The crisis in the Middle East is rapidly reaching dangerous proportions. Unless someone or somebody injects a heavy dose of sanity into the region's affairs immediately, it is likely to escalate into a wider conflict that will make Iraq look like a picnic. The only player perhaps capable of playing this role is the US. But thanks to a lame-duck President, whose credibility at home and abroad is embarrassing, the world's only super power ᠴe natural guarantor of global order ȱ2mains like its leader, ineffective and directionless on the global stage.

The US has most to lose if things go out of hand. Its key interests in the region are oil, Israel, and liberalism - and they are all in jeopardy. Oil is already at a record high, over $77 at the moment due to fears of disruption in case of a wider war. Israel has never been more insecure. Its two biggest enemies, Hamas and Hizbollah are effectively in control in the North and South and are shooting rockets at it from the North and the South.

US attempts to promote democracy and liberalism in the region had made both Hamas and Hezbollah legitimate political forces creating hopes of positive transformation in the two players. Now its own ally, Israel has undermined Palestinian democracy with its military campaign in Gaza and by attacking Lebanon and pounding it mercilessly it is weakening the forces of democracy and strengthening support for Hezbollah.

Israel could have easily engaged in a prisoner exchange with Hamas and Hezbollah as it has done several times in the past, and most recently in 2004, and the matter would have ended there. But Israel's overwhelming response to the capture of its soldiers, at a time when Iraq is on the brink of a civil war and the Iranian nuclear crisis is at its zenith, is undermining all the key pillars of American national interests in the region. However, I do not blame Israel for this crisis, it is doing what it thinks it must to pursue its security and its interests. I am wondering whether the US is doing everything it should in the region to defend its interests.

All players in the region are pursuing self-interest. The ability of Hamas and Hezbollah to attack the invincible military of Israel and score successes, killing and capturing soldiers, and shooting rockets as deep inside Israel as Haifa, must have sent a chill down Israel's spine. It is reacting with overwhelming force out of fear. Israel's future depends on its ability to terrorize the Arab world through superior military power, and it thinks that by punishing innocent Palestinians and Lebanese civilians it can restore that fear and deter future attacks.

Hezbollah, which is under pressure from within Lebanon and the international community to demilitarize, has once again succeeded in presenting itself as the only defense that Lebanon has against Israel. Israel's killing of dozens of Lebanese civilians and bombing of Beirut will merely increase support for Hezbollah, attract more recruits and funding, and increase hatred for Israel. Right now, even the Christians in Lebanon must hate Israel, as their tourism industry suffers because of this new war that Israel is waging against Lebanon.

Iran, thanks to America's foolhardy adventure in Iraq, is rapidly emerging as a regional power, more capable of shaping the political and geopolitical realties in the Middle East than even the US. It is protecting itself from America's pressure on the nuclear issue by creating a dangerous diversion. Already it has succeeded in dividing the G-8, with France and Russia condemning Israel for excessive force while the US justified it.

What is the US doing at the moment? First of all, by justifying Israel's excessive use of force, the US has immediately distanced itself from the very powers it was seeking solidarity with ű and Russia. America's weak response and support of Israel has probably done billions of dollars worth of damage to the public diplomacy campaign that every one thinks is so vital to win the war on terror.

Muslims all across the world are watching a nuclear power supported, armed and funded by the US, bombard and kill dozens of innocent civilians, destroy the economy and infrastructure of Palestine and Lebanon, kidnap dozens of elected Palestinian leaders, bomb their homes even when there are children present, and all US does is provide political cover for Israel in the UN security council and on the world stage. Al Qaeda must be running out of enrollment forms.

The escalation in the region is not in US interests. It strengthens anti-Americanism worldwide and fuels radicalism in the Arab and Muslim world. It also reverses hard earned gains in the region such as fledgling democracies in Palestine and Lebanon. It is a shame that in moments of crisis American leadership does not take decisive steps to safeguard its own interests. The US does not have to abandon Israel to defend its other interests in the region, all it has to do is use its enormous leverage to ensure that Israel's policies are moderate and prudent and safeguard both Israeli and American interests.

There are obviously cases where immediate self-defense iss demanded. But this is different from a suicide bomber blowing up a bus full of civilians.... leading to Israeli calls for revenge and more violence against Palestinian civilians... in what now looks to be a neverending cycle.

I agree that Western guilt for turning their collective backs on the Jews of Europe during world war two motivates a good deal of pro-Israeli feeling, and most people in North America know nothing of Haganah, or Irgun or Avraham Stern who hated the British so much he was willing to fight on the Nazi side in WW2. But I find it fruitless to go back and try to find the root of all this violence. Did it begin with Arab attacks on Jewish settlers between the world wars when jewish immigration dramatically increased to Palestine? Or Jewish attacks on Arabs? Or Jewish attacks on the British (King David Hotel, etc.) Or just cutting the palestinians out of any negotations regarding the Mandate of Palestine? IIRC, the only significant Arab involvement was the Hashemite family.

At this point everyone has blood on their hands. So what do we do now? How can justice be secured without killing any more innocents?

But you underestimate the power of good media manipulation, something the Israelis have been very, VERY good at and the Palestinian side lacking.

Just standng by, being nonviolent, isn't an answer. What I am talking about is massive, concerted, creative and strategic efforts by Palestinians and Israelis to stand up to the violent forces.

This is naive in your opinion. War is so much more sophisticated a plan?

>How did the Afghan war against the Soviets succeed?<<

>Well they did succeed in kicking out the Soviets didnt they? Yes, at a terrible cost...but I dont know a single Afghan who wasnt against the Soviets, and they would never have retreated if the Afghans didnt fight them tooth and nail.<

"Terrible cost" is a gross understatement.

The Soviet Union was bankrupt and staring to fall apart, and in transition (Gorbachev came to power during this time) so they would have had to retreat anyway eventually. Massive civil disobedience that made the country unmanageable would have helped push them out, combined with media savvy, which the Afghans became very good at.

Of course, the interfering outside powers didn't want the Afghans to get independence from the Soviets as much as they wanted the Afghans to kill Russians.

Most of the Mujahedin, incidentally, deliberately targeted military installations and personnel. There were few reports of Russian civilians in Afghanistan being targeted. The Soviets, OTOH, carpet bombed and mined civilian areas quite indiscriminately.

>Hezbollah has been firing Katushka rockets into northern Israel for over a year now without a coordinated response from Israel. From the perspective of the Israelis they are trying to "defend" themselves right now.<

The better question is where did Hezbollah come from? The answer is the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Why do they fire missles? The Israelis regularly violate Lebanese airspace despite ceasefire agreements. There was also no Hamas until Israels occupation of the west bank and gaza.

>>This cycle never ends, unless people intentionally end it and come to see the other side as people with real needs. <<

The cycle would end today if Israel was held to the standards as other nations. The fact of the matter that Israel and its amen corner will make sure that the aggressors will not be held accountable. What people do not understand is that peace with a racist expansionist colonial settler movement is not be possible when the zionist will have nothing less then the complete annihilation of the indigenous population from the Nile to the Euphrates.

ěThe boundaries of Zionist aspiration include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, todayís Jordan, all of Cis-Jordan [West Bank] and the Sinai.î

'I don't understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us(Ben Gurion and the early zionazis were athiests BTW), but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?

-David Ben-Gurion, In conversation with Nahum Goldmann, in 1956; as quoted in The Jewish Paradox: A personal memoir (1978) by Nahum Goldmann

Drm, GRIV, have you read the Richard Cohen piece in the Washington Post? It leaves a lot out, but says some heretofore taboo things for the MSM:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701154.html

Along with a call for Israeli restraint, Cohen says, "The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake."

>But I find it fruitless to go back and try to find the root of all this violence. <

Thats the problem....people do not want to retrace the steps of history and see the evil ideology of zionism for the culprit that it is. If not...this miserable state affairs will continue.

>How can justice be secured without killing any more innocents?<

It cant. Especially in this situation. You are fooling yourself if you think zionists are non-violent and want peace. The only solution is if they follow through on UN resolutions and withdraw to their pre-1967 borders. After nearly 40 years do you see any of sign of them doing that as they start a third world war? They should be dealt with the same way as nazi Germany or fascist Italy.

>But you underestimate the power of good media manipulation, something the Israelis have been very, VERY good at and the Palestinian side lacking.<

I disagree. Media manipulation? Zionist interests run every network there is. What good did the cameras do for Rachel Corrie after she was bulldozed to death in broad daylight? Not a peep out of the politicians. Instead she ends up being called "St.Pancake" by zionist vermin who celebrated her murder. How about 10 year old Muhammed Durrah? He was killed on live TV as his father tried to shield him. The Israelis shot the boy and prevented an ambulance from reaching him while he bled to death in his fathers arms. You honestly believe that the Palestinians have the luxury to stay put and be exterminated while waiting for the rest of world to react after 60 years? Sorry but thats not going to happen, and it shouldnt. Nobody in their right mind would stand by and allow such atrocities, waiting for the right photo op moment.

>War is so much more sophisticated a plan?<

The war was declared a long time ago by the Israelis on the Palestinians, they have 2 choices either allow themselves to be exterminated, or fight back. It worked against the Nazis, why shouldnt it work on their successors?

"What is necessary is cruel and strong reactions. We need precision in time, place, and casualties. If we know the family, we must strike mercilessly, women and children included. Otherwise, the reaction is inefficient. At the place of action, there is no need to distinguish between guilty and innocent." Ben Gurion January 1, 1948 diary entry

A nonviolent approach would require large groups of people, and it won't be easy, particularly since there are Arabs who think all Israelis are zionist vermin and Israelis who think of all Arabs in the same light. It's remarkable how similar the hateful rhetoric is on both sides. Just change the nouns and he hate-mongers are saying the same thing. It's ugly. if someone in power doesn't have the guts to stand up and say, "Enough killing!" it will go on forever and nobody will win. Rachel Corrie didn't give her life to isnpire more violence.

Self-defense is one thing. Revenge is another matter entirely.

DrM - The questions I have for you is: When will the fight be over? Is it possible for there to be an Israel and Palestine as peaceful neighbors?

In this conversation I have never held that Israel holds the moral high ground, I in fact believe that the Palestinians hold that position. However, by continuing to use tactics (defensive, aggressive, terrorist, whatever you want to call them) they lose that position, lose their lives in large numbers and perpetuate the conflict. To me it comes down to the greater issue, that which Hamas is founded on, that which is the dedication to the "oblideration" of Israel and "the Jew." As long as the guiding force within Gaza and the West Bank, as well as in Lebanon is commited to the destruction of the Israelils you can count on the Israelis to keep on dropping 500 pound bombs, to all of our dismay.

--people do not understand is that peace with a racist expansionist colonial settler movement is not be possible when the zionist will have nothing less then the complete annihilation of the indigenous population from the Nile to the Euphrates.--
Statements such as this are beyond misleading. The Israelis have nuclear weapons and an exteremely well trained and equipped army/air force/navy. They are completely equipped to carry out the annihilation that you speak of, but they have not. In fact they gave back the Sinai to the Egyptions and had moved out of Gaza most recently, until the soldier was kidnapped. I do believe that should the Palestinians dedicate themselves to peace, and decide that living with Israel as is, is more important than an armed struggle, the Israelis would respond in kind.
It almost happened once, but at this point I dont believe the leaders exist with the foresight and guts to actually "lead" their people in a more difficult direction, the direction of peace.

>A nonviolent approach would require large groups of people, and it won't be easy, particularly since there are Arabs who think all Israelis are zionist vermin and Israelis who think of all Arabs in the same light.<

I see you're trying to once again to obscure the reality of the conflict. Your ignorance and arrogance is stunning. Arabs, particularly palestinians have every right to hate those who stolen their property and killed thousands of them. Why dont you go tell a holocaust survivor to make nice with nazis and forget all that jazz about gas chambers. You wouldnt dare, but here you are telling the black and brown masses of the world to play nice with their tormentors.

>Rachel Corrie didn't give her life to isnpire more violence. <

She didnt give her life, it was taken away from her when the Israelis murdered her broad daylight. What of her killers?

>Self-defense is one thing. Revenge is another matter entirely.<

And what is self defense? Revenge is only natural when justice has been denied. Example : Israeli soldiers killing a palestinians and getting fined one tenth of a penny. You lazy cafe latter white liberals just dont get it. You are interested in appeasement, not justice.


"We are nonviolent with people who are nonviolent with us."
Malcolm X

> You wouldnt dare, but here you are telling the black and brown masses of the world to play nice with their tormentors. <

No, I'm saying that a nonviolent approach would be more effective in obtaining justice than a ceaseless slaughter on both sides. You seem to only see and hear what you want to hear, which is whatever will incite you to anger.

>Your ignorance and arrogance is stunning.<

Yours is pretty impressive too.

Peace man.

>When will the fight be over?<

The "fight" will be over when Israel is reined in and held accountable for its many crimes against humanity.

>Is it possible for there to be an Israel and Palestine as peaceful neighbors? <

Only when the occupation ends and it retreats to its pre-1967 borders as demanded by international law and UN resolutions. I've already brought this up before but no, we're going to have countries like Iraq being invaded for lies by the usual suspects.

>Statements such as this are beyond misleading. The Israelis have nuclear weapons and an exteremely well trained and equipped army/air force/navy. They are completely equipped to carry out the annihilation that you speak of, but they have not.>

The statement is very true and is widely echoed in Israeli politics and its advocates. They would much rather continue their genocide slowly as per Ben Gurions statements that the old will die and the young will forget. This little pipe dream never materialized for the zionists, but dont be under the false impression that they havent tried annihilation....they've tried everything short of nukes..atleast till now. The Palestinians are just not the type of people who will go silently into the night. The Israelis know if they used nukes that would be the end of them as the entire world would turn against them.

>In fact they gave back the Sinai to the Egyptions and had moved out of Gaza most recently, until the soldier was kidnapped.<

They gave the Sinai back as a trade off by neutralizing Egypt. Both countries get paid billions a year to keep it that way. The so-called withdrawal from Gaza was a sham. They did so because of the demographic bomb in Gaza. More importantly they simply moved settler terrorists to other illegal settlements in East Jerusalem to beef up their presence there, but not before stealing stealing more land for their apartheid wall. They violated the ceasefire with Hamas by killing that Palestinian family on the beach and kidnapping 2 palestinians PRIOR to their soldier being captured. This was not reported in most western media. Surprise surprise.

>I do believe that should the Palestinians dedicate themselves to peace, and decide that living with Israel as is, is more important than an armed struggle, the Israelis would respond in kind.<

You're still operating under the false pretence that Palestinians dont want peace, and that Israel isnt a colonial settler state which refuses to abide by international law. I guess you're afraid somebody will call you "anti-semeite." Israel has never been interested in peace...how could they? By letting some extremist jewish bastards from Brooklyn or Moscow go and build illegal settlements and steal Palestinian land? By destroying civilian infrastructive and blocking humanitarian aid? By bullldozing people to death? But no, Palestinians will be asked to be "non-violent" even as they enter the 40th year of occupation. How would europeans feel if they were the people that had been dispossessed, robbed, murdered and forced into giant open-air prisons whilst their homeland was taken from them? Would they feel anger? Would they want revenge? What if this had gone on for 70 years and they had grown up only ever knowing this crushing poverty and inequality?

I for one would like to think that they would form resistance groups ("terrorists" for all the Neo-con morons), that they would fight for their freedom and against this monster that has robbed them. It is racism by extension to fail to see this, to fail to empathise with the plight of these dispossessed, nationless and utterly powerless people. If the population of a European country were subjected to occupation and a daily grinding down as the Palestinians have, maybe we'd even see suicide bombers. Would they be described as heroes? martyrs? or ěfanatical terrorists blowing themselves up for no reason but unjustified hatred and misguided religious fervourî?
The shoe doesnt fit the other foot it seems.

>No, I'm saying that a nonviolent approach would be more effective in obtaining justice than a ceaseless slaughter on both sides. You seem to only see and hear what you want to hear, which is whatever will incite you to anger.<

What you're saying is philisophical conjecture which only highlights how little you comprehend the nature of this conflict. Sorry but those of us in the reality based community know better then to delude ourselves. with white liberal patronization and obfuscation.

1. Which side is in possession of most of the land?

2. Which side is in possession of the powerful guns?

3. Which side is in possession of the Western military aid

4. Which side is in possession of nmost of the money?

5. Which side has the capacity to make the laws?

6. Which side has the capacity to impose its will upon the other?

In these circumstances, which side should we consider presents the greater threat to the other? The side with all the power or the side with almost none?

DrM - What you dont know that you dont know should stop you from drawing conclusions about whom you speak to.

Your questions and tone make a better case for nonviolence than any case I could make. Best wishes -

Thank you for the "conversation"

>>I dont believe the leaders exist with the foresight and guts to actually "lead" their people in a more difficult direction, the direction of peace.<<

GRIV, Go back to your pansy liberal cafe (Dr. M Reference) and stop your one sided kumbaya nonesense. Always the responsibility is on the side of the more powerful. You can't possibly expect victims to keep playing the victim role forever.
People like you are a danger to society because of your lack of information/adequate education and lack of conscious. People like you can justify stealing candy from a baby.

If I answer the questions you posed DrM, in regards to the British-Indian conflict or the American civil rights movement, it's clear it was not the people who had the guns, or the power to make laws, etc., who won in the end. It was the "victims," who had none of those things and who fought with (quite clever) nonviolence who won in the end.

Granted, in the case of MLK Jr. , he and his were the carrot to the Black Panther's stick. It was eventually clear to the people in power that they could deal with him, or deal wth the Panthers. :D

Call me all the names you want. I'll just add them to my collection (I'm an "anti-semite appeaser," among other things in another forum, and I have been hate-mailed to "go back to Arabia you Atheist," so in other words, I'm a very well-rounded individual). It doesn't hurt me none.

Peace yo.






















Which side is in possession of most of the land?

2. Which side is in possession of the powerful guns?

3. Which side is in possession of the Western military aid

4. Which side is in possession of nmost of the money?

5. Which side has the capacity to make the laws?

6. Which side has the capacity to impose its will upon the other?

In these circumstances, which side should we consider presents the greater threat to the other? The side with all the power or the side with almost none?

>Always the responsibility is on the side of the more powerful. You can't possibly expect victims to keep playing the victim role forever. <

The Nonviolent movement is not about being a victim. The opposite. It's about fighting back, but nonviolently. Almost 60 years of fighting have not forced Israel to be accountable the way every other nation is demanded to be, have not addressed what was done to and taken from the Palestinians, have not made Israel observe the UN resolutions. It hasn't worked. How many more years of killing will it take? What will it take? Nukes?

>>The Nonviolent movement is not about being a victim. The opposite. It's about fighting back, but nonviolently. <<

Non-violence only goes so far but it impractical after a certain point. Would nonviolence have stopped Hitler and Musolinin? Would it have stopped Serbian soldiers from raping Bosnian woman? Rwanda? Ofcourse not. When the aim of one side is total extermination and genocide, you must fight back, and violently so. IMHO a good nazi is dead one.

>Almost 60 years of fighting have not forced Israel to be accountable the way every other nation is demanded to be, have not addressed what was done to and taken from the Palestinians, have not made Israel observe the UN resolutions. It hasn't worked.<

Actually the Israelis have been allowed to run amok largely by the US. What hasnt worked is diplomacy or peace overtures since Israel had absolutely no interest in settling the conflct. They certainly will not abide by UN resolutions which demand their withdrawal from the occupied territories. This is why is necessary....and it worked when Israel when kicked out of Lebanon. You seriously need to sit down and learn what zionism is and what its designs on the region are.

>How many more years of killing will it take? What will it take? Nukes?<

As long the Israelis continue their quest for "eretz yisroel" it will go on, and on. I consider nukes to be un-islamic and a serious threat, but when one side has them and the others dont...you've got a serious problem. Certainly if you have no deterrent you will end up like Iraq, a country which had no WMD but got brutally invaded anyway. North Korea and Iran learned from this and are persuing their own deterrent...and I cant say I completely blame them.

DrM, you make some very good points.

>Actually the Israelis have been allowed to run amok largely by the US.<

And how do you change that? By changing public opinion in the U.S., by getting the Palestinian message across, with facts and ideas. This means working the media, which may seem unseemly, but it's more seemly than the current slaughter.

And yes, I know there are zionists who think God has promised them all this territory and everyone else be damned. And they shout down anyone who might mention that hey, that's Palestinians' ancestral land too. How come they had no say in the carving up of Palestine? How come they have to suffer for the crimes of 20th century Europe?

But there are many Israelis who oppose their government's actions, oppose those plans, and wish to live in peace with Palestinians. There are also many Palestinians who oppose Hamas and its violence and are trying to take a nonviolent, noncooperation route.

How can those peacemakers be empowered on both sides? I don't think violence is going to do it. It just feeds more violence. It empowers the most dangerous elements on every side of the conflict (and that includes those in the U.S.)

For your consideration -- two mainstream pundits speaking out against Israel, and U.S. policy in the region:

Buchanan --
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51116

Dobbs --
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/18/dobbs.july19/index.html

Thanks for the links but I've already read those articles. I would be carefull about reading "worldnetdaily" which is rabid anti-arab neocon website ran by a devotee of Jerry Falwell. I believe the only reason they gave a paleo-conservative like Buchanan a little writing space is to put out the illusion that they have a diverse set of views.

As for Lou Dobbs, the man is a digusting creature...a rabid racist obsessed with immigration, particularly that of Mexicans. Make no mistake about it, while this article appears decent...Dobbs is rabidly pro-Israel and anybody who has seen his show knows that.

Anyway we can move the conversation to the main post on Lebanon.