We're not talking about 'the war' enough

[Crissa]

1155901713[/unixtime]]In the West we don't often hear of unprovoked attacks by the Israelis, but hear near-constant news of suicide bombers taking out busloads of Israelis. Why? If Canada started bombing up Quebecois roadblocks, wouldn't we hear about that? What's with the media blackout?

Duh.

The people who have media towers get to tell the story.

What were the first things hit by Isreali strikes in Lebanon?

The television stations.

You don't hear about the Indian camps being hit by whites in Canada, either.

-Crissa

[PhoneLobster]

This is the only time I will ever respond to you because your posts are near 100% lies, misdirection and complete disconnection from reality. You and your "points" do not deserve the credibility of anyone responding, but heck, this once I will.

Further, pardon my ignorance, but I need help on the following points:
1. How long ago was this?

Fvcking yesterday. Ie when the rest of us weren't born.

2. Besides just being dicks, why was this done?

Like I said, to sabotage the peace process, but you ignored that because thats what you do.

The cooperation was working. But the powers that be in Israeli didn't WANT it to work. By destroying the cooperation and then destroying law and order in the PA they ensured that the "enemy" both had good reason to hate them again and no police force to stop the bombers.

That is utterly, explicitly and undeniably a move to sabotage peace. There is no spinning that in ANY other light.

3. In the West we don't often hear of unprovoked attacks by the Israelis, but hear near-constant news of suicide bombers taking out busloads of Israelis.

You clearly aren't listening then. Its because you are incapable of doing so when the vast weight of reality disagrees with your personal desire to kill an ethnicity you despise.

[Zherog]

1155937337[/unixtime]] You don't hear about the Indian camps being hit by whites in Canada, either.

-Crissa

You make me laugh Crissa. I know it's unintentional - you actually believe you're being intelligent and witty - but thanks anyway.

[Crissa]

I grew up with this stuff: http://www.indians.org/welker/bosum.htm

Just sayin' that generally, the people without money generally don't get heard about.

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

Ok, the problem is that really not being able to get press attention to get your message out is a 20th century excuse. The thing is that it is the 21 century.

So, let’s go back to the reason why we weren’t able to hear any person in Democratic leadership on condemning Israel on their offense is because either (a) the press weren’t covering them and thus the message wasn’t being disseminated or (b) the press was actually misquoting the Democrat in question. However, this forget one thing: the internet. These Democrats have their own websites and can get out their message through them.

(Please note that I do agree that the Republicans haven’t been saying much about Israeli aggression, but did you really expect them to? Aren’t they going to support the president that’s in their party? Hasn’t the Democratic party been traditionally more of the party of the “Make love not war” crowd, and thus wouldn’t you really expect to hear criticism of Israeli bombings from them?)

So let’s check the Democrats that have the most political clout websites out, shall we?

Let’s start with Hillary Clinton.

Senator Clinton Meets With Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni

Late yesterday, Senator Clinton received a briefing on the current situation in Israel in a private meeting with Tzipi Livni, Israel’s Foreign Minister. During the meeting they discussed Israel’s security and the status of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers.
“During my meeting yesterday with Israeli Foreign Minister Livni, I expressed my support for Israel in its efforts to combat terrorism and provide for the security of its people. The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers that precipitated the conflicts in Lebanon and Gaza have not yet been resolved, and it is essential that Israel's abducted soldiers are returned to Israel unconditionally. Two weeks ago, I met with the family members of one of the soldiers abducted in Israel near the Lebanese border. They spoke eloquently and movingly about the importance of securing the safe return of the captured soldiers. Israel’s right to exist, and exist in safety, must never be put in question and we must continue to stand by Israel as it defends itself and seeks the return of its soldiers.”

Sound pro-Israel to me. Heck, if she’s so pissed at Israeli aggression, why is she meeting with the Israeli foreign minister?

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Iraqi Prime Minister’s Comments on Hezbollah

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s comments regarding Hezbollah’s aggression against Israel are unfortunate and discouraging. His refusal to denounce Hezbollah and his condemnation of Israel send exactly the wrong message about the importance of fighting terrorism and bringing stability and peace to the Middle East. I hope that he clarifies his statements to recognize the right of Israel, a sovereign nation, to defend itself and condemn terrorist aggression such as Hezbollah’s incursions. With almost 130,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq, I will attend tomorrow’s joint session in order to hear Prime Minister Maliki’s assessment of the path forward in Iraq, hopeful that he will clarify his comments during that session and reiterate his determination to defeat terrorism in Iraq and throughout the region.

Sounds pro-Israel to me.

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Condemning the Attacks on Israel

The unprovoked attacks on innocent Israelis and the killing and abduction of Israeli soldiers by the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah are dramatic escalations of violence against Israel. The United States must stand by Israel as she defends herself. No government can stand idly by when its citizens and soldiers are attacked and abducted and when terrorist groups make incursions into its territory. These events demonstrate that Hamas’s ascent to power in the Palestinian Authority, and Hezbollah’s participation in the Lebanese government, are dangerous for the stability, not only of Israel, but of the entire region. Hamas and Hezbollah must return the Israeli soldiers they abducted and cease their attacks against Israel.
Israel’s right to exist, and exist in safety, must never be put in question We must also continue to send a very clear message to Syria, Iran and others to join in condemning these attacks and to exercise their influence over Hamas and Hezbollah."

Definitely pro-Israel there. I think that we’ve covered Senator Clinton’s opinion of Israel in the offensive. If she’s against it, somebody really needs to talk to her press secretary.

So let’s check out John Kerry’s website, shall we. After all, he was the last candidate for the Democrats for the presidency.

Kerry Presses Administration for Clarity From Maliki On Hezbollah, Iran, Situation in Iraq

Dear Mr. President:
As you know, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will be addressing a Joint Session of Congress tomorrow. I write in hopes that you will encourage Prime Minister Maliki to use this as an opportunity to address some important issues that are on the minds of many Americans.
Members of Congress strongly support Prime Minister Maliki in his efforts to end the sectarian violence and bring stability to Iraq, and we share his hope for a better future for his country. I believe that addressing the following issues will only help to build confidence in his government as they embark on the difficult tasks ahead.
1. Hezbollah and Iran. Many are very concerned about comments made by Prime Minister Maliki about the ongoing Israeli initiative against Hezbollah, a terrorist organization which started the current conflict by mounting an attack against Israel. Specifically, Prime Minister Maliki described the Israeli operations in Lebanon and Gaza as “criminal” and called “on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression.” This is in notable contrast to comments from other key regional powers, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, which criticized Hezbollah for “unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts.” Given that it is essential to send a clear message that terrorism is never acceptable, and that ending support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah by countries including Iran is key to winning the war on terror, Prime Minister Maliki should clarify that he condemns Hezbollah for its attack on Israel, and that he believes that Iran should not continue to provide weapons to Hezbollah.

Definitely not anti-Israel there.

John Kerry on Rush Limbaugh’s Comments on Israel

Rush Limbaugh’s ignorance and willingness to divide Americans knows no bounds. His latest statement about Israel is beyond offensive to all of us who have fought to protect Israel in the face of enemies committed to its destruction.
Rush Limbaugh needs to pick up a history book instead of a donut. It was a Democratic president who first recognized the State of Israel. It was a Democratic President who first sold Israel defensive weapons. And it was a Democratic President who first sold Israel offensive weapons.
The people of Israel and the Jewish community don’t need Rush Limbaugh to tell them who stands with them, and no one has time for the right wing trying to score cheap political points while Israel fights to defend its very existence.[/size

Wow! So, according to John, if you really want to criticize Israel for their offensive weapons, you really need to criticize the Democratic party since they were the first to start selling Israel offensive weapons.

So, if you really want to criticize why nothing has been said against Israeli aggression, the Democratic leadership would really have to be pretty high up on that listing. That’s why I don’t play this morality game – you’ll find that nobody wins. And these are the words from their own websites.

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

This is the only time I will ever respond to you because your posts are near 100% lies, misdirection and complete disconnection from reality. You and your "points" do not deserve the credibility of anyone responding, but heck, this once I will.

Hey, PL, was this really directed at me? I've only posted on this topic five times (and two of those were in this topic's early days), and, over the past three days, most of what I've asked were questions attempting to understand things I really, honestly do not to understand.

I mean, yeesh, when you say…

You clearly aren't listening then. Its because you are incapable of doing so when the vast weight of reality disagrees with your personal desire to kill an ethnicity you despise.

…I'm really at a loss how you went from my three posts in the past two days to that. Heck, the last person I despised was an online college professor out of USD who gave me a B on a paper for a single typo (using a instead of an once, if you're interested).

[Tokorona]

Okay, a quick google has results. That would support Crissa - it's in response to earlier attacks. However, there are several problems with this.

THe reporting newspaper is the The Guardian

Accuracy in Media ranks it as horrible (but that's also a conserative think-tank.)
FAIR ranks it as.. well, FAIR Is obviosuly anti-Israel, to the point where if you can't tell it, you're blind.

So, which CAN you trust? Neither. Here's the problem with most media. They have a pronounced bias. So. Ignoring that, it's kinda clear that Israel is reluctant to go into a full peace as long as Hezebollah is alive. Logical. But screwy.

However, to address certain points.

Duh.

The people who have media towers get to tell the story.

What were the first things hit by Isreali strikes in Lebanon?

The television stations.

You don't hear about the Indian camps being hit by whites in Canada, either.

-Crissa

... This point is laughable. While it's generally true, the effects of hte Isreali attacks aren't shown... there really is no preattack. Well, not per se.

To refuse to fund the government THEY created is frankly disgusting…

…Even if the stated goal of that government is to kill them all?

They have every right not to support a hostile government. This is not even really an issue.

1. Israel's genocidal actions in the middle of peace process that was working were responsible for the formation of Hamas.

... Genocidal? Hello, Godwin. Remember WWII? That's definitly not Genocidal. The reaction is far too contstrained for that. Please tune your exaggeration setting to low.

2. Israel's decision to end cooperation between the PA police and their police, and subsequently bomb all those police stations allowed Hamas to thrive as an underground organisation.

It's not like their police was effective before hand... and somehow, an enemy state shouldn't have cooperation. This is not even debatable.

3. And Israel's decision to bomb the shit out of and otherwise endlessly undermine the peace process and all the moderates who opposed and preceded Hamas is DIRECTLY what led to Hamas emerging also as a political group and then marching to democratic victory.

... Heh. So? They made choices that turned out to be bad. This is not an uncommon concept.

And, finally. PL? Just because he argues with you doesn't mean he's a people eating monster.

[PhoneLobster]

Hey, PL, was this really directed at me?

Sorry there little fella your post wast right between posts by Xander and was wandering into the domain of his kind of raving.

A simple enough mistake.

Still not born yesterday, the reality of why and who is in power in the current situation is a direct responsibility of stuff which happened just yesterday as far as politics and war is concerned.

Inflammatory comments removed - fbmf

[Xander77]

1155945814[/unixtime]]This is the only time I will ever respond to you because your posts are near 100% lies, misdirection and complete disconnection from reality. You and your "points" do not deserve the credibility of anyone responding, but heck, this once I will.

The neat part? Too stupid to actually respond to one of my posts after expressing that sentiment.

[clef]

If a legally elected government came into power in a neighboring state and said its goal was wiping your country off the map, is your country still obligated to aid that government in the name of "supporting democratic change"?

In my view they are certainly not obligated. I don’t think people are even “obligated” to help others who are suffering half way across the world. Sure there’s a cosmopolitan philosophy that says that we really are, but I think it’s a little crazy. I’d fight any law that required me to devote my every waking moment to the indiscriminate benefit of strangers. That’d just be an odd kind of slavery. We can do what we want with our time. Governments can do what they want with their money. Support Hamas. Not support Hamas sure, most of the time, it’s your choice.

But that doesn’t mean that supporting Hamas isn’t the best thing you could do. It may well be your wisest course as well as your most moral, especially if you can find a way to do it so that you aren’t supporting people who actually would try to destroy you and are never going to change their minds. Then it’s unquestionably moral and likely to promote a diversity of opinions that ultimately leads to fewer people willing or able to try and destroy you.

However, I think your characterization of events is a little odd here. This isn’t a case where someone said “I intend to kill you, now give me $50” It may seem that way but it’s not. The history gets in the way. No matter how broad or how narrow you construe your vision of the past, it never looks that simple.

The other side of the argument goes that Israel, with the tacit consent of the rest of the world, has been keeping the Palestinian territories terribly oppressed for years and years. The argument is that it is in particular because of Israel’s actions that the Palestinians are starving and suffering to this very day. The Oslo Accords codified and legitimized a system whereby the Palestinian territories would have no real option for economic independence. They are cut off from substantive resources (especially water) and their entire interaction with the rest of the world is entirely filtered through Israel. So Israel can restrict and tax imports from Palestinian territories to Israel and to other nations and at the same time it can make exports from Israel to the Palestinian territories very cheap (relatively at least) and block exports from Jordan or other nations into the Palestinian territories. As a result there aren’t any jobs available inside of the Palestinian territories so of course they look for work outside in the rest of Israel. But Israel can and does restrict their capacity for growth there as well, by bringing in immigrant labor from elsewhere including China. And on top of that they’re building a wall. The result is that the Palestinian territories are a captive economy. The people there are nothing more than a market for Israeli goods and services, they don’t have any real control over their own economic destiny. They are a separate but unequal part of the Israeli economic system.

Their national product is 16% of Israel’s national product. They have almost no government investment, no foreign investment, no investment of any kind in their infrastructure. 60% of their population is below the poverty line. They have something like 50% unemployment. Most of those employees work as “security” forces and are paid through international aid (obviously policing yourself doesn’t earn you much money) which is of course now being cut off. You can read about this stuff in places like the Financial Times. It isn’t talked about frequently, but it is out there and of course people don’t talk about the causes at all but the reality of the situation is not denied. Most human rights groups frequently criticize Israel’s treatment of the peoples of the occupied territories. There’s no question that there was and is a problem and it is unclear if it is getting any better.

People who look at this stuff and believe it don’t argue that Israel has a fundamental obligation to help Palestinians just because they can. They argue that Israel’s obligation is founded on the very fact that the situation is their fault. This is an argument about reparations. The idea is that Israel and to lesser extent the entire rest of the world owes it to the Palestinians to help them, to clean up the mess we’ve created so to speak.

The question then becomes whether the fact that the people of the Palestinian regions changed the people who they want to represent them to a group that is antagonistic to Israel changes the pre-existing obligation to those people. The monetary support that was taken away isn’t even the tip of the iceberg here in terms of what the world should be doing under this theory. We are obligated to do whatever we can to solve these problems. Integrating populations. Creating opportunities. Creating a culture of tolerance. Providing more access to natural resources like water and more opportunities for trade. And so on and so forth. A loose but fair economic confederation between these two states would result in advantages for both peoples and would not invite as substantive criticism from the rest of the world. But the situation seems to be moving in the opposite direction with the Palestinian territories becoming increasingly isolated.

Who is to blame? A lot of people, but the consequences for the Palestinians have been horrible. Is it any wonder that they are siding with the most radical groups within their populations? That’s just something you have to take into account when assessing the right and wrong of whether the nations of the world should cut off aid to Hamas because they have written in their charter that Israel should be destroyed. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't cut off aid. But I am saying you'd better explain why this act is going to lead to a better overall situation. It's gotta be about more than fear, dislike, and hurt feelings.

Oh and as an aside, I do think extreme detrimental changes in your policies toward a state in direct response to who they have elected as their government and not in response to anything that new government has done, does constitute a kind of coercion of the people of that state. Depending on the extent of the change in policy, it really can be constraining their options to a group pre-approved by you. That's not fair by any measure. Minimally you should wait until that new government actually does something that provides you an excuse to change your policies. That's not only more morally justifiable, it's better strategy. You are more likely to lead to that group picking a different leadership next time that way.

[clef]

Wow! So, according to John, if you really want to criticize Israel for their offensive weapons, you really need to criticize the Democratic party since they were the first to start selling Israel offensive weapons.

Yes. Mainstream Democrats and Republicans have had pretty damn similar opinions with regards to Israel for a very long time now. Keep supporting them. Keep giving them money. Don't criticize. That's the general gist of it. The primary difference is that Republicans are the ones going on a campaign to show that all Democrats disagree with this policy and labelling them anti-Semites. That's extremely dishonest, but not at all unexpected.

Some people wish that the Democrats would take a more aggressive stance against Israel, but many others don't. They'll follow their constituency in the end of course, and that's fine. I just wish there was some group with influence willing to tell the other side of the story. Because there IS another side of the story. There always is. But without being exposed to both, we can't form rational opinions.

Anyway, the US gives money to Israel because we see it as a strategic resource in the region and we always have. That's not likely to change any time in the near future no matter who is in charge. That's typical US world meddling, it has little to do with Democrats versus Republicans.

[power_word_wedgie]

And really that has been my argument all along - there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans on this issue. Thus, I agree it isn't a Democrats versus Republicans issue. However, the Democratic party has been the "Make peace not war" party for quite a while now. Thus, if there is going to be objection to Israeli shelling of Lebanon, wouldn't you really expected it out of the Democratic party rather than the Republican party? Let's face it: the Republican party has been gung-ho about killing terrorist no matter what the cost may be (and I agree that this philosophy is flawed as well) for quite a while now. Isn't it expected that the Republicans would support Israel on the shelling of Lebanon in order to get Hizbollah no matter what? Is it really all that surprising? And thus really is it all that suprising that onewould expect the response to spare the Israeli shelling from the Democratic party since a sizable segment of their political base is the anti-war crowd?

But, back to the focus of the original post, you've pretty much answered the jist of why we haven't heard much talk politically about the war with this statement:

Mainstream Democrats and Republicans have had pretty damn similar opinions with regards to Israel for a very long time now. Keep supporting them. Keep giving them money. Don't criticize. That's the general gist of it.

When both sides are saying the same thing, and that their position is supporting Israel while they're performing the shelling, it is going to sound like there is not much talk politically about the Israeli shelling. Another mystery solved, Scooby Doo.

[Zherog]

1155957578[/unixtime]]I grew up with this stuff: http://www.indians.org/welker/bosum.htm

Just sayin' that generally, the people without money generally don't get heard about.

-Crissa

Interesting.

Of course, this speech wasn't written by somebody who's biased. The same sort of thing you've been complaining about with regards to articles about the Israeli-Hezbollah-Hamas conflict...

And of course, bringing up the Indians - and making me laugh, thanks again! - isn't a strawman argument; it's not an attempt to deflect discussion away from the current topic.

Nope, neither of those things are true...

[Xander77]

1156004369[/unixtime]]They argue that Israel’s obligation is founded on the very fact that the situation is their fault.

Ok, I did address this.

The question then becomes whether the fact that the people of the Palestinian regions changed the people who they want to represent them to a group that is antagonistic to Israel changes the pre-existing obligation to those people.

Again, you might want to re-read your post and change your phrasing. "Changed their leadership to a group that's antagonistic to Israel" implies certain things which are very much non-true.

[clef]

However, the Democratic party has been the "Make peace not war" party for quite a while now.

I don’t think that’s really provable. I’ve never heard of a democratic platform that asserted a pacifist agenda. What’s more there are plenty of hawks amongst the Democrats. Presidents like Kennedy were total hawks. I wouldn’t call Clinton a pacifist either. Really how many generals do we need to see appearing on behalf of the democrats before we stop casting the illusionary labels upon them?

Now there are doves amongst the Democrats too. Some of them even did come from a “pacifist” background back in the 70s, but that does imply that Democrats are the “Make peace not war” party. I think most have become a lot more sophisticated in their opinions. Please most of the very left in this country pretty much are unrepresented by any party. We don’t have a socialist party or a labor party or anything like that at least not with any clout. The system pretty much enforces siding with either the Right or the Center.

Thus, if there is going to be objection to Israeli shelling of Lebanon, wouldn't you really expected it out of the Democratic party rather than the Republican party?

Well… yes… I’d say they would be a little more likely but not really a whole lot more likely. The republicans have more solidarity with regards to issues of national security. People aren’t allowed to deviate too far if they want to remain in the good graces of Republican leadership. But even so there are some anti-war supporters who check the Republican box. Some would be more moderate religious followers who side with republicans over issues like abortion and gay marriage but don’t necessarily agree with their foreign policies.

But really, I never expected republicans or democrats to object to Israeli shelling of Lebanon. I think both should object and I wish that at least one would object so we can get a better view of the whole situation, but I didn’t expect it. Historical evidence has suggested that no one will speak up.

Another mystery solved,

Hooray! Can we now talk about how badly this situation sucks for all of us? I really don’t like it when something that is controversial in the rest of the world gets only one sided coverage in the US. That’s a very bad thing.


Btw, news reports are starting to show up saying that it appears that Israel broke the cease fire today…

[clef]

Again, you might want to re-read your post and change your phrasing. "Changed their leadership to a group that's antagonistic to Israel" implies certain things which are very much non-true.

Why must you always be so indirect? Are we supposed to accept what you say on faith alone? Am I supposed to have memorized your every sacred argument? Really I don't mind being told that I am wrong. I expect arguments that are counter to mine. I anticipate people to see things different and clarify details. That's part of discussion.

So why don't you actually do that? Why don't you discuss things with people? It surely isn't that onerous for you to write out two sentences to explain what you mean by your cryptic statements. Otherwise, I think, it is entirely reasonable for others to assume that you mean nothing at all and completely ignore you.

Really this kind of thing just antagonizes people. It certainly doesn't improve anyone's understanding.

[Crissa]

Of course you quote mostly Hillary Clinton, Senator from New York, the state with the highest Jewish population outside of Israel. Yes, context. She's also more conservative than the Democratic Party platform. Kerry is another eastern Senator.

Of course their platform is that Israel has a unilateral right to exist. However, when we had a Democrat administration, it dd and would scold Israel for unilateral actions which lead to the deaths of civillians. Peace process, remember?

What? We can't support Israel's right to exist without supporting every one of their excessive actions, like the stupid wall and shelling a beach filled with sunbathers?

-Crissa

PS, the Palestinians sure feel genocided against. Of course, it's true they could just move to another country... But that doesn't solve their lands and lives being taken from them. Ethnic cleansing, anyone?

[power_word_wedgie]

Well, I quoted the two Democrats that hold the most political clout in the party as it stands. Hillary Clinton has the inside track to the Democratic nomination for president and Johy Kerry is the last party nomination for presient. In fact, IIRC, there was the comment:

They ELECTED the guy. Who are you to hold a democratic country hostage, and then blame the country for being upset? There were two candidates, one who supported Isreal, one who didn't. One candidate won, another lost.

So, from reviewing Kerry's comments, we at least know that the above quote is false. At any rate, do you have any quotes from any of the party leadership stating that they objected to the Israeli shelling?

Also, it has been stated, "Well, all of the Democrat's responses are just meant to support Israeli right." However, from my previous quotes, Clinton and Kerry go further than that:

The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers that precipitated the conflicts in Lebanon and Gaza have not yet been resolved, and it is essential that Israel's abducted soldiers are returned to Israel unconditionally.

Thus, Clinton is placing the responsibility of start of the Israeli shelling on Hezbollah and Hamas.

His refusal to denounce Hezbollah and his condemnation of Israel send exactly the wrong message about the importance of fighting terrorism and bringing stability and peace to the Middle East. I hope that he clarifies his statements to recognize the right of Israel, a sovereign nation, to defend itself and condemn terrorist aggression such as Hezbollah’s incursions.

This goes above and beyond supporting Israel's right to exist. This goes to Clinton specifically requestion condemnaion of Hezbollah and focuses solely on Hezbollah's actions to the reason why there is ongoing tension between the two sides.

The unprovoked attacks on innocent Israelis and the killing and abduction of Israeli soldiers by the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah are dramatic escalations of violence against Israel. The United States must stand by Israel as she defends herself. No government can stand idly by when its citizens and soldiers are attacked and abducted and when terrorist groups make incursions into its territory. These events demonstrate that Hamas’s ascent to power in the Palestinian Authority, and Hezbollah’s participation in the Lebanese government, are dangerous for the stability, not only of Israel, but of the entire region. Hamas and Hezbollah must return the Israeli soldiers they abducted and cease their attacks against Israel.

Yes, there is talk of Israel's right to defend itself, but the main point of the quote is that the entire blame for the action that is occuring in Lebanon and Gaza is due to the actions of Hezbollah and Hamas. In fact, all of these quotes were made during the time of the Israli shelling so if there was any objection to them, Clinton could have spoken up. She didn't, and all of her blame for the current crisis went to Hezbollah and Hamas. These are her press release.

Hezbollah and Iran. Many are very concerned about comments made by Prime Minister Maliki about the ongoing Israeli initiative against Hezbollah, a terrorist organization which started the current conflict by mounting an attack against Israel. Specifically, Prime Minister Maliki described the Israeli operations in Lebanon and Gaza as “criminal” and called “on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression.” This is in notable contrast to comments from other key regional powers, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, which criticized Hezbollah for “unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts.” Given that it is essential to send a clear message that terrorism is never acceptable, and that ending support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah by countries including Iran is key to winning the war on terror, Prime Minister Maliki should clarify that he condemns Hezbollah for its attack on Israel, and that he believes that Iran should not continue to provide weapons to Hezbollah.

Kerry is putting all of the blame for the current crisis on Hezbollah, not on Israel.

Rush Limbaugh’s ignorance and willingness to divide Americans knows no bounds. His latest statement about Israel is beyond offensive to all of us who have fought to protect Israel in the face of enemies committed to its destruction.
Rush Limbaugh needs to pick up a history book instead of a donut. It was a Democratic president who first recognized the State of Israel. It was a Democratic President who first sold Israel defensive weapons. And it was a Democratic President who first sold Israel offensive weapons.
The people of Israel and the Jewish community don’t need Rush Limbaugh to tell them who stands with them, and no one has time for the right wing trying to score cheap political points while Israel fights to defend its very existence.

So, basically Kerry is stating that:

1) It was the Democrats that originally sold Israel all of those wonderful offensive weapons that, with this wonderful tradition, lead to Israel getting the cannons and jets to do said pounding of Lebanon.

2) Kerry is saying that Israel's attacks on Hamas and Hezbollah are "Israel's fight to defend its very existence." Thus, if it makes one feel better, they can consider said shelling Israel's defense of their existence. That's not a comment from the Bush or the Republicans; it's from Kerry.

Just as I noted earlier about Clinton, all of these quotes were done during the period of time that Israeli shelling occurred. When I looked at both press release sites for both candidates, there were no press releases condemning Israeli shelling. That's the whole point: they both had an avenue to convey their disapproval of the shelling and they didn't use it. In fact, their quotes were supportive of Israel during said shelling.

What? We can't support Israel's right to exist without supporting every one of their excessive actions, like the stupid wall and shelling a beach filled with sunbathers?

You're right to say that they could have been supportive of Israel and still criticized Israel for the shelling. Kerry and Clinton never took that path: from their press releases, they just stood behind Israel's right to exist and blamed the current problems on (in their words) the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas. That's it. Thus, at the very least, they were apathetic to the shelling and at the very worst supportive of the shelling; from the quotes it's leaning more toward worst case scenario than least case scenario.

Edit: Oh, and I think you sad that Clinton and Kerry were "Eastern Democrats", so here's something from Dianne Feinstein:

Statement by Senator Dianne Feinstein
On the Violence in the Middle East

By initiating a campaign to kidnap Israeli soldiers and launch rocket attacks inside Israel , Hamas and Hezbollah, with assistance from Syria and Iran , threaten to destabilize the Middle East and trigger a wider conflict. Like any country, Israel has the right and the obligation to defend its citizens. The latest round of violence only underscores the need for high-level and sustained American diplomacy that has been sorely lacking.

Pretty supportive of Israel in the conflict (not just Israel's right to exist) and once again condemns Hamas and Hezbollah. Surprisingly enough, didn't see any press releases critical of Israeli shelling of Lebanon ...

[Tokorona]

And, let's see. The BBC reports that Isreal HAS actually broken the cease fire, due to a probable (..!) arms transmission. So. They actually did something badly wrong. Of course,t he UN has no real power in the region at the moment, so.. it's entirely possible that it's true. Or not. It's up to you to decide

(the story is Isreali commando raid alarms the UN)

[Xander77]

1156024685[/unixtime]]
Why must you always be so indirect?

Force of habit. And style.

Are we supposed to accept what you say on faith alone?

It seems like I'm the only one here who actually lives in Israel. I know quite a lot about the conflict and am relatively objective. I mostly speak of fairly well known facts, and only lie by omission. Naturally, anyone can dispute my claims, or ask me to prove even the most obvious things - such as rockets falling in Israel.

Am I supposed to have memorized your every sacred argument?

...

I expect certain things from a person who chooses to argue a position on the subject. Some basic knowledge of the score and the playing teams. Not haviing to be pointed out the sky is, indeed, blue. And actually reading through the thread would prove a significant bonus.

Otherwise, I would presume said person would stick to asking questions and browsing through wikipedia until s/he does have most of the relevant knowledge.

I don't expect you to memorize my replies, but taking note of the most interesting points and not forcing me to reiterate the whole "fire bad, tree pretty" thing over and over would be most kind of you.

The relevant reply comes after I was asked "where are the Israeli refugee camps". It's factual. It's true. It plays the blame game, sure but that's the response you get if you go "it's all Israel's fault". If someone said "whatever, but you have to fix things regardless of who's fault it is", my response would be different.

It surely isn't that onerous for you to write out two sentences to explain what you mean by your cryptic statements.

Let's examine my cryptic statement then, shall we?

I quote a part of your post. Unlike certain other posters, one might safely assume that I'm replying to what I said, or implied, that I'm replying to. The quote part said that the Palestinians changed their leadership to one antagonistic to Israel. One might preasume that I'm not disputing the fact that the Palestinain leadership was changed. Therefore, I'm disputing that things implied by what's left of the quote - that there was a point during which the Palestinian leadership was friendly to Israel.

Really this kind of thing just antagonizes people. It certainly doesn't improve anyone's understanding.

Honestly, I can presume that you understand what I'm saying, or I can speak down to you.

[clef]

Your understanding of what constitutes “speaking down to” vastly differs from mine. I would never assume reiteration or clarification alone constitutes “speaking down to”. That’s just a part of communication. An essential part I’d say. Speaking down to someone would go like this: You say point A. I say point B which I believe is true and does not contradict point A but which you believe is clearly contradicted by point A. Then you say something along the lines of “if you’re too stupid to understand that B is contradicted by my previous point, I refuse to communicate with you.” Something like that would be “talking down to”.

Most of the writers and speakers I respect the most share certain characteristics in terms of the style which they use to communicate with others. They are generally extremely persistent. They will repeat themselves. Over and over if need be. They will answer any questions, challenge any argument. They will try to say thing differently and try to give more examples or try to provide more details or more resources for someone inclined to look it up. They will seek more evidence and a greater understanding so that they can impart that understanding onto others. No forum is too small or too large for them to go about the business of telling the truth in it. Many of them feel this is not just a matter of scholarship but a sacred duty. They see themselves as obligated to fight to try and make sure their audience has the information they need to make informed decisions. Many will even take up the challenge of arguing even against those who are baiting them, trying to get them to slip up, or trying specifically to try and attack their reputation and have no intention whatsoever of accepting or respecting any perspective but their own. Why subject oneself to that? Many won’t and will stay silent but some few do on the off chance that someone else might be listening and can cut through the BS and actually get something out of the discussion.

With regards to Israel's blame...

Minimally it should be noted that my argument in the post that you were responding to was not directed specifically at you so there is no particular reason for me to try and form my expression in such a way as to confront something you said some who knows how many pages ago. In addition it is also quite clear that my post was meant to be informative not argumentative. My desire was to give fair share to the other side of the argument since it is under represented. Hence, I started with “the other side of the argument goes…”

But on top of that it could be presumed that if I am making an argument then I don’t believe that anything your or anyone else has said thus far has fully contradicted it. Thus, there are two possibilities. Either you believe that what you said actually has contradicted it (that I am being deliberately obtuse or have forgotten). And you believe anyone and everyone else will find it so obviously true that you have contradicted what I have said that you don’t need to repeat it. In that case you can keep your peace and say nothing.

Alternatively you can believe that perhaps your point is not so well engrained in the fabric of everyone’s understanding, either because people are ignoring you, have forgotten, or you haven’t provided sufficient argument to convince them or for some other reason. If any of those last conditions are true, you can either throw up your hands and say that it is hopeless or you can try and reiterate your point. Minimally you could quote yourself. More likely you can try to say the same thing again in a different way or with a different example or with further evidence so as to push through your principle against the stubborn opposition. All of these seem to me to be better strategies if your goal is to increase the understanding of the people with whom you are communicating.

Therefore, I'm disputing that things implied by what's left of the quote - that there was a point during which the Palestinian leadership was friendly to Israel.

Fair enough. The Palestinian leadership was previously inclined to speak in a manner that is less antagonistic to Israel at least in regards to this one statement everyone is obsessing over: “Israel’s right to exist”. The relative antagonistic actions of the two groups can be disputed. But that was pretty much my entire point anyway. In politics we obsess far too much over what people “say” and not enough about what people “do”. Hence people can just forget the atrocities committed by the PLO but freak out about Hamas not being willing to change their charter. That, I believe, is just absurd. In order to show that it was wise to stop monetary support going to the PA now you have to show that Hamas having the money would have been oh so much worse than the previous government. Perhaps there is a good argument for this out there, but I haven’t heard it yet and so I am not convinced. It seems to me that the only difference would be that if you continued to give the money less people starve and die but regardless acts of terrorism continue as normal.

[Xander77]

1156094456[/unixtime]]Most of the writers and speakers I respect the most share certain characteristics in terms of the style which they use to communicate with others. They are generally extremely persistent. They will repeat themselves. Over and over if need be. They will answer any questions, challenge any argument. They will try to say thing differently and try to give more examples or try to provide more details or more resources for someone inclined to look it up

Maybe it's not my destiny to be a writer, then. I hate repeating myself. Fuck, I don't repeat myself for friends.

"Sasha, Moshe wants to heart that funny impression you did earlier."

"You heard it, you can repeat it to him".

One of the reasons I hate participating in long mulit-page discussions. You force opponents to agree to your basic points, only to be forced to repeat the same conversation a few pages latter. Nothing advances. Round and round the wheel goes. However, in conversations that take less than 20 pages, one would still assume that the posters read through the conversation before replying.

Hence, I started with “the other side of the argument goes…”

And you blame me for being "indirect"? When I speak my mind, I speak my mind. I don't pull that Noam Chomsky crap (one of his favorite tricks - "if I were an uneducated anti-semite Arab, I would think the following"), I don't go "if I accept the argument, which I won't and will talk about how I won't for several paragraphs, but let's not argue about that" (Hezbollah being a terrorist organization)...

I'm direct, if a little obscure.

Either you believe that what you said actually has contradicted it (that I am being deliberately obtuse or have forgotten). And you believe anyone and everyone else will find it so obviously true that you have contradicted what I have said that you don’t need to repeat it. In that case you can keep your peace and say nothing.

Or, you know, I believe I've made my point on the topic, therefore the next time it's brought it should be in an attempt to disprove my point, or not at all. Sheer laziness plays it's part, mind.

In politics we obsess far too much over what people “say” and not enough about what people “do”.

It's a thing. Comes from ignoring a guy that spent his time talking about a final solution.

It seems to me that the only difference would be that if you continued to give the money less people starve and die but regardless acts of terrorism continue as normal.

Seeing how you brought up the always popular "if you treated them better, they wouldn't become terrorists" theory just a few pages ago... ?

[power_word_wedgie]

1156023867[/unixtime]]
Hooray! Can we now talk about how badly this situation sucks for all of us? I really don’t like it when something that is controversial in the rest of the world gets only one sided coverage in the US. That’s a very bad thing.

Well this one is even simpler. It's controversial to the rest of the world because the rest of the world is made up of individual nations. Getting individual nations to agree on anything is more of the exception than the norm. Thus, is it really surprising that it is controversial "with the rest of the world" and not among one nation such as the US?

[Crissa]

Well, I quoted the two Democrats that hold the most political clout in the party as it stands. Hillary Clinton has the inside track to the Democratic nomination for president and Johy Kerry is the last party nomination for presient.

According to to who? Kerry was the pastnomination, and Clinton has never sought the nomination. Neither holds positions of senority or party positions, either:

Chairman of the Democratic Party
Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Bill Richardson... Heck, even the senior Senator from New York is on the list. And that isn't Hillary.

Stop reading Conservative tripe and pay attention to the world. Argh.

Oh, and Feinstein, my Senator. Also not a senior in the Party, and conservative in the party - she neither mentions shelling nor Hizbollah defending itself. Only the raids did she denounce, and then she called for Diplomacy (you know, not fighting?) - which is contrary to what our administration did.

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Dianne Feinstein are spewing political conservate tripe. (Remember, I'm linking their own press release sites ... Oh, by the way, when did being the New Mexico governor hold a high post in the Democratic party ...) Okay ...

And, just to pull up one of the people you listed as political leadership for the Democratic party, let's do Sen. Harry Reid:

SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP CALLS ON IRAQ PRIME MINISTER TO CLARIFY VIEWS ON HEZBOLLAH TERRORISM IN ADVANCE OF ADDRESS TO CONGRESS

The Senate Democratic Leadership today demanded Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki clarify his position with regard to Hezbollah’s aggression against Israel. Published reports suggest that the new Prime Minister has condemned Israel, yet failed to denounce Hezbollah’s role in perpetuating the current crisis in Lebanon and Israel.

In a letter sent to the Iraqi leader, the Senators expressed their deep concern:


“Your statements are very troubling. Your failure to condemn Hezbollah’s aggression and recognize Israel’s right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East.”


With America making such great sacrifices to attempt to create a just and free Iraq, the Democratic Leaders called on the Iraqi leader to clarify his position on the Hezbollah terrorist organization.


“As you know, the American people have given so much in the name of fighting global terror and helping build a better future for the people of Iraq. In that effort, over 2,500 Americans have lost their lives in Iraq, over 18,000 have been wounded, and over $300 billion in taxpayer funds have been expended. Americans deserve to know whether Iraq is an ally in these fights.”

REID: HEZBOLLAH MUST BE CONDEMNED

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid today released the following statement condemning Hezbollah’s attacks inside Israel.
“Today’s attacks by Hezbollah in Israeli territory were disgraceful and unwarranted acts of violence by a terrorist organization. Hezbollah must release the captured Israeli soldiers immediately. Hezbollah must be dismantled, and all nations have an obligation to cease any and all assistance to this terrorist organization. Israel has a right to live in peace and security, and the United States will stand by our ally in this difficult time.”

Thus, once again: Israel supported for the curret crisis, Hezbollah condemned. Note that these links aren't from any conservative thinktank: they're from the Senator's own press release site.

Let's take it one step further: using their own websites, I've been able to link 4 Democrats to:

1) Supporting Israel and condemning Hezbollah (a terrorist group, in their own word) to the current crisis.

2) Not condemning the Israeli shelling. Thus at best it's showing apathy to it; at worst it shows support of it.

Can you show any Democratic Senator or Representative using their own press release site condemning the shelling?