Is the Middle East going to war?

GoldenSpiral wrote: I don't often pipe in on political threads, but this is just terrible.  I always hate it when a war starts anywhere, and this seems so needless.  But of course, it's in the middle east, so Americans don't have to care about it.  The most I've heard anyone say about it today is "Oh well, I guess gas prices will go up again."

I feel the same as you Mark.
Although I will sure lose my cynicism and sarcasm when I will arrive there and start shaking with fear...

marktheshark wrote: avestin wrote: I feel the same as you Mark. Although I will sure lose my cynicism and sarcasm when I will arrive there and start shaking with fear... Yeah well, you take care of yourself and don't do anything stupid. And keep us posted if possible. When are you leaving?

I don't know yet. We have been told to be prepared at any minute.
It's up to the warmongeres now.
This is such a stupid contest of who has the biggest ____.
One shoots rockets here and the other bombards their airports and bridges.

^^^
I sure will.
Thanks guys.

^^^
You're right, Mark. Bad choice of words I had there.
Thanks for the encouragement.

NetsNJFan wrote: I'm sorry Blacksword, Lebanon is responsible for this, just like witht he Palestinians, Hizbullah is a political party represented in their parliament.  They can't say, "it's Hizbullah, not us"   Fairly inconsequential rocket attacks, Blacksword?:   <SPAN ="article"><FONT face=Arial size=4>At least 90 wounded in rocket attacks; second woman dies</SPAN> <SPAN ="article"><FONT face=Arial size=4></SPAN>  Israel doesn't have that martyr mentality so even two deaths are mourned.   I am really worried about this situation.  I didn't see Lebanon in this picture at all.   Well to answer my own question, looks like a real war, not just border flare-ups.  The ball is now in Syria's court, they may have to get involved for political reasons.   Blacksword, I don't think this was premeditated on Israel's part.  The Israeli Governments official policy was disengagement from the West Bank (90% withdrawal), that is what the PM campaigned on, withdrawal.  That plan is dead now because of the situation, and hes not happy about it.

I'm still not convinced that this wasn't pre-meditated. The question of 'why now' is being asked thoughout the international community. Especially in light of the fact that Israel had been far more ready to negotiate the release of hostages in the past. It's exactly because of their policy of disengagement from the WB, that this kind of extreme action should have been avoided at all costs. If the peace process meant that much to Olmert, why has he played a key part in setting the clock back over 20 years?

The challenges he faces are having a Palestinian government which openly endorses terror. I can fully understand him not wanting to negotiate with a terrorist government. Hezbollah are key in this escalation too, I agree, but both sides are baiting each other, as if trying to escalate the conflict further.     

NetsNJFan wrote: Blacksword, I never said the Peace Process meant that much to Olmert.  The Israeli government basically belives that this conflict has no solution, and at best can be "managed", and that atactiacal withdrawl from the west Bank is the best way to manage the conflict.  Recent events in Gaza have shown otherwise. with regards to prisoner exchange, yes Israel has done it in the past, but I think Israel basically feels like, enough, we've been out of Lebanon for six years and Hizbullah still raids our borders, we aren't playing this game anymore.  People are freakign out over the disproportionbate use of force by Israel, but over the last six years they have used proportionate force countless times against hezbollah in souther Lebanon, and it hasn't done a damn thing.  This basically comes down to "lebanon, grow up and secure your border, or we will".   I don't think people understand that the Middle East, all states involved, simply play by different, harsher rules than Europe and America. In a book I read about Lebanon, it told an old Lebanese folk tale, that went like this: An old farmer wakes up one day to find one of his chickens stolen. He wakes up his three sons, and commands them to get back the chicken. They say, "Dad, it is just a chicken, it is not worth it". The next day the farmer awakes to find his cow and goats gone, and his daughter rapes. His sons come to him and say "why is all this happening to us" and the Father says "because you wouldn't get my chicken back, we lost our honor, and people felt they could do whatever they wanted"   (on second thought, this may have been Bedouin?)I don't remember exactly how it goes, but that's the gist. Syria, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, all play by very tough, very vengeful rules built around deterrence and maintaining honor. Thomas Friedman called them "hama rules", after the the February, 1982 massacre in Hama by Syria of 20-40,000 of its own citizens.  Ariel Sharon was the most feared man in the middle east, because he had no problem playing by "Hama rules" and obliterating the enemy, as Assad did in 1982.

Well, I would agree with the Israeli government on one thing. The conflict has no solution, and at best can be managed. That said, I dont think this constitutes very good management of a bad situation.

'Hama Rules' is clearly not the way forward. I would have thought history had made that clear.   

NetsNJFan wrote: I'm not saying I condone it, I'm just saying that is the way things work over there.   I really do think there is no possible solution.  I don't think either side will ever five up the Temple Mount, and ever, and therefore there will be no peace, just lulls and flare ups in the violence.

Hopefully more lulls than flare ups..


     
When I was a kid, I remember my dad despairing at the Middle East problem, and saying that one day it would end in a horrible climax. Although this has been going on for decades, I guess for many people the Arab Israeli conflict has only really come into focus since the turn of the century, because the spotlight has been on Islamic terrorism. I've only ever paid it any attention in the last ten to fifteen years. Growing up, there always seemed to be conflict in these distant dusty lands, and religion always seemed to be festering at the core of it all; an apocalyptic desire for total destruction of the Jews, counter balanced by Israels mightly military machine, and a biblical belief that the land is theirs.

Do you never get the feeling, that one day this region is quite simply going to explode into all out war, because it's not really got anywhere else to go? Terrorism on a global scale will not be defeated. It may be thwarted now and then, but never defeated.
    

Edited by Blacksword - July 14 2006 at 11:11

NetsNJFan wrote: I've started to feel that the only way it will end is with genocide, by either side

Thats my gut feeling, too...

    

dralan wrote: NetsNJFan wrote: I've started to feel that the only way it will end is with genocide, by either side    Yes sadly it seems some people will stop at nothing less than a complete annihilation of Israel. We here in America will never completely understand this centuries old conflict, no matter how many books we read or how many years of college we have.