Completely agree with the point "...but should be determined on Australian national interest grounds alone: interests at that time usually defined as including a rules-based international security system that effectively deters aggressive war by one state on another state."

However, how does one adequately define national interest - does it exclude Darfur for example.

And what of the context when a state is attacked by a no-state actor such as Hezbollah; what of the point "...deters aggressive war by one state on another state".

http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/

There might be a number of reasons for Israel’s slow progress on the ground as it attempts to defang Hezbollah. For instance, where are the BBC journalists/war tacticians who were so helpful to the USA army as it marched towards Baghdad? Israel is using traditional tactics against an enemy using guerrilla tactics with the usual concomitant outcomes. I’d say that Mr Olmert has one eye on casualty figures as well. Mr Olmert has admitted that it won’t be easy and that victory will extract a high price. He must be frustrated with the IDF because Lebanese officials say that the Lebanese death toll so far is in excess of 1,000 civilians and not one death of a Hezbollah soldier.

If Israel thought it could win the international PR debate I’m sure Olmert would have issued PR kits to each member of the IDF long ago.

Lebanese Christian pronounce their love of Hezbollah in public but in private it’s a different story. It would be interesting to know if Hezbollah’s ranks comprise Christians. The years leading up to the present brutal conflict would indicate that diplomatic sophistry has failed so we don’t need more of that.

Mearsheimer and Walt present the Israel - United States as a camorra with the USA spending billions to prop up Israel. But consider this; Egypt is a beneficiary of USA largesse to the tune of USA$2 billion per year. As one author put it: “If the day Christ died you set out to give one million dollars every year to your favorite charity, you would not yet, April 2004, have spent two billion dollars.” Are the authors suggesting that a Pan Arab – USA alliance would be any better? I can see the headlines now: “USA funds 86,000 FGM operations in 2006 but says Pan Arab – USA alliance stronger than ever.” And just where does the canting of the mad doctor to our north fit in the mosaic? Didn’t he tell us that Israel gets other countries to fight its wars for it? If that’s the case Israel has let itself down this time

I think we should let them build their temple and then when God doesn't pop up, grind it to the ground and make them pull back to the 67 borders and disband their miltary both sides.

Israel really has not op*ssed off the majority of Lebanese Christians, the majority of whom now have had to leave Lebanon because of the terror caused to them and their families by Hizbollah in concert with the Lebanese Parliament:

http://www.clhrf.com/

Of course, groups like these should not be listened to either according to the author, perhaps the minority Shia in Lebanon now, should be given voting rights in line with their perceived importance, and allowed to dictate the way a war that they started, and which they cannot win, should end.

That is what I sincerely love about this crowd, they make arguments that sound good from a Human Rights perspective, totally ignoring the human rights of the other parties in Lebanon and of the numerous parties in Israel affected by the actions of the Shia and their protector Hizbollah.

It is in the interest of Syria and Hizbollah (the Syrian proxy) to continue the current conflict, whilst Sinoura is scared more of Hizbollah and Syria than he is of anybody. Why should the majority of Lebanese be held hostage to the insane desires of Hassan Nasrallah and his protector Assad? Why should Israel be held hostage to this insanity? Why should a group supported by 1 million people (at most) hold the whip over the other 10 million people in that region?

Human rights (particularly for the Shia minority) or democracy, one cannot protect both absolutely at the present time.

Inshallah

2bob

Australia should most certainly NOT send troops to the Middle East. Apart from our small army being overstretched now, we should look to our own region.

Tony Kevin regards our PM’s refusal to talk to Hezbollah terrorists as ‘foolish and short-sighted’, and gives his reason for that criticism the number of Jewish and Lebanese people living in Australia.

Perhaps now people will begin to see the problems caused to governments’ ability to operate foreign policy after importing people from countries totally different from their own? Probably not: there are too many wide-eyed ideologues trying to be ‘nice’.

Tony sees a diplomatic role for Australia in the Middle East, but Australia has not been appointed ‘ambassador’ to the Middle East or anywhere else; and what makes him think religion-crazed Hezbollah would listen to anything infidel Australia said? And, let’s not forget the insult to Israel, fighting for its existence.

Tony’s statement that, “Of course, for Howard, any idea of contact with Hezbollah would be anathema”, should earn the response: ‘and so it damn well should be!’ Australia would be stupid to treat with terrorists.

We would all agree with Tony that: “foreign policy should not be captured by “vigorous and vocal special interest groups”, but the Tony Kevin one-man-band is attempting to do just that.

Fortunately for we victims of Tony’s tirades, he wears his heart on his sleeve. This excerpt from his web site for 25th. July says it all:

“I still find the values and policies of the Howard Government thoroughly immoral and destructive of Australia's real national interest, which is in our rebuilding a civilised liberal society both within our country and in our country's damaged relationships with the rest of the world.”

Heaven help us all if Tony ever gets his ‘ideal’ government.

I still find the values and policies of the Howard Government thoroughly immoral and destructive of Australia's real national interest, which is in our rebuilding a civilised liberal society both within our country and in our country's damaged relationships with the rest of the world.”

Well Leigh... I for one, find the quote rather accurate.
Before there can be any commentary on the middle eastern situation, it is important to note a few key points:

The primary enemy of militant islamic groups throughout the middle east is not the US, but Israel.
Of course, the US is a close number second, but you'll find a lot of that is due to the close relationship between the two countries - well, that and the US-sponsored oil wars.

The six day war didn't help matters - okay, fair enough Israel had to defend themselves, but by trouncing so many middle eastern nations by so very much they cast an insult that still burns.

Rather than accepting this defeat, a more palatable alternative was making Israel into something more than it was - on a political level, we've once had a Malaysian prime minister launching a racist diatribe against Israel and claiming they have hoodwinked the rest of the world into assisting them.

Add to this some kind of religous debate which casts the Jewish people as in league with an evil spiritual force, and you get a decent excuse for their horrific loss.

Of course, this isn't fair or logical reasoning, but it works... many european nations haven't weighed into this debate, and they are not the target of terrorists. AIJAC and AIPAC spend huge amounts of money to convince others to aid Israel. Quite frankly, I can't blame them because they need the assistance.

Cont'd

Leigh and 2 bob are like blind broken records, just like Howard, Bush and Blair.

Hezbollah did not start this mess, Israel planned it all two years ago after 6 years of daily flights and attacks on south Lebanon since 2000 when they supposedly withdrew. Get a grip on reality boys.

They are fighting less than 3,000 people with a vast army, tanks, cluster bombs, war planes and apache gunships all supplied by the US. Then they whine about a few little rockets.

Sure the people of northern Israel are scared but most of it fear created by the moron Olmert who hits the panic button at the first noise.

The thing though is that almost every Israeli still has their own home intact while 1 million Lebanese who did nothing at all to anyone have nothing left at all.

Even eminent Jews find this repulsive and want it stopped.

The Israeli's have no right to impose curfews on the citizens of another country, no right to deny medical and food aid, no right to blow up roads and bridges, towns and cities because they can.

The christians have not all left Lebanon, they have not been touched to date except for one attack yesterday in a mixed area.

Australia has about 200,000 Lebanese and 100,000 Jews. We have to stop being captive to the Jews and listen to the Lebanese as well. To do otherwise is madness as Tony says.

Cont'd

If you're going to be pragmatic, then you have to say that this isn't our problem. The world of fundamentalist Islam has no real beef with the western world, aside from fiery comments from imams to satisfy their constituents, but they do have a beef with Israel and the US. If we weigh in, it becomes our problem too.

If you're going to be idealistic, then you need to help out the impoverished muslim nations. It's a wacky thought, but perhaps if fewer of them were living in either poverty or warzones, perhaps they'd be less aggressive?

Neither of these solutions means giving aid to Israel - I'm not saying we shouldn't, I'm just saying that if we do we need to accept what we're getting into, and decide from there - not deciding out of fear of terrorism, but making the decision based on what it really has to do with us.

TurnRightThenLeft,

Read the Koran and then tell us you are truly confident in your belief that “The world of fundamentalist Islam has no real beef with the Western world.”

Too many people in the secular/Christian world assume that Islam, like Christianity, just has a few hot heads prone to violence but that like all religions, is basically peaceful in nature. Please don’t just accept that as true. Islam has violent clashes with every ideology and culture it encounters around the world and if you read the Koran you may see why.

Read the Koran, and tell us how much love and good will you find in it.

Read the Koran and think about where Australia’s national interest lies.

Inshallah 2bob

You're discredited.

'Israel will pound Lebanon until someone realises that Lebanon is alone, and that Lebanon is beat.'

Inshallah

2bob

Posted by 2bob, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 1:01:44 AM

Is this your truth now?

Originally you claimed you went to war to beat Hezbollah. Now you are claiming to be at war with Lebanon, not Hezbollah nor the Lebanese Army.

Whay are you at war with Lebanon? Is it because you cannot beat Hezbollah?

Why did the impotent IDF bomb that Lebanese civilian funeral today?

How do I get an easy academic job writing articles for Forum?

As an engineer I have to support my customers, can be sued for negligence and generally have to do a professional job

"All Lebanese, both Muslim and Christian, are now fiercely angry with Israel for the destruction and misery its invasion is wreaking."

All? Has he not read of Lebanese supporting Israel on various websites?

"The now famous Mearsheimer and Walt article, The Israel Lobby".

Famous with whom? The ldea that Jews control the media as this article claims ignores the reality that Murdoch and others are hardly Jewish.

"Any criticism of the work of these lobbies is likely to be met with personal attacks. One would either be labelled as anti-Semitic, or as a self-hating Jew."

Which will you now classify me as? I am neither.

"Australia, with our large Jewish and Lebanese origin populations". Jews amount to about 100 000 in a population of 20 million.

Hardly very large.

"Israeli conduct in Lebanon, which is unacceptably opportunistic and grossly disproportionate to the provocation."

Pardon me but Hezbollah were storing thousands missiles and shouting the destruction of Israel. What sort of response would be proportionate?

Perhaps the Australian government were influenced by the possibility of a fanatic group in the middle east trying to battle the world. A not unreasonable concern given several famous bombings.

And Marilyn Shephard.

Which broken record are you playing? I can express great sympathy for the Lebanese. Can't you show some understanding of Israel's problem? Give us a good solution which will allow the whole of the population to live there in a guaranteed peace and I will support you.

It is the water. It must be when Logic and co are so illogical and without thought.

1. If Israel had actually left Lebanon instead of repeatedly invading her would the Lebanese hate her or like her? In fact they had been allies but the Israeli's breached the borders almost every day since 2000.

2. The Israeli's are not at risk of extinction and the deranged claims that they are are driving me nuts. 42% of all the Jewish people on the planet live in the US and only 39% live in Israel.

3. There was no such thing as fundamentalist muslim "terr'ism" until the west used them - against Russia in Afghanistan and other places. Will you please give this story a rest now. There is no way they are capable of murdering and slaughtering on the scale we can.

Should our foreign policy be dictated by the US because they want help blowing up Iraq? Dictated by Indonesia because of a few refugees? Come on - which part of "we are a sovereign nation" don't you guys understand with your whining fairy tales?

Dear Naive and uninformed Marilyn

clearly you know as much about the growth of Islam and its history as you do about sound social policy and international relations :) which is not much in my humble view.

Here is a link, and if you can differentiate between the 'terrorism' of Mohamed in his Tabuk Campaign and that of today, I'll go 'he' for chasey.
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MH_LM/campaign_of_tabuk_and_death_of_ibrahim.htm
Scroll to:
The Threat of Byzantine Invasion and Muslim Reaction
then to
Muslim call to arms

He forced Christian tribes to become 'traitors' (under threat of death/war) to their Byzantine Allies, to create a "security zone" (sound familiar ?) which was basically saying "You mob die first, and while you are being slaughtered, I'll have time to get my military act together". A dabble in murder along the way was also not a problem -Hashim, brother of Ukaydir, Prince of Duma.

ETHNIC INTERESTS.

Regarding the Article, yes, I TOTALLY am opposed to 'Ethnic community groups' which in turn lead to 'attempts to influence foreign policy' in terms of the perceived interests OF that group.

Ameer Ali "Don't regard Hezbollah as a terrorist group" for example.

The following are RACIST by nature:

South Melbourne HELLAS soccer club
Inter Milan Soccer club.
Cypriot Cultural Association.
Greek Cultural Association.
Polish community association.

and so it goes on..........

END RACIST ETHNIC BASED COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS NOW !

"Read the Koran and then tell us you are truly confident in your belief that “The world of fundamentalist Islam has no real beef with the Western world.”"

Kalin - I won't argue tha fact much of the Qu'ran is indeed volatile, and prone to violence, even more so than the bible.

But, like the bible, the effects of the Qu'ran are dependent upon the interpretation.

Were I to have been a woman making such an argument three hundred years ago, I would have risked being labelled a 'witch' and been at risk of being burned at the stake, or more likely drowned.

This is a cliched example I know - but the bible, like the Qu'ran although to a lesser extent is riddled with arguments that are no longer relevant - and sensible Christians know this.
So too do sensible muslims know that this is the case with the Qu'ran.

I am simply arguing that Israel is by far (and place the emphasis on the 'by far') the most hated group in the arab world, well above and beyond the western world, and much of the hatred among fundamentalist islam is derived from the unflinching support that is offered to Israel by the US.

Marilyn Shephard

You have'nt really answered my points against the article..

But still I can still try further.

"The Israeli's are not at risk of extinction and the deranged claims that they are are driving me nuts. 42% of all the Jewish people on the planet live in the US and only 39% live in Israel."

What has the proportion of Jewish people in USA got to do with the proposition of the extinction of Israel?

"There was no such thing as fundamentalist muslim "terr'ism" until the west used them"

Then who did the bombings in New York, Bali, London, Madrid and India?

Have you cried out about the poor people who suffered there? The total was a much greater number than the Lebanese who were regretably during the recent crisis.

TurnRightThenLeft,

Thanks for the response.

I am not arguing that Islam is the only religion which can be bent to violent ends, but I am saying, of the mainstream religions, it is easily the worst in this regard.

Whilst Christians have waged war in the name of their religion, the religion, fundamentally (ie the New Testament) contains nothing which advocates wars of aggression. Judaism is somewhere in between, but essentially, has an ethos of don't mess with me and I won't mess with you (please enlighten me if that isn't right as I am not terribly familiar with Judaism beyond the Old testament). Similarly, Hinduism as with most polythiest faiths, does not significantly advocate unprovoked violence against unbelievers.

Islam on the other hand, has numerous passages which actually advocate unprovoked violence against unbelievers.

It is fundamental to the functioning of a liberal democracy, that those within it, respect and tolerate one another. Islam, as a faith, produces far more intolerant militants than any other major religion, and is not compatible with the liberal democratic societies of the Western world.

Although primarily a Western phenomenon, nations with other predominant religions have embraced democracty with some success, India, Israel, Japan, Tiawan, etc, but it is difficult to identify a single successful liberal democracy in the Islamic world, other than perhaps Turkey but even Turkey is in a constant struggle against fundamentalist takover.

In short, we need to wake up from this deluded assumption that all religions are inherently peaceful. When a tolerant society engages an intolerant one, logically, they cannot both prevail.

Kalin

I am hardly an expert on Judaism but the essence is not in the Old Testament but in the Talmud which is the interpretation by generations of rabbis of what the orthodox describe as God's Law. Some would even say that the Talmud is God's interpretation. Amongst the modernists and the Liberals reference to the Bible is variable, particularly with those who doubt that any of it is God's law but human beings seeking the truth. (or the many that doubt that there is even a God.

Jesus' teachings are based largely on these rabbinic interpretations, for example "Anything that is hateful to you do not do to your neighhbour, that is the whole law, the rest is commentary" was paraphrased by Jesus. Your interpretation "don't mess with me and I won't mess with you " has some relevence.

Of course Judaism does allow people to protect themselves and killing someone if it is necessary to stop them killing you is essentually OK. It is a lesser of evils. Christians do the same.

I cannot speak for Islam but I understand that like Judaism it does rely on interpretation. Certainly I have known some wonderful Muslims and suspect that the Koran like the Old Testament is interpreted by scholars and is not all that it seems at first glance.

Thanks for the lesson on Judaism.

Obviously, not everyone who follows Islam is liable to be a rabid hater of ‘unbelievers.’ I too have known many fine people who called themselves muslims, but in each case I would have to say they were pretty flexible in the way they followed the edicts of their religion, not unlike many people who claim to be Christians but who have never read the Bible. Such people have fairly vague understandings of their faiths and merely have little more than a cultural affinity for these religions rather than being truly religious. Such people generally are influenced by the basic moral teachings of their faith but tend to ignore the parts that don't seem suited to the modern world. It's the process of secularisation I suppose. Such, IMO, are the ‘moderates’ of Islam.

Nevertheless, Islam, far more so than any other major religion, is liable to produce large numbers of violently hostile people, completely intolerant to those of other faiths. Why? Because Islam’s Prophet, by his own example, and by the explicit words in his book (which Muslims believe is the perfect and unchallengeable word of God), make it clear that propagating the religion by means of violence is totally acceptable and that other religions should only be tolerated under Islamic rule. Interpretation can temper the implications of this, but at it’s root, Islam is a religion of force, oppression and violence.

This is FUNDAMENTALLY incompatible with liberal democracy.

People interested in the Middle East, terrorism and other problems currently associated with muslims, really should at least ‘browse’ the Koran - it is a fairly easy read - and very short compared with the Bible. It was a real eye opener for me (I read it in the after math of 11/9/2001).

Islam is different.

I see that some are making claims that the Koran has passages which supposedly glorify violence, particularily against christians, I'd like to know the source or the translation in which you found that. And speaking on how christianity is regarded by other religious documents, do you what does the Talmud say about it? ...and about christians?, what about other non-jews? Take a look at:
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/index.html