LINK


US faces dilemma in Mid-East crisis
By Jonathan Beale
BBC News, the United Nations

A fuel storage tank at a power station burns after it was set on fire when Israeli warplanes targeted it, in Jiyyeh, in the south of Beirut, Lebanon
Is there anything the US can do to put out the flames?
Israel is America's ally. When Israeli troops are captured by Hezbollah, the immediate sympathies of the United States lie with Israel.

President George W Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert both say that they're fighting a war on terror.

They have common enemies - radical Islamic extremists willing to use violence.

Both view Hezbollah as a terrorist group. Both see the hand of Syria and Iran in supporting Hezbollah.

But Israel's military action against Lebanon has huge complications.

The US has been supporting Lebanon's independence and leading calls for an end to Syria's interference in the country.

Yes, America is concerned that Hezbollah is still a political force in the country and represented in the government.

It has called on Lebanon take steps to disarm Hezbollah.

But America wants to strengthen - not weaken - Lebanon as an independent state.

When Israel targets Lebanon, it undermines those efforts and increases the sectarian divide in a country that is trying to emerge from decades of civil war.

Deliberate provocation?

Then there are the broader regional issues.

The US fears that this is a deliberate attempt by Tehran and Damascus to provoke Israel and divide international opinion.


HAVE YOUR SAY
Violence should always be a last resort, not the first
Stephen Macadam, Rugby, UK

Send us your comments
Day-by-day: Crisis unfolds
US urges Israel to 'limit harm'
Is this also an attempt to divert attention from Syria's interference in Lebanon and the controversy over Iran's nuclear programme?

Is it an effort by those countries to further feed Muslim anger against America?

Will there be repercussions for America's presence in Iraq?

The alarm bells have already sounded.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned that any Israeli attack on Syria would provoke a fierce response.

This has the potential to spark a wider conflict in the whole region.

Limited options

So what can the United States do?

It can hardly condemn Israel for its response to an act of "terrorism".

At best President Bush can urge restraint.

A Lebanese woman walks through rubble from an Israeli air raid in Beirut
Israel has bombed Lebanese targets after warning leaflets
The question is how much pressure does the US place on Israel.

In public, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has already stepped up that pressure.

Speaking on her way to the G8 summit, she said it was "extremely important" that Israel exercised restraint in its acts of self-defence.

In private those messages will be put more forcefully.

America hopes that restraint by Israel can avoid a split in the international community.

The US does not want to be the only country left defending Israel's actions.

Washington wants to turn international condemnation towards Hezbollah, Syria and Iran instead.

But it is very hard to see how the US can turn the current crises in Lebanon to its advantage.

Jaque Chirac claims that Israel's actions are disproportionate to the offense committed against it by Hezbollah in tunneling under the border to kidnap two IDF Soldiers, and Hamas in kidnapping one. There is merit to this opinion of course.

But this is only another symptom to the disease that has infected the middle east for generations. What to do? That is the $64,000 question. I don't have the answers. Israel does have the right to protect herself, and we don't want to topple the fragile democracy in Lebanon. How do you react to these kidnappings? How do you make peace when there are well organized terrorist groups who are sworn to the destruction of your country? How long do you let someone punch you in the face before you do something about it?

Who will be the peacemaker?

I fully agree!
This situation is NOT a new thing by any means!
The Neo-cons and Zionists are simply taking advantage of an ongoing situation.

Indeed, who will be the peace makers?

Thats what the world is waiting for. I think that if someone, muslim, jewish or christian, with charisma enough, character enough to get both sides to sit down and work out thier differences will be remembered for a long, long time.

Where to find him (her)? That person is out there; somewhere.

Isn't gonna happen. There is not a nation on this planet whose political interests would be served by peace between Israel and any of her neighbors, other than her neighbors themselves. And Israel is intent on ripping her neighbors' flesh from their bones and shitting in the carcasses, like a rabid fucking dog. If Israel were to withdraw to her pre-1967 borders and stay there, there wouldn't be a problem, but Israel can only continue to exist in its present configuration as an expansionist state that exploits (Palestinian) slave labor. Please all remember that the nation of Israel was conceived in the womb of Nazi Germany, and sired by the US. She cannot help but resemble her parents. Better she were stillborn.

A-fucking-men!

All well said, as usual Zooks, except you forget the influences of the Brits in the area as a result of WW1 and the arrogance with which they positioned them selves. Adding Isreal into the mix as a result of WW2 did nothing other than exaserbate a situation that already existed! And before the Brits and WW1 the animosties in that area are centuries old!

As to someone stepping out to be the peacemakers. Zooks. You forget one singular aspect. THE GOVERNMENTS that have no vested interest in promoting peace, are populated by PEOPLE who would DIRECTLY bennifit from peace. And someday, somehow, when "the people" get mad enough, or hurt enough, or more likely both, someone may well rise above the skum to be a true leader. These things have happened time and again through history.

On the one hand, placing too much hope on this possibility would be a fools game. I'm certainly not advocating anything of the kind. But on the other hand, advocating that such can never happen is equally a fools game. Case in point. On another poll thread the question asked was do you believe people are basically good, or bad? Every one that has replied says people are good! Now, to me this says (among other things) that every body believes every body wants peace! If we exclude those with business interests, I believe this is basically true. And as such, then Peace is an eventuality. The only questions remaining, are when, how, and WHO?

This is where the whole deliberate weakening of the UN becomes evident, it's a gutted, powerless carcass, full of good intentions, but feeble in its sphere of activity. If only it had the means and the balls to forcefully interpose itself in the path of military aggression and adventurism, as a real representant of World Nations, who the hell would deliberately fire on a UN peacekeeper, thus opening themselves to retribution, military and economic, by a force representing the United Nations of the World ? It's teams of neutral, independent and articulate negociators should have the means to bring even the most stubborn and resistant parties to the negociating table, because lets face it, the vast majority of people affected by this shit only want some kind of peace and security. If their leaders won't listen to reason, and refuse to come to the peace talks, woudn't the threat of economic and full spectrum media exposure of their stubborn and insular ignorance, followed by swift and precise military targeting of their war-machine infra-structure bring them to talking ? Who would risk a global war faced with the condamnation of the vast majority of the Worlds nations ?
Is this too utopic ? The vast majority of the planet seems against this lobbing of bombs into civilian areas, but what can they do about it ? Who represents them, and most importantly, who represents the poor blighters currently withering under fire from the opposing forces of stupidity, because lets face it, violence breeds violence, and ultra-violence breeds ultra-violence. Yippie for the future of Humanity in the region....

It is complex isn't it? How do you get a dedicated muslim who thinks he is participating in a Jihad to come to the negotiating table and convince him that living side by side with kaffirs and infidels won't kill him? That it's okay? Complex.

It is the condition of man, unfortunately that sometimes they must suffer tremendously before coming to the conclusion that he can't take this anymore.

I am well aware of the history of the region, and I'm familiar with muslim culture. You must negotiate from a position of power or you are considerd weak and not worthy of entering into an agreement with.

Perhaps the best we can hope for in this situation is to contain the violence in as small an area as possible, let them bloody each others noses untill they can't take it anymore and decide that talking it over isn't a bad idea afterall?

Seems that neither side is willing to give another inch. What can you do with people like that except warn them not to wreck your stuff in thier fight?

Why did Hezbollah kidnap the two IDF troopers in the first place? I never heard.

Hey, there Captain, how do you get a dedicated Zionist to sit down at the negotiating table? If you're here to lay this problem at the feet of anyone but Israel, you may be in the wrong place. And nobody negotiates "from a position of power." Power does not negotiate, it rules. The only serious negotiating that can take place must be done so under the threat of a power greater than any of the aggrieved parties. That would be the US, and the US is blatantly pro-Israel. And to state that "neither side is willing to give an inch" is misinformation at best, disinformation more likely. Every neighboring nation that has negotiated with Israel has made concessions, which Israel has accepted only to renege on her own commitments. To call the issue complex is bullshit, and an attempt to divert the eyes of the world away from Israel's barbaric conduct.

Yes, it's complex.

I didn't say that the US is not pro Israel, did I? Let me check..................nope, didn't say it.

I defy you to show me an example of a negotiation whereby both sides did not want to enter the negotiation from a position of power, i.e. an advantage.

Certainly Israel is responsible for this mess as much or more than anyone else.

Sheesus man, whats your problem?

I can give an example.
When has the US EVER attempted to negotiate from anything but a position of power?

"I defy you to show me an example of a negotiation whereby both sides did not want to enter the negotiation from a position of power, i.e. an advantage."

If I already had the advantage, I would not be negotiating unless it were forced on me by a third, more powerful party. Nor do nations. And you are right, I have a problem when anybody describes a simple issue as complex, as it signals their intention to deny the true nature of the problem. It's like looking for the ring you lost in the bedroom out in the kitchen because the light is better there. It is obfuscation. It is denial of truth in favor of a more palatable or profitable lie. You are hanging on semantics. Be careful or you will find yourself hanging by them.

I have to agree with zooks here.

It's not a complicated problem. Israel was created by the US and the UK after WWII out of sympathy for the Jews.

They basically took a map, said "Hey Palistine, you don't exist anymore" and told the Jews to go live there.

The US, having played a role in creating Israel used them to expand their influence in the area to gain an upper hand in the Cold War.

Since then the US has enabled Israel to do whatever it wants to the ghettoized Palistinians and it's neighbours.

This is no different.

How to solve the problem? Stop arming the Zionists and backing their aggressive wars of conquest and actually sanction them for human rights abuses like you would any nation who bombs their own civilians.

It's funny that Saddam, while gassing Kurds, was a monster while Israel, who walls and bombs the Palistinians, is just defending itself.

You gentlemen are discussing the past. Which I think is a waste of time. I never meant to describe the creation of Israel as being complex in any way. The remedy to this conflict however is complicated, and thats what I'm trying to say. I'd appreciate it zooks if you'd stop jumping down my throat when you presume to read my mind. I'd be happy to flesh out my position for you if you require, but I don't appreciate this bullshit "I know what your thinking" attitude.

I'm interested in talking about the future, because standing around pointing fingers and yelling at the other guy is a waste of time.

Are we interested in finding a peaceful solution or determining who is at fault? What is more important? Where should we spend our time and effort? Which is facing reality? I'm not interested in aruguing about the past, it never solves a damn thing and it usually makes the matter worse in fact. I'm down with stopping the conflict and finding a way for these people to live side by side, isn't that where we should be spending our energy?

Can you handle that?

I think that to discuss and try to understand history is of paramount importance, and to try to simply discuss the future without any knowledge of what came before to be incredibly foolish.

Why advocate ignorance of any kind? What has happened before is the reason for why things happen today, so it is impossible to grasp today without first grasping yesterday.

You ask if we are interested in finding a peaceful solution or who is at fault. I say that you can't do one without the other, and to do otherwise is futile.

Ignorance is bliss, so stop grinning.

I don't care what you think, nor do I presume to know what you think. I have responded to what you POST. And as far as disregarding the past, every time any of Israels neighbors have sat down at the table with the Israelis and agreed to forget the past and try to build a new beginning, they have gotten screwed. To discuss the future of the region without regard for the past is not only naive, it is impossible. If anybody comes 'round to talk long shit on a short dime, I'll be down their throats with both feet and bayonet fixed. You have clearly mistaken me for a gentleman. I'm not.

Okay, thanks for the warning.

Zooks, I think I want your name tatood across my chest.

You sir, are the best member here.

To zooks!

Nevermind.......

*clears his throat*

I am a gentleman of course. One to my own brand of 'honor', but a gentleman by the degree of virtue no less.

So to the OP on this one....

Anyone who destories a peoples way of life is to aim to destory the people. There is no way to justify this course of action as anything but a means to destory the population. When one is fighting about an issue or some action, just a show of force is needed. This is worse then war, this is something far worse then war.

Are we just going to sit here and watch?

It looks like it. Sad isn't it?