RJ:

Is there also quiet diplomacy within the U.N.
The UN is often likened, particularly when referencing Israel, as a typically MidEast shuq - in the latter, you get pushed and shoved, you push and shove, there are pickpockets about, often being kids supposedly only selling bagels or hairpins or kitchen knives or floor rags; have you ever been to such a shuq? you hold your basket in front of you as protection against rikshaw style vendors and in order to wiggle your way through the crowd with something narrower than your hips as the tool for opening up an avenue of movement.... otherwise you are liable to find yourself either standing stock still for ages and getting nowhere, or being swept along with the swarming and pulsing crowd to wherever it is that that greater mass of people is moving at that moment, and finding yourself virtually dumped on a display of produce you had no intention of buying in the first place....as far as I can tell, the answer to your q would be yes, but it seems like it works very much along the lines of shuq with the results being at any point in time, of the same ilk: are the tomatoes today still fresh or already sagging from yesterday's and today's hamseen? ie: is there anyone to talk to? who can produce results? However, MidEasterners love good fresh spices in their food and the best quality produce and will continue seeking until... and so I hope it is acceptable to use such analogies.


and with the Bush administration? to the best of my knowledge, yes


"(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."

'level': the simplest and most obvious: Arab countries saving/losing face within the Arab world. Another, higher: 'gaining' face in the Western world, which leads to footholds in its lucrative markets (and includes huge business concerns owned/managed by...the sworn Jewish enemy (who also include...see next note), but business is business, right? Another, higher: 'gaining' contacts/contracts with the hi-tech world which includes no small number of Jews and....(take a breath) Israelis.
* Re point 2 above especially, lucrative markets is 4way traffic - Europe into Arab markets and vice versa; Europe into European as the strong country able to deal with the Arab markets, and Arab into Arab as the strong country/ies able to make such contact while retaining their public 'face' in the Arab world of not capitulating to ecular / capitalist ideals

"Those of us following the deeper level news"

Is this deeper level news, any of it, available where I can read it?

Hard for me to answer. You could try surfing for a variety of Jewish or Israeli newspapers or indepth study journals produced world wide. Haaretz, an Israeli daily, is not right-oriented but carries a center to left tendency, and has excellent write-ups, reports, editorials etc with relentless critique of Israeli policy. I should imagine it would be hard to follow every single day, without which one definitely misses much, and I do not know if the online version carries the same volume of material as the printed version. The Jerusalem Post is also a good source, and the weekend edition, especially, carries material penned by both known leftists and rightists along with material from external (overseas) sources - Muslims, Christians, who are pro or anti Israeli policy. Because both papers have Arab-affairs reporters who are fluent speakers of Arabic, I find their indepth analyses worth the reading, and very balanced on the whole. Just takes a *&^%$ of time, that's all! http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif . Sorry I can't be more helpful in this regard - I don't use these sites much as I am fluent in Hebrew and can access the original rather than translated editions. I do use them occasionally to double-check that information is being fairly and correctly relayed in comparison to the Hebrew, and as links for others who do not speak Hebrew.

and finally:

Do you know if this kind of activity takes place directly with Hezbollah?
I understand there is contact, through 3rd parties. I do not know of direct contact, which does not mean there is none. In this regard, I can only reference wht seems like eons ago: when Arafat began his rise to fame and was considered the equivalent of Nasrallah in standing, thus direct contact was out of bounds, there was constant indirect contact. This became known when certain Israeli Parliament members, every so often, were 'caught' conducting talks, and having been 'caught', the scope of the talks then became public knowledge. Often, it is not known who leaks the information of such contact and proceedings, and it seems that media leaks like these harm, rather than help, the situation, time then needed for finding and establishing a replacement representative trusted by the 'other side' and able to cary on such activity. Very unsimple. However, this is close to the same process that occurred and led to peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt.... with Abu Mazen etc., and so, one would hope that practice eventually makes perfect, by all parties in the region, no?

hope this helps, but if you need more info PM me....




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

Dan,

Why have you equated me with Kevin again?

And what's this:

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

I've not replied to Foot. I'd like you to edit out any implication that I did.

Go back and look at your own first posts to Gail White and me when we entered this thread. She's an Anti-semite and I'm a Nazi. That was civil? Gail left, in disgust I presume. I probably should have myself, but as usual, the imp of the perverse implores me to persevere.

Shameless O'Clawson



[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited September 09, 2006).]

Sort of an interesting observation: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/st...eronplane.html

... picked from one of two interesting and opinionated websites worth following:
http://www.settingtheworldtorights.com http://angryarab.blogspot.com

------------------

--Svein Olav

Dan,

Thanks for the welcome. I don’t mind the ugliness, it just makes me look pretty, which is no mean feat as I’m as ugly as a house brick. Talking of simplistic notions, it’s interest how quickly certain judgements are made about conservatives whenever they venture into the sheepfold. Of course I’m a Kurtz, a hollow man... oh the horror.

Stephen

My apologies if I made you unwelcome Stephen. I can overreact at times. So I 'jumped ugly' on you, did I? (Interesting expression Dan, thanks for that.)
Of course I extend the same welcome to you as has been extended to me on this forum, and I'm pleased for you that you feel prettier than before.

Now, to your last post. I hope this doesn't seem too ugly, but I find it curious that you should talk of simplistic notions. You have now used the word Conservative. Fair enough, but I wouldn't have branded you one (and certainly wouldn't brand you a Neocon); while you were happy to trot out 'Liberal' in your first post. Simplistic was the word I used in relation to those broad strokes (or Judgements) you were making from the moment you stepped on the Welcome mat. The word still seems to me to be perfectly apt, since your strokes just seem to get broader and broader. On the other hand, any 'judgement' I've made about you relates directly to something you've written (about my 'philosophy' to take just one example).

Of course, I am not certain you are speaking about me at all, but it's clear that you think SOMEone here has 'simplistic notions' about your conservatism and has made 'certain judgements'. I'd be grateful if you could elaborate. Which notions? Which judgements? And why are they simplistic?

Apart from that, please make yourself at home and pop a few cans.

Mark

PS

Nothing horrific about being a hollow man Stephen, or a stuffed man come to that. Both are most welcome here, though straw men are another matter.


[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited September 08, 2006).]

Mark,

You’re right, I ought to at least mention the Lebanese conflict.

I suspect the resent conflict, despite all the hysteria, will prove to be less significant than we imagine at the moment. The real issue is how Israel comes to terms with Hamas, and what the USA does about Syria and Iran.

As far as Hezbollah are concerned, one thing is clear. Their stated goal was to provide Lebanon with security on her southern boarders against any further incursions by Israel. This was a singular failure, and an inevitable one, given the way they armed themselves to do the job. They not only failed to prevent the Israelis from their incursion, they completely misjudged the degree to which Israel would respond to their continued provocations. If their real objective was to widen the conflict, they failed at that as well.

Did Israel achieve her goals? I don’t think it would be in her interest to make that knowledge public; time will tell as to the extent of the damage done to Hezbollah militarily, and politically. It’s too early to make the call.

Was Israel right to respond in the way she did? I’m of the opinion that if an asteroid is heading your way you can’t deflect it by blowing on it. How many more Jewish catastrophes have to happen before enough is enough? Hezbollah’s arsenal of rockets were a massive threat with people just itching to press the button. The purpose of those rockets was to kill as many Jewish non-combatants as possible, not to prevent the devastation brought on in Lebanon.

Stephen

Oh please, don't trot out the "mysterious wisdom" defense. That's a sham used by charlatans for ages, set up so that if anything good turns up, even the completely unexpected, you can cry, "Yes! Yes! That's precisely what we intended! Our magic has worked! Oh, are we not wise!" and if nothing good turns up, an excuse to tell people to shut up, since you're still waiting for signs and portents, and to mumble vaguely about even worse eventualities that were averted by your wise actions.

I think Israel's most obvious goal was to show that you don't mess with Israel, which I'd say was accomplished, though with more blowback than she was expecting.

quote from Shameless

I'd say that targeted raids would suffice, especially if Israeli intelligence ferreted out the rocket launchers and storage sites.

There were two different rocket setups. One reguired a firing and erecting stand and couldn't easily be moved. The Katyushas, on the other hand, were mounted on the backs of flat bed pick up trucks. They employed a "shoot and scoot" strategy. They were not airborne high enough or long enough to get a radar back-track to use a missile to take them out. Some of them were set up in olive groves and fired from timers or cell phones. There were thousands of these missiles.

If you were a general of the IDF how would you fight this kind of assault?

By the way, I've never seen you make an outright condemnation of Hezbullah--you always say (paraphrasing) "I've never condoned--etc."

In the world of Law Silence is considered affirmation of a described action.

Dick

Lo

My best friend is an MD Internist associate professor at UCLA who instructs student doctors on how to do intakes--taking into consideration various ethnic "sensitivities" in order to ferret out genetic information that might have a bearing on what they "present with".

By the way--people who DON'T DRINK do not know if they are alcoholics or not. If there is no genetic component to it--why does it afflict some races far more than others?

Re your statement about religion and people changing from one religion to another as an example of "free will"--it's still a belief in the same God--just wearing a different suit. For me, all religions are metaphors for evolution and God is the assumed end point.

I haven't got time to go through this entire thread but I would bet if one added up the Israel haters and Israel supporters it might be a microcosm of the world at large. In any case I generally side with Israel.

Dick

Do you really believe that was Israel’s ultimate objective?

On what grounds do you base the assertion?

Stephen

Since when is 'I think' an 'assertion'? Please pay a wee bit more heed to the words you use Stephen; it really does grate when you try to score a point by exaggerating someone's original statement.

As for the 'grounds', well they're pretty obvious, aren't they? Massively OTT 'collateral damage'. Sure, the IDF mightn't have listed sending a signal ('Don't F**k With Israel') among its objectives, but surely it's reasonable to suggest the opposite possibility.

[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited September 08, 2006).]

Mark,

Merely saying something you ‘think’ is true is an assertion. It’s the reason why I asked if he really believed it. I was not trying to score points.

Stephen

Mark,

If massive collateral damage was all they wanted to do in order to demonstrate a bit of muscle then they achieved their objective in the first 24 hours. I’m sure Israel’s neighbours already know what they are up against militarily, so what’s the point? Why did the IDF pursue a protracted campaign? Why did they risk the lives of their ground forces?

Stephen

But no one suggested that that demonstration was the ONLY objective, just one of them.

RJ, I guess you're saying you didn't request anything on the history of the region? That's what I said I wanted to talk to you and Kevin about, but I wasn't combing carefully through the last 2 pages of posts to be certain. I thought, in fact, you had referenced historical questions as well. If not, try not to take it too hard that you were mentioned in the same breath. Kevin, if you feel the same way about being mentioned alongside RJ, my apologies to you as well.

I think you meant for me to retract something else as well, as a sort of interpersonal requirement for further discussion, but it ain't gonna happen. Still playing? If not, that's fine.

Again, lots more water under the proverbial bridge again, and I am just not up to it (again.) Maybe tonight.

Thanks,

Dan

PS, Daniel, I am not sure whether you prefer Daniel or Dan, but it occured to me today it may be the former (since, after all, that's your registered name.) Sorry if you read the short form as diminuative. I equate them since people call me Daniel mistakenly all the time, although my actual given name is Dan.

Indeed. Saying "most obvious" is not the same as saying "only" or "sole."

And I base this thought/belief/assertion/what-have-you on the fact that Dan, Lo, Seree and I think any number of others not here on the pro-Israel side have said as much. You can phrase it as "Don't f*ck with Israel!" or as "Credible military deterrent and show of force!" but it really comes to much the same thing, and with the amount of cheering the idea has gotten, I think it's fair to say that it is one of the things Israel hoped to achieve and definitely one that can be said to have been achieved.

And you don't need any mystical mummery to say it.

Kevin,

You’ve back-peddled from the “most obvious goal” to “one of the things”

Make your mind up.

Stephen

Dan,

No offense taken. I usually go by Daniel these days, but people used to mostly call me Dan, and some still do, so whichever is fine. In fact I should thank you for the kind words.

Janet,

Thank you too. I have not heard Barenboim's lectures, but I do appreciate his efforts to bring Jews and Arabs together with music. I may not agree a lot of Edward Said's cultural analyses, but I think his work with Barenboim at least earns him my deep gratitude.


Henrietta,

I think this statement of yours

"and what the hell has this thread proved

That you all given the chance would join in."

is demonstrably untrue. Given that most, if not all of us, could afford a plane ticket and the gun, there is no real barrier to us "joining in". Thus our actions prove that we wouldn't fight just because we can. Q.E.D.

- Daniel

I've heard a couple of his recent 'Reith Lectures'. Beautiful, and absolutely brilliant, a breath of fresh air! They are archived on this site:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2006/

Mark,
I was just about to post the same link. Of course, you were the person who first mentioned them.
Janet

Stephen,

Ahem. The "most obvious goal" is indeed "one of the things." It's not necessarily the same thing as the "most important goal" which is not necessarily the same as the "most desired outcome" which is not necessarily the same as a number of other things.

Israel, as with any country, has goals. The "most obvious" one was one I could put my finger on immediately and thought I wouldn't get much argument about. Except, as it turns out, from you.

Do you equate "obvious" with "important" or "desired" or something?

Kevin

Kevin,

I’m not arguing that Israel did not bomb Southern Lebanon until the rubble bounced. I’m calling on you to make a persuasive case that their ‘obvious goal’ was to demonstrate a credible military deterrent and show of force. I’m still patiently waiting for the answer. Let me tell you a true story.

When I was at Art School back in the 70’s, I had a phone call from my father who rang to let me know my mother was well enough for me to visit her at Westminster Hospital. Someone, I don’t know his name, had cut her throat while she was sleeping. She was in intensive care for six weeks but thankfully she’s a tough old bird and pulled through.

Stephen



[This message has been edited by Stephen Foot (edited September 09, 2006).]

Originally posted by Dick Morgan:

"quote from Shameless

I'd say that targeted raids would suffice, especially if Israeli intelligence ferreted out the rocket launchers and storage sites."

"There were two different rocket setups."

Yes, I know.

"One reguired a firing and erecting stand and couldn't easily be moved."

Yes, for the longer range jobbies. Adequate electronic intelligence could target these.

"The Katyushas, on the other hand, were mounted on the backs of flat bed pick up trucks. They employed a "shoot and scoot" strategy."

Yes, a tactic of the now popular "assymetric warfare."
They were also highly inaccurate, although effective as a terror tactic.

"They were not airborne high enough or long enough to get a radar back-track to use a missile to take them out."

True, but this indicates the fallacy of electronic intelligence being the best for our time. We have our own "stealth" missiles and planes that operate under the radar. "Under the radar" has even reached ordinary conversation. Given such common knowledge, I'd assume that the superior IDF would be able to employ special forces teams for ground reconnaissance, under the radar.

"Some of them were set up in olive groves and fired from timers or cell phones."

Send patrols into, or helicoptors over, the olive groves, or bomb the olive groves, not the farmhouses.

"There were thousands of these missiles."

Yes, but there were also 9,000 Israeli air raids. We may have a wash. Hezbollah launched its greatest flight of rockets on the last day before the cease fire, 250 plus. Something on the Israeli side wasn't working.

"If you were a general of the IDF how would you fight this kind of assault?"

Oops. Jumped the gun. See above.

"By the way, I've never seen you make an outright condemnation of Hezbullah--you always say (paraphrasing) "I've never condoned--etc.""

If you check my posts carefully (or even casually), you'll see that several times I've called them "lunatics" and "morons." I began by indicating my disbelief that they couldn't guess what lay ahead given the history of Israel's retaliations. I think at one point I said, "Arabs prick and Israel hammers."

Since 1948 (only the "modern" history of this specific region) very little has changed regarding the cycle of revenge or retaliation. I may also have said that instead of "tit for tat," it's been "tit for KABOOM!" or something to that effect.

There was, given my previous commentary on this ridiculous situation, a certain irony in my usage of Israel's superior intelligence. It appears to be no better than our own, re Iraq. Do you recall when George Bush claimed to have made his judgement re WMD on good intelligence?

You know, if you swallow how incredibly good the CIA and British intelligence USED to be, especially during the Cold War, our current reliance on electronic intelligence looks almost stupid. Yes, a satellite can read a license plate in a parking lot, but who's talked to the driver?

I'm a great believer in the value of spies, nefarious spooks working the hustings, reporting back in subtle codes. The word from the olive groves, so to speak. But, the U.S. has too few speakers of Arabic and its dialects. I would think that Israel would have thousands of trained spies, at least a brigade of them picking olives in southern Lebanon.

"In the world of Law Silence is considered affirmation of a described action."

I'm sorry, Dick, but I'm not familiar with the term, "Law Silence."

Anyway, I hope I've made my position clear once again. If it seems that I spend too much time writing about Hezbollah to indicate that NOBODY won in this recent engagement, it's only to question those who go to great lengths justifying Israel's action. I considered it an overreaction. I'm not alone in that. Dan spoke of something like world pressure, or world opinion. I'm trying to point out the futility of the destruction of a country in an attempt to wipe out a purportedly radical element within it.

Look at it this way. Hezbollah poked the skunk and got what it should have expected. Isreal may have poked a larger skunk and got surprised. Poking skunks of any size ain't wise.

Shameless O'Clawson



[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited September 09, 2006).]

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"RJ, I guess you're saying you didn't request anything on the history of the region? That's what I said I wanted to talk to you and Kevin about"

Dan, this is disingenuous at best. I was referring to your implication that I was among the group jumping on Foot. I couldn't have made that clearer.

Regarding my asking you for information to back up your assertions in your previous post, where you disputed my critique of Charles Krauthammer, and I answered, I did nothing other than ask you to substantiate claims. That should be a part of normal debate even if the notion of political debate has been thoroughly corrupted by the charades on national television.

I have asked Seree for information regarding sources and she's provided it, given me the opportunity to explore the situation further, not attacked my position. She's not only a trustworthy debator, but also one who could teach me something, ie. enlighten me.

"I thought, in fact, you had referenced historical questions as well."

Who of us has not? However, you stereotyped me as an attacker of Foot to, I suspect, support your own position as a "civil" debator.

"If not, try not to take it too hard that you were mentioned in the same breath."

HOW condescending can you get?

"Kevin, if you feel the same way about being mentioned alongside RJ, my apologies to you as well."

Is this the "tone" you learned from me? Then I should apologize for infecting your normally civil delivery.

"I think you meant for me to retract something else as well,"

No, I just want to be disassociated from being one of those who "jumped ugly" on Foot. However you wish to revise your statement, you owe it to me to expunge my name from that post. I have not in any way abused Mr. Foot.

"as a sort of interpersonal requirement for further discussion, but it ain't gonna happen. Still playing? If not, that's fine."

Oh, you bet I'm still "playing." Your "Nazi," is relentless. Gail White may have dropped out, but I'm psyched.

Bob




[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited September 09, 2006).]

Bob,

I’m glad to see the debate has moved back to the nub of the problem, namely, “the futility of the destruction of a country in an attempt to wipe out a purportedly radical element within it”.

I made the point to Kevin that it’s too early to say if this was a succes, whether we are party to all the facts or not. To say this is a charlatan’s ruse is fallacious. Hezbollah will, of course, play up its successes, and in a limited incursion such as Israel’s, it does her goals no good to crow about a situation they must one day leave to others.

What is clear is that Hezbollah no longer fire rockets into Israeli suburbs, the IDF are still in Southern Lebanon, the Lebanese have ordered their ‘legitimate’ army South, the UN are, in their usual style, cobbling a force together that may make a difference this time.

Stephen

Sorry, I double posted.

[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited September 09, 2006).]

Posted by Dan H.

"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 have a thing about length. I've heard too many denigrations of Robert Fisk's truncated statements without hearing any discussion of his comprehensive reporting in his over 1,000-page book. I suspect that Fisk's tome is too much of a challenge for busy people to read in order to gain greater knowledge of the region. I've heard no one criticize his BOOK. Unlike the quick read, "Revelations," his doesn't sound like an LSD trip. It's wonderfully enlightening.

So, it bugs me to read and try to parse long rationalizations of a generally obvious event: the destruction of Lebanon.

"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."

Remember Sergeant Friday: "Just the facts, Sir"?
They will do. Friday didn't say, "Just the logic, Mam."

"...from case A to case B to case C there are a world of differences, and getting at them can take some verbiage."

Reconsider "a world." Think of yourself as a journalist with a deadline and column-length discipline. You come off more as a preacher or antagonist. In formal debates, you'd have to speak against the clock.

"The mideast is a thicket."

Agreed.

"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."

Well, that's okay. So, I didn't. You shouldn't take that personally: I was knocking Krauthammer. When people knock Fisk, I ask if they've read him, that's all.

I meant no disrespect, by the way, in calling him Charles. I'd find typing out his full name, each instance, tedious and contrary to being pithy.

I have, myself, gone to great length in several of my posts. In my earlier posts, which I thought appropriately brief regarding enlightenment, I got called for being too cavalier, even preppy, as I recall. So, as you've probably noted, I've begun to take on your arguments point by point, which seems to be the only way to cope with the sheer volume of assertions, the lessons in logic, the implications that other members on this board don't read or can't possibly understand the Middle East.

I had an argument with a friend in the Foreign Service, who tried to shoot me down with, "But, Bob, I was THERE." And I countered with, "Well what did you learn?" And he fell stymied. I don't know why that happened to him. I do know that it doesn't happen to writers paid to report from the warfronts. So, I read the guys who are there and feel that I'm SEEKING information whereas Charles Krauthammer is a columnist with a thinly disguised agenda. He is not what Rush Limbaugh or other conservatives would called a member of the Liberal, biased press.

Do I feel that Charles Krauthammer may be, because he lives in D. C., better informed than I. Probably so, but that doesn't make him any more of a straight shooter than Dick Cheney.

So much for length. I've writ to long.

Bob

Bob, I haven't much time this morning either. School to catch up to, guests in town this weekend, and yes, more football tomorrow/Monday, if I'm lucky - so I'm going to try to dispose of this as quickly as possible:

On RJ Clawson's Non-Jumping-Ugly on Stephen Foot:

My actual post says:

You guys jumped ugly on...

My post says this several paragraphs after the point where I mentioned you, Kevin, myself, and Lo specifically, in regards to the entirely different subject of pending discussions.

Where I learned to speak and write English, beginning a new thought or case is a function of paragraph breaks.

To clarify, since we did not all learn the same rule:

You guys means anybody who personally went after Foot. "by extention we guys" means that I personally did not do so, but included myself because I know I've been seen as uncivil, which, if true, lowered the level of debate. I stipulate to this being true, so we can all become more civil and move on. This is, in fact, just what it purports to be -- a general urging not to attack Foot on sight, and a plea for general civility,
not a personal slight against R.J. Clawson.

Any who are able to read the post urging civility, as a personal urging to RJ Clawson in particular, are way, way off the mark in that reading.

As regards my "chasing off" of Gail White:

Contrary to the notion I "chased off" this individual, in the sole post I recall directing toward Gail White, I told her that she had good points; she had in fact made half of my point for me, to wit, her point that Israel should be judged by the standard of other nations.

I then went on to make points regarding "detractors" [of Israel,] again, doing this in a separate paragraph, and not identifying Gail as a detractor of Israel either implicitly or explicitly.

As regards my personal use of "Nazi"
I really have to look back for longer than I have right now, to see if I ever claimed knowledge that you or others here are members of Nazi parties.

I did, however, make the charge of anti-Semitism against those who insist Jews be evaluated differently from non-Jews, or that a Jewish state should not use Jewish symbols, while Christian and Muslim states should, use Christian and Muslim symbols, etc. This was, of course, in reply to people who made anti-Semitic cases. You, Bob Clawson, decided to identify yourself as an anti-Semite, and apparently you see nothing wrong with that. To wit:

From the looks of things, I believe you think that including both Arabs and Jews among the targets of your anti-Semitism somehow lessens the import of making such a statement.

I remind you of this proclamation to help you sort out why people call you anti-Semitic. As to your membership in any Nazi party, you will need to clarify that for us; all I can clarify is that I have no knowledge of your membership in such a party, only that I know you to agree with many of the founding principals of the original Nazi party, and several subsequently formed neo-Nazi groups. Although all Nazis are anti-Semites, however, all anti-Semites are not Nazis, and if I have actually specified your membership in one or another such party erroneously based on your anti-Semitism, I deeply regret the overgeneralization.

Thanks,

Dan

Originally posted by Stephen Foot:

"Bob,

I’m glad to see the debate has moved back to the nub of the problem, namely, “the futility of the destruction of a country in an attempt to wipe out a purportedly radical element within it”."

Did I write that? If so, perhaps I should edit out "purportedly." Except among 35% of the Lebanese population, the Shiites, I think a good many of the Christian, Sunni, and Druze may have found Hezbollah "radical". They may also have been afraid because Hezbollah had won sixteen seats in the parliament and been appointed two cabinet posts, a good bit of power in a small, "democratic" country. Threatening, in fact.

I'm not sure how it now stands. I've read that Lebanese who were normally irritated by Hezbollah's posture, were horrified by Israel's heavy-duty response to the capture of two soldiers and killing of eight along a disputed border. But I find it difficult to understand why neither Hezbollah nor other Lebanese would be surprised by the response.

"I made the point to Kevin that it’s too early to say if this was a succes, whether we are party to all the facts or not."

I agree. To hear either side call it "Victory" disturbs me.

"To say this is a charlatan’s ruse is fallacious."

Sorry, I'm not picking up on this. Did I say something about a "charlatan's ruse"?

"Hezbollah will, of course, play up its successes,"

Yes, of course. When have any Arab groups stalled the IDF? They'll milk it.

"and in a limited incursion such as Israel’s,"

Unless you're speaking about just the ground troops in the south, I wouldn't call this a "limited incursion." The general bombing displaced 25% of the Lebanese. The country is pretty much destroyed. There's no way that "limited incursion" describes the breadth of Israel's response. They cut off Lebanon and bombed it with 9,000 air raids on strategic and civilian targets. That shouldn't be called an incursion.

"it does her goals no good to crow about a situation they must one day leave to others."

Sorry, but who do you mean by "her." If you're picking a side, consider this, every war "Must one day leave to others." Consider the cost of our own current wars. Who's going to pay for them? They're currently on the U. S. administration's credit card. Pity the poor Democrats if they win. Where will they get the money to pay for the Republican wars? Opium from Afghanistan? Oil from Iraq? No, it will have to come from American taxpayers. And guess, when the debt comes due, who's going to be blamed?

"What is clear is that Hezbollah no longer fire rockets into Israeli suburbs, the IDF are still in Southern Lebanon, the Lebanese have ordered their ‘legitimate’ army South, the UN are, in their usual style, cobbling a force together that may make a difference this time."

Yes, that's clear. As is usually the case with such limited clarities, however, some things have been omitted. The Lebanese of today will be no happier with the IDF in southern Lebanon, than the Lebanese of, say, 1988. The 'legitimate' army definitely deserves the quotation marks. It's about as strong and disciplined as several other proxy armies, such as the Iraqi army...and, are you old enough to remember the ARVN?

And what of the million displaced Lebanese? Let's call them what they now are, refugees. They're always a happy bunch. When you say that the U.N. force may make a difference this time, are you being ironic? Lebanon, as it suffers through its effort to rebuild its infrastructure, its economy, and its homes, will eventually seeth with the desire for revenge. As Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad grew out of conflict, so will newer groups, another generation of "freedom fighters" or whatever their parents take pride in calling them.

Sorry, but I don't find any winners now, and I see a pretty bleak future. I hate to be so pessimistic, but I feel the same way about Iraq. You know, Colin Powell's "You break it, you own it" rings so true to me. Such a simple thing to understand. Storefront logic.

Bob

Bob,

A quick response to your informative comments:

In all of Israel’s many conflicts not one of them was engaged with the intent to bring peace to the region. They were either a response to military aggression, or a pre-emptive strike when her enemies had pushed the stakes too high. Israel goes to war when her citizen’s are being killed, or their lives are threatened. However, this is not to say that on some of those occasions Israel baulks at exploiting her advantage. These conflicts are never waged in the belief that it’s possible to wipe out all opposition in an horrendous bloodbath, they are waged in order to prevent, or limit Jewish casualties. Each time a conflict ends it’s Israel’s hope that negotiations my bring a long-term peace, sometimes it even works.

I’m supposed to be decorating my mother in-law’s bedroom so please excuse the brief comment.

Stephen

Clawson-

In your answer to my question about how you would fight the war you simply said see above. How do you get humint on a moving pickup truck full of rockets. I think, while you're highly crtical of IDF you don't have a clue how to fight the war.

Calling Hezbullahs idiots and morons says they are both mentally impaired which is the usual excuse liberals drag out for career criminals--they had a bad childhood or they were retarded---it is dimunition of the crime for your own political agenda.

Hezbullah builds its undeground ammo dumps beneath hospitals and schools--either way they win the PR battle.

On your comment about Colin Powell's "You break it you bought it." re Iraq. I agree a hundred percent. I don't think Bush's headlights reach far enough.

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"On RJ Clawson's Non-Jumping-Ugly on Stephen Foot:

My actual post says:

You guys jumped ugly on...

My post says this several {two, Sir} paragraphs after the point where I mentioned you, Kevin, myself, and Lo specifically, in regards to the entirely different subject of pending discussions.

Where I learned to speak and write English, beginning a new thought or case is a function of paragraph breaks.

To clarify, since we did not all learn the same rule:

You guys means anybody who personally went after Foot. "by extention we guys" means that I personally did not do so, but included myself because I know I've been seen as uncivil, which, if true, lowered the level of debate. I stipulate to this being true, so we can all become more civil and move on. This is, in fact, just what it purports to be -- a general urging not to attack Foot on sight, and a plea for general civility,
not a personal slight against R.J. Clawson.

Any who are able to read the post urging civility, as a personal urging to RJ Clawson in particular, are way, way off the mark in that reading."

Here's the context, Dan.

"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.)"

Bob is named and "all" includes "Bob."

"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 . I know that could mean I'm just throwing support to the guy who threw his support my way."

"But" connects the two paragraphs. "Add" also connects to the previous paragraph, adding to the discussion of "recent history" between Kevin, Bob, and Dan the "random scattered thought." This is not a separation of "entirely different" thoughts. They're clearly connected by "but" and "add." The author tries to mask the connections with "random scattered."

Also, note the "some here," the Reganesque use of the "understood" pronoun. It's similar to Bush rhetoric, "there are those who...yada yada."

"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!"

Once again, "But" connects the paragraphs. Who can "you guys" refer to if not to Kevin and Bob who are included in the "all"? Who else (exceptiing Lo) to this point (aside from the "we guys" who are parenthetical) has been mentioned in these connecting paragraphs? AND, as "all" included Bob, so does "totally."

These are not independent paragraphs, they're progressive parts of a plea.

"Come on?" Bob looked back at the posts addressed to Foot and found none from Bob.

Respectfully, for your consideration, from Bob, who, incidentally, also went to school.

PS: You write, "Where I learned to speak and write English...." Where was that? You write cleverly.

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"As regards my "chasing off" of Gail White:

Contrary to the notion I "chased off" this individual, in the sole post I recall directing toward Gail White, I told her that she had good points; she had in fact made half of my point for me, to wit, her point that Israel should be judged by the standard of other nations.

{Yes, that's correct. But she also made a clear distinction between a political and a moral entity. You borrow half of what she said, but you don't appear to have absorbed the full intent of her post, especially regarding the woman who left the synagogue.}

I then went on to make points regarding "detractors" [of Israel,] again, doing this in a separate paragraph, and not identifying Gail as a detractor of Israel either implicitly or explicitly."

{Yes, that distinction is much clearer than in your previous discussion of paragraph breaks.}

First citing Gail, here's what you wrote:


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gail White:
A general comment:

Israel today has the same problem it has had ever since the Jews asked the prophet Samuel to give them a king. When a people becomes "a nation like the nations", it must expect to be treated as a political entity and not as a sacred entity whose acts are beyond moral criticism.

A poet friend once told me that she left the synagogue when the issue of Israel began to override everything else. Her comment was, "God doesn't do real estate."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very well-put, Gail. And an obvious logical concommitant is, Israel must be expected to be considered by her actions, as are other nations, and Israel must be expected to consider, first and foremost, the wellbeing of Israelis, just as America considers first the wellbeing of Americans, and Britain considers first the wellbeing of Britons.

However, Israel attempts to consider the wellbeing of populations "represented" by her adversaries in every conflict.

{Warning: Gail said, "a political entity and not as a sacred entity whose acts are beyond moral criticism." I'm not sure you read her correctly, especially regarding the woman who left the synagogue. The "However" now places Israel on a higher moral perch, distinguishing it from America and Britain.}

Now then, for the detractors here:

Please explain to me where an American or a Briton has the right to criticize the Israeli response

{Precisely because it's a political entity, as Gail said.}
to real and sustained provocations within Israel, for which credit was claimed specifically by the individuals against which Israel is currently retaliating. Someone explain that, and in the process tell me how it was better for Britain and America to launch a 3-year excursion in Iraq for no reason that did not break down under examination. Someone explain how the 300 Lebanese who have died are more important than the tens of thousands of Iraqis, or had less right to live.

{Who said it was better? Gail made no mention of it.}

Is the answer that you, personally, are against the Iraq war as well?

{This is a strictly rhetorical question, yes? }

Then please, please enlighten me as to why every other country on the face of the Earth has the rights I enumerated in previous posts, for example, the right to pursue a group in "hot pursuit" if they are using territory outside the sovereign control of a nation, from which to wage terrorist attacks. Why is that principal okay within the "rules of war" and "just war theory" -- until we reach the Israeli case?

{Well, every other country on the face of the earth hasn't the rights you mention. Some countries are occupied by other countries or oppressed in a way that makes the point moot.}

I know I can get persistent on this subject, but the double standard has always struck me as ludicrous, and born of political faddism if not (oh no! The "a" word!) Antisemitism.

Why must Israel be judged other than how other nations must be judged?"

It shouldn't. It should be judged as a political entity. Its policies are open for criticism, just as are those of America and Britain. People all over the world pass judgments on the policies of America. When it comes to criticism of a political entity, there's no free lunch.

I grant that you did not directly or by implication call Gail antisemitic. Not that I agree with your argument. Don't get excited.

Bob

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"As regards my personal use of "Nazi"
I really have to look back for longer than I have right now, to see if I ever claimed knowledge that you or others here are members of Nazi parties."

Here, I'll help you: "You {Kevin} and RJ have a good time together at the next wine-and-cheese-cross-burning, or whatever it is you do at the local poet nazi gathering."

"You, Bob Clawson, decided to identify yourself as an anti-Semite, and apparently you see nothing wrong with that."

Nothing. My position has been consistent. I think both the Arabic Semites and the Jewish Semites are behaving badly. Besides, I knew I'd be called antisemitic sooner or later, so I just wanted to get it out of the way. Call me Cumbaya. Call me Ismael. I don't care. I don't feel like a demon. I don't live like a demon.
Kevin does.

"From the looks of things, I believe you think that including both Arabs and Jews among the targets of your anti-Semitism somehow lessens the import of making such a statement."

I should hope so. The statement is so frequently flung about that I have no respect for whatever it's intended to mean. Mostly, to me, it means, "Gotcha!" But I don't find that useful.

"I remind you of this proclamation to help you sort out why people call you anti-Semitic."

Well hardly anyone ever has, actually.

"As to your membership in any Nazi party, you will need to clarify that for us..."

Certainly. I belong to no Nazi party.

"I know you to agree with many of the founding principals of the original Nazi party, and several subsequently formed neo-Nazi groups."

Good lord, are you sober?

Originally posted by Dick Morgan:

"In your answer to my question about how you would fight the war you simply said see above."

Sorry about that Dick, I got ahead of myself and started answering your question too early.

"How do you get humint on a moving pickup truck full of rockets."

Beats me. I don't know what "humint" means. I was done with my service quite a while ago. I'm an old fart.

"I think, while you're highly crtical of IDF you don't have a clue how to fight the war."

You're right, but they're such an easy target.

"Calling Hezbullahs idiots and morons says they are both mentally impaired which is the usual excuse liberals drag out for career criminals--they had a bad childhood or they were retarded---it is dimunition of the crime for your own political agenda."

Naw. I called the Israelis the same. Nothing of a political agenda in that. But I think you have me on your first point. I do think they're having bad childhoods.

"Hezbullah builds its undeground ammo dumps beneath hospitals and schools--either way they win the PR battle."

Maybe they're not morons. That sounds pretty shrewd. But I still think it's looney to piss off Israel. Don't mess with Billy Budd.

Shameless O'Clawson

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"As regards my personal use of "Nazi"
I really have to look back for longer than I have right now, to see if I ever claimed knowledge that you or others here are members of Nazi parties."

Here, I'll help you: "You {Kevin} and RJ have a good time together at the next wine-and-cheese-cross-burning, or whatever it is you do at the local poet nazi gathering."

"You, Bob Clawson, decided to identify yourself as an anti-Semite, and apparently you see nothing wrong with that."

Nothing. My position has been consistent. I think both the Arabic Semites and the Jewish Semites are behaving badly. Besides, I knew I'd be called antisemitic sooner or later, so I just wanted to get it out of the way. Call me Cumbaya. Call me Ismael. I don't care. I don't feel like a demon. I don't live like a demon.
Kevin does.

"From the looks of things, I believe you think that including both Arabs and Jews among the targets of your anti-Semitism somehow lessens the import of making such a statement."

I should hope so. The statement is so frequently flung about that I have no respect for whatever it's intended to mean. Mostly, to me, it means, "Gotcha!" But I don't find that useful.

"I remind you of this proclamation to help you sort out why people call you anti-Semitic."

Well hardly anyone ever has, actually.

"As to your membership in any Nazi party, you will need to clarify that for us..."

Certainly. I belong to no Nazi party.

"I know you to agree with many of the founding principals of the original Nazi party, and several subsequently formed neo-Nazi groups."

Good lord, are you sober?

Bob,

Small point, but pertinent to your stance in this debate.

According to the Israeli military they made 7,000 air strikes. You failed to qualify your data which in this debate is crucial. 3,699 Hezbollah rockets have landed in Israel (same source).

Stephen

Join me if you will, and share your favorite poetry from the Peoples of the Book here , over in the Musing on Mastery forum. Of course we could argue until Judgment Day, but I think it would be more enjoyable spending that time with poetry and song, which are truly gifts of God. Maybe too some appreciation of the similarities of warring cultures will help us to transcend divisions which some times seem eternal.

I take it that you, Mr. Clawson, both embrace your anti-Semitism, and virulently oppose Nazi organizations. So again, I stand corrected. Bob Clawson is anti-Semitic; the Nazis are also anti-Semitic; it does not, however, follow that Bob Clawson is a Nazi, merely that he is an anti-Semite. Other aspects of Nazism must be repellent to Clawson.

Having never suggested that Japethite genes or culture were resposible for the first or second world wars, I can not condone your attitude that, since Semites are involved in armed conflicts, they are therefore stupider than other peoples. But I understand that you think this, and that you consider yourself an anti-Semite, despite all justifications and elaborations, and all the proudly ignored opportunities to correct that impression, were it in fact a mistaken one.

It is good to know what one is dealing with. Clawson is an anti-Semite; fine. With expectations utterly through the floor at this point, I'll not hope for much from that quarter. http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif

As for "demonizing" you, Mr. Clawson, I see no reason to, were I even of a mind to engage in that sort of thing (which I am not). You show yourself to exhibit many of the traits I'd need to "foist upon you" to create a demon, and you publicly embrace those traits. Were I seeking to demonize you, the work would already be done for me.


And yes, I am very, very sober.

Dan

Bob,

I've noticed 2 or 3 times in my occasional visits to this thread that you profess "anti-Semitism"; and here you interpret this as representing your belief that "both the Arabic Semites and the Jewish Semites are behaving badly." This is a curiously provocative exercise in language-twisting by one who has tried to focus discussions on public abuses of language. In current usage, the term "anti-Semitism" denotes a prejudice against Jews, not against Jews & Arabs -- and not against what Jews are doing at the moment, but against what Jews inherently are. That is the current meaning of the term, as you no doubt are aware, a meaning which extends ultimately to the murderous racism of the Nazis. How thrilling for you, then, to paint yourself with such a terrible word, while, as it were, having your fingers crossed behind your back. That you disagree with both Arab and Israeli policies in the present Middle East would be no big deal -- "fools on both sides!" is one of Shakespeare's more durable lines -- but to name this position "anti-Semitic" & thus invite the odium which this term inevitably provokes seems perverse. Yeah, we get the point -- Arabs & Jews are both "Semitic." But the "ism" in "anti-Semitism" was never meant to apply to a contingent political position: "ism"s always imply absolutes (even in the case of "relativism").

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think your conceit of being "anti-Semitic" is in very bad taste. I guess you were trying to stir the pot. But some words have too much historical weight to be treated so lightly.