So, the 'we' in 'why did we not bomb Northern Ireland?', is not Israel in the Israel-Lebanon situation.

Jeeez Golf-pro are you aware that the kidnap of the two Israeli soldiers was in response to the unlawful detention of 6 Lebanese prisoners in Israel? I think you should stop going on about the Lebanese precipitation & the media portraying a balanced view. The media are never neutral; they reflect the views of the institutions behind them.

Are you a Bushite btw?

Ed’s right, the Lebanese people are victims in this –which is all I’ve been saying, and as Kofi Annan said last night, the country is being torn apart.

Lebanon saw the largest protest in its history when the former leader was assassinated last year & the majority of people rallied to remove Syria from its occupation. The majority of the people (and that’s the innocent civilian victims) do not enthusiastically support terrorist activity and were nervous about Hezbollah’s occupation on the border – the general public in Lebanon view them by and large as rebel militia.

What exactly informs your views?
Because I’m sorry... but there is no real way to say this very nicely and I don't want to get into a slanging match, but you clearly are ill informed ( about this issue),
and it was a a bit of a 'green' thing to say that the people of Lebanon courted or actively encouraged what is happening.

BTW: I got so infuriated, Dan B that I forgot to say yesterday, I am glad you have heard from your friend. Thats good news.
.

Regardless of the presence of Loyalist Paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, the fact remains that a terrorist organisation that planned and executed operations, against civilians and infrastructure in England was harboured by Catholic communities in Northern Ireland. The idea of bombing large swathes of Northern Ireland in response, however, seems completely absurd. (or even bombing the east coast of the USA where much of the funding for the IRA came)

I don't see how the presence of Loyalist paramilitaries makes the situation much different. I imagine there are Israeli paramilitary groups amongst the illegal settlers. As I said, a sponsored state has a high level of accountability to the international community (Ireland/Britain) whereas a terrorist group does not (Hezbollah/IRA), therefore going on a rally to protest against the actions of a foreign terrorist group is pointless. Going on a rally to protest against the actions of a country who our elected government should have a dregree of influence is not so futile.

If there was an "agree strongly" box, I'd be ticking it Ed.
I have said here already that I believe I am protesting tomorrow against the neglect of the International Community for the people of Lebanon over the last 10 days, Blair's faliure to speak/ act and that the US are able to vito UN, where as any other country would be subject to all sorts of argy bargy / embargo /boycott etc.
Do you think the protest is a bad idea? I am not asking to provoke, geniunely wondering, am I doing the right thing according to my beliefs.

Its good to exercise your democratic rights, and put pressure on the government to behave responsibly in its international relations. Sadly, I think the issue is so complex that a mass rally is going to suffer from carrying a confused message (even if the "official message" of the protest is well defined). For example, there will likely be muslim fundamentalits there that are anti-isreal and anti-west, but not adverse to war per-se. There will be others there that will be anti-war pacifists, there will be others wanting to free palastine. I don't know if bringing so many contradicory ideologies under one bannner will actually help much.

Yes. I have been worrying more or less about exactly that & wondering if I am being a bit niave.
I want to do something to help my friend and I am so angry & fustrated at the lack of humanitarian response- that from a selfish pont of view, I think it would at least make me feel better. I don't normally get involved in these things. The last protest I went on was in 1999 against the CJB when I was about 19 and into my free parties and had many friends from traveler communites. I just feel as if I have to do 'something' you know?

If it makes you happy then by all means. Be aware as you imply that’s probably all its doing. I'm not entirely sure that there is a great degree of public interest [or sympathy] in this situation, which is suprising. I think this may link back to 7/7.

I think the reason we are not saying anything about this conflict is we have little to gain from trying to stop it (one could argue we have more to gain by letting it continue).

If you look back at conflicts in recent years, we only get involved in ones we care about. What about all this violence in Africa, with Somalia and the Dafur regions etc. All the civilians that are getting hurt and killed. But does anyone really say or do much about it (from the West)? no (i think there may have eventually been sactions in the Dafur case)! Are there protests trying to get the govenment to do something? no! Its only because its in the middle east, axis of terror, Israel etc etc that it gets lots of coverage and thus people pay attention to it.

Im not saying we shouldnt pay attention, I just think it is sad that noone seems to care about all these other cases. But then I suppose when do we stop? Do we topple every represive regime? Get involved in every incident?

As to protest, there would be no point in living in a democracy if you didnt (and you beleive in what you say). As others say, different political agendas will be addressed.

Though the thing that annoys me is that we are supposed to live in a democracy. If your view point is not adopted then why do some people turn to extremism. Obviously the majority dont want it, so why try to impose your views through force. That is heading back towards a dictatorship. Sorry, thats a slightly different point, and has nothing to do with the thread really (well except for extremism in democracy).

Somalia, Sudan, Ivory Coast etc. are wars that are independent of Europe & America. Whether or not we could step in and actually improve the situations is arguable. I believe the government have condemned what has happened in each of these places. (I'm not too clued up on this though, I must admit)

The trouble in the middle east is directly connected to Britain, Europe and America. Our meddling & pillaging, plus America's heavy sponsoring of Israel military puts us in a position of responsibility. How can we "stand shoulder to shoulder" with a country that happily provides weapons used to commit war crimes?

True, they are not the same, most are internal strife. Although most of Africa was once colonial and to some extent when the european powers pulled out we did a pretty poor job of ensuring the situation was stable. So you could claim that we are partly responsible for some of the instability. Govenments tend to condem these things after they have gone on for a while. I think if we waited long enough the for their to be a huge humanitarian issue the world powers would step in. Though as seen in Africa, that does not always have much (or in some cases any) effect.

I think it is maybe more complicated than to say America gives weapons to Israel to commit war crimes. The whole situation is caused by the bad history between these nations. I say this, but I agree Israel has been heavy handed.

Though what would you propose as a good response. Try to be in the mind set of an Israeli, where giving into terroist demands is probably out of the question (its easy to be idealistic when you are far removed from the situation), and you certainly dont want to look weak.

I must admit I get all my info through the media, though I would be interested in where those of you who said such a thing was rubbish or bias gets their information? Have you done a detailed study on the region and situation, interviewed many different people, spoken to govenment officials etc etc.

Both sides are really as bad as each other. Whether Israel or the terroists started it or provoced it, they are both to blame. Both sides obviously wanted this conflict, otherwise what on earth were the terroists expecting to happen? They knew just the right buttons to press. Its sad that its the poor civilians that are in the way.

As to the US, they funded the Israeli army to help protect Israel from the aggressive nations around it, and so they would have a friendly govenment in the middle east. The fact that their weapons are being used to commit these offenses is not directly their fault.

Also, after Iraq, how can any of our nations say Israel is wrong for invading a foregin country to get rid of terroists? Would be a bit hypocrytical of them.

Iraq and probably more relavent Afganastan.