The Middle East Continues...

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why should I consider this a relevent concern? Rebel movements are by their very nature illegitimate. They aquire legitimacy by winning. I fail to see any value to attaching moral signifigance to the term "legitimacy" in this context especially when it has or at least should have no such connotations.

Legitimacy inherently has a moral character attached to it, it is not simply a legal construction. After all, it predates Law, since Law can only be meaningful if the agent creating it is Legitimate.

You can hardly state that all rebel movements are inherently illegitimate without then questionning how Legitimate players commonly lend them material support.

They didn't have to sign the deal. They could have continued the fight.

I fail to understand the context of this comment in relations to the creation fo the no-fly zones. Iraq signed to agreement accepting them.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
You know what, I am sick of wastng my time at this point trying to make point at your thick skull. Its a wate of time arguing with you. Eli and Siro are FAR more reasonable about the whole thing, and even less biased, as silly as that seems.

So, expect no replies, because if by this point you are incapable of even understading what I am trying to argue, what the **** should I continue?

You know what? I am sick of passive-aggression by scum-bags like you trying to paint everything Israel does as bad and dismissing every legitimate concern Israelis might have by ignoring the stated aims of the people attacking them.

Thick skull does not begin to describe it.

You don't really give a **** if 1000 Lebanese just died. What you care about is the blow to Israel that was landed.

You, sir, are pathetic, and if you continue to blather on ad nauseum on the topic I will tell you what I really feel about your worthless existence.

[GePap]

[notyoueither]

Oh, and if you don't want to be offended, stop being such an insulting boor in discussions.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap

I'm rather proud of that one.

Way over the top, yet grounded.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Nice, but isn't that the real problem ? The lie about israeli agression that seems to be considered a common truth amongst arabs. Both egypt and jordan can live peacefully with israel despite the fact that they share common boarders. There are only one reason that israel is aggresive on the lebanese boarder and that is that hizb are making attacks.

Your nice story is just an attempt to remove the focus from those that really are to blame for this menace,

You're almost there.

But there's one thing. Back in the 70ies, Egypt was presented as exactly as "crazy" as Hezbollah is now. They only wanted to destroy Israel, so it was said.

This percpetion, while common, was wrong, but it took quite a long time before figuring it out. It's now accepted as self-evident.

By the same token, the perception of Hezbollah being a bunch of crazies who only want to destroy Israel is completely wrong. If anything, the Hezbollah has shown quite a bit of pragmatism (a murderous pragmatism) during this war, and pragmatism is definitely not something you'd expect from crazies.

When the Israeli street depicts the Hezbollah as a bunch of crazies who only want to kill them, they're about as wrong as when a Lebanese Arab thinks Israel will always be a menace until castrated. This is the kind of moronic belief that creates wars, and further hatred.

Thankfully, the morons on both sides were silenced when Israel and Egypt agreed to make peace, hold talks, and do concessions to each other. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened wrt Lebanon.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I expect people not make 'nonsensical' arguments about 'disproportionate' responses in a state of war when a few bridges get bombed.

Understatement of the week

[Az]

By the same token, the perception of Hezbollah being a bunch of crazies who only want to destroy Israel is completely wrong. If anything, the Hezbollah has shown quite a bit of pragmatism (a murderous pragmatism) during this war, and pragmatism is definitely not something you'd expect from crazies

Insane!=stupid.

You can have goals that are insane by most people's standards, and be brutally coldminded in their implementation.

But I wouldn't call "the destruction of Israel" a step that is insane, or crazy. It's a very very ambitious geopolitical goal, by Hizbullah ( that was created not simply "due to the Israeli invasion", but must be seen in the context of the 79' revolution) as it was an ambitious, long term goal by the Egyptians prior to their knowledge of our nuclear arsenal.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Az
But I wouldn't call "the destruction of Israel" a step that is insane, or crazy. It's a very very ambitious geopolitical goal, by Hizbullah ( that was created not simply "due to the Israeli invasion", but must be seen in the context of the 79' revolution) as it was an ambitious, long term goal by the Egyptians prior to their knowledge of our nuclear arsenal.

The destruction of Israel was never a serious policy goal for Egypt. It was a banner to wave in the name of Pan-Arabism in the contest for supermacy amongst Arab states. And Egypt could always have gone on to develop its own nuclear arsenal if it had so wanted- you really think the Egyptians were clueless about Israel's nuclear work in the 1960's? You think they did not know Israel might have had nukes when they attacked in 1973?

Even in 1948 the Egyptians did not act as if destroying Israel was a vital goal for thier government.

[Az]

They knew we had nukes in 73. This, coupled with them unable to leave their AA umbrella is what stopped them from proceeding forward.

As to "not being a serious policy goal" ever, this depends on the definition of "serious". Was it an immidiate goal in any of the wars? probably not. Was the demise of the state of Israel a long term goal? I have little of doubt about it.


As to "Egypting could have gone to develop it's own nuclear arsenal", this is quite untrue. The soviets were quite cheap about military nuclear technology, and the egyptians lacked a solid core of physicists, and engineers to accomplish it for many years.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Az
They knew we had nukes in 73. This, coupled with them unable to leave their AA umbrella is what stopped them from proceeding forward.

As to "not being a serious policy goal" ever, this depends on the definition of "serious". Was it an immidiate goal in any of the wars? probably not. Was the demise of the state of Israel a long term goal? I have little of doubt about it.

"Serious" as in the governments of Egypt undertook plans and made policy based on said goal. Egypt accepted UNSCR242 in November '67, and few people believe that Nasser was ready for war with Israel in '67.

So, while you may have "little doubt", I fail to see the historical evidence behind your certainty. Can you name any significant and concrete Egyptian policies between 1948 an 1967 to point to the notion that Egypt saw the demise of Israel as a serious, achievable policy goal?

As to "Egypting could have gone to develop it's own nuclear arsenal", this is quite untrue. The soviets were quite cheap about military nuclear technology, and the egyptians lacked a solid core of physicists, and engineers to accomplish it for many years.

That they lacked it does not mean they could not have taken concrete steps to create it, much like Pakistan did, or India. And if the destrcution of Israel was a seriously contemplated goal in cairo, this would have been the sort of long-term planning one would think necessary. Why did Egypt then join the NPT when it came out, as opposed to Israel, Pakistan, or India?

[Az]

Because by the time that Egypt was in the position to contemplate it, it didn't have any goal of conventional or nuclear destruction of Israel, due to MAD.

Serious" as in the governments of Egypt undertook plans and made policy based on said goal. Egypt accepted UNSCR242 in November '67, and few people believe that Nasser was ready for war with Israel in '67.

Of course it accpeted UNSCR242 because it was highly advantageous for him! after being defeated in a war he had caused by his sheer idiocy, he was ensured that the only thing he lost in the eyes of interntional law was his dignity - not nearly on par with the failure on the battlefield he had suffered. Even if he was planning to launch a full scale assault on Israel the very next year, why wouldn't he have accepted UNSCR242?

As to "taking concrete steps", the Egyptians have expressed this as a goal numerously - We can interpret as posturing, but the right way to interpret it is wishful thinking. Due to being in certain disadvantages vis a vis Israel on many levels, any actions they took "just to defend themselves" or "as a part of a far away goal to destroy Israel" would've been the same. One can hope that it's meaningless posturing, and one can say that the threats, while empty, were empty only due to the sheer inability of Egypt to accomplish those goals.

So, while you may have "little doubt", I fail to see the historical evidence behind your certainty. Can you name any significant and concrete Egyptian policies between 1948 an 1967 to point to the notion that Egypt saw the demise of Israel as a serious, achievable policy goal?

As I've said, even if the egyptians saw the conquest of the universe with spaceships as their ultimate goal, the concrete steps they would've taken wouldn't differ, due to the fact that the position they wanted to take wrt Israel in the power balance is in the same direction.

In any case, we have wandered off. Let's talk Hizbullah.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap




What makes you think so? The vast popularity of Nasrallah in the Arab world? The fact that the sunni autocratic governments, after their original denounciation of Hizbullah had to backtrack and back Hizbullah due to massive pro-Hizbullah support amongst their populations? Or the 90% support Hizbullah had in the last few polls done of ALL communities in Lebanon?

Not true.

Nasrallah is despised in non-shiite communities, in and out of lebanon.

A recent poll of Hamas supporters showed that most agree that "our enemy's enemy is our friend" but they still hate Hezbullah's guts.

Wait, so you made 15,000 families homeless, demolished entire villages and neighborhoods, cause at least $3.5 Billion dollars worth of damages to the infrastrcuture of Lebanon, and that is not "reduced to ruble?"

15,000 families - a good part of which were hosting rockets and arms in their basement and living room?

Demolished the headquarters of Hezbullah in south Beirut?

Attacked communications and supply targets?

Oh, and if you failed for 18 years to clear southern Lebanon of weapons, what on EARTH gives you the notion that you can do it in a few months???

Because there's a difference between achieving a short spanned success, and preserving it for 18 years....

Obviously policing is very hard and quite impossible. However, a blitz attack to dispose of 80% of the weapons should be quite effective.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Not true.

Nasrallah is despised in non-shiite communities, in and out of lebanon.

A recent poll of Hamas supporters showed that most agree that "our enemy's enemy is our friend" but they still hate Hezbullah's guts.

Source? Sounds very unlikely, especially as it conflicts with an article Ramo posted.

Incidently, does anyone know if Hezbollah is extending its aid payments to non-Shias?

[Sirotnikov]

comes from a hamas forum.

re 2nd question - i don't know.