Blogs More Accurate Than MSM On Qana

Several blogs, including Michelle Malkin, Confederate Yankee, my post here, and others took an objective view of recent events in Qana. And I believe there's much more to be exposed on the MSM's horrific coverage of the war in Lebanon.

For now the MSM is eating crow for buying into the Hezbollah hype.

A Tyre hospital on Thursday revised the number of casualties resulting from Israel's air strike on the south Lebanese village of Qana from 52 down to 28.

Comments

[xxx]

In an event that would have been unthinkable a few months ago, in this country where politics is locked into religious lines, the Maronite Catholic patriarch — the spiritual leader of the most pro-Western populace — convened a meeting this week of religious leaders of other communities, Shiite and Sunni Muslims and several varieties of Christians, resulting in a statement of solidarity and photographs in Wednesday’s newspapers. Their joint statement, condemning the Israeli “aggression,” hailed “the resistance, mainly led by Hezbollah, which represents one of the sections of society.”

[xxx]

PS,

The previous paragraph is from the ultra left liberal New York Times, obviously with its anti-Israeli bias patently evident....

Which is kinda funny, Punch being a jew and all.

[Dan]

Which is kinda funny

Funny? Not at all, since the NY Times' most notorius moment was their failure to report on the holocaust. Study your media history and come to understand the real Left.

[xxx]

Oh Dan, what's next, Tom Friedman is really a palestinian agent? He's not a "real" jew because he grew up in the Midwest instead of the Northeast?

Everyone, everywhere failed to address the holocaust as it was occuring, the media, the governments of Europe, our government and the allied forces.

Punch Sulzberger is not a self hating jew no matter how much you want that to be true in order to discredit anything the NYTimes might print that does not reflect the neocon view of Israel.

[Dan]

Punch Sulzberger is not a self hating jew

I didn't say he was. What he hates is America. One need only read the recent commencement address the "to the manor born" idiot gave to know that.

[xxx]

Your reaction is sooo typical, instead of having any reaction to the actual report...that the Catholics in Lebanon are now criticizing Israel and supporting Hezbollah, the best you can do is say that Punch Sulzberger hates America.

You guys are always asking the wrong questions. The right question to ask about Hezbollah is WHY they have civilian support. Do you suppose that nobody knows who is Hezbollah and who isn't? That any Hezbollah facilites that are housed within the civilian population are not done so with the approval of those civilians?

Thus, the issue isn't that these civilains aren't innocent, but WHY do the civilains support Hezbollah.

When you have an armed group, call them what you want, terrorists, insurgents, freedom fighters or whatever that has substantial support among the civilian population in which it resides, whose members are taken from the cvilian population in which it resides then you have but two choices: kill everyone in the area indiscriminataly or, the much, much, much more difficult choice, attempt to address and defuse the REASONS why they have support.

This is why what Israel is doing in Lebanon is not going to help in the long run. It is doubtful Israel can kill every Hezbollah member, and Israel has already taken a HUGE hit internationally, they don't care about that if they can destroy Hezbollah, but it is unlikely they can, why else do you think they've changed their stance on the cease fire that Tony Blair is trying to put together? As the other article states, even if they get 90% of Hezbollah, Hezbollah still claims victory over the Zionist aggressors, so what does that create? MORE Hezbollah fighters to take the place of the ones you just killed, MORE civilian support of the group not less...

Forget about the killing of innocent Lebanese or making a million of them homeless or doing grave damage to what was an emerging secular state not dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

This level of mayhem will just get you a short term fix. Hezbollah will regroup, if not in Southern Lebanon, somewhere else, they will get more money for more rockets and in 5 years or 10 years Israel will be right back where she started because the root cause is totally ignored.

We cannot take over every country in the ME that is hostile to Israel, we can't even manage the situation in Iraq which our top general just said is a de facto civil war, therefore, we cannot take over Iran, Syria and Lebanon, we cannot cut off the flow of money to these groups.

So to me, the rational answer for Israel's long term security is not to try and kill as many of your enemies as possible but try and diffuse them and while there are undoubtedly many who will never let go of the idea of destroying Israel, most arab militants and arab states would be willing for a fair compromise.

In my opinion.

[Phoenix]

"......on the MSM's horrific coverage of the war in Lebanon."

No kidding. The disconnect from Internet to TV is so vast it makes your head spin.

[old trooper]

Hey XXX, ever been to the Middle East? Ever lived there?

[Dan]

most arab militants and arab states would be willing for a fair compromise.

But you overlook a critical reality. I agree that the "ultimate solution," pardon the phrasing, to this problem is economic, as well as political. Hezbollah is attractive to the citizens, not because they are born wanting to kill Jews, but because Iran and Syria, via Hezbollah, provide them with their daily bread and sense of empowerment - however misguided.

But, here's the primary issue - primary because it must be addressed first. While Libs would fume and fret over Arabs they seek to moderate, the hardcore haters spent six years building a significant military threat - and they did it while UNFIL was on guard?? lol What a joke. It would take a very minor improvement in Hez's rocketry with the addition of either Syrian chem, or one day Iran's nuke warheads to all but make Israel a thing of the past. Consequently, the military wing of Islamo-fascism must be destroyed first.

Think of it as an alcoholic. There are often underlying personality issues which must be addressed for an individual to heal. But so long as they are drunk, any effort to "reform" always falls flat. Radical Islam is drunk with its perception of its own power as realized through terrorism and military strength. I believe that it must be stripped away, in effect, breaking them down, before they will welcome the economic and political reform which will ultimately lead to peace.

The Left and the Right don't really disagree on what is needed to change geo-political dynamics. Where we disagree is on what must be done first. Though many on the Left would prefer force never be used at all. No Pain, no gain ... I thought you Libs were good at feeling pain? What better opportunity to empathize with a people than while their country is being destroyed, so that it can be built back up.

Sure it's ugly. But unchecked and quickly creeping radical Islam is far uglier in the end, to be sure.

[xxx]

I believe that it must be stripped away, in effect, breaking them down, before they will welcome the economic and political reform which will ultimately lead to peace.
--------------------

I know you do, but this is the strategy that Israel has been using for 60 years...squeeze them until they finally give up and come to the negotiating table basically with their hat in the their hand, except this hasn't happened. So, it just seems irrational to me that 60 years of the same strategy having produced no positive results would encourage anyone to continue pursuing the same strategy.

How did they get peace with Jordan and Egypt? They didn't invade the countries, bomb them back to the stoneage, they gave them a BIG CARROT and in return, they got officially recognized and they got, even now, countries that give the most muted criticizm in the ME of Israeli actions. This seems like a good deal, it looks to me like land for peace worked well in this situation and it would work in the Palestinian situation as well IF Israel makes them a fair offer, which, again in my opinion the ultimate Oslo Accord was insignable, no agreement to remove or stop building settlements and a map of the Palestinion territory that would make Tom DeLay blush.

[rwilymz]

"Your reaction is sooo typical"

So ... the person who claims it is inappropriate to call a non-conforming jew "self-hating" is turning around and doing the same sort of thing on some other individual.

I see.

"instead of having any reaction to the actual report...that the Catholics in Lebanon are now criticizing Israel and supporting Hezbollah..."

It's not difficult to figure out. Hezbollah builds roads and bridges, then fires across the Israeli border to bring the Israelis in, the Israelis aren't there to have hummus with the Saeeds and they break the roads and bridges ... the locals are annoyed at not having roads and bridges. Whoa! stop the presses.

"You guys are always asking the wrong questions."

?

"The right question to ask about Hezbollah is WHY they have civilian support."

They brought money in to build roads and bridges, which the Lebanese government couldn't do, because the Lebanese government is saddled with the responsibility of doing thing the [more or less] legitimate way, while Hezbollah isn't. The two-decade presence of the Syrian army in Hezbollah-controlled areas sorta forestalled any attempt by the Lebanese government from doing anything in southern Lebanon ANYway. So Lebanon == impotent; Hezbollah == progress. Who are the locals going to side with?

Bait-n-switch in international politics.

But, "you weenies are always asking the wrong questions". The right questions to ask is:
1] who is fronting the money Hezbollah is spending like water?
2] why are they fronting it?

"Do you suppose that nobody knows who is Hezbollah and who isn't? That any Hezbollah facilites that are housed within the civilian population are not done so with the approval of those civilians?"

Not a chance in hell.

But if you're going to claim that you are surprised by the next logical step in the evolution of the politics, then you're going to advertise yourself as a grade-A ignoramus.

"you have but two choices: kill everyone in the area indiscriminataly or, the much, much, much more difficult choice, attempt to address and defuse the REASONS why they have support"

You know the words, but you can't sing the melody.

The "REASONS" to defuse are ... again...? Because Israel creates pissed-off groups of rabble by their actions? or -- since pissed-off groups of rabble have always existed in the area and have only recently come into the wherewithal to support militarism with modern weaponry? or the few folks fronting the money to provide pissed-off rabble with the modern weaponry to fight and the further money to build the infrastructure that -- surprise surprise -- the formal government is being prevented from providing themselves?

"This is why what Israel is doing in Lebanon is not going to help in the long run"

This is why what Israel is doing in Lebanon is not addressing the real problem in the first place.

"Israel has already taken a HUGE hit internationally"

1] So what else is new?
2] not so huge as '82, '73, '67, '56, '48
3] not so huge as Nasrallah expected

"Hezbollah still claims victory over the Zionist aggressors, so what does that create? MORE Hezbollah fighters"

You still aren't getting this. Pissing off locals only creates ARMED pissed off locals if somebody ELSE arms them.

Israel's actions against the proxies is I.R.R.E.L.E.V.A.N.T.

"This level of mayhem will just get you a short term fix. Hezbollah will regroup"

You weenies are always asking the wrong questions. The question to ask is:

WHY will Hazbollah regroup?

They have no self-sustaining economic system. Where do they get their providence?

"in 5 years or 10 years Israel will be right back where she started because the root cause is totally ignored"

And who's ignoring it? Israel knows the root cause. I know the root cause. The US does. Most of the world's nations do as well. They're not dumb, just "diplomatic".

"the rational answer for Israel's long term security is not to try and kill as many of your enemies as possible but try and diffuse them "

Diffusing them is what they're trying to do now. And what they've tried to do since '48. And which has worked for two of the sources, by the way.

DEfusing them by offering "land4peace, land4peace" like a squawking parrot is what has NOT worked. Witness Intifada.

Which means that when "rational" is what experience shows doesn't work, then someone doesn't know what "rational" is.

"most arab militants and arab states would be willing for a fair compromise"

And what they claim to be "fair" is the elimination of Israel.

Hence their militarism, irrespective of what Israel does or doesn't do.

[rwilymz]

"squeeze them until they finally give up and come to the negotiating table basically with their hat in the their hand, except this hasn't happened"

Where were you when King Hussein of Jordan and Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed peace treaties with Israel?

You're just being psychotic now. You canNOT sit there and say "it hasn't happened" when it did TWICE

[xxx]

As I said, land for peace works.

[xxx]

PS rwilzymz,

Your reading comprehension skills seem to be in decline since I specifically mentioned the Jordanian and Egyptian peace treaties in my earlier post as evidence that LAND FOR PEACE works, it has, so far, been a huge success, the only success mind you, that Israel has had in dealing with its neighbors. Far from ignoring them, they point the way to the solution.

1) Fair compromises=peace, to wit, Egypt and Jordan recognize Israel, have diplomatic relations and do not engage in the frenzied Israel and Jew bashing the rest of the ME does.

2) Unfair or no compromise, to wit, the Oslo Accords and other bad faith, in my opinion, negotiations with the Palestinions led to continued bloodshed, continued support from throughout the ME for Palestinian groups dedicated to the destruction of Israel and contnued money to anybody else with a gun and an I hate Israel t-shirt.

I will say for the last time, that a reasonable analysis of what has succeeded and what has failed would lead a reasonable person to conclude the way to resolve this situation is for a fair settlement to the Palestinian issue.

It couldn't be more obvious.

[lawbster]

out of the original 63 inhabitants in this area - the 28 are confirmed dead but there are still 13 residents unaccounted for. they are suspected to be dead amongst the rubble - 22 others have been located.

[Dan]

but this is the strategy that Israel has been using for 60 years...

Success with Jordan and Egypt didn't happen out of kindness, Israel won a war. What you fail to accept or understnd are the power dynamics in that region. One would think observing Saddam and now Iran laugh their way through negotiations they never intend to honor would teach Liberals something. Our enemies dont' fear your suggested stick when they believe, as did bin Laden, that the holder is incapable of applying it, or our foot to their ass. That's why both Carter and Clinton failed miserably. Arafat broke Bills heart and robbed him of his pined for legacy - Boo freakin - Hoo. Yassar gave it to ol' Bill from behind and didn't have the courtesy to deliver a reach around. And Carter remains a foolish whore for Middle Eastern DICtators to this day.

[xxx]

Arabs: Israel is a terrorist state willing to use any military means to break the will of the Palestinian people, only when we show them that we are willing to sacrifice the blood of our children forever and show we are able to inflict enough harm through violence on them will they ever sit down to negotiate fairly. The only thing they understand is violence.

Israel: The Palestinains are terrorists dedicated to the destruction of Israel, only when we show them that they will never break our will by inflicting violence on us and when we are able to completely dominate them militarily will they ever sit down to negotiate fairly. The only thing they understand is violence.

This is a recipe for death.

[Dan]

This is a recipe for death.

Then I'd suggest picking the right side so one doesn't die. See how easy!! ; )

[rwilymz]

"Your reading comprehension skills seem to be in decline since I specifically mentioned the Jordanian and Egyptian peace treaties in my earlier post as evidence that LAND FOR PEACE works"

What land did Israel give to Jordan for the peace treaty?

What land did Israel give to Egypt for the peace treaty?

Before you can say land4peace works, there has to be some land exchanged for the peace.

"I will say for the last time, that a reasonable analysis of what has succeeded and what has failed would lead a reasonable person to conclude the way to resolve this situation is for a fair settlement to the Palestinian issue."

Right. And that reasonable analysis excludes, of necessity, anything you have to say about it, since you're rationalizing why black is white and up is down.

What land did Israel give to Jordan for the peace treaty?

What land did Israel give to Egypt for the peace treaty?

...on the other hand, I look forward to you not repeating that tripe; I'm glad it was the last time you'll spout nonsensical gibberish.

[xxx]

The Israel-Egypt peace treaty (Arabic: معاهدة السلام المصرية الإسرائيلية; transliterated: Mu'ahadat as-Salam al-Masriyah al-Isra'yliyah) (Hebrew: הסכם שלום ישראל-מצרים; transliterated: Heskem Shalom Yisrael-Mizraim) was signed in Washington, DC, United States, on March 26, 1979, following the Camp David Accords (1978). The main features of the treaty were the mutual recognition of each country by the other, the cessation of the state of war that had existed since the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and the withdrawal by Israel of its armed forces and civilians from the Sinai Peninsula which Israel had captured during the 1967 Six-Day War. The agreement also provided for the free passage of Israeli ships through the Suez Canal and recognition of the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba as international waterways.

I guess you forgot? the Sinai Peninsula........Now I know you are a nut job, I can't wait to see how you explain to me that Israel giving back the Sinai Peninsula doesn't involve a land swap...

[Gary Maxwell]

QUOTE As I said, land for peace works. UNQUOTE

OK the several of you trying to engage in an honest discourse with the troll, if it was not initially clear that you were dealing with either a dishonest troll or thoughly idiotic one, now it should be. Cease your futile effort. If unilateral withdrawals from both Southern Lebanon and Gaza get you cross border attacks, killing and kidnappings and cross border rocket attacks on civilian targets, how exactly would Land for Peace work. The mind boggles.

[rwilymz]

"I guess you forgot? the Sinai Peninsula"

I guess you forgot that Sinai was handed over to the UN about a week after Israel got done overrunning it.

Pre-'67 Egypt had Sinai and Gaza; post-'67 Egypt had Sinai.

WHAT. LAND. DID. ISRAEL. GIVE. TO. EGYPT. FOR. A. PEACE. TREATY?

Pre-'67 Jordan had the West bank; post-'67 Israel had the West Bank.

WHAT. LAND. DID. ISRAEL. GIVE. TO. JORDAN. FOR. A. PEACE. TREATY?

[xxx]

Just like I expected, just like a neocon, when your blatant lie and misrepresentation of the facts is called out all you can do is play word games. Torture isn't torture if Georgie says it isn't. Israel didn't "really" return the Sinai in return for anything.

Israel withdrew from the Sinai Penninsula, period.

How did you people ever get taken seriously in the first place??????????????????????????????????????????????

Even George Will calls you a bunch of radicals.

LOL

[xxx]

Article I

Israel will withdraw all its armed forces and civilians from the Sinai behind the international boundary between Egypt and mandated Palestine, as provided in the annexed protocol (Annex I ), and Egypt will resume the exercise of its full sovereignty over the Sinai.

----------------------------------------------------------------

CAN YOU READ???????????????????????????????????????????????

OH MY GOD, WHAT A BUFFOON YOU ARE.

[rwilymz]

"when your blatant lie and misrepresentation of the facts is called out ..."

You must be talking to the mirror.

What land was exchanged for peace.

I can very easily point to land that Egypt and Jordan gave Israel before peace ...

"Israel withdrew from the Sinai Penninsula, period."

Yes. About a week after they conquered it.

Negotiations for a peace treaty started ye-e-e-e-ears after they left Sinai.

"Even George Will calls you a bunch of radicals."

George Will doesn't know me to say such things, but we're both Cubs fans, so he's in pretty much the same boat.

I will ask again, dimwit: What land did Israel give to Egypt or Jordan for a peace treaty?

[xxx]

Land for peace
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Land for peace is a general principle proposed for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict by which Israel would relinquish control of all or part of the territories it conquered in 1967 in return for peace with and recognition by the Arab world. The formula appeared for the first time in UN Security Council Resolution 242; it has since then become the main guideline of American and international policy regarding the conflict.

Land for Peace was first used as the basis for Israel's peace treaty with Egypt in 1979, which included an Israeli retreat from the Sinai in exchange for economic assistance to both sides from the United States and a peace treaty with Egypt. The international community supports the same principle for the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. In the Camp David Accords of 1978, the establishment of a Palestinian self-governing authority is envisioned; at this time however, Jordan was regarded as a representative of the Palestinians. Numerous statements by Israeli officials indicated that much of the Israeli establishment wanted to follow a similar course with Jordan and the West Bank. However, Jordan withdrew its claims to the West Bank and subsequently signed a peace treaty with Israel that included only minor border adjustments. The principle reappeared in the Oslo accords with the PLO. The hand-over of land in return for peaceful co-existence is a feature of most Proposals for a Palestinian state.

Pursuing Land for Peace has preceded tragedy for three Israeli leaders who championed this policy:

Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, a right-wing activist who had strenuously opposed Rabin's signing of the Oslo Accords.
Ehud Barak, with respected military and political careers, was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1999, defeating strong-Israel proponent Benjamin Netanyahu. Bowing to US President Bill Clinton's pressure to pursue Land for Peace, Barak lost the 2001 elections to Ariel Sharon's Likud party by a landslide.
Ariel Sharon's Likud party victory appeared to be a shift away from Land for Peace. Sharon's declaration that the Temple Mount complex would remain under perpetual Israeli control was seen as a sign of strong-Israel policy. However, on November 21, 2005, Sharon resigned as head of Likud, dissolved parliament and formed a new center-right party called Kadima. Less than a month later, Sharon suffered a minor ischemic stroke. Sharon spent several days in hospital before being released. During his hospital stay, he was also diagnosed with a minor hole in his heart and was scheduled to undergo a cardiac catheterization to fill the hole in his atrial septum on January 5, 2006. On January 4, however, Sharon suffered a massive hemorrhagic stroke and was evacuated by ambulance to undergo brain surgery. Sharon underwent seven hours of surgery to stop the bleeding and drain the accumulated blood.

[rwilymz]

"CAN YOU READ"

Do you understand legal documentation?

Ever read a divorce decree? "The husband shall vacate the marital residence..." uh, yeronner, the guy's been gone for 7 months now...

Ever read the Treaty of Paris that gave the US it's independence? Britain will cease territorial domain over the... remove military forces from ... uh, guys, they've been gone for two years.

Israel had been out of Sinai for years by the time Egypt and Israel started negotiating. That's a matter of record that you can look up. Start with Wikipedia. Legalese is just that: legalese. It is largely an exercise in CYA. By the time divorces and peace treaties get around to being negotiated, all the conditions are met and often have been for some time.

To suggest that Israel did something pursuant to peace treaty with Egypt that hadn't been accomplished is gross naivete of the real world; to make the claim because you found a reference to it in a sterile document is to compound that naivete with juvenile gullibility.

What land did Israel give anyone for a peace treaty?

[xxx]

2) Land for Peace - The Sinai

The phrase used most in the peace process is "land for peace." In essence, Arabs are asked to compromise by offering peace in order to attain their objective -- land. Israel is asked to compromise land in order to attain their objective -- peace. Thus the very cornerstone of all negotiations takes as a given that for Arabs, agreeing to peace is a concession to their true goal, whereas for Israel, peace is the goal.

The most notable example of Israel sacrificing land for peace occurred in 1979, when the most right-wing prime minister in Israel's history, Menachem Begin, met with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and U.S. President Jimmy Carter at Camp David. There, Begin signed a peace treaty with Egypt, returning the entire Sinai Peninsula -- constituting 80 percent of Israel's land mass - in exchange for normalization of relations with Egypt. Begin not only gave away massive amounts of land, but also dismantled settlements containing thousands of Jews, dismantled Israel's largest air force base, and gave up possession of oil fields in the Sinai. Thus, land, oil, money, military strength and settlements were compromised for the primary Jewish value of peace.

-------------

Apparently the Israelis are confused as they appear to think they traded the Sinai in a land for peace deal.

You better call up the Israeli Embassy and enlighten them that they did no such thing.

[xxx]

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Israel_Wants_Peace.asp

[xxx]

http://www.israelactivism.com/resources/factsheets/factsheets/Pursuing_Peace_Factsheet.asp

I sure seems like everyone believes that the Israel/Egypt peace treaty was essentially a land for peace deal except YOU.

But of course, since you are a Student Of History and a Knower of Arcane and Useless Factoids, YOU are right and the rest of the world is WRONG.

I take back what I said about you all being dumber than dirt, you aren't dumb, you are stone cold crazy.

[rwilymz]

Pardon; they only withdrew from the canal region.

Not resolved:
1] Israel hasn't given land to Jordan for a peace treaty, contrary to your claim they did
2] Israel has repeatedly given land to Pal-Arabs for not-peace, contrary to your repeated claims that this is all Pal-Arabs want
3] there is a huge presumption on your part that Egypt -- which had its military operationally obliterated in '73 and it would have been literally obliterated had the US not stepped in and stopped Israel -- was going to withhold peace talks for control of the Sinai.

Okay, so I've gotten a misplaced fact; you've got a thousand misplaced realities.

How do you wish to proceed?

[rwilymz]

I am a student of history, thank you, a knower of much much arcana, and far more expertise in this area than you are.

Further, I am also honest enough that when -- like the stopped clock which is right twice a day -- you happen to have something right, I can admit it.

Now, where are you on the va-a-a-ast majority of the rest of it?

[xxx]

Sorry dude, you just lost all of your credibility.

Just like all neocon nut jobs, instead of admitting that maybe you spaced that whole Camp David Sinai deal or had some other reason for claiming there never was a land for peace deal, you persist in saying it wasn't land for peace, blah, blah, blah, because technically Israel gave it to the UN, blah, blah, blah , there weren't even any Israelis in the Sinai, blah, blah, blah...when the ISRAELIS THEMSELVES HAVE SAID AND DO SAY THAT EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID WAS TRADE LAND FOR PEACE.

Since you refuse to admit you were wrong on the Egypt treaty there is no point in talking about Jordan or the Golan Heights I am sure in your deluded mind, they involved something entirely different than what the agreements actually say and what the signatories said at the time about what they were doing and why.

I have no wish to proceed with someone as obviously divorced from reality as you. While I commend you on your ability to google tidbits of data in support of your position, that is all you are doing, just like the Bush Administration...you can't stand to see the whole puzzle because it doesn't show you what you want it to.

Bye bye now.

[rwilymz]

'x'?

Come back.

I said you were right.

Israel still had control of most of the Sinia when they negotiated the peace treaty.

Now ... why does that make Jordan's peace treaty land4peace? ...why does that make the land4peaces that have repeatedly failed with the Pal-Arabs really success stories?

[rwilymz]

"Since you refuse to admit you were wrong on the Egypt treaty "
xxx | Thursday, August 03, 2006 at 03:02 PM

Let's see:
"Pardon; they only withdrew from the canal region."
rwilymz | Thursday, August 03, 2006 at 02:53 PM

"I am also honest enough that when ... you happen to have something right, I can admit it."
rwilymz | Thursday, August 03, 2006 at 02:55 PM

Sounds to me like someone can't get enough google help on the wild-ass claims he's been making.

[xxx]

Again, I gotta say sorry dude.

If you hadn't been so completely rude in ridiculing me for something that I have always taken as common knowledge and even persisted in ridiculing me after I posted the friggin text of the agreement, perhaps I would consider to stay and play with you some more and talk about land for peace in the context of the Palestinians, but you have convinced me that you are not honest.

I don't believe you were mistaken about anything, you figured you could use SEMANTICS and bullying to make a point that is not valid on any level but that of legaleze jargon.

[Dan]

Unfortunately, the new broken egg in all this is radical Islam and Iran and Syria, to a lessor degree. Arabs and Jews lived relatively peacefully together for more time in history than they have not. Time was when Arabs actually sold land to returning Jews. Unfortunately, radical Islam has a hard on for a new Caliphate and Israel cannot exist in that scheme. Nor can Spain, actually and wherever else. And they still want Europe, especially Britain to pay for the crusades ... which they also view as America's cross to bear. If you want to play land for peace you can start with the Golan Heights, but you'd best start thinking about how many beads Manhattan is worth after adjustment for inflation. Any other view really is naive, unfortunately.

[Rick]

Hey Dan, at least Ross finally has xxx actually looking for information rather than spouting his air america diatribe.......he/she is coming toward the light, slowly but surely

[rwilymz]

"you have convinced me that you are not honest."

You convinced me that about yourself a long time ago.

"I don't believe you were mistaken about anything, you figured you could use SEMANTICS and bullying to make a point that is not valid on any level but that of legaleze jargon."

No, I remembered the Israelis withdrawing "from sinai" to hand it to the UN long before Camp David. Then found that it was only from the canal zone they withdrew.

That happens. But I research. Not only for that which supports me, but that which others claim supports them. For facts are pesky things: that which you think you know might not always be, and getting married to a set of facts is a foolish undertaking.

...which isn't an attempt to bring up the Shah of Iran again, which you're still quite void on.

Or any of the other orbiting subjects around this general issue.

By the way, I'll trade you my "semantic" bullying for your faux-pious moralizing any day of the week. There are many things that look good on paper that simply do not play in the real world, and before you can lay claim to winning anything but a data-point battle you need to incorporate the factual reality that you do NOT like into your worldview.

Just a little friendly advice from someone who does research and analysis for a living to someone who claims to have the moral track on "reality".

[xxx]

Ah the Shah of Iran, put in power by whom, who was that, again that put him on the throne? The Iranian people? No, that's not right, it was someone else I think, wasn't it? Er, maybe some Europeans, maybe?

And then there was that nasty business about that crazy parliament going and nationalizing oil, and the Shah having the flee the country and then getting put back on the throne with whose help? Who was it? The Iranian military and who else? Brit and American help? Or did I get that wrong, too?

And then there was that part when he dissolved the other political parties, was that before or after he was loved by all the Iranian people?

Nah, the Shah was a GREAT GUY, it was that bad Ayatollah that brainwashed the entire country against him....because you know, those childlike persians are so gullible...

Was the Shah's vision of a secular, modern westernized state the right road for Iran to take? Ab so fucking lutely.

Was the Shah's roadmap of repression and authoritarianism the right way to get there? Not on your life.

Repeat after me:

Democracy cannot be successfully created by force.

LOL

[xxx]

In the real world, when someone bombs your house or your village or your country you are angry at the people who dropped the bombs.

It doesn't matter why they say they are dropping the bombs, it doesn't matter if they blame someone else for 'making' them do it, or if they say they are sorry for doing it.

It defies common sense to think that the Lebanese are going to blame Hezbollah for what Israel is doing since it is Israel that is doing it.

Just as it defines common sense to think that if we bomb Iran it will cause the Iranians to blame their own government and not us. Just as it defied common sense to think that Iraq, an Arab state steeped in anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda would welcome 100,000+ armed troops who don't speak Arabic, who don't know jack about Arab customs who are in all probability generally hostile to arabs having been told ad infinitum about islamifacists and terrorists, with rose petals and parades.

We believed our propaganda, a pretty strong sign that it is the neocons who are actually living in a dream world and not the rest of us that have been trying to inject a tiny bit of common sense into our foreign policy.

It isn't going to matter when history pronounces, as I am sure it will, the Bush doctrine an abject failure and the neocons a bizarre, radical right wing group that somehow got ahold of our foreing policy, and with not a single success under their belt continued on their path toward total destruction. What really matters is the cost of failure is so high. The damage being done and the lives being lost so unnecessary.

[Phoenix]

"..the neocons who are actually living in a dream world and not the rest of us that have been trying to inject a tiny bit of common sense into our foreign policy."

xxx,

Pretend you are President. And have been President since the beginning of this current presidency. What would you have done in the name of common sense to make sure the history books of the future get it right?

You managed to do a hell of a job making a linear list of things on another post, so I know you can do it without generalizing. Can you do another list of how you'd manage geopolitical events since 9/11?

[Rick]

Phoenix, honey stop messing with that kid. There are plenty of adults around to chat with.

[Phoenix]

Okay. I'll pretend to be president. "Carry on! As you were." (In private, Bush likes to cuss.) To Laura in bed: "I hope that asshole shoots a missile towards Tel Aviv..... it'll get shot down, but it's just what we've been waiting for. Heh heh."

[rwilymz]

"The Iranian military and who else? Brit and American help?"

The US. CIA, specifically.

Point?

"then there was that part when he dissolved the other political parties, was that before or after he was loved by all the Iranian people?"

Which "other political parties" were those?

Those who said "we disagree with your policies and we want to pass laws directing us in different directions"? or 'political parties' whose platform was "we disagree with your policies because you are a western stooge and infidel and we will kill you when we get the chance"?

Come on 'x', you can't play footloose with the timeline. You don't have a Wayback Machine. The bulk of the Iranians loved western stuff; the religious nutjobs did not. When you talk about "the Iranian 'people'" being against the Shah, you are taking the minority and extrapolating to the whole.

Even today, 40-70% of the Iranians would prefer western society to what they have -- which is the reason that Iran has every bit the "secret police" now that they had in the mid-70s. But, sure, naturally, of course, when the Shah had secret police it was wrong and bad and meant that "the people" hated the US; but secret police today is ... right? is ... good? means ... the people hate the US?

You can't have it both ways. And you can't jump around in time while doing it.

"it was that bad Ayatollah that brainwashed the entire country against him"

Khomeini didn't brainwash anyone. Just like any anti-abortion group doesn't brainwash anyone. But when you go to, like, Topeka Kansas and you see the crowds carrying signs and yelling at pregnant women, ... it sure seems like it's everyone, do'nit?

Any dogmatic, militaristic group has it's crowd already in the fold. The Ayatollah was no different. It was not "everyone"; it was not "the people"; it was *his* people.

"Democracy cannot be successfully created by force."

That I'll agree with. Mostly. But it's not the issue.

"In the real world, when someone bombs your house or your village or your country you are angry at the people who dropped the bombs."

Immediately, yes.

"It doesn't matter why they say they are dropping the bombs, it doesn't matter if they blame someone else for 'making' them do it, or if they say they are sorry for doing it."

In the short-term, certainly.

"It defies common sense to think that the Lebanese are going to blame Hezbollah for what Israel is doing since it is Israel that is doing it."

Germans blamed British and US bombing on Britain and the US. ...in 1942. In 1944 they blamed the Nazis.

The "siege mentality" does not persist for very long. The Lebanese can be *made* to blame Hezbollah, but it wouldn't be pretty.

"it defines common sense to think that if we bomb Iran it will cause the Iranians to blame their own government and not us."

A large portion of their population is pre-disposed to blaming the Mullahs right now. Continuing to refuse to differentiate the meaningful differences is sloppy academics.

"it defied common sense to think that Iraq, an Arab state steeped in ...BLAH, bluh-BLAH, bluh-pious moralizing-BLAH... with rose petals and parades."

Where is the insurgency, scooter? Don't say "Iraq" because that is more anti-intellectual non-discernment. It's like saying "NASCAR is considered a sport in America". WHERE is America?

WHERE in Iraq?

"All over"? You are dismissed.

"Central Iraq, anchored by Baghdad"? That's better. The Shi'a certainly don't like occupation, but then they've been occupied for a few generations, and their previous occupations were more or less fatal. The Kurds, frankly, love our occupation, because it allows them to do what they arguably haven't been able to do for over a millenium: fight back meaningfully.

The ones who are actively protesting our occupation are the Sunni, who we threw out of power. The Shi'a have learned that "majority rule" is cool if you're the majority, and even Muqtada as Sadr is playing nicely [with us, considering that he hates us and all]. Who the Shi'a are not playing nicely with is the Sunni.

"We believed our propaganda"

Which "propoganda" is that?

"a pretty strong sign that it is the neocons who are actually living in a dream world and not the rest of us that have been trying to inject a tiny bit of common sense into our foreign policy."

I surely hope your continued faux-pious moralizing isn't being elevated to the level of sensible foreign policy.

Faux-pious moralizing which seems to have access to a Wayback Machine, no less.

"with not a single success under their belt continued on their path toward total destruction"

Iraq is no longer funding Hamas, but Syria and Iran are now footing a larger paramilitary bill. Libya dropped out of the funding game as well.

There's two right there.

May not last forever, but it's a start.

"What really matters is the cost of failure is so high."

Define this "high cost" for the failure that may or may not have occured.

"damage being done and the lives being lost so unnecessary."

It's "unnecessary" to take out the linchpins of international terrorism? That's funny. Why would you say that?

[xxx]

You consider spending $300B and counting, thousands of our troops dead and maimed, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, their infrastructure destoryed, their country on the edge of civil war, if not already in a civil war to be a SUCCESSFUL exchange for Hamas now getting more money from Iran and Syria instead of Iraq?

Okey dokey.

PS, you must have forgot Karl Rove testifying before Congress that the Iraq war would cost the U.S. about $50Million and more or less pay for itself with Iraq oil....or how we would be welcomed as liberators by the Iraqi people...that propaganda, member? That victory party Bush had, member that?

You want to talk about history and precedent and context but still all you have to say about Hamas and Hezbollah and the rest of them is THEY'RE TERRORISTS, ISLAMIFACISTS, THEY HATE AMERICA....THEY MUST BE DESTROYED.

Which, while all of that, except the islamifacist part, is true, it ignores all the rest of the context. What got Hezbollah started? Why did it form? Who supports it? Hint: It has to do with another defensive move by Israel that lasted 20 years. Same with Hamas, where did it come from? Why do they have support? Again, we got what we wanted, we marginalized the PLO [a former terrorist group that we decided wasn't a terrorist group afterall when it became convenient], we made Arafat an inrrelavancy and lo and behold, we got a big nasty surprise [because of our misreading of the situation]instead of turning away from extremism and violence like we were SURE they would do, the Palestinians turned toward it...

You can keep on saying that these groups are nothing more than terrorist thugs and mocking anyone that mentions the widespread support they have, the elected offices they hold and the political and legitimate claims they make as a left wing, dumb liberal, appeaser, but that will not make it true.

It only makes us stupid and all of our efforts counterproductive and doomed to failure.

You talk about funding like its a magical spout that we can turn on and turn off. We can't get rid of the funding sources unless we take over the rest of the ME. Again, that attacks the result not the cause. The cause of funding is the support that these groups have in terms of their overall agendas...keep Israel out of Lebanon, justice for the Palestinians...thus, the only way to remove the funding is to blunt the situation that causes it.

That is not realpolitik, enlighten self interest or anything close to it. That is pure ideological zealotry, seeing the world in black and white, the same thing you acuse them of doing.

Don't you think that most of these leaders, ESPCIALLY HAMAS know full well that Israel isn't really going anywhere, and that they retain the goal of the destruction of Israel as both a rallying cry to the population and a bargaining chip? Why would Hamas ever agree that Israel has a right to exist without getting something in return? That would be idiotic. It is the same reason the PLO didn't give up that particular piece of propaganda until they thought they were going to get something -- a state -- in return...but the Israelis were smarter than they were and they got maneuvered into a situation where the final Oslo Agreement was unsignable, something they could never sell to their people and something that was totally unworkable on every level..what kind of Palestinian state were they going to have when Israel wouldn't even agree to dismantle or stop building new settlements?? Israel either miscalculated and thought Arafat would sign anyway or they wanted him to refuse to sign because they never had nor do they have any intention of giving the Palestinians a state.

[xxx]

PS,

How come Dan never blogs on this stuff?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-iraq.html?hp&ex=1154750400&en=2ed2aa2f410efc99&ei=5094&partner=homepage

100,000 Iraqis marching against the US and Israel and in support of Hezbollah!! A hundred thousand? Are you kidding me? Their entire country is going up in flames and they are still motivated enough to come out in opposition to the United States and Israel. Dear god.

Yup, we are winning the war on terror alright.

[rwilymz]

Geez, 'x'; the amount of raw anger you possess could light a small midwestern college town.

"You consider spending $300B and counting, ...yadda pious moralizing yadda ... instead of Iraq?"

History is full of such things. We were spending $25B/yr for 12 years simply babysitting, and the tens of thousands were still dying.

"PS, you must have forgot ... yadda pious moralizing yadda ... that propaganda, member?"

You are confusing politics with reality. All kinds of self-serving twits say all kinds of dubious things in front of other self-serving twits called Congress. It wouldn't do anyone any good to rack up on a tote board which party was guilty of the greatest self-servings, because
a] the task could never be completed, and
b] it would be a practical tie.

"but still all you have to say about Hamas and Hezbollah and the rest of them is THEY'RE TERRORISTS, ISLAMIFACISTS, THEY HATE AMERICA....THEY MUST BE DESTROYED."

I don't often use "terrorists"; I prefer to call them paramilitaries. Or pan-islamist hotheads, if I'm being patronizing. The *do* hate America, but that's nothing new; it's been that way since the day after America's legitimate birth in 1783, and it became particularly that way when the US supplanted European nations as the de facto King of the Western Hill after WWII. It's more or less irrelevant.

And frankly, destroying them is not doable. They are manifesting a recognized historical pattern wherein they serve as the proxy-slash-mercinary armed force for fighting a war so that their patrons don't have to directly fight that war themselves. Without their patron, they revert to being poor and uneducated rabble who are forced to cut their hair and get a job.

From a tactical viewpoint, it is important to respond militarily when directly confronted, but strategically it is suicidal and/or infinitely unlikely to seek their elimination as the means of defining "victory". The proxies will stop fighting when they stop being supplied with arms.

"while all of that, except the islamifacist part, is true"

Right; it is islamOfascist. Fascism is rule by authoritarian decree -- which is what panislamists demand.

"What got Hezbollah started? Why did it form? Who supports it?"

1] Syria needing a proxy in S Lebanon
2] to counterbalance its own ineffective military against the ISraelis
3] Syria and Iran

"Hint: It has to do with another defensive move by Israel that lasted 20 years."

You are looking at the symptom rather than the cause.

"Same with Hamas, where did it come from?"

Essentially the same answers as above, in nature if not in name.

"You can keep on saying that these groups are nothing more than terrorist thugs and mocking anyone that mentions the widespread support they have"

I will mock people who throw out a facile worldview to explain it.

Of COURSE they have "widespread support"; they belong to the single largest economic demographic in the history of the world: poor and uneducated. They get nearly automatic sympathy from those around the world who are like them. What separates these poor and uneducated from most others is that these poor and uneducated have nations willing to use a significant part of their GDP to buy them guns and rockets and bullets and bombs so that they can play war that the patrons want played.

"the political and legitimate claims they make as a left wing, dumb liberal, appeaser, but that will not make it true."

What makes it true is that their "legitimate claims" are contrived; when they aren't contrived they are infantile.

If you seriously think that the Palestinians are the first to start wars, lose, and then lose their land for starting wars, you're seriously ignorant. But for some reason, the Pal-Arabs are the fair-haired poster child for the vacuous Professional Sympathiser who believes these people, of all others, deserve the first do-over in the history of the world.

"You talk about funding like its a magical spout that we can turn on and turn off."

Not easily, but we can, yes. We can do it in any of several ways:
1] international tracking of financial transactions -- to the degree that the NYT et al will consent to it being done;
2] long-term diplomatic relationships with financiers until they stop -- a la Saudi Arabia
3] outright ass-kicking of national financiers -- a la Iraq
4] object lessonry - a la Libya

Or we can let Israel handle it, as they did Jordan and Egypt.

"We can't get rid of the funding sources unless we take over the rest of the ME."

We didn't take over Saudi or Libya. Of course, pan-islamist apologists will say we took over Saudi. But then they've been saying that since 1923 when the Saud family absconded with the Arab throne with the help of the Brits, and who thereupon developed a closer relationship with Europe than with "their own kind". ...hence the Wahabi insurrection in Saudi. And Israel didn't take over Jordan or Egypt. Just kicked their ass.

"Again, that attacks the result not the cause."

Pay attention: the cause of pan-islamist paramilitarism is that they are being handed weapons to fight their patrons' wars. Poor and oppressed people have existed since day 1 of human civilization, and "terrorism" is mostly a 20th century manifestation. You cannot rationally claim that people being dispossessed is the "cause" of a condition when it took 10,000 years to develop. "Terrorism" is correlated with the disposable wealth of nations, particularly those nations with ideological grudges.

"Don't you think that most of these leaders, ESPCIALLY HAMAS know full well that Israel isn't really going anywhere"

HAHAHAHA. Not for an instant. You ever listen to them? Their eschatology is written around this.

"Why would Hamas ever agree ... BLAH, bluh-BLAH, pious moralizing, bluh-BLAH ... giving the Palestinians a state."

You are an ideologue, constitutionally averse to factual enlightenment or rational analysis, and one of the legions of soft anti-semites: "Israel has a right to exist as long as it doesn't do anything to defend itself."

"100,000 Iraqis marching against the US and Israel and in support of Hezbollah!"

They're Shi'a. Wudaya expect?

There's only a few bastions of Shi'a muslimry in the world:
1] Persia and southern Iraq
2] a spot in Lebanon
3] a blotch in Egypt
4] a splotch in Georgia or Azerbiajan or something

Hezbollah are Shi'a; Shi'a are getting their asses handed to them by -- ick!! -- JOOOOS, what do you expect the rest of the Shi'a to do?

Brains: not just for hair insulation anymore!

"Their entire country is going up in flames and they are still motivated enough to come out in opposition to the United States and Israel."

I was thinking the same thing last winter: no jobs or money or prospects in most of those places, but god damn do they know how to pitch a major hissy fit over cartoons!

Welcome to the fanatical world of zealotry.

[xxx]

What is Israel if not a "do over" of the first magnitude? How did they get their country? They didn't win it in a war, they didn't take it over from the inside out, they didn't win any elections, they got it handed to them on a silver platter wrapped up in a big United Nations bow from the West.

It took you a longer time than I would have expected to call me an anti semite though...which of course goes hand in hand with criticzing Israel, everyone that criticizes Israel is, obviously, an anti semite one way or the other.

Whatever

For all your knowledge of history you haven't any wisdom or understanding of what it means or how to interpret it. In my opinion.

[xxx]

"What got Hezbollah started? Why did it form? Who supports it?"

1] Syria needing a proxy in S Lebanon
2] to counterbalance its own ineffective military against the ISraelis
3] Syria and Iran

-------------------------------------------------------------

BS.

Hezbollah was an organic, Lebanese response to the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon. It didn't exist before the 1980's, and presumably, you will agree that Syria and Iran already had some prior beefs with Israel....

It doesn't matter who they got their money from, it matters why they organized in the first place. It just astounds me that you keep on repeating the mantra that these groups only exist because someone is giving them money. Guerilla fighters from the viet cong to the sandinistas to the taliban got their start from local, organic condidtions, they got their motivation from local conditions and situations and conflicts, THEN they went looking for funding, the reasons why the funders give them money is largely irrelevant. It doesn't matter WHY the Chinese backed the North Vietnamese, because it wasn't the Chinese that got them going, they got going independently.

You admit that our politicians speak in rhetoric and say things that they don't mean, but, again, you don't give the Arabs the same credit, apparently they mean everything they say exactly as they said it, and in a culture where rhetoric is a prized asset, that's irrelevant, everything they say they mean literally and they are so crazy that the idea they would say some things while privately understanding that those things they say publicly to inflame their own political bases are unrealistic is beyond the poor arabs comprehension or ability.

Obviously if you believe the Arabs and Muslims are this incapable of reason, logic, planning or strategy or negotiation it's no wonder you think the only solution is to kill them.