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