QuiGon

Are you being deliberately belligerent or are you just this clueless..? It would be difficult (if not impossible) for Israel to mount a sustained campaign against Iran due to geography (but I would not completely rule out a quick hit-and-run strike).

But the Hezbollah is on Israel's border and conducting daily attacks against Israel's civilian population. I used to say that Iran is in bed with the Hezbollah, but I don't think that analogy really holds water. To say Iran is in bed with the Hezbollah is like saying my brain is in bed with my right arm.

Seymour93

I'm saying that if Israel wants to fight Iran (like you said they should about 5 or 6 pages ago) they should fight them directly, NOT by bombing an innocent population. Half of Lebanon is Christian anyway yet Israel does not seem to mind attacking it to no end.

Israel had the military strength to occupy Lebanon for 20 years and the West Bank & Gaza for almost 60, so they should be able to take out Iran, especially since Israel is armed with nuclear weapons. Iran couldn't even defeat the Iraqi's way back when, so they would be no match for Israel.

My grandfather, father, and brother are all atheists and even more anti-religion than I am. My mom and her family, however, are Irish catholic. Even if you are not religious, you having a Jewish background would naturally make you feel connected with Israel, just as me being Irish I feel some connection with Ireland.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Seymour93

Ok, so you're going use geography as an excuse to punish the Lebanese instead of the real perpetrator, the real ****-stirrers, Iran.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Mainefan

Sorry, Seymour93, I wasn't the one who said they should fight Iran. I don't think they should--although if Iran seems on the verge of developing atomic weapons them may have to. As for "wanting to" to use your construction, I think Israel doesn't WANT to fight any wars. It feels it has no choice.

It's Hezbollah that poses an immediate threat to Israel, so I think it makes sense to fight the threat on their doorstep, not their sponsors a thousand miles away.

You note that half of Lebanon is Christian. I hate to correct you--again--but 95% of Lebanon is Arab and 70% is Moslem. And you say "Israel does not seem to mind attacking it to no end." But the fact is--damn, there I go correcting you again--Israel's main attacks have been limited to South Beirut and southern Lebanon. As I've said here again and again, Israel is attacking Hezbollah, not Lebanon. A difficult concept to grasp, perhaps, but true.

You're right about Israel having atomic weapons. They've had them for more than 25 years, and used them on no one and threatened no one with them. These weapons are their ultimate weapon against extermination. I find it inconceivable that Israel would use nuclear weapons in any other circumstance and perhaps not even that one. I am not so confident in Iran's restraint. Are you?

QuiGon

No, I am using geography as one of the reasons Israel will not conduct sustained operations directly against Iran. Meanwhile, they have a right to defend themselves against their current and immediate threat by attacking the Hezbollah in Lebanon

Seymour93

How ridiculous, so they feel obliged to start wars? Isn't that exactly like Bush's pre-emptive war policy, or didn't Hitler feel obliged to rid the world of non-Germans? Israel chooses to fight the wars it wants.

According to the CIA, Lebanon is about 40% Christian.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/le.html

Secondly, the Lebanese people see it as an attack on their soverignty, their nation, their independence. The PM has been very vocal about this even in the pro-Israel US media. How can you blame them when they have entire neighboorhoods in Beirut destroyed?

I do not trust Iran one bit.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Mainefan

Well, we agree about Iran.

PatsFanInVa

Your issues with Mainefan are your issues with Mainefan. While I do find him much more cogent in his grasp of current events particularly as regards the Middle East (that is, we tend to agree on much there,) I don't even know what you're squabbling about. All I did was give you a pass on Iran, in anticipation of your "nut uh I said ARAB countries" argument, sure to come next. I don't want to give Iran a pass. You confined your question to Arab nations, rather than those where Islam prevails. Glad to have it your way -- add Iran to the list of those who have spoken, recently, in favor of destroying Israel.

I'm on the fence about the way we characterize the "Arab Street," which has been called the "mythical Arab street" at times, because it seems we talk about it whenever we want to claim that Arab leaders are as good as we'll get. Regardless of whether the radicals in Arab countries are majorities, Arab leaders often behanve as if they are, fearing to become the "next Iran."

I like the Pew Global Attitude polls on this subject (http://pewglobal.org/). What you find there is that most polled in Arab and Muslim countries do not identify with fundamentalists over modernizers, do not favor terrorism (or even think it defensible,) etc. Now, if most of the "Arab Street" is not radical, what we have is undemocratically self-appointed leaders using the "Arab Street" as a bogeyman.

From the point of view of a supporter of Israel, I prefer the "known quantities" of most leadership in the region. Mubarak, Abdullah, and the Saudis all respond to reason, supply and demand, self-interest, and other predictable motivations. The religious extremists in Hamas, Hezbollah, and other such groups are motivated by replacement of the world as we know it with a more Islamic order, which incidently involves the destruction of the nation of Israel. I do think that the modernizers are disproportionately afraid of the Islamic Right (the "faith based" street gangs of Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Moslem Brotherhood, etc.,) for the same reason American politicians were afraid of the mob prior to Bobby Kennedy's crusade. To wit, that's how people get busted up.

ARE ALL VIOLENT ISLAMIST GANGS NECESSARY FEATURES OF THE MID-EAST LANDSCAPE? ARE THEY DESIREABLE FEATURES? If the answer so question 1 is "no," and the answer to question 2 is "no," I do not understand reluctance on the part of Arab leaders to stand up against terrorism (such as in the case of the Lebanese government and the Syrians,) unless they are in fact complicit in these gangs' criminal behavior. If they do not police their own territory, as in the claim of the Lebanese, they are not a sovereign state as regards that territory. That's a standard in International Law.

Excuse me, but Lebanon still has the same prime minister as a few weeks ago. Democracy's a way to choose a government, not a way to run one. Lebanon got the right to choose, by vote, who would best express the will of Lebanon. They chose, through their system, this guy Seniora, who, for the Spanish-speakers among us, might appear particularly appropriately named.

The voters have spoken. Their representative, chosen by parliament, chosen by the people -- wanted no part of disarming or policing Hezbollah, per Lebanon's international obligations. He says, blatantly, on television, that Lebanon "is not responsible" for the behavior of this paramilitary. Okay: You can't patrol your territory, and your Syrian babysitter is gone now. Who does that leave?

I really do have a warm fuzzy feeling that the good people of Lebanon now get to pick from among their many formerly armed factions, and choose parliamentary representatives. Unfortunately, the one faction which has kept its weapons, and indeed beefed up its arsenal, is acting on behalf of this nation vis a vis Israel. Just because you choose your leaders by the vote, does not excuse you from international obligations.

As for Israel? I don't think they care if Lebanon has a Prime Minister, a dictator, a King or a Grand Poobah, as long as they keep their rockets and their kidnappers on their side of the line.

See, Israel has a democracy already. And Israel also attempts to abide by its international and national obligations. That's why you don't see Irgun and Stern Gang members running around the West Bank blowing up bus stations: The Haganah (regular IDF) disarmed those guys.

Once again: Why is Israel responsible to control/suppress factions resident on her own territory, and Lebanon is not?

Yeah Seymour93. Tell me again how Israel is bullying the whoooole region. The root of the problem, is that the accusation is founded on Israel bullying the region by existing. Naturally, all this goes away when Israel does. Well, that ain't gonna happen.

What's Plan B, guys?

PFnV