Debating "Israel is legal or not" is completely theology.
Let's debate how to slove conflict.
Why Israel needs more weapon?
Because,as you know Israel bombed UN peace keeper base.
Israel wants Smart-weapon to avoid hitting civilian by mistake.
If I was an Hezbollah soldier,
1:Fire rocket from clouded town.
2:Israel does counter battery.
3:Call Al Jazeera and yell "Look!This is atrocity of Jew!"
At first,Hezbollah doesn't comply demilitarization with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions 1559.
"The best way to solve this conflict is Israel and Lebanon accept the suggestion of Annan U.N. Secretary General."by Massoud DAHER (Lebanese University/ ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies)
Any way we should read more articles about middle east.
Al jazeera is best media of arab nations.
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
Haarets.com is written by easy english.
http://www.haaretz.com/

Originally Posted by Englander2

There are various ways to discontinue conflicts, one is to destroy the opposition completely, (this is in the Middle-East practically impossible). Another, less bloody is to come to an agreement (why have both sides refused to do so, in this case?) The worst ,to my mind, (as in WW1), to keep going so long that both sides get tired of fighting and need a few years to recover before starting again. But that is history once more, and so I shall not delve deeper into this possibility out of respect for my learned friends!

Englander, you are forgetting a few points:

1. In a book by Weigley, the author argues that "annihilation" defines the American way of war. Another historian has tinkered with this concept a little. Grenier's new book argues that the American concept of war essentially takes war to the people...extirmination is the name of the game: "early Americans created a military tradition that accepted, legitimized, and encouraged attacks upon and the destruction of noncombatants, villages, and agricultural resources. Most often, early Americans used the tactics and techniques of petite guerre in shockingly violent campaigns to achieve their goals of conquest. In the frontier wars between 1607 and 1814, Americans forged two elements – unlimited war and irregular war – into their first way of war". This concept can be seen in strategic bombing, nuclear war, Agent Orange, etc. In terms of international relations, Americans do not think like Europeans...negotiated peace is something alien.

2. This mentality is a toughie. It leads to the view that everybody else wants to annihilate them. The Indians, as seen in popular culture, were wild savages who had to be eradicated. In fact, all of America's enemies are portrayed in a similar light. This bizarre tendency often leads to developments of truly Orwellian dimensions. The Soviet Union is a classic example. During WWII, "Uncle Joe's" troops were portrayed as innocent and noble men fighting honourably against German monsters. All of that changed after Washington took a look at Soviet activities in 1945. The policymakers remembered why they had hated Bolshevism during the 1930s. The media returned to the concept of a Soviet menace after 1947. All of this is bizarre. It also explains views of Islam.

3. The Treaty of Versailles (the British attempt to balance sane politics with the French desire to destroy Germany) failed in part because the Americans did not support it. The US did not even sign the treaty. During the 1930s, Roosevelt then starting "bitching" that Hitler broke with Versailles...a treaty his government never even officially supported. After 1941, Roosevelt presented a view of war that literally shocked Churchill and Stalin -- unconditional surrender. Roosevelt wanted to deal with the failure of Versailles and in the process offered a normal American concept. The Casablanca declaration removed the need to communicate with German resistance groups and therefore represented a revolution in European politics. Unconditional surrender (and total occupation) is the American way. The enemy is treated as some kind of subhuman until they accept American domination without question. Hence Germany's resurrection from mortal enemy to dependable ally between 1945-1947. Hence the current treatment of Iraq.

American scholars, from Kennan onwards, have long lamented these tendencies. They remove the American ability to discuss matters with opponents and they in fact lead to constant reclassification of states as friend or enemy. The examples are numerous. Pre-Ayatollah Iran was virtuous. The new Iran was not. Saddam Hussein was great while he invaded Iran. He was a tyrant after he invaded Kuwait. All of this, from Kennan's perspective, is done because the American elite doubts the intellectual abilities of the masses. They are considered too stupid to understand international relations. I do not agree with this interpretation. I think that the American frontier mentality leads down this path.

Still, I prefer the general essence of "war of annihilation" (with changes) to that of German pacifism. German pacifism avoids any responsibility whatsoever.

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogu...1108990&ss=exc

sandy
You sure are correct when you stated that "Al jazeera is best media of arab nations".

They are definitely the propaganda arm of the Arab terrorist groups that are targeting western countries and democratically elected countries in the Middle East. I would NOT generally advocate militarily attacking a news (or) media outlet ... but ... if I were in control of military operations, I would consider Al Jazeera to be a legitimate target ... their actions speak volumes about propaganda and conspiracy with terrorist organizations. Their hate mongering of anything to do with western civilization is tantamount to an admission that they are the propaganda arm of the forces that would attack and destroy democracy.

to Eglander2:
"To boris116 question, "Why I have an idea that your sources are anti-Semitic through and through?" and the statement, "This kind of literature that makes outrageous claims is good only for people who WANTS to believe in it."
Most of the articles mentioned are/were used for High school education in Germany. If we accept the statement of "Chief Bones": - Israel has chosen the German army for this role. Olmert - and, "There is at the moment no nation that is behaving in a more friendly way toward Israel than Germany", it is obvious that boris116 has read none of the above, but allows himself to give a judgement on the same."

Sure I have not!(I don't know German and don't have access to your bookshelf).
However, I can't believe your source about 1000 Jews in Palestine, that's why I have asked...
I don't believe that the German schools use such literature as the source. (I mean here just a source for this number - you can claim that I disparage the entire list you have mentioned - they might be good sources for everything else!)
Also, I:
1. didn't mention any judgment, just suspicion
2. Said nothing about current German state and German Army

also, the source I have mentioned before(http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm) and it is available for you to look for yourself, discusses the same topic of the numbers of the Jews and Arabs and difficulties in their estimates.
However, the Arabs themselves couldn't make the Jews population lower than 40 000 in the end of XIX century.
That's why I don't trust your sources!

Al jazeera might play terrorist videos, but they also report on the israeli side of the war as well. Believe or not, they have problems from westerners and arabs because of what they show. Besides, they're privately owned and have little political insentive to play their stories since they're trying to be like CNN or BBC in the region.

Originally Posted by WarMachine

Al jazeera might play terrorist videos, but they also report on the israeli side of the war as well. Believe or not, they have problems from westerners and arabs because of what they show. Besides, they're privately owned and have little political insentive to play their stories since they're trying to be like CNN or BBC in the region.

There are other media outlets in the Middle East ... but ... Al Qaeda continues to deal exclusely with Al Jazeera - that speaks volumes to the Western Countries. On top of that, Al Jazeera never seems to have any trouble finding an AlQaeda spokesperson when they are looking for a response to a Western story line.

As with boris116, I am also not prepared to believe everything that is said. (Remember the reasons given for the Iraq War?) However everyone of us has the chance to do research for him/herself.
On the longer term, the question is whether political problems can be dealt with adequately by military means.
I personally do not think they can. The symptoms may seem possibly to be removed, but the illness itself remains. Maybe I am old-fashioned, but during my days in the forces, we were told our duty was to defend life, not destroy it, as is being done in Lebanon. A war clearly not declared in accordance with the Hague Land War Order.
The borders of Israel, exactly defined United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 have been ignored. Israel certainly has the right to live in peace and protect its citizens within the same. The root of this problem however are the confiscated this areas. Looking at some of the posts on this thread, an impression is given, that most contributors take the side of the occupation forces, rather than that of the oppressed communities living under occupation.
This would be a complete contradiction to the statement made by President Truman on March 25th 1948. (Can be seen on internet, by clicking into the Avalon Project at Yale Law School).

E2
I can't contradict the contents of some of your posts ... however ... most of what you are posting presupposes that there is NO ACTIVE FIGHTING going on between the concerned parties.

Where the rub comes in, is the fact that you have a number of terrorist groups in the region who ABSOLUTELY DO NOT want peace. Peace means that Israel will be allowed to go about their every-day business - this is anathema to these terrorists. The ONLY thing they would be willing to accept, would be Israel's demise. Nothing else would be acceptable to them.

The deep seated hatred and the history of conflict that goes back for thousands of years, color every facet of the confrontations that occur. As long as Hezbollah and Hamas are allowed to be armed and do NOT renounce their goal of annihilating Israel, a lasting peace will continue to be IMPOSSIBLE. Short periods of relative quiet allow the terrorists groups to regroup, rearm and recruit more fighters. They then come back in even greater carnage ... the terrorists not only target civilians, they will hide behind and amongst civilians to make reprisal even more difficult.

The plan to create a buffer zone patrolled by 'neutral' troops will accomplish exactly one thing ... it will put more terrorist targets (neutral troops), on the ground and in reach of the cowards that make up the terrorist strike groups.

Peace presupposes that all parties want peace ... the last thing that Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist groups want is peace. By the very nature, peace would put them out of business and halt their aim of erasing Israels presence from the earth ... other groups have similar aims with other groups or countries.

Until the rest of the world can get together and attack terrorism everywhere it is found, a lasting world peace will continue to be just a prayer.

Originally Posted by Englander2

The borders of Israel, exactly defined United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 have been ignored. Israel certainly has the right to live in peace and protect its citizens within the same. The root of this problem however are the confiscated this areas.

Would you believe, if I tell you that the peacefull-minded Arab neigbours are directly responsible for what borders they have with Israel?
How?
By trying to destroy Israel completely and miserably failing in their attempts.
I were the Arabs who have not accepted the UN resolution about the Israel creation and started the War in 1948.
It were the Arabs, who tried again and again...with the help of the all Jew-haters of the world.
And still trying...

Are you equating anti-semitism with anti-israeli sentiments? If someone hates egypt does it mean they hate all muslims because egypt is an islamic nation? You can be the best of friends with jews and dislike israel because israel is a state that has national responsibilities which are at ends with many people around the world. Now if you meant that a person is anti-semitic anyway and wants to do harm to israel then that makes sense, but rarely do you see that in entire nations other than the ones around the mid east.

But i think the confiscated territory being referred to is the golan heights and the palestinian areas which israel still has control of. Golan is not part of israel because no country in the world recognizes it as such and should be given back to syria but israel won't because of the water supplies there and the handful of settlers as well. Same thing for the west bank which has a quarter million israelis living there and israel controls most of the water in that region as well.

If israel doesn't want to worry about "defending" itself anymore, then serious talk has to be made about letting go of these areas and working out arrangements to share the resources in those areas.

I agree israel was wronged in 1948, but they did preemtively attack in 1956 and 1967 which led to an arab attack in 1973. A lot of the problems aren't solely the fault of arabs, israel does take a lot of blame as well.