The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Israel 1: Hezbollah 0 > Comments

Israel 1: Hezbollah 0 : Comments

By Gary Brown, published 18/9/2006

The Middle East is caught up in a semi-permanent state of armed confrontation.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
It is actually Israel 0: Hezbollah 1.

A side only wins if it achieves its stated goals. Israel did not achieve this.

While Israel did make some gains against Hezbollah, it did not elimintate it as originally stated. One must wonder whether such a position was ever realistic.

In contrast, Hezbollah won by simply surviving.

No wonder the Israeli public is now railing against their political system. If peace is to come out on top, one must one day accept the practicalities of such a situation and that a "tennis metric" will not provide the answers.
Posted by catfish23, Monday, 18 September 2006 10:51:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I always appreciate the way Gary Brown waits until the headless chooks have stopped running around, then comes up with something reasonable and sensible.

If Hezbollah 'won', they are going to be in serious trouble if they ever lose. Fanatics such as Hezbollah can talk themselves into believing anything - that's what makes them dangerous, not their military might. It is a great pity that silly oranization, the United Nations, and its Third World and European wets did not allow Israel to finish the job. As it stands, it will be a long time before the fat lady sings in the area.
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 18 September 2006 11:04:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that Hezollah should check the map. Israel is still there.
Posted by Sage, Monday, 18 September 2006 11:40:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh, I have a legitimate question and I'm not trying to insult you.

When would you consider 'the job' finished? If every member of Hezbollah were killed? If Lebanon were razed with such totality that there was not a single weapon left in the country?

Rightly or wrongly there are large amounts of people in Lebanon and the ME that hate Israel, would you consider 'the job' completed once they have all recanted their views or been eradicated?
Posted by Carl, Monday, 18 September 2006 11:40:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frankly, it surprises me anyone can call the outcome a victory for one side or the other.

Hizbollah may have gained some fans in anti-Israel quarters, but has no doubt been militarily degraded, will likely have less ready use of the UN 'occupied' border area, and probably has a whole lot of explaining to do to those in Lebanon who have paid such a heavy price for Hizbollah's 'adventure.

Israel, on the other hand, has apparently reduced (though not eliminated) the day to day threat of Hizbollah, but failed to recover it's kidnaped soldiers, and damaged Hizbollah only at considerable cost to its own military.

There are no clear losers in all of this except the Lebanese who have brought catastrophe on themselves by tolerating the presence and activities of a para-military organisation whose on interests are not well aligned with their own.
Posted by Kalin, Monday, 18 September 2006 12:08:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think Israel lost. She did not make Lebanon a Christian state of reduced size and she lost some ‘believers’.
I base my statement on Moshe Sharett's diary for the first and newspaper reports, which must be correct (!) for the latter.

Sharett, readers would know was the second prime minister of Israel preceded and followed by Ben Gurion, 1954 -1955 and foreign minister 1948 -1956.
A Zionist who believed in dialogue not force but also wanted the given boundaries to be expanded.
He kept a diary in Hebrew some of which was used by Livia Rokach in publishing Israel’s Sacred Terrorism. His son is quoted as saying the Rokach document is a fair, contextually correct and accurate rendition of the diary less than all the diary is used in the book.

Sharett records chapter 5
Then he Ben Gurion 1954… said to push Lebanon, that is the Maronites in that country, to proclaim a Christian State and in a letter to Sharett Feb 27 1954 ‘it is clear Lebanon is the weakest link in the Arab League‘.
This was subsequently attempted resulting in long periods of occupation of South Lebanon but not success.
Hezbollah arose as a movement to oppose Israel and others, in 1978, 1982 (bombing Beirut of US 1983) 1992 and became integrated in the Lebanese Government some 20 years ago.
If the latest war is seen as continuation of the long held aim rather than just the removal of Hezbollah the aim was not achieved.

Sharett also indicates an Isreael policy of being the 'attcked' not attacker.
See www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/sacred_terror.html?20062
Posted by untutored mind, Monday, 18 September 2006 2:27:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree no-one won anything.
Hezbollah still exists. Negotiations are taking place for the release of prisoners ...on both sides. The Israelis failled in their stated aims. Hezbollah will continue to receive weapons and they will include longer range rockets. They will base themselves outside of the UN zone. That is as obvious as was the Israelis' findings, after their military enquiry, that the bombing of that UN outpost was a tragic error.
The civillians of Lebanon are not the only ones paying the price for the 60 year state of war.

I am amazed not one western source has reported the Israeli Government released for auction another 120 blocks of land in the Palestinian West Bank within days of their withdrawal from Lebanon.

I might ask the question of Condi Rice:

Now we will see who wants really peace in the mid East?

Obviously by their continued deliberate land grabbing the Israelis don't!
Posted by keith, Monday, 18 September 2006 3:05:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gary and the other toadies never bother to let facts get in the way do they?

1. Israel planned this invasion last year as an act to wipe the shi'ites out of the south of Lebanon, ignoring the fact that it is their home and Israel has no right.
2. Uri Benziman reports in Haaretz that all the long range rockets were destroyed within 30 minutes of the bombardment, so why keep killing for 33 days?
3. Jonathan Cook reports from Nazareth that the IDF hid their artillery batteries in arab towns all along the northern border.
4. Israel ran 7,000 bombing runs and fired 2,500 attacks from the port of Haifa and then flooded the whole region with 1.2 million cluster bomblets in the last few days.

You guys can fantasize all you like - try reading the commonsense of some of the Israeli reporters though - they will surprise you in their vehement claims that "we were monstrous and insane, we flooded the towns, we fired phosphorous on people leaving the mosques as a deterrent.

This was not a war against Hezbollah, this was a vicious and monstrous attack on Lebanon proper that had been planned for many, many months in advance.

I would suggest that the islamaphobes on this forum go and read what some of the more rational Jews have to say about it all and then remember this - 1 million people in the south of Lebanon are now living in deadly danger for the next 10 years or so, as are peacekeepers, because the IDF went totally insane.

1.2 million cluster bomblets dropped on people's homes, hospitals, schools, roads, orchards, bridges - everywhere people go there are these evil little bomblets.

Then the IDF used phosphorous bombs to destroy every last trace of food supplies for the people in the south.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Monday, 18 September 2006 3:07:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The prevailing belief in some quarters that Israel did not do well out of the recent conflict needs to be assessed in the light of what could be achieved and not as a conventional military victory.
It is clear that Israel had 5 primary objects for its actions:
1. Destroy the long range missiles and their storage areas.
2. Push the opposing forces back to a point where the shorter range missiles would fall in less populated areas.
3. Destroy as much Hezbollah infrastructure as possible.
4. Kill or disable as many trained and effective fighters as possible and so weaken Hezbollah’s power to persist.
5. Force Lebanon to take responsibility for ALL of Lebanon.
Israel managed to achieve all the above. The fact that it did not go as smoothly as it might has more to do with the fact that Israel has not engaged a large scale conventional operations since 1982 and forgot some lessons from the past. All armies suffer from this problem. Add to this the possibility that, like the US Armed Forces pre Iraq and the Australian Armed Forces now, some senior military appointments may have been based more on political factors rather than military ability.
The main gain for Israel is the last point. Lebanon, with UN help has been forced to take responsibility for all the country. Whether Hezbollah is disarmed or not is not important. Any attack made on Israel from Lebanon is now one sovereign state attacking another, not a “terrorist” attack. The rules have now changed. Under the rules of war Israel is now legally entitled to defend itself until the threat is removed.
Posted by WJP, Monday, 18 September 2006 3:10:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Carl,

You disagree with everything I say, so please don't pretend that you are doing anything but having a go at me. I will, however, answer your question although I can be pretty sure that you have already made up your mind what the answer will be, and despite the fact that I cannot see why you would want to know what I think, anyway. Let's be honest, eh? You have been insulting to me in the past. You are unlikely to be any different this time.

Yes. I would consider the job finished if every Hezbollah terrorist were to be wiped out. That's just common sense. However, there is every chance that other terrorists would take their place and, yes, the problem would last until they too were wiped out.

Weapons were (and probably still are) being brought INTO Lebanon with the full knowledge of the Lebanese government - one or two members of which are also members of Hezbollah. So, razing Lebanon would not see the end of available weaponry. Not all Lebanese are Islamic fanatics, nor even Muslims. It would be regretable if Lebanon did have to be razed in the future, but the Lebanese people who are not terrorists and fanatics must do something to ensure that their government never again allows terrorists to launch attacks on Israel or any other country from Lebanese soil. If they don't do this, Israel will surely raze Lebanon to the ground and, if that is what it takes, so be it.

Who are the 'large amounts' of people who hate Israel? Unless they attack Israel, this is a hypothetical question. All I can say is that, Israel, like any other country has the right to defend itself in any way it chooses if it has been attacked. And that means killing as many of the enemy as possible. That's what war is about, Carl.
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 18 September 2006 3:39:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/763676.html

Yeah right, Leigh and co. What a vile lot the MI in Israel is. They knew all about it and did nothing which explains why they acted like spoilt nasty brats.

Thank goodness the Israel's have more honour than their rabid supporters in the rest of the world.

The IDF knew the soldiers were going to be taken, three hours later they blew up Lebanon - this is a war crime par excellance I think.

Why don't some of you just grow up and stop pretending to give a stuff about Israel or at least tell us just why you support their lies and obfuscations and killings.

it is just that you hate muslims so much that murdering them is good enough no matter who does it? Come on, tell us the truth and stop supporting the lies of Israel.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Monday, 18 September 2006 4:44:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part One

Balance of Power Strategy, now Vital for Middle East.

Regarding the commentaries to this thesis, it could be said that though a couple do back Israel, which also means America, of course, while another couple back Hezbollah, seemingly out of sympathy, one other, and doubtless the right way to look at it, reckons the problem will go on and on.

This is where we must try to find the real problem behind it all, besides the never-ending Western colonial thirst for hegemon and contraband.

In the Comment and Analysis section of the Guardian Weekly, a letter has been chosen by the editor from Steven C Raine, of Glenalta, South Australia, which does bring out what we might called a commonsenical appraisal of an event which in dangerously altering the balance of power in the Middle East between its nations, has ten times multiplied the chances of a major war beginning in the Middle East. The predicted cause of it. Israeli atomic power, of course.

Steven begins his commentary, by talking about Iran, and how it is now facing American-driven sanctions for the crime of possibly going nuclear. So there we have unipolar America with enough nuclear capacity to destroy the whole world many many times over, and Iran’s near neighbour, Israel, with an illegitinate semi-secret, though US backed, nuclear arsenal, with no UN sanctions against it, nor not even a whisper of Western diplomatic condemnation.

Steven goes on to say how he can sort of see why the Muslims these days, feel so oppressed and unjustly treated. The words ‘blatant hypocrisy’ must spring strongly to mind, even to pro-Israelies, when deeply contemplating this situation
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 18 September 2006 4:47:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh,

Yes, I disagree with basically (but not all) with everything you say, but I can assure you that I am not trying to insult you. You obviously feel passionate about the issue and I want to understand the rationale behind your thinking, I have read enough of your posts on this topic to know that I would disagree with what you have to say but I am simply trying to understand your thinking.

I just don’t think it is simple enough to say ‘Israel, like any other country has the right to defend itself in any way it chooses’. There are just too many interpretations of ‘defend’, say for example, Western Australia Fisherman, with the support of some elements of the WA govt. starting to fire off rockets into parts of Indonesia. In response Indonesia bombs Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth, including electricity, water and food producing facilities. Would you consider that defence? At what point does ‘defence’ become ‘attack’?

You might see my position as weak Leigh, but I am just trying to see both sides. I don’t believe a whole population can have a mentality bombed out of them. And if Israel decides the only way to sort out this issue is by eradicating a whole population, then they will rightly be judged in the same league as the Nazis, the Arab militia in Darfur, the Turkish in Armenia and so on
Posted by Carl, Monday, 18 September 2006 5:34:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part Two

In fact, when deeply contemplating the whole Middle East situation since the late 1970’s - early 80’s when the rebel Israeli, Mordecai was captured and goaled for possibly having the wisdom to sense the danger to Arab-Jewish relations that an atomic Israel could bring.

Indeed, it has got that way with such weak federal opposition against the ultra-right-wing national governments in both the US and Australia, we could wonder whether citizens like the courageous letter-writer, Steven Raine, will be allowed any voice at all - maybe even facing the danger of being locked up like Mordecai.

Further, with things made even worse between Muslims and Christians with his Eminence our new Pope, sounding off more like Donald Rumsfeld or Georgie Boy Bush, one could wonder how worse the Middle East problem will really get.

Maybe we need a reincarnation of Bismarck, the father of Realpolitik, who in 1871 after dragging his big new guns all the way to Paris, just told the Parisians he could easily take the whole of France if he desired, but the way things were with the Concert of Europe, better for him to be the master-mind of a whole-world balance of power.

Further, it has since been said by more than one world historian, that even if Bismarck had lived till 1910, he would never have let Germany begin WW1, and as its goes on, of course, with the way a beaten Germany was treated through Versaille, causing an angry post-war Vermacht to back Hitler, we probably would never have had WW1.

No need to say any more, except maybe to wonder whether a modern Bismarck would have allowed a vibrant, though agressive little nation like Israel to be allowed to possess the most dangerous weapons man has yet devised.

And finally, maybe Bismarkian Realpolitik would indicate that if a nuclear Israel is badly upsetting the balance of power in the Middle East, the only peaceful answer could be for Iran to go nuclear to even things up - similar to present day India and Pakistan
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 18 September 2006 5:51:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gary,

What is truly frightening is your previous job as Defence Adviser with the Parliamentary Information and Research Service. With people in such important positions furnishing such muddle-headed nonsense to our politicians, what chance does the region have for peace?

In case you hadn't noticed the US/British/Australian/Israeli policy in the ME has been an unmitigated disaster. Have you ever heard of Iraq?

The murderous campaign wrought by the Israelis (the world's most racist state) against Hezbollah will do nothing except harden existing Muslim attitudes to the West. It proves once again that the West will turn a blind eye to Israel's monstrous abuse of its neighbours. It's time to wake up. The score is

Israel = 0; Lebanon = 0; world terrorism = 1
Posted by eet, Monday, 18 September 2006 5:55:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks to Kalin for reminding us that there have been no winners.
Posted by David Latimer, Monday, 18 September 2006 5:57:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbred,

I would welcome a nuclear Iran. It would be the surest guarantee yet of peace in the Middle East. Suddenly, all those decisions that the Israelis said were 'too hard', or 'too painful' would be possible. They wouldn't be able to get away with their murderous campaigns against civilians, and for once would have to be genuine in their negotiations. Perhaps then the region would have a chance.
Posted by eet, Monday, 18 September 2006 6:05:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Israel lost! LOL

Funniest title ever.

In terms of who is the biggest threat to world security you might see
Israel: 1, Hezbollah: 0. But that's about all.

I salute Hezbollah for sticking two fingers up to Israel. Way to go team.

Israel will eventually be stopped but it will take an uprising from within. When all the people learn the truth. All the wars Israel has waged against Lebanon have started to unravel the delicate strings which tie the Israelis together. It's unfortunate that the decades of war against the Palestinians and the extreme racism inherent in Israeli policy was not enough of a deterrant for the Israelis. But I guess it's hard to know the truth when you're being indoctrinated with zionist propaganda eh?
Posted by fleurette, Monday, 18 September 2006 6:58:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fleurette

"I guess it's hard to know the truth when you're being indoctrinated with Zionist propaganda eh?"

and
"the extreme racism inherent in Israeli policy"

What racism? If its the Jews you mean, sorry but they are not a race.

And what indoctrination?

You seem not to realise that Israel is a democratic state with an open press. Just like Australia and the UK! All Israelis have access to the world's media. Israel is one middle eastern state not indoctrinated with propoganda. And Muslims, Jews, Christians all have a vote and the right to stand for parliament. What other middle eastern country does that?

Indoctrination is more like the hatred that Iran and Egypt are spreading with their awful antisemitic cartoons. Check them out on a website. You won't find that sort of activity in Israel whatever their faults.

And the writer of the article may be right whether you like it or not.

Marilyn

have you noticed you are being ignored? Not surpriosingly given the abusive naturre of yor comments. i hesitate to call them arguments. fleurette please don't follow Marilyn down the dark side. You were so reasonable and presented good arguments which I found very enlightening
Posted by logic, Monday, 18 September 2006 10:00:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic

Israel is not a liberal democracy.

It has the vestiges of democracy but it is not like the western liberal democracies.

Why?

Lebanon and the Palestinians recently held UN supervised elections that were deemed fair. The only other so-called 'democracy' in the mid east rejected the election results of both and invaded both. Democracies in the past tended to be allies and supported one another. Hasn't that happened here.
Posted by keith, Monday, 18 September 2006 10:31:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a joke , I think some of you are programmed like robots into believing that Israels objective was to defend itself, well here are some facts and before you respond with silly " you don't know what you are talking about", go do some real research instead of paying your monthly subscription for Fox Israeli Murdoch News 1: , Israels main objective was to create division in Lebanon, the middle east contrary to western beliefs is one of the only places on earth where all religions are represented in harmony, unlike western world no one religion dominates, this does not suit Israel as their unity poses a threat, remember only America,AustraliaandBritain declared Hezbollah a terrorist organization, the same organization that runs hospital,schools,sheltersandcharities 2: Israel has held over 10,000 hostages in prisons for decades without charge or conviction, there crime being that they were Lebanese the prisons in which they are held have conditions and torture worse than Guantanamo, Israel has been trading prisoners with Hezbollah for years however their last refusal to trade prisoners was a result of a want to attack Lebanon to try to get the Lebanese population to rise against Hezbollah, this backfired and Israel started killing Lebanese civilians in any territory claiming that Hezbollah was hiding there, had this been any other country besides Israel they would be facing the War crimes Tribunal except that pro Israel America opposes this 3: Hezbollah had been armed by Iran, well woopee do, katooshaandKhaybar rockets, geez these will surely outweigh the American supplied weapons, 4: Hezbollah did not launch missiles into Israel, it captured the two soldiers wanting an exhange 5: Israel lost 334soldiers, Hezbollah 83soldiers, Lebanon over1000 civilians, hey this reminds me of when America couldn't defeat the Japanese army so it dropped two atomic bombs on innocent civilians to conclude I leave you with this Israel was formed in the forties by force from Britain and Millions of innocent people killed for no reason and when they fight back all you can do is call them terroristsyou are programmed to think, to act and to feel
Posted by THETRUTH01, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 1:25:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How complex attitudes become, how varied the trusted sources of information!
How emotional the debate becomes after all as G W Bush says its all about freedom and democracy-ours!
Hang on go back to the start for adults like little children argue ‘they started it first!
Okay lets go to the start.
Zionists wanted a homeland and the world in general was being nasty to minorities who were scape goats for the power of others. Bit like the Armenians, Kurds, American Indians, Aborigines and so on. The colonial masters whose attitude was superior decided that Palestine would be a good place, not that it was without people just not many. Anyway Balfour made a point that the rights of indigenes were to be maintained.
The Zionists bought what land they could, for much was owned by non resident people and started a campaign for more land. The quest became heated became more heated ultimately producing terrorists who acted against the British and the Arabs.
Not all Jews were aggressive in this way but many were and set about expelling the Arabs, who it was said could be incorporated in other lands Jordan in particular.
The Arabs objected and fought .
And so best beloved it began.
Colonial power in its arrogance gave land already appropriated to a race about whom they felt guilty. Generous as always at others expense!
Please dear respondents read the history, only read many and somewhere midst this mass of information the truth might become plainer.
The West, a much abused portmanteau term, played its own games seeing the State as a bulwark against Russia and against Arab nationalism.
Many Security council resolutions were vetoed by USA and much suffering ignored. Fighting became more asymmetric as Israel was armed by us and the festering grew and by our self serving definition terrorism began. Self serving for though real, no uniforms civilians targeted for political purpose identifying such got us off the hook of being responsible
Posted by untutored mind, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 7:10:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
September 18, 2006 PART 1
Conflict

Quotes”

“I object to violence because when it appears to be good, the good is only temporary, the evil it does is permanent”. Mahatma Gandhi.
“Peace can never come from dropping bombs. Real peace comes from enlightenment and educating people to behave more in a divine manner”. Carlos Santana.
How To Put A Stop To This Infinite Conflict?
Israel-Hezbollah War: A Vivid Demonstration Of Asymmetrical Warfare And The Incompetence Of The United Nations
According to the Wilikepedia, A symmetrical warfare is a term that describes a military situation in which two belligerents of unequal strength interact and take advantage of their respective strengths and weaknesses. This interaction often involves strategies and tactics outside the bounds of conventional warfare.
read more->part2

SULEIMAN EGEH
M.sc. Molecular Biology,M.sc. Science Education-freelance writer
My blog is http://www.egehinformation.com
Posted by Egeh, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 11:05:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Conflict PART 2

Note: The United Nations Security Council, who can’t stop the carnage in Lebanon and Israel for a war raging for a month, just a week ago passed a threatening resolution against Iran. According to that resolution, If Iran should not follow some prescriptions, economic sanctions will be imposed on her. They were too sluggish and indifferent to stop the carnage in the Middle East, while so fast and furious to come down hard on Iran. What a double standard? Is the structure of this exclusive country club suited to address the monumental challenges facing humanity in the 21st century? The answer is a resounding no.
This is the time to demand radical reform of this 20Th century institution, the United Nations and its numerous agencies. The time is ripe to call for a whole sale reform of this ineffective, outdated and lackluster organization.

Despite the tragedy and the astronomical loss of life, the war between Israel and Hezbollah put several things into context. First of all, it profoundly underscores the impotence, ineffectiveness and the irrelevance of some international and regional organizations such as the UN and the Arab league. These groups failed to stop the blood shed. These collection of disparate nation states miserably came short to put a halt to the bleeding. The incompetence, bureaucracy, meaningless wrangling and the useless meetings, they usually hold, has been vividly put into perspective. The tremendous need for a radical structural change or a comprehensive reform of the united nations, its corrupt agencies has been trusted into the front burner. The total restructuring of the security council, the monopoly of the Veto power by few western countries, becomes an urgent issue, which needs to be addressed just now without any delay.

READ ->PART 3
SULEIMAN EGEH M.sc. Molecular Biology,M.sc. Science Education-freelance writer
MY BLOG IS http://www.egehinformation.com
Posted by Egeh, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 11:13:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
keith

Israel was not the only country that refused to accept Hamas. The Liberal democracies all over Europe did the same. Why? Because Hamas refused to accept Israel as a country. Of course Israel is a liberal democracy. It has freedom of the press, freedom of religion, every adult has an equal vote and the separation of powers. A proper Jury system and no religious freaks allowed to lock up or kill those who don't follow this or that messenger of God. Even the Jewish zealots complain about a law that is for them too liberal.

Compare this to any Muslim country in the entire world. Is it any wonder that the Israelis want to avoid a Muslim majority? Their methods may not be nice but what about their enemies? The UN aid chief had very, very unkind words to say about Hezbollah.

The superficial left likes to ignore all of this. Just be nice and the world will be all love and kisses. Try saying this to the diggers on ANZAC day. But make sure you have Medicare Super Plus before you do. The fact is that Hitlers and religious facists do occur and we unfortunately do not know how to deal with them in any way that does not hurt innocents.

Is Osama Bin Laden a victim of poverty and difficult circumstances? He belongs to one of the very families that caused the problems for the ordinary Arabs. Not Israel which introduced modern farming methods and industry and medicine into the area. It is a fact that the ordinary Arabs in Israel whether Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Druze or atheist are better off than their counterparts in other middle eastern lands. No doubt they want more but how do you think they would all fare in a Muslim country? The reality is not encouraging.
Posted by logic, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 6:06:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Israel: 0
Hezbollah: 0
The Rest of the World: 0
Global Terrorism: 1
A Handful of Oligarchs and the Political Elite Everywhere: 1

There's never going to be peace in that region. I say hurry up already with the alternative fuels so we can finally leave that whole region to its nutters. That's the best WE can hope for. Until we get the black gold off our hands that region is always going be a major pain in the backside, when realistically, it should be as insignificant as the Faroe Islands or Franz Joseph Land. Would anyone give a hoot if there weren't oil vaguely nearby? Should anyone?
Posted by shorbe, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 10:36:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Egeh, as one who during the Cold War studied the philosophy of power matching, it does not even need a mini-thesis to explain that the UN is a failed concern because America never ever did want it as a democratic mediator as proven by her 85 uses of the UN veto - mostly her way, incidently. Right now, of course it is only a tool to be manipulated by an even stronger US, her imperialist unipolar global position, making her far more arrogant than was Pax Britannica, and has even been termed by some historians as a modern Pax Romana.

In order to replace a failed UN, political philosophers are now discussing the need for a Bismarckian-style grouping of our nuclear nations into a bipolar arrangement. Rather easy to work out, as with France reluctant to join the US, and possibly thinking about joining Russia and China in a nuclear power balance. Very likely India would join as well.

Such would also make Iran far more happier, and in fact, further sensible arrangements might allow Iran to go atomic in order to match Israel, which at present with her nuclear arsenal, not only has the Islamic Middle East over a barrel, but also the rest of the pro-Islamic world.
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 20 September 2006 1:32:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Israel was not the only country that refused to accept Hamas. The Liberal democracies all over Europe did the same. Why? Because Hamas refused to accept Israel as a country.'

Not quite correct logic.

The reason most countries refused to accept the Hamas led Government was because those countries claimed Hamas refused to renounce the violent overthrow of Israel.

Now of course had anyone bothered to read the Hamas Election Policy as presented to the Palestinian voters they'd acknowledge Hamas had indeed pledged not to attempt the violent overthrow Israel.

I don't recall any of the European Union countries saying they wouldn't accept the Hamas Government. I do recall the US and Israel doing just that and on the basis of their erroneous claim.

Liberal democracies do not illegally attempt to steal the land they are occupying. They tend to follow international laws and conventions as best they can.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 20 September 2006 7:27:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Israel also tends to follow international laws and conventions as much as it can. It is entitled to defend itself.

When you have neighbouring countries containing hostile unofficial armies which are pledged to destroy you and are not liberal democracies what do you do then?

All liberal domocracies protect themselves from invasion. What the Allies did to Germany was not pretty but they had lived in fear from attacks by fanatics. Israel was in a winning position before they withdrew. They signed the peace treaty precisely because they are a liberal democracy and are susceptible to public opinion both at home and abroad.

You armchair critics of Israel and the US don't put yourselves in their position. What would you do if you you were subject to suicide bombings? 9/11 was no picnic either. And what about Bali and the London and Madrid bombings. It is hard under these conditions for people to sit back and just take it.

Remeber what Iran and Iraq did to each other in their wars. Iran persuaded children to act as human mine detectors. this is well documented. It is also obscene. These are the people behind Hamas. Iran still practices stoning, based on a misinterpretation of the Old Testament. (Jews did not do it in fact Jewish law forbids it).

And why did the illegal ocupation of Lebanon by Syria get less attention than Israel's actions?
Posted by logic, Thursday, 21 September 2006 8:11:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eh, Logic, knocking Iran's history, surely you mustknow that the US and the UK have both been after Iran for a long time. Rather than me tell you all about it, please read a good history book, making sure it's from a university library.

You also will find that the Iranians are not Arabs but descended from the Persian Dynasty. Even the Americans made use of such history, but connecting deliberate lies to a historical truth when they declared that the puppet Shah was descended from the ancient Persian Peacock Throne.

Of course, many of us university students felt like clapping our hands when the Ayotallah took over, and even more when the Ayotallah gave the order to lock up the US embassy before they cleared out.

You will find in a genuine history book how both the US and the Soviets kidded Saddam Hussein to attack Iran in 1982, even supplying him with weaponry, including chemical weaponry - Donald Rumsfeld handling much of the arranging.

Now with the backing of the doubtful doctrine called regime change, the US helped by us Aussies have been five years attempting to Dyarky Democratise Iraq, meaning puppet rule, with the whole shebang run from the White House.

Both Iran and Iraq are very valuable countries, Logic, Iran much more, because it has the highest quality fuel oil in the world. Also strategically, the ex-oil executives and Zionist neo-cons in the White House if the US controlled both Iran and Iraq, not only in oil, us dumb Western followers will probably all feel so proud we'd want the US to stay there forever.

With a code-name like Logic, mate, it seems you need to do much more logical thinking.
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 21 September 2006 12:17:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Of course, many of us university students felt like clapping our hands when the Ayotallah took over, and even more when the Ayotallah gave the order to lock up the US embassy before they cleared out."

bushbred: I think this is what makes a lot of people in the middle quite suspicious of the (extreme) left. Much of the left has been seriously off with the pixies for a long time, or worse, willingly compliant in as much evil as they accuse the right of. It seems to me that a large part of the problem we have in western politics is founded on an absurd "with us or against us, my enemy's enemy is my friend" premise pushed by both the ideological left and the ideological right, and neither really cares one way or another for the people involved at the ground level. Such people (in this case, the Iranian populace) are just pawns. Dare I say it, but the left and the right play the same game: support anyone who opposes our ideological enemy, regardless of how despotic the regime is.

Obviously, it's absurd to support the western backed Shah. However, those who cheered for the Ayatollah were equally morally reprehensible. Doubly so if they didn't actually believe he was a good guy but liked him simply for "standing up to America".
Posted by shorbe, Thursday, 21 September 2006 1:48:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shorbe - often the School of Humanities goes against America, because their faculty relies on a strong knowledge of history. You must admit that the records of both Britain and America in the Middle East in the most, do not make pleasant reading. The trouble is that the Humanities also turns out historians, of which I am one, as part of a Social Studies post-grad.

Even so, Shorbe, if we are still part of the UK, some ME happenings are maybe best forgotten, like the killing of 10, 000 Iraqis with mustard gas in 1925 when they rebelled against the Brits for not sticking to the promise of democracy as a peace-maker after the Brits double-crossed TE Lawrence by occupying Iraq after WW2.

It is interesting that our Brits, still insisted the democracy was legal because it was a patterned on Dyarky democracy, an Indian term for double-rule, meaning all the important sections of the ersatz democracy, had a British Commissar to match the Indian official.

Also you may know that Kuwait is really a historical portion of Iraq, and because the British were given permission to use its ports by the Ottomans in colonial times, the British finished up taking the whole of Kuwait without any official arrangements.

We must say that the above are only a couple of the many many unethical examples of British and American ME tactics, Shorbe. And because the Schools of Humanities turn out historians who pledge to be ethical, just right now it can be very frustrating, especially as George Bush and his offsider John Howard would prefer students to be loyal to the nation, rather than to historical truth.

Of course, Shorbe, powerful units like the Murdoch Press can have their journalists skim over the unethical portions, thus if you are dedicated to your craft as a historian, you'll easily note how the news media can be every bit as dodgy as our politicians. Makes it difficult, I can tell you.
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 21 September 2006 5:08:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbred

I am not disputing your knowledge of history I am well aware that the Iranians are not Arabs.

What I am disputing is your interpretation of recent events.

The present Iranian government is nasty. The war against Iraq was a no holds barred event involving the use of children in the suicide roles in the military. Did you see the Iranian film "Circles"? The treatment of women is appalling. Not a nice place to live in at all.

And what about the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. You seem to want to ignore that. And do you really support Saddam or the Taliban? Of course not. Regardless of what Bush is doing these countries ruled by Imans and Ayatollahs are simply horrible places in which to live.

Is it as terrible as that in Australia or US. You know that it is not. It is one thing to have your heart in the right place but that is not much use when your head is up in the clouds.
Posted by logic, Thursday, 21 September 2006 6:11:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 1

Logic, rather than what you accuse me of, I am told that with my credentials I have a very good interpretation of recent events. Further, as a practised historian I find your argument about Iranian social problems very propagandist and deliberately made up as a reason to take over a country, as was the excuse also used by Christian nations in colonial times. Take the areas over because the occupants are just not fit to govern. Almost like the reason we took over Australia - following Old Testament Promised Land theology opposite to the compassionate Sermont on the Mount teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Remember if we truly believe in Jesus, we should know that he came on earth to discount many of the more cruel accounts in the Old Testament.

And yet, Logic, if the people of Iran do resist, you apparently still believe we have the right to lock them up, or even do away with them?

Sounds pretty grim, mate. Indeed, most Humanities lecturers would be calling you perceptively sick, and offering to teach you the correct way of analysing such problems.

That could include the White House occupants needing such tuition as well. Most of the leaders, unfortunately, including Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and the President himself, have been originally mixed up more in oil than in charge of a political unipolar system. Probably besides protecting Chevron. Exxon, Shell and BP’s interests in Iraq - they believe that pulverising a country into submission - either from the air or with missiles is the better way to go. Case of superior power rather than sensible decisionmaking
Posted by bushbred, Friday, 22 September 2006 1:27:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbred

You claim a scholastic approach. Then listen to what I am saying. Do not make false claims about my intentions. No where did I propose a takeover of Iran. I just point out that it is hardly a good example of a functioning society. Certainly I would be more concerned with Iran having nuclear weapons than India or the US or Israel. Precisely because of a fascist element in the ruling clique which denies freedom to others, does appalling things to its children, practises stoning, and treats its women likes chattels.

Frankly I wouldn't trust them anywhere near my patch. I am also suspicious of those who call foul about Israel in Lebanon but have said nothing about Syria's occupation. And statements about Zionist neo-cons in the White House added to your earlier comments about Jew wool buyers don't sound very much like a professional academic treatise.

And you aren't the only one with a degree, I did mine in the very hard discipline of Engineering.
Posted by logic, Friday, 22 September 2006 4:26:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred 2

You ought to know by now, Logic that the attack on Iraq has proven a failure, as George W Bush himself is proving a failure. So what do you reckon they would do with Iran, a country three times as big as Iraq? Surely you would not agree for the US to drop nuclear bombs. Or that little Israel should be allowed to drop an atomic bomb or two? If you do agree, surely it’s you and not me that has their head in the clouds.

You apparently do not know what goes on in Humanities Schools, Logic. During the Cold War we studied balance of power theory under an American teacher. In fact, it seemed the US and Soviets were somewhat in touch, each knowing that if one got ahead of the other in rocket range and nuclear capacity it might be time to press the red button. But as you know the Cold War finished without a nuclear bomb, or hardly an ordinary bomb dropped, with an armistice so friendly that the Soviets were allowed to retain most of their nuclear arsenal.

If only we could find some way of finishing this ridiculous war we have now, Logic. There has even been talk in study areas about working out some sort of balance of power to quieten down the Middle East problems. In fact, an agreeaable France could join Russia and China combined with an arrangement to let Iran go nuclear to balance the atomic arsenal of dangerous little Israel. All done under secret arrangement with the US, of course.

These types of studies are nothing new, Logic, and in a sense your own logic might well accept them as a way to at least maintain some sort peace in this world. Otherwise this war could last longer than the Crusades.

Finally, there has also been talk of trying to make peace with the Islamics using the doctrine of forgiveness, as Mandela used to calm down the arrogant South African aparthaidists. I guess it might be a good idea to pray for it.

Cheers
Posted by bushbred, Friday, 22 September 2006 6:25:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred

I certainly hope that something good will finally turn up. Perhaps one day we might celebrate with a nice dark Turkish coffee in Beirut then drive off to Haifa for a desert.
Posted by logic, Friday, 22 September 2006 10:26:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Logic, wish I could accept you invitation, but my wife died three months ago, and I could not bear to leave her little dog. Anyway I'm gettin' a bit old for travel -goin' on 86. Studied for my degree in Sri-Lanka in 1981, later majoring in international relations and third world problems with Honours. Also previously my wife and I spent time in the US during when one of their nuclear facilities happened to give trouble. Youngest son graduated over there.

This has all happened in between playing golf during over 30 years retirement from the farming business, now run by our grandkids.

Had a lucky life really, seeing I was forced to leave school early in the Great Depression to help save the family farm at the time.

Anyway, really glad to have made your acquaintance, mate. I'll probably be dead and gone, but again I'll say, let's hope our world can sort itself out.

George C, Mandurah - WA
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 23 September 2006 5:23:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbred

I am sincerely sorry about the loss of your wife. I wish you all the best for the future.

Peter
Posted by logic, Saturday, 23 September 2006 5:53:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic.

'What racism? If its the Jews you mean, they are not a race.'

Israel is one of the most racist countries in the world - it is not comprised of simply 'jews' hence making the distinction between the various groups imperative.

Ashkenazi Jews are racist towards Other Jewish minorities and towards the Arabs.

The Arabs are a race therefore the treatment of Arabs inside of Israel and in the occupied territories is considered racism and is in violation of international law.

What indoctrination you ask? and you accuse us of being armchair experts on the situation. Precisely your ignorance on the subject is a direct outcome of such indoctrination. Through Zionist propaganda, by censoring the content inside Israeli schools, disallowing Palestinian history in the curriculum, rewriting the events of the 1948 Nakba catasphrope when 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes (also known as the Israeli National day of independence), forbidding the Israeli-Jewish Left groups from putting up signs on land indicating that this was once Palestinian land, encouraging hatred towards the Arabs by reinforcing the Holocaust and the threat of terrorism etc.

It's all indoctrination.

Israel is not a democracy - it is an ethnocracy. It is a militant state! Open press? An Israeli soldier filmed a raid on an Arab home. The soldiers refused to allow a dying woman treatment to a hospital as they were inspecting their home (which contained nothing). They belittled the members of the house and treated them like animals. This footage leaked to the press. It was removed after 24 hours as it showed footage that the public denied could exist in their beloved country. They did not want to see this behaviour because they are oblivious to its existence.

Let's not forget 'a Land with no people for a people with no land'. Classic example of propaganda.

'And Muslims, Jews, Christians all have a vote and the right to stand for parliament. What other middle eastern country does that?'

Lebanon. Such liberty has not prevented it from being bombed to oblivion - executed by none other than your wonderful 'democratic' state.
Posted by fleurette, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 12:35:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Also - regime change is the America's greatest policy.

Had it not of been for US and British interests in Iran, Iran would not be in the position it is in today. It was once the most democratic of societies with one of the most liberal governments the country has ever seen. It was also in control of its own oil (and isn't every country allowed to have control of its resources? Surely Irael's interest in the West Bank is purely for power reasons and not for the extensive amount of water supplies available inside the territory...or perhaps not!)

Anyway the point is the British couldn't handle Iran's new leader. So they overthrew him and the country was plunged into 25 years of terror with one of the most conservative governments the country has ever seen.

So any criticisms of the Iran as a society in comparison with western society are surely contradictory and hypocritical considering that Iran would not be in such a position had the Western world stayed out of its affairs.

Don't be so naive to think that this current trend of hyperbolic language and dramatic melodrama concerning Persian society is somehow indicative of America's role to come along and save the backward oriental East from the throes of the Islamic world.

It's nonsense. Pure and simple! Those who believe it are admitting that they are clueless to history.

Then again I don't think they focus on history in an engineering degree. I could, however, be mistaken.

America has intervened in countries for decades now - each time with this regime change. Each time the country has been worse off than they were previously - and then subsequently invaded by the US so that the *insert name of country here* can become 'liberal and democratic again'. The formula is so predictable it can almost be used as a template. Just insert the name of desired country, fill in the blanks, throw a few missiles, carpet bombs and other forms of mortal weaponry and you can graduate from the American school of Invading, controlling and destorying feable countries.
Posted by fleurette, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 12:48:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fleurette

So much bitterness.

America has interfered in many countries, often with a deleterious effect. But all of them? What about Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Germany. The US also has its great success stories.

And can you really blame the West fot appointing the Ayatolla in Iran. I seem to remember that the revolution as covered in the papers suggested that the Persian people might have had an input here. And the restrictions on women and the use of children as mine detectors, all well documented, were hardly produced by Westerners. And who do you blame for the Taliban or the Syrian occupation of Lebanon?

And why did oil rich nations not invest in something for their people as had happened in the West instead of a minority grabbing it all for themselves and wasting it on luxuries? Whose fault was that?

And Israel is less racist than Iraq Egypt Yemen or Iran who badly treated the Jews. Did they have the vote or equality in law that the Muslims get in Israel? The popular cry from the Israeli critics that they are racist is nonsense. They want a state where the majority are Jewish. Christians muslems Buddhists Hindus have the equivalent. But this is not racism. It is clear that the Lebanese Christians wanted to remain in the majority there. And there are complaints that the Muslims put pressure on them to leave.

Sure they have done wrong things I have no time for Bush or Sharon or for the settlers. But so has their oponents. And there are some nasty regimes in the Middle East. Muslims must accept some responsibility for their extremists. They are the ones with the keys to controlling the fascists in their midsts. We arev trying to control our own fascists ie the Exclusive Brethren) Muslims must do the same.
Posted by logic, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 12:37:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I accidently spelled Muslim with a lower case letter. Sorry. This was a genuine typo and definitely no offence or slur intended.
Posted by logic, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 12:40:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy