digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Italy won't send troops if Israel "keeps shooting"

go.reuters.com — Italy, which is expected to lead a U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon, will be unable to send troops if Israel "keeps shooting," Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema said on Tuesday. "From Israel, we expect a renewed effort, this time truly binding, to respect the ceasefire," D'Alema said.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • SSWolfensteinSS, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23to "stop shooting" does not paint the real picture. the Attempted blockade is in place and the(us made) israeli air planes keep flying into Lebenese airspace. the attempted kidnapping in that failed raid in the bakeeka vallay.and fire fights from israeli troops still in Lebenon.The Arabs should just wait for the united Nations?yeah okay !
    • szelij, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17The main reason why France backtracked on its agreement to lead and send troops is because it doesn't want to be in a military quicksand again. It got hit in Lebanon before, and it doesn't want to be hit again.

    • triath, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11I like the whole "(us made)" in there, since it's clearly relevant.
    • nox327, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17say what, there is still shooting going on over there. Hmmmm I guess the Ramsey thing is more important from anything that is going on there.

      Every time the Ramsey name is pronounced I want to throw something at the TV,
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Thats why you should stop watching tv...
    • ModernTenshi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4You shot me! You shot me in the arm!
    • billybillybeers, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20The reason the rest of the world has such a different view of Israel than us, is because the
      U.S. media is Israeli occupied territory...
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=inXHPImuc9M
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Did you hear about the new Italian tank? It has six gears in reverse.
    • SSWolfensteinSS, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8the reason why its relevant(american made) is because people get mad when you supple arms to be used against them in barbaric attacks and may hold the manufacturer of them weapons liable. plus Arabian already know Israel (the welfare state ) without the support of American and Germany,Brits, France is no match and would dry up and blow away like the desert sand.
    • kolobcreek, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6Hmmm. the GERMANS, FRENCH, and ITIALIANS. If I was a jew these guys would not be at the top of the list of people I want watching my back.
    • deut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@triath

      Well it is sort of ironic that the USA sold a load of missiles to Israel to bomb Lebanon with and now the USA is pledging to give Lebanon $230m in reconstruction aid.

      It's nothing to do with being anti-USA, it just seems a little bizarre that's all.


      sources: BBC News:
      Flights: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5218036.stm
      USA Aid: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5271810.stm
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@deut

      It's because GW doesn't have the strength of character to pick a side.
  • Reved2k, on 10/12/2007, -7/+31Considering what happened to the last UN outpost and the UN base at Qana 96 , they have every right to be concerned.

    It seems to me most European countries are too afraid to put their men in southern Lebanon not becuase of fear of being stuck in a quagmire, but what if they have to shoot at Israelis, and then are blasted as Anti-semites.
    • Mousse, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5Are Europeans that sensitive?
    • MrIcee, on 10/12/2007, -15/+22"Anti-semites"...

      Every time I hear "anti-semitic" in reference to arabs against jews, etc etc etc... or used specifically about jews (my, that was an ani-semitic remark, etc...) I feel the need to remind people just what the word SEMITE means...

      From the dictionary:

      Sem·ite: n.
      (1) A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
      (2) A Jew.
      (3) Bible. A descendant of Shem.

      Going with the FIRST definition - semites INCLUDE arabs (and a whole lot more)... so let us be a bit careful flinging the 'anti-semite' comment around.

    • Wiggles2, on 10/12/2007, -15/+12MrIcee- that's just stupid. That's like me claiming Iraq is not the Middle-East, but rather the Near East- technically correct, but meanings change over time. Anti-semite has a definite and unambiguous meaning to everyone else on the planet besides you, apparently. Next time you want to convince people here you are smart, try creating or inventing something, instead of nitpicking about definitions (especially when you're not even right).
    • DEEMTEE, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2@danahata .. sometimes a word or phrase can take on a life beyond its dictionary meaning . Many palestinians I know do not consider themselves 'semites' and agree that anti semite (which most of them agree, that they are) is against jews..
    • DEEMTEE, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5@reved .. Im sure there were no hizbullah around the un officials.. its never quite their fault for embedding themselves in civilian life, attacking israel and then crying when israel ACCIDENTALLY harms their human shields. Lets not forget who was specifically targeting civilians...
    • Wiggles2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@DEEMTEE
      I think you meant to say that to Mr Icee...
    • rwinograd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I cringe when I hear people claim that the term "anti-Semitic" does not mean "anti-Jewish". The simple fact is that words do not necessarily have meaning based on their linguistic origins.

      The term has been used for around 150 years to describe prejudice towards Jewish people and in that time has not been used to describe prejudice to other "Semitic" people. While you are correct in your definition of Semitic your mistake is in assuming that adding the word "anti" just modifies the term to mean "against Semites". The reality is that English is a much more complicated language than that and the word's history and use in every day language speaks for itself (sorry no pun intended).

      Besides a language is just a way to communicate based off of people's own knowledge of the meaning of the words (ie you know that "anti-Semitic" means against the Jewish people, as do I and hence we can use this word to convey this message). If people think it means "against Jews" and that is how it is used in communication, that is what it means - origins be damned.
    • bash, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@Reved2k: That's certainly a concern, but Lebanon has a way of making troops bogged down in quagmires.

      Think of the Lebanese Civil War (1975-90). The Israeli and American armies all learned the lesson of what Lebanese militias can do. These guys have fine-tuned the art of unconventional and assymetric warfare. The Europeans definitely have the lessons of '75 fresh in their mind.

      What's weirder still is that Israel still hasn't learned the lesson...though I do understand why Olmert authorized the full blown assault on the south.
    • Sk3pt1k, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Reved2k - "Considering what happened to the last UN outpost and the UN base at Qana 96 , they have every right to be concerned."

      Well, considering that in both mentioned instances Hezb'allah was using the UN outpost as a position to launch rockets and mortars from. If the UN actually authorized force to defend its positions from the "part of god", they wouldn't have anything to worry about from the Israelis.
    • raisputin2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7The word antisemitic (antisemitisch in German) was probably first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "antisemitic prejudices" (German: "antisemitische Vorurteile"). Steinschneider used this phrase to characterize Ernest Renan's ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races."
      [wikipedia]

      Wow, what a surprise, it was even afollower of Judaism who has perverted the meaning of the word anti-semite to mean anti-jew. It makes me want to throw up that people accept the definition that is so quickly thrown about by the followers of Judaism.

      To paraphrase a part of the movie Princess Bride:
      Follower Of Judaism: ANTI-SEMITE!
      Smart People: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      I have said this before and I will say it again
      ANTI: Opposed to; against.
      SEMITE:
      (1) A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
      (2) A Jew.
      (3) Bible. A descendant of Shem.

      While semite includes the followers of the religion of Judaism (Jews), it ALSO includes many other peoples. To say that someone is an anti-semite because they are anti-jew excludes the full meaning of the word, therefore making it incorrect. At best it is slang.

      Additionally, "Jew" is not a race. If you want to get very technical there is only ONE race on the planet, that being the HUMAN race, to be more specific, ***** sapiens sapiens.

      Semite is an "ethnic" grouping, because as you can see in the definition Arabs, followers of Judaism, Ethiopians, Hebrews, et al. all speak a linguistically similar language..

      SOME people here need to go to school. Maybe take some Anthropology classes. I suggest Anthropology 101 and then Biological Anthropology to start so you can hopefully learn a little bit about human origins.
    • Wiggles2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@raisputin

      Are you also MrIcee? I think you are, and that you are registered under multiple names. I also think you are digging down people's comments with multiple accounts, to multiply your opinion, which, by the way, is still completely wrong.

      Word meanings change, you ***** idiot. It's like you didn't even read my comment at all. Everyone on the planet understands Anti-semite to mean anti-jew except you, who is trying to hang on to a 19th century meaning of the word, and call everyone idiots who doesn't do the same.

      Noone here needs to take anthropology. Rather, you need to take linguistics.

      Stop digging down other people's comments and digging up your own with multiple accounts, just because noone agrees with you, doesn't mean you should act like a baby.
    • goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Mricee and raisputan: I am also astounded that your comments are being dugg up. The history of a word may be interesting for various reasons, but it's the usage of a word that determines its meaning. And from current usage, it's clear that English speakers around the world almost universally agree and understand that "anti-semite" refers to bigotry against Jews. That's the end of the story.

      danahata is correct when he says that you guys need a course in linguistics.
    • raisputin2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@danahata & goodoldharris

      I have but one account, thank you. It never occured to me to register multiple accounts, and to me that violates the spirit of digg.com, so I wouldn't do that anyway.

      However. when the bulk of dictionaries start to define "semite" as only "A Jew", then and only then will I change my own definition of the word anti-semite. The fact of the matter is, that to be an anti-semite, I would need to be against Arabs, Hebrews, Ethiopians, et al as well as being anti-jew.

      The problem here is that the people that practice the religion of Judaism consider themselves a "race", which they clearly are not, they are a part of a ethnic group, that group being people that speak linguistically similar languages. This is why the definition of anti-semite is incorrect.

      And for your information I have taken a few linguistics classes and in those classes we have discussed this issue, and while correct that the meanings of words do indeed change, in this case, the definition is clearly incorrect. It is a word that is promoted by the followers of Judaism and thrown about freely in the media by people that simply say what they are told to say by their editors, etc.

      Popular belief as to the meaning of a word, does not mean that is the meaning of the word. As an example take the word "sick". What does sick mean. typically it means that you have some ailment, a disease, a disorder, however in some areas of the country, it is popular to use the word sick entirely differently, as in "That's sick!" in which case it means that it is "something astonishing".

      Clearly the word "sick" does not mean "something astonishing", however that is how it is used, just as anti-semite does not mean anti-jew, though that is how many people use it.

      I suggest going back to school and taking your own linguisitcs courses, perhaps at an accredited university :) as I am sure that much like I have mentioned the word anti-semite doesn't mean what you think it means, the word "sick" does not mean "something astonishing", though it is used that way today by many young adults.
    • goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3raisputin2:

      I mainly disagree. Words do not have "innate" meaning. Their meaning is determined by usage. And the fact is, "anti-semite" has a commonly accepted usage today.

      Your "sick" example is a good, but the conclusion you take from it is wrong. If a group of people use "sick" to mean "astonishing", then that's exactly what it means - among that group. If that group achieves a certain size, such that the non-customary usage becomes the norm, then dictionaries WILL adopt it, and "sick" will 'legitimately' come to have another meaning. Then what will you say? The point is, that whether a dictionary adopts a new word or not, or accepts a change in meaning or not, does not change the truth about how the word is actually used.

      Your idea of language as something pure and static doesn't fit the facts. Words are continually undergoing changes in meaning, as society and culture change. It's also common for words to develop second or third meanings, or for words to become obsolete. These changes happen first in the real world, and only later are recorded in dictionaries and thereby made "legitimate". The process does not happen the other way around.

      But in any case, your own suggested dictionary definition DOES define "Semite" as "Jew", in definition number 2. (You realize the numbered definition show the alternative meanings, right?) The reason the dictionary includes this definition is because "semite" in the term "anti-semite" is used to mean "Jew". So even if you insist that a word be "legitimized" by the dictionary, there it is. If you deny that "semite" means "Jew", you're now denying (1) the fact about how the word is universally used, and (2) your own suggested dictionary definition. If we can't look to common usage, and we can't look to the dictionary, what authority do you suggest we turn to?

      I'll agree with you to this extent:
      (1) It's true that "semite" in "anti-semite" does not match the meaning of "semite" (when used independently). But so what? There are endless cases where words take on a different or more limited meaning when used in a compound or a particular phrase.

      (2) It also may be true that the current usage of "anti-semite" is the result of earlier intentional or careless misuse, and this may have had political consequences. But again, that's another issue.

      The point is, the usage of "anti-semite" shows that speakers agree that it means "hatred of or prejudice against Jews", and the dictionary definition (the one suggested by you) confirms that this is correct usage. If you want to undertake a political campaign to change the meaning, that's fine. But it's meaningless to suggest that 99% of native English speakers and their dictionaries are wrong.
    • raisputin2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@GOODOLDHARRIS

      You make good poitns my friend, and because of that I have dugg you up :)

      However, in my experience, and I will agree with you that it is probably around 1% that do not accept that anti-semite means "hatred of or prejudice against Jews". I do not accept that definition, the simple reasons for me are (and I am oversimplifying this:

      1) I despise Israel, not jews, yet because of my disgust with the country of Israel, there are those that would label me an anti-semite (majority definition). I have Jewish friends for Christs sake. That in and of itself would render the term anti-semite (again, majority definition) incorrect.

      2) The majority of Jews (followers of Judaism, again, NOT a race) will label someone an anti-semite (majority definition) if they say anything bad againt, or are generally just against the country of Israel. This again would be an incorrect usage of even their own definition.

      3) Because of the ridiculousness of the way the term is used to not only be "hatred of jews", but also the expansion, again by Jews, to include "hatred/dislike/disdain of israel", I, and many others cannot accept that definition of anti-semite, as it is clearly incorrect on many levels.

      I have asked my anthropology professor/advisor at college, who incedentally is Jewish and my favorite professor, about this and even she agrees, that the word has been perverted. and she refuses to use it because of that.

      When The USA stands up to the Israeli lobby, AIPAC, etc. then and only then will the USA start to regain freedoms, however that freedom will come at the price of tgerrorism from Israel and probably a president that gets assassinated by the Mossad.
  • SSWolfensteinSS, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11i just think if the united nation is sending troops to deal with Hezbollah, but are going to give Israel the rigth to violate Lebanese air space and water. they(u.n force) should just stay home. the united nations force will have to make that clear to Israel that IDF will come under attack if they egress across the border. i say bring some jet fighters and anti-aircraft missile to make this(UN mission) work.
    Because if the Israel attacks Hezbollah or any other Arab group while the U.N force is in place and no action is taken . then i can see them(united nation soldier) becoming big targets.anti Semitic? no. just common sense
    • DEEMTEE, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4@SS .. if hizbullah diarms.. I have a hunch you wont see Israel invading lebanon too much...
  • spiralspirit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Well, they reached a great ceasefire agreement that means absolutely nothing. Nobody wants to come over there and make sure that israel isnt operating in lebanon, nor do they want to attempt to fight with hezbollah.

    In the end this whole thing was just a giant excercise in futility that emboldened hezbolah.
  • scottylist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Isn't the point of a ceasefire to CEASE FIRE?
    • Toloran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Technically" a cease fire is so that a diplomatic solution can be found safely (you know, so that the peace keepers don't get shot).
    • DEEMTEE, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6part of the CEASE FIRE agreement was that hizbullah isnt rearming... i doubt that is the case... no one would DARE mention that here, I guess...be dugg down in a heartbeat
    • reda, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"part of the CEASE FIRE agreement was that hizbullah isnt rearming... i doubt that is the case..."

      You doubt, but you are wrong.
      There is no evidence of Hezbollah rearming or even trying to rearm, and they don't need it as long as there is a cease fire.

      You know what they are doing instead? They are REBUILDING the damage caused by israel.
  • kodak543, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7and israel wont stop the air and sea blockade of lebanon until there are international troops. what a vicious cycle...
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8israel can stop the air and sea blockades any time they want. They just make up this arbitrary rule about a UN force because they dont want to stop blockading lebanon.
    • raisputin2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Israel sucks!
  • darkpo3t, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Yeah.. and while they wait for the United Nations to send troops to Lebanon, Israel will have destroyed the whole country and there will be nothing left to protect.

    But on the other hand, the Israeli's are just taking out their anger to teach Hezbollah a lesson, just incase they do decide to attack Israel again. Plus, Israel has to make a stand and show their might and strength incase any other arab nations (including any terrorist groups) try and attack Israel .

    Responsible for war = Israel 50% Hezbollah = 50%
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4it may have been 50/50 the first time, but if violence breaks out again the blame is with israel 100%. Hizbollah hasnt fired a single rocket at israel or attacked any israeli since the cease fire. The only time they fight is when they get attacked by israel.
    • amvakar, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Yes, the blame is with Israel 100%. But honestly, I am hoping that Israel bombs Lebanon into oblivion. As for the UN, screw them. They won't even shoot! If they are Lebanons last hope, Lebanon's *****.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -15/+9"Responsible for war = Israel 50% Hezbollah = 50%"

      Hezbollah crosses border and kills Israeli soldiers and kidnaps other Israeli soldiers, but Israel is 50% to blame? Your reasoning skills need some work. Israel may not have pursued a wise course in its response, but they are not to blame for starting this war.
    • Nyghtewynd, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5You can't possibly be surprised that a lot of digg readers are more likely to side with terrorists than allies of the US, can you? I can't blame Israel for not being thrilled with Europeans participating with the UN. They have nasty habits when it comes to Jews. Like building ovens.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5As for the UN, screw them. They won't even shoot!

      they were not giving the power to do more than watch and report. People like to spin it like they did nothing about the situation but truth be told, 5 nations truely control the UN including ours and we simply didnt authorise them to use any force..
      Of course i guess they could have asked nicely for hezbollah to disarm but somehow i doubt that would have worked.
    • reda, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Hezbollah crosses border and kills Israeli soldiers and kidnaps other Israeli soldiers, but Israel is 50% to blame?"
      You forgot to mention what happened next.
      Nothing important just a thousand of civils killed or so..
      on the other hand Hezbollah murdered more than a hundred israelis, most of them were innocent soldiers, liberating the lebanese from their lives.

      "You can't possibly be surprised that a lot of digg readers are more likely to side with terrorists than allies of the US, can you?"
      We already heard too much of this and we're sick of hearing it over and over again.
      just STFU instead
  • CrackIsWack, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Fact: Disagreeing with Isreal's foreign policy is not anti-semitic.

    Before ***** hits the fan...
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Fact: Disagreeing with Isreal's foreign policy gets you dugg down.
    • Nyghtewynd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Which is why there are negative comment ratings on these comments.

      Wait a tic...
    • dstz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2But at the same time we're speaking of a democratic country in an autocratic region, which could well cease to exist as a "safely enough" modern democracy, what means cease to exist as a country with a future. I'm European, but I think that our side of the media often forget that Israel is not a given in our world, even if it blunders at its moments too.
  • Visigoth, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Do any of you read history? with out enforcement (the usual UN condition), read as bombing and destroying supplies and personnel, the "cease fire" is worth nothing to the MUCH offended party in this play Israel, and will be used as nothing but a break to rearm by the islamist nuts in the area. How many cease fires followed by new acts of aggression does it take to realize that peace, not the momentary pause in aggression that is currently contemplated, will only be gained by a decisive victory of arms. the rest of the discussion is all air, the french, Italians etc. could care less about the issues that really drive this, so why is it considered news. end Rant, go and mod me down now.
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/21/mideast.main/index.html/
    Of course Aidenag didn't bother to mention that much of the Israeli shooting was defensive. Always with the spin, Aidenag.
    Here's a more detailed article on Italy's offer:
    http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/22/italy.lebanon/index.html
  • DEEMTEE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@danah you are correct, my humble apologies...
  • btgoss, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13As an American, I want us to sever ties with Israel. I know they are fighting for their lives, but they are not doing the right thing. And it is not just this case, it has been the entire history of this new Israel. If there is a bad, selfish, or negative move to make, Israel will make it, all wrapped in the blanket of self protection.

    As an American I no longer want our government to support it in any way shape or form.

    We need to truly promote peace, and that means not supporting any country that would be considered "evil", and when you truly look at what Israel has done to protect itself, they are evil. And should be shunned along with North Korea and Iran.

    But I'm an Anti-Semitic Nazi....
    • Nyghtewynd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6"I know they are fighting for their lives, but they are not doing the right thing"

      Defending their lives is "not doing the right thing"? You're not Anti-Semitic. You're just not very intelligent.
    • reda, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"Defending their lives is "not doing the right thing"?"

      Ok, you are physically able to take a gun and shoot someone, and he know you hate him, does that give him the right to go on and kill you ?
      He will be really just defending himself, and by killing you he wouls effectively remove any risk that you may kill him. Is he "doing the right thing" then ?
    • raisputin2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I would love to see my country (USA) sever ties with a terrorist state, but as long as there are followers of Judaism in my government, it isn't going to happen. Unless some brave soul steps up and President and tells AIPAC and their ilk to kiss their ass.
    • btgoss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4There is defense as a response to a situation, and then there is defense as an act of aggression. Israel has long taken the tactic of aggressive defense. It often times seems they would destroy a wall to kill a fly. This is not the right thing to do. How many civilians have been killed by this type of defense. As a civilized person, that type of defense sickens me.

      Even after the 9/11 attacks I did not condone this type of "kill'em all and let God sort'em out" mentality. That is not the way civil people should act. Let warriors fight the wars, and do all that you can to keep civilians out of it. And to be honest, neither side has done that at all. So that is why I want my country out. We have enough scars from this type of War after Vietnam, there is no need to further support any country in this behavior.
  • DEEMTEE, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4not remotely true.. read on.. most pro israel comments are dugg down and anti israel ones are dugg 'up'
  • SSWolfensteinSS, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8i cant believe that all these people in the west talk about Israel and its security, the Zionist only make up less then 5% of the Arabian peninsula.seems to me the other 95% need security too.
    if anybody here thinks all the Israeli truce violations are defensive then that person would mostly likely be a Zionist or born again Christan if you guys feel like that.send the Israeli Zionist back to Europa or Florida or new york since them people worry about Israeli security so much. their making the middle east a constant war zone unsafe for all the Arabs.
  • SirYuri, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3its hard to keep this debate on digg, because everytime a post goes against israel, it is dugg up, and one that goes for it, is dugg down...

    im not for any side... have fun
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5except you have it backwards. Either that or everybody just diggs everybody down.
    • reda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3everybode diggs the opposite opinion down,
      and everybody clics on the "show comment" anyway, and reads what's there

      it's just that people feel sad when comments from "their side" are dugg down, and exagerate it and cry everywhere that everyone is against them

      and personaly I saw a lot more of this from pro-israel people than from the others .. but again that could just be me (besides digg and some other arab sources, I don't read that much political opinions of people).
  • JES63, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Israel is not going away. The only path to peace starts with their right to exist being recognized. A country with nuclear weapons is not just going to let itself be pushed into the sea. All violence against it is just useless death. It is better to just learn to get along or leave it alone.

    The UN was tasked with disarming Hezbollah before, did nothing, and there was a war. The latest UN agreement was for a force to go in and disarm Hezbollah south of the Litani river. It won't.

    The French acted like they wanted to be important and called everyone to the diplomatic table long enough for an agreement to be signed but when it came time to actually do something like send troops to enforce a peace, they offered 200 troops. The Italians are the same. The European "powers" are basically useless and had no intention of doing anything; only collecting the goodwill associated with opposing violence.

    The agreement is really just a justification for a pause. The war will begin again. The same government ministers will be on television wringing their hands over the useless death. I predict that the next war will be far more lethal however. Israel won't stop for the French next time. They had their chance to help bring peace and showed up for the work of 15,000 men with 200. They have lost their moral standing. Words won't work to stop it next time.
    • SSWolfensteinSS, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6 if you bet the farm on that(Israel not going no place) have a plan B , 60 years and Israel is still dependent on the west for economic and diplomatic aid to survive. Hezbollah maybe did not defeat the Zionist state but if you look at the war . Israel was hurt badly, the north suffered (good thing Hezbollah did not hit central Israel this time) . if any of that western support does not come on a regular basis its good bye , Jewish theocracy ............... seeing the condition of the Israeli army it has deteriorated from its prime days or the Arabians are advancing faster technically and militarily
    • reda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"A country with nuclear weapons is not just going to let itself be pushed into the sea."
      But maybe it could act human and wise, and accept to let the natives of that region ( the refugees) back at their homes, and establish a common governement that accepts everyone reardless of their religion or race. Somehow like the one in Lebanon (and yes lebanon was very successful in that point, recovering from a long civil war, and deciding to just accept everybody and making a real change effectively ending all violence between the different people)
  • SSWolfensteinSS, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6this blog lists all the Israeli violations plus more and will be updated real soon with some pictures of the wars .plus nice pictures from other parts of the middle east so people in the west can see what beautiful place it really is,its all wrong that the Americans and Arabians/Iranians have became enemy's over this Zionist movement *****.Israel is a cancer in the world , i can say that and not be called anti Semitic because i am a Semite and i don't hate Jewish people. but Zionism sucks its like the Nazi regime . it is over looking everyone else right in the area for one class of people the Zionist.

    As for who started this . it was the Zionist in 1948 declaring Arab lands for themselves ,thinking that the Arabs would never be able to match their western skills of technology they brought to the middle east as part of their plan leading to all this blood shed.
    Like i said read this blog it has story's pertaining to the Arabian Israel conflict.there is no reason to lie . the truth is a awesome weapon!
    sswolfensteinss.livejournal.com please digg all sswolfensteinss stories to per mote fairness and STOP THE ZIONIST WORLD ORGANIZATION blood thirsty plan to steal arab land and make the west pay for it.
    • raisputin2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Israel is indeed a cancer on the world. It should have never been brought into existence in the first place.
  • babanetcom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It's kinda strange to "go and keep peace" if both the countries want to fight, and if you can't use the force to make them quit shooting!
  • kirashira, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3how many people actually think Israel should exist?
    • rwinograd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4I do. I think that the Jewish People have the right to a homeland just as much as any nation. Hence my belief that hopefully one day a two state peace will occur in which both the Palestinian People and the Jewish People (as represented by the nation of Israel) can live together.

      Am I too much of an idealist for hoping that peace can occur?
    • SSWolfensteinSS, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7exist where ? how about in part of your country? then i say yes!
    • tjcrabtree, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Do you forget that the land Israel is on was once Jewish land? If anyone has claim to that land it is them. If you think the minority of Islamic people who wish to destroy Israel because of religious beliefs deserve the land then lets just all convert to Islam, because they will not stop with Israel. The majority of Islamic people are good people who stand with others in this world who see issues in gray shades rather than in black or white ones. No one side is right, we all have to come to the middle and help each other.

    • reda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8But the majority of Islamic people think Israel should not exist.

      I think the idea of "a state for the jew" is fundamentaly wrong. It's, by definition, a racist state.
      And if you say that land belonged to jews before arabs were there, I'm sure there were people there before the jews came in (I'm also not stating the fact that the only evidence for that claim is purely and entirely religious, and has no scientifical backing, but that's just useless as many other facts of history are accepted the same way, and that is really doesn't matter for us now).
      The fact is that jews were (and still are) spread all over the world, and palestinians were established in their land (and by palestinians I mean people living in the piece of land known as palestine, clear enough? now spare us those idiot palestine-does-not-exist *****). Then some people decided to create a state for the jew, and kicked the natives off their land.

      Anyway what I mean is I don't recognize the right for jews to have a state for them, and only for them, on the land of someone else, but now that they are there, and well established, I won't accept removing them from their homes either. But I think native people should be given their rights back. That means Israel won't exist as defined originally (a state for the jews alone), but I don't think such an idiological goal is worth discriminating the human rights of people.

      Oh, and there is no "god chosen people", all people are the same.
    • SSWolfensteinSS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1kirshire:up for yes down for no ?
  • andylau, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Considering Israel's history of deliberately shelling UN compounds with anti personnel weapons kill 106 civilians, I can understand their hesitation in putting their troops in harms way.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shelling_of_Qana#Investigation_by_UN

    Israels current violations of the cease fire are aimed at reasserting Israelis self proclaimed god given Right to terrorize people while not being terrorized itself.
    • reda, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"Israels current violations of the cease fire are aimed at reasserting Israelis self proclaimed god given Right to terrorize people while not being terrorized itself."

      I don't think those are the real reasons, same goes for the UN people killed.

      some said (but I don't know how verified is this), that israel broke the cease fire in an attempt to get back the two captured soldiers, wich would be logical seeing how the defeat against Hezbollah would affect the ruling party in the israelis opinion. So it's just political reasons here.
      However this is still wrong, a cease fire is a cease fire, if war has not worked, israel should resort to dialog and maybe start thinking of considering exchanging prisoners (even if it was wrong, sometimes consessions are needed in order to acheive peace). And why didn't they do this (send a commande to a precise destination) to retreive the soldiers in the first place, instead of bombing a whole country?
      Taking revenge on someone (Hezbollah) by killing it's people (the lebanese, and yes hezbollah are lebanese and they recruite lebanese people) is nonsense. Last times it happened (9/11, revenge from US governement by killing it's people) that was called terrorism.

      As for the killing of UN workers, I really don't know why this happened, maybe a mistake (like soldiers who have been instructed to bomb away the region but they forgot to tell them tere's a UN outpost they should avoid), or maybe there was a real benefit to the Israeli governement, but I don't think it was just for "doing evil" or "killing" or "reasserting" something.
  • csrster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This is an old joke, right?
    "Israel declares war on Lebanon. Italy surrenders."
  • nocountries, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5WHY SHOULD Europe wipe Israel's ass? If they couldn't win a war with a bunch of farmers in pyjamas, tough.
    Did Europe go into Vietnam after US lost the war? North Korea?
    Europe is always being asked to take Israel in when no-one else will have them - they even play in our football competitions when they are an ASIAN country.
    Maybe we should take the whole country of Israel and put it inside Norway, away from the middle east. That's the very northernmost part of Norway, well inside the arctic circle. Give those pioneering Zionists a new challenge.
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Europe is a passive continent, excluding Britain. European leaders are typically reluctant to lend military support for any venture, regardless of the cause. They have a documented history of it. The Nazis committed genocide right in front of them, and they ignored it.

      European leaders have no interest in siding with Israel on any skirmish or war, and for one good reason; Europe has a very large Muslim population. Civil wars are brewing there. Watch for it.
  • theoallardyce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If Israel stops shooting then whats the point of sending Italian troops in? ***** that, we need to get the UN in and we need to shoot down every IAF plane that violates Lebanese airspace and any Hezbollah rocket that violates Israeli airspace and if we cant shoot down those rockets then we need to find a way!
  • Muddle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It isn't over yet. Bush bowed to international opinion and forced an end to the war before a resolution. As I see it there are two peaceful resolutions, Israel can pack it's bags and move or Islam can learn to live in peace and harmony with it's disaffected brother.
    You can't ombre the King unless the King has an enemy. Translation: Iran and international oil speculators can't steal $30.00 more per barrel of oil than it's worth unless they stir the cauldron of hatred between Jew, Gentile, and Muslim.
  • eMuleDude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It's fair to expect that Hizbollah put down their weapons, but we cannot send our troops to Lebanon if the (Israeli) army keeps shooting."

    That statement reveals the difference between the American point of view and the rest of the world's point of view. They trust the so called terrorists more than they trust Israel.
  • SSWolfensteinSS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1reda :those" nuke" u speak of are known to let Jews of the world feel safe and immigrate to Israeli(that's still a problem now .no one wants to live in Israel surrounded by 100 million Arabs Plus . Egypt and Iran and u cant even vacation in those neighboring countries and meet people if you are a Israeli citizen, Egypt , Jordan if you dont mind taking a chance(like having the inlaws killed during summer brake) )(check the pop.data(7,000,000) and that's with all the people who fled Russia after the collapse of the soviet union included is about 1.5 million Arabs,who stayed during the 1948 war who are now citizens of Israeli with about 90% of citzen rights) ,just like you said "a country with nukes will not let itself be punched into the sea" that's the Zionist trump card, ace in the hole or (safety guarantee for stupid Jews who would move to Israel and put themselves and family at risk(extreme risk) supporting the Zionist plan to steal land from the natives(Arabian Bedouin,
  • CJWright, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How terrific that all the digg Israel haters who seem to spend hours a day spewing their joo-hate - Oops I mean zionist hate!! - get to chat back and forth about this article! (For verification see the digg activities of SSWolfensteinSS, Aidenag, krateein, raisputin2, and the naive Reda - who openly acknowledges she reads NOTHING but digg and arab propaganda! - etc.)

    JUST in case there are any naive readers who might be confused by their dialog to succumb to their hate speeches let me tell you your instincts are right - there IS a long history of Jewish roots in Israel. Even all the propaganda that the billions in oil money can buy can't rewrite the history that so many have already read in those famous books called the bible amongst others. Yes the hatred for Israel and the fact that it's legitimacy as a soveign country is questioned has roots in a long legacy of hatred for Jews (whether it's called anti-Semitism or anything else). No Israel is not at all a racist country, not only are the Israeli-Arab citizens - men and women, gay and straight - beneficiaries of more democratic rights than anywhere else in the middle east, but more immigrants from every continent (whether Africa and Arab countries) and country in the world. Finally there are logical historical explanations for why there is so much anti-Israel propaganda and the massive generation of it - funded by oil money - is achieving broad success and can only be counteracted by education. (Don't be like
    Reda - so afraid to read dissonent opinions - or become so insensed by hate propaganada like SSWolfensteinSS! - poor guy is so incensed he's spending hours creating his own Israel-hate site rehashing all the same diatribes on all the many other Israel-hate sites!)

    SOME EXCELLENT RECENT ARTICLES:
    By a scholar on the recent war http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton072506.html
    More on the recent war http://www.danielgordis.org/Site/Site_ViewDispatches.asp?id=7
    On the recent truce http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell081506.php3

    On whether Lebanon's Democracy was succeeding prior to it:
    http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=386679

    On whether Israel is racist because it is a Jewish state:
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008836

    Is it true that being anti-Israel is totally different from being anti-semitic (and that's just a false defense
    Jews use to stifle debate?)? see
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110008749
    see also http://www.jewishworldreview.com/mort/zuckerman_new_anti_sem.php3

    LINKS TO UNDERSTAND MISEAST HISTORY
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=7856#c0019
    http://www.israel-wat.com/main_eng13.htm
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/mftoc.html
    http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/xmlpath.pl?id=3
    http://www.ononefootbook.com/OnOneFoot.pdf
    http://www.factsofisrael.com
    http://www.palestinefacts.org/
    http://www.infoclick.org/
    http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/11/Israel-%20the%20Conflict%20and%20Peace-%20Answers%20to%20Frequen
    http://www.mideasttruth.com (try http://www.mideasttruth.com/MidEastTruth.pps)
    http://www.otherside.sphosting.com/facts.htm (try http://www.otherside.sphosting.com/facts4.htm)

    LINKS TO UNDERSTAND MIDEAST MEDIA REPORTING:
    http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=387435
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22055_LGF_Exclusive-_How_Much_Does_It_Cost_to_Buy_Global_TV_News&only
    http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/11/lgf-ap-tv-dept-divided-into-dar-al-harb-dar-al-islam/
    http://israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=6435
    http://seconddraft.org/
    http://honestreporting.com
    www.camera.org/
    http://www.eyeontheun.org/
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/753230.html
    http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/mediaobjectivity/The_Media_Aims_Its_Missiles.asp
    (note Mark Twain's excellent comments about those that do and don't read the news in
    this link! http://www.aish.com/movies/JP/PhotoFraud.asp That should give everyone a laugh!)

    LINKS TO UNDERSTAND MOTIVES OF PROTAGANISTS IN THE RECENT WAR:
    By an Iranian Reporter in the UK: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2281184_3,00.html
    By a Lebonease American historian: http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/28539.html
  • CJWright, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Apologies for the typo - the last link is by a Lebanese American historian on the history network website. I hope these links might be of use to those interested. Regards to all.
    • SSWolfensteinSS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1CJwright:----->no need to apologies. i can see you have many issues and you are a very emotional person.miss spelling a word is no big thing on the Internet, we are not looking for a grade here.also you sound like a nice person(most likely female) with a unrealistic view of the middle east and Islamic world.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.