General Chat / Bush Pre-Planned War on Lebannon

Edit: Personally as far as Israel is concerned, I say let the middle east beat the shit out of each other. Neither side is going to make concessions, so the idea of peaceful negotiations and relations is just proposterous. The only way you will ever have an end to hostilities there is if both sides take the other out. Plain and simple. Israel pulled out of Lebanon, and Giza (which they rightly won when they were attacked by the Islamic nations), and what do they get? An increase in hostilities. Rockets were being fired at them before the whole soldier issue, so that was just the spark...

The Western world is indebted to the Middle East to solve this issue because it basically created the entire crisis when the UN partitioned the British Mandate of Palestine and created Israel.

If Native Americans were to establish their own independent countries on original tribal lands taken by the US, I don't think the reaction of people living in those areas would be too enthusiastic, to say the least. And while that is far-fetched, it is the closest thing I can think of to compare to what is going on in the Middle East... only what is going on in the Middle East is about a million times worse. Arab countries (and Arab inhabitants of British Palestine) had the entire world forcing a decision to divide Palestine into Jewish and Arab countries down their throats when they clearly did not want it to happen. And that was at a time when Jewish people were a minority! How else would Arab countries be expected to react? Send Israel a basket of cookies and say, "welcome to the neighborhood?"

Israel has created far more tension and trouble than it is worth, but that should be expected given how it was conceived, where it is situated, and how it behaves today. It would have been decimated years ago if it weren't for the untold billions (around $2.5 billion in 2006) it recieves annually from the good 'ole US-of-A. I don't understand the reasoning behind such a strong alliance between the US and Israel though (other than the fact that Israel is the only staunchly pro-US country in the Middle East, but that can be attributed to the aid they receive).

Edited by John, 14 August 2006 - 04:00 PM.

It's not a political alliance John. The reason the US supports Israel so strongly is because it is seen as the holy land and the Israeli people as the chosen people. Certainly there were strong political motivations for establishing a Jewish state post-WWII, and for continuing to support a friendly nation in an otherwise unfriendly region, but then like you said, we created the problem in the first place. There was little reason for any of the Arab nations to be upset with the US before the founding of the Israeli state. Much of the anger is the result of our support for Israel. And you don't give billions a year to just any political alliance. Even one in a volatile region. So that's really what it comes down to. The US supports Israel in any and all things because they are the chosen people, because of the religious symbolism. And really, that's also the reason why the violence has gotten as bad as it has. Because Israel has no reason to negotiate a truce with it's neighbors so long as it has unwavering US support.

At the same time, I do think it's sort of silly to be so obsessed with destroying Israel (this being the "general Arab point of view"). If Nevada suddenly became a new country for Native Americans, I wouldn't be devoted to destroying it.

Granted, I'm excluding the religious fervor that's a huge motivation, but I think it's also silly that the radical Muslims contributing to this problem believe that every land ever conquered and consecrated by Muslims should be reconquered and put under Muslim control. Hello... wasn't it holy to someone else before you conquered it? What makes you so powerful? (I know the response, but my point is it's retarded)

That's it Cork. That's the Middle East conflict in a nutshell. Both sides are irrational, neither side is willing to compromise. But there are a great deal of Palestinians who don't want the destruction of all Israel, but rather someone to recognize a claim to the land they were forcibly removed from. And then the majority of Israelis nowadays just want to live in their homes without the constant threat of suicide attacks. Both of those are rational motivations and if the extremists on both sides would just stay out of it, probably they could come up with a rational solution. --- Which is exactly why this "war on terror" crusade is not helping matters. It's giving a greater voice to the extremists on both sides and causing even more harm to the people in the middle. The rational people who are having their homes destroyed and their family members killed -- both of which tend to turn rational people into irrational people.

I'd just like to point out that if a Native American state was created in Nevada, many Americans would be outraged. However, the entirety of North America would not be hell bent on destroying the Native Americans because they took away North American land. I believe this is where the key difference lies between both sides. Correct, both sides are irrational and illogical, but I simply can't forgive a group who of people who is determined to wipe out another. I honestly don't think the Israeli's goal in all of this is to eliminate all Muslims or Arabs. And before someone says that the Arabs only want the land back, and don't care about killing the people... please.

well we may not even see 2008 according to some new scare tactics. http://www.opinionjo...a/?id=110008768

And before someone says that the Arabs only want the land back, and don't care about killing the people... please.

I like how you used the vaguely racial/political term 'Arabs' there to avoid having to actually identify any one group of people. Well done. It almost makes me want to agree with you. Nope, not quite.

well we may not even see 2008 according to some new scare tactics. http://www.opinionjo...a/?id=110008768

If things do end this way, I predicted it on July 14th. And I doubt I was the only one to see it coming.

hah, I knew someone was going to bring that up and I decided I would leave it general. As far as I'm concerned, the entire region of people, 'Arabs', or of descendents from Arabia are opposed to Israel. Sure Saudi Arabia and Egypt aren't public about their opposition towards Israel, but Saudi Arabia harbors a whole bunch of terrorists and Egypt even made that announcement warning Israel to stop. So, in my defense, and I knew exactly that this would come, when I referred to the entire group of people, I meant the entire group of people. All of the governments are vocally opposed to Israel except for the aforementioned, and essentially all of the people in the Middle East are as well, and want all of the Jews dead.

I am more interested in discussing how democracy no longer works than splitting hairs about the current situation. We all agree things are fucked up and both sides are ridiculous in their decisions.

Edited by postit, 15 August 2006 - 12:15 AM.

It's not splitting hairs. That is the point in your argument that I disagree with -- and it's a huge point. By grouping all these people under the blanket term 'Arab' you're confusing the actions of a few people with the intentions of all of them. You could just as well call me an 'American' and say 'all Americans want a war in Iraq'. That simplifies the issue to such an extent that it becomes a falsehood.

Saudi Arabia harbors a bunch of terrorists? If by harbors you mean 'has no control over those of them that live there' then sure, I agree. But under that definition, England harbors terrorists and so does America and Spain and France and so on and so on. Is Saudi Arabia actively supporting terrorist groups? No. Or at least not any more so than every major nation supports groups which advance it's own objectives (can you say Contra?)

Egypt made that announcement warning Israel to stop? So did practically every other nation in the world except England and America. France issued a statement. Spain issued a statement. Germany issued a statement. I even issued a statement! Why do you call out Egypt for issuing a statement? That was the sensible thing to do.

Not all the people of the Middle East are Arabs and not all of them want the Jews dead. That's just ridiculous. In fact, I would say a very very small minority actually want the Jews dead. Most of the extremists who want the Jews out of Israel entirely don't even want to see all of the Jews dead. Their motivation is first and foremost the land, not the people. It's always about the land in the Middle East. Well, when it comes to Israel and Palestine anyway. The racial stereotypes are the ugly result of a decades long conflict that never seems to get better.

If you want to talk about democracy, that's fine too. I'm interested in talking about that. But I completely disagree with your assesment of the cultural situation in the Middle East and I think it'd be quite impossible to discuss what political solutions there might be so long as you insist on referring to all the people of Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, et al as "Arabs" and that they're only interested in killing all of the Jews. That's just plain wrong. And I refuse to acknowledge your use of the term, not because you're technically incorrect, but because you're using it to further a racial sterotype. That's one of many irrational ways of viewing the situation, and a partial explanation for why no real solution has been found so far. They may speak Arabic, but they are people just as much as Israeli's are people (not all of whom are Jewish by the way) and American's are people and Iraqi's are people.

As far as Saudi Arabia harboring terrorists, did you know a large justification for Al Qaeda forming is their hatred of the Saudi royals? Osama's father actually knew the former king quite well, but Osama viewed him as corrupt and whatnot.

And far as the whole UN thing. When will people realize the UN is a useless organization? I dont mean to sound egotistical or America is the best and all that shit, but seriousily, without US military backing, no UN security counsel resolution even has a chance to be enforced. Furthermore, the UN already had a peacekeeping force stationed in Lebanon, that failed to do its job. You all want to talk about the failures of the Bush admin, and I'm fine with that, but lets also look at the failures of the UN. In both instances, there have been massive failures in regards to the Middle East. Hell, the predeccesor to the UN is what created Israel in the first place.

Yeah but critisizm of the UN is critisizm of the nations which are members of the UN. It's useless because we make it useless. Because we don't care enough to make it useful. It's supposed to represent the common interests of all the worlds nations. The extent to which it fails is the extent to which we fail to cooperate. It's rather silly to critisize the UN in that case. You're really just critisizing the lack of it's members to forge meaningful collaborations. You're critisizing the US and England and China and France and so on for their total inability to agree on a course of action and commit the resources to carry it out.

And the predecessor of the UN -- the league of nations -- was drafted by President Woodrow Wilson so it was still primarily the US who set up the state of Israel. The Allied powers from World War I - the US, France, England -- they were the ones most actively involved in 'Nation Building'. Things didn't work out so well in Yugoslavia either.

It's not splitting hairs. That is the point in your argument that I disagree with -- and it's a huge point. By grouping all these people under the blanket term 'Arab' you're confusing the actions of a few people with the intentions of all of them. You could just as well call me an 'American' and say 'all Americans want a war in Iraq'. That simplifies the issue to such an extent that it becomes a falsehood.

Saudi Arabia harbors a bunch of terrorists? If by harbors you mean 'has no control over those of them that live there' then sure, I agree. But under that definition, England harbors terrorists and so does America and Spain and France and so on and so on. Is Saudi Arabia actively supporting terrorist groups? No. Or at least not any more so than every major nation supports groups which advance it's own objectives (can you say Contra?)

Egypt made that announcement warning Israel to stop? So did practically every other nation in the world except England and America. France issued a statement. Spain issued a statement. Germany issued a statement. I even issued a statement! Why do you call out Egypt for issuing a statement? That was the sensible thing to do.

Not all the people of the Middle East are Arabs and not all of them want the Jews dead. That's just ridiculous. In fact, I would say a very very small minority actually want the Jews dead. Most of the extremists who want the Jews out of Israel entirely don't even want to see all of the Jews dead. Their motivation is first and foremost the land, not the people. It's always about the land in the Middle East. Well, when it comes to Israel and Palestine anyway. The racial stereotypes are the ugly result of a decades long conflict that never seems to get better.

If you want to talk about democracy, that's fine too. I'm interested in talking about that. But I completely disagree with your assesment of the cultural situation in the Middle East and I think it'd be quite impossible to discuss what political solutions there might be so long as you insist on referring to all the people of Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, et al as "Arabs" and that they're only interested in killing all of the Jews. That's just plain wrong. And I refuse to acknowledge your use of the term, not because you're technically incorrect, but because you're using it to further a racial sterotype. That's one of many irrational ways of viewing the situation, and a partial explanation for why no real solution has been found so far. They may speak Arabic, but they are people just as much as Israeli's are people (not all of whom are Jewish by the way) and American's are people and Iraqi's are people.

Verbal Abuse.

The UN is worthless because it has no legal or militaristic power of its own. End of story.

Give the UN actual governing power and a real military, and it would be a worthwhile organization to keep around. As it stands, though, essentially the substitute teacher while all the little kids on the playground are beating each other with sticks.

International law is a joke. Even as far back as, say, the Geneva Convention. Who sticks to that? No one, really. Because there's no way for the UN to back it up. The worst they can do is try to raise a collition military force, and with the structure of the congress as it is, that is a frustratingly slow process.

It's funny - the UN was designed to keep someone like Hitler from rising to power. But in its incompetency it just makes it even easier.

-ACE

Ed, but the question remains, if the UN cant enforce its own regulations, then why does it exist? If the UN is supposed to be the body that enforces international law, but lacks the ability to actually do so, then whats the point of having it? Basically, if you know you can break the law in front of an officer, and said officer wont do shit about it, then you're probably going to do it.

Perhaps predecesor was a bad choice of words as I had no intention of reffering to the League of Nations (which I might add was inneffective as it lacked the ability to enforce its resolutions), but rather the allied powers, who are our current permanent security council members. So they do share a responsibility in creating the current hostilities in the Middle East, whether we like it or not.

What you said makes me think of something quite interesting. You said "we" (I'm assuming by we, you mean the individual countries), make it useless. If we use that line of thinking, then an interesting thing starts to become clear. Remember those weapons inspectors in Iraq? Being thrown out of Iraq for twelve years. Yet the UN fails to do anything about other than issue a resolution or two, which is not enforced by any member nation excepting the US and UK. Now, setting aside your own like or dislike of the war, would you be willing to criticize the French, Germans, Russians or Chinese (I'm reffering to the resolutions passed prior to the US invasion), for not enforcing said resolutions? Further, you are quick to criticize the US for voting against a resolution condemning Israel, which in essence shows the same fundamental flaw that exists in the UN. The problem here, is that the power given to those on the security council was something established back when the leaders of those countries had just fought a brutal war, and had no desire to see another one occur. Im not so sure those in power now see the world the same way.



Oh and I finally decided to take a look at the actual video. I have two thoughts on this.
First: Interviewing a journalist about something he wrote in order to serve as a secound source and therefore confirmation is ridiculous and quite frankly bad journalism. I would allow CNN credibility if they did their own fact checking (ie: finding out the sources and conducting their own research). As it stands, I cannot say that the Bush admin actually preplanned the war unless there is better evidence than some journalist saying he has sources, and a second media outlet interviewing him to add credibility. I could say Bush is a crossdressor, and say I had sources, but that doesnt mean its true.

Secondly: If this story is true, honestly who cares? We are at war, as sad as that may be. Bush is being criticized for not having a plan in Iraq, but having a plan for an attack against Hizbollah is suddenly bad? I mean you cant have it both ways. Either we need to plan for wars, or we dont(which is just plain idiotic).
The way that it seems to me, is basically Israel wanted an excuse. So what. If I had massive deaths caused by groups like this, I'd want revenge too.
They have every right to defend themselves, just as Lebanon and Hizbollah do in turn. Thats why its called war. The strong survive, and the weak do not.

Why do people keep referring to the UN like it's a seperate country or some corporation or something? Every time I see statements like The UN is worthless because it has no legal or militaristic power of its own. or if the UN cant enforce its own regulations, then why does it exist I feel like I have to explain this all over again because clearly you don't get it. The UN does have an army -- it has the combined armies of all of it's members. Of course it doesn't have any militaristic power of it's own. That would ruin the whole point of the UN. And you're right that it can't enforce it's own regulations because nations like the US just ignore them when it's convenient to. The reason the UN is ineffective is because the members of the security council, those that are supposed to run the thing, don't really give a damn about making it work. The UN is like a volunteer police force. Everyone is supposed to take a turn. If no one shows up, you have no police. You can't sit back and complain that the volunteer police force isn't doing any good if you're not showing up yourself. It only works if the members that created it want it to work. And clearly that's not the case with the UN. Which is a condemnation of all nations involved.

Ed, but the question remains, if the UN cant enforce its own regulations, then why does it exist? If the UN is supposed to be the body that enforces international law, but lacks the ability to actually do so, then whats the point of having it? Basically, if you know you can break the law in front of an officer, and said officer wont do shit about it, then you're probably going to do it.

You're absolutely right. The UN, in it's current state, is practically useless. Look at the cease-fire agreement they just made. The Lebanese army can't force Hezbollah to disarm. Who's going to enforce the ceasefire? A half dozen assorted troups from various nations? That's not going to work. The US sends thousands of troops to Iraq but how many troops is it willing to send to Lebanon as part of a UN task force? Not very many. And why? If the US were serious about promoting peace in the world they would take an interest in making the UN work and commit the necessary resources (monetary, military) to make it's resolutions stick. The US sided with Israel in this and said "fuck the UN, fuck the global community, we don't care what any of you think". In my opinion, that's bad diplomacy. The US can get away with it only because there's no army big enough to threaten it. Well, except for a few terrorists with flight licenses. And if they fly more planes into buildings, I blame the US government for their shitty-ass job of diplomacy. You poke enough people with a stick and eventually one of them is going to fight back.

Perhaps predecesor was a bad choice of words as I had no intention of reffering to the League of Nations (which I might add was inneffective as it lacked the ability to enforce its resolutions), but rather the allied powers, who are our current permanent security council members. So they do share a responsibility in creating the current hostilities in the Middle East, whether we like it or not.

The Allied powers pretty much were the League of Nations. And yes, all of those nations involved share in the responsibility of the continuing conflict in the Middle East. That's what you get for playing supreme commander and rearranging borders without consulting the people who actually live there. The trouble is, until the 20th century borders were this vague imperialistic idea that only a few nations bought into so they could fudge them as much as they like without anyone much caring. But now that we have this big globalized world everyone is paying attention to borders and all that fudging is causing real conflicts. But the prime responsibility goes to the US, the UK, and France as the other players in the League of Nations had little influence at the time.

What you said makes me think of something quite interesting. You said "we" (I'm assuming by we, you mean the individual countries), make it useless. If we use that line of thinking, then an interesting thing starts to become clear. Remember those weapons inspectors in Iraq? Being thrown out of Iraq for twelve years. Yet the UN fails to do anything about other than issue a resolution or two, which is not enforced by any member nation excepting the US and UK. Now, setting aside your own like or dislike of the war, would you be willing to criticize the French, Germans, Russians or Chinese (I'm reffering to the resolutions passed prior to the US invasion), for not enforcing said resolutions? Further, you are quick to criticize the US for voting against a resolution condemning Israel, which in essence shows the same fundamental flaw that exists in the UN. The problem here, is that the power given to those on the security council was something established back when the leaders of those countries had just fought a brutal war, and had no desire to see another one occur. Im not so sure those in power now see the world the same way.

Yeah I would critisize the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese just as much as the UK and the US for the complete ineffectivness of the UN. In this case it was the US who vetoed the resolution. In other cases it has been any of them. Whenever anything significant demanding an urgent resolution comes up, one of the key members of the security council is either not there (how can you not be there? if I don't show up to work whenever I feel like they'll fire me) or they vote against. That's why the UN is totally useless and why the members don't even take it seriously anymore. The only thing the UN is good for right now is distributing food to impoverished nations. And they do only a passable job of that. Some of the members actually try. The smaller nations which actually have a stake in the security supposedly ensured them by a functioning UN.

I bolded your last statement cause I think it's a good one. The security council is a pretty bad idea to begin with. It basically says that "we, the recognized major powers in the world, hereby do not trust the rest of the world to know what is best for it. so we reserve the right to do whatever we damn well please and there's nothing you can do about it. please sign here on the dotted line". The UN was essentially set up to prevent wars, just like the League of Nations was. The US has little interest in making the UN functional right now because the collective nations of the world, to their credit, are always going to vote against war if given the chance. And if the US wants to fight a war, well just try and stop them! The UN was emphatically against a US invasion of Iraq. The US invaded anyway. The UN was emphatically against an Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Israel invaded anyway. And you're critisizing the UN as ineffective and useless. You should be critisizing the US and Israel for ignoring the best interests of the rest of the world and rendering the UN impotent. Maybe they just need to end the UN and start over. The problem is that the UN functions on the idea that we are all part of one global community and many of the people in the world would prefer to wave their nation's flag and cheer on their soldiers while they murder "the enemy".

If this story is true, honestly who cares? We are at war, as sad as that may be. Bush is being criticized for not having a plan in Iraq, but having a plan for an attack against Hizbollah is suddenly bad? I mean you cant have it both ways. Either we need to plan for wars, or we dont(which is just plain idiotic).
The way that it seems to me, is basically Israel wanted an excuse. So what. If I had massive deaths caused by groups like this, I'd want revenge too.
They have every right to defend themselves, just as Lebanon and Hizbollah do in turn. Thats why its called war. The strong survive, and the weak do not.

Well, there's too much to respond to this right now, so I'll come back to it later. The basic response is something like this though -- is revenge something to be glorified as a path of action for world leaders? And if we are at war, who is the enemy? Not to mention bombing a neighboring country because a group of radicals there kidnapped 2 soldiers and demanded a prisoner exchange is a long ways a way from defending yourself. They're not even in the same ballpark.

It's not splitting hairs. That is the point in your argument that I disagree with -- and it's a huge point. By grouping all these people under the blanket term 'Arab' you're confusing the actions of a few people with the intentions of all of them. You could just as well call me an 'American' and say 'all Americans want a war in Iraq'. That simplifies the issue to such an extent that it becomes a falsehood.

Saudi Arabia harbors a bunch of terrorists? If by harbors you mean 'has no control over those of them that live there' then sure, I agree. But under that definition, England harbors terrorists and so does America and Spain and France and so on and so on. Is Saudi Arabia actively supporting terrorist groups? No. Or at least not any more so than every major nation supports groups which advance it's own objectives (can you say Contra?)

Egypt made that announcement warning Israel to stop? So did practically every other nation in the world except England and America. France issued a statement. Spain issued a statement. Germany issued a statement. I even issued a statement! Why do you call out Egypt for issuing a statement? That was the sensible thing to do.

Not all the people of the Middle East are Arabs and not all of them want the Jews dead. That's just ridiculous. In fact, I would say a very very small minority actually want the Jews dead. Most of the extremists who want the Jews out of Israel entirely don't even want to see all of the Jews dead. Their motivation is first and foremost the land, not the people. It's always about the land in the Middle East. Well, when it comes to Israel and Palestine anyway. The racial stereotypes are the ugly result of a decades long conflict that never seems to get better.

If you want to talk about democracy, that's fine too. I'm interested in talking about that. But I completely disagree with your assesment of the cultural situation in the Middle East and I think it'd be quite impossible to discuss what political solutions there might be so long as you insist on referring to all the people of Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, et al as "Arabs" and that they're only interested in killing all of the Jews. That's just plain wrong. And I refuse to acknowledge your use of the term, not because you're technically incorrect, but because you're using it to further a racial sterotype. That's one of many irrational ways of viewing the situation, and a partial explanation for why no real solution has been found so far. They may speak Arabic, but they are people just as much as Israeli's are people (not all of whom are Jewish by the way) and American's are people and Iraqi's are people.

But that is where I disagree with you. I do think that it's different over there. It's not like here where over half of the people are pissed with what's going on in Iraq. Over there, I believe, based on articles I've read and pictures I've seen, which illlustrate marches of hatred toward Jews and the West, mostly all of the inhabitants support the actions of their governments that condemn and seek to destroy Israel and their peoples. So yes, I am going to disagree with you there. By me calling them Arab is like them calling us American. But you know, you are right. I should have specified. Nearly all of the Middle Eastern governments, and nearly all of their people want Israel destroyed. Ok?

I have no factual proof of backing up my impression of how the 'Arabs' actually feel about the Jewish existence. Sorry, there haven't been gallop polls that could measure a percentage over there questioning, "Do you want the Jews dead or only out of our land?"

I also suppose my inclusion of information about Saudi Arabia and Egypt was slightly irrelevant. I was trying to show that even the places where the government wasn't vocally against Israel's existence, there still exists a great deal of hatred.

But in all seriousness, I specifically chose to use the word to describe the entire group of people and their intentions, and as you've said, that's where we disagree. Sure, I don't think the conflict was always this way, and I don't think that the majority of 'Arabs' wanted the Jews dead in the past, but over the last few years, so much hatred towards the West and Israel has resulted in this. It's the same nationalistic crap, which is so unfortunately prevalent these days, which had American citizens waving flags after September 11th, 2001. At this point, today, I have no problem using the blanket term 'Arabs' to describe the people of the region, because, at least in my opinion, most of them want the Jews dead.

The line about Israel being not entirely Jewish sounded a little condescending. Of course I know that. And I hope I don't sound arrogant at all, either. I am trying to take a few steps back, as obviously, it didn't come out right the first time. I didn't mean to offend by using the term, 'Arab'. Anyway, no hard feelings, Ed. I agree with pretty much all that you have to say and I always enjoy these discussions. But I guess we do disagree on one thing.

Look, I don't want to start an argument with you, I have no reason to. And your willingness to take a step back and explain your position calmly speaks well of your mindset. I believe you are a reasonable, rational human being and I respect you for it. I just think, when it comes to your understanding of the root causes of conflict in the Middle East, you've been misled. You admit you have no factual proof, so what then are you basing your intuition on? You say articles you've read and pictures you've seen. Have you ever visited the Middle East? Personally, I have not. Which is a shame because the best way to really understand what a place is like is to go there. The best way to understand a person is to talk with them and listen to them. Without that opportunity, we have to rely on secondhand knowledge. We have to rely on what other people who have been there and who have talked to the people tell us. And from the secondhand information I've come across, my view of the attitudes of most citizens of Middle Eastern countries is very different. I'll try to collect some sources to show you what I've seen. Naturally you're free to draw your own conclusions, but you'll never know if you don't see it for yourself right? That sounds fair doesn't it?

As for the comment about Israeli's not all being Jews, I didn't mean it to be condescending. I knew that was obvious, or at least I hoped it would be. So it shouldn't seem strange to you when I say that the same is true of Lebanon or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Iraq. Not all Americans are Christians. Not all Indians are Hindu or Buddhist. Not all Lebanese are Arab. Not all Iranians are Arab. There are quite a few Arabs living in Israel as well. And certainly not all Arabs are Muslim and vice versa. Don't you think it's unfair to read the comments of a few people, to see pictures of some groups rallying against Israel and conclude that all Arabs feel the same way? If I showed you a picture of a Neo-Nazi rally and quoted a bunch of white power extremists and I called them 'Americans' and I never showed you anything else about America would you conclude that all Americans are white people who hate other races? You probably would. It's very easy to be misled when your access to information is limited. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case with Arabs, but can you at least see how easy it would be to draw the wrong conclusions if your sources were biased? Really think about where you're getting your information and whether it's possible to be mistaken in that way. Again, you have to draw your own conclusions. I'm subject to the same possibility I know. Which is why I'm trying to share with you what I've seen which determines how I understand people in the Middle East.

I like reading the words of the people. Not just the journalists, but the actual people. There's an interesting dialog here which goes through a lot of the viewpoints of both sides. It's pretty clear to me that these are rational people. Nobody wants to kill anyone else. You've got people with extreme viewpoints on both sides creating conflict and breeding hysteria, but the majority of the people are decent rational people like you and me who are being bombed and terrorized for no reason.

There's a movie called Paradise Now which came out last year and now you can watch online for free. Now obviously this is fiction, and written from a certain viewpoint, so it shouldn't be taken as fact. It should instead be taken as one interpretation of what the motivations are for suicide bombers. It's a peek inside the head of a Muslim extremist (perhaps typical, perhaps totally fiction -- I don't know). And from watching the movie, I feel like I understand much better why someone would believe a suicide bombing as a just action. I still disagree with it, but I can at least understand how someone could fool themself into believing it is good and just. You should watch that if you have the time. Because understanding something is the first step towards dealing with it. Not bombing it off the map, but understanding why it exists in the first place. These are the people we are dealing with. Not monsters, but human beings living in sometimes miserable conditions with difficult choices to make who sometimes make the wrong choice. I make the wrong choice too sometimes. Fortunately when I do dozens of people don't die, but the principle is the same. It's human to make mistakes.

Here's another article about an Arab woman living in the US.

I am neither Arab nor Jew. I think both sides have an equal right to exist and thrive and raise families and all of the things people live for. I think it is possible for the two sides to co-exist in the Middle East but only when they stop thinking of themselves as seperate factions and start thinking of themselves as members of the same human race. This whole emphasis on tradition and history and your people took this from mine way back then and your people did this to mine way back then and now it must be paid back -- that's totally unconstructive and it's preventing things from moving forward. I think there are a lot more Israelis than Palestinians who just want things to be the way they are now without the fighting. It's easy to see why. Israel holds the land while Palestinians are often marginalized and pushed to the fringes. Sure the Palestinians could just move to Lebanon or Iran or Iraq, but is that really reasonable? That's like saying 'too bad we took your country away, you can just move to Canada or Mexico' That isn't really fair is it? The Palestinians also have no army. That's where the terrorist culture comes from. If you have no army you have to use terror tactics instead. It's not right, but it is reality. I don't afford national armies any more justification for there actions than terrorist groups. Which is why I think Israel is just as culpable for the damage they inflicted in this war as Hezbollah is. All of that Jihad Muslim 'kill for the glory of God' bullshit is just the justification that terrorist groups lay over their own objectives to justify them. It's not so different from what the Europeans did when they came to South America. There's nothing in Christianity itself which justifies murder in the name of God, and there's nothing in Islam either which justifies it.

I'll keep looking for good articles for you to see if I can change your mind. It took me a long time to understand what is going on in the Middle East, well to the extent I do understand it anyway, and I haven't kept a running log of information I can just link you to to show you everything I've seen. I wish I had such a log, it would make this whole debate thing so much easier. But I do think you're a rational human being and more than capable of drawing your own conclusions, so I'll try to flag things which you might be interested in when I see them and send them your way.

EDIT: Here's two more editorials, clearly biased, but I agree with a lot of what they say: Desert of Trapped Corpses Olmert's War

And one Israeli man's take on the situation which I completely agree with:

It's a very confusing predicament. The way it has been done leaves a strong sense that it was a mistake to go to war.

Firstly, the declaration that the war was to release the soldiers. Now they are going to negotiate the release - but they could have done that before.

Crushing Hezbollah also didn't succeed for sure. Israel failed in its military goals. Hezbollah is not going to capitulate.

For a whole month many people were killed. A lot of territory was destroyed. A redundant war that could have been avoided. Nobody's celebrating, I can tell you that.

There will be local skirmishes. It's the story of our life: no peace, no borders, a wall of separation. It's only a patch on a patch.

I think there will be a political earthquake. I think the public will think the force wasn't strong enough. Great, huh?

I know I represent a very tiny minority. I am post-Zionist; I think Zionism in its current phase has to come to terms with the tragic consequences of its project. For example, the Palestinian problem.

We need to share this land full and genuinely. Until we do, we will be in a state of war.

You don't need to be a prophet to see this.

(link)

This is semi off-topic, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

"Arab" in and of itself is not an offensive term. But, it is sometimes used interchangeably with "Muslim" and "Middle Eastern" here in the US, which is not correct. Depending on which definition is used, a number of different groups would/would not be considered Arabs, but usually anyone from Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the UAE, Western Sahara, or Yemen is considered an Arab—regardless of religious affiliation—because of the commonality of the Arabic language.

Related to that, Persians and Turks are not Arabs, even though Iran and Turkey are usually considered a part of the Middle East. In fact, most people—Arabs, Persians, and Turks alike—find the comparisons insulting and offensive. Although, it is understandable where the confusion might arise as the majority are Muslim and they are all in the Middle East. It's amazing how many people I've talked to who don't realize (or care to realize) that Persians speak Persian, that not all Muslims speak Arabic and that not all Arabs are Muslim. Which, I guess, could be blamed on our current foreign policy where every terrorist is apparently concentrated in the Middle East, speaks Arabic, is Muslim, and wants to destroy the United States and/or Israel. Man do we have it down to a science!

Ronen Shamir's (the Israeli professor Ed quoted) perspective is probably along the lines of what the average Arab feels. They aren't the blood-thirsty anti-Semites that the American media would want us to believe. Likewise, the average Israeli isn't the corrupt Zionist heathen that Iran and Syria want to portray.

Sorry that this response is a little late.

You know what, you're right, Ed. I never thought about the whole perspective thing, and I'm a victim of believing the crap that I always thought I would never believe. I realized that I haven't taken a look from both sides. Thank you for opening my mind. The statements I made earlier were a little over the top.

Yet, at the same time, I know both sides involved in the conflict just want it over at this point, and you have provided great sources for information on the impacts on Israel and Lebanon. Yet I have not seen anything about the people in Syria or Iran. I'm still skeptical about how "reasonable" these people are in regards to Israel. I also worry about the rising anti-Semitism throughout the globe, as a result of this conflict and the past few years. I don't think that Israel will resume attacking because they are in a bad situation, but I don't feel the same way about Iran. I am concerned about all of the people that are rejoicing for Hezbollah. So basically, I'm worried about the consequences this will have on the Israeli state, because as I mentioned earlier, it appears many people in the region are supporting Hezbollah now in an extreme nationalistic sense, which is never a good thing.