Dan,

If you'd care to repost your argument with the pejoratives edited out, I'd be happy to evaluate it for any merit or lack thereof.

As for hypocrisy, why do you get to use pet names for me (check your posts for earlier uses of "Kev," even after my objections to same) but you object to me calling a popular columnist "Krautie"? That looks like hypocrisy of the first water.

Kevin

(P.S. Don't read much into Dick forgetting to capitalize "Jew." He doesn't capitalize "English" either.)

Just checking in...anyone need an energy bar? Something to replace lost electrolytes? We've got a misting area set up by the first aid tent in case you need to cool down. A nice piece of fruit, maybe? Spring water? Anything?

Mr. Murphy, my sincere apologies for having called you (IIRC) Kev, the Kevster, and Kevin Kevin Bo Bevin Bananna Fanna Fo Fevin. I'll refrain from using any such nicknames in the future, and expect you to refrain from uses such as "Danny Boy," and I don't remember the other ones.

As for pejoratives in any of my posts, it is very difficult not to use the word "wrong," for example, when someone is, by the standards of his own argument, wrong. Similarly, when one's argument is hypocritical, having that pointed out -- see above -- can give rise to a healthier form of debate.

Now then, having recovered from the heartache of having my own posts compared to a backed-up toilet, I'm quite happy to discuss the content of my post, rather than the horror of the pejoratives contained therein. If you remain incapable of engagement on that topic, you're welcome to refrain from further comment.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan,

Okay, you don't want to clean up the pejoratives. Fine. I'm a horror author and I've certainly read worse.

The trouble is, when I went back over your last long post, once I'd lined out the various pejoratives, and ignored an exchange with Bob about something, all it came down to were complaints about some folk (unnamed) holding a double standard, thinking that Israel's last-minute bombs had a moral component to them whereas Hezbollah's last-minute were thought to contain only military tactics. Or something like that.

Could you point out the original post you were complaining about? And how the double standard is working?

FWIW, as I see it, all bombs are sent off for military/political objectives (whether this is effective or not is a matter of analysis and debate) but the military/political objectives will be sold to the public with any of several moral explanations to candy-coat the fact that the military just used bombs to kill people.

Anyway, could you point to the original source of the double standard you perceived?

Kevin

Kevin, in my post -- which you found to be devoid of content, except for lined-out pejoratives -- I quoted specifically from Clawson. Where content disappeared in Clawson's own snide gloss on the Krauthammer article ("As Christopher Walken might say, "Wowee"" actually served as commentary in Clawson's post, for instance,) there was nothing to refute. Where Clawson posits flawed points, they are refuted. His original post is also on this board, a couple of posts prior to my reply. The board's managers can probably offer further help if using a threaded discussion board is posing difficulty.

Here's one important point you lined out, since you could not find it to comment upon it or refute it:

Krauthammer says Israel practiced restraint in this war. Clawson sarcastically notes Krauthammer's assertion. ("A marvelous show of restraint, Charles.") This serves as Clawson's argument against the notion of Israeli restraint. Clawson then bolsters his argument by noting (one of several times) that Krauthammer lives in Washington, and by referring to Krauthammer familiarly, which seems to be a large part of his argument.

Elsewhere, Clawson and others bemoan the inhumane, unrestrained Israeli response to Hezbollah's aggression.

On the issue of restraint, Clawson is simply lying by way of smirk. We all know that Israel used much less than its full military might. We all know that some degree of response short of use of Israel's entire arsenal would, in fact, destroy Hezbollah (probably along with far too much of Lebanon.) Israel chooses not to use her full military capability, in order to serve the interests of the Lebanese population, the very population Clawson claims to care most about, and which population Hezbollah disregards in pursuit of its own agenda.

And so, we are treated to these displays of crowing over Hezbollah "victory," on the part of the fashionably anti-Israel left. In Clawson's case, it is the weak "Oh yeah?" to Krauthammer's well written and well reasoned deconstruction of the "Hezbollah victory" myth, which serves as (and draws its substance from) "Hezbollah victory" theory.

Well, then, what would you have Israel do, short of national suicide, the course of action so often and so absurdly counseled by anti-Israel theorists? After all, Israelis do want to achieve "victory," don't they?

I know. If less restraint produces "Hezbollah defeat" (perhaps measured by the destruction of all of Lebanon,) Israel should use less restraint.

Gee, that's kind of the opposite of Clawson's complaint at the beginning of this discussion, isn't it?

As a side note, another as yet unchallenged point, is that Clawson criticizes Krauthammer for living in Washington, whereas Clawson also resides in the US, presumeably in Massachusetts, where he is registered. From Massachusetts, Clawson pretends to have better intelligence than Krauthammer gets in Washington. This is another hypocritical mockery.

These are just instances off the top of my head, greatly expanded so it is very difficult to miss the point.

For the remainder of my comments, you will have to read them more carefully, and return to them, if you have anything to add to the discussion, since the post itself makes quite specific points based on logic and as-yet unchallenged argument. Your present analysis -- "you're mean," to sum it up -- hardly does that fact justice. My response to Clawson's post points up its weakness, and does so in quite explicit terms. Try not to line them all out quite so quickly, return to any you find to be of more substance than "a marvelous show of restraint, Charles," and you may be capable of treating one or more of the points I make with some degree of success.

Thanks,

Dan

Dan,

I was actually trying to find something in your post aside from pejoratives and sneering at Bob Clawson, but ah well. Let's go to the point you addressed here in your latest post, regarding Israel's restraint or lack thereof.

Last I checked, Israel's "full military might" included The Bomb, meaning, explicitly, nuclear capability. Israel has the capabilty to blow Lebanon off the map, or at least turn Beirut into Hiroshima (though I expect they've got more powerful bombs than the US did in WWII). If we accept as a given that using anything less than Israel's full military might is "restraint," then yes, Israel used restraint. By the same argument, the US has used restraint in Iraq, and the various atrocities in Abu Ghrabe were not a big deal because they still fall short of using an iron maiden.

The "restraint" argument is a bad one, whether used by Charles Krauthammer or you or anyone, and as such, is deserving of mockery. The question should not be whether the force used was "restrained," but only whether or not it was "appropriate" or "inappropriate." If you feel the response is inappropriate or excessive, of course you will respond by snarking "Some restraint."

Now, onto the question of what Israel should have done. I'm assuming that "National Suicide" is not seriously on the table except as an opposite pole to "Nuke Lebanon! Nuke 'em all!" But "Should have done"? I'm thinking diplomatic solutions were not exhausted first, and the military response was excessive relative to the problem.

Actually, I feel the same way with the US response with Iraq, though points to Israel for actually getting the right country.

Okay, a couple of very good clear points arise here:

You managed to overlook this point on restraint in my earlier post. This implies that either
a) I was so pejorative I angered you to the point of being unable to read my content, or
b) You are so biased that you mistake valid critique for pejorative.

The option of (c) -- that I have not made any points -- has been ruled out. Given that Clausen's original post was composed primarily of specious sarcasm (as quoted in my last post to you,) and given that both of us are subjective examiners of the difference between (a) and (b) above, I would conclude that closer, less reactive reading is in order, if you do want to respond to my points; and that less provocative phrasing is in order on my part, if I indeed want my posts to be understood by those who disagree. Deal. I do, of course, expect to see similar treatment of my own material on the part of those I disagree with as well. To me, Mssrs Haar and Granier are good examples of that approach. We disagree, and we've reached occasional flash-points, but our disagreements have been (by and large) on the merits of the arguments in question.

Kevin, you didn't even bother to mock. What you did was claimed the argument had never been made, which is quite another thing. That you are wrong on this subject is a separate issue, which we will treat presently.

What I see here is a progression of worst to best practice, as regards civil debate. I'm just going to stipulate to the idea that I was mean to Mr. Clawson, although my intent was to point out hypocrisy and flawed logic, and Mr. Clawson himself does not come into play. I think your complaint of "pejoratives" is valid, in terms of tone; in large part, I picked up the tone from Mr. Clawson's original post. So I will say "mea culpa" on that one, just so you understand I am not singling you out as the only uncivil discusser here.

However, in the progression of worst to best practices, I would say it's most eggregious to ignore content and claim it does not exist; second-worst to judge content lacking, and respond inappropriately (for example, your reading of my "pejoratives", or your suggestion that an idea you disagree with must therefore be mocked); and best to discuss the subject at hand without mockery.

As such, you've once again counseled a course of action for me (not to write with any pejoratives,) which you yourself would not take ("deserving of mockery.") Along the same lines, Kevin, I like to believe I write, rather than "snark." Although from what I understand, explaining my position in depth is another form of bad debate hereabouts. Ah well.

To move on, you assert that the opinion contrary to your own regarding the concept of "limited" war as applied here, must be deserving of mockery. Your argument goes thus:

1. We all indeed do agree that Israel could vaporize Lebanon
2. We therefore all agree that Israel has applied restraint.
3. By the same argument, worse torture (the iron maiden) is more restrained than less bad torture (photographs of sexual humiliation, for example, or partial drowning [if that was Abu Ghraib rather than Gitmo])
4. Therefore, the notion of restraint is without value, since vaporizing Lebanon is unthinkable, and since we all agree Abu Ghraib was bad.

But what if there are gradations between:

A) the deaths of around 1000, the majority of whom are combatants, and about $3 billion in damage, and
B) The deaths of around 4,000,000, the majority of whom are noncombatants, and utter destruction of a nation?

Now the argument becomes more complex, and the conclusion more difficult and nuanced.

Let us say that Israel exercised restraint by not driving North as far as Beirut; by signing yet another predictably flawed ceasefire; by yielding to world pressure and its own innate humanitarian impulses (oh yes, they do rate quite high, as compared to other real world nations, as opposed to a dimensionless ideal,) or to some other factor.

Then you are arguing that there is no difference between occupation of territory and targeted raids; that there is no difference between "surgical strike" and carpet bombing; that there is no difference between mass slaughter of innocents and armed conflict between two combatant groups. It is indeed fashionable to make this argument, everywhere except among responsible armed forces.

Your argument is at best incomplete. I could even say it is bad. I will not, however, posit that it is therefore deserving of mockery, by our current rules of engagement.

You end your post with a complaint that Israel had not given sufficient effort to the diplomatic process, vis a vis Hezbollah. There are several reasons that this would have been an inappropriate response to Hezbollah's actions:

1) Diplomacy had been tried and had failed, from 2000 onward.
2) The country of Lebanon insisted there was a power vacuum in which a criminal organization (Hezbollah) has operated, from Lebanese soil, since 2000.
3) Lebanon further stipulated it was incapable of extending its national sovereignty into this region.
4) The option of diplomacy with Lebanon, therefore, has been tried, and has failed.
5) Lebanon has been responsible, by diplomatic accord, for the disarming and removal of Hezbollah, and control of the border, since 2000.
CONCLUSION: BY LEBANON'S OWN ADMISSION, LEBANON HAS FORFEITED CLAIMS TO SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE SOUTH.

As to diplomacy with Hezbollah:
1) The organization is, in fact, outlawed by Lebanon itself, as an armed presence.
2) The organization is committing acts of war, without Lebanese approval (unless your argument is that Lebanon has itself launched this war against Israel)
3) As such, the organization is a criminal gang, not a government, and not entitled to diplomatic status.

However, it's easy to foresee the argument that, although the U.S. does not negotiate with Al Qaeda (for example,) Israel should negotiate with Hezbollah.

1) Israel has negotiated with Hezbollah in the past, in similar instances.
2) By Nasrallah's own reckoning, Hezbollah therefore came to expect that Israel will naturally make fantastically disproportionate deals to reclaim their own abductees, who have committed no crime, in trade for criminals from Hezbollah's ranks, and the ranks of allied gangs;
3) Therefore such negotiations are more, rather than less, likely to encourage further acts of terrorism in this instance.
4) Negotiations have already been tried, entered into, and concluded on the subject of rocket attacks against Israel. Solutions were implemented. The solutions failed.

The current phase of this endless cycle of Hezbollah criminal acts has continued unabated from 2000 until the present. First, Syria would not let Lebanon control Hezbollah. Then, Lebanon kicked out Syria (and her standing army of almost half a million,) but was "unable" to dislodge Hezbollah.

At what point are you willing to say diplomacy has been tried? Evidently, the duration of the "diplomacy" phase must exceed six years -- during which time one party is expected to lob volleys of rockets over the blue line, and the other party is expected to exercise -- oh, there's that word again, but now we like it! -- restraint.

Dan

Dan,

Actually, it was option A: Whatever comments you were making were getting lost in the sea of pejoratives, and after I came back from a week's trip and the aftermath, I was mostly skimming this all to catch up.

It's also good that you're getting more civil, but please don't set straw men versions of what you perceive to be other people's arguments so you can knock them down and call them silly, even by implication.

My argument is not that "restraint" is valueless but that "restraint" is not a valid argument when it is phrased as "But think of how much nastier we could have been!" especially when ignoring the possiblity of "But think of how much nicer you could have been too!"

Arguing that 1000 dead is more restrained than 4,000,000 dead is of course correct but begs the question of why not be even more restrained than 1000 dead? Why not 500 or 10 or 0? The question is not whether or not Israel was restrained or whether restraint is a good thing--I'm taking as a given that both are correct--but whether they were restrained enough. How many people did they have to kill to accomplish their aims and why wasn't it limited to that?

You say they waited six years. I'll take this as granted. If you can wait six years, why not another six? Why not just two or three more months so tourist season would be out of the way? And was it strictly necessary to do 3 billion in damage? Wouldn't one billion have sufficed? Etc. etc.

I'll admit I've not immersed myself in the minutia of Israeli/Lebanese politics the past several years, mostly distracted by the larger scale of US politics, but we all judge things from our own limited purview. I know something of the US/Iraq war and I've read some of what Charles Krauthammer has had to say about that. Consequently, anything he's cheerleading is something I'd view as highly suspect.

Originally posted by Ethan Anderson:

"Just checking in...anyone need an energy bar? Something to replace lost electrolytes? We've got a misting area set up by the first aid tent in case you need to cool down. A nice piece of fruit, maybe? Spring water? Anything?"

Yes, Harvey Keitel to wash me off with a hose.

Shameless O'Clawson

HEZBOLLAH'S "VICTORY"

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 1, 2006; Page A21

"We did not think, even 1 percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 . . . that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not."

-- Hasan Nasrallah,
Hezbollah leader, Aug. 27
...

"So much for the "strategic and historic victory" Nasrallah had claimed less than two weeks earlier. What real victor declares that, had he known, he would not have started the war that ended in triumph?

{Uh, one who's still in the game and has garnered more support for his actions. One who wishes to register great surprise for Israel's overreaction. One who's politically shrewd. One who's reaped industrial-strength support across the Arab world because instead of being quickly defeated as usual, held the IDF at bay....}

Just to make clear whence cameth the "Uh".

Nasrallah's still in the game. I don't have to like him because he remains a threat. He registered great surprise at Israel's normal fierce retaliation. In essence, he's asking , "Who'd of thunk it?" He's squirming off the hook and aligning himself with what was being registered in press throughout the Muslim AND Western world (except some papers and TV conglomerates in the U.S.) So I think that's politically shrewd, just as Amadinejad's being politically shrewd, especially at using Hezbollah to do its dirty work.

Because I think Nasrallah's politically shrewd doesn't mean I champion him. (I think Carl Rove is politically shrewd and I despise the bastid.) And regarding becoming a champion "across the Arab world," I think I spoke in haste there. Should have used Shiite World. He's probably spooked Saudi Arabia and Egypt because each has so many restless Shiites.

Think about the absurdity of either side calling this a victory, Dan. That the Arabs have been so badly beaten about the ears every year since THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE, just having the reputation of having pestered the IDF out of Southern Lebanon, and NOW purportedly having held their ground troops at bay for a month, one should admit that, in their minds, they're gaining momentum. That may sound idiotic to you, me, and most humane people on the earth, but so be it if they feel that way.

What's been gained on either side? One has once again poked the skunk. The other has once again "crushed the enemy." I think neither should be called a "victory," which is what I hoped to direct at Mr. Krauthammer's argument.

You do keep using me as a straw man, but you protest too much. Early in this thread, you said that you wished to enlighten. That's fine with me. But when I question Krauthammer's work (which wasn't even your post), you come out with guns blazing. I'd have said, "Cool it" to whoever in Israel ordered the blitz, and I say to you, cool it, you're starting to sound out of control. I'm beginning to feel like collateral damage.

Bob



[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited September 07, 2006).]

I’m sorry I lack the time to allow relating to the many points that have arisen over the last few days, but I would like to relate minimally, at least, to this:


In just another four days the horrific attacks of September 11th will be remembered. Since that fateful day, a range of security actions have been implemented by the US (and throughout Europe too, actually), from the relatively low level of air travel restrictions and security checks, to others at much higher levels. Whether you agree with what is being implemented, or how, is another issue. But by your own logic, I ask as follows: why not, instead, have done nothing about terrorist threats and organized terrorist groups? and why not wait and continue to do nothing for the next five years? What might it take for folks holding to your argument, to understand the problematics of such an argument – positioning yourself in someone else’s shoes? Ok, picture this. You are at work in Carmiel (northern Israel). It is 2.30 and your youngest just came home from school a little while ago. You receive a phone call from your wife, at the same moment as officials walk into your office, to tell you that your little girl, playing with friends in the garden of your home on the northern (or even not so northern) border in an Israeli city, has just been pronounced dead because of a Katyusha attack. Despite having lived with that fear since 2000, (from which date you should not have had to live with that fear) you find yourself still emotionally unprepared when a high-probability reality hits your personal world. And the reason for this high-probability reality still existing is for reasons Dan has delineated in any number of posts so far. Yes, I have made this personal, and presented it as though it is a one-off situation, although we all know it is an exceedingly high-multiple recurring incident over the last 6 years. But, would you then say, honestly – aw shucks, let’s just wait another six years…..?

And whose tourist season are you concerned about? Hmmm, couldn’t Hizbollah have planned its capture for after the tourist season? After all, it has Lebanon’s deepest interests at heart at all times, no? You should really direct that complaint to them, no? A teensy bit of logical thinking on their part would have saved the tourist season in the whole area, no? In fact, a teensy bit of logical thinking on their part would have saved a great deal more than just the tourist season, too, no?


However, you then make a statement which is perfectly acceptable per se, in that we all have limitations of time, and fields of interest that appeal more, or less, and in which we then invest our efforts to a greater or lesser degree. But when you state that
it makes me wonder why on earth, in that case, you are involved in this discussion. Knowledge brings understanding and a greater ability to give the various points due consideration. And wisdom is the ability to understand that when one is insufficiently informed, one would do well to expand one's knowledge (especially, today, far beyond sensational news headlines that are often proven to be erroneous, wrong, limited, motivated by hidden agenda, etc) before presenting one's arguments.

[This message has been edited by Seree Zohar (edited September 07, 2006).]

Seree,

In regards to the "why not wait another 6 years" with regards to September 11th, there is a very human reaction popular with bureaucrats--I got my first taste of it with junior high school vice principals--is that when something bad happens, if you can't do something intelligent, you at least do something stupid and make a grand fuss over it so that, if something bad happens again, you can at least say you did something.

The ludicrous security theatre we've been put through at airports in the years since 9/11 is a farce. Apart from sensible precautions such as reinforced cockpit doors (which Israel had for years), it hasn't done a damn thing to make us safer.

As for the situation of living in an area where bombs sometimes occur, my reaction is A). Why the hell am I living in this godforsaken place and why the hell don't I move? and B). Assuming that I've chosen to accept the risks for myself, what sort of selfish asshole would I have to be to think this was a good place to raise a child?

I know this isn't the reaction you'd be wanting, but my reaction to any "Choose Your Own Adventure" page that lists unacceptable options is to simply leave the book.

1. They do not 'occur', they require being occured, always by humans. 2. 'sometimes' : see -- again -- my closing notes relating to "not immersed .... in the minutia of Israeli/Lebanese politics"


2. Let's presume all Israel takes this advice. All northerners move back X miles to a safer distance. This will allow Hamas, Hezbolla, Fatah, Al Aksa, el Qaida (known to be in Gaza already) et al to move further in, of course, and recommence their activities from that new line. (Unless you can offer a great suggestion on how to prevent this).

It is arguably predictable that sister terror groups in the south would feel strongly heartened by such activity and would take up this new and highly successful (for them) line of action. So, all southerners should move back X miles, out of range of constantly lobbed Kasams that the news doesn't even bother reporting any more overseas, for the most. At which point, the terror organisations in Gaza won't need to dig tunnels into Israel, they will just move up to the X line and recommence from there.

With terror groups now sitting on both the new X borders, and having suffered for some six years, Israelis in what is left of not so far north of Tel Aviv, and what is left of not so far south of Jerusalem, should simply pick up en masse and move back again another X miles, out of range.

And so on. By using time increments of 6 years, and considering how incredibly tiny Israel is, it would probably take no more than 6yrs x3 time frames for 6 million people to be sitting across a narrow band of land a mile wide and then simply, by your logic, get up and go or be bombed to oblivion.

Which is exactly what Israel's (and Jews') enemies world wide desire.

Incidentally, that 3x 6years = 18 years. 18 in Hebrew is the word for Khai, ie: Life.

So you are advocating, possibly, a situation of live and let live? Because you couldn't possibly be suggesting that you entirely support Nasrallah, Ahmedinejad et al, which would be the final outcome of such 'retreat to safety' moves -- that Israel and its people should be wiped off the face of the earth?



[This message has been edited by Seree Zohar (edited September 07, 2006).]

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"I think your complaint of "pejoratives" is valid, in terms of tone; in large part, I picked up the tone from Mr. Clawson's original post. So I will say "mea culpa" on that one...."

Sorry to interrupt: are you saying, "I'm sorry, but it was Typhoid Mary's fault?"

"Along the same lines, Kevin, I like to believe I write, rather than "snark." Although from what I understand, explaining my position in depth is another form of bad debate hereabouts."

In that you've brought it up, in this case I have less trouble with depth than length.

"But what if there are gradations between:

A) the deaths of around 1000, the majority of whom are combatants, and about $3 billion in damage, and
B) The deaths of around 4,000,000, the majority of whom are noncombatants, and utter destruction of a nation?"

I think we should add C) The displacement of a quarter of the civilian poplulation, followed by the destruction of their homes; the distruction of the nation's infrastructure and economy; and the assurance of enmity (and desire for revenge) in yet another generation of neighboring Arabs. (I'm NOT saying that Hezbollah is a good neighbor.)

That's just one gradation I'd add. I think if we opened up discussion on the choices between vaporization and, say, a surgical strike at the perps who raided the IDF group, you know, the kind of thing that's been going on since 2,000, we might find several alternatives to the wreckage that followed the July 12 "incident."

"Let us say that Israel exercised restraint by not driving North as far as Beirut;"

Let's say that may well have be an exercise in caution. The IDF was taking unusual punishment on the ground. Their "conventional" warfare wasn't working efficiently in the "asymmetric" situation. Don't you love those words?

"by yielding to world pressure"

What provoked the "world pressure"?

"and its own innate humanitarian impulses (oh yes, they do rate quite high, as compared to other real world nations, as opposed to a dimensionless ideal,"

Rate high on whose scale? Don't most nations feel righteous? (Two questions, not one.)

"Then you are arguing that there is no difference between occupation of territory and targeted raids;"

I, myself, wouldn't argue that. The 22 year Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon differs from their punitive raids since 2,000. Unless "The Resistance" was taking a toll on Israel's forces or patience, I'd say that targeted raids would suffice, especially if Israeli intelligence ferreted out the rocket launchers and storage sites. With "surgical strike" capability, I would think the IDF could contain that particularly nasty situation.

"that there is no difference between mass slaughter of innocents and armed conflict between two combatant groups."

I'm probably losing the thread here, but do you mean that this war was between "two combatant groups," meaning two military groups? Where's the choice in this? As I understand it both Israel and Hezbollah attacked combatant groups AND civilians.

"It is indeed fashionable to make this argument, everywhere except among responsible armed forces."

Let's assume that the "responsible armed forces" are the IDF. Could they not have focused on the other combatant force, Hezbollah, ie., duked it out with them? Couldn't the IDF itself pull off some "asymmetric" stuff?
We have Special Forces units in Iran. I would think that Israel, having been attacked so frequently by crazed, suicide bombers and rocket fire, would have developed sophisticated countermeasures.

I cut the earlier points. I agree with the ISRAELI rationale, and you've laid it out nicely.

"4) The option of diplomacy with Lebanon, therefore, has been tried, and has failed."

My question about this well-focused argument is, are there alternative routes for diplomacy? Could, for instance, Israel talk directly with Hezbollah, say, at Camp David? Did, during this time, Israel persist in taking every possible route to a diplomatic solution? Were they relentless at the U.N.? Did they take up the problem with Syria or Iran? I know that they released all but three prisoners, and had no legitimate political or military (guerrilla) prisoners. So a "swap" is mute. But, I'm genuinely ignorant of the depth of the diplomatic effort. If it was with the government of Lebanon alone, that would have been a shallow effort because it's hardly existed since before "The Cedar Revolution" in, what was it, Winter, 2005?

"5) Lebanon has been responsible, by diplomatic accord, for the disarming and removal of Hezbollah, and control of the border, since 2000.
CONCLUSION: BY LEBANON'S OWN ADMISSION, LEBANON HAS FORFEITED CLAIMS TO SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE SOUTH."

Well, not by it's own admission, but by its lack of continuity and weakness. It hasn't followed the rule, but we have to keep in mind that it's been occupied by Israel up to 2000 and Syria until 2005, plus it's had its own civil war; so it's "Democracy," as Bush calls it, is but a nascent entitity. It had just a tad more sovereignty over its country than Iraq. Well, it wasn't quite that bad, but, as a NATION, no threat to any neighbor.

"As to diplomacy with Hezbollah:
1) The organization is, in fact, outlawed by Lebanon itself, as an armed presence."

Then talk to Nasrallah. Talk directly with the enemy. Sounds old fashioned, but you make points even if he refuses. Speak softly, but carry a big stick.

"2) The organization is committing acts of war, without Lebanese approval (unless your argument is that Lebanon has itself launched this war against Israel)"

It's more likely that "approval" hasn't been part of their parliamentary discussion. In Lebanon, Hezbollah is the big stick. Nasrallah has been described as "soft-spoken" with his constituents.

"3) As such, the organization is a criminal gang, not a government, and not entitled to diplomatic status."

Well, they and the Shia call themselves "The Resistance." I know, I know, they at the very least cheer for Palestinian suicide-bombers and any other thing bad that happens to Israel, but to the Shia of the
country, the largest % of the population (35%), they're PERCEIVED as not only the resistance, but also as providers of essential social services that the government can't seem to supply.

To designate them as a criminal gang gets you nowhere. Bush one-ups that by calling them evil and fascists. We're The Big Satan. That's name-calling, demonizing, not realpolitik. To say that they're not entitled to diplomatic status doesn't change the fact that they should be the first target of diplomacy. Talk to the enemy. The enemy. Their status is enemy.

"However, it's easy to foresee the argument that, although the U.S. does not negotiate with Al Qaeda (for example,) Israel should negotiate with Hezbollah."

Israel claims not to take its lead from the U.S.

"1) Israel has negotiated with Hezbollah in the past, in similar instances."

Sorry, but for my enlightment (no kidding) please name a few. Were they such to prevent further negotiations? And upon what were the negotiations based? I often wonder what the hell Jessie Jackson said to Saddam to get him to release that huge batch of hostages.

"2) By Nasrallah's own reckoning, Hezbollah therefore came to expect that Israel will naturally make fantastically disproportionate deals to reclaim their own abductees, who have committed no crime, in trade for criminals from Hezbollah's ranks, and the ranks of allied gangs;"

Well, as I said above, Israel's got no prisoners left to trade. If Nasrallah can't keep track of his own missing, then that's a good starting point. "We don't have any MORE prisoners, Naz, so what are you really looking for?"

"3) Therefore such negotiations are more, rather than less, likely to encourage further acts of terrorism in this instance."

Guesswork. Doesn't deserve "Therefore."

"4) Negotiations have already been tried, entered into, and concluded on the subject of rocket attacks against Israel. Solutions were implemented. The solutions failed."

When? Directly with Hez? What were the implementations? Why'd they fail? Enlighten.

"The current phase of this endless cycle of Hezbollah criminal acts has continued unabated from 2000 until the present."

Any reprisals from Israel?

"First, Syria would not let Lebanon control Hezbollah. Then, Lebanon kicked out Syria (and her standing army of almost half a million,) but was "unable" to dislodge Hezbollah."

Are you saying, or implying, by your "unable," that Lebanon is in cahoots with Hezbollah and, therefore, the 9000 air raids were aimed at Lebanon in general because the country harbored a terrorist organization? As I read it, any country that can "kick out" a larger military power ought to be able to kick out or jail a "gang of criminals." Therefore, Lebanon deserved what it got.

But you can't be saying that. It just doesn't jive with "restraint."

"At what point are you willing to say diplomacy has been tried?"

When I understand that it has, and has been tried persistently. I addressed that above.

"Evidently, the duration of the "diplomacy" phase must exceed six years --"

That's purely arbitrary. But it could last that long or longer. This whole recent business between Arabs and Jews has been going on since, what, 1948 (not counting 627 Medina). If a dozen years of diplomacy broke the endless cycle of retaliation, wouldn't it be worth it?

"during which time one party is expected to lob volleys of rockets over the blue line, and the other party is expected to exercise -- oh, there's that word again, but now we like it! -- restraint."

Excellent closer, rhetorically. But you can't, by it, imply that Israel hasn't retaliated during those years. You've erased the "low-grade" war that's continued since the IDF split from the territory. The fight for The Farm hasn't changed. A raid here, a raid there.

And that's just since 2000. Think of the deep enmity wrought by 22 years of occupation (breeding a hateful generation). I'll end with a paragraph by Max Rodenbeck, The Economist's Mideast Correspondent.

"Like those parties {Hamas and Islamic Jihad} Hezbollah was a product of conflict. The cultlike intensity of its following was spawned by bitter personal experience of Israeli domination, not only under the direct military occupation of a large swathe of south Lebanon, which lasted between 1978 and 2000, but as a result of frequent Israeli punitive raids, such as the 1996 "Grapes of Wrath" offensive that caused the slaughter of 106 Lebanese civilians who had taken refuge at a UN peacekeeping base in the village of Qana. Such memories have allowed Hezbollah to pose as the protector not just of Shias but of Lebanon as a whole, with the argument that its guerrrilla force performs a function that the weak Lebanese state and
its ill-equipped army are incapable of."

The key word, for me, is "memories." Isreal's culture is built on grim memories. Never forget. And, each of these countries (and cultures) is doomed to remember the worst as long as they cannot together find a way to end the cycle of retaliation.

My apology for the length of this critique and argument. I promise, never again.

Bob



[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited September 07, 2006).]

on second thoughts...

[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited September 07, 2006).]

By your own reasoning the Lebanese women and children who were killed when they ignored repeated warnings from Israel that their neighborhood was going to be bombed due to the fact that Hezbollah fighters/terrrorists and their weapons were present A) should never have been living in such a godforsaken dangerous area in the first place and should have moved immediately - and B) Assuming that if the adult males had chosen to accept the risks for themselves, the fact that they kept their families at home with them makes them not the poor dead Lebanese innocents that you've repeatedly bemoaned but rather nothing more than the children of selfish assholes?

And if your reasoning here is sound - " but my reaction to any "Choose Your Own Adventure" page that lists unacceptable options is to simply leave the book." than
I suppose that we also could have avoided the entire Second World War if only the Jews had been smart enough to leave Europe when Hitler decided that they shouldn't live there....what an different "adventure" that would have been for the whole world, huh?

Does the phrase "blaming the victim" ever come to mind, Kevin?

Lo



[This message has been edited by Lo (edited September 07, 2006).]

RJ

This is an exceedingly difficult issue to address. As probably no one on this board holds a position sufficiently appropriate as to be privy to all revealed and concealed information in this regard, I doubt your curiosity could ever be satisfied on this one. However, here is the information I have accessible to me from sources that are disclosable and others that aren't.

Israel is in constant discussion with all parties involved in the overall Mid East dispute, at all times. Most often, the behind the scenes host is Jordan, and often, too, Germany. It is done quietly, without fuss and paparazzi, so as not to harm groups or countries whose position with other Arab countries is not officially endangered. Less frequently, the initiator or host is Egypt, but sometimes even Kuwait and Dubai. (What all these countries stand to gain, or lose, by the success or failure of these talks should be fairly obvious at certain levels, perhaps less so at others).

Those of us following the deeper level news on all issues Israel-related often learn about such discussion via 'back-door' news items. When an unexpected media headline or radio item announcing "No further updates have been received on Ron Arad, or Baumel" (or whomever) it is understood that SomethingHasBeenGoingOn; sometimes info is leaked to the press that Diplomat So&So just returned from (country) after a flash visit to discuss "the situation". Once, it was leaked that Jordan's King popped over for a half hour, closeted in his jet with Ariel Sharon... for a country that has official diplomatic relations with Israel, a visit like this indicates that SomethingHasBeenGoingOn. "Press leaks" of such visits, or phone calls, are occasional but always, afterwards, are followed up with information concerning just the kind of diplomatic conflict resolutions you wish to hear about.

Thus, despite NOT having official diplomatic ties with any number of countries in the region, it is abundantly clear that Israel does whatever possible to effect solutions in ways other than military.

Although I prefer to supply factual info and keep personal opinion out, I wish to say this: I have been closely watching Israel issues for the whole of my adult life, involved at greater than breaking-news flashes or 9pm daily broadcasts, and can say that my impression is that the 'world in general' has no clue as to how much effort is put in behind the scenes to reach peace, truce, understanding, solutions, whatever it takes, even if the final outcome remains no <u>official</u> ties with those same neighbors/regional parties, and in fact nothing more than a peaceful and respectful status quo. Live and let live.

I’ve followed this thread with a great deal of interest, and no small amount of trepidation, fearing Dan would get provoked into a flame war. It’s to his credit that he’s kept his argument on track. I’ve seen all the liberal hand wringing many, many times before; same old, same old, as far as I’m concerned. What I rarely see is the other side argued so coherently and objectively.

I am of the opinion that the neutral territory between the two arguments is an extremely thin strip of land and it behoves us all to examine our own biases very carefully. That 99.9% of us have a bias one way or another is without question.

Thanks for the thought provoking thread.

Regards,

Stephen

I take it then, Stephen, that you're also examining your own perfectly obvious bias 'very carefully'.

Kind regards,

Mark



[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited September 07, 2006).]

Mark,

Yes, I’m bias in favour of Israel.

Stephen

What a surprise!

Actually Stephen, your little post speaks of more than a bias 'in favour of Israel' (by which, I presume, you mean Israel's actions in the recent conflict). If you're examining that bias perhaps you should also examine the following quirks:

(a) you seem happy to blanket all those opposed to Israel's action's as 'liberals' (though Lo, for one, sees some of them as anything but: racists, neo nazis etc)

(b) 'liberal hand-wringing' (terminally exhausted cliche that it is) suggests a certain impatience, if not contempt, for liberals (however that word may figure in your mind) which seems a tad hasty, to put it mildly, certainly not congruent with even a cursory self-examination

(c) anti-liberals (conservatives?) often use 'liberal' as a dirty word, effectively a curse-word, and they are always so ready to fling this at anyone who disagrees with their point of view that it makes me wonder if they've considered AT ALL what that word actually means. After all, these are the same people who'll speak of 'the Free World' in the same breath.

(d) what's the opposite of liberal-as-curse-word? Conservative seem rather mild doesn't it? Hawkish? Warhead? Whatever it is, I can't recall any 'liberals' on this thread flinging it around as a blanket dismissal.

Just a few thoughts for your own period of self-reflection.

Mark,

The reasons why I’m generally biased in favour of Israel would take too long to outline and be off topic, even though the process of finding out why we’re biased, if we all went through it, would probably bear more fruit than circular arguments.

There’s an assumption that liberals hold the neutral middle ground, that they have the moral ascendancy between two extremes. I question that assumption. My bias for Israel does not automatically mean I agree with everything they do. Every government can miscalculate and in this last bout of fighting there’s been a whole lot of miscalculation.

From my point of view, this isn’t an oh-so-interesting coffee table discussion about who’s most in the wrong, or posturing about who’s scored the most points in an argument. I have a son in the RAF who has served duty in Iraq. I take sides; mostly his.

I agree ‘liberal hand-wringing’ is a clichéd, blanket term, but there’s so much of it about.

Regards,

Stephen

Well, Stephen, it's tough satisfying you demanding Conservatives. I regularly refer to most Israeli leaders, Hezbollah, most Palestinian leaders, all of the ultra-religious loonies on all sides of all disputes, and the Bush Administration as "assholes" and "fucking imbeciles", and I'm told that I'm crude and simplistic. But if I tried to write something thoughtful, and explore and propose the difficult solutions and compromises that go beyond posturing and bombing, the Stephen Foots of the world would accuse me of "liberal hand-wringing." So I'll continue to belch out angry "liberal" generalities. If nothing else, it's saved me tens of hours of time on this thread alone.

[This message has been edited by Michael Cantor (edited September 07, 2006).]

Michael,

Those ‘difficult solutions’ will always involve a degree of concession and compromise. I’m not arguing that they do not. I think you’ll find Israel more magnanimous in a final compromise than many would imagine. For the most part, it’s the so called friends of the Palestinians who have proved to be their worst enemies. There seems to be no recognition amongst Israel’s neighbours that they must be part of the solution; even Hamas recognises that not all of their problems are caused by the Israeli occupation. At the very least, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria should recognise they have their own ‘Palestinian’ citizens and work towards a solution that recognises the Palestinian’s right to self determination, elsewhere, other than in the occupied territories.

Stephen

Mark,

Here’s the rub:

The very people you purport to stand up for hate and despise the liberal beliefs you base you arguments on. They consider you weak, disposable and eminently exploitable. Your philosophy has no solutions, only fuel to feed more flames. It’s a tough call, we all want to be considered nice.

Stephen

Stephen,

I think you mean "biased." It would be a bit grandiose to claim to be bias itself. http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/wink.gif

Could you explain why you lean that way?

Kevin

So we should get rid of Women's Suffrage because there exist angry lesbian separatists?

Oh wait, I'm sorry, we're talking about Israel-Lebanon here. I was just extending this logic into other venues. Sorry. My bad.

Kevin

Kevin,

I have strict orders to stop mucking about on the internet and have my tea, so briefly:

Have you heard of the Brethren Movement? My parents belonged to it and brought my family up under its strictures. I formed a close friendship with a Jewish convert to Christianity who, unknowingly, led me to examine the history of Jewish/Christian relations over the last two millennia. To cut a long story short, this led to a crisis in Faith. The Christian Church has much to answer for. I fear the roots of anti-Semitism within the Church are as strong as they ever were. Do I want to make amends in some way, I don’t know. Do I feel the Jewish people are still looked on with suspicion, yes. Will the Church ever really change, I don’t think so. Do I think the Jews need and deserve a Homeland, yes. Should it be Palestine, where else?

Sorry to be so cryptic; normal service is resumed.

Stephen

What people did I 'purport to stand up for' Stephen? I'm not sure if you're referring to the Lebanese people, the entire population of 'liberals' or some other simplified generality. Were you to separate one or all of those weirdly homogenous masses into living breathing individuals would they ALL consider me weak, disposable and 'eminently exploitable'? Mightn't some of them actually enjoy having a couple of beers with me (or even, who knows, with you) and debating things in much the same way as we're doing here? Hey, if it were 20 years ago maybe I might have fallen in love with one of them; we might have a bevvy of Liberal/Labanese kids. But I know such an imaginative leap is difficult for you; perhaps you better rest and gather your strength before attempting it.

As to my beliefs, these are many and varied, and, even if you could guess what they are, you certainly couldn't pigeonhole ALL of them as liberal. But your arrogant presumption that you can once more says far more about your painfully limited imagination than it could ever hope to say about my beliefs, liberal and otherwise.

What 'philosophy' are you talking about? I don't claim to have anything as organised as a philosophy, any more than I claim to have a religion. And I certainly don't claim to have solutions. You're right about that (but why would a philosophy have solutions?)! Do you have solutions?! Amazing! You should head straight into the fray then; you're wasting your time here.

What 'fuel'? What 'flames'? Are you speaking about this thread (flame wars?) or about the wider less virtual world?

What's a 'tough call' in your estimation?

Who wants to be 'considered nice'? What a weird idea (and what the fuck is 'nice' when it's at home?). I want to be loved by people I love, and respected by people I respect, but the wanting is very much second fiddle.

Kindly refrain from presuming we share the same desires, Stephen. I'm not sure we're even in the same universe. But good luck with your philosophy (if you possess one).

Kind (if not nice) regards,

Mark



[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited September 07, 2006).]

[quote]Originally posted by Dick Morgan:
My mother was Swedish, my father was Welsh and German. The original family name was Kohlmorgan. My grandfather died of accute alohol poisoning. My mother and father were both alcoholics. My daughter and brother are a practicing alcoholics. I got my degree from Johnny Walker university, as well. Did we do this all on free will?

Did you all do it based solely on genetic material? The origins of alcoholism are convoluted - nature vs nurture, so to speak. Do you drink because you are "destined" to or because you were taught by example? Is there no one in your family, immediate or otherwise, who is NOT an alcoholic? Based on what I know of alcoholic families in general, I'd venture to say there are......and so the question is, if it's an inherited gene from which there is no escaping, why not? Both my maternal and paternal grandfathers were alcoholics.....neither of my parents drank nor did any of their brothers or sisters.....my sister drinks, I do not drink. My ex-husband was an alcoholic, my three sons are not alcoholics. His (my ex's) father was an alcoholic, but his two brothers are not. And so on and so forth. Free will? Choice? Learned behavior or genetic make-up? Personally, I vote for learned behaviour, but I'm willing to accept that genetics (but not ethnicity) may play a part in "it"....with "it" being "alcoholism" as a disease and accepting that some genetic diseases are a reality - genetic personalities, however, are not reality.

While you may think genetics plays no part in what you do with your life or I do with mine--80 percent of the world believes in God--do you all think they arrived at this via "Free will"?

I think they arrived at it via familial impact. It's faith and knowledge that they were taught not faith and knowledge that they were magically "born with." If there were no free will involved how do you explain the hundreds of thousands of people who abandon their "birth" religion and convert to other faiths? People believe in God because they want to - not because they have a gene that orders them to.

Based on previous posts I assume you work in the medical profession--aren't there a series of questions you need to ask intaking a patient that have a genetic component?

I worked for 15 years in an ER and on an ambulance. We did not ever ask "genetic" questions. In fact, I believe it is frowned on by federal and local law to ask racially pointed "genetic" questions (and I am positive it is illegal to ask outright ethnical ones) in any field. If I answered a 911 call and a man was in the process of having a giant heart attack - I didn't give a rat's ass if his father had a heart attack....at that point, it didn't matter any more and it certainly wasn't going to affect my treatment protocol.

I currently work in a physician's office and most physician offices have an "intake" sheet which asks questions specific to illnesses and/or diseases which happened to "self" "mother" "father" "sister" and/or "brother" but nothing which asks race, creed, ethnic or religious affiliation. Again, there are some diseases which are prevalent in "families" but they are not necessarily ethnically common or even genetically associated. The theories of familial diseases are based just as much on the premise that you probably were raised on the same kind of diet/exercise program/living conditions as the other members of your family as it is based on anything genetically possible.

If I were a physician and Dan and a signficent other who was also Jewish and I was politically correct and didn't want to ask if he was a "jew" and as a consequence I didn't test for Tay Sach's Disease I would be guilty of malpractice.

Probably not....unless

A) you were a geneticist and the couple were visiting you because they were concerned about possibly having a child with Tay-Sachs.

B) the child in question were your patient and he or she had symptoms of Tay Sach's and you didn't recognize the symptoms - or

C) The parents had asked you to test an apparently well child and you either refused or ignored the request.

Besides, regardless of what you may think, Tay Sachs' is not limited to people of Jewish extraction and it is prevalent in non-Jewish French Canadians who live near the St. Lawrence River and in certain Cajun communities in La. And apparently not all Jews are "created equal" in regards to being susceptible to certain diseases.....Ashkenazi Jews (of Eastern European descent) have a Tay-Sach carrier rate of 1 in 27 while Sephardic Jews have a 1 in 250 chance - which is the same carrier rate as that of the general population.

Same thing with Sickle Cell Anemia which is widely regarded as a "black" disease. The Sickle Cell trait is also common in people of Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, and Asian Indian ancestry.

Breast cancer can be, and sometimes is, found in men.

And so on and so forth............

What may be a "familial" disease is not necessarily a "genetic" disease. Diet plays a part, exercise plays a part, lifestyle plays a part, environment plays a part. What's more, genetics and ethncity are not the same thing at all. One covers an extremely broad spectrum and one is much more narrowly targeted. I'm often unsure as to whether you are using the terms interchangably or not.

Be that as it may, Genetics and/or ethnicity have never been proven (and I doubt either one ever will be) to play a part in the way people understand things or feel things or see things. Those things are entirely individual and they are entirely personal and they can be chosen. Wise people chose wisely, kind people chose kindly and intelligent people chose intelligently - regardless of their backgrounds or their genetics or their ethnicity.

How can we solve problems if we are not allowed to use constants

If you want a "constant" I'll give you a constant......Choice is a constant..."Free will" is a constant. While it is true that we cannot change where we've been or what we came from we can certainly still choose to change what we are, what we will become, and what direction we want to go in.




[This message has been edited by Lo (edited September 07, 2006).]

Ah hah! My orders exactly (though I've had my tea now). So we DON'T live in separate universes, not quite anyway.

Actually, this is the first I've heard of the Brethren Movement, but since I wasn't raised Christian (unless you count anyone who celebrates Christmas as Christian) and I'm guessing it's more of a UK thing, that's not surprising.

It's not a popular opinion, but I don't think that anyone needs or consequently deserves a "Homeland" anymore than they need or deserve an "ancestral estate" or any other airs and titles they didn't earn themselves. Or if they do, then I'd like folk to reestablish Prussia, because, if the family records are correct, then I'd get to be a count. Of course I'd expect the folk in modern day Poland, Germany and wherever else Prussia was to look at me at best as some sort of Emperor Norton figure, but ah well.

Originally posted by Seree Zohar:

"This is an exceedingly difficult issue to address."

Yes. Agreed, Seree.

"I doubt your curiosity could ever be satisfied on this one."

Well, my curiosity has led me this far and I'm willing to explore it.

"However, here is the information I have accessible to me from sources that are disclosable and others that aren't."

Okay, I can live with that. I'm interested in the disclosable.

"Israel is in constant discussion with all parties involved in the overall Mid East dispute, at all times."

This is good to hear. Sounds wise.

"Most often, the behind the scenes host is Jordan, and often, too, Germany. It is done quietly, without fuss and paparazzi, so as not to harm groups or countries whose position with other Arab countries is not officially endangered."

Quiet diplomacy, backchanneling. What we generally consider discreet diplomatic effort. Good.

"Less frequently, the initiator or host is Egypt, but sometimes even Kuwait and Dubai."

Good. Wise to have plenty of countries involved. Is there also quiet diplomacy within the U.N. and with the Bush administration?

"(What all these countries stand to gain, or lose, by the success or failure of these talks should be fairly obvious at certain levels, perhaps less so at others)."

Sorry, Seree, this is less so for me. I think it's too vague for my direct comprehension. My key failure to understand may lie with the word, "level."

"Those of us following the deeper level news"

Is this deeper level news, any of it, available where I can read it? I find myself depending upon U.S., British, Greek and Canadian sources, with much of my information coming via war correspondents from those countries.

"on all issues Israel-related often learn about such discussion via 'back-door' news items. When an unexpected media headline or radio item announcing "No further updates have been received on Ron Arad, or Baumel" (or whomever) it is understood that SomethingHasBeenGoingOn; sometimes info is leaked to the press that Diplomat So&So just returned from (country) after a flash visit to discuss "the situation". Once, it was leaked that Jordan's King popped over for a half hour, closeted in his jet with Ariel Sharon... for a country that has official diplomatic relations with Israel, a visit like this indicates that SomethingHasBeenGoingOn. "

This sounds pretty inpenetrable for me, especially "back door," which sounds close to private gossip or the French Resistance.

"Press leaks" of such visits, or phone calls, are occasional but always, afterwards, are followed up with information concerning just the kind of diplomatic conflict resolutions you wish to hear about. "

I take it you mean good news for both of us. At least there's something made public. Does this information show up in English in a source I could access?

"Thus, despite NOT having official diplomatic ties with any number of countries in the region, it is abundantly clear that Israel does whatever possible to effect solutions in ways other than military."

Okay, I'll take that on your word. Do you know if this kind of activity takes place directly with Hezbollah? Our administration doesn't deign to talk with the enemy as far as I know. Won't dignify them.

"I have been closely watching Israel issues for the whole of my adult life, involved at greater than breaking-news flashes or 9pm daily broadcasts,"

That's good. I don't trust the daily electronic news myself. I'd rather read the papers, some weeklies, monthlies, quarterlies, and books. TV and radio in the U.S. is in sad shape when it comes to news or accurate information.

"and can say that my impression is that the 'world in general' has no clue as to how much effort is put in behind the scenes to reach peace, truce, understanding, solutions, whatever it takes,"

This is very good to hear. I'd be grateful for any sources in English that I could read to make me wiser than "the world in general."

"even if the final outcome remains no <u>official</u> ties with those same neighbors/regional parties, and in fact nothing more than a peaceful and respectful status quo. Live and let live."

Well, that's a big "nothing more." They apparently haven't achieved that yet with Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Iran, and Syria. But persistence, such as that you've described, could pay off eventually.

Thanks for addressing this, Seree. I appreciate it.

Bob

Kevin,

If you get to be a count, and your county of Prussia has anything good on it, I call your northern flank!!!! (We can move the border around as we negotiate...)

Okay. The above is in jest. It is purely meant to be funny. You are wrong about everything. Wait forget that part. This is a humor break.
--------------------------------------------------------
As I understand it, I have both Bob and yourself to talk to about recent history, and Lo has Free Will versus Predestination to tackle in the side argument. We'll all have our hands full (and, it being football season's first night, my part might be somewhat delayed.)

But here's one random scattered thought to add: I know Mr. Foote just joined in, and happens to be biased toward Israel. I know too some here feel I favor the Israeli side of this conflict http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif. I know that could mean I'm just throwing support to the guy who threw his support my way.

But: you guys (and we guys, more generally) have totally jumped ugly on him, to use the technical term. Come on -- look back at the first few posts responding to him!

How about "sit down, have some tea/coffee, welcome to our board, energy bar?"

I just wanted to say thanks for the kind words, Stephen, and thanks for popping in. From time to time here many of the posters have flamed, and I am sure I have flamed pretty eggregiously myself. The "light blue touchpaper and retire to a safe distance" comment earlier was a great one - we're getting passionate here, and I think you joined us at a perfect moment to act as a ready made target. And you know what? Had you come in on the "other" side, I cannot guarantee I would not have done something similar. (I hope, but do not know, that I wouldn't.)

Okay last note, it just happens to be in my head: I count myself as a "Liberal" and have also noticed "Liberal" used as a dirty word. A phrase like "liberal hand-wringing" to me is not as bad as "typical [your ethnicity here]" hand-wringing, because the charge of "Liberal" can be refuted, defended, or rendered powerless through abandonment of the position (yuck, but it's true.) But okay, it's still a good way to piss off a bunch of liberals.

There is, however, an increasing use on the Liberal side of things, of the term "Neocon" in exactly the same way. Since "Conservative" has a happy all-American ring to it by this point for many Americans, "Neocons" are being substituted for purposes of public debate. For the record you're supposed to have been something else before a "conservative conversion experience" to be a Neocon... so people becomming Neocons early and staying that way should be a contradiction in terms. As I understand it though, the original Neocons had a specific school of thought, subsequently adopted by second generation Neocons, though they'd never been Paleocons.

Point is, the use of "Neocon," and the actual grouping of Neocons, may well be as far apart as the equivalents for the term "liberal."

One more one more note, specifically to Bob: Bob, when I come back to this thread, let's just drop the question of length. I know I'm going on and on sometimes, but at the same time, the last couple posts here remind me that people DO want to soak up some facts in the region. I found your last post to be a lot like what I use to say -- and probably will say again, if conditions merit it -- about Israel's options. But from case A to case B to case C there are a world of differences, and getting at them can take some verbiage. Better if it did not, I know. The mideast is a thicket. I find myself agreeing with you on Krauthammer on Iraq, and would perhaps have found myself agreeing with you on Krauthammer on Israel, circa 1995. I agree that turning the Cedar Revolution into an - ahem - neocon triumph, is silly. But I found his posts regarding the "victory" of Hezbollah to just be really on target.

Now then, I am passing around cybervalium, eating some spaghetti, drinking a beer or two, and watching some football. The real kind. Not that there's anything wrong with that other game.

Seree, thanks very much for your recent posts, and your own civility of tone (which I, on occasion, simply jettison in the belief that "it's okay if everybody's doing it," or possibly in the belief that "I know more I get a pass.") Though I'd deny that's happened, I bet others see it that way, and figuring out who is right and wrong is just another whole side tray of recriminations.

Objectively,

Dan



[This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited September 07, 2006).]

Dan and Stephen,

For the most part I see your point about how harshly we have treated Mr. Foot. That said, I strongly take issue with the contention that "The very people you purport to stand up for hate and despise the liberal beliefs you base you arguments on. They consider you weak, disposable and eminently exploitable." I know that the people I have spoken up for are the people of Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories -- not Hezbollah, not Hamas, just the people. (I have spoken up for the Israelis, whom I certainly have wished no harm.) I didn't meet a single person in Lebanon who hates freedom when I was there this May. Actually, if anyone remembers the news, the Lebanese were pretty excited about the prospect of freedom, at least around March 14, 2005. Remember that 1 million people (out of a country of around 4 million) came to Beirut to demand Syria's exit from the country??? Actually, I met a conservative family in Baalbek who could not stop telling me "Merci George Boosh" for helping rid their country of Syria. Is that hating freedom? Oh, sure, the Hezbollah ideology is nutty, but that is not what most people in Lebanon want for their country. This man speaks for what many want for the future of the country: Walid Jumblatt .

On a different note, and speaking of liberal-bashing, Ahmedinejad has joined in David Horowitz's and Lynne Cheney's crusade to clear the universities of liberalism: see BBC article .

Take care all. Peace, Shalom, and Salaam.

- Daniel

Where I have no bias they are all of the Old Roman Empire
History never changes, nor men with it.
there will always be evil in power mad minds
and sheep will always follow— frankly I’m passed caring
bring on the fiddler, light the last match

and write some bloody poetry men now that *can* make a difference

Putting on my crazy hat

And when the armies of Rome went home they found all their lands gone to the generals. The lame, the dead, the blistered and the weak- they fought and killed, done butchery on other men who in essence worked hard and prospered, and the evil eye wanted it. Land is not a possession— fuck all the men who fight and argue over dirt; dirt!!

and what the hell has this thread proved

That you all given the chance would join in. don’t you know how easy that is? To pick a side? Time to let go, time to take stock of what being human means on this planet, we have reasonability’s to the future and we better get it right, or you, all you who fight for life have been a fucking waste of space and time

take the blame for both sides and make it go away

----and write good poetry

Daniel,
I am listening to the Daniel Barenboim BBC lectures. I am more than grateful for your presence on this thread.

I heard the BBC report about the Iranian university lecturers. That really is something to fear.

Janet

Dan Haar,

Noted. We've at least to some extent made him one of us http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif

And I just want to chime in, from the perceived as Israli-biased side, that Dan's absolutely accurate in his portrayal of himself, and to his portrayal of the Lebanese revolution of 2005.

Much of what raises the blood pressure here is that the people of Lebanon are caught in a conflict they don't want, for the benefit of a militia/gang/terrorist group/NGO/whatever-we-want-to-call-them.

There's the point of who they claim to represent, the idea that they're benevolent to the citizens in their areas of influence, etc., and that's part of what I want to come back to. But football is still on, alas. I just wanted to note 1) okay, yeah, Foot's new and not a saint even though we jumped him the moment he piped up, and 2) Haar speaks the truth about how he's gone about this. Hats off for that.

Dan