Well, if I understand the history of this conflict correctly, originally Hezbollah was wanting an exchange of prisoners, so so far as that goes, the jury's still out and the fat lady's still not singing. Hard to declare a victory when negotiations are still ongoing.

Easier to declare victory on a number of other issues. Israel as I believe from her stated goals, wanted to destroy Hezbollah and show the world that she kicks ass. Not precisely in those terms, but that's the gist.

I don't think that happened, and the number of Lebanese civilians dead doesn't make Israel look good, no matter how much her apologists want people to blame them on Hezbollah.

Hezbollah? Bomb Israel a lot and get more street cred with other nations that hate her. A smaller goal, but easy enough to say "mission accomplished" on that end.

Well, I doubt the moderate Lebanese are that thrilled with Hezbollah at the moment, but they weren't very thrilled with them to begin with. Hopefully enough UN forces after enough time will make it so that Hezbollah moves to becoming a political party rather than an active militia.

I think some of the future is in the hands of the Israelis too. I think it does Israel a disservice to depict her as a creature without free will.

I think someone once wrote something called "The Golden Rule." I think it might be applicable in this case.

As for borders, having neighbors respect your borders is easier than having your neighbors' citizens or even your own citizens respect your borders. Look at the US-Mexico border, for example. Mexico is hardly invading, but we're getting tons of economic refugees.

Well before this, I think most of Lebanon wanted tourism and prosperity. After? I think they still want the tourism and prosperity, but want to rebuild their country first.

All in all, Kevin, the inability of Hezbollah's foreign allies and apologists to correctly ascertain what has just transpired, leaves me with little hope that Hezbollah or its Lebanese allies understand their current situation any better. Hence, I see a dim prognosis for the cease-fire. That and the fact that the Lebanese are already making promises to Hezbollah that they "won't look too hard" for tunnels, armaments, etc.

What the hell do you think those armaments are for? Hezbollah was not fighting a defensive war to begin with, and they aren't going to now suddenly cease and desist, after years of provocation following the last "cease-fire."

This was a Hezbollah war, as I think some Lebanese moderates understand. I think they also understand that Hezbollah being absorbed into the government is less likely than vice-versa, and so are cowtowing to Hezbollah's "requests" regarding tunnels and armaments. They are already, in effect, breaking the terms of the cease-fire.

Nobody's talking about an "exchange" on the Israeli side, that I know of. The question of whether Hezbollah wants a cease-fire depends on the safe return of those soldiers, as well as the other conditions. But you're right: they are bloodthirsty murderers, and it's likely their plan is to simply abrogate this part of the bargain.

I would assume given your stance to this effect, that your posts up to this point would have been a virtual cheering section for the aggrieved party, Israel. Oddly, I find instead sympathy and support for "the Lebanese civilians," and rants against the "ghoulish" Israelis. This is the sort of "thinking" that results when one manages to combines utter personal detatchment from the outcome, with a paradoxical distaste for the one benefit detatchment could confer, that of impartiality.

Something tells me there is more than meets the eye on the question of the abductees -- and I don't think it's a numerically disproportionate release of criminals, in exchange for these kidnap victims. Time will tell.

If Hezbollah and Lebanon abide by the terms of the cease fire, Israel will have achieved her goals. To wit: disarmament of Hezbollah, departure of Hezbollah from the south of Lebanon, and return of the kidnapped soldiers.

Are you basically gloating that Hezbollah is planning to break the cease fire (or has done already?) After gloating, when the inevitable response comes, will you then go on another anti-Israeli rant, and cry some more for the poor Lebanese populace, laying their deaths at Israel's door?

Do you have any idea how transparent that is?

In the same breath that you champion Hezbollah's "victory" by way of falsely embracing a cease fire, you continue to complain about the Lebanese dead. It's one or another, Kevin. You're either cynical enough to enjoy the tactic, or realistic enough to understand (as do a number of Arab nations,) that the blood of these civilians is on Hezbollah's hands -- and that the government of Lebanon, to the extent that they allow Hezbollah's behavior, is complicit.

By last count, about half the "civilians" killed in Lebanon were Hezbollah fighters. So let's see -- killing them doesn't look good? But I thought not killing them doesn't look good... after all, that's a big ol' Hezbollah victory.

No wonder Israel does not react too strongly to "world opinion" anymore.

That would be the point of them giving up their weapons -- as agreed. But the remainder of your post reads as a gloat-fest for the likelihood that Hezbollah will do no such thing.

Israel acted in self-defense; as such, she was able to select timing and tactics, but not the necessity of protecting her populace. It is the responsibility of the state to do so. So, if you mean Israel has "free will" to cower behind empty words while her citizens are being murdered, I suppose you could paint her actions as voluntary. It's more accurate to say Israel did what she had to do, in this situation.

Yes, someone did. His name was Hillel.

The story goes that Hillel was approached by a Roman centurion, who asked him to sum up Judaism while standing on one foot. Hillel replied, "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me. Do not do to your neighbor what is hateful to you. All the rest is commentary; now, go and study."

Evidently, the Roman went and studied, as the story has it, because he ends up converting to Judaism.

I think you may benefit from the "go and study" part. Hillel's sage advice must apply to both sides of such a conflict; Hezbollah has flat-out said it's goal is the destruction of Israel, and takes actions toward bringing about that result as often as possible.

Your source, Hillel, also spoke the famous three questions: If I am not for myself, who is for me? If I am only for myself, what am I for? If not now, when?

Israel has no need or desire to cross the Lebanese border, unless Lebanon is condoning and/or encouraging attacks on Israel from her territory; end of story. The Golden Rule applies, but so do the three questions.

Is this surprising? Oh that's right... Israel is not supposed to react to provocations. Well, news flash, Kev. Israel will continue to do just that, so it's in Lebanon's interests not to create such a circumstance.

Ohhhhhh so it's only the minority with the guns and rockets that wanted war? Once again I ask: what does Lebanon want? If it's this tourism and prosperity you speak of, Lebanon needs to take her responsibilities seriously. The world is now standing with her -- she can stand up to her own Syrian and Iranian fifth column, if she so desires. Or she can pay the consequences.

If, in fact, Lebanon prefers to be an Iranian/Syrian puppet devoted to the destruction of Israel, she no longer has the option of pleading that she "cannot control" such elements.

Lebanon, the nation, now has a choice to make. Early indications are that Lebanon plans to stand with Hezbollah, by allowing Hezbollah to keep its weapons, and by allowing Hezbollah to play games with the abductees.

Lebanon should be careful what she chooses.

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited August 17, 2006).]

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:


"What's the score again?"

Sticks 0, Stones 0.

Re Robert Fisk: If newspapers have hired him as a reporter for over 30 years, and he's NOT a reporter, are the newspapers not newspapers?

I'm still asking if anyone has read his THE GREAT WAR FOR CIVILISATION. Long book. Daunting?

For something shorter, check out Seymour Hersh in this week's New Yorker. Oh, he's a devil. He's got to be on Cheney's hit list.

Shameless O'Clawson

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"Make up what passes for your mind."

I haven't made myself clear? Perhaps instead of calling the Israelies and Hezbollah guerrillas, "lunatics," I should have used something less pyrotechnic, such as, "morons."

I feel that either word also applies to our own administration. We're even worse, having got ourselves involved in three wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel/Lebanon) and, NOW, setting up the rationale for bombing Iran.

It's still tribal. They haven't advanced beyond The Law of Retribution. They're all doomed to repeat history.

Bob

Interesting questions, Dan. Hadn't read Hillel's questions before, but as you've noted, I'm a poor scholar of Judaica.

Since you know so much of the subject, and have been extremely willing to speak Israel's opinions for her, could you give us what you'd perceive to be Israel's answers to those three questions? I expect they'd be enlightening.

As for blaming Hezbollah or Israel for the death of Lebanese civilians, it isn't an either/or equation. It is completely possible to blame them <cite>both</cite>.

[This message has been edited by Kevin Andrew Murphy (edited August 18, 2006).]

Kevin,

I've been willing to speak my own opinions regarding Israel's recent crisis, and since I'm not an Israeli (though I am markedly less hostile to that nation than others here,) I don't want to leave the impression that I've decided to make myself some sort of unofficial spokesperson. I saw the usual bizarre theories bandied about, and I spoke my mind.

As to Hillel's questions, perhaps "now go and study" is the most applicable part of the story; in any event, your so self-deprecating invitation reeks of sarcasm, and I've no real desire to drag either Israel or Judaism through the muck by going into this at length -- in short, it's a setup, and we both know this. If the quotation is impermeable to you, I'll leave it to you to divine a meaning through meditation or further inquiry elsewhere. The application of the three questions seems very clear and apt to me, and I'll wager can be understood by most readers here, whether Jewish or not. So, go and study.

For the record, I don't think of myself as a tremendous scholar of Judaism or Judaica, just a very interested layman (and of course, sympathetic to the subject matter.)

RJ, you're right. All nation states are imbecilic, all war is hopelessly primitive, and the law of retribution is so passe. It turns out, however, that you cannot be the first country or people to abandon these means, or you get the crap kicked out of you.

Neal Stephenson noted this beautifully, and I have to paraphrase, because I don't have it handy and it is too early in the morning for a source hunt...

...we're killers, all of us, descended from a long line of killers, ultimately descended from the same one-celled great grandaddy of all badasses...

Humanity's struggle is the struggle of that angelic nature you seem to believe should guide us, in the midst of the earthy, animal nature that (by the way) also gives us all the raw material for our other passions.

We're both angel and animal, RJ, all of us. One day perhaps we'll move beyond war. Perhaps until that day, there is no real difference among the hundreds or thousands of wars that will be fought. Maybe it's all inane, moronic, lunacy.

I think needing a legitimate reason to fight (not just for hate,) and having limits on how you fight (especially in how you consider the noncombatant enemy,) are the only signifiers within warfare, that some higher impulses exist.

Some fight because they hate, and will always hate. Others fight for want of an alternative. The difference is significant.

PS to all -- I read an item today about a pro-war faction of Buddhist monks on Sri Lanka, briefly siezing the stage at an anti-war rally. They reportedly shouted "Take your protest to _______!!" (naming the regional capital that serves as the de facto Tamil capital.) If Buddhist monks can support a war, god damn it, so can poets.

Dan

Dan,

Shocked by sarcasm after what you've written in your own posts? And having taken an invitation to discourse on the history of the Golden Rule? Is this Irony I see before me, the handle towards my heart?

Yes, having the "three questions" posed to Israel is a set-up, but I think a valid one. After all, I'm not really jazzed by Israel's actions at the moment (yes, this is understatement/sarcasm), so I could easily answer the three questions for her, tinting them with my own perceptions and opinions. But that way lies snark, so I thought better of it, deciding it would be more interesting to see what a rah-rah Israel booster would say.

So don't take the bait. Fine. Not answering Hillel's questions is damning in and of itself.

Whitman on War

TO THEE OLD CAUSE.

To thee old cause!
Thou peerless, passionate, good cause,
Thou stern, remorseless, sweet idea,
Deathless throughout the ages, races, lands,
After a strange sad war, great war for thee,
(I think all war through time was really fought, and ever will be
really fought, for thee,)
These chants for thee, the eternal march of thee.

(A war O soldiers not for itself alone,
Far, far more stood silently waiting behind, now to advance in this
book.)

Thou orb of many orbs!
Thou seething principle! thou well-kept, latent germ! thou
centre!
Around the idea of thee the war revolving,
With all its angry and vehement play of causes,
(With vast results to come for thrice a thousand years,)
These recitatives for thee, -my book and the war are one,
Merged in its spirit I and mine, as the contest hinged on thee,
As a wheel on its axis turns, this book unwitting to itself,
Around the idea of thee.

RECONCILIATION

Word over all, beautiful as the sky,
Beautiful that war and all its deeds of carnage must in time
be utterly lost,
That the hands of the sisters Death and Night incessantly
softly wash again, and ever again, this soil'd world;
For my enemy is dead, a man divine as myself is dead,
I look where he lies white-faced and still in the coffin - I
draw near,
Bend down and touch lightly with my lips the white face in
the coffin.

TO A CERTAIN CIVILIAN

Did you ask dulcet rhymes from me?
Did you seek the civilian's peaceful and languishing rhymes?
Did you find what I sang erewhile so hard to follow?
Why I was not singing erewhile for you to follow, to understand -
nor am I now;
(I have been born of the same as the war was born,
The drum-corps' rattle is ever to me sweet music, I love well
the martial dirge,
With slow wail and convulsive throb leading the officer's
funeral ; )
What to such as you anyhow such a poet as I? therefore leave
my works,
And go lull yourself with what you can understand, and with
piano-tunes,
For I lull nobody, and you will never understand me.

1865 1871


[This message has been edited by Mark Allinson (edited August 18, 2006).]

Kevin,

I understand the Lebanese death count (as of this morning) was suddenly 795, down from the thousand I had seen previously.

Israel has announced that it has killed 500 Hezbollah fighters in the action.

Yes, that still leaves 295 civilians who lost their lives because of Hezbollah's actions. But it also establishes almost a two-to-one combatant-to-non-combatant ratio in Israel's campaign.

You have chosen the single least indiscriminate combatant in modern warfare to slander with charges of indiscriminate war.

You have chosen a proponent of killing indiscriminately, to paint as the "good guy" in this war.

You have yet to come up with anything approaching a rationale for this faddish embracing found only on the political left, in Western nations ("the enemy of my nation's friend is my friend.")

You gloat about Hezbollah's "victory," when in fact it's actions led to the pummeling of Lebanon, and its future actions point toward an Iranian/Syrian satellite in Lebanon (as opposed to Lebanese sovereignty.)

And then you raise the subject of the "Golden Rule," and when I deny you an opportunity to add theological anti-Semitism to your otherwise inexplicable animus toward Israel, you call it damning.

Kevin, the sum of your posts here point to a desire for Lebanon to be subdued by Syrian and Iranian colonization, a desire for purposeful slaughter of non-combatants to continue, and a desire for a region hostile to the existence of the region's one functioning democracy.

That's what I call damning.

But it's also clear to me that in truth, you really don't give a damn whatsoever.

It's not a game, my friend. While Israel practices restraint, and idiots on the left practice selective readings, and the media practice collusion with Hezbollah propaganda, events proceed -- and not at all according to the cease-fire terms.

Is this how we build a stable region?

Is this a formula for Israeli "patience"?

My guess is, we'll be back in this thread, discussing why Israel returned to Lebanon, and probably within a few weeks. And you will tell me how a few missiles a day is surely allowable, and RJ will tell me how everybody who ever defends his country is primative.

And we'll all have a nice, comfortable, inane, abstract discussion, while real lives are ruined by this sophistry.

I don't think, deep in your heart, you actually believe half of what you write here. It's too self-contradictory. I think you're just entertained by the spectacle of someone who actually does give a damn, giving ten reasons for your every one, and still having to swat the same old gadfly over and over.

Fess up.

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited August 18, 2006).]

Dan,
That's a digusting sentence and I'm sure, upon reflection, you'll agree. Doesn't it remind you of anything?
Janet

Dan,

Israel supported terrorist acts in Lebanon in May, 2006. In response, Lebanon collected evidence to bring to the UN. Hezbollah, in June of 2006, attacked an Israeli army post. In response, Israel bombed the living daylights out of Lebanon. Which side is more fair?

(Oh and don't you realize how you get a totally inaccurate percentage by using one side's number for the numerator and the other for the denomenator?)

Dan, you can be a cheerleader without being unreasonable. You started out the thread with a decently argued support of Israel, and now you've descended into anti-Lebanese propaganda. What happened?

Hezbollah just unleashed its full capabilities against Israel. So how much of a threat is Hezbollah? What's the likelihood that they will "wipe Israel off the map?" I think Israel was much more interested in punishing Lebanon than anything else, as Hezbollah posed no real threat. They are an easy target for Israel, a way to flex some muscle. It is not a new strategy.

- Daniel

[This message has been edited by Daniel Haar (edited August 19, 2006).]

Dan,

I think you're tilting at windmills here and attempting to put words in my mouth because it suits your rhetorical points or personal delusions, I'm not sure which.

I haven't been "gloating" over Hezbollah's "victory" or even praising it. All I've been doing is A). Ridiculing Bush for his claims that Israel has been victorious in this debacle, and B). observing that Hezbollah had much less grandiose stated objectives and apparently achieved them, so if we're going to count "victories," we might as well go for the fairly standard meaning of "achieving objectives."

As for the latest statistics you just came up with (without links, I might add), I have to say that "500" is a curiously even round number. Why "500"? Why not "492"? Why not "518"? Saying "500" sounds like someone just pulled a number out of their ass for propaganda purposes and quite honestly I'll look askance at any claim from Israel that someone was "a Hezbollah fighter." Why? Because as I observed higher up in this thread, any male in a certain range of ages who is killed always gets labeled an enemy fighter, despite the fact that without resorting to both a spirit medium <cite>and</cite> a mind reader, you're not going to find out who was what.

I give the benefit of the doubt to the corpse and lay the burden of proof on the person, or country, who did the killing. You say he was a terrorist? Fine. Let's see the evidence, and no, you're say-so is not enough.

And you call me a gadfly. Fine. Better that than a frivolous mau-mau.

Kevin, your say-so isn't enough, either. There's no basis for you to allocate the burden of proof when it comes to who gets to say what. If you actually have a reason to conclude, based on fact, that a lie is being spoken, then reveal it. But a general attitude of cynicism, based on your apparent scorn for one party or the other, does not permit you to get all uppity and snooty with those who do not share your cynicism and do not accept as fact that which you consider to be obvious based on your apparent predispositions.

It seems to me that Hezbollah has achieved a PR victory, since apparently it is a victory in the eyes of many merely to have fought Israel without being entirely and utterly vanquished, no matter how many of your leaders have been killed and no matter how much of your arsenal has been depleted. But such a definition of victory assumes that it was Israel's objective to exterminate every Muslim in southern Lebanon rather than to reduce the threat posed by a heavily armed Hezbollah militia across the border. The latter objective was largely achieved, however, with thoussands of Hezbollah rockets destroyed and the Lebanese army finally asserting some measure of control over the south. Had they done this before the fighting started, there would have been no war. Now the UN has called upon Hezbollah to disarm, and if that occurs, it is a huge Israeli victory. If it doesn't occur, then Israel will have the UN's help, in theory, to make it happen. It seems to me that Israel is being left in a much better position vis a vis Hezbollah than before. Which is the true measure of victory, as opposed to anti-Israel pseudo-joy that Hezbollah lobbed some rockets into Haifa just before its defeat.

Kevin--you don't write like you have a degree in anthropology.

Dick

First, for Roger: you've done a much better job, and I am now in rant mode. Kudos.

Janet,
I noted that the number of deaths had somehow declined in Lebanon. It points to the press chicanery well documented among both Hezbollah and, to a lesser extent, on the part of the Lebanese government. As in other endeavors, both these parties have been caught red-handed in efforts to manipulate international sympathies through inflation of figures and faking of incidents. The amazing part is that world opinion bought it.

Even more amazing, you’re disgusted to have it pointed out to you? Or are you in fact disgusted that 200 people are, in fact, alive and able to go about their lives, when previously you thought them dead? Do you actually want them dead?

Or are you disgusted because you’ve accepted lies for fact in support of a trendy sympathy? Or is it the larger lie of “indiscriminate” Israeli aggression, since the majority of this group were, in fact, Hezbollah fighters?

Daniel,
Okay, we’re allowed to use the “T” word for this exchange, I take it – to wit, “Terrorism”? I’m going to have to open this pandora’s box and say “why Daniel, which event are you referring to?” since you decline to elaborate, regarding the early summer chronology.

You’ve been gracious in the debate, so please take this at least a little collegially. The following tickled me just a bit, and I’ll explain why in a moment:

Here’s why: Up to this point I’ve had to explain to all and sundry how Israel’s war can not be judged unjust based on wailing, gnashing of teeth, and tearing of hair. It is universally recognized that in war, unfortunately, sometimes civilians are hit unintentionally. It is further recognized that this is likely to be an increased proportion in the case of a “guerrilla” war (a generous accounting of Hezbollah’s tactics, but accurate in that Hezbollah hides among the general populace.)

To the point: any numbers used in sympathy for the Lebanese civilian, have been derived as follows:
1. Take the total number of Lebanese killed in the war, reported by the government of Lebanon, to mean "all civilians," despite the simultaneous notion that they have no presence in the South;
2. Take the total number of Israelis killed, reported by the Israeli government, and broken down into civilians and military.
3. Compare these numbers.

Lebanon, you may notice, declined to cite the number of Hezbollah fighters included in this “civilian” total, thus making impossible use of numerator and denominator from a single source – a characteristic abdication of responsibility.

Again, up to this point, we have heard over and over again how “1,000 civilians” have died in this war, versus 150-odd Israelis, of whom X were civilians.

Here is the chronology of the methodology in use up to this point:
1) Siniora begins to release figures based on actual body counts
2) Siniora changes his mind, and bases his new figures on “bodies that must be under the rubble,” a few days into the war.
3) Siniora releases only numbers of “Lebanese civilians killed.” Sometimes the news media do something approaching their job, and say “mainly civilians,” rather than leave a question mark as to the proportions, which none of them did, preferring to just say “according to the Lebanese government.”
4) Siniora reports whatever “atrocity” is reported to him, inflating numbers at Qana, as well as the “one-man-massacre” incident, and repeatedly getting caught red-handed.
5) Israel begins to announce the number of Hezbollah fighters killed throughout the engagements. These are not cross-referenced to the “mainly civilian” claims by our so-impartial news media.
6) Israel, by contrast to Lebanon, releases the number of both soldiers and civilians killed. No fuss, no muss.

When the dust clears, Israel – which is straightforward throughout the engagements – announces its estimate of 500 Hezbollah killed. Lebanon does not in any way gainsay this assessment. Hezbollah itself is just plain laughable, moving around the same bereaved matronly woman to grieve the loss of home after home in news footage, and having the same guy “digging through the rubble,” and starring in the same photo shoot as a “corpse”.

The news media gobble up Hezbollywood images. Reuters runs a photoshopped image (amateurishly done I might add) which adds smoke to the fire, quite literally; U.S. News and World Report runs a cover of a Hezbollah member standing in front of a “downed Israeli aircraft,” which shows no wreckage, only a great big fire, which – if you zoom in close or use a loupe – turns out to have hundreds of tires in it; the list goes on.

And which numbers are untrustworthy? Why, Israel’s, of course!!!

Daniel, I am not against Lebanon, or the people of Lebanon… In fact, I think a strong Lebanese central government not controlled by Iran and/or Syria would be the dream scenario for Israel. I think the Lebanese government is still doing as they're told vis a vis Hezbollah. The proof is in how both are working already to undermind the cease-fire. This is dangerous for Lebanon - please understand what I mean by this. For Lebanon to be subsumed into a Syrian/Iranian orbit virtually guarantees continued provocations on behalf of Lebanon against Israel. You know as well as I where this will lead.

If you read what I write as anti-Lebanese, please understand that it is a GOOD thing in my mind that fewer civilians have died there, than were claimed.

What you may see as propaganda here, is my concern at Lebanon’s chumminess with Hezbollah from the outset of this cease-fire. Lebanon will not look for Hezbollah weapons, as long as they don’t carry them in the open; Lebanon will not look for Hezbollah tunnels; Lebanon will take no great pains to expel Hezbollah, allowing them instead to melt into the populace. Oh by the way, that International force, led by France? Changed their minds – big surprise there!

This does not bode well for the future, for either Israel or Lebanon. I personally don’t think it’s fair to Lebanon, to expect her to face down her Iranian and Syrian proxy on her own. But I doubt it’s an option for Lebanon to enlist Israeli aid in an independence effort, and ironically, Israel is the only other country in the region who would put boots on the ground to get rid of the Iranian/Syrian proxy force.

It turns out you cannot shake Syria by having a couple of rallies. If anything, this last month has shown us that.
Do you really think Israel is interested in “punishing” Lebanon? I do not. I think Israel’s goal has been consistent: to remove the influence of Hezbollah. It is not an unreasonable goal, as Hezbollah affects Israeli security. That makes Israeli security dependent on Lebanese sovereignty.

Of all the factions, of all the forces, of all the occupiers and foreign insurgents Lebanon has hosted over the last 3 decades, Israel stands out as the only one interested in a sovereign, united Lebanon. Think about that.

I understand your read, but disagree. Hezbollah makes no bones about its ultimate objective, and neither do Iran or Syria. Hamas prattles about Israel’s destruction as well, endlessly. And the international media are busy trumpeting the victory of any and all of these parties when they manage to get their own countries bombarded.

How much encouragement do these guys need? How long before Hezbollah acquires WMD from Syria (which has used chemical weapons on its own people,) Iran (which is fighting for its rights to nukes as we speak, oh, and by the way, is the most recent champion of the “destroy Israel” agenda among nation states,) or some other radical Arab or Muslim regiime?

And how much do we add to this calculus, by treating groups like Hezbollah as blameless, treating Israel as the aggressor, and treating clear and present terrorist attacks as if they do not merit responses? Oh and by the way, we are also supposed to believe that the terrorists have “achieved their objectives” and have scored a “victory” -- even while not believing they’ve achieved anything?

It’s one or the other.


Kevin,

observing that Hezbollah had much less grandiose stated objectives and apparently achieved them, so if we're going to count "victories," we might as well go for the fairly standard meaning of "achieving objectives."[/quote]

As alluded to above: do you believe that Israel has been destroyed? Is every Jew in the region murdered? No? Then Hezbollah has not achieved a victory. But it is, of course, a very stupid subject. As Krauthammer put it, it’s a tie. And in this kind of war, tie goes to the terrorist.

As you see above, Kevin, you would be taking the word of proven liars, if even Hezbollah or Lebanon had gainsaid the Israeli estimate.

500 “sounds like” it’s wrong? Yah. You know what “sounds like” it’s wrong to me? People who change their estimates for convenience the next morning, as in the case of Siniora on a number of occasions.

You give the benefit of the doubt to the corpse? That’s appropriate. Lots of the corpses counted by earlier Lebanese estimates are evidently walking around, and would probably be happy to explain their own deaths to you in vivid detail. And given the dynamics of this war and the American left anti-Israel faction, you would probably believe them. Some of the corpses in Hezbollah footage and photos, accordingly, turn out not to be dead at all, but busy looking for other corpses. It’s like War of the Living Dead, to listen to Hezbollah.

I know the truth is irritating to you, given your reliance on a subjective “feeling” that Israel “must be” to blame for all manner of ills. But taking the Lebanese count of actual “civilian deaths” seriously for over a month – when that number has been proven to be a propaganda tool on the part of the Lebanese authorities -- and then questioning Israeli numbers a priori the moment they come out, despite the absence of any such shenanigans on the part of the Israeli stat-gatherers, is a hypocrisy of such mammoth proportions that it cannot be taken seriously.

Again, in war, people die, and not all those people are bad guys. I personally think it is a good thing when a casualty count is lower, and when a greater proportion are actually combatants than non-combatants.

Janet expresses disgust at this, but I am happy that fewer rather than more civilians were killed in this war than we have been led to believe.

For my part, I am disgusted that such a hue and cry goes out in support of known liars, and known lies, as regards the Hezbollah and Lebanese Government counts of casualties.

I think I know where the benefit of the doubt goes around here. I get it, guys.

Just don’t fool yourself that people won’t call you on your B.S. It’s too transparent for that.

Dan

Rejoice, Janet! The over-1000 number is back, as of this morning!

From CNN:

This in a story about an Israeli operation in which no Lebanese were lost, at least for now. It depends if the count drops too low next week, I'm sure.

Dan

Dan,

There is no hypocrisy in finding sources more or less credible based on what it is they're reporting and who it is they are. Civilian authorities reporting numbers of their own civilians killed? I believe them. Lebanon reports numbers of its citizens dead? I believe them. Israel reports numbers of its citizens dead? I believe them. Anyone reports that initial estimates were incorrect and the new count is now some other number? Fine, I'll take that number and assume the discrepancy is based on the trouble of recovering bodies and you don't get an accurate count until you start tallying things up at the morgue, and in the case of collapsed buildings, that can take weeks, if ever.

"Is that a corpse?" is a fairly easy question. If it's someone only playing dead, they'll figure it out once they get to the autopsy, if not before.

In the case of military and or police reports, I reserve the right to extreme cynicism. It has been shown time and again--recently with American forces in the Iraq war--that the military finds it useful to declare that any male over a certain age that they kill is an enemy fighter because soldiers, if they're told that they've killed civilians, lose morale and fail to do the boo-ya happy-happy dance their superiors want so much. Or to put it another way, military and police have a longer history and more reason for lying.

"What were the political affiliations, goals and actions of that corpse?" is also a much more difficult question. And circumstantial evidence can and has been faked.

Finally, I think it more credible when either side gives their own body counts and reports of what percentage of those were their own soldiers. In the case of guerilla fighters like Hezbollah, that's a bit more difficult, but it's still no reason to take the oppossing side's military's estimate as granted.

Dan,

I thought people knew about this incident: car bombing in Sidon .

- Daniel

Soooooo the people I want to count "under the rubble," count, because they may be dead, even though I have routinely inflated figures in the past?

I am in awe of your critical faculties, Kevin. You never fail to amaze me in the fields of imagination and originality. The difficulty is that the morgue can't count people you just "hope" are dead, any more than people can interview the corpse.

What has been evident in the last four weeks is the utter absence of any semblance of concern for the truth in Lebanon's reporting of these figures. Or, to be generous, the subordination of the truth to the goals of the reporting individual.

You make a strange military/police versus civilian reporting distinction, as if civilians (with no ties to any "side,") were the reporting agency in Lebanon.

Not so. Government sources are the counters there as well, and Siniora is the country's leader, with military power in that country. The new "over 1000" figure quoted above is from "internal Lebanese security forces." Actually that is likely as not a synonym for "Hezbollah," but why pick nits. Your point, evidently, is that Israel's government constitutes police or military, and Lebanon's government constitutes civilians.

So let's see... Hezbollah has scored a victory because no actual Hezbollah fighters were killed, we can take them at their word... Israel is massively striking civilians, because Hezbollah and the Lebanese government say so, we can take them at their word despite proof of the desperate propaganda tactics of both, and Israel releases its figures, which are to be treated with extreme skepticism, despite the fact that they of all the parties follow your prescribed methodology in reporting their own losses.

A for effort, as always, Kevin. The execution, again, continues to be far, far off the mark, caused by a false dichotomy at the outset of the argument. Again.

Does this repeating occurence, in conjunction with your impassioned pleas in favor of subjective bias, strike you as constituting a pattern?

I'll sum up: The Lebanese government releases figures. The Israeli government releases figures. The Lebanese studiedly refuse to estimate the number of combatants in their figures, calling them all civilians (including, of course, the heavily armed "civilian" combatants Lebanon insists it is, as a nation, military incapable of facing.) Israel releases the numbers of both its military and civilian casualties. You claim the methodology of one party counting both its own dead civilians and soldiers is the more honest methodology. Your conclusion?

Israel cannot be trusted.

Boo-ya indeed.

Dan

Ah, you mean this
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...2007547&page=1
incident....the one in which Mahmoud Majzoub, a leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad - which is an Iran-backed militant group that persisted in attacking Israel while other major factions adhered to a cease-fire was killed? The one in which his brother, Nidal Majzoub , who was also a member of the group, which has continued to launch attacks on Israel since a February 2005 truce that even the main militant group Hamas has respected was also killed?

The incident that Israel has repeatedly denied having anything to do with? (Both the allegation and the denial are found in the official UN report for Jan-July 2006 - with no conclusions being drawn by UNIFIL)

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement

While it is true that Palestinians have frequently blamed the assassinations of several militant leaders on Israel it is also true that some of the killings of leading members of Palestinian groups have been the result of intra-Palestinian feuds.

Islamic Jihad (and let us not forget that the Majzoub brothers were leaders of Islamic Jihad as well as Lebanese citizens and were living and presumably operating in Lebanon when they were killed by whomever killed them) is a virulent Anti-Israel group which is backed by Iran and Syria and which has claimed responsibility for an attack that killed 11 and wounded dozens in April in Tel Aviv, the deadliest Palestinian attack in 20 months. It is led by Ramadan Shallah, a Palestinian from Gaza who now lives in exile in Syria. It considers the 1979 Iranian Revolution to be the beginning of a new era for the Muslim world and wants to turn all of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza into an Islamic state. It rejects all compromise with Israel.

Let's see, April - Tel Aviv - that would come before May - Lebanon wouldn't it?




[This message has been edited by Lo (edited August 19, 2006).]

Huh. Palestinian Islamic Jihad, operating from Lebanon? Why would Lebanon shelter a Palestinian group? Since these individuals are Lebanese by citizenship, do we now confer upon Lebanon the right to protect them as Lebanese nationals, although their passion in life is "regaining" their Palestinian homeland?

More to the point, given the criminal history of the group, why is the operation of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, in Lebanese territory, allowed by the government of Lebanon?

Although the incident has not been shown to involve Israel, it is telling that you consider the targeting of terrorists, to be terrorism.

Again, my understanding of the term has to do with the purposeful targeting of non-combatants. I don't think you can call Palestinian Islamic Jihad to be non-combatants, given that their raison d'etre is the destruction of the state of Israel.

I understand that we've had to go around and around about a definition of "terrorism" here, and don't much want to do that again.

Suffice it to say, armed groups other than official Lebanese government forces are not supposed to be operating in Lebanon.

This has been Lebanon's responsibility to guarantee since 2000. Since she is either unwilling or unable to fulfill her obligations, once again, she owes Israel thanks for the assistance, if indeed Israel participated in this incident at all.

It strikes me that Syria and Lebanon both have a remarkably sanguine attitude toward groups and individuals who hold murder within, and overthrow of, a neighboring sovereign state, as their inalienable right.

I know that if "terrorism," "sovereignty," and other such terms are moveable feasts, we are much more able to draw a moral equivalency between murderers and soldiers, between nations and gangs, etc.

No such equivalency, however, exists in this case. Israel is not protecting thousands of little workshops where bombs are being ready to be walked into weddings in Syria and Lebanon. Israel does not declare its intention of wiping Israel and Syria off the map. Israel does not declare that it would be better if all Muslims moved to Lebanon, so they could all be murdered more easily -- as Nasrallah has said of all Jews moving to Israel.

The word "Jihad", as used by "Islamic Jihad," refers to an armed strugggle. I don't think "Jihadis" call themselves that to refer to their "spiritual" struggle against their own demons. One of the problems with being in an armed struggle is, your opponents may be armed as well.

The only real open question here, is whether these "holy warriors" were killed by Israelis at all, or by other, "holier-than-them" "holy warriors."

Dan

Hey, three hundred posts!

Cookies? Coffee? Sports drink? Hot towel?...

Sure. Sports drink. So you say. Carrying a tube of "tooth paste" with that?

http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/wink.gif

Dan and Lo,

Car-bombing in my book is terrorism. Or was the IRA not a terrorist organization? Does targeting political figures now disqualify you from terrorism? Is Shamir now not a terrorist because he murdered Count Folke Bernadotte? I don't care if it were Kim Jong Il walking down the streets of DC; if someone blew him up in a car bomb, it would be terrorism. You say Lebanon was "protecting" the Jihad leader, but I think it is more like Israel has exiled him. Lebanon has been discussing disarming the Palestinian militant groups, and was close to an agreement. These arms are a left-over from the civil war. Can you not see that car-bombing a Palestinian leader is inherantly destabilizing toward Lebanon? Israel thinks it is justified in killing its enemies wherever they reside, with no thought of the political consequenses. Any reprisal attacks, in their eyes, constitutes terrorism. I probably do not like the Islamic Jihad anymore than you do, but that doesn't justify an attack on a leader on the streets of Sidon. You say the Israeli connection to the attack is not proven. Well, Lebanon believes it. Did we wait for a UN resolution to attack Afghanistan? My point is that Lebanon, had it believed Israel was behind the car bombing in Sidon, would have been justified by international law in attacking Israel. Now we all know such a move would have been suicide, but it is just silly to say that Israel is completely guiltless in the Lebanese conflict. Hell, they were an occupier of Lebanese territory for 18 years. They supported both the Phalange and the SLA in Lebanon, which were known to terrorise and/or torture their opponents. This occupation, in a large part, led to the creation of Hezbollah, which is, yes, an organization that uses terrorism on occasion.

- Daniel

P.S. I can think of some bad things that Hezbollah has done since 1982, but can anyone think of recent terrorist attacks committed by Hezbollah against Israel, but before July of 2006?

P.P.S. If Israel had evidence that people in Lebanon were responsible for planning the attack on Tel Aviv in April, why didn't Israel demand the alleged criminals be handed over to Israel? I agree that this was a heinous crime. And if Lebanon had refused, Israel may have been justified in an attack on the Islamic Jihad in Lebanon. This would have been different than funding an underground group to commit a car-bombing. I also realize this car bombing hasn't been definitely tied to Israel. We may never know. It does call into question Israel's absolute innocence, however.

[This message has been edited by Daniel Haar (edited August 19, 2006).]

Daniel,

Your last post raises interesting points:

1) Conventional war, such as we have recently seen (on the Israeli side), when waged in self-defense (as it was,) and when waged in accordance with accepted norms (as it was, despite strong protestations to the contrary seen here,) is definitely justified, so far as war is ever justified. Except in the eyes of the apologist and the pacifist, this war was a just war; you have to object to Israel having the rights of a nation-state, or object to the institution of war itself, rather than object to this war on its merits, for the war itself to be considered somehow aberrent (as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi -- as well as Israel -- reasoned); however,

2) the instance you raise is an example of extrajudicial killing -- of combatants, pledged to the killing of citizens of the state which putatitvely did the deed, and pledged to the destruction of that state. There seems to be no evidence that Israel was involved, other than "Lebanon believed it was," but Israel has been implicated in targeting terrorists abroad often enough, that for the sake of this interesting point, I'll stipulate to the notion that Israel has engaged in this activity.

So the argument shifts. It is not that this recent conventional war on the part of Israel is wrong; it is that Israel's extrajudicial killing in this past instance makes Israel the moral equivalent of Hezbollah, despite the fact that Israel's targets were combatants, whereas the targets of Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are indiscriminately chosen, with great rejoicing at "actions" against civilians, and brazen announcements that the goal is to kill all Jews.

The first thing we must recognize in this new formulation, is that one must decide what action Israel could undertake in order to combat the threat at hand.

You suggest that Israel should acquire prescient knowledge of an attack (such as the April attack,) and demand prior to the attack, the handing-over of the enemy plotter.

This strategy has two flaws:

1) It is possible that Kreskin is an anomoly, and, being a rarity among Israelis, is unable to fully cover the geopolitical landscape on behalf of his countrymen, employing clairvoyance, telepathy, and, if needed, the bending of spoons to determine when and where attacks will take place.

If, in fact, Israel is not peopled by psychics, sometimes Israel will not know these attackers until the time of their successful attacks (particularly "first time offenders." You have a lot of those where suicide bombing is popular.) Since Israel regularly foils some plots, but not all, it is safe to conclude that Israel sometimes will not know of an attack in the plotting phase, making impossible such an appeal to Lebanese authority; and

2) The nation-state in question, Lebanon, asserted that she exercised no sovereignty over the south at the time she was supposed to be the authority Israel was to appeal to. Indeed, some villagers there are now seeing Lebanese army troops for the first time in 30 years.

Problem (1) makes impossible the identification of these criminals prior to the attack; beyond that, it can be easily foreseen that Lebanon would not hand terrorist plotters on Israel's say-so, even if she could -- particularly "first timers" who have not yet murdered in God's name.

Problem (2) is once again a question of Lebanese authority and sovereignty. Lebanon allows the motions of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, et al., with the excuse that she is powerless to prevent these groups' operations. This is abdication of sovereignty. By doing so, Lebanon in effect declares her sovereignty to be a sham. Lebanon has simply declared herself not to be the duly constituted authority over the South.

And now, by international accord, Lebanon is declared to have such sovereignty. What does Lebanon do? Immediately strikes a deal with Hezbollah not to disarm them, not to expel them from the south, and in exchange, to be allowed by Hezbollah to carry the weapons of the Army in public. What is happening here is Hezbollah allowing Lebanese troops to coexist with them, and nothing more, in clear abrogation of the cease-fire.... AGAIN.

Well, since Lebanon refuses to exercises real authority, and refuses (again) to abide by its cease-fire obligations, the future looks as ugly as the past. But it's the past we're concerned with here, the past in which Lebanon said she abdicated responsibility outright.

So, your remedy seems a bit disingenuous to me. Israel can not get Lebanon to so much as relocate its terrorists, never mind hand them over, despite the fact that Lebanon agrees to do so. This does not leave appeal to Lebanese authority as a viable option.

Israel's other options consist of:

1) target the combatants only, in actions such as the one you complain of, or

2) fight a conventional war against such groups, as we have recently seen, in hopes of having a larger-scale effect on the combatants, but at the cost of some non-combatant lives.

Since we can conclude, if Israel is held to the standards other nations are held to, that the recent war was a conventional war in terms of Israeli actions, and not a terrorist plot; we can further conclude by this argument that, if one is concerned with Israeli sovereignty (as Israel is), this messier alternative is morally superior to the "terrorist" alternative of an extrajudicial killing of combatants. In other words, terrorists are engaged in war at all time, but states must be engaged in war only when engaged in conventional war such as we have just seen.

The logical conclusion of your protest against targeted killings is "it's about bloody time Israel invaded the country like men, instead of conducting these spot killings!"

I do not see other options Israel has not tried; after all, the withdrawl agreement of 2000 was explicit in its appeal to Lebanese authority over the territory in question. Appealing to a nonexistent authority seems a singularly ineffective remedy.

Quite questionable, when Lebanon denied sovereignty in the area in which this attack took place. But at the very least we can say, Israel would have been justified at any point in the last few years in waging war against such groups. They were supposed to be removed as a condition of peace.

We have gone over the definition of terrorism as it relates to Hezbollah; I use the term "terrorist" to be generous, as "genocidists" sounds so hyperbolic, despite its literal truth.

I do not hold Israel blameless. At the very least, any nation must realize that participation in war is not a good way to win the love of another nation's populace.

I think the deep Israeli involvement up to 2000 was a mistake. I think palling around with SLA and Phalange was a mistake. These Lebanese citizens were far less restrained than Israeli forces themselves, and Israel, in my worldview, became complicit in their actions.

This is why it is good, from my point of view, that Israel extricated herself from Lebanon. It was not worth it to attempt to occupy a large swath of the south, in order to prevent these attack, when in exchange for leaving Lebanon, Israel was finally being given the security guarantees which were her reason for engagement in the first place.

The difficulty is, as Syria's proxy, Lebanon still refused to stop provoking Israel. Now that Syria does not directly rule Lebanon in Beirut, Beirut still refuses to dislodge Syria's proxy in the South.

UNIFIL seems to notice a lot of rocket launchings by "unidentified armed men" in its reports. There was at least one incident involving 8 rockets fired indiscriminately at Israeli villages, during the present reporting period but before the July actions; there were two mentions of a group of four rockets per action, in two separate actions, as well as mortar fire and the shelling of a village mayor's office, in the July-January report, etc. Even when it is clearly Hezbollah which takes follow-up action, UNIFIL is careful not to say Hezbollah can identified as the firers of the rockets, so they like your idea that Hezbollah is not terrorist.

From ADL: http://www.adl.org/terrorism/symbols/hezbollah.asp

I take it since '96, they've contented themselves with lobbing Katyushas and denying responsibility. However, Lebanon still permits this organization -- which considers its goal the destruction of Israel -- to operate on Lebanese soil. This, from European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center (all emphasis is ESISC's): http://www.esisc.org/Note%20Hezbollah%20eng.pdf#search=%22%2B%22terror ist%20actions%22%20%2BHezbollah%22

The ESISC report lists Hezbollah attacks which extend through 1994, then the following (I'm going to quit including their bolding, as I am getting tired of typing brackets):

All this to say, Daniel, that Hezbollah, though terrorist in its occasional actions (i.e., ongoing rocket attacks,) and genocidic in its goals, could make the case that it is not practicing terrorism exclusively, having subcontracted many of its terrorist activities to other terrorist groups in its local network. Nevertheless, trust that Hezbollah is anything other than a terrorist group that has grown political and social appendages, misses Hezbollah's own stated raisons d'etre, the destruction of Jewry, the destruction of Israel, and the furtherance of the Iranian Islamic Revolution elsewhere in the Muslim world.

I know, I know, it's all in the eye of the beholder, if we look at it squinting, and in just the right light, for example, in the dead of night or during a solar eclipse. But I'm kind of thinking the U.S. government is right in calling these guys a terrorist organization.

Thanks for hanging with me for this somewhat lengthy post -- it hurt me more than it hurt you!

Dan

edited to eliminate a triple negative when a double negative was just fine, in the paragraph on UNIFIL reports.

[This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited August 20, 2006).]

Well hearing this comes as a bit of a shocker, considering your past posts.

Anything you think Israel can/should do to win the love of the Lebanese populace? After the current war is over, I mean?

Not "Hezbollah" by name in many cases, but as Dan has already made the case for "joint goal" and "joint funding" if not actual "joint venture," I'll feel safe in posting these:


June 4, 2003 Aqaba Summit - Abu Mazen and Ariel Sharon vow to stop violence, end occupation according to the road map. Hamas and Islamic Jihad vow to continue violence. Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad joined in killing four Israeli soldiers in Gaza (June 8) despite the call to end violence from Fatah leaders.


Aug 20, 2003 Hamas suicide bombing in a Jerusalem bus claims 21 lives

Sept 10, 2003 Twin suicide bombings kill 15 in Israel; Israel moves against against buildings surrounding Yasser Arafat's Mukata compound on the following day.

Oct 4, 2003 Palestinian Islamic Jihad Suicide bomber kills 20 in Arab-Jewish owned Haifa restaurant.

Aug 31, 2004 16 Israelis were killed in a suicide attack on a Beersheba bus. This was the first successful attack in many months. Another attack in the French Hill section of Jerusalem on September 22 killed one. During this period Israeli troops continued to operate in the West bank and Gaza, catching would-be terrorists, but also inflicting many casualties among civilians.

Sept 29, 2004 Qassam rockets launched from Gaza kill two children in the Israeli town of Sderoth. Israel launches operation "Days of Repentance," occupying a large area in northern Gaza, demolishing houses and killing over 80 Palestinians by October 7.BANNED POST

Oct 7, 2004 Multiple suicide attacks in the Sinai desert against Egyptian tourist areas frequented byBANNED POST Israelis including the Taba Hilton hotel and Ras al-Shaitan (Ras Satan). About 27 persons killed, mostly Israelis. Initial reports attributed the attack variously to Al Qaida and to Palestinian groups, though Palestinian groups claimed no involvement.

Dec 12, 2004 An explosion destroys an Israeli Joint Verification Team (JVT) terminal near the Egyptian-Gaza border, within Israel. Five Israeli soldiers killed. The explosion was carried out by tunneling from the Gaza side and planting a huge explosive charge. Hamas and the Fatah Eagles take responsibility. The attack was not condemned by the PNA.

Feb 25, 2005 Suicide bombing by Islamic Jihad kills 5 in Tel Aviv. Israel freezes planned handover of Palestinian towns.

June 20, 2005 Would-be suicide bomber Wafa Bis arrested at Gaza checkpoint on her way to carry out a suicide attack against an Israeli hospital.

July 13, 2005 Islamic Jihad suicide bomber kills 5 civilians in Netanya mall. IDF reoccupies Tulkarm. Hamas responds with massive rocket fire on Israeli settlements and inside Israel, killing one. Israel responds with massive manhunt against Hamas members in Hebron area and in Gaza, renewing the policy of assassinating terror leaders, claiming they are only killing those who are about to carry out terror attacks. PNA attack Hamas in Gaza, Hamas counterattacks. Civilians are killed in the cross fire.

Sept. 1` 2005 Last Israeli soldiers leave Gaza. Settlements handed over to Palestinians Sept. 12. Israel also evacuates four settlements in northern West Bank without incident. Palestinians loot and destroy greenhouses that were bought for them by Jewish philanthropists.

Sept. 23, 2005 After Palestinian authority bans parades with weapons in Gaza, but before the ban goes into effect, the last such parade held by Hamas ends in an accidental explosion that kills about 20 people. Hamas fires about 40 rockets on Sderot, in Israel. Israel responds with massive campaign of arrests in West Bank and targeted killings in Gaza; Hamas pledges to respect cease fire.BANNED POST

March, 2006 Over 40 Qassam rockets fall on Sderot in March, this number increases in the next months. IDF responds with shelling of launching sites and IAF raids to kill leaders of Popular Resistance Committees, Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Fatah Al-Aqsa brigades involved in the attacks.

June, 2006 Israeli targeted killings in Gaza and West Bank continue, while Hamas fires about 90 Qassam rockets into Sderot and other Western Negev communities. Seven Palestinian civilians having a picnic at a Gaza beach are killed by an explosion attributed by Palestinians and HRW to an IDF shell. IDF denies that it was shelling the beach at the time, and points out that shrapnel recovered from the victims does not come from IDF shells.

June 25 Following announcement of a "truce" agreement by the PNA, Hamas kidnap Israeli soldier from Israeli army outpost inside Israel, and kill two others. They demand release of Palestinian prisoners. Israel refuses to negotiate, demands release of soldier. Israel

July 12 Hezbollah terrorists cross the blue line border with Lebanon, attack an Israeli patrol, killing 3 and capturing 2 soldiers. Additional soldier dies the following day and several are killed when a tank hits a mine, pursuing the captors. At the same time, Hezbollah began a series of rocket attacks on northern Israel. In subsequent days, Israel carried out massive but selective bombing and artillery shelling of Lebanon, hitting rocket stores, Hezbollah headquarters in Dahya quarter of Beirut (see Beirut Map) and al-Manara television in Beirut, and killing over two hundred persons, many civilians. Hezbollah responds with several hundred rocket attacks on Haifa, Tiberias, Safed and other towns deep in northern Israel, killing 13 civilians to July 18 (See Map of Hezbollah Rocket Attacks) , and a Hezbollah Iranian supplied C-802 missile hits an Israeli missile cruiser off the cost of Beirut, killing 4. Hezbollah rocket also sinks at least one foreign neutral ship and damages an Egyptian one. G-8 meeting calls for cessation of violence, return of Israeli soldier and disarmament of Hezbolla in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1559 and UN Security Council Resolution 1680.BANNED POST
http://www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm


Like Dan, I must say that I don't find Israel blameless at all. They retaliate often and (much to my admitted dismay) they initiate occasionally - and their retaliation is sometimes deadly for terrorist and civilian alike. I find it sad and I find it frightening. I'd like to think the Jews are somehow above "reacting" and "overreacting" but they are not. They are as human as the rest of the world, and like all humans, they feel, they bleed, they fear and they anger.

Solutions? I have none. I am uneducated and unschooled in the ways of Middle Eastern politics. My role here at home is to play the Devil's Advocate and I take it seriously. Most days I can be found following Dan from room to room, shouting questions at him through the closed bathroom door, researching during dinner, arguing during Scrabble games, waking him up in the middle of the night to question/argue/research with him some more.

I read everything I can about the current issues in Lebanon and when he comes home from work, I pepper him with questions about Israel's cupability, their rights, their reasons, their history, their future.....I say, "this is wrong" he says, "that is wrong" and still, even with his knowledge and my curiuosity, we have come up with nothing other than blind hope and a belief in God that someday, somehow, somewhere, someone will find the answers we can't find and that a lasting peace can begin and take root in The Middle East and that Israel, Lebanon and all their surrounding nations can co-exist.

If you ask me, the children are the answer....the children are now and will always be "the answer." What the children need are parents on both sides of The Blue Line who are willing to put aside their differences and their learned behaviours and their learned hatreds and fears in order to assure that this next generation can grow up free and clear of a thousand years of much-too-heavy baggage.

The question has to change from "who's been at fault?" to "Who's going to make it right?" in order from the answer to change from finger-pointing across a barbed wire fence to a nod of acknowledgment and a sense of responsibility and an acceptance of a challenge....and God help us, the children who can do that can be the ones who "make it right."

Killing the children is not the answer, teaching them is.

Lo

[This message has been edited by Lo (edited August 20, 2006).]

Well, Kevin, since you raise the point:

After Hezbollah is eliminated from the south of Lebanon, Israel could work in joint teams with the Lebanese Army and international forces in discovering and destroying arms, tunnels, and other infrastructure of war throughout the country, if invited -- despite the fact that this is Lebanon's Hezbollah problem, not Israel's problem, and it has been made worse by the Lebanese government's inaction.

It would be at great risk to their own IDF personnel, and so this is nothing to undertake lightly. It is also the logical role of Israel in post-war Lebanon, assuming Lebanon is allowed by its Hezbollah masters to make this show of common cause with the Zionist enemy. Big assumption.

Very little else can be done in regard to the "hearts and minds" of those who subscribe to the Islamic Jihad/Hamas/Hezbollah point of view, that is, that Jews and the state of Israel are evil, and that exterminating both is the only solution to the problems of the middle east; so, in regard to the minority which believes this to be the case, I would suggest that Israel be prepared to defend herself against the inevitable attacks -- unless of course the Lebanese authorities once again need assistance in finding and destroying these groups, such as Israel provided in her most recent actions. Sadly, I think Lebanon is beginning to tilt that way already.

But Israel should also be prepared for the day that the other communities in Lebanon speak up -- again -- against their well-funded Hezbollah "fixers." Working to cut off Hezbollah funding, and insisting on international funding to the government of Lebanon, so long as that government actually attends to both its internal and its international responsibilities, would be in Israel's interest. It would also be a logical extension of Lebanon's Cedar Revolution of 2005. But the idea, of course, cannot come from Israel. (Bit of a Catch 22 there.)

Anything Israel does is anathema to many communities in Lebanon, the Arab world, and the Muslim world. It's dressed up in lies, paraded across al-Manar and al-Jazeera in the worst possible light, and generally trotted out as another instance of Israelis continuing to have pulses and draw breaths, a grave offense against either the Arab people, the nation-state of ________, or God himself, depending on the institution reporting. Lately, Western liberals find it trendy to take the "Israel's existence is offensive" point of view, as we have seen here. So Israel's contributions will never look particularly chummy, until this sort of regionwide hate in the middle east, and classwide hate in the US among academics and some other elites, grow tiresome enough that they are disregarded.

In the perfect world, of course, it would be wonderful for Israel to take over the curriculum development in the now-abandoned Hezbollah "schools" (since of course, Hezbollah will not be in the south of Lebanon anymore.) I think you should campaign vigorously for this support, since Lebanon has had such trouble running a school system in the past, that it has turned over this function to an Iranian puppet group.

If these children are taught the truth about their neighbor and their history, perhaps they won't grow up to create new instances of violence, and these children come from the very population most supportive of hate-attacks, such as we have seen with the rockets, because they are being fed a steady diet of this drivel in the schools.

Maybe it would actually have an effect on the youngest, and probably a few who are cynical about their indoctrination thus far.

Now, can you think of a way Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad can help win the hearts and minds of the Israeli people?

Thanks,

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited August 20, 2006).]

Dan,
I realise that you feel Israel's situation very deeply.
Nevertheless, please allow me to say that this term "conventional war" seems like a gross obscenity now that industrialised war has become so monstrous.

If I must accept the unpopular label of "pacifist" in order to say so, I guess I must accept that. I am one of those who think that war is no longer possible. Somehow we must tackle these horrors without leaving a trail of carnage which we are told is "conventional" which seems code for acceptable. "Accepted norms" should be in Bob Clawson's thread. That's a really horrible weasel phrase. Acceptable to whom? Normal by what standard?

It is a war crime to destroy infrastructure. Now that crime has become an "accepted norm". "Normal" people do it all the time.

And I would say the same thing to the Hezbilah. You will tell me that that is ridiculous and I would agree with you.

It has to start with someone who doesn't mind being ridiculous.
Janet



[This message has been edited by Janet Kenny (edited August 20, 2006).]

Lo,

I disagree that Hezbollah can be held responsible for everything Hamas has done. If so, Israel could attack Lebanon in response to any Hamas attack. They have funding from the same source, true. But many of their actions can be seen as reactions to things Israel has done to Lebanese or Palestinians, respectively. (Not a justification of those actions.) But I think both groups are pragmatic, sometimes fanatic, national political actors who use bad means. You see them as the same, big jihadi army. I hope I am right, just because it would make the future easier.

Question: both Egypt and Israel take a lot of funding from the US. Though many conspiracy-minded folks think this means we control both governments, don't you agree that funding, even a lot of funding, isn't the same as absolute control?

Lo, I agree with the rest of your post, and I thank you for your candor. I hope you do not think I believe that Israel is always wrong and Arabs are always right. The history of the last 60 years in the Middle East is quite sad, and none of the actors are pure. One of the things that infuriates me about the recent war is that I expected that the war may weaken Lebanon as a whole, and strengthen Hezbollah politically. I hope that this is not the outcome of the war, but I fear it is so.

- Daniel

On the contrary, Janet. I have a great deal of respect for the position of Pacifism. I just differ with those who believe it can be an efficacious stance in the age in which we live.

For example I do not think Ghandi's suggestion for the Jews regarding the Holocaust, would have been a brave and efficacious way to deal with their real-life historical connundrum:

The only effective difference here between Ghandi, Hitler, and Nasrallah, is that Ghandi wants the Jews to wipe themselves out.

The trouble with Pacifism, in the context of genocidic violence, is that it amounts to a call for the prospective victim to exaccerbate his own victim status, in a search for a moral superiority -- in the view of the Pacifist (who conveniently is not a target of the genocidic violence.)

It is quite literally, as we see above, a call to suicide.

So yes, I see your stance of Pacifism as a legitimate response to a pretty horrifying world, for yourself.

But counseling others to give up their right to self-defense, in the name of your need to dissociate from violence, is a call for them to submit to violence without a fight.

It does not in some way guarantee that violence will not happen, it just allows the violence to all be perpetrated by one party, against another.

Perhaps some peoples have had good experience with such scenarios. The Jews have not.

I'll go with you as far as longing for a world without violence. I unfortunately cannot join you in calling for a world in which, well -- Yeats said it best -- "The best lack all conviction/while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

Also, the center cannot hold, but the offensive line can use their open hands. (Sorry, it's football season here, and by that I mean real football.)

All this to say, if I seem glib about some pretty horrible things in these posts, please bear in mind that it is also possible to seem monstrous while proceeding from an ideological point of view -- I do not see you that way, I just understand the implications of Pacifism differently.

Once the thumb closed effectively against the knuckles, and the latter were off the ground, Janet, I think we were damned to this debate. I would not be surprised if it took the time needed for another biological change in the organism, for us all to extricate ourselves fully.

Sister Mary Sunshine, AKA,

Dan

Daniel, a short note on the relationships between these groups, from my own POV:

I think they're more interconnected than the news media let on. It's obvious that Hezbollah took its July actions in imitation and support of Hamas' actions days later. I also think plunging Lebanon into large-scale war was Hezbollah's way of saying, hold on here Hamas, we're still the biggest dog in the region. Rivalry combined with support.

So yes, they're fragmented, but not like the old PFLP/PFLP-GC/DFLP/Fatah divisions in the early Palestinian terrorist movement. The Islamist groups share funders, share trainers, and tactically coordinate to a much greater extent. They may expect to have a little firefight over command one day in the future, but they all agree on that future: It is to be entirely Muslim, entirely judenrein, entirely intolerant of other confessional groups, and entirely ruled by sharia, not by secular authority. And they take joint actions to bring this about, step by step, and support one another in their individual actions toward the ultimate goal.

I think you're right about there being a distinction between the actors, but since (in the Lebanese case) they share territory -- in which none of them is a legal presence -- I also think that, having all declared war on Israel, there is a concommitant expectation on the part of the combatants that Israel may in fact strike back, despite any cloudiness regarding the source of an individual provocation.

This is one of the things that may result when you swear yourself to the destruction of a nation state and/or the genocide of a people.

Dan

Thanks for your reply, Daniel. Each time I read a reply or a post from you I am more aware that we all wish for the same things, albeit that through birth, religion, circumstances, etc. we are approaching these matters from a different viewpoint, and it gives me hope that the entire world which will someday realize the same truths and act accordingly.

Your question about funding is an interesting one. In fact, I had brought up the same question in a conversation with Dan just the other day. It alarms me....the taking of money from any "group" or government. Always has and always will. The moment you accept "help" you become beholden. Dan said I was wrong in my absolutism when I made the argument that I used to make to my grown children when they lived under my roof and ate my food. "As long as I am supporting you, you WILL do what I say. When you are adult enough and intelligent enough to make it on your own, without needing financial backing from your mother, that's when you are entitled to set your own rules....until then, I am the one who rules the world here." I do believe that the same principal extends to nations. How can you justify taking someone's money, taking someone's assistance and NOT do whatever they may ask of you in return? And people (be they loan-shark, bank president, king, queen, president, welfare office, Hezbollah or Hamas) are going to expect something in return. It's not only human nature - it's good politics.

When I was very young there was a time I was virtually homeless and had a small child to support. I was too young and too uneducated to find "honest" work and so I did what countless other young and stupid women do....I applied for welfare benefits and food stamps....and, of course, being both young and stupid, I qualified for both of them. What that also qualified me for was the "duty" to account to the State of Illinois as to where I lived, how I raised my child, where I spent my money, how and where I grocery shopped, and what doctor I could or could not take my child to see. It lasted all of 3 short months before I realized that no money is "free" and no benefits are without some greater cost....to soul if not to self.

I lied about my experience, got a job tending bar, repaid Illinois every damn cent and said, in effect, "Fu** you." I've never looked back until now....and the analogy I see here is a good one......when you take something, even something you feel you may have a right to, you are gpong to be required to give something back....and if you can't give back the money they will be more than happy to take away your freedom in exchange.

Will we (The United States) expect something back from Israel in return for the aid we have given them? Of course we will...some will argue that Israel is fighting in Lebanon now as a proxy for our fighting Iran....do I agree with that? Yep, to some extent I do...sorry to say...sorry for Israel, sorry for Lebanon and sorry for us, as well. If we have "dirty work" to do, we ought to be able to do it ourselves....or not to have it done at all. Do we expect Egypt to act "responsible" and to allow us to use their air space in return for our "assistance" and did we expect them to help us invade Iraq in 1992? Again, yep, youbetcha. Did they do it? Yep, again. Hopefully they "wanted" to, but who knows.....if I were Egypt, I'd just want to stay the hell out of the whole mess. But, once you're beholden to someone for goods and services, there's not much you can do but pay up and act like you want to.

Does the fact that Hezbollah is at least partially funded by Syria and Iraq mean that Syria and Iraq will have a hand in the shaping of Middle East politics in general and Lebanese politics in specific? Once again, I'm sure of it. If someone is buying your gun, that someone is in a much better position to tell you where to point it than he would be if you had purchased it yourself. After all, you owe him that much.

Which brings us to the more pressing problem....Will the Lebanese eventually have to pay the piper, Hezbollah, for the schools, the homes, the hospitals they are currently furnishing them with? I'm sure of it....and I'm sorry for it.

"Funding" something or someone may not be "absolute control" but (even to an absolutist like myself) there are very few absolutes in the world.

Each dollar is a toehold....and a toehold at a time is a slow but certain way to climb, conquer and eventually claim the mountain-top as your own.

Lo



[This message has been edited by Lo (edited August 20, 2006).]

Dan,
I wouldn't have advocated the same response as Ghandi, nor do I.

The manufacture of modern so-called weapons has become more out of control during my lifetime. President Eisenhower warned the world about it. Our economies now depend upon it. We have painted ourselves into a corner.

Arms "fairs" are held all over the world and the sales pitch is huge. Nice educated people who love poetry and collect paintings and attend concerts are deeply involved in the business. All of these "wars", when hellish complicated explosive devices are dropped on communities, are supplied by these nice people whose lives are untouched by the annihilating horror they cause. Their lifestyle is funded by war.It's interesting to trace the parentage of various weapons. You will recognise quite a few brand names. During WW2 certain factories on both sides were spared from the bombing. They were owned by the same people. Sick but true.

I would probably have been part of the underground that resisted Nazism and would certainly have sheltered and assisted Jewish people, just as my friends in Australia, before I arrived there, sheltered young men who were selected by a birth-date lottery to go and die in Vietnam.

Now in Australia there is a moral war going on about the treatment of asylum seekers. The real heroes are the lawyers who refuse to accept the destruction of civilization in the name of "the war on terrorism". Similar lawyers saved South Africa from itself. They were the brave few who refused to deny proper legal protection to victims of the system.

We stand at a point called now and must start from where we find ourselves. The human behaviour that led to the present situation of Israel is nighmarish at best. No words are adequate. Out of mistakes and injustice more mistakes and injustices multiplied. Now the legacy of hatred is pathological. A Dutch friend told me recently of her 92-year-old aunt who died hating all Germans because they would not give her medicine to save her three-year-old son. She never forgave the Germans. Every action like that leaves a similar legacy. Imagine what the Lebanese are feeling now.

The only hope is for people to stop leaving such legacies. I understand that when a country is under siege such thoughts seem frivolous and insensitive. But cause and effect are the main players.

I too have friends in Israel.
Janet

Janet, I think I understand your point of view. I am very locked into the "pragmatic" at the moment, which of course, may not seem pragmatic if you look at any given international conflict (or intranational conflict) without regards to the conflict itself, solely from the point of view of living, breathing human beings who suddenly are not anymore. I cannot tell anybody death is a good thing because a cause is noble -- particularly since I myself am not in combat, nor am I an unarmed civilian caught in the midst of combat. That goes for Israelis we ask to die in the name of self-restraint, every bit as much for the Lebanese who die in a crossfire.

All I can do is attempt to apply the standards of war equally across various societies, when I compare their actions. When a nation goes to war it should be for a good reason, and the war should be prosecuted within certain limits (for example, purposeful targeting of non-combatants is considered "off limits" among those states who seek to delineate "war" from "largescale murder.") It is pithier to say they are one and the same, but I personally believe that systematic genocidal wars against civilian populations, is a greater evil that "conventional" war.

The fact that various well-known brand names have a great deal of commerce in the arms trade does not surprise me. I think it did when I was 20.

I don't like wars either. From what I can tell, however, rallies by the people of Lebanon and Israel have failed as deterrents against the jihadis who want to murder all Israelis; hence my apparently sanguine attitude toward this war of self-defense.

I guess we understand each other well enough. I am not sure exactly what the solution is meant to be, against an armed force intent on destroying a people, which would laugh in glee at the notion of "peace" on the part of that people.

Dan

Originally posted by Lo:

"I'd like to think the Jews are somehow above "reacting" and "overreacting" but they are not. They are as human as the rest of the world, and like all humans, they feel, they bleed, they fear and they anger.

Solutions? I have none.

someday, somehow, somewhere, someone will find the answers we can't find and that a lasting peace can begin and take root in The Middle East and that Israel, Lebanon and all their surrounding nations can co-exist.

The question has to change from "who's been at fault?" to "Who's going to make it right?" in order from the answer to change from finger-pointing across a barbed wire fence to a nod of acknowledgment and a sense of responsibility and an acceptance of a challenge...."

I agree. Perhaps we should begin by positing the "who's." We've had people in the past who struggled to make things right over there. I think our current administration is just too incompetent to handle the complexity. We've got to act like adults and elect representatives with brains and compassion, no phonies, no rationalizers. Not going to be easy. I hope I'm not too far out to think that Bill Moyers has both the mental capacity, the compassion for his fellow humans, and the courage to take on the awesome job. He's the first "who" who comes to my mind.

Bob

RJ

re:

while many may feel that to be true, I am not at all sure any administration could do a great deal better; the below
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768

is only 13 short paragraphs in length but describes, with clarity, a mindset that is tough (understatement) to crack and entirely foregin to ours, making it all the more incomprehensible and difficult to work with.

All three at the same time? Tricky, and I certainly wouldn't see it happening overnight, but running a guerilla war and running a country are two different things. Organization of that nature have one of three fates: 1. They die out or are otherwise defeated; 2. they become a flaky mostly riduculed (if still dangerous) fringe group; or 3. they take over, but in the process of governing have to change and compromise.

To answer the question, you have spin the third scenario and then look far enough into the future where, after various ugly wars and bitter armistices, the named groups bear about the same resemblance to their founders (and their founder's ideals) as Bo and Luke Duke do to Jefferson Davis.

Of course by that point, Israel, if it's still around, will not be the same as Israel today either.

The trouble is getting a rosier future to happen in our lifetimes while we're still are around to enjoy it.

So nobody in the foreseeable future, must in some way consider the issue of the hearts and minds of Israelis. Rather, Israelis are responsible to win the hearts and minds of various populations, from which spring these three (and innumerable other) organizations dedicated to her destruction.

Does this in some way involve throwing themselves off cliffs into the sea, by any chance?

Dan

4. They take over, but don't need to change or compromise; internal "cleansing" is followed by military engagement with foreign scapegoats.

I'm sure I don't need to cite historical examples.

In any case, it's not clear that any of these outcomes are part of the Hezbollah game plan. Beyond their one clear objective -- the eradication of Israel -- nothing is particularly clear to us in the West. For example; do they want more control in Lebanon? You would think the answer would be an obvious yes, but perhaps Hezbollah learned a lesson from Afghanistan: it's better to be stateless (like Al Qaeda) than stated (like the Taliban).

And with Iran and Syria playing important roles in the Hezbollah decision-making process, things become even more confusing. While they have some common interests, Iran and Syria are far from being close allies, and Hezbollah must in some way be balancing the competing interests of its main funders while striving to achieve its own objectives. Again, it's not clear that overt political power in Lebanon is the way to do it.

Finally, Hezbollah as an organization has long placed a premium on making sure the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. The military and political leadership probably pursue their goals independently:

"Hezbollah's resistance to penetration by Israeli intelligence was part of a culture of secrecy extreme even by the standards of underground guerrilla forces. The code fit with a tendency toward secrecy in the Shiite stream of Islam, called faqih..."

"Even the movement's political leadership was kept in the dark about many military and intelligence activities...Ghaleb Abu-Zeinab, a member of Hezbollah's political bureau, said in an interview, for instance, that he was not informed about operations on the field"
<A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/13/AR2006081300719_2.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...1300719_2.html[/ URL]

So even if, somewhere down the line, the political wing of Hezbollah decides to adopt a conciliatory tone w/r/t Israel, it's unlikely to restrain the military wing (or even be able to). This isn't like the IRA. I don't know what the precedent would be, unless maybe it's [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/magazine/20outkast.html?_r=1&oref=slogin]Outkast</A> .

All of which is to say that your vision of the future conveniently includes the REALLY worst-case scenarios for Israel: scenarios which are possible enough to give Israel the justification it needed for this war and for the others that will probably follow. Dan's right. Israel is not in a position to care how the rest of the world views its actions. Though militarily powerful, its options are also remarkably constrained (by geography, economics, politics, religion, history), as are Lebanon's (by all of the same).

The real bad actors here are the Clinton and Bush administrations, with the current one being the worst of all. Simply put, they haven't taken the commitment to Israel seriously enough to do that which would alleviate its problems considerably -- diplomatically engage with Iran and Syria.

Of course, Syria and Iran aren't blameless either, but both made overtures in the wake of 9/11 that could have lead to constructive engagement, and the Bush administration squandered the opportunity out of (it seems to me) nothing more than pride. Naming Iran as part of the "axis of evil" was the most tone-deaf foreign policy decision of the last five years. They were giving us intelligence, for goodness sake! The opportunity existed to strengthen moderate elements in the Iranian government, and instead the Bush administration's actions strengthened Ahmadinejad's radical (and expansionist) faction. The result, a few years later, is the war Lebanon and Israel just lived through.

Ultimately, the answer to all of this crap is to ignore the proxies and have the Big Boys deal with each other. Neither Israel or Lebanon, it seems to me, have any choices other than the ones they've been taking. The pawns only get to move in one direction.

-Dan

[This message has been edited by Daniel Pereira (edited August 21, 2006).]