I know it's seemed like the Middle East has been spiralling out of control in the past. But the Israelis are now looking to be fighting a multi-front war, and that's never good. At least they're going about it methodically and correctly, severing the supply lines and airports to hinder troop movements. And at least Bush isn't criticizing them (at least not at the moment) for taking action against the cretins of Hezballuh who see land give-backs, not as a sign of a desire for peace, but a show of weakness. Although he *has* stated that the Israelis should show "restraint," and considering the actions of Bush et al in regards to Iraq, I think we've pretty much thrown away the "show restraint" card.
I think this thing is either going to die down very quickly or tip over into full-blown, multi-nation war very quickly. No half-measures here.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at July 14, 2006 11:33 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingMaybe my priorities are out of whack, but this is more upsetting for me than 9-11. I fear for Israel and I fear for us.
By the way, is anyone else kind of offended when the news reporters follow up their coverage of the Middle East conflict with "And what does this mean for oil prices?"
Heinlein used to say that the touchstone of an "intellectual" was to ask if they believe in astrology. I now believe the touchstone is whether they can consider the possibility that Israel might be wrong.
There may yet be a chance for this thing to burn out before it gets too big. Iran can't really get into the fighting directly without trying to go through the US forces in Iraq, and I don't think they're stupid or crazy enough to do that. That just leaves the Syrians, and the Israelis are already at work on separating them from Hezballuh. Without any supply lines, it'll just be a matter of time before Hezballuh runs out of rockets.
Of course, that doesn't do any good for the people who are going to be maimed and killed in the meantime, but at least there's a chance to avoid Armageddon.
Michael, I'm not sure what you mean. Is it that the answer is manifestly "no"? Or "yes"? (Since the answer to Heinlein's query was obviously "no".)
For myself, obviously Israel can be wrong. It's just that they are wrong about 1/100 as often as they are assumed to be by the rest of the world (a rough estimate, to be sure, but I'm going with it).
PAD, I'm going out on a limb here but I'm not so sure this WON'T end well--at least as well as war ever can. People will surely die, innocents, many of them. But they have cut off Hizbollah from their Syrian supplies and if the Syrians are stupid enough to try to save them...Israel can settle some accounts. Iran says an attack on Syria will be an act of war. Meaning...what? Iran attacks Israel? With an army that fought Saddam's for 13 years without winning? I'll put money on the Israelis.
The whole multi front war part may be a misnomer. The Iranians would have to march through Turkey (!) or Iraq (!!!) to get to Israel. Unlikely, though we can all dream. More likely it would be a missle attack and that would sure give the Israelis a GREAT excuse to do what the world is silently praying for them to do--bomb Iran's underground nuclear program even further underground (I know that the Iranians say that the complex is so far underground that it can't be reached. That will be a considerable comfort to those trapped there when the air runs out).
Multi fronts are definitely to be avoided when we are talking about troops and tanks but it's not much more difficult to shoot missles in two directions than it is to shoot them in one direction. Assuming one has enough missles and I think Israel does.
I note that Egyptions and Saudis have been unusually quiet, all things considered. I don't think they see the demise of Hizbollah and Hamas as being all that bad a thing, survival-wise.
Could Israel take out Syria? I think so--the classic line from some of my Arab friends is that "Syria will fight to the last Egyption". Without the support of others they are just another corrupt backwater with an expensive army they don't know how to use.
I know it looks bad to hope for an escalation...but wiping out Hizbollah, for now, and leaving the regime that arms them is just another temporary fix. Take out Syria, get Lebanon out from under its domination, and give the Iranians a reason to reconsider the whole "wipe Israel off the face of the map" policy. Maybe then real peace can be achieved, as opposed to this insane constant bleeding wound we have now.
On the other hand, it's alarming when Hizbollah can actually take out a warship. One could argue that they waited too long to settle this. One could also argue that waiting even longer will only ensure Hizbollah control of even more destructive weapons.
Ah, screw it. What we're all scared about is that this conflict spirals out of control and we're stuck in T2 land. I say, the world coming to an end would make life alot easier to deal with. If the shit goes down and nukes hit all over the globe, all you have to deal with is Food & Shelter, instead of Everything Else. Bring on the Apocalypse, I say. It makes living a lot less complicated.
Seriously, if this Irael vs. Everybody conflict spirals out of control, just find your hidey-hole for a while, and then when you poke out your head, its freakin' Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdrome outside. How cool would that be?!!!
For some reason I'm thinking of HULK: THE END right now in the back of my head, but that's probably because I'm posting on PAD's blog. Ah well...
Whooo! WW3! Rock!
What we're all scared about is that this conflict spirals out of control and we're stuck in T2 land.
To hell with that. I'm not scared of being stuck in T2 land. Anyone can take a robot. Animal Man beat up robots.
What I'm scared of is a bright flash of light followed by being on fire.
And ninjas.
(I considered writing a completely serious response to this post, but with what PAD wrote about, plus India and Pakistan getting a little irate with each other, plus North Korea's kind-of-penis missile, I'm genuinely a little terrified, so I thought I'd talk about robots. And ninjas. Whom I fear.)
Whenever I fear apocalypse, I take cold comfort from something I heard Robert Bly say during a reading as a passing joke:
"The world will NOT end; that would be too easy."
Thanks to Bill Mulligan for making my point; for Israel to only be wrong once in 100 disputes is a remarkable feat for any nation. It may be impossible to ever find fault with such a model of civilized behavior. This means that in 50 years, Israel has made bad decisions only about 3.5 times a year. But my opinions in this matter have been warped by the ravings of Alexander Cockburn and Edward Said, at least one of whom is dead:
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/2/2003/765
(the link is for Cockburn's article on the death of Said). Under the rules of this game, any criticism of Israel must automatically be anti-Semitic, and any kind word about innocent bystanders in Lebanon implies a criticism of Israel.
I hold no brief for Hezbollah, but it seems to me that the size of Israel's response -- a lot of dead grandmas and babies in Lebanon-- will only win more recruits for the terrorists. Oops, Israeli bombs just hit a Lebanese minibus and killed 15 people. THAT'LL help the cause of peace and stability.
Alas both sides seem committed to increasinly awful acts of terrorism, presumably imagining that if they can just pull of some act of true barabarism then the other will step back, mop their brow and knuckle under.
Lob some missles at a civilian target! That'll make them think!
Posted by: Michael at July 15, 2006 07:48 AM
Thanks to Bill Mulligan for making my point; for Israel to only be wrong once in 100 disputes is a remarkable feat for any nation. It may be impossible to ever find fault with such a model of civilized behavior. This means that in 50 years, Israel has made bad decisions only about 3.5 times a year.
The above is a classic example of the "straw man" argument. In case you're unfamiliar with the term, Michael, it's a logical fallacy based on a misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Mulligan did not assert that Israel is only wrong once in every one hundred disputes. He asserted that, in his estimation, the rest of the world is 100 times more likely to think Israel is wrong than is actually the case.
His point, clearly, was that there's a lot of anti-Israeli sentiment floating around out there. Mulligan was clearly using mathematics figuratively, not literally, so it's silly to debate the arithmetic while ignoring the core issue.
Under the rules of this game, any criticism of Israel must automatically be anti-Semitic, and any kind word about innocent bystanders in Lebanon implies a criticism of Israel.
No one in this thread accused anyone of anti-semitism. You're the only one thus far to have brought that up. Another straw man.
I hold no brief for Hezbollah, but it seems to me that the size of Israel's response -- a lot of dead grandmas and babies in Lebanon-- will only win more recruits for the terrorists. Oops, Israeli bombs just hit a Lebanese minibus and killed 15 people. THAT'LL help the cause of peace and stability.
When terrorist groups are invading your borders, killing some of your soldiers and taking others hostage, there is no peace and stability to protect. Those are acts of war, and it is logical to respond in kind.
Posted by: Nick Eden at July 15, 2006 08:06 AM
Alas both sides seem committed to increasinly awful acts of terrorism, presumably imagining that if they can just pull of some act of true barabarism then the other will step back, mop their brow and knuckle under.
Lob some missles at a civilian target! That'll make them think!
Israel's dilemma is far less simplistic than you're making it out to be. In at least one case, Israel dropped leaflets warning civilians to evacuate before dropping actual bombs in that area. And terrorists often don't have clearly defined military bases, choosing instead to hide in civilian populations.
And what kind of message do you think it would send if terrorist groups knew they could invade Israel and capture her soldiers at will without any kind of retaliation?
It's very easy to criticize. Anyone can do that. Do you have a viable alternative course of action to suggest? If so, I'm all ears.
Thanks to Bill Mulligan for making my point; for Israel to only be wrong once in 100 disputes is a remarkable feat for any nation. It may be impossible to ever find fault with such a model of civilized behavior. This means that in 50 years, Israel has made bad decisions only about 3.5 times a year.
Errr...not quite. the quote I made was It's just that they are wrong about 1/100 as often as they are assumed to be by the rest of the world which means that they are merely being blamed for much more than they do, that is, you see. Since Israel is roasted daily in the Arab and much of the European press my 1% estimate actually makes them "wrong" several times a day, not the 3.5 times a year you came up with (interesting math, BTW).
Under the rules of this game, any criticism of Israel must automatically be anti-Semitic, and any kind word about innocent bystanders in Lebanon implies a criticism of Israel.
There are a few folks who unfairly tag anyone who is anti-Israel as automatically anti-semetic. Given the insane Protocols of the Elders of Zion type nuttiness that infuses some (though not in any way all or even necesarily most) of the anti-Israel side, this is not surprising, but it's still an grossly unfair attack. One should discuss such a position on its own merits and only bring up anti-semitism if the person in question displays actual anti-semitism.
The problem is this, Israel and their collective enemies only have one mindset: to prove that they are the strongest one their is. This perspective allows only one response to violoence: if they hit u hit them back harder... but in a situration like this the harder they hit each other the more determind they become to
A hit back even harder
B not show any sign of weakness so that the world can see they are the strongest
C prepeared to achive their respective goals at any cost
and of course everytime we go through this routine the goal of peaceful agreement slips further & further away
Is firing a misslie at an appartment building any better than blowing up a bus? on the bus as far as the bomber concerned they all deserve to die dispite the fact their innocent commuters. while the pilot may be aiming for a terrorist he his quite prepared to kill lots of innocent people 2 get him but at least he just has to watch on a screen and not look them in the eye.
for the record i Do believe Israel is justified in retaliating i just don't think it's very inteligent and it will only lead to more deaths on all sides
Bill Myers wrote:
Israel's dilemma is far less simplistic than you're making it out to be. In at least one case, Israel dropped leaflets warning civilians to evacuate before dropping actual bombs in that area. And terrorists often don't have clearly defined military bases, choosing instead to hide in civilian populations.
Is there evidence to suggest that the Gazan power station responsible for providing clean drinking water was one of those bases? And if there was, why not send in the Mossad to take them out? And just how using sonic booms to keep people awake in the middle of the night is doing anything other than terrorising a civilian population in order to try and force a political change escapes me.
Don't get me wrong though: I don't see lobbing missiles at Israeli targets as any more acceptance. Terrorism, the application of military power against a civilian population remains unacceptable whoever's doing it.
And what kind of message do you think it would send if terrorist groups knew they could invade Israel and capture her soldiers at will without any kind of retaliation?
No-one would be citicising a special forces raid to get them back. The worry is that by destroyng the instrastucture (and ultimately the government's ability to govern) of Lebannon in response to a couple of missing squaddies not only is Israel harming thousands of innocents, but it's just going to bring about the kind of anarchy that lets the like ot Hamas and Hizbullah thrive. It's a vicious circle.
It's very easy to criticize. Anyone can do that. Do you have a viable alternative course of action to suggest? If so, I'm all ears.
A wise man was quoted on the radio this morning: "Anyone who comes in and sees an easy answer is not in possension of all the facts." Or as we used to say when Americans came in and offered to sort out Northern Ireland: "If there were easy answers we'd have found them by now."
No solution is going to be quick. Let alone painless. Still, to perhaps make a fool of myself there seem to me a few things that must happen to bring peace to this kind of conflict.
1: Both sides must accept that the other has a grievance. Right now both Arabs and Israelis seem to think that they are the only victims.
2: You need a lot of political courage to make it work. You need to have people prepared to talk to the other, to listen to the other.
3: Those people need to have enough authority to do something. Gerry Adams does seem to have been able to reign in the IRA, thank God for that. There's certainly no-one I can see in the Levant willing and able to play the same role.
One of the Israeli actions that's been least comprehensible over the last decade has been it's willingness to destroy the power base of anyone in Lebannon and Palestine that might have been able to reign these nutters in. Remember how Hamas would send in a suicide bomber and the IDF would blow up a couple of police stations because those policement should have done more to stop the attach. Thus ensuring that there would be even less chance of the surviving cops being able to stop the next one even if they wanted to. And so the bloody dance continued.
There may be a model though in Israel's relationship with Jordan and Egypt. Those states are strong enough to control their crazies. They have a fairly mature relationship with Israel. Lebannon and Palestine have been rendered anarchies, at least in part by Israel's actions. They will remain thorns in Israel's side until they've got governments strong enough to control their crazies. And bombing their airports won't help that happen.
"The problem is this, Israel and their collective enemies only have one mindset: to prove that they are the strongest one their is."
Which is just silly, has no one explained to these people that "Hulk is strongest one there is"?
JAC
Someone mentioned this may be a chance for Israel to "settle accounts" and I think that's precisely what Israel is doing. Even though Hamas is not connected to the first kidnapping and demanded that those responsible (a shady group backed from Syria) release him unharmed, Israel instantly targeted Hamas elected leaders and Gaza's civil infraestructures. Whats the use of bombing the airport if Hamas dont have an air force and Israel completely control the skies? Power plants? Water supply? Thats just an overwhelming, massive and calculated attack on the population living conditions. Thats not a military response but a demographic one.
As for Lebanon, Israel demands the lebanse army to disarm Hezbola, something the IDF was'nt able to do in 20+ years of presence in the country. They are pummeling a country that just started closing its wounds from the civil war and the Israeli&Syrian ocupation, destroying their infraestructures because they "held them responsible" for not beign able to do what no one has been able to do. And probably they will destroy any chance the anti-syrian camp had of keeping power.
And they kill civilians... I might be naive, but if you know where your foes are and also know that by dropping bombs you will probably kill innocents, blaming your foes for those victims is simply perverse. Do it the hard way; send commandos, risk your soldier's lifes because thats what soldiers are there for. If you decide that some foreighner civilian's life is worth less than your soldier's, you're a war criminal in my oppinion.
And thats my main concern. I agree Israel is the most civil, democratic and modern country in the region, but that doesnt give them any moral superiority to do what they want.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 15, 2006 02:21 AM
I'm going out on a limb here but I'm not so sure this WON'T end well--at least as well as war ever can.
Bill, on the one hand, I think Israel has responded to invasions by Hezbollah and Hamas in the only way that it could. I mean, Israel's recent withdrawals from occupied territories, which were not forced by military defeats, would be seen by any rational mind as a gesture of peace. Instead, Hezbollah and Hamas saw the moves as a sign of weakness to be exploited. Had Israel not reacted swiftly and strongly to their incursions, those groups would have interpreted that as an invitation to engage in even more outrageous acts.
On the other hand, I think you are being overly optimistic about the possibility for a crisp and positive resolution to this conflict. Rising casualties from Israeli attacks may well cause the Lebanese to rally around Hezbollah, which is already a member of Lebanon's ruling government. I realize that Lebanon is not known as one of the great military powers of the world. But it's one thing to fight a radical faction within a country, and another to fight an entire nation.
Syria and Iran have thus far offered no more than condemnations of Israel, but that could change in a hurry. Last year Syria tried to use assassinations to reassert its influence on Lebanon. I think they'd love a chance to come to her "defense." They may not be the most militarily adept country, but they hate Israel, and Israel is attacking a nation with which Syria shares a border. That could motivate them to get into gear. And while I don't see Iran sending columns of troops marching through Iraq, foreign nations have had no trouble sneaking foreign terrorist fighters into that country; after all, Iraq's security situation is a mess. I don't think they'd have any more trouble sneaking terrorist fighters through Iraq to join in the fight against Israel.
The governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia are undemocratic and have long attempted to suppress Islamic fundamentalist movements within their borders. Another Israeli-Arab war could galvanize support for those fundamentalist Islamic movements and destablize those governments, making a dangerous situation even moreso.
I'm not saying these scenarios are certain to play out, but they are possibilities. I do think the current conflict is reason for serious concern.
"The problem is this, Israel and their collective enemies only have one mindset: to prove that they are the strongest one their is."
Which is just silly, has no one explained to these people that "Hulk is strongest one there is"?"
But if we're going with a Hulk theme, then I think we can't ignore the other popular chant of "Hulk just wants to be left alone."
Israel wants to exist. Their enemies refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Does anyone think for a moment that if every Arab, every terrorist group, every aggressor suddenly had a change of heart and said, "Y'know what? We've been wrong all this time. We will fight no more, forever," and that peace declaration stuck without terrorist raids, bombings, and inculcating new generations into anti-Israel thinking, that Israel would then continue to attack its neighbors?
PAD
Well, would Israel give back the lands it stole? What about Jerusalem? What about Golan Heights and the water sources they seized? What about the sizeable percentage of Israelis that demand arabs to be pushed out of "Great Israel" borders? What about the 30% of arab israelis who have limited rights, who cant even join most public positions?
Both sides have reasons to feel a victim, and most arabs would renounce violence if they would see those reasons dissapear. They need stable leaderhip to keep the extremists that wont in reign. But Israel is determined to handpick those leaders, undermining anyone they dont like.
Posted by: Nick Eden at July 15, 2006 10:26 AM
Is there evidence to suggest that the Gazan power station responsible for providing clean drinking water was one of those bases?
I'm guessing the terrorists don't have a separate infrastructure for providing clean drinking water and electricity. Cutting off your enemy's supplies is a logical wartime tactic. It's not pretty, and it's certainly not nice, but war is never either.
And what do you mean by "one of those bases?" As I've already pointed out, the terrorists don't have discrete bases.
And if there was, why not send in the Mossad to take them out?
Probably because the Mossad exists in the real world, as opposed to the world of James Bond films where the actions of a spectacularly sexy few can achieve devastating victories.
And just how using sonic booms to keep people awake in the middle of the night is doing anything other than terrorising a civilian population in order to try and force a political change escapes me.
As I've said, the terrorist have no discrete bases. They are spread out amongst and recruit from the general populace.
No-one would be citicising a special forces raid to get them back. The worry is that by destroyng the instrastucture (and ultimately the government's ability to govern) of Lebannon in response to a couple of missing squaddies not only is Israel harming thousands of innocents, but it's just going to bring about the kind of anarchy that lets the like ot Hamas and Hizbullah thrive. It's a vicious circle.
First, it is vulgar in the extreme to dismiss the captured Israeli soldiers as a "couple of missing squaddies." Second, other Israeli soldiers were killed during these raids. Third, would you be so sanguine about this if your country were invaded, even by a small force? Fourth, Israel attempted to break the vicious circle by withdrawing from occupied territories unilaterally. Hamas and Hezbollah reacted by stepping up their attacks and by engaging in outright acts of war.
A wise man was quoted on the radio this morning: "Anyone who comes in and sees an easy answer is not in possension of all the facts."
Or as we used to say when Americans came in and offered to sort out Northern Ireland: "If there were easy answers we'd have found them by now."
Yes, I know. I never asserted there was an easy answer. You, however, implied there was an easy answer with your blanket criticisms of Israel. That's why I challenged you to come up with a viable alternative. See, merely criticizing is an empty act. Unless you can suggest a viable and workable alternative, your criticisms are meaningless.
No solution is going to be quick. Let alone painless. Still, to perhaps make a fool of myself there seem to me a few things that must happen to bring peace to this kind of conflict.
1: Both sides must accept that the other has a grievance. Right now both Arabs and Israelis seem to think that they are the only victims.
Frankly, that's nothing more than a meaningless bromide. Of course both sides need to come to an understanding; that's the definition of peaceful conflict resolution. Do you have any substantive, viable suggestions as to how this can be achieved?
2: You need a lot of political courage to make it work. You need to have people prepared to talk to the other, to listen to the other.
Again, another meaningless bromide, lacking in any ideas for actually bringing people to the table.
3: Those people need to have enough authority to do something. Gerry Adams does seem to have been able to reign in the IRA, thank God for that. There's certainly no-one I can see in the Levant willing and able to play the same role.
One of the Israeli actions that's been least comprehensible over the last decade has been it's willingness to destroy the power base of anyone in Lebannon and Palestine that might have been able to reign these nutters in. Remember how Hamas would send in a suicide bomber and the IDF would blow up a couple of police stations because those policement should have done more to stop the attach. Thus ensuring that there would be even less chance of the surviving cops being able to stop the next one even if they wanted to. And so the bloody dance continued.
There may be a model though in Israel's relationship with Jordan and Egypt. Those states are strong enough to control their crazies. They have a fairly mature relationship with Israel. Lebannon and Palestine have been rendered anarchies, at least in part by Israel's actions. They will remain thorns in Israel's side until they've got governments strong enough to control their crazies. And bombing their airports won't help that happen.
Israel tried to negotiate with Arafat, offering him unprecedented territorial concessions, and was rebuffed. Israel pulled out of occupied territories unilaterally and Hamas and Hezbollah responded by invading Israel, which, I repeat again, is an act of war by any civilized standards. So while it is tempting to put one's hand to one's forhead and lament how "violence only begets more violence," it's a simplistic lament that omits the fact that Israel has tried to work things out peacefully.
The "vicious circle" lament assumes that everyone everywhere is rational. Not so. Hamas and Hezbollah are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. No more, no less. They don't accept Israel's right to exist. If Israel stops fighting, they won't.
Posted by: El Hombre Malo at July 15, 2006 11:03 AM
Well, would Israel give back the lands it stole?
Israel has already done just that by withdrawing from lands it had occupied.
And to say that it "stole" them is grossly inaccurate. It seized some of those territories while defending itself against the aggressions of its neighbors.
What about Jerusalem?
What about it? Do you suggest they merely give it up in order to appease their enemies?
What about the sizeable percentage of Israelis that demand arabs to be pushed out of "Great Israel" borders?
What the hell are you talking about? A sizable percentage of Israelis want Israel to work out a peaceful solution. But they don't want to sit back and let their enemies invade their country and abduct their soldiers.
I don't get this. When did it become anything other than an act of war to invade another country?
What about the 30% of arab israelis who have limited rights, who cant even join most public positions?
There are many legitimate grievances against Israel. Israel nevertheless has a right to defend its borders.
Both sides have reasons to feel a victim, and most arabs would renounce violence if they would see those reasons dissapear. They need stable leaderhip to keep the extremists that wont in reign. But Israel is determined to handpick those leaders, undermining anyone they dont like.
Again, what in hell are you talking about? Israel has responded to attacks by hostile forces. That has included attempts -- some succesfful -- to assassinate the leaders of those hostile forces, which is a common tactic during wartime. Can you name one instance where they've tried to interfere in the government of a nation not actively engaged in hostilities against them?
Israel is not perfect and deserves criticism for the way it has treated the Palestinians. But let's, you know, limit our criticisms to things Israel has actually done. And moreover, let's keep things in perspective: Israel is in a constant battle for survival against enemies whose goal is not to get concessions from Israel, but to wipe it out of existence. Period.
"I'm going out on a limb here but I'm not so sure this WON'T end well--at least as well as war ever can."
War never ends well. The dead can't speak for themselves, and the survivors are scarred emotionally, psychologically, and physically, which just gives everyone an excuse for the next round.
Bush and his frat brothers ("Rummie","Condi" and "Deadeye Dick") are already stirring up the pot looking for an excuse to hit Iran and or Syria.
Yes, Israel has the right to defend it's citizens. However, the response to the abduction of two soldiers has been how many dead Lebanese civilians?
Disproportionate indeed.
Sigh. I don't have the patience anymore to answer the specifics of the posts above. It seems to me that people can apply a case by case simple test of common sense and common decency in order to know when and if Israel is right and when wrong, instead of listening to propaganda and over-liberal or over-conservative reflexes and cliches. At a certain point Israelis, even some peace suppoerters such as myself realize that that is not going to happen. That people who don't know and don't understand, who sit far away, will make nonsensical cliched and often ignorant statements. That we have to take care of ourselves, and do the best we can in this world.
I support the war completely for a simple reasons. I oppposed the occupation of Gaza and the Lebanon. I oppose the occupation of the West Bank and the Golan. When I told israelis that Israel should not occupy, and that it should be able to defend itself from its borders, they asked: what if the radical organizations (who do not recognize israel's borders, or the interest of their own countries) will decide to attack Israel proper after the withdrawl? and I said that Israel can defend itself, and that I will support a war if it is in defence of Israel rather than an occupation. Nevertheless, almost a year has passed since the withdrawl from Gaza, and 6 from Lebanon. The attacks against Israel started shortly after the withdrawl. If Israel is not allowed to defend itself from its borders. If withdrawl means that Israel cannot defend itself, and that if we withdraw from the West Bank it will mean that radical organizations will attack from Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank (and maybe other countries), while the governments disavow resposibility, than withrawl would be wrong. I do not want Israel to continue occupying the West Bank.
Have Americans been kidnapped in order to force Israel to release its prisoners in Iraq and Cuba?
Since the war in Iraq was wrong, would such a kidnapping be considered justified?
We've searched through the military history of the US, Russia and Europe for ways to fight wars without hitting civilians. It's not going so well. At least our wars are against countries that are actually near us.
Bill, syria and Iran are not going to get involved.
Bill wrote:
Yes, I know. I never asserted there was an easy answer. You, however, implied there was an easy answer with your blanket criticisms of Israel. That's why I challenged you to come up with a viable alternative.
You are mistaken to see what I initially wrote as a blanket criticism of Israel. It was a blanket criticism of both sides.
But if we're going with a Hulk theme, then I think we can't ignore the other popular chant of "Hulk just wants to be left alone."
Israel wants to exist. Their enemies refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Does anyone think for a moment that if every Arab, every terrorist group, every aggressor suddenly had a change of heart and said, "Y'know what? We've been wrong all this time. We will fight no more, forever," and that peace declaration stuck without terrorist raids, bombings, and inculcating new generations into anti-Israel thinking, that Israel would then continue to attack its neighbors?
PAD
and Israel has every right to be left alone at peace with it's neighbours but to achive this requires diplomacy and a great deal of turning the other cheek ( admitidly impossible in these circumstances) as insane as this sounds Israel needs to start acting like the victim not the aggressor and really trying to make an effort to engage in negotions instead of simply trying to impose peace which will never work
I know in that this is a lofty ideal and would liturally be political sucide to any politician who tried it but really is the meet aggression with more aggression approach really working?
as u pointed out "Hulk is the stongest one there is" but has it ever bought him peace nope just a world of pain
Posted by: Micha at July 15, 2006 11:42 AM
Sigh. I don't have the patience anymore to answer the specifics of the posts above.
I don't know if my anything in my posts has added to your exasperation. If so, I apologize. I've tried to research specifics before making my points. You're more knowledgeable about this than I, although I've tried to catch up as best I can.
I'm aware that both inside and outside of Israel, there were those who warned that withdrawing from occupied lands without an agreement was dangerous. The current situation lends credence to that point of view.
And as you've pointed out, there was a very good argument to be made against occupying those lands in the first place.
Nevertheless, I don't think it's overly simplistic to say that the way Hamas and Hezbollah have reacted to Israel's unilateral withdrawal from some occupied lands demonstrates that those groups are uninterested in a peaceful resolution to their dispute with your nation.
Like you, I am at once exasperated with and perplexed by the voices questioning Israel's right to defend herself, or questioning whether her response has been "proportionate." Perhaps it is my emotional side getting the better of me, but crossing into another nation's borders, kidnapping some of her troops and killing others is in my view nothing short of an act of war.
We've searched through the military history of the US, Russia and Europe for ways to fight wars without hitting civilians. It's not going so well. At least our wars are against countries that are actually near us.
To be fair, Micha, while Iraq was a blunder on our part, Afghanistan harbored the architects of the September 11th attacks. Not every attack we've made against a far-away nation has been unprovoked.
Bill, syria and Iran are not going to get involved.
Time will tell. I hope you are correct.
I continue to remain concerned that this could escalate into a wider conflict. That doesn't mean I think Israel is doing the wrong thing. Quite the opposite -- I think Israel is responding in the only logical way.
Unfortunately, that doesn't make the situation any prettier. May God protect you, my friend, and keep you well. And may this conflict end speedily and with a minimum of bloodshed.
Posted by: Nick Eden at July 15, 2006 11:49 AM
You are mistaken to see what I initially wrote as a blanket criticism of Israel. It was a blanket criticism of both sides.
No, I'm not mistaken. Just because you criticized the other side doesn't mean your criticisms of Israel weren't of the "blanket" variety. You accused both sides of engaging in terrorist actions, without acknowledging that Israel faces certain enemies whose stated desire is to wipe it off the map. I therefore challenged you to suggest a viable alternative for Israel to pursue. You have yet to do so.
For God's sake, I'm advocating for a nation's right to defend its borders against an invasion. And yet people are implying or suggesting that Israel merely "turn the other cheek." Even though unilateral concessions made by Israel have been met with nothing more than increased aggression!
Would that I didn't believe this, but it's already tipped into the latter category, with three nations involved and counting. And none of the three so far involved wanted to be battlefields for this mess.
"syria and Iran are not going to get involved."
It's been determined that the missle that struck the Israeli ship was a high-tech Iranian device, not the low accuracy missles used by Hizbollah. Anyone thinking that Iran isn't one of the motivating factors behind all of this is living with their head burried in the sand
Bill, in this specific case I am more dissatisfied with the attacks coming from one side of the isle than the other. But, I felt it would be more fair to criticize people who generalize about our conflict from all sides. I often find myself arguing with right wing people in one place and with left wing people on the other, although I am what would be considered left. I'm also nervous (not afraid as much as annoyed), although I am out of the range of Hizballa rockets. I did not seek to offend you, and I appologize if I did. I did want to criticize in general a certain attitude about the Israeli conflict, that brings so many people to comment about it with broad generalizations and misinformation. You do not hear such discussions about India and Packistan, although their conflict is as long and more bloody. Or about the policies of Britain or Spain, although they have suffered terrorism.
----------
Both Iran and Syria armed Hizballa and have agents in Lebanon. But both have not committed their own armies. Syria denied being hit by Israel, which indicates it does not want to join the war. Iran said that it will come to the aid of Syria if attacked, but somehow forgot about Lebanon. This sounds like countries that don't want to join the war. We don't want them to. The only people who want us to attack Syria are the Lebanese.
------------------
"I'm aware that both inside and outside of Israel, there were those who warned that withdrawing from occupied lands without an agreement was dangerous. The current situation lends credence to that point of view."
Yes. If I want Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and that my home (in Jerusalem) wil not become a target of rockets too, I must show to the Israelis, the Arab leaders, the organizations, and the world (who talks big about dipplomacy but usually does little), that Israel will not be a victim of such attacks after withdrawl.
"Nevertheless, I don't think it's overly simplistic to say that the way Hamas and Hezbollah have reacted to Israel's unilateral withdrawal from some occupied lands demonstrates that those groups are uninterested in a peaceful resolution to their dispute with your nation."
They don't. They attack Israel because it gives them prestige. They are too weak to actually defeat Israel, but since they do not want peace they'll continue attacking until they have incentive not to. These groups are able to operate because the leadership and the majority of Lebanese and Palestinians think it is better to allow them to continue than take the risks involved in stopping them. These risks are real and understandable. But if these governments can guarentee security to Israel than Israel has to act Itself. Israelis cannot be hostages to the weaknesses of the Palestinian or Lebanese political systems.
"crossing into another nation's borders, kidnapping some of her troops and killing others is in my view nothing short of an act of war."
You also have to look at the broader strategic perspective. Israel is surrounded by Arab countries, each of which has a significant Islamic anti-peace segment, which is tolerated to a degree. All of which are dying to get involved in the Israeli Palestinian conflict in support of the Hamas. They will not refrain from getting involved because they feel sad for Israel, or for the sake of peace. Their government will not curtail them for the sake of Israel.
"To be fair, Micha, while Iraq was a blunder on our part, Afghanistan harbored the architects of the September 11th attacks. Not every attack we've made against a far-away nation has been unprovoked."
I'm not against the war in Afghanistan. It was justified. But, how many Afghani civilians died in that war? And how many American cities have been hit as a result of the US's attack on Afghanistan? If the war on Afghanistan is justified, how much more is Israel's war?
"What about the 30% of arab israelis who have limited rights, who cant even join most public positions?"
The funny thing here is the 30%. I don't know where that came from. The Palestinian-Israelis have equal rights. Their problems are similar to those of Africans-Americans today: poverty, lesser opportunities etc. However, their situation is a little more complicated, they belong to the same nation who is attacking us.
"What about the sizeable percentage of Israelis that demand arabs to be pushed out of "Great Israel" borders?"
There is a political party in Israel who supports that position. They united with another right-wing party that does not. Together they got 9 out of 120n seats in the Israeli Parliaments. 10 seats are shared by three arab parties, one communist, one nationalistic, and one Islamic. Do the math.
To hell with that. I'm not scared of being stuck in T2 land. Anyone can take a robot. Animal Man beat up robots.
What I'm scared of is a bright flash of light followed by being on fire.
And ninjas.
What if this conflict leads to the creation of Robotic Nuclear Powered Relgious Fundamentalist Ninjas Who Shoot Fire ... OUT OF THEIR EYES!
Now *there's* a truly terrifying thought.
Bill Myers wrote:
For God's sake, I'm advocating for a nation's right to defend its borders against an invasion. And yet people are implying or suggesting that Israel merely "turn the other cheek." Even though unilateral concessions made by Israel have been met with nothing more than increased aggression!
If the only choices are to turn the other cheek or to slaughter yet more innocents and ensure that another generation of Palestinians hate you souch that they can't see anything better to do with their lives then retaliate in kind, then yes, I do think turning the other cheek would be better in the long run.
I really hope that someone finds another option.
Well, this morning, I was half awake when this line more or less came into my head:
Did you know that President Bush's full name is actually George W.W.III Bush?
I know, there was 9/11 first. And I was all for going into Afghanistan. But I've always thought if we'd just stayed there, concentrated on limiting ourselves to fighting the Taliban (which seems to be experiencing a resurgence), and then maybe set up a perimeter of ourselves and our allies (who would've supported that) instead of going into Iraq as well, perhaps we wouldn't have helped stir things up to the place they are now.
But, then, as Dennis Miller used to say, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
On the other hand, I think you are being overly optimistic about the possibility for a crisp and positive resolution to this conflict. Rising casualties from Israeli attacks may well cause the Lebanese to rally around Hezbollah, which is already a member of Lebanon's ruling government. Well, I don't know that I would ever expect a "crisp" resolution to the Middle East situation (and given that both Israel and Iran possess or will possess nukes I don't know that "crisp" is a word we ever want to see used!) but you point is quite valid. I'm not saying this WILL end well, only that it COULD.
Allowing active terror organizations to exist on one's borders, actively supported by countries who have leaders with far more weapons than common sense seems to me to have no realistic good end. Attacking them at least has the POSSIBILITY of a good resolution. Of course, it could also be a disaster but I can't blame the Israelis from considering a throw of the dice.
Syria and Iran have thus far offered no more than condemnations of Israel, but that could change in a hurry.
Agreed, but I don't think the Syrians will amount to much and while you are abxsolutely correct that the Iranians could step up their terrorist activities within Israel, I'm not sure they can do much more than they have.
Incidentally, to those who insist that israel keep its reactions "balanced" and "in proportion"--would it be ok for them to do to the Iranians what Iran does to them? Arm rebel factions in Iran to the teeth and let them randomly blow up Iranian civilians? We ok with that?
Note to all--that wasn't directed at Bill Meyers, who is one of the more sensible, IMHO, voices here.
Well, would Israel give back the lands it stole? What about Jerusalem? What about Golan Heights and the water sources they seized? What about the sizeable percentage of Israelis that demand arabs to be pushed out of "Great Israel" borders? What about the 30% of arab israelis who have limited rights, who cant even join most public positions?
So if Israel agrees to hand back everything it has ever won in war--something the rab states would never do--and somehow suppresses anyone in its population that doesn't like this, while giving its Arab citizens even more freedom than they currently have (which is more than they would probably have in any ARAB country)...what then? Do you think Hezbollah and Hamas will be satisfied? I don't. Not while a Jew breaths. I take them at their word.
War never ends well. The dead can't speak for themselves, and the survivors are scarred emotionally, psychologically, and physically, which just gives everyone an excuse for the next round.
It's not hard to come up with examples of wars that have ended with dangerously aggressors being defeated. I would see that as a positive.
If the only choices are to turn the other cheek or to slaughter yet more innocents and ensure that another generation of Palestinians hate you souch that they can't see anything better to do with their lives then retaliate in kind, then yes, I do think turning the other cheek would be better in the long run.
Ignoring the fact that I don't think the chices can be reduced just to that, if you reword it to say "If the only choices are to turn the other cheek and watch yourself and your friends and family butchered or to attack those who would slaughter you" the obvious choice might cahnge. yeah, it's a one sided way to present it but so, I think, was yours.
I don't think Israel is without fault ever, but looking at the countries that routinely condemn it I don't see a one that would have tolerated a situation similar to the one Israel has faced. If the Palestinians on Syria's border did anything like launch rockets into Damascus...well, ask the resident of Hama what would happen (you might need a Ouija Board for some).
Posted by: Micha at July 15, 2006 01:46 PM
Bill, in this specific case I am more dissatisfied with the attacks coming from one side of the isle than the other. But, I felt it would be more fair to criticize people who generalize about our conflict from all sides. I often find myself arguing with right wing people in one place and with left wing people on the other, although I am what would be considered left. I'm also nervous (not afraid as much as annoyed), although I am out of the range of Hizballa rockets. I did not seek to offend you, and I appologize if I did.
You didn't offend me, and you're such an intelligent and good-hearted person that you're unlikely to ever do so. Your apology is accepted but entirely unnecessary.
Besides, your nation is at war with forces attacking you within your own borders. I'd have to be a royal asshole to pitch a hissy fit at you while you're facing such an awful situation.
I did want to criticize in general a certain attitude about the Israeli conflict, that brings so many people to comment about it with broad generalizations and misinformation. You do not hear such discussions about India and Packistan, although their conflict is as long and more bloody. Or about the policies of Britain or Spain, although they have suffered terrorism.
Having encountered you often enough, I've learned to make a habit of learning enough about the situation before commenting on it.
That said, there are some principles that transcend context in my view. One such principle is that a nation has a right to defend its borders against aggression.
Posted by: Micha at July 15, 2006 01:46 PM
I'm not against the war in Afghanistan. It was justified. But, how many Afghani civilians died in that war? And how many American cities have been hit as a result of the US's attack on Afghanistan? If the war on Afghanistan is justified, how much more is Israel's war?
Have no doubt, I agree with you wholeheartedly that your nation is justified in waging war against Hezbollah and Hamas, and moreover is entirely justified in the manner in which it is waging that war.
Posted by: Nick Eden at July 15, 2006 02:14 PM
If the only choices are to turn the other cheek or to slaughter yet more innocents and ensure that another generation of Palestinians hate you souch that they can't see anything better to do with their lives then retaliate in kind, then yes, I do think turning the other cheek would be better in the long run.
History has shown that the choices are never as stark nor simplistic as you've portrayed them. The military conflicts between Israel and Egypt did not prevent them from reaching an accord in the 1970s.
You would do well to research the area a bit more before making feel-good statements about the current conflict.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 15, 2006 03:30 PM
Allowing active terror organizations to exist on one's borders, actively supported by countries who have leaders with far more weapons than common sense seems to me to have no realistic good end. Attacking them at least has the POSSIBILITY of a good resolution. Of course, it could also be a disaster but I can't blame the Israelis from considering a throw of the dice.
Oh, agreed. I simply wanted to point out some of the other possibilities. What happens in the Middle East has strategic implications for us, and I think we would do well to anticipate the possibilities. That said, Israel needn't, in the words of our President, seek a "permission slip" to defend itself.
And as I've said repeatedly, I don't think Israel has any reason to apologize for waging this war, nor for the way in which they're waging it.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 15, 2006 03:30 PM
Note to all--that wasn't directed at Bill Meyers, who is one of the more sensible, IMHO, voices here.
I agree. Bill Meyers is a great guy. If nothing else, I like him because our names are so similar. Mine is spelled "Myers." ;)
I agree. Bill Meyers is a great guy. If nothing else, I like him because our names are so similar. Mine is spelled "Myers." ;)
Duh'oh! NO WONDER typing in billmeyerscreations.com took me nowhere at all while billmyerscreations.com took me to the homepage of a gifted talent!
I'm pretty much completely disgusted by this whole situation. What I think is worse, though, is all the armchair quarterbacks looking into the situation and spinning it to their own viewpoint. People are dying. You don't see anything but numbers on any of the reports. If I see one more talking head on the screen pondering what this is going to do to our gas prices, I'll vomit all over. So our wallets will be hit a little more. Boo-frigging-hoo. PEOPLE are DYING. The leaders on both sides think that The Reasons are justified, but you know what? Any time you have to eliminate your opposition in an arguement, you've already lost. The Dark Ages never ended.
Kk, my rant's over. Thanks for reading.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at July 15, 2006 05:35 PM
PEOPLE are DYING. The leaders on both sides think that The Reasons are justified, but you know what? Any time you have to eliminate your opposition in an arguement, you've already lost. The Dark Ages never ended.
Sean, I like you, so I'm trying to temper my response. But I think you're engaging in some feel-good chest-thumping of your own.
Just because both sides believe themselves to be justified doesn't mean that one side can't be more right than the other. I think the Allies were a touch more right than the Axis during WWII, for example. I think we were morally justified in our invasion of Afghanistan following 9/11 (but not so morally justified in invading Iraq). And I think the Israelis, in responding to incursions into their nation by enemies sworn to push them into the sea, occupy a somewhat higher moral elevation here.
Yes, people are dying, and it feels good to wring our hands about it. But what good does that do? Do you have any suggestions for a viable alternative to this war? Do you think it would in any way be responsible for the government of Israel to ignore a threat to its national security?
By the way, folks, let us not forget that while the roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict are deep, and the conflict is complicated, the formation of the modern Israeli state was motivated to protect Jews who had immigrated to what was then Palestine, in order to flee political persecution and attempted extermination in Europe. Despite what radical Islamists may wish to believe, it's not as though some powerful Jewish conquerors established Israel as step one towards Jewish domination of the entire Middle East.
The Arabs have never accepted the idea of an Israeli state and have been waging war for decades in order to drive them out. Were Israel to simply lay down their arms unilaterally, I believe many Arab factions would make good on their promise to destroy Israel. Were groups like Hezbollah and Hamas to unilaterally lay down their arms and start acting like adults, I don't think Israel would respond in the same fashion.
Maybe it's just because the War on Terror, "I'm a war president" conservative march has been going on for so long, but I'm getting really sick of hearing that every atrocity committed by one country against another, whether accidental, in self-defense, whatever the rationale, is automatically acceptable under the blanket excuse of "war is ugly."
I can't even begin to understand what Israel is going through, or the Palestinians for that matter. I just keep thinking back to that episode of Star Trek where two races wiped each other out over something as stupid and meaningless as which side of the face was black and which side was white. People are killing each other and as long as every death is another "act of war," this will go on until no one is left.
I'm far from an idealist. I've lived in the world just long enough to doubt there's a better way than slaughtering people en masse to keep some people safe from some other people. I just think it would be a lot easier to see through the bullshit if we stopped treating war like some black hole that swallows all reason.
I don't know what I'm trying to say. I just hate how common it's become for people to shrug off human suffering, whether it's deserved or undeserved. There are countries in Africa where the deathtolls from recent wars are so horrifying that I can't even fathom the loss to human potential.
Peter,
Sorry this has nothing to do with the current blog, I just havn't been able to find any contact info for you or J.K. Woddward...
I'm trying to contact J.K. Woodward in order to get permission to use his FALLEN ANGEL graphic on a new music DVD titled - SATANIC ANGELS BOOK I.
Could you please direct this to the correct channels.
Thank you,
Gordon Mcghie
Trigger Music Inc.
1-800-765-4851 [North America]
011-1-250-765-4851 [International. Pacific Time Zone]
http://www.triggermusic.com
Posted by: Edible Consumer at July 15, 2006 08:32 PM
I just hate how common it's become for people to shrug off human suffering, whether it's deserved or undeserved.
I personally take umbrage at the implication that I, or anyone else for that matter, who believes Israel is justified is "shrugging off human suffering."
Personally, I felt a chill go down my spine when this latest conflict began. And I was personally grateful to see Micha's posts, confirming that he was OK.
I know people who have served in Iraq. I work with a man whose son was on the front lines when the invasion began in 2002. I don't want to see anymore bloodshed. Anywhere.
But I also know that simply laying down arms does not always prevent bloodshed and suffering -- in some cases, it can worsen it.
I think no one said here that Israel doesnt have a right to defend itself. I just say there must be some other way. "Cutting supply lines" is a military strategy ill suited to deal with guerrillas. An extremist militant have little problem going days or weeks without electricity or running water, a civilan family does not. A guerrilla have little use for Gaza Airport since Israel completely owns the skies but palestinian economic development needs that kind of infraestructure. As for Lebanon, a country that just got rid of a pro-Syrian goverment by a narrow margin, these kind of things can throw the population into the arms of the anti-israeli camp.
Israel has the right to defend itself but also have the responsability to use its force wisely, and to prevent future conflict in extent of its power. And all these years of conflict have taught us that massive force display and civilian casualties dont work. And the "this is war, shit happens" attitude many show when arab civilian victims are mentioned is nauseating. Its on the same level as an arab terrorist justifying a suicide bombing in a israeli market. If you have to risk soldier's lifes to avoid civilian casualties instead of dropping bombs from planes, then the right thing is to do that. To put a foreighner's life below the life of a national is obscene, and the gate to all war crimes.
Ive lived with terrorism all my life, beign a spaniard. And I've heard every reason for contundent action against terrorists and their background. But as most spaniards, I have come to understand that it is wiser to let some escape and be allways right than to commit some wrongs to end with all the shit. And it pays off. We now see the light at the end of the tunnel but even if we didnt, we would at least be sure that they are the only criminals in the matter at hand.
Israel have the power, so it also have the responsability. Every time they kill an innocent because they prefer the "easy" way, they make this last longer. For this to end, extremist have to lose their popular backing, and history teach us that people cant be pummeled into submission by force, on contrary, they tend to become more desperate in their opposition.
"Cutting supply lines" is a military strategy ill suited to deal with guerrillas. An extremist militant have little problem going days or weeks without electricity or running water, a civilan family does not.
Perhaps, but when the guerrillas are firing sophisticated rockets the resupply of said rockets is something to be legitimately suppressed.
If you have to risk soldier's lifes to avoid civilian casualties instead of dropping bombs from planes, then the right thing is to do that.
I totally disagree and I can't come up with one good example of that ever being done. WW2 would have lasted forever if the Allies had adopted a "no civilian casualties" policy (and it's doubtful the Axis powers would have gone along).
history teach us that people cant be pummeled into submission by force, on contrary, they tend to become more desperate in their opposition.
History has any number of exceptions to this--Japan in WW2, etc.
Bill, sorry, I didn't make my point very well. (But, in explanation, I've been at work 14 hours now. Lame, but true!) A lot of the news reports that I've seen have been less on the actual conflict but on what is this going to do to us? I'd just heard the umpteenth talking head wondering what THIS was going to do with gas prices and someone in the room made a crack about guessing that they'd have to cancel their trip to the beach. THAT's what had me riled up. So, you're right, I was most assuredly doing my own chest-thumping. I just don't like the way that the media and some of the people around me are almost trivializing what's happening. Maybe for some people that's the way their minds work. Me, I don't. I think about the people there, or at least I try to. Gotta admit, my first thought was that I'm glad I'm here. But then, I can't help but wonder what it's like to be on either side. Ironically enough, right now CNN's airing their TWA flight 800 special, and that's another time I wondered about what those people experienced. Was the media reaction the same? Hate to admit it, but I don't remember. I just really get upset when there's a whole big conflict in the world and the media or people around me belittle it.
Just reread El hombre Malo's post. Each time I read it, it struck me that you understand the feelings because you've experienced the situation. I'm glad you're able to communicate that, and everything else you said. And you've also made an arguement that I haven't heard before in the whole situation. You too, Micha.
All I'm trying to say is that this situation is deep, and there are some people are treating it like a puddle to be stepped around. I've reread and edited this post more than any other I've ever done,beacuse I want to be sure that I'm at least making myself clear. This is an old fight, the solution isn't simple. There's a lot involved. I just think that people should keep the big picture in mind before they worry about the smaller problems.
I'd really hate to get drawn into world war 3 just because people of different religious background can't agree on the same invisible man in the sky to worship. I mean, COME ON!
Bits of wisdom from *TallestFanEver*
"Ah, screw it. What we're all scared about is that this conflict spirals out of control and we're stuck in T2 land. I say, the world coming to an end would make life alot easier to deal with. If the shit goes down and nukes hit all over the globe, all you have to deal with is Food & Shelter, instead of Everything Else. Bring on the Apocalypse, I say. It makes living a lot less complicated."
"Seriously, if this Irael vs. Everybody conflict spirals out of control, just find your hidey-hole for a while, and then when you poke out your head, its freakin' Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdrome outside. How cool would that be?!!!"
"I'd really hate to get drawn into world war 3 just because people of different religious background can't agree on the same invisible man in the sky to worship. I mean, COME ON!"
Are you really this stupid, or do you just play stupid on the internet?
mostly just playing stupid. And drinking. And the fact that getting up in arms about this spiraling out of control is really not needed, so you take it to its final conclusion, and then laugh about it because the inherent idea is so absurd.
I need more rum.
Also, do any and all political threads on here need to get 80+ responses back and forth between the same half a dozen posters with long-winded explanations from both sides? It gets old. Rather quickly.
Posted by Sean Scullion at July 16, 2006 12:15 AM
Bill, sorry, I didn't make my point very well.
Actually, I re-read your initial post, and I think the fault was not with how you wrote it but with how I interpreted it. You did in fact mention that you were upset with those who were primarily concerned with how the latest conflict would affect gas prices. So the latest "Needs an Emergency Drop Shipment of Hooked on Phonics Because He's an Idiot" award goes to... me.
Besides, it probably was a bit callous to dismiss concern about human lives as "hand-wringing." My frustration was with those who are condemning Israel without suggesting a viable alternative. But I think anyone with an ounce of decency is at least saddened by the loss of human life that has occurred and will yet occur.
And yes, we in the U.S. in particular need to get over our self-centered way of looking at the Middle East.
Posted by: TallestFanEver at July 16, 2006 04:31 AM
Also, do any and all political threads on here need to get 80+ responses back and forth between the same half a dozen posters with long-winded explanations from both sides? It gets old. Rather quickly.
Well, as one of the more frequent posters, I've enjoyed the back-and-forth with "the same half a dozen posters" (although, to be fair, the "regulars" amount to more than a half a dozen in most threads). Some thoughts can't be expressed in a mere sentence or two, and through discourse with others in Peter's blog I've learned a great deal and been exposed to different ways of thinking.
I'm sorry if that's killing your buzz. But no one is forcing you to read any threads in this blog.
And count yourself lucky if your buzz is all you have to worry about. There are many others out there with far greater worries.
"Also, do any and all political threads on here need to get 80+ responses back and forth between the same half a dozen posters with long-winded explanations from both sides? It gets old. Rather quickly."
I'm sorry tallest fan, but I'm going to need along winded explanation of what you mean.
JAC
Let's talk about the facts, instead of abstractions.
Israel withdrew to the international border with Lebanon (designated by the UN) in May 2000. Its presence in Lebanon was wrong. The campaign to get Israel out of Lebanon was waged by an organization of mothers of soldiers called The Four Mothers (biblical reference) who stood up to generals.
Shortly after the withdrawl the Hizballa took over southern Lebanon, armed itself with 13,000 rockets from Iran whose range covers a third of Israel, some of them of longer range than before, placed their forces on the border, kidnapped 3 soldiers (with the UN forces turning a blind eye), and started attacking a small area which they claim is also part of Lebanon. Since then, they have attacked that area, kidnapped an Israeli civilian (possibly from Europe), every once in a while attacked Israeli civilian areas with their rockets, and allowed a few incursions into Israel, all the while also aiding the Islamic Jihad in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel did bargain for the bodies of the 3 soldiers and the civilian, and refrained from an all out assault. Israel did not give Hizballa all of the Lebanese prisoners because there are four Israeli soldiers who were missing in Lebanon since the 80's.
One reason was because of the fear of the Hizballa's attack on its civilians, who were basically held hostage. It should also be noted that Hizballa's success is one of the reasons for the greater support for 'armed resistence' among the Palestinians that led to the second Intifada following shortly Israel's withdrawl from Lebanon, and continuing ever since.
Last week Hizballa decided to kidnap soldiers in order to get involved in the conflict in Gaza, and help the Hamas and Jihad in Gaza. They also asked for the release of Palestinian prisoners. It should also be noted that Israel withdrew from Gaza in last September, removing from their homes 8000 Israeli settlers (that should never have been there, but who still have lost their homes). Since then the areas Israel withdrew from and other areas were used to shell Israeli towns and Kibbutzim (inside Israel's border) in the south daily, while weapons were being smuggled from Egypt. Israel did not start an all out asault until June.
Meanwhile in the west bank, suicide bombers try to make their way to Israel. Most but not all are blocked. They also attack settlers (who I completely oppose politically). At the same time that the soldier was taken from a base outside Gaza (for who the Hamas asked for a thousand Palestinian prisoners) a 16(?) year old settler was kidnapped and murdered in the West Bank.
(The kidnapping in Gaza was done by the Hamas, the leading party in the Palestinian government).
In 2006 elections, the leading party opposing future withdrawls has shrunk to 13 or 12 seat in the Israeli Parliament. The prime minister belongs to a party who supports a wide (but in my opinion insufficient for peace) withdrawl from the West Bank.
All this is not happening because of a religious argument or strange medieval reasons. They are happening because of reasons easily understandable to a westerner. Remember how you felt after the attacks on your countries.
The reason why the HIzballa is fighting is simple. The Hizballa's leadership position in Lebanese politics, as well as in the forefront of the Islamic fight depends on its continued harassing of Israel. They are not fighting to win, they are fighting to continue fighting, so they are able to attack Israel whenever it is politically expedient for them.
It is imposible to fight a complete war against an army with multiple bases and caches all over Lebanon by commando attacks. A military incursion by force with tanks will cause more harm to civilians, while causing more casualties to Israeli soldiers. Shortly after the kidnapping a tank went into Gaza, all the soldiers in it have died. Israeli soldiers are a significant part of the citizenship, since military service is compulsory, so we value their lives too, as much as civilians (my sister was stationed next to the Lebanese border as a UN laison because of her English which is better than mine). The Hizballa does not wear uniforms and works from inside the civilian population, as does the Hamas in Gaza. Their rockets are hidden inside houses.
If Israel slaughters innocent civilians so do the American , British, and Spaniards who went to Aphganistan, Iraq, or any other war they participated in. If you believe that that makes the civilians or soldiers of these countries the legitimate targets for attacks that's your business.
------------------
Turning the other cheek is nice if it is not your cheek.
Oh, there will be no nuclear war because of this conflict. The only one that has nuclear weapons at present is Israel, and it is not going to use them.
Bill Myers,
While you're taking umbrage, human beings are still suffering. I'm not looking for a reply or another neatly typed justification. What I'd like is for everyone who really does feel horror at the loss of human life in the middle east and all over the world to make that horror the thing they convey to other people. Because I really don't think most people care how many people die as long as they're far, far away from where the bombs and the bullets are. In two differing reports of a bombing campaign, in Beirut I think, one report said a hundred people were killed and another report said at least forty of the people killed were civilians. If both of those numbers are right, almost half the casualties were people who got in the way. Discuss the reasons and tactics of war by all means, as it's certainly not going away, but war needs to be talked about in context, otherwise it's an incomplete picture and people get very callous about the cost. Suffering and death are the context. Our leaders have forgotten this or they just don't care, and I don't want the same thing to happen to the rest of us.
Bill Mulligan said:
"...when the guerrillas are firing sophisticated rockets the resupply of said rockets is something to be legitimately suppressed.
"
Doe sthe term "rocket fuel" rings a bell to you? Do you believe civil infraestructures carry rocket fuel?
" WW2 would have lasted forever if the Allies had adopted a "no civilian casualties" policy (and it's doubtful the Axis powers would have gone along)."
WWII was a war between armies. Armies that did really had an use for airfields, fuel supply lines and bridges. And even so, the fire bombing of Tokio or the british carpet bombing of Köln are widely seen as war crimes. Even then they were seen as disproportionate use of force. Even Fascists and germans in Spain found a military justification for the bombing of Guernica, but the truth is all these actions have only one motivation; to terrorize population.
As for the japanese, to believe there was no resistance due to the atomic bombings is naive. The emperor's message in the radio and what Japanese consider to be a correct behavior in defeat are considered the main cause of japanese compliance in the ocupation. Even the (few) japanese prisoners during war, prior to the atomic boms acted that way. Please read "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword:Patterns of Japanese Culture", Ruth Benedict work on Japan written with the data she surveyed for the US Army to prepare for a future ocupation of the isles.
I would also recomend you to read Mario Vargas Llosa work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He's been awarded the Jerusalem prize as a long term friend of the state of Israel, wich he sets as an example for most countries in the world (mostly his own, he is peruvian-born). I would translate his today's column in El Pais but I fear its lenghty. I link it here for all of you who can read spanish. He makes a good point on how any attack to Israel policy toward palestinians is quickly mistaken by most for an attack to the existence of Israel.
http://www.elpais.es/articulo/elpporopi/20060716elpepiopi_5/Tes/Israel/matices
Also I would like to share this other link with you.
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_292.shtml
OK, at the risk of getting everyone really, really, really sick of me...
Posted by: Edible Consumer at July 16, 2006 09:58 AM
Bill Myers,
While you're taking umbrage, human beings are still suffering. I'm not looking for a reply or another neatly typed justification. What I'd like is for everyone who really does feel horror at the loss of human life in the middle east and all over the world to make that horror the thing they convey to other people.
In other words, you want people to feel how you want them to feel, and to communicate what you want them to communicate. Because you know what we should all be feeling and how we should express it.
I used to be a far-left anti-war liberal. I believed that all war for any reason was wrong, and that anyone who disagreed just didn't get it. They didn't understand the suffering because they needed a hero like me to help them care.
Talking down to people as though they lacked a human heart because they weren't marching to the beat of my drummer closed more minds than it opened.
I still consider myself a liberal, but I'm no longer against war in all its forms. And it's funny how often I get attacked by people who think I just don't get it. They can't even imagine that I once thought as they did -- because having trodden in that magical paradise, they can't imagine anyone would wish to leave.
I know you haven't necessarily said that all war is morally unjustifiable, but you are acting as smugly as I once did. So trust me, I "get it," far moreso than you're willing to believe.
By the way, I'm sorry if this reply is unwelcome, as you implied with your earlier post. And I am equally sorry if you feel this is another "neatly typed justification." It actually represents my sincerest thoughts and feelings, as all of my posts have.
Because I really don't think most people care how many people die as long as they're far, far away from where the bombs and the bullets are.
Have you heard of an Iranian girl named Nazanin? She was going to be executed for killing a man who was attempting to rape her. I signed a petition that was sent to the U.N. and circulated e-mails to all of my friends and family asking them to do the same. The Iranian high court issued a stay of execution so the case could be reviewed. There's reason to believe that public pressure exerted by people like myself helped.
My girlfriend works for a juvenile detention facility where we live. My girlfriend and I are white suburbanites. Many of the kids who end up in the facility are non-whites from poor backgrounds. My girlfriend has been spending time outside of work trying to think of programs that could help enrich these kids' lives for the brief time they're in the facility -- even though when they leave they often go back to an urban environment that frequently does not directly touch her life.
You see, just because something isn't readily apparent on the surface -- or being expressed in a way that meets with your approval -- doesn't mean it's not there.
While I don't begrudge anyone from focusing on their "feelings" vis a vis the war, it's not my thing. I'd rather focus on tactics, strategy, outcomes, etc. that may seem callous and others are free to pretend that they are better than I am because they claim to "feel" the suffering of others. To each his own though it looks foolish when they try to claim the high ground.
Doe sthe term "rocket fuel" rings a bell to you? Do you believe civil infraestructures carry rocket fuel?
Er, I don't know. Since they have found weapons in freaking Mosques I wouldn't be surprised. At any rate...does the expression "transporting rocket fuel over bridges and roadways" ring a bell?
WWII was a war between armies. Armies that did really had an use for airfields, fuel supply lines and bridges.
Ok, that's a bit of a qualifier. Your original statement was just "If you have to risk soldier's lifes to avoid civilian casualties instead of dropping bombs from planes, then the right thing is to do that."
As for the Japanese, to believe there was no resistance due to the atomic bombings is naive. The emperor's message in the radio and what Japanese consider to be a correct behavior in defeat are considered the main cause of Japanese compliance in the ocupation. Even the (few) japanese prisoners during war, prior to the atomic boms acted that way. Please read "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword:Patterns of Japanese Culture", Ruth Benedict work on Japan written with the data she surveyed for the US Army to prepare for a future ocupation of the isles.
A good book to be sure, one that certainly puts into doubt the statement "history teach us that people can’t be pummeled into submission by force, on contrary, they tend to become more desperate in their opposition." The Japanese WERE indeed "pummeled". Their opposition crumbled. Your generalization was too general.
Not that I would use japan as a model for the Middle East. The Japanese acted MUCH more sensibly than the Palestinians have.
Are you really this stupid, or do you just play stupid on the internet?
See: the name you posted this garbage with.
I've thought several times about posting to this thread, but I really don't have anything to add. I'm so at odds with my thoughts on this whole issue (Israel & Lebanon, not idiots posting only to insult other posters), that I'm not even sure where to begin.
1) Israel is not carpet bombing anything.
2) Israel does not seek to subjugate or occupy Lebanon.
3) Since the beginning of this conflict the Hizbala fired more than a thousand rockets into Israel. These rockets are mobile. They are transported by land from Syria or from air or sea by Iran. Then they are transported throughout the country by roads and bridges using vehicles that use fuel. Afterwards, if they are not used they are hidden somewhere, in Shiate villages and cities, often in residences. Rocket fuel is irrelevant. They are not trying to go to the moon, the rockets have fuel in them.
4) I am not far away. I am about two to three hours drive from being in range of the Hizballa's missles (maybe less).
5) If the suicide attack in Madrid was done by a group that had bases in Morroco, and was part of the Morrocan government; and if in support of that attack this organization based in Morroco would have kidnapped a member of the Spanish coast guard in order to release Muslim prisoners, and would have bombarded the Spanish towns along the Mediterranean coast, I assume that the Spanish army would have reacted, and that he question whether this attack was meant as part of a reconquista effort of Al-Andalus or just for political pressure would have been less important to you. Please adapt this to your own country wherever you are.
To be honest I’m just a lurker on this site and only come here to receive updates on Peter’s comic book and novel work however I feel inclined to comment on this topic. A poster I know at another forum described Israel reaction as performing brain surgery with a chainsaw. In any case Israel played right into their enemies hand, because they are getting the reaction that they deliberately provoked when they kidnapped the two solders. In light of my being an American citizen this might sound hypocritical but I truly feel that Israel should have waited and preceded more carefully before entering a conflict that could have widespread implication for both the Israeli and Lebanese people. What Iraq is to us Lebanon might become for Israel.
As for Israel having it’s fair share of neiboring enemies well you can thank England and America for that as they were the ones that created a nation state for Jews displaced by World War two by displacing the people that were already living there. At least that what I think happened as I’ve been out of school for many years now, and I apologize if my understanding on the topic is flawed. Please feel free to correct me, as I would rather be humbled and educated rather than continuing base my opinion on this issue using wrong information.
1) I never said Israel was carpet bombing, I was responding to the WWII reference on the issue of civilian victims beign acceptable or not.
2) When you use force to make the population do what you want them to do, then you are trying to subjugate them; "repress, quash, keep down, subdue, subjugate, reduce, put down by force or intimidation". If Israel tried to subjugate Hezbolah, I wouldnt have any problem with it, but its the whole Lebanon population they are terrorizing.
3) Again, I just disagreed about the convenience of bombing civil fuel depots like the airport's and someone came up with the rockets.
But still, While Israel demands Lebanon army to go south and disarm Hezbolah, they deprive them of the means to do it, both fuel and roads. As I said again, Hezbolah is a guerrilla, much less dependent on roads, infraestructures and fuel than a regular army. Attacking those only make the rest of Lebanese weaker. Moreso, throwing fliers to lebanese civilians, urging them to leave the attacked area when you have deprived them of roads and fuel to do it properly is a joke.
4) I hope you and yours do nor come into harm
5)Madrid attacks were made by a group that have bases in Morocco and we know for sure Morocco goverment does not have the will to engage that group. We also know exactly who the supporters of ETA are, since they dont hide and enjoy the same rights any other spaniard have. In both cases a part of spanish society demanded swift action, military action. And in both cases we have decided to end the causes of the conflict and not simply try to "subjugate" the attackers and their suporters.
In the early 80's, part of the goverment sponsored a group that kidnapped and killed terrorists and their civilian suporters, ultimatelly kidnapping an innocent by mistake. This only caused more people to back ETA and the spanish society to demand for a strict adherence to law and civil behavior. Spanish Misnister of interior affairs ended up in jail, as well as other high rank officials.
20 years later, ETA has little or no support for their violence and its negotiating a permanent cease fire. Restrain pays off. With Islamist terrorists we are doing the same; use intelligence and police to keep them as bay, cry our dead but make sure no one can ever label us guilty for an innocent death.
And as for how the spanish army would have reacted... Armies dont have to react in any other way than however the goverment says. Period.
---------------
As for what Bill Mulligan said about Japan:
The book I mentioned describe how japanese prisoners, way before Atomic attacks, were cooperative and eager to help the american troops that captured them. In battle they would fight to the last man but whenever one was captured, he became docile and eager to appease. Not out of cowardly or sense of futility but for the same reasons they fought so fiercely: to be as good as you can in the position you are in. As a soldier, the best soldier, as a prisoner, the best prisoner. Japanese idiosincracy and adherence to the Emperor's word was what made them docile after defeat, not pummeling.
Every invaded country without that idiosincratic peculiarity have shown resistance and have tried to make the invade/agressor life miserable. Spanish did to the french, polish did to the german, vietnamese did to the americans... Even if your country goverment is wrong, people will hate whoever is killing them and gravitate to whoever group is doing more to fight back. It doesnt have to do with reason, but with feelings.
Putting aside the history of the area (and though we must never forget history, peace is only won by concentrating on the future)....
Seems to me that Israel has every reason to be a) be angry and b) retaliate against aggressors that act, well, aggressively, against its citizens. Whether that be Hezballuh, Palestians or whoever... if they target civilians they get NO support from me.
However, Israel loses a great deal of support when it fires missiles, storm or otherwise into heavily populated civilian areas and then claims that 'it's 'unfortunate' when civilians die. It's not 'unfortunate', it's a totlaly forseeable event and a calculated decision that killing civilians is not as bad as NOT killing Hezballuh/enemy operatives.
Civilian deaths are the tragc tool of both sides in a war. Depending whose side you're on they are unfortunate collateral damage or murdered innocents - watching one hour of any news station teaches you that.
The steps that must follow are:
The Lebanese government must call on hezbullah to stop its campaign and must condemn their actions as overtly provocative (fighting an enemy inside your own land is one thing, attackign the enemy on their own soil is different)
The Israelies must call off their bombing asap. They've had their show of strength and it must be clear to anyone that unless they plan to invade the Lebanon the harder they bomb, the LESS likely this enemy is to back down and lose face. Equally, the more civilian deaths, the more potential enemies are created in the surviving population on both sides.
The two above items must be negotiated internationally. Neither side is inclined to make the first move, which is a pity because the first one to do so is likely to get most of the international goodwill out of it.
Yes, I know sounds remarkably easy. It's not.
But the fact is that the alternative is two (or more) nations looking for bigger and bigger rocks to throw at each other. And we all know where that leads.
Despite most of the comments, there's one truth: it's not our business. Israel will do what Israel wants. We didn't vote for the current conservative Israeli government, and it's not our right to do so.
(Yes, most of us didn't vote for the current conservative American government, but we can still voice grievances. It is our government, after all.)
In all honesty, being partly of Irish extraction, I feel the way I did when the IRA and Catholic factions were turning Northern Ireland into a bloodbath. I hate it. I feel tied to it. But I can't do anything to stop it, because it's not my right. The only thing I could do was negative - not attend the Catholic fundraisers that supported terrorist groups.
And I suspect that American Jews who are frightened about this can only do the same; stop supporting Israel with money and praise until they choose to come to the bargaining table. That is, if the table doesn't get incinerated in a nuclear fireball.
It is amazing to me that we have leaders i
I know PAD's post implies that he somehow expected or thinks bush will criticize Israel on this, but in actuality, he is one of the few supporting israel of world leaders, and has long been a supporter of Israel (as have other presidents and evangelical christians in general today).
His cautions, it seems obvious to me, are a desire not to see the whole aread erupt, as we have been told would happen, and did not happen, after both Afgjanistan and Iraq. The truth is, he needs it, and we need it, to be peaceful there in order for us to be safe.
So I wish this wasn't happening.
However, I can't blame Israel. On the one hand, you have a relatively free nation and on the other, nations, terrorists, and a population that seems unwilling to admit the other side will be there, whether they like it or not. It is a no brainer to me. Until they admit Israel ain't going anywhere, there will never be true peace.
and until arab nations stop seeing a vast jewish conspiracy behind everything, and look to their own nations and leaders, most of them will continue to be hundreds of years behind the times.
One day, there will be alternatives to oil, and unless they get their act together, they will be left with nothing.
As to this specific conflict, again, the problem is it doesn't matter what israel does, it doesn't matter how much land it fgives up, how many concessions, these groups of terrorists, and many of these governments simply want to destroy Israel and have it not exist anymore. So negotiations are meaningless really, there is no good faithm they only buy time. The nut in Iran is unbelieveable in his statements-he doesn't even try to hide it.
A small nation like Israel in the heart of enemies has no choice but to be extremely tough-and if people there don't like it, then change their governments, and ask for real peace.
spiderrob8, I think you hit the nail right on the head.
1 I might be naive, but if you know where your foes are and also know that by dropping bombs you will probably kill innocents, blaming your foes for those victims is simply perverse.
****
I don't think it is perverse. When armed robbers take over a bank, and the police have to go in with a shootout, if innocents are killed, the police don't get tried for murder. The bank robbers do.
I see no difference here. I don;t blame FDR for civilain deaths in WWII, I blame Hitler and company.
>>When armed robbers take over a bank, and the police have to go in with a shootout, if innocents are killed, the police don't get tried for murder. The bank robbers do.
I see no difference here. I don;t blame FDR for civilain deaths in WWII, I blame Hitler and company. >>
With respect, given that a) the missiles aren't presumably being aimed at specific locations where the kindapped soldiers are being held (or there's a new type of missile on the market that only blows up kidanppers and not kidnapees), wouldn't the more comparable example be that a bunch of 'Most wanted' robbers from Glendale/The Bronx commit a murder a child/rape a whole family in a neighbouring area and the police, following criticsm that they're weak on crime - wait a couple of days and then go into Glendale/The Bronx and throw a ton of grenades down a busy street where the gang are beleived to regularly hang-out in the hope that it'll take out some of them and put others off?
Not to me. When dealing with nations, you have to deal with the broader problem. The problem is not just these specific soldiers kidnapped, or these specific guys who kidnapped. There's a far broader problem, and dealing with that one symptom, would simply lead to more problems in the future.
It would be like dealing with the one guy who commits murder, but not dealing with the organization (the gang or the mafia or whatever) that creates and encourages that condition to exist, arresting the pusher on the streetm but not the guy who supplies him all the way down the supply line (as well as the demand for it).
It would be like saying after 9.11, well heck, the hijackers are all dead, so justice has prevailed and there is nothing else to do. The problem isn't the guys who came up with the plan, or supplied them, trained them, gave safe haven to them, or the mindset in general in the middle east that creates this problem to begin. That would be being totally reactive instead of proactive.
> people cant be pummeled into submission by force, on contrary, they tend to become more desperate in their opposition.
Depends. I'm convinced that the Germans might have won their war against the Soviets if they had treated the population better. The average Soviet had no love for their dictatorial, totalitarian nutcase of a leader. They were mostly living in medeival-level squalor. If the Germans hadn't stupidly treated them like sub-human creatures (which their propaganda assured them the Soviets were) and instead had helped them as they came through, acting as 'liberators' in spite of the realo purpoise being far different, they might have done it.
>As for the japanese, to believe there was no resistance due to the atomic bombings is naive. The emperor's message in the radio and what Japanese consider to be a correct behavior in defeat are considered the main cause of japanese compliance in the ocupation.
Shortly after the occupation began, Japanese were practically worshiping MacArthur as being instrumental in reliving them of many years of misery at the hands of the Imperial army. Don't believe it? Talk to people who were around back then and saw Japanese soldiers herding civilians off cliffs to 'save' them from falling into the hands of Americans. Or families torn apart as children were wisked away to the countryside - ostensibly to protect them from bombing raids, in reality to be enslaved in work camps to the war effort.
As for the anti-Israel sentiments ... Canadians have shown in poll after poll that they support giving up hard-won freedoms in order to fight terrorists. Yet, inexplicably, they then turn around and don't support a country which suffers from terrorist actions on an almost daily basis.
I may admit to being Canadian, but it's been quite a while since I've been proud of it.
>20 years later, ETA has little or no support for their violence and its negotiating a permanent cease fire. Restrain pays off.
It isn't generally known outside the country, but Canada had a problem of its own with a home-grown terrorist faction - the FLQ (Front de Libération du Québec) - in the mid-60s and early 70s. Blowing things up, killing a few people. Eventually, they kidnapped a British diplomat and provincial cabinet minister and killed the latter, proudly taking responsibility for it. OK, enough's enough. Then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau called in the War Measures' Act, declared Martial Law, brought in the army and stomped the terrorist movement flat. The War Measures' Act was then lifted and peace has pretty much been de rigueur ever since, a couple of stand-offs with the natives aside. So, sometimes taking firm action also works.
"Depends. I'm convinced that the Germans might have won their war against the Soviets if they had treated the population better. The average Soviet had no love for their dictatorial, totalitarian nutcase of a leader. They were mostly living in medeival-level squalor. If the Germans hadn't stupidly treated them like sub-human creatures (which their propaganda assured them the Soviets were) and instead had helped them as they came through, acting as 'liberators' in spite of the realo purpoise being far different, they might have done it."
Precisely my point. If they hadn't choose to force soviet population they could have win in the East. There was even a plan to create a russian pro-german army under a White Czarist general. But it was Hitler hatred of slavic people that prevented that army (that just needed the supplies to start fighting) from giving russians an alternative to Stalin. Israel is making the pro-western Lebanese leadership irrelevant. How can they get to people when their international allies are bombing them?
The only info I have about FLQ or Quebequian terrorism is what I read on Alpha Flight regarding NorthStar origin :)
Now, I am sure they didnt have the popular back up ETA or IRA have. Here we have GRAPO (they say they are communist) and we could deal with them strictly police-wise. Same happened with Bayer-Meinkhoff (however thats written) and Red Brigades in German and Italy. Small groups with limited support, you can deal with violently.
Interesting novel, ten-fifteen years back, called AIRBURST. Don't recollect the author's name. Plot revolved around a commando raid on a secret Israeli weapons depot, making away with one of their tactical nuclear warheads. The warhead is eventually used against Washington, but it proves to be a cleverly contructed fake.
The most memorable part of the otherwise forgettable book came at the end as a high-ranking representative of Israeli intelligence meets informally with an American equivalent.
The latter is incredulous upon learning it was all a carefully-plotted ruse to draw out an extremist cell and help to track them down and eventually eliminate them.
"But, but, one of the staff was the Prime Minister's own son!"
"Yes. It ensured there would be no likelihood of the enemy seeing it as a ruse."
"But, why didn't you let us in on it? Didn't you trust us?"
"Of course not. We've lived for decades with our backs to a wall, surrounded by implacable enemies who wish to eradicate us. We do whatever it takes to survive. That you ask these questions proves you are unable to understand that."
Over the top and a bit ridiculous in terms of exaggerated plot elements, but it did serve, in my mind, to quite effectively highlight the vast chasm which exists between the two mind sets. The discussions being held here show there is still much truth to it, unfortunately.
The current Israeli government is not conservative, it is a coalition of a Centrist party (which is the larger member) and Labor, which is moderate-liberal party. The centrist party is willing to withdraw from a large but insufficient part of the West Bank, but does not support negotiations both because it is not willing to offer better terms to the Palestinians and because it does not want to negotiate while terrorism continues. I support a more liberal position than both, but I must admit that I'm not sure if the Palestinians are wililng to make peace on acceptable terms. The more liberal Labor, who I'd like to see in power, was discredited by the collapse of the peace process and the subsequent violence and has no chance of getting enough power to folow the policies I support.
---------------
Bush's support for Israel has been wrong at times, but not in this case.
---------------
"Civilian deaths are the tragc tool of both sides in a war. Depending whose side you're on they are unfortunate collateral damage or murdered innocents"
There is a difference between attacking civilians in order to kill civilians and civilians dying during an attack on terrorists.
I don't know how to fight terrorists who are working from inside a civilian population, and are undistinguishable from civilian population without any civilian casualties. In the past I felt Israel was not careful enough, and have demonstrated against its actions. But in this case, there is a standing order to the pilots to abort attacks if there is a risk of hitting civilians. Doing more than that would mean not fighting this war at all.
-----------------
"The steps that must follow are:
The Lebanese government must call on hezbullah to stop its campaign and must condemn their actions as overtly provocative (fighting an enemy inside your own land is one thing, attackign the enemy on their own soil is different)
The Israelies must call off their bombing asap. They've had their show of strength and it must be clear to anyone that unless they plan to invade the Lebanon the harder they bomb, the LESS likely this enemy is to back down and lose face. Equally, the more civilian deaths, the more potential enemies are created in the surviving population on both sides."
This is insufficient. The key issue is to end the situation in which the Hizballa sits inside Lebanon and on the Israeli border, attacking whenever they please. If the Lebanese cannot disarm the Hizballa (which they should but can't), they should at least enforce a complete ceasfire and take control on the border. If not, Israel will be doomed to continue fighting a war with a state inside a state.
Returning the soldiers is also important. Although this war is not only about the soldiers, but about the situation that made he kidnapping acceptable.
--------------------
"When you use force to make the population do what you want them to do, then you are trying to subjugate them; "repress, quash, keep down, subdue, subjugate, reduce, put down by force or intimidation". If Israel tried to subjugate Hezbolah, I wouldnt have any problem with it, but its the whole Lebanon population they are terrorizing."
All wars are about making countries do what you want. The Hizballa are Lebanese. I don't know of a way to fight Hizballa outside of Lebanon. However, Israel is not trying to repress, quash, keep down, subdue, subjugate, reduce, put down by force or intimidation Lebanon. We are trying to reduce the Hizballa's fighting ability, while getting the Lebanese government to be able to assert its authority. We have not attacked the Lebanese army.
--------------------
"But still, While Israel demands Lebanon army to go south and disarm Hezbolah, they deprive them of the means to do it, both fuel and roads. As I said again, Hezbolah is a guerrilla, much less dependent on roads, infraestructures and fuel than a regular army. Attacking those only make the rest of Lebanese weaker. Moreso, throwing fliers to lebanese civilians, urging them to leave the attacked area when you have deprived them of roads and fuel to do it properly is a joke."
You have a mistaken view of how the Hizballa fight. The Lebanese army has better means than a guerilla force to move around, like armored weapons, helicopters and ships. In any case, once a ceasefire is acheived the roads can be fized quickly enough for the Lebanese army to redeploy. Nobody expects the Lebanese arm to act during the fighting. I am not familiar with a case in which civilians wishing to flee a part of Lebanon where leaflets were dropped could not do so. The leaflets mostly involved Beirut's Shia neighborhood.
-------------------
The reference to ETA is irrelevant unless we were talking about a situation in which Spain withdrew from the Basque country, and the state formed there made war against it. Spain's security forces and law control the Basque country, and the Basques are Spanish citizens. The Muslims inside Spain are citizens or residents as well, and also subject to Spanish law (although apparently more discontent).
Similarly Israel has a population of Palestinian citizens who have equal rights, and whose involvement in terrorism in relatively small (but not nonexistant). They have representatives in the Israeli Parliament who speak positively of Assad and the Hizballa, and has visited both countries. If terrorism happens it is treated by police and the courts of law. Our problem is with the Palestinians in areas we withdrew from, such as parts of the West Bank and Gaza, or in areas we control militarily but are not part of Israel. They are not subject to Israeli law.
In Lebanon restraint clearly did not pay off.
----------------
"Madrid attacks were made by a group that have bases in Morocco and we know for sure Morocco goverment does not have the will to engage that group."
The situation I described is much more extreme. I don't think the Madrid terrorists have military bases in Morroco. They do have public and ideological support which is tolerated to a degree by the government like in most Muslim countries). The Hamas has supporters and offices in Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, but Israel did not attack these countries. Israel did not attack Lebanon while he HIzballa was arming and controling groups in the West Bank. Israel attacked a country whose territory was used to launch constant attacks against Israel.
-----------------
"And as for how the spanish army would have reacted... Armies dont have to react in any other way than however the goverment says. Period."
We have a cultural misunderstanding here. Israel never had a military dictatorship. When I speak of the army acting, I take it for granted that it is not acting independantly of the government.
-----------------
"As to this specific conflict, again, the problem is it doesn't matter what israel does, it doesn't matter how much land it gives up, how many concessions, these groups of terrorists, and many of these governments simply want to destroy Israel and have it not exist anymore. So negotiations are meaningless really, there is no good faithm they only buy time."
Not really. Offering concessions to moderates may possibly achieve peace. But it is also essential to draw the line where the concessions end, and that these concessions are not a sign of weakness that should justify continued fighting. There are forces in the Arab and Muslim world that wish to continue fighting beyond the concessions Israel can and should offer (such as the Hizballa). As it is necessary to show the wililngness to make concessions, it is also necessary to show that continued fighting will fail. Those arabs who have accepted Israel did so because they have given up defeating it by force. For the extremists to become moderate they must realise both that fighting wil not succeed and that negotiations will succeed. There are people on both sides of the political divide in Israel who tend to forget one side of the equation.
"To be honest I’m just a lurker on this site and only come here to receive updates on Peter’s comic book and novel work however I feel inclined to comment on this topic. A poster I know at another forum described Israel reaction as performing brain surgery with a chainsaw. In any case Israel played right into their enemies hand, because they are getting the reaction that they deliberately provoked when they kidnapped the two solders."
This is a wrong analysis of the situation. The objective of the Hizballa was not to draw Israel to war, but to score points by kidnapping soldiers, as part of a long term policy of harassing Israel in order to gain a leading position in Lebanon and in among Islamic movements. The objective of the war is not to perform brain surgery, it is to stop the Hizballa from harassing Israel whenever they please. This is acheived by weakening the Hizballa's fighting ability sufficiently and enabling the Lebanese government to assert the authority that it could not before.
"Israel should have waited and preceded more carefully before entering a conflict"
How? If Israel had done nothing than the Hizballa's objective would have been acheived, there leadership position, its ability to attack Israel a