Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Lebanon, Israel clash near border; at least 4 dead

Tue Aug 3, 2010 6:13 AM EDT
world-news, israel, ml, lebanon
Bassem Mroue, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 9 photos
<p>A UNIFIL peacekeeper waves a U.N. flag as Israeli troops patrol the border fence in the southern border village of Adaisseh, Lebanon, Tuesday, Aug. 3, 2010. A Lebanese security official says two Lebanese soldiers have been killed in shelling following clashes with Israeli troops along the border. Tuesday's fighting was the most serious since a fierce war four years ago. (AP Photo/Lutfallah Daher)</p>

A UNIFIL peacekeeper waves a U.N. flag as Israeli troops patrol the border fence in the southern border village of Adaisseh, Lebanon, Tuesday, Aug. 3, 2010. A Lebanese security official says two Lebanese soldiers have been killed in shelling following clashes with Israeli troops along the border. Tuesday's fighting was the most serious since a fierce war four years ago. (AP Photo/Lutfallah Daher)

Advertise | AdChoices

BEIRUT — Lebanese and Israeli troops exchanged fire Tuesday in a fierce border battle that killed a senior Israeli officer, two Lebanese soldiers and a journalist — underlining how easily tensions can reignite along the frontier where Israel and Hezbollah fought a war four years ago.

It was the worst fighting since 2006 in the area, where Israeli and Lebanese soldiers patrol within shouting distance of each other, separated by the U.N.-drawn Blue Line boundary.

The fighting flared into Israeli tank, helicopter and artillery strikes near this Lebanese town, but ended after several hours and there was no sign that either side was preparing to escalate. The Shiite guerrilla force of Hezbollah, which says its massive arsenal is intended to defend Lebanon from Israel, did not get involved.

But Hezbollah's leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah warned in a televised speech that his fighters would intervene if Israeli troops ever attack Lebanese forces again. Though Tuesday's incident was finished, he said, "any Israeli arm extended against the Lebanese military will be cut off by the resistance."

The violence stoked fears that have been brewing for months on both sides that a new conflict could come soon.

The U.N. urged "maximum restraint." U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said, "The last thing that we want to see is this incident expand into something more significant." Both the U.S. and the U.N. said they were working to determine the exact circumstances of the fight.

Tuesday's clashes began after an Israeli soldier tried to remove a tree along the border, something the military has done in the past to improve its sightlines into Lebanon.

But both sides claimed the tree was in their territory. An Associated Press photo shows an Israeli standing on a crane reaching over the fence that Israel erected to separate the two countries. The fence, however, does not match the Blue Line in all places, and the Israeli military said in a statement that the tree was in Israeli territory.

"It was over the fence but still within Israeli territory," the military spokesman's office said. He said the tree cutting was coordinated with the U.N. peacekeeping force in south Lebanon, UNIFIL.

The Lebanese military said the Israelis crossed onto Lebanese soil despite calls from the U.N. and Lebanon to stop. When the Israelis persisted, Lebanese troops opened fire with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades, it said in a statement.

The Israeli forces responded with "machine guns and tank shells, targeting Lebanese army positions and civilian homes in the area," the Lebanese military said. It said two soldiers were killed and a third seriously wounded.

Ronith Daher, 32, a Lebanese journalist who was at the scene, said she saw a UNIFIL peacekeeper ask Israel not to allow the Israeli soldier to cross the fence and warned them the Lebanese troops would open fire.

Israel, however, accused Lebanon of provoking the fight. The Israeli military's northern commander, Maj. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot, said that while soldiers were removing bushes by the fence, Lebanese military snipers shot two officers who were more than 300 meters (yards) away.

A lieutenant colonel was killed and a captain was critically wounded, the Israeli military said.

Israel responded with infantry, tanks and artillery fire and later hit a Lebanese army base and command center with helicopter and artillery fire, Eizenkot said.

"These are the first casualties in the past four years (in the border area). We view this very seriously and that is why we responded so severely," he told reporters.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak also demanded that Lebanon and UNIFIL investigate the "murderous attack." Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed that Israel will "will respond to any disturbance of the peace on the border and (attempts) to harm civilians and the soldiers protecting them."

In Adeisseh, a border village home to several thousand people, rubble was strewn in the streets, the door of a shop was blown out, and the balcony of a home had been hit with a shell.

A Lebanese journalist with the daily Al-Akhbar newspaper, Assaf Abu Rahhal, was killed when an Israeli shell landed next to him in Adeisseh, a security official said, speaking on condition of anonymity under military guidelines. Three civilians were wounded, including Adeisseh's mayor, said Ali Rahal, 44, a local businessman.

Lebanese President Michel Suleiman urged the military to "confront any Israeli aggression whatever the sacrifices."

The border has been relatively quiet since the summer 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war that left 1,200 Lebanese and about 160 Israelis dead. After the war, the U.N. beefed up its peackeeping force to 12,000 members and the Lebanese military deployed in the border region for the first time in years.

The Lebanese military's tough response to the Israeli border move may have aimed to show that it is capable of defending Lebanon — a role that Hezbollah often touts for itself.

Hisham Jaber, who heads the Middle East Center for Studies and Public Relations in Beirut, said Israel might have provoked the clashes to try to get Hezbollah to show its hand. "Israel wanted to lure Hezbollah into joining the fight ... to entice Hezbollah to come up to the surface," he said.

Tensions along the border have risen in recent months. Israel claims Hezbollah has significantly expanded and improved its arsenal of rockets since 2006, with help from its allies Syria and Iran. Adding to the friction, more than 70 people in Lebanon have been arrested since last year on suspicion of collaborating with Israel.

___

Associated Press Writers Elizabeth A. Kennedy in Beirut, Ian Deitch in Jerusalem and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Bassem Mroue's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Lebanon , Israel
  • Public Discussion (208)
usa1

Isnt there enough trouble in the South (Eilat), this is the wrong time to be tree picking in Lebanon

  • 10 votes
Reply#1 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 6:43 AM EDT
Matti Viikate

That area is one of those in this world, where violence like that is going on all the time, that has been for long time in a roll now.

  • 4 votes
#1.1 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 8:38 AM EDT
Slinger-958418

Amazing how Israel says it did nothing wrong, when they were on the WRONG side of the Lebanon border. Isn't it interesting how Israel is always without fault, and it is everyone Else's fault for what it does? Strange how they manage that, isn't it?

  • 7 votes
#1.2 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 7:28 PM EDT
krishna-167929

they were on the WRONG side of the Lebanon border

Source?

  • 12 votes
#1.3 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 7:45 PM EDT
Slinger-958418

http://www.newmediajournal.us/international/0803a.htm

  • 7 votes
#1.4 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 7:50 PM EDT
magend

Yea! But haven't you seen the new article where the UN states "Tree was on Israels Border"?!

We have a fenced in yard with a two foot overlap outside the fence. If I decide to remove a tree which is on MY property, but outside the fence, and my neighbor SHOOTS at me. I will shoot back!!!

P.S. ---- Slinger

They were on the other side of the fence - but still within their borders....

Interesting how Israel can never do anything right by the Anti-Semites!!!

Just as with the Flotilla - every roach came out of the closet to protest Israels LAWFUL reaction at Illegal Attempts to break its LAWFUL Blockade---

You can be biased - but at least be fair!!!

  • 7 votes
#1.5 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 4:48 AM EDT
Ben-1268009

We have a fenced in yard with a two foot overlap outside the fence. If I decide to remove a tree which is on MY property, but outside the fence, and my neighbor SHOOTS at me. I will shoot back!!!

You'd still be arrested for tresspass... if you survive the stupid encounter... I mean seriously, what a stupid reason to risk your life.

    #1.6 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 2:37 PM EDT
    I'm Ringo

    You'd still be arrested for tresspass...

    On what grounds exactly do you think a person would be arrested for trespassing on their own property?

    I mean seriously, what a stupid reason to risk your life.

    The point is that no rational person would think that trimming a small tree on their own property to be risking ones life.....and it shouldn't be.....and WOULDN'T be without some wack jobs deciding to murder people for trimming their own trees.

    • 5 votes
    #1.7 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 6:21 PM EDT
    krishna-167929

    You'd still be arrested for tresspass...

    The Israelis didn't set foot in Lebanon. the tree was (and still is) in Israeli territory.

    So that's not an issue.

    • 7 votes
    #1.8 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 8:47 PM EDT
    Reply
    Erik the Read

    If a tree serves as a border demarcation, removing it is surely a tempting proposition.

    • 4 votes
    #2 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 8:45 AM EDT
    krishna-167929

    If a tree serves as a border demarcation,

    It doesn't.

    • 13 votes
    #2.1 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 5:57 PM EDT
    Buzz of the Orient

    Only someone with clandestine intentions would want the tree to remain there, and Israel showed only an intention to clear its view of possible infiltrators by cutting, as they had done many times before, something that interfered with their vision (on the ISRAELI side of the line, notwithstanding that the fence was not ON the line). The first shots fired were not warning shots, they were fired by the Lebanese side and killed and wounded two Israelis. One must expect a reaction to occur when an action is taken. All later reports support this, although those who wish to demonize Israel, like Nazrallah and Jaber are bound to do, as are many viners who seek out any opportunity to bash Israel even when Israel is NOT at fault, will take advantage of incorrect reporting.

    • 11 votes
    #2.2 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 8:10 PM EDT
    Buzz of the Orient

    If a tree serves as a border demarcation, removing it is surely a tempting proposition.

    If you see an actual photo you will see that the tree is growing up adjacent to the fence, contrary to the rest of the trees which are a couple of meters back from the fence. In other words the tree could serve as a cover, or even a way to climb the fence. There are no trees that serve as border demarcation for those reasons. It is entirely proper and routine that the tree be removed, but a trigger-happy Lebanese sniper killed an Israeli and wounded another. Those were the "warning shots in the air". Your own biased bible, the Guardian, will admit to it.

    Isn't it amazing how people will make up stories to demonize Israel, like the "attack" on the peaceful flotilla, fended off by peace-loving Nobel prize winners?

    • 11 votes
    #2.3 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 8:54 PM EDT
    Erik the Read

    If you see an actual photo you will see that the tree is growing up adjacent to the fence, contrary to the rest of the trees which are a couple of meters back from the fence.

    Borders are interesting, historically and politically. Nations will resolve their bi-lateral differences by war or negotiations. If these nations, Israel and Lebanon, had had friendly relations, this tree would have posed no problem, there wouldn't even have been any need for a fence.

    In this case, I get the feeling that the stronger party is trying to impose it's problem on the weaker part. The Israelis could easily have built a second fence, further from the tree. In stead it is demanding to have a say in how the Lebanese use their land. This would have been perfectly OK if the Lebanese had agreed to this kind of influence. Many nations have agreements whose purpose is to defuse the military situation near their mutual border.

    • 3 votes
    #2.4 - Sat Aug 7, 2010 3:20 PM EDT
    I'm Ringo

    The Israelis could easily have built a second fence, further from the tree.

    Why? You do realize that trees do have seeds that go off and make new trees somewhere else don't you?

    In stead it is demanding to have a say in how the Lebanese use their land.

    Really? There was no mention of that in any story that I saw about this situation. Please share.

    • 5 votes
    #2.5 - Sat Aug 7, 2010 5:31 PM EDT
    mork1from1ork

    Here's the KEY.

    BEFOREHAND, The Lebanese made NO PROTEST, Verbally,

    to either the Israelis OR the U.N. Peace-Keepers.

    They SHOWED their "displeasure" by putting SNIPERS bullets,

    through the bodies of Israeli Officers, specifically,

    there was NO, "I warn YOU not to cut the Tree!",

    the Tree was merely an excuse to kill Israeli Officers.

    • 8 votes
    #2.6 - Sat Aug 7, 2010 9:41 PM EDT
    Erik the Read

    The incursion happened when Israeli military forces (not civilian gardeners) started molesting this poor tree, growing on the Lebanese side of the border, did it not? The Israelis should either have 1. proposed negotiations with the Lebanese about the tree (and any future trees) or 2) solved the problem as best they might on their side of the border. Building a new fence further from the tree does not change the borderline. The Israelis would be free to tend the land between the two fences in any way they pleased.

    • 2 votes
    #2.7 - Sun Aug 8, 2010 6:33 AM EDT
    I'm Ringo

    The incursion happened when Israeli military forces (not civilian gardeners) started molesting this poor tree, growing on the Lebanese side of the border, did it not?

    No, it didn't.

    The Israelis should either have 1. proposed negotiations with the Lebanese about the tree (and any future trees)

    There is no reason that Israel should have to consult other nations before trimming their own trees.

    2) solved the problem as best they might on their side of the border.

    Which is exactly what was done, until Lebanese troops started firing.

    Building a new fence further from the tree does not change the borderline. The Israelis would be free to tend the land between the two fences in any way they pleased.

    Having only one fence wouldn't change the border, and should leave the Israelis free to tend their land any way they pleased, but apparently some Lebanese troops didn't see it that way.

    • 3 votes
    #2.8 - Sun Aug 8, 2010 7:51 AM EDT
    mork1from1ork

    Erik,

    ARE we NOT so impartial, are we SO biased,

    that we CAN NOT "call a spade a spade"??!

    These Israeli officers, were shot, and it was THEY that were the targets; Israeli Officers.

    Question to you, Erik;

    in YOUR VIEW, as a partisan of one group over the other group,

    is it YOUR contention that YOUR group is ALWAYS right ??!;

    and the OTHER group is ALWAYS wrong??!

    • 7 votes
    #2.9 - Sun Aug 8, 2010 9:01 AM EDT
    Erik the Read

    Dear Ringo; I completely agree with you when you say:

    There is no reason that Israel should have to consult other nations before trimming their own trees.

    However, I get the following information from th article (caption);

    Israeli soldiers use a crane as they appear to cut a tree on the Lebanese side of the border in the southern village of Adaisseh, Lebanon, Tuesday, Aug. 3, 2010.

    and the photo documents this. The crane being used for pruning is very suitable for reaching across a fence. We are either talking at cross purposes or talking about two different cases.

    I am discussing the legalities here, I hasten to add that that I find the Lebanese response to the Israeli provocation completely irresponsible and inhumane. The preservation of life is above all the most important.

    • 2 votes
    #2.10 - Sun Aug 8, 2010 1:13 PM EDT
    I'm Ringo

    I am discussing the legalities here

    And there is nothing in the least illegal about cutting down your own tree. The tree was in Israel, and they have every right to trim it, chop it, or decorate it as they so please without being shot at.

    • 2 votes
    #2.11 - Sun Aug 8, 2010 1:19 PM EDT
    Erik the Read

    Thus the true idiocy here lies in erecting a fence that physically appears to be a border, and often is so, but at times, without rhyme or reason, deviates from the true borderline. Thus whatever authority erected the fence in this erratic manner may be blamed for laying the ground works for the August 3 incident.

    • 2 votes
    #2.12 - Sun Aug 8, 2010 2:10 PM EDT
    I'm Ringo

    Thus the true idiocy here lies in erecting a fence that physically appears to be a border, and often is so, but at times, without rhyme or reason, deviates from the true borderline. Thus whatever authority erected the fence in this erratic manner may be blamed for laying the ground works for the August 3 incident.

    Hmmm, so you think that the people that built a fence on their own land are to blame for a completely different group of people murdering one of their citizens and trying for more? It must be nice over there in la la land.

    Thus, the true idiocy lies with people blaming Israel for crimes committed by their enemies.

    • 5 votes
    #2.13 - Sun Aug 8, 2010 2:53 PM EDT
    Erik the Read

    I hope you will agree with me that the perception of a walls or fences is that they are a physical demarcation of a border, especially if there is only one. Take the infamous Berlin Wall. I have no idea if the wall was built correctly, or standing completely within the GDR, but the wall facing West Berlin was treated as if it belonged to the West-Berliners and profusely decorated.

    The Israelis have created the images of borders with their fence and their wall.

    • 4 votes
    #2.14 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 7:29 AM EDT
    I'm Ringo

    I hope you will agree with me that the perception of a walls or fences is that they are a physical demarcation of a border,

    If that is how they are built, which is quite often not the case. They are often NOT built right on the border specifically so that the side building the wall or fence has access and control to both sides of the fence. Building a fence right on the border would be stupid for the Israelis as the purpose isn't to mark the border, but to help provide security.....which is obviously needed when neighboring countries like to kill or kidnap your citizens.

    The Israelis have created the images of borders with their fence and their wall.

    Yeah, in the minds of anyone that is incapable of taking a few minutes to look up the legal borders. If you aren't willing to look up to see just where the border is, then you've got no business being there. It's amazing, I can tell you where the American/Canadian border is where I go fishing....despite not even being marked.

    • 4 votes
    #2.15 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 7:47 AM EDT
    Erik the Read

    I can tell you where the American/Canadian border is where I go fishing..

    Is the US-Canadian border really as straight (for the most part) as it looks like on the map? That kind of border must be practical only for people who draw maps. Some kind of compatibility with the terrain would seem more reasonable.

    To my utter shame, I have been nowhere near the Swedish-Norwegian border except by car. I have been told that in places it is marked by a clearing in the forest. There was some tension along that border back in 1905.

    • 3 votes
    #2.16 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 9:19 AM EDT
    mork1from1ork

    The Lebanese Officer, in Command,

    would have to have been UNAWARE of:

    * that NO Lebanese, had ever touched tool, to construct this 'fence';

    * that this EXACT procedure, and protocol, had been done MANY TIMES previously

    * that HE, this Lebanese Officer, was a "MAN"; a 'MAN' who could step forward to 'MEN'

    ....and, also unaware, that he was an EXPERIENCD Officer, to REALIZE to step forward, to TALK!!!

    ****

    NO, you say! That doesn't "ring true", in the SLIGHTEST.

    ****

    The Israeli Officers WERE the PRE-PLANNED Targets!!!!

    !!!!

    • 6 votes
    #2.17 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 10:55 AM EDT
    Reply
    mca1966

    Israel would use any excuse to provoke another cowardly bombing spree with their state of the art " freebies" courtesy of the Good Ol USA

    The Zionist Junta is ramping up for another escalation and it is only a matter of time unfortunately....

    • 7 votes
    Reply#3 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 8:57 AM EDT
    I'm Ringo

    Israel would use any excuse to provoke another cowardly bombing spree with their state of the art " freebies" courtesy of the Good Ol USA

    Oh no! They cleared a small tree growing along their fence, this means WAR!!!!!

    It looks like YOU are the one looking for any excuse.

    • 12 votes
    #3.1 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 10:30 AM EDT
    RAY FRIEDMAN

    you sounds as if you are defensive, angry and speak off the cuff with not compiling all the facts.to be honest you responses seem alittle childish as to provoke responses. if that amuses you so be it

    • 2 votes
    #3.2 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 8:36 PM EDT
    I'm Ringo

    Well Ray, what can you really expect from a person that thinks cutting down a small tree = Zionist plot.

    • 9 votes
    #3.3 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 11:17 PM EDT
    magend

    Uhhh - Amen "I'm Ringo!!!"

    G-d Bless Israel!!!

    P.S. Ray Ray --- you "sounds" as if you are uneducated, ill-informed and write without ACKNOWLEDGING ALL the facts! To be honest, your response "seems" a little ignorant and needs no responses! If that "makes sense" to you, so be it!

    To many ignorant folks JUDGING poor little Israel!

    • 3 votes
    #3.4 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 5:02 AM EDT
    krishna-167929

    The incursion happened when Israeli military forces (not civilian gardeners) started molesting this poor tree, growing on the Lebanese side of the border, did it not?

    No-- it did not.

    All the reports indicate:

    1-That the tree is on the Israeli side of the border, and in fact

    2-Israeli troops never crossed that border!

    You must learn to read more carefully, Erik the Read.

    Here's yet another report stating that-- this one os from al-Jazeera report:

    UN: Israel did not cross Lebanese border

    "The United Nations peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon has confirmed that Israeli troops did not cross into Lebanon during Tuesday's deadly border skirmish."Unifil established... that the trees being cut by the Israeli army are located south of the Blue Line on the Israeli side," le Roy said, reading from a Unifil communique issued earlier on Wednesday.

    And, it goes on to state:

    Le Roy also confirmed that the Israeli army notified Unifil "several hours" before starting the operation, and that Unifil passed the information to the Lebanese army.

    "We had been informed by the Israeli authorities of their intention to do this operation, and immediately as procedure we informed the Lebanese side," le Roy said.

    • 9 votes
    #3.5 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 4:20 AM EDT
    Reply
    Isabella-37

    "Israel's military said its soldiers came under fire inside Israeli territory during a routine patrol"

    Oops, got caught telling a big old fib. Caught red handed on camera:

    "An Associated Press photo shows an Israeli standing on a crane reaching over the fence that separates the two sides on the Lebanese side of the border"

    If a Lebanese solider set one finger over the border, he would of been shot dead on the spot, no warning shot. The Lebanese military had every right to fire warning shots, they showed restraint. Israeli had no right to bomb, they crossed the border. This is an act of war any way you slice at it. I hope the Lebanese government doesn't fall for this provocation.

    • 11 votes
    #4 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 9:03 AM EDT
    IDFeb89

    There is absalutely no provocation here.

    Keeping both sides of the fence relative clean is part of an almost daily operation since the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers back in 06'. these operations are done by the IDF with full cooperation from Unifil and usually the Lebanese army as well. That's what makes the firing on Israeli troops surprising. for comparison we got Hezbollah arming itself to death with scuds and all sort of missiles from Iran and with Syrian help,as well as building bases pretty much along the border within civilian areas,a clear violation of the cease fire agreements from 2006. time will tell exactly what promoted the Lebanese troops to open fire today of all days.

    • 14 votes
    #4.1 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 9:59 AM EDT
    Isabella-37

    Ciao ID, long time no see. Home you're enjoying your summer.

    Let me point out the double standard I see in all this by giving an example. This is in no way supporting the firing of any rockets, it's just an example. Gazan farmers are constantly shot out, in some cases killed, for attempting to farm their lands that Israel has taken for no go zones. There is no fence, or any signs to tell these farmers they are in a no go zone. In some cases, these no go zones cut up to 1000 feet into Gaza. The boundaries are constantly moved. To these farmers, they are on their land, they have no idea they are in a no go zone. They aren't anywhere near the Israeli border fence. Usually, after a farmer is killed or injured, someone in Gaza retaliates and fires a rocket into Israel, usually causing no damage or loss of life. Everyone screams, look, see, they are provoking Israel! They are asking for it!!

    This Israeli soldier crossed a border. Warning shots were fired, no one was hurt. Lebanon soldiers had every right to fire warning shots. Israel retaliates with excessive force by shelling, killing 3 people. If there is this cooperation between Lebanon and Israel, why didn't they just request that Lebanon cut the tree back, instead of crossing their border fence?

    What would happen if the tables were turned? What if a Lebanese soldier crossed over the border to cut a tree on the Israeli side, and the Israeli soldiers fired warning shots. Lebanon retaliates by shelling Israel and killing 3 people. I'll tell you what would happen. Israel would be bombing the @!$%# out of Lebanon over it.

    Sorry, we will have to disagree on this one. This excessive force that killed 3 people is provocation.

    • 9 votes
    #4.2 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 11:23 AM EDT
    SPECTACULARARAB

    You know really Lebanon only fired a warning shots vertically into the air and no one got killed yet isrealo had the audacity to fire horizontally towards people. Simply sick.

    • 5 votes
    #4.3 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 5:41 PM EDT
    jrone

    lol. the lebanese need better training then.

    • 7 votes
    #4.4 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 5:49 PM EDT
    SPECTACULARARAB

    You mean Lebanese being compassionate by only firing shots into the air when they could have easily take out those israeli soldiers had they aimed at really. Simple.

    • 5 votes
    #4.5 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 7:11 PM EDT
    IDFeb89

    only firing shots into the air

    Nope.

    Sniper shots...right on target.

    One killed,one seriously injured.

    I think you got your facts confused,SPECTACULARARAB.

    • 13 votes
    #4.6 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 7:18 PM EDT
    RAY FRIEDMAN

    so why the use of snipers and iam sure that simple warning shots in the air would have been suffice,where the hell is common sense over a darn tree lives on both sides were lost.wake up the on lt solution is true peace and coexsistence.

    • 1 vote
    #4.7 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 8:25 PM EDT
    Concerned Citizen-1303521

    One killed,one seriously injured

    Perhaps I missed it. This article doesn't mention Israeli casualties. Could you show me?

    Though it does say that Israel decided to target civilians.

    • 2 votes
    #4.8 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 9:23 PM EDT
    IDFeb89

    Harari, father of four, was killed by sniper fire directed at his post. The other officer at the post was captain Ezra Lakia, who was seriously wounded. The two were situated some 300 meters from the border within Israel in a position to oversee the trimming of the bushes along the border fence.http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-officer-killed-in-clash-on-israel-lebanon-border-1.305791

    • 11 votes
    #4.9 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 10:39 PM EDT
    Riad

    IDFeb (how appropriate)

    Come on now, haven't we learned from the past? Israel will make up lies and plant lies to defend itself and play the victim. When was the last time Israel admitted to any wrong doing?

    My goodness, they landed on that flotilla like SWAT team with machine guns in hand ready to kill and when the people attacked them with clubs to defend themselves, they(Israel) ended up crying foul.

    Everytime Israel kills someone or attacks someone, it's always the same rubbish "they started it", "they were planning to attack us", "they are militants" blah blah blah

    So in 4 years since 2006, the Lebanese army decided today to sniper someone? And it just happens to be when Israel is crossing into Lebanese border to cut a tree down?

    What would Israel do if the Lebanese soldiers crossed into Israel to cut a tree down? We saw in 2006 what Israel did when Hizballah crossed the border, they burnt Lebanon down, but it's ok for them to cross over, right?

    • 3 votes
    #4.10 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 11:29 PM EDT
    I'm Ringo

    My goodness, they landed on that flotilla like SWAT team with machine guns in hand ready to kill and when the people attacked them with clubs to defend themselves, they(Israel) ended up crying foul.

    Oh yeah, those nasty paintball 'machine' guns.

    • 8 votes
    #4.11 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 11:38 PM EDT
    SPECTACULARARAB

    Responding to post 4.6 I was talking about the warning shots before israel countered cowardly knowing that no one was killed. Should have asked Lebanon to remove whatever.

    • 5 votes
    #4.12 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 3:10 AM EDT
    magend

    SpectacledArab,

    The "UN" now says that the tree was "Over the fense" BUT ON ISRAELI Property!!!

    When SHOTS are fired in a combat zone, even if as a warning, it is as good as taking aim. Israel - as usual, had the right!!!

    Quit sending suicide bombers into Israel! Quit using CHILDREN and WOMEN as SUICIDE BOMBERS. Quit throwing rockets and mortars across Israels border. Acknowledge Israels (Legal) Sovereignity and quit threatening its destruction and Israel will stop kicking everyones @ss!!!

    Til then - stuff it!

    • 6 votes
    #4.13 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 5:15 AM EDT
    IDFeb89

    about the warning shots before israel

    Simply not true,SPECTACULARARAB.

    There were no warning shots...first shots came from the sniper-killing one,seriously injuring another. Idf then reacted...as far as the location itself-

    Earlier Wednesday, a chief UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) official said IDF soldiers did not cross the border with Lebanon before the deadly clash between Israeli and Lebanese forces.

    Milos Strugar, UNIFIL's senior political adviser said that the IDF had "informed UNIFIL that it was going to conduct maintenance works" on the border, adding that while the Israeli unit had been "on the northern side of the border fence," it was nonetheless "south of the international borderline."

    Asserting the IDF's claim that it had informed the Lebanese side of the planned border works, Strugar said that UNIFIL had received a message from the IDF "regarding these works, and we had passed that on to the Lebanese army."

    Also Wednesday, a UNIFIL spokesman said that the organization had established that "the trees being cut by the Israeli army are located south of the Blue Line on the Israeli side."Lebanon:We fired first at IDF unit near Israel border

    Unfortunate and Unnecessary.

    • 11 votes
    #4.14 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 8:47 AM EDT
    krishna-167929

    about the warning shots before israel

    Simply not true,SPECTACULARARAB.

    There were no warning shots...first shots came from the sniper-killing one,seriously injuring another. Idf then reacted...as far as the location itself-

    This from The Guardian (which is not exactly a pro-Israel source):

    Lebanese Army Admits Firing First

    • 10 votes
    #4.15 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 1:03 PM EDT
    Meloney

    at :24 in the video in link 4.15 - Guardian story:

    Lebannon said it fired warning shots after Israeli soldiers ignored UN peacekeepers asking them to stop.

    The first shots fired were also warning shots.

    The Guardian is a pro-Israel source. The criticism of Israel you find is not to delegitimize or degrade but to restore values of human rights and equity. Ignoring or undermining rights is more destructive to Israel than the criticism that seeks to correct injustice. The Guardian is not a right-wing publication.

    • 5 votes
    #4.16 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 1:23 PM EDT
    krishna-167929

    The Guardian is a pro-Israel source.

    LOL!

    No-- make that ROFL!!

    • 10 votes
    #4.17 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 1:49 PM EDT
    mork1from1ork

    Meloney,

    according to the Reports today,

    the "warning shots", were fired THROUGH the bodies of two IDF officers, killing one.

    The MANY Reports, today, NOT Israeli or Lebanese, BUT FROM the U.N. Peace-Keeper Force,

    say, that, this Vegetation Cleaning happens on a regular basis,

    with the USUAL Protocol, of the Israelis informing the U.N. Peace-Keepers,

    and the U.N. Peace-Keepers informing the Lebanese.

    The Israeli officers, at an Observation Post, were struck with the FIRST SHOTS being fired.

    It is SUSPECTED that the Lebanese Officer in Command, gave the Order to Fire.

    Meloney, will YOU possibly ACCEPT, that maybe sometimes, it is NOT the Israelis ???!

    • 9 votes
    #4.18 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 1:59 PM EDT
    Meloney

    make that ROFL!!

    ah, great rationale, hilarity - who could argue such cogency?

    2 things krishna - the link you furnished to the Guardian did not contradict Spectaculararab's comment and 2 - I'm offended by the characterization of the rightwing Israeli political stance as "pro-Israel" and the subsequent implication that anything other than cow-towing to the authoritarian rightwing dogma is "anti-Israel". It's not.

    • 5 votes
    #4.19 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 2:14 PM EDT
    Meloney

    Meloney, will YOU possibly ACCEPT, that maybe sometimes...blah, blah

    Mork? Will you accept that this is not about me? Will you accept that your insideous innuendo about other Viners, in this case ME, is inappropriate and unwelcome?

    In other words Mork - I already do accept the proposition and am insulted by your insinuation that I don't.

    • 6 votes
    #4.20 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 5:17 PM EDT
    Lord Mcniff Palmer

    I will continue.

    mac...

    • 1 vote
    #4.21 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 6:25 PM EDT
    Buzz of the Orient

    Oops, got caught telling a big old fib. Caught red handed on camera:

    Ooops Isabella, got caught believing a propaganda statement rather than digging for the truth. The camera showed a tree growing up against the fence, the only one within 2-3 meters of the fence, making an ideal cover for an infiltrator looking to climb the fence. It is routine to cut those trees, especially when they are on the Israel side of the actual border, which has now been admitted. The fence is not the actual line. During that exercise, why would Israel even have reason to fire first? Please use logic here.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010/aug/04/israel-lebanon

    • 8 votes
    #4.22 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 9:05 PM EDT
    krishna-167929

    I'm offended by the characterization of the rightwing Israeli political stance as "pro-Israel"

    Golly gee Meloney-- I had no idea you were so sensitive!

    But-- good on ya! Itys nice to see some folks around here that appreciate the subtle nuances of the wide spectrum of human emotions :-)

    Anyway-- please accept my apologies-- it was not my intention to upset you!

    • 10 votes
    #4.23 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 9:36 PM EDT
    krishna-167929

    the link you furnished to the Guardian did not contradict Spectaculararab's comment and 2

    Sure it did-- read it again!

    However, if you still feel its inadequate-- try this one:

    UNIFIL: Incident was on Israeli side of border

    • 10 votes
    #4.24 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 9:38 PM EDT
    krishna-167929

    the link you furnished to the Guardian did not contradict Spectaculararab's comment and 2

    Sure it did-- read it again!

    However, if you still feel its inadequate-- try this one:

    UNIFIL: Incident was on Israeli side of border

    "UNIFIL issued a statement Wednesday saying that the trees being cut down by the IDF Tuesday, which apparently triggered the cross border skirmish that left one IDF officer, three Lebanese troops and a Lebanese journalist dead, were located on the Israeli side of the internationa …

    And-- as the facts pour in-- here's another:

    UN says IDF activity did not warrant Lebanese fire
    "UNIFIL forces who toured the site of Tuesday's deadly exchanges of fire on the northern border said the IDF's activity did not warrant the attack launched by Lebanese Army soldiers, Israeli army officials who spoke to UNIFIL representatives said."

    Have a nice day! :-)

    • 10 votes
    #4.25 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 9:41 PM EDT
    Isabella-37

    "especially when they are on the Israel side of the actual border, which has now been admitted"

    You're right, I jumped the gun yesterday morning. I just read the Associated Press story. Normally I read multiple sources before commenting, I didn't do it yesterday. That's what I get for posting while rushed.

    I do have a question though. All I hear from some here on the vine is that the UN lies, the UN is anti-Semitic, the UN is useless and needs to be done away with, etc, etc. Why is it when the UN says something that they agree with, all of the sudden they are to be believed? Either they're useless and liars, or they're not. Can't have it both ways.

    • 3 votes
    #4.26 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 10:53 PM EDT
    jrone

    You are correct. The U.N. Is useless and a bunch of liars.

      #4.27 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 11:01 PM EDT
      krishna-167929

      Either they're useless and liars, or they're not

      They are mainly useless and liars.

      I seeded two articles where they said that Israel was not at fault here. The reason I though that was important was for just those reasons-- the UN has such a strong anti-Israel bias, that when they do say something like Israel not being at fault-- well, coming form them-- if even they say so its probably true!

      And btw, aside from their anti-Israel bias-- many on the staff are strongly homophobic and feel women are inferior. (Guess why that is so...?)

      • 9 votes
      #4.28 - Thu Aug 5, 2010 12:12 AM EDT
      Isabella-37

      "many on the staff are strongly homophobic and feel women are inferior"

      I know what you are going to say, because they are Arab or Muslim, right? I know quite a few Muslims who work for the UN because one of my best friends works for them. They are neither homophobic, nor do they think women are inferior. I know many Muslims who don't work for the UN that are neither homophobic, nor think women are inferior. By some of the comments I read on this site, there are quite a few Americans who are homophobic and think women are inferior. We won't even allow gays to serve openly in our military, yet a Muslim country like Albania does. That doesn't speak so well for us, does it? Look how long it took for women to have equal rights in this country. Hell, women still don't get paid what a man does for the same job. Just a few years ago a woman couldn't even get a home loan on her own. Should I judge all Americans by their ignorant views? I think not. I wish people would stop painting other people with such wide strokes because of the ignorant.

      • 3 votes
      #4.29 - Thu Aug 5, 2010 12:32 AM EDT
      krishna-167929

      I know what you are going to say, because they are Arab or Muslim, right?

      Nope-- guess again :-)

      • 9 votes
      #4.30 - Thu Aug 5, 2010 1:15 AM EDT
      Meloney

      the link you furnished to the Guardian did not contradict Spectaculararab's comment and 2

      Sure it did-- read it again!

      However, if you still feel its inadequate-- try this one

      Pronoun inadequacy krishna. Please be specific - what is "it"? You reference other's comments then put links up as though the entire page is self-evident and obvious as to some point. I still don't follow you. Your glib "have a nice day" aside you have not established no less proven a point here.

      There's no dispute about from where the first shot came. Lebanon fired first. Was the shot a warning? That is a difficult question since it involves the intention of the shooter but there are declarations that the first shot was intended as a warning (ref 4.16). Was the first shot fired fatal to an Israeli? What is your point?

      That anyone should have died for this tree trimming exercise is absurd. Obviously border tensions are too high and if the declared objects of all are to be accepted at face value communications among those tense parties is woefully inadequate.

      • 2 votes
      #4.31 - Thu Aug 5, 2010 8:51 AM EDT
      Isabella-37

      Krishna, are you talking about the UN in the Middle East, or the UN as a whole?

      • 1 vote
      #4.32 - Thu Aug 5, 2010 9:28 AM EDT
      mork1from1ork

      Let us use our brains, and figure this out, Sherlocks.

      The FIRST shots came from the Lebanese side, everybody agrees.

      It is Claimed, by the Lebanese, that their shots, fired by them,

      was because Israeli soldiers were cutting down THE tree that touched the fence,

      the tree, which the Lebanese CLAIM was a Lebanese tree,

      but the U.N. Peacekeepers say the tree was on the Israeli side.

      NOW, let us examine, WHO was the targets of the INITIAL Lebanese firing;

      WAS it the Israeli soldiers, that were AT the tree, doing the clearing (??);

      NO, the Lebanese shooters, did NOT aim at the soldiers by the tree!!!

      WHO did the Lebanese SHOOT (???!)

      The Lebanese shot TWO Israeli officers, who were WELL INSIDE Israeli territory!!!

      Hmmmmm.

      I would say, this was a PREMEDITATED Shooting, designed to kill the Israeli Officers.

      There has been talk that the Lebanese Officer in Command, was the one who SET-UP the AMBUSH.

      Yes, Detectives (?), another Theory (?!)?

      • 9 votes
      #4.33 - Thu Aug 5, 2010 3:46 PM EDT
      bealdomourji

      Israel, just leave Lebanon, and their trees alone. Stay on your side of the freaking fences, You build these fences to @!$%# up other people ,you invade other countries and destroy them. ENOUGH. GO AWAY. Stay in the land you were given and let the other nations around you have a life. This @!$%# has gone on way too long. NO MORE provocations.

      • 1 vote
      #4.34 - Thu Aug 5, 2010 10:51 PM EDT
      krishna-167929

      I know what you are going to say, because they are Arab or Muslim, right?

      Nope-- guess again :-)

      It has nothing to do with Islam.

      A close friend of mind used to live up in NY. She worked in the UN Secretariat-- that big building you see in pictures of the UN. Some of the things she told me about the attitudes towards women and gays by the staff were shocking. (I wasn't shocked that these attitudes exist-- but rather they were from UN staff-- and even many supervisors. She said the place was a cesspool of bigotry and intolerance-- much worse sexism than she ever experienced in American private companies-- some of which are known for their sexism by the "old boy networks").

      Rather, its quite simple. Most people reflect the cultural values of the place they were raised. Many on the UN staff were raised in countries where women are treated a inferiors...homosexuality is considered a crime against nature, etc. And where its accepted by the society to stone women for adultery-- or even foraccusations of adultery. Barbaric practices such female circumcision are accepted. Honor killings are also considered OK. Women are have an inferior role-- in fact, even the women are brainwashed to think its OK.

      So-- when they get to the UN in NY-- its culture shock. They cant suddenly change 30, 40 or more years of societal conditioing overnight.

      And this pervades the UN-- even at higher levels.

      • 7 votes
      #4.35 - Fri Aug 6, 2010 12:52 AM EDT
      krishna-167929

      Rather, its quite simple. Most people reflect the cultural values of the place they were raised. Many on the UN staff were raised in countries where women are treated a inferiors...homosexuality is considered a crime against nature, etc. And where its accepted by the society to stone women for adultery-- or even foraccusations of adultery. Barbaric practices such female circumcision are accepted. Honor killings are also considered OK. Women are have an inferior role-- in fact, even the women are brainwashed to think its OK.

      So-- when they get to the UN in NY-- its culture shock. They cant suddenly change 30, 40 or more years of societal conditioing overnight.

      And this pervades the UN-- even at higher levels.

      Here's a related article i came across a while back:

      New United Nations General Assembly President calls homosexuality 'unacceptable'

      "The newly-installed president of the United Nations General Assembly, Ali Abdussalam Treki, has said that homosexuality is "not really acceptable"

      • 7 votes
      #4.36 - Fri Aug 6, 2010 1:01 AM EDT
      I'm Ringo

      Israel, just leave Lebanon, and their trees alone. Stay on your side of the freaking fences, You build these fences to @!$%# up other people ,you invade other countries and destroy them. ENOUGH. GO AWAY. Stay in the land you were given and let the other nations around you have a life. This @!$%# has gone on way too long. NO MORE provocations.

      HAHA, yeah, that's a good one.

      • 8 votes
      #4.37 - Fri Aug 6, 2010 7:42 AM EDT
      Isabella-37

      "And this pervades the UN-- even at higher levels"

      Eh, you'll find that in any large organization anywhere in the world. It doesn't even have to involve multiple nations. We have plenty of them in the good old US of A. The largest one is by far the worst. I know more than a few who worked for them, both female and gay. Some had the added misfortune of being a minority in this organization. This organization fought tooth and nail for decades, doing their level best to keep women, gays, and minorities out. This organization has to follow the laws this country has enacted to protect females, gays, and minorities, otherwise they would toss every single one of them out of their organization. Bigotry, sexism, and racism are rampant in this organization. If you're gay, you have to hide the fact that you are, or they wouldn't even hire you. Can you guess which U.S. organization I'm talking about? It's the U.S. Military, whose employees are citizens of one nation. Talk about an "old boy network".

      I keep hearing over and over that there is this thing called the American culture. Seems that culture is also backward in its thinking that women, gays, and minorities are inferior. Seriously, we need to clean up our own backyard before pointing fingers at anyone else.

      • 5 votes
      #4.38 - Fri Aug 6, 2010 9:04 AM EDT
      krishna-167929

      Eh, you'll find that in any large organization anywhere in the world.

      I totally agree.

      However, its a matter of degree. The person I mentioned mentioned that as well in fact-- she told me how she had experienced some random sexist comments in various prior jobs-- but nothing like what she saw in the UN. It was widespread, it was much more deeply ingrained in the sub culture, and supervisors not only refused to act but were also compliicit. In the private sector (at least in the US now) complaints can be filed with government agencies-- and action can (and often is) taken). Not so with the UN.

      • 9 votes
      #4.39 - Fri Aug 6, 2010 4:28 PM EDT
      bealdomourji

      rape for instance is rampant with only 6% convicition rate. So I guess we accept that.(RAINN)

        #4.40 - Fri Aug 6, 2010 9:13 PM EDT
        Perrie

        I do have a question though. All I hear from some here on the vine is that the UN lies, the UN is anti-Semitic, the UN is useless and needs to be done away with, etc, etc. Why is it when the UN says something that they agree with, all of the sudden they are to be believed? Either they're useless and liars, or they're not. Can't have it both ways.

        Hi Isabella,

        I would like to address this. When people choose their sources in a debate, it is best to pick one that the other side accepts as credible. The UN is a credible source for people who argue their case against Israel. The reason that Krishna laughed at Meloney about The Guardian as a pro- Israel source. It is because that it's widely known in on the Pro Israel side, that The Guardian is very pro Palestinian. If she had sited the London Times, his reaction would have been different.

        • 8 votes
        #4.41 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 11:34 AM EDT
        Meloney

        I don't know if you missed the point entirely intetionally or not Perrie.

        The Guardian is not rightwing. I said that in the same comment you've chosen to misinterpret.

        Also said:

        the characterization of the rightwing Israeli political stance as "pro-Israel" and the subsequent implication that anything other than cow-towing to the authoritarian rightwing dogma is "anti-Israel". It's not.

        For instance I believe that political position krishna (and you) commonly refer to as "pro-Israel" is not beneficial. It's a mis-nomer to label the position as "pro-Israel" because it is anti-democratic and authoritarian. These are values which are contrary to the founding principles of Israel and the ideals of it's citizens.

        • 3 votes
        #4.42 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 1:00 PM EDT
        Isabella-37

        Ciao Perrie

        Nice to see you again. Well, I was talking about the UN though. The reason I brought it up is because I've seen many, many posts where people have said the UN and their staff have no credibility whatsoever, that they are anti-Israel, that they need to be done away with. Then they turn around and use the UN as a source when they say something that is to their liking. I'm not talking about any one particular person doing it, just people in general. It's happened many times where the UN is concerned.

        It's not just the UN, I see it done with Press TV and Al-Jazeera. How can people bash them constantly, saying they are anti-Israel and have no credibility whatsoever, then use them as a reliable source when they run a story that they agree with. Same with the Guardian, or any other news site they view as anti-Israel and unreliable. It just seems hypocritical to me.

        I don't read Press TV, or Al Jazeera because I know they won't be accepted as credible sources, just like I won't accept someone using Arutz Sheva. It's owned and operated by hardliner settlers, from the same settlement that has viciously attacked the IDF in the past, and attacks Palestinians on a regular basis. That gives them zero credibility in my book.

        I don't really trust most media. Most of the time they are so quick to get the story out there, they don't do their research. The Associated Press jumped the gun on this one, so this story is a perfect example of a rush to get the story to press.

        I'm leaving early in the morning for Istria, so if I don't see you before that, have a great rest of the week.

        • 3 votes
        #4.43 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 1:17 PM EDT
        Perrie

        Meloney,

        When I refer to something as being Pro-Israel or Pro-Palestinian, I am just referring to the positions taken. It is not a political statement, at least for me.

        I don't understand this statement in context to what I was talking about:

        It's a mis-nomer to label the position as "pro-Israel" because it is anti-democratic and authoritarian. These are values which are contrary to the founding principles of Israel and the ideals of it's citizens.

        • 5 votes
        #4.44 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 1:44 PM EDT
        Perrie

        Hi Isabella,

        Your going to Istria! Every time I talk to you, your off somewhere. I wish I could be such a world traveler! Your a lucky girl!

        I agree with you that there is a tendency for both sides to pick and choose their articles and information to prove their point, and yes, even cross the I/P journalistic line, if it best serves their position. To be fair, most pro-Israel people do view the UN in a negative light, but the counter point to this is done with Orthodox Jews. Most of the time Orthodox Jews are viewed negatively, accept when dealing with the microscopic minority of them that don't believe in the existence of Israel, and protest with the Palestinians, then those are good Orthodox. When in reality, most Jews view all Orthodox as an anathema. Really, it is very easy to paint both Palestinians and Israelis with a broad brush.

        I don't really trust most media. Most of the time they are so quick to get the story out there, they don't do their research. The Associated Press jumped the gun on this one, so this story is a perfect example of a rush to get the story to press.

        There I have to agree with you 100%. That is why I tend to wait till I make any calls on these types of events. You know the old saying," There is your side and their side and somewhere in between there is the truth."

        Anyway, Have a wonderful time on your trip!

        • 7 votes
        #4.45 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 2:10 PM EDT
        Buzz of the Orient

        There should be no surprise when an organization or medium known to be biased towards one side of an issue reports in a manner that supports an opposite view. How can that not be even more believable than its regular reporting? A prime example is the evidence of the Al Jazeera cameraman who reported that Israel's version of the flotilla boarding was the correct one. Such reporters take their life in their hands by doing this.

        Back in the 1950s when I was the Editor-in-chief of my university newspaper, I recall that we used to look to The Christian Science Monitor as the model to follow. I believe that the CSM is still more neutral than much of the other press and other media. There is a problem of reference when one uses biased media as a source and justification for their intransigence. In fact I am considering starting a Newsvine group, to be called "Born Yesterday", to which I will invite to join viners whom I see rely solely on biased media on both sides of the Israel/Palestinisn issue, and are incapable of any neutrality. I doubt that any will accept, but the point will be made.

        • 7 votes
        #4.46 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 2:26 PM EDT
        Meloney

        Pro-Israel or Pro-Palestinian, I am just referring to the positions taken. It is not a political statement

        "Pro-Israel", "Pro-Palestinian" are both political positions.

        • 1 vote
        #4.47 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 2:41 PM EDT
        Perrie

        "Pro-Israel", "Pro-Palestinian" are both political positions.

        Not for me. I use those terms to mean who you sympathize with. You can actually be both. I am, as I believe that both have the right to exist, which is why I so support a two state solution.

        • 8 votes
        #4.48 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 2:50 PM EDT
        Perrie

        In fact I am considering starting a Newsvine group, to be called "Born Yesterday", to which I will invite to join viners whom I see rely solely on biased media on both sides of the Israel/Palestinisn issue, and are incapable of any neutrality. I doubt that any will accept, but the point will be made.

        Count me in!

        • 7 votes
        #4.49 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 2:52 PM EDT
        krishna-167929

        The reason that Krishna laughed at Meloney about The Guardian as a pro- Israel source. It is because that it's widely known in on the Pro Israel side, that The Guardian is very pro Palestinian.

        Exactly. While she is usually quite serious, I can't help but wonder-- in this instance at least, is Meloney perhaps being a bit of a silly goose? I think most informed people would agree-- The Guardian (or "al-Guardian", as its know in some circles) does indeed have a bias-- but that bias is definitely not "pro-Israel'! In fact, it is indeed quite anti-Israel (Not that there's anything wrong with that).

        A while back I seeded this-- from al-Jazeera of all things:

        Al-Jazeera: Gaza flotilla participants invoked killing of Jews

        "The name Khaibar mentioned in battle cry was the last Jewish village defeated by Muhammad's army in 628. The battle marked the end of Jewish presence in Arabia. There are Muslims who see that as a precursor for future wars against Jews.

        That piece by al-Jazeeera makes some of the participants in the so-called "Peace Flotilla" look really bad. (Reades of this column: read the original seed and decide for yourself!)

        So I can't help but wonder-- what's next? Are we now going to see allegations that al-Jazeera is pro-Israel? Allegations that al-Jazeera is controlled, perhaps, by "Zionist Poodles"? Good grief!

        LOL--- sometimes some of the "silly-goosery" on the 'Vine is quite droll!

        But the discussion about The Guardian being pro-Israel has gotten us off-topic, so once again people-- here are the key points:

        1. The Israelis never entered Lebanese territory!!!

        2. In fact, the tree in question never entered Lebanese territory-- it remained firmly planted on Israeli soil!

        3. Israel informed the UN well in advance of their intended pruning.

        4. This has been reported not only by many reputable (and neutral) source in the mainstream media-- but also by the extremely anti-Israel paper The Guardian".

        So-- now that the actual facts are known-- it turns out its really rather simple :-)

        • 8 votes
        #4.50 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 4:31 PM EDT
        krishna-167929

        it remained firmly planted on Israeli soil!

        Pun intended :-)

        • 8 votes
        #4.51 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 4:34 PM EDT
        krishna-167929

        "Pro-Israel", "Pro-Palestinian" are both political positions.

        Well, perhaps it a matter of semantics-- and I myself have been known to be, on occasion, rather "anti-Semantic".

        But basically, Meloney-- I think in this case you're right (or, as they so often say in some of these here discussions on NV, "your right").

        • 8 votes
        #4.52 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 4:39 PM EDT
        Meloney

        in this instance at least, isMeloney perhaps being a bit of a silly goose?...LOL--- sometimes some of the "silly-goosery" on the 'Vine is quite droll!...blah,blah

        *sighs*

        no...it was not an attempt at humor.

        The Guardian has a left of center bias. The political position you (and some others) reliably refer to (and generally espouse and endorse) as "pro-Israel" is more correctly called the "right-wing" position.

        It is entirely possible to be pro-Israel and NOT right-wing.

        ...it [the Guardian] is indeed quite anti-Israel (Not that there's anything wrong with that).

        If you are pro-Israel and not right-wing there is definitely something wrong with being labelled "anti-Israel".

        It's more than semantics krishna. It's using labels improperly in a way that limits or delegitimizes some positions. Refusal to recognize a spectrum of ideas that does not fall into your oversimplified categories limits debate and discussion. Not that there's anything wrong with that either as long as you aren't expecting meaningfiul communication with people that don't fit your rigid mold.

        • 2 votes
        #4.53 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 5:44 PM EDT
        Buzz of the Orient

        In fact I am considering starting a Newsvine group, to be called "Born Yesterday", to which I will invite to join viners whom I see rely solely on biased media on both sides of the Israel/Palestinisn issue, and are incapable of any neutrality.

        With all this dialogue about semantics, I realized that I was not clear with this statement. Instead of "on both sides", I really should have said "on only one side". Perrie, you would not qualify for that group.

        Therefore, the statement should read: "In fact I am considering starting a Newsvine group, to be called "Born Yesterday", to which I will invite to join viners whom I see rely solely on only one side of the Israel/Palestinian issue, and are incapable of any neutrality." I think it could be a fairly large group.

        • 8 votes
        #4.54 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 7:29 PM EDT
        krishna-167929

        The political position you (and some others) reliably refer to (and generally espouse and endorse) as "pro-Israel" is more correctly called the "right-wing" position.

        No its not.

        Don't put words in my mouth.

        When I say "pro-Israel' I mean just that-- whether the support fro Israel comes from the right or the left.

        • 8 votes
        #4.55 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 8:48 PM EDT
        krishna-167929

        It is entirely possible to be pro-Israel and NOT right-wing.

        Of course.

        In fact, most of the early Zionists were left wing-- many were kibbutzniks. A Kibbutz is , basically, a collective -- Communism-- hardy right wing! (A rare form of Communism, as it is democratic-- but they are real leftists. And before you try to spin that-- as you tried to spin what I said previously-- I was a volunteer on a Kibbutz-- I know of what I speak-- they are leftists!)

        So yes, Meloney, there are plenty of pro-Israel leftists. But you are wrong about The Guardian-- while it is leftist, it is biased against Israel.

        And any number of *sighs* won't change the facts!

        • 9 votes
        #4.56 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 8:51 PM EDT
        Meloney

        "the facts"? Since it's a fact, the objective truth, that the publication is against Israel just prove it. Why the appeal to the authenticity of your personal experience? You say it's a "fact" - show it is so. Reference the masthead or the mission statement of the publisher that declares this supposed fact.

        The Guardian, as a left of center publication, upholds certain values and principles - like civil rights, human rights, equity, democracy. These are also values important to the people of Israel. They are important to the future and prosperity of Israel. The Guardian and the people of Israel share values. What you call "against Israel" is criticism of those things that obstruct the shared values.

        This isn't the 1st time I've brought attention to using the "pro-Israel" label in a misleading way. I don't suppose my pointing it out will keep you from continued misuse since it benefits your right wing political position.

        • 2 votes
        #4.57 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 11:24 PM EDT
        nonStitiousZealot

        The Guardian, as a left of center publication, upholds certain values and principles - like civil rights, human rights, equity, democracy. These are also values important to the people of Israel.

        Yup , that is basically correct . And yet for some reason [having to do
        with political correctness ?] in the U.S. the left has a pronounced anti-Israel bias .

        • 8 votes
        #4.58 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 11:57 PM EDT
        bealdomourji

        in the U.S. the left has a pronounced anti-Israel bias .

        because despite the above ideas being good for Israel their right wing government has determined it would rather stomp on them, so the left has no choice but to stick to principle and support that Palestinian and Israeli people who embody these values, and who feel all people have the right to equal rights.

        • 1 vote
        #4.59 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:11 AM EDT
        krishna-167929

        "the facts"? Since it's a fact, the objective truth, that the publication is against Israel just prove it. Why the appeal to the authenticity of your personal experience? You say it's a "fact" - show it is so. Reference the masthead or the mission statement of the publisher that declares this supposed fact.

        The Guardian, as a left of center publication, upholds certain values and principles - like civil rights, human rights, equity, democracy. These are also values important to the people of Israel. They are important to the future and prosperity of Israel. The Guardian and the people of Israel share values. What you call "against Israel" is criticism of those things that obstruct the shared values.

        This isn't the 1st time I've brought attention to using the "pro-Israel" label in a misleading way. I don't suppose my pointing it out will keep you from continued misuse since it benefits your right wing political position.

        WTF?
        I am de-tracking from this "conversation"
        Have a nice day :-)

        • 7 votes
        #4.60 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:13 AM EDT
        krishna-167929

        And yet for some reason [having to do
        with political correctness ?] in the U.S. the left has a pronounced anti-Israel bias

        Correction: Some of the left.

        Many of my friends are liberals, and are strongly pro-Israel.

        • 8 votes
        #4.61 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:14 AM EDT
        nonStitiousZealot

        bealdomourji ,

        Have you heard about this amazing invention called the sentence ?
        It is a great boon to communication . It allows one to break up their
        ideas into small intelligible pieces to facilitate communication .
        The alternative is to run all your ideas together into one unintelligible mess .

        • 8 votes
        #4.62 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:42 AM EDT
        Buzz of the Orient

        Now, now, nSZ; you shouldn't be critical of persons whose first language is not English.

        • 8 votes
        #4.63 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:51 AM EDT
        nonStitiousZealot

        Buzz ,

        I don't know what you could possibly be talking about .
        That was me trying to be helpful !

        BTW , have you seen my new seed ?

        • 7 votes
        #4.64 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 2:52 AM EDT
        Buzz of the Orient

        Ha ha, what I said was actually a shot at the other guy. I did see your seed, and was going to make a comment that the shape of the dent was probably because of the shape of the bracing inside the ship, but then I saw someone else said it. I just couldn't think of a comment on the topic, so all I did was vote up your seed and the comments of all my friends.

        • 7 votes
        #4.65 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:20 AM EDT
        Meloney

        The Guardian-- while it is leftist, it is biased against Israel. And any number of *sighs* won't change the facts!

        "the facts"? Since it's a fact, the objective truth, that the publication is against Israel just prove it... You say it's a "fact" - show it is so.

        WTF?
        I am de-tracking from this "conversation"

        mmmmmhm - got nothing (still)

        • 1 vote
        #4.66 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:05 AM EDT
        Perrie

        Meloney,

        No paper or news outlet puts out a "mission statement" to how they are going to spin their version of the truth. That is how yellow journalism happened. Look at Fox. They call themselves fair and balanced. Now that is a laugh.

        I grew up in England. It is a very well known fact that the Guardian is a left leaning paper and is pro Palestinian. The Times is a right leaning paper pro Israeli, and the Independent, well somewhere in the middle. Oh, I forgot the Telegraph, pretty straight forward, with a slight lean to the right with British politics, but everywhere on international.

        • 8 votes
        #4.67 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:06 AM EDT
        nonStitiousZealot

        Buzz ,

        what I said was actually a shot at the other guy.

        I was trying to play innocent . Did it work ?

        • 5 votes
        #4.68 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:20 PM EDT
        Meloney

        Perrie-

        I don't think you've grasped the essence of my comments yet. Here's a sort of parallel in an attmpt to make my point yet again. Recall debate on the abortion issue in bygone decades. There was a complaint similar to the one I make here when the anti-abortion position decided to label itself as pro-life. Do you see any connection in the nomenclature issue?

        Here's a more eloquent speaker than I:

        Being pro-Israel means standing up for Israel as a democratic, Jewish state. It means standing up for the legitimacy of the Israeli government's sovereignty and for its rule of law.

        Being pro-Israel means taking a strong stance against violence that threatens the integrity and well-being of the state, even when perpetrated by Israeli Jews.

        Defending Israeli policies that are contrary to it's welfare is not "pro-Israel". All that is is co-opting a political label to masquarade as something it's not.

        • 1 vote
        #4.69 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:49 PM EDT
        bealdomourji

        Sorry. I am a poet by profession. I get paid to write poetry which can be difficult. So, I am used to people being reading what I write, being able to keep up with the thread of an idea. Sorry If what I said was too difficult for you to decipher.

        Many apologies for being too complicated, I will make it simple. So, here is the translation for you NSZ:

        The Guardian, in order to uphold the principles laid out in the argument,(see above principles list) would have to support Israelis and Palestinians who also stand for these same ideals and principles.

        Because of this, they would be unable to support the current Israeli Policies as, the current Israeli Policies, are racist, illegal and inhumane. The right wingers in charge of the Israeli government do not conform to the ideals or the left wing or liberals. They do not conform to the ideals embraced by the Guardian. This does not make for an anti-Israeli bias, as there are many Israelis who also embrace the same principles as stated in the Guardian. Certainly there are.

        • 1 vote
        #4.70 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:55 PM EDT
        Meloney

        Thanks bea. The point seems obvious enough. After seeing the petty reference to sentence construction I figure failure to recognize or address it is likely intentional for some posters.

        The principles upheld in the Guardian are done so without regard to the convenience of the ruling political order.

        • 1 vote
        #4.71 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:39 PM EDT
        nonStitiousZealot

        I find it interesting that you think you're being too complicated .
        What you have not understood is you are not thinking clearly .
        One of the signs of unclear thought is a running together of thoughts
        in a long undifferentiated structure . You have succeeded in avoiding that
        this time . However now you are resorting to an obvious tactic .

        No government can be always constant in its policies . Sure it can attempt
        to promote freedom and equality but there are times when those get put
        aside while emergencies are dealt with . In the U.S. , the writ of Habeas Corpus was suspended during an extreme emergency . There have been rights suspensions in the past as there are now with the Patriot Act . Implying that Israel's elected government is illegitimate because they are temporarily more suppressive is unjustified .
        The people of Israel elected that government because they believed there were emergencies that needed tending to . And there are .

        You think Israel is racist ? I disagree and I'm not the only one who does .

        • 7 votes
        #4.72 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:58 PM EDT
        Perrie

        Meloney,

        I read the quote and it came from an op ed. It is not the definitive meaning of what Pro-Israel means. Pro-Israel means different things to different people. And while I agree with this particular statement, it doesn't mean that the term Pro-Israel will mean something different.

        I am not trying to play a game of semantics with you, it is just that terms tend to take on different meanings and interpretations by each person.

        But now given that I accept that as a definition, don't you think that being pro-Palestinian should mean the same thing?

        The problems with these discussions is that there seems to be different standards set up for each party, as defined by those who are doing the arguing. I think that the same standards should apply, since both want the same basic human needs, which would be a homeland that they can live in, in peace.

        • 6 votes
        #4.73 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:58 PM EDT
        Meloney

        ...there seems to be different standards set up for each party, as defined by those who are doing the arguing. I think that the same standards should apply...

        What standards? There is no agreement for standards. We're not going to set standards. No one will be setting standards.

        Why not simply recognize that smug assurance that this or that source fits some supposed standard is BS?

        Why this proclivity to paste a or label on every source - from blogs to mainstream publications to institutions like the UN- anyway? imo - doing so indicates an unwillingness to truly listen and a frame of mind that has pre-determined dogma.

        (btw, I'd add there is no neutral, independent, or middle space either. Those terms are fine for people who don't know where they stand, don't know which issues are significant to what or why.)

        The best we can hope for are opportunities where common goals and aspirations intersect. It's more effort to communicate without labels but it's the way to identify common interests (like "basic human needs, which would be a homeland that they can live in, in peace"). Then the discussion can be how to best meet those goals.

        • 2 votes
        #4.74 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:13 PM EDT
        nonStitiousZealot

        Meloney #4.42 ,

        I believe that political position krishna (and you) commonly refer to as "pro-Israel" is not beneficial. It's a mis-nomer to label the position as "pro-Israel" because it is anti-democratic and authoritarian.

        You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I'm going to disagree with you . See #4.72 .

        • 7 votes
        #4.75 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:57 PM EDT
        bealdomourji

        No government can be always constant in its policies

        I did not say it could. I merely stated tat when it a government is not tur to its policies news media is under no compunction to support policy that it finds repugnant.

        aside while emergencies are dealt with

        This is either disimgenuous or it has been a very long emergency, so long in fact that is is normal and not in fact an unusual event calling for unusual measures.

        the Patriot Act

        Not a fan. Thimk it is a fraud and a ruse.

        You think Israel is racist

        did I say that? I think not. I said Israeli policy (meaning now in regard to the relations with the Palestinians, is racist. I stand by that, not the words you would have me take on.

        As for your amusement at my finding my speech complicated as opposed to confused? To each their own. I did not find it complicated. or confused, or difficult to follow , you did and said so. I think others understood what I was saying. I don't tend to speak in repetition or repeat what I am responding too. Most seem able to follow. I thought I apologized sufficiently. You didn't have to continue to trash me personally. Seems you don't want to talk about the racism inherent in Israeli policy towards Palestinians in general and in Lebanon to be more specific to this seed.

        • 1 vote
        #4.76 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:06 PM EDT
        Perrie

        Meloney,

        This whole dialog is subjective. We all try to pick sources we think best drives home the point we are trying to make.

        BTW, IMHO, there are such people as moderates, and independents. It means that they don't hold to a specific ideology and think outside the box and form their own. I have had this dialog in the political arena, and I know that we independents/moderates drive every one nuts, until they need our vote. Then they love us. But that is a whole different subject.

        Why not simply recognize that smug assurance that this or that source fits some supposed standard is BS?

        Well, that was rather nasty. There is no smugness there. It is what I believe. It is not that there is a literal standard, it is just what the general consensus is. Now I know you think you know who I am, but you haven't got a clue. But here is a hint. I am smart enough to know when someone is trying to bate me into a fight. By calling me smug, and mocking independents/moderates you are hoping for a reaction. The only reaction you will get from me is that I will watch my interaction with you a bit better.

        I will agree with you on this:

        The best we can hope for are opportunities where common goals and aspirations intersect. It's more effort to communicate without labels but it's the way to identify common interests (like "basic human needs, which would be a homeland that they can live in, in peace"). Then the discussion can be how to best meet those goals.

        I think we better call it a day now. I seem to be getting on your nerves.

        • 7 votes
        #4.77 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:28 PM EDT
        bealdomourji

        sure, one can be moderate and independent overall, in a broad sense , but on specific issues, I agree with Meloney that one is either confused, can't decide, or has an opinion. I also think that it is possible to back up such an opinion with media representing more than one "side". Many times opposing media is so blatantly partisan of a subject that it almost proves the opposite point.

        As for the Guardian, it is a left/liberal media which does not deny that. So to say that it would support left/liberal ideas is kind of obvious. It can also be considered moderate if you were to compare it to really radical leftist groups , so I don't see the point in disregarding it because of its principles. You can say, well the Guardian supports left/liberal ideas therefore it is anti-Israel , but only if you are willing to admit that Israel rejects these same principles. which Perrie, I don't think you are willing to do.

        • 1 vote
        #4.78 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:19 AM EDT
        Perrie

        bealdomouri,

        one can be moderate and independent overall, in a broad sense , but on specific issues, I agree with Meloney that one is either confused, can't decide, or has an opinion.

        Well yes and no. Independents are no more confused than most with a left or right leaning. They might want more information than the average person, but that is because for them, no one issue is fixed. There are many people who were quick to vote for their guy in an election, only to be disappointed later, because they didn't went with a knee jerk reaction, as opposed to think carefully about it. And yes, many times we do have our minds made up.

        You can say, well the Guardian supports left/liberal ideas therefore it is anti-Israel , but only if you are willing to admit that Israel rejects these same principles. which Perrie, I don't think you are willing to do.

        That statement is like saying that America is one thing or another. Are you talking about the Israeli government or the Israeli people? In any case, both conservatives and liberals exist there, just as they exist here. For that matter, turn the table and ask that about the Palestinian people. I am sure their are both conservatives and liberals.

        No one group of people is any one stereotype. They are as diverse in opinion as the people who make up that group.

        • 8 votes
        #4.79 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:50 AM EDT
        mork1from1ork

        Perrie,

        as YOU said, "No one group of people is any one stereotype".

        "Corporal Elinor Josef, a young Israeli, Christian Arab woman, from Northern Israel,

        in the IDF, and assigned as a medic, and stationed at a Check-Point, in the West Bank,

        REBUFFED accusations that Palestinian Arabs are routinely abused at such checkpoints,

        NOTING that the treatment of Palestinians, by the soldiers that she was stationed with,

        was, "ALWAYS full of respect".

        Despite being "different" than most of the soldiers around her,

        Josef says, that, she has "Always been respected,--Not just me, but also, my customs and my Religion".

        I say, maybe two generations, and ALL ISRAELIS,

        ALL,

        will be ISRAELIS, and PROUD ISRAELIS;

        Jewish Israelis, Christian Israelis, Muslim Israelis, Pagan Israelis AND Agnostic Israelis.

        ****

        The Palestinians in Jordan, will be PROUD to be JORDANIANS.

        The Palestinians in the West Bank will be PROUD to be PALESTINIANS.

        and Those in Gaza, will be GAZANS.

        It will be the FOUR State Solution for the Whole of "Traditional Palestine".

        • 7 votes
        #4.80 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:35 AM EDT
        bealdomourji

        Sorry, I thought I was continuing my post in discussion. I think in almost every case I have used the wors "policy". Here, I meant Israeli policy as I have said before, there are also many Israelis who do not support Israeli policy.

        I only said "Israel" in reference to your saying "anti-Israel" which I reject as I said above.

        I have repeatedly tried to say "Israeli policy" and even current "Israeli policy."

        I think many people who are not moderate also have done just as much research and have view as many possible "sides" of a picture and made just as thoughtful choices as so called moderates and independents. The problem is that many times there are no REAL choices. So one is stuck with choosing the lesser of two evils.

        In that case some less moderate people choose to protest this lack of real choice. They obviously have thought out of the box as all the so called choices in the box seemed to them to suck.

        So I wouldn't say moderate or independent means more reasoned. It may be more, less or equally reasoned as a more leftist or rightest approach.

        In regard to source material, just because it has principles that are fixed doesnt assume a situation is fixed in place. But in my opinion it is important to be true to what you believe in, your principles, and that does not make you biased against a non-fixed entity such as Israeli policy. All it means is that you are critical , possibly to the point of condemnation , of Israeli or any other policy that violates your most dearly held beliefs, such as some of the ones stated above: human rights, equal rights, equal access to water, etc etc. This does no preclude using such a source on the basis of any other specific bias toward a non-fixed entity.

        • 1 vote
        #4.81 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:31 AM EDT
        Meloney

        Well, that was rather nasty.

        perhaps, if you want to be offended...but was it accurate?

        smug self assurance = The reason that Krishna laughed at Meloney about The Guardian as a pro- Israel source. It is because that it's widely known in on the Pro Israel side, that The Guardian is very pro Palestinian. An explanation that restates the arrogance of the inital expression and the internal resistance to anything but certified dogma.

        The self-identified "Pro-Israeli side" self-defines (aka widely knows, or pulls a concensus among itself) others according to their own political agenda and gets haughty, mocking and belittling when their definitions fail as an effective communication tool.

        Yeah, I'm still comfortable with my description.

          #4.82 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:22 PM EDT
          Perrie

          I only said "Israel" in reference to your saying "anti-Israel" which I reject as I said above.

          I still contend that most media has a bend that is either anti-Israel or anti-Palestinian or to put it in a more positive way, is pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. A few give both sides of the story. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

          The problem is that many times there are no REAL choices. So one is stuck with choosing the lesser of two evils.

          More often than not, this is correct. But that is true for us Independents. That is why I am very involved in developing a third party here in the US. Otherwise, we tend to swing from the right to the left and back again, with the net result being, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

          So I wouldn't say moderate or independent means more reasoned. It may be more, less or equally reasoned as a more leftist or rightest approach.

          Again, yes and no. The people I have met in the Independent movement are not stuck in a specific ideology. They see fault equally on both the right and the left. Once you sign onto a specific ideology, then you have discounted everything the other side has to say.

          But in my opinion it is important to be true to what you believe in, your principles, and that does not make you biased against a non-fixed entity such as Israeli policy.

          There is a difference between principles and ideology.

          Principles:A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments.

          Ideology: Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a body of ideas that reflects the beliefs and interests of a nation, political system, etc. and underlies political action

          http://www.thefreedictionary.com

          Principles no one should give up. It is what is a given to live within a social norm. Ideology, which many people try to say are principles, is not the same thing.

          So to get back to Israel, there are things that I feel that they are wrong about in principle. All humans should be allowed water. It is a basic human need. To be arrested trying to get water is a crime in it's self.

          To counterpoint that, Hamas' schools teaching young children that Jews are less than human is also wrong.

          The problem with this issue, is the incapacity to see that both sides have acted and over reacted over years of anger, hate, war. I see clearly what both have done, but I try not to demonize either side.

          My ultimate goal would be two nations living side by side, but I think that can only be done when people drop their ideology and start demanding principles from both peoples.

          • 7 votes
          #4.83 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:47 PM EDT
          Perrie

          Meloney,

          I am not Krishna. I am ME! I was talking to you, not Krishna, so please don't use him as an excuse to attack me. Like I said earlier, you think you know me, you don't.

          The self-identified "Pro-Israeli side" self-defines (aka widely knows, or pulls a concensus among itself) others according to their own political agenda and gets haughty, mocking and belittling when their definitions fail as an effective communication tool.

          Again, you are not talking about me. Furthermore, the behavior that you find so contemptible from the Pro-Israeli side, I have seen from the Pro-Palestinian side. This is the crux of the problem. Being stuck in an ideology.

          So if your comfortable with being nasty to me, that says something about you, and not about me.

          • 7 votes
          #4.84 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:54 PM EDT
          Meloney

          Perrie

          Just to totally lay waste to any productive outcome between us (why not? you started out missing my point and show no signs of receptivity) ... I'll remind you that you don't read my mind. Ya know right there where you say (again) that you know what I'm thinking...about how I know you? Gee, I was thinking about subject matter here and you had me pegged for thinking of you. Oops. Perhaps it's that smug arrogance that leads you to imagine that I'm thinking I know you? Well, ya got me wondering now.

          Your additional mind reading prophesy that I have some confusion distinguishing you from krishna proves your crystal ball is dysfunctional.

          Now that you've called it a day as far as trying to grasp my point about affiliation and nomenclature you might as well set yourself on fire with imagined insult.

            #4.85 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:46 PM EDT
            nonStitiousZealot

            Nag nag nag .

            • 8 votes
            #4.86 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:03 PM EDT
            Perrie

            Meloney,

            Your mad that I didn't get your point? I really just don't get your point! It's not a matter of being receptive, I just don't get it. As for knowing your mind, I don't. I can only judge you by your words. They have been combative. Calling someone smug, and then saying so be it, is just mean.

            Oops. Perhaps it's that smug arrogance that leads you to imagine that I'm thinking I know you? Well, ya got me wondering now.

            No Opps. You haven't caught me. I am responding to how you have responded. Wonder away, it's your right.

            Your additional mind reading prophesy that I have some confusion distinguishing you from krishna proves your crystal ball is dysfunctional.

            Again, just plain nasty.

            Now that you've called it a day as far as trying to grasp my point about affiliation and nomenclature you might as well set yourself on fire with imagined insult.

            LOL Meloney... set my self on fire? Talking about an exaggeration. And as for calling it a day, well I didn't say that, you did. What I did say, is:

            I think we better call it a day now. I seem to be getting on your nerves.

            Which I was apparently right about and I will do now.

            bealdomouri,

            It was a pleasure talking to you, but I think I must be going.

            • 8 votes
            #4.87 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:39 PM EDT
            Reply
            Concerned Citizen-1303521

            They're probably trying to provoke an incident that will allow them to invade and take hold of that newly found natural gas deposit in Lebanon.

            • 7 votes
            Reply#5 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 9:08 AM EDT
            krishna-167929

            They're probably trying to provoke an incident that will allow them to invade and take hold of that newly found natural gas deposit in Lebanon.

            Or-- maybe Hizb'Allah want to provoke an incident so they can attack Israel again-- and take hold of the gas the Israelis discovered off the coast of Haifa:

            Large quantities of natural gas found off Haifa coast

            More than 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas discovered at well off of Israel's Mediterranean coast. 'This appears to be the largest discovery in the company's history,' says Noble Energy president

            • 12 votes
            #5.1 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 4:16 PM EDT
            mca1966

            failed again krishna!!

            btw - it's called jaffa you silly nectarine

            7 )

            • 3 votes
            #5.2 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 6:58 PM EDT
            krishna-167929

            failed again krishna!!

            btw - it's called jaffa you silly nectarine

            I am speaking of Haifa-- Check out Google maps.

            • 12 votes
            #5.3 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 7:16 PM EDT
            Riad

            Krishna, what is Hizballah got to do with this incident? Oh, lemme guess, Hizballah has an undercover spy working for Israel, that spy convinced his fellow Israeli soldiers to go cut a tree down thus provoking a fight, right? You are so wise.

            Why don't you admit, Israel is still itching for revenge since their defeat in 2006. They want so bad to regain their pride that they will do whatever it takes to start another war-i mean look at their reaction today, tanks, helicopters, shelling all because of a fire shot from the Lebanese soldier? Wow!

            Someone should cut-off the sugar supply to these freaks.

            • 4 votes
            #5.4 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 11:33 PM EDT
            krishna-167929

            Krishna, what is Hizballah got to do with this incident?

            A good question. for starters-- take a look at this map-- see where in Lebanon Hizb'Allah is concentrated.

            Also, realize that:

            Hezbollah receives its financial support from the governments of Iran and Syria, as well as donations from Lebanese people and foreign Shi'as.[18][19] It has also gained significantly in military strength in the 2000s.[20] Despite a June 2008 certification by the United Nations that Israel had withdrawn from all Lebanese territory,[21] in August, Lebanon's new Cabinet unanimously approved a draft policy statement which secures Hezbollah's existence as an armed organization and guarantees its right to "liberate or recover occupied lands." Since 1992, the organization has been headed by Hassan Nasrallah, its Secretary-General.

            They have infiltrated the Regular Lebanese army.

            Get it?

            • 11 votes
            #5.5 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 3:42 AM EDT
            Reply
            jrone

            grease up again you lebanese. here come da jews. whatever were they doing with israels tree? one would think they knew better.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#6 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 9:40 AM EDT
            David-1830107

            Bunch of bigots above me. Same bigots that call others bigots for AZ's law. Cracks me up.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#7 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 10:05 AM EDT
            vinnie-302098

            And once again Israel is at it creating havoc, and pointing the finger "it was not us, it was them".

            We have Harry Truman to blame for Israel's existence. Truman's Secretary of State, George Marshall, told Truman that if he recognized the state of Israel that, he, Marshall, would not support him, as Truman would be responsible for opening a can or worms.

            The can of worms has become an international disaster! And this nation continues to pour money and weapons into Israel which only help promulgate continuing Israeli aggression!

            What a sorry state of affairs!

            • 3 votes
            #8 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 1:20 PM EDT
            mork1from1ork

            Isabella,

            YOU wouldn't say that our Irish Pagan, kpr, is anything less than truthful,

            whatever HIS or YOUR bias, "would YOU (?!)".

            I just finished reading his report on this incident.

            According to what kpr, has found to be the facts of the incident,

            Israel had TOLD the U.N. Peace Keeping Force, about the "clearing work", the day before,

            and kpr, has said that U.N. Peace-Keepers and Journalists were THERE,

            standing alongside the Israelis, and there are MANY pictures,

            this indicating for the World's VISUAL RECORD, that the U.N. Peace-Keepers were notified (!!!)

            Therefore, even if the Lebanese PRETEND that Israel didn't NOTIFY tHEM,

            the PICTURES, of the PRESENCE of the U.N. Peace-Keepers,

            PROVE that the U.N. Peace-keepers WERE NOTIFIED,

            and it would STRAIN CREDULITY, to the MAX,

            that the U.N. Peace-Keepers, DID NOT TELL THE LEBANESE,

            of the Israeli Cutting and Trimming of the BORDER Vegetation (!!!!);

            this Cutting and Trimming, having been DONE by Israel, MANY TIMES BEFORE!

            kpr, also reports that the INITIAL, FIRST FIRE of the Lebanese,

            killed an Israeli officer, and seriously wounded another soldier.

            Isabella,....(?)

            • 10 votes
            #8.1 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 3:13 PM EDT
            Isabella-37

            I think I'll pass on commenting on that person and the credibility of the crap he seeds.

            • 7 votes
            #8.2 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 3:53 PM EDT
            mca1966

            no no no no Isabella

            Mork is from Ork-A-viv and AN extremely credible BLOGGER with his signature ransom letter posts!

            ;8->

            • 4 votes
            #8.3 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 7:00 PM EDT
            mork1from1ork

            Isabella,

            not commenting on the information that kpr, has posted,

            is your prerogative,

            BUT, it is disappointing.

            • 8 votes
            #8.4 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 7:41 PM EDT
            Slinger-958418

            don't bother mork1, Isabella always cuts and run from any meaningful debate.

            • 6 votes
            #8.5 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 7:46 PM EDT
            Isabella-37

            Strange you assume to know me so well when I have never seen you before Slinger, or whatever re-reg you used to be.

            • 2 votes
            #8.6 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 7:51 PM EDT
            Slinger-958418

            Considering I have been around the vine for years, I would doubt I am a re-reg. Read my profile. And, no offense, but every time I have tried to engage you in any form of meaningful debate...........you cut and run. Just my observation. Deny it if you like.

            • 4 votes
            #8.7 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 7:55 PM EDT
            Isabella-37

            You have never tried to engage me. Show me where. I've never seen you before. There is another Isabella on this site, who hangs around the political threads, so it may be her. She has a bunch of numbers after her name. I don't know who you are.

            • 2 votes
            #8.8 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 7:56 PM EDT
            Slinger-958418

            If I am mistaken, then I apologize. I never paid attention to the numbers, just the name. But, aren't you the Isabella who frequents the Israel Palestinian feeds alot?

            • 4 votes
            #8.9 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 8:00 PM EDT
            Isabella-37

            Yes I am. I honestly have never seen you before, and I have never had any back and forth with you, so I am a bit confused about what you are talking about. I take a lot of threads off my tracker after a day or two, so if you tried to engage me, I may have not seen it.

            • 3 votes
            #8.10 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 8:03 PM EDT
            Slinger-958418

            Maybe it is the other Isabella, I have run into. I guess I should pay more attention to the numbers as well as the name. LOL

            • 1 vote
            #8.11 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 8:08 PM EDT
            Isabella-37

            No problem Slinger. Anyone who knows me on here knows I like to have the last word in an argument, I'm a woman ya know, that's how we are. If the other person does too, the back and forth can go on for days. I don't think I have ever cut and run from anything, so that's why I was a bit confused. Have a good evening.

            • 3 votes
            #8.12 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 8:24 PM EDT
            RAY FRIEDMAN

            atleast israel is an ally and not based on radical fundamentalists, i do not think israel supports terrorism.

            • 4 votes
            #8.13 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 8:30 PM EDT
            Slinger-958418

            Obviously you have never looked at the list of terrorist organizations then, because there actually are quite a few IN Israel.

              #8.14 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 8:38 PM EDT
              mork1from1ork

              Ms. Slinger,

              we've talked before, and I've read some of your posts that I've come across,

              and although we are not biased along similar lines; no matter THAT.

              What I am asking you, IS,

              YOU, being an intelligent woman,

              and discerning, I'm TOTALLY sure,

              the QUESTION that perplexes me many times, when I come across this type of situation,

              IS,

              when a faux Juden persona speaks, is it at ALL obvious to YOU(??!),

              are YOU fooled (??!),

              or does it matter,

              since it is such an EASY, "straight-man" set up (!!!?).

              Isabella,

              "?Es posible', tu opinion' (?); Es El/Ella un persona de un hombre/una mujere, R.F., del Judio ? Si o No ?

              I KNOW that you speak Italian, but I thought I'd try by Espan~ol, muy mal.

              • 7 votes
              #8.15 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 11:16 PM EDT
              SPECTACULARARAB

              Tell me really did I see two blue boxes clashed of Slinger's and Isabella's? Both of you are on my lists. Well, you better stand in the corner until you kiss and make up.ROFL.

              • 5 votes
              #8.16 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 3:16 AM EDT
              magend

              Dear Vinnie,

              "We have Harry Truman to blame for Israel's existence. Truman's Secretary of State, George Marshall, told Truman that if he recognized the state of Israel that, he, Marshall, would not support him, as Truman would be responsible for opening a can or worms."

              Actually brother - I think your indignation should be aimed at G-d!!! Take up your arguments with Him (if ya dare - and good luck) as Israel being "brought back from the grave" was all His doing!!! Was prophesied by Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah and a few others over 2500 years ago!!!

              And, I'm willing to bet that if you can overthrow Him (G-d), that you'll then be able to make ISRAEL go away! Until then - not much you can do about it I suspect!!!

              Good Luck with that bro!!!

              • 3 votes
              #8.17 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 5:26 AM EDT
              magend

              Jezebella-37,

              You might be interested in this article - being a "Woman" who just has to have the last word!

              Jezebel was the same way! Until ----

              http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/sbvoices/rgleepayday.asp

              • 1 vote
              #8.18 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 5:38 AM EDT
              Slinger-958418

              when a faux Juden persona speaks, is it at ALL obvious to YOU(??!),

              Answer: Sometimes it is obvious, sometimes it's not.

              • 1 vote
              #8.19 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 1:54 PM EDT
              Slinger-958418

              Tell me really did I see two blue boxes clashed of Slinger's and Isabella's? Both of you are on my lists. Well, you better stand in the corner until you kiss and make up.ROFL.

              It was a case of mistaken identity, Spectacular. All is well in vine land. :-)

              • 2 votes
              #8.20 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 1:55 PM EDT
              mork1from1ork

              Ms. Slinger,

              the QUESTION to be answered, IF, you would,

              IS,

              are you AWARE of the OBVIOUS, on this occasion ??!

              • 5 votes
              #8.21 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 2:10 PM EDT
              Slinger-958418

              Probably NOT. I seem to be a little Off kilter this week....

              • 1 vote
              #8.22 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 3:04 PM EDT
              mork1from1ork

              Slinger,

              fair enough.

              We ALL have our Off-Kilter days.

              b.t.w., El "Judio", R.F., encima, El NO es Judio !!!

              • 4 votes
              #8.23 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 3:35 PM EDT
              Reply
              rozdane

              This whole thing doesn't sound or look right.

              I mean guys its just a tree and you have UN in the middle. Just ask them to care of it. Why mess around one tree and hve people get killed on both sides for nothing. was the tree worth the life of all the people who got killed.

              Obviously people can get stupid enough when they let their stupid motions run high and take stupid bravdo steps and get shot.

              The israelis should have been smart enough to involve UN to help them out in the possible no-mans land UN-buffer between the borders.

              • 5 votes
              Reply#9 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 6:44 PM EDT
              krishna-167929

              This whole thing doesn't sound or look right.

              Border clashes never do.

              Usually its the same scenario-- each side claims the other side fired first.

              • 8 votes
              #9.1 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 8:14 PM EDT
              krishna-167929

              The israelis should have been smart enough to involve UN to help them out in the possible no-mans land UN-buffer between the borders.

              It wasn't in a no-man's land-- the UN stated that it was clearly on the Israeli side of the border:

              UNIFIL: Incident was on Israeli side of border

              • 7 votes
              #9.2 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 1:57 PM EDT
              Reply
              IDFeb89

              The israelis should have been smart enough to involve UN to help them out in the possible no-mans land UN-buffer between the borders.

              UNIFIL was notified and involved..so was the Lebanese army. this has been a routine for years now since the cease fire agreement of the 2nd Lebanon war. someone on the other side decided it was a good time to stir some @!$%# up,and to an extent succeeded. still,I suspect cooler heads will prevail again.

              UNIFIL says IDF activity did not warrant Lebanese fire

              During the incident, which took place mid-day Tuesday, Lebanese soldiers ambushed an Israeli Engineering Corps force operating on the Israeli side of the border. The Israeli soldiers were clearing bushes along the border fence. According to the army, such activity has become routine since the conclusion of the Second Lebanon War.

              • 10 votes
              Reply#10 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 7:00 PM EDT
              mca1966

              That's right - they only warranted pleas and cries of:

              please - don't violate the demarc line- preeetyyy pllllease

              meanwhile in Gaza - the moment a furry marsupial approaches the fence....BAM!!

              F-16s and Merkava strikes galore!!

              FAILED IDF!

              8 0

              • 3 votes
              #10.1 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 7:02 PM EDT
              mork1from1ork

              m(eshu)c(gen)a,

              not

              m(e)c(c)a

              &~^{

              • 7 votes
              #10.2 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 7:20 PM EDT
              mca1966

              that is pretty esoteric Mork - did you learn that at Orkford?

              FAILED!

              8 >

              • 1 vote
              #10.3 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 8:03 PM EDT
              krishna-167929

              that is pretty esoteric Mork - did you learn that at Orkford?

              Mork is a pretty esoteric kinda guy!

              • 7 votes
              #10.4 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 8:14 PM EDT
              Simplelogic-007

              meanwhile in Gaza - the moment a furry marsupial approaches the fence....BAM!!

              F-16s and Merkava strikes galore!

              Nice attempt at a derail mca. It seems to be becoming a habit by me in showing that it is in fact you that continues to keep failing.

              • 6 votes
              #10.5 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 9:15 PM EDT
              rozdane

              other side decided it was a good time to stir some

              I don't understand how long you guys are going to continue to blame eachother for the mess.

              The world (mostly US) is paying for that UN bill over there to operate in the no mans buffer zone to do such chores as possibly remove a tree or simple thing like that.

              But it looks like the israeli boys took the liberty to override the UN and go in to remove the tree themselves with that heavy machinery.

              That seems to have prompted the damn shoot out.

              • 3 votes
              #10.6 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 10:13 PM EDT
              IDFeb89

              But it looks like the israeli boys took the liberty to override the UN and go in to remove the tree themselves with that heavy machinery.

              Not at all.

              The IDF is in charge of cleaning the mess along both sides of the fence. Bushes,trees often interfere with the fence(electronic),the maintenance of it is routine. this isn't the first time it's done and certainly not the last.

              It is carried out with UNIFIL notification and approval...they then notify the Lebanese army of where and when it's going to happen. this was all done this time around as well.

              No one is saying the Lebanese army as a whole is behind the attack,but someone there thought it'll be a good idea to try and stir something up(cant rule out a Hezbollah sympathiser) It's unfortunate as both the IDF and the Lebanese army are usually on good terms when it comes to handling that border.

              • 9 votes
              #10.7 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 10:35 PM EDT
              krishna-167929

              The world (mostly US) is paying for that UN bill over there to operate in the no mans buffer zone to do such chores as possibly remove a tree or simple thing like that.

              Nope:

              1. The Israelis trim the trees, not the UN

              2. Its not a "buffer zone"-- its clearly inside Israeli territory.

              3 there nothing in the story about removing trees-- only trimming them. (Israelis love trees more than probably any other nation on earth-- they dont remove them if they can possibly help it-- they plant them-- lots of 'em--and trim them.

              But other than that, rozdane, most of what you said was true!

              • 6 votes
              #10.8 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 4:37 AM EDT
              Reply
              mca1966

              Ya got me simple !

              I guess bringing it back to the root cause and double standards of the Zionist Apartheid Racists ( THE ZPR for short?) really bugs you!

              FAILED STATE !!

              8 -)

              • 1 vote
              Reply#11 - Tue Aug 3, 2010 9:45 PM EDT
              magendExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

              Yes - I've read some of your post and you are indeed "Simple"! Psuido should be "SIMPLETON"!

              No "Zionist Apartheid Racist" could ever be as bad as any one "Islamic Terrorist"!

              No "ZPR" has ever flown planes into buildings!!!

              No "ZPR" has ever been caught training their own Women and Children as Suicide Bombers!

              It goes on and on with the "Arab/Islamic" terrorist doesn't it!!! All in the name of a Pedophile Prophet!!!

              • 2 votes
              #11.1 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 6:15 AM EDT
              tyler

              Yes - I've read some of your post

              Focuse on those...

              and you are indeed "Simple"! Psuido should be "SIMPLETON"!

              as opposed to this. You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.

              Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks.

              • 5 votes
              #11.2 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 9:21 PM EDT
              Reply
              showboy33

              well i lived in the mideast for many years..and i came up with a conclusion that israel is the #1 trouble maker and peace destroyer in the region...i'm an american and noticed that....lebanese army cant start a fight against israel but israel can so they did..they did it on purpose but many of you people have concrete thinking..in other word SHALLOW..you only believe what you see you dont analyze or interpret what happened and conclude who really have the benefit from starting this quarrel..obviously israel (the north korea of mid east)always picking-on the smaller ones why dont they fight iran?!?!?!because they dont dare!!!!!they clame that lebanese people are terrorists!!well who threw 2 million cluster bombs on the lebanese land and till now 55 people died from this banned weapon..i admire obama as a president of this country but i urge him to stop funding israel now!!!because he is funding terrorism too !!!israel should mind their own business and stop crossing the border and killing other people..and later they say we are innocent ..well they are not!!!!!!!bieng against israel is not anti-semetic because arabs are semites too!!!for your own information when israel stop making trouble and fightings no one will dare to blame it.....and that remindes me its not about a stupid TREE..its about israelis crossing the boarder and placing spy cameras...the UN thmeselves said israeli soldiers crossed the blue line and the lebanese army warned them and then the shooting started.......and who suffered more casualties???lebanon!!which means he is the victim!!!!the victim always suffers more!!!

              • 3 votes
              Reply#12 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 4:24 AM EDT
              magend

              I also lived in the Middle East for many years -

              Do you speak any Middle Eastern Languages?! Or only Bull-sheet?!

              Abi?!

              • 3 votes
              #12.1 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 5:47 AM EDT
              usa1

              من صحبت می کنند فارسی و جدید عبری و شما دوست من

              • 3 votes
              #12.2 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 6:04 AM EDT
              usa1

              magend ivrit?

              Ben Gurion was right he detested Yiddish and New Israel was to be Hebrew speaking. There were newspapers written in both Russian and German for new immigrants but Yiddish was frowned upon.

              עברית שלי מבאס, למעט שבת תפילה, אז זה בערך כמו שאני יודע

              • 3 votes
              #12.3 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 6:15 AM EDT
              magend

              What d'ya know?! A Terrorist posting "Propaganda"?!

              Never would have guessed!!!

              Farsi and Hebrew hunh?!

              Tam'am Abi?!

              هل تتكلم أي التركية أو العربية؟!

              Ինչպես մասին Armenien?!

              Или русский язык?

              • 2 votes
              #12.4 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 6:29 AM EDT
              usa1

              Yes I do speak some Russian, but you do not know a word of hebrew or Farsi or you would have thanked me or asked where I my am actually from.

              Terrorist you are barking up the wrong tree son, and a dim one at that.

              So not knowing Farsi or Hebrew I guess you are Arab

              • 6 votes
              #12.5 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 6:36 AM EDT
              Reply
              magend

              پس اهل کجا هستید

              • 3 votes
              Reply#13 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 6:42 AM EDT
              usa1

              Now in China

              نوشته اصلی ایالات متحده آمریکا ، اما نظامی آموخته فارسی نیز در اسرائیل برای مدت طولانی زندگی می کنند

              • 4 votes
              #13.1 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 6:51 AM EDT
              Reply
              magend

              ותודה רבה לך! האם זה טוב

              • 2 votes
              Reply#14 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 6:46 AM EDT
              usa1

              good here yes like it very much but now a new language to tackle LOL

              Toda

              • 4 votes
              #14.1 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 6:56 AM EDT
              Reply
              usa1

              see above my Hebrew might be good for Sabbat but not conversation. I do much work though with the small group here teaching them customs and ideals, not religion just ethnic traditions

              • 4 votes
              Reply#15 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 6:50 AM EDT
              magend

              چه مدت شما در چین بوده است؟ آیا دوست دارید در آن وجود دارد؟

              • 2 votes
              Reply#16 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 6:59 AM EDT
              usa1

              اهل کجا هستید

              تقریبا 2 سال مردم زیادی را مشاهده مشخصات من همسر من است چینی

              • 4 votes
              Reply#17 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 7:01 AM EDT
              magend

              Never mind! I see you answered my last question already!

              And yea - Chinese (Mandarin I presume) is a hard language to learn! I've always wanted to study the Egyptian Hyroglyphs or Ancient Akkadian/Sumerian (Wedge)!!! Wouldn't those be cool to know?!!! And I'm sorry - I hate trying to write "letters" in post!!! I usually bounce back and forth between several sites @ a time!!!

              So - you learned Persian for the military while in Israel?!

              • 2 votes
              Reply#18 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 7:11 AM EDT
              usa1

              No in the states many years ago when the Shah (1977-1978) was still there though not stationed there, and not as fluent as it use to be but can hold a conversation if I concentrate.

              yes mandarin is very hard my western mouth does not want to adjust to the language. We speak from the bottom up they speak from the mouth.

              Egyptian from the old Dynasty is very hard but if you can master that it can become the Rosetta Stone of all languages

              • 4 votes
              #18.1 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 7:14 AM EDT
              Buzz of the Orient

              Are you both familiar with the Newsvine User Agreement? Here is an extract from the list of prohibitions:

            • post User Content in a language other than English, with the exception of ancillary phrases which may be necessary or illustrative in the middle of larger passages;
              • 9 votes
              #18.2 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 2:17 PM EDT
              usa1

              I am familiar with it very well, I do appreciate your viner advice.

              Glad to see you are getting familiar with the Vine as well buzz, how have you been??

              • 3 votes
              #18.3 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 9:26 PM EDT
              Buzz of the Orient

              Getting familiar with the vine, usa1? Granted I've been on it for a few months less than you, but you could hardly say I'm just "getting familar" with it.

              I'm okay, but a bit lonely since my wife has been spending her holiday with her daughter and parents in CQ for a few weeks. It does give me more time for NewsVine.

              • 5 votes
              #18.4 - Thu Aug 5, 2010 2:01 AM EDT
              usa1

              Well you have an invitation to visit that area I told you about if you want. I am still teaching them on occasion but you might be able to better teach them. They will enjoy meeting you.

              You mentioned some one here where I am at that you once knew, you didn't happen to go to Australia with this person at at one time ?

              PS dont take it as being offensive about "you getting to use to the vine" I am just noting that you actually reading the COH LOL, something many dont do .

              • 2 votes
              #18.5 - Thu Aug 5, 2010 4:54 AM EDT
              Reply
              magend

              I'm in the states, Georgia! But I wonder how it is that one spends time in the ME and finds it Israels faught for doing all they need/have to to protect their borders! So many are so BIASED against that nation of 7,000,000 that - well, just doesn't make any sense!

              • 2 votes
              Reply#19 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 7:17 AM EDT
              usa1

              Israel needs to exist, as I always said a people should not wander and have a homeland. Many problems now but Israel must keep to a solid agenda of maintaining its Country without expelling some who have been there a few hundred years.

              Very tricky since there is always resentment of Israel existing, and Israel feels they must clear the area of possible antagonists. while doing many innocent people being forced to leave become resentful, you can see what happens.

              Israel is in a rough spot with trying to do the right thing for its people and it is very hard for a two state and impossible for single state solution.

              • 5 votes
              #19.1 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 7:25 AM EDT
              magend

              Whew! Where do I begin?!

              Ever read "Ezekiel 37"?! "Valley of Dry Bones"

              The problem with trying to understand Israel without knowing what G-d has said about Israel is like trying to understand English, having never learned the Alphabet! You can't and won't!

              • 2 votes
              #19.2 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 7:40 AM EDT
              usa1

              Yes but as you wrote and as it it written can not be expected for all to go along with graciously and accepting. this is the fallacy of thinking people would leave after x 100 of years. I know according to the Book as such it is a promised land to the Jewish people. Here is the problem one group insists they are converts from Judaism the other group were exiled 1000 + years and returned within the last 100 years with a major portion in the 1940s. there are Arab, Ashkenazim, Sephardi, and once Jewish now converts to Islam. Couple this in with the Christian faiths,there are many people claiming to be the rightful heirs to the promised land.

              it is not of who shall inherit the land now but many are refusing to accept one group as being the rightful heirs. There are the foolish who claim Israelis are not real Jews, but rather European transplants, while other insists that if they can not prove Jewish lineage they do not belong there.

              A group of people whether or not true heirs of the land will not accept the so called written word(bible ) of another.

              Now with that said in 1967 Israel won a battle for its survival, with the win came the spoils of war, and the land gained during that time should be rightfully owned by the victors, though should not exceed the boundaries of the gained land.

              We can use the bible as a deciding factor but once again I might agree, you and many, though many more does not recognize the bible in its meaning. so for practical reasons the boundaries agreed upon should be honored.

              I am not saying this the correct solution according to post 19.2 but it is a practical one. If a family had their roots in an area for 400 plus years it is not right or even the moral way to force them to leave.

              • 1 vote
              #19.3 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 8:02 AM EDT
              mork1from1ork

              WHO Were the Israelites??!

              WHO ARE their descendants??!

              The European Jews, and the Palestinian Arabs, EACH,

              have people that say that NEITHER are the descendants of the ORIGINAL Israelites,

              BUT there IS ONE GROUP, that EVERYBODY KNOWS are THE direct descendants of the ORIGINAL Israelites;

              The Mizraheem, The Jews that had LIVED solely in Arabia and Persia, for 2500 years,

              The Mizrahim Jews, the Jews of the Diaspora of the Babylonian and the Assyrian and the Persian Wars;

              these Jews, that lived and married and had children, within their own Jewish communities,

              that existed, and thrived, for 2500 years and MORE

              2500 years, in their own communities, in Persia, in Iraq, in Yemen, in Syria, in Egypt, in Lebanon,

              in the Arabia, 1100 & plus years, BEFORE Muhammad, who Himself, encountered Jewish tribes in his life.

              ALL of these Jews, that lived in their communities, in these Arab, and Persian Lands,

              for 2500 years,

              ARE the DIRECT Descendants of the Israelites that were taken to these Mid East Lands,

              AND, after 2500 years,

              THEY, these Israelite descendants,

              ARE BACK IN ISRAEL,

              and the Jews of the Arabian Diaspora, and the Jews of the Roman Diaspora,

              WITNESS the Unions of Marriage, of the CHILDREN of the Jews of Arabia and the Jews of Europe,

              SO THAT,

              within 8 generations, the Israeli "Melting Pot", Which DOES include ALL Israelis,

              will PRODUCE a completely NEW and RE-BORN Race of Israelis.

              Inshallah

              as GOD WILLS

              • 9 votes
              #19.4 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 11:42 PM EDT
              usa1

              Exactly Mork!! good post

              Xing!!

              • 5 votes
              #19.5 - Thu Aug 5, 2010 12:12 AM EDT
              krishna-167929

              WHO ARE their descendants??!

              Well-- it just so happened I seeded an excellent video on that very subject a while back!

              Its by Ehad Ever, an Israeli of mixed ancestry-- check it out-- quite fascinating: Israeli National Identity.

              • 7 votes
              #19.6 - Thu Aug 5, 2010 12:16 AM EDT
              krishna-167929

              WHO ARE their descendants??!

              Well-- it just so happened I seeded an excellent video on that very subject a while back!

              Its by Ehad Ever, an Israeli of mixed ancestry-- check it out-- quite fascinating: Israeli National Identity.

              He's into ethnography-- if you liked that one, here's another fascinating video:
              Jewish Migrations into West Africa

              • 7 votes
              #19.7 - Thu Aug 5, 2010 12:18 AM EDT
              Reply
              ottoman-1380088

              The war is begin

              • 2 votes
              Reply#20 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 7:53 PM EDT
              krishna-167929

              The war is begin

              Maybe.

              That was on Israel's northern border-- And then there was this on their southern border (Egypt claims it was Hamas that fired the rockets, but I think it might have been Hizb'Allah infiltrators or agents paid by them):

              • 6 votes
              #20.1 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 10:17 PM EDT
              jrone

              I thought the bedouins investigated that, 100 of them according to Egypt, and said nope didn't happen. Lol

                #20.2 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 10:25 PM EDT
                Reply
                Isabella-37

                Another incident. Anyone know why an Israeli naval vessel opened fire on a Lebanese fishing boat this weekend? The fishing boat was along the southern coast in Lebanese territorial waters. Israel confirmed it happened, but did not give the reason why they fired warning shots. Was it just a tit for tat?

                • 4 votes
                Reply#21 - Sun Aug 8, 2010 1:51 PM EDT
                IDFeb89

                tit for tat?

                Not really. Unlike that Lebanese sniper,Israel's WARNING shots were just that.

                • 7 votes
                #21.1 - Sun Aug 8, 2010 1:56 PM EDT
                Isabella-37

                But what were the warning shots about? Every article I read says the fishing boat was in Lebanese waters, but no reason was given why the shots were fired. Just wondering what the boat was doing to be fired on with warning shots. I figured you would have more information.

                • 3 votes
                #21.2 - Sun Aug 8, 2010 2:01 PM EDT
                IDFeb89

                Again,it appears it was somewhat close to that limbo zone...I think for all involved better safe than sorry hence the Warning shots.

                The Israeli army confirmed that forces opened fire on a Lebanese fishing boat that was sailing in a restricted area and did not respond when it was ordered to return to Lebanese territoryLink

                One could argue that might have been another provocation given the fact the last one didn'tget the needed results,or maybe just a fishing boat too close to that restricted area. In any case,I think it's a good example of how to successfully defuse such a situation.

                • 7 votes
                #21.3 - Sun Aug 8, 2010 2:05 PM EDT
                Isabella-37

                Thanks for the link. I read the Haaretz, Ma'an, and a few other articles, but none said what led to the warning shots.

                • 4 votes
                #21.4 - Sun Aug 8, 2010 2:21 PM EDT
                Reply
                krishna-167929

                There is a problem of reference when one uses biased media as a source and justification for their intransigence. In fact I am considering starting a Newsvine group, to be called "Born Yesterday", to which I will invite to join viners whom I see rely solely on biased media on both sides of the Israel/Palestinisn issue, and are incapable of any neutrality.

                In response to your comment, let me say this:

                A groups like that might be good for a few LOLs-- even an occasional ROFL. And, perhaps, on rare occasions-- a genuine ROFLMAO!

                (Heh* :-)

                But seriously folks-- don't laugh at 'em. While some of the people who used biased media as a source in all likelihood do it to intentionally deceive, I think in most cases they might not even be aware of the lack or credibility of their source. (makes me wonder-- has the Internet actually helped spread the truth-- or is the opposite true? What would Marshall McLuhan say?)

                _____

                *Yes, that's "Heh" (Not to be confused with the insidious "Meh" 8-)

                • 6 votes
                Reply#22 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 4:57 PM EDT
                Buzz of the Orient

                Marshall McLuhan would say "The Medium is the message" because the medium is very capable of spreading not only the news, but also able to spread the bias by means of the words it chooses to use.

                I will never forget how in the movie "Annie Hall", when Woody was with Diane Keaton in a movie line, he was listening to some pseudo-intellectual try to impress his girl friend by trying to quote McLuhan. Woody went off screen and pulled the real McLuhan into the picture. McLuhan then said. "I didn't say that. I would never say that."

                • 9 votes
                #22.1 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 7:34 PM EDT
                krishna-167929

                Marshall McLuhan would say "The Medium is the message" because the medium is very capable of spreading not only the news, but also able to spread the bias by means of the words it chooses to use.

                Exactly!

                • 8 votes
                #22.2 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 8:54 PM EDT
                nonStitiousZealot

                Buzz ,

                That is not even the half of what McLuhan was getting at .
                I think the better way to understand his message is to examine
                some ancient innovations that way . For example the Romans
                invented paved roads . Big deal we would say today .
                But it was a big deal . These roads allowed the rapid deployment
                of masses of foot soldiers to the far reaches of their empire .
                W/O those roads they would have not had such a long lasting empire .

                Here's another big development , the printing press .
                This had the same effect on the printed word that those Roman
                roads had on foot traffic . It became possible to broadcast ideas easily
                and quickly for the first time . The effect that had on the Catholic Church
                was shattering .

                The net social effect of those roads was a uniting one .
                The net social effect of the printing press was a disuniting one .

                I could go on and on about this but you get the idea .

                • 7 votes
                #22.3 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:35 AM EDT
                Buzz of the Orient

                Okay nSZ, I agree that there are many volumes of McLuhan's works, so I agree that he had much to teach. However, I was only interested in making that one point that was relevant to the dialogue.

                • 8 votes
                #22.4 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:27 AM EDT
                Reply
                Leave a Comment:
                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                Newsvine Privacy Statement
                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                FUN STUFF:
                • Leaderboard |
                • E-Mail Alerts |
                • Top of the Vine |
                • Newsvine Live |
                • Newsvine Archives |
                • The Greenhouse
                COMPANY STUFF:
                • Code of Honor |
                • Company Info |
                • Contact Us |
                • Jobs |
                • User Agreement |
                • Privacy Policy |
                • About our ads
                LEGAL STUFF:
                • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com