Why is restraint desirable?

Hizbollah is the enemy. Hamas is the enemy. Syria is the enemy. Iran is the enemy. We are at war already. Anyone who disputes this is on the other side. Unless you are Neville Chamberlain or Kofi Annan, negotiation with any of these people is a waste of time.

So why not now? The remarkable lack of condemnation of Israel's response from Europe and other Arab states suggests that they, too, are fed up with these atavists. It is long past time to put them out of business permanently, by any means necessary.

Or would you prefer we wait until Iran has nukes?

stop pouring billions of taxpayers money
and Isreal will see the light!

I suspect this is an attempt to distract governments from the ultimatum Iran has yet to (officially) respond to- hizbullah is their pet, and has been for a long time.

It is long past time to put them out of business permanently, by any means necessary.Or would you prefer we wait until Iran has nukes?

Maybe that is why Iran does need nukes, to prevent the country from being put out of business.

I think the United States should be more active towards a solution. Both parties rely on the US in different ways. Palestine, through humanitarian aid, and Israel, in US support for Israel taking territory beyond the Green Line (as shown in US vetos in the UNSC and the votes in the General Assembly 144-4, 156-6, etc).

The cost of building a huge wall along the Green Line and of moving Israeli settlements into Green Line are far cheaper than the money costs and lives both sides pour into this. (The US could offer each Israeli individual $100,000 inside the Green Line, for instance).

"the Israeli incursion into Gaza in response to the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier and the ongoing shelling of Israeli towns and kibbutzim"

The New Republic says Israel retaliated, without mentioning the many Palestinian civilian deaths that covered the newspapers in the Muslim world for a month.

From http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1657 :

Among the three major networks, ABC's World News Tonight was the closest to being balanced, with 64 percent of its uses of "retaliation" referring to Israeli actions and 21 percent to Palestinian actions-- a three-to-one ratio. CBS Evening News came next, with 79 percent of its uses of "retaliation" referring to Israeli actions and 7 percent to Palestinian actions. NBC Nightly News was the most imbalanced, never once referring to Palestinian retaliation.

The cost of building a huge wall along the Green Line and of moving Israeli settlements into Green Line are far cheaper than the money costs and lives both sides pour into this. (The US could offer each Israeli individual $100,000 inside the Green Line, for instance).

Exactly what would the US get for the insane amount of money this would cost?

Am I the only one who's sick of people who think the solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem is to throw money at one side or the other?

Greg Djerejian gets it mostly right though one sentence might better have read "...however emotionally difficult it is for Palestine, not to mention deeply frustrating, to have to grapple so frequently with this repulsive tactic of arresting Palestinians to see them then used crudely as bargaining chips."

There are 8-10,000 Palestinians in Israeli prisons. Do they all really have blood on their hands?

The only possible reaction of Israel and Olmert to agression is to escalate it. Should Israel be seen as weak or vacillating, the howling pack of bloodthirsty Islamic jihadists would be on her neck. Moreover, Israel should escalate the tension so the price of oil goes out of control, making life difficulty for everybody. Only then the great powers will pacify Hizb'Allah and disarm Iran.

For us Jews, suffering passively agression simply has not worked. We have decided to return to history and take an active and courageous part in it.

Our enemies should take note that we are a serious and capable people, and are starting to be good at the game.

JeffB - Why do you think that would do any good at all? Israel withdrew entirely from Gaza, to the pre-1967 border, and the response was hundreds of rockets fired over the border and cross border military raids. From this I can only draw one conclusion: the Arabs don't want a two-state solution, they don't want to live in peace with Israel, they want Israel to cease to exist. I despair of a solution short of killing all of the Palestinian Arabs.

Let's keep in mind that the apocalyptic rhetoric coming from people in the region is a product of this conflicts' being much more important to them than anything else. To them -- not to us.

The president told me that Lebanon had become very much like Switzerland(because we invaded Iraq) and I believe him. So I cant understand all the fuss. Both Lebanon and Palestine had elections(because we invaded Iraq) and the president told me that countries that have elections are peaceful. Why is Israel attacking the peaceful democracies?

Israel needs "adult supervision." Yes. But so does Hamas and Hezbollah. Who's going to do it?

No one?

Hmmm.

Then what's the second best solution?

Mediation is one thing, but forking over millions and billions of dollars is entirely another. I am tired of having my tax dollars play a significant role in this issue.

Israel is trying to force the Lebanese state to reign in Hizbullah once and for all. Only they're conveniently ignorning the fact that trying to accomplish that could split the country in (at least) two. The US needs to step in and start trying to broker negotiations, both to bring down the regional temperature and help the Lebanese government find a way to both restrain Israel AND maintain internal peace.

The notion of a united Islamic front against Israel, referred to in some of the posters, is probably exaggerated. One irony of the recent events is that the attack by Hezbollah came at the expense of the Palestinians. It frustrated their attempt to capitalize on their own operation by complicating any possible deal regarding an exchange of prisoners. It also shifted international focus from the Gaza Strip to Lebanon and gave Israel greater freedom to act against the Palestinians.

rosignol: "Exactly what would the US get for the insane amount of money this would cost?"

I'm definitely not an expert on this, but I did a back of the envelope calcuation, and the money we spend on defense, war, and aid in the region is tens of billions, and the iraq war for instance will probably be 500+ billion when we're done. So we are already spending gobs of money in the region. (I know others disagree on this, but from the people I know from Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan, the Palestine issue is a major driver against the US in the region.)

I'm not sure what we get - perhaps less US soldiers killed in the region, less terrorist attacks at home, lower risk of WWIII. It's obviously partly humanitarian too.

DBL: "Arabs don't want a two-state solution"

I agree the rockets are a problem. I've read that they've caused 12 deaths over 2001-2003. I'm not sure how to completely stop those, just as I don't know how to stop murders in my hometown. But...I think polls show most Palestinians favor a 2-state solution, so I think it's unfair to say that Arabs don't want Israel to exist. Obviously some are against Israel and they will fire rockets.

I don't see how Israel will stop the rockets with the current policy - there is too much anger and the reaction will just cause more. It would help Israel if world opinion were on there side - there would be more political pressure to stop the rocket attacks. But as it stands now, most of the world is against Israel's 40-year military occupation and annexation of land (shown in Gen. Assembly resolutions where everyone votes against Israel, the US, and small Pacific island nations). I don't know...it's not looking good.

Frankly, Israel was attacked from a sovereign state across an internationally recognised border. That is an act of war and Israel is entitled by UN resolution 51 to go to war in response. It's ironic that Israel is scrutinized so closely for it's actions in this regard. What would happen if America was attacked on its soil by terrorists sponsored by another state. Oh wait. It was, and Afghanistan was practically bombed back to the stone age. Did America get the kind of heat that Israel gets? No, because they were justified in their actions. Just like Israel is now.

It could be a good investment for the US to pay each side even more money than we do now IF the fighting stops.
The end deal would look something like this:
1. Pay settlers handsomely to move within something like the 67 border.(the religious fanatics will flip out but tough)
2. Pay Palestinian who lost property and are living in camps (Something like reparations to Jews who lost property during the 30s in Germany)
Again the zealots would have a problem...but tough.
If peace and stablity would break out in the region the economic benefits to the US would be huge.

Oh wait. It was, and Afghanistan was practically bombed back to the stone age. Did America get the kind of heat that Israel gets? No, because they were justified in their actions. Just like Israel is now.

____

Well, I am not going to compare 3 kidnapped soldiers (who signed up for hazardous duty) to the death of 3,000+ civilians just showing up for work - if you believe that is value ratio of Israeli and American life.

And let's be real- these "rocket attacks" are inaccurate, not terribly effective. More Israelis are probably killed in roadside accidents.

Israel's disproportinate response is making life difficult for the U.S., and that ought to be the main consideration - what best promotes American interests. I had no problems in America cutting aid to Hamas. I would also have no problems if America cut its annual $3 billion to Israel - the most advanced economy in the Middle East.

I have no problems with Israel targeting Hezbollah or Hamas assets - but kncking out electricity and water to civilians is not going to win them any points. We already know that Arab leadership is not overly concerned with the hardship of its citizens, so the more punishment Israelis inflict on Arab civilians, the more Arab governments have a handy excuse.

For all of Israel's complaint's about its "dangerous neighborhood" - it is actually fortunate to be located where it is. It's overwhelming military advantage over its neighbors affords its options than other countries facing stat-sponosred terrorism do not enjoy.

Try being India, where you have a nuclear-armed neighbor sponsoring terrorists and receiving military largesse from the United States. So even after 200 civilians are killed on a train, retaliatory options are limited - since the sponsor can claim it wasn't involved, but if you even make moves to strike back, your capital is toast.

t could be a good investment for the US to pay each side even more money than we do now IF the fighting stops.

It won't. The US has given both Israel and Egypt billions to 'buy' peace, and all it's accomplished is to keep Egyptian support of Islamic militants covert instead of overt.

Why we pay Egypt to not start a war that Egypt will lose is beyond me.

The end deal would look something like this:
1. Pay settlers handsomely to move within something like the 67 border.(the religious fanatics will flip out but tough)

Pay them yourself. I'm sick of underwriting stuff that doesn't work.

2. Pay Palestinian who lost property and are living in camps (Something like reparations to Jews who lost property during the 30s in Germany)
Again the zealots would have a problem...but tough.

Again, pay them yourself. All those yahoos will do is take the money and use it to buy weapons or dump it into the black hole of corruption that the PA was so famous for.

If peace and stablity would break out in the region the economic benefits to the US would be huge.

The economic benefits would be nonexistent. The middle eastern economies that are actually significant trade partners for the US aren't the ones getting involved in the fighting, and I suspect the only way to really resolve this mess is to send Assad to paradise and carpet-bomb the Hizbullah camps.

Maybe his successor will be smarter than he is.

Hamas and Hizbullah are very pragmatic actors. They did these actions with full knowledge that they would get massivly attacked in response. They did them in order to achieve larger political goals then to just kill a couple Israeli troops and hold a hostage or two. Both the Lebanese and the Palestinians have been through enough war with the Israelis to know what how to deal with it.

Even though I am Arab, I would be sympathetic if the Israelis limited their actions to trying to recover the captured soldiers. But they act so violently in order to punish the entire populations. It just goes to show that Israel is a criminal state, a giant terrorist organization.

The idea that "The next Middle East war--Israel against genocidal Islamism--has begun." is just plain stupid. Dan, I don't even know why you would post such a stupid thing unless you were trying to be an ass. For one, the grevience against Israel has very little to do with Islam, which we all know. The Arabs and Muslims are mad at Israel because they are unbelievably cruel to the people they occupy and act like their lives are 1000 times more important then the lives of the "cockroaches." Israel is a racist state and it brings the wars and violence on itself by being so violent and racist. Second, "the next Middle East war" has not begun. It is closer today then yesterday, but Hamas and Hizbullah are specifically acting within a war that Israel has kept alive for years. Had an Israeli government (and especially after Rabin) ever been interested in negotiating a fair settlement and making peace, then things like this would not happen. Had the Jewish people ever admitted that the birth of their state was a major crime against another people, then maybe we would be somewhere. Prime Minister Haniyeh is exactly right in how to end these wars. Instead, the Israelis just put the Palestinians in deeper suffering and keep punishing them for existing, and war is just the natural result.

I am worried that Israel will decide that they might as well put their foot on the gas and do attacks against Iran or Syria, since they are so deep into it already, which would then start the "next Middle East war" for sure.

I will say though, for the first time, I agree with Zathras. The USA is going to get dragged into a war that is has no interests in. If America had ever been an "honest broker" then they would have no problems when situations like this come up, just like they are not tied to problems in Kashmir. But the USA has spent years being stupid and unfair in the Middle East, and now the result is that it gets sucked in when all hell breaks loose.

Rossi,
OK...let get serious about killing...wider war, Iran. civil unrest blah, blah...make it even worse. War in Iraq/Iran and $76/barrel oil...now that is REALLY EXPENSIVE and I am sick of paying for that. My alt. is cheap!

Think that am not sure people have mentioned the semi-precarious position of Olmert, which means he needs to be seen to be strong. Secondly whilst risking war in the Middle East may be excessive, there's a certain element of who dares wins - and that notions of justice or acceptable behaviour have rarely governed Israeli behaviour before. Neither does it remedy the long term problem, if anyone is interested I recommend an essay on the Israel-Palestine issue on http://www.irrationalmagazine.org/.

B

Even here, one sees how easy it is to stir up fighting in this neighborhood--one side suggests being subject to rocket attacks is something you should learn to live with, the other suggests that the Israeli state is just a terror machine.

Yet Israel, the PLO and even the Palestinian-based Hamas gave evidence before the crisis of being able to reach a live-and-let-live accommodation. The descent into the abyss can be traced back to Syria-based Hamas officials and ultimately to Tehran. (See Erlanger in today's NYT.)

I wonder if in April 2003 Iran was situated so as to be able to pull the strings in Gaza and Lebanon, while the United States stood by helplessly.

Dan, you err in your underlying assumptions. The error is that you do not perceive state support for terror, and that we and Israel have common state enemies who are cooperating against us.

This is about Iran. Iran's mullahocracy is following a long-term plan here. I predicted this in January at Winds of Change.

These events in Lebanon are strategic distractions from Iran's nuclear weapons program and its imminent nuclear tests. Powerline agreed today on this.

"... Iran has orchestrated much (if not all) of the current unrest and violence in order to: (i) distract attention from its nuclear weapons program, (ii) tie down Israel militarily in order to reduce the chances that Israel could unilaterally (or in combination with the U.S.) launch a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, (iii) scare the American public (and politicians) into rejecting any unilateral military option against Iran for fear of further inflaming the Mideast (e.g., "Geez, we've already got huge issues in North Korea, Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan, we can't possibly afford any further foreign entanglements" or "We better not do anything to Iran, we might further inflame the Mideast, threaten our oil supply and the U.S. economy" (Lord knows we don't want to pay $%/gallon for our SUV's)), and (iv) create world furor against Israel (and indirectly the U.S.), to further raise the stakes and international opposition to any unilateral military strikes..."

As far as I am concerned, one soldier captured in friendly territory is more then enough for a causes belli. You can't let one soldier get captured and let it simply be settled at the negotition table. A country can't simply let such a flagrant violation of their territory and armed forces go unanswered. Also, remember that every soldier and their family is looking at how Olmert handles this in case they to get captured, and the soldiers and their family will not settle for a soft touch. The only mistake Olmert has done is by being to cautious in invading PA territory. In a sitution like this it has to be all or nothing, or else you galvanize the enemy while giving them a safe heaven in unoccupied territories.

...deeply frustrating, to have to grapple so frequently with this repulsive tactic of kidnapping serving soldiers to see them then used crudely as bargaining chips.

Sure - and it's been "deeply frustrating" for the Lebanese over the last three decades to have to deal with the exact same "repulsive tactic" from Israel (who directly referred to the people it kidnapped from Lebanon over the years as "bargaining chips"). Anyone remember that?

Can we please not pretend there's no history here?

Have a link to the "bargaining chips" bit?

One kidnaped soldier has resulted in 47 dead civilians so far...with a ratio like that who needs "bargaining chips"!!!

Lebanese Food: Heard of "Google"? Type in "Bargaining chips", Lebanon and Israel, and see what happens.

Here are some links to get you started:

Amnesty

HRW

I know it's shocking, but the fact that Americans insist on being ignorant of history doesn't mean that other people around the world are.

Manumission,

Why is your issue of "bargaining chips" that important in the scheme of things?

First, Israel attached the beach in Gaza causing this ruckus. Second, two Israeli soldiers has been kidnapped. Where is all the concern for the Lebanese soldiers and the Palestinian families and children. Liberals are critical of the US until it comes to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. This is the height of hypocrisy. I hope Israel is blown off the face of the earth and their God as well.

Until every single Palestinian and Lebanese faces the certainty of death unless attacks on Israel cease, there will be no peace.

Well, there is one other path to peace,kill all the Jews in Israel, but that is beyond the means of those who would do it if they could.

Israel could force its nearby enemies to face personal death, it is within their means. Something on the order of 1000 civilian deaths per day would yield results quickly.

And 1000 civilian deaths per day, yielding expected peace after 10-30 days, would be downright civilized compared to 50 more years of the same. The Arabs could stop focusing on destroying Israel and get on with their lives, much as the Japanese did in 1945.

Against my own better judgment, I'm going to throw out a question that does not address any of the political issues about which people are getting so emotional.

What is Israel's military objective in Gaza? In Lebanon? Is Israel's response to these events a product of a prepared contingency plan, or is it improvised and, perhaps, heavily influenced by the embarrassment of the Israeli military leadership at having been caught badly by surprise twice in the space of two weeks?

In the conspiracy-minded Middle East everyone will have theories as to what Israel is seeking in responding as it has to Hamas and Hezbollah. Some of them may even have elements of truth in them. I'm just pointing out that in strictly military terms two successful kidnappings of soldiers from Israeli soil, mounted across heavily guarded frontiers, are not just outrages against Israel but major screw-ups by the IDF. Maybe IDF operations in Gaza and (especially) in Lebanon now are directed toward achieving objectives independent of this, but it doesn't really look that way.

We (the World's Citizens) need to establish an International City at Jeruselem. It will be a free trade zone with economic stimulants for Israelis and Palestinians. We will then put half the UN there; all the bureaucrats and meetings. This is to make bombings there unacceptable.

This Zone will have border Israel such that north/south transit is easy and self-controlled for their citizens and approved folks. The Zone will also allow east/west transit for Palestinians, so they can travel and trade with Jordan and Egypt.

This Zone may have lateral extensions for physical safety or strategic fortification. For the benefit of PEACE, perhaps supervising. These zones may have to divide the larger aquifers in fairness.

We do pay people who are uprooted. We do try to make it all better. That is really the only carrot we got, dangling in front of people who have proved they can take the stick.

Why is your issue of "bargaining chips" that important in the scheme of things?

Because, Jim, that's what got us most immediately into this mess: Hamas and Hizbollah militants employed the Israeli tactic of kidnapping people to use as a bargaining tool to win the release of captives. But whereas Israel expects Hizbollah to come to the table and negotiate when it kidnaps people, Israel responds to Hizbollah doing the same* by bombing things completely unrelated to Hizbollah (the Rafik Hariri Airport?) and indiscriminately killing civilians.

No one would think of asking Hizbollah to merely show "restraint" if they began firing Katyushas into Israel in response to Israel kidnapping some Lebanese "bargaining chips". No, the response would be suck it up and make the deal with Israel - which should be the advice to Israel at this moment. There is no little measure of hypocrisy and a great deal of short-sighted machismo (not to mention genocidal pleas, as seen in the comment of dwshelf above) in the reaction to what Israel is doing.

On another level, statements like the one Djerejian made are indicative of the kind of ignorance and/or hatred of history that plagues many commentators on this issue, even well-meaning ones (I'm inclined, in Djerejian's case, to assume the former). There's not going to be any kind of real resolution to the problems in the Mideast as long as people refuse to face up to history and what got us where we are today.

*In fact, it's not the same: while Israel frequently abducted civilians, the Israeli captives are soldiers, a far less serious matter from a legal standpoint since Lebanon and Israel are still technically in a state of war (which renders somewhat comical and redundant statements to the effect that the abductions are an "act of war").

Zathras,
Israel's "military objective" is to punish the Palestinian and Lebanese populations. Hizbullah and Hamas are vastly popular in their communities. Israel wants to overthrow the Hamas government and weaken Hizbullah. They think that the only way they can do that is to punish the populations so that the populations know that there is a cost to supporting organizations like Hizbullah and Hamas. Basically, as I said above, the State of "Israel" is a giant terrorist organization.

There is no short-term strategic logic to bombing civilian institutions like ministries and power plants, or roads and airports. They are simply trying to show their force and prove that the people have made mistakes for supporting Hamas and Hizbullah. They do it at the expense of the civilian populations. Simply, classic war crimes.

If Israel's goal was getting their soldiers back they would do mossad operations and sneek around and try to free the captured prisoners with special forces. But they want to hit high value targets in Palestine and Lebanon to show their strength. Like I said above, If they did limited operations to try to free the captured soldiers even I would understand because that is natural. But they want to prove a point by showing how powerful they are, so they kill everyone and destroy the most basic infrastructure. They want the people to suffer because they are trying to make a larger point.

That is the answer. It is not a conspiracy, it is simply true. and all the destruction proves it on its face. unfortunately, Israel can eat shi#$@^&@!?#*@. If they think this will make people love and respect them, FU%@&*!^@ off. If anything, it will bring people to Hamas and Hizbullah, and it should. they are defending their countries against the world's worst terrorist state.

I do hope cooler IDF heads prevail over the "talk of turning the clock back 20 years on Lebanon's infrastructure". If Israel's intent is to decimate Hezbollah as a fighting force, then withdraw and let a frightened and angry Lebanon hound the battered Hezbollah out of political power, that sort-of almost makes some strategic sense. (Not that it's guaranteed to turn out that way.) But ruining the *whole* country, thus allowing Hezbollah to come back stronger -- that would be asinine.

Israel can eat shi#$@^&@!?#*@. If they think this will make people love and respect them,

This is correct, and it's also correct that Israel seems to misunderstand this point. Love and respect, if it is to come, must follow peaceful, economically successful times.

What Israel can achieve in the short run is fear of certain death, which will yield those peaceful, economically successful times.

"I am not going to compare 3 kidnapped soldiers (who signed up for hazardous duty)..."

Allow me to quote the above comment, since it is emblematic of American attitude. Israeli soldiers are not "contractors" but 18 year old boys and girls conscripted to defend their people. They are family.

I am also tired of hearing how much Israel costs to America. I am not going to diminish the value of American generous contribution, for which we are grateful, but America is maintaining a worldwide system of military and civilian incentives, and Israel is a very small part of it. America has its interests such as keeping the oil flowing, and we are part of that system. Israel, instead of being a responsible member of the American system, could go completely crazy. As North Korea is showing, that behaviour is feasible and has its rewards.

I knew I should have heeded my better judgment.

It is possible to answer any question with a variation on the talking points of one side or the other of some foreign controversy. That it is possible does not make it necessary. I suppose that anyone who read what I've posted from time to time, here and on other sites, about Darfur can imagine what I think of the boilerplate language of Arab victimization ("Israel is the world's worst terrorist state") when it comes from Arabs. When it comes from Americans what I feel first is a twinge of embarrassment.

The difference between our causes and our problems on the one hand, and other people's causes and problems on the other is not that difficult to understand. Yet it is not hard to find Americans who not only do not grasp it, but embrace other people's causes -- and worse, their hatreds -- with the uncritical ardor most Americans reserve for their favorite football team. I'm not naive enough to believe that all Americans will always uphold a sense of proportion and seriousness of purpose when they think about foreign affairs, but it pains me to think there are some Americans who wouldn't recognize either one if it walked up and shook their hand.

What is Israel's military objective in Gaza? In Lebanon?

In Gaza, the objective seem to be to make Hamas look impotent, ineffective, and incompetent- not that Hamas needed much help in that regard. Administering a territory requires a very different set of skills than fighting over it. The best thing you can say about Hamas is that they suck slightly less than the PLO did.

In Lebanon, I'm not sure. Getting the prisoners back is an objective, but this is not just about the soldiers.

You need to look at what else is going on in the world, I think. For example, the G8 summit- where Iran's nuclear program is certain to be a major topic of discussion- starts July 15th.

When you consider that Hizbullah takes it's orders from Tehran, things begin to make sense.

IMO, Tehran is trying to manufacture a crisis to distract everyone from the nuclear program, and Damascus is playing along. That's pretty obvious, and it's a plan that seems to be working.

What I don't get is the Israeli response. Soldiers have been kidnapped before without this kind of escalation, and everyone knows that the Lebanese government has nothing to do with this. If there's anyone it would make sense to retaliate against, it's the Hizbullah camps in the south of Lebanon- not the rest of the country- and a few people in Damascus.

One thing that's clear is that this has been coming for a while- Michael Totten posted this back on April 26.

“Everything Could Explode at Any Moment”
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001132.html

Zathras, you last post is nonsense. I don't even know if I am reading it correctly, but if you are referring to me when you say, "When it comes from Americans what I feel first is a twinge of embarrassment" I want to let you know that I have American citizenship, but am Arab. I have family in lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Israel/Palestine. Also, much of my life has been in Arab countries. I am not some random American. I think I know a bit more then you about the MENA. And I might be biased against the USA and Israel, but it is not random bias. it is based solidly on reality. You might be naive enough to believe American or Israeli spokespeople, but we who have experience with the actual places and events know better.

If you are so offeneded by my point that Israel is the worst terrorist state in the world, well, that is just a fact that you have to face. Even if Sudan were in total control of Darfur and were totally responsible for every action in Darfur, it would have to last 60 years before I would believe that it was worse then Israel. The thing with Sudan is that the government is almost totally useless and only a minority of the suffering in Darfur is directly related to what the Sudanese government does. What's more is that Darfur would still be a house of horrors even in the best of times, with all the famine and the poor overall conditions. Israel, on the other hand, is in total control of what it does and Israel is entirely responsible for the vast majority of the suffering as a result. Israel, purposly destroys the livelihoods of people who would otherwise have basic services and social safety nets. As I said twice before, if Israel were trying to do military operations to get its captured soldiers back, i would understand that and not consider it terrorism. But these actions are pure terrorism. In fact, it is the worst form of terrorism because it is the terrorism of the strong against the weak. Hizbullah and Hamas did entirely military operations, Israel unleashed pure terrorism on the people. It is like the USSR in Czechoslovakia, but destroying all the infrastructure and more violently attacking the population in the process.

I would turn the phrase back on you and say that most American don't know a damn thing about the Middle East. And though I am happy to criticize many things about the Middle East, "When it comes from Americans what I feel first is a twinge of embarrassment."

In fact, it is the worst form of terrorism because it is the terrorism of the strong against the weak.

You don't get it.

Israel can wipe lebanon off the map whenever it wants. Everyone knows this.

What it is actually doing is striking very specific targets- which frightens people, yes- but there are much worse things than being frightened.

Like being dead.

Would you prefer that Israel strike residential areas with the randomness of Hezbullah's rockets?

yes,

I would trade "randomness" of weak and useless home made rockets for the massive attacks of the Israeli military any day. And if you don't think the 50 lebanese and 100 palestinians who were killed this week were random, you are crazy. a house with 7 children, another with 8... 750,000 people without electricity in Gaza, food and water running out... now all 4 million Lebanese must fear who will be bombed next... they are more then just scared.

Israelis are not even scared, that is what you don't understand. You believe their stupid propaganda, but you have obviously never been there or you would know that Arab "terrorism" doesn't have any effect. they live their lives totally normally, without even a second thought. Actually, most Jews in Israel don't even know the Palestinians exist. Like mosquitoes, a problem when they bite every now and then, but otherwise non-existant.

Fine, Israel can kill everyone if they want. good for them. No one denies that they are powerful. I am saying they are 1000 times more unjust.

"What it is actually doing is striking very specific targets"... how stupid. go tell that to the dead.

Ohh, those rockets killed 2 people. they are so dangerous...

give me a break.

and just to be clear, for example, my brother is in Haifa right now and he didn't even think twice about the bombs that landed. he heard the explosions, but just went on as normal. I talked to him a few hours ago.

The family i have in Beirut are stocking up on bread and have no electricity. They are worried and they should be because there is more death to come.

Haifa can expect a couple more rockets that might make potholes if they even land on the street, Beirut or Gaza can expect true suffering for the entire populations.

the rockets can be considered "terrorism" if you want to insist, but the Hamas and Hizbullah operations to capture soldiers were not terrorism at all. Lebanon and the Palestinians are suffering true terrorism. their entire populations experience it. And again, Israel proves once again that it is a giant terrorist organization.

Yes, Joe, the targets are very specific. The Israelis are hitting infrastructure and logistical targets- roads, bridges, airports, fuel depots.

If you don't understand what this means you really should go educate yourself before commenting further.

Joe, either the Hamas and Hizbullah operations are terrorism, or overt acts of war.

Pick one, and decide if the Israelis are simply retaliating in kind, or getting ready to fight a war.

I'm the only person who offerred a solution, back at 12:26 am 14jul06.

Your points don't make any sense. Do you think that you have to define what is happening with a dictionary? it is neither "simply retaliating in kind, or getting ready to fight a war." there is no sense a balance, it is not two superpowers fighting. they are not equals. intentions play a role, but so do the results.

and yes, i agree, Israel has very good technology and can hit a dime on the street if they want. but that does not mean that they know what they are doing. are you telling me that they tried to kill 50 lebanese civilians yesterday?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5178774.stm
"The offensive, which has killed more than 50 Lebanese civilians since Wednesday, follows the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah."

What it is actually doing is striking very specific targets- which frightens people, yes- but there are much worse things than being frightened.

Like being dead.

So, rosignol, 57 dead Lebanese aren't enough for you? Come off it, man.

What is the difference, in real moral terms, between deliberately targetting civilians... and launching attacks in a way in which guarantee that civilians will die?

I'm skeptical. When the Israelis hit a Hizbullah target, it is logical to expect some Hizbullah casualties, but the BBC only gives figures for civilians.

The Israelis screw up every so often, but they're not that incompetent. If they were, they would have been conquered decades ago.

-----

What Israel is doing is cutting Hizbullah off from resupply and reinforcements. With the bridges and airport out, the Lebanese military can't get down to the Hizbullah area now, nor can the Syrians- Hizbullah is isolated. The next step is airstrikes on supply dumps and the like. After that, the Israelis send in ground forces.

The Israelis know exactly what they're doing- destroying Hizbullah.

You said you had relatives over there, tell them to get as far away from Hizbullah as possible. This one is for real, not just symbolic drama.

What is the difference, in real moral terms, between deliberately targetting civilians... and launching attacks in a way in which guarantee that civilians will die?

One is a tragedy, the other is an atrocity.

You should be able to figure out which is which.

What is the difference, in real moral terms, between deliberately targetting civilians... and launching attacks in a way in which guarantee that civilians will die?

Intent. In moral terms, that is a huge difference.

Joe M.-

Please answer this for the crowd:

What is the appropriate course of action for Israel in dealing with people who are looking to destroy Israel?

What you would say is the proper course?

If civilian casualties are inevitable or even likely consequences of military action then primary intent is irrelevant in judging its morality. The only appropriate ethical measure of deliberate acts of violence is the actual consequences in terms of human lives. The notion that “collateral damage” is somehow more justifiable because it is “collateral” even when foreseeable, or worse, foreordained, is obscene.

Whatever the 500lb bomb throwers might like to think, they are no better than the suicide bombers in pizza parlours.

Moral equivalency: an atrocity is an atrocity is an atrocity.

America has its interests such as keeping the oil flowing, and we are part of that system.

---

Jaimito,

Where? Israel has no oil - the Kurds provide security for oil flowing out of northern Iraq, Israelis are not allowed into Saudi Arabia, and I don't know the Israeli counterparts to BP, Exxon Mobil, and Citgo. And bear in mind - American and Israeli troops have never fought side by side in any war.

And while Israel may be a pre-eminent military power in the Middle East, it has shown remarkable lack of strategic thinking. Bear in mind that Hamas had early Israeli support, as a religious counterpart to the Marxist-heavy PLO - oops. Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 resulted not only in a failure to secure Israel's northern border, but Reagan decided to show he felt by giving the PLO diplomatic recognition - oops again.

Simply put, Israel's current policies imperil American energy concerns. To be blunt, Israel is entitled to defend itself, but not if its going to cost me $4 a gallon for gas.

And if the $3 billion a year is not that big a deal, why did Israel throw a hissy fit at Bush I for blocking Israel's access to loans, to force them to come to Madrid?

King Colbert is 100% correct.

Palestine and Lebanon have been committing
numerous atrocities by launching missles
against civilian targets.

By any standard, they are war crimes and
the leaders of both Palestine and Lebanon
should be tried as War Criminals.

Those who support such murderous acts
have blood on their hands.

Dan,

Longtime reader and fan, but here I disagree strongly:

We have to keep things in perspective here: three soldiers taken hostage should not lead to talk of outright war between Israel, ...

I know these aren't your words, but you take them on by extension quoting and approving BD.

Perspective is exactly the problem - Greg's perspective is microscopic and ignores the long history of the surrounding country's attempts to quash Israel.

Why should Israel restrain itself? So HA can take 4-5 months to plan the next attack?

King Colbert-

I don't agree. While collateral damage is inevitable at a macro level (i.e. across a number of military actions), they aren't inevitable on a case-by-case basis. Israel has successfully targeted militants without killing innocent civilians many times.

Whe the suicide bomber pulls the trigger, he knows and intends to kill innocent civilians. The same is not true for an Israeli soldier when targeting Hamas or Hezbollah.

That is a huge difference, in moral terms.

Why should Israel restrain itself? Because their american patrons don't want to see the world economy wrecked for the 3rd time in 40years by high oil prices. Most importantly because Israel in not in jeopardy this time.

3 billion per year amounts to $500 per year per person... with a per captia gdp of 18k ... Why is a nation that is that strong and wealthy relying on the US government for 6% of its economy?

Whe the suicide bomber pulls the trigger, he knows and intends to kill innocent civilians. The same is not true for an Israeli soldier when targeting Hamas or Hezbollah.

That is a huge difference, in moral terms.

Suppose that Israel knows, or should know from decades of experience, that being compelled by such "morals" will yield perpetual conflict, more terror, more deaths, and grinding poverty for local Arabs?

What is moral about that?

It's a classic case of "it's the thought that counts, not the result". Things done which yield horrific results are ok, so long as they're done with a pure heart. Things which yield a desirable result are abhorrent if they're done with the wrong state of mind.

It's time for Israel to get this thing over with, for the good of everyone, the Arabs included.

Anonymous,
??? You seem not have understood my post.

Jim,
How do you account for the disproportionate number of Palestinian (and now Lebanese) civilian deaths? Ultimately, consequences trump intent in determining the morality of military action.

dwshelf,
So whose definition of purity of heart to justify atrocities applies? The I/P conflict will not be resolved by force. By now, this should be self-evident.

The I/P conflict will not be resolved by force. By now, this should be self-evident.

The alternatives are pretty clear. Israel can "lighten up", which would result in an intensification of attacks.

Israel could withdraw all defense, which would result in the death of every Jew in Israel.

Or Israel can just do whatever it takes to pacify the Arabs, establishing a context where terror is unthinkable, because the consequences are overwhelming.

This dynamic was understood quite well as recently as 1945.

This dynamic was understood quite well as recently as 1945.

___

If citing the past is enough to justify the actions of today, then maybe the U.S. should reconsider its actions when Israel bombed the USS Liberty. No Arab military ever attacked the U.S. unprovoked.

If citing the past is enough to justify the actions of today,

1945 is being cited as a counter-example.

The actions of today are indefensible, and will inevitably yield more of the same. 50 or 60 dead Japanese in 1945 would have yielded such nonsense as well.

I make no claim to understanding the USS Liberty incident.

I make no claim to understanding the USS Liberty incident.

__________

It is an example of how Israel acts in its own self-interest. If that is how Israel treats its number one ally, what kind of treatment is being meted to Arab civilians?

But the U.S. is entitled to act in its own self-interest as well. Permitting Israel to attack civilian targets, when we already have thousands of troops in harms' way and oil markets all jittery is not in America's interests. Israel's actions lower American prestige, which is also not in American interests. Up until GWB, most American presidents understood this, and would pressure Israel when it served American interests - Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I knew when to give Israel room, and they also knew when to tell it to back off.

Permitting Israel to attack civilian targets, when we already have thousands of troops in harms' way and oil markets all jittery is not in America's interests.

Ending Islamic terror is in America's interest.

All manner of claims notwithstanding, the _only_ path to the elimination of such terror involves somewhere between tens of thousdans and tens of millions of civilian deathts.

Simple as that.

Ending Islamic terror is in America's interest.

_______

Israel's problem is partly Islamic terror - but mostly Arab nationalism - they are not one and the same. Arafat was a murderous thug - but he was not terribly concerned about Islam. If Islamism were the primary motivator in attacks on Israel, Al Qaeda would be a greater presence in that fight. To date - Al Qaeda has not attacked within Israel. In fact, Hezbollah rounded up suspected Al Qaeda elements within its portion of Lebanon, because they were worried having Al Qaeda in the region would bring American military involvement in the area.

In Iraq - you have non-Iraqis coming in to fight the Americans, driven by Islamism. In Kashmir - you have non-Kashmiris coming to fight the Indians, also drive by Islamism. How many non-Palestinians do you have in Hamas fighting the Israelis? How many non-Shia Lebanese do you have in Hezbollah fighting the Israelis?

Oddly enough, the more extreme actions Israel takes, the more it is going to back itself into a corner, not its opponents. Cause then they will have to take even more drastic steps, since these are not bringing the enemy to heel with its current measures. And the more such measures it takes, teh more isolated it will become.

Dubya is only in office for 2 more years - will the next American president be as accomodating?

Cause then they will have to take even more drastic steps, since these are not bringing the enemy to heel with its current measures.

My point exactly. They're off by 3 orders of magnitude. They'll eventually learn or die. I'm betting on "learn", but I wish they'd do so a bit quicker than they seem to be doing.

How many non-Palestinians do you have in Hamas fighting the Israelis?

Hamas is a measure of hope, hope for the destruction of Jewish Israel.

If it wouldn't be for the support of Islamists, the hope rating needle would point far lower than "Hamas".

King Colbert-

In answer to your questions: Because its relative to each sides' capability. If Israel had the same intent as Hamas/Hezbollah (i.e. target civilians), with its military capability, most, if not all Palestinians would be killed.

That is fundamentally the moral issue: based on Hamas/Hezbollah's actions with its limited military capability, one would expect that they would completely destroy Israel if they had the ability.

Israel has the ability to kill all Palestinians, but haven't, because they don't intend to.

I once went along with prevailing wisdom on the right, that Islamic terror could be defeated militarily. I now believe that this is fallacious thinking that may sound good in theory, but that fails to fully address the nature of what we rather naively refer to as "the enemy".

Let us suppose that these events escalate and a protracted war ensues. Let us suppose Israel eventually routs Syrian and Iranian forces, and notches up a resounding victory. Would this put an end to Islamic extremism in these countries? Would Israel be more secure as a result?

I would answer categorically in the negative.

There is an organic cohesiveness to Islamic societies that doesn't exist the West. A sense of global power derives from being part of the Umma; a trans-national Islamic community of faith that views Israel as the enemy. The repercussions of an Israeli victory would galvanize Muslims as never before, and if you thought that Ahmahdinejad was bluffing, you can be 100% certain that any and every means will be exploited to destroy the state of Israel in the wake of any such humiliation. Given that Islamic terrorists are getting their hands on ever more sophisticated weaponry, this is not a promising perspective.

The U.S. and other Western nations need to get more actively involved NOW in order to prevent further escalation. I don't doubt that in the event of war, Israeli military prowess would carry the day, but I personally think the price is far too high and that it could well be instrtrumental in creating a catastrophe throughout the entire region, in ways perhaps none of us presently suspect.

Strong defensive responses, yes. Vigorous security enforcement, yes. Incursions into Lebanon at this stage of the game, a bad idea. Hot headed reaction right now is the last thing Israel needs.

I hope Olmert exercises common sense on this.

KXB said "Simply put, Israel's current policies imperil American energy concerns. To be blunt, Israel is entitled to defend itself, but not if its going to cost me $4 a gallon for gas."

You see, KXB, Israel is very much part of the American world power system. And I am sorry, but soon you may pay $4 a gallon for gas, and more. When you pay, please remember that your hard-earned dollars are going to the Saudi royal family, to Iranian Ayatollas, to Nigerian clepto-dictators and of course, to your great amigo Hugo Chavez. Not a cent to Israel, because you see, we have no oil.

I dont want to disturb your peace of mind by mentioning the inimaginable luxury, the beautiful girls and boys, the exciting camel races your dollars are making possible for even the humblest member of the Ibn Saud family. "Allahu Akhbar!" they pray five times a day. Allah is Great! Who could disagree?

Israel does not need to have oil for its actions to influence the price. Price is determined by many factors - global demand is one of them. Instability in the largest oil producing region is another. With Israel's overreaction drastically increasing the degree of instability, the effects on the markets is evident.

You would think for the billions we give Israel every year (through boom times and recession, BTW), you would think Israel would show a little consideration for the one country that still supports them. But I guess American households and businesses should be asked to tighten their belts a bit more - I mean, Israel did lose three soldiers.

KXB--

Let's just let the Arabs kill all the Jews, so you can save a little gas money.

What an idiot.

Paulie L:

No, Israel is free to defend itself - bombing civilians and the Beirut Airport is unlikely to achieve that.

Let me know when you get out of grade school.

Oh, I see since you pay $3 a gallon, you get to determine how Israel defends itself.

People say stupid things like "Bombing Beirut is not needed to defend itself." Show me one example of another country that is surrounded by 20 others that would like to see it destroyed. Israel has survived for 60 years in this condition. Anyone else with a better track record?

I think Israel knows better what it takes to defend itself than you do.

You are still an idiot.

Oh, I see since you pay $3 a gallon, you get to determine how Israel defends itself.

People say stupid things like "Bombing Beirut is not needed to defend itself." Show me one example of another country that is surrounded by 20 others that would like to see it destroyed. Israel has survived for 60 years in this condition. Anyone else with a better track record?

I think Israel knows better what it takes to defend itself than you do.

You are still an idiot.

Paulie,

I see you forgot your name there for a moment. Perhaps you should not be so quick to brand others as idiots. When my sister wants to remember things, she writes them on her hand. I don't think it's that effective, but you are welecome to try it out.

Given that Israel has been able to survive for 60 years is certainly due to their own fighting ability (partly - it helps that Arabs have been inept at organizing modern militaries), and not a little bit with the U.S. acting as defender of last resort. Getting the best weapon systems in the world, the highest recipient of aid of any country, and a reliable veto in the U.N. - yes, America does have a say in formulating Israel's foreign policy. If its most zealous defenders want us to regard it as the 51st state, arguing that those who wish to harm Israel will harm America as well - guess what, states do not set their own policy.

As for Israel knowing how to take care of itself, let's see - building settlements in areas where you're outnumbered by Arabs almost 5 to 1, invading Lebanon to "secure" the northern border, only to see hundreds of young Israeli soldiers die in a lost cause, and in the process giving Hezbollah its biggest recruiting tool. And by undercutting Abbas prior to the Palestinian elections, ensuring that Hamas wins. Yeah - great track record there. Who's the strategist over there - Bob Shrum?

KXB - I agree with you that America has a right to influence Israeli foreign policy, and that right is being exercised all the time. Hizb'Allah actions and Israeli reactions can increase regional tension and therefore the price of oil. That is bad for all of us.

So please make Hizballah return kidnapped Israeli soldiers and destroy their long-range offensive weapons. I promise we are not going to bother Lebanese shi'ites at all.

Israel is ready to do anything to decrease regional tensions. Allowing our cities to be bombarded for years without response is the surefire formula for further and increased violence and agression. In my personal opinion, KXB, by projecting the image of power, the will to use it and a bit of crazyness can restrain those who proclaim their program of "destroying Israel" (including the Israelis, they specify, but I dont want to sound paranoid to you). I draw in my experience growing up a spectacled boy in a very tough barrio of Buenos Aires. You may draw on your PolSci knowledge - is there a better strategy?

Jaimito,

Personal experience is valuable in identifying threats and developing measures to counter those threats – on an individual level. When dealing groups, you have to factor in different experience of each individual.

Did I grow up in a rough neighborhood? No, just an ordinary neighborhood on Long Island. But my grandparents were chased out of their homes for being Hindus in a part of the country that was going to become a part of Pakistan. My father was almost shot while walking the streets of Calcutta by Naxalite rebels in the late sixties, driven by their notion of Communist revolution. My mother was living in Calcutta when West Bengal was overrun with 10 million refugees from Bangladesh as Pakistan began its slaughter there. And an uncle of mine was killed in Bombay in the terrorist bombings of 1993 – along with 300 others. So my family has had more than enough experience with state-sponsored and ideology-driven violence.

Truth be told, I believe India needs to adopt a more aggressive stance in dealing with terrorists, and for me, Israel seemed to have the right idea. But somewhere along the way, Israel adopted collective punishment – and this is where I became unconvinced. How is bombing a civilian airport, thereby endangering a potentially friendly civilian government that is not even two years old, going to secure Israel? How is cutting off water to one million Gazans going to make them be sympathetic towards Israel? Israel argues that they are surrounded by Arab despots, which is true, but then they argue that inflicting such measures will cause the populations to put pressure on their leaders. No it won’t – they’re despots - they don't really care.

If Israel had targeted and destroyed those areas that the rockets are being fired from, that is justifiable. The Battle of Jenin in 2002 was an example of justified retaliation – the IDF identified portions of the city where terrorists were hiding and went in. Knocking out power in downtown Beirut to free a soldier? Are you kidding me?

One theory is that Iran prodded Hezbollah to capture the soldier, inciting Israel to take action so as to distract the G-8 summit from Iran's nuclear program. If so, Iran played Israel like a fiddle.

KXB puts his finger on the problem Israel faces in Lebanon. Asymmetric warfare always takes place in more than one dimension, or it doesn't last very long. Just as important -- I would argue that it is more important in most cases -- as the asymmetry between a weaker and stronger military force is the disproportion in strength between the weaker military force and the population it controls.

The weaker force can be an insurgency, a government (for example, Serbia in the 1990s) or, as Hezbollah and the Colombian narco-militias today, an armed force that may or may not have objectives pursued through political processes. If it chooses to, it can strike at its enemies and condemn retaliation as excessive and directed at unarmed civilians; it can at the same time maintain the support of its subject population through the direct or implicit threat of force.

The threat is not needed to control all of its supporters, of course, at least not all of the time. Hezbollah presents a special problem because among the people its actions place at risk from Israeli retaliation are Lebanese who dislike Hezbollah as much (or more) than they do Israel, associating it not only with a specific religious sect but with a detested foreign (that is, Syrian) occupation of their country that ended only recently. Israel's idea seems to be that if these people feel enough inconvenience, they will associate their hardship with Hezbollah, and move to disarm it.

The idea is mistaken; Hezbollah has arms in abundance and its Syrian sponsor in reserve, and the Lebanese government and its supporters have nothing to compete with that. Hezbollah will still be in Lebanon after the Israeli offensive now underway ends -- it may not be able to defeat the Israeli army, but it will still be able to strike at its Lebanese critics with relative impunity. Lebanese, being aware of this, will not even consider doing what Israel's strategic concept appears to call for them to do -- opposing and ultimately disarming Hezbollah.

Having said that, what then? It's fine to consider the moral dimension -- "disproportionate response" and all that, but no government anywhere in the world is going to leave things there even if the alternatives are unattractive. In Israel's case, the best alternative now is to retaliate for Hezbollah's raid last week by killing Hezbollah's leadership. But this assumes the ability to do this (among other things, the ability to locate Hezbollah leaders who have spent years working on ways to avoid assassination). Absent that ability, Israel would be left with the alternatives of letting a raid on its territory go unanswered and retaliating in a way that will inevitably put civilians at risk.

I don't like to describe problems without suggesting a solution, but I see I have said that I don't think Israel's current course of action in Lebanon is wise while noting that the two obvious alternatives are either not immediately practicable or worse. I don't think that is the end of the matter -- bombing a Hezbollah missile launch site and blockading the whole Lebanese coast are not the same thing even if they can be justified by the same (as I said above, mistaken) strategic theory. But it is not an easy question for the Israeli government.

KXB,

I love that you completely avoided the question.

Israel has had to defend itself against more countries, in a more hostle region than any other country in history-- and had unprecendented success in remaining a viable country.

You can cherry pick small issues (yes, hundreds of soldiers are small compared to destruction of a country), but the reality is Israel has prevented its destruction for 60 years, to the chagrin of the rest of the Middle East.

And you still think you know better than Israel.

Wow.

Paulie,

Try to follow this. Israel chief threat is no longer invasion from foreign armies. It suffers from state-sponsored terrorism. The main terrorist groups are Hezbollah to the north and Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza. Their main sponsors are Syria and Iran. So, you hopefully can understand why tearing down Lebanon is not going to be terribly effective. It's not that dis-similar from the Wolfowitz line of thinking immediately after 9/11, where he urged Bush to attack Iraq rather than Afghanistan, since Iraq was doable. Lebanon is not being attacked because it is a threat to Israel, it is being attacked because it is doable.

Attacking Iran would carry tremendous risk since it is still quite a feat to go to war with a country that you do not border. Israeli fighters would need to cross Iraqi airspace, which puts the U.S. at risk (not like Israel has cared much for American interests in the past), and the X factor - how are Russia and China, which have invested quite a bit in Iran, going to respond? They would have to rely on an air campaign, but their current aircraft can only carry enough fuel to get them to Iran, and they would be pretty much running on empty after an air campaign. They do not have the means to move troops there, any damage they can inflict on Iran would be repairable.

The IDF was caught with its pants down, and Olmert, who does not come with the same military background as previous PMs, needs to demonstrate that he has the cajones to defend the state. That he is expending men and materiel against the wrong country does not seem to matter.

Israel is using the tactics it used against Arab states to combat terrorist groups - which is ill-suited. As impolite it is to say, the reason most occupations fail is quite straight-forward, the occupied people have no place to go, whereas the occupying army does. All they have to do is raise the cost of holding on to the contested territory. So the vaunted IDF, which has proven so adept at fighting off greater numbers in uniform, is now reduced to nothing more than well-armed prison wardens.

And sighting the 60 year figure is not that impressive. Pakistan has been around for as many years, and like Israel, was founded on the belief that a specific religion needed a homeland to avoid persecution. Like Pakistan, it developed a nuclear program under the benign neglect of their shared chief patron, the United States. Also like Pakistan, Israel proliferated its nuclear technology, in Israel's case to apartheid-era South Africa. Just as Pakistan armed groups to wreck havoc in neighboring India, so Israel armed sypathetic Lebanese militias to wreak havoc in Lebanon during its civil war.

Maybe the Israelis are not that smart.

The middle east, the only region not fallen to interantional banking schemes, fights back trying to resist the international banking people from taking over in the name of "democracy and freedom". Israel and the US both represent this. To understand the root cause of the middle east conflicts watch the new movie, "America: From Freedom to Fascism" www.freedomtofascism.com

KXB,

A few comments to your post:

And sighting the 60 year figure is not that impressive. Pakistan has been around for as many years, and like Israel

You failed this question. Israel is surrounded by a whole region that is hostile to it. Pakistan is not. There is no country that has been surrounded by as many countries hostile to its existence as Israel has. Period. This success IS unprecedented.

So, you hopefully can understand why tearing down Lebanon is not going to be terribly effective.

The terrorists are actually IN Lebanon. If you don't attack them directly, what other option is there? What can you actually do in Iran short of full refime change/occupation?

You criticize- let's hear the wondrous KXB's solution to dealing with Hezbollah.

Hezbollah's purpose is to destroy Israel. They haven't done so. That is a success for Israel. I'm not hearing from ANYONE, you or any other "critic" that offers up a better solution to get rid of Hezbollah.

The IDF was caught with its pants down

How? If they knew about large-scale planned attacks in Lebanon, were they supposed to start a pre-emptive strike in Southern Lebanon?

Again, what would the wondrous KXB do if they had this knowledge? (You presume they didn't, but I don't see what actions could have been taken before hand if they did)

Israel proliferated its nuclear technology, in Israel's case to apartheid-era South Africa.

This is a ridiculous charge. Provide some proof of this, or the conversation is over. Everyone reading this board will see that you are an Israel-hating, anti-Semitic bigot.

From the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control:

"In June 1980, the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) reported to the National Security Council that the 2-3 kiloton nuclear test had probably involved Israel and South Africa. U.S. intelligence had tracked frequent visits to South Africa by Israeli nuclear scientists, technicians and defense officials in the years preceding the incident and concluded that "clandestine arrangements between South Africa and Israel for joint nuclear testing operations might have been negotiable." Such speculation was fueled in 1986 when Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu was interviewed by the London Sunday Times. Vanunu said that it was common knowledge at Dimona that South African metallurgists, technicians, and scientists were there on exchange programs."

South Africa's Nuclear Autopsy
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/safrica/autopsy.html

But I suppose you would charge Wisonsin for being a haven for anti-Semites.

To return to the Israel-Pakistani comparison, Pakistanis would say that they border a country that is 8 times its size, and has never reconciled itself with the birth of their nation. They would also point that India dismembered their country once in 1971, and would do it again if it were not for nuclear weapons holding them at bay.

Cynical Pakistanis often say of their country, "Most countries have an army. Pakistan is an army with a country." Because of the pre-eminent position that the military holds in both Pakistan and Israel, all problems are viewed through a military lense. Israel has done a far better job of keeping it's internal state apparatus in shape than Pakistan, but it has essentially become a garrison state. A Jew can live a more normal life in the United States than in Israel now.

Since Israel acquired nuclear weapons, it no longer faces any serious threat from an Arab government. Because while the Arab governments may not like having Israel in their neighborhood, they are not going to risk a nuclear attack to get them out.

Nuclear weapons are an effective deterrent against states, but not terrorist groups. In the case of Hamas, Israel has repeatedly shot itself in the foot, by taking measures that weaken any state apparatus affiliated with the Palestinian Authority, and allowing a vacuum for Hamas to enter. If Israel were not in southern Lebanon for nearly 20 years, Hezbelloh would not have developed the reputation it has among Shia Lebanese. Hezbollah is a million-man organization. Destroying Lebanon's airports, water systems, and electrical grid will not reduce the number of angry young men signing up with Hezbollah.

KXB--

Your words were "Israel proliferated its nuclear technology... to apartheid era South Africa."

You have provided no proof for this statement.

1. South Africa is not a nuclear country.

2. Your evidence suggests collaboration, not proliferation.

I am still waiting for proof of that accusation.

On the other portion of your post, you criticize Israel for individual actions.

1. You have provided no alternative plan that would both improve the situation for peace and security for Israel. Without an alternative, you cannot say the Israel has done a poor job. How do you know their actions aren't optimal without an alternative?

Again, we are all waiting to hear what wondrous KXB can offer.

2. Israel's goal is to survive. You say that they have missed the mark, that they are fighting against state-sponsored terrorism. Why is that the case?

Because Israel continually makes clear that traditional military engagement will end in failure for Arab states. (i.e. through military campaigns such as the current one) You cannot ignore that Arab states have tried multiple times to attack Israel through multiple means (1948, 1967, 1973) all of which failed. The only reason they don't try again is because they know these efforts are futile.

Israel, a country with limited people and resources, have prioritized to maintain that dynamic rather than engage in alternative, untested means of defeating terrorism. Again, we are waiting for the wondrous KXB to tell us about those.

Paulie:

That’s a pretty weak line of reasoning. True, South Africa is not a nuclear weapons state – now. But from the mid-1970’s until a few years after apartheid ended, South Africa had a number of nuclear warheads and the missiles to deliver them – which they were able to do with generous Israeli assistance. Indeed, South Africa is the only instance of where a country, having developed a nuclear stockpile, then dismantled it – and all of it done in the public record.

From the U.S. Army War College (from a link on the Federation of American Scientists):
“The Third Temple’s Holy of Holies: Israel’s Nuclear Weapons”

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm

“A bright flash in the south Indian Ocean, observed by an American satellite on 22 September 1979, is widely believed to be a South Africa-Israel joint nuclear test. It was, according to some, the third test of a neutron bomb. The first two were hidden in clouds to fool the satellite and the third was an accident—the weather cleared.[84] Experts differ on these possible tests. Several writers report that the scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory believed it to have been a nuclear explosion while a presidential panel decided otherwise.[85] President Carter was just entering the Iran hostage nightmare and may have easily decided not to alter 30 years of looking the other way.[86] The explosion was almost certainly an Israeli bomb, tested at the invitation of the South Africans. It was more advanced than the “gun type” bombs developed by the South Africans.[87] One report claims it was a test of a nuclear artillery shell.[88] A 1997 Israeli newspaper quoted South African deputy foreign minister, Aziz Pahad, as confirming it was an Israeli test with South African logistical support.[89]”

Extensive background material on the Israel-South African nuclear relationship can also be found at the National Security Archives of George Washington University:

U.S. Intelligence and the South African Bomb
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB181/index.htm
“National Foreign Assessment Center, Central Intelligence Agency, "South Africa - Israel: Status of Relations," Africa Review, June 8, 1981. Secret
Source: Freedom of Information Act Request
One section of this article focuses on Israel-South African nuclear ties, noting that since Pretoria's sale of ten tons of uranium to Israel in 1963, speculation concerning Israeli-South African cooperation in the production of nuclear weapons had been "rife," and the Vela incident in September 1979 increased the speculation.”

Notice, I am not suggesting that Israel get rid of its nuclear weapons. They do serve a useful purpose, namely keeping Arab armies at bay.
You also seem to be confusing the actions of Arab states with that of terrorist groups, unless you consider all Arabs to be terrorists. Arab states have accepted the existence of Israel – not that they are thrilled about it, but they are not going to risk getting nuked.

Hamas drives its ability to gather men and support from one causes belli – the continued occupation of land that is not Israel’s. Hezbollah owes its growth to Israel as well, by invading in 1982, Israel’s actions led to the disntegration of the Lebanese state, without adding to Israeli security. If that invasion of 24 years ago was such an utter failure, why would the Israelis think it might work now? Well, Reagan was far less willing to accommodate Israel than Bush is, but having a compliant administration does not ensure a favorable outcome.

And while Lebanon used to be under Syrian domination, last year gave a bit of hope with their departure that Lebanon would become a normal country again. But, you had two competing organizations within the geographic entity called Lebanon – you had the Lebanese state, which has to negotiate among the myriad of ethnic groups that make up Lebanon in order to meet the needs and demands of its people. And then you have Hezbollah – which derives its support from the Shia population, and need not concern itself with the rest. Israel’s actions of the past few days have seriously harmed the arms of the Lebanese state. The damage done to Hezbollah can be repaired, because terrorist groups do not require extensive infrastructure, unlike nation-states. Indeed, the past week gives Hezbollah some new propaganda – that the Lebanese government cannot protect the people, so Hezbollah is the only group that can. Israel’s actions may result in Hezbollah becoming a pan-Lebanese group, whereas it used to be solely Shia.

The current policy of Israeli hawks seems to be to attack third parties, because confronting the main backers of Hezbollah and Hamas (Syria and Iran) is far too risky.

Arab states have accepted the existence of Israel

Wrong.

1. Iran's President as called for the destruction of Israel multiple times in past year.

2. Pakistan and Syria are among countries that do not formally recognize Israel as a state.

3. More countries than I care to name refuse to have normal relations with Israel.

4. Iran and Syria fund terrorist organizations whose charters explicity call for the destruction of Israel.

Arab countries are far from accepting Israel, and have only stopped militarily trying to destroy it after failing three times. As you said, they've resorted to state-sponsored terrorism.

And once again (its getting boring repeating myself again and again and again) you keep cherry picking small individual acts of Israel's activities, while they continue to defend itself from a region that would like it destroyed.

When does the wondrous KSB just stop criticizing and provide alternative solutions?

Still amazing to me that you think you know better, sitting in your living room chair.

Israel has lived this for 60 years-- have you really said anything here that isn't extremely obvious to anyone who follows this issue? You really think you've offered insight that isn't obvious to Israeli military and intelligence services?

Please. Get over yourself. You have no solutions, and just like criticizing Israel.

On the S. Africa-Israel nuclear issue, all of the evidence you sight has two continuing themes:

1. Discusses collaboration, not proliferation.

2. The benefits of the activities appear to mostly benefit Israel, not S. Africa.

Where is the evidence that Israel helped S. Africa get nuclear weapons, not the other way around?

Uh, maybe no one told you, but Iran and Pakistan are not Arabic countries. The only Arab country that has not made an Israel is Syria, but given that it is so vastly outclassed by Israel's military, it is content to leave it along, as far as employing its army. And again, you see to overlook the fact that there would be no Hezbollah if Israel never invaded Lebanon in the 1980's. And there would be no Hamas if Israel had not supported it, believing that giving rise to a religious movement among Palestinians would reduce support for the Marxist-inspired PLO.

"Cooperation" not "proliferation" - by using that distinction without a difference, China only "cooperated" with Pakistan's nuclear program, and Pakistan only "cooperated" with North Korea. Answer this - would apartheid South Africa have had a nuclear stockpile without Israeli assistance? No.

Not having official relations is hardly the same as hostility. India did not have official relations with Israel until the early 1990's, it did have relations with the PLO - but that is hardly the same as calling for the destruction for the state of Israel - for anyone not suffering from a persecution complex.

And once again (its getting boring repeating myself again and again and again) you keep cherry picking small individual acts of Israel's activities, while they continue to defend itself from a region that would like it destroyed.

Let's try this for, let's see, the sixth time...

Do you have any actual alternatives that would be better Israel's "poor" choices? Or will you keep ignoring the important question (you criticize Israel without offering an alternative) and continue showing that you are an Israel-hating, anti-Semitic bigot?

Paulie,

Have I ever said anywhere in this thread that Israel should not strike at Hezbollah or Hamas assets? Now, if you can demonstrate to me that the Beirut Airport, the city's water and electrical supply, and Lebanese military bases, and civilians in their cars trying to escape the fighting are owned and operated by these groups, then you will have a point to make. Since you don't, you're just becoming boring and redundant. Try getting your info from somewhere other than the Likud weekly.

Read today's post buddy.

If you want to keep pretending that you know and understand the actual military tactics that are involved in fighting Hezbollah, go ahead.

What's gotten boring is that you pretend to know better than Israel's military in dealing with terrorism.

You have no experience on the ground, have no knowledge of Hezbollah's reliance on certain facilities (airport, water, fire, etc.), you don't know where Hezbollah is based within the country (could be in Beirut more then we know, which would be smart on Hezbollah's behalf).

Yet you criticize without all the facts? Not even close to having all the facts. What a joke.

Innocent until proven guilty? Not if its the Jews, right KXB?

Paulie,

Let’s examine the quality of recent Israeli intelligence. Israeli intelligence did not detect the Hezbollah units which crossed the borders, destroyed a tank, killing a number of soldiers, and not realizing that another soldier was captured until it was too late. Israel did not know that Hezbollah had the ability to launch drones to attack naval vessels. Israel did not know that the Hezbollah’s Qassam rockets can now reach as far as Haifa. And as Iraq has shown us, not having reliable intelligence on the ground makes for a losing effort in battling an insurgency. Hezbollah is now hoping that there is an Israeli ground offensive, because that would play to their comparative advantage. They know the terrain better, and all they have to do is inflict enough damage to make it not worth Israel’s while.

Second, if Hezbollah flees into Syria, will Israel continue the bombing there? That would mean three theatres of war – the West Bank & Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria. Does Israel have the wherewithal to fight a war on three fronts? With Iran saying that an attack on Syria would be an attack on them, that introduces a possible fourth front.

Suppose Israel topples Assad and his Allawi coterie? What is the only organization in the region that has the experience to run and operate a large enterprise like a nation state? You guessed it – Hezbollah. Instead of just having the southern portion of Lebanon, they now would get an entire country.

As for charging me anti-Semitism – you can try a Dershowitz-inspired smear as much as you want. You've been wrong about everything else in this thread, so we'll just add this to the list. It does not change the fact that conducting an 18-year occupation of Lebanon did not make Israel more secure. A few days of air strikes will not do it either.

KXB,

We've reached post 100, so I think its time to call it a day.

The point you've continually missed and I've said TEN times, is that you've offered no alternatives to Israel's actions, which means you can't determine they are wrong. You take issue with small points in the scheme of a 60 year struggle, rather than address the big picture.

This hasn't changed the whole dialogue, which is why it isn't worth continuing.

As for the charges of anti-Semitism, I'd appreciate it if you'd honestly do the following: read your own posts again.

What I found in reading your posts was the following: continually giving Arabs/Islamic states the benefit of the doubt on key issues (like Hezbollah would only be formed in response to occupation rather than a desire to destroy Israel) and assuming the worst for Israel's position (Israel bombed certain facilities to hurt civilians rather than combat Hezbollah).

I have trouble coming to a different conclusion- it may be sub-conscious, but your views here were clearly charged with anti-Israel bias.

anti-Israel bias = anti-Semitism.

(FYI- Not legitimate criticism of Israel, but irrational bias as I described)

Nothing more to say.

KXB,
We've reached post 100, so I think its time to call it a day.
The point you've continually missed and I've said TEN times, is that you've offered no alternatives to Israel's actions, which means you can't determine they are wrong. You take issue with small points in the scheme of a 60 year struggle, rather than address the big picture.

______

OK Paulie – since you are having trouble understanding the post, I’ll have to use an analogy. Your car is having engine trouble and making a lot of noise. You don’t really know much about cars, so you go to a mechanic. He says he will take care of the problem. You pick up the car, and all of a sudden your car cannot accelerate the way it used to. You tell him that he must have done something while working on the engine, he asks you, “Well, what do you recommend I do? Oh, since you nothing about cars – you just be quiet.”

I do not have to propose an alternative to state what is obvious to anyone but the most die-hard Israeli zealot – that the Israeli strategy of massive collateral damage to civilian infrastructure will not force Hezbelloh to yield.
_________________

As for the charges of anti-Semitism, I'd appreciate it if you'd honestly do the following: read your own posts again.
What I found in reading your posts was the following: continually giving Arabs/Islamic states the benefit of the doubt on key issues (like Hezbollah would only be formed in response to occupation rather than a desire to destroy Israel) and assuming the worst for Israel's position (Israel bombed certain facilities to hurt civilians rather than combat Hezbollah).
_____________

In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon to get at the PLO, the PLO fled. But Shia Muslims, who had been un-interested in Israel, now formed their own militia to fight the Israelis. No Israeli invasion, no Hezbelloh. It can’t get any simpler than that.
_________________

I have trouble coming to a different conclusion- it may be sub-conscious, but your views here were clearly charged with anti-Israel bias.
anti-Israel bias = anti-Semitism.
(FYI- Not legitimate criticism of Israel, but irrational bias as I described)
Nothing more to say.
________________

Wow, anti-Israel = anti-Semitic? Isn’t this the tactic that M&W said is often trotted out to silence critics of Israel? And weren’t they pooh-poohed for suggesting it even happens?

Yeah, I can see how I’m anti-Israel, seeing as how I suggested they should keep their nuclear weapons, and readily attack Hamas and Hezbelloh when attacked. But I guess I draw a distinction between going after these two groups, and cutting of water to one million Gazans, and knocking out power to several million Lebanese. With that sort of logic, you can get a job writing for The Weekly Standard.

Considering that many Arab-Americans are visiting family in Lebanon in the summer, any chance those Israeli bombs are going to take American lives? But why should I be concerned about the safety of my fellow Americans?

Answer this Paul - what does America get out of its current relationship with Israel? The Jordanians helped us nail Zarqawi, the Egyptians help us interrogate Al Qaeda suspects, the Pakistanis (occasionally) capture Al Qaeda suspects, India provides security to American shipping from the Indian Ocean to the Malacca Straits, the Brits and Aussies have troops in Iraq, NATO is in Afghanistan, and Japan is working with America on missile defense. What does Israel do for America?