The "Real" Middle Eastern War

[Linkmeister]

Re: ersatz nation "Israel" in Palestine , Re: The "Real" Middle Eastern War...

Perhaps waioli kai could clarify his/her position with a simple yes or no answer to this question: Do you wish to see Israel destroyed?

My guess is yes.

[Miulang]

Re: The "Real" Middle Eastern War...

My own answer is I don't want Israel or the Palestine or Lebanon destroyed any more than I want the US destroyed. For the past 6 years or so, there has been relative peace in that particular area of the Middle East. Some people find it ironic that Hezbollah should decide to act up now, especially when they had started to gain some political legitimacy in Lebanon by instituting many social programs to help their people. Was it because of Iran's stance against the US and UN vis a vis the nuclear issue?

There has to be a "2-state" solution to this mess. Peaceful Jews, Palestinians, and Lebanese all deserve countries where they can raise their families without having to worry about burying them because of political conflicts. All this new aggression on both sides is doing is breeding a new generation of terrorists (on the Lebanese and Palestine side) and a new generation of militarists on the Israeli side.

And we, the US, are caught in a pretty frightful situation: we are stretched thin financially and militarily by our incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan and thanks to the previous "cowboy diplomacy" of the White House, our ability to persuade other countries has been diminished greatly. It's almost as if it's the US and Israel against the rest of the world, which is not such a hot position to have right now.

Miulang

[Miulang]

A thought about war in Iraq-->Middle East

This was written by the Dalai Lama in 2003, upon the beginning of the US occupation of Iraq.

"...Today, the world is so small and so interdependent that the concept of war has become anachronistic, an outmoded approach. As a rule, we always talk about reform and changes. Among the old traditions, there are many aspects that are either ill-suited to our present reality or are counterproductive due to their shortsightedness. These, we have consigned to the dustbin of history. War too should be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Unfortunately, although we are in the 21st century, we still have not been able to get rid of the habit of our older generations. I am talking about the belief or confidence that we can solve our problems with arms. It is because of this notion that the world continues to be dogged by all kinds of problems.

But what can we do? What can we do when big powers have already made up their minds? All we can do is to pray for a gradual end to the tradition of wars. Of course, the militaristic tradition may not end easily. But, let us think of this. If there were bloodshed, people in positions of power, or those who are responsible, will find safe places; they will escape the consequent hardship. They will find safety for themselves, one way or the other. But what about the poor people, the defenseless people, the children, the old and infirm. They are the ones who will have to bear the brunt of devastation. When weapons are fired, the result will be death and destruction. Weapons will not discriminate between the innocent and guilty. A missile, once fired, will show no respect to the innocent, poor, defenseless, or those worthy of compassion. Therefore, the real losers will be the poor and defenseless, ones who are completely innocent, and those who lead a hand-to-mouth existence...."

Miulang

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: The "Real" Middle Eastern War...

and the situation strikes close to home.

[Miulang]

A primer on Zionism and the State of Israel

In the interest of being objective, I think it's important to know the historical origins of Zionism, the rise of the state of Israel and the origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here's a pretty good history of the evolution of Zionism, from before Theodore Hertzl ("the Father of Zionism") to the current geopolitical issues facing that region. Fascinating reading...

Miulang

P.S. Some interesting postings on a forum from the Zionism and Israel Information Center on Israeli thoughts about the current conflict.

[waioli kai]

Re: ersatz nation "Israel" in Palestine , Re: The "Real" Middle Eastern War...

--glossyp= "Perhaps waioli kai could clarify his/her position with a simple yes or no answer to this question: Do you wish to see Israel destroyed?--
--linkmeister--My guess is yes.

"Simple?" What can I say? Maybe this: 'I expect no more than such a vacuuous inquiry. Certainly I didn't/don't expect insight from such quarters, as that would entail the inquirer either being informed or trying to be informed. Americans are saturated with those who are convinced they have nothing more to learn, since they learned all they needed to know about history (science, geography, language arts and most everything else) in middle school and American TV. In contrast to the lies and myths of indoctination in US's version of history, there are plenty of exceptionally objective materials on the subject of the Middle East, wherein facts are presented as such, and "wishes" are left to the reader's indulgence.'

You choose to wallow in the nonsense and lies we learned as mantras like most Americans. I choose to expose such nonsense and lies not for your benefit (because that seems futile), but more as an exercise of my recovery from nationalUSt brainwashing, and, perhaps, for the benefit of those whose minds are not sedated with catechisms of simplicity or simpleton catechisms....whatever, I expect to be slapped by a moderator for somehow committing rude offense toward glossyp and linkmeister, neither of whom sees fit, or is fit, to answer topical questions in this thread. A "simple yes or no" indeed! I've already wasted too much effort in addressing such simpleness.

--Miulang= "In the interest of being objective, I think it's important to know the historical origins of Zionism, the rise of the state of Israel and the origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here's a pretty good history of the evolution of Zionism..."

Not exactly an objective link with the Israeli flag waving digitally in the top left corner, but revealing nonetheless, even as it is necessarily biased. Makes a good challenge to find non-Zionist perspectives and anti-Zionist perspectives 'for the sake of objectivity'. Here's a quote from the lsraeli link:

"In 1975, a pro-Soviet and pro-Arab majority in the UN passed General Assembly Resolution 3397, branding Zionism as racism. The resolution was repealed in 1991, but similar sentiments were repeated at a conference of non-government organizations in Durban, South Africa in 2001. The rationale for this idea is that Zionism is a colonialist movement that assumes that the racial superiority of the Jews gives them the right to dispossess the Arabs of Palestine. ... Zionists believe that the Jewish right to the land is based on ancient historical links, not racial superiority. Some Zionists see the Arabs as usurpers, just as the Arabs see the Zionists as usurpers. "

"...the Jewish right to the land is based on ancient historical links..." hardly seems like a position a nation (like the United States) founded on the forcible dispossession of others would enthusiastically endorse; afterall, those whose ancestors were dispossessed to make the U.S. have yet to be totally erased from history, not that the U.S. isn't doing it's damnedest to complete the erasure.

[oggboy]

Re: The "Real" Middle Eastern War...

AND SO IT BEGAN TO PASS, THE BEGINNING AND THE END.

Keep watching CNN for more of WW3 in progress.

Yes All the nations will become involved....

[Linkmeister]

Re: The "Real" Middle Eastern War...

Waioli kai, your unwillingness to look at both sides of an issue hardly gives the reader any reason to pay much further attention to you. You've decided on the basis of something (maybe a sympathy for displaced peoples? But then the Jews were displaced as well; read about their Diaspora sometime) that Israel is entirely in the wrong here, and that both Hamas and Hezbollah are brave freedom fighters trying to free themselves from oppression.

I'll say this: the Palestinians got a raw deal in 1948, there's no question about it. On the other hand, Israel was immediately attacked and began fighting for its life that year and in subsequent wars where it was either attacked or acted on what it thought was good intelligence to attack preemptively. It has acted badly with regard to settlements, I'll concede that. But it has no territorial aims on Lebanon's land, on Syria's land, on Jordan's land, or on Egypt's land.

The Palestinians and Hezbollah (with its backers Iran and Syria) have never conceded that Israel has a right to exist; in fact all of them have specifically stated over and over again that they'd like to destroy the Israeli state. After a while, Israel decided to take them at their word. When it fights back, it sees itself as fighting for its survival.

That's my last word on this. It's impossible to discuss something with someone who's unwilling to try to fit him/herself in another party's shoes.

[waioli kai]

more primer on Zionism: Jews against Zionism, and the State of Israel

Excerpts from Jews Against Zionism

"THE ROLE OF ZIONISM IN THE HOLOCAUST
by Rabbi Gedalya Liebermann - Australia

Spiritually and Physically Responsible

From its' inception, many rabbis warned of the potential dangers of Zionism and openly declared that all Jews loyal to G-d should stay away from it like one would from fire. They made their opinions clear to their congregants and to the general public. Their message was that Zionism is a chauvinistic racist phenomenon which has absolutely naught to do with Judaism. They publicly expressed that Zionism would definitely be detrimental to the well being of Jews and Gentiles and that its effects on the Jewish religion would be nothing other than destructive. Further, it would taint the reputation of Jewry as a whole and would cause utter confusion in the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Judaism is a religion. Judaism is not a race or a nationality. That was and still remains the consensus amongst the rabbis ...

We have been forsworn by G-d "not to enter the Holy Land as a body before the predestined time", "not to rebel against the nations", to be loyal citizens, not to do anything against the will of any nation or its honour, not to seek vengeance, discord, restitution or compensation; "not to leave exile ahead of time." On the contrary; we have to be humble and accept the yoke of exile. To violate the oaths would result in "your flesh will be made prey as the deer and the antelope in the forest," and the redemption will be delayed. ...

All of the leading Jewish religious authorities of that era predicted great hardship to befall humanity generally and the Jewish People particularly, as a result of Zionism. ...

It follows then that those individuals who "decided" that Judaism is a nationality are to be ignored and even criticized. It is no secret that the founders of Zionism had never studied Jewish Law nor did they express interest in our holy tradition. They openly defied Rabbinical authority and self-appointed themselves as leaders of the Jewish "nation". In Jewish history, actions like those have always spelled disaster. To be a Jew and show open defiance of authority or to introduce "amendment" or "innovation" without first consulting with those officially appointed as Jewish spiritual leaders is the ideal equation to equal catastrophe. One can not just decide to "modernize" ancient traditions or regulations...

It wasn't enough for the Zionist leaders to have aroused the wrath of G-d. They made a point of displaying abysmal contempt for their Jewish brothers and sisters by actively participating in their extermination. Just the idea alone of Zionism, which the rabbis had informed them would cause havoc, was not enough for them. They made an effort to pour fuel on an already burning flame. They had to incite the Angel of Death, Adolf Hitler. They took the liberty of telling the world that they represented World Jewry. Who appointed these individuals as leaders of the Jewish People?? It is no secret that these so-called "leaders" were ignoramuses when it came to Judaism. Atheists and racists too. These are the "statesmen" who organized the irresponsible boycott against Germany in 1933....

On the basis of their similar ideologies about ethnicity and nationhood, National Socialists and Zionists worked together for what each group believed was in its own national interests.

This is just one example of the Zionist movements' collaboration with Hitler for the purpose of possibly receiving jurisdiction over a minute piece of earth, Palestine. .... "

.............................
.............................

Information like the above can lead one to believe that Christian Zionists may get their wish for Armageddon afterall. Either nobody ever told them, "Watch out what you wish for!", or more likely they just aren't listening to anyone except each other.

[Miulang]

Who's to blame?

"...So far, Hezbollah is the only Arab force that has made even a gesture to help the embattled Palestinians. The price has been heavy: Israel's destruction of key portions of Lebanon's infrastructure and hundreds of civilian casualties.

Yet Hezbollah keeps firing rockets into northern Israel, a futile gesture that only further infuriates Israelis. Palestinians did the same thing, lobbing homemade rockets into Israel that brought crushing retaliation. None of these pinprick attacks served any useful military or political purpose. They give Israel an excuse to further vent its fury and play to worried voters.

All parties involved are to blame for this frightful mess: The Palestinians and Hezbollah for provoking Israel, and Israel for its continuing brutal repression of Palestinians and assassinating their leaders. But most at blame is the Bush administration whose catastrophically misguided Mideast policies have fed this crisis.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict lies at the heart of Mideast troubles, and is the primary generator for anti-Western violence known as terrorism. It is a weary truism that no nation can bring about Mideast peace except for the United States.

But the Bush administration has been too obsessed by its losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay attention to the Levant. U.S. Mideast policy is dominated by neoconservatives and Protestant fundamentalists aligned with Israel's expansionist right wing, leaving would-be peacemakers in Israel and the Arab World out in the cold...."

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: The "Real" Middle Eastern War...

A statement today made by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert about Israel wishing to seek an "eternal covenant of peace" with its neighbors is freaking out a lot of Rapture freaks!

Miulang

[waioli kai]

Re: Who's to blame?

--miulang= "All parties involved are to blame for this frightful mess: The Palestinians and Hezbollah for provoking Israel, and Israel for its continuing brutal repression of Palestinians and assassinating their leaders. But most at blame is the Bush administration whose catastrophically misguided Mideast policies have fed this crisis. "

The Bush Administration Mideast policy but for its militant Israeli/AIPAC/US neocon policymakers' directives is nonexistent. Like so much of how the United States now operates, U.S. foreign policy has been turned over to the bidder with the bestUS connections. The peoples of the United States, from day one have never had control over what was in the beginning, has been since, still is called "the peoples" government. The U.S. is "the peoples government" in name only, unless that is cynically understood to mean, "Yeah sure, it's The Peoples' Government... it's the government they have to live beneath!!"

In terms of democracy, the U.S. has been fundamentally static, stationary, dead-in-the-water since its inception when it was founded through a confederation of homegrown elitedoms. To open that page of awareness in one's conscience one could start by looking into the history of United States foreign policy from around 1790 very shortly after the U.S. Constitution was finally ratified and the slaves, Africans and American Indians, of Haiti threw off their French oppressors. From that time until now, nothing about the United States and its foreign policy has changed fundamentally for the better. It should come as no surprise to anyone that Humanity and Earth are in such increasingly dire straights.

[Miulang]

Re: The "Real" Middle Eastern War...

Another interesting little document I uncovered while doing a search of the real issues behind this conflict was a little piece of prose that was commissioned by then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu around 1999 called, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" in which a bunch of American neoconservative think tankers drew up some plans for Israel's control of the Levant. This is pretty significant historical material, because the same authors of this report helped craft George W. Bush's foreign policy.

"...Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s socialist institutions—which include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan, "New Middle East"—undermine the legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous government’s "peace process." That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding national critical mass— including a palpable sense of national exhaustion—and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses....

"...Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam...

"...Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception of Israel’s floundering and loss of national identity. This perception has invited attack, blocked Israel from achieving true peace, and offered hope for those who would destroy Israel. The previous strategy, therefore, was leading the Middle East toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response. ..."

Miulang

[waioli kai]

"Friend$ of Israel" , Re: The "Real" Middle Eastern War...

-- 'compromise the safety and welfare of 50,000+ U.S., and U.S. ally citizens in Syria and Lebanon? For what reason?'--

Questions for US's Bolton, Negroponte, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Pace or their mouthpieces (including W) ....questions never asked, but if such questions were asked it would be in their uncontested denial resides their (justUS) safety from Justice.

[waioli kai]

Re: "Friend$ of Israel" , Re: The "Real" Middle Eastern War...

"Friend$ of Israel" started out as "Friends of Israel", but hours of writing just got flushed away to leave only the previous note re: "compromise the safety..for what reason? " from whose now gone forever context it was derived. So perhaps a two hour delayed revised version will take and this note does not, as previously, substitute for the one before it....such reasons for "save".

'Friends Don't Let Friends Ruin Lebanon

Congressional "Friends of Israel" are busy making noises about the "need" for the United States to provide that Middle Eastern land with full support as it assaults its neighbors.

But no genuine friend of Israel can be happy with what is being done in that country's name by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his misguided followers. ...

...killed and wounded hundreds and destroyed much of Lebanons's fragile democracy's infrastructure--including airports, seaports, bridges and roads--has done nothing to make Israel safer or more secure

As Henry Siegman, the former head of the American Jewish Congress explains, "In Lebanon as in Gaza, it is not Israel's right to protect its civilian population from terrorist aggression that is at issue. It is the way Israel goes about exercising that right."

"Despite bitter lessons from the past, Israel's political and military leaders remain addicted to the notion that, whatever they have a right to do, they have a right to overdo, to the point where they lose what international support they had when they began their retaliatory measures," adds Seigman. "Israel's response to the terrorist assault in Gaza and the outrageous and unprovoked Hizbollah assault across its northern border in Lebanon, far from providing protection to its citizens, may well further undermine their security by destabilizing the wider region." ...

Bush should start listening to wise voices from Israel, voices that are saying Olmert is wrong. ...'

Since Israel and the United States are the bestUS of friends [or as Sen.Yosef Biden is fond of saying about his US United States and zionUSt Israel, "There is no light between US." A warning not to be forgetten.] it seems that Israel would have at least discussed in advance the matter of Israel's air, rocket and tank (and soon to be ground forces?) offensive on Lebanon jeopardizing the welfare and lives of 50,000+ U.S. and U.S. allys' citizens in Lebanon, Syria and Israel, and the whole Mideast for that matter. Since the whole world is hostage to the psychosis which is Ersatz Israel in Palestine, the continuously murderous illness which afflicts the whole of Humanity, what are just 50 to 100 thousand+ non-Mideasterners who are directly caught up in Israel's periodic military operations, live training missions and cleansing manuevers for the maintenace and security of Ersatz Israel? Perhaps they are what Olmert deems to be "sacrifice"...or,,no wait...they are not Israeli non-Arabs, so they cannot be who Olmert is referring to, he is appealing for sacrifice of his own people, Israeli non-Arab, Christian and Jew alike to sacrifice. As for those 50-100 thousand+ citizen hostages of numerous nationalities in Israel's enemy territories? What were they thinking? That Israel was their nations' friend? That if their nation (eg, the U.S.) had known of the Israeli plans to massively assault Lebanon that their nation would have taken pre-emptive measures to ensure their exodus from the expected war zone? Or would that be asking for too much compared to Israeli demands for the immediate unconditional release of two captured Israeli soldiers, else the wrath of IsrealHell pour from the heavens.