Everyday, for the past few days, I have been reading reports of Israeli attacks on Lebanon. There have been photos of airstrikes, ground attacks massing up and US stepping up supply of precision guided bombs to Israel. As far as I know, all this started because one Israeli soldier was captured. Sounds like a wee bit of an over reaction to me. And so far, other than a peep from France, no one, not even our Government, is saying anything at all. Am I missing something? It sounds like US-Iraq all over again, with even less opposition. Really, am I missing something? Is this getting reported at all in the Western media? Reading the reports here, it seems rather worrying, it looks like Lebanon is going to get flattened, now!
What I've heard is that Isreal is trying to weaken Hezbollah terrorist areas so that the Lebonese government can take over from there. Isreal used the kidnapping as a means to accomplish this. Hezbollah has been attacking Isreal with Iran provided weapons and missiles. Have to get Roman or someone else that has listened to the news more to provide a more in depth explanation.
This MSN article is a good summary of the sort of news and attitudes I've been hearing. Once again, it seems that Tony Blair's position is at odds with the majority of Brits. Lucky us, we get him to misrepresent us all around the world! He has to be seen to support the American position, I think, because of his 'special relationship' with Dubya. Also, taking this line fits in with his stupid (IMO) ideas about the 'war on terror'. As a rule, the majority of the British people tend to be anti-war and pro-diplomacy in most situations. There is also a strong movement here to recognise what is seen as the oppression of the Palestinian people by the Israelis. I won't go into that too much here, since I don't know enough about the subject, and I don't want to distract Roman from the main topic under discussion! I think a lot of people see Israel as a bit of a loose cannon, politically and militarily. My personal view is that the Israeli attack on Lebanon is unjustifiably heavy-handed. I am glad the UN is doing what it can (given how limited it can be when countries like the US and UK fail to acknowledge its authority - we are the biggest rogue nations in the world, and something must be done to make our leaders acknowledge the importance of international cooperation), but disappointed and concerned that Blair and Bush seem content to stand by and watch acts that, from any other country, they would decry and probably respond to with military action (UN-sanctioned, of course...).
What the Israeli response can never be called is a police action. Police asks foreign countries for allowing them in their jurisdiction, the army is very very rarely deployed, no villages are taken over, there is accountability for any civilian deaths and lastly, there are no heads of state saying they will push the (foreign) country back 20 years. I strongly suggest seeing the Daily Show clip titled "Musical Montage", in which Jon Stewart makes comparisons between the Edebe hostage situation and today's operations. Says it all really.
I’m not sure I want to participate in this discussion, for fear of losing my temper at some point, but I’ll do my best to explain for now. Let me start with the fact that Israel has no intention of occupying Lebanon, be it in part or in whole. We tried to create a buffer zone in southern Lebanon once, and I’m you can read up as to how well that idea went. Now, I want to move on to Hezbollah, at least as of Israeli forces leaving Lebanon in 2000. Hezbollah is a recognized international terrorist group, and the last standing Lebanese militia force (of the dozens, if not hundreds, that used to be in Lebanon once), and it effectively controlled all of southern Lebanon as of 2000. According to UN resolution 1559, Hezbollah must disarm and Lebanese military forces to keep the border with Israel secure. This has not happened, and I would say the exact opposite has. Hezbollah has been growing. And it has grown to the point where the somewhat defunct Lebanese military can’t do a thing to stop it. Now, to add a little extra background, Syria has until recently controlled Lebanon. Hezbollah, being funded by both Syria and Iran, is viewed as little more than a continuation of said control by proxy, as is the corrupt Lebanese president, who has direct control over the country’s military. Which is why the Lebanese military has been kept under a tight leash when it comes to Hezbollah, and kept generally weakened overall. The last Lebanese Prime Minister to publicly decry Syrian influence in Lebanon, Rafik el-Hariri, ended his life in a blown up car after his resignation into the opposition. This was after receiving public threats from Syria’s ruler, Bashar Assad, to kindly keep his mouth shut if he wanted to stay alive. Today, Hezbollah is both a political as well as an illegal military force within Lebanon. It is part of the Lebanese government, which was unable to prevent it to run for office. Resolution 1559 has been effectively forgotten by everyone except Israel. Hezbollah built an extensive base system, both aboveground and underground, in southern Lebanon and even in the Shi’a quarter of Beirut. It has gathered an impressive arsenal of Katyusha, Grad, and even Iraninan Zilzal rockets, the last being large, long-range rockets capable of reaching most of Israel if launched from southern Lebanon. Over the past six years, Hezbollah has been keeping itself justified in the eyes of the Lebanese people. Keeping the struggle going, so to speak. This isn’t the first kidnapping, just the biggest operation. There have been rocket attacks on the northern Israeli towns before, mostly as a distraction for kidnapping attempts. In all such cases before, we either traded convicted prisoners for our kidnapped, alive or dead, trading hundreds of prisoners for one or two people, or simply pretended the failed attempts at attack didn’t happen, buried the dead, treated the wounded, rebuilt, and said that we were doing the right thing in letting the Lebanese government strengthen its position. Keep in mind, these were unprovoked attacks from Lebanese sovereign soil, as well as coming from a group that is part of the Lebanese government. Now, what justification is Hezbollah using for these attacks? Two things. One, Sheba farms. The region is approximately 2 kilometers by 14. It was conquered from Syria during the 1967 war, as part of the Golan Heights. Lebanon claims the area is Lebanese. There are no documents that support the claim. Syria, though it said the area was supposed to be handed over to Lebanon, did little beyond simply saying this, as it does not recognize the independence of Lebanon, Israel, or Jordan, considering them to be rebellious parts of the greater Syrian nation. Two, Lebanese prisoners in Israel. Hezbollah is using Samir Kuntar as the symbol of these prisoners, and is willing to trade much for his release. Samir Kuntar infiltrated Israel in 1979, attacked a family in their house, was apprehended, trialed, and sentenced to four non-consecutive life sentences. The most prominent part of his trial was that he used the stock of his assault rifle to shatter the family four-year-old daughter’s head. So, we now have the recent attack, shelling and shooting and all. Two soldiers kidnapped, four dead, seven injured. The timing was recent to a similar such operation by Palestinian groups out of Gaza, who attacked an Israeli position within Israel by means of a tunnel, and kidnapped one soldier. Hezbollah was effectively trying to take over the negotiations for that soldier as well, increasing its influence across the region. That was, you could say, the last straw. The Lebanese government was both unwilling and effectively unable to disarm Hezbollah, and ended up deferring to its growing influence. Their one true option, requesting UN assistance, was not taken. So Israel decided that it just about had it. The overall goal is to weaken Hezbollah to the point where it would no longer pose as a threat, at least for the near future. From there, to make sure it does not recover, the Lebanese, alone or with UN peacekeeping forces aid, must deal with it once and for all. The best way for this to be done is if only a French military force stepped in here. France is an historical ally of Lebanon, and the only country that stands a chance of not creating further dissent in Lebanon. Furthermore, a uni-national force is better than a multi-national force, as it would have only one command structure. Now, regarding Israeli attacks in Lebanon. Any attack that is in a civilian area is preceded by what you might call a ‘leaflet bomb’. These leaflets warn the local civilian populace and ask it to clear the area. These warnings range from forty-eight hours to one hour, depending on the extent of the attack. By and large, Hezbollah’s military infrastructure, be it munitions dumps, small or large rocket launchers, or underground bunkers, are in, or usually under, civilian areas. Now, as of the start of this war, Hezbollah has been displaying just what it had prepared in south Lebanon. Hundreds of rockets hit every day, from small to large towns to one of the largest cities in Israel. The Katyusha rockets, which are of short range and require little as far as a launcher is concerned, are fired on just about every city and town to the north of Haifa. When it comes to Haifa itself and southwards, more advanced rockets are used. So far, the farthest they have yet to reach is Nazareth. As for the Zilzal long-range rockets, the only launch so far was an accidental one that landed within Lebanon. Most of the north has been abandoned. Ghost towns. People go to their relatives, or to motels, looking for a place that isn’t bombed daily. Sure, we have alarm systems, and bomb shelters, and by law any new house or apartment building built has to have a secure room built. It might not be an actual bomb shelter, but it’s better by far than nothing. People are not taking chances, though. So far, I would say that around half a million people left the north, if not more. Just putting things in perspective, me. I can’t say I like war, and can say the exact opposite, but this time I believe there was little in the way of an alternative. Simply entering into another set of negotiations with Hezbollah would have strengthened them. It would have been another virtual victory, and eventually Lebanon would have folded back into being a Syrian protectorate. Today… today we have Arab countries, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, even the saner part of the Palestinian Authority, that decry Hezbollah’s actions as dragging Lebanon into a war it did not want. To tell you the truth, that surprised me. I didn’t expect that in the least. And I think it might just mean this region has some actual hope after all. Maybe. Just maybe.
[quote:790799c06a="Saccharissa"]What the Israeli response can never be called is a police action. Police asks foreign countries for allowing them in their jurisdiction, the army is very very rarely deployed, no villages are taken over, there is accountability for any civilian deaths and lastly, there are no heads of state saying they will push the (foreign) country back 20 years.[/quote:790799c06a] It is not a police action, yes. It's an act of war that is in response to another act of war. Also, which head of state said that Lebanon will be pushed back 20 years, please? As I know exactly who it was who said that, I'd be quite interested to know who you think did.
I don't feel able to comment on this further because I simply don't have the knowledge. I'll just say that any conflict must look very different if you're in the thick of it from how it looks at a distance.
I'd say the conflict looks very different when all our 'news' reports seem to be heavy biased against Israel, at least the ones I've heard are. The way I understand it, and I am in now way any more expert than most, is that these people in Lebanon (the hesbola) have been growing in force over a number of years and the government can't do much about it. They are sort of lording it over the official infrastructure of Lebanon, or at least ingnoring/flouting their laws, through their military/militant behaviour and the government allows this to happen becuase they don't have a military force of their own to match the hesbola, they are afraid to do anything about it I think. And I guess the Hesbola use (in the very literal sense of the word) Lebanon as defence barrier to hide inside while they carry out sporadic terrorist attacks on Israel and elswhere, assured that Israel wouldn't launch attacks into Lebanon to retaliate because of historical events and international pressure. All this seems to be played down greatly by the BBC and INN in this country, who seem to be painting a picture of Israli troops storming Lebanon and bombing women and children for the reasons mentioned in the first post.
Possibly true. Though I was just wondering what the world reaction would be in India were to invade Pakistan, citing similar reasons.
[quote:949f92413d="Buzzfloyd"] As a rule, the majority of the British people tend to be anti-war and pro-diplomacy in most situations. [/quote:949f92413d] Oh, I don't know about that. Britain's got a long and proud history of going to war. The Empire wasn't built on inviting people over for tea. Of course, that was then. Now? I suspect most people are more than happy with going to war on the following criteria. 1. It doesn't effect them in any way. 2. It's morally justified as MIGHTY BRITAIN defeating the FORCES OF DARKNESS 3. It doesn't effect them in any way 4. The media says it's ok 5. It doesn't effect them in any way If these criteria are met, then it's all good. The only people bothered about it are the ones that know people that die.
I disagree with you, Doors. First off, I was talking about the attitudes of people now: our history certainly has a lot to do with it, in that I think it makes the average Brit fairly anti-war. Secondly, I think you're generalising based on some imagined person (go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong). Among the hundreds of British people I know personally, I don't know a single one who has no opinion on warfare generally and certain wars in specific - and the large majority of the people I know are generally anti-war. I think the large majority of people throughout the world are generally anti-war. The attitude of apathy is prevalent, in my experience, only among select groups. I believe that most people in this country think that war should be avoided if possible. I imagine the same is true in most countries. Mal, regarding your point - that is part of what I was trying to get at with my previous comment. For someone in my position, it is hard to see and know everything that someone in Roman's position sees and knows. Any comment I make would have to be qualified by that understanding. Likewise, someone with a bit of emotional distance from an issue might sometimes be able to make more objective comment - the value of which, of course, is likely only to be as good as the information it's based on.
Well, yeah, no one LIKES war. But the attitude towards it varies considerably depending on whether or not your winning. But you have to admit, people tend to care less about things that don't actually affect them. You hear about a war somewhere, and you tend to be all "oh" then you move on and forget about it. But, it's only when it's a war thats affecting you that people sit up and take notice.
[quote:0164a02695="sampanna"]Possibly true. Though I was just wondering what the world reaction would be in India were to invade Pakistan, citing similar reasons.[/quote:0164a02695]To be honest I think the rest of the world half expects India to invade Pakistan, or vice versa, at any moment.
[quote:0623ff53d6="Maljonic"][quote:0623ff53d6="sampanna"]Possibly true. Though I was just wondering what the world reaction would be in India were to invade Pakistan, citing similar reasons.[/quote:0623ff53d6]To be honest I think the rest of the world half expects India to invade Pakistan, or vice versa, at any moment.[/quote:0623ff53d6] Well, vice versa has happened, both officially and unofficially. I doubt India would invade Pakistan though, especially under the current Prime Minister. He is a gentle man. Or so I hope at least. Edit: Though I have to admit, most people's patience, including mine, is running thin.
Let see my understanding of this is limited but my opinion is that its a total farce. Israel claims to be targetting Hezbollah areas and infrastructure, with the hope that the Lebanese government will take over and get rid of them completely... The flaws in this approach are: 1. The Lebanese government is constitutionally and practically weak. It was deliberately set up this way so no one could have too much power to maintain the peace after the civil war in the 80s. How can a weak government over-ride a strong organisation like Hezbollah without someone stepping up and taking control (disrupting the fragile internal Lebanese peace and causing a civil war)? 2. Instead of providing a platform for reform the Israeli's are taking out hard-one and very expensive infrastructure, not just Hezbollah targets but hospitals, roads, airports, ports and civilian housing. How the hell will a government rebuild (where is the money coming from) AND take over Hezbollah at the same time (who is very well funded). From what I can tell the whole purpose is that Israel doesn't want a strong state of Lebanon next door OR Hezbollah. So they are using the excuse of taking out one to undermine them both. From the last figures I heard 33 Israeli's had died in rocket attacks, while 330 Lebanese had died from Israeli bombing. How is this proportional? Effective? Or even humane? The greatest shame is that the US said we'll give Israel 1 week to bomb the crap out of Lebanon, then we'll think about doing something. This is like turning a blind eye and it makes me soooo mad. Roman you can disagree all you want, thats fair enough, but we're not on the inside and from the outside this doesn't look good for Israel.
I don't think that "Team Israel: World Police" is something that anyone in the Middle East really wants. Many people would not accept proposals and plans from them. If I recall, the Israelis had to start doing a one sided drawdown in the Palestinian territories. And $X million dollar grants to shape up any given government in order to stop attacks might smack a little of weakness in the area. I also have to disagree with the "Anarchy Lebanon" idea. It just doesn't make good sense. Making a weak Lebanon only invites a stronger Syria to "help" Lebanon. Syria's political philosophy is still Ba'athist which calls for a Pan-Arab state. Regaining part of "Greater Syria" is a good step for them. It also would put the Lebanese even further into the Iranian sphere of influence. Ideally-realistically (pure ideally would have Israel ruling the region, I'm sure), Israel would want relativley stable, but not powerful nations surrounding it. Ones who would have problems with each other, as well as Israel. A portion of the Lebanese government that was elected by the people of Lebanon launched an attack onto another nation's soil. That's an act of war. Do you want to argue that it's justified? That's fine, but it's still an act of war. Do you want to argue that other people are pulling the strings, sowing conflict *cough*Iran,Syria*cough*. That's also fine, but that just means that these people were succesful in starting a war. That sucks, that really really sucks. But it unfortunately has happened. Israel is not unjustified in invading Lebanon.
[quote:7dbf26117a="Bradthewonderllama"]I also have to disagree with the "Anarchy Lebanon" idea. It just doesn't make good sense. Making a weak Lebanon only invites a stronger Syria to "help" Lebanon. Syria's political philosophy is still Ba'athist which calls for a Pan-Arab state. Regaining part of "Greater Syria" is a good step for them. It also would put the Lebanese even further into the Iranian sphere of influence. Ideally-realistically (pure ideally would have Israel ruling the region, I'm sure), Israel would want relativley stable, but not powerful nations surrounding it. Ones who would have problems with each other, as well as Israel. [/quote:7dbf26117a] I should clarify that I'm not saying that the "Anarchy Lebanon" is what Israel was trying to create, I'm merely saying that its doing a bang-up job of sending it that way. They may have been trying to do all the good and noble things they said they were but I don't think they're going to get them or avoid creating a mess...
[quote="spiky I should clarify that I'm not saying that the "Anarchy Lebanon" is what Israel was trying to create, I'm merely saying that its doing a bang-up job of sending it that way. They may have been trying to do all the good and noble things they said they were but I don't think they're going to get them or avoid creating a mess...[/quote] Agreed that they're doing a good job of crippling Lebanon. But I don't think that they're trying to do good for Lebanon. They've been punched in the nose several times by Hezbollah. Now, they've basically said that their mission is to break Hezbollah's legs in order to prevent another punch in the nose for a good long while. This is all sad, sad business. :-(
Say what you will, I still think Olmert did a very very stupid thing by going on the offensive and not just because of the Lebanese casualties. The feeling here concerning Israel ranges from "only those who feel they are losing the game bomb civilians" to "those damn Jews! what have the Lebanese ever done to them?" It's not like they expect anything better from Nasrallah, after all, since people dying over a bunch of cartoons, Greeks view Muslims as a berserker in potentia. But Israel, as far as public opinion is concerned, has lost all of its moral footing. Greeks have had to put up with Turkish offensive actions, ranging from them planting flags on greek islands to violating airspace even as greek ministers visit Turkey to assist in entering the EU. Because of an airspace violating a greek fighter pilot lost his life and the turkish side said it was going to ask for reparations for [i:61cb2a1384]its[/i:61cb2a1384] lost airplane. Were any rockets fired across our borders? For the insults instigated by an elected goverment and NOT by an illegal paramilitary organisation? And there are a lot of examples of countries who have bitter disputes but just about manage to keep a lid on things for everyone's sake. Israel had managed to keep a lid on things till now. Then why rise to the bait of Hezbollah? The timing is decidedly suspicious, since the very day that hezbollah kidnapped the first soldier Hamas was caving in from the pressure exerted from the PA as well as the common folk to even indirectly acknowledge the State of Israel. But Olmert just [i:61cb2a1384]had[/i:61cb2a1384] to give Hamas a breather. And credibility to that idiot Nasrallah as a political leader who can start a war behind the back of the Lebanese goverment. God please give the ME at least a Vetinari. Noone is to be trusted with such an important job, it seems.
[quote:7162b6d8a3="Saccharissa"]Israel had managed to keep a lid on things till now. Then why rise to the bait of Hezbollah? The timing is decidedly suspicious, since the very day that hezbollah kidnapped the first soldier Hamas was caving in from the pressure exerted from the PA as well as the common folk to even indirectly acknowledge the State of Israel. But Olmert just [i:7162b6d8a3]had[/i:7162b6d8a3] to give Hamas a breather. And credibility to that idiot Nasrallah as a political leader who can start a war behind the back of the Lebanese goverment.[/quote:7162b6d8a3] Um, it was Hamas that did the first kidnapping, along with a few other Palestinian groups. I would say that the goal of that was to kill anything that might remotely look like a step on the right path. Hezbollah's kidnapping came later, to destroy any further chance of turning the previous situation away from the cacky it was heading to, along with giving Hezbollah further cred. That very kidnapping alraedy won Hamas their breather. That was part of the point, really. What you missed here, Avgi, is that Nasrallah wins either way. Hezbollah already all but rules Lebanon as it is, so giving him further cred by dealing with him only makes matters worse, and keeps him armed to the teeth. It also gives him further influence with the Palestinians. And all the justification he needs for the next attack. It's a lose-lose situation, really. The Hamas leadership in Damascus did their best to fuck-up anything remotely stable-looking with the local Hamas leadership, which was at least *trying* to make things work, albiet shooting itself in the foot on a daily basis by not separating itself from the assholes in Damascus who, quite frankly, will fight to the last Palestinian. Hezbollah decided to make sure the situation became even worse. And as long as they *win*, Hezbollah have the support of most of the Arab world. With the war, some people at least blame Hezbollah instead of just grumbling or even cheering it on. And Avgi, please don't forget that Hezbollah is not only operating from Lebanon, it's also part of the goverment. A high-ranking member of the current coalition in their parliament, in fact. And I do believe that their rockets kinda came first. Over several years. There's only so many rockets one can take, Avgi, and so many bodies you can bury, and so many injured you can treat. And so many times you can turn a blind eye and pretend it didn't happen, beucase every time it just gets worse.
That's my point Roman. Olmert played right into the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah. Plus, remember what happened with Hamas once it got to power. All of the sudden it had to make the trains run on time, so to speak, and it got badgered by its own voters to acknowledge Israel. Also I would like to point out that Sin Fein(sp?) being a legit party has actually helped with the cease-fires and all in Northern Ireland.
Except for one article I've seen today I, like Mal, found some things underrepresented in the general media coverage so far. The Libanese government say the Hezbollah is being heavily supported by Teheran. Be that true or not, there is a general mobilisation of at least political forces against Israel, which are claiming the state has no right to exist and implying their ultimate goal is to end its existance. Sounds like an extreme conspiracy theory, but said parties are openly claiming this viewpoint. You definitely can't tag the agression label on one side only in [i:ba681f6260]such [/i:ba681f6260]political climate. Another thing I saw underrepresanted [i:ba681f6260]are[/i:ba681f6260] the actual attacks on Israel. The news here did show them, and pictures of wounded on both sides, too. Still, I find a lot of people not having that on their screen at all, unsure of wether this is just a revenge operation for two kidnapped soldiers. It seems the media aren't doing such a good job on balancing out. Aren't about 50% of the people living in the bombarded North of Israel Israelian Arabs? Just asking for confirmation here. Nah, I'll research myself. Anyway, what I've seen on how this hits the civilians all both sides so far was heart rendering. I've got Lebanese acquaintances whom I haven't seen in some time, and I'm somewhat scared of hearing the news they might have. I'm not an expert, and probably not even too well informed, but if the Libanese government sees their people as hostages of the hezbollah -as they have been ten years ago, if my historical memory serves me right- I hope for them to let in a UN mission, and for that one to be effective for a change. ...I don't know what else to hope, I supppose.
[quote:c28d6fe41b="Saccharissa"]That's my point Roman. Olmert played right into the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah. Plus, remember what happened with Hamas once it got to power. All of the sudden it had to make the trains run on time, so to speak, and it got badgered by its own voters to acknowledge Israel. Also I would like to point out that Sin Fein(sp?) being a legit party has actually helped with the cease-fires and all in Northern Ireland.[/quote:c28d6fe41b] Some people say that once Hamas got into power the number of claimed Hamas attacks went down, while the number of unclaimed attacks went up. Of course though, they did claim the kidnapping of that first soldier... If Hamas is a recognized political party, and controls the government would not that be an act of war?
[quote:b7148f31ff="Hsing"]Aren't about 50% of the people living in the bombarded North of Israel Israelian Arabs? Just asking for confirmation here. Nah, I'll research myself.[/quote:b7148f31ff] Not really sure. Haifa and the nearby area has a large Israeli Arab population, and the Galilee region (which is the closest to the Lebanese border) has dozens, if not hundreds, of Israeli Arab villages. Further south in the range of fire? You have Nazareth, in which very few Israeli Jews live, if at all. Up north it's mostly Druze, though. Hezbollah hates the Druze. Good people, the Druze, good people. Got a few friends in that part of the country.
Could someone explain to me the thinking behind Bush's position (as outlined in the article Sampanna linked to) that it is necessary to build lasting peace, for which purpose a ceasefire would not serve... Here is a link to an MSN article with some quotes from Tony Blair from a speech he's just made on the subject. Edit: The BBC's report is more informative, as usual.
[quote:2294f09240="Buzzfloyd"]Could someone explain to me the thinking behind Bush's position (as outlined in the article Sampanna linked to) that it is necessary to build lasting peace, for which purpose a ceasefire would not serve... [/quote:2294f09240] Scarily enough, I interpret Bush's statement as: If we don't have any enemies left alive, there isn't any need to worry. I'm probably over-reacting though, I really dislike Bush.
[quote:cef1a319d2="Buzzfloyd"]Could someone explain to me the thinking behind Bush's position (as outlined in the article Sampanna linked to) that it is necessary to build lasting peace, for which purpose a ceasefire would not serve... Here is a link to an MSN article with some quotes from Tony Blair from a speech he's just made on the subject. Edit: The BBC's report is more informative, as usual.[/quote:cef1a319d2]I'm not sure the BBC is more informative all the time, more than MSN perhaps? Recently I've found the BBC a little one sides, sometimes surprisingly so. Though I did notice a slight shift to the more objective when I saw a BBC News 24 clip last night about Israel and Lebanon - a report about Israel trying to create a buffer zone in the hope international forces can occupy it and they can leave it to them, I think?
I meant more informative than MSN, Mal. However, although my experience of international media is limited, I still find the BBC to provide about the best service going, over all. The BBC charter insists on even-handedness, and I believe its reporters strive to tell the most interesting story while remaining noncommittal. I think where any bias does come into play with the BBC would be in what they choose to report - but this still seems fairly even-handed to me. The reports on Lebanon I've seen from the BBC all seem pretty accurate, as far as I can tell, and fairly non-judgemental (although they may report the judgemental comments of others). But a person who only took an interest now might not realise there was more to the story, and might therefore come away believing that Israel's attack on Lebanon was relatively unprovoked. However, I think this is mostly because old news reports are not rehashed every time something new happens. There is an assumption that the viewer has been following along at home, and knows about prior events in the region which the BBC has reported. Unfortunately, the average person fails to take in details ("Oh, more fighting in the Middle East") and therefore doesn't draw the line between prior events and current events. Also, the BBC sees itself more as reporting on public opinion than shaping it (unlike newspapers such as the Sun) - therefore, if politicos make speeches denouncing Israeli involvement in Lebanon, the BBC will report it. This is not bias. They have also reported the opposite viewpoint being expressed - but, as far as I can see, it has mostly only been expressed by America and Israel. Since I have not been following the news much recently, feel free to take everything I say with a pinch of salt. But I have been looking at BBC news reporting on the events in Lebanon since you commented on it previously, Mal, and it just doesn't seem that biased to me. It isn't pushing the Israeli agenda, but I don't think it's pushing anyone else's agenda either.
[quote:237aa58c03="Buzzfloyd"]Could someone explain to me the thinking behind Bush's position (as outlined in the article Sampanna linked to) that it is necessary to build lasting peace, for which purpose a ceasefire would not serve...[/quote:237aa58c03] I don't have time to write a full post today, must head home, but I can reply to this easily enough. The ceasefire would be with Hezbollah, not with the Lebanese goverment. Hezbollah oves no one, nothing. At all. If the Israeli army withdraws at this point, we're back to square one, with Hezbollah using south Lebanon as their playground. There isn't a peace to build here as Hezbollah isn't the entity to build peace *with*. And it won't disarm on itself. Hezbollah's political power relies squarely on keeping it's arms just where they are. In their hands. Lebanon is incapable of taking south Lebanon from Hezbollah. At this point, the international community must step in with a military force to keep the area secure.
[quote:eb083a668c="Roman_K"] Lebanon is incapable of taking south Lebanon from Hezbollah. At this point, the international community must step in with a military force to keep the area secure.[/quote:eb083a668c] Possibly true. Tying this up to the other UN related thread though, international community should mean (according to me) the UN, and not Israel. The ferocity of the attack, and the targeting of civilians brings up a rather ugly word to my mind - genocide. Again, I'm not there, I'm not very well read, so my thoughts probably need to be taken with a pinch of salt. But honestly, sitting on the sidelines, thats what it looks like.
I think that's sort of the trouble sometimes with the modern media, it gives us a feeling that we are sitting on the sidelines when we are not. It's more like sitting on the sidelines twice removed, unless you're actually there. The BBC, or whatever news agency, gets its information from whoever decides to come and speak to them, then we get the information via the BBC (etc). I know it’s a bit cynical and it’s probably the best system we have at the moment, other than actually going there ourselves, but I do think that people sometimes behave and say things a certain way to famous news groups that they wouldn’t to just me, on my own without a camera with a famous logo stuck on the side. Furthermore it takes a certain type of person to approach people with cameras/BBC microphones in the first place. I’m not saying it’s 100% inaccurate, just that the information is sometimes tainted slightly, and twice removed by the time we get it – and possibly censored in some extreme cases where our own troops are involved. I do understand, by the way, that this may be the reason for pinches of salt - but I justed wanted to say what I'm getting at.
Posting for Roman: [quote:b9fa7c191f="Roman_K"]There was no deliberate targeting of civilians, and I find what happened in Qana to be tragic. But of the two military forces in the area, it was Hezbollah that knew the building was full of refugees, and was using it for cover for rocket launching, not the IAF. As for the international community, it ignored Hezbollah for six years. Maybe it did the right thing. Rafik el-Hariri gave us hope. But after he died, that hope died with him. And the international community kept ignoring. So we took our security in our own hands, and we're using every diplomatic tool we have to get the international community to deploy a real interim force. We don't want to stay in Lebanon.[/quote:b9fa7c191f]
I thought this might be of interest. I am a member of Yougov, a polling body frequently used by the main British political parties and broadsheet newspapers. On their site, they have a regular column by John Humphrys, a prominent British journalist, on the political matters of the day. He offers a summary of the situation under discussion, the attitudes that have been expressed about it and why people take those stances. He then asks for opinions. Members can then vote on how much they agree with other members' statements (including how well expressed/written they are) and add their own comment. The top comments are then listed at the end of the week. This is today's article: [quote:60046c5383]War in Lebanon : Is Britain’s Approach Right? Date Posted: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 The war in Lebanon has been going on for more than three weeks now and there is no sign of it ending soon. Both Tony Blair and the American Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, have spoken of their hopes that a ceasefire could be agreed by the end of this week. But the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, said on Monday night: 'There is no ceasefire and there will be no ceasefire in the coming days.' Israel remains determined to pursue its air and ground attack on Lebanon until it can clear the southern part of the country of the Hezbollah militias who have been firing rockets into northern Israel. But despite the huge assault Hezbollah appears still to be strong, still firing rockets and still as determined to defy the Israelis as the Israelis are to destroy them. Tony Blair's approach to the crisis has been controversial. Like everyone else he would like to see an end to the violence as soon as possible. But in two respects his position has been strongly criticised both at home and abroad. In the first place, he has refused throughout to call for an immediate ceasefire. In this he shares the position adopted by President Bush. But it is contrary to the line taken by most of the rest of the international community. It has been reported that even the British foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, wanted him to urge Bush to call for an immediate ceasefire. Mr Blair's justification for his refusal is that it would have been futile to demand an immediate ceasefire because it would not have been achieved. His argument is that because the Israelis are determined not only to secure the return of their two soldiers (whose abduction sparked the crisis) but also to put an end to the rocket attacks on Israel, any call from outside for an immediate ceasefire would have fallen on deaf ears. Furthermore, those vainly making the demand would have lost any influence with the Israeli government. Mr Blair's critics say this is true only up to a point. If the United States had demanded a ceasefire then Israel would have had to think twice. Israel's dependence on America is such that it would be very hard for any Israeli government to ignore a demand made by its main sponsor. If he had called for an immediate ceasefire it would have made it more difficult for the American president not to do so too. Some believe his real reason for holding back was that he didn't want to break ranks with the American president. The other respect in which Mr Blair's policy has been criticised is his refusal to condemn the Israeli military action as 'disproportionate', the word used by many other countries to describe it. Lebanese casualties of Israeli raids are running at about ten times the number of Israeli casualties. Half a million Lebanese have been forced to flee their homes and the Israelis have inflicted massive damage on buildings, roads and bridges in Lebanon. The British Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, has argued in defence of Britain's refusal to condemn Israeli action as disproportionate that making such a statement in public would serve merely to alienate the Israelis and cause them to stop listening to us. However, Jack Straw, her predecessor and still a member of the Cabinet, has made a public statement describing Israeli action as disproportionate and other senior members of the government have been reported anonymously as sharing his view and as being critical in general of the Prime Minister's approach to the crisis. Mr Blair's critics within the Labour Party and beyond are concerned not just about the rights and wrongs of the Prime Minister's position on the crisis but also about the effect it may have on Britain's standing in the Islamic world and on Muslim feeling within Britain. They argue that Britain's involvement in the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq (in both of which countries more British soldiers were killed this week) has already generated very bad feeling in British Muslim communities and in Islamic countries abroad and they worry that Britain's apparently uncritical attitude to Israel's actions in Lebanon will exacerbate those feelings and could lead to more violence both at home and abroad. What is your view of how Tony Blair has handled the crisis in Lebanon? Do you think he was right or wrong not to call for an immediate ceasefire? Do you think his reason for refusing to do so was that he thought it was futile or that he did not want to get out of step with George Bush? Was he right or not to refrain from calling the Israeli action 'disproportionate'? Do you think it would have lessened British influence in Israel if the Prime Minister had said it was disproportionate? Do you yourself think that action has been disproportionate or not? Do you think there is risk that Mr Blair's position will inflame opinion among Muslims both at home and abroad? And how optimistic are you that the violence in Lebanon will end soon? Let us know what you think.[/quote:60046c5383]
And here's one from a couple of weeks ago. [quote:0b55d019a5]Israel and Lebanon: How Serious a Crisis? Date Posted: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 When a foreign office minister compares an evacuation enterprise to Dunkirk it's clear that a major crisis is unfolding. But that is just what Kim Howells did when speaking to the House of Commons this week. He was referring to the escalating violence in Lebanon where ten thousand British nationals and a further fifteen thousand of dual nationality may soon need to be rescued. It is always difficult and controversial to pinpoint the cause of a crisis of this sort: each side says it is the other which started it. But it's clear that the spark of the violence was the action of the Shia militant group, Hizbollah, in making an incursion into Israel last week and abducting two Israeli soldiers. Israel responded massively, bombing civilian areas in Lebanon and its capital Beirut, where it believed Hizbollah supporters were living, destroying key parts of the country's infrastructure and imposing a land, sea and air blockade. Hizbollah reacted by firing Katyusha rockets at civilian targets in northern Israel and longer range missiles at the Israeli city of Haifa. By Monday of this week, 210 people had been killed in Lebanon and 29 in Israel. The numbers are still rising. Israel's case is simply that it has a right to defend itself and that that is what it is doing. There has been a long history of attacks on northern Israel from southern Lebanon. Such was the threat Israel felt from its northern neighbour that it invaded the country (then engaged in its own civil war) in 1978 and 1982, and occupied the southern part of Lebanon until 2000. By then the occupation had become costly and unpopular in Israel. Hizbollah claimed the credit for driving the Israelis out. Since then there has been a stand-off of sorts. Israel refrained from attacking Lebanese civilian structures and Hizbollah drew back from targeting Israeli civilians. In 2004 there was even a deal between the two sides, in which Hizbollah returned a captured Israeli colonel and the bodies of two dead Israeli soldiers and Israel released 30 Lebanese and 420 Palestinian soldiers. It's a matter of speculation why the Hizbollah leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, should have chosen to reignite the conflict at this point. Some commentators suggest that Iran, which helped create and continues to support the organisation, encouraged him to do so to divert attention from its own conflicts with the West over nuclear proliferation. Another explanation is that he chose this moment because Israel was preoccupied with Gaza, where the Hamas organisation had itself captured an Israeli soldier, prompting a re-occupation by Israeli forces. However, even though it seems clear that Hizbollah may have been the immediate cause of the current crisis, Israel's case that it is simply defending itself has not been universally accepted. Far from it. It has been widely accused of acting disproportionately. Furthermore some of Israel's opponents have argued that the actions of Hizbollah and Hamas are themselves acts of self-defence against Israeli aggression. The case they make is twofold. Regarding Lebanon, they claim that over the last thirty years or so Israel has constantly used military force against the country with scant regard for civilian life. And on the Palestinian issue, they argue that Israel remains the aggressor, still occupying Palestinian land seized in the 1967 war and holding around 9,000 Palestinian prisoners in its gaols. So far the international community has been unable to find a common voice to deal with the crisis. At the G8 meeting in St Petersburg the meaning of a joint communiqué was disputed almost as soon as it was issued. President Bush refused to call for a ceasefire, arguing that Israel must be allowed to defend itself against terrorism. Tony Blair's suggestion of an international stabilisation force in southern Lebanon has received a cool reception. The fear is that the violence could escalate further. Observers believe that the recently-elected Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, cannot afford to take a conciliatory line, not least because, as the first Israeli leader in many years not to come from a military background, he has to prove himself. His demands suggest he is not looking for a quick way out. He is calling not only for the release of the two soldiers but also for Hizbollah to be disarmed and the Lebanese army to take control of southern Lebanon. These are big demands. In the first place Lebanon has a fragile government including a Hizbollah member and so it is thought to be highly unlikely that it would have the power to assert military control over the southern part of the country. Furthermore, Hizbollah itself is seen by some military experts as the second or third most competent military force in the region, with possibly 10,000 men under arms and perhaps 15,000 rockets at its disposal. It's also believed to have longer-range missiles, some capable of reaching the Israeli city of Tel Aviv. So disarming it will be no easy matter. The fear instead is that Israel may be tempted into a ground invasion of Lebanon once more and that Hizbollah will start to use its longer-range missiles. Such an escalation could then involve Hizbollah's supporters, Iran and Syria, leading to a much wider Middle East war. Some commentators even argue that this is what both sides may want. Their argument is that neither side is interested in compromise: Hizbollah and its Iranian backers want to destroy Israel, and Israel (so the claim goes) wants a conflict and a victory that will finally allow it to establish a Greater Israel beyond the 1967 borders. With the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan escalating too, the Middle East looks as dangerous a place as it has been for years. What's your view of what's been happening in Lebanon? Do you take the view that Hizbollah is the prime aggressor or not? Do you think it was goaded by Iran or not? Do you think Israel has responded proportionately or not? Do you think Israel's terms for ending its military actions are justifiable or not? What do you think of the reaction of the international community? Was President Bush right or not to refrain from calling for a ceasefire? Do you think the two sides want to escalate the conflict or not? And how dangerous do you think the crisis could become? Let us know your views.[/quote:0b55d019a5]
And more! Sorry for the long posts, but I hope they are of interest to some. Just scroll down if you're not interested. These are letters from Yougov members on the subject of Israel and the current situation there. The views expressed are varied, and some of them are - to my mind - offensive, but definitely interesting! They seem to run the gamut. See what you think. [quote:993865d368]Israel Date Posted: Thursday, July 20, 2006 Gandhi's famous quote "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", comes to mind. I can't help but think that the Israelis were just waiting for the perfect opportunity to start fighting again. It's a shame that Hizbollah gave them the perfect excuse. The EU and the UN must be stronger in its response to the violence, as it is no surprise that Bush is refusing to act. Anon Clearly Hizbollah have acted in the manner to assist old friends, in this case likely to be Iran who have supplied them with all that lovely hardware. Hizbollah know the ground-rules that the Israeli army operates under. The army is comprised of conscripts and the covenant is that they will always be brought home, and if killed the murderers found and executed. So the action of Hizbollah in setting the ambush and kidnapping two soldiers was a deliberate provacation. Whether Hizbollah misread the runes and tea leaves, the force of reaction is typically Israeli, brute force levied liberally to let the whole country know that they are not to be trifled with. As is usual in the Middle East it is the innocent who bear the brunt of the collataral, in this case the non-Shia Lebanese. They, to a cetain extent, must bear the blame for what has happened. When Israel left the south the UN called for all militia's to be disarmed, the Lebanese government and the quasi-occupier, Syria took no action. The Lebanese because they were unable, Hizbollah has a bigger army and better arms. The Syrians obviously for long term political gain, you rein in your attack dog, not kill it. So let them get on with it, the Lebanon is not worth the death of one Brit squaddie, let other NATO/EU nations make the assessment. If Kofi Annan wants a blue-beret force he had better look very far afield. George Hinton The response from Israel has been completely over the top- and probably they have been encouraged by the USA. They are no better than the terrorists they claim to be fighting. Anon I am becoming incresingly dismayed at Israel's action's. Whilst I agree it is every countries right to defend itself against unprovoked attacks, Israel is 'picking' on Lebonon. It's goverment is the result of many agreements and compromises following the ending of there long and bloody civil war. It has been designed to include everyone thus to maintain the peace. Whilst I may agree it's not a perfect solutiuon, Hizbollah keeping a large army, it did seem to be working. It can also be observed that Hizbollah taking two soldiers was a provocation, it did not justify Israel's massive armed response against all of the people of Lebonon. There needs to be a ceasefire and a bufferzone established in Southern Lebonon with International troops. Jon Edwards Without doubt Israel has massively overreacted to the capture of three of its soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon. However the problems in the middle east region are the long standing legacy of British foreign policy. The origins lay in the imperialist character of the policy that demanded the reforming of nation states into structures subservient to British strategic ambitions,and later,those of the succeeding superpower,the USA. In the eyes of many Arabs the creation of Israel after the 1939-45 war was the living and enduring proof of their desparately low status insofar as the victorious western powers were concerned.For a considerable number to be born,to live and to die in poverty in teeming refugee camps has added to that conviction. Nothing that has happened since gives them any reason for optimism that this situation is about to change in the near future. Jim Rogers Here we go again , the middle east is in termoil, I thought that at last the peoples of the middle east were draging themselves into modern times, but alas all they seem to be doing is proving to the west that they are still only one step removed from the desert that they seem hell bent on creating. Austen Sidney Every civillian killed by the Israeli bombing makes another family support Hezbollah. Israel have adopted the wrong tactics by resorting to aerial bombardment of civillian areas. They should have gone for a ground invasion, taking on the terrorists face-to-face and limiting the danger to innocent Lebanese civillians. The Arab world must realise that the defeat of terrorism is also their responsibility, but the Israeli action has offended those we needed for support. If Syria and Iran send support to Lebanon, we are facing World War III and should plan accordingly. 21 I completely agree with the letter above sent by George Hinton. My only addition is, that after almost 4000 years of slavery, moving on and the recent European holocaust I don't blame Israel for ensuring the safety of its population. I sure as hell would want my govenment to do the same. Mo Mo Raisbeck Why should the UN send in any peace keeping force? The so called peace keeping force will not have peace because they will be to busy fighting Hizbollah. Note that Isreal is already fighting Hizbollah, exactly what any peace keeping force is going to have to do anyway. Why should a foriegn nation send any troops to Lebanon to get into a fight that will never end unless Syria and Iran are dealt with. Isreal has a fight on its' hands that they will never win. I do not blame Isreal for their reaction nor do I have pity for the Lebanese who have supported these terrorists or have been supported by these terrorists. If you hide a criminal in your house knowingly and without remorse you are subject to the law and considered a criminal yourself. The Lebanese knew full well that Hizbolla is a Terrorist group and yet they have allowed them in portions of their government. Lebanon is a country both built and supported by Terrorists. If the Lebanese are suffering perhaps they should stop blaming Isreal and start blaming their government. Mark Hadlock It is generally foolish to goad a powerful enemy - which is what Hizbollah appear to have done. Quite why is unclear and may never be known - though it is possible that Iran may have had a part. On the other hand, Israel's response has been totally disproportionate - and shows no evidence of abating. One might even wonder if an Israeli agent provacateur had been behind the original abduction! For the US to suggest that Israel is exercising legitimate self-defence against terrorists is both hypocritical and counter-productive. It does nothing to uphold respect for the US in general, and also undermines its operations in Iraq. Paul Hodgson-Jones I believe the way to end this conflict is for Hizbollah to hand over the two Israeli squaddies, as Ehud Olmert states,for Hizbollah to move north of Beruit or we could just leave Israel to flatten Lebanon. funny how princess tony starts to spout as to what great ideas he has to contain this conflict, but only because Georgie has given him permission Anon I wish to put on record my disgust at the way this current government has behaved over Lebanon. It is no suprise I suppose - Tony Bliar being a George Bush puppet - that we have not condemmed the Death and injury to so many Women and Children. Just to say that I shall not forget, and will never vote for and in fact actively campaign against the Labour Party. Tim I think that it is a pity that the Western world- which believes itself to be better educated and 'more civilized' than the rest of the world, should allow itself to be ruled by people with the mentality of irresponsible toddlers. War can never be justified and neither can terrorism. It is always the innocent and vulnerable members of society that suffer never the perpetrators. The war in Lebanon is particularly unethical,as disproportionate force is being used, weapons such as phosphorous bombs, laser bombs and cluster bombs. Many of these weapons are illegal and should never be used against a civilian population. It makes me sick to my stomach that our PM can condone such atrocities and that so called "civilised" countries cannot find a better way to deal with the problem, than blowing their adversary and all the innocent women and children in their way, to kingdom come. And what is all this talk about Iran? Shouldn't we remember that America is the only country that has ever been irresponsible enough to use an atomic weapon on women and children. But then, of course, people from the East are 'not the same as us' are they? They do not share our 'tender feelings' for the rest of humanity and 100 or, 1,000 of them are not worth 'one of us'. By the way, my deep admiration goes to any Jew who has the courage to stand up against Zionism and say 'not in my name'. Personally, I think extreme nationalism or, fundamentalism in any shape or, form stinks. Shouldn't a nation which has been on the receiving end of similar persecution know better? We should behave with respect and humanity towards all our fellow citizens on this planet. To all you advocates of war - grow up! How can we teach our children to behave well, if all the adults are behaving like mega-bullies in the playground? Isn't it ever so slightly hypocritical to tell them to share and be caring towards one another when they see us behaving so abysmally on every level? Lavinia West A carefully balanced article by John H. Israels's response to hostage-taking is disproportionate and that is an understatement. The number of civilian deaths in Lebanon is witness to that. What Israel seems unable to comprehend is that for every innocent civilian death in Lebanon, they are bringing about a tenfold increase in the recuitment to the ranks of Hizbollah. The US administration is complicit in this - no surprise there with Bush at the helm. But how disappointing it is to see how the UK acquieses to the US on issues like this. The lone voice heard was that of Kim Howells. Mark Penfold I believe this crisis to be very severe. With the invasion of IRAQ leading to a more confident IRAN (who are the main beneficiaries of the IRAQ war as the USA has done their work on Saddam for them) the USA and ISRAEL know the stakes are immense. John Charlesworth The whole situation with Israel makes me wonder if they actually want paece in the region. It seems as if someone, in the Israeli government, is frightened of the silence. Mark Southern Of course these critics deliberately fail to mention that the 1967 war was due to Arab aggression, that Hamas and Hezbollah want to destroy Israel (instead of getting it out of Gaza/West Bank) and that the prisoners are there for attacking/attempting to attack Israelis. Anon There seems to be a thread that runs through many letters regarding Israel and the current war it finds itself in. Many sympathise with one or the other parties in this situation and as history shows this will always be the case. My point is this - Why should Israel be expected to put up with unprovoked attacks over many years and not respond. It's time the left wing in this country faced up to the fact that weakness has never prevented aggression and has only served to encourage it. You don't sit next to a lion then poke it with a stick - you are likely to get mauled. I think that Israel is correct in what they are doing and maybe we should support them. William Anderson I blame religion for all the troubles this world has seen, maybe thats why I'm an athiest. If I had one wish it would not be for fame and fortune, but for religion to be outlawed all over the world. Harsh I know, But oh for a bit of peace and stability. Beaton Glen Firstly I would like to make it clear that Israel as a state has the right to exist and its armed forces have a duty to defend the country. I also feel that the actions of Hizbollah and Hamas have no moral justification. I do have a serious problem with the way the IDF is conducting this campaign. Like the treatment handed out to the Palistinians, punishing the civilian population is, under international law, illegal. There have already been too many "mistakes". It is also immoral and history shows that it only gives succur to those actually at fault. To me the whole situation looks very much like that in Southern Africa 20 years ago. One nation is using force to bully and destablise neighbours, responding to each wave of violence with increased ferocity, whilst treating part of its own population like second class citizens. Israel will never be a secular country. A place refered to as the Holy land by three religions can not. It can and should, however, be a model for its neighbours. Hizbollah would wither and die if the Lebanon was transformed into a vibrant succesful nation. The same is true of Hamas and the Palastinians. Destroying basic infratructure destroys hope and breeds terrorists. The quicker the world stops playing silly powergames by proxy on this part of the world, the quicker it can be brought back from the current cycle of violence and atrosity from both sides. Kevin Mohr Yigal Amir, who killed Yitzhak Rabin in order to destroy the Oslo agreement did indeed change the course of history. Until the religious right of Israel are forced to serve in the front line of the IDF or jailed alongside their Palestinian counterparts we will never see peace. The gulf is not between, muslims, jews and christians but between those who believe that god is compassionate and his commandments are to enable mankind to live together in harmony and those who wish to impose their view of god on others, including as an excuse to grab oil, water and other natural resources or kill, rape, exloit and impoverish their neighbours. Anon As an ex-serviceman, I would have been greatly reassured to know that my government would have responded like Israel's should I have been captured by terrorists. Unfortunately I served in the British Army and knew that I was regarded as nothing more than a war-mongering fascist by most of those now running this country. Hezbollah has been intimidating the state of Israel for decades and must now face the consequences. Whilst I lament the death of innocent Lebanese civilians, Hezbollah must accept responsibility for their deaths as they chose to shelter amongst them. Israel has taken the lead in the global war against terrorism and we must stand firmly behind them if this scourge on civilisation is ever to be removed. Steve[/quote:993865d368]
