Probably the makers of the board were randomly looking at Indian and Tibetan art. Mandalas and Yantras occasionally use variations of both of the symbols, as well as crosses with equidistant arms, with no political meanings.

Robert Meyer

Robert Meyer: "All militias, world wide, are criminal organizations and must be destroyed. A real military acts on the orders of a civilian government, but militias have no accountability and therefore are more akin to the Charles Manson 'family' or the Mafia: the McViegh/Nichols gang, the Crips, the Bloods, the KKK, the so-called Catholics and so-called Protestants in Northern Ireland, Hezbollah, all of them."

But surely the sanction of a "civilian government" is hardly sufficient to ensure the virtue of a regular army, any more than the lack of such sanction implies the evil of a "militia." That's like saying established authority is Good, dissidence & rebellion are Evil. Is that what you really meant?

Dan Halberstein: I've enjoyed your spirited posts in this thread, but it seems to me you are wanting to polarize the issue into clear black-&-white in a way that does not do justice to the actual present situation. Of course, responding to tendentious (& mischievous) polarizers such as Kevin, that's understandable. But still, it would be nice to see a nuanced evaluation of Israel's actions from your point of view. Do you think what Israel is doing now is wise, regardless of whether or not it is "justified" from the all-or-nothing point of view of the embattled apologist? Do you think that the present course of action will, in the long run, be better for Israel (& therefore wiser), than a policy of conspicuous restraint in the face of provocation might have been? Do you not think that Israel is making new enemies & strengthening old enmities with its present policy?

Of course, it's exactly what Hezbollah wanted: isolate Israel, make it morally untouchable, just at the point in time when it was ready to concede a Palestinian state. Don't you think Israel is foolishly playing into Hezbollah's (Syria's; Iran's) hands? Aren't Israel's reckless actions a dream come true for her enemies?

These are partly rhetorical, but partly real, questions. It's a muddy river.

P.S., hadn't read the most recent 3 posts when I wrote this.

Of course it is not a sufficient condition (just look at all the evil governments), but I think it is a necessary condition. When dealing with an evil government I think "dissidence" (passive resistance) is not only good, but a moral imperative; but "rebellion" (as in violent revolution) is always wrong.

Robert Meyer


[This message has been edited by Robert Meyer (edited July 28, 2006).]

There was an article in Vogue about how to hate Israel? When did I miss that?

Anyway, glad to be told that I "hate Israel." I can put that right alongside all the times I "hate America" for not mindlessly waving the flag in support of all of Bush's policies.

I just did a longer post, which somehow didn't take, but the nutshell is that you can say "Minority" and "Majority" all you like, but that ends up making you look up the percentages. According to Israel, according to Wikipedia, 77% of Israel's population is Jewish, 18.5% is Arab, with the rest assorted. That's a pretty significant minority to not allow in the military and to treat as second-class citizens. And yes, if there are different rights, that is the textbook definition of "second-class."

How well are they treated? Would you listen to the BBC?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1507840.stm

Perhaps an article from CNN:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/m....ap/index.html

I don't hate Israel, but I think, Dan, that you love her so much that you make it your business to gloss over her faults. That's rather the textbook definition of an apologist.

Good questions, AE. I wonder about the same things, and at first I thought surely Israel is doing itself more harm than good by its "overreaction." And maybe my first impulse was correct. On the other hand, it's pretty scary to contemplate the scope and size of the Hezbollah arsenal that has been revealed over the last few weeks, along with the apparent fact that the arsenal was financed and arranged by Iran, a country that has declared that Israel ought to be destroyed. Hezbollah, not being a government, does not, itself, have any legitimate need or right to amass tens of thousands of missile and rocket launchers, particularly when it does so inside territory of a government that purportedly agreed to disarm all militias in its boundaries. The fact that these armaments were supplied by Iran, a country desiring Israel's destruction, surely gives Israel not just the right but every incentive to destroy the aresenal, no less than the United States would obviously not hesitate to destroy an Al Quaeda arsenal being amassed in Tijuana or Montreal.

When the situation is reduced to its undeniable basics, the Hezbollah arsenal and trained fighters are pretty much the same as an Iranian army on Israel's border, and Iran's goal, by its own words, is to destroy Israel. When the surrogate Iranian army does not merely build up its arms and loom threateningly on the border, which by itself might be causus belli, but crosses the border and attacks and, yes, "kidnaps" Israeli soldiers, a strong Israeli response can be condemned only if one disagrees with the premise that Israel is a legitimate, sovereign nation that is entitled, like all legitimate, sovereign nations, to protect itself from acts of war and threats to its existence.

It is simplistic to say that Israel's response has been "disproportionate" to the Hezbollah attack that brought it about, since the damage of that attack was not just on the three individual soldiers affected (one dead, two taken), but confirmation, if any was needed, that the non-governmental arsenal amassed on Israel's border was there for no other purpose than to threaten Israel, and the threat was ultimately coming from Iran, a nuclear power bent on Israel's destruction. What alternatives did/does Isreal have to remove a threatening non-governmental army, which is a surrogate Iranian force, from its border?

The question right now isn't whether you like Israel, are happy about the fact that Israel was created back in 1948, or whether you feel the Palestinians are oppressed victims, on the whole, rather than terrorists and anarchists. Israel exists, and the realistic question is whether it is reasonable to expect any country, even one you don't like, to exercise "restraint" when faced with a nearby army that is financed and trained by a major power whose policy is to destroy that country.

So those who condemn Israel should get their complaint straight and say what they mean. Anything Israel does or doesn't do is illegitimate if you start with the premise that Israel is illegitimate, and any effort to attack or build an army to attack Israel is legitimate if you start with that premise. But under universal legal principles, accepted in virtually all nations, even the worst criminal has the right to defend himself if attacked. Draw a gun on a convicted rapist, for example, and the convicted rapist, under the law, can fire back and kill his attacker, and it's no less legitimate just because the right is being exercised by someone despicable. So go ahead, if you like, and consider Israel to be a lowlife criminal enterprise with the moral integrity and worth of a rapist. That's beside the point. Israel happens to be a country and has the same right to defend itself as countries you may like better, and its government has the same obligation to protect its citizens as any other government has to protect its own.

Oh, this is sort of a fill-in multiple-choice type question. Let's see, I believe that Israel has taken this option:

A. Bomb the shit out of south and central Lebanon then invade yourself, hoping that Hezbollah will come out and fight you in a pitched battle rather than running around doing guerilla tactics.

Since this has already been done, Israel doesn't get to pick any other options, but I believe they would include the following:

B. Have all the diplomats make a very large stink with the UN and pressure the Lebanese government to actually try to disarm Hezbollah, and if they can't, let in UN peacekeeping forces to do it for them. Ask the US to stand next to you for sabre-rattling purposes. (The US isn't going to commit any troops given the current mess in Iraq, but they're always useful to look fierce and even slightly psycho given current world events.)

C. Decide that two can play the sneak-across-borders game and send in some covert black ops group to rescue the "kidnapped" soldiers. Kill whatever Hezbollah cell members you like along the way and claim a great triumph when you get back.

D. Decide that a secret prisoner exchange could be to your advantage in regards to Hezbollah. Trade your soldiers for whatever prisoners Hezbollah wants, but make sure to rectally insert some variety of GPS device beforehand. Then have your black ops forces from option C go and track down the Hezbollah forces you were after to begin with.

You can add more options to all this, of course, and feel free to criticize any of these alternatives as unlikely or impractical. Then review periodically as the Israel-Lebanon war drags on and the body count mounts.

Originally posted by Kevin Andrew Murphy:

"Meanwhile Britain, while it does have a state religion, has the Church of England which has become the stuff of Eddie Izzard's "Cake or Death" skit."

Ha! Your mind is so inclusive, Kevin. Now, integrate Ali G into this debate.

I can envision a negotiating team of Izzard, G, and Stephen Colbert to help the Middle Easterners sort out their animosities, make their choices, and come to a reasonable agreement. Something "permanent," as Ms. Rice might say.

Shameless O'Clawson

I've decided that I'm antisemitic. I think the Jews and Arabs are acting like lunatics.

A few days back, on NPR, I heard an Israeli say that his country's response was not over the top. He felt that Israel had to show its enemies that it wouldn't be perceived as weak and vulnerable, that its reaction to any incursion would be robust retaliation.

Could anyone in the Middle East not have already known this? Isreal has launched enough robust retaliations in the past half century to make its point. Do the Arabs not get it?

Given that history, must the point be made again? Where's it getting them? The Arabs prick the Jews. The Jews hammer them. So, the Arabs lie low for a while, build force and nerve, then prick the Jews. The Jews hammer them.

It's a Punch and Judy show. Dumb Semites.

Shameless O'Clawson

Kevin, I had no idea your military training made you the equal of the IDF brass, not to mention Mossad! An "inclusive" mind indeed! Nevertheless, I'll leave tactics to the pros, thank you very much. And it seems you've given up on the "Israel shouldn't be there in the first place" contention. You 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. By the way, Ali G's Jewish, so be careful about bringing him along.

AE, thanks for bringing up the real questions. I have no desire to become an "apologist" for Israel, but a sane man has few choices when the right of Israel to exist is the only matter on the table.

As to the wisdom of her actions in the last few weeks, of course I've questioned it. This, again, comes back to tactics. It's not lost on me that Iran was being discussed before the U.N. when Israel let fly. It's not lost on me that the U.S. seems quite pleased to let Israel ping away at Iran's local henchmen. It's also not lost on me that Sharon lays dying, with nobody sure of Olmert's version of "disengagement". Sharon, after all, had been a war hero up until Lebanon, and a war criminal thereafter (by my lights) -- then a peacemaker at the end. Hardly an ideal resume, and hardly unusual in the region (his opposite number in the PLO was quite satisfying from a literary point of view. Not a mirror image, but close enough.) But Olmert may well have felt that with him calling the shots, "disengagement" in Gaza and withdrawl from Lebanon, had already fallen into a synonym for "hostage-taking rocket staging free-for-all."

Yes, the current situation is more nuanced that what I've been drawn into with the local bigots on this board. I do, however, still assert Israel has the right to have taken the actions we're discussing, whether or not we believe ourselves to be superior tacticians to the Israeli mililtary and intelligence leadership.

Israel went down a long difficult road with the PLO, specifically on the premise that "you make peace with your enemies, not your friends." Israel worked for decades in fits and starts, to get to recognition from the PLO. Enter Hamas. A few years later, Hamas is the government, and the PLO is the opposition. Now it is Hamas which swears Israel should, shall, must be destroyed.

Peacemaking with one's enemies is difficult, but, as has been shown, can be done (at least with some small success.) What's been missed, however, is that in the Israeli case, the "enemy" you've made peace with, just establishes a suicide bombing wing (Al Aqsa, for Fatah.) And/or a more popular party -- also replete with terrorist membership -- takes the place of the "peaceful" enemy you're working with.

Israel, with the election of Kadima, has decided to handle its issues by withdrawing where prudent, and striking when withdrawl is taken advantage of. Again, you may question the wisdom of such a policy, but Israel has taken this course specifically because AGAIN, no negotiating partner recognizes her existence (after decades of work to achieve this most basic requirement in the first place).

Eventually, anybody but an utter simpleton would see himself left with the military options. I am not the skilled tactician -- or more likely, devoted reader of Tom Clancy books -- that Kev is. And I am unfortunately less able than RJ to say "dumb semites" and wave it all off, especially having witnessed the behavior of the "dumb Japhethite" coalition in Iraq for the last four years. The dilletantes have spoken on the matter, and it probably has about the same value as the New Israeli Flag Committee's recent critique.

The wisdom of particular military actions is certainly something for the Israeli citizenry to hold their leaders accountable for. In fact, we may discuss the wisdom of Israeli actions to our hearts' content as well. As an American, I am more concerned with the justice (or lack thereof) of Israeli actions.

Me? I find the integrity of the Israeli position to be quite high, much as this galls dilletantes who do not bother to familiarize themselves with the history and the conduct of the conflict.

I'm of a mind to once again ask two questions in this case:

1) Did Israel have a legitimate Casus belli, or reason to go to war? I think either Mr. Slater or Mr. Meyer has treated this question well enough. I don't think Britain would look with equanimity upon a French claim that France "cannot control Brittany and Normandy," while rockets were launched across the channel by IRA operatives. Tactics aside, Britain would be justified in going to war. Hell, Britain went to war over the Falklands. Israel had left Lebanese territory on condition of her own security (as demonstrated by the disbanding of militias and the cessation of crossborder attacks.) Israel did not act on these attacks for six years. AE, this is what I call restraint.

2) Has Israel behaved justly in the conduct of the war, that is, the question of jus in bello? Again, the answer is yes.
- Israel purposefully attempts to contact at-risk civilian populations advising them of imminent attacks. Israel does this at the sacrifice of the element of surprise, therefore putting her own forces at a disadvantage, specifically to minimize collateral damage.
- Israel makes every attempt to minimize the effect of the guerilla/irregular nature of Hezbollah, that is, to attack only combatants despite the combatants' preference for using populated areas as thickets in which to hide.
- Israel has made it clear that the beginning of negotiations is the return of the two kidnapped soldiers. It is within Hezbollah's power at any point in this drama to begin negotiations with Israel, by returning the Israeli nationals.

Hezbollah, Hamas, and their allies ruthlessly attack civilian venues one day, and the next day the Lebanese government complains about civilian casualties, when the Israelis finally counterattack. The terrorists' acts must have painful consequences to the terrorists. Israel makes every effort not to strike civilians.

But you cannot have it both ways. If you're happy to have rogue bands attacking your neighbor's civilian populace intentionally, from your territory, you can hardly expect that there will be no consequences to this policy. And part of the consequence has been the unintended deaths of Lebanese civilians -- or "martyrs", as Hezbollah likes to call them.

What is Israel's wisest move in my opinion? Pick the first Hamas or Hezbollah leader to come forward and say "Israel has every right to exist within Israel's territory. Terrorism is not a valid tactic. Here are the names and locations of every terrorist in my organization," and consider that individual a negotiating partner immediately.

Until that time, these two organizations -- as well as Islamic Jihad and he rest who spout and act upon the Death-to-Israel party line -- have thereby invited Israeli action against them.

AE, I think the crux of your question is this: Does Israel risk more by ignoring/encouraging terrorist actions, or in responding to them?

Through the 1990s, I thought the greater peril was in responding to these provocations. Having witnessed what happens to "negotiating partners," from the point of view of an Israeli/Palestinian peace activist, I've come to the opposite conclusion in recent years, to wit, the actions of terrorists must have consequences for the terrorists, and the consequences must be unacceptable to the terrorists.

Restraint is clearly an option on all sides, but "Restraint" cannot replace protection of a nation's populace, as the bedrock responsibility of a nation's government; In Israel's case, "restraint" is a characteristic that guides and tempers a policy of self-defense, which is closer to the sine qua non of the modern nation-state.

We've often heard that "justice must be tempered by mercy." (I believe the Lurianic system would say G'vurah must be balanced by Chesed.) The reverse is also the case; any idiot can give the car dealer $100,000 for a Yugo. Any moron can sentence a rapist to an afternoon supervising the local high school cheerleader car-wash for his crime. This is not kindness, it is stupidity.

Yes, these terrorists should be hit, and hit hard. If it's currently the fashion hereabouts to bleat "apologia" when one does not support terrorist causes, by all means call my position apologia. In my opinion, however, the current course of action is in fact the best of Israel's options. This is not necessarily the case for every action Israel ever takes or has ever taken, of course. In this particular case, however, my opinion is that it is not wiser to "sit back and take it".

Again, the terrorists can change the reality on the ground very simply, by returning the kidnapped Israelis in question, as a prelude to negotiation. But for negotiations to go anywhere, the terrorists will have to, in effect, stop being terrorists.

It's okay to say this of the IRA. It's okay to say we will never negotiate with Al Qaeda, regardless of future changes of heart. I think it's okay to say this of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Thanks,

Dan

(paraphrased) About a year ago I suggested we should decapitate Iran’s leadership and bomb shut all the doors to their nuclear facilities that we knew about. This would draw the Iranian army down to protect those facilities—leaving an already unhappy population to their own devices. I was roundly criticized.

We are in an asymmetric war. For every dollar the Islamo-fascist spends we spend 10 thousand (WTC cost us 40 billion). Israel, in her attempt to be fair to the civilian population, warns the Hezbollah they are going to bomb, (so their leadership can scurry out of harm’s way). This is ridiculous. We are letting the enemy set the rules of engagement. The UN watched Hezbollah fortify southern Lebanon and said nothing yet Kofi Annan is all over TV criticizing Israel and nobody in the media has the guts to ask him why nobody at the UN said anything—even though that was their job.

Israel is our proxy. Until we can make Syria and Iran pay two dollars for dollar they spend funding terrorists it will go on until we’re broke. Everything else discussed here should begin with that realization.

Dick Morgan