Bush condones Israels action..

[Korgoth]

CNN is saying that Bush is condoning Israels response, and Israel is also implicating Iran and Syria, along with Lebanon and Hezbolla... So to sum it up, our little buddy israel is going to strike out at all these people, and we are going to come to their rescue once they get in over their heads. **** yeah! I love being Israel's bitch!!!!;(

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Israel reminds me so much of Leeroy Jenkins. Don't you think?

 

[CptStern]

I wouldnt be surprised if it was part of a larger campaign ..the US cant move into syria without breaking international laws so they support israel who just has to claim they're defending themselves

 

[Ome_Vince]

Israel reminds me so much of Leeroy Jenkins. Don't you think?

LEEEEERRROOOOYYYYYYYYY JJEEEEENNKIINNNSSSS!
haha lol

 

[VictimOfScience]

Yeah, Bush in Germany today said that every nation has the right to defend itself against terrorists. Now, if the US is considered a terrorist(whihc by many it is) and the country in question has a doctrine not unlike the Bush doctrine of shoot first before you get shot, then North Korea and many other countries will be attacking us and Israel and more.

Israel definitely has their own agenda here, but what it is exactly is hard to say at this juncture....

 

[Korgoth]

ah shit, it gets worse...

http://today.reuters.com/News/newsA...13394571_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-AHMADINEJAD.xml

 

[Tr0n]

Well it all comes down to Syria. If Syria attacks Israel for them attacking Lebanon, then Iran and many other Islamic nations will attack Israel. That Stratfor thing victim posted says that Israel will possibly attack Syria's airforce.

 

[15357]

Well, thats the US - Israel relationship for you.

 

[Tr0n]

Here's that intel report VictimofScience posted in another thread.

Middle East Crisis: Backgrounder

Israel lives with three realities: geographic, demographic and cultural. Geographically, it is at a permanent disadvantage, lacking strategic depth. It does enjoy the advantage of interior lines -- the ability to move forces rapidly from one front to another. Demographically, it is on the whole outnumbered, although it can achieve local superiority in numbers by choosing the time and place of war. Its greatest advantage is cultural. It has a far greater mastery of the technology and culture of war than its neighbors.

Two of the realities cannot be changed. Nothing can be done about geography or demography. Culture can be changed. It is not inherently the case that Israel will have a technological or operational advantage over its neighbors. The great inherent fear of Israel is that the Arabs will equal or surpass Israeli prowess culturally and therefore militarily. If that were to happen, then all three realities would turn against Israel and Israel might well be at risk.

That is why the capture of Israeli troops, first one in the south, then two in the north, has galvanized Israel. The kidnappings represent a level of Arab tactical prowess that previously was the Israeli domain. They also represent a level of tactical slackness on the Israeli side that was previously the Arab domain. These events hardly represent a fundamental shift in the balance of power. Nevertheless, for a country that depends on its cultural superiority, any tremor in this variable reverberates dramatically. Hamas and Hezbollah have struck the core Israeli nerve. Israel cannot ignore it.

Embedded in Israel's demographic problem is this: Israel has national security requirements that outstrip its manpower base. It can field a sufficient army, but its industrial base cannot supply all of the weapons needed to fight high-intensity conflicts. This means it is always dependent on an outside source for its industrial base and must align its policies with that source. At first this was the Soviets, then France and finally the United States. Israel broke with the Soviets and France when their political demands became too intense. It was after 1967 that it entered into a patron-client relationship with the United States. This relationship is its strength and its weakness. It gives the Israelis the systems they need for national security, but since U.S. and Israeli interests diverge, the relationship constrains Israel's range of action.

During the Cold War, the United States relied on Israel for a critical geopolitical function. The fundamental U.S. interest was Turkey, which controlled the Bosporus and kept the Soviet fleet under control in the Mediterranean. The emergence of Soviet influence in Syria and Iraq -- which was not driven by U.S. support for Israel since the United States did not provide all that much support compared to France -- threatened Turkey with attack from two directions, north and south. Turkey could not survive this. Israel drew Syrian attention away from Turkey by threatening Damascus and drawing forces and Soviet equipment away from the Turkish frontier. Israel helped secure Turkey and turned a Soviet investment into a dry hole.

Once Egypt signed a treaty with Israel and Sinai became a buffer zone, Israel became safe from a full peripheral war -- everyone attacking at the same time. Jordan was not going to launch an attack and Syria by itself could not strike. The danger to Israel became Palestinian operations inside of Israel and the occupied territories and the threat posed from Lebanon by the Syrian-sponsored group Hezbollah.

In 1982, Israel responded to this threat by invading Lebanon. It moved as far north as Beirut and the mountains east and northeast of it. Israel did not invade Beirut proper, since Israeli forces do not like urban warfare as it imposes too high a rate of attrition. But what the Israelis found was low-rate attrition. Throughout their occupation of Lebanon, they were constantly experiencing guerrilla attacks, particularly from Hezbollah.

Hezbollah has two patrons: Syria and Iran. The Syrians have used Hezbollah to pursue their political and business interests in Lebanon. Iran has used Hezbollah for business and ideological reasons. Business interests were the overlapping element. In the interest of business, it became important to Hezbollah, Syria and Iran that an accommodation be reached with Israel. Israel wanted to withdraw from Lebanon in order to end the constant low-level combat and losses.

Israel withdrew in 1988, having reached quiet understandings with Syria that Damascus would take responsibility for Hezbollah, in return for which Israel would not object to Syrian domination of Lebanon. Iran, deep in its war with Iraq, was not in a position to object if it had wanted to. Israel returned to its borders in the north, maintaining a security presence in the south of Lebanon that lasted for several years.

As Lebanon blossomed and Syria's hold on it loosened, Iran also began to increase its regional influence. Its hold on some elements of Hezbollah strengthened, and in recent months, Hezbollah -- aligning itself with Iranian Shiite ideology -- has become more aggressive. Iranian weapons were provided to Hezbollah, and tensions grew along the frontier. This culminated in the capture of two soldiers in the north and the current crisis.

It is difficult to overestimate the impact of the soldier kidnappings on the Israeli psyche. First, while the Israeli military is extremely highly trained, Israel is also a country with mass conscription. Having a soldier kidnapped by Arabs hits every family in the country. The older generation is shocked and outraged that members of the younger generation have been captured and worried that they allowed themselves to be captured; therefore, the younger generation needs to prove it too can defeat the Arabs. This is not a primary driver, but it is a dimension.

The more fundamental issue is this: Israel withdrew from Lebanon in order to escape low-intensity conflict. If Hezbollah is now going to impose low-intensity conflict on Israel's border, the rationale for withdrawal disappears. It is better for Israel to fight deep in Lebanon than inside Israel. If the rockets are going to fall in Israel proper, then moving into a forward posture has no cost to Israel.

From an international standpoint, the Israelis expect to be condemned. These international condemnations, however, are now having the opposite effect of what is intended. The Israeli view is that they will be condemned regardless of what they do. The differential between the condemnation of reprisal attacks and condemnation of a full invasion is not enough to deter more extreme action. If Israel is going to be attacked anyway, it might as well achieve its goals.

Moreover, an invasion of Hezbollah-held territory aligns Israel with the United States. U.S. intelligence has been extremely concerned about the growing activity of Hezbollah, and U.S. relations with Iran are not good. Lebanon is the center of gravity of Hezbollah, and the destruction of Hezbollah capabilities in Lebanon, particularly the command structure, would cripple Hezbollah operations globally in the near future. The United States would very much like to see that happen, but cannot do it itself. Moreover, an Israeli action would enrage the Islamic world, but it would also drive home the limits of Iranian power. Once again, Iran would have dropped Lebanon in the grease, and not been hurt itself. The lesson of Hezbollah would not be lost on the Iraqi Shia -- or so the Bush administration would hope.

Therefore, this is one Israeli action that benefits the United States, and thus helps the immediate situation as well as long-term geopolitical alignments. It realigns the United States and Israel. This also argues that any invasion must be devastating to Hezbollah. It must go deep. It must occupy temporarily. It must shatter Hezbollah.

At this point, the Israelis appear to be unrolling a war plan in this direction. They have blockaded the Lebanese coast. Israeli aircraft are attacking what air power there is in Lebanon, and have attacked Hezbollah and other key command-and-control infrastructure. It would follow that the Israelis will now concentrate on destroying Hezbollah -- and Lebanese -- communications capabilities and attacking munitions dumps, vehicle sites, rocket-storage areas and so forth.

Most important, Israel is calling up its reserves. This is never a symbolic gesture in Israel. All Israelis below middle age are in the reserves and mobilization is costly in every sense of the word. If the Israelis were planning a routine reprisal, they would not be mobilizing. But they are, which means they are planning to do substantially more than retributive airstrikes. The question is what their plan is.

Given the blockade and what appears to be the shape of the airstrikes, it seems to us at the moment the Israelis are planning to go fairly deep into Lebanon. The logical first step is a move to the Litani River in southern Lebanon. But given the missile attacks on Haifa, they will go farther, not only to attack launcher sites, but to get rid of weapons caches. This means a move deep into the Bekaa Valley, the seat of Hezbollah power and the location of plants and facilities. Such a penetration would leave Israeli forces' left flank open, so a move into Bekaa would likely be accompanied by attacks to the west. It would bring the Israelis close to Beirut again.

This leaves Israel's right flank exposed, and that exposure is to Syria. The Israeli doctrine is that leaving Syrian airpower intact while operating in Lebanon is dangerous. Therefore, Israel must at least be considering using its air force to attack Syrian facilities, unless it gets ironclad assurances the Syrians will not intervene in any way. Conversations are going on between Egypt and Syria, and we suspect this is the subject. But Israel would not necessarily object to the opportunity of eliminating Syrian air power as part of its operation, or if Syria chooses, going even further.

At the same time, Israel does not intend to get bogged down in Lebanon again. It will want to go in, wreak havoc, withdraw. That means it will go deeper and faster, and be more devastating, than if it were planning a long-term occupation. It will go in to liquidate Hezbollah and then leave. True, this is no final solution, but for the Israelis, there are no final solutions.

Israeli forces are already in Lebanon. Its special forces are inside identifying targets for airstrikes. We expect numerous air attacks over the next 48 hours, as well as reports of firefights in southern Lebanon. We also expect more rocket attacks on Israel.

It will take several days to mount a full invasion of Lebanon. We would not expect major operations before the weekend at the earliest. If the rocket attacks are taking place, however, Israel might send several brigades to the Litani River almost immediately in order to move the rockets out of range of Haifa. Therefore, we would expect a rapid operation in the next 24-48 hours followed by a larger force later.

At this point, the only thing that can prevent this would be a major intervention by Syria with real guarantees that it would restrain Hezbollah and indications such operations are under way. Syria is the key to a peaceful resolution. Syria must calculate the relative risks, and we expect them to be unwilling to act decisively.

Therefore:

1. Israel cannot tolerate an insurgency on its northern frontier; if there is one, it wants it farther north.

2. It cannot tolerate attacks on Haifa.

3. It cannot endure a crisis of confidence in its military

4. Hezbollah cannot back off of its engagement with Israel.

5. Syria can stop this, but the cost to it stopping it is higher than the cost of letting it go on.

It would appear Israel will invade Lebanon. The global response will be noisy. There will be no substantial international action against Israel. Beirut's tourism and transportation industry, as well as its financial sectors, are very much at risk.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Israel IS justified in its response. It should take whatever actions necessary in self defense. Lebanon has had enough chances with Hezbollah and refuses to enforce the UN mandate to disarm them.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Maybe Israel would like the UN to know about the unofficial nukes its produced.

No one's justified in this. You don't start World War III over a kidnapping. You do what you can to get that man back, not just lash out.

 

[gh0st]

No one's justified in this. You don't start World War III over a kidnapping. You do what you can to get that man back, not just lash out.

world war 1 was started (well, the powder keg was ignited) over 1 mans death. its the world, deal with it.

Israel will **** syria and iran up if they step. its happened before and itll happen again. irans president-with-a-hard-to-spell-name should be shoving his fist in his mouth, cause he's talking dangerous.

 

[Tr0n]

Actually, no. Times have changed and as the articles states above, Israel now'n days is at big disadvantage compared to the 60's and 70's. They can't stand a long war of attrition against the surrounding countries without help. But considering most of our troops are in Iraq, all we can do is give them supplies. Again it's all on Syria.

I will make a thread tomorrow on my predictions.

 

[gh0st]

Actually, no. Times have changed and as the articles states above, Israel now'n days is at big disadvantage compared to the 60's and 70's.

somehow i doubt theyre too terrified about their surrounding neighbors. you underestimate israels military.

and that article doesnt really indicate the are at such a disadvanted. israel beat the chumps when they were a newly formed country with rather little international support. see present.

 

[Tr0n]

No I don't. I never underestimate anything. Except my computer at times...piece of shit comp.

I've studied Israel's military history and I won't lie, they kick a lot of ass when outnumbered, but this is the 21st century. Most of the Islamic countries around Israel has learned from their mistakes from the 6 days war, Suez Crisis, and the 1973 Arab Israeli War. This won't be a walk in the ball park, the Iraq war has proven that. Neither will this.

Fighting back then was more or less close to the same type of fighting during ww2. Now it's all about small squads and urban fighting, which Israel does not want to get bogged down in.

Now a war with Hezbollah, Israel will possibly win. A war with the surrounding Islamic states, will get really dirty. But I don't doubt Israel will win, but I don't doubt they could possibly withdraw and have come to the diplomacy table.

 

[Maxi]

This whole situation would be calmd down if the us stopped supplying Israel with tanks and whatnot. Then the other arab nations would invade and end it once and for all :shh:

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

This whole situation would be calmd down if the us stopped supplying Israel with tanks and whatnot. Then the other arab nations would invade and end it once and for all :shh:

You're an idiot.

 

[Tr0n]

He was joking. You idiot.

Edit: Maybe he wasn't.

 

[Maxi]

You're an idiot.

But it's true, no?

Israel has the most modern military equipment of any of its neighbours. And from what I understand Israel was created by the british after WWII, and is somewhat of a artificial nation. They don't really belong there. I understand why their neighbours hate them. And invading a nation because they kidnap two soldiers? they're starting to become like their big brother, the US of A.

 

[gh0st]

I've studied Israel's military history and I won't lie, they kick a lot of ass when outnumbered, but this is the 21st century. Most of the Islamic countries around Israel has learned from their mistakes from the 6 days war, Suez Crisis, and the 1973 Arab Israeli War. This won't be a walk in the ball park, the Iraq war has proven that. Neither will this.

uhh we pretty much thrashed iraq in what... a day? the occupation is what kills advanced nations. israel, according to your own article, wants nothing of that. they will thrash and then get the **** out, like we should do.

what mistakes are those? getting their ass handed to them?

Fighting back then was more or less close to the same type of fighting during ww2. Now it's all about small squads and urban fighting, which Israel does not want to get bogged down in.

no shit, thanks for the analysis. LOL fighting during ww2. i wasent aware there was ONE type of fighting style in ww2. from the jungles of okinawa, to the inner city fighting in stalingrad, to the wide open fields of kursk, to the desert tank wars, to beach invasions. id wager the barn that you really dont know shit about shit.

Now a war with Hezbollah, Israel will possibly win. A war with the surrounding Islamic states, will get really dirty. But I don't doubt Israel will win, but I don't doubt they could possibly withdraw and have come to the diplomacy table.

the only thing israel cant do is occupy, its too small to do that. they dont give a shit about occupying syria, they will just wipe it off the map.

 

[Ome_Vince]

But it's true, no?

Israel has the most modern military equipment of any of its neighbours. And from what I understand Israel was created by the british after WWII, and is somewhat of a artificial nation. They don't really belong there. I understand why their neighbours hate them. And invading a nation because they kidnap two soldiers? they're starting to become like their big brother, the US of A.

Uhm, Israeli's kicked the British out, and then the UN declared Israel, over the Jews that did belong and originate from there.
Airlifts brought Jews from Europe and Africa into Israel after that.
Ever since then Israel's land has expanded due to the various wars in which Arabic nations wanted to destroy Israel.

As for this whole situation, i dont think Israel's actions were very smart (and i dont support them), but i can understand them.
An army is there to protect your people, if neighbouring countries/organisations kidnap people and/or attack your country with rocket attacks, it is the armies duty to protect its country.

Should they sit back and endure constant rocket attacks? and various kidnappings? A part of me can understand their frustration.
Yet this invasion ony hurts/kills civilians so i dont support it.

As for Hezbollah, it is kind of "interesting" how the Lebanese government was urging them to disarm, and then "all of a sudden" they attack Israel trying to provoke an attack.
Now Hezbollah's existance will probably be supported again.

I'm still dazzled at how this situation could have gone downhill so fast :S

 

[Tr0n]

uhh we pretty much thrashed iraq in what... a day? the occupation is what kills advanced nations. israel, according to your own article, wants nothing of that. they will thrash and then get the **** out, like we should do.

what mistakes are those? getting their ass handed to them?

Yes exactly that. Also if we thrashed Iraq why are we still fighting there? Oh wait, the "War on terrorism" is still going on. Also they will possibly have to occupy it. You forget how terrorist cells work and you forget the other countries getting involved

no shit, thanks for the analysis. LOL fighting during ww2. i wasent aware there was ONE type of fighting style in ww2. from the jungles of okinawa, to the inner city fighting in stalingrad, to the wide open fields of kursk, to the desert tank wars, to beach invasions. id wager the barn that you really dont know shit about shit.

There was a general type of fighting tactic I believe it was Maneuver warfare and Conventional warfare. Basically instead of deploying in hotspots and mostly using small squad tactics they did something along the lines of:

||||||||||||||||||||------> |
Invasion force ||||------> | Enemy
||||||||||||||||||||------> |

I hope that kinds shows what I'm talking about. I'm not good at ascii. Like the european theater. They landed on normandy and basically pushed all the way into germany. They used small squad tactics, but rarely. Now'n days all the focus is on small squads and not big ass invasion forces.

the only thing israel cant do is occupy, its too small to do that. they dont give a shit about occupying syria, they will just wipe it off the map.

Again they might have to if other countries get involved. Which is what I'm trying to say. You don't fight a massive war and not occupy territory. Again like I said, if they're just fighting Hezbollah they will do what you said and I said. They will go in tear up the place and haul ass out, but that's IF other countries don't get involved. During the 6 day and Arab Israeli War, Israel had to occupy land. Hell they still are occupied in the land they got from those two wars. That's how Israel got as big as it did.

 

[gh0st]

Yes exactly that. Also if we thrashed Iraq why are we still fighting there? Oh wait, the "War on terrorism" is still going on. Also they will possibly have to occupy it. You forget how terrorist cells work and you forget the other countries getting involved

we are bogged down in iraq BECAUSE we are occupying them. we smashed saddams conventional army in days because we are so much better than them. israel will do the same. and no, they do not "have" to do anything you say.

Again they might have to if other countries get involved.

why

Which is what I'm trying to say. You don't fight a massive war and not occupy territory.

why

Again like I said, if they're just fighting Hezbollah they will do what you said and I said.

invalidates all your previous points. i think its pretty obvious what they are doing.

They will go in tear up the place and haul ass out, but that's IF other countries don't get involved.

see first why

During the 6 day and Arab Israeli War, Israel had to occupy land. Hell they still are occupied in the land they got from those two wars. That's how Israel got as big as it did.

there is a difference between siezing land thru a combination diplomatic/military approach, and occupying hostile territory where there is an active and effective insurgency. obviously there wasent a very effective one in the areas israel gained during that war.

 

[Tr0n]

With all the why's it's simple. If you don't occupy the land behind you, you will be flanked. Also how does that invalidate my posts? I said that there is a possiblity of other countries getting into the war from the start. You're the one that stated if other countries get involved Israel will "kick their asses". That's why I said "If it's a war with Hezbollah, then they will possibly win, if it's a war with the surrounding Islamic nations it will get dirty". So no it doesn't.

 

[15357]

If you don't occupy the land behind you, you will be flanked.

Not necessarely, no. There has to be a remaining hostile force to occupy the land behind, and you can just make a region inhabitable. (IE, chemical agents)

 

[Mr Stabby]

I would be surprised if Bush didn't condone the actions of Israel

I used to agree with Israel in it's 'anti-terrorist' actions, but they have gone too far now.

 

[Maxi]

Invading a COUNTRY isn't really anti terrorist actions. It's an act of war.

 

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Invading a COUNTRY isn't really anti terrorist actions. It's an act of war.

What about it being both?
If I remember correctly, the invasion of Afghanistan proved very succsesfull in the effort of destroying Al qaeda.

 

[mortiz]

Isreal's military might be superior to Syria's and maybe even Iran's, but certain countries in the Middle-East have made it clear that they don't mind using Terrorist activity in order to "win a war", expect the problems that Isreal have been having surrounding Gaza to increase a 1000 fold if they do go to war with Syria or Iran.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

But it's true, no?

Israel has the most modern military equipment of any of its neighbours. And from what I understand Israel was created by the british after WWII, and is somewhat of a artificial nation. They don't really belong there. I understand why their neighbours hate them. And invading a nation because they kidnap two soldiers? they're starting to become like their big brother, the US of A.

The thing is, judging by what a lot of the states around them have said in the past, I can see a large amount of Israeli population would be put to the sword, so to speak. There's that much hate. As much as I don't support the wars going on down there, I don't think allowing the execution of a large number of people in such a way is a good thing.

It's a lose-lose situation. Everyone's in the wrong.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Glo]

world war 1 was started (well, the powder keg was ignited) over 1 mans death. its the world, deal with it.

Israel will **** syria and iran up if they step. its happened before and itll happen again. irans president-with-a-hard-to-spell-name should be shoving his fist in his mouth, cause he's talking dangerous.

while(1) {
respect++;
}

 

[Tr0n]

Not necessarely, no. There has to be a remaining hostile force to occupy the land behind, and you can just make a region inhabitable. (IE, chemical agents)

For one, no one is going to use chemcial weapons, and two there is still going to be hostile forces. So yes.

 

[Korgoth]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,1820570,00.html

Seriously, this is the most rediculous "retaliation" I've ever see or heard of. Come on people, wake the hell up, this is sensless and will only end is useless bloodshed, if not worse, mass murder.

 

[DaMaN]

"Khallas, this is 2006, why can't we just talk at a table, why are they bombing us?". - Lebanese student

-DaMaN

 

[gh0st]

With all the why's it's simple. If you don't occupy the land behind you, you will be flanked. Also how does that invalidate my posts? I said that there is a possiblity of other countries getting into the war from the start. You're the one that stated if other countries get involved Israel will "kick their asses". That's why I said "If it's a war with Hezbollah, then they will possibly win, if it's a war with the surrounding Islamic nations it will get dirty". So no it doesn't.

who will flank them? the sea? maybe greece will send some triremes to take israel out.

 

[Korgoth]

Cnn was just talking about hezbollah television which they said was banned here in the U.S.??? Does anyone know why? And what the hell happened to free speech and free press? Who cares what they report, seriously, where is our sonstitution?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Cnn was just talking about hezbollah television which they said was banned here in the U.S.??? Does anyone know why? And what the hell happened to free speech and free press? Who cares what they report, seriously, where is our sonstitution?

Way to believe what CNN says without looking into it yourself. No, it's not banned. Hezbollah IS on the US Terrorist Group listing, but its sattelite channel was not banned when it was placed there. This was even a talking point when it happened.

However, the station owners THEMSELVES decided to pull it, using THEIR freedom to do so. There is no 'ban' though, there's no way to legally do so.

"Secretary of State Colin Powell didn't ban Hezbollah's satellite TV station Al-Manar from the United States when he added it to the federal Terrorist Exclusion List on Dec. 17. But the edict took on that appearance when it coincided with the decision of station's satellite provider in North America to unplug it."

 

[DaMaN]

I'd like to go a bit nuts on this topic if I may:

There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for Israel's attacks, nor any justification for Bush condoning them.

Firstly, legalities. Article 2 of international law states:

"...that all States take no actions aimed at military intervention and occupation, forcible change in or undermining of the socio-political system of States, destabilization and overthrow of the their Governments and, in particular, initiate no military action to that end under any pretext whatsoever and cease forthwith any such action already in progress."

Consider that Israel has seized 64 Hamas elected officials (government), claiming that "the arrests of its officials Thursday was intended to undercut the group's ability to carry out attacks." (Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060629.w2gaza0629/BNStory/International/ ). This is directly against Article 2 of International Law. (Also, please note that Hamas currently had issued a cease-fire, and hadn't attacked Israel for nearly a year, making their reason for the officials arrests without merit).

The Israeli military said 64 Hamas officials, including the deputy prime minister, were arrested in the early-morning raid in the West Bank. In all, eight of Hamas' 23 Cabinet ministers and 20 of its 72 lawmakers were rounded up, Israeli and Palestinian officials said.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said the officials were not taken as bargaining chips for Cpl. Shalit's release, but because Israel holds Hamas responsible for attacks against it.

"The arrests of these Hamas officials ... is part of a campaign against a terrorist organization that has escalated its war of terror against Israeli civilians," Mr. Regev said.

(Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060629.w2gaza0629/BNStory/International/ )
Note that the officials were NOT taken as bargaining chips but because Israel holds Hamas responsible for attacks against it. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." (Source: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html ) This arrest is not only arbitrary, it's by another, invading country.
Also note that the so-called "war of terror" Hamas is alleged to be waging against Israeli civilians has no merit here, as the kidnapping was one of a soldier, and no evidence exists for the kidnapping to be linked to Hamas.


Next, in case anybody thought that the kidnapping of one Israeli soldier was justification, note that a Palestinian group has one Isreali, a solder caught on Palestinian land and enforcing an illegal occupation, while the Israeli government has over 9,000 Palestinians in jail, many without charges or trial, many being women and children, and many being tortured. (Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." )

This is hardly isolated, an example that very clearly outlines the plight of Palestinians is shown below:
When Palestinians voted in their current government, 15 of the 132 Palestinians who won seats were in jails, 14 being held in Israeli jails. 11 were affiliated with Hamas, 3 with Fateh, and one with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

"The election of 15 prisoners as part of the Palestinian Legislative Council is an appropriate reflection of the era Palestinian politics finds itself in. As Israel quite openly declares that it will unilaterally impose its final borders upon the Palestinians; and as it becomes clearer to the world that the areas left to the Palestinians will be nothing less than fragmented walled-in ghettos, surrounded by settlements, checkpoints, unmanned drones, watchtowers, razor wire, and trenches, the existence of 15 prisoners as the face of the Palestinian political leadership is a fitting symbol for what the Palestinian people truly are - an imprisoned nation, fighting for their freedom." - TOUFIC HADDAD (Source: http://www.labournet.net/world/0602/palpris1.html )
Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives."


So, I believe I have proven that not only is Israel unjustified in its attacks for its one kidnapped soldier, it is unjustified in seizing the Palestinian government, and is breaking (and has broken) several Human Rights in the process.


Next, Bush condoning Israels action.

Despite its so-called "war on terror", the Bush administration condones the acts of terrorism being committed by Israel. The very definition of Terrorism states that "Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, or threat of violence to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, or personal demands." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism ). Israel's arrest of Palestinian government officials, to say nothing of bombing airports, bridges, hospitals, schools, streets and almost anything else, is most certainly a strategy of using violence to cause disruption and ultimately to bring about compliance with specific political demands, namely, that they release their one soldier.

But the Bush administrations support of Israel is in no way new. Since Bush took office he has blindly supported a:

"mass extermination” program against the Palestinian population and carried out under the guise of “self defense and rooting out terrorism”- implemented by the Jewish state and protected by the government that is supposed to be the "the keeper of justice and morality" in our world.

(Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11519 )

Every day in the occupied territories (Palestine) brings death and destruction to the Palestinian nation, already suffering extreme poverty following international aid cuts and strict measures by the Jewish state which dealt a severe blow to the already fragile Palestinian economy.

And still the Bush administration insists on its blind support to the State of Israel.

"Israel has the right to defend itself," contends President George W. Bush, without even blushing, the editorial adds.

The white house denounces “terrorism” everywhere while it condones Israel’s terror acts and crimes against Palestinians.

(Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11519)

So it should come as no great surprise when Bush states that "Israel has the right to defend itself" from the kidnapping of one soldier.

The Israeli soldier held hostage must be returned "if we really want the situation to settle down,'' said Bush, also calling on the Syrian government "to be held to account'' for housing the militant wing of Hamas.

Source: ( http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...0,2959486.story?coll=chi-homepagepromo440-fea )

Funny he should be so concerned over one Israeli soldier, when Israel holds over 9,000 Palestinians in jail. Not to mention, of course, the more than 65,000 prisoners arrested during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Though some have been freed, 108 died in U.S. jails, while 13,514 are still being held.

"There are a group of terrorists who want to stop the advance of peace,'' Bush said. "Things looked positive, and terrorists stepped up… The militant arm of Hamas doesn't want there to be peace."

Source: ( http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...0,2959486.story?coll=chi-homepagepromo440-fea )

Once again, funny that the "militant arm of Hamas", though it "doesn't want there to be peace", has been the one organizing around cease-fires for quite a while:
In May, 2003 a cease-fire agreement between Hamas and Israel was set out by Hamas and the present Palestinian prime minister, Abu Mazen. Three demands were made: that Israel stops attacks against Palestinians, free Palestinian prisoners, and withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza. Israel refused the offer.
When Hamas were elected into government, they observed a cease-fire that lasted nearly a year.
During the Hamas-led government's cease-fire, it was an Israeli boat that violated the cease-fire when it fired shells onto northern Gaza beach in June: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-06-15-hamas_x.htm
Afterwards, Hamas negotiated the cease-fire's resumption, but the cease-fire was shortly broken, again by Israel: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/09/mideast/
In June, shortly before the unjustified attacks against Palestine by Israel, another cease-fire was organized, again by Hamas: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1665181.htm which was then broken when one soldier was kidnapped.
Again, Hamas requesting the cease-fire: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202635,00.html but again Israel refused.


So which country is the one that doesn't want peace?

It seems fairly obvious that the United States is NOT fighting a "war on terror" but supporting and fighting a "war of terror".

And as CptStern has already stated:

I wouldnt be surprised if it was part of a larger campaign ..the US cant move into syria without breaking international laws so they support israel who just has to claim they're defending themselves

-DaMaN

 

[Ome_Vince]

in case anybody thought that the kidnapping of one Israeli soldier was justification, note that a Palestinian group has one Isreali, a solder caught on Palestinian land and enforcing an illegal occupation, while the Israeli government has over 9,000 Palestinians in jail,

I dont know which news you've read, but the Hamas tunneled its way into israeli territory and then kidnapped this soldier...

Very interesting post, though you're not looking at it objectively. Hamas wants peace but stages suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, daily rocket attacks on Gaza, and wtf is Hizbollah doing kidnapping Isreali soldiers from within Israel and launching rockets on Haifa.

I'll post a nice post later on, tired and have to work now

In the meenwhile, why dont you watch at what Hamas has to say in its own words
You'll see how much "peace" they want....

 

[DaMaN]

in case anybody thought that the kidnapping of one Israeli soldier was justification, note that a Palestinian group has one Isreali, a solder caught on Palestinian land and enforcing an illegal occupation, while the Israeli government has over 9,000 Palestinians in jail,

I dont know which news you've read, but the Hamas tunneled its way into israeli territory and then kidnapped this soldier...

Ah, thanks for pointing out the article. It seems I was mis-informed. Even so, the capture of one soldier is not justification for airstrikes, bombings of bridges, pipelines, and electricity stations, or for the kidnapping of 64 members of Palestinian government. Especially when "Mr Meshaal said Corporal Shalit would be released in return for the release of some of the 9,000 Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons". (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1817266,00.html )

Very interesting post, though you're not looking at it objectively. Hamas wants peace but stages suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, daily rocket attacks on Gaza, and wtf is Hizbollah doing kidnapping Isreali soldiers from within Israel and launching rockets on Haifa.

Thanks! I'm not sure how I'm not looking at it objectively - international law seems pretty clear and objective to me.

Again, I'd like to point out that since their election, I have found no evidence for a Hamas-staged suicide bombing. The Tel Aviv bombing in April has been claimed by Islamic Jihad, as CBC records:

Even though the militant group Islamic Jihad has claimed responsibility for Monday's attack, Israel says it blames the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority because it did not denounce the bombing.

(Source: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/04/18/israel-hamas060418.html?ref=rss )

I'm unsure where daily rocket attacks come in. The only rocket attack i've been able to find is this one here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50921 where Hamas took credit for a rocket launched into an Israeli high school. However, this attack was launched after Israel had invaded Gaza.

As for Hezbollah, the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers is not unprecidented. "Hezbollah captured three Israeli soldiers in 2000. They died during the operation, but four years later, the group was able to exchange their bodies for 430 Palestinians and Lebanese held in Israeli jails." (Source: http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/9911/Hezbollah_kidnaps_Israeli_soldiers ). From this past kidnapping, it is evident that the current capture is once again only to negotiate release of Palestinians and Lebanese held in Israeli jails. Indeed, the leader of Hezbollah stated: ""No military operation will return them," Nasrallah told a news conference in Beirut. "The prisoners will not be returned except through one way: indirect negotiations and a trade."" (Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/737634.html ) Israel responded to "indirect negotiations and a trade" by invading Lebanon with soldiers, tanks, and airstrikes. During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Hezbollah did fire into Israeli cities in much the same fasion as Israel had launched attacks against Lebanon cities.

I'll post a nice post later on, tired and have to work now

Cool! I look forward to it!

In the meenwhile, why dont you watch at what Hamas has to say in its own words
You'll see how much "peace" they want....

Hamas does have extremely violent actions, but their demands are fairly clear: "We do not have any feelings of animosity toward Jews. We do not wish to throw them into the sea. All we seek is to be given our land back, not to harm anybody." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas ).
In their own words: "We will not leave until you leave the Muslim countries" (Source: http://www.pmw.org.il/tv-hamas.htm ).

I support the struggle of Palestinians, because it is a struggle against an occupying nation: Israel.

In 1947, following increasing levels of violence together with unsuccessful efforts to reconcile the Jewish and Arab populations, the British government decided to withdraw from the Palestine Mandate. The UN General Assembly approved the 1947 UN Partition Plan dividing the territory into two states, with the Jewish area consisting of roughly 55% of the land, and the Arab area roughly 45%. Jerusalem was planned to be an international region administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status.

Immediately following the adoption of the Partition Plan by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947, David Ben-Gurion tentatively accepted the partition, while the Arab League rejected it. Attacks on civilians by both sides soon turned into widespread fighting between Arabs and Jews, this civil war being the first "phase" of the 1948 War of Independence.

On May 14, 1948, before the expiry of the British Mandate of Palestine at 5pm on May 15, 1948, the State of Israel was proclaimed.

What was once all Palestine has been occupied by the State of Israel. Israel then expanded its boarders beyond the initial "Partition Plan" , displacing 711,000 of the Arab population already living there.

What was once the fairly large land of Palestine:

Has now been relegated into the miniscule portions of the West Bank and Gaza:

This struggle is adequetly depicted by the chief of Hamas' political bureau, Khalid Meshaal:

Our message to the Israelis is this: We do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and his messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him), to be respected and protected.

Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us — our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people

-DaMaN

P.S. That I support the Palestinian struggle does not neccecarially mean I support ALL Palestinian actions.