Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Middle East falls to pieces.

by Colman Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 03:13:18 PM EST

Well, in case anyone was worried that we might be short of news to cover over the summer, it looks like Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel, with a host of supporting actors, have decided to produce a summer blockbuster for us.

In response to two stupid and criminal kidnappings and rocket attacks on Israel, we now have:

  • Fighting and aerial bombardment in Gaza leading almost directly to a worsening of already wretched living conditions.
  • Israeli incursions in Lebanon, including attacks on targets in Beirut, including the airport, and a naval blockade of Lebanese ports.
  • The Bush administration making ominous noises about holding Syria and Iran responsible.
  • Retaliatory attacks on Israel from Hezbollah.
  • A hundred dead already?

The Israeli response is disproportionate, immoral, probably illegal and profoundly stupid. They are doing precisely the things most likely to increase the power and authority of the hardline Palestinians and most likely to prolong the conflict in the area, assuming it doesn't escalate out of their control into something faster burning.

The lunatics are in control on both sides: wonder how many they'll kill this time around?

Bumped...still very current...


Display:
Previous threads:

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 04:40:38 AM EST
..on the ground things go on normally. Normal life.. normal wethaer and walks.. it looks like I am in another country...nothing tells me I am in a delciate troublesome place.

Tel-Aviv seems safe...maybe a bomb attack int eh following month..a th the most.

Meanwhile the towns close to norhter border watch how the people leave or just get cover in bomb shelters.

The general underlying assumption is that Israel ahs the upper hand no matter what. There is no general sense of imp[orving the situation...israel will eb fighting all of its life for existence.. this summere will be just another summer...maybe shorter maybe longer..maybe with more bombs maybe with more...but Israel existence is at stake.

I wonder if the mentality in the top echelons is the same that the average citizen. It is very difficult to believe...a survival mentality and a victim mentality as most israeli have is very difficult to imagine in the army generals.

In any case, support of any movement is complete. Hamas and Hizbulla are the enemies..so there is no surprise on that. Amzing howeve the lack of critical judgment about the best way to "beat them".

Migeru poitned out that they may be thinking that now they have the perfect excuse to eliminate Hizbulla... really? they really think so?...bombing the airport.

The press only has questions about how far the symbolic gestures will go...just a couple of more strikes and then back to normal ground operation in Gaza and Souther Lebanon.. or are htye really going to bring Lebanon and Siria into this...?

Questions and questions...but the only conforntation that can be called a war will be Siria-Israel...if this happens or it is close to happens.. I guess I will have to leave...

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 04:47:18 AM EST
...tones of work.. and hardly any time.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 04:48:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Be careful ... I suspect that Israel's anti-terrorist measures are going to be tested severely in the next few weeks.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 04:50:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
.,..thanks..appreciated. I will certianly not go to downtown Tel-Aviv in this last month...I will stay in the suburbs...

I will check if the checking in the doors is as relaxed as it has been lately or people start to worry about it and icnrease it...it all depends on the mood of the population since people cehcking bags in bars are just normal people...lately they just hardly worried any more...we will see from now on.

A pleasur

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 05:01:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My theory is that Ehud Olmert feels that he does not have a distinguished enough military career compared to previous Prime Ministers and so feels the need to prove his mettle to fill Ariel Sharon's shoes.
Olmert served with the Israel Defense Forces in the Golani combat brigade. While in service he was injured and temporarily released. He underwent many treatments. Later he completed his military duties as a journalist for the IDF magazine BaMahane. During the Yom Kippur war he joined the headquarters of Ariel Sharon as a military correspondent. Already a Knesset member, he decided to go through an Officer's course, at the age of 35, in 1980.


Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 05:12:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
..he does as the military tell them.. or a combination of both.

I can not believe they can launch a full attack on Lebanon...I hope that the blocakde option is the path chosen to "retiliate against Lebanon government". It will help to cool things down for a while. Besides, if they want to put pressure on Lebanon government..it is certainly better than bombing the capital.

Ic ertainly hope all comes down back again to ground operation on again..guerrilla fight in ths soouth of Lebanon. In Gaza..well.. I guess nobody will worry anymore about Gaza.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 05:28:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
LA Times: Olmert's Political Fate Tied to Israeli Military Campaigns (July 14, 2006)
The fate of the prime minister's goal of setting permanent borders rests on the outcome of Israel's military campaign, analysts say.

The ability of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to carry out the main goal of his 2-month-old government -- setting permanent and defensible borders for Israel -- hinges on how well he handles the twin crises in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

Olmert's plan to withdraw from much of the West Bank as a way of setting borders -- unilaterally, if necessary -- was the raison d'etre for his Kadima party during its successful election campaign this spring, though public support for the idea had dropped somewhat even before the latest outbreaks of violence.



Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 11:07:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
[Israel] may be thinking that now they have the perfect excuse to eliminate Hizbulla... really? they really think so?
What I said yesterday is that since Syria was forced by the the Cedar Revolution to withdraw from Lebanon, Israel may think they can mount a full-on attack on Hezbollah without drawing Syria in. We'll see whether the gamble pays off. Wikipedia has this:
According to Professor Gerald Steinberg, a Senior Research Associate at the Begin Sadat Center for Strategic Studies "Israel may have to take alarming force as an outcome of the latest attacks, which may even result in the disarming of the Hezbullah,"


Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 05:50:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Heh, as if it was Syrian presence that kept the IDF from defeating Hezbollah previously.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 08:56:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru poitned out that they may be thinking that now they have the perfect excuse to eliminate Hizbulla... really? they really think so?...bombing the airport.
Really, they really think so.
Jerusalem Post: IDF warns civilians in south Beirut to leave homes (Jul. 13, 2006)
A high-ranking IDF source said that the current operation, dubbed Operation Just Reward, would be "long" and could last up to several months, or "as long as it takes to destroy the Hizbullah's ability to launch attacks against Israel."


Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 06:58:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
..it seems that you ahve some cristal ball...

maybe everything is about eliminating Hezbolal form the south.

Block Lebanon..do not bomb any civilian outside the south of Lebanon...warn.. and destroy all the south of Lebanon...

This is indeed a way to look at it...if they do this..let's see what is the response from Siria.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 08:50:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Reliefweb: Israel PM sets three conditions for ceasefire (July 14, 2006)
The prime minister is prepared to finish our operations in Lebanon if Hezbollah releases our two soldiers, stops its rocket fire and if the Lebanese government decides to implement UN Security Council resolution 1559


Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 11:03:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wikipedia: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 was a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on September 2, 2004. It called upon Syria to end its military presence in Lebanon by withdrawing its forces and to cease intervening in internal Lebanese politics. The resolution also called on all Lebanese militias (including Hezbollah) to disband.


Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 11:05:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Stay safe.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 04:10:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, be careful.  I stayed a good 3 months in Jerusalem on a scholarship myself in 1998, an interesting stay indeed, and an experience very different from the tranquil and peaceful conditions here in Norway.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 04:41:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 05:11:02 AM EST
IPE August Brent rose more than 1 per cent to a record $75.45 a barrel before easing back slightly to $75.31.FT.com.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 05:29:35 AM EST
I think it had been going up before, but I don't know what the price was doing before Gaza. The Levant has no oil.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 05:31:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, but tomorrow is going to be fun in a lot of Arab cities. Large crowds coming out of mosques with this going on?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 05:34:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
From a Belgian aviation forum :
And now is also the Beirut Airport website down - IDF seems to also have cut a number of communication lines.

I would suggest renaming IDF to IOF - Defence -> Offence - since they no longer defend their own country, but rather offend neighbouring countries.



The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.(Kundera)
by Elco B (elcob at scarlet dot be) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 06:22:50 AM EST
no longer defend their own country, but rather offend neighbouring countries.

No longer?...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 08:51:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Reuters: Israel aims to impose Lebanon blockade - radio (13 Jul 2006)
"Israel plans to impose a closure on Lebanon from the sea, air and land, in order to press the government there to take responsibility over southern Lebanon, which is currently under Hizbollah control," the radio said.
This actually makes more sense than "Hizbullah's actions are an act of war by Lebanon", though it is not officially stated policy but apparently sourced from Israeli Army Radio. All the same, it doesn't seem as though Israel actually asked the Lebanese government to "take responsibility" over the South before bombing Beirut's airport.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 06:24:28 AM EST
It's the usual disingenuous shit. What means has the Lebanese government to "take responsibility over" South Lebanon?

Lebanon has no central strength or consistency of its own. Syria moves out, Israel moves in.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:06:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jerusalem Post: Analysis: Blaming Beirut, thinking of Damascus and Gaza (Jul. 12, 2006)
The consequences for the other side, Olmert said, "will be very, very, very painful."

The question, however, is who the other side is.

If the air force buzzed Syrian President Bashar Assad's summer palace after Hamas killed two soldiers and kidnapped Gilad Shalit two weeks ago, then one could expect the IAF to level the palace - and more - after Hizbullah killed seven soldiers and captured two others. Syria, after all, is - together with Iran - Hizbullah's sponsor.

And, indeed, Olmert had some harsh words to say about Syria.



Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 07:00:27 AM EST
The US urged restraint and said it recognised Israel's right to defend itself, while Russia and France condemned both the Hizbullah raid and Israel's attacks on Lebanon. "For several hours, there has been a bombardment of an airport of an entirely sovereign country, a friend of France ... this is a disproportionate act of war," said Philippe Douste-Blazy, the French foreign minister, adding that the matter should be referred to the United Nations security council as soon as possible.

(Guardian)

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 08:26:44 AM EST
In response to two stupid and criminal kidnappings

I don't know. The Israeli rocket attack on a family on a Gaza beach before the Gaza kidnap was certainly an act of war, so I don't see Hamas's attack on a military border station criminal unless all actions of war are criminal. lobbing rockets and Hezbollah's kidnap is another thing.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 08:49:18 AM EST
..indeed..lebanon is an international border recognized by everybody. The excuse of the farms is stupid sinc eit is obviously Siria.
Hezbolla act was not an act of war but was a vioaltion of the international border and if Lebanon would be anormal country , the governemnt would be held responsable.

A blockade as a way to pressure the government and a good way to cool things off. They should also force the popualtion out of south lebanon and norhter israel. Both sides should pack the things and leave.

Bombing lebanon Hezbolla neighborhoods is out of limits...but military operation on the border and blockade is the farthest you can go but still somehow wihtin the limits.

And please, leave civilians alone and let them leave the border areas.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 08:56:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They should also force the popualtion out of south lebanon and norhter israel.

Why?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 08:59:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I mean letting anybody that wants to leave. If some israeli or lebanese wants to stay...stay..but knowing that there will be operation from the israeli army and Hezbolla I doubt they will like to stay.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:04:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because Lebanon should handle the IDF as a natural disaster. When there is a hurricane warning, you evacuate.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:08:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Absolutely..and northern israelis the same.

I hope Beirut and Haifa remain out of the game.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:17:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I hope Beirut and Haifa remain out of the game.

kcurie, you're behind the events... </snark>
Jerusalem Post: Hizbullah: Bomb Beirut, we'll hit Haifa (Jul. 13, 2006)

Hizbullah warned Israel Thursday afternoon that if the IDF attacked southern Beirut, where the organization's leadership is based, they would target Haifa.

"The Islamic resistance warns against targeting civilians and the infrastructure," a statement read on Hezbollah TV said. "It (resistance) specifically announces that it will quickly shell the city of Haifa and nearby areas if the southern suburbs and the city of Beirut are subjected to any direct Israeli aggression," the statement said.

Israel laid siege Thursday morning to Lebanon, shutting down the country and closing off access by air, land and sea.



Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:25:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
.. yeah I had already read it in haaretz.

This was my hope.. that this stuff doe snot get out of control and Israel know how to put pressure on Lebanon to deal with Hezbolla.

We will see.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 10:29:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It was shown by ballistics testing that the rocket which hit the family did not belong to the Israelis. Even the Human Rights Watch has since backed off their accusation of Israel.

Mikhail from SF
by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 11:06:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It was shown by ballistics testing

Only in the IDF's self-absolving claims.

Even the Human Rights Watch has since backed off

You shouldn't read the Jerusalem Post or anyone quoting them as credible source. As the Tikun Olam blog points out, they spun HRW's report to the very opposite. You should read the original HRW press release, which is more like an indictment of IDF whitewashing and dismissal/suppression of evidence.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 12:32:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know. The Israeli rocket attack on a family on a Gaza beach before the Gaza kidnap was certainly an act of war, so I don't see Hamas's attack on a military border station criminal unless all actions of war are criminal. lobbing rockets and Hezbollah's kidnap is another thing.

True, sort of. I find the 'who started it' question useless - both sides can always point to something. Instead I prefer dividing up the stuff into attacks on combatants (Israeli army and members of paramilitary groups) and attacks on civilians. The former may often be stupid and counterproductive, but they don't strike me as criminal. The latter is a different story. Both sides have done plenty of both - on the Israeli side attacks on infrastructure without good military justification e.g. the electricity plant and reckless disregard for civilian deaths in many of their attacks on legitimate targets; on both the Palestinian and Hezbollah side rocket attacks on Israeli towns.

by MarekNYC on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 11:38:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
BTW, regarding rocket attacks:



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 12:37:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And...?

So the Palestinians have far less capability than the Israelis. No kidding. Fwiw that's not a useful comparison if we're talking about attacks on civilian vs. military targets since it doesn't break them down that way. Both sides have made it crystal clear that they believe that hurting civilians is a core part of their strategy.

by MarekNYC on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 01:54:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So what you are basically saying is that as long as the Palestinians don't drop as many bombs, they are not as guilty? How about the fact that most Qassam missiles were fired from Gaza absolutely unprovoked, for no reason?

Mikhail from SF
by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 05:28:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It turned out to be a Palestinian mine, not a rocket attack, so it's not an act of war at all.

The main problem is that Hamas and Hizbollah think that all Jews are sniviling cowards who can be rolled. Movements toward peace on the Israeli side are proof of this, and therefore, the Arabs push harder.

This was the cause of the second indifada and the cause of this. Hamas and Hizbullah are the worst enemies the Palestinians ever had, except maybe Yassir Arafat.

by messy on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:01:35 AM EST
..sources for the palestinian mine..please.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:05:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
An official liar of the IDF, if I recall correctly.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:09:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Read this Human Rights Watch report that blasts the IDF's claims to pieces.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:30:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
HRW is a pinko commie entisemitic disinformation outlet. </snark>

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:32:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
> An official liar of the IDF, if I recall correctly.

his name is mark regev, press speaker of the .il govt.

by name (name@spammez_moi_sivouplait.org) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 01:23:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What are you talking about? Is this a response to some comment, my story or the voices in your head? Do you mean there weren't rocket attacks from Lebanon or Gaza?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:13:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He's talking about the shelling of the beach.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:18:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What "rocket attack" are you talking about, messy? In the diary above "rocket attacks" mentioned by Colman seem to me to refer to Hamas and Hizbullah.

So what's this "Palestinian mine" that a "rocket attack" "turned out" to be?

As for "Hamas and Hizbollah think that all Jews are sniviling cowards", that takes the cake, after decades of Israeli military superiority and ruthless use of force. You're using pernicious victim talk -- redoubled by the conflation of "all Jews" with Israelis -- to make the other side look like the bullies on the block.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:23:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Dodo mentioned the rocket attack on the Gaza beach in a top-level comment.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:26:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The main problem is that Hamas and Hizbollah think that all Jews are sniviling cowards who can be rolled. Movements toward peace on the Israeli side are proof of this, and therefore, the Arabs push harder.

Really ? On what do you base this assertion ? It would require a complete mis-reading of recent history for arabs to think that. I don't believe they do.

As for apacryphal stories, another version has it that every time a moderate leadership has emerged that looked willing to lead the Palestinians towards a brokered deal, their leadership found themselves being targeted by the israeli military. The israelis cannot accept a peace that includes a viable Palestine. Olmert himself believes in an Israel that streches to the Jordan, ie no palestinian state. so how can you negotiate on that basis ? So they avoid doing so.

Many have attributed the recent belligerence to Hamas finally, grudgingly recognising Israel. It is only by driving palestinians into the arms of the extremists can Israel justify its continued aggression towards them. Peace is not an option.


keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:26:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Many have attributed the recent belligerence to Hamas finally, grudgingly recognising Israel.

Since Hamas hasn't done that, then how can it be attributed? and to who? AS to the "sniviling cowards" comment, look at what Hamas and Hizballa have to say about the JEWS in their websites. How they crowed as they claimed to have DRIVEN OUT the inferior Jews from Gaza and Lebanon.

The Israeli response is disproportionate, immoral, probably illegal and profoundly stupid.

What would be a proportunate, moral, "legal" and profoundly smart response? I mean aside from having the population of Israel walk into the Mediteranian and drown themselves?

by messy on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:45:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
CBC News: Hamas denies deal recognizes Israel (27 Jun 2006)
Rival Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas agreed on a plan Tuesday to end their power struggle, but Hamas denied earlier reports that the deal implicitly recognized Israel.

...

The 18-point proposal calls for a Palestinian state alongside Israel. But Palestinian minister Abdel Rahman Zeidan told the BBC Tuesday that the deal does not recognize the state of Israel.



Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:57:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Personally, I always felt that denial was about as convincing as Clinton's. Depends what the meaning of "recognition" is.

All they were doing was trying to save face, but every aspect of the deal was about finding a way to create peace, something which had to, HAD to, involve recognising Israel.

As for the websites !! He, I'm sure a quick survey of websites will find hot-heads a plenty. It is the role of government in crisis to steer the course towards the best deal possible, not the most satisfying short-term act of defiance. Being in Government forced Hamas to accept responsibilities it had never previously encountered. Personally I was amazed they did it so quickly.

I was not remotely surprised that Israel manufactured an incursion shortly after, it's straight out of the Sharon playbook. It's the 4th and short answer, call on the big running back and bulldoze straight in.


keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 10:14:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
All they were doing was trying to save face, but every aspect of the deal was about finding a way to create peace, something which had to, HAD to, involve recognising Israel.

I've always thought that if your enemy wants to make a small step towards peace (and all politics is in essence the art of compromise) then the only polite thing to do is not to mention his misdirection that he's showing to the crowds and to look at the actual results

If his actions are actually recognising you while he's telling the more rabid of his supporters that he isn't really, I would have thought that the best thing would be to not provoke him and keep your head down for a while, as he sorts out his problems, not force him to make his public statements the reality

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 06:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's how the Northern Ireland process worked. Of course, it wouldn't have if third parties - the UK and Irish governments - didn't hold most of the real power in the situation.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 06:20:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And how it's still working, despite fanatics on both sides trying to derail the situation.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 06:30:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Proportionate: commando operations.
Moral: not targeting civilians
Legal: referring the matter to the UNSC [yes, I know nothing would come out of that, but at least they could pretend they tried diplomacy before force]
Smart: not escalating, not targeting civilians

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 10:00:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Add to that:

Moral: taking action only to achieve the limited ends of recovering their troops.
Legal: talking to the Lebanese government.
Smart: defusing tensions rather than inflaming them.

Long-term smart: coming to a settlement.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 10:07:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Legal: talking to the Lebanese government.

There is the small matter of Lebanon not having diplomatic relations with Israel, of course.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 10:10:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That would be a problem to address, certainly. I'm not aware that blockades increase the likelihood of sensible discourse.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 10:11:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It all boils down to one thing: applying Israel's overwhelming force with restraint.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 10:14:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The main problem with this is that in the past the US has always stood in the middle and acted as a quasi-honest broker, and guaranteed that Israel will fulfil its end of any agreement (Witness Bush senior withdrawing all financial support for the state of Israel till they agreed to peace talks in certain situations before)

However because of the Iraq situation, GWB is in no position to use any leverage without looking a complete hypocrite.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 06:06:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Moral: taking action only to achieve the limited ends of recovering their troops.

What would that entail? Begging? Withdrawing from those farms, and encouraging more violence because the rockets worked? What?

Legal: talking to the Lebanese government.

The Lebanese refuse to talk to the Israelis, and had done so since thier masters in Damascus ordered them not to. If Lebanon wants to talk, all they have to do is ask to talk.

Smart: defusing tensions rather than inflaming them.

How? If they withdraw, they encourage terrorism because the terrorists think it works. If they attack, it gets the terrorists mad.

The only thing which will satisfy the terrorists is Israeli mass suicide and the restoration of Islamic Dhimmi status for non muslims.

it won't work.

Long-term smart: coming to a settlement.

by messy on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 10:45:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
AS to the "sniviling cowards" comment, look at what Hamas and Hizballa have to say about the JEWS in their websites

And this kind of pitiful rhetoric is, according to you, "the main problem"?

The fact remains that Israelis are not anywhere near being driven into the sea, and that the eight hundred pound gorilla in the region is Israel. messy, you should realize that no one -- outside of Israel and certain circles in the US -- believes the overblown victim story of Israel in mortal danger.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 10:19:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, Israel isn't in mortal danger. but you have Lebanon is officially at WAR with Israel, and so is the PA.

The Arab intentions are indeed genocidal, and any move towards peace on the part of the Israelis is considered cowardly fleeing.

How would YOU defend Israel's borders?

by messy on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 10:35:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
.. on the east.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 10:39:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What would be a proportunate, moral, "legal" and profoundly smart response? I mean aside from having the population of Israel walk into the Mediteranian and drown themselves?

Well indeed! The proportionate response of poor outnumbered, Israeli soldiers out-gunned by Palestinian youth throwing stones from 100 m away (lost Olympic champions all of them!), about to run them soldiers into the sea, is to shoot 'em!



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 12:42:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's ridiculous, messy.  Israel, as you well know, is fully capable of wiping every other state in the region off the map.  What happened the last time a country, or group of countries, launched a full-scale war on Israel?  Israelis are in as much danger of being driven into the sea as I am of being kidnapped and flown to Never-Never Land by fairies in my sleep.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 08:31:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
..about one point.

Olmert does not think about the great Israel. Actually most of the israeli elite would not give a damn about it.. their goal their real great goal is East Jerusalem..no doubt about it

There is no way palesitnian are going to disappear and the future of Israel without a palestinian state looks very ugly for demographic reason. Olmert and the top echelons understand it.

The key point about why they want to do it on their own..with no peace negotiation... is  East Jerusalem. They do not want to talk about it. This is of course a personal opinion but pursuing an unilateral police is not related with the West-Bank (except some fertile areas and the big settlement both close to the border), they have to do with Jerusalem.

Believe me.. only the most radical among the israel believe in the Great Israel while the majority is scared of demographics and want separation now.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 10:38:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The reason for unilateralism is that the Palestinians see the Israeli final settlement as merely a starting point in negotiations.

The Israel/Syria talks broke down when Asad's man demanded all of northern Israel to the meditarranian coast.

If one side (the arabs) doesn't want peace, then there is no peace.

by messy on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 10:53:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If one side (the arabs) doesn't want peace, then there is no peace.

Sorry, that's laugh out loud funny.

Neither side is free of significant and influential people who feel there are opportunities for personal advantage in the current situation.

This constant pointing of fingers at the other side and attempting to claim the moral high ground of victimhood is cheap yet disables peace-makers on both sides.

This conversation will carry on ad infinitum whilst such bickering continues. Can't you see, can't either side see, that nobody is winning ?

Yes, hundreds of palestinians die, hurrah for israel. A few israeli soldiers die, hurrah for palestine. But what is gained ?

A few more square miles of the west bank are annexed ? Yet more cycles of reprisals. What is gained ?

This reflexive stupidity goes nowhere. And it's both side's fault. Not Israel's. Not Plaestine's. Both of them. Locked together in their mutual concensual spiralling dance of death. You keep dancing because you're afraid that if the music of mayhem stops you'll have to talk to each other. andneither side can bear the humiliation invovled or realising it was never necessary to dance in the first place.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 11:26:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Had the Palestinians wanted it, they could have had a "Jew-free" Gaza back in the 1970s. They rejected it. They could have had most of the west bank then too, but they rejected it as well.

remember the so-called "Camp David II" talks, when Arafat rejected the best deal he was ever goinng to get?

1967-77: The Arabs refuse the withdrawl for peace offer, refuse to even be in the same room with Israel.

1977-79 Egypt talk to Israel, becomes Arab paraih for years. But it gets Sinai back!

Jordan negotiated in good faith and got everything it was asking for.

Arafat did not. Syria did NOT. Lebanon did NOT.

A parable:

Billy is sitting next to Mandy in class. Billy is bigger than Mandy, but she has a pocket knife.

She starts stabbing Billy in the leg.

Billy asks her to stop it. She tells him to fuck off and gives him an extra stab.

Billy then asks the teacher if he could change seats.

She says no. I mean Mandy is such a cute little girl who just wouldn't hurt a fly!

Mandy gives Billy another stab.

Billy can't take it any more. He gives Mandy a big shove and screams at her in pain.

Poor little Mandy!!! that big ol'bully Billy is attacking that sweet little girl!!!!

Billy is sent to the principal's office while his leg bleeds. There with the blood dipping down his leg, he waits for hours, until the principal gives him a tounge lashing before he has to go to the hospital.

Was Billy's response inaproprate? Was it disproportunate? Should he have enjoyed being stabbed?

If a knife wasn't big enough, is it okay to stab someone? If no one belives the origial offense is real except the victim, is any response "disproportunate?"

Hint: Israel is Billy and Palestine Mandy.

by messy on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 12:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Egypt was never part of Greater Israel, there were no occupied territories (except for narrow bands) and no settlements to be mopped up for agreement with Jordan. You can't see the elephant in the kitchen.

the Palestinians... they... They... They... they...

You are also worse than "name" in collectivist thinking.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 12:51:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can see them. They're the genocidal maniacs who want to see me dead because of my ethnic background.

They're the ones who hate me so much they're willing to kill their wives and sisters just to spite me.

They're the ones who think the British should have lost world war II and all the world should be under Nazi tyranny.

by messy on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 01:31:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yea, okay. they're all genocidal maniacs, barely human.

If you can't get the yanks permission to use any of those nuclear weapons you hide down in the Negev I have a suggestion.

Seeing as you've de-humanised them, made them into under-men, how about you round them up and put them in work camps to serve the Greater Israel ? If they work well over a sufficiently long period to cleanse their crimes maybe they can be let into some sort of regulated open-custody. You can have a motto for the camps "Work will set you free"

Sorry if I'm offending you but can't you see that this stuff you're coming up with is flirting with the same sorts of hate that led straight to the gas-chambers ?

Maybe instead of reading some of the arabic hate sites, you could check out some of the far-right wing sites that support israel. Same sentiments, just a different script.

But you're so wrapped up in your own victimhood, your own hatred, you cannot see how like your enemy you seem. Look in the mirror, your real enemy is you.

This is my last post on the subject. I feel so sorry for the Israelis and Palestinians, but they seem determined to destroy each other. Because they share your stubborn inability to realise that if you carry on like this neither of you can win. And discussing it is futile.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 04:13:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is my last post on the subject.

Mission accomplished. </messy>

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 04:18:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe instead of reading some of the arabic hate sites, you could check out some of the far-right wing sites that support israel. Same sentiments, just a different script.

Helen says that I shouldn't read those GOVERNMENT-sponsored Arabic hate-sites, you know, the ones which have the support of most of the European media. She just doesn't get it.

She's obviously never been anywhere in the region. If she had she'd know what's going on there.

Syria is indeed a beautiful country run by maniacs.

by messy on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 07:08:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Arabic hate-sites are not supported by "most of the European media".

Sick and tired of your trolling, messy. You drag the discussion down, and away from anything useful. You waste server bandwidth. I'm troll-rating you, and at any more comments like this one, I will again.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 01:25:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can't you see, can't either side see, that nobody is winning ?

Good news for arms dealers though. Their stock must be way up.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 04:19:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
bingo!

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 09:38:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would disagree on that point. You are depicting a caricature of the palestinian position. It is true that some palestinian do indeed think like this..but the great majority of them do not think like that.

Jeruslaem Post and Haaretz have reported research done by jewish universities on the territories and this is not the will of the majority of palestinians, not even within Hamas where there are clearly two faction (at least).

By the same token we could define the israeli position as one wanting to kill all Palestinianas to recover the Great Israel and impose the jewish rule in the land given by God. Again this is not true as most research shows.

The only great difference between most of isreali power borkers and palestinian authorities is East Jerusalem. Israel does not want to talk about it, Palestinians want it as the capital.

There are majorities of palestinians and israelis who want just to separate. A majority of the israeli population is just not willing to give up East Jerusalem, half of them due to religious principles , the other half only in the case of a total and complete agreement. Therefore, no talks and tension is the best way to keep Israel together and retain East Jerusalem.

So I would put the reason for hte lack of negotations on Israel since they could perfectly forget about Hamas and deal directly with Abu Mazen....but even with Abu Mazen and without Hamas in governemnt Sharon did not want to talk with Mazen..precisely because the position of Mazen is the rational one...and a rational path means peace ine exchange for East Jerusalem...and Israel does not want that...

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 11:29:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So help me understand this...Israel would have some talks with Abu Mazen, and say they even come to some sort of an agreement. Then what? Hamas still controls the government, and they have given absolutely no indication they would agree to any terms. Besides, I think East Jerusalem alone is a bit over-simplying the issue. The issue is also the "right of return", who controls the infrastructure, roads, water access, etc. Right?

Mikhail from SF
by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 12:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Controlling the governemnt in palestine means basically nothing. They are powerless. The only point of talks is to strength Mazen in forn of the population to encourage the militias that support Mazen.

The other points you mention have some kind of general understanding. Palesitna has no power stations so Israel will have to keep on feeding electricity. I do not see how infraestructure is a problem.

Water is maybe another important problem given that it is controlled by the israel and some of the wells are in palestinian areas. Israel would clearly have to concede it if a palestinian state is formed through neogitations but Israel has enough water without the well if they do nto control the land..so I would not see it as a problem.

And the rigth of return will be on Palestine..this is quite clearly the point of Mazen

Summing up..I think they would talk about anything  except east Jersualem.

A feeling.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 01:02:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just a small question, what borders should the Palestinians accept? the current offering with all the settlements in place?

the 1967 ceasefire lines?

the 1947 UN mandate?

and why

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 06:27:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Remember "there will be no safe place in Baghdad"?

CBS news: Israel: Nowhere In Lebanon Is Safe (July 13, 2006)

Army Chief Says Beirut Could Be Target If Rocket Attacks Continue

Israel's air force is prepared to strike anywhere in Lebanon, including Beirut, the capital, if the Lebanese government fails to rein in Hezbollah guerrillas, the Israeli army chief said Thursday.

Brig. Gen. Dan Halutz noted that all senior Hezbollah leaders live in and have offices in the southern Beirut neighborhood of Dahiya. He said Beirut could be included among the targets if Hezbollah rockets continue to hit northern Israel.

"Nothing is safe (in Lebanon), as simple as that," he said.

A lot of statements by Israel in the last 48 hours echo Bush administration statements about Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 5 years.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:16:18 AM EST
Open question: might the South Lebanon incursion and finger-pointing at Syria be at least in part strategic cover?

Israel 'is using chemical ammunition'

Dubai: A doctor at a Palestinian hospital has accused Israel of using a type of chemical ammunition which causes burns and injuries in soft tissue and cannot be traced by X-ray.

Chemical or depleted uranium could have been used in producing the new type of ammunition according to Dr Jomaa Al Saqqa, head of the Emergency Unit at Gaza's main medical facility, the Al Shifa Hospital.

In a telephone interview, Al Saqqa told Gulf News that operation Summer Rain was not just the code name of a military operation launched by Israel against Gaza since June 26.

"It is a live exercise on a new ammunition that, so far, has resulted in killing 50 Palestinians and injuring 200," he said.

He said he was not yet sure about the kind of chemical being used because the Israeli Army had bombed the only criminal laboratory in Gaza on the first day of the assault.

Dr Saqqa who has been working in the Al Shifa Hospital for almost 10 years said he had never seen such wounds before. [ . . . ]

This story echoes similar claims coming from Iraqi doctors.

Digging a bit deeper, according to an article published July 8, 2004, it looks as though Israel has done some experimentation in the matter of chemical "deterrents".  

The US military has admitted to the use of both White phosphorous and depleted uranium in Iraq. Here we have claims of chemical agents being used against Palestinians.

Although the questions being raised by Palestinian physicians remain to be substantiated, a pattern seems to be emerging, leading from the Balkans to Iraq, with the use of tactical nuclear weapons now being discussed openly. Has previously banned weaponry become a new, accepted means of warfare? Are international agreements, Geneva Conventions, and other, indeed being relegated to the realm of "quaint"?

Do any international legal entities retain any real clout with regard to such matters?
.

by cigonia on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 11:22:19 AM EST
Quote:
Do any international legal entities retain any real clout with regard to such matters?
--
I believe answer is obviously a big NO. "International legal entities" - what an illusion. These criminals (people in power in USA, Israel, and NATO) are in power of practically entire World. Do not expect mercy or reasonable thinking and tactics. And in the main time western population enjoy their view of them selves as "democratic, honorable, peace bringing people etc," ha-ha. As your accusation goes that Serbs were responsible for having Milosevic in power and it was some how "honorable" to bombard all the area with DU and who knows what more, obviously now all this blood is on your hands my friends...You elected them and you gave them this power. There is no such a thing as "international legal entities" ...if it ever existed even in traces, it was made for the winners...those International courts , agencies etc. Those guys exempt them selves from it anyway, ha-ha...It would be your job to make these "legal entities" work and to put these criminals where they belong...In the main time we can only watch the hell unfolding around the globe. From time to time it comes to your back yard too...cause I suppose "what goes around, comes around"...I am not happy , cause without any guilt before (with Milosevic) or now (with Bush, Blair, Howard...) my and lives of my children are in jeopardy... and guilt is on my soul too as I now am part of the "western population".
It's even hard to be observer...


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 09:56:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My question was intentionally naive. I was pointing to the lack of response on the part of the UN. I see, now, further down in the thread, that the US has vetoed a UNSC resolution:

U.S. Vetoes UN Resolution Seeking to End Violence in Gaza Strip

July 13 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. vetoed a resolution presented to the United Nations Security Council by Arab nations seeking increased pressure on Israel to stop attacking the Gaza Strip and the release of a kidnapped Israeli soldier.

The measure, sponsored in the Security Council by Qatar, was supported by 10 of the other 14 members. Britain, Denmark, Peru and Slovakia abstained in the vote.

"We didn't think any useful purpose would be served by a resolution or council action with respect to the situation in Gaza," U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told reporters before the vote.

Quote:

Those guys exempt them selves from it anyway, ha-ha...It would be your job to make these "legal entities" work and to put these criminals where they belong...

I agree entirely, except that I would say our job [everyone's], as opposed to 'you, out there'. In fact my question was, 'does anyone believe that the UN is still in a position to respect its purpose', without naming any names. Yesterday's veto provides additional evidence that the answer is: 'negative'.

As for your fears, many of us share them. Is it any wonder, when we find ourselves being led so close to the precipice, with little hope of the benefit of rational oversight.
.

by cigonia on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 05:50:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are there any other sources to confirm this?

Mikhail from SF
by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 11:44:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You may like to know if it was a mine or an attack.

here are the details:

Haaretz report

Simultaneously with this ambush, Hezbollah also launched a diversionary attack: a barrage of mortar shells and Katyusha rockets on communities and IDF outposts in the western part of the border area. That assault wounded five civilians, though none seriously: Some were lightly wounded, and the others suffered from shock.

As soon as this barrage began, the Galilee Division conducted a routine check to ensure that all army outposts and vehicles were still in contact with headquarters, and quickly discovered that contact had been lost with the two jeeps patrolling near Zarit. Both jeeps had been damaged in the Hezbollah assault. A rescue force was summoned to the scene, and when it arrived, about half an hour after the attack, it found the two damaged jeeps and the dead and wounded soldiers. The rescue force soon realized that two of the soldiers had been kidnapped and sent out an alert.

Due in part to the lessons learned from the abduction of Corporal Gilad Shalit less than three weeks earlier, a force of tanks and armored personnel carriers was immediately sent into Lebanon in hot pursuit. It was during this pursuit, at about 11:00 A.M., that the second deadly incident occurred: A Merkava tank drove over a powerful bomb, containing an estimated 200 to 300 kilograms of explosives, about 70 meters north of the border fence. The tank was almost completely destroyed, and all four crew members were killed instantly.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 12:02:03 PM EST
two things:

a) the current escalation
how hezbollah caught the two hayalim was extremely mirthful. according to what i read, they shelled the group and made them run into a trap, killing 7 or 8 and catching two. the best part about it is that one of the captured fucks is called regev (the other one went by the name "goldwasser" IIRC), what might be why that psycho mark regev went totally nuts raving something about "bombing lebanon 20 years back" on CNN. i doubt that the soldier regev will benefit much from the lunatic ravings of his relative, the govt speaker regev. lest somebody object, these guys were soldiers in uniform. they were captured not abducted by people with inferior training and equipment. no terrorism here.

i can only hope that the hezbollah will kick .il really really hard in the bollocks. taking and holding a piece of israeli territory, even for a couple of hours, could go a long way in dispelling the aura of invincibility of the IDF and instilling some respect for international laws into the psychopathic political caste of that godforsaken place.

@kcurie

first, i wonder how everything could be normal on the ground if i understand what you say correctly. according to what i was told, the hezbollah shelled that settlement in the north and (IIRC) 2 were killed and 67 injured and everybody else is running into bunkers plus the reserve has been called in since several days ago. that is not "normal" to me, but then israel is a bloodthirsty madhouse by any standards.

second, you say that if things get worse you might have to leave. my question is, you apparently coming from a country where genocide is the national sport: have you or any of your friends ever thought that there is no statute of limitations on genocide, and that 135 countries more or less have, under UN treaties, a subsidiary obligation to persecute people who take part in genocides and crimes against humanity ? i mean, tzahal shooting at 8-year-old kids with tanks and dropping 250kg bombs on teens with AK47s and limited ammo and introducing hardships upon the population of the west bank and gaza "on the fly" looks very very like genocide to me. of course you could always say that you were assigned to some clerical stuff or "just following orders" while in the army, but first case is what we call "schreibtischtaeter", second case is no excuse for genocide since the nuremberg courts after WW2.

in any case, i really, really hope for a future including the sight of octogenarian "ex"-israelis dragged into courts around the world for premeditated murder and other nasty stuff you sure know lots about. how about a future newspaper headline "kcurie arrested for shooting pregnant woman at checkpoint, says was only following orders" ?

b) regarding gilad shalit and other europeans joining the IDF

i think that france should investigate the french citizen gilad shalit for possible participation in crimes against humanity. i fail to understand what business a french citizen has manning a checkpoint in gaza, and why france tolerates that one of its citizens takes part in activities which are clearly designed to cause misery among the local population. french laws are very clear in this respect, and the issue of universal jurisdiction is merely a thing of interpretation as i understand this. the same goes for people from other places who join the IDF.

by name (name@spammez_moi_sivouplait.org) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 12:24:17 PM EST
second, you say that if things get worse you might have to leave. my question is, you apparently coming from a country where genocide is the national sport: have you or any of your friends ever thought that there is no statute of limitations on genocide, and that 135 countries more or less have, under UN treaties, a subsidiary obligation to persecute people who take part in genocides and crimes against humanity ?
Get your foor out of your mouth already: kcurie is a Catalan postgraduate (postdoctoral?) researcher in Israel. Also, are you saying that any Israeli civilian could be indiscriminately be charged with genocide?

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 12:28:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
> Also, are you saying that any Israeli civilian could be indiscriminately be charged with genocide?

Yes. Absolutely. From positions I've heared from some of them and judging by the laws they pass, I doubt there are many people there who are anything less than extreme racists. Germans were "de-nazified" and reeducated after WW2, so why should there not be something similar, like "de-zionization" and reeducation for them ? It might have salutary effects on their morals.

by name (name@spammez_moi_sivouplait.org) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 12:39:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
First Austria should be properly de-nazified and reeducated, too. Nice little justification of collective guilt.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 12:44:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
zionism: The idea that jews are human and should rule themselves.

who doesn't agree with the first?

by messy on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 12:54:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Man, what a demagogue you are.
Zionism is a political movement and ideology that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated over 3,200 years ago and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states have existed up to the 2nd century.

...

Since the founding of the State of Israel, the term Zionism is generally considered to mean support for Israel.



Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 12:59:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think anything in the definition you posted contradicts what messy said. Zionist has been used as a derogatory term to describe an overly aggressive policy by Israel, when in fact, all it means is that a bunch of Jews decided to move back to their own homeland and start a country.

Mikhail from SF
by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 05:26:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Give me a break. Disagreing with messy's definition means believing that Jews are not human, or that they don't have the right to self-determination. Wikipedia's definition makes Zionism no different from any other nationalism and thus open to disagreement [in my book that would make it a dangerous ideology, but that is beside the point].

Zionism includes the following beliefs [though not every Zionist need adhere to all of them]: 1) Palestinian arabs were not a people and did not have the right to a homeland in Palestine ("a land without a people for a people without a land"); 2) terrorism was justifiable in order to establish a Jewish state; 3) ethnic cleansing was justifiable in order to establish a Jewish state; 4) the Jewish nation is religiously defined and transcends time and geography; 5) the laws of a Jewish state must be based on religious law.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 05:50:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can't vouch for this website, but I have read this fact elsewhere (in Avi Shlaim's Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, I think.)


Inspired by the anti-Semitic violence in Russia,  Leon Pinsker  formulated the modern idea of Zionism in a small pamphlet called Auto-Emancipation, published in 1882. Pinsker believed that anti-Semitism was inevitable as long as Jews were guests in every country and at home nowhere, and wrote that the Jews' only salvation lay in liberating themselves and settling in their own country. Pinsker favored Argentina or other countries as sites for the Jewish homeland.  However, Western Jews who might have favored this idea rebuffed him. In his native Russia, however, his ideas were well received, but they were channeled to settlement in Palestine.

I think the key word is "settling."


We are a generation of settlers, and without the steel helmet and gun barrel, we shall not be able to plant a tree or build a house.
--Moshe Dayan, Israeli military leader and politician.


Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 07:01:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Zionism had its roots in the mid nineteenth century spearheaded by Jewish thinkers like Moses Hess and others that propagated the establishing of a secular socialist state in Palestine.  In the late nineteenth- early twentieth century Theodor Herzl, appalled by the Dreyfus affair, decided to establish the First Zionist Congress in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland which again lead to the establishment of the World Zionist organization with the aim of working for a Jewish homeland.  It was a direct consequence of the anti-Semite sentiments in Europe at the time and thus more a practical matter than a purely religious matter.  The Zionist idea according to Herzl's "Judenstaat" and "Altneuland" was almost devoid of religious rhetoric and he seemed to envision a Jewish state in harmony with the Arab inhabitants already living there.

This shows that the early Zionists was indeed aware of the Arab population living there and rather naively saw the new Jewish state living in harmony with the Arab  population.  If you look at the situation on the ground prior to the declaration of an independent Jewish state in 1948 the Zionists led by Ben Gurion were all ready to accept a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian state.  

Terrorism had nothing whatsoever to do with the Zionist belief.  Granted that some Zionist groups like the revisionists Lehi (Stern-gang) and Irgun Zvei Leumi used terrorist tactics in their fight against the British but the military wing of the socialist movement was opposing the use of terrorism as a fighting tactic.   The difference of political views and military tactics between the socialists and the revisionist nearly ended in civil war when David Ben Gurion ordered the sinking of the weapons-supply shipAltalena in June 1948.  The fact of the matter is that terrorism was never an accepted tactics by the majority of the Jewish population and certainly not a part of the Zionist idea.  It was used by certain militant Jewish groups to further their political goals but had nothing to do with the Zionist ideology.

Again, ethnic cleansing happened during the 1948 war and after, yes, but this had nothing to do with the Zionist ideology.  It was regrettably used by both parties during the 1948 war but was by no means a part of the Zionist ideology.  

The Jewish nation is culturally defined were religion is one of several elements, as most other European countries in their early beginnings, yes, some even today are.  

Most of the Israeli laws are secular in nature, but there are some areas within the Israeli State that are guided by religious principals and one such area are family law.  
       

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 07:43:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"naively" with "harmony" gives me a sense of innocence and perhaps bewilderment that things were not as they expected.  Would you say this was the majority view of the first settlers?  Were they good neighbours

"regrettably" makes one think of an unfortunate mistake, an error perhaps seen in hindsight.  Do you accept, more or less, the following information?

"Just short of half a million Palestinians were displaced between December 1947 and the beginning of the first Zionist/Israeli-Arab war in May 1948. By the time the war ended, approximately 800,000 Palestinians had become refugees. More than 500 Palestinian villages with a land base of 17,178 square kilometers were erased from the map."

I think the terrorist / zionist distinction is not useful.  Zionism was and is a settlement project.  That necessarily involved and involves expropriation, whether political, economic, agricultural, military, etc., or do you disagree?

(If one settles in a land where there is nobody, there is nobody to expropriate anything from.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 08:25:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"naively" with "harmony" give me a sense of innocence and perhaps bewilderment that things were not as they expected.  Would you say this was the majority view of the first settlers?  Were they good neighbours

"regrettably" makes one think of an unfortunate mistake, an error perhaps seen in hindsight.  Do you accept, more or less, the following information?

I can not take any responsibility for how you interpret my words I am afraid, that is solely up to you.

"Just short of half a million Palestinians were displaced between December 1947 and the beginning of the first Zionist/Israeli-Arab war in May 1948. By the time the war ended, approximately 800,000 Palestinians had become refugees. More than 500 Palestinian villages with a land base of 17,178 square kilometers were erased from the map."

I will not go into statistics and number even if those numbers seem to be more or less correct, for the simple fact that I do not see the relevance of it.  All I can say is that war always leads to misery, the Poles had to flee Poland in 1939, Norwegians had to flee Norway in 1940 and the Somalis had to flee from Somalia during the civil war and many are still refugees.  That said this doesn't mean that you should stop working for a viable peace but it means that displacement and refugees is a consequence of war.

I was commenting on Migeru's bullet points and their relevance to the Zionist ideology.  Yes the 1948 war led to a lot of misery and despair I do not deny that, but I can not see the relevance of it in relation to my comment.  If you imply that this misery =terrorism then I'd say you have a way to broad definition of what terrorism is and most States in the world would have to be labelled terrorist states because this is the consequence of war.  

I think the terrorist / zionist distinction is not useful.  Zionism was and is a settlement project.  That necessarily involved and involves expropriation, whether political, economic, agricultural, military, etc., or do you disagree?  

Well I guess it depends on the eye of the beholder, but I find the distinction most useful for the simple fact that those to terms are to different concepts. If we can not agree on the definition and use of terms then I am afraid a meaningful exchange of political views are futile.

   

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 10:01:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
19th century secular socialist nationalisms had a tendency to be taken over by fascists in the 1930's and Zionism is no exception. It hasn't recovered. Plus "A land without a people for a people without a land" was a zionist slogan. This from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
Zionism and Arab Nationalism

Most of the founders of Zionism knew that Palestine (the Land of Israel) had an Arab population (though some spoke naively of "a land without a people for a people without a land").

Downplay it as that may, they can't deny it.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 05:59:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The difference of political views and military tactics between the socialists and the revisionist nearly ended in civil war when David Ben Gurion ordered the sinking of the weapons-supply ship Altalena in June 1948.

Methinks you misinterpret the events -- Ben Gurion was concerned over Irgun trying to keep a separate power base within the state and the army, not about tactics and politics. Indeed he too wanted the weapons and the circumventing of the UN observers.

On the general point, while there were differences between diferent factions of Zionism, it was not about ethnic cleansing and such. This is from Ben Gurion:

"Zionism is a transfer of the Jews. Regarding the transfer of the Arabs this is much easier than any other transfer. There are Arab states in the vicinity [...]  and it is clear that if the Arabs are removed this will improve their condition and not the contrary."

He was pretty clear about what he wants a decade before the war -- in a letter to his son:

"We must expel Arabs and take their places [...] and, if we have to use force - not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places - then we have force at our disposal."

There are truckloads of quotes on the web with Ben Gurion's practical considerations about how to bring about this "transfer" during the war. But I will quote on another issue, the ruthlessness of tactics:

"We adopt the system of aggressive defense; with every Arab attack we must respond with a decisive blow: the destruction of the place or the expulsion of the residents along with the seizure of the place."

Ben Gurion is no exception in the Zionist Socialist camp. The fascistoid hijacking of leftist movements Migeru mentioned happened in the early 20th century. Here is David HaCohen, trade unionist and later Labour MP:

"I had to fight my friends on the issue of Jewish socialism, to defend the fact that I would not accept Arabs in my trade union, the Histadrut; to defend preaching to housewives that they not buy at Arab stores; to prevent Arab workers from getting jobs there... To pour kerosene on Arab tomatoes, to attack Jewish housewives in the markets and smash the Arab eggs they had bought; to praise to the skies the Keren Kayemet that sent Hankin to Beirut to buy land from absentee effendi (landowners) and to throw the fellahin (peasant farmers) off the land - to buy dozens of dunams - from an Arab is permitted, but sell, God forbid, one Jewish dunam to an Arab is prohibited; to take Rothschild, the incarnation of capitalism, as a socialist and to name him the "benefactor"-to do all that was not easy."

Even the rosy picture you paint of the very first Zionists's views of living together with the Palestinian Arabs was in reality a bit different -- part White Man's Burden, part ethnic cleansing the nice way, as Theodor Herzl in 1895:

"When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us.  We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us.

We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country.

The property owners will come over to our side.  Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 06:59:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The fascistoid hijacking of leftist movements Migeru mentioned happened in the early 20th century.

Waiting on Colman's diary on Hayek's Road to Serfdom.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 07:34:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And you'll be waiting until I get back ... I've been so caught up with work that I have read about ten pages this week.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 07:35:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
i dont agree with the second part. but dont take my word for it. do your own research.

i'd suggest you read anything from some of the founders of what is todays zionism, like stern. you might come to the conclusion that zionism is not an harmless "we're good, please respect us" ideology as you state above, but perhaps something completely different, not harmless at all. but dont take my word for it. do your own research.

@DoDo
it has been done here. results ? we dont have laws and practices which explicitely exclude one half of the population from all citizenship rights; we dont set up 1/3 of the territory of this country as an open-air concentration camp for the lesser people - there are no "lesser" people here in first place; we dont actively discriminate against people because of their race, religion, sex; we dont send our youth for 3 years to commit crimes against humanity against the "other" half of the population; we dont invade neighboring countries and keep a regime of brutality and torture against civilians there; we dont dump radioactive waste in water reserves of populations we dont like; we dont imprison leaders of political parties of people who profess a different religion and belong to a different race; we dont have women from the "others" abort children at gratuitious checkpoints in the territories accorded to them by forced treaties; we dont hunger out the "others" because we dont like who they vote for; we dont defame part of the population as "terrorists", "extremists", "militants", "radicals" when they look different, pray to another god and have other dressing codes than the "mainstream".

oh yes, and we still do pay LOTS of money so that israel can continue financing their genocide campaign against the palestinians, because, in truth, little if any of the money my govt gives them as compensation reaches true victims of the holocaust or their heirs.

is that ok as an explanation to you ?

by name (name@spammez_moi_sivouplait.org) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 01:18:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You deserve a zero for that, but I'm giving you a 2 because I don't want the subsequent discussion to be hidden, especially Gjermund's post.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 06:01:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I upgraded the comment because I do not find it trollish. Though I do not agree with the comment,discussions should in my opinion be able to carry into areas about collective guilt without being troll-rated.

And I did not want the discussion that followed to be hidden, especially Gjermunds and Dodos exchange.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Jul 20th, 2006 at 01:13:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is absolutely horrible post deserving to be troll rated. I mean "captured fucks?" No terrorism in capturing someone in a different country? So let me get something straight here, when America captures foreign nationals who they perceive enemy combatants in all of Europe through often questionable means, it's not right. When Hezbollah conducts operations inside another country, it's OK? This anti-Israeli garbage is precisely why there's still a conflict going on - there are plenty of psychos on both sides to keep fighting.

Mikhail from SF
by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 12:31:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd 1 rate it as well, but this way people get to see what a twerp he is being. It's not quite enough of a troll for me to troll rate it, though it's definitely bad, complete with personal attacks on one of the regulars. A 2 it is.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 01:00:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Name, cut the shit.  I gather that you don't even know kcurie, so don't throw him/her into your moronic little category.

And why the troll-rate to Colman?  "He did it first!"  This isn't fucking preschool.

Honest to Allah, the reason these two sides, loaded with nutjobs, will never find peace lies in the fact that they don't even care to listen to each other.  Are the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah any less disgusting?  Stop pretending that the murders only arrive from one side.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 04:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think the situation is symmetrical.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 04:28:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the situation is simply a mess.  If given the opportunity, each side would be perfectly happy to annihilate the other.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 04:29:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
<meh>. I knew the risks when I posted the story.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 04:40:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would respectfully disagreeon different issues.

First I hardly could served in the Spanish army when I was ordered to..actually I dodged becaue of health and pacifist reason..so I can hardly take part in the israeli military. You need to be a jew to join or have the wish to stay in the country and convert...Of course, I have no plans to stay here..actually my contract with the European Union finishes prety soon so I will leave quite fast actually.

Second, the situation on the ground is really the situation I was describing, of course only in Tel-Aviv. Most of the israeli society can be divided in multiple camps regarding their position ont he palestinians andon their neighbors. But all they really beleive in the "survival" theme. It seems you understood I was advocating that this is a good point..actually  I was just describing. So, for a lot of them is just business as usual. For the north towns i tis clearly different.

I would also disagree with you on two counts. The definition of what israeli is doing in Palestineis not genocide at all. Actually genocide is what a small sector of the jewish extremists are demanding..luckily no supported by the great majority. The situation in palestine is that of a murdeous occupation in a whole territory (check-point, land occupation..) together with an apartheid state in Hebron city and surroudnings.

And I would also disagree with you about the desire of Hezbolla invading some part of Israel for a while. If you think Hezbolla cares about the Palestinians you are deeply wrong..time and time and time again Hezbolla has done everything possible to complicate the palestinian situation and to increase the tension in the area as sson as a new status quo could leave Syria and Iran out of the equation. They are worried about Syria and Iran..not Palestine.

Lastly I would agree with you one one count...at least in one thing you seem to insinuate. Europe should take a stronger stand sooner than later if Israel does nto withdraw from the great part of Palestine in the next year (or announces it formally), otherwise all Palesitne would become a huge batustan sliced up in little parts...We should not have any kind of relation with such a coutnry if it was to happen...I also agree that having the status of prefered nation while the occupation is on is clearly not right...but diplomitically gives leverage...that actually we never use. Shameful.

Peace.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 06:05:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Robert Fisk, from The Independent had some interesting observations but it's behind a subscription wall.  He knows the area very well, especially Lebanon.  He thinks the Syrians are goading Hezbollah on, although I would think that maybe Iran is complicit as well.

I think everyone agrees that the Lebanese government has no control over Hezbollah.

He doesn't really give a good reason though, and that's what intrigues me.  What did Hezbollah stand to gain by triggering this?  Did they know that the Israelis would over-react?

Anyway, I just hope it stops soon.

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 05:18:28 PM EST
of course they did, that's why they did so.
by messy on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 07:01:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Haaretz also has a good article on the situation - and they also condemn this disproportionate use of force.  They also say that the IDF could have chosen to retaliate at a later time - now keep in mind this is an Israeli newspaper talking here.  

I could post the good parts but that would be the entire article, so here's the link instead.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/737837.html

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 06:15:17 PM EST
Bloomberg: U.S. Vetoes UN Resolution Seeking to End Violence in Gaza Strip (July 13)
The U.S. vetoed a resolution presented to the United Nations Security Council by Arab nations seeking increased pressure on Israel to stop attacking the Gaza Strip and the release of a kidnapped Israeli soldier.

The measure, sponsored in the Security Council by Qatar, was supported by 10 of the other 14 members. Britain, Denmark, Peru and Slovakia abstained in the vote.

The resolution was supported by Russia, China, France, Argentina, Congo, Ghana, Greece, Japan, Qatar and Tanzania.

Apparently Koizumi was not impressed by Olmert during his recent visit...

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 06:44:30 PM EST
Russia-Traditionally antisemitic
China-Needs Arab oil
Japan-Needs Arab oil
France-Scared by recent Moslem violence...needs Arab oil.
Qatar-Arab, and would vote to condemn Omert saving kitten from a tree.
Tanzania-knee Jerk anti-west.

All have condemned Israel for things they would praise anyone else for doing.

by messy on Thu Jul 13th, 2006 at 07:16:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bah. And here is Israel in white clothes, right?

All have condemned Israel for things they would praise anyone else for doing.

Well, not exactly praise, but it would be ok by 1940 standards.

by blackhawk on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 03:07:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, if that is the level of discourse you understand...
US: Israel's puppet
Britain: Airstrip one
Denmark: Home of the Mohammed cartoons
Slovakia: "New" Europe
</snark>


Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 05:06:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries

Herd Immunity .. Filling the Gaps

by Oui - Jul 24
7 comments

LQD - Long Term Covid: The Brain

by ATinNM - Jul 13
25 comments

Say No to Racism

by Oui - Jul 12
24 comments

England surrenders to Covid

by IdiotSavant - Jul 9
27 comments