Agree or Disagree with this Statement by Feingold on Middle East Conflict?

[Clarkie1]

Poll question: Agree or Disagree with this Statement by Feingold on Middle East Conflict?

Not trying to start a flame-war here, just gauge opinion. I saw another thread saying people were "throwing Feingold under the bus" (figuratively speaking on this). I like Feingold, so I hate to see him thrown under a bus, figuratively or not. All I'm asking here is if you agree or disagree with his statement, which is as follows:

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the Hezbollah Attacks on Israel
July 14, 2006

“I stand firmly with the people of Israel and their government as they defend themselves against these outrageous attacks. The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and missile attacks against Israeli citizens are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. The first steps toward establishing peace must begin with the unconditional and immediate return of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Lebanon, Syria, Iran and countries throughout the region must also condemn the actions of Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups committed to blocking the peace process and must take strong actions to return stability to the region immediately.”

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I disagree because not all the people of Israel stand with

their government. There was a thread here this evening about a peace demonstration in Israel by Israelis, and I believe the number of people involved was in the thousands. To imply that all Israel is unified behind the actions of this government would be incorrect.

[Clarkie1]

4. Do you really think he is implying that?

I understand some in Israel do not support the actions of their government, which is to be expected in a Democracy. However, if the government in Israel is representing the views of the majority of Israeli citizens, then "standing with the people in their government" would seem like a legitimate stance to take, whether or not one agrees or disagrees with that stance.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Yes, I do

because the MSM rarely, if ever, talks of the peace movement in Israel. It is presented to the public as a united front, with everyone agreeing. And kindly remember that technically Bushco represents the views of a majority of Americans-would you like it said that his actions are ones you condone?

[Clarkie1]

9. That's a good point.

And I honestly don't know what percentage of Israelis are for or against this action. It would be interesting to know. I did see video of the peace rally.

[midnight]

38. Very nice to know.

Fiengold has been very conservative about war,and to take this positive response toward supporting Israel's violence seems out of step with his stands in the past.

[rzemanfl]

2. I think this is something that should be decided between Mr.

Finegold and his rabbi. Hate to have to say that, but if there were a place where my fellow bohemian agnostics were getting blown up on buses and in restaurants, I'd have a hard time not taking sides.

[hlthe2b]

3. Only if he had gone on to state that...

Israel must moderate their response in measure and consideration of the need to protect innocent civilians. While I think this should have been made clear very early on--perhaps he will moderate his statement...

So, yes, I am disappointed at his unqualified support, despite evidence of extreme disproportionate response, no matter how "justified" it might have started...

[Clarkie1]

7. Yes, I definitely wish he had added something to that effect.

Of course, it must also be understood that in war, there is no way to ensure the safety of innocents...war is a very ugly thing, and should only be a last resort.

[Bluzmann57]

5. I heard him say this today

during a stop in our town and I agree with him. Israel must defend itself or die. It's really that simple. Israel's neighbors do not recognize Israel's right to exist, so they want to wipe it off the map. Given those circumstances, who can blame a country for having a strong military and using it to protect itself? FYI, some missiles were found to be of Syrian origin. They are similar to shotgun shells in that they have ball bearings so that when they strike a target, the ball bearings spread out and cause further harm to people in the way, many of them innocent bystanders. Real civilized. Israel cannot, and should not take that type of thing.
edited for spelling and poor typing

[rzemanfl]

8. The Syrians did not invent this, our civilized friends the British

did, many years ago:

"Shrapnel is spherical lead or iron balls projected from the shrapnel shell in specific manner. The word shrapnel is derived from the name of Major-General Henry Shrapnel (1761–1842), an English artillery officer, whose experiments — initially conducted in his own time, and at his own expense — designed a shell specifically for the purpose."

Wikipedia

[otokogi]

10. i think progressives will always disagree with disproportionate force

thats why i'm a lefty ;->

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

11. Agree. nt

[welshTerrier2]

12. from a non-Feingolder

i guess i agree with what he said but i also think he didn't say enough ...

we cannot accept the kidnapping of soldiers ... i am in agreement that these were "outrageous attacks" ... it is also clear they were intended to provoke the kind of reaction they received ... so, i support some form of retaliation by Israel ...

and i'll even go so far as to agree with Feingold that the national governments of the countries involved should condemn the kidnappings and pledge to return the captured Israelis if they are able to do so ...

HOWEVER, i think Feingold should also make it clear that there are many in Lebanon and among the Palestinians who are innocent bystanders ... to take out any of the civilian infrastructure is unconscionable and Feingold should have said so ...

Feingold also should have taken the opportunity to layout the only path to peace in the Middle East ... he should clearly show his understanding that desperation, poverty and hopelessness is what fuels all the unrest ... he should call for a renewed commitment by the US, the UN and other governments to bring hope to the poor people throughout the Middle East and he should teach Americans that our failure to do so will result in the deaths of millions, endless war and a destabilized region that will make the US itself less safe ...

for these reasons, check off a vote for "undecided" ... Feingold's statement was good but didn't say nearly enough ...

[Clarkie1]

14. Those are all good points you make.

I do wish Feingold had embedded his remarks in the context of the larger picture; I don't think that would have weakened his support of Israel's right to defend itself in any way.

[welshTerrier2]

16. thanks, Clarkie1

i've been affiliated with running a "lefty" documentary series at my local library ... it's amazing they've let us run these films ... we started with just two of us in my living room and now we get as many as 25 people who not only watch the films but stick around for an hour or more for "group discussion" ... it's a great thing for a verbose DU'er like me to get a "live" audience ...

we showed a film a few months ago that took a fairly biased Palestinian perspective of the mess in the Middle East ... a number of our older Jewish residents made a good case against the terrorism many Israeli citizens have been subjected to ...

i said to them that they all made excellent points but that making them, no matter how justified they were, did not map out a path to peace ... i said their hatred, however valid, was devouring Israel and it was devouring the Palestinians ... they really had trouble refuting this argument ...

i said to them that documenting the crimes, of one side or both, and the killings and the suffering and all of it, would not lead to change ... i asked them if they wanted to feel justified or if they sought peace ... i said i did not need to argue against the horrors they cited ... i said if they wanted me to blame only one side, or the other, it really didn't matter ...

fine, the Israelis are the good guys and the Palestinians are "terrorists" ... what then, i asked ... fine, let's settle out of court ... you're completely right ... then what? more of the same? what else you got?

so they challenged me? OK Mr. Peacenik, what else you got?

all i got is an understanding that the suffering has to stop ... all i got is an understanding that the Israelis are spending everything they have protecting their country and living in fear ... all i got is that the Palestinians are living like dogs and have virtually no hope ... all i got is that when hope is gone, desperation takes its place ... and all i got is western nations, and perhaps even eastern nations, with enough wealth to set a new course in the region ... all i got is a belief that the US powers that be do NOT want peace in the region anytime soon ... all i got is the belief that an unstable Middle East has resulted in all-time record profits for Big Oil ... all i got is a belief that the US could bring peace to the Israelis and to the Palestinians, and the Lebanese too, if we had any inkling to do so ...

i told them that to focus only on the evil Palestinians would never bring peace ... i told them that they needed to understand that the only way to bring peace was to bring hope ... they seemed at least pensive about this ... it's a start ...

[Warren DeMontague]

13. There is absolutely nothing in that paragraph I disagree with. nt

[mmonk]

15. Partly.

Everyone (internationally) should press to condemn Hezbollah. It might help to add a statement to Israel about restraint with it's raids into Gaza. I probably wouldn't put Hamas in my statement as it will appear too one sided and heavy handed meaning it won't play if you're seeking any sort of peace. But who seeks peace anymore? We'll have to look internationally for any adult behaviour in trying to slow this down.

[hayu_lol]

17. I agree with Russ, doesn't really matter if he didn't complete his...

statement. Here is why, in this case, I agree:

When the soldiers were kidnapped, Israel told the world that it would sit tight for 72 hours taking no action during this period. Had the soldiers been returned within that time period, there would have been no attacks.

The soldiers were not returned, no one contacted Israel to discuss the matter, the UN did nothiing, and Israel fulfilled their part of the bargain.

72 hours was more than enough time to settle this peacefully.

Very early this morning(ABC), it was reported that over 750 missles hit Haifa. To me, this represents an unfriendly attitude on the part of parties unknown.

[mmonk]

19. I think we need to try and diffuse the situation.

Therefore discretion and no cheerleading is required to be a leader in this situation.

[bridgit]

18. agree - in principle, even the 'civilian' beach Israel shelled was being..

used by Hamas to fire rockets into Israel for some months prior to that particular tragedy, the whole thing is a mess; but Islamic forces are renown for harboring armaments & ordnance within civilian areas...they may want to reconsider that practice if they are to incite military action upon their civilian population just a thought

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

20. kick

[Guaranteed]

21. Who can "stand with" either side in this?

They're both horrible.

[Clarkie1]

22. That's overly simplistic.

You can't equate Hezbollah with the state of Israel. Israel wants peace, Hezbollah does not...they want the destruction of Israel. If Hezbollah stopped terrorizing Israel, there would be no conflict.

Edit: Of course, it is also overly simplistic to say that everything one side does is right, and everything the other side does is wrong. Still, we have to be clear on who it is that wants the complete annihilation of a sovereign state (and who wants peace) to begin to analyze the situation in a realistic way, I think.

After that, we have to look at where the movement for the destruction of Israel draws it's support...a lot of it is a feeling of helplessness from the street that feeds into that kind of radical hatred. Still, to say "one side is as bad as the other" is not valid, in my view.

Israel does not launch unprovoked terrorist attacks on civilians. They respond to attacks, and unfortunately civilians die process. There is a difference.

[Guaranteed]

23. It wouldn't seem that way, though, looking at the number of dead

on each side.

120+ vs 23?

But I refuse to take sides in this. They're both acting like idiots.

[mmonk]

24. The thing is the US could seek peace and try to

diffuse the situation but it won't. The world knows its in the best position to do so. But the US doesn't seek peace at this time. That's why responsible leadership isn't really choosing sides or cheerleading Israel's reprisals right now.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

25. Feingold understands the realities...

...of survival in Washington...


Numerous U.S. legislators of high quality have been driven out of office for opposing a carte blanche to Israel, and some who have survived have openly acknowledged that they follow a pro-Israel line for political safety and survival. William Quandt stated recently that "Seventy to 80 percent of all members of congress will go along with whatever they think AIPAC wants," and the recent Senate vote of 94-2 supporting Sharon suggests that this may be an understatement. James Petras asked recently, "Can the petroleum lobby get a 94-2 vote in favor of the Saudi plan?" A related question: are the almost unanimous votes for Sharon and his policies based on a rational consideration of the needs of U.S. foreign policy?

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0827-08.htm

[mmonk]

27. The clout supposedly gained from blind allegiance

to Israel no matter what the circumstance is greatly exaggerated. We need a leader in Washington but there's none in the house. We are riders with no access to the brakes.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

28. It doesn't sound to me like they do it so much...

...for expected returns/payoff in the form of "clout" as they do for political survival. And I don't think they're necessarily required to profess blind allegiance so much as they are expected to not speak out or challenge AIPAC driven U.S. policy concerning Israel in any meaningful way.

[mmonk]

30. I don't think being critical of Israel at different times

produces one's imminent defeat. I think the myth that it will should be shed. Surely, as long as someone is expressing a heart felt concern, people can understand one's position. Afterall, this isn't Israel. There are debates about policy or policy approaches in Israel, so why not here?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

35. I don't think it's a myth. nt.

[mmonk]

37. How could they destroy him

if he gave a speech simply calling for the end of hostilities by the parties? He could add the attacks by Hezbollah were unjustified and still appear to be someone seeking peaceful resolution and condemning the shelling.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

39. They find a suitable challenger...

...then bankroll his/her campaign.

[The Stranger]

26. Mustn't condone bombing innocent civilians.

Feingold made an error in judgment.

[Sugarcoated]

29. Feingold in no way condones bombing of innocent civilians

But that's okay you're allowed to be wrong.

[The Stranger]

36. By muddying the waters with his non-position, he condones the bombing of

innocent civilians.

[Sugarcoated]

40. Yep

you're still aloud to be wrong. :)

[FrenchieCat]

31. Problem is that there are no "honest" Brokers to assist in

getting both sides to stop, listen and negotiate.

Some used to see that as the United States' role, but no longer.

[ContraBass Black]

32. The first step must be a unilateral, mutual cease-fire.

Hostage crises don't bring neighborhoods crashing down on civilians, wars do that. The situation now is worse than the situation before.

Before there can be any returning of hostages or other such action, the war must stop.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

34. Exactly. If we were any...

...kind of an honest broker at all we would've jumped into the fray, diplomatically, not militarily, immediately with a cease-fire proposal and high level emergency talks/mediation. Instead, we sit on the sidelines and provide virtually no leadership in deescalating the crisis.

[jsamuel]

33. I disagree and for the same reasons as Afghanistan