http://www.sana.org/eng/22/2006/07/22/50010.htm
An Israeli spy network arrested in Lebanon
Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 02:50 PM
BEIRUT, July 22 (SANA)
Lebanese intelligence services have arrested a spy network working for Israel since long years ago, Lebanese A-Safir daily newspaper reported Saturday.
" The confession of suspects could lead to the exposure of a number of unactive spy cells working for Israel on Lebanese soil," the paper added in an article.
The paper quoted a well-informed source as saying that activities of this spy network exceeded what Mahmoud Rafa network which already uncovered has done.
" Members of the network, using developed technologies and communication apparatuses, facilitated selection of certain goals in Beirut's southern suburb through putting signs guiding the Israeli aircrafts to those targets," the papers indicated.
" One of the prominent figures in the network confessed that Israel has put itself on the alert 4 days before arrest of the two Israeli soldiers and provided its inactive spy cells with directives and technologies regarding targeting centers and headquarters of Hizbullah party in all Lebanese territories particularly in the Beirut's southern suburb.
-- --
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_solders.html
Partial excerpts (more at link):
"According to the Lebanese police force, the two soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aïta Al-Chaab close to the border, whereas Israeli television indicated that they had been captured in Israeli territory."
"Only weeks ago, an entire reserve division was drafted in order to train for an operation such as the one the IDF is planning in response to Wednesday morning's Hizbullah attacks on IDF forces along the northern border. [JPost 7/12/06]"
Full Version: Was Israel the Provocateur?
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Foreign Policy and National Defense > Foreign Policy & National Defense Issues Archive
What about all of the missiles that Hezbollah has been firing at Israeli civilians? Don't we all know by now that this is the number one issue for the Israelis? The capture of the soldiers was merely the spark of the conflict.
I really think that Israeli premeditation is a pretty minor issue here. The real question is what should Israel be doing about Hezbollah, and Hamas? The answer doesn't necessarily involve defending all of Israel's actions by any means.
I really think that Israeli premeditation is a pretty minor issue here. The real question is what should Israel be doing about Hezbollah, and Hamas? The answer doesn't necessarily involve defending all of Israel's actions by any means.
Published on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
Five Myths That Sanction Israel's War Crimes
by Jonathan Cook
This week I had the pleasure to appear on American radio, on the Laura Ingraham show, pitted against David Horowitz, a "Semite supremacist” who most recently made his name under the banner of Campus Watch, leading McCarthyite witch-hunts against American professors who have the impertinence to suggest that maybe, just maybe, Arabs have minds and feelings like the rest of us.
It was a revealing experience, at least for a British journalist rarely exposed to the depths of ignorance and prejudice in the United States on Middle East matters -- well, apart from the regular wackos who fill my email inbox. But five minutes of listening to Horowitz speak, and the sympathy with which his arguments were greeted by Laura (“The Professors -- your book’s a great read, David”), left me a lot more frightened about the world’s future.
Horowitz’s response to every question, every development in the Middle East, whether it concerns Lebanon, the Palestinians, Syria, or Iran, is the same: “They want to drive the Jews into the sea." It’s as simple as that. Not even a superficial attempt at analysis; just the message that the Arab world is trying to finish off the genocide started by Europe. And if Laura is any yardstick, a lot of Americans buy that stuff.
Horowitz is keen to bang the square peg of the Lebanon story into the round hole of his claims that the “Jews” are facing an imminent genocide in the Middle East. And to help him, he and the massed ranks of US apologists for Israel -- regulars, I suspect, of shows like Laura’s -- are promoting at least four myths regarding Hezbollah’s current rockets strikes on Israel. Unless they are challenged at every turn, the danger is that they will win the ground war against common sense in the US
The first myth is that Israel was forced to pound Lebanon with its military hardware because Hezbollah began “raining down” rockets on the Galilee. Anyone with a short memory can probably recall that was not the first justification we were offered: that had to do with the two soldiers captured by Hezbollah on a border post on July 12.
But presumably Horowitz and his friends realized that 400 Lebanese dead and counting in little more than a week was hard to sell as a “proportionate” response. In any case Hezbollah kept telling the world how keen it was to return the soldiers in a prisoner swap.
Hundreds of dead in Lebanon, at least 1,000 severely injured and more than half a million refugees -- all because Israel is not ready to sit down at the negotiating table. Even Horowitz could not “advocate for Israel” on that one.
So the chronology of war has been reorganized: now we are being told that Israel was forced to attack Lebanon to defend itself from the barrage of Hezbollah rockets falling on Israeli civilians. The international community is buying the argument hook, line, and sinker. “Israel has the right to defend itself," says every politician who can find a microphone to talk into.
But, if we cast our minds back, that is not how the “Middle East crisis," as TV channels now describe it, started. It is worth recapping on those early events (and I won’t document the long history of Lebanese suffering at Israel’s hands that preceded it) before they become entirely shrouded in the mythology being peddled by Horowitz and others.
Early on July 12 Hezbollah launched a raid against an army border post, in what was in the best interpretation a foolhardy violation of Israeli sovereignty. In the fighting the Shiite militia killed three soldiers and captured two others, while Hezbollah fired a few mortars at border areas in what the Israeli army described at the time as “diversionary tactics." As a result of the shelling, five Israelis were “lightly injured," with most needing treatment for shock, according to Haaretz.
Israel’s immediate response was to send a tank into Lebanon in pursuit of the Hezbollah fighters (its own foolhardy violation of Lebanese sovereignty). The tank ran over a landmine, which exploded, killing four soldiers inside. Another soldier died in further clashes inside Lebanon as his unit tried to retrieve the bodies.
Rather than open diplomatic channels to calm the violence down and start the process of getting its soldiers back, Israel launched bombing raids deep into Lebanese territory the same day. Given Israel’s worldview that it alone has a right to project power and fear, that might have been expected.
But the next day Israel continued its rampage across the south and into Beirut, where the airport, roads, bridges, and power stations were pummelled. We now know from reports in the US media that the Israeli army had been planning such a strike against Lebanon for at least a year.
In contrast to the image of Hezbollah frothing at the mouth to destroy Israel, its leader Hassan Nasrallah held off from serious retaliation. For the first day and a half, he limited his strikes to the northern borders areas, which have faced Hezbollah attacks in the past and are well protected.
He waited till late on June 13 before turning his guns on Haifa, even though we now know he could have targeted Israel’s third largest city from the outset. A small volley of rockets directed at Haifa caused no injuries and looked more like a warning than an escalation.
It was another three days -- days of constant Israeli bombardment of Lebanon, destroying the country and injuring countless civilians -- before Nasrallah hit Haifa again, including a shell that killed eight workers in a railway depot.
No one should have been surprised. Nasrallah was doing exactly what he had threatened to do if Israel refused to negotiate and chose the path of war instead. Although the international media quoted his ominous televised message that “Haifa is just the beginning," Nasrallah in fact made his threat conditional on Israel’s continuing strikes against Lebanon. In the same speech he warned: “As long as the enemy pursues its aggression without limits and red lines, we will pursue the confrontation without limits and red lines.” Well, Israel did, and so now has Nasrallah.
The second myth is that Hezbollah’s stockpile of 12,000 rockets -- the Israeli army’s estimate -- poses an existential threat to Israel. According to Horowitz and others, Hezbollah collected its armory with the sole intent of destroying the Jewish state.
If this really was Hezbollah’s intention in amassing the weapons, it has a very deluded view of what is required to wipe Israel off the map. More likely, it collected the armory in the hope that it might prove a deterrence -- even if a very inadequate one, as Lebanon is now discovering -- against a repeat of Israel’s invasions of 1978 and 1982, and the occupation that lasted nearly two decades afterwards.
In fact, according to other figures supplied by the Israeli army, at least 2,000 Hezbollah rockets have already been fired into Israel while the army’s bombardments have so far destroyed a further 2,000 rockets. In other words, northern Israel has already received a fifth of Hezbollah’s arsenal. As someone living in the north, and within range of the rockets, I have to say Israel does not look close to being expunged. The Galilee may be emptier, as up to third of Israeli Jews seek temporary refuge in the south, but Israel’s existence is in no doubt at all.
The third myth is that, while Israel is trying to fight a clean war by targeting only terrorists, Hezbollah prefers to bring death and destruction on innocents by firing rockets at Israeli civilians.
It is amazing that this myth even needs exploding, but after the efforts of Horowitz and Co. it most certainly does. As the civilian death toll in Lebanon has skyrocketed, international criticism of Israel has remained at the mealy-mouthed level of diplomatic requests for “restraint” and “proportionate responses."
One need only cast a quick eye over the casualty figures from this conflict to see that if Israel is targeting only Hezbollah fighters it has been making disastrous miscalculations. So far some 400 Lebanese civilians are reported dead -- unfortunately for Horowitz’s story at least a third of them children. From the images coming out of Lebanon’s hospitals, many more children have survived but with terrible burns or disabling injuries.
The best estimates, though no one knows for sure, are that Hezbollah deaths are not yet close to the three-figures range.
In the latest emerging news from Lebanon, human rights groups are accusing Israel of violating international law and using cluster grenades, which kill indiscriminately. There are reports too, so far unconfirmed, that Israel has been firing illegal incendiary bombs.
Conversely, the breakdown of the smaller number of deaths of Israelis at the hands of Hezbollah -- 42 at the time of writing -- show that more soldiers have been killed than civilians.
In fact, although no one is making the point, Hezbollah’s rockets have been targeted overwhelming at strategic locations: the northern economic hub of Haifa, its satellite towns and the array of military sites across the Galilee.
Nasrallah seems fully aware that Israel has an impressive civil defense program of shelters that keep most civilians out of harm’s way. Unlike Horowitz I won’t presume to read Nasrallah’s mind: whether he wants to kill large numbers of Israeli civilians or not cannot be known, given his inability to do so.
But we can see from the choice of the sites he is striking that his primary goal is to give Israelis a small taste of the disruption of normal life that is being endured by the Lebanese. He has effectively closed Haifa for more than a week, shutting its port and financial centers. Israeli TV is speaking increasingly of the damage being inflicted on the country’s economy.
Because of Israel’s press censorship laws, it is impossible to discuss the locations of Israel’s military installations. But Hezbollah’s rockets are accurate enough to show that many are intended for the army’s sites in the Galilee, even if they are rarely precise enough to hit them.
It is obvious to everyone in Nazareth, for example, that the rockets landing close by, and once on, the city over the past week are searching out, and some have fallen extremely close to, the weapons factory sited near us.
Hezbollah seems to have as little concern for the collateral damage of civilian deaths as Israel -- each wants the balance of terror in its favor -- but it is nonsense to suggest that Hezbollah’s goals are any more ignoble than Israel’s. It is trying to dent the economy of northern Israel in retaliation for Israel’s total destruction of the Lebanese economy. Equally, it is trying to show Israel that it knows where its military installations are to be found. Both strategies appear to be having an impact, even if a minor one, on weakening Israeli resolve.
The fourth myth is a continuation of the third: Hezbollah has been endangering the lives of ordinary Lebanese by hiding among non-combatants.
We have seen this kind of dissembling by Israel and Horowitz before, though not repeated so enthusiastically by Western officials. The UN head of humanitarian affairs, Jan Egeland, who is in the region, accused Hezbollah of “cowardly blending” among the civilian population, and a similar accuation was levelled by the British foreign minister Kim Howells when he arrived in Israel.
In 2002 Israel made the same charge: that Palestinians resisting its army’s rampage through the refugee camps of the West Bank were hiding among civilians. The claim grew louder as more Palestinian civilians showed the irritating habit of gettting in the way of Israeli strikes against population centers. The complaints reached a crescendo when at least two dozen civilians were killed in Jenin as Israel razed the camp with Apache helicopters and Caterpillar bulldozers.
The implication of Egeland’s cowardly statement seems to be that any Lebanese fighter, or Palestinian one, resisting Israel and its powerful military should stand in an open field, his rifle raised to the sky, waiting to see who fares worse in a shoot-out with an Apache helicopter or F-16 fighter jet. Hezbollah’s reluctance to conduct the war in this manner, we are supposed to infer, is proof that they are terrorists.
Egeland and Howells need reminding that Hezbollah’s fighters are not aliens recently arrived from training camps in Iran, whatever Horowitz claims. They belong to and are strongly supported by the Shiite community, nearly half the country’s population, and many other Lebanese. They have families, friends, and neighbors living alongside them in the country’s south and the neighborhoods of Beirut who believe Hezbollah is the best hope of defending their country from Israel’s regular onslaughts.
Given the indigenous nature of Hezbollah’s resistance, we should not be surprised at the lengths the Shiite militia is going to ensure their loved ones, and the Lebanese people more generally, are not put directly in danger by their combat.
If only the same could be said of the Israeli army and airforce. One need only look at the images of the victims of its strikes against residential neighborhoods, cars, ambulances, and factories to see why most of the dead being extracted from the rubble are civilians.
And finally, there is a fifth myth I almost forgot to mention. That people like David Horowitz only want to tell us the truth…
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His book “Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democatic State” is published by Pluto Press. His website is www.jkcook.net
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0725-35.htm
Five Myths That Sanction Israel's War Crimes
by Jonathan Cook
This week I had the pleasure to appear on American radio, on the Laura Ingraham show, pitted against David Horowitz, a "Semite supremacist” who most recently made his name under the banner of Campus Watch, leading McCarthyite witch-hunts against American professors who have the impertinence to suggest that maybe, just maybe, Arabs have minds and feelings like the rest of us.
It was a revealing experience, at least for a British journalist rarely exposed to the depths of ignorance and prejudice in the United States on Middle East matters -- well, apart from the regular wackos who fill my email inbox. But five minutes of listening to Horowitz speak, and the sympathy with which his arguments were greeted by Laura (“The Professors -- your book’s a great read, David”), left me a lot more frightened about the world’s future.
Horowitz’s response to every question, every development in the Middle East, whether it concerns Lebanon, the Palestinians, Syria, or Iran, is the same: “They want to drive the Jews into the sea." It’s as simple as that. Not even a superficial attempt at analysis; just the message that the Arab world is trying to finish off the genocide started by Europe. And if Laura is any yardstick, a lot of Americans buy that stuff.
Horowitz is keen to bang the square peg of the Lebanon story into the round hole of his claims that the “Jews” are facing an imminent genocide in the Middle East. And to help him, he and the massed ranks of US apologists for Israel -- regulars, I suspect, of shows like Laura’s -- are promoting at least four myths regarding Hezbollah’s current rockets strikes on Israel. Unless they are challenged at every turn, the danger is that they will win the ground war against common sense in the US
The first myth is that Israel was forced to pound Lebanon with its military hardware because Hezbollah began “raining down” rockets on the Galilee. Anyone with a short memory can probably recall that was not the first justification we were offered: that had to do with the two soldiers captured by Hezbollah on a border post on July 12.
But presumably Horowitz and his friends realized that 400 Lebanese dead and counting in little more than a week was hard to sell as a “proportionate” response. In any case Hezbollah kept telling the world how keen it was to return the soldiers in a prisoner swap.
Hundreds of dead in Lebanon, at least 1,000 severely injured and more than half a million refugees -- all because Israel is not ready to sit down at the negotiating table. Even Horowitz could not “advocate for Israel” on that one.
So the chronology of war has been reorganized: now we are being told that Israel was forced to attack Lebanon to defend itself from the barrage of Hezbollah rockets falling on Israeli civilians. The international community is buying the argument hook, line, and sinker. “Israel has the right to defend itself," says every politician who can find a microphone to talk into.
But, if we cast our minds back, that is not how the “Middle East crisis," as TV channels now describe it, started. It is worth recapping on those early events (and I won’t document the long history of Lebanese suffering at Israel’s hands that preceded it) before they become entirely shrouded in the mythology being peddled by Horowitz and others.
Early on July 12 Hezbollah launched a raid against an army border post, in what was in the best interpretation a foolhardy violation of Israeli sovereignty. In the fighting the Shiite militia killed three soldiers and captured two others, while Hezbollah fired a few mortars at border areas in what the Israeli army described at the time as “diversionary tactics." As a result of the shelling, five Israelis were “lightly injured," with most needing treatment for shock, according to Haaretz.
Israel’s immediate response was to send a tank into Lebanon in pursuit of the Hezbollah fighters (its own foolhardy violation of Lebanese sovereignty). The tank ran over a landmine, which exploded, killing four soldiers inside. Another soldier died in further clashes inside Lebanon as his unit tried to retrieve the bodies.
Rather than open diplomatic channels to calm the violence down and start the process of getting its soldiers back, Israel launched bombing raids deep into Lebanese territory the same day. Given Israel’s worldview that it alone has a right to project power and fear, that might have been expected.
But the next day Israel continued its rampage across the south and into Beirut, where the airport, roads, bridges, and power stations were pummelled. We now know from reports in the US media that the Israeli army had been planning such a strike against Lebanon for at least a year.
In contrast to the image of Hezbollah frothing at the mouth to destroy Israel, its leader Hassan Nasrallah held off from serious retaliation. For the first day and a half, he limited his strikes to the northern borders areas, which have faced Hezbollah attacks in the past and are well protected.
He waited till late on June 13 before turning his guns on Haifa, even though we now know he could have targeted Israel’s third largest city from the outset. A small volley of rockets directed at Haifa caused no injuries and looked more like a warning than an escalation.
It was another three days -- days of constant Israeli bombardment of Lebanon, destroying the country and injuring countless civilians -- before Nasrallah hit Haifa again, including a shell that killed eight workers in a railway depot.
No one should have been surprised. Nasrallah was doing exactly what he had threatened to do if Israel refused to negotiate and chose the path of war instead. Although the international media quoted his ominous televised message that “Haifa is just the beginning," Nasrallah in fact made his threat conditional on Israel’s continuing strikes against Lebanon. In the same speech he warned: “As long as the enemy pursues its aggression without limits and red lines, we will pursue the confrontation without limits and red lines.” Well, Israel did, and so now has Nasrallah.
The second myth is that Hezbollah’s stockpile of 12,000 rockets -- the Israeli army’s estimate -- poses an existential threat to Israel. According to Horowitz and others, Hezbollah collected its armory with the sole intent of destroying the Jewish state.
If this really was Hezbollah’s intention in amassing the weapons, it has a very deluded view of what is required to wipe Israel off the map. More likely, it collected the armory in the hope that it might prove a deterrence -- even if a very inadequate one, as Lebanon is now discovering -- against a repeat of Israel’s invasions of 1978 and 1982, and the occupation that lasted nearly two decades afterwards.
In fact, according to other figures supplied by the Israeli army, at least 2,000 Hezbollah rockets have already been fired into Israel while the army’s bombardments have so far destroyed a further 2,000 rockets. In other words, northern Israel has already received a fifth of Hezbollah’s arsenal. As someone living in the north, and within range of the rockets, I have to say Israel does not look close to being expunged. The Galilee may be emptier, as up to third of Israeli Jews seek temporary refuge in the south, but Israel’s existence is in no doubt at all.
The third myth is that, while Israel is trying to fight a clean war by targeting only terrorists, Hezbollah prefers to bring death and destruction on innocents by firing rockets at Israeli civilians.
It is amazing that this myth even needs exploding, but after the efforts of Horowitz and Co. it most certainly does. As the civilian death toll in Lebanon has skyrocketed, international criticism of Israel has remained at the mealy-mouthed level of diplomatic requests for “restraint” and “proportionate responses."
One need only cast a quick eye over the casualty figures from this conflict to see that if Israel is targeting only Hezbollah fighters it has been making disastrous miscalculations. So far some 400 Lebanese civilians are reported dead -- unfortunately for Horowitz’s story at least a third of them children. From the images coming out of Lebanon’s hospitals, many more children have survived but with terrible burns or disabling injuries.
The best estimates, though no one knows for sure, are that Hezbollah deaths are not yet close to the three-figures range.
In the latest emerging news from Lebanon, human rights groups are accusing Israel of violating international law and using cluster grenades, which kill indiscriminately. There are reports too, so far unconfirmed, that Israel has been firing illegal incendiary bombs.
Conversely, the breakdown of the smaller number of deaths of Israelis at the hands of Hezbollah -- 42 at the time of writing -- show that more soldiers have been killed than civilians.
In fact, although no one is making the point, Hezbollah’s rockets have been targeted overwhelming at strategic locations: the northern economic hub of Haifa, its satellite towns and the array of military sites across the Galilee.
Nasrallah seems fully aware that Israel has an impressive civil defense program of shelters that keep most civilians out of harm’s way. Unlike Horowitz I won’t presume to read Nasrallah’s mind: whether he wants to kill large numbers of Israeli civilians or not cannot be known, given his inability to do so.
But we can see from the choice of the sites he is striking that his primary goal is to give Israelis a small taste of the disruption of normal life that is being endured by the Lebanese. He has effectively closed Haifa for more than a week, shutting its port and financial centers. Israeli TV is speaking increasingly of the damage being inflicted on the country’s economy.
Because of Israel’s press censorship laws, it is impossible to discuss the locations of Israel’s military installations. But Hezbollah’s rockets are accurate enough to show that many are intended for the army’s sites in the Galilee, even if they are rarely precise enough to hit them.
It is obvious to everyone in Nazareth, for example, that the rockets landing close by, and once on, the city over the past week are searching out, and some have fallen extremely close to, the weapons factory sited near us.
Hezbollah seems to have as little concern for the collateral damage of civilian deaths as Israel -- each wants the balance of terror in its favor -- but it is nonsense to suggest that Hezbollah’s goals are any more ignoble than Israel’s. It is trying to dent the economy of northern Israel in retaliation for Israel’s total destruction of the Lebanese economy. Equally, it is trying to show Israel that it knows where its military installations are to be found. Both strategies appear to be having an impact, even if a minor one, on weakening Israeli resolve.
The fourth myth is a continuation of the third: Hezbollah has been endangering the lives of ordinary Lebanese by hiding among non-combatants.
We have seen this kind of dissembling by Israel and Horowitz before, though not repeated so enthusiastically by Western officials. The UN head of humanitarian affairs, Jan Egeland, who is in the region, accused Hezbollah of “cowardly blending” among the civilian population, and a similar accuation was levelled by the British foreign minister Kim Howells when he arrived in Israel.
In 2002 Israel made the same charge: that Palestinians resisting its army’s rampage through the refugee camps of the West Bank were hiding among civilians. The claim grew louder as more Palestinian civilians showed the irritating habit of gettting in the way of Israeli strikes against population centers. The complaints reached a crescendo when at least two dozen civilians were killed in Jenin as Israel razed the camp with Apache helicopters and Caterpillar bulldozers.
The implication of Egeland’s cowardly statement seems to be that any Lebanese fighter, or Palestinian one, resisting Israel and its powerful military should stand in an open field, his rifle raised to the sky, waiting to see who fares worse in a shoot-out with an Apache helicopter or F-16 fighter jet. Hezbollah’s reluctance to conduct the war in this manner, we are supposed to infer, is proof that they are terrorists.
Egeland and Howells need reminding that Hezbollah’s fighters are not aliens recently arrived from training camps in Iran, whatever Horowitz claims. They belong to and are strongly supported by the Shiite community, nearly half the country’s population, and many other Lebanese. They have families, friends, and neighbors living alongside them in the country’s south and the neighborhoods of Beirut who believe Hezbollah is the best hope of defending their country from Israel’s regular onslaughts.
Given the indigenous nature of Hezbollah’s resistance, we should not be surprised at the lengths the Shiite militia is going to ensure their loved ones, and the Lebanese people more generally, are not put directly in danger by their combat.
If only the same could be said of the Israeli army and airforce. One need only look at the images of the victims of its strikes against residential neighborhoods, cars, ambulances, and factories to see why most of the dead being extracted from the rubble are civilians.
And finally, there is a fifth myth I almost forgot to mention. That people like David Horowitz only want to tell us the truth…
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His book “Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democatic State” is published by Pluto Press. His website is www.jkcook.net
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0725-35.htm
Cook leaves no doubt as to where he stands!...The truth is somewhere in the middle.
I'm sure that many will take what Chomsky, Zinn et al with at least a grain of salt but they do cite an incident involving the abduction Palestinian civilians by Isreali forces that I wasn't aware of. Does anyone have handy confirmation that this incident took place?
QUOTE(DWB04 @ Jul 26 2006, 09:53 AM)
A Letter From Chomsky and Others on the Recent Events in the Middle East
Chomskey.info
Wednesday 19 July 2006
The latest chapter of the conflict between Israel and Palestine began when Israeli forces abducted two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from Gaza. An incident scarcely reported anywhere, except in the Turkish press. The following day the Palestinians took an Israeli soldier prisoner - and proposed a negotiated exchange against prisoners taken by the Israelis - there are approximately 10,000 in Israeli jails.
That this "kidnapping" was considered an outrage, whereas the illegal military occupation of the West Bank and the systematic appropriation of its natural resources - most particularly that of water - by the Israeli Defence (!) Forces is considered a regrettable but realistic fact of life, is typical of the double standards repeatedly employed by the West in face of what has befallen the Palestinians, on the land alloted to them by international agreements, during the last seventy years.
Today outrage follows outrage; makeshift missiles cross sophisticated ones. The latter usually find their target situated where the disinherited and crowded poor live, waiting for what was once called Justice. Both categories of missile rip bodies apart horribly - who but field commanders can forget this for a moment?
Each provocation and counter-provocation is contested and preached over. But the subsequent arguments, accusations and vows, all serve as a distraction in order to divert world attention from a long-term military, economic and geographic practice whose political aim is nothing less than the liquidation of the Palestinian nation.
This has to be said loud and clear for the practice, only half declared and often covert, is advancing fast these days, and, in our opinion, it must be unceasingly and eternally recognised for what it is and resisted.
Tariq Ali
John Berger
Noam Chomsky
Eduardo Galeano
Naomi Klein
Harold Pinter
Arundhati Roy
Jose Saramago
Giuliana Sgrena
Howard Zinn
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072506R.shtml
Chomskey.info
Wednesday 19 July 2006
The latest chapter of the conflict between Israel and Palestine began when Israeli forces abducted two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from Gaza. An incident scarcely reported anywhere, except in the Turkish press. The following day the Palestinians took an Israeli soldier prisoner - and proposed a negotiated exchange against prisoners taken by the Israelis - there are approximately 10,000 in Israeli jails.
That this "kidnapping" was considered an outrage, whereas the illegal military occupation of the West Bank and the systematic appropriation of its natural resources - most particularly that of water - by the Israeli Defence (!) Forces is considered a regrettable but realistic fact of life, is typical of the double standards repeatedly employed by the West in face of what has befallen the Palestinians, on the land alloted to them by international agreements, during the last seventy years.
Today outrage follows outrage; makeshift missiles cross sophisticated ones. The latter usually find their target situated where the disinherited and crowded poor live, waiting for what was once called Justice. Both categories of missile rip bodies apart horribly - who but field commanders can forget this for a moment?
Each provocation and counter-provocation is contested and preached over. But the subsequent arguments, accusations and vows, all serve as a distraction in order to divert world attention from a long-term military, economic and geographic practice whose political aim is nothing less than the liquidation of the Palestinian nation.
This has to be said loud and clear for the practice, only half declared and often covert, is advancing fast these days, and, in our opinion, it must be unceasingly and eternally recognised for what it is and resisted.
Tariq Ali
John Berger
Noam Chomsky
Eduardo Galeano
Naomi Klein
Harold Pinter
Arundhati Roy
Jose Saramago
Giuliana Sgrena
Howard Zinn
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072506R.shtml
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Jul 26 2006, 09:09 AM)
Cook leaves no doubt as to where he stands!...The truth is somewhere in the middle.
I agree.
Published on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 by Ha'aretz (Israel)
Morality Is Not On Our Side
by Ze'ev Maoz
There's practically a holy consensus right now that the war in the North is a just war and that morality is on our side. The bitter truth must be said: this holy consensus is based on short-range selective memory, an introverted worldview, and double standards.
This war is not a just war. Israel is using excessive force without distinguishing between civilian population and enemy, whose sole purpose is extortion. That is not to say that morality and justice are on Hezbollah's side. Most certainly not. But the fact that Hezbollah "started it" when it kidnapped soldiers from across an international border does not even begin to tilt the scales of justice toward our side.
Let's start with a few facts. We invaded a sovereign state, and occupied its capital in 1982. In the process of this occupation, we dropped several tons of bombs from the air, ground, and sea, while wounding and killing thousands of civilians. Approximately 14,000 civilians were killed between June and September of 1982, according to a conservative estimate. The majority of these civilians had nothing to do with the PLO, which provided the official pretext for the war.
In Operations Accountability and Grapes of Wrath, we caused the mass flight of about 500,000 refugees from southern Lebanon on each occasion. There are no exact data on the number of casualties in these operations, but one can recall that in Operation Grapes of Wrath, we bombed a shelter in the village of Kafr Kana which killed 103 civilians. The bombing may have been accidental, but that did not make the operation any more moral.
On July 28, 1989, we kidnapped Sheikh Obeid, and on May 12, 1994, we kidnapped Mustafa Dirani, who had captured Ron Arad. Israel held these two people and another 20-odd Lebanese detainees without trial, as "negotiating chips." That which is permissible to us is, of course, forbidden to Hezbollah.
Hezbollah crossed a border that is recognized by the international community. That is true. What we are forgetting is that ever since our withdrawal from Lebanon, the Israel Air Force has conducted photo-surveillance sorties on a daily basis in Lebanese airspace. While these flights caused no casualties, border violations are border violations. Here too, morality is not on our side.
So much for the history of morality. Now, let's consider current affairs. What exactly is the difference between launching Katyushas into civilian population centers in Israel and the Israel Air Force bombing population centers in south Beirut, Tyre, Sidon and Tripoli? The IDF has fired thousands of shells into south Lebanon villages, alleging that Hezbollah men are concealed among the civilian population. Approximately 25 Israeli civilians have been killed as a result of Katyusha missiles to date. The number of dead in Lebanon, the vast majority comprised of civilians who have nothing to do with Hezbollah, is more than 300.
Worse yet, bombing infrastructure targets such as power stations, bridges and other civil facilities turns the entire Lebanese civilian population into a victim and hostage, even if we are not physically harming civilians. The use of bombings to achieve a diplomatic goal - namely, coercing the Lebanese government into implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1559 - is an attempt at political blackmail, and no less than the kidnapping of IDF soldiers by Hezbollah is the aim of bringing about a prisoner exchange.
There is a propaganda aspect to this war, and it involves a competition as to who is more miserable. Each side tries to persuade the world that it is more miserable. As in every propaganda campaign, the use of information is selective, distorted and self-righteous. If we want to base our information (or shall we call it propaganda?) policy on the assumption that the international environment is going to buy the dubious merchandise that we are selling, be it out of ignorance or hypocrisy, then fine. But in terms of our own national soul searching, we owe ourselves to confront the bitter truth - maybe we will win this conflict on the military field, maybe we will make some diplomatic gains, but on the moral plane, we have no advantage, and we have no special status.
Ze'ev Maoz is a professor of political science at Tel Aviv university.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0725-27.htm
Morality Is Not On Our Side
by Ze'ev Maoz
There's practically a holy consensus right now that the war in the North is a just war and that morality is on our side. The bitter truth must be said: this holy consensus is based on short-range selective memory, an introverted worldview, and double standards.
This war is not a just war. Israel is using excessive force without distinguishing between civilian population and enemy, whose sole purpose is extortion. That is not to say that morality and justice are on Hezbollah's side. Most certainly not. But the fact that Hezbollah "started it" when it kidnapped soldiers from across an international border does not even begin to tilt the scales of justice toward our side.
Let's start with a few facts. We invaded a sovereign state, and occupied its capital in 1982. In the process of this occupation, we dropped several tons of bombs from the air, ground, and sea, while wounding and killing thousands of civilians. Approximately 14,000 civilians were killed between June and September of 1982, according to a conservative estimate. The majority of these civilians had nothing to do with the PLO, which provided the official pretext for the war.
In Operations Accountability and Grapes of Wrath, we caused the mass flight of about 500,000 refugees from southern Lebanon on each occasion. There are no exact data on the number of casualties in these operations, but one can recall that in Operation Grapes of Wrath, we bombed a shelter in the village of Kafr Kana which killed 103 civilians. The bombing may have been accidental, but that did not make the operation any more moral.
On July 28, 1989, we kidnapped Sheikh Obeid, and on May 12, 1994, we kidnapped Mustafa Dirani, who had captured Ron Arad. Israel held these two people and another 20-odd Lebanese detainees without trial, as "negotiating chips." That which is permissible to us is, of course, forbidden to Hezbollah.
Hezbollah crossed a border that is recognized by the international community. That is true. What we are forgetting is that ever since our withdrawal from Lebanon, the Israel Air Force has conducted photo-surveillance sorties on a daily basis in Lebanese airspace. While these flights caused no casualties, border violations are border violations. Here too, morality is not on our side.
So much for the history of morality. Now, let's consider current affairs. What exactly is the difference between launching Katyushas into civilian population centers in Israel and the Israel Air Force bombing population centers in south Beirut, Tyre, Sidon and Tripoli? The IDF has fired thousands of shells into south Lebanon villages, alleging that Hezbollah men are concealed among the civilian population. Approximately 25 Israeli civilians have been killed as a result of Katyusha missiles to date. The number of dead in Lebanon, the vast majority comprised of civilians who have nothing to do with Hezbollah, is more than 300.
Worse yet, bombing infrastructure targets such as power stations, bridges and other civil facilities turns the entire Lebanese civilian population into a victim and hostage, even if we are not physically harming civilians. The use of bombings to achieve a diplomatic goal - namely, coercing the Lebanese government into implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1559 - is an attempt at political blackmail, and no less than the kidnapping of IDF soldiers by Hezbollah is the aim of bringing about a prisoner exchange.
There is a propaganda aspect to this war, and it involves a competition as to who is more miserable. Each side tries to persuade the world that it is more miserable. As in every propaganda campaign, the use of information is selective, distorted and self-righteous. If we want to base our information (or shall we call it propaganda?) policy on the assumption that the international environment is going to buy the dubious merchandise that we are selling, be it out of ignorance or hypocrisy, then fine. But in terms of our own national soul searching, we owe ourselves to confront the bitter truth - maybe we will win this conflict on the military field, maybe we will make some diplomatic gains, but on the moral plane, we have no advantage, and we have no special status.
Ze'ev Maoz is a professor of political science at Tel Aviv university.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0725-27.htm
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Jul 26 2006, 09:09 AM)
Cook leaves no doubt as to where he stands!...The truth is somewhere in the middle.
I agree....
In the end. unbridled hatred causes Hezbollah to continue to "poke" Israel with a mortar shelling here, a raid there, a kidnapping over there. Then when Israel says enough we are coming after you, Hezbollah complains that Israel is unjustified. That they are disproportionate. Well maybe so. But if you provoke a nation to react who is responsible?
I doubt Israel wants to occupy Lebanon. I have a problem with their seeming widspread bombings. The civilian deaths. But in the end who started it?
I doubt Israel wants to occupy Lebanon. I have a problem with their seeming widspread bombings. The civilian deaths. But in the end who started it?
QUOTE(DWB04 @ Jul 26 2006, 12:06 PM)
by Jonathan Cook
In fact, although no one is making the point, Hezbollah’s rockets have been targeted overwhelming at strategic locations: the northern economic hub of Haifa, its satellite towns and the array of military sites across the Galilee.
In fact, although no one is making the point, Hezbollah’s rockets have been targeted overwhelming at strategic locations: the northern economic hub of Haifa, its satellite towns and the array of military sites across the Galilee.
If Haifa and its suburbs are "strategic" then why isn't Beirut? I'm not justifying slamming Beirut, but this seems like a rather odd argument here. I live in a suburb of Washington. If Al Qaeda had rained bombs down on my community, would that have been okay? And the point is that when you shoot rockets at a city like Haifa it is very hard to say that you aren't targeting civilians. What else would you be targeting? Some of Hezbollah's targets have been military.
QUOTE
Nasrallah seems fully aware that Israel has an impressive civil defense program of shelters that keep most civilians out of harm’s way. Unlike Horowitz I won’t presume to read Nasrallah’s mind: whether he wants to kill large numbers of Israeli civilians or not cannot be known, given his inability to do so.
It seems like he is trying to kill as many as possible.
QUOTE
Hezbollah seems to have as little concern for the collateral damage of civilian deaths as Israel -- each wants the balance of terror in its favor -- but it is nonsense to suggest that Hezbollah’s goals are any more ignoble than Israel’s.
The guy has a point in criticizing Israel here, but I would submit that this does not lead to the conclusion of moral equivalence that he makes.
QUOTE
The fourth myth is a continuation of the third: Hezbollah has been endangering the lives of ordinary Lebanese by hiding among non-combatants...
The implication of Egeland’s cowardly statement seems to be that any Lebanese fighter, or Palestinian one, resisting Israel and its powerful military should stand in an open field, his rifle raised to the sky, waiting to see who fares worse in a shoot-out with an Apache helicopter or F-16 fighter jet. Hezbollah’s reluctance to conduct the war in this manner, we are supposed to infer, is proof that they are terrorists.
Egeland and Howells need reminding that Hezbollah’s fighters are not aliens recently arrived from training camps in Iran, whatever Horowitz claims. They belong to and are strongly supported by the Shiite community, nearly half the country’s population, and many other Lebanese. They have families, friends, and neighbors living alongside them in the country’s south and the neighborhoods of Beirut who believe Hezbollah is the best hope of defending their country from Israel’s regular onslaughts.
Given the indigenous nature of Hezbollah’s resistance, we should not be surprised at the lengths the Shiite militia is going to ensure their loved ones, and the Lebanese people more generally, are not put directly in danger by their combat.
The implication of Egeland’s cowardly statement seems to be that any Lebanese fighter, or Palestinian one, resisting Israel and its powerful military should stand in an open field, his rifle raised to the sky, waiting to see who fares worse in a shoot-out with an Apache helicopter or F-16 fighter jet. Hezbollah’s reluctance to conduct the war in this manner, we are supposed to infer, is proof that they are terrorists.
Egeland and Howells need reminding that Hezbollah’s fighters are not aliens recently arrived from training camps in Iran, whatever Horowitz claims. They belong to and are strongly supported by the Shiite community, nearly half the country’s population, and many other Lebanese. They have families, friends, and neighbors living alongside them in the country’s south and the neighborhoods of Beirut who believe Hezbollah is the best hope of defending their country from Israel’s regular onslaughts.
Given the indigenous nature of Hezbollah’s resistance, we should not be surprised at the lengths the Shiite militia is going to ensure their loved ones, and the Lebanese people more generally, are not put directly in danger by their combat.
Weak if you think it through and pay attention. The fact is, many in Lebanon have been slamming Hezbollah for helping make Lebanon a target. Not everyone, they do have significant support, but significant opposition as well. And if Israel is wrong by causing too much collateral damage, intended or not, why isn't Hezbollah on the hook for shooting from residential areas? Don't they have some responsibility for those civilians around them who die as well? And this indigenous stuff is pretty meaningless. The fact is they are doing what they are doing regardless, killing Israeli civilians and making their own people targets.
QUOTE
If only the same could be said of the Israeli army and airforce. One need only look at the images of the victims of its strikes against residential neighborhoods, cars, ambulances, and factories to see why most of the dead being extracted from the rubble are civilians.
At least they aren't shooting missiles from their own residential areas potentially making them targets.
QUOTE
And finally, there is a fifth myth I almost forgot to mention. That people like David Horowitz only want to tell us the truth…
Horowitz is pretty despicable, but that doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with him is right himself.
QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Jul 26 2006, 12:18 PM)
I'm sure that many will take what Chomsky, Zinn et al with at least a grain of salt but they do cite an incident involving the abduction Palestinian civilians by Isreali forces that I wasn't aware of. Does anyone have handy confirmation that this incident took place?
The Israelis abducted a doctor and his brother? (Was being a brother to a doctor the only role this second man played in his life?) Why? If there is any truth here, then a big part of the story is not being told. And I wouldn't be suprised if Chomsky, who is basically a propagandist, isn't knowingly concealing it.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jul 26 2006, 10:48 AM)
The Israelis abducted a doctor and his brother? (Was being a brother to a doctor the only role this second man played in his life?) Why? If there is any truth here, then a big part of the story is not being told. And I wouldn't be suprised if Chomsky, who is basically a propagandist, isn't knowingly concealing it.
Agreed that Chomsky is into polemics fron the left like a number of us on this forum. HOWEVER
Chomsky is a linguist in his other life and he is a very authoritative source among linguists and cognitive scientists.
Can you link us to a source independent of Chomsky et al.
QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Jul 26 2006, 01:17 PM)
Agreed that Chomsky is into polemics fron the left like a number of us on this forum. HOWEVER
Chomsky is a linguist in his other life and he is a very authoritative source among linguists and cognitive scientists.
Can you link us to a source independent of Chomsky et al.
Chomsky is a linguist in his other life and he is a very authoritative source among linguists and cognitive scientists.
Can you link us to a source independent of Chomsky et al.
I know next to nothing about Chomsky's role in his profession, I have no reason to criticize him there. I would assume that he is quite competent and professional as a linguist, I know that he has made a contribution or two.
But I don't see him as an objective political commentator in the least. That doesn't mean that he is always wrong.
I don't know where an independent source on this would be. Do we know the name of the Turkish paper, and would it have an English-language website?
And my questions still stand. I have no idea if Israel did anything that could be justified in that incident, but I don't think that they just abduct Palestinians who are doctors or doctors' brothers. I think that there has to be a lot more to it than that.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jul 26 2006, 11:27 AM)
I know next to nothing about Chomsky's role in his profession, I have no reason to criticize him there. I would assume that he is quite competent and professional as a linguist, I know that he has made a contribution or two.
But I don't see him as an objective political commentator in the least. That doesn't mean that he is always wrong.
I don't know where an independent source on this would be. Do we know the name of the Turkish paper, and would it have an English-language website?
And my questions still stand. I have no idea if Israel did anything that could be justified in that incident, but I don't think that they just abduct Palestinians who are doctors or doctors' brothers. I think that there has to be a lot more to it than that.
But I don't see him as an objective political commentator in the least. That doesn't mean that he is always wrong.
I don't know where an independent source on this would be. Do we know the name of the Turkish paper, and would it have an English-language website?
And my questions still stand. I have no idea if Israel did anything that could be justified in that incident, but I don't think that they just abduct Palestinians who are doctors or doctors' brothers. I think that there has to be a lot more to it than that.
Dammit! I need to learn more from my cousin Jethro about how to push a wheelbarrow around upside down so that no one puts anything in it.
I'll take a look to see if I can find an independent source on the incident.
I found a rather long article that may somewhat support this theory about who was the provocatuer. Take it with a grain of salt though.
This part stood out to me.
The whole article can be read here.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG15Ak02.html
This part stood out to me.
QUOTE
It all started on July 12 when Israel troops were ambushed on Lebanon's side of the border with Israel. Hezbollah, which commands the Lebanese south, immediately seized on their crossing. They arrested two Israeli soldiers, killed eight Israelis and wounded over 20 in attacks inside Israeli territory.
This unleashed hell in Israel, and Olmert immediately responded by mounting a war on Lebanon. A sea, air and ground blockade was enforced on Lebanon, and a systematic destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure was began.
This unleashed hell in Israel, and Olmert immediately responded by mounting a war on Lebanon. A sea, air and ground blockade was enforced on Lebanon, and a systematic destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure was began.
The whole article can be read here.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG15Ak02.html
QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Jul 26 2006, 12:06 PM)
I'll take a look to see if I can find an independent source on the incident.
I'm sure that many will question whether Al Jazeera is an independent source but I found several other references to this June 24th incident.
Jethro advises that someone else could look up a Reuters report of the incident.
Al Jazeera?
QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Jul 26 2006, 09:51 AM)
http://www.sana.org/eng/22/2006/07/22/50010.htm
An Israeli spy network arrested in Lebanon
Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 02:50 PM
BEIRUT, July 22 (SANA)
Lebanese intelligence services have arrested a spy network working for Israel since long years ago, Lebanese A-Safir daily newspaper reported Saturday.
" The confession of suspects could lead to the exposure of a number of unactive spy cells working for Israel on Lebanese soil," the paper added in an article.
The paper quoted a well-informed source as saying that activities of this spy network exceeded what Mahmoud Rafa network which already uncovered has done.
" Members of the network, using developed technologies and communication apparatuses, facilitated selection of certain goals in Beirut's southern suburb through putting signs guiding the Israeli aircrafts to those targets," the papers indicated.
" One of the prominent figures in the network confessed that Israel has put itself on the alert 4 days before arrest of the two Israeli soldiers and provided its inactive spy cells with directives and technologies regarding targeting centers and headquarters of Hizbullah party in all Lebanese territories particularly in the Beirut's southern suburb.
-- --
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_solders.html
Partial excerpts (more at link):
"According to the Lebanese police force, the two soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aïta Al-Chaab close to the border, whereas Israeli television indicated that they had been captured in Israeli territory."
"Only weeks ago, an entire reserve division was drafted in order to train for an operation such as the one the IDF is planning in response to Wednesday morning's Hizbullah attacks on IDF forces along the northern border. [JPost 7/12/06]"
An Israeli spy network arrested in Lebanon
Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 02:50 PM
BEIRUT, July 22 (SANA)
Lebanese intelligence services have arrested a spy network working for Israel since long years ago, Lebanese A-Safir daily newspaper reported Saturday.
" The confession of suspects could lead to the exposure of a number of unactive spy cells working for Israel on Lebanese soil," the paper added in an article.
The paper quoted a well-informed source as saying that activities of this spy network exceeded what Mahmoud Rafa network which already uncovered has done.
" Members of the network, using developed technologies and communication apparatuses, facilitated selection of certain goals in Beirut's southern suburb through putting signs guiding the Israeli aircrafts to those targets," the papers indicated.
" One of the prominent figures in the network confessed that Israel has put itself on the alert 4 days before arrest of the two Israeli soldiers and provided its inactive spy cells with directives and technologies regarding targeting centers and headquarters of Hizbullah party in all Lebanese territories particularly in the Beirut's southern suburb.
-- --
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_solders.html
Partial excerpts (more at link):
"According to the Lebanese police force, the two soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aïta Al-Chaab close to the border, whereas Israeli television indicated that they had been captured in Israeli territory."
"Only weeks ago, an entire reserve division was drafted in order to train for an operation such as the one the IDF is planning in response to Wednesday morning's Hizbullah attacks on IDF forces along the northern border. [JPost 7/12/06]"
This is probably true, and yet, isn't it also the case that the US, Israeli and
Hezebolla keep their foreign relations structured so as to be able to trigger
an immediate attack at one or more locations, of their choosing?
Israel has all sorts of plans and contigencies for virtually any occasion. They have an extensive spy network in Lebanon. It is entirely possible that they recieved intelligence that Hezbollah was planning a major offensive. If that were true, Israel would definitely strike first, but would be very unlikely to ever state the true reason why.
QUOTE(rla @ Jul 27 2006, 10:29 AM)
This is probably true, and yet, isn't it also the case that the US, Israeli and
Hezebolla keep their foreign relations structured so as to be able to trigger
an immediate attack at one or more locations, of their choosing?
Hezebolla keep their foreign relations structured so as to be able to trigger
an immediate attack at one or more locations, of their choosing?
QUOTE(progressivephoenix @ Jul 27 2006, 01:18 PM)
Israel has all sorts of plans and contigencies for virtually any occasion. They have an extensive spy network in Lebanon. It is entirely possible that they recieved intelligence that Hezbollah was planning a major offensive. If that were true, Israel would definitely strike first, but would be very unlikely to ever state the true reason why.
I think the best defense against socalled terriorism is to promote Open societies. More open societies reduce the need for security as well makes democratic goverments and market economies more feasible and probable.
Decriminalization of personal, private preferences and actions which do
not directly and significantly bring harm to other persons, would greatly improve our national security. The so-called war on drugs has done more to hamper and currupt law and order and retard interpersonal trust than any long-term
policy in the nation's history.
Israel has by far the most open society in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has the most repressive. I think Bahrain has the wealthiest per capita. Might be Dubai though, because that's where the Saudi's keep their money.
QUOTE(rla @ Jul 27 2006, 02:01 PM)
I think the best defense against socalled terriorism is to promote Open societies. More open societies reduce the need for security as well makes democratic goverments and market economies more feasible and probable.
Decriminalization of personal, private preferences and actions which do
not directly and significantly bring harm to other persons, would greatly improve our national security. The so-called war on drugs has done more to hamper and currupt law and order and retard interpersonal trust than any long-term
policy in the nation's history.
Decriminalization of personal, private preferences and actions which do
not directly and significantly bring harm to other persons, would greatly improve our national security. The so-called war on drugs has done more to hamper and currupt law and order and retard interpersonal trust than any long-term
policy in the nation's history.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jul 26 2006, 09:00 AM)
What about all of the missiles that Hezbollah has been firing at Israeli civilians? Don't we all know by now that this is the number one issue for the Israelis? The capture of the soldiers was merely the spark of the conflict.
Wow, they're already switching stories as to why the conflict started. They switch stories much faster than our government. How long did Bush ride on the Saddam/9/11 connection before they switched to the WMD bit?
QUOTE(progressivephoenix @ Jul 27 2006, 04:07 PM)
Israel has by far the most open society in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has the most repressive. I think Bahrain has the wealthiest per capita. Might be Dubai though, because that's where the Saudi's keep their money.
This is probably true, but it doesn't disprove the generalization that the best
defense against "Terriorism" is to promote open societies.
QUOTE(Silver @ Jul 27 2006, 10:47 PM)
Wow, they're already switching stories as to why the conflict started. They switch stories much faster than our government. How long did Bush ride on the Saddam/9/11 connection before they switched to the WMD bit?
So which is the bigger issue, Israel's story as to why they started their campaign, or the whole matter of Hezbollah attacks against Israel (shooting missiles into populated areas) and their response (military actions involving lots of airstrikes killing many civilians).
I do agree that a government must be truthful about why they prosecute a war. I think that it has been pretty clear to everyone that at least the main explanation for the war has been Hezbollah's attacks. DefeatBush has been arguing on another thread that there is much more to it than that. But if we want to condemn the Israelis for dissembling (among a few other things) then we need to look at arguments such as his that evidence shows that they have other motives, and judge their plausibility.
If I recall right the Bushies did make WMD their main argument all along up to the time it was pretty clear that there were no WMD to be found. Yes, they also disingenuously spoke of Al Qaeda-Saddam connections (they were rather sly about a Saddam-9/11 connection, Cheney said there was, Bush conceded that there wasn't, but not too loudly). They also said that Saddam was a horrible, bloodthirsty, tyrant, and they were actually right about that. The main problem with what they said is that 1) they implied a much greater of confidence about Iraq having WMD than they had, and 2) they neglected to clear the more important reasons that they had for the invasion, which IMO would have struck the American people as difficult to understand and/or quite insane.
But wars are often fought for reasons much more important than the incidents sparking them. Does anyone seriously think that Pearl Harbor was the key reason that we fought WWII, which involved heavy action against Germany, which had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor?
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jul 28 2006, 07:18 AM)
So which is the bigger issue, Israel's story as to why they started their campaign, or the whole matter of Hezbollah attacks against Israel (shooting missiles into populated areas) and their response (military actions involving lots of airstrikes killing many civilians).
I do agree that a government must be truthful about why they prosecute a war. I think that it has been pretty clear to everyone that at least the main explanation for the war has been Hezbollah's attacks. DefeatBush has been arguing on another thread that there is much more to it than that. But if we want to condemn the Israelis for dissembling (among a few other things) then we need to look at arguments such as his that evidence shows that they have other motives, and judge their plausibility.
If I recall right the Bushies did make WMD their main argument all along up to the time it was pretty clear that there were no WMD to be found. Yes, they also disingenuously spoke of Al Qaeda-Saddam connections (they were rather sly about a Saddam-9/11 connection, Cheney said there was, Bush conceded that there wasn't, but not too loudly). They also said that Saddam was a horrible, bloodthirsty, tyrant, and they were actually right about that. The main problem with what they said is that 1) they implied a much greater of confidence about Iraq having WMD than they had, and 2) they neglected to clear the more important reasons that they had for the invasion, which IMO would have struck the American people as difficult to understand and/or quite insane.
But wars are often fought for reasons much more important than the incidents sparking them. Does anyone seriously think that Pearl Harbor was the key reason that we fought WWII, which involved heavy action against Germany, which had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor?
I do agree that a government must be truthful about why they prosecute a war. I think that it has been pretty clear to everyone that at least the main explanation for the war has been Hezbollah's attacks. DefeatBush has been arguing on another thread that there is much more to it than that. But if we want to condemn the Israelis for dissembling (among a few other things) then we need to look at arguments such as his that evidence shows that they have other motives, and judge their plausibility.
If I recall right the Bushies did make WMD their main argument all along up to the time it was pretty clear that there were no WMD to be found. Yes, they also disingenuously spoke of Al Qaeda-Saddam connections (they were rather sly about a Saddam-9/11 connection, Cheney said there was, Bush conceded that there wasn't, but not too loudly). They also said that Saddam was a horrible, bloodthirsty, tyrant, and they were actually right about that. The main problem with what they said is that 1) they implied a much greater of confidence about Iraq having WMD than they had, and 2) they neglected to clear the more important reasons that they had for the invasion, which IMO would have struck the American people as difficult to understand and/or quite insane.
But wars are often fought for reasons much more important than the incidents sparking them. Does anyone seriously think that Pearl Harbor was the key reason that we fought WWII, which involved heavy action against Germany, which had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor?
My comment was more of a passing chide rather than to be taken totally to heart. I just think it's kind of strange that at first the Israelis only talked about the 2 soldiers to get the campaign going and now that the campaign is seemingly taking longer, they are saying, "well it's more than just the soldiers."
QUOTE(Silver @ Jul 28 2006, 10:25 AM)
My comment was more of a passing chide rather than to be taken totally to heart. I just think it's kind of strange that at first the Israelis only talked about the 2 soldiers to get the campaign going and now that the campaign is seemingly taking longer, they are saying, "well it's more than just the soldiers."
Fair enough. I think that it is reasonable to think that they were chomping at the bit to get an incident like this so they could "finally deal with this situation." And if they were actually doing that effectively in way with much lower moral costs eschewing unnecessary carnage then I would pretty much be making an unmixed defense of what Israel was doing. But I don't see it that way at all, so I can only defend them on some points while lambasting them over a lot of others.
Ok, but they actually made the switch very early on. Their first set of conditions to stop the war came out within a day or two after it started and included a demand that Hezbollah's missiles be removed. I think there is also an issue of distortion by the news media, which under-reported that several missiles were fired at Israel at the same time as the kidnapping. Maybe Israel did talk about the missiles from day 1, but we never heard about it.
QUOTE(Silver @ Jul 28 2006, 06:25 AM)
My comment was more of a passing chide rather than to be taken totally to heart. I just think it's kind of strange that at first the Israelis only talked about the 2 soldiers to get the campaign going and now that the campaign is seemingly taking longer, they are saying, "well it's more than just the soldiers."
The question that I think needs attention is the one we keep managing to
avoid--"Is waging war an acceptable problem solving method in international
relations?"
avoid--"Is waging war an acceptable problem solving method in international
relations?"
QUOTE(rla @ Jul 28 2006, 10:34 AM)
The question that I think needs attention is the one we keep managing to
avoid--"Is waging war an acceptable problem solving method in international
relations?"
avoid--"Is waging war an acceptable problem solving method in international
relations?"
I don't think that we can answer that merely in the abstract without referring to concrete situations.
For example, how should the U.S. have dealt with problem of aggressive military expansion of the German and Japanese dictarorial regimes in 1941?
In dealing with such a concrete situation when can then reason to the abstract and draw general conclusions.
And if we answer the question, "Yes, sometimes," then we have an awful lot more to discuss.
QUOTE(rla @ Jul 28 2006, 07:34 AM)
The question that I think needs attention is the one we keep managing to
avoid--"Is waging war an acceptable problem solving method in international
relations?"
avoid--"Is waging war an acceptable problem solving method in international
relations?"
Agreed, I think there are far better ways of dealing with this problem. I think with the right diplomacy we could solve this issue but Israel would have to make the bigger sacrifices since they are the ones on soil that did not belong to them originally.
But, Israel (and many others) don't see them as the original agressors. There's no way around it, everything started with Israel and it must end with Israel. I don't think we can simply remove them from that land now but I think they need to make some sacrifices in order to earn the right to stay there. I don't mean sacrifices in lives either, they should have to give back something for the land that they stole.
The conflict has been going on since Great Britain turned Israel over to the Jewish people. It will never end because everyone is right and everyone is wrong. No one takes responsibility on either side. And their never going too. I have come to terms with the fact that there will be no peace in that part of the world in my lifetime.
You're proposition for negotiation is DOA. If Israel is the aggressor, then and now, how are you going to force concessions from them without the threat of greater force?
QUOTE(Silver @ Jul 28 2006, 06:45 AM)
Agreed, I think there are far better ways of dealing with this problem. I think with the right diplomacy we could solve this issue but Israel would have to make the bigger sacrifices since they are the ones on soil that did not belong to them originally.
But, Israel (and many others) don't see them as the original agressors. There's no way around it, everything started with Israel and it must end with Israel. I don't think we can simply remove them from that land now but I think they need to make some sacrifices in order to earn the right to stay there. I don't mean sacrifices in lives either, they should have to give back something for the land that they stole.
But, Israel (and many others) don't see them as the original agressors. There's no way around it, everything started with Israel and it must end with Israel. I don't think we can simply remove them from that land now but I think they need to make some sacrifices in order to earn the right to stay there. I don't mean sacrifices in lives either, they should have to give back something for the land that they stole.
QUOTE(Silver @ Jul 28 2006, 10:45 AM)
Agreed, I think there are far better ways of dealing with this problem. I think with the right diplomacy we could solve this issue but Israel would have to make the bigger sacrifices since they are the ones on soil that did not belong to them originally.
But, Israel (and many others) don't see them as the original agressors. There's no way around it, everything started with Israel and it must end with Israel. I don't think we can simply remove them from that land now but I think they need to make some sacrifices in order to earn the right to stay there. I don't mean sacrifices in lives either, they should have to give back something for the land that they stole.
But, Israel (and many others) don't see them as the original agressors. There's no way around it, everything started with Israel and it must end with Israel. I don't think we can simply remove them from that land now but I think they need to make some sacrifices in order to earn the right to stay there. I don't mean sacrifices in lives either, they should have to give back something for the land that they stole.
Of course even if we grant that Israel was right to seize the West Bank and other territories in 1967 that does not mean that they have the right to hold onto any of that land.
There will have to be territorial compromises but in the end Israel will have to give back over 90% of the West Bank to the Arabs. And by territorial compromises I am also thinking of land within Israel's 1967 borders, I don't see how the Palestinians could accept it otherwise.
But I fear such a settlement is still years away. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians appear to be even close to being ready to negotiate such a deal, neither side appears willing to make the necessary compromises.
QUOTE(rla @ Jul 28 2006, 06:34 AM)
The question that I think needs attention is the one we keep managing to
avoid--"Is waging war an acceptable problem solving method in international
relations?"
avoid--"Is waging war an acceptable problem solving method in international
relations?"
There are answers available, but only useful to those people who pay attention:
1954: French in Vietnam
1958: French in Algeria
1964: USA in Vietnam
1979: USSR in Afghanistan
1982: Israel in Lebanon
1993: USA in Somalia
2001: USA in Afghanistan
2003: USA in Iraq
Okay, kids, how did all these armies make out?
Got your point.
But how did the opposing armies make out? Got mine?
But how did the opposing armies make out? Got mine?
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Jul 28 2006, 07:06 AM)
There are answers available, but only useful to those people who pay attention:
1954: French in Vietnam
1958: French in Algeria
1964: USA in Vietnam
1979: USSR in Afghanistan
1982: Israel in Lebanon
1993: USA in Somalia
2001: USA in Afghanistan
2003: USA in Iraq
Okay, kids, how did all these armies make out?
1954: French in Vietnam
1958: French in Algeria
1964: USA in Vietnam
1979: USSR in Afghanistan
1982: Israel in Lebanon
1993: USA in Somalia
2001: USA in Afghanistan
2003: USA in Iraq
Okay, kids, how did all these armies make out?
QUOTE(progressivephoenix @ Jul 28 2006, 07:58 AM)
You're proposition for negotiation is DOA. If Israel is the aggressor, then and now, how are you going to force concessions from them without the threat of greater force?
Exactly my point. Why would Israel negotiate for peace when they have the military superiority. They would rather kill those that oppose them, rather than compromise with them. Often the arabs are the ones being accused of being difficult to deal with but in reality, he who has the nukes, has the bargaining chips. Israel could stop all of this if they wanted but they have chosen the low road.
Then waging war is indeed an acceptable problem solving method in international
relations, for it gets rewarded. The only price they have ever paid for what they have done is the price inflicted on them by Arab militants. Without that, Israel's rewards would be even higher, and the rest of the world not care at all.
relations, for it gets rewarded. The only price they have ever paid for what they have done is the price inflicted on them by Arab militants. Without that, Israel's rewards would be even higher, and the rest of the world not care at all.
QUOTE(Silver @ Jul 28 2006, 07:11 AM)
Exactly my point. Why would Israel negotiate for peace when they have the military superiority. They would rather kill those that oppose them, rather than compromise with them. Often the arabs are the ones being accused of being difficult to deal with but in reality, he who has the nukes, has the bargaining chips. Israel could stop all of this if they wanted but they have chosen the low road.
QUOTE(rla @ Jul 28 2006, 08:34 AM)
The question that I think needs attention is the one we keep managing to
avoid--"Is waging war an acceptable problem solving method in international
relations?"
avoid--"Is waging war an acceptable problem solving method in international
relations?"
We also seem to avoid the question of whether negotiation and mediation are acceptable problem solving methods in international relations.
As vile as the Nixon White House on a lot of issues, Henry Kissinger was there to stand up for the negotiated settlement of conflict.
The Shrub's WH has an attitude toward negotiation characterized by the Jolly Roger.
Would you all agree that to have meaningful negotiation and mediation, you must also have parties that understand rational discourse...?
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Jul 28 2006, 11:51 AM)
Would you all agree that to have meaningful negotiation and mediation, you must also have parties that understand rational discourse...?
I do, and not all parties meet that standard. I would say that it is worth the attempt to try. If a party shows that that they don't understand rational discourse, at that point you admit failure.
And sometimes someone who cannot or will not meet the standard once will decide to be rational later.
You really need to see Peace, Prosperity and the Promised Land. You can find it on Google video.
In one part of the documentary it talks about Clinton mediating negotiations with Arafat and Sharon. The media talks about what a "great deal" Sharon was offering him, however the specifics of the deal were never broadcast. They offered the Palestinians land but no place for crops and no access to a natural water source. The Palestinians would have been totally dependent on Israel for getting food, water and energy into their cities. Then you hear on the news from all the pundits how difficult it is to negotiate with arabs because they refuse every offer. Maybe they're not just being difficult.
In one part of the documentary it talks about Clinton mediating negotiations with Arafat and Sharon. The media talks about what a "great deal" Sharon was offering him, however the specifics of the deal were never broadcast. They offered the Palestinians land but no place for crops and no access to a natural water source. The Palestinians would have been totally dependent on Israel for getting food, water and energy into their cities. Then you hear on the news from all the pundits how difficult it is to negotiate with arabs because they refuse every offer. Maybe they're not just being difficult.
QUOTE(Silver @ Jul 28 2006, 12:04 PM)
You really need to see Peace, Prosperity and the Promised Land. You can find it on Google video.
In one part of the documentary it talks about Clinton mediating negotiations with Arafat and Sharon. The media talks about what a "great deal" Sharon was offering him, however the specifics of the deal were never broadcast. They offered the Palestinians land but no place for crops and no access to a natural water source. The Palestinians would have been totally dependent on Israel for getting food, water and energy into their cities. Then you hear on the news from all the pundits how difficult it is to negotiate with arabs because they refuse every offer. Maybe they're not just being difficult.
In one part of the documentary it talks about Clinton mediating negotiations with Arafat and Sharon. The media talks about what a "great deal" Sharon was offering him, however the specifics of the deal were never broadcast. They offered the Palestinians land but no place for crops and no access to a natural water source. The Palestinians would have been totally dependent on Israel for getting food, water and energy into their cities. Then you hear on the news from all the pundits how difficult it is to negotiate with arabs because they refuse every offer. Maybe they're not just being difficult.
I must correct something here, at the time it wasn't Sharon who was the Israeli PM but Ehud Barak who was of a different political party than Sharon. But that doesn't invalidate your basic point. I have read in the Atlantic that Barak's government probably wasn't all that sincere in negotiating with Arafat, that they could very well have been playing games appearing to be offering a good deal with no intention of actually agreeing to something. The same article hardly made the case for Arafat's sincerity (in fact the piece primarily excoriated Arafat). But they play games, point fingers of blame, peace keeps getting delayed, wars pop up and more die. And I think we are in for at least a few more years of that. And that's being optimistic.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jul 28 2006, 09:11 AM)
I must correct something here, at the time it wasn't Sharon who was the Israeli PM but Ehud Barak who was of a different political party than Sharon. But that doesn't invalidate your basic point. I have read in the Atlantic that Barak's government probably wasn't all that sincere in negotiating with Arafat, that they could very well have been playing games appearing to be offering a good deal with no intention of actually agreeing to something. The same article hardly made the case for Arafat's sincerity (in fact the piece primarily excoriated Arafat). But they play games, point fingers of blame, peace kepts getting delayed, wars pop up and more die. And I think we are in for at least a few more years of that. And that's being optimistic.
Ahh yes you're right, it was Barak. I always get their names mixed up.
Lotta Love : Comes a Time : Neil Young
la la la la la la la la la ooooh ooh
It's gonna take a lotta love
To change the way things are
It's gonna take a lotta love
Or we won't get too far
So if you look in my direction
And we don't see eye to eye
My heart needs protection
And so do I.
It's gonna take a lotta love
To get us through the night
It's gonna take a lotta love
To make things work out right
So if you are out there waitin'
I hope you show up soon
'Cause my head needs relating
Not solitude
Got a lotta love oh-yeah got a lotta love
la la la la la la la la la ooooh ooh
It's gonna take a lotta love
To change the way things are
It's gonna take a lotta love
la la la la la la la la la ooooh ooh
It's gonna take a lotta love
To change the way things are
It's gonna take a lotta love
Or we won't get too far
So if you look in my direction
And we don't see eye to eye
My heart needs protection
And so do I.
It's gonna take a lotta love
To get us through the night
It's gonna take a lotta love
To make things work out right
So if you are out there waitin'
I hope you show up soon
'Cause my head needs relating
Not solitude
Got a lotta love oh-yeah got a lotta love
la la la la la la la la la ooooh ooh
It's gonna take a lotta love
To change the way things are
It's gonna take a lotta love
This is what I meant by trust on the other thread. The two sides simply do not trust each other. If they trusted each other, issue like water supply could be negotiated. If they don't trust each other neither side would concede even a small amount of control over something like that for fear of what the other might do to it.
The conflict is deeper than an analysis that says Barak didn't want to give up water out of spite or greed. The real reason may have nothing to do with the water or the crops, but with other issues known only to Barak and Arafat themselves.
I advise anyone who thinks this is really simple to figure out who is right and who is wrong and what to do about it to get a career in divorce mediation. No doubt you will save many marriages.
The conflict is deeper than an analysis that says Barak didn't want to give up water out of spite or greed. The real reason may have nothing to do with the water or the crops, but with other issues known only to Barak and Arafat themselves.
I advise anyone who thinks this is really simple to figure out who is right and who is wrong and what to do about it to get a career in divorce mediation. No doubt you will save many marriages.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jul 28 2006, 08:11 AM)
I must correct something here, at the time it wasn't Sharon who was the Israeli PM but Ehud Barak who was of a different political party than Sharon. But that doesn't invalidate your basic point. I have read in the Atlantic that Barak's government probably wasn't all that sincere in negotiating with Arafat, that they could very well have been playing games appearing to be offering a good deal with no intention of actually agreeing to something. The same article hardly made the case for Arafat's sincerity (in fact the piece primarily excoriated Arafat). But they play games, point fingers of blame, peace kepts getting delayed, wars pop up and more die. And I think we are in for at least a few more years of that. And that's being optimistic.
QUOTE(Silver @ Jul 28 2006, 10:04 AM)
You really need to see Peace, Prosperity and the Promised Land. You can find it on Google video.
In one part of the documentary it talks about Clinton mediating negotiations with Arafat and Sharon. The media talks about what a "great deal" Sharon was offering him, however the specifics of the deal were never broadcast. They offered the Palestinians land but no place for crops and no access to a natural water source. The Palestinians would have been totally dependent on Israel for getting food, water and energy into their cities. Then you hear on the news from all the pundits how difficult it is to negotiate with arabs because they refuse every offer. Maybe they're not just being difficult.
In one part of the documentary it talks about Clinton mediating negotiations with Arafat and Sharon. The media talks about what a "great deal" Sharon was offering him, however the specifics of the deal were never broadcast. They offered the Palestinians land but no place for crops and no access to a natural water source. The Palestinians would have been totally dependent on Israel for getting food, water and energy into their cities. Then you hear on the news from all the pundits how difficult it is to negotiate with arabs because they refuse every offer. Maybe they're not just being difficult.
There are vital environmental concerns involving the depletion of water and other resources that are embedded in the Isreali/Palestinian conflict.
QUOTE(progressivephoenix @ Jul 28 2006, 12:39 PM)
I advise anyone who thinks this is really simple to figure out who is right and who is wrong and what to do about it to get a career in divorce mediation. No doubt you will save many marriages.
I think such a person would save absolutely every marriage they encountered.
QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Jul 28 2006, 12:42 PM)
There are vital environmental concerns involving the depletion of water and other resources that are embedded in the Isreali/Palestinian conflict.
You could say the same concerning the American West, at least concerning water. But of course we don't have wars going on there.
Water is certainly a key issue that hasn't gotten that much attention up to now, but I think that PP is right that it is primarily an issue of trust.
QUOTE(progressivephoenix @ Jul 28 2006, 10:39 AM)
This is what I meant by trust on the other thread. The two sides simply do not trust each other. If they trusted each other, issue like water supply could be negotiated. If they don't trust each other neither side would concede even a small amount of control over something like that for fear of what the other might do to it.
The conflict is deeper than an analysis that says Barak didn't want to give up water out of spite or greed. The real reason may have nothing to do with the water or the crops, but with other issues known only to Barak and Arafat themselves.
I advise anyone who thinks this is really simple to figure out who is right and who is wrong and what to do about it to get a career in divorce mediation. No doubt you will save many marriages.
The conflict is deeper than an analysis that says Barak didn't want to give up water out of spite or greed. The real reason may have nothing to do with the water or the crops, but with other issues known only to Barak and Arafat themselves.
I advise anyone who thinks this is really simple to figure out who is right and who is wrong and what to do about it to get a career in divorce mediation. No doubt you will save many marriages.
A good System's Family Counselor would assume a consultative, participant-observer role--in real time (staying in the here-and-now)--following a Psycho-
drama model more than a diagnostic-medical, or prescriptive model) lead each stake holder to state, and act out, his or her case. Two Individual Persons or
groups of Persons must come to have shared meanings in some of their pre-potent constructs (concepts) in order to establish and maintain interpersonal trust.
Diplomacy is a process which can be used, ignored or mis-used. The on-going foreign relations between and among countries, like the on-going
domestic between and among citizens, takes various styles: Parent-child, master-slave, boss-worker, teacher-student, counselor-client,
consultant-counselor, or consultant-consultant. Diplomacy, within
democratic social systems require mutual consultation--giving and receiving consultation. Consultation, in this sense, is not the same as
giving expert advise.
domestic between and among citizens, takes various styles: Parent-child, master-slave, boss-worker, teacher-student, counselor-client,
consultant-counselor, or consultant-consultant. Diplomacy, within
democratic social systems require mutual consultation--giving and receiving consultation. Consultation, in this sense, is not the same as
giving expert advise.
QUOTE(rla @ Jul 28 2006, 01:46 PM)
Diplomacy is a process which can be used, ignored or mis-used. The on-going foreign relations between and among countries, like the on-going
domestic between and among citizens, takes various styles: Parent-child, master-slave, boss-worker, teacher-student, counselor-client,
consultant-counselor, or consultant-consultant. Diplomacy, within
democratic social systems require mutual consultation--giving and receiving consultation. Consultation, in this sense, is not the same as
giving expert advise.
domestic between and among citizens, takes various styles: Parent-child, master-slave, boss-worker, teacher-student, counselor-client,
consultant-counselor, or consultant-consultant. Diplomacy, within
democratic social systems require mutual consultation--giving and receiving consultation. Consultation, in this sense, is not the same as
giving expert advise.
I think that it can also be cynically abused and manipulated, and often has been by all opposing parties.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.