Letters to the Editor
omooex
Published Letters: 977 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Philadelphia Steve
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"It is a case where the Radical Rightwing of American politics have succeeded in equating support for the right of the state of Israel notonly to exist, but to take defensive actions against agression"
I agree with the remainder of your comment, but this portion here--well, I think it deserves a response. I am always baffled on the question of Israel's right to exist. Surely, any established nation, no matter what its provenance--the US and Germany (with their histories of genocide)or what have you--has a "right to exist". Did the US have a right to exist in the 18th century? I think you'd have a hard time making that point by today's standards. At least there's some native americans and enslaved Africans who would have a word in your ear about it. Ergo, Israel, a nation enabled by the British government at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian population, which pre-empted the (albeit, already unjust) international consensus on partition and has been engaging in massive land grabs and belicosity with its neighbors ever since.
On the issue of the "right to defend" a countyr. Sure. But most civilized nations manage to handle their border disputes--and even military incursions--diplomatically. If you want an example of decent governance and diplomacy, you can take a look at Ecuador's recent tiff with Colombian aggression. Ecuador did not unilaterally take on a horrifying invasion of Colombia, seeding the area with unexploded ordinance and killing 1,000 people in 6 weeks, as Israel did when faced with a similar situation as Ecuador in the Summer of 2006.
-
Philly Steve
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's what I meant to say in this section:
"Ergo, Israel, a nation enabled by the British government at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian population, which pre-empted the (albeit, already unjust) international consensus on partition and has been engaging in massive land grabs and belicosity with its neighbors ever since." Israel, like the US, obviously absolutely no right to exist before it existed. Its a reality now, there's no way to undo that, so the next step is to create a situation where Israel can now attempt to live in a just balance with its neighbors.
-
Cestmoi, no its you that have it reversed.
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here is the analogy in simple terms.
Colombia, staged an incursion into Ecuador to kill FARC rebels. Ecuador did not retaliate militarily, but pursued its grievance diplomatically in order to head off war.
Lebanese militias staged an incursion into Israel to kidnap Israeli soldiers. Israel invaded Lebanon and staged a full scale war, instead of pursuing the matter diplomatically.
-
Cestmoi
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Colombia and Israel were both attacked by militia groups based in a neighboring country (Ecuador and Lebanon, respectively). Both launched incursions into the neighboring country in order to attack those militia groups (the operations were clearly of different scale)."
I suppose this view makes sense if you are a champion of un-checked aggression and war.
-
GC
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I found myself uncharacteristically aroused by your post.
-
Well, for one thing, FARC is a Colombian group
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If anything, by your logic, Ecuador could have staged a strike in Colombia to wipe out FARC years ago, and could have gone on doing it for twenty years as Israel has in Lebanon.
The scenario I laid out is scenario-specific, beginning with the incursion of Ecuador by Colombia, and of Israel by Lebanon. Colombia illegally incurred into Ecuador, Lebanon illegally incurred into Israel. It does not matter for the sake of this example, who has been invading who and for how long, or which actors were involved etc. There are international norms to handle such issues, whatever the context. In this instance, Ecuador followed up its grievance using diplomatic measures. Israel followed up its grievance by bombing its neighbor sans negotiations or any attempt at achieving a solution.
I would add that by doing so, the Israeli government was nearly toppled, the kidnapped Israeli soldiers were most likely killed, and Israel lost quite a bit of standing in the international community (if it had any left at all).
-
Indeed Cestmoi
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Before you figure out what justifies military invasion into another country, get your facts straight. Hezbollah is a homegrown Lebanese group and its agenda, though it pays some lip service to Palestinian issues, is completely seperate and often at odds with Palestinian ones. In 2000, just before the beginning of the Palestinian intifada, Hezbollah negotiated a ceasefire with Israel that resulted in Israel's withdrawal from areas it had been occupyign within Lebanon. This was Hezbollah's stated goal, and as such, it did not particiapte in the subsequent Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
-
Derbig
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Actually, I do believe Ms. Clinton said she would obliterate Iran if it nuclear bombed Israel. When it comes to threats of obliteration, I always think it's best to be precise, don't you. Perhaps someone has a more betterific citation?"
I actually can't fathom where she hopes to get with this argument. Its one thing to whip up jingoistic fervor with manipulative fear-mongering. But so casually admitting your for nuclear exchanges--even before you get into the white house--makes me want to make sure the kids are out of the room before she starts talking. Its certainly no "morning in America".
-
quickstrategy, correction on Nasrallah....
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't know where you got your info, but Nasrallah is still the head of Hizbullah. There was a rumor last year that he had stepped down, but that was probably an Israeli propaganda move. There was even an article about his being the most popular leader in the Middle East in Ha'aretz last week (click the sig)
I've made plenty of errors myself on these pages, but it often bothers me that the threshold for info is so low on Palestine-Israeli. Not so much you, quickstrat, the rest of your post seemed accurate. But I often see people posting her in support of the two state solution and its backers. Oslo was a disaster from the word go, and it was meant to be. A little homework, people.
-
Just as real...
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"she believes God and Satan are as real as you and I"
Just as real, because the four of us are just words on a computer screen.