrocco. Al Usbu Oct.1996
" the jews are a special kind of human being by virtue of being spiteful and criminal and congenitaly dishonest"
1982, shortly after Israel returned the sinai back to Egypt under the peace agreement:
" The Israelis are Israelis and their favourite drink is Arab blood"" Sanctifying War and Hating Peace"by Salemal-Yamani,Al Gumhuriyah, June 22nd 1982
Egyptian writer Anis Mansour 197 " Peaople all ove the world have come to realise that Hitler was right, since Jews...are bloodsuckers.. interested in destroying the whole world..which has .........expelled and despised them for centuries....and burnt them in Hitlers crematoria.....one million....six millions. Would that he had finished it" Al Akhbar. August 19th 1973.

1953 Sept 18th. Al Mussawar no 1510, anwar Sadat publish an open letter to Hitler, hoping he was still alive and sympathising with his cause.
I could bring countless other quotes about things that have been said for centuries from both sides. All this may give a better understanding of how the situation arose, but it doesn't alter the fact that as I have mentioned several times in previous posts, to negotiate peace you have to sit down and talk without a memory, which is hard for all sides concerned and pretty impossible right now for the people suffering in Lebanon and Israel to various extents. The situation right now has to be addressed to ensure peace in the region,since I think the people involved would find it difficult to say the least, it remains in the hands of other powers to do so, and since the other powers all have their own interests I think the best we can hope for is another few years of quiet before it all breaks out again

GLAD,

Firstly the comments I gave were in the context of those claiming that there was no ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from what is now Israel.

Secondly, I quoted the actual leaders not what other writers may have wrote or said.

The best we can hope is that a US president will come along who will be an honest broker, or alternatively changes will be made to the UN which will remove the power of a single nation (beit the US/UK/France/Russia/China) to block the will of the majority.

Until then, I'm afraid whilst this current War on Terrorism (or the 'Long' War) continues this current attrocities will not be halted.

It is interesting to note that similar to the attack on Iraq, the reasons being given by Israel for the escalation seem to change day by day.

So for instance, last night on Newsnight, the Israeli spokesperson was talking about how Israel was implementing a UN resolution to disarm Hizbollah. Well as far as I can recollect, that particular resolution wasn't a chapter 7 resolution, therefore the argument holds as much water as Hizbollah claiming that their attacks on Israel are attempts to implement a dozen or so UN resolutions against Israel (again none of them being chapter 7 resolutions)

Z

p.s. Whilst I have no reason to doubt the quotes you've posted, it would help if you posted the actual link for reference.

No downtroad, it's not fine and I didn't say it was, but also if the hizb'allah want to fight, shouldn't they at least have some responsibilty NOT to endanger the very people they are " protecting"

There is actually very little evidence that Hizbollah are infact using the civilians as 'shields'. (whereas there was a Israeli High Court ruling that the IDF had been using Palestinians as human shields during their operations in the occupied territories)

After the massacre at Qana, Israel released footage of a lorry entering a building. Firstly, this was days old and secondly there was no evidence that the lorry actually belonged to Hezbollah, nor that it was carrying any missiles.

Infact, Hizbollah have claimed several times that they do not intermingle with the general population because of the fear of Israeli collaborators. A lesson they learnt from the Palestinians.

All the evidence from journalists who have been in the area's has been that Hizbollah fires rockets from outside villages and cities.

So aside from the actual lack of evidence, the argument itself is rather poor.
If the argument is extended, does it mean that any part of Israel which has been linked with the transportation or storage of troops or weapons is therefore a justifiable military target ?

Z

This single Arab/Jewish state would be run by a secular government with no emphasis given to religion I take it.
Run along the lines of the British government, who founded modern parliamentry practice?

No? I thought not.

Why not ?

A single nation could be run in the manner in which its citizens choose to have it run.

Why the British Govt? There are loads of democracies across the world, and they're not all mirrored on the British version. Indeed, if the questions around the House of Lords are looked at, our version of democracy is not the most 'democratic'

Z

Since GLAD hasn't got round to it, I'll answer this one if I may; the answer is plainly 2) Not fine by any stretch of the imagination.

easy to say from the comfort of the uk.

Why not ?

A single nation could be run in the manner in which its citizens choose to have it run.

Why the British Govt? There are loads of democracies across the world, and they're not all mirrored on the British version. Indeed, if the questions around the House of Lords are looked at, our version of democracy is not the most 'democratic'

Z
Yes I agree with you regarding the House of Lords, even its name irritates me.
If a super state could could be set and run in a place of such differing people as in the Middle East it would be a beacon to the rest of the World.
It would people such as the Scots and Welsh for instance the way.
Tiny countries such as they are thinking they can go it alone on the world stage.

GLAD,

Firstly the comments I gave were in the context of those claiming that there was no ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from what is now Israel.

Secondly, I quoted the actual leaders not what other writers may have wrote or said.

The best we can hope is that a US president will come along who will be an honest broker, or alternatively changes will be made to the UN which will remove the power of a single nation (beit the US/UK/France/Russia/China) to block the will of the majority.
Have you read Thomas Mores Utopia then??
I am not hopefull of either ,happening in the near future.

Until then, I'm afraid whilst this current War on Terrorism (or the 'Long' War) continues this current attrocities will not be halted.


It is interesting to note that similar to the attack on Iraq, the reasons being given by Israel for the escalation seem to change day by day.

So for instance, last night on Newsnight, the Israeli spokesperson was talking about how Israel was implementing a UN resolution to disarm Hizbollah. Well as far as I can recollect, that particular resolution wasn't a chapter 7 resolution, therefore the argument holds as much water as Hizbollah claiming that their attacks on Israel are attempts to implement a dozen or so UN resolutions against Israel (again none of them being chapter 7 resolutions)
I don't have access to Newsnight. I'm sure they will have a website, will look for it.

Z

p.s. Whilst I have no reason to doubt the quotes you've posted, it would help if you posted the actual link for reference.
Zafar, I'm not using links, I'm using reference books, but the bibliology is quoted. The news papers quoted were government publications and since there is only very limited freedom of the press in most Arab states it's safe to assume that the articles were not disapproved of by the leaders of the time. I can already hear you saying " but any disclaimers would hardly be in the same issue and you have ignored the fact that denials might have been printed"!!!!!!!!!!!
Interesting to note that people we both quoted Sadat/ Rabin, have both since paid for their steps towards peace by being assassinated by their own people!
Go on ,tell me Zafar, you're lawyer in real life aren't you?:thumbsup:

Why not ?

A single nation could be run in the manner in which its citizens choose to have it run.

Why the British Govt? There are loads of democracies across the world, and they're not all mirrored on the British version. Indeed, if the questions around the House of Lords are looked at, our version of democracy is not the most 'democratic'

Z
And when you get differing opinions as to how it is run and a situation where no one has a majority?

Why not ?

A single nation could be run in the manner in which its citizens choose to have it run.

Why the British Govt? There are loads of democracies across the world, and they're not all mirrored on the British version. Indeed, if the questions around the House of Lords are looked at, our version of democracy is not the most 'democratic'

Z
Have you read Thomas Moores Utopia?
Anyway, a single nation could be run in the manner in which it's citizens choose to have it run, is a fine theory, providing all the people want the same thing, and people being people , they don't, and so on from there, different groups fighting for different rules until we are back at the present situation of most of the world.
Or maybe a vicar?

easy to say from the comfort of the uk. Agreed nightrider, as I said in a very early post, it's really easy to idealise and sort out all kinds of solutions from the comfort of an armchair.

Are you implying that Lebanon started the war? That's the most ludicrous presumption! I find myself partly agreeing with Chuffinell on this issue in that Israel and Hezbollah (via Syria/Iran) should compensate the Lebanese for turning their country into a battle field. However, I wouldn't say they are all equally culpable. Israel, as the primary aggressor in this case, should be the one made to foot most of the bill.

I agree — especially to your point that Israel should foot most of the bill. Israel is funded by the United States on the one hand, and the Jewish population in the U.S on the other hand. Hit them in their pockets and they might think twice about their funding such an agressive and hypocritical country. They tend to forget today that Israel was founded in the main by terrorists who in democracy became their leaders.

As Kissinger said in 1992: “Any people who have been persecuted for 2,000 years must be doing something wrong.” I totally agree with that, and think it’s about time they took a good look at themselves.

Zafar, I'm not using links, I'm using reference books, but the bibliology is quoted. The news papers quoted were government publications and since there is only very limited freedom of the press in most Arab states it's safe to assume that the articles were not disapproved of by the leaders of the time. I can already hear you saying " but any disclaimers would hardly be in the same issue and you have ignored the fact that denials might have been printed"!!!!!!!!!!!
Interesting to note that people we both quoted Sadat/ Rabin, have both since paid for their steps towards peace by being assassinated by their own people!
Go on ,tell me Zafar, you're lawyer in real life aren't you?:thumbsup:


Tell me what the visiting times are at your secure facility and I'll visit you after the courts have closed :thumbsup:

Still not sure what you're actually getting at, or as usual are you simply going off at a tangent.

Z

p.s. nice to see you can string more than one sentence together as a supposed rebuttal. :thumbsup:

And when you get differing opinions as to how it is run and a situation where no one has a majority?

Like in say Scotland for instance ? Gee hang on ... I know the answer to this one.....Er .....could it be a ....'coalition govt' ?

Z

Yes I agree with you regarding the House of Lords, even its name irritates me.
If a super state could could be set and run in a place of such differing people as in the Middle East it would be a beacon to the rest of the World.
It would people such as the Scots and Welsh for instance the way.
Tiny countries such as they are thinking they can go it alone on the world stage.

It doesn't have to ba a super state for the whole of the middle east, why not a single state across the lands of 'Palestine' ?

Proportional representation ?

Z

Why not send the ground forces in and root them out, urban warfare. The easy way is to drop big bombs from the air won. The reason they won't go in is because they know they will take heavy losses.

To be fair, if they feel its okay to kill that number of civilians in one strike to get a number of Hezbollah, then they deserve everything they get aswell. Just list it under 'collateral damage', as that makes it all alright.

Wow. I bet you would make a master military tactician in any army in the world.
Why don't we give the armies of the world a handicap as in golf ?
This way all conflicts could be fought for years before settling for a draw.

Wow. I bet you would make a master military tactician in any army in the world.
Why don't we give the armies of the world a handicap as in golf ?
This way all conflicts could be fought for years before settling for a draw.

The question is one of whether its okay to increase the risk to innocent civilians in order to reduce military casualties.

If the consensus is that risk to innocent civilians should be reduced then the result is that risk to military personel will go up.


Z

There is actually very little evidence that Hizbollah are infact using the civilians as 'shields'. (whereas there was a Israeli High Court ruling that the IDF had been using Palestinians as human shields during their operations in the occupied territories)

After the massacre at Qana, Israel released footage of a lorry entering a building. Firstly, this was days old and secondly there was no evidence that the lorry actually belonged to Hezbollah, nor that it was carrying any missiles.

Infact, Hizbollah have claimed several times that they do not intermingle with the general population because of the fear of Israeli collaborators. A lesson they learnt from the Palestinians.

All the evidence from journalists who have been in the area's has been that Hizbollah fires rockets from outside villages and cities.
So aside from the actual lack of evidence, the argument itself is rather poor.
If the argument is extended, does it mean that any part of Israel which has been linked with the transportation or storage of troops or weapons is therefore a justifiable military target ?

Z
THese journalists are shown exactly what Hezbollah WANT them to see.

THese journalists are shown exactly what Hezbollah WANT them to see.

and what have you seen ?

Z

THese journalists are shown exactly what Hezbollah WANT them to see.

Could this be applied to Israeli's using the same method & showing the journalists what they want them to see. :thumbsup:

Its called PROPAGANDA.

It doesn't have to ba a super state for the whole of the middle east, why not a single state across the lands of 'Palestine' ?

Proportional representation ?

Z
So you would be happy with a democratic secular state run with no religious interference.
A state where the church looks after the soul, and the government is free to govern without having to refer to holy books at every end and turn?

So you would be happy with a democratic secular state run with no religious interference.
A state where the church looks after the soul, and the government is free to govern without having to refer to holy books at every end and turn?

Firstly, if the people in Palestine are happy with the idea of a secular state, then why should anyone else have a problem ?

Secondly, the idea of a secular state is not new. Iraq under Saddam (unlike Iraq under the Shia clergy today) was a secular state, and so is Syria.

In Islam there is no concept of an Islamic church.

Z

Wow. I bet you would make a master military tactician in any army in the world.
Why don't we give the armies of the world a handicap as in golf ?
This way all conflicts could be fought for years before settling for a draw.

Chuff, you seem uptight. Only ground invasion can win out in guerilla warfare. Hezbollah does not have a regular army of fixed location. How do you propose you clear them? Let me guess, just bomb everything that moves. The British have special forces capable of such tactical warfare. Israel, much like its cheerleader the US, simply don't have the nerve or the minerals.

Could this be applied to Israeli's using the same method & showing the journalists what they want them to see. :thumbsup:

Its called PROPAGANDA.

They have even taken it a step further. I don't know of any country that has tried to do this.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20411-2289232,00.html

In the past week nearly 5,000 members of the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS) have downloaded special “megaphone” software that alerts them to anti-Israeli chatrooms or internet polls to enable them to post contrary viewpoints. A student team in Jerusalem combs the web in a host of different languages to flag the sites so that those who have signed up can influence an opinion survey or the course of a debate.

Jonny Cline, of the international student group, said that Jewish students and youth groups with their understanding of the web environment were ideally placed to present another side to the debate.

“We’re saying to these people that if Israel is being bashed, don’t ignore it, change it,” Mr Cline said. “A poll like CNN’s takes just a few seconds to vote in, but if thousands take part the outcome will be changed. What’s vital is that the international face of the conflict is balanced.”

Like in say Scotland for instance ? Gee hang on ... I know the answer to this one.....Er .....could it be a ....'coalition govt' ?

Z
Like the one in Israel?

yo yo yo yo yo yo yo yo

Mod Note:

Chuffinel and 1Man&hisBMW- This thread will fall to pieces if you can't keep personal jibes and sarcasm out of it. It's an emotive topic, and everyone's done remarkably well debating it thus far, but if you don't remain respectful your posts will be removed.

Mod Note:

Chuffinel and 1Man&hisBMW- This thread will fall to pieces if you can't keep personal jibes and sarcasm out of it. It's an emotive topic, and everyone's done remarkably well debating it thus far, but if you don't remain respectful your posts will be removed.

Fair point, I will avoid responding to his posts in order to keep this thread going in an orderly manner.

The question is one of whether its okay to increase the risk to innocent civilians in order to reduce military casualties.

If the consensus is that risk to innocent civilians should be reduced then the result is that risk to military personel will go up.


Z
Don't you think that if Israel wasn't trying to reduce civilian casualties they would maybe have done a carpet bombing block by block rather than individually targeted buildings ?
We think that the damage is bad now, it would have been ten times worse.
I wouldn't like to say whether it's acceptable or not to increase risk to civilians in order to reduce military casualties.
In a "perfect war" there would be no civilian casualties.
Depends where you are located.
If you're a soldier on the ground then I would imagine that you would prefer that your command does everything it can to create the odds in your favour.
If you're a civilian on the ground then you would probably prefer that the soldier dies before you do.
You've put the dilemma in a nutshell in your last sentence.
I think that it was George Patton that said wars are won, not by dying for your country, but by making sure that more of your enemies die for theirs.

Chuff, you seem uptight. Only ground invasion can win out in guerilla warfare. Hezbollah does not have a regular army of fixed location. How do you propose you clear them? Let me guess, just bomb everything that moves. The British have special forces capable of such tactical warfare. Israel, much like its cheerleader the US, simply don't have the nerve or the minerals.
Please stop talking about my so-called emotive state. I am NOT uptight and I don't "do" hysterical posts as you stated in another post.
You have have no idea of my emotional state at any given time so please desist and I will give you the courtesy of doing the same.
I was in the infantry so I know that the end result is that troops have to go in on the ground after, excuse the expression, the softening up process.
There is then a "mopping up process" followed by consolidation of gains.
If you have airpower then you use it first to degrade the enemie's ability to resupply his own personnel and take out targets as supplied by special forces on the ground or triangulating incoming ordnance back to it's source.
The Israelis do have special forces contrary to your insinuation that they dont.
I don't know what you mean by "don't have the nerve or minerals"

and what have you seen ?

Z
Probably the same as you.

GLAD if terrorists were operating next to a school with kids in it, is it;

1) Fine to bomb that school.
2) Not fine.

Its a simple question 1 or 2.
downtroad why only use half an analogy ?

If the IDF had an artillary position and ammo dump in a schoolyard next to a school with kids in it, is it;

1) Fine to fire rockets at that school
2) Not fine

I put to you that the IDF won't find itself in this situation but what if they did ?
But hey it's a simple question as you said.

Why not send the ground forces in and root them out, urban warfare. The easy way is to drop big bombs from the air won. The reason they won't go in is because they know they will take heavy losses.

To be fair, if they feel its okay to kill that number of civilians in one strike to get a number of Hezbollah, then they deserve everything they get aswell. Just list it under 'collateral damage', as that makes it all alright.
Yes but you didn't answer GLAD's question.

GLAD,

Firstly the comments I gave were in the context of those claiming that there was no ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from what is now Israel.

Secondly, I quoted the actual leaders not what other writers may have wrote or said.

The best we can hope is that a US president will come along who will be an honest broker, or alternatively changes will be made to the UN which will remove the power of a single nation (beit the US/UK/France/Russia/China) to block the will of the majority.

Until then, I'm afraid whilst this current War on Terrorism (or the 'Long' War) continues this current attrocities will not be halted.

It is interesting to note that similar to the attack on Iraq, the reasons being given by Israel for the escalation seem to change day by day.

So for instance, last night on Newsnight, the Israeli spokesperson was talking about how Israel was implementing a UN resolution to disarm Hizbollah. Well as far as I can recollect, that particular resolution wasn't a chapter 7 resolution, therefore the argument holds as much water as Hizbollah claiming that their attacks on Israel are attempts to implement a dozen or so UN resolutions against Israel (again none of them being chapter 7 resolutions)

Z

p.s. Whilst I have no reason to doubt the quotes you've posted, it would help if you posted the actual link for reference.
You mean that you believe him BUT !!! ?

Yes but you didn't answer GLAD's question.

So? Why don't you ask it and you might get a response :D

Please stop talking about my so-called emotive state. I am NOT uptight and I don't "do" hysterical posts as you stated in another post.
You have have no idea of my emotional state at any given time so please desist and I will give you the courtesy of doing the same.


Sorry if I came across as caring about your emotional disposition, I don't.

Yes I agree with you regarding the House of Lords, even its name irritates me.
If a super state could could be set and run in a place of such differing people as in the Middle East it would be a beacon to the rest of the World.
It would people such as the Scots and Welsh for instance the way.
Tiny countries such as they are thinking they can go it alone on the world stage.
Artisan it would never work.
The Jews, Israelis or whatever we want to call them will never accept a state where they have to give up some control to someone else.
I read somewhere that the first generation born after Israel was founded were dumbfounded and couldn't understand why Jews went quietly into the gas chambers. They just couldn't grasp the concept.
Bearing this in mind it's not so hard to understand the present attitude towards a single state. They would support a separate state for the so called Palestinian refugees.
This was on the table as part of the Oslo accord and the Camp David agreement but the Arabs rejected it.
The fact is that Israel doesn't trust anybody to look out for their interests least of all the U.N. and the Arab states. Hard to blame them.
Zafar proposed a single state with proportional represention. This is great in theory but would be akin to suicide for Israel.
It doesn't take much imagination to foresee the end results. They would all be classed as Zionists followed by the obvious solution.

So? Why don't you ask it and you might get a response :D
Very well sidestepped.

Could this be applied to Israeli's using the same method & showing the journalists what they want them to see. :thumbsup:

Its called PROPAGANDA.
Yes you're right but the Arab world's propaganda is more prevalent and thus in all probability more successful.

downtroad why only use half an analogy ?

If the IDF had an artillary position and ammo dump in a schoolyard next to a school with kids in it, is it;

1) Fine to fire rockets at that school
2) Not fine

I put to you that the IDF won't find itself in this situation but what if they did ?
But hey it's a simple question as you said.

Because there was a followup question. Thats was a baseline question on morlity.

But to answer your question, Hezbollah's rockets cannot really be aimed. They are fire and hope rockets as has been shown by the casualty figures. They are firing weak rockets in to far more populous areas and the damage done is fairly minimal.

A 1000lb laser guided bomb however is a different propersition.

The other question you all keep skipping over is Hezbollah do not represent the leabonese civilians Israel is killing. They are inoccents, again like the people or Ireland or the people of Spain are to the IRA or ETA. As you keep saying Hezbollah see all of Israel as their enemy, but Israel keep saying they are not giving out collective punishment (as is illegal by international law). For this reason the morality question is different.

Yes you're right but the Arab world's propaganda is more prevalent and thus in all probability more successful.

:hihi: What a joke! If the Israelis are using jewish student groups to go around the internet trying to bias chat rooms, forums and polls, who knows what they're up to behind the scenes with the news media. What they call 'balanced' is actually PROPAGANDA!

Yeah it’s a little bit much to say a terrorist group with a budget in millions, has a propaganda arm as good as Israel a nation with a budget in the billions.

I thought is the one who started the war who have to pay reparation.
Therefore it will be Lebanon who are liable for the costs (given of course that Israel win!)
Lebanon did not start this round, nor did they start the war, that started in 1948 when encouraged by the US (against the advice of all advisers) at Presidential election time the religious fanatic settlers were given the green light to create the state of Israel.

There is actually very little evidence that Hizbollah are infact using the civilians as 'shields'. (whereas there was a Israeli High Court ruling that the IDF had been using Palestinians as human shields during their operations in the occupied territories)


Judging by the people interviewed on BBC News last night Hizbollah would not need to resort to such actions since they remain well supported.

Ah but then the BBC is biased etc zzzzzzzzzzzz while Fox News which supports Israel is the worlds finest purveyor of truth owned by the greatest seeker after truth Rupert Murdoch.

I notice many of you watch this 'Fox News' avidly then come on here to complain how biased it is. Why watch it then?
I personally have never seen it. I take it it must on Sky tv. If this is the case then you are putting money into the Dirty Diggers pockets by subscibing to it.
This enables him to finance 'The Sun', another august organ that the same people complain about.
Stop buying his papers and subscribing to his 'entertainment' networks and he might get the message. (and we might get our cricket back)
If you want bias look no further than the BBC, I think someone has a gun to the head of their news department, judging by the sickening way they are presenting this in such a one sided manner.
They have severly misjudged the public attitude towards this.

Don't you think that if Israel wasn't trying to reduce civilian casualties they would maybe have done a carpet bombing block by block rather than individually targeted buildings ?
We think that the damage is bad now, it would have been ten times worse.
I wouldn't like to say whether it's acceptable or not to increase risk to civilians in order to reduce military casualties.
In a "perfect war" there would be no civilian casualties.
Depends where you are located.
If you're a soldier on the ground then I would imagine that you would prefer that your command does everything it can to create the odds in your favour.
If you're a civilian on the ground then you would probably prefer that the soldier dies before you do.
You've put the dilemma in a nutshell in your last sentence.
I think that it was George Patton that said wars are won, not by dying for your country, but by making sure that more of your enemies die for theirs.

If any nation resorted to carpet bombing, whilst at the same time purporting to possess 'precision' weapons, that nation would automatically loose the PR war.

As for your comment I wouldn't like to say whether it's acceptable or not to increase risk to civilians in order to reduce military casualties.

surely, thats a fundamental question that HAS to be answered! The answer to that question determines whether you value the life of innocence above the lives of those carrying out war !

There is no such thing as a 'perfect' war, so the point around innocent civilians has to be addressed, simply skirting around it with quotes of Patton (from an era when Carpet bombing whole cities was acceptable) implies that you're still stuck in time.....

Z

I notice many of you watch this 'Fox News' avidly then come on here to complain how biased it is. Why watch it then?
I personally have never seen it. I take it it must on Sky tv. If this is the case then you are putting money into the Dirty Diggers pockets by subscibing to it.
This enables him to finance 'The Sun', another august organ that the same people complain about.
Stop buying his papers and subscribing to his 'entertainment' networks and he might get the message. (and we might get our cricket back)
If you want bias look no further than the BBC, I think someone has a gun to the head of their news department, judging by the sickening way they are presenting this in such a one sided manner.
They have severly misjudged the public attitude towards this.
You are of course completely correct about Murdoch but you dont have to subscribe etc to know what they are about, there are plenty of unbiased studies and clips seen on travels.

Not sure what you mean about the BBC, for anyone accusing them of being left wing, just remember the BBC version of the battle of Orgreave led to the collapse of the riot prosecution because the real version was shown instead and was alarmingly different. Now unless people think there has been an 'October revolution' at Auntie Beeb, it is still run by the same rightwing/middle of road types.

For many peoples accusations of bias read - does not blatantly support Israel gasp! Had the temerity to show the case agaisnt war as well as case for, gasp!!!:loopy:

quote[ Mr Prime

"Now unless people think there has been an 'October revolution' at Auntie Beeb, it is still run by the same rightwing/middle of road types".

I think you are way off beam there. The beeb has been far to left wing, even for me a dyed in the wool socialist like myself, for over 9 years now.
The point is that we don't need any slants on The news from the news gatherers and presenters; just the news.

The BBC now gives far too much emphasis in its politcal views by allowing its' journalist to anaylse ( give their own bias ) the news for viewer/listeners and the current politically correct ( messed up socialists) bunch latch on to the latest fashion in causes. The current cause for the perrier brigade has shifted seamlessly from the Palestinians to the plight of the lebanese. The lebanese suffering under the onslaught of the Israelis, who have the temerity to fight back when a fully equipped terrorist army bombards its citizens from the sanctity of the state of Lebanon, with totall imunity from arrest by the lebanese authorities.

Talking of the BBC News, I think their latest political man Nick Robinson is the most objectionable character on any current affairs programme.
He is the worst one since that Irish bloke they had about 15 years ago.
Sorry, going off topic again! :D

If any nation resorted to carpet bombing, whilst at the same time purporting to possess 'precision' weapons, that nation would automatically loose the PR war.

As for your comment

surely, thats a fundamental question that HAS to be answered! The answer to that question determines whether you value the life of innocence above the lives of those carrying out war !

There is no such thing as a 'perfect' war, so the point around innocent civilians has to be addressed, simply skirting around it with quotes of Patton (from an era when Carpet bombing whole cities was acceptable) implies that you're still stuck in time.....

Z
The point that I'm making is that there are no black and white absolutes.
It's easy just to say that it's not acceptable to increase the risk of civilian casualties at the expense of lowering military ones.
We would all like that to be true in each and every circumstance.
Unfortunately, under certain circumstances it may not be viable.
A field commander is acutely aware of his responsibility towards his own personnel and, whilst praying for his own soul I imagine, sometimes has to let his head rule his heart.
Don't take this to mean that I approve of it but I can understand it.
It's a cruel,cynical world that we live in today.

I never thought I'd see a CNN anchor give an Israeli spokeswoman such a hard time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6fn5NZ6LBk

Z

............
If you want bias look no further than the BBC, I think someone has a gun to the head of their news department, judging by the sickening way they are presenting this in such a one sided manner.
They have severly misjudged the public attitude towards this.

I'm with you there Artisan.
The BBC's coverage has been terrible.
I've only caught bits of it though whilst flicking through the plethora of News channels, as I'd 'officially' stopped watching BBC news when they refused to call the Islamic terrorists who'd murdered 52 people last year, 'terrorists' never mind Islamic ones.

Pah.

Over 800 people have now died in this proto war, and still Hizbollah are raining rockets against defencless civilians in Israel.
They have the blood of innocent Lebanese on their hands as well while the hide among civilians. When will they accept a cease fire.
You cannot expect the Israelis to make the first move, their very exsitence is at stake.
Every day this conflict goes on more deaths must be laid at Hizbollahs door.

You cannot expect the Israelis to make the first move, their very exsitence is at stake.
.

Sure it is. :rolleyes:

.... as well while they hide among civilians........
And hospitals, as we saw in todays news.

And hospitals, as we saw in todays news.

Firstly the hospital was Hezbollah financed, and had no civilians in it. So it was pretty obvious they would be using it.

Israel went in with special forces, just in case, they handled this very well and in acordance with law and morality. They captured a number of terrorist and got out. That just shows that they can use techniques to minimize civilian casualties if they want to.

Hezbollah celebrating Israeli civilian casualties - Video clip. (http://pmw.org.il/bulletins_Aug2006.htm#b020806)

Here's an article from today's National Post (Canada)
I've not tried to post a link before so not sure if it will work.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b0d85941-2565-4b47-b853-4041944114ee

Here's another from last week.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=6a6e99ec-50b1-4ddf-9236-ddbbbfc84361&p=1

Sure it is. :rolleyes:
I,for one, would be very interested in finding out the reason for your doubts about Israel not fighting for it's survival.

Here's an article from today's National Post (Canada)
I've not tried to post a link before so not sure if it will work.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b0d85941-2565-4b47-b853-4041944114ee

Here's another from last week.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=6a6e99ec-50b1-4ddf-9236-ddbbbfc84361&p=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post


Main article: 2006 Iranian sumptuary law
On May 19, 2006, the newspaper ran two pieces alleging that the Iranian parliament had passed a law requiring religious minorities to wear special identifying badges. One piece was a front page news item titled "IRAN EYES BADGES FOR JEWS" accompanied by a 1935 picture of two Jews bearing Nazi insignia. Later on the same day experts began coming forward to deny the accuracy of the Post story. The story proved to be false, but not before it had been picked up by a variety of other news media and generated comment from world leaders. Comments on the story by the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper caused Iran to summon Canada's ambassador to Tehran for an explanation. On May 24, 2006, the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper, Doug Kelly, published an apology for the story on Page 2, admitting that it was false and the National Post had not exercised enough caution or checked enough sources.[1]


Its a good thing this paper isn't 'biased' like the BBC. :suspect:

Z

Firstly the hospital was Hezbollah financed, and had no civilians in it. So it was pretty obvious they would be using it.

Israel went in with special forces, just in case, they handled this very well and in acordance with law and morality. They captured a number of terrorist and got out. That just shows that they can use techniques to minimize civilian casualties if they want to.

Well according to BBC Newsnight, Hizbollah had emptied the hospital as far back as the 12th of July. There were no civilians around, hence why no one was killed.

The supposed captured terrorists, were infact kidnapped from a nearby village. All the evidence points to them being plain ordinary civilians.

It appears that all the commando's captured from the hospital were some hard drives.

Z

And hospitals, as we saw in todays news.

You mean empty hospital.

Z

Well according to BBC Newsnight, Hizbollah had emptied the hospital as far back as the 12th of July. There were no civilians around, hence why no one was killed.

The supposed captured terrorists, were infact kidnapped from a nearby village. All the evidence points to them being plain ordinary civilians.

It appears that all the commando's captured from the hospital were some hard drives.

Z
Terrorists usually are to all intents and purposes ordinary people.
If they went about dressed as soldiers it would be dead giveaway wouldnt it?
Besides that true soldiers would not give them the time of day.
All this conflict that the Muslim leaders are involving all you followers of Islam is for one purpose.
To keep you obsessed with the conflict and not give you any time to think.
For if you did sit and think about it you would realise what nonsense it is.
On this and the other threads you and others have been presented with overwhelming evidence of this, and yet you just ignore it keep trotting out the same old story.
This is probably why conversion to Islam has to be done by the sword.
Because anyone who thought about it for more than five minutes would reject it.
Unchanging Law does not wash, Im afraid.

Terrorists usually are to all intents and purposes ordinary people.
If they went about dressed as soldiers it would be dead giveaway wouldnt it?
Besides that true soldiers would not give them the time of day.
All this conflict that the Muslim leaders are involving all you followers of Islam is for one purpose.
To keep you obsessed with the conflict and not give you any time to think.
For if you did sit and think about it you would realise what nonsense it is.
On this and the other threads you and others have been presented with overwhelming evidence of this, and yet you just ignore it keep trotting out the same old story.
This is probably why conversion to Islam has to be done by the sword.
Because anyone who thought about it for more than five minutes would reject it.
Unchanging Law does not wash, Im afraid.

Its fascinating what you misconstrue as evidence.....

As I've reiterated on several occasions, this is not an issue of religion but rather one of Geo-Politics.

Interestingly, your view is in line with Bush and Blair.
Bush - Axis of Evil
Blair - Crescent of Extremism
Artisan - Sword of Islam ?

Anyhow, going back to the issue of the Hospital it probably worth while checking out the newsnight program

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsnight

There was also a section on the Qana bombing and how Israel is once again attempting to deflect blame.

Finally, its now officially the longest War that Israel has been involved in.

Z

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post




Its a good thing this paper isn't 'biased' like the BBC. :suspect:

Z
At least they did retract it. As for bias aren't all newspapers biased one way or the other including the ones that you quote ?

You mean empty hospital.

Z

According to BBC news

The hospital and the terrorist fighting from it, was finally taken by the Israelis after a 2 hour battle. The Israelis also captured a significant arms cache.

How on earth do you call this an empty hospital ?

Empty of patients, Doctors and nurses maybe.

At least they did retract it. As for bias aren't all newspapers biased one way or the other including the ones that you quote ?


Ofcourse thats true, however the degree of bias is not necessarily comparable.

For instance when you have newspapers owned by individuals who openly admit to having editorial control and who also are Zionists or Strong supporters of Israel (as is the case of Ruport Murdoch with News International and FOX TV, and also the Avril brothers vis-a-vi the Canadian National Post), to compare the bias to say the BBC is kind of comparing chalk and cheese.

The story was retracted, but by that time the damage had been done. I suppose there are still people who will be quoting that particular story as evidence of Iranian persecution of Jews.

I dont believe it, I've just gone back onto the Wikipedia reference I gave yesterday and all of a sudden the lines about the Canadian post being known as the Zionist Post, along with the Daily Telegraph being known as the Tel-avivagraph have been removed!!!!!!!!

Z

According to BBC news

The hospital and the terrorist fighting from it, was finally taken by the Israelis after a 2 hour battle. The Israelis also captured a significant arms cache.

How on earth do you call this an empty hospital ?

Empty of patients, Doctors and nurses maybe.

Can you provide the link.

Z

Ofcourse thats true, however the degree of bias is not necessarily comparable.

For instance when you have newspapers owned by individuals who openly admit to having editorial control and who also are Zionists or Strong supporters of Israel (as is the case of Ruport Murdoch with News International and FOX TV, and also the Avril brothers vis-a-vi the Canadian National Post), to compare the bias to say the BBC is kind of comparing chalk and cheese.

The story was retracted, but by that time the damage had been done. I suppose there are still people who will be quoting that particular story as evidence of Iranian persecution of Jews.

I dont believe it, I've just gone back onto the Wikipedia reference I gave yesterday and all of a sudden the lines about the Canadian post being known as the Zionist Post, along with the Daily Telegraph being known as the Tel-avivagraph have been removed!!!!!!!!

Z
Not doubting what you said,in fact that's why I'm a tad skeptical about Wikipedia.
I do believe that it's open to editing. Never tried to edit anything myself but it does cast doubt,in my mind, with it's overall credibility.
Just checked the bottom of the article and it says that it was last modified at 5:16 3rd August 2006.

Here is a nice 50 page report from human rights watch detailing war crimes and delibrate targeting of civilians by Israel.

http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/

"The pattern of attacks shows the Israeli military's disturbing disregard for the lives of Lebanese civilians," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "Our research shows that Israel's claim that Hezbollah fighters are hiding among civilians does not explain, let alone justify, Israel's indiscriminate warfare."

[I]n none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in the report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah was operating in or around the area during or prior to the attack. "Hezbollah fighters must not hide behind civilians - that's an absolute - but the image that Israel has promoted of such shielding as the cause of so high a civilian death toll is wrong," Roth said. "In the many cases of civilian deaths examined by Human Rights Watch, the location of Hezbollah troops and arms had nothing to do with the deaths because there was no Hezbollah around."

In previous reporting, Human Rights Watch has addressed the conduct of Hezbollah forces, condemning its attacks on civilian areas as serious violations of international humanitarian law amounting to war crimes. Human Rights Watch has called on the governments of Syria and Iran to use their influence on Hezbollah to promote respect for the laws of war. In this report, it urges Hezbollah to take all feasible steps to avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas and to remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

Islamic cowards hide behind women and children, then blame Israel when they get killed. If they stopped raining rockets on innocent Israeli citizens, I venture to suggest Israel would go home, Maybe that's simplistic, considering the years of provocation Israel has had to go tthrough, but nothing will change till the rocket attacks cease.

This about sums it up for me. We can talk about the tactics all day, but will this actually make Israel safer or not? It hasn't in the past, and it won't this time.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

-- Benjamin Franklin

Not doubting what you said,in fact that's why I'm a tad skeptical about Wikipedia.
I do believe that it's open to editing. Never tried to edit anything myself but it does cast doubt,in my mind, with it's overall credibility.
Just checked the bottom of the article and it says that it was last modified at 5:16 3rd August 2006.


LOL you reckon 'students' with the 'megaphone' software made a visit to the site ?

Z

Amenesty international, Human rights watch and the UN have all found this not to be true.

Buck you are a man who has served. You understand the nessesity for the Geneva Convension? It goes to protect our service men as well. Surely you are not saying that we should scrap the Geneva Convension are you?

Islamic cowards hide behind women and children, then blame Israel when they get killed. If they stopped raining rockets on innocent Israeli citizens, I venture to suggest Israel would go home, Maybe that's simplistic, considering the years of provocation Israel has had to go tthrough, but nothing will change till the rocket attacks cease.

According to BBC news

The hospital and the terrorist fighting from it, was finally taken by the Israelis after a 2 hour battle. The Israelis also captured a significant arms cache.

How on earth do you call this an empty hospital ?

Empty of patients, Doctors and nurses maybe.


That was the initial story put out by the IDF. Like all IDF stories, once people have managed to get some independent facts the story is changed.

This is what Haaretz said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=baalbek&itemNo=745788

The second force targeted the town's Dar al-Hikma hospital, built and maintained by funds from Iran and managed by Hezbollah. The hospital was empty and was being used as a Hezbollah command center. The IDF commandos searched the building.

It appears that Israeli intelligence thought the hospital was housing a Snr Hizbollah leader. However, as we now know the hospital was empty.

The ensuing gunfight happened because he commando's found themselves trapped inside, and it took 4 hours of bombing to get them out.

The initial stories put out by the IDF gave the impression that the 5 Lebanese were kidnapped from the Hospital, however, its subsequently become known that they were took from another village north of Hospital.

Also interesting that the Israeli prime minister initally described the kidnapped individuals as 'tasty' interms of their information, which was then changed to 'low-level' Hizbollah operatives.

What are the odds that in the future they will be recognised as being innocent civilians ?

Z

This is what Sir Rodric Braithwaite wrote in the FT today.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/cb2cb242-228c-11db-bc00-0000779e2340.html

Mr Blair, it is time to recognise your errors and just go
By Rodric Braithwaite

Published: August 3 2006 03:00 | Last updated: August 3 2006 03:00

Aspectre is stalking Britishtelevision, a frayed and waxy zombie straight from Madame Tussaud's. This one, unusually, seems to live and breathe. Perhaps it comes from the Central Intelligence Agency's box of technical tricks, programmed to spout the language of the White House in an artificial English accent.

There is another possible explanation. Perhaps what we see on television is the real Tony Blair, the man who believes that he and his friend alone have the key to the horrifying problems of the Middle East. At first he argued against a ceasefire in Lebanon. Then, after another Israeli airstrike killed dozens of Lebanese women and children, he finally admitted, in California - reluctantly, grudgingly and with a host of preconditions - that military force alone would not do the trick, and now seems to have told his people to look for something better.

.................
But whatever our sympathy for Israel's dilemma, Mr Blair's prime responsibility is to defend the interests of his own country. This he has signally failed to do. Stiff in opinions, but often in the wrong, he has manipulated public opinion, sent our soldiers into distant lands for ill-conceived purposes, misused the intelligence agencies to serve his ends and reduced the Foreign Office to a demoralised cipher because it keeps reminding him of inconvenient facts. He keeps the dog, but he barely notices if it barks or not. He prefers to construct his "foreign policy" out of self-righteous soundbites and expensive foreign travel.

Mr Blair has done more damage to British interests in the Middle East than Anthony Eden, who led the UK to disaster in Suez 50 years ago. In the past 100 years - to take the highlights - we have bombed and occupied Egypt and Iraq, put down an Arab uprising in Palestine and overthrown governments in Iran, Iraq and the Gulf. We can no longer do these things on our own, so we do them with the Americans. Mr Blair's total identification with the White House has destroyed his influence in Washington, Europe and the Middle East itself: who bothers with the monkey if he can go straight to the organ-grinder?

Mr Blair has seriously damaged our domestic politics, too. His prevarication over a ceasefire confirms to many of our Muslim fellow citizens that Britain is engaged in a secular war against the Arab world and by extension, against the Muslim world. He has thus made it harder to achieve what should be a goal of policy for any British government - to build a tolerant multi-ethnic society within our own islands. And though he chooses not to admit it, he has made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. These are not achievements of which a British prime minister should be proud.

But in spite of the disasters he has wreaked abroad, in spite of the growing scandal and incoherence of his performance at home, Mr Blair is still a consummate politician. How else can one explain the failure of his party to do the decent thing and get rid of him? Why else does it still appear as though he alone controls the timing and circumstances of his departure? One day we may feel sorry for Mr Blair for the damage he has done to his place in history and to himself. But that moment is not yet. For now, he should no longer attempt to stand upon the order of his going, but go. At once.

Sir Rodric Braithwaite, UK ambassador to Moscow 1988-92 and then foreign policy adviser to John Major and chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, is author of Moscow 1941 (Profile, 2006)

v scathing indeed.

Z

Amenesty international, Human rights watch and the UN have all found this not to be true.

Buck you are a man who has served. You understand the nessesity for the Geneva Convension? It goes to protect our service men as well. Surely you are not saying that we should scrap the Geneva Convension are you?I think you misunderstand me. Of course I believe in the Geneva Convention, only a fool wouldn't. I do not condone the indiscriminate killing of non combatants whether they be jews or arabs. But Hezbollah is as muich to blame for the deaths of innocent Beirutis as Israel is. All I was saying that the root cause of the problem is rocket attacks on Israel causing Israel to retaliate. No rockets, no F16s, or Abrams tanks. Cause and effect. I don't like what Israel is doing any more than you, but they won't stop till the others do.

Zafar, interesting read, som eof it very true. True that the Iraq/Afghanistan war has made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks as has the Israul/Muslim war (which it is).

But this isn't the only thing, a vast number of pathetic Muslims who are anti-Brit/West live in this country and gladly criticise everything about us. But they continue to live hear because they are too cowardly to sod off elsewhere.

Here is a nice 50 page report from human rights watch detailing war crimes and delibrate targeting of civilians by Israel.

http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/
That report was extremely good. It's probably one of the most neutral and unbiased reports that I've read anyway.
It's a pity that this organization doesn't have any "teeth" to carry out it's recommendations but then this is probably why it can be so unbiased.
When all the killing has stopped and alleged war criminals from both sides are identified what are the chances that they are taken to account ?
If the U.N. is at all involved I can't see Israel handing anyone over to them.
As for Hezbollah, who can be named there and how do you get them if they are ?
Seems to me that they would just scarper into Iran or Syria.
Syria might hand them over but there's no way Iran would.

But Hezbollah is as much to blame for the deaths of innocent Beirutis as Israel is.

I don't agree. It's the Israelis who have dropped the bombs on civilians in Beirut. They are totally to blame and 100% accountable for this murderous over-reaction.

Assigning blame to Hezbollah is a bit like blaming the British Government for the Birmingham Pub bombs.