[IvP] Mark Four.

[StarshipTitanic]

We often get figure on how many 'terroists' are killed in Gaza, after the daily steamroll.

Isn't that after the IDF counts the bodies?

[Coyote]

China, India, and Russia have troops that could provide UN forces, but they don't have the apparatus to maintain and sustain forces much farther than their own borders-- Russia has the best long-distance force projection potential, and Lebanon, being a quick hop away from the Black Sea, would be easy.

But Russia is a poor choice politically, since they are seen as the primary arms suppliers for many in the region that Israel is fighting.... and India is unpalatable since they're 'evil Muslim-killing Hindoos' in the eyes of some of the mouth-frothing fanatics over there.

China would make a good intervention force, but they are the one power mentioned with the worst long-distance power-projection ability. And, of course, at this stage no one wants to interpose anyway.

[CJvR]

China is also the main provider of reasonably advanced weaponry to the Islamic lunatics in Iran, the Hizbos main sponsor.

[CJvR]

Any UN operation would have to be massive in scale. Just sending in a few companies to guard the border like before will not be enough. A UN controlled zone would have to be at least as wide as Katyusha missiles range if they are to acomplish anything other than cowering in bunkers in nomans land. IMPO there is no possibility that such a UN force can be raised. The likely outcome will be that the IDF continues until they have a Hizbo body count that satisfy them and the Hizbos run out of rockets so that the bombardment of northern Israel ends.

[Oberleutnant]

Ghetto edit: Actually it's usually us, The Brits, and the Aussies.

No it's not.

Just because Australia and British forces have participated in highly visible operations such as Iraq and East Timor, it doesn't mean Europe isn't active in peacekeeping. Just couple examples:

ISAF

KFOR (under contributing nations)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KFOR

At the moment EU also has two peacekeeping operations, one in Bosnia (EUFOR - Operation Althea) and another in Congo (EUFOR RD Congo). Individual countries have presence in various other operations as well.

[K. A. Pital]

but they don't have the apparatus to maintain and sustain forces much farther than their own borders-- Russia

I believe Russia even managed to commit a minor peacekeeping mission to Africa in the recent years.

[irishmick79]

Didn't the Russians have a fairly large contingent of forces in Kosovo when that whole mess broke?

How long do you guys think the Israelis will be in Lebanon? I'm hearing reports that Israeli troops are massing on the border, and 6,000 more reservists have been called up.

[Elfdart]

Traditionally, invaders don't leave until they are kicked out.

[K. A. Pital]

invaders don't leave until they are kicked out

Or pressed out.

[MKSheppard]

Linka

The innocent bystander myth
Evelyn Gordon, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 19, 2006

One of the most bizarre aspects of the current Lebanon crisis is the international community's unanimous insistence that the Lebanese government is an innocent party, and should therefore not be made to suffer for Hizbullah's actions.

The official statement issued by the G-8 on Sunday, for instance, said that Israel must avoid doing anything that would destabilize Lebanon's government. German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters at the summit: "We are convinced that the government of Lebanon must be given all support."

US President George W. Bush said last week that while Israel has the right to defend itself, "whatever Israel does should not weaken the … government in Lebanon."

And this presumption of Beirut's innocence has inevitably affected criticism of Israel's response to the Hizbullah attacks. Thus, for instance, the European Union's rotating president, Finland, issued a statement last week declaring that the EU "is greatly concerned about the disproportionate use of force by Israel in Lebanon in response to attacks by Hizbullah on Israel… The imposition of an air and sea blockade cannot be justified."

In fact, this blockade would arguably be justified even if the conflict were solely between Israel and Hizbullah, since its main purpose is to cut off Hizbullah's supply of rockets - for which Beirut Airport, in particular, has been a major conduit for years. But in state-to-state wars, blockades are unquestionably legitimate: They are the standard means of impeding the enemy's supply of arms. It is the EU's distorted view of the war as being strictly between Israel and Hizbullah, with the Beirut government a mere innocent bystander, that causes it to view the blockade instead as an unfair punishment of an entire country for the acts of a few rogue terrorists.

In reality, Hizbullah's attack was far from a rogue action committed in defiance of the government: The Lebanese government has actively supported it, in both word and deed.

First, of course, Hizbullah remains a member of the government, with seats in the cabinet. Admittedly, it probably launched last week's attack without its coalition partners' knowledge or consent. But in any normal country, a junior coalition member that attacked a neighboring country without its partners' consent would be swiftly disavowed and ousted from the government.

Instead, the Lebanese government has passionately defended Hizbullah's actions on the international stage. At an Arab League meeting on Saturday, for instance, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, reportedly backed by representatives of Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, lambasted Hizbullah's assault as "inappropriate and irresponsible." But Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh, far from agreeing, presented a draft resolution defending the attack.

The resolution stated that Lebanon has the "right to resist occupation by all legitimate means," demanded the release of Lebanese prisoners from Israeli jails, and asserted Lebanon's right to "liberate them by all legitimate means."

THESE, HOWEVER, are precisely the justifications that Hizbullah offers for attacking Israel. First, Hizbullah does not accept the UN Security Council's determination that Israel withdrew fully from Lebanon in May 2000; it insists that an area known as Shaba Farms is also Lebanese, and that it has the right to continue attacking Israel until Israel quits this area as well. Thus when Salloukh declared that Lebanon has the "right to resist occupation," what he meant was that the Lebanese government concurs with Hizbullah, rather than the UN, about the status of Shaba Farms and supports Hizbullah's "right" to attack Israel over this issue.

Second, Hizbullah has long advocated kidnapping Israelis in order to trade them for the one Lebanese national still in Israel's jails: Samir Kuntar, who is serving multiple life sentences for having infiltrated into Israel, entered a house in Nahariya, killed the owner and his four-year-old daughter in cold blood, and then killed a policeman before being captured. That, incidentally, was in 1979 - three years before Israel invaded Lebanon and began its 18-year occupation of the country's south. Thus when Salloukh asserted Lebanon's right to "liberate" its prisoners, what he meant was that the Lebanese government agrees with Hizbullah that freeing this terrorist is a national goal, and supports Hizbullah's "right" to attack Israel in order to achieve it.

But the government did not even make do with defending Hizbullah's attacks after the fact: It also actively facilitated them.

CLEARLY, THE attacks were made possible in the first place by Beirut's failure to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which demanded that the government disarm Hizbullah and deploy the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon in its stead. Currently, the Lebanese army allows Hizbullah free rein in southern Lebanon by steadfastly avoiding the area. But given the government's weakness relative to Hizbullah, this failure is usually excused as being due to inability rather than malice.

That excuse, however, cannot be made for other government actions that facilitated the attacks, such as its failure to stop the ongoing supply of rockets and other war materiel to Hizbullah. Far from being smuggled in without the government's knowledge, weapons earmarked for Hizbullah arrived openly in Beirut Airport almost every week - and the airport, unlike southern Lebanon, is fully controlled by the government and the Lebanese army. Yet the government never ordered the army to confiscate these shipments.

Regular arms shipments also came overland from Syria. Yet these, too, passed openly and without hindrance through border crossings controlled by the Lebanese government.

The Lebanese army has even openly assisted Hizbullah during the past week's fighting. Hizbullah's successful missile strike on an Israeli naval vessel Friday night, for instance, would have been impossible had the army's radar stations not given Hizbullah the ship's coordinates. Hizbullah does not have radar stations of its own.

Far from repudiating Hizbullah's attacks on Israel, the Lebanese government has actively defended, facilitated and assisted them at every turn. There are thus no grounds for treating it as an innocent party in this conflict. And until the international community recognizes this, its efforts to resolve the crisis will inevitably fail.

[Elfdart]

The Lebanese army has even openly assisted Hizbullah during the past week's fighting.

The Lebanese Army, defending Lebanon? Outrageous!

Hizbullah's successful missile strike on an Israeli naval vessel Friday night, for instance, would have been impossible had the army's radar stations not given Hizbullah the ship's coordinates. Hizbullah does not have radar stations of its own.

How dare they! Launching missiles at a hostile ship. They should blast a neutral ship, strafe the crew and accuse anyone who doesn't approve of being an anti-Semite. That's how you conduct naval warfare!

Far from repudiating Hizbullah's attacks on Israel, the Lebanese government has actively defended, facilitated and assisted them at every turn. There are thus no grounds for treating it as an innocent party in this conflict. And until the international community recognizes this, its efforts to resolve the crisis will inevitably fail.

And of course Israel isn't treating Lebanon as an innocent party. They are bombing and killing hundreds of people who have nothing to do with Hezbollah. So what's this shithead complaining about?

[K. A. Pital]

Did they have a point about rockets smuggled through the airport? That just strikes me as total bull - it's costly and dangerous transporting rockes over planes, and the nearby Syria is a much better source of supply of rockets if anything. So is there any truth to the airport allegations, or are the Israeli just gone mad at defending the bombing of the Lebanese airport with whatever claims?

[Elfdart]

They could have flown them in pieces and assembled them in Lebanon. It's a bit of a red herring anyway since the ones Israel is being attacked with were already shipped, and they wouldn't have been rocketed if they hadn't started bombing Lebanon in the first place.

[CJvR]

Did they have a point about rockets smuggled through the airport? That just strikes me as total bull - it's costly and dangerous transporting rockes over planes...

I suppose it would be possible if it came from Iran or someplace even Syria don't want to be associated with. Then there is also deniability on behalf of Damascus.

[CJvR]

...and they wouldn't have been rocketed if they hadn't started bombing Lebanon in the first place.

I suppose they wouldn't have had their troops assaulted and kidnapped either?

[K. A. Pital]

I suppose they wouldn't have had their troops assaulted and kidnapped either?

Generally, people will agree that you can't help the soldiers by attacking a country wholesale

[Axis Kast]

Senator Fulbright called Congress "Israeli-occupied territory" almost 40 years ago.

And God knows that if your bitching, moaning, and general bullshit has taught us anything in the past few years, it’s been that we should trust the statements made by our elected officials at face value.

When was the last time an American President did anything that seriously inconvenienced Tel Aviv?

It was only just over twenty years ago that President Ronald Reagan provoked Israeli ire when he authorized the sale of early-warning aircraft to Saudi Arabia.

The first President Bush was also known for his willingness to step on Israeli toes when push came to shove: in September 1991, he strongly criticized Israel’s policy of building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. According to former NSC staffer William B. Quandt, Bush’s calculated decision not to authorize a loan package for Israel ensured Likud’s defeat at the polls in June 1991. Certainly that was not support for a maximalist Israeli position.

President Bush also turned up the heat against Israel by becoming the first president to specifically endorse a two-state solution.

When was the last time Congress voted to so much as condemn an Israeli atrocity? Israel has had this country's pecker in their pocket for a long time. No other country has that kind of clout.

The same can be said of Israel to the umpteenth degree. Remember the SCUD missile threat of the First Gulf War? The one that President Bush successfully prevented Israel from responding to in kind?

The Turks have lost many more people to the PKK, yet when they want to do in Kurdistan what Israel is doing in Lebanon, the State Department whines like little bitches.

Because the Turkish behavior is antagonistic to American interests in Iraq, moron, whereas we shed no tears when we see Hezbollah under fire.

Why not? Israel burns and blows up Lebanese civilians who have nothing to do with Hezbollah.

I see. So, in your opinion, Iranian threats against the United States are somehow justified because Israel makes them very angry?

While Hezbollah blows up Israeli civilians in a mindless quest to destroy the Israeli state, lest anyone realize that there were no longer any Israelis in Lebanon.

Innocent people suffer when their governments do ill. War is not clean. War is not antiseptic. Since the Lebanese government could not afford to clean shop itself, Israel is now doing it for them. If you’re looking for somebody to blame, how about Syria and Iran for turning their neighbor into a helpless proxy?

George W. Bush has been much more restrained about the Syrian and Iranian role in this fiasco than he might be. I see no indication of his desire to come to Israel’s aid by bombing either Damascus or Tehran any time soon.

Iran doesn't regard its own actions as "terrorism", just as they don't call themselves "evil", either. So I doubt any mullahs are twirling their mustaches and saying "If the Americans leave Iraq they won't have the nerve to fight our terrorism! Mwahahahahaaaaaaa!”

You mean the same calculation made by Hezbollah when the Israelis pulled out in 2000? Or by radicals all over the Middle East after the Marine Barracks bombing of 1982? Or by jihadists after the Soviet pull-out from Afghanistan?

Were you born this dense, Elfdart, or did your parents just have butter fingers?

If Israel wanted to eradicate Hezbollah (or Hamas or the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade or the others for that matter) they would withdraw to the pre-June 1967 borders and renounce all territorial ambitions against its neighbors. Some form of reparations might help as well. Killing people in droves and crying about rough you have it from their pathetic retaliation strengthens Hezbollah.

I thought Hezbollah was dedicated to “protecting” Lebanon? After all, wasn’t there their original raison d’etre?

The fact of the matter is that Israel has been taking steps to return to pre-June 1967 borders – in spite of the fact that its neighbors’ antagonism has made all of its major wars justifiable enterprises. How can you reasonably expect Israel to continue offering land for peace when its actions are repeatedly met with more violence?

Do you ever stop to really think about whether the cries of “Oppression!” and “Injustice!” are ever actually valid, or do you just attach yourself to anyone who sounds wronged in any way?

Nobody in the Middle East is that stupid. Even the morons know Israel is more heavily armed than any nation in the region. They also know Israel has unconditional support from the world's only superpower. The Israelis are the ones in the corner? Please.

And yet Iran has no problem subsidizing Hezbollah during times like these. They’ve got no problem sticking their fingers into the Iraqi morass. They’ve got no problem avoiding responsibility for the actions of their al-Quds Force. And now I’m supposed to expect that Israel’s standing down is going to deter them from encouraging – and empowering – their proxies to commit to more idiocy? Why? After all, to the Iranian leadership, it’s only Lebanese blood.

If Washington ever decided to cut off Israel like it did with South Africa, you wouldn't have to worry about the mullahs in Iran, or Syria, or Hamas, or Hezbollah because their fucking heads would explode with such force that shredded pieces of turban would be found all over the globe.

Except that plenty of terrorists in Iraq have indicated a willingness to “follow us home” even if we pull out immediately. We supported the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and they made no bones about what they thought of the American superpower. Israel is merely an attempt at justification. Hezbollah didn’t want to stop killing after 2000. Once, they were “Lebanese freedom fighters.” Now they’re “Palestinian allies.”

Sounds like Uncle Sam's reaction regarding Israel.

Israel left the Gaza Strip. It left Lebanon. It was at peace with its northern neighbor. It was making concessions to the Palestinians. But, of course, for you, that doesn’t matter one whit. Why do we even have these discussions?

[Elfdart]

And God knows that if your bitching, moaning, and general bullshit has taught us anything in the past few years, it’s been that we should trust the statements made by our elected officials at face value.

Glad you've found my posts so informative. Anyway, I take it you don't dispute Fulbright's claim.

It was only just over twenty years ago that President Ronald Reagan provoked Israeli ire when he authorized the sale of early-warning aircraft to Saudi Arabia.

Why would that bother Israel -unless Israel was planning to attack Saudi Arabia? Were the AWACs going to be used to bomb Israel?

The first President Bush was also known for his willingness to step on Israeli toes when push came to shove: in September 1991, he strongly criticized Israel’s policy of building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

"Strongly criticized"? I'd like to see a quote where G.H.W. Bush did that. Not that it matters. Criticism = dick. I still want to see what qualifies as strong criticism in your book.

According to former NSC staffer William B. Quandt, Bush’s calculated decision not to authorize a loan package for Israel ensured Likud’s defeat at the polls in June 1991. Certainly that was not support for a maximalist Israeli position.

He refused to co-sign for a loan for illegal "settlements". Yeah, that's real inconvenience for Israel. They just had to make do with $3 billion plus bonuses from the American taxpayer.

President Bush also turned up the heat against Israel by becoming the first president to specifically endorse a two-state solution.

You're really grabbing at straws aren't you? Poppy endorsed the same solution the UN and almost every country on the globe agreed to, but did nothing to enforce it. Did he threaten to cut off aid to Israel? Did he threaten sanctions? to use force to expel Israel like he did Iraq?

The fact that you offer such half-baked bullshit as examples of how George H. W. Bush "seriously inconvenienced" Israel is an unintentional admission that I'm right. In other words...

Concession Accepted

The same can be said of Israel to the umpteenth degree. Remember the SCUD missile threat of the First Gulf War? The one that President Bush successfully prevented Israel from responding to in kind?

Nice non-answer. Bush Sr. told Israel not to get involved in Iraq in 1991 over the Scuds for political reasons -and because he already had the US, British, French and other allied forces looking for them you fucking moron!

Because the Turkish behavior is antagonistic to American interests in Iraq,

Why? Because you say so? Is it in American interests to allow Kurdish guerillas to attack an ally? Is it in US interests to allow the Peshmerga to lynch Turks and others in Iraq while the US Army is trying to keep the lid on a full-scale civil war?

moron,

You certainly are.

whereas we shed no tears when we see Hezbollah under fire.

I wouldn't shed any tears if the Peshmerga death squads were gunned down. I would be bothered if the Turkish Army used their atrocities and those of the PKK as an excuse to settle old scores and go on a killing spree against Iraqi civilians. Slaughtering Iraqis -That's a job for the Bush Administration!

I see. So, in your opinion, Iranian threats against the United States are somehow justified because Israel makes them very angry?

In fact, an Iranian spokesman for the terror group recently suggested that it was prepared not only to strike at Israeli interests, but those of the United States as well.

Why not? Israel burns and blows up Lebanese civilians who have nothing to do with Hezbollah. Neocons in this country want a wider war with Iran and Syria, since they support Hezbollah. Since so much of that ordnance Israel is bombing Lebanon with has "Made in USA" stamped on it, those attacks are justified by war whore logic.

Of course I think War Whore Logic is justified... NOT! I was illustrating how stupid that kind of thinking was, not agreeing with it you fucking imbecile!

While Hezbollah blows up Israeli civilians in a mindless quest to destroy the Israeli state, lest anyone realize that there were no longer any Israelis in Lebanon.

How does that excuse the bombing of civilians? Oh that's right -it doesn't.

Innocent people suffer when their governments do ill. War is not clean. War is not antiseptic.

Really?

Since the Lebanese government could not afford to clean shop itself, Israel is now doing it for them.

Bullshit. Israel doesn't want to "clean shop", it want to ethnically cleanse and move its border farther north.

I repeat, this is nothing less than an ethnic cleansing of the Shiites of southern Lebanon, an assault on an entire civilian population's way of life. Aside from ecology, it is no different from what Saddam Hussein did to the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq, and the Israelis are doing it for exactly the same sorts of reasons that Saddam did.

If you’re looking for somebody to blame, how about Syria and Iran for turning their neighbor into a helpless proxy?

So if the Turkish Army should move into Kurdistan to "clean shop", and they kill Iraqis in droves (not even bothering to differentiate between Iraqis in general and Kurds, let alone Peshmerga and PKK) and destroy what little wasn't wiped out in previous wars, it should all be blamed on the US. Riiiiiight.

George W. Bush has been much more restrained about the Syrian and Iranian role in this fiasco than he might be. I see no indication of his desire to come to Israel’s aid by bombing either Damascus or Tehran any time soon.

He's busy demolishing another bunch of Ay-rabs. Call later.

You mean the same calculation made by Hezbollah when the Israelis pulled out in 2000? Or by radicals all over the Middle East after the Marine Barracks bombing of 1982? Or by jihadists after the Soviet pull-out from Afghanistan?

I was pointing out the absurdity of Lieberman's claim. The only people who call what Dubya is doing a "War On Terror" are war whores and hack journalists. You can't have a war on an abstract noun.

Were you born this dense, Elfdart, or did your parents just have butter fingers?

Could you repeat the question?

I thought Hezbollah was dedicated to “protecting” Lebanon? After all, wasn’t there their original raison d’etre?

I'm sure they consider the Palestinians their allies.

The fact of the matter is that Israel has been taking steps to return to pre-June 1967 borders

Like expanding settlements in the West Bank and Gaza? Like extending the Lebensraum Wall through the Jordan Valley"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/ ... 22,00.html

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Tuesday March 18, 2003
The Guardian

Ariel Sharon has told his cabinet that he plans to extend the "security fence" Israel is building along the length of the West Bank so that it entirely encircles any Palestinian state.

The revelation, which follows the Israeli government's decision to oppose full independence for Palestine in favour of a state with "certain attributes of sovereignty", immediately drew fire from the Palestinians who accused the Israeli prime minister of trying to turn the occupied territories into a huge prison.

Meanwhile, the Israeli army killed 10 Palestinians, including a four-year-old girl, in a raid on a Gaza refugee camp yesterday.

You are so full of shit it's coming out of your ears.

– in spite of the fact that its neighbors’ antagonism has made all of its major wars justifiable enterprises. How can you reasonably expect Israel to continue offering land for peace when its actions are repeatedly met with more violence?

A prison is still a prison whether the guards stand outside the walls and run the place, control who may enter and leave and beat and shoot the inmates; or whether they stand inside the prison when they run the place, control who may enter and leave and beat and shoot the inmates.

Do you ever stop to really think about whether the cries of “Oppression!” and “Injustice!” are ever actually valid, or do you just attach yourself to anyone who sounds wronged in any way?

Do you ever stop asking fucktarded questions? Never mind.

And yet Iran has no problem subsidizing Hezbollah during times like these. They’ve got no problem sticking their fingers into the Iraqi morass. They’ve got no problem avoiding responsibility for the actions of their al-Quds Force. And now I’m supposed to expect that Israel’s standing down is going to deter them from encouraging – and empowering – their proxies to commit to more idiocy? Why? After all, to the Iranian leadership, it’s only Lebanese blood.

What corner would Israel be painted into if they gave up on apartheid and lebensraum? None. If mullahs in Iran want to think it would be some kind of victory for them they're almost a stupid as you are.

Except that plenty of terrorists in Iraq have indicated a willingness to “follow us home” even if we pull out immediately.

Prove it.

We supported the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and they made no bones about what they thought of the American superpower.

And?

Israel is merely an attempt at justification. Hezbollah didn’t want to stop killing after 2000. Once, they were “Lebanese freedom fighters.” Now they’re “Palestinian allies.”

They can't be both?

Israel left the Gaza Strip.

Irrelevant -they still control it.

It left Lebanon. It was at peace with its northern neighbor. It was making concessions to the Palestinians.

Prison guards shooting inmates from outside rather than inside the prison is a real concession. The warden shutting off water and electricity from his desk in an office building instead of his office inside the prison is a real cncession.

But, of course, for you, that doesn’t matter one whit. Why do we even have these discussions?

I don't know about you but I'm having a blast.

[weemadando]

Oh dear sweet tommy-gun toting monkey. An Elfdart v Kast debate. My thread size just jumped enormously with hardly ANY new posts and I'd wondered why.

In actually related news, Israel says that they have destroyed half of Hezbollah's "fighting capacity". Hezbollah says on their TV network that Israel has not even made a dent in their personnel/logistics.

[MKSheppard]

They just had to make do with $3 billion plus bonuses from the American taxpayer.

You know, I get real tired of seeing this strawman thrown about by everyone.

Israel gets $3 billion a year aid from the US, yes, however, that aid is REQUIRED by the Camp David Accords.

Likewise, Egypt gets $2.1 billion a year in aid as required by Camp David, but we never hear about that, no sir.

[Axis Kast]

Glad you've found my posts so informative. Anyway, I take it you don't dispute Fulbright's claim.

. . . so you’re saying you can’t read?

Let me also take this moment to remind you, Elfdart, that it is you who must prove that the U.S. government is “in the pocket of Israel,” not I who must prove a negative. You should be pointing to evidence that the U.S. has neglected its own interest in the service of this supposedly insidious Israeli lobby about which you speak.

Why would that bother Israel -unless Israel was planning to attack Saudi Arabia? Were the AWACs going to be used to bomb Israel?

First of all, this was still a time when Israel feared a massed attack on the part of its neighbors. No wonder they were wary of Saudi Arabia obtaining equipment that could potentially improve the fighting power of Arab air forces.

Secondly, what the fuck does Israel’s position on why it opposed the AWACS deal have to do with the fact that Ronald Reagan ignored them regardless? Bottom line: Israel didn’t get what it wanted because the United States felt that its interests lay elsewhere.

"Strongly criticized"? I'd like to see a quote where G.H.W. Bush did that. Not that it matters. Criticism = dick. I still want to see what qualifies as strong criticism in your book.

The following are quotations from William B. Quandt’s “Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict Since 1967” (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2005):

“On May 22, 1989, [Secretary of State James] Baker spoke at the annual AIPAC convention in Washington, D.C. Baker’s remarks were predictably friendly toward Israel at the outset. . . . Only when Baker turned to the missing element in the Shamir plan, the fate of the occupied territories, did he hit a discordant note. Interpreting UN Resolution 242 as requiring the exchange of land for peace, Baker referred to ‘territorial withdrawal’ as a probable outcome of negotiations. Then, in a pointed reference to Shamir’s ideology, Baker said: ‘For Israel, now is the time to lay aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision of a greater Israel. […] Forswear annexation. Stop settlement activity. Allow schools to reopen. Reach out to the Palestinians as neighbors who deserve political rights.” (p. 296)

“But Bush was gaining credibility in Arab eyes, just as the Soviets were dropping off the map. On September 6, 1941, Bush asked Congress for a 120-day delay before considering the Israeli loan request. After encountering congressional resistance, Bush went public on September 12. He spoke out forecefully against Israeli settlements and against the Israeli lobby.” (p. 310)

The following is from a news conference given by the president on September 12, 1991. A transcript may be found by visiting the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library’s website, clicking on “Public Papers,” and then directing oneself to September, 1991:

“A few days ago, I asked Congress to defer consideration for 120 days of Israel's request for billion in additional U.S. loan guarantees meant to help Israel absorb its many new emigrants. I did so in the interests of peace. I did so because we must avoid a contentious debate that would raise a host of controversial issues, issues so sensitive that a debate now could well destroy our ability to bring one or more of the parties to the peace table. […]

My request that Congress delay consideration of the Israeli request for billion in new loan guarantees to support emigrant absorption is about peace. For the first time in history, the vision of Israelis sitting with their Arab neighbors to talk peace is a real prospect. Nothing should be done that might interfere with this prospect. And if necessary, I will use my veto power to prevent that from happening. Peace is what these new emigrants to Israel and, indeed, all Israelis long for. Their chance for a decent job, a decent life, depends on it.”

If Bush’s statement does not contain some kind of ridiculous minimum level of vitriol that you consider to be the appropriate method of engaging in foreign policy with Israel, Elfdart, do try and remember that his decision to cut off the loan was actually a way of taking a hand in internal Israeli politics. We made no bones about it: we’d do our best to accommodate the coming to power of the kind of elements we wanted to deal with.

He refused to co-sign for a loan for illegal "settlements". Yeah, that's real inconvenience for Israel. They just had to make do with $3 billion plus bonuses from the American taxpayer.

He basically secured the ejection of Likud, you dishonest piece of shit. How the hell is that unqualified, unblinking support for the maximalist Israeli position? You claim we’re in Israeli’s grasp. Bush’s actions, however, prove that they were very much in ours.

You're really grabbing at straws aren't you? Poppy endorsed the same solution the UN and almost every country on the globe agreed to, but did nothing to enforce it. Did he threaten to cut off aid to Israel? Did he threaten sanctions? to use force to expel Israel like he did Iraq?

I was referring to the current Bush administration, you blithering moron. Do try and read the papers now and again.

Now, for two other examples of the United States sticking its finger in Israel’s eye. . .

As Sheppard pointed out in the thread that got HOS’d, the United States effectively told Israel how and when to end the October War in 1973. The IDF wanted to annihilate the Egyptian Third Army. Sheppard has already explained that Henry Kissinger told the Israelis that it “is an option that does not exist.”

In 1982, the United States was part of a multi-national peacekeeping force that helped remove the PLO from Lebanon. As much as their relocation may have removed a threat on Israel’s border, the fact that Washington did not allow Israel to crush its enemies outright was a significant indication that the U.S. was not afraid to step on Israel’s toes.

Nice non-answer. Bush Sr. told Israel not to get involved in Iraq in 1991 over the Scuds for political reasons -and because he already had the US, British, French and other allied forces looking for them you fucking moron!

Which wasn’t the preferred Israeli response, asshole. We dictated to Tel Aviv how the situation would be handled.

Why? Because you say so? Is it in American interests to allow Kurdish guerillas to attack an ally? Is it in US interests to allow the Peshmerga to lynch Turks and others in Iraq while the US Army is trying to keep the lid on a full-scale civil war?

Because to Iraqis, it represents a transgression against them by a foreign invader. To the Kurds, it suggests that the United States is not a reliably ally, reducing their willingness to cooperate in the reconstruction of Iraq. This is a hard call. Nobody is denying that Kurdish behavior is sometimes detrimental to Turkish security. What is happening, however, is that the Turks risk provoking more violence through their current actions.

Of course I think War Whore Logic is justified... NOT! I was illustrating how stupid that kind of thinking was, not agreeing with it you fucking imbecile!

You seriously feel that Iran is not to blame here?

How does that excuse the bombing of civilians? Oh that's right -it doesn't.

Nobody disputes that it’s a tragedy that Lebanon has become a battleground. On the other hand, the Israelis have dropped leaflets to make Lebanese civilians aware of upcoming bombardments. That’s more than Hezbollah has been doing.

Once again, you seem to ignore the fact that war is deadly and dangerous. What would you have Israel do? Restrict attacks to Southern Lebanon? They’d still likely hit civilians. It would also keep them from following a Hezbollah retreat. Or bringing consequences to a government that has given Hezbollah ministerial positions.

Bullshit. Israel doesn't want to "clean shop", it want to ethnically cleanse and move its border farther north.

Prove it. Especially after Israel has come out and said that its actions won’t result in occupation.

So if the Turkish Army should move into Kurdistan to "clean shop", and they kill Iraqis in droves (not even bothering to differentiate between Iraqis in general and Kurds, let alone Peshmerga and PKK) and destroy what little wasn't wiped out in previous wars, it should all be blamed on the US. Riiiiiight.

Prove that the Israelis are not taking steps to differentiate between Hezbollah fighters and innocent civilians. Prove that their actions have been oriented around slaughter for slaughter’s sake. Prove that they plan to stay. Oh, wait – you can’t.

He's busy demolishing another bunch of Ay-rabs. Call later.

Concession accepted.

I was pointing out the absurdity of Lieberman's claim. The only people who call what Dubya is doing a "War On Terror" are war whores and hack journalists. You can't have a war on an abstract noun.

Concession accepted.

I'm sure they consider the Palestinians their allies.

Hezbollah’s behavior is proof that their goal is simply to destroy Israel. They twist and turn in an effort to find some justification for that end. Hence, we cannot trust that unilateral peace offerings will be met with good faith. But, of course, you feel that it is Israel that must make all concessions, without reference to anyone who claims they have been “wronged.”

Like expanding settlements in the West Bank and Gaza? Like extending the Lebensraum Wall through the Jordan Valley"

The death toll from suicide bombings in Israel has fallen dramatically since the construction of said wall.

And wait . . . expanding settlements in Gaza? Israel has left Gaza, you fucking dishonest little shit.

A prison is still a prison whether the guards stand outside the walls and run the place, control who may enter and leave and beat and shoot the inmates; or whether they stand inside the prison when they run the place, control who may enter and leave and beat and shoot the inmates.

Except that concessions were made. Israel turned over Gaza to the Palestinians in a more meaningful way than was ever done before. And they received nothing in the way of effective cooperation in return. But, of course, in your book, that’s a reasonable exchange.

Not to mention that Israel left Lebanon. By the admission of an organization whose standards of international behavior you applaud, the United Nations, Israel was not occupying Lebanese land after 2000. And Hezbollah fought on. They even manufactured a claim to Syrian territory.

What corner would Israel be painted into if they gave up on apartheid and lebensraum? None. If mullahs in Iran want to think it would be some kind of victory for them they're almost a stupid as you are.

Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon and was subsequently hammered in return, you fucking idiot.

Nobody’s denying that an Israeli withdrawal will someday be a precondition for a workable peace in the region. What is being contended is whether Israel can afford to take unilateral steps irrespective of violence being conducted against it. Especially when that violence is often designed to destroy Israel altogether.

Prove it.

TIME Magazine. The same issue that headlined the Abu Ghraib abuse.

And?

And it’s fucking clear that the Arab-Israeli conflict is not the be-all and end-all of justifications or motivations for violence against the United States in the Middle East.

They can't be both?

They manufactured a false claim on an ally’s land just to keep up the fight.

Irrelevant -they still control it.

By that standard, Israel will always control Gaza just as long as they have a strong army.

Seriously. Your posts have no connection to reality anymore. You demand unilateral concessions that get people shot and expect Israel to grin and bear it. How the fuck is Israel supposed to believe that letting go of the West Bank will lay down the foundations for a two-state solution when its concessions are attended by military attacks? As soon as they meet one precondition, there isn't any display by the other side of a willingness to cooperate. The justification just changed focus to some other issue.

[Broomstick]

Uh... to bring up a fresh gobbet of meat....

My Other Half just wandered into the room and said Hezbollah is hiding katusha rockets in mosques. Is that true?

If you ask me, you stick something like that in a mosque (or church) it's no longer holy ground. Do these fuckers think it's like the Highlander, where you can attack someone, run off to "holy ground" and go neener, neener - can't touch me! ??

Or do they think the rest of the world is that fucking stupid, that we wouldn't see the logic in torching a place of worship that's been converted into a rocket launcher or artillery position?

Or do they think God will give them a +4 Shield of Protection for doing shit like that?

[Knife]

Uh... to bring up a fresh gobbet of meat....

My Other Half just wandered into the room and said Hezbollah is hiding katusha rockets in mosques. Is that true?

If you ask me, you stick something like that in a mosque (or church) it's no longer holy ground. Do these fuckers think it's like the Highlander, where you can attack someone, run off to "holy ground" and go neener, neener - can't touch me! ??

Or do they think the rest of the world is that fucking stupid, that we wouldn't see the logic in torching a place of worship that's been converted into a rocket launcher or artillery position?

Or do they think God will give them a +4 Shield of Protection for doing shit like that?

The Laws of War revoke special protection to religeous buildings if they are indeed used as enemy positions. That for the most part, the US has refrained from or profusly apologiezed from attacking Mosques is more PR and PC than anything. I doubt the Isreali's will do the same.

[CJvR]

...and said Hezbollah is hiding katusha rockets in mosques. Is that true?

If you ask me, you stick something like that in a mosque (or church) it's no longer holy ground...

They might well do that and count on the PR shields combined with ignorance of what the rules of war really says regarding protected buildings. If you stick weapons and combatants in a protected structure you void their protection and the enemy may strike them without violating the rules of war.

[Beowulf]

I think, rather, they're counting on international condemnation of Israel if the mosques are hit, for Israel blowing up religious buildings. They're counting on the populace of the World (or more specifically, Europe) to not know the Laws of Armed Conflict. Of course Hezbollah violates them on a regular basis, by not wearing something that identifies them as being a part of an fighting organization, while in combat. So this really is nothing new.