How realistic is the estimate of 400 dead?  Given the number of housing complexes that seem to have been destroyed, and the unlikelihood that thorough recovery operations are possible under constant threat of new air strikes, I wonder if the toll isn't much higher.

the international community needs to wake up and stop the needless loss of life of Israeli and Lebanese children. Is anyone there?

The progress is slow, too slow for the hundreds of slaughtered innocents, but still there is progress. Israel is out of the Sinai, mostly out of Lebanon, almost out of Gaza, soon to be partly out of the West Bank. Only a few years ago, Israeli politicians were still promising, "Not one inch." It's hard to watch, but it is slowly getting better, and eventually Israel will retreat from all the occupied territories, even East Jerusalem. Israel does have the means to make friends with its neighbors, and if it does so, there will still be an Israel 100 years from now.

Body counts are like the truth in war; they cannot be relied on.

Has anyone read INSIGHT,  that example of journalistic integrity that brings us the Gingrich, Perle and Cheney (eminence gris) Greek chorus that wants Rice out of the way, transferred as they put it, because she doesn't understand she is supposed  to start World War III?

What do you call a 10 to 1 victim ratio in a 'defensive' military response then?

If one looks at history honestly, they certainly cannot claim it is an effective policy.

Larry, I've enjoyed your trenchant criticism of Israeli policy, which manages to avoid the hysterical Israel-bashing that we've seen in some of the comments on this site.  But I have a question.

Isn't the high ratio of Arab to Israeli civilian casualties what one would expect from competently-waged asymetrical warfare?  It is a standard guerilla tactic, after all, to blend military targets into the civilian population and infrastructure.  This gives the stronger power a tough choice between hitting military targets, with accompanying civilian casualities and international condemnation, or not hitting these targets at all.

My point is that the disparities in casualties you allude to are the result of the type of warfare that is being waged, not a desire by Israel to maximize the suffering of the civilian population. 

 Ovid

Concentrate on fighting Hezbollah without violating international law or creating yet another failed state in the Middle East. No one would object to their flattening the Hezbollah state within a state on the border. In fact, if they'd played their cards right, they might even have gotten tacit support for destroying Hezbollah from moderate Sunni and Christian Lebanese. As it is, with the Bushianly stupid policy they've instead chosen, Israel is left with a basket case on its northern border -- and the missiles are STILL raining down on Haifa.

Trust me: the entire world condones "barbaric" tactics against military forces. Has the United States ever been criticized for massacring tens of thousands of Iraqi troops in the first Gulf War? But, thank G-D, we still draw the line when it comes to burning children alive and murdering U.N. observers. Why doesn't Israel understand that?

It was interesting to find out that the reason for the kidnappings was a series of intelligence blunders, now admitted by the Israeli military.

In a statement, the IDF said: “The committee indicates a chain of errors, mostly at the Battalion and Brigade level, but also in higher echelons- the Gaza Division, Southern Command and the General Staff."

If two Americans were (and this has happened) kidnapped by Mexican drug cartels near the Texas/Mexico border, should the US aim rockets at all of northern Mexico and fire indiscrimately? Isn't it smarter for both countries to join in stopping aggression on the part of renegades?

There is increasing evidence that Army commander Halutz is a "bad apple" -- you might say rotten. We'll probably hear more about Halutz and Israeli "Fallujahs" as time goes by. For example we have this BBC report today:

UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon contacted Israeli troops 10 times before an Israeli bomb killed four of them, an initial UN report says. The post was hit by a precision-guided missile after six hours of shelling, diplomats familiar with the probe say.

A caller to the Diane Rehm show just now, an American who had served with the UN at that very outpost, said the building stands in a separate area, well away from civilians and with a huge dark blue "UN" painted on its roof. Everyone knows where it is. It would be impossible for it to be assaulted "by mistake."

The result of Israel's decision to use force? The majority in Lebanon, two weeks ago, were hardly big fans of Hezbollah and now, two weeks later, they've lost faith in Israel and gained respect for Hezbollah -- according to comments in a discussion this morning in the news. Seems to me Israel is doing enormous harm to its prospects for a peaceful settlements. Who trusts Israel now? Who among its neighbors, the most important people it has to deal with?

What would I do? Negotiate. Does that mean instant complete security and the elimination of all enemies? Of course not. Only homicical maniacs believe security can be achieved by slaughtering one's enemies, their children, their neighbors, and the people down the block -- not to mention the four members of the police in the area. The rest of us have had to learn to play nice, do unto others..., respect boundaries, and be willing to compromise. That's compromise, not try to force others to respect one's unilateral decisions.

Current death claims must be highly unrealistic, because they completely omit any estimate of the excess mortality caused by the displacement of (apparently) hundreds of thousands of people into dire circumstances. Without adequate food, water, hygiene, or medicine, it can only be that the most vulnerable sectors of the population are getting sick in huge numbers. And many will die.

Ovid: You pose a reasonable question--“Isn't the high ratio of Arab to Israeli civilian casualties what one would expect from competently-waged asymetrical warfare? “

Yes, it well may be, but that still doesn’t absolve the Israelis from moral responsibility for the consequences of their actions. When the “counterattack” results in far, far more deaths than the attack that allegedly prompted it, then the morality of the counterattack must be called into question. Indeed, the very fact that a gross disparity in the number of civilian deaths is quite predictable increases the onus on the counterattacker to ensure that his actions are proportionate. Of course, “proportionate” is a difficult concept to pin down. If Lebanese civilian deaths outnumbered Israeli by a ratio of two or three to one, there might be an argument that Israel’s response was proportionate. But fifteen to one? No way. And the ultimate Lebanese death toll is sure to be a appreciably higher than the immediate one—the massive displacement of people, including the elderly and sick, results inevitably in some deaths, while the destruction of power stations and other infrastructure has consequences for the operation of hospitals, the water supply, etc.

Also, there is a good deal of evidence that the Israelis haven’t been careful to hit only militarily justifiable targets—attacks on civilian vehicles carrying people trying to evacuate and the attack on the UN observation post, for examples.

War is about death. That is why it is to be avoided, if at all possible.

But war cannot be avoided if it is thrust upon you. If someone in another nation is shooting rockets at your country, you fight back until the rockets stop. It's not about retaliation. It's about achieving your goal, saving your own people, no matter how many deaths it takes on the other side.

What was our response in the US when a handful of terrorists killed 3,000 of our people? We killed 30,000 civililans in Iraq, a country that wasn't even responsible for the deaths in ours.

When will our retaliation be enough? When the terrorists stop? They haven't killed anyone in America for nearly five years. I don't think this administration will stop until it's clear that there is no longer the capacity for a single terrorist, anywhere in the world, to set foot on American soil with malicious intent.

Why should Israel behave any differently than America?

That is no response. Hezbollah chose to hold Lebanon hostage for Iran's benefit. You seem to aggresssively ignore the missiles raining down on the civiliams of Haifa.

Hezbollah attacks Israel. Why doesn't Hezbollah give up the soldiers and its missiles. It is not the state of Lebanon?

No restrain in this case was that rather than live under the shadow of those 11,000 missiles Israel does not simple level Lebanon with conventional weapons. As CNN keeps emphasize much of non-Shiia Beirut is untouched.

By the way what would Israel negotiate? They are already outside the Lebanese border.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

>> Why should Israel behave any differently than America?

Because, in Iraq, America has engaged in massive war crimes. Shock and awe was a war crime; Fallujah was a war crime.

I would hope Israel would not look up to us for moral guidance in warfare.

Larry: I also believe Israel has a right to defend itself. But Israel today is doing the opposite of defending itself. It's losing a war against Hizbullah while turning all of Lebanon against it
by destroying the whole country.
Meanwhile, 2 weeks on, rockets are still flying over Haifa.

Sharon was able to withstand Hezb's provocations for years. He even arranged for a prisoner exchange, for crying out loud!

Olmert screwed up big time.
In order to restore deterrence, he's turning the mighty IDF into the butt of jokes. (This Halutz dude is, indeed, quite a clown. Israel's Tommy Franks, I guess.)

The rocket attacks on Israel from Lebanon only started AFTER Israel bombed Lebanon. It is Hezbollah that is retaliating for air attacks on it.

What we are seeing here is essentially a preemtive strike by Israel on Hezbullah to destroy its rocket arsenal before it becomes even stronger, and to seriously weaken Hezbullah. This had been planned by Israel and approved by the Bush administration for quite some time. The attack by Hezbullah on a the Israeli troops and the taking of the prisoners simply served as a pretext for starting the attack. If the Hezbullah attack had not taken place, Israel's preemptive attack would have still taken place under some other pretext. Israel is following Neoconservative doctrine is doing this.

This explains the total and complete disproportionality of Israel's response to the initial provocation.

Perspective has to include historical and technical perspective. "Carpet bombing" was originally a WWII term, when most strategic bombers couldn't hit a target much smaller than a square mile or a city. There were tactical uses of the technique in that war, against area targets such as dispersed troops during the Normandy breakout, Operation COBRA. COBRA killed a significant number of friendly forces, including the second highest-ranking US general who died in combat, Lesley McNair.

"Carpet bombing" is still used tactically, by the US, against a dispersed and "soft" target such as troops in trenches, or large supply depots. Precision guided munitions, however, have long superceded it for most situations. It's now quite routine to be able to put bombs and missiles within 100 feet of the target, and an increasing number within 10 feet or less -- more precision becomes irrelevant if the weapon effect covers a larger area.

Israel is imposing extremely heavy censorship, but, knowing general things such as their use of F-16 fighter-bombers, 155mm howitzers, etc., one can examine the munitions made for those platforms. Perhaps the least accurate would be a non-precision bomb delivered using the F-16 radar/computer system, which still is quite accurate.

The Israelis specifically announced they were attacking one civilian system, the electrical power grid. Other things have military legitimacy, such as the airport. I agree there isn't an attempt to kill masses of civilians, but what information is coming out suggests that the Israelis are killing discriminately -- on what is not always a justifiable target within the scope of the doctrine of proportionality (i.e., in Just War Theory).

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Larry

Even the most disinterested American or Israeli is likely to admit that his or her country regularly abuses its power. Harping on abuses like this does less than nothing in terms of finding pragmatic solutions to the conflicts.

On the one hand you state, "the rest of the world is not likely to swallow this load of crap with a smile on its face."

Yet at the end of your post you all but admit that thus far they [the world community] has by stating,"This is why the international community needs to wake up and stop the needless loss of life of Israeli and Lebanese children."

Exactly who do you see stepping up to the plate to counter these American/Israeli atrocities? Europe? That's good for a belly laugh.

Russia? Putin is just glad to have Cheney off of his back.

Other Middle Eastern nations? Jordan and Saudi Arabia have both verbally condemned the actions of Hezbollah.

The United Nations? Yeah right.

China? Absolutely not. They are still in the midst of their pro-America PR/marketing campaign.

So it appears as if the world community will put up with these atrocities.

Instead of lamenting on them, let's accept them at face value and proceed to finding viable solutions to the problem.

Zionista, you miss my basic point. Israel was founded as the anti-thesis of the evil perpetrated against Jews by Nazi Germany. Israel has every right to defend herself. But the actions in Lebanon are not going to make Israel more secure in the future. I believe it will make Israel less secure. I don't know about you, but that worries me. The killing of children and civilians, especially in such disproportionate numbers, erodes the moral authority that Israel has had.
The Camp David Peace Accords stand as a clear reminder that diplomacy can pay dividends for Israel that do not require her to sacrifice more of her sons and daughters on the altar of war.

The closer analogy is Afghanistan not Iraq.

Daniel A. Greenbaum