Your view on recent Middle East crisis

[JennyC]

The purpose of this poll is to see how BetterMost members feel about the recent Middle East crisis. They are really two questions, but I would like to keep the response in one place since I think one question leads to another. 

Which party bears the majority of the responsibilities with the recent escalation of the conflict, the loss of lives, is it Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, etc? We can debate these questions for hours and hours, just like how they dominate major media outlets these days.  But at the end of the day, everyone has a position on this (no position is also a position).  Let’s hear it. 

Thanks for taking the poll.

[David]

None of any of this is justified.   Neither side can have it all.   Logic would dictate that the land be divided 50/50.   But seeing that both parties will never agree to this, the bloodshed will continue forever.

There will be peace in the mid East only when parents learn to love their children more than they hate their enemies.

[David In Indy]

Well, this is complicated.

Hezbollah kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers. They (Hezbollah) also positioned rockets and missles very near the Israel/Lebanon border. Israel has a right (and a duty) to protect itself and its' citizens....

BUT.......

Bombing Beirut, Tyre, and other Lebonese cities for 8 days (as of July 19th, 2006) is a very unfair and unbalanced retaliation for 2 or 3 kidnapped soldiers. I agree Hezbollah started all of this. But so far 300 people (mostly civilians) have been killed and 1000 others have been injured. Over 500,000 Lebanese have now been displaced because of this conflict.

Hezbollah should not have kidnapped these Israeli soldiers. But Israel has overreacted in my opinion.

President Bush should step in immediately and demand that Israel stop these attacks and bombing campaigns over Lebanon and Gaza. If he doesn't, this conflict will soon spiral out of control and we will find ourselves in the middle of World War III.

When I  was young, people use to say "World War III will be fought with nuclear bombs and World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones".

President Bush better do something about this, and he better do it fast! 

I hate to sound negative, but I have ZERO faith in our "president" and somehow (just as he  did with Iraq) I think he will be making some more bad and irresponsible decisions in the near future.

God help us all. 

[YaadPyar]

None of any of this is justified.   Neither side can have it all.   Logic would dictate that the land be divided 50/50.   But seeing that both parties will never agree to this, the bloodshed will continue forever.

There will be peace in the mid East only when parents learn to love their children more than they hate their enemies.

Perfectly put.  Thanks, David.

[Giancarlo]

The response towards Hezbollah is very balanced, and one has to remember they didn't just kidnap the soldiers. After the Israelis went to try to get them, Hezbollah responded by firing hundreds of rockets into densely populated Israeli cities. The reason why the Israelis have continued the bombings for eight days now is because these Iranian-built rockets are being fired deep into Israel killing citizens. Israel has no choice but to neutralize the threat. Some here really do not understand. How would you feel if these rockets could go deep in your country? These are what Israel is trying to destroy. Israel in no way over-reacted.

President Bush from what I heard is going to demand an end to these attacks in as little as a week. My views may be impacted by the fact that I am pro-Israeli.

WWIII? Overstatement. In fact saying that we might end up in WWIII is an emotional statement. This is pretty much involving one area of the globe. Iran nor Syria would ever think about attacking Israel because they would lose. It is that simple. Israel has a military machine that is unprecendented in the entire middle east. It has been known to defeating a 500,000+ military (Egypt) in 6 days.

My source on the information about it being a week: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/07/19/1153166455516.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/07/19/1153166454897.html

That's one week before the US joins powers that are demanding for a cease-fire. Once that happens, Israel will find its support dramatically reduced for continuing the strikes and it may have to halt that. I think the reason for this again, is to destroy the rockets.

Also Lebanese Prime Minister Faoud Saniora I believe is exaggerating how many people have been killed, injured and displaced by this. I don't think it is even close to what he is saying.

[JennyC]

Thanks for taking the poll, David (in Hartford), David (in Indianapolis), Celeste, and Giancarlo.

I would like to clarify that I didn’t mentioned Hezbollah's role in starting the conflict in the question because everyone here is all well informed, and I assume that goes without saying.  It’s definitely not my intention to give them as well as other parties that support them a free pass.  The recent debate, however, is more focused on whether or not Israel used excess force.  Israel definitely has the right to defend itself when under attack. The question is whether it’s morally right to protect it’s own citizen and to reshape Middle East political layout by taking other innocent lives (even though it’s not the intent, but nonetheless the result).  Is the world’s goodwill on Israel at the beginning of the conflict fading away.

Secondly, I just realized that the poll that I created is not scientifically correct (?), where one option only says that US government’s response is not balanced, but didn’t specify whether it’s more in favor of Israel or the other side.  But again, that goes without saying.   So just to clarify the option “No, US government’s response is not balanced” translates to US government’s response is more in favor of Israel, i.e. not putting enough pressure on Israel to end the conflict.

[vkm91941]

As long as you have two factions who are so diametrically opposed, each believing in the aboslute rightness of their claims and absolute wrongness of any opposing point of view, each believing they are right in the eyes of GOD and this land is their GOD given birthright, as long as these nations do not function 100% in the 21 century and are still seeking recompense for preceived wrongs hundreds if not thousands of years old; there will be no peace in the middle east only escalation.  I agree David  God help us all....

 

[delalluvia]

Israel has the right to defend itself, but I agree with David that they're using a wrecking ball to squash some mosquitos.

Thinking of sending in land troops to another country because they were shelled - on a limited basis - and 3 soldiers were kidnapped?

I believe Israel is going for an aggressive show of strength to keep their enemies at bay.

Mess with us and this is what you get.

And who can blame them since they are surrounded on all sides by people who do not like them?

I have read though that a lot of Israel's economic and military budget comes and has come from the U.S.

Israel is in a very precarious situation.  Unless they keep their borders firm, they will not exist much longer as a country.  And not from warfare.  There are enough Arab-Israelis who live there and near enough that they might reproduce in enough numbers that sooner or later, the Jewish people of Israel might find themselves in a miniority position in their own country and be - legally - voted out of existence.

I'm not sure that they as a people might not react with extreme violence to the potential loss of their way of life there.

"Apres moi, l'deluge." as the saying goes.

[David In Indy]

WWIII? Overstatement. In fact saying that we might end up in WWIII is an emotional statement. This is pretty much involving one area of the globe. Iran nor Syria would ever think about attacking Israel because they would lose. It is that simple. Israel has a military machine that is unprecendented in the entire middle east. It has been known to defeating a 500,000+ military (Egypt) in 6 days.

It doesn't really matter what Syria or Iran would or would not do at this point.

Were you ever a boyscout Giancarlo? If so, do you remember what they taught you the very first time you went camping? In my boyscout troop they taught us to completely clear the area, 10 feet in diameter, of anything flammable before we built a fire. Why? Because fire has a tendancy to jump as it burns (the wood popping and throwing off sparks for example).

This conflict in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon could easily incite war in other areas. Many officials have speculated this conflict is an offshoot of the Iraq war. There was a major terrorist attack in India several weeks ago. The FBI and CIA tell us there are Hezbollah sleeper cells in the United States and more than likely they are ready to strike. North Korea has already tested some medium and long range missles and the country says it will test some more. Iran may not want to "play war" today, but apparently it is more than happy to supply weapons to others who do feel like "playing".

You are still very young Giancarlo. I love your optimism (and I am not patronizing you when I say that). You may be correct. In fact, I hope you are correct.

It's as if the Mideast is a warehouse full of gunpowder, dynomite and gasoline, and some of our world leaders want to stand inside and play with matches.   

[Giancarlo]

Were you ever a boyscout Giancarlo? If so, do you remember what they taught you the very first time you went camping? In my boyscout troop they taught us to completely clear the area, 10 feet in diameter, of anything flammable before we built a fire. Why? Because fire has a tendancy to jump as it burns (the wood popping and throwing off sparks for example).

No I wasn't, so that's completely irrelevant. I don't get why you are bringing up that comparsion. Israelis were attacked and soldiers got kidnapped. I'm sorry that I do not believe in the same soft approach that some believe around here.

This conflict in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon could easily incite war in other areas. Many officials have speculated this conflict is an offshoot of the Iraq war. There was a major terrorist attack in India several weeks ago. The FBI and CIA tell us there are Hezbollah sleeper cells in the United States and more than likely they are ready to strike. North Korea has already tested some medium and long range missles and the country says it will test some more. Iran may not want to "play war" today, but apparently it is more than happy to supply weapons to others who do feel like "playing".

Not really. Especailly not at this point. Many officials have speculated this conflict is an offshoot of the Iraq war? Incorrect. This has been going on for decades. Israel was in Lebanon for years (since the 1980s), so it can be stated that this is an offshoot from that war, not the Iraq war. You made a big assumption that isn't really true. There have been several major terrorist attacks in India because of their occupation of Kashmir. That wasn't even the biggest terrorist attack they had. That terrorist attack was to push India's withdrawl from Kashmir. The FBI and CIA tell us that? Really?

North Korea's missile technology is ancient.

You are still very young Giancarlo. I love your optimism (and I am not patronizing you when I say that). You may be correct. In fact, I hope you are correct.

You're bringing up my age? Why? I'm sorry but if you think my age makes me inexperienced you are dead wrong. I have seen a lot of this world, and have visited something near 30 different countries. I have lived in a half dozen different countries. Many people in the US haven't even left the country. I myself have lived in Ecuador for three years, and have visited Colombia about a dozen+ times.

If I'm so young and complacent, why do I know so much about the history of the wars that occurred between Israel and other middle eastern powers? Age is not the measure of wisdom or intelligence in my opinion.