Hi Dan, thanks again for answering my queries so thoroughly. I won't attempt to take issue with everything you've said. Frankly, I am simply am not well-read enough to do it justice. You have now addressed my hypothetical 'what if' and I see where you're coming from. Fair enough. But Israel's tactics still seem to me to be OTT. Let me just take one of your points:

I am not going to quote Fisk again, but one of the points he made was that it isn't Syria that is getting pounded, but Lebanon, which is, comparitively, a soft target. He seems to think that Lebanese civilians are getting punished for the actions of Hezbollah, and it could be read that way, couldn't it? The capture (and later killing) of Israeli soldiers was certainly provocative, but hasn't Israel committed provocations in the not-so-distant past? Maybe it hasn't. Maybe Israel has been a model of restraint.

And what does Israel actually hope to achieve? The dismantlement of Hezbollah? Then that's presumably going to take a LOT more civilian deaths, if it's achievable at all. Or does the Israeli government hope to turn the Lebanese against Hezbollah? Seems to be having the opposite effect though, doesn't it? And here there ARE similarities with Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan and all those other 'theatres' where a superior army felt that all that was needed was an aggressive show of force.

But I am getting tired of the 'sound' of my own voice. I really don't have much more to say; my pennysworth is exhausted. I just hope the killing stops, soon.

Best,

Mark

[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited August 05, 2006).]

Dan,

Why is Lebanon an "it" here while Israel is continually and relentlessly a "she" or in this paragraph a "good neighbor"?

Unless you meant the second as sarcasm, I'll have to say that with "good neighbors" like that, who needs bad ones? And as for the rest, continually referring to Israel as "she" but slipping up and calling Lebanon "it" after being called on it by Mark looks to me like either subconscious prejudice or conscious spin, or perhaps some combination of both.

Reread your earlier posts in this thread. Note how many times you used the female pronoun for Israel, and how you didn't use it all for Lebanon until Mark called you on it.


http://www.jewishpress.com/UploadedI.../450sabra1.jpg

“Loving is a way of knowing, and for loving to know, it must personify”.

- James Hillman, Re-Visioning Psychology, p 15.


Think of anything you love, and see how naturally you tend to personify that thing.

The interesting thing for me is why some nations personify their lands as the "mother land" and others (as do the Germans) as the "father land."

How bankrupt is your argument, Kev? Sheesh.

Fine. I'll quote my own post to refute this latest ruse:

By my count, that's one use of "its" used in relation to Lebanon, and one use of "her". Oddly, unless I'm missing something, I have made no personified reference to Israel in this post.

You're doing a much better job of showing the depths of your own bias, not to mention desperation, than of showing me to be fatally biased.

I would like to conclude the argument from pronouns now, if it's all the same to you... unless that's all that's left to defend the "Evil Israel" hypothesis.

Dan

(Edited to include this reply for Mark...)

There's a theory that the Aesir and Vanir of Norse Mythology represented two peoples, one patriarchic and warlike, and the other more of a fertility cult. Of course, since they warred on one another, you have to figure the fertility cult could hold its own (or am I required to say her own?) as well. I'm not sure how the Norse deities (especially the Vanir) tied into Hitler's mind, but he did insist that the Bismark be referred to as "he", despite all naval tradition to the contrary (even in regard to ships named for men.) Germany was a "fatherland," Stalin's Russia was the "motherland," and we simply avoid the issue by having the "homeland."

To quote Bill Belichick, it is what it is. http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/wink.gif

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited August 05, 2006).]

Mark (Granier),

If you are tired of your own voice, I can only imagine how tired this forum is of mine.

Your final point -- what this is meant to accomplish -- is far from lost on me. I did not set out in this forum to unequivocally say this is the smartest thing to do, from Israel's point of view. That is why I have tried to contain myself on the point of strategic/tactical wisdom.

I think what we are seeing is the "Olmert Doctrine," a correlary to the "Sharon Doctrine." To wit: Sharon believed that unilateral withdrawl would be more in the interests of Israel than either endless peace (dis)agreements, or endless occupation.

Sharon's solution was unilateral withdrawl. But Olmert has a problem: the "wimp factor." That is to say, although he served in the IDF like everybody else, he doesn't have Sharon's war record (whatever you may think of it.) That is, one feature of Sharon's unilateral disengagement, is reserving the right to unilaterally re-engage if attacked (or, as I've tried to explain here, the basic right of self-defense.)

Olmert may percieve himself as having more than Sharon to prove; Olmert may feel unilateral disengagement is doomed, unless Israel shows that terrorism will not be tolerated as a feature of disengagement. I think Olmert coordinated this action with the U.S. ahead of time, but that is only my own personal read; I have no proof.

We'll see the results. I do believe that the nation of Lebanon is between a rock and a hard place -- actually, between Iran and a hard place -- and her citizens are suffering for their leaders' sins. But Lebanon is also a democracy, one made up of several pluralities and no majority. So yes, Mark, it is possible that Israel prefers a Lebanon in constant internal crisis, to one menacing her own borders.

Finally, your other point is not lost on me either; if you're right, and Hezbollah simply emerges with the full support of all parties in Lebanon...

Well, then, starstruck Israelophile that I am, I will claim that Israel has succeeded where France, the UN, Syria, and Lebanon's own fractious communities have failed. To wit, she will have made a cohesive nation out of Lebanon.

Dan

Prudent listening: -

Kevin,

Using fictitional names, here is more or less what I here on all major newstations these days:

Susan Slathers: Hello, I'm (note the casual tone) Suze (note the casual tone - usage of the familiar) Slathers for (insert name of media concern) in (insert city) studio. We'd like to go over to Robert Blathers, our correspondent in the Mideast, for the latest update. Well, (casual) Bob,(familiar usage, casual) latest reports advise that.....

Robert: Well, Suze, yes, there's been heavy shelling here and....
------
To me, it all sounds, well, so non-newsy and casual, like, well, friends chatting as they prepare food together in the kitchen, rather than informing of serious world events.
-----
Now, what was it exactly you found distasteful?




[This message has been edited by Seree Zohar (edited August 06, 2006).]

I expect a higher standard from government spokespeople than I do from television news presenters. Moreover, while it is bad enough to see an elected official bungle public speaking, making you dislike a country more than you would otherwise (ie. "They are tasty fishes"), it's utterly inexcusable to see such a thing from a press secretary or other individual appointed solely for their ability to deal with the press and the public. It speaks to disdain, incompetence or both--if this is the best person they could dig up for a press secretary, how bad are their other appointments?

Besides which, it's not as if public speaking were a new art.

When announcing grave news, such as the death of a child, one should:
A. Smile and maintain a bright, cheery expression, as if this were happy news.
B. Speak in a dull, bored, listless monotone.
C. Present a grave, solemn, respectful demeanor, as one might at a graveside or funeral service.
D. Wail, weep and rend your veils. If you have no veils to rend, purchase some for this purpose.

Israel's chosen spokeperson chose A instead of C. This is what I found distasteful. It's the verbal equivalent of sending a birthday card in place of a sympathy card, and she did it in front of the entire world.

[This message has been edited by Kevin Andrew Murphy (edited August 06, 2006).]

Kevin -
perhaps it is time to stop judging by your (personal &/or californian &/or american) standards; perhaps it's time to allow for cross cultural differences, proficiency in language notwithstanding; perhaps it is time for a little less nitpicking on the small issues, (her facial movements and intonation), time for a little more tolerance (of which americans are so proud), and a bit more overall viewing of the really big issues?

I could, without looking too hard, find footage of leaders of state (Ahmedinjan, for starters) grinning with glee over the loss of human life (or does such loss, in Israel, have lesser value? even when it is quite a number of otherwise peaceful Arab villages in Israel, that were badly hit over Saturday?)

Somehow I am on the posting list of "Tikkun".
This story headed their list this morning:

5,000 rally in Tel Aviv against Lebanon conflict
By Yuli Kromchenko and Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondents, and Reuters

More than 5,000 people marched in Tel Aviv on Saturday evening, to protest the ongoing Israel Defense Forces operation in Lebanon. Demonstrators set off from Dizengoff Street and marched along King George Street, which was closed to traffic, calling for an end to the conflict and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon, and denouncing Defense Minister Amir Peretz.

They keep telling us that Israelis are one hundred per cent behind the military action. This at least calls that version of things into serious question.
Janet

I don't know who "they" is, but I am not at all surprised that 5,000 people, a little less than a tenth of a percent of Israel's population, protest this action. In fact, I'm surprised it's that few, and it took this long. Israel is a democracy, after all. Anybody telling you that there's 100% agreement on any subject in any democracy, is likely describing an election in a communist -- or perhaps Baathist -- state http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif

Dan

Seree--

Unfortunately, that way lies the path of extreme cultural relativism. If you judge a society only by its own values, disregarding all others, you must only conclude that everything's spiffy, even if that includes what you would define as murder, rape, torture and a whole gift assortment of various forms of repression.

I reserve the right to cluck my tongue and sniff disapprovingly at any country, including my own, which does not match my personal/Californian/American-as-I-and-my-friends-define it values.

Besides which, those values are "really big issues." Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. I can't claim originality in holding those as American, Californian or even personal values, but there they are.

Three dozen children dead? That goes right there under "Life." If someone comes out and offers formal words of sorrow and regret but the words do not match the facial expression, my conclusion is that that person is either an empty suit or a sociopath and possibly both.

Please, by all means, link to them. I think Ahmedinjan is a religious nutjob, but the upsetting thing is the past couple weeks, all I've seen in the way of pull quotes from him are requests for economic boycotts and assorted other arrows from the diplomat's quiver.

As for value of human life, I use the fairly common calculus of valuing civilians over soldiers and children over adults. Apart from that, the only way lives in my book have lesser value is if less of them are being lost.

[This message has been edited by Kevin Andrew Murphy (edited August 06, 2006).]

It took me all of 5 minutes to find something I would not call an "arrow from the diplomat's quiver:"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060803/...ea/iran_israel

He goes on and on, as always. I don't have the time to find you other examples within your chosen time frame, (again -- and senselessly -- Ahmadinejad must have acted evilly within the last two weeks for consideration!) but I don't doubt these examples can be had.

It is refreshing, however, that the argument for hating Israel has moved on. We have now abandoned the argument from just war theory, the argument from fraudulent history, the argument from illegitimate ("non-semitic") peoplehood, and the argument from opponents' use of pronouns.

We have arrived now at the argument from sound bite aesthetics. An Israeli spokesperson -- who, because she is Israeli and female, is a "spokeswench" -- did not, to your unbiased eye, emote appropriately upon expressing national condolences.

But there’s hope. At the end of your last post, we came back around to this:

This is the nut of the issue I think. Israel is at war with the terrorists next door, trying to root them out of their strongholds, despite the fact that they use the local population as human shields – and despite the fact that they do so knowing Kevin Andrew Murphy will not consider this fact.

This is a complaint against war in general, Kevin, not against Israel. We’ve established already, over and over, that Israel has the right to go to war. And now that Israel is at war, a few considerations have to come into play when judging her combat tactics:

1) Is Israel trying to hit non-combatants?
a. Israel’s actions show the contrary.
b. Hezbollah glories in civilian casualties, based on a martyrdom theory
c. Various other media reports point to Hezbollah complicity (speaking of crocodile tears.) For example, the Qana raid was seven hours before the collapse of the house.

2) Hezbollah has shown several traits that combine to call into question this specific complaint against Israel (that is, that Israel is a “bad actor” in bello):
a. Hezbollah’s own tactics maximize, rather than minimize, carnage among common Lebanese.
b. Hezbollah has shown itself, on a number of occasions, to be an extremely media-savvy organization.
c. Inconsistencies – such as the Qana timing, the “sickbed interviews” in what local Lebanese call an “empty” hospital, etc. – suggest that there is a good deal of “staging” and “magnification” going on. This goes directly to the argument that a life is “only worth more if more lives are lost.” One clip showed what seemed to be the same man mourning what seemed to be the same dead child, in two distinct “Israeli attacks,” for instance.

3) Israel does everything possible to limit casualties among Israeli civilians, as well as among Lebanese civilians. This influences the Argument from Body Count. You cannot build a building in Israel – nor could you, for many years – without one or more designated bomb shelter(s). Why? Because of the belligerence of her neighbors. Through the logic of victimhood, Israel must therefore be in the wrong. In a limited and unintended way, this argument, from an Israeli perspective, comes down to "die as a victim, or live as a “ghoul,”" since more Lebanese are dying than Israelis.

The human toll of this war on Lebanon’s people is not trivial to Israelis or supporters of Israel (I cannot say the same of Hezbollah). The fact is, though, this toll did not arise in a vacuum, and is almost certainly being magnified for media consumption, much in the manner of the non-existent Jenin “massacre” a few years ago.

Does it seem strange to you that Lebanon has come out against the US/French-suggested cease-fire?

The argument, of course, is that the cease-fire “favors Israel.”

It strikes me that the cease-fire would preserve the lives of these innocents, regardless of your perception of “advantage” and “disadvantage.” It would also provide another opportunity to remove the non-combatants from the area, if not to create permanent [sic] peace. Lebanon has announced publicly she has no sovereignty over her territory – now she puts her sovereignty over the wellbeing of her people???

I did not see an Israeli complaint against the cease-fire, although that doesn’t mean one won’t come. But since Lebanon expresses no interest in her sovereignty, but only in the loss of her civilians, how can Lebanon have an issue with a cessation of hostilities?

But then, removing non-combatants does favor Israel, doesn’t it? After all, you cannot have an outcry against the killing of civilians, if they all get away.

Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah’s funding-source, even favored a peace-fire – at least, five days ago. Now that one is available, I wonder if he finds its form insufficiently pro-Hezbollah.

Dan

Who 'established' this? As I said, Israel certainly had the right to respond, but it is HOW Israel responded initially that, as you agreed earlier, is the nub of the problem. And here, I am afraid, there will probably be no meeting of the twain. You have decided, I think, that Israel had absolutely no other realistic option other than to attack Gaza, even though it must have been obvious that such an action would escalate a very dangerous situation, and that civilian deaths would inevitably be the consequence. Other people on this thread and elsewhere (many Israelis among them I imagine) probably find this initial action, and the heavy-handed escalation thereafter, hard to stomach. This doesn't mean they hate Israel and/or Jews, or that they wish to see the 'Zionist' homeland wiped off the map. After all, plenty of Jewish people have taken issue with Israel's recent actions (remember that petition?). It doesn't even mean that they find the foul-mouthed rantings of other parties in this conflict even worse (sometimes FAR worse) than anything uttered by Israeli spokespeople. But it isn't words, in the end, that matter. It's actions. I know, you'll be thinking at this point of underlining, again, the actions of Hezbollah, their 'human shields' etc. I don't really think anyone here disputes the ugliness of these tactics. Do you doubt that there are plenty of Lebabese people who don't approve either (or didn't anyway, till they became shellshocked into fatalism)? I don't.

It seems clear to me that you and Seree really love Israel, and are passionate defenders of 'her' honour. I respect that, really. And I can't compete, not feeling the least bit passionate about my own country's honour (our government is pitiable, largely a choice between Big Business conservatism and Big Business Conservatism. Take your pick).

But that doesn't change my perspective; the fact that, from my comfy, safe little cave, it still looks as Israel might have over-reacted. That's just how it seems to me, from the various reports, articles etc. I may well be wrong. Plenty of us here were proved right in our suspicions about Bush and the reasons given for going to war with Iraq. No surprise. Because that really was a no-brainer. The Lebanese debacle is far more complex, I'll grant you. But it still seems to me that Israel jumped the gun. That's not impossible, is it? Has Israel NEVER done anything like this before, never muscled in where Angles fear to tread and damn the civilian casualties? You'd know the answer to that one, far better than I would, even if I googled till the cows come home.

One more thing. I see you have used that word 'terrorist' yet again Dan. I am surprised that someone as intelligent and well informed should use such a hopelessly emotive abstract noun, especially in a discussion like this one, concerned with separating the linguistic wheat from the chaff. It really is an ugly, cancerous term, and the equivalent of a blank letter in Scrabble. Its 'meaning' is completely dependent on who's using it.


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

The only opinion I feel qualified to offer here is this: I find Dan's use of "she" charmingly poetic.

Well, that and I don't think it's fair, Mark, to assume Dan holds the opinion he does just because he's Jewish. His arguments seem pretty rational and well-researched to me, and to reduce everything he's said in this thread to a mere tribal grunt does him a disservice.

I'm as far from an expert on this situation as you'll find, but in the discussions I've seen about it online, I can't help but notice a certain eagerness to condemn Israel while glossing over the atrocities committed by Hezbollah. There's a lack of nuance - instead of saying, "Israel should have taken more care to minimize the number of civilian casualties," it's like, "Israel is bad, Israel has always been bad, everything Israel does is bad. Bad Israel!" In his column in the Washington Post, Richard Cohen said, "The world is having a Mel Gibson moment," and my Spidey-sense is tingling in agreement.

Good God Rose, I DID NOT say that Dan holds these opinions JUST BECAUSE HE"S JEWISH!!! Go back and READ my post. I said that it was obvious to me that Dan and Seree are passionate defenders of Israel's honour (I would have said this if they were Irish, Lebanese or Palestinian dammit), that I respect this stance, and that I can't compete. This was NOT intended as snide or sarcastic or even critical; just an acknowledgment that there is probably no non-contentious common ground in this debate. As I JUST SAID, there are plently of Jewish people who disagree with Dan's take on the situation. Really, since you do not know me personally please TRY to take me at my word and refrain from recycling my remarks as brainless racist put-downs! Such an intrepation says far more about your mindset than mine.

Rose your post spurred me to go back and reread my own. It seems to me to be, if anything, more self-deprecating than critical. But we'll leave it stand. Perhaps others will agree with your interpretation; I certainly hope Dan and Seree don't.

As for the rest of your post, how on earth do you manage to translate the following:

"But that doesn't change my perspective; the fact that, from my comfy, safe little cave, it still looks as Israel might have over-reacted. That's just how it seems to me, from the various reports, articles etc. I may well be wrong."

into your babyish, moronic:

"Israel is bad, Israel has always been bad, everything Israel does is bad. Bad Israel!"

And YOU talk about a lack of nuance!!!!!!

I suggest you take your quaint little 'Spidey sense' in for an immediate overhaul.

I am an atheist and I agree generally with Dan and Seree. And Kevin, your back of the hand to FoxNews for their just giving opinions --those opinions come from retired military men -- who have been there and done it--not just written about it.

Oh well, that means they must know what they're talking about then. And of course Bush is a retired military man too (so we can forgive him his swaggering about in USAF gear); he obviously knows what he's talking about, unlike that wimp Kerry who was never out in the field.

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

Rose, I appreciate your read, and at the same time, Mark, I appreciate your points.

I hope I'm not being a broken record here, but -

Of the options open to Israel (I don't see Israel's chosen course as the only option available,) I do maintain that by the standards by which nations respond to acts of war, and by the dictates of just war theory, Israel was justified in taking the action she (or "it") took.

But your point is that I present this as established fact, whereas for you and others here, it is in doubt. There's a certain arrogance in declaring "victory" on a given point and just moving on. In my own defense, I have been looking for responses that could be objectively classed as refuting Israel's right to her actions, and I do not see them. BUT, that is my subjective evaluation.

Mark, I've found your interactions here to be mature and honest, and as you say of your last post to me, even self-deprecating. And I've also caught myself on occasion responding with a little bit of a snide tone not merited or invited by your posts, maybe leading to the "who's qualified to have an opinion" notion I see creeping in here. If I'm doing that in a scattershot way, turning the discussion into my own little free fire zone, that just makes me an ass. I have no intention of "silencing" any other voices. It's the really unsupported trashers of Israel, Jews, and/or Semites I cannot just walk away from, and Mark, you have never come across that way (um unless I said you did.)

KIDDING THERE.

So if nothing else, Mark and Rose, please don't whack at each other on account of my phrasing or argument. On a personal level you're both among my faves, so I'll step back from the provocative aspects of the post in question -- I am wrong, it is not objectively established!!! -- in exchange for nipping this clash in the bud.

I know I show passion for the subject matter, and that sometimes bleeds over into heavyhandedness. I know a smidgen of history, and if I turn that into a club, I apologize. I would be the last one to say that no Jew can be against a given action of Israel's, or that no non-Jew can have a significant insight into these events.

I certainly also think it would be wrong to use the "Anti-Semitism" charge like a club against those who disagree. I think on occasion during this debate, the charge has applied. Rose, I think you (and your quoted source) are right, that the world is having one of its "Mel Gibson" moments... But I haven't seen that attitude in Mark's posts, nor has he generally designated himself a Hezb'ologist. He's gone out of his way to acknowledge that there's more to casualty figures than meets the eye, while expressing sympathy with the victims... a sympathy my own posts may not reflect, or seem to reflect, at times.

Just about everyone here's been remarkably civil given the subject matter... you guys are both among the civil types (as I think I am, at least sometimes...) I hope this last exchange is a momentary flareup!

Dan

For all and sundry, a friend sent these links to footage from the Israeli Air Force. For me they did bring home the notion of combat in populated areas (launching of missiles from populated areas, hiding launchers in houses, etc.)
http://www.standwithus.com/idf_videos.asp

I'll note ahead of time that, although I do not take these videos to be forgeries, I am certain that will be assumed by some here.

These clips do flesh out a bit the reality of fighting a group which uses the local civilian infrastructure and population as cover.

Dan

Mark, it was your comment that maybe you'd feel differently if you were Jewish that got me. To me, that implied you thought Dan felt the way he did because he was Jewish. If you say you didn't mean to imply that, I believe you. But was it really such an insanely unreasonable inference on my part? I don't see why.

Then, because I mentioned you by name with regard to the first thing, you're assuming that I was referring to you personally about the rest, but I clearly wasn't. It was a generalized statement about some discussions I've seen, and of course my version of the other people's remarks was exaggeratedly simplistic - I was making a point.

I can see from your near-hysterical reaction that I've expressed myself more provocatively than I thought, and endangered this otherwise admirably civilized thread, so I'll bow out now. Sorry to all for the kerfuffle.


[This message has been edited by Rose Kelleher (edited August 07, 2006).]

Okay Rose, maybe I did react a bit OTT and my apologies for that (though I certainly didn't mean to come across as 'hysterical'); too many CAPS and exclamation marks I guess.

I qualified my "maybe I'd feel different if I were Jewish" remark in the same sentence:

"...though a number of British Jews (Jonathan Miller among them) recently signed a petition which was strongly critical of Israeli tactics."

So I clearly recognise that being Jewish doesn't necessarily mean you have to love Israel (right or wrong), or even at all for that matter. I think Dan and Seree love Israel. That's not a bad thing, rather the opposite. And even if I can't empathise, I can respect a person's love of their country/homeland/motherland/fatherland/uncleland or whatever you want to call it. I can respect that passion all the more when it's backed by a real engagement with that country's history, politics etc. as Dan's and Seree's is. But I still have my own perspective. And there we are.

To Mark:

quote:

Oh well, that means they must know what they're talking about then. And of course Bush is a retired military man too (so we can forgive him his swaggering about in USAF gear); he obviously knows what he's talking about, unlike that wimp Kerry who was never out in the field

If they are three and four star generals you damned right I believe they know what they are talking about. Why did Kerry "cook" his story?

And how about that Reuters photographer who got caught photoshopping a raid on Beirut(sp?) adding extra bomb damage to the image to further his "agenda".

IF he did, he probably did it for much the same reasons any ambitious soldier/politician might (I am no defender of Kerry, who toed the war-line). But compared to Bush's series of mammoth clam-bakes Kerry's offerings (imaginary or not) are mere garnishes. Kerry didn't manage to rig the poll results or fib his country into a war, to take just two trifling examples. For every death K MIGHT be responsible for, Bush has thousands on his hands, and he still tries to claim the whole godforsaken mess was justified. THAT is serious cooking!

And now we are definitely off-thread. Let's just agree to differ.

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

Here's a link for those who haven't heard about the Reuter's issue:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008761

So much for the "pro-Israel" press.

In other media manipulation news, Prime Minister Fouad Seniora maintains that a massacre still happened at Houla, although it consisted of a single death:

The Qana massacre is down from a total in the 50s in some reports, to a still tragic 28.

I know I'll be called heartless for dwelling on these numbers, but as others have pointed out, the Lebanese "government" [sic], and Hezbollah, have been heavily trumpeting Israel's human rights abuses throughout these actions. The magnification of such abuses, in concert with the Lebanese sympathy campaign, whether waged by the "government" or by Hezbollah, must introduce a grain of salt into our unquestioning acceptance of the figures.

Dan

Edited to say.... Kevin, I believe Mr. Seniora, by your standards, is an effective government spokesperson, in that he has gone so far as to allow his true, authentic emotions not only to show, but even to supercede the actual facts. Thank God bureaucrats hadn't vetted his pronouncements!

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

He got an exaggerated report and responded with grief, then got a correction and responded with relief and joy. Yep, those look like actual human emotions to me.

If 28 people are killed in one bombing, it's completly credible if someone tells you the same were killed in another bombing.

This is the first I've heard of the second bombing, and am glad to hear that initial reports were incorrect and only one person was killed. Likewise, I'm also happy to hear that only 28 people died in Qana, not 36 or 50. Still not good that anyone was killed, but less is certainly better.

As a bit of advice, the pro-Israel side, yourself included, Dan, would win more friends and influence more people with similar cries of relief and joy about humans not having been killed, as opposed to unseemly little nanny-nanny-boo-boo superiority dances over people getting their initial body counts wrong.

Are you happier about people not being killed or are you happier about winning a debate point?

It's infinitely more significant that one non-combatant gets to wake up tomorrow, try to get on with his life, and have a future, than any "debate point" I may putatively score, Kevin.

It's also very important for numbers to be used responsibly, particularly when combatants demand particular action by the world community, based on "massacres" perpetrated by the enemy.

I disagree with you regarding Siniora's efficacy as a spokesperson. I think one has to bend over backwards to paint him as anything other than untrustworthy.

When you prepare a press release, the old saying goes, the three most important things are accuracy, accuracy, and accuracy. Siniora gave no reason for his gaffe, and then repeated the disinformation by referring to the single death as a "massacre" again. So next time he decries a "massacre," am I to believe him? He's not my friend from 6B, he's a prime minister, and he is expected to get information straight before hurling accusations.

It points to a penchant for exaggeration, and so it also bears on the question of "martyrdom," as Siniora and Nasrallah both put it.

To wit: when Hezbollah believes that the deaths of civilians among whom they hide are desireable outcomes, is it likely or unlikely that there will be more civilians killed in already very powerful strikes (which, I do understand, would result in some such deaths, regardless)? I think it is more likely that more will die, when the PM of Lebanon, as well as Hezbollah spokespeople, regard these victims as desireable pawns in an international media game.

I hope this clarifies the discussion, if in fact clarity is a desireable trait in a discussion which has strong emotional content. I believe it is.

Dan

[quote]Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"These clips do flesh out a bit the reality of fighting a group which uses the local civilian infrastructure and population as cover."

Has anyone doubted that Hezbollah is fighting a guerilla war, as they have in the past? Has anyone doubted that the same kind of war prevails in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I don't doubt that this "reality" is primed to break out elsewhere in the region.

As I have said previously, the response by bombing is also barbaric. Strategic bombing is designed to break the will of the populace by killing it. I ask the simple question, how often does bombing fulfill its purpose?

Currently, we are dropping twice as many bombs on Iraq as we did during "Shock and Awe." Currently, we are bombing at the same rate in Afghanistan. Currently, Israel is bombing Lebanon to rubble. Currently, Hezbollah, is firing two hundred rockets a day into Israel.

No matter how much one rationalizes these actions, they still appear to me to be the acts of lunatics.

Bob

As far as I am concerned anybody who for any reason at all uses explosives on humans is a terrorist. Anyone who defends them is a sympathiser and supporter of terrorists. The scale is immaterial.

Nothing in history should move us if this can't.

I know that's not a very useful intervention.

[This message has been edited by Janet Kenny (edited August 08, 2006).]

If your reasoning is correct, Janet, and a valid definition of "terrorist" then Nazi Germany was not a terrorist organization for their barbaric and long-lasting treatment of Jews, Gays, Gypsies, etc etc and the United States Army was a terrorist organization for putting an end to WWII by the sheer act of dropping 2 bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a few short minutes and anything and everything which came before that painful and agonized act was as immaterial as your "scale."

Is killing wrong or is using explosives wrong? I'm pretty sure both are equally heinous - especially if one can hide their head and pretend it all happens in a vacuum.

Life, however, and love and hate and war and death do NOT happen in a vacuum.

If a policeman kills a man whom he has caught in the act of kidnapping, raping and attempting to murder a child, is he a murderer, a terrorist and an animal, or is he a hero who was doing his job and doing it well? Do we vilify him or do we thank him?

By your very narrow definition, all soldiers of all races and religions and creeds in all countries in all of the world are terrorists or potential terrorists....and all non-soldiers who kidnap journalists and behead them on the Internet are not.

Yes, terrorists sometimes drop bombs as an act of terror....and sometimes non-terrorists do - but for other reasons. It's not one of those silly questions on an IQ test. "If some terrorists drop bombs, and some soldiers drop bombs, it follows that all soldiers are terrorists." It assumes that there is no rational or reason which ever takes place behind the bombings.

It's not so cut and dried and simple as "anyone who does" and "anyone who sympathizes" is Answer A, always Janet. There are always Answers B, C, and D, as well as E. which is generally None of the Above. It's been my experience that Answer E is usually the correct one.

Broad generalizations and casual observations put on paper just makes things worse.

Apparently history can move us without teaching us anything.

Lo



[This message has been edited by Lo (edited August 08, 2006).]

Lo,
I have lived through a good few wars and the thing that history has taught me to fear most is the individual who will do anything that he/she is ordered to do.
Janet

Dan,

Both Lebanese and Israeli officials were referring to the Qana death toll as 56 or around there, so there is only one occasion I can see a big blunder on Siniora's account. I think his record shows that he is a good man and a patriot, someone who has risen above sectarian divisions in a fairly broken country. He is human, but I believe a good one.


Lo,

I don't think Janet was excluding other forms of killing from her definition. I believe anyone who kills has committed a great sin. It may be justifiable, but you had better be quite sure of what you have done and why, because you will have a lot of explaining (among other things) to do to God before you enter Paradise.

- Daniel

And so we wade into the historical debate over strategic bombing - despite the fact that Israel is not engaged in it, contrary to RJ's point.

First, an opinion of my own: Strategic bombing -- the purposeful "carpet bombing" of civilian populations, in which the concentrated civilian population and its infrastructureis the main target -- is difficult if not impossible to defend. So is a country if everybody else is engaging in strategic bombing except you. Even British military men in the midst of World War II logged very low opinions of the bombing of German cities. It was worse in Japan, where wood was the predominant building material... and where U.S. "strategists" intentionally employed a specifically high-incendiary explosive to create firestorms. A quarter million may have died in the bombing of Tokyo, more than in both atomic bombings.

Since then, aerial bombardment has been used in many theatres of war, some of it in a strategic bombing campaign, some of it not.

RJ correctly identifies "Strategic bombing is designed to break the will of the populace by killing it." There's a good argument here that strategic bombing is essentially a terrorist act (though these are not RJ's words. He prefers "lunacy".)

Janet generalizes the argument to "anyone who uses explosives on human beings."

Lo returns to the strategic bombing theme (in part) within her post, with an opinion regarding the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

None of these points of view except Janet's bear on the current situation in Lebanon.

I realize this could be either purposeful stretching of the definition, unfamiliarity with the definition, or a typo -- but Israel is not, contrary to what you see on Al Jazeera (or sometimes, for that matter, CNN), carpet-bombing the entirety of Lebanon "into rubble."

Damage estimates are still in the low billions. Deaths are still in the hundreds. Israel's bombing, while still producing civilian casualties, which are still a horrific impact of war, is not a "total war" bombing intended to wipe out the population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing

The day before yesterday marked the 61st anniversary of Hiroshima, may we never witness its likes again. As Lo points out, it is not a decided matter that Hiroshima was not necessary; and from necessity, one can very quickly go to justification, if we believe that ought implies can, or the logical negative formulation (i.e., it is meaningless to say we "should not," when we "must".) And the scale of that horror, just one of many, many such horrors during WWII, dwarfs the entirety of the Israeli campaign.

For RJ and Lo - in whose arguments "scale" features prominently - I humbly submit that although a debate on the merits of strategic bombing bears on a number of conflicts including and since WWII, it is only tangentially related to this discussion, since it is not a feature of the current conflict. The Israelis restrain themselves from it, and Hezbollah attempts it but cannot really pull it off.

For Janet, however, any use of explosives against a human being is a terrorist, and anyone who disagrees with her position (i.e., "defends them,") is a supporter of and sympathizer with terrorists. This crafty if transparent gambit is evidently meant to close the matter. I do not think it does, as far as reason goes.

As Lo points out, the argument breaks down for any except an "explosives pacifist." Evidently bullets (except explosive-point) are very good ways of killing people, whether or not they are lined up unarmed in front of a mass grave they have been forced to dig, and do not constitute terrorism. Pushing a wheelchair-bound man off a ship is a very good way to kill him, and does not qualify as terrorism. I'm not certain if the 9/11 attacks were terrorism by this definition, since Jet Fuel's primary hazard is flammability (although ramming it at high speed into a building also causes an explosion.)

Or perhaps Janet's argument is that use of explosives against humans is one of a number of ways one can be marked as a terrorist, with the others unspecified. This would negate the preceding paragraph, as well as some of Lo's objections. It does leave unanswered the question (as Lo also notes,) of what else we consider terrorism.

In the extreme, the argument replaces the moral argument, which has some value, with an argument from chemical properties. We have heard a recent press mantra that "you cannot fight a war against a method (terrorism.)" How much less can you fight a war, moral or physical, against a chemical property?

But let's allow that use of explosives against humans has a moral component, which makes of it a terrorist tactic, regardless of the context and reason for its use. Since we are arguing specifically against terrorism, not war, (although I'll allow that "war" can easily be renamed "terrorism," thereby obviating any distinction in our discussion of the phenomena, despite any distinction in the things themselves,) that moral component cannot simply be that explosives kill people. After all, bullets do, blades do, etc.

For use of explosives against people to be terrorism whereas bullets are not, I have to infer that the argument rests on unspokens - that the explosives are being used in a more indiscrimate way than bullets would be.

Taking this at face value, it is an elegant argument for a full-scale Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon -- and a very special ground invasion in which Israel refrains from use of shells, and relies solely on un-explosive projectiles. I am not aware of any group or nation which achieves its objectives in this manner in the modern age, unless we count the Yanomamo and similar groups who have not acquainted themselves yet with explosives. Would this be a more discriminating form of warfare among modern nation states? Were it ever tried, we may be able to test the theory. I do not believe it would be. It would certainly involve herculean restraint on the part of one belligerant, perhaps a level of restraint no military can morally exercise, if it indeed takes seriously its moral obligation to defend a nation.

I know all of this is very dry, and very removed from what I understand to be the more moral mode of analysis consisting of weeping and gnashing of teeth.

But the terrible, unconscionable truth remains: Israel's armed forces -- as opposed to the U.S. and Britain during WWII, Hezbollah, and Syria, to name a few --do not intentionally target civilians. Israel's armed forces make every effort to minimize civilian casualties, both Israeli and Lebanese. The opposite is true of Hezbollah.

Terrorism, despite Mark G's protestations to the contrary, does have a definition, as abused as it may be in the terminology bandied about today. It is the deliberate murder of civilians in order to cause fear. Elsewhere it would be an interesting debate: were Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki "justified terrorism," terrorism, full stop, or not terrorism... but terrorism only describes the behavior of one side of the present conflict in Lebanon, Hezbollah.

Israel is not engaged in the deliberate murder of civilians in order to cause fear, and Hezbollah is.

(In deference to Lo, this might not make the Nazis terrorists, since terror was just a side effect of genocide. But they would still be genocidal, which trumps terrorist. By the same token, Hezbollah would commit genocide, given the means, but is constrained at present to terrorism, since the necessary transfer of means, from Syria or Iran, has not yet been made.)

Search as we may for a sufficiently broad argument to draw an equivalency between Israel and Hezbollah, the equivalency does not exist. Search as we may for a sufficiently broad definition to make everybody a terrorist, everybody is not a terrorist. The word exists (as do all words) to delineate meaning; obfuscation of the word is a temporary fix to make the phenomenon it signifies go away, in the mind of the obfuscator. But since the phenomenon still exists, this will just lead to the creation of another word to signify the phenomenon.

The U.S. and France have made a proposal to end this conflict, and Lebanon has countered (predictably arguing that her sovereignty requires Lebanese troops stand between Israel and Hezbollah, despite earlier claims that her sovereignty did not extent to Lebanon's south.) God willing, one way or another, both Israel's actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hezbollah's actions against the people of Israel, will end.

But as much as we may hope for these inseparable conditions to pertain, we still do ourselves a disservice when we stretch words and concepts beyond their breaking points in support of our arguments. Again, we can destroy the distinct meaning of words to promote an indistinct analysis, but reality dictates our analyses be as distinct as possible; it is quite literally, a deadly serious exercise. So the destruction of distinct words will only yield a temporary respite from this rigor.

If we are really averse to specificity, not the words used to express specificity, we will find our efforts in promotion of vagueness frustrated time and again.

Dan


[This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited August 08, 2006).]

Oh dear, I thought I'd be able to stay out of this debate after my last post. But Dan's 'definition' needs a response. Let's look at some other definitions of Terrorism.

I found your definition alright, as a sub-entry in the online Dictionary.com.

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

this is followed by the second definition, below:

terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Then I checked other online dictionaries:

Merriamwebster.com:
The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

MSN Encarta:
Political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes.

Thefreedictionary.com:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Bartleby.com:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Then with my 'hardcopy' dictionaries:

CHAMBERS: An organised system of intimidation, esp. for political ends.

OXFORD: (terrorist): One who favours or uses terror-inspiring methods of governing or of coercing government or community.

WEBSTERS: Systematic use of terror, esp. as a means of coercion.

Will these do Dan? I do have an old Brittanica (not TOO old, 1989 I think).

Only one of the seven dictionaries above sees fit to specify the word civilian, and then only as a secondary definition. Like it or not, many of the main definitions could apply to Israeli government 'terrorism' with no stretch of the imagination. So I hold by my assertion, that the word 'terrorism' as used by you and Bush and many other politicians has about as much credibility as 'freedom', democracy', 'evil empire' etc.

Mark,

Oh dear indeed! Okay, let's get the matter out of the way.

I contend that terrorism is particularly bad, but is not engaged in by Israel. You contend that terrorism has multiple definitions, and is engaged in by Israel.

Two implications spring from this:

1) If it can be shown that "terrorism" is particularly bad, and that "terrorism" is engaged in by Israel, that defines Israel as a terrorist state, and one that therefore deserves to be put on a level with Hezbollah or whatever other "bad guy" one chooses (short of perpetrators of genocide, or some other crime we can agree is worse than terrorism -- if indeed we agree that genocide is very, very bad.) I will stipulate that "very bad" must be a comparative term, not the description of the behavior of any nation-state acting in defense of her territory.

2) If it can be shown that "terrorism" is not particularly bad, and is engaged in by Israel, we can successfully strike it off the list of terms that have meaning in the context of this discussion, replacing it with the much more lengthy and cumbersome phrase "ideologically or genocidally motivated intentional murder of civilians" (Except for the unwieldiness, I might yield the point and go for that at the outset. At least the term would not be so abused in the course of discussion.)

So, definition by definition:
Israel's violence is against Hezbollah, a group of armed combatants operating from Lebanon. To make Israel's acts terrorism, violence or threat of violence by an armed force against an armed force must be considered an attack "against the state or the public."

Terrorism becomes a superset of war. (That is, all war is terrorism, but not all terrorism is war.)
If all armed conflict is terrorism, the term could certainly have some use, but only because other actions are also terrorism. But terrorism can not be classed as worse than war in any given case. So this definition -- if we take "the state" to mean actions taken in self defense, against armed forces operating from another state's territory -- yields a very nebulous terrorism. Opposition to this terrorism is simply an expanded pacifism, in which the only legitimate response is inaction, unless one considers the terrorism of self-defense justified (as opposed to the unjustified terrorism of aggression). In the current context, one must be a pacifist to not be a "terrorist sympathizer."

I think it more likely that the reference does not refer to an attack on an armed force resident in another state.

So either:
A. Terrorism is bad, just not any worse than a war of self-defense, or
B. Terrorism is, in fact, a worse behavior, and Israel is not engaged in it.

I think this definition is the one you believe matches my own definition, since it specifies "civilians." I'll leave it alone.

For this to apply to the current Israeli action, it is necessary to establish that Israel is attempting to coerce Lebanon through terror. Israel's stated objectives do not have anything to do with coercing Lebanese action, although Lebanon has not taken the action required by her own obligations. Israel is, rather, taking those actions instead. Hezbollah, by contrast, specifies genocidal aims; one could make the argument that Hezbollah is not trying to terrorize, but is unsuccessfully attempting genocide (i.e., that they really believe they will destroy every Israeli and the state of Israel, and they don't care whether that instills terror). Again, I do not think the distinction is useful here, but we can allow the possibility that Hezbollah should be called Genocidists instead of Terrorists.

But let us take the cynical view of Israel's actions. Let us say Israel was tired of Lebanon allowing attacks against civilians, and reasoned that Lebanon would only act if "terrorized" into it by a heavyhanded Israeli action.

What would a "systematic use of terror" look like? Certainly not an avoidance of civilian casualties.I would be more terrified if more of my countrymen died, than fewer. Certainly not the targeting of items such as explosives caches and rocket launchers. Not the targeting of some, but not all infrastructure, based on military considerations such as re-equipping of enemy combatants. These look more to me like the acts of a nation engaged in conventional warfare. Again I stress that War is not desireable or fine and dandy. That is why you have to have good reasons to go to war. It is, however, less bad than terrorism.

I do not believe a country "systematically using terror as a means of coercion" goes out of its way to avoid negative outcomes to a populace. A "systematic use of terror" is distinct from "a terrified reaction to the legitimate actions of an armed force in self-defense."

If, however, it can be proven that most Israeli actions had no military purpose, such as destroying arms, killing combatants, or re-arming Hezbollah, then "systematically using terror" becomes a more likely definition of Israel's actions.

So: either
A. Israel means to strike terror into Lebanon, but mistakenly identified mainly military targets, which makes it look like Israel is fighting against Hezbollah, or
[b]B. Israel means to strike Hezbollah, and misses sometimes.

"A." seems pretty unlikely to me, so I'll await any proof that Israel is not targeting Hezbollah and Hezbollah facilities, arms, resupply routes, etc. I provisionally reject this as the primary goal of the Israeli action, but, not being a telepathic, cannot do so conclusively. "B.", however, jibes much better with the known facts.

This is a definition of another term entirely. I'll spare us all the verbiage.

This has the same limitation of the first definition. To recap - if we take this definition to include the actions of a nation in self-defense, against militarily significant targets, self-defense is a form of terrorism. Again:
A. Either Terrorism isn't bad, or
B. Israel is not engaging in Terrorism.

See above. Since "civilian" makes no appearance in these definitions, they apply equally well to any armed conflict.

CHAMBERS: An organised system of intimidation, esp. for political ends.

Since we specify an organized system, it must be established that the aim is intimidation. We have not established the state of mind of Israeli leaders.

This definition also applies to armed forces as well as civilians, of course. But since many of these definitions of "Terrorism" can be read to include defensive wars, this is not surprising.

OXFORD: (terrorist): One who favours or uses terror-inspiring methods of governing or of coercing government or community.
"Terror" is the key in this one. Governing by threatening jail time or even execution for criminal acts is universal. I do not consider government inherently Terrorist because a potential terrorist is "terrified" of jail time. Again, Israel does not aim to "govern" Lebanon, or coerce the government of Lebanon, but to protect Israel. This requires actions the government of Lebanon has been unable or unwilling to take, despite her international obligations to do so.

Conclusion: Unless it is shown that Israel is not taking actions against Hezbollah, etc., but is intentionally inspires terror throughout the country to coerce Lebanon into proper self-government, this does not apply to Israeli actions in Lebanon.

See above.

I disagree, Mark. I think if anything I use a more precise definition than those you recount here, and which you read broadly enough to include a war of self-defense.

The exercise of saying "nut uh, you're the terrorist!" to a nation defending herself from Terrorism, can certainly find support from a broad reading of dictionary definitions.

However, the broad reading of these definitions most often simply conflates Terrorism with Conventional War. The only distinguishing feature goes to the state of mind of perpetrators and victims; to read these definitions usefully, we have to divine this state of mind as represented by their respective actions.

From my point of view, it is a stretch of the imagination to define actions against an armed force which has taken action against your nation as terrorism.

Finally (at last!) "the state," "persons or the state," etc., can indeed include an armed force resident in another nation. But that reading makes "terrorism" of any armed response to an armed assault. I respectfully submit that these definitions are not written to include responses to acts of war.

So, if we can agree on the definition offered -- which is also one of the definitions you're using -- and we can continue to use the term. Otherwise we'll have to come up with something else, as a practical matter, since I have no need to use the term as a cudgel to deride non-specific activities. I would like to use it precisely. But if one of these broadly read definitions of "Terrorism" makes it basically okay and widely practiced (except by pacifists,) I have no desire to grace the despicable actions of those who specifically and intentionally target non-combatants with that term.

Thanks,

Dan

The difference between "specifically targetting non-combatants" and "targetting combatants but not caring much if you hit non-combatants" is what precisely?

The claim that "Israel has done everything in <cite>Her</cite> power to not hit non-combatants" rings pretty false, because last I checked, Israel still had the power to not go to war, not fire bombs, not do a great many things which result in civilian deaths. As for the "human sheild" business, it's a guerilla war. If you bomb a populated area in hopes of getting the "bad guy," you are going to get some other people too. Only in the movies, and not even if all of them, does the magic police marksman shoot the bad guy and let the weeping hostage run free. Besides which, in this situation, even if you have the miraculous Israeli bomber kill the Hezbollah fighter but somehow leave all the noncombatants untouched, the noncombatants are more likely to say, "Those bastards just killed my brother!"

Also, who exactly are the Hezbollah fighters? The people currently fighting? The ones who used to be fighting, but have retired due to age or infirmity? The ones who would be fighting if they could, but instead just raise money or provide other services? The friends and relatives of all of the above?

I've lived through a few myself, Janet...and I'm still more afraid of the individuals who do the ordering. The world is full of sheep and sheep-like men who are looking for something and/or someone to believe in....it is the ones who are evil enough and canny enough to take full advantage of this need by giving them fear and hatred to believe in that scare the crap outa me.

And I've been around enough and seen and done enough that normally I'm not a-scared o' nuttin'.

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"And so we wade into the historical debate over strategic bombing - despite the fact that Israel is not engaged in it, contrary to RJ's point."

"First, an opinion of my own: Strategic bombing -- the purposeful "carpet bombing" of civilian populations, in which the concentrated civilian population and its infrastructureis the main target -- is difficult if not impossible to defend."

"RJ correctly identifies "Strategic bombing is designed to break the will of the populace by killing it." There's a good argument here that strategic bombing is essentially a terrorist act (though these are not RJ's words. He prefers "lunacy".)"

"I realize this could be either purposeful stretching of the definition, unfamiliarity with the definition, or a typo -- but Israel is not, contrary to what you see on Al Jazeera (or sometimes, for that matter, CNN), carpet-bombing the entirety of Lebanon "into rubble." "

"For RJ and Lo - in whose arguments "scale" features prominently - I humbly submit that although a debate on the merits of strategic bombing bears on a number of conflicts including and since WWII, it is only tangentially related to this discussion, since it is not a feature of the current conflict. The Israelis restrain themselves from it, and Hezbollah attempts it but cannot really pull it off."

Dan, skip ahead from WWII and think, instead, of "Shock and Awe," the strategic bombing of Iraq, which wasn't "carpet bombing." That's not tangential. It's the same kind of bombing. If you have to limit "strategic" to "carpet," then call it a tactic. Whatever you call it, bombing is a lousy strategy or a lousy tactic, a lousy means to an end. It doesn't work.

Here's news from a Turkish paper.

"On Saturday, an Israeli offense consisting of more than 250 air attacks dropped 4,000 bombs within seven hours.

The border village of Aytarun was hit by 2,000 bombs and almost completely destroyed.

The total death toll from the attacks is approaching 1,000."

"The attacks against Lebanon have displaced more than 913,000 people. Commission figures reveal that 220,000 of these have fled Lebanon. More than 100,000 foreigners and dual-citizens were also evacuated from Lebanon."

Also, the Israelies have now warned convoys of fleeing Lebanese (and even NGO's and relief crews, medics, etc.) that they could be hit.

I submit that they're fleeing because they're terrified. But they'll ALSO not forget.

Bob

Yet another Oh dear I'm afraid. In fact, three Oh dears.

1. We can all 'contend that terrorism is particularly bad' but such a contention isn't going to do anyone much good. What's 'particularly'? What's 'bad'? These words are simply more movable counters.

2. I did not contend that terrorism has 'multiple definitions'. Most of the dictionary definitions I presented are in broad agreement. My point was that almost none of them met your 'particularly' precise definition.

3. Re. terrorism being 'engaged in by Israel'. What I said was: 'Like it or not, many of the main definitions could apply to Israeli government 'terrorism' with no stretch of the imagination.' Note that I put terrorism in scare-quotes. My point here isn't that Israel is a 'terrorist state', but that the word itself isn't nearly as useful (for the purposes of this discussion anyway) as so many seem to think.

C'mon, let's be honest here. The word 'terrorism' is emotive, much like the word 'evil'. You can call Hezbollah evil if you wish, but it doesn't help elucidate anything. We seem to be constantly wrangling with the connundrum of which side is the REAL baddie, which is neither here nor there. Words like terrorism are unfurled like flags, staking claims, marking territories. I just think we should get beyond all that. But perhaps there is no beyond, just a riot of split ends.

Mark, then I made an even bigger muddle by splitting the hairs. I'll just try to talk about the purposeful targeting of non-combatants, and perhaps abbreviate it from here on in as PTONC.

RJ, I'll research and respond when there's more time. For now I think it's worth noting that the death toll of this particular incident now far exceeds even the Siniora government estimates, already prone to exaggeration. You know how I love to pick nits. But to the point: is your contention that Israel is engaged in "Total War" against Lebanon?

Thanks

Dan