Have you, Ms Yoffe, or Mona Charen ever read psalm 137:8-9?

137:8 O daughter of Babylon, that art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that repayeth thee as thou hast served us.

137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock.

It was a barbaric thought then as now, but it is by no means unique to the Lebanese.

first of all, the "lebanese people" are not the ones welcoming the murderer and celebrating in the streets-- its just the ultra-right wing, fundamentalist Hizbollah fighters celebrating the event. This is a common misconception in the west, that the views and actions of Hizbollah and the views and actions of the lebanese people are one and the same-- an unfair and ignorant view mostly held by people who think that the "middle east" is a country, where people ride camels and shoot each other with Kalashnikovs at random.
Also, im not surprised that the author of the post and of the article were shocked by the barbaric actions of the "lebanese people", but were not at all disturbed by the fact that Israel was negotiating with terrorists....
Lastly, ugly scenes like the one mentioned in the post are retold over and over again, fueling Islamophobia, while similar atrocities committed by Israel are promptly ignored, like Israel using white phosphorus bombs on hospitals during the civil war. War is always ugly and brutal, and atrocities are committed by both sides; it is unfair to judge a people by the actions of a few.

I hope you are right about the limited number of people celebrating in Lebanon. It is true that Hezbollah has not been good for the mainstream of Lebanese society. I certainly agree it is not fair (or helpful) to judge the many by the acts of the few.

I do recall that in 1991, there sure seemed to be many, many Palestinians cheering when scud missiles went by towards Israel. Kuwait kicked out 600,000 Palestinians because of the PA/PLO and general popular support of Saddam Hussein.

As to the mistakes of Israel, I don't agree that they are promptly ignored. In what I see in the MSM, and especially in lefty sites, they are endlessly repeated and exaggerated, and usually mentioned without context. I have no doubt that some of Israel's mistakes rise to the level of atrocities, but it is not the intent of the the government to wage terror on civilians. There are no regular firing of rockets into civilian areas. No suicide bombers in pizza joints. Sure, you can point to problems and civilian deaths caused by military actions, but the basic intent is defensive. Civilians are caught up because Hamas/PLO/Hezbollah/Islamic Jihad/etc. hide and launch attacks from dense civilian populations.

Why in the hell wouldnt Palestinians cheer SCUD missles flying into Israel? I cant imagine the frustration of the people of the countrys that surround the country of Israel and wouldnt expect many of the citizens to think kindly of them.

Its funny that you castigate terrorist groups for hiding behind 'dense civilian populations', and you dont even mention how Israel hides behind the US. Terrorism derives from the need for redress. If the terrorists have sufficient support, they thrive and grow, if they dont, they wither and die. You do not cut terrorist support by airstrikes and murder of innocent civilians. Hell, you probably dont cut terrorist numbers by killing them, each death probably brings more terrorists into the fold.

Yitzak Rabin had the best chance for peace that any leader of Israel has had or might ever have. He had the moral authority and was not a sissy peacenik, he had spent his life as a warrior. He could have begun a lasting peace, and I believe it would have been successful. He was not killed by an Islamic terrorist, he was killed by a Jew.

The Israelis hold the whip hand and until they realize that and put the whip down, there will be no peace.

And before you trot out the old, tired bullcrap about me being an anti-semite, let me just nip that in the bud. In 1987, I had seriously considered exercising the right of return, so I could join the IDF. There was a time that Isreal was threatened and could have been overwhelmed by its neighbors and wiped from the Earth. That was long ago, now they can and will survive. I dont and cant consider the cluster bombing of a civilian area to have been an 'accident', nor should you. Nor do the Lebanese or the Palestinians.

I wont belabor the point anymore, but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.

I'd like to point out that Hezbollah is basically the only formal (and by formal, I mean completely legitimate) organization of Lebanon that has done much of anything to stop Israeli aggression in any way. They were legitimate in 1982, and they're legitimate now. I can't say I agree with much of their tactics, but the principle of stopping enemy invaders, to me, is sufficient reason for them exist. They're a "terrorist organization" according to six nations in the UN. When I think of terrorist organizations, I don't think of groups who spend money to build hospitals for their sick and dying, or spend money on schools for their children to learn in. I would call Hezbollah a terrorist organization just as readily as I would say this for IDF.

That said, Israel knows fully well that terrorism is helpful to their relations with the US, and thus their source of military budget. Every time some hapless individual blows himself up in an Israeli civilian area, or some pathetic, inefficient rockets land in Israeli land, Israel is allowed to fuel an overblown media outrage. The tactic works very well. The terrorists do not realize that when you fight someone, you don't attack their fists or feet: you have to strike the heart of the matter. And that means not blowing up two or three people and hoping it'll amount to anything.

So when Israel makes these ridiculous prisoner swaps, understand the clear winner here: it's Israel. The media has been talking about this very heavily, it discusses Israeli atrocities very rarely (especially over deaths ranging from 1-2 people), and in the eyes of most uninformed Americans, Israelis are the persecuted sufferers who are just trying to live their lives uninhered by those evil, filthy Arabs. It's a joke.

From the article:

"Samir Kuntar entered Israel on a boat from Lebanon and kidnapped a young father and his 4-year-old daughter. He shot the father, Danny Haran, to death in front of his daughter, Einat, then killed her by smashing her skull against a rock with a rifle-butt."

From the above post by Izak:

"Israel knows fully well that terrorism is helpful to their relations with the US, and thus their source of military budget. Every time some hapless individual blows himself up in an Israeli civilian area, or some pathetic, inefficient rockets land in Israeli land, Israel is allowed to fuel an overblown media outrage." (emphasis mine)

To those who feel comfortable playing the role of apologist for terrorists, please attempt to reconcile the disconnect between the above two quotes. Consider the past success of oppressed peoples such as the Palestinians in fighting their oppressors with the murder of children.

As William Diaz aptly said above about the Israelis:

"I wont belabor the point anymore, but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results."

I might say the same in reference to the Palestinians. See Mahandas Gandhi.

Why Mahatma Ghandi?

Why not simply quit the occupied territories and period?

While, I guess, the two occupations are not really at all comparable, he achieved his successes through non-violent means. While I have heard it argued that violence is the only bargaining chip that oppressed people can use, I would disagree, and use him as an example of someone who created leverage and incentive to broker greater freedoms for his people.

Brainwash said:

Why not simply quit the occupied territories and period?

You mean, Israel should quit the occupied territories? Outside of Jerusalem, I would agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, as someone who has lived in Israel and seen the particular dynamic of the hatred on both sides, I would hardly see that as an end to conflict. Can the "moderate" PLO, who aim to govern in the long-term, and whose very existence (according to their own charter) is hinged on the utter destruction of the existing state of Israel, control the even more radical elements of their constituency? I think not.

A cycle of mutual desperation leads suicide bombers to believe that murdering civilians, including women and children, will bring them closer to freedom. An innate inability to fight terrorism, to absorb continual acts of attrition, by an organized state, leads Israel to the conclusion that collective punishment, bulldozing houses, and cluster bombing will save their society. As long as these actors continue to work off of these premises, they will fail to achieve any peace.

Maybe non-violent protest would not work. Maybe the answer, on both sides, is alternatives to the desperation, to radicalism and murder, incentive to meet on a stronger common ground, as peoples that are sick of their friends and family ending up in the ground before their time. Maybe Israel, who possesses the money and power, should be providing these incentives to the Palestinians, helping them create an infrastructure in their territories, with the long-term goal of the formation of middle-class values within the Palestinian world.

I do not know if these things would work. But what is being done is not working, and many "liberals," a group that I generally consider myself a part of, are happy to cheer on the same heinous acts in this case, that they would decry as cold-blooded murder elsewhere. Most of them have learned about the conflict from books and newspapers, and are only exposed to polemic, rhetoric, and historically dubious, politically motivated points of view. Many conflate ideas regarding the current US "war on terror" with the Isra-Pal conflict, as an above poster, who insinuated specific racist or crusade-type motivation to the Israelis, a generally incorrect assessment of the type of hatred that I have heard expressed by that group.

Starfish: You're absolutely right. Muhammed himself has pointed out that the ink of the scholar is far more sacred than the blood of the martyr.

But you have to understand the even-handedness of media outrage, and in which direction media outrage goes. There have been numerous reports from many different human rights organizations (Israel's own B'Tselem being one of them) of Israelis using "human shields" in their operations. Here's a link: <link> (notice that I have to resort to quoting the British press here. I haven't found any American newspapers covering this sort of thing).

There have also been many reports of IDF members shooting children in the head at point blank range. There is no accident, there. And yet there is no media outrage.

What the Palestinians need to realize is that their terrorism is being used against them. Very few American people realize that Hamas is enshrouded by Israeli borders, and Israel controls a very hefty amount of their power and water. Earlier this year, Israel cut off power to the Gaza Strip, and the Gaza people are still suffering heavily from this. Many died due to starvation. It was a collective punishment.

The Hezbollah, I would say, falls into an entirely different realm than this sort of thing, because they are legitimately defending Lebanon. They have seats in the Lebanese government. Lebanon is a democracy and the Hezbollah is a part of their democracy. They do tend to take measures too far, but observe the rates of casualties between all Lebanese people and all Israelis, and the conclusion is obviously clear: the Israelis have far more blood on their hands. This is not to say that Hamas was not democratically elected, because it certainly was, but while Palestinians need to work on getting their internationally legal land back (pre-1967 borders), Lebanon needs to work on keeping their land from being stolen. Israel has already done this with the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and I would certainly not put it past them to steal whatever else they feel is rightfully theirs.

BTW, I'd just like to point out that I do not consider myself a leftist in any way. Just saying is all.

dcsmithie:

I hope you are right about the limited number of people celebrating in Lebanon. It is true that Hezbollah has not been good for the mainstream of Lebanese society. I certainly agree it is not fair (or helpful) to judge the many by the acts of the few.

I do recall that in 1991, there sure seemed to be many, many Palestinians cheering when scud missiles went by towards Israel. Kuwait kicked out 600,000 Palestinians because of the PA/PLO and general popular support of Saddam Hussein.

As to the mistakes of Israel, I don't agree that they are promptly ignored. In what I see in the MSM, and especially in lefty sites, they are endlessly repeated and exaggerated, and usually mentioned without context. I have no doubt that some of Israel's mistakes rise to the level of atrocities, but it is not the intent of the the government to wage terror on civilians. There are no regular firing of rockets into civilian areas. No suicide bombers in pizza joints. Sure, you can point to problems and civilian deaths caused by military actions, but the basic intent is defensive. Civilians are caught up because Hamas/PLO/Hezbollah/Islamic Jihad/etc. hide and launch attacks from dense civilian populations.

Until we get past the distinction that allows us to say killing a soldier is ok and killing a civilian is not- I do not believe we will solve this. Both sides wage war by the tactics they have available. A life is a life whether in the army or at a coffee shop. Persons killed by a military counter attack that was "not intended" to kill civilians is just as dead. A distinction without a difference.

I appreciate your concurrence, Izak, and your response.

BUT

However legitimate you see Hezbollah as being, and however you feel blame should be assigned in their recent conflict with Israel, I have an angle, and I would like to see you, who seems to be a political supporter of the Palestinians, condemn Samir Kuntar and his actions. Again:

"He shot the father, Danny Haran, to death in front of his daughter, Einat, then killed her by smashing her skull against a rock with a rifle-butt."

No excuses, no "but the Israelis are worse," nothing. This is not part of a struggle for freedom. This is cold-blooded murder. I would expect a reasonable supporter of the Israeli point of view to condemn the actions of Baruch Goldstein as murder, and nothing else, and I hear way too many excuses and justifications on behalf of suicide bombers, etc. from Palestinian sympathizers. Murder is murder on both sides. Remember: smashed a four-year olds head with a rifle butt against a rock.

@Pastorhorace:

You said:

"Until we get past the distinction that allows us to say killing a soldier is ok and killing a civilian is not- I do not believe we will solve this."

Neither will moral equivalence. Which is the only end to this kind of argument.

"Both sides wage war by the tactics they have available. A life is a life whether in the army or at a coffee shop."

And this is also unhelpful, and exactly what my above post was taking on. Murdering people in a coffee shop will not win the Palestinians anything. Right now it is the only leverage they have, but they will never, ever, get what they want this way, and the same goes for the Israelis, unless they engage in radically different and new ways with their "enemy."

Israel diverts money, water, food and medical supplies away from the Palestinians, who badly need it, because Hamas abuses the funds, and hoards the supplies. Israel must realize that they must circumvent Hamas and get these supplies to the Palestinians, because it is in their interest to do so. They think that by keeping them poor and under their thumb they are keeping the Pals down, but they only serve to radicalize and create more "enemies."

Starfish:

I'm not advocating this kind of behavior at all. It was not only the wrong thing to do, but as I've explained, it was strategically stupid. It was a terrible idea to do something like that!

But again, this is not the Hezbollah I'm condemning. It's the gentleman who committed the crime.

haha, listen! Don't attribute to me your conventional views on what some Marxist extremist would say, OK? 'Cos I'm not a Marxist, nor am I extreme! I hate revolution, I hate utopianism, I hate terrorism, I'm a firm believer in the rule of law, and I believe in respecting human dignity!

It's that simple!

Izak:

"I hate revolution, I hate utopianism, I hate terrorism, I'm a firm believer in the rule of law, and I believe in respecting human dignity!"

Hear, hear.

Sorry if it seemed that I was implying that I understood your viewpoint or opinions. Not my intention, I was also rallying against others here and in other venues of discussion.