I think you are seeing malice where there may not be any, at least not in any significant quantity.  The US does not "do it" to black people - certainly not as a matter of policy.  I think the same is true with Israel.  It costs money to hold prisoners, if they are innoncent of any wrong doing and Israel knows it, it invites the possibility of massive public backlash from the international community and it tarnishes Israel's image even further.  There are of course going to be cases where innocent people are jailed just as will always be the case until humans cease to exist.  Nothing will ever change that as mistakes are not going to disappear any time soon.  Indeed there will always be the odd-ball case of criminal wrongdoing where some jerk on a power trip wants to throw an Arab in jail for no reason.  Again, I don't see this as something widespread or at epidemic levels.  What I do see is MILLIONS of people gathering in public forums burning flags, chanting "death to Israel", inciting hatred of Israel, and marching around with their children dressed up like Rambo.  This speaks volumes and does very little to support the case that many jailed are innocent of any wrongdoing.  From what I can see, and more importantly from what I hear out of the mouths of angry Arabs in that part of the world makes me believe that Israel probably holds thousands in prison, and most are probably there for a good reason.


And indeed just a fraction of the total casualties Israel has endured as well - it is a two-way street.



Easy now - I never attacked your morals.  It was a question that was perhaps poorly worded, but completely relevent to the discussion.  I see the release of a man who killed one Israeli man and smashed the skull of a four-year old Israeli girl completely ridiculous, irresponsible, and immoral.  I see it as a bad move, especially when that murderer is greeted as a hero and vows to fight again.  At the crux of the issue is your assertion that Israel and Hezbollah made out equally well (or not at all).  I think the propaganda victory alone for Hezbollah completely invalidates this position.  My point was that a known terrorist is now back in the mix with a desire to inflict more harm.  Israel has two dead bodies, hardly strengthening them tactically or politically.


Well, those people happen to be right.  I'm not pretending the issue is being reported differently, but rather debating someone who thinks it should be..............


Perhaps, but one of those 5 has already vowed to fight again.  I'm putting my money on the fact that they all find their way back into the fight before long.


Not really.  He committed double murder (only one murder if the word of a murderer is good enough for you - you being 3^rd person, don't get upset).  Regardless of anything that has happened, that man has no business ever seeing the outside of a prison cell.


Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.  Israel didn't set the "price", Hezbollah did.  It isn't Israel that created the value, it is Hezbollah.  Israel would have given 200 dead Palistinians for every Israeli held captive and more.  Would Hezbollah have agreed to a 2 for 2 deal?  No way in the world.  Israel would have, and it would have been an equal 1 to 1, right?

How is it disgusting?  I was simply trying to put into perspective that the 199 bodies returned were casualties of a conflict that has gone on for 30 years.  I didn't suggest anything else other than that.  The implication was that Israel kills 199 times for every 2 people it loses.  The OP was pointing out that he didn't think either side made out ahead because Israel causes far more casualties.  I think the number is skewed in this case as those 199 bodies came from a period of 30 years.


I see Israel working to protect its citizens, not its land.  There is a big difference between the two.  I believe Israel is perfectly justified in targeting terrorists but never made any attempt to justify targeting civilians, imprisoning the innocent, or torturing any prisoners.  And no, in my opinion, Israel is not fighting an occupation.  Israel is not fighting a nation's armed forces for one, they are not fighting against a group that has to follow international laws, and they are not fighting a group that has to answer to anyone in Lebanon.  Simply put, Israel is fighting against a group who's own country is unable to control.

So now I have two questions for you:


1)  I have NEVER ever in my entire life made the claim that people cannot fight an occupying force.  You are not terrorists for doing that, nor are Iraqi insurgents "terrorists" when they fight the American military in Iraq.  You cross the line into terrorism when you intentionally attack civilian targets to a) cause fear in an attempt to bring about political change, or b) kill for the sole sake of killing those you believe to be unworthy of life.

That is what makes one a terrorist.  Hezbollah is a terrorist group by this definition.

2)  I do not believe torture to ever be justified, though I can think of instances where one has to understand its application (like the hidden nuclear bomb case).  However, Syria as an occupying force was justified in imprisoning those who were actively fighting against Syria.  It is an unfortunate consequence of war and a risk those fighting had to take.  It is the same for US soldiers in Iraq - justified in imprisoning those taking up arms against coalition forces.  The same can be said for US soldiers in Germany or Japan, British soldiers in America in the late 18th century, and every other instance in world history.

You've made assumptions that I give Israel a free pass.  I do not.  I have many times disagreed with Israel and found myself condemning their actions on plenty of occasions.  This is a case where I believe Israel made a big mistake as

1)  They acheived no tactical advantage but instead, strengthened Hezbollah
2)  They acheived no political advantage as Hezbollah used it for propaganda victory and nobody is willing to give Israel any credit for releasing live prisoners in exchange for bodies.

That is the point I try to make.  This was not in my opinion, as the OP believes, as case where both sides walk away without any gain over the other. 

That is why I don't understand why you've been so nasty in your posts.  There is no need to call me bloodthirsty or brainwashed.  I've never harmed a soul nor do I take pleasure in seeing people suffer.  I don't think Israeli lives are worth any more than Lebanese lives, but I'm not sure Hezbollah shares that opinion.  Just a thought.

I feel like my arguments were very valid counterpoints to what you had written.  There is no need to start getting nasty.


Right, I can see things more objectively.  I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I see what each side does and I am able to keep my personal feelings and biases out of it.  I've never said Israel was angelic, but I have said that I believe they hold the moral high ground in many cases.  Hezbollah has shown a DESIRE to kill innocent civilians.  As I've said before, when Israeli civilians die, Hezbollah sees it as a victory.  When innocent civilians die because of Israel's actions, they see it as a failure by and large.  To me, this speaks volumes.


I've accused someone as being brainwashed?  And now I am bloodthirsty, too?  Whatever gave you that idea?  I'm usually pretty careful about what I post and I'm pretty confident that I haven't given the impression that I'm bloodthirsty.  Again, I'm not sure where your hostility came from but it seems unprovoked to me.


I do?  No, I think if you reread my post you'll find that I disagreed with Israel releasing a convicted murderer in exchange for two bodies.  I also said that all things being equal, Hezbollah was big winner in this deal as they are politically and tactically strengthened as a result.  You haven't disputed this at all but instead quickly jumped on me as being bloodthirsty and brainwashed.


Worked up?  I posted my thoughts on a message board.  I disagreed with Obama's position and stated my case.  And now I can't pass judgement on someone who gets "worked up" for being under occupation, tortured, and killed?  Cedar, there is a difference between posting on a message board and blowing up a bus full of defenseless people.  You may want to rethink your position here. 


I gave Israel no such rights - you overestimate my influence.  Instead, I was debating your assertion that Israel's higher infliction of casualties somehow made them worse than Hezbollah.  I don't see it this way.  I see Israel faced with an enemy that will not recognize her right to exist.  You don't give the Israeli government many options when faced with that kind of opposition.


So what you're saying is I don't hate enough to understand Hezbollah?  In order to "get it", I have to fill my soul with hatred, detestation, and anger?  I've heard better arguments from you Cedar. 

And do you know anything about me?  Do you know what I've done in my life, the things I've witnessed, the people I've loved and what has happened to them?  Anything?


For instance, say, like you knowing anything about me?


I don't know where this venom came from - I've always held you in high regard as a poster on IAP and despite our recent encounter here, I still do.  If you disagree with my points, please argue against them.  There is no reason to spit in my face.

 

Don't confuse body counts with kindness - they are mutually exclusive.  Israel is a better fighting force, has better technology, combined arms tactics, and is capable of inflicting far more damage.  The fact is that Hezbollah is able to use civilians as a "shield" by mingling with the general population during conflict.  Israel has no choice but to fight to defend itself, and the consequence is going to be civilian casualties.  If you don't want them, convince Hezbollah to meet Israel on the battlefield or in a place where no civilians are present.  Israel would erradicate Hezbollah in such a situation, hence the reason Hezbollah mingles with civilians in order to make every Israeli counterstrike as deadly to civilians as possible.  This again proves that they have no respect for the lives of their "people".  It is a tactic used in order to play on sympathy for dead civilians - civilians that Israel would rather spare if they could.  Israel LOSES every time a civilian dies.  When Hezbollah kills an Israeli civilian, they declare it as a victory.  The two are not morally equal and as much as it pains you to believe it, Israel has the high ground.

 

I'm not responsible for Israel's superior military prowess.  The implication of the OP was that Israel racked up a huge body count and the point was that these 199 bodies were not part of last weeks culling of Muslims.  These bodies had been piled up over 30 years - likely all of them combatants against the Israelis.

 

That doesn't surprise me.



Hezbollah practically invented the suicide bomber - this is established fact.  The fact that they were not using them in the defensive conflict against Israel in 2006 doesn't change the fact that Hezbollah has employed this tactic for decades and will continue to do so.  Your own quote makes my point perfectly - I thank you:

"The focus for Hamas and Hezbollah is fighting Israeli forces, so they haven't been putting as much energy into sending a suicide bomber into Israel,"

Makes perfect sense to anyone who has ever studied conflict.  Suicide bombings are most effective against (you guessed it) soft, defenseless, civilian targets that are not expecting it.  It is predecated on the use of subterfuge and plays on Israel's propensity NOT to kill every Muslim it sees.  In a battlefield scenario, this is unworkable as Israel will shoot anyone approaching a tank, APC, or group of soldiers.  In the civilian environment, suicide bombings work because bus drivers don't kill Muslims as they board.

Your links don't prove anything other than the obvious.  Tactically speaking, nobody is surprised that suicide bombings were not used in the military campaign of 2006.  The element of surprise is crucial to suicide bombers and unless it is a pre-emptive initialization of hostilities, the suicide bomber loses his tactical advantage in open conflict because the ROE are much less stringent.   


Also note that this thread is titled "prisoner exchange" which is also a misnomer.  Prisoners were NOT exchanged as that implies both sides received prisoners.  Israel received BODIES.  Hezbollah got back terrorists who vow to fight again.

I don't know if they are all in prison for legitimate reasons.  It seems perfectly reasonable to assume so as there is no shortage of people willing to fight against Israel.  It doesn't change the fact that those 199 bodies are from 30 years of conflict - not from last week or anything else.  But your point is taken - Israel does have a lot more prisoners and inflicts far more casualties.


So you see no problem with Israel releasing a murderer who says he will fight again for the bodies of two soldiers?  Israel got absolutely nothing out of this from a tactical perspective, where Hezbollah just got back 5 terrorists that will almost certainly fight again.  Not only this, but Israel is not even given the benefit of the doubt here.  As you've said, Hezbollah made out no better than Israel and many others will share that opinion.  So even when Israel gets the short end of the bargain, she can't even take solice in the fact that she was generous - nobody will see it that way.  Likewise, Hezbollah has a party and uses it as a massive propaganda victory. 

Israel has NOTHING to show for it, absolutely nothing.  In fact, they have less than nothing as they have strenghtened their enemies.  At least Hezbollah got 5 more terrorists back (one of them a convicted murderer).

Had the exchange been just bodies, then I think your position would be solid.  But I see no way to agree when Hezbollah is strengthened both tactically and politically from the deal.


But we aren't talking about respect, we're talking about value.  Israel was willing to send back 5 terrorists to get the bodies of two of their soldiers.  From an economic standpoint, it seems that the two dead Israeli's held a higher value than 5 living members of Hezbollah.  When you factor in how eager Hezbollah seems to be to send young men to commit suicide, I think we're seeing proof that one side values life over the other.  What would it have taken to get a live Israeli released?

I think there is a realization that Iran doesn't pose the threat they want us to think they do.  Let's be brutally honest......What military threat does Iran pose to the US?  Even with a nuclear weapon, how is this threat any greater than the Soviet threat of the 1950s?  Would Iran seriously consider striking the United States knowing full well that our nuclear doctrine calls for an unlimited and total nuclear response?  As much as I don't like the Iranian leadership, this really can't happen and we should probably give them a bit more credit.  Persian culture is one of the world's treasures, and an ancient treasure at that.  You don't get to survive for thousands of years by making boneheaded decisions that would lead to your complete destruction.  And a nuclear weapon does not a nuclear power make!  How far away are we from seeing Iranian missile technology able to reach the US?  I'd say at least 8-10 years.  Throw in the massive difficulty of guidance and advanced countermeasures to defeat our defenses and you are looking at least 25-35 years into the future.  By then, their missile technology will be obsolete.  The only significant chance of a strike is by covertly detonating a device inside the US.  This does not preclude us from a counterstrike - and it would be 100% justified.

So the next point is Israel.  Israel, while closer to Iran also has the ability to destroy all of Iran with their own nuclear arsenal.  Iran knows this.  Furthermore, Israel can't be nuked without destruction of sites and treasures valued by Muslims worldwide.  Nor can Iran hit the Holy Land without causing billions of Christians to seek vengence for destroying sacred treasures.  The stakes are too high.  If Iran did this, the world at large would not be against Iran's forfeiture of their right to exist.  This is high stakes poker, and Iran is holding "The Hammer" while only being able to cover the blind.

Spoken like a true wiseman!  We've got more common ground to build on than we realize.  Iran is a key player in the Middle East and if we can convince them that we pose no threat, they may be willing to make some things work in our favor.  If we can go the extra mile and show them that they can gain far more from us as friends than enemies, then they will play ball.  This can be done as America's power is not confined to her military alone.  Small, seemingly insignificant events can accomplish HUGE things in the PR arena.  What about an Iranian astronaut on a Shuttle flight to the International Space Station?  Sounds somewhat silly, but never underestimate the power of that image amongst young Iranians who seek to join the world as partners for a better future.  If you want to see a huge boost in America's image in Iran, you'd get it by something like that.

Our elected leaders need to use their imagination to win new friends.  We NEED friends in the Middle East, and Iran would be a good friend to have.

A bad precedent indeed.  It is a reward - plain and simple.  It is also a massive propaganda victory for Hezbollah and a goodwill gesture from Israel the likes of which we will NEVER see from the other side.  And, we won't hear about how generous this was of Israel.  Instead, we'll hear that it was a sign of Hezbollah's "victory" and a win for the "resistance".  Yes, as Abraxas states there were 199 bodies that Israel "traded" for their two dead soldiers, but if anything, the deal should have stopped there.  Let us not forget that those 199 bodies represent 30 years of near-continuous conflict (roughly one body every 2 months) - hardly a sign of a massive body count. 

And of course Samir Kuntar vows to continue to fight with Israel (see links below).  Not only is this murderer greeted as a hero (sickening), but he finds it necessary to cause more bloodshed even after being given a second chance (which he should NEVER have expected).

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1003150.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6610e5e0-539a-11dd-8dd2-000077b07658.html

I see no wisdom in this decision.  But it proves one thing, Israel values their dead more than Hezbollah values their living.  With such a propensity to send young men to blow themselves up, I guess we shouldn't be suprised.

No doubt.  There are tens of millions of fluent Spanish speakers in the US.  Some portions of the country have well over 50% of people speaking at least some Spanish.  There is no doubt that there are huge numbers of Spanish speakers.  However, you are at a major disadvantage if you can't speak English in the US.  You may be able to get by and make some money doing custodial or landscaping work.  You may also be able to contribute in large Spanish speaking communities.  But will these people have a chance to become doctors, lawyers, engineers, or company managers?  The likelihood is very slim.  There are no shortage of opportunities in the US, but it isn't easy to find your way into higher paying jobs even when you know English.  Without knowing English, the chances of you being a member of the lower class if far greater.


There are always exceptions.  I think that a large Spanish-only speaking community can become a place where you don't need to learn English to make a living.  But merely making a living should never be the definition of success, but rather survival.  It is possible to survive in the US without knowing a word of English.  But we run a very real risk of creating a permanent underclass if we pat ourselves on the back as being "culturally tolerant" or "diverse" and accepting the fact that some people just don't speak English.  To me, this is very dangerous.  Also, it fosters some resentment amongst Americans that don't speak Spanish because many see it as wasteful and unnecessary.

Here is an example:  I live in a part of Florida where English still dominates, but Spanish is ubiquotous - you hear it just about everywhere.  Indeed, some people don't speak a word of English.  About a year and a half ago, I was at a friend's apartment complex and there were two older Hispanic women attempting to communicate with a police officer.  The cop spoke very little Spanish, but he was trying.  However, he couldn't really get his point across to the women, nor could they communicate effectively with him.  He had to call another officer that was bilingual to assist.  This took some time, and in the end, there were three officers needed to deal with this situation which I think was some sort of minor domestic dispute.  This took another officer away from his business to act as an interpreter (and of course his partner was along for the ride).  To me, this was ridiculous.  You might expect these things in an Airport, some place where you have huge numbers of tourists that are just visiting.  But these women were living here in the US.  Their refusal or inability to learn English required more police resources to solve their little squabble. 

Some would say that the police officer should be bilingual.  I disagree 100%.  That is always a plus, but should NEVER be a requirement to work inside the United States unless under some special assignment (like working at an Embassy or maybe an airport).   The problem is that it is becoming necessary for these guys to further adapt because others refuse to.  When do we draw the line?  We can't have super-cops running around that are fluent in 25 languages.  Should doctors be REQUIRED to learn a second, third, or fourth language to practice medicine in the US?  I don't think so.  What about teachers?  Should we be required to fund schools that only teach in Spanish so that non-English speakers can move forward?  Should we even require that high-school graduates speak English?  Believe it or not, these are all things that we have seen in one form or another - and this is just in my state.

Obama may very well have been trying to make a point that American's need to be more "worldly".  Certainly, I can't argue encouraging more learning in the United States.  What I can argue with is the point that we "should" learn "their" language so that we can help "them".  That is antithesis to how things work in this country (and things have worked very well in this country for many years).  In order to get ahead, you have to work at it.  You have to help yourself.  America would be destroyed if she became a nanny state where the government provided everything and people were not expected to pull themselves up by the boot-straps.  That model of society is completely unsustainable.  This nudges us in that direction by planting the seed that society will adapt to YOUR needs.  That cannot work and I know of no civilization in history that ever espoused such a notion.

Obama's entire argument was nonsense in my opinion.  Nobody is arguing the value of learning languages.  In my state, we are required to take two years of a foreign language in high school.  The problem is the idea that Americans should learn other languages to accomodate immigrants in this country who can't speak English. 

Let us take a step back.  First, if you visit a country, you should attempt to learn the basics of the language.  Not only do your travels go better, but it is respectful when oversees to attempt to speak the language.  If you are going to LIVE in a country, you can't expect your host country to speak your native language, which is sort of what Obama was implying. 

He was attempting to show how rotten it was when we visit another country and can't speak the language while at the same time pushing the argument that we should speak other languages to accomodate visitors or immigrants here.  He is contradicting himself and doesn't even realize it.

People who live here should learn to speak English.  It is the language of success in this country and if you want to move ahead and make a good living, English should be required - without exception.

Second, why?  Why is it so horrible that Americans don't speak multiple languages?  "The Europeans can" - yes, we know.  If you look at a map, it is pretty obvious why.  You can drive 3 hours in one direction in Europe and run into a dozen different languages.  You can drive for a 3 days in one direction in the US and run into nothing but English!  There is no NEED to speak mulitple languages here whereas in Europe, it is practically a necessity.  Context is important here.  Americans don't speak multiple languages for the same reason Eskimos don't have their own line of summer-wear.

Third, why Spanish?  Outside of our proximity to Spanish-speaking people, I can think of other languages with more "value" attached to them.  Wouldn't Chinese, French, or German be more useful?  I think so.  Perhaps it would be prudent to learn Chinese, Russian or German, and let the Spanish-speakers learn English. 

Lastly, even if Obama's point was more general in scope, increased aptitude in foreign languages should be DEAD LAST on our educational to-do list.  Kids in this country can't even speak English.  Instead, students in the US need to be learning math, math, and more math.  That is the only universal language, and the rewards of being mathematically literate will far exceed the rewards of being bilingual (as far as our national interests are concerned). 

If Obama's speech was "to hell with Spanish, our kids need to learn math" - he'd be making a much stronger argument.

Simply not true.  There have been numerous articles posted that are recorded fact, such as news items about the Gaza withdrawal in 2005 and the charter of Hamas, to name just two.  You spend approximately ONE sentence on both pieces of fact, and the sentence was used to belittle the point of the Gaza withdrawal in 2005 and how Hamas used that to continue attacks on Israel without any regard for peace.

This entire rant of yours has become even more off-topic, as you have not produced a single argument in any post about why you think our opinions are misguided.  This latest post is completely nonsensical as you have again attempted to sarcastically imply that we don't know the difference between fact and opinion.  Believe me, we know the difference.


Your post implies that we have no business debating until indisputable fact is established.  This is a logical fallacy of the first order.  How can one debate indisputable fact?  If it is an indisputable fact, it is by definition not up for debate.


Then what is the point of debating, Cass?  You invited yourself into this thread, remember?  Your first sentence was to inform us of how you spent the past week with your granddaughters.  Your very next sentence was to attack the source, not the premise of the argument.  I have YET to call you biased, but you have labled me as such since your 2nd post on this topic.  Because I happen to agree with realityman, you automatically see bias.  Then, to overstep even more, you have given us this:


That is a cheap shot, and shows that you've already made up your mind.  For someone who espouses such lofty ideals as open-mindedness and objectivity, you have certainly not demonstrated either trait.

Your next tactic was to play victim:


Since you are the self-proclaimed balance of this thread, one would assume by reading this quote that you have been viciously attacked by realityman and that realityman has "hatred" for you (since you observe more than one opinion on an issue).

So, I took the liberty of looking for that attack.  I noticed that realityman had responded to you exactly ONE time before you claimed that there was hatred for you.  His ENTIRE post to you follows:


There is not one ounce of vitriol in that entire rebuttal.  There was even the in the first part indicating a light-hearted attitude and attempt at civility.  Where did this hatred come from?  What part of his post was so hate-filled that you felt victimized?

This whole thread has been derailed for no reason whatsoever. 

It is ironic that you have called us out as being warmongers and diagnosed us as having some insatiable blood lust; yet if anyone can be criticized for belligerence on this thread, it is you, Cass.

You've again misunderstood the argument and point of this thread.  Indeed, the military option has yet to be tried; certainly not to the extent to which we can reach end-game.  The tit-for-tat retaliation is why we still have blood being spilled on both sides.  This retaliation is allowed to continue by those who insist on giving Hamas every advantage tactically. 

You are convinced that because your position appears the most peaceful, that it will inevitably lead to a peaceful resolution.  Well, history has proven this wrong countless times and anyone who has studied history is well aware that military solutions do work from time to time.  You've also unfairly relegated those of us who disagree with your position into the "warmonger" category.  As you so often remind us, there is no personal risk to us in a military option - but then again, your theory of peace from nowhere is guaranteed to maintain the status quo long after all of us have left this world.

You have demanded that Israel stop acting out of fear and start acting out of confidence.  Realityman posted a 100% relevant counterpoint by illustrating that Israel did EXACTLY THAT in 2005, and you didn't concede or even attempt to argue the point.  Instead, you trashed him for posting ancient history from 2005.

We aren't attacking you, but we disagree wholeheartedly with your position.  Recent history reinforces our position.


There is nothing sad about that.  Israel has been ganged up on enough and her sovereign neighbors are doing exactly nothing to stop it.  Furthermore, the fact that Israel is being attacked by civilian murderers and criminals, as opposed to a sovereign nation, doesn't make the killing of their citizens any less atrocious.  It also doesn't preclude Israel from responding in the same way she would against an invading army.



This is why we are discussing the bone-headed move of allowing Hamas to restrenghen itself so that they can continue this cycle. 


There is plenty to accomplished.  Nobody has attacked you for having a different opinion.  In fact, you've been invited numerous times to defend your position, but you haven't.  Each post becomes more irrelevant and seeks to attack the original poster and those who agree with him as close-minded sycophants.  We're asking why you believe this ceasefire is good for peace in the long-term.  We're asking why you believe we are closeminded in our opinion that this ceasefire is just more of the same, and will see a reinvigorated Hamas ready to pick another fight in a few short weeks.


Hamas doesn't want to break the ceasefire yet.  We've been over this at least three times.  Hamas needs time to regroup and rearm, they can't afford a break in the ceasefire before their planning and preperation is completed.  You are helping to make our point.  Likewise, until Hamas does something, Israel cannot safely retaliate without losing even more international support.  Hamas has been going out of its way to make sure the rockets stop flying so they can rearm.  But when someone takes a bulldozer and tries to run over babies, they are right there cheering them on because the Israelis have already come to the conclusion that the terrorist acted alone - thus, no chance for a break in the ceasefire.


Cass, you are the only one on this thread advocating the same solution that has existed for 35 years.  There is absolutely no chance that we will ever see peace unless a fundamental change of attitudes prevail.  We've already seen what happens when Israel makes unilateral concessions as it did in Gaza in 2005 (and you dismissed it as irrelevant).  Hamas has made it abundantly clear that they will fight until Israel is either destroyed, or until they are unable to fight any longer.  They don't even agree with the concept of peace, as can be seen in article 13 of their disgusting charter:

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm


The very group you believe can be convinced to seek peace has formally acknowledged it intends no such thing.  What is Israel to do in the face of such distrust of peace?  Perhaps following a new path is worthy of consideration?  Is a ceasefire with this group anything other than a tactical ploy used to restrengthen their positions?


What has made you think that we find it "unsatisfactory" that you voice a different opinion?  You've been invited numerous times to explain your point of view.  This is at the heart of candid debate, it is why we have these forums.  Outside of a few jabs, this thread has been incredibly civil.  I've been a member of this forum since December 2005, and it is the only forum I post on.  I've come to respect a lot of opinions here, even those that I disagree with.  There are some thoughtful posters here that have forced me to change my mind on a subject more than once.  I love debating these things, it keeps our minds sharp and forces us to stay on our game (by reading history and paying attention to the news).  Cass, the people on this forum (minus maybe a handful) are the people you want to debate with.  Most can make a clear and concise case and debate with lucidity superior to those you and I may interact with from day-to-day. 

Don't take it personally if we don't share your opinion.  Instead, show us where we have it wrong.  Show us why we have missed the point or why our conclusions are flawed. 

What are you implying?  I have been civil for this entire discussion, and I plan on remaining so.  I think you did misunderstand realityman's point in this thread judging by how you have chosen to debate it.  I haven't called you a "Jew hater" and haven't done anything but show respect which has not been well reciprocated.  You have of course accused me of being someone who "eggs on a bully", you've implied that I am biased, and even attempt to lessen the validity of my arguments by sarcastically claiming that I should inform the Israeli government instead of waste my time on an Internet message board.  I believe you even indirectly called me (and others) out as a sycophant in one of your earlier posts.


It isn't about your source being valid, it is that you are attempting to use it to counter the claim made by the original poster.  Your source does not refute anything discussed so far.  I read it and then read it again.  It said nothing contrary to what we were discussing.  In fact, it reinforces the original claim that these ceasefires help Hamas more than Israel.  It is a rare occurance that Hamas condemns other militants for attacking Israel.  It doesn't take much effort to realize that they are condemning these actions because they desperately need the ceasefire to hold so that they can rearm.


You lost me here.  Your sources did not indicate that this had a real chance at bringing peace.  Let us be frank, there is no chance that we have seen the end of violence from Hamas.  None.  This ceasefire has ONE single purpose - to give Hamas time and freedom of movement to rearm, resupply, and regroup before engaging the Israelis again.

Plus, it is an outright lie to suggest that Israel has ANYTHING to gain by accepting the ceasefire. Israel, by agreeing to the ceasefire simply keeps from LOSING more international support and does nothing more than delay the next vote of censure at the UN.  You will not convince me that anyone has seen this ceasefire and changed their mind about Israel by saying, "maybe those Israelis aren't so bad after all." 

Name a single tactical gain that Israel will reap as a reward of this ill-fated ceasefire. 

Name a strategic gain that Israel can expect as a result of this ceasefire.

My list is blank too. 

But Hamas on the other hand - they are making out like bandits.  They have time to rearm, plan further attacks, move freely without fear of Israeli strikes on their leaders or militants, they can move their equipment, weapons, ammo, and people making it harder for Israel to find them, they can prepare defenses in case of an Israeli incursion, they can claim a tactical victory and rally their people, they can claim a strategic victory and rally their people, they can use it as excellent recruiting propaganda because "terrorism works", and they can do this all while still having at the apex of their agenda the erradication of Israel. 



I've highlighted the most important two words you have written.  We are only seeing "mutual retaliation" because no side has been given the green light to win.  The objective of war is to destroy your enemy's ability to wage it.  Israel has not been given that chance, and as such, we have seen decades of "mutual retaliation".  The international community has given Hamas every chance they have asked for in order to "live to fight another day".  When will it end?  The answer is simple, when they can no longer fight, or when Israel is destroyed.  They say it themselves.

Peace is not going to come in that part of the world until something forces a rethinking of the status quo.  Ceasefires are a particularly useful mechanism for Hamas to continue its fight without ever having to pursue meaningful and lasting peace.


I didn't condemn you.  Not once.  You are getting worked up over a perceived injustice that never occured.  Indeed, you have been much more hostile towards me than I towards you. 

I bet you'll also find that I favor peace just as much as you do.  The difference between us is that I believe it will require a military solution where you seem to believe that we can ceasefire our way to peace.  I'd be the first one to vote for instant peace without another death, but I'm also realistic and understand that we cannot expect that to ever occur. 


Let's make a friendly wager; if the ceasefire lasts and peace is the ultimate result, I will publicly acknowledge that I have been wrong for the last 15 years and that you are smarter and wiser than I could ever hope to be.  If the ceasefire breaks down, and the attacks occur again, you simply have to acknowledge that the ceasefire didn't work. 

Deal?

Cass, I don't think you have interpreted realityman's point correctly.  The point being made, and it is so far rock-solid, is that Hamas (or any other militant group) benefits from a cease fire FAR more than Israel does. 

Realityman is not arguing against peace, a two-state solution, nor the merits of one sides argument over the other.  Instead, he is calling into question the tactical wisdom of agreeing to a ceasefire that will surely see Hamas rearming, regrouping, and resupplying.  This is not new information, there is plenty of historical evidence to suggest that Hamas will indeed use the lull in hostilities to strengthen itself so that they can engage Israeli soldiers and civilians more effectively. 

In the article you posted:


This is exactly what is expected.  Hamas DESPERATELY needs the ceasefire in order to rearm itself and catch its breath after prolonged engagement with the Israelis.  There is no mystery here - Hamas is reaping huge rewards tactically because Israel (for PR reasons) has to give them time to rearm so that they can attack again with increased effectiveness.  One has to wonder why Hamas is only now getting cranky when other militants attack Israel.  This is certainly very rare since when it comes to harming Israelis, all of these militant groups see eye-to-eye.  Hamas is only showing their displeasure now because these other groups threaten to break the ceasefire before Hamas has time to resupply and reorganize.  Once the ceasefire is over, Hamas will be perfectly OK with the attacks from other militant groups.

This is the point realityman made with this thread.  His sources are not any more biased for Israel than yours are against Israel.  Sure, there are two perspectives, but not necessarily two realities.  Both sides would probably agree that Hamas is the sole beneficiary from the ceasefire. 

Even if his sources are biased (and I don't see this as the case), there is no doubt that the underlying argument is perfectly sound.  It wouldn't matter if Al-Jazeera made the point, or the propaganda arm of Mossad - the truth is that Hamas is getting a massive break tactically and that Israel has little choice but to accept it. 

Cass, Realityman started the post to bring up the topic of ceasefires and how they help Hamas and hurt Israel.  Nothing he stated can be called propaganda - it was indeed an opinion (and one I happen to agree with).  He linked his source and so far no contradictory evidence has been presented.

Perhaps, try looking at the question like this:  Do ceasefires help Hamas more than Israel?

I think they do, and it seams that realityman holds the same opinion.  If you disagree, then you believe either 1)  Ceasefires help Israel more than Hamas, or 2) Ceasefires don't help either side more than the other. 

There has yet to be any evidence offered that contradicts realityman's assertion.  The worst way to debate this topic is to attack the sources.  Some sources are indeed slanted and others are quite objective.  If there are factual errors in the article, please point them out. 

Your first post linked to an article which drove the point home that Hamas was upset that other militant groups were breaking the cease-fire.


This doesn't call into question Realityman's points.  To the contrary, this quote seems to reinforce the point of this thread.  Hamas is getting upset because the cease-fire is still in its infancy.  Hamas has not had enough time to rearm, resupply, and regroup and as a result, they are taking the unusual step of "lashing out" at rival militants when it comes to attacking Israel.

Furthermore, the "editor's comment" that you also posted seems to side with what Realityman was arguing:


Perhaps the aforementioned group of people recognize that the ceasefire hurts Israel and gives militant groups a change to resupply.  Again, the premise of this thread is that these ceasefires serve only one group tactically, and that is Hamas.  The Israelis reluctantly agree to the ceasefire because to refuse would invite scorn and resentment from the International Community.  Olmert, Blair, Bush, Rice, McCain, and Obama may actually understand this and know that without a ceasefire, Hamas is weakened.  Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that they breathe a collective sigh or relief when Hamas is squeezed ever tighter.

That is simple - we aren't drilling for it.  The environmentalist lobby in the US is fairly strong, and while I agree with a lot of what they stand for, I think they are in the way when it comes to drilling in Federal lands.  The amount of oil locked up in shale here in the US is simply staggering.  If we could tap that today and extract it, we wouldn't have to import a single ounce of it ever again.

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm


I think that is inaccurate.  20% of our electrical energy in the US comes from nuclear fission.  50% of it from coal and another near 20% from natural gas, roughly 7% is hydroelectric.  Transportation is another matter entirely, but then again it isn't as if the US is the only nation still using oil to power vehicles.  It is cheap to do it that way, and until there is a cost effective alternative, there is no reason to change.  I also guarantee that when it comes to net output of research in alternative fuels, the US is leading all other nations on earth.  We're investing in new sources and funding research as well.  It is just as big a topic in the US as it is anywhere else.



First off, the US is not threatening to attack.  President Bush has merely stated that he will not rule out military intervention if diplomacy fails.  This is good leadership, not sabre rattling.  While I will not argue that the Administration could have done a better job diplomatically, I can't fault them for keeping all of their options open.  Effective diplomacy sometimes comes from the threat of force.

Second, I don't think this is so much about spying as it is a PR campaign to attempt to reach out to moderate Iranians.  Make of that what you will, but I think the idea of trying to make ourselves look a little more "human" to the Iranian people is worth the effort.


Well, it is hard to blame the US for not having an embassy in Tehran; the last time didn't work out so well.  We have to remember that there are still some hard feelings over that whole episode.  2009 will mark 30 years since the hostage crisis, and depending on the administration that takes office in January, there may be some promising possibilities for Iranian-American relations.