Has your opinion of Israel changed?

[miked10270 0]

With regard to Israel's recent actions in Lebanon, and of course the attendant news coverage... How, if at all, has your opinion of Israel changed?

And why?

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[pop 0]

Quote

With regard to Israel's recent actions in Lebanon, and of course the attendant news coverage... How, if at all, has your opinion of Israel changed?

And why?

My opnion hasnt changed. Israel is simply protecting itsself, and is wiping out the terrorist group that should be wiped out by Lebanon.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[Steel 0]

Quote

With regard to Israel's recent actions in Lebanon, and of course the attendant news coverage... How, if at all, has your opinion of Israel changed?

And why?

How about, no I always knew Israel would respond appropiately.

Meanwhile during your happy Israel bashing, here is a question. Just think about it you don't have to admit that you see your error.
Somebody previously made a joke to the effect of if the U.K. responded like Israel they would bomb Dublin back to the stone age when the IRA attacked them. Sounds poetic and the ignorant fool may fall for this but not one who really thinks it through.

Imagine that the IRA got 13,000 Katusha Rockets and in the past three weeks from Dublin they had fired 2000+ rockets into Liverpool, London or any British city. Do you honestly think the U.K. would think twice before demolishing Dublin?
I don't and for that same reason, I don't blame Israel in the slightest.
Your poll did not allow for that choice.
,

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Tink1717 2]

If even one rocket had come over the border with Mexico, you can bet that Mexico city would be nothing more than a smoking hole the next day. I think Israel should bomb Hezbollah, Syria , and any other of their backers, back into the stone age and keep them there as long as humanly possible. The state os Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself. Period.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Meanwhile during your happy Israel bashing...

Playing the person rather than the argument again?

Had the IRA deliberately killed 19 civilians, would the RAF have bombed Belfast, Londonderry, Dublin etc...?

The IRA did... & The RAF didn't. The Birmingham & Guildford Pub Bombings spring most immediately to mind.

That would be because Britain chose to focus on fighting the "freedom-fighters", rather than lashing out blindly & incompetently at the general population who may (or may not) be sympathetic.

PIRA has also kidnapped, tortured & murdered British soldiers. We didn't bomb Belfast, Londonderry & Dublin over that either.

What is surprising about the current poll is that so far no-one has voted that Israel is right, yet so far 4 folk have voted that "Israel is a terrorist state"! I honestly expected only ONE such vote on this board.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

I think Israel should bomb.... The state of Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself. Period.

And, evidently, no-one else does.

What if Israel deliberately attacked American military units? Just wondering.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

Meanwhile during your happy Israel bashing...

Playing the person rather than the argument again?

Had the IRA deliberately killed 19 civilians, would the RAF have bombed Belfast, Londonderry, Dublin etc...?

The IRA did... & The RAF didn't. The Birmingham & Guildford Pub Bombings spring most immediately to mind.

That would be because Britain chose to focus on fighting the "freedom-fighters", rather than lashing out blindly & incompetently at the general population who may (or may not) be sympathetic.

PIRA has also kidnapped, tortured & murdered British soldiers. We didn't bomb Belfast, Londonderry & Dublin over that either.

What is surprising about the current poll is that so far no-one has voted that Israel is right, yet so far 4 folk have voted that "Israel is a terrorist state"! I honestly expected only ONE such vote on this board.

Mike.

no one voted Israel is right because that was not an option. Instead you tried to sway your pole by saying Israel can do not wrong. What is you said instead that Lebanon is a terrorist state as one option and the other that Lebanon can do no wrong? What do you think the results would be.

Still although you managed to spin the question I asked you still haven't answered the simple question. If 2K+ rockets were fired from Dublin into the U.K., what do you think the U.K. response would be?
,

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[pajarito 0]

My opinion is the same as pop's:

Quote

My opnion hasnt changed. Israel is simply protecting itsself, and is wiping out the terrorist group that should be wiped out by Lebanon.

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

I think Israel should bomb.... The state of Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself. Period.

And, evidently, no-one else does.

What if Israel deliberately attacked American military units? Just wondering.

Mike.

A terrorist group would never be allowed to round up thousands of rockets on our soil, even if they were intended to strike somebody else. That is the difference between Lebanon and the U.S.

,

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[jakee 1,499]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think Israel should bomb.... The state of Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself. Period.

And, evidently, no-one else does.

What if Israel deliberately attacked American military units? Just wondering.

Mike.

A terrorist group would never be allowed to round up thousands of rockets on our soil, even if they were intended to strike somebody else. That is the difference between Lebanon and the U.S.

,

I believe it was a reference to the USS Liberty.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[falxori 0]

Quote

no one voted Israel is right because that was not an option. Instead you tried to sway your pole by saying Israel can do not wrong

poles can be ignored.
that's my vote

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

poles can be ignored.
that's my vote

By the way. I'm glad you're doing ok. I know we disagree on most of this but I'll admit that I get a bit concerned when your posts disappear for a few days. You know, if everyone would just quit fighting and start spending their defense budgets on jumping, the world would be a happier place. More hung over maybe but happier overall.

[Richards 0]

No. Isreal has the right to defend themselves. They did not want this war. Every war in history has had collateral damage. Short of an inquiry proving that Isreal has deliberately targetted innocent civilians, they get the benefit of the doubt from me with regard to civilian casualties. Again with all the condemnation of Isreal in the media I hear very little criticism of hesbollah, or Lebanon for that matter. If lebanon cannot stop Hezbollah from stockpiling weapons and firing them at Isreal then Isreal has the right to cross the border and attack.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Still although you managed to spin the question I asked you still haven't answered the simple question. If 2K+ rockets were fired from Dublin into the U.K., what do you think the U.K. response would be?

You are comparing aplles to oranges.

the return question would be:

What do you think the UK would have done if the IRA had kidnapped two UK soldiers?

I know it isn't quite the same question and it doesn't support your point....but at least you would be comparing apples to apples.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

No. Isreal has the right to defend themselves. They did not want this war.

Not exactly accurate. From an interview that I heard a couple of weeks ago with an ex-Israeli commander, Israel waited for almost six years for this opportunity to go after Hizballah (Hezbollah). In reality, Israel is not that great a neighbor. They occupy Golan and say it is to be given back to Syria when a peace deal is brokered yet they built a Winery and Ski resort there. Doesn't sound like they plan to "make peace" any time soon. They pulled out of most of Lebanon, except for an area that they're still occupying yet they say it belongs to Syria to which Syria interestingly replies "nope, that area belongs to Lebanon". Secondly, I think Israel repeatedly launched mock air raids over Lebanon and they have yet to tell Lebanon where the 140,000 land mines that Israel left behind are located. And let's not forget the fighting in Gaza. Those people are dying too. All that aside, how many people think that Israel's neighbors should be content with Israel's plan to essentially create a "buffer zone" on their neighbors' land. That's an interesting concept. Lousy, but interesting.
In regard to the media's handling of all this, considering that they've repeatedly given Israel a pass for their past aggression my guess is that if the media is reporting on how bad things are for the Lebanese that things must be REALLY bad by historical comparison.

[Andy9o8 2]

First of all, you're a smart, educated fellow, and if you had been my student, I'd have given you a "D-minus" for survey methodology. "No. Israel can do no wrong" ??? Please. Since it's so obviously skewed, and (from your posts) you so obviously know better than that, I'll presume you're being a bit of a smart-ass. OK, very funny.

My answer is no, my opinion of them hasn't changed, but I wish they'd be smarter and more compassionate about their methods.

I reiterate that there would have been be peace for the past 58 years if only everyone had always just left them alone. And, and they didn't start this (sigh) latest war, either. The kidnaping of soldiers really didn't start the war with Hezbollah; that was just the final triggering event. What really started it was Israel's knowing fully well that Hezbollah has been stockpiling thousands of missiles and fortifying positions in south Lebanon for years, combined with Hezbollah's constant using of those missiles and acts of terror along the Lebabon/Israel border. At some point the Israelis simply could not – and should not have been required to – tolerate those weapons pointed at their throats any longer.

They were perfectly justified in attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon, just as much as they were justified in going into Gaza when Hamas pulled their bullshit, too. And when the enemy uses the general population - and its civilian vehicles and infrastructure – as human shields, then collateral damage to civilians will occur.

Where I differ with the Israelis in re: the latest war in Lebanon is the degree to which civilians have been killed. Sometimes, you have to go after your enemy even when your enemy uses human shields. Anyone who thinks Hezbollah and Hamas don't store missiles in residences and mosques, or transport them in ambulances marked with Red Crosses, is being naive. Hell, in Chechnya, the Russians couldn't care less about the consequences of human shields; they just go after the enemy militants, and if civilians get caught in the crossfire, well, too bad.

But I can't help what I am, so being an American I naturally approach this with an American ethical perspective. I do think that many of the civilian casualties were tragically unavoidable. It's amazing to me how many people are naive to the fact that Hezbollah is deliberately goading the Israelis into firing toward civilians by firing missiles from, and storing their launchers in, civilian-populated areas. But I also think that there are times when the Israelis should have selectively held or moderated their fire, and basically just sucked up the hard reality that if you're going to occupy a moral ground higher than the terrorists who are out to destroy you, sometimes you have to allow some human shield tactics to succeed, over the short term. By that, I mean, not all of the targets can be softened by air power, or artillery, and sometimes you just have to send your ground troops in to go head-to-head with the enemy (thus suffering more of your own casualties) in order to spare more civilians.

Having said all this, I have to say that I'm very disappointed in how many intelligent people, both on and off these forums, are so naive to the big picture that they view Hezbollah's tactics and Israel's tactics as moral equivalents.

[vortexring 0]

>>it is a matter where strong passions are generally matched by weak understanding and limited knowledge.<<

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[falxori 0]

Quote

By the way. I'm glad you're doing ok

thanks, i'm doing ok.
was just away in Madrid for work.
and in two days going skydiving in russia

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[falxori 0]

Quote

Not exactly accurate. From an interview that I heard a couple of weeks ago with an ex-Israeli commander, Israel waited for almost six years for this opportunity to go after Hizballah (Hezbollah).

only because we've been seeing it arming itself with thousands of rockets, building bunkers on the border and taunting our border towns (not to mention firing every now and then).
war broke out only when it was too much to bear already. we really have no business in Lebanon.

Quote

They pulled out of most of Lebanon, except for an area that they're still occupying yet they say it belongs to Syria

even the UN which is not exactly pro-israeli has declared Israel's pullout of lebanon was complete.
the Shaba farms area you're talking about is nothing but an excuse. if it wasnt that, they would have found another (and just for the record, it was syrian before 67)

Quote

And let's not forget the fighting in Gaza

yes, lets not forget yet another place Israel has pulled out from and still being attacked from.

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[warpedskydiver 0]

I do not agree with any of the options provided.

[miked10270 0]

And suddenly... Just when you think Israel couldn't be any more stupid... Comes a flash of the old Israeli tactical genius!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5236834.stm

Brilliant. Striking the fighting part of Hezb'Allah right where it lives! Hitting it where it'll hurt most.

Now. Why the feck didn't Israel do this at first, instead of bombing the shit out of Southern Lebanon's civilian infrastructure?

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What is surprising about the current poll is that so far no-one has voted that Israel is right, yet so far 4 folk have voted that "Israel is a terrorist state"! I honestly expected only ONE such vote on this board.

I became the 4th to pick it since it was the closest option available in your propoganda oriented poll.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

First of all, you're a smart, educated fellow, and if you had been my student, I'd have given you a "D-minus" for survey methodology. "No. Israel can do no wrong" ??? Please. Since it's so obviously skewed, and (from your posts) you so obviously know better than that, I'll presume you're being a bit of a smart-ass. OK, very funny.

My answer is no, my opinion of them hasn't changed, but I wish they'd be smarter and more compassionate about their methods.

I reiterate that there would have been be peace for the past 58 years if only everyone had always just left them alone. And, and they didn't start this (sigh) latest war, either. The kidnaping of soldiers really didn't start the war with Hezbollah; that was just the final triggering event. What really started it was Israel's knowing fully well that Hezbollah has been stockpiling thousands of missiles and fortifying positions in south Lebanon for years, combined with Hezbollah's constant using of those missiles and acts of terror along the Lebabon/Israel border. At some point the Israelis simply could not – and should not have been required to – tolerate those weapons pointed at their throats any longer.

They were perfectly justified in attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon, just as much as they were justified in going into Gaza when Hamas pulled their bullshit, too. And when the enemy uses the general population - and its civilian vehicles and infrastructure – as human shields, then collateral damage to civilians will occur.

Where I differ with the Israelis in re: the latest war in Lebanon is the degree to which civilians have been killed. Sometimes, you have to go after your enemy even when your enemy uses human shields. Anyone who thinks Hezbollah and Hamas don't store missiles in residences and mosques, or transport them in ambulances marked with Red Crosses, is being naive. Hell, in Chechnya, the Russians couldn't care less about the consequences of human shields; they just go after the enemy militants, and if civilians get caught in the crossfire, well, too bad.

But I can't help what I am, so being an American I naturally approach this with an American ethical perspective. I do think that many of the civilian casualties were tragically unavoidable. It's amazing to me how many people are naive to the fact that Hezbollah is deliberately goading the Israelis into firing toward civilians by firing missiles from, and storing their launchers in, civilian-populated areas. But I also think that there are times when the Israelis should have selectively held or moderated their fire, and basically just sucked up the hard reality that if you're going to occupy a moral ground higher than the terrorists who are out to destroy you, sometimes you have to allow some human shield tactics to succeed, over the short term. By that, I mean, not all of the targets can be softened by air power, or artillery, and sometimes you just have to send your ground troops in to go head-to-head with the enemy (thus suffering more of your own casualties) in order to spare more civilians.

Having said all this, I have to say that I'm very disappointed in how many intelligent people, both on and off these forums, are so naive to the big picture that they view Hezbollah's tactics and Israel's tactics as moral equivalents.

Agreed. Well Said.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

And suddenly... Just when you think Israel couldn't be any more stupid... Comes a flash of the old Israeli tactical genius!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5236834.stm

Brilliant. Striking the fighting part of Hezb'Allah right where it lives! Hitting it where it'll hurt most.

Now. Why the feck didn't Israel do this at first, instead of bombing the shit out of Southern Lebanon's civilian infrastructure?

Mike.

Well, I suppose it's easy for us, who are not intimately involved in the tactical decisions to be armchair quarterbacks (oh I forgot - you're a Brit....um... it means availing oneself of the perfection of hindsight) and say they should have done X prior to doing Y.

Basically, this is Military Tactics 101. Remember that the most immediate tactical aim was to prevent Hezbollah from moving the kidnaped soldiers out of southern Lebanon. The contemporaneous tactical aim was to prevent Iran and Syria from resupplying Hezbollah, and to prevent Hezbollah from tactical movements of its personnel and materiel. So, as a matter of rather elementary military tactics, crippling the infrastructure - transportation, roads, bridges, communications and fuel supplies and re-fueling stations – is pretty much always one of the first things a competent military force does when launching an attack against a fortified enemy. So, "Phase 1" is almost always: take out the "sentries", take out the communications net, take out the defenses, and take out the infrastructure.