For the last 2 weeks, I have been watching with increasing fear and horror at the activities between Israel and the Hezbollah.

Ever since Hezbollah took controll of the Palestinian Authority, they have become increasingly hostile towards Israel.  In addition, there have been increasing reports of corruption within the government of the Palestinian Authority.  Just last month, there was a riot in their Parlaiment, when several women members of Parlaiment were attacked for questioning why the government was broke.  In addition, there were several attempts to pass bills that would have removed rights from women, and to require all women in the Palestinian Authority to wear head to toe coverings at all times in public.

Then last month Hezbollah increased the tension by conducting a raid into Israel and kidnapping a Soldier.  While conducting raids to try and recover him, they started to shell Israeli civilian areas amd then this last week kidnapped 2 more Soldiers.

Because Hezbollah is mostly financed and based from Lebanon, Israel finally had enough and invaded Lebanon.  This is exactly where we were 1982, when Israel invaded in an attempt to disrupt the flow of terrorists.  And once again, we have a Marine Expeditionary Force ready to participate in the evacuation of US citizens from this new combat area.

Ironically, it was the 24 MAU that participated in the UN operation in Lebanon in 1982-1984.  This is the same unit that lost 221 Sailors and Marines in the October 1983 bombing of the headquarters building.

To be honest, this situation has me more concerned then any others at this time.  I am even more concerned over this then over North Korea and Iran.  Just as Israel is getting more cooperation from it's neighbors and giving more freedom to Palestine, they are once again under attack and getting involved in what is bound to be another long and protracted conflict.  And unless this is settled soon, the progress that Palestine has made in the last decade will probably dissolve.

Is anybody else concerned about this?  Or is this no longer the type of thing that people care about, since it does not involve the US?

I haven't been paying close attention to it but how could I miss some of the headlines. Personally, I think Israel is out of control. And that is not an anti-semitic comment since I am of Jewish heritage. In fact, my great-grandfather paid for many of the trees that are in Israel today. But the situation does really scare me.




Cat

What? Hezbolla hates Israel! Why didn't anybody fill me in on this. I thought that was the Welcome Wagon in Beirut 23 years ago!
:D

All jokes aside, the U.S. has to be reeeeal careful in this situation. This is dangerous sh1t!
I don't want to see anymore of these rightwing pundidiots getting their jollies prattling on about World War III. The New York Times is a threat to national security, but the cable-tards are patriotic for saying, "Yep, we're in the middle of World War III folks, it's started, boy those Moslem troublemakers, just don't want peace..."

Having the current regime in charge here is like waiting for an emergency appendectomy and seeing Dr. Kevorkian walk through the O-R doors!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/evil7.gif

So this has started to worry me.

Hezbollah flew a drone plane in to an Israeli warship a little while ago and have conducted more raids in to Israel.

I'm always the first to stand up and say that Israel has the right to defend it'self against the nations and organizations that continually attack it.. however, that being said, taking out the electricity supply to Beirut, destroying as many of the bridges out of the city as possible, destroying ports and airports. This isn't a military objective, this is operation: starve Lebanon.
I have to make the point that if Israel wants to see the kind of support it has in the past from the West then they need to play the humanitarian game. Regardless of their religion or political affiliation the people in Lebanon are human beings and the vast vast majority of them have nothing whatsoever to do with Hezbollah.

The escalating conflict there combined with North Korea's nuclear defiance and China's non-commital stance toward it's own back yard has me more than a little concerned.

As Mushroom pointed out, the so called 'Government' of the Palestinian Authority has turned out to be a rotten apple. The same public facilities that were promised to the citizens they have an obligation to protect haven't appeared, in fact, the situation has only got worse.

It's a thin line to tread. On the one hand, Israel can not go about the 'diplomatic process' of "Walk around with a big ass stick" but at the same time there are serious threats to Israel growing in strength daily.
The U.S has obviously made it clear where they stand in that part of the world, maybe it's time for the rest of the world to consider this as well.

I don't like where things are heading right now.

Israel, Lebanon, Syria, North Korea, China's indecisiveness, Malaysia, The Philippines, The obvious militaristic ideas that Japan has, the clusterfuc.k that we've created in Iraq, India, Pakistan, Iran.

Run to the hills folks.

I have been scared all month...but i didn't want to say it and make it real.

Slight correction to the original post: It's Hamas that controls the Palestinian Authority, not Hezbollah. The two are separate groups.

And it was Hamas that kidnapped the first of the three captured Israeli soldiers, not Hezbollah.

I've been very scared about this happening; both for the Jewish and Palestinian people and the state of world peace as a whole.

  Bush has expressed concern about the new democratically elected Christian-Lebanese democracy that is still fragile.  This invasion will encourage reactionary Muslim elements in the country, as all aggression does.  We'll likely see a return to Islamic rule in Lebanon.  Neither the Bush Mafia nor the Israelis seem to understand their arbitrary tactics only fuel their enemies.  And it's a huge recruiting tool for fundie Muslims...

  The current situation certainly presents some serious problems for US/Israeli and Western interests in a region already becoming more unstable by the month. Can we expect US troops to be in Lebanon again before the end of the year..?

Slight correction to the original post: It's Hamas that controls the Palestinian Authority, not Hezbollah. The two are separate groups.

And it was Hamas that kidnapped the first of the three captured Israeli soldiers, not Hezbollah.


That is correct.  But you have to remember, Hamas and Hezbollah are basically 2 different wings of the same group.  Hamas is the political wing of Hexbollah in Palestine.  And Hezbollah is the organization that the militants use when they conduct terror raids.  This is similar to the situation in Ireland, where you have the IRA, and the Provisional IRA, the Continuity Irish Republican Army, the Real IRA, and many other such groups.  While any ties may/may not be still in effect, they still work closely together, and will provide each other mutual support and often coordinate any operations together.

This is why there is still fighting in Ireland, even though there is still supposedly a peace in effect.  The PLO has done this in the past, by declairing peace with Israel, then useing another "wing" of the PLO to perform it's actions.  That way they could sit back and deny responsibility.  This is exactly what they did in 1972 with "Black September".

For a good example of how they are working together, look at a recent announcement about the kidnapped soldiers.  Hamas (the "official" government of Palestine") captured the first one (which is in and of itself an act of war between nations).  Then the other 2 were captured by Hezbollah during the fighting that resulted from that first kidnapping.

Yesterday, an official of Hezbollah announced that all 3 soldiers are safe, and being held in seperate locations.  If there was no cooperation and coordination between the groups, then how could you have such an announcement?  That by itself is confirmation that they are working together.

I actually wish for the days when the PLO was in controll of Palestine.  In the last few years of his life, Arafat made some wonderful strides in achieveing peace between Palestine and Israel.  We had quite a while where it was actually safe to travel in the region, and attacks were becomming a thing of the past.  Now, we are back to the way things were 20 years ago.

The US has learned long ago to stay out of such conflicts.  These are military actions, without any kind of real military goal.  They provide intelligence information and supplies to Israel as needed, and largely stay out of it.  And Israel has also done the same in return.  If anybody remembers the 1990 Gulf War, Iraq sent a large number of SCUD missiles against Israel, and no response was made by them.  The Israeli government agreed to sit that one out, and let the US take care of things.

In the long run, this is only going to result in the deaths of a great number of people.  Israel invaded Lebanon again because the government has shown that it is unable (or inwilling) to stop the flow of people and equipment from their country into Palestine/Israel.  They will probably occupy the country for a while, then pull out and let the UN pick up the pieces (just like what happened 20 years ago).

Myself, I am wondering if this is largely a repeat of what happened between Argentina and England 25 years ago.  Argentina was being run by a horribly corrupt government, that was unpopular and on the brink of bankruptcy.  It was basically a military junta, which was under increasing attacks from within, and lower ranking officers were starting to plan coups.  By starting a war with a larger nation, they were able to distract their people, and send off a lot of the "unloyal" officers to fight in another place.  And at the same time, they were able to get a lot of countries to either stay neutral, or support them in what they tried to protray as an "Anglo-Latin American war of liberation".

To me, it is sad to see this happening after what seemed to be an era of peace between Israel and Palestine.  They finally seemed to be working together, but that ended when the PLO was voted out of office.

As a side note, I was talking to somebody about this, and they think this might be caused at least partially by the recent US advances in stabilizing Iraq.  The fighters have found it increasingly hard to send men and equipment into Iraq, so many groups have been instead sending them to Lebanon.  And since the US has been putting increasing pressure on Syria to close the borders, they may have simply responded by sending them into Lebanon instead of Iraq.

Sure is a difficult issue. Hard to figure out who's right and who's wrong, who wants peace, and who's the aggressor. You know, it's a peplexing jigsaw puzzle of culture, religion, history, and current events. Our leader must be able to approach the conflicts in Middle East with both scholarly insight and painstaking brinksmanship---that's why I'm glad this guy is in charge:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003125954_bushboar14.html

...Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat the bacon....

The Beatles

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/oink2.gif

Sure is a difficult issue. Hard to figure out who's right and who's wrong, who wants peace, and who's the aggressor.


Well, this all started with an attack and kidnapping against an Israeli military outpost, on Israeli soil.

I have heard no claims that Israel did anything to provoke it, other then the fact that they exist at all.  Nobody is trying to claim that the soldier was in Palestine, or that Israel was even planning to enter Palestine.  It was an unprovoked attack, plain and simple.

If the person who was kidnapped was a family member of yours, what would you want done Max?  If it was your borther or son, would you just want to sit back and wait for them to release him?  Or what if one of the 2 soldiers killed in that initial attack was your family?  Or it was your house or town that they started to lob missiles and rockets against?  Would you just walk to the border and try to apologize?

To me, this is rather like a kidnapper trying to claim that the police were not justified in firing a gun at them.  You may see grey in this somehow, but I see nothing grey in the actions that led to this latest outbreak of violence.

Well, this all started with an attack and kidnapping against an Israeli military outpost, on Israeli soil.

I have heard no claims that Israel did anything to provoke it, other then the fact that they exist at all.  Nobody is trying to claim that the soldier was in Palestine, or that Israel was even planning to enter Palestine.  It was an unprovoked attack, plain and simple.

If the person who was kidnapped was a family member of yours, what would you want done Max?  If it was your borther or son, would you just want to sit back and wait for them to release him?  Or what if one of the 2 soldiers killed in that initial attack was your family?  Or it was your house or town that they started to lob missiles and rockets against?  Would you just walk to the border and try to apologize?

To me, this is rather like a kidnapper trying to claim that the police were not justified in firing a gun at them.  You may see grey in this somehow, but I see nothing grey in the actions that led to this latest outbreak of violence.


You sound like a victim of selective media consumption. You hear what you want to hear, believe what you want to believe. Your conclusions are foreordained.

Listen, nobody is an angel in this wicked old world--no individual, no group, no nation. To say Israel did nothing to provoke the kidnapping is as crazy as saying Israeli kids deserve to die when the backpack bomber blows up the pizza parlor.

And for chrissakes, conservatives champion cold logical thinking, yet I constantantly hear from conservatives these dumbass hypotheticals, "how would you like it if this" and  "what would you do if that?," when they advocate draw-and-quartering child molestors, beheading drug dealers, nuking theran or some such Draconian rubbish. In this way logic-loving rightwingers appeal to personal rage as subterfuge for rational discussion of public policy.
::)

OFF-TOPIC NOTE:
It always reminds me of the 1988 presidential campaign when, regarding Dukakis's views on capital punishment, that jerk Bernie Shaw asked the candidate "What would you do if Kitty Dukakis got raped?"* Dukakis gave a reasonable response, he said it was a dumb question and he would pursue the matter through legal channels.* And the "liberal media" went bonkers! Suddenly Dukakis was a soft-on-crime impotent wuss! George Bush would have flexed his skinny biceps and declared, "It would take the strength of many men to hold me back!" And the "liberal media" would have lionized him--yeah! that's our Republican mensch, fight for justice-God-and-truth-and-right!

Dumb, really dumb. But 1988 was the year when the Republican party decided POLICY issues were a loser for them, and started campaigning on PERSONALITY issues. ("Character does matter!" declared George Bush in '92. Bush campaigning on character was like Clinton campaigning on chastity!) This is what poisoned the well of American political debate, this is what made campaigns exercises in social devolution, this is what made Newt Gingrich possible. It has taken nearly two decades, but people with brains on the Right and on the Left  have figured out the damage this is doing.

*paraphrasing here.

i'm sure everything will be fine. just drink a little more and turn up the stereo! lalalalalala.

it's really hard to take sides on this. palestinian militants send a suicide bomber into an israeli nightclub, and the israelis respond with wholesale reprisals that kill 60 civilians and maybe 3 militants. the right wing's eagerness to absolve israel of all responsibility is just as stomach-churning to me as some people on the left who claim that the suicide bombers are freedom fighters. but from where i'm seeing the right in general is MUCH more ready to ignore israel's sins than the left generally is to forgive hezbollah etc.

if there's anything encouraging to get from all this i get the impression it's still a long way from the bloodiness of the late 70s and early 80s.

it's really hard to take sides on this. palestinian militants send a suicide bomber into an israeli nightclub, and the israelis respond with wholesale reprisals that kill 60 civilians and maybe 3 militants. the right wing's eagerness to absolve israel of all responsibility is just as stomach-churning to me as some people on the left who claim that the suicide bombers are freedom fighters. but from where i'm seeing the right in general is MUCH more ready to ignore israel's sins than the left generally is to forgive hezbollah etc.


To me, it is as simple as "cause and effect".  Or as I have said in here before, "you are responsible for your own actions".

When a person (or group) does something like a bombing of a nightclub,or as one example a few years ago, a wedding, where 5 people were killed and over 40 injured.  When people decide to target civilians in an unprovoked attack, they should expect reprisals.

I do not absolve Israel for what they are doing.  But I also understand why they are doing it.  Myself, I think it is an awefull mess where nobody wins.  But then again, I am not living in a soceity where there is mandatory conscription, and you have to be careful wherever you are because you could be attacked or blown up at any time.

And Max, I see a lot of talking, but nothing that seems even remotely close to some kind of explanation why the initial attacks were done against Israel.  Not even Hammas or Hezbollah are claiming that there was any kind of attack by Israel in action or being planned when this latest round of attacks and counter-attacks started.

You may go on about "selective media consumption", but that is not a dispute, it is merely "spin control".  And I simply can't understand how anybody can spin something like this, unless you agree that Israel is an illegitimate nation, and has no right to exist.  In the last 2 weeks, I have seen nor heard any kind of provocation for these attacks by Israel, and not even the normal spokesholes like Iran or Syria are trying to claim that Israel was planning a pre-emptive strike or anything like that.  This was simply a military operation done to increase tension in the area.

To me, it is as simple as "cause and effect".  Or as I have said in here before, "you are responsible for your own actions".

When a person (or group) does something like a bombing of a nightclub,or as one example a few years ago, a wedding, where 5 people were killed and over 40 injured.  When people decide to target civilians in an unprovoked attack, they should expect reprisals.

well, it's a matter of saying "they did it first!" without any real evidence to support it. targeting civilians is obviously unconscienable but it looks to me like both sides are doing it, and none of these attacks are "unprovoked." they're happening in the context of a conflict that goes back years and years. it's not like israel is sitting there, selfless and innocent, and the evil beady-eyed arabs twirl their moustaches and suddenly attack out of the blue out of pure evil. israel's got their boot on the neck of the palestinians in the region and it's been like that for years.

I do not absolve Israel for what they are doing.

seems like you do to me.

You may go on about "selective media consumption", but that is not a dispute, it is merely "spin control".  And I simply can't understand how anybody can spin something like this, unless you agree that Israel is an illegitimate nation, and has no right to exist. 

That is the kind of bafflegab I was talking about. I'm not saying you watch FOX News, but you use the same phraseology and the same black-and-white argument formula: If you're not for X, then you're for Y," "If your not a this, you're a that."
Come on! It is not "spinning" to say there's evidence of wrongdoing on both sides. It is a Sean Hannity-type emotional low blow to declare, "You either agree with whatever the Israeli Right wants to do...OR you don't think Israel is a legitimate country; you don't think Israeli has the right to exist!" That is the rhetoric of the nonsequitur, of course, but when the message-makers pound it into your head long enough, it works.
::)

The Israeli government does not oppress its neighbors in order that terrorists will kidnap Israeli citizens, however, the cumulative effect of Israel's policies create a political temper conducive to terrorist retaliation. Mind you, the phrase "terrorist retaliation" in itself implies it is not a justifiable response. I agree with the phrase you used,  "cause and effect." I have been pushing for a "cause and effect" point of view rather than a "good guys versus bad guys" point of view. The right-wingers get on the tube and call the Israeli Right and the Bushies good guys, while everybody else--the Lebenese, the Palestinians, the Europeans, the U.N., and the Democrats ('cept for Lieberman) are bad guys. I have not heard the subject of Israeli dissenters come up, but if it does, they'll get a damn good trashing too! There's no real analysis of "cause and effect" or "responsibility for your actions." Why? Because we're the good guys, and the Israeli Right are the good guys, and you know what? "We didn't do anything to deserve this!"
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/angel5.gif

I actually wish for the days when the PLO was in controll of Palestine.  In the last few years of his life, Arafat made some wonderful strides in achieveing peace between Palestine and Israel.  We had quite a while where it was actually safe to travel in the region, and attacks were becomming a thing of the past.  Now, we are back to the way things were 20 years ago.


You actually preferred it when Arafat was in charge? Most people saw him as a corrupt despot who was largely responsible for the 2000 intifadah. Under his rule, Palestine was a dictatorship, whereas it now has a democratically elected government.

well, it's a matter of saying "they did it first!" without any real evidence to support it.


Do you deny that a group crossed the border, opened fire on a military outpost within Israel, and took a soldier hostage?  Because nobody esle is denying it happened.

And what was this supposedly in repraisal to?  According to Hezbollah, it is in response to thousands of their members being "illegally held" in Israeli jails.

I simply can't understand why people would live in such a state of denial, and how they can try to defend a group which is after nothing less then the complete destruction of a group of people.

I am sorry, but I simply can't ever stand on the side of a group dedicated to Genocide.  I never have, and I never will.

You actually preferred it when Arafat was in charge? Most people saw him as a corrupt despot who was largely responsible for the 2000 intifadah. Under his rule, Palestine was a dictatorship, whereas it now has a democratically elected government.


And how is that different from the current government in Palestine exactly?

Yes, it is a "Democracy" in which female members of Parlaiment are shouted down and attacked, because we all know that women have no rights.  And if you do not agree with what the Government is doing, a bomb mysteriously goes off in your house or car.

Do not get me wrong, Yassir was no saint.  However, he was trying to keep the fighting to a low level.  He was able to make Israel feel secure, and pull back more and more, giving them more self-determination.  I never saw the new Government do anything other then turn the heat up more and more, encouraging more attacks every year.

And Max, I do not see this as "black and white".  IN fact, I stated several times that in this case everybody looses.

However, it does not take much to see who started this round of fighting.  Today I listened to a 10 minute ramble by Fouad Siniora, the Prime Minister of Lebanon.  And I really can only describe it as a "Ramble".

Minister Siniora stated that everything was the fault of Israel.  He even went on to claim that "hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children have been killed" in the latest attacks.  "Hundreds of thousands"?

Of course, he also claimed that Israel has "no moral or legal legitimacy", and that the UN and every other nation on the Earth should rise up and destroy them.  When asked about Syria and Iran's involvement in this round of conflict, he stated that Iran and Syria are innocent, and that it is all a conspiracy of Israel.

He also bounced back and forth about the kidnapped soldiers.  At one point, he tried to claim that they did not exist, and that Israel made them up.  Then he turned right around and tried to claim they were captured during a failed invasion.

In short, all double-talk and coprolite.  In short, he stated "We must all get together to destroy Israel, and everything they say is a lie".

Of course, if Minister Siniora is correct, we are seeing the results of the most idiotic invasion in history.  Israel was so stupid, they decided to invade another country with a single squad of Soldiers.  Of course, we must not forget that there are also claims that those soldiers never existed.

I guess Israel did an invasion with ghosts.  ::)

This situation is really freaking me out. I'm on no one's sides. All hands are dirty in this one.

I am sorry, but I simply can't ever stand on the side of a group dedicated to Genocide.  I never have, and I never will.


Ugh...what a lot of hooey. Hezbollah is a violent bunch to be sure, but they're not dedicated to genocide. Only right-wing Zionist propaganda would tell you that. Israel may claim to speak for all Jews, but not all Jews favor Israel. Even a lot of Jews living in Israel dissent from Israel's policies. Hezbollah is a Shia organization dedicated to the expulsion of Israeli forces from Lebanon.
Agree or disagree, it's political, not racial.

Ugh...what a lot of hooey. Hezbollah is a violent bunch to be sure, but they're not dedicated to genocide. Only right-wing Zionist propaganda would tell you that.


Hmmm, let's see what Hezbollah itself says:

Here are a few quotes from Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah:

"There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."
"Ammar is proof that Israel will certainly vanish and Jerusalem will return. There are thousands like him waiting for the Israelis to be drown in the sea."

(Ammar is Ammar Hammoud, a suicide bomber that killed 12 civilians and 1 soldier when he blew himself up in an outdoor market in Israel.  "Drown in the sea" is a reference to the long standing claim of such groups that they will over-run Israel, and force all of the Jews to march into the Mediteranian Sea and drown.)

Oh yes, very peaceful speechs they give, so full of reconciliation and good will.  I guess it is good will if you are a hungry fish in the Med.

Of course, it is interesting that France pulled the plug on the official news wire of Hezbollah in 2004.  al-Manar was ordered removed after ignoring repeated statements that were "inciting violence" and "anti-semitic:.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4093579.stm

Of course, it is interesting that the presence of Hezbollah is in violation of the peace treaty that ended the Israel-Lebanon war, and is in violation of several UN Resolutions.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1559

Of course, a lot of the information I used came from http://www.freemuslims.org/.  This is a group of Muslims that oppose violence and terrorism, and groups like Hammas and Hezbollah.

Yes, I am familiar with Hezbollah's hateful rhetoric. It takes a lot of fierce talk to recruit membership for terrorist organizations. I suppose the screeds of rage groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad proclaim against the state of Israel might qualify as genocidal in their intentions by the terms of genocide the U.N. General Assembly adopted in 1948. I think the genocidal rhetoric is a lot of hot air brought on by outrage and panic over a political circumstance. Hezbollah demands Israel, America, and France stay out of Lebanon. The group believes Israel is its mortal enemy, that is Israel as a political entity, not Jews as an ethnic group.

It is unfortunate some firebrands of Hezbollah have made racist declarations over the past two decades. It is also unfortunate Islamic fundamentalists talk of "killing the infidels." This only gives Israel and allies reasons to declare Hezbollah a genocidal and terrorist organization. If that's the case, we should not cut deals with Hezbollah. Europe cut deals with Nazi Germany, and look what happened!

I don't see Hezbollah carrying on anti-Jewish rhetoric absent Israeli and American aggression. Hezbollah is defensive at its core. Nazi Germany was not defensive. They were the aggressor an they intended to rub out the Jews. The Europeans were the aggressors in colonial America, and they intentionally wiped out many indigenous peoples.* I know the political Right is calling Hezbollah the aggressor here, but I'm not buying it. I'm not calling Hezbollah righteous dudes, I'm just saying they are an utterly piddling power against Israel and the U.S. The Nazis were an overwhelming force against the other nations of Europe. I would say the power differential between the Nazi Panzer division and the Polish Cavalry is analogous to Hezbollah versus Israel, not the reverse.

Hezbollah's ability to conspire with Hamas, Al Qaeda, or the creepy Wahabists (Bush's buddies) of Saudi Arabia. Hezbollah is Shia, these other "Islamofascists" are Sunni. The Sunni regard the Shia as Infidels. An Infidel is an Infidel to a fundamentalist. So you see, Hezbollah is at a severe disadvantage on the political world stage.

Elijah Mohammed and the Nation of Islam used a lot of "kill whitey" rhetoric, but as the social and economic equality for African Americans increased, you would hear less and less about "kill whitey." I still have to use the subjunctive tense here because social and economic equality for African Americans has not come to pass.

*some indigenous peoples faced deliberate genocide. Far more died out from disease, famine, and warfare wrought by political abuses that were not "first degree" genocide, if you will.
"Anti-Semitic" is not interchangeable with "anti-Jewish" because the Arabs are also Semetic peoples.

Hezbollah demands Israel, America, and France stay out of Lebanon. The group believes Israel is its mortal enemy, that is Israel as a political entity, not Jews as an ethnic group.


*boggle*

You're normally a pretty rational fellow.  I think you ought to do some research on the foundation of the various Islamic movements, and the way they practically jumped up and down with glee at their prospects during WW2. 

Most of the regional governments (Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan) accept the existence of the state of Israel, even if they don't like it.  They'd be perfectly happy if the Jews were wiped out, but they're smart enough to realize it's not likely to happen, and that there's not much in it either way for them.

Other regional governments (Syria's unsure, the "Palestinians" definitely don't, and the Hezbollah folks definitely don't,  although they're only one political party among many in Lebanon) do not accept the existence of Israel, and their favored solution is indeed one of genocide.  Their rhetoric cannot be backed up by force of arms, because they don't have sufficient arms (particularly as they don't have the support of the governments of Lebanon, Egypt, and/or Jordan) to pull it off.

When the West hears talk of "ending the occupation", we tend to assume it means the "occupied territories" of the Golan Heights, West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, occupied by Israels since 1967.

When the Islamic nutbars make this talk, they aren't speaking to us, they're speaking to their domestic audience, and they emphatically mean "...and the entire land mass currently labeled 'Israel' on the map, occupied by the j00z since 1948".

If you really believe that the IDF voluntarily laying down arms and ending the "occupation" (of land "occupied" since 1948) would result in anything short of the genocide of every non-Muslim in the "occupied' territories (read: every Jew who couldn't get on a plane in 24 hours), I'd strongly encourage you to revisit your premises - and you'd do well to start by investigating the sort of folks Yasser and his fellow Muzzy Brotherhood types hung out with 60 years ago.

If you really believe that the IDF voluntarily laying down arms and ending the "occupation" (of land "occupied" since 1948) would result in anything short of the genocide of every non-Muslim in the "occupied' territories (read: every Jew who couldn't get on a plane in 24 hours), I'd strongly encourage you to revisit your premises - and you'd do well to start by investigating the sort of folks Yasser and his fellow Muzzy Brotherhood types hung out with 60 years ago.
since the israelis are wiping out two civilians for every one the palestinians are killing, doesn't it stand to reason that if the palestinians lay down their arms, they'll be wiped out twice as fast?

i'm not trying to take sides, i think both the israelis and the palestinians are being disgusting monsters at the moment; i'm just trying to demonstrate how easily the right apologizes for what the israelis are doing. it's so much more complicated than just, the israelis are good and the ay-rabs are bad, and the vastly greater effectiveness the israelis are demonstrating at massacring civilians at the moment is a case in point.

I don't expect to convert anybody here.
::)

anyone who thinks israel's existence is in any danger, given the billions in military aid we give them every year, is smoking something. the availability of this talking point -- that israel has to keep slaughtering civilians in lebanon or else forfeit their existence -- just shows how facile that point of view is. israel's existence is so perfectly well and easily assured; they have a fleet of blackhawk helicopters to answer every handmade bomb. it's really prespammersite on its face.

One of the big recruitment lines for "white separatist" and "white supremicist" groups is that that the "white race" is in danger of extinction because of race mixing and because whites have fewer children than other "races." The most successful hate-mongers keep their rhetoric one of victimization. God-fearing American Christians are victims of Barbara Streisand. Aryan Germans were victims of the international Jew. The Nazis would have killed Streisand no matter what. The American Right would embrace Streisand if she became a right-wing Zionist, just as they embraced Alan Dershowitz for the same thing!

Remember: You are in danger. They are victimizing you!
::)

since the israelis are wiping out two civilians for every one the palestinians are killing, doesn't it stand to reason that if the palestinians lay down their arms, they'll be wiped out twice as fast?


War is hell.

The big difference here (and Israel treads a damn fine line by bombing infrastructure) is about targeting.

Hezbollah forces are intermingled with the civilian population.  The cheap-ass rockets are assembled in civilian basements.  It's pretty hard to waste "the basement" of a 3-storey apartment building without inconveniencing the inhabitants of the aboveground folks.

And because their weapons are assembled in basements, the Hezzies can't (even if they wanted to) target Israeli military installations.  As the old song goes, "once the rockets go up / who cares where they come down?  / That's not my department!" / says Wehrner von Braun".

Personally, the only "strategy" that explains Hezbollah's (and Hamas') actions is genocide: even if they had good guidance systems, they'd go for maximum body count.  I can't prove that, because the only proof would require that someone arm 'em with several billion dollars worth of tech.  We just don't know, and we will probably never know, because the Muslims just don't have the brainpower and/or industrial/technological infrastructure to build sophisticated guidance and delivery systems.

I'm on firmer ground when I point out that the Israelis are still taking pretty good steps to avoid civilian casualties.  If you have total air superiority (which the Israelis do) and you want to bomb a power plant, or a party headquarters, or even a freakin' school, you can do it at 10:30 am local time, or you can do it at 3:00 am local time.

Taking the past month (and I'm thinking specifically the start of hostilities in Gaza) as the example, the Israelis have been pretty darn consistent in choosing to bomb buildings when they're empty, not when they're full. 

Strategiclaly, it doesn't matter when the target gets blowed up.  But tactically, the decision of when to bomb is the sort of  decision that either side (regardless of whether their munitions are guided or unguided) can take, and that only one side (namely, the Israelis) has taken to date.  Unless and until that changes, I'm gonna root for the Israelis. 

And call it a hunch, but something tells me we'll be hearing of Amish insurgents suicide-bombing the Episocpalians for putting the salad fork on the wrong side of the plate before we see Muslim civilians being exterminted in their millions by inv8ding h0rd3z of m4d j00z. 

The smartest thing the Palestinians could have done within the past 60 years is follow the example of Mahatma Gandhi.  Gandhi's strategh of nonvilence was tactical suicide, but he was smart enough to know he was fighting a civilized people, and he knew that if he could prove that his ffollowers were themselves civilized,  his decision would be proven (strategically) correct.

But nobody (on either side of this debate :) has ever accused the Palestinians of cilvilization or wisdom... and frankly, for good reason.

fine, but i don't get what all this talk about intentions and about targeting matters if israel is wiping out two civilians for every one hizbollah is killing. who cares what israel SAYS its intentions are? perhaps if the palestinians were getting 10 billion dollars a year in military aid from the west they could afford to pretend to be "targeting" combatants the same way israel is, but their "body count" would doubtless go up dramatically the way israel is causing way more damage now. i mean their last attack killed 80 people, something like 14 of them were militants. i'm hearing on the radio their weapons are causing disproportionate dismemberments, loss of arms and legs and the like. and i'm supposed to care when they say, oh, we're not targeting civilians? who cares what they say?

fine, but i don't get what all this talk about intentions and about targeting matters if israel is wiping out two civilians for every one hizbollah is killing. who cares what israel SAYS its intentions are? perhaps if the palestinians were getting 10 billion dollars a year in military aid from the west they could afford to pretend to be "targeting" combatants the same way israel is, but their "body count" would doubtless go up dramatically the way israel is causing way more damage now. i mean their last attack killed 80 people, something like 14 of them were militants. i'm hearing on the radio their weapons are causing disproportionate dismemberments, loss of arms and legs and the like. and i'm supposed to care when they say, oh, we're not targeting civilians? who cares what they say?


This is a really thin line for me to tread.

On the one hand I'm disgusted with the number of civilian deaths inflicted by Israeli weapons. For every one civilian they kill, you turn the whole family of that individual against your cause. Not a clever way to conduct warfare and 'spread democracy' (Because, let's face it, the reason we're supporting this is 'the furthering of democracy in the middle east.')
On the other hand.
Hezbollah is a large organization and a dangerous organization.
Israel cannot be expected to sit and wait for them to show themselves.

So I put it to you..

Is it the cowardice of members of Hezbollah, hiding in heavily populated areas, that should be the picked out as a cause for these civilian deaths or is it Israel being heavy handed?


I'm on firmer ground when I point out that the Israelis are still taking pretty good steps to avoid civilian casualties.  If you have total air superiority (which the Israelis do) and you want to bomb a power plant, or a party headquarters, or even a freakin' school, you can do it at 10:30 am local time, or you can do it at 3:00 am local time.

Taking the past month (and I'm thinking specifically the start of hostilities in Gaza) as the example, the Israelis have been pretty darn consistent in choosing to bomb buildings when they're empty, not when they're full. 


This is an excellent point.

There is a major difference between bombing buildings when they're full of people (a'la Hezbollah) and bombing buildings when they're empty (The Israeli method).

The main difference here is this.

Israeli weapons carry far more of a punch than those made by the Hezbollah group.

No matter how careful they are, the weapons Israel use will take out large areas, including nearby infrastructure, homes, resteraunts, shops etc.
This is unfortunate but no different to every other heavily armed civilized nation.

The only difference is that France, Britain, Germany, Japan etc don't have psychotic extremest groups 2 miles from their borders against whom they need to use such weapons.

Is it the cowardice of members of Hezbollah, hiding in heavily populated areas, that should be the picked out as a cause for these civilian deaths or is it Israel being heavy handed?

the fighters on both sides seem to share a rather sickening indifference to civilian casualties, if you ask me.

of course, the thing nobody wants to say because what hezbollah is doing is indefensible, but at the same time the fact of the matter is that if they faced israel on the battlefield in a fair fight, they'd be wiped out. there's that pesky issue about military aid again. hiding among civilians is a repugnant practice; unfortunately, it's also an effective tactic. bombing water treatment plants, power plants, etc., the way the israelis are doing, is exactly as repuslive -- and exactly as effective, torturing the civilian population will probably benefit israel, but you guys really should be just as embarrassed to be apologizing for israel's tactics as we are bending over backwards not to apologize for the islamic militants. bombing infrastructure is a war crime under the geneva conventions and just as revolting as bombing a discotheque, imo. most civilian casualties in war come not from weapons but from disease, starvation, exposure etc. from the erosion of infrastructure caused by war. the israelis doubtless know this, but they also know that they can get away with targeting civilians by targeting instrastructure because it doesn't LOOK as bad.

unfortunately, though, so much of the support for israel comes from such things -- rationalizations about what looks better, and facile acceptance of israel's own characterizations of its intentions.

the fighters on both sides seem to share a rather sickening indifference to civilian casualties, if you ask me.

of course, the thing nobody wants to say because what hezbollah is doing is indefensible, but at the same time the fact of the matter is that if they faced israel on the battlefield in a fair fight, they'd be wiped out. there's that pesky issue about military aid again. hiding among civilians is a repugnant practice; unfortunately, it's also an effective tactic. bombing water treatment plants, power plants, etc., the way the israelis are doing, is exactly as repuslive -- and exactly as effective, torturing the civilian population will probably benefit israel, but you guys really should be just as embarrassed to be apologizing for israel's tactics as we are bending over backwards not to apologize for the islamic militants. bombing infrastructure is a war crime under the geneva conventions and just as revolting as bombing a discotheque, imo. most civilian casualties in war come not from weapons but from disease, starvation, exposure etc. from the erosion of infrastructure caused by war. the israelis doubtless know this, but they also know that they can get away with targeting civilians by targeting instrastructure because it doesn't LOOK as bad.

unfortunately, though, so much of the support for israel comes from such things -- rationalizations about what looks better, and facile acceptance of israel's own characterizations of its intentions.


I'm in agreement with a lot of what you're saying here.

Israel is out of order attacking infrastructure vital to civilians BUT it's almost impossible to fight any other way.
Hezbollah know this and have exploited it.

I'm in agreement with a lot of what you're saying here.

Israel is out of order attacking infrastructure vital to civilians BUT it's almost impossible to fight any other way.
Hezbollah know this and have exploited it.


Which I guess is why it seems Israel is going to full-on invade Lebanon...again...

Methinks the difference is that while both sides are guilty in doling out civilian casualties, at least Israel hasn't outright said that they want to eliminate all infidels from the face of the earth.  It's an imperfect excuse though.

Which I guess is why it seems Israel is going to full-on invade Lebanon...again...

Methinks the difference is that while both sides are guilty in doling out civilian casualties, at least Israel hasn't outright said that they want to eliminate all infidels from the face of the earth.  It's an imperfect excuse though.
yeah, israel is smarter than that. they know how to play to the west by talking really nice and humanitarian while delivering wholesale destruction on the ground. hezbollah, meanwhile, dishes out lots of apocalyptic rhetoric and yet their attacks seem fairly feckless by comparison. they talk tough and carry a tiny stick.

yeah, israel is smarter than that. they know how to play to the west by talking really nice and humanitarian while delivering wholesale destruction on the ground. hezbollah, meanwhile, dishes out lots of apocalyptic rhetoric and yet their attacks seem fairly feckless by comparison. they talk tough and carry a tiny stick.


So if we reversed the roles (i.e. Israel has inferior weaponry and Hezbollah has nukes up the yin-yang) how long do you think the Western world, much less Israel, would survive?  My guess is that they'd be wiped out in a matter of minutes.

Derka derka Muhammad Jihad!  :P

Look, I'm not saying that Israel is right, or that collateral damage is justified, but I don't think you can exonerate Hezbollah of any wrongdoing either.  Israel is pretty much a stupid mistake made by politicians who didn't know their @$$es from a hole in the ground almost 60 years go, and in those 60 years they've been attacked, invaded (sorta...until the invaders got smacked around by the invadees and the UN said, "no no, Israel, stop counterinvading stuff" :D ) and otherwise vilified by pretty much everything surrounding them.  The only reason they've survived is (and I do not deny this) that they've had lots of help from "civilized" nations all over the world to amply arm and defend themselves. 

The way I see and understand it, Israel just wants to live in their little holy strip of the Levant and in my memory, I don't believe they have ever attacked unless provoked.  Apparently the primary reason that groups like, say, Hezbollah attack Israel is because they h8 the bl00dy j00z.  So let's look at Israel as a guy minding his own business and Hezbollah as a mass of assorted vermin that throw down on the guy just 'cuz.  If the guy had a can of Raid or a flyswatter and can stop them from advancing even temporarily, don't you think he'd use it? 

IF IsraelBombsHezbollah
    THEN SuicideBomberCount = SuicideBomberCount - 1

REPEAT UNTIL SuicideBomberCount = 0

Well, I really can't justify anything, but hey, if I'm surrounded by Jew h8rz, I think I'd want to do whatever I need to do to survive.  I think we'll have to disagree on what is "proportional".

since the israelis are wiping out two civilians for every one the palestinians are killing, doesn't it stand to reason that if the palestinians lay down their arms, they'll be wiped out twice as fast?


WHen was the last time that the Israely military invaded a territory or conducted a military occupation without provocation?  When was the last time that Israel targeted non-combatant civilians?

Here to me is a major difference.  The "Freedom Fighters" are willing to kill anybody.  They often go after "soft targets", like schools, places of worship, busses, and the like.  They then go to places like civilian districts, and even houses of worship and hospitals to try and hide from repraisals.  The civilians they kill are on purpose, the civilians killed in return are the results of attempts to get back at those who started the violence in the first place.

In fact, on Monday I was watching reports that showed that a lot of the rockets that are being shot at Israel are being assembled and stored in the CHristian areas of Lebanon.  Of course this makes sense, cause they do not want the Christians or Druze there either.

And if nothing else, the last 20 years have shown that when those who are trying to fight the Israely military stop fighting them, they peacefully return home.  In fact, they have even gone to war with their own people when they refused to follow agreements and pull out of Palestinian areas.  There were even firefights a few years ago between Israeli citizens and their own Army when they refused to pull out.

Myself, I think that the Palestinians would get a lot farther if they started taking lessons from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. instead of taking them from Abu Nidal.  We have proof over the last 50 years that firebombs and bullets are not getting them what they want.  Maybe it is time for them to put down the bombs and bullets and "Give peace a chance".

yeah, israel is smarter than that. they know how to play to the west by talking really nice and humanitarian while delivering wholesale destruction on the ground. hezbollah, meanwhile, dishes out lots of apocalyptic rhetoric and yet their attacks seem fairly feckless by comparison. they talk tough and carry a tiny stick.

I agree. Reasonable Zionists knew what would happen upon the "partition" in 1948. They did not all favor it, especially those who were living in peacefully in kibbutzim side by side with Arab communities. Let us not conflate "Jewish people" with "state of Israel," even Jewish people living in the state of Israel. "Jewish" is both a religious and ethnic description. Zionism is a political movement. Israel is a political entity. Israel is a state born of imperial interests. The British, the Americans, and the right-wing element of the Jewish diaspora used the "holocaust" as political blackmail to set up an aggressive imperial satellite state, Israel, which would work on behalf of Anglo-American interests. Reasonable Jewish scholars and statesmen who said, "Let us never forget the atrocities our people endured in the holocaust, but let us never use the holocaust as an excuse to oppress others," were told to shut the hell up and were oustered.

To this day imperialist interests, the Israeli Right,* and the super-Zionists--for lack of a better term--among the worldwide Jewish diaspora are still using the holocaust and "anti-semetism" to justify cruelty perpetuated by the state of Israel.

Hezbollah may howl about "kill the infidels," but talk is cheap. I covered this in an earlier post.  Ooops, look at the time, gotta go!

*to be fair, the Israeli Labor Party was often nastier than the Likud Party inthis regard.

lol. the references to martin luthur king and gandhi are cracking me up. you know, nothing's stopping israel from adopting nonviolence as a model; they could go back to their 67 borders tomorrow and quit ghettoizing palestine and serve as an example to others just as easily as the lebanese/palestinians could. why would it be contingent solely on the palestinians, who i couldn't help but notice are plainly far weaker in this conflict, to demonstrate social responsibility?

as for all this stuff about "occupation without provocation," it's wrong-headed on two levels: first, the whole 67 thing, which is a territorial dispute and you take sides in it when you presume that israel isn't attacking without provocation; many see, and not without reason, their presence in palestine as an ongoing provocation. it's playing fast and loose with the argument to presume otherwise.

second, to use a kidnapped soldier as an excuse to kill hundreds of civilians and mount an unrestricted ground offensive, as israel is poised to do, isn't "provocation"; it's pretext.

I agree. Reasonable Zionists knew what would happen upon the "partition" in 1948. They did not all favor it, especially those who were living in peacefully in kibbutzim side by side with Arab communities. Let us not conflate "Jewish people" with "state of Israel," even Jewish people living in the state of Israel. "Jewish" is both a religious and ethnic description. Zionism is a political movement. Israel is a political entity. Israel is a state born of imperial interests. The British, the Americans, and the right-wing element of the Jewish diaspora used the "holocaust" as political blackmail to set up an aggressive imperial satellite state, Israel, which would work on behalf of Anglo-American interests. Reasonable Jewish scholars and statesmen who said, "Let us never forget the atrocities our people endured in the holocaust, but let us never use the holocaust as an excuse to oppress others," were told to shut the hell up and were oustered.


Of course, your useing the term "Zionist" is considered by many as being a racial slur.  In fact, that is the very term that Hitler used in his justification of the death of Jews.  He was not killing Jews, he was destroying Zionism.

In fact, type "Zionist" into Google, and see what you get.  You will find page after page of articles ass claiming that the holocost never happened, and that the Jews are subhuman.  I find such terms as repulsive as "Raghead" and "Ninja".

Of course, most people use the term because of a book that was passed around in the early part of the 20th century called "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".  Although it claimed to be a blueprint for global domination by Jews, it has been proven to be a complete forgery.  However, that does not stop people from going on and on about "Global Zionism" and the dangers of "Zionists".

The modern use of "Zionist" is considered to be offensive by most people, unless they are talking about the destruction of the "evil Jews".  And useing the phrase is rather insulting and offensive Max.  It would be like me trying to talk about race relations, while throwing in references to "jungle bunny" and "wetback".

lol. the references to martin luthur king and gandhi are cracking me up. you know, nothing's stopping israel from adopting nonviolence as a model; they could go back to their 67 borders tomorrow and quit ghettoizing palestine and serve as an example to others just as easily as the lebanese/palestinians could. why would it be contingent solely on the palestinians, who i couldn't help but notice are plainly far weaker in this conflict, to demonstrate social responsibility?


Well, when was the last time you watched the news and thought "Oh, another of those Jews blew himself up in a market square", or "Oh why do those Jews keep shooting up busses full of children?".  And I know that we were all so frustrated when the Jews kept hijacking airplanes and blowing up airplanes.  I am still traumatized by it.

As for returning to "Pre-1967 Israel", they really can't do that.  You see, almost all of the land taken from Jordan is now property of Palestine.

Of course, it is interesting to note that the same UN Resolution that created Israel also created the state of Palestine.  But Transjordan refused to allow this, and kept the land.  After the land was taken from Jordan, most of it was turned into a Demilitarized zone, and given to the Palestinians.

If the land was returned to pre-1967 state, then the state of Palestine will dissapear.  What we now know as Palestine will revert back to Jordan, along with the West Bank.  And the Gaza Strip will be returned to Egypt.

So let me ask again, do you really want the clock turned back to 1966?

so wait a minute, palestine only exists as long as it's israeli-occupied?  ;D i'm not sure i'm getting you here.

anyway, here's the latest heroic move the selfless israelis have made in their courageous effort to ward off the all-powerful superior forces of hezbollah and the palestinians...

http://www.cathnews.com/news/607/115.php

bombing a milk factory. their mothers must be so proud.

Of course, your useing the term "Zionist" is considered by many as being a racial slur.  In fact, that is the very term that Hitler used in his justification of the death of Jews.  He was not killing Jews, he was destroying Zionism.

In fact, type "Zionist" into Google, and see what you get.  You will find page after page of articles ass claiming that the holocost never happened, and that the Jews are subhuman.  I find such terms as repulsive as "Raghead" and "Ninja".

Of course, most people use the term because of a book that was passed around in the early part of the 20th century called "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".  Although it claimed to be a blueprint for global domination by Jews, it has been proven to be a complete forgery.  However, that does not stop people from going on and on about "Global Zionism" and the dangers of "Zionists".

The modern use of "Zionist" is considered to be offensive by most people, unless they are talking about the destruction of the "evil Jews".  And useing the phrase is rather insulting and offensive Max.  It would be like me trying to talk about race relations, while throwing in references to "jungle bunny" and "wetback".
i tried your experiment and this is the first result i got...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html

"The AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance

^ Meh, Mushroom's only busting my b@lls a little it, it's all in fun, right?
RIGHT?
???

so wait a minute, palestine only exists as long as it's israeli-occupied?  ;D i'm not sure i'm getting you here.


The same UN resolution that created Israel also created Palestine.  However, Transjordan refused to give it up, since they controlled most of the land that tne new nations of Israel and Palestine would sit on.  After a conflict lasting several years, Israel took control of most of the land granted to them in the original UN charter.  However, Jordan refused to allow the now "Refugee Palestinians" to relocate to the region given to them by the UN.  That is when the refugee camps started.

That is how things sat until after the 1967 war, when Israel took controll of the rest of the land that was supposed to be given to Palestine.  And that same land was given to the new nation when it was created several years ago.

One of the major changes from the original proposal and now was that Jerusalem was originally intended to be an open city, under the controll of the UN.  The Jews in the region were not even allowed into Jerusalem until after the 1967 war.

   Common Dreams

   Odds are, these and other legitimate Lebanese water diversion projects have been reduced to rubble as 'terrorist' infrastructures.  Lebanon's growing economy and population would have required full access and use of its water resources that Israel covets.

   Furthermore, Lebanon's civil infratructure to support these projects, and run an economy to finance them, has been destroyed...

   Neocon Paul Wolfowitz is, conveniently, President of the World Bank.  Lebanon may well not only have to tacitly cede water rights in return for reconstruction cash, official concessions by treaty with Israel may be demanded in exchange for the resources to even begin reconstruction.

   Consider the precident....

   Middle East Labor Bullitin

   Anyone notice what's not happening in the Israeli war against Lebanon?  The Mossad must have deeply penetrated the strategic structure of the Lebanese and Hizbollah political-military hierarchy.  Deals appear to have been made, and not just with the international leaders, who are extraordinarily tepid in their reponse to Israel's blatent disregard for their civillians and assets in Lebanon...

   Hizbollah rockets kill Israeli civillians in small number, dramatically terrorizimg the population, but have not realistically damaged Israeli state infrastructure in any way.  Despite promises of war, Hizbollah is not taking rational military action against the Israeli war machine, and its actions generate only headlines that please the mindless masses of the West and Islam (as 'terrorists' or 'Jihadis')...

   Israel is not crowing over the destruction of large caches of the 20,000 or so missiles Hizbollah allegedly posesses, or its missile launchers, or research and construction facilities, or its guerilla fighters.  Hizbollah is a needed boogyman for the Israeli military-industrial complex...

   This Israeli-Lebanese war is chutzpuh defined; malignant and malicious in intent, astoundingly outrageous in execution, and subtle and sublime in accomplishment....

 
   Edited:  No spell check, qwikey...