Hezbollah chief vows never to recognize Israel

The leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, vowed on Friday that his Shi'ite militant organization would never recognize Israel and that no Arab state had the right to do so either.

"No one has the right to recognize this entity or approve its legitimacy," the black-turbaned Nasrallah said in a televised address to ceremonies marking Quds (Jerusalem) Day, an annual occasion created by Hezbollah's patron Iran to show support for the Palestinians.

Nasrallah's comments came hours after President Barack Obama's special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, was unable to bridge wide gaps between Israelis and Palestinians on the terms of renewing peace talks.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115656.html

they'd fire his ass and he'd have to go out and get a real job.

...Seriously? What is the big deal here? if some goober doesn't recognize Israel, does israel not exist? Somehow China and Taiwan both manage to exist while pretending the other doesn't. Same with Lichtenstein and Slovakia. And the fact that neither Japan nor South Korea recognize North Korea doesn't mean North Korea isn't there.

:shrug: Demands for recognition always strike me as a little silly, whether it's Israel or Sealand.

Of course it is a bad deal, it means he never intends to stop trying to destroy Israel, which means according to him peace is impossible.

or is it a "just sayin" type thing?

Provided that he stays good to his word and will never recognize Israel, which isn't necessarily true either.

Now, I know you're not saying that. It doesn't need to be said, however. You and I both know guys in his position don't exactly retire to spend more time with family, do they?

The man could be removed from within the organization, he could step down to let someone else take over, just because groups like that in the middle east tend to have violent succession does not mean that is always the case or that is what I'm advocating.

Apologize for his hurtful comments and step down, right?

Yeeeeah okay.

Frankly, I don't want anyone to die, but Hezbollah needs to come to terms with Israel's existence for there to be peace, as you said yourself Israel isn't going anywhere.

Also? Better cooks. But I digress.

"Recognizing Israel" is a tricky thing. Where is Israel? Can you draw it on a map? There's the Mediterranean coastline, and the triangle of land between Egypt and Jordan. But where does Israel's border lay with the two Palestinian territories? Or Syria? It's border with the eastern portion of Lebanon is where, exactly? Are the colonies "Israel" or are they not? Are the Jew-only roads and highways part of Israel, even when they're in territory generally accepted as "Palestinian"? For that matter, what's the Jerusalem situation looking like? Who has claims on the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee?

So if tomorrow, hezbollah were to say "Screw it, we cede, we recognize Israel"... What exactly would they be recognizing? Does Israel get to decide where and what Israel is? Or does the party doing the recognizing get to quantify their recognition? Could Hezbollah say for instance, "We recognize Israel, but only within the UN borders of 1947"? Or if they didn't, would Israel simply assume recognition of all its land claims as well?

See, this is why "recognizing Israel" doesn't work as a precondition to talks. There's simply too many vagaries involved.

At the most benign, it's a simple formality, a "wipe your feet before coming to the table" sort of thing. At the other end (Which, given the politics is also the more likely end...) this is a demand that the other negotiating party cede its own points and claims before ever coming to the table. You know, like what Bush tried with Iran.

and you can't negotiate with a enemy that insists they will never see you as valid and will never accept your existence, You have to understand that.

There is nothing conditional or negotiable about "never", If hezbollah takes that stance then there isn't anything Israel can do to advance peace within any framework. Hezbollah openly admits that nothing beyond a ceasefire akin to the current situation is possible with that statement.

If Hezbollah said "We are willing to negotiate and come to a agreement that recognizes Israel's right to exist" that would be huge progress and a starting point for peace that doesn't commit Hezbollah to laying down their arms, but right now "Never" is putting the nail in the coffin of peace talks that never truly even began.

The question is, does Israel actually want recognition? Or is "recognition" simply a stonewall tactic, as most "preconditions" tend to be?

It's an important question. You see, Israel makes an unreasonable precondition - and with the issues I outlined above, non-negotiable, immediate recognition is awfully unreasonable - and then when the other side refuses to meet that precondition, Israel then gets to pretend to be butthurt over it for the cameras. Aside from the obvious propaganda value this has (look at you chomping at it for instance!) it also prevents Israel's worst-case scenario; a sudden breakout of peace (see my post below).

Nasrallah is, basically, calling Israel's bluff here. He's not simply dodging the precondition, he's stomping on it. While that's not bad propaganda for Israel, it's pretty good for hezbollah, too - "Our guy stands up for our principles" sort of thing.

So, here's the thing. Contrary to your beliefs, "never" is a pretty meaningless word in politics, and almost always carries a silent "under present conditions" along with it. That is... this position can be negotiated, softened up. If Israel is actually interested in its precondition being met... it will talk with Hezbollah about this. This is, of course, what Hezbollah wants, to negotiate the precondition to negotiation.

Or. Or Israel can simply blow it off. Doing so will essentially be like saying "we were just fucking with you, anyway, dudes," exposing Israel's non-interest in a peace process. While not exactly a coup for Hezbollah, it's very good grist for the propaganda mill.

Welcome to the world of politics, Kurska. This situation has far more going on than "This side is pure righteous good, that side is unadulterated heartless evil"

Hopefully, either way the whole world will have learned a valuable lesson - preconditions are always barriers to negotiations and thus always barriers to peace.

Of course there is some super secret meaning to that, excusing the undiplomatic warmonger statement, that actually proves that Israel is indeed the warmonger for asking the otherside to say the terrible statement of "I one day might not want to destroy you".

You're ridiculous.

Eat more fish, it's good for the memory.

goals to kill as many Israeli Jews as possible. See how that dishonest and despicable crap works, dear?

Of course, I'm not calling for Israeli Jews to be rendered into a "non-factor" either, am I? Nor am I calling for them to be removed, am I?

Nice try Cali. You're still not very good at this.

I don't think you even had a fucking point. All I saw was some random gibberish with no connection to anything, that some silly goober on the internet thought was an excellent "gotcha!" post.

Maybe you should discover exactly what it means to have a point, apply this learning in practical use, and then get back to me about having missed it, hmmm?

That's a dear.

He's the head of a Lebanese Nationalist militia that is inimical with Israel due both to Israel's two invasions and continued occupation of Lebanese territory, and due to alliances made with the PLO, founded from the ashes of Israel's ethnic cleansing of Arab territory in the Levant.

Care to place odds on Hezbolla ever "destroying Israel"? I keep hearing this, about whoever is the bad guy of the weak. "They want to destroy Israel!" - Yeah, so good for them. Good luck pulling it off, right?

I know it'll be a shock for you, but Israel is not Olive Oyl and the Arabs are not Bludo. Israel isn't going anywhere, and if it does, it ain't going to be from "The Righteous Army of the people's Madhi of West jerusalem Street" or whoever pops up on hte radar next.

Hezbollah is a aggressive militia that has the stated goal of destroying Israel, the only reason they can't do this is beause the IDF is a extremely powerful well funded and well armed military force.

Israel has plenty to fear from Hezbollah, especially if the Israelis ever want to live a peaceful quite life that doesn't require them pumping huge percent of their GDP into their army and not having to draft all their children at 18 for 3 years.

Why, oh tell me why, does Hezbollah want to destroy Israel? Does this goal have an origin? If so, what is that origin, and upon review of it, is the goal still unwarranted (granted, it is unreasonable)? For that matter, what could the reason be that so many other militias in the area share this goal? Does it have a common origin, or did they each arrive to the decision independently?

It's a history question, so I admittedly am not expecting anything resembling a coherent answer - this is the I/P forum, where history doesn't exist, after all. But please, feel free to surprise me.

Now, passing the pop quiz, something you said stuck out at me...

"if the Israelis ever want to live a peaceful quite life that doesn't require them pumping huge percent of their GDP into their army"

Now, barring the ratfuck "settlers", I do believe most Israelis want peace, just like any sane person would. Here's the thing though - Their politicians don't. Peacetime is bad for hawkish politicians, and very few of Israel's leaders have any dovishness going on. As I'm sure you well know, Democracy isn't all that democratic - the people can want whatever htye want, there's no guarantee their leaders will grant it - if you prefer, you can look at Palestine for the same situation.

Now, the second part I bolded... Israel's defense budget for 2009 is $13,300,000,000 USD. Thirteen billion dollars is a nice chunk of change - Granted, it's not the US' six hundred and thirty six billion... but hey, Israel has fewer countries to topple, less colonies to maintain. Now on top of that... What do you think the money looks like for Israel's private defense sector? I can't find that figure, but I can't imagine it's tiny. Plus there's the un-enumerated but admitted US (and other international) funding and "gifts" going to Israel as well

That's a lot of money being made off this situation, isn't it, Kurska? Oh yes, someone's going to the bank even while rockets fly and missiles retaliate. It's not Hezbollah - and it's not the people of Israel, either. There's interest in keeping the money moving, just like there's interest in keeping hawks in their seats.

The key to Israel's peace and security is in Tel Aviv, not in Lebanon or Gaza or Syria.

I don't know, why don't you ask those arab armies that Invaded Israel a day after it was born?

The rest of your posts is some crazed ramble about how apparently the thing keeping the conflict going isn't ethnic and religious strife dating back thousands of years, but solely Israeli politicians and Israeli arms companies. This hardly deserves to be addressed, but you think one of those myriad of dovish left wing governments Israel has elected through the years would have nipped that in the bud when they came to power. You know it seems like this conflict might be more complicated then "Evil multinational arms companies".

"I don't know, why don't you ask those arab armies that Invaded Israel a day after it was born?"

That's an entirely different subject, one that I am very certain you are extremely ignorant of. if you like, we can get into it, but I'd rather stick to Hezbollah for the moment if you don't mind. Hezbollah had no part at all in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, of course - I'm going to hazard a guess that you're fully aware of that fact. So then what commonality is there between my question and your answer?

Well, you and I know, but I'll clue in the spectators. Arabs. You're connecting Hezbollah with hte Arab alliance that attacked ISrael, even though race is the only connection between the two situations. Your answer to my question, taken out of your comfortable couching, is that hezbollah wants to destroy Israel, because they're Arabs and that's just what Arabs do.

And you're calling this complicated! You make it all sound so very simple!

Since you've decided to put your ignorance on display even while utterly evading the question posed to you, I'll fill you in. Hezbollah was founded in 1982 after Israel invaded and occupied southern Lebanon, and threw the weight of its military behind the Lebanese Phalangists in the civil war. Hezbollah's stated goal of destroying Israel stems directly from Israel's blatant attempt to destroy Lebanon. Neither side is that reasonable, but I can understand where Hezbollah would be coming from. Given that Israel apparently hasn't backed down from its destructive policies, there's really no incentive for Hezbollah to do so, either. It's a political Mexican Standoff.

And with your second paragraph.... Ethnic and religious strife dating back thousands of years? Ugh. Are you next going to tell me that the place was a barren wasteland until the Israelis "made the desert bloom" Oh, oh, how about how the Nakba couldn't have happened, because nobody lived in the territory anyway? I'm sure you've got the full sack of idiot myths and are chowing down on them like motherfucking M&M's.

It's been a little over a hundred years, actually, and only took its current form in 1948 - prior to that it was your basic immigrant / nativist strife, with a big dash of the usual British "divide and conquer" strategy

And of course it's more complicated than multinational arms companies (I don't recall ever using the term "evil"). There's also Israeli arms and private defense companies, hawkish politicians and doveish politicians who want to look hawkish, there's American interests, there's all sorts of money being made off perpetuating the conflict. Hell, there's even the nonprofits - the crazy fucking American christians who desperately hope for Armageddon. Fuck, if you want to blame someone for this, blame those corpse-worshiping freaks, they're the ones who started the whole mess in the first place with their quest to perfect all the Jews. In fact, that's about hte only religious angle in this whole mess, otherwise it's mostly property disputes.

Now understand, I don't hold the Israelis exclusively to blame - everyone's been pretty fucking idiotic on all the sides involved. The problem is... Israel holds all the power, and so gets to bear most of the responsibility. Can't really point at a gazan family of three, formerly ten, living in the rubble of their apartment, and tell them to get their shit together if they want peace, y'know?

where to start.....

I'll make this short:
Israel holds all the power...

the power is held by the arab states all involved in various ways all using the Palestinians and Israel for their own political needs.



for example: ...you gaza family of 3 is not just a victim of the larger arab politics including hizaballa, Iran, Egypt etc but of their own voting (US pressure).

Hamas for example is busy being trained in Lebanon (hizballa, iran) funded partially by saudi arabia, weapons via syria. Of course egypt sometimes opens their border to gaza, but also lets the tunnels exist for probably an agreement to keep the sinai quiet (just a guess), keeping the gazans locked up.....of which given the lack of noise from the arab world, seems to be a general agreement. Of course we do have the "voting" of hamas to have won the election and their subsequent coup to take over gaza, leaving your "family of 3 (i guess the original 7 members were fatah and executed by hamas) as victims of their own tribe.

leaving us with a very fanatic, miserable life in gaza....all thanks to the larger arab world and the power they hold and use.

the conclusion?

The greater arab world could say no to training hamas, egypt could open up their borders, funds could pour in and life in gaza would improve 1,000%- but they don't. and its has nothing to do with israels "power".


_____

next "teaching post"....a bit later, hizballa and why they need israel to occupy S. Lebanon, parts of Beruit and parts of W. Lebanon. and why Hizballa and an Iranian alliance is not about israel but about power, the arab world....and what it takes to get there.

"That's an entirely different subject, one that I am very certain you are extremely ignorant of. if you like, we can get into it, but I'd rather stick to Hezbollah for the moment if you don't mind. Hezbollah had no part at all in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, of course - I'm going to hazard a guess that you're fully aware of that fact. So then what commonality is there between my question and your answer?"

Look, you've clearly missed the point so let me lay it out for you. The commonality is that Hezbollah sees the "Occupation" of arab land as unacceptable and happens to see eye to eye with how those arab armies felt when they tried to snuff Israel out in it's cradle. The very idea of Israel is what is replusive to hezbollah, the same way Israel was replusive to those arab armies. If Hezbollah was still only interested in fighting the Israeli Occupation of Lebanon they wouldn't have been launching cross border raids AFTER Israel completely withdrew from Lebanon.

"And with your second paragraph.... Ethnic and religious strife dating back thousands of years? Ugh. Are you next going to tell me that the place was a barren wasteland until the Israelis "made the desert bloom" Oh, oh, how about how the Nakba couldn't have happened, because nobody lived in the territory anyway? I'm sure you've got the full sack of idiot myths and are chowing down on them like motherfucking M&M's."

Okay you're really going off on a crazed tangent.

The conflict has it's roots in
-The founding of jewish kingdoms thousands of years ago that serve the as the foundation for the zionist dream
-The roman scattering of jews
-early tension between jewish and Muslim communities during the spread of islam.
-The latter conquest of the area by muslim, making it in many people's opinion Muslim land
-The Crusades that many arabs still link to the modern state of Israel
-The lack of any indepedence under the ottoman empire for the local arabs

There are plenty of other events that lead up to today, the idea that the conflict sprung up in 1948 without any historical background is just strange.

" In fact, that's about hte only religious angle in this whole mess, otherwise it's mostly property disputes."

You honestly think that this conflict is in no ways tied to both modern religious Judaism and modern Islam?

You're now trying to muddy the point to try to evade my conclusion about it.

"Hezbollah sees the "Occupation" of arab land as unacceptable"

Ergo, Arabs should just accept the occupation of Arab lands?

"when they tried to snuff Israel out in it's cradle."

Cradle? Israel was created, you know, not born. A better analogy would be one of those plastic blister packages that you practically need a chainsaw to open.

"The very idea of Israel is what is replusive to hezbollah, the same way Israel was replusive to those arab armies."

Can you tell me why?

"If Hezbollah was still only interested in fighting the Israeli Occupation of Lebanon they wouldn't have been launching cross border raids AFTER Israel completely withdrew from Lebanon."

Israel hasn't completely withdrawn, Kurska. It's still occupying the Shebaa region of Lebanon. But in light of that initial post, I suppose the Arab untermensch should just accept this occupation, too.

"Okay you're really going off on a crazed tangent."

I'm not sure about crazed - your threshold must be awfully low - but I do tend to get tangental when presented with a mythology that some ignorant bigot thinks justifies their ignorant bigotry. You might as well be telling me about "mud people" as far as I'm concerned on this point.

"The founding of jewish kingdoms thousands of years ago that serve the as the foundation for the zionist dream"

Which version of the "Zionist Dream?" There's a lot of variety there.

"The roman scattering of jews"

The Gallic ancestors in my mother's side of the family want you to cry them a river. Question though. How is this used as justification for the reinvention of Israel, but Israel's scattering of Arabs isn't a basis for a Palestinian state? Don't bring up war, the Jews were doing some pretty violent shit against the Romans at the time - you know the origin of the word "Zealot" of course?

early tension between jewish and Muslim communities during the spread of islam.

Do you know what the word "tension" means? If so, are you just reading off someone else's list that you have failed to research?

The latter conquest of the area by muslim, making it in many people's opinion Muslim land

Sort of like how if I converted to christianity, my house would be a "Christian's house". It wasn't a change in population, you know.

The Crusades that many arabs still link to the modern state of Israel

Well, the crusades did result in European foreigners conquering the area and imposing rulership by immigrant nations formed and populated by west Europeans.

The lack of any indepedence under the ottoman empire for the local arabs

...And the promise of an independent nation if they would side with the British in WW1 against the Ottomans. I suppose it's their fault for trusting the British, really...

The idea that the conflict sprung up in 1948 without any historical background is just strange.

Yes it is. if you'll check, that's not what I said. How you managed to fuck that up with the post right in front of you, i'll never know. i mean, it's not like you could be being dishonest, right?

You honestly think that this conflict is in no ways tied to both modern religious Judaism and modern Islam?

Neither side is fighting this for their religion. As in most other conflicts, Religion is being used for a veneer of justification. "God says it's okay" is pretty popular for all sides in every conflict.

The thing is... it's not really a religious conflict. That is propaganda - American propaganda, to be exact. It's a meme used to justify America not doing a fucking thing in the region, playing off most American's feelings that religion is somehow untouchable. As is the idiotic "they've been fighting forever" meme that you're trying to use here.

it's a territorial conflict, plain and simple.

However, from the Christian side... there really are people hoping that the Muslims and Jews slaughter hte fuck out of each other, so that jesus will come back, kill all the jews (and probably all the muslims too - they weren't around when John wrote that crazy thing) and then annihilate everyone else the apocalyptic death cultists dislike. Thgeir angle IS the only actual religious one in this conflict, and boy, is it a nutty one.

Recognition is important. Imagine if your landlord or mortgage holder stopped recognizing your right to occupy the territory you occupy. You're there, but you have no right to it, no legitimacy.

Now imagine that the government says it no longer recognizes your legitimacy here (or wherever you are). Taken to the limit, it means that you have no right to file a suit against somebody, nor right to police protection. You get sexually assaulted, well, it's not like you're recognized as existing by the police or the courts. They may acknowledge you exist--after all, there you are--but then, with the next breath, say you have no legitimacy, you have no rights, and, well, you have no right to exist.

If you have no right to exist, then anybody who causes you to stop existing has not done anything wrong. In fact, if you have no right to living space, it means that there's a proper owner or possessor of that space with a vested interest in evicting you.

China and Taiwan have historically been obsessed with the other's existence, and each has been equally obsessed with the other's lack of legitimacy. In other words, China has not yet attacked Taiwan because either the domestic or political context hasn't allowed it, or because the cost in materiel and manpower was deemed excessive. For another case of not a country's right to exist, consider how Russia and Germany dealt with Poland. Or how China dealt with Tibet.

The Palestinians know this, and they want Israel to acknowledge their right to exist as a country.

What we got here is the I/P impasse.

The pro-Israel robots delight in point out the faults of the other side in order to distract attention from the bigger flaws of their side.

What the fuck?

Whose setting is stuck on "Hate-Israel"

:rofl:

But go ahead, continue on the present path, which will bring about the end of Israel. Don't come crying to the rest of the world when you face the blowback of the Occupation.

One would think that reason and a sense of justice would prevail, particularly during the High Holidays, but you guys are so into the "Israel-right-or-wrong" that not even a succession of Yom Kippurs will knock some sense into you.

But I don't think (like many DUer's) that the present situation in Israel/Palestine is 100% the fault of Israel. And I don't believe that the Palestinians are victims of the "cruel Israeli regime" They push just as hard.

I believe that that there should be two states. Israel should remove the settlers and Palestine should make-up 90-95% of the West Bank. Israel should keep 5-10 as forward areas against potential anti-Israeli Arab aggression. (Which does exist mightily in the Middle East) No ROR but monetary and economic compensation. Neither side gets Jerusalem, it becomes a UN-mandated city and is the spiritual capital of both nations. (I would like the UN to step up and get that right) Israel should not have to return to the '67 borders. They are indefensible. The only way the Golan Heights could be returned to Syria is if the region is completely demilitarized and occupied by a UN peacekeeping force for at least 50 years.

The Israelis need to shrug off their right-wing tendencies while the Palestinians need to stop being pawns of other arab states and renounce the terror attacks that will never gain them anything. (In virtually all other situations, their tactics would be effective. The guerrilla attacks needle the occupying army till they go home. Well, the Israelis aren't going anywhere under attack. They will keep hitting back harder.)

Neither side would or should walk away by giving up everything for peace.

there would be peace.

That offer has been made before and rejected.

100% of pre-'67 land will not be returned.

There will not be "right of return for millions of Arab refugees".

But there could be peace, a true and viable peace.

It's been offered.

And been rejected.

The settlements should stop,a nd the Palestinians should accept an offer of peace.

But they don't only want "occupied land" of the WB, they want all of Israel.

And there will never be peace, not ever, as long as there are those demands.

I fear that Hamas and P/Arab leadership do. But I think the common Palestinian on the street would jump on this deal and vote for leader who would if they would a democracy. I hope there be an Israeli government that can reign in the settlers and a Palestinian government that isn't corrupt/fundie/owned by SA/Jordan/Syria/Iran.

That's the only way to get rid of the settlements. Obliterate the whole lot of them. Why do such thing, you will ask. What a horrible thing to say, you will say.

The harsh reality that we must accept in America is that no Israeli government, regardless of ideological makeup, can dismantle the settlements without triggering a civil war. Now, you may engage in Obama is the Messiah wishful thinking all you want, but if Obama really understands Lincoln, he should know what a horrible toll a civil war is on any country. As much as I hate the settlement movement and their stupid religious ideology of exceptionalism, I do not wish for a civil war, and you shouldn't either.

Unless you are prepared to bomb every settlement in Judea and Samaria, killing everyone living in them (who will certainly refuse to be evacuated before the bombing commences), then you have to look at other alternatives to the I/P conflict. These alternatives do not include the 2-state solution.

A single bi-national state, a secular state is one alternative. The other alternative is for Israel to become 100-percent Jewish, driving everyone else out of Judea and Samaria. There are problems in both alternatives, but as Americans, we are going to have to live with one or the other, and we better get used to it.

Time for America to withdraw from the region and stop enabling one side or the other in this tragic conflict.

What if there was a one-for-one territorial exchange whereby Israel gives land that is currently part of Israel to the new Palestinian state in exchange for land that currently houses the majority of the settlers who live fairly close to the Green Line.

How would you feel about an arrangement like that?

The settlement movement has already gained the upper hand on this, and it is too late for anything other than the two alternatives I have outlined.

As an American, I am resigned to either of such outcomes, and my country should butt out.

If the US cuts ties with Israel, it will embolden attacks on Israel from all corners. Which will force to Israel to seriously amp up it's responses.

You're still absolving the Palestinians of their blame. If Israel yanked out the settlers and gave in to all demands, they would be seen as weak by Hamas and the other legions of Palestinian right-winger and fundie fanatics. And foreign Arab government who have always used the Palestinians for their own interests.

The one state solution will never happen, that is one way to ensure a Israeli or Palestinian civil war. Neither side wants it.

America will never return to "Blessed Isolation" especially where the Middle East is concerned. That ship sailed half a century ago. We should work towards positive ends that benefit both sides.

And each side are readier to see the faults of the other side than of their own. It's not confined to either of the sides.

It is a deranged way of thinking that leads to those sorts of accusations.

In any case, I would not really call anyone on either side of this forum a 'robot'.

Has become a satellite state for Iran and Syria. Hezbollah is simply an Iranian proxy.

After the 2006 Lebanon war, and the utter destruction that came with it, Iran poured billions into Hamas restructuring its military. After the Jews got rid of Imad Mughniyah, Iran has been sending in its own military to train Hezbollah militants.

Remember - it only takes one election for tyrants to stay in power. Palestinians had a democratic election and voted in a terror organization. You think Hamas will give up its power in the next election if they lose the vote? Hell no.

Hezbollah also lost a majority of seats in the Lebanese political system, but it has yet to honor the vote and is still instrumental in defining foreign policy and sovereignty.

The USA and Britain would never tolerate this. You guys fight wars thousands of miles away, eliminate civilizations that never posed a threat to you, kill millions, and you have the audacity to bash Israel? LOLZ! I guess when you're in another continent watching Doctor Who or Dancing with the Stars it's easy to get lost in a false-bubble of peace.

the people on DU are here to a large extent *because* we are strongly opposed to the policies of our countries fighting wars thousands of miles away, and killing innocent people. This is one small forum of DU. Most of us post more on other forums.

And in my case, I'm not an 'Israel-basher'; I'm a basher of the leadership on both sides of the conflict.

ETA: Or was your post intended as a reply to the OP, rather than to me?

So we can agree that nobody here, much less the Israeli side, is "robots"

:D

Which leads to the interesting philosophical question: would it be possible to invent a wonderful robot to solve the I/P problem? Someone could write a science fiction novel about that...