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

I thought this Op-Ed was a bit facile, but I think it's appropos here.  Sure, Hezbollah returned fire, but it's kind of disingenuous to say that they were provoked, given that they kidnapped Israeli soldiers first.  But at this point, maybe it's just plain stupid to say that anyone in these struggles is engaged in unprovoked escalation - either side can keep tracing things back to something the other side did and blame them for throwing the first punch.

First there were 8 soldiers killed as well as the two kidnapped. There is no dispute they were inside Israel.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Israel has been regularly violating the border with Lebanon -- and other countries -- and assassinating people all over the world. So does that mean that the other countries can massively attack and wipe out Israel's civilian infrastructure?

Even if it wasn't an intentional attack on the UN peace keepers, it was at best a criminal act of negligence.

Now suppose it was Hezbollah that had done this -- do you think people would be making such excuses for them?

Broadly speaking, there are several main types of precision-guided munitions. One type is programmed to go to a specific set of geographic coordinates (e.g., Joint Direct Action Mission [JDAM] guided bomb or an ICBM), or to a specific signal such as an anti-radar missile homing on the antenna (e.g., High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile [HARM]). Another type is called "man-in-the-loop", where the missile sends back real-time images of what it sees through television, infrared, or other imaging sensors; the operator flies it into the targe. Examples here include the Maverick missile fired from aircraft, and others from ground troops or helicopters.

A third type, somewhat inbetween (e.g., PAVEWAY guided bombs), requires a person or machine to hold an encoded, invisible laser beam on the target, and the weapon homes on the laser dot. The laser illuminator can come from ground troops, or another aircraft. In general, to laser designate from an aircraft, there needs to be a crew of at least 2; you really can't fly the airplane and hold the dot at the same time.

A slight variation on the first and third type, used extensively in Afghanistan, had ground observers locate the target, paint it with a laser rangefinder, compute the coordinates from the laser information, and radio those to a bomber overhed.

There are still other variants. One particularly relevant is the system approach to countering rocket, mortar, and cannon fire. A specialized radar, such as the AN/TPQ-37, detects the incoming projectile and calculates the launch point, while the round is still in the air. In US practice where the target is out of civilian areas, the launcher coordinates are sent automatically to 155mm howitzers, or possibly multiple launch rocket system. These counterbattery cannon or rockets can fire on the launcher before the hostile projectile hits.

In Iraq, the US is now using a variant in civilian areas. Rather than direct fire, once they know a significant number of rockets are fired from an area, they flood it with vehicle and helicopter patrols. These patrols use the information to set up a perimeter around the launch point, hoping to see the fleeing rocket launching team, and capture or destroy it.

Obviously, this is only an introduction.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Hamas has been firing missiles at Israel for months. Hezbollah is firing hundreds of missiles at Haifa and other Israeli cities and towns. It seems to be more of a problem that they can't do it rather than they aren't trying.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

First whether or not Iran is behind Hezbollah Hezbollah is responsible for their own acts.

"Those who view the Israeli offensive in Lebanon as counterproductive to U.S. foreign policy miss an emerging realty: Iran is waging a struggle to achieve regional dominance that theatens the United States and all its friends in the Middle East. The good news is that Hezbollah has unmasked Iran's's intentions, which even Arab leaders now appear to recognize....

How has Hezbollah exposed Iranian intentions? If Israel were still in Lebanon, perhaps Hezbollah could claim it was resisting Israeli occupation. But Israel ended that occupaton, and the Iranians stepped up the supply of katyushas and surface-to-surface rockets--approximately 13,000, acocording to the Isrelis. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Iran saw value in provoking an indirect conflict with Israel at a time of its choosing. In this, Iran is starangely mimicking its old nemesis, Saddam Hussein, who responded to the onset of the Gulf war--a war designed to expel Iraq from Kuwait--by launching missiles against Israel. Much like Saddam before them, the Iranians believe they can mobilize theArab world against the United States by playing on the sense of grievance that is so deeply embedded among many against Israel." (Dennis Ross, "Roll BAck" The New Republic 7/22/06) [TheNewRepublicOnline http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=20060731&s=ross073106]

The Islamic leaders of the Middle East have found Israel a convenient scapegoat. Better to blame the Jews than face their failure to move their countries forward. Hezbollah may bolster its manhood in this fight, maybe not. However, Israel will continue to grow and prosper let alone survive. That is a poor symbol for the other leaders of the region.

Since Hezbollah did not have kill the Israeli soldiers nor kidnap the other two. The did not have to amass thousands of missiles. Why did Hezbollah choose to sacrifice the Lebanese and why is that acceptable to you?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

When I posted that, I thought it a virtual certainty, Howard, that you would come crashing into a perfectly enjoyable conversation with some of your damned facts.  Thanks!

There is no dispute they were inside Israel

Uh, sorry, there is. See
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_solders.html

Also, most of the soldiers died after the sent a tank into Lebanon and ran over a mine - in Lebanon.

In any case, whether they were captured inside Lebanon or not, the fact is that Israel regularly violated that border, as well as borders of other countries, to carry out its assassinations and other plots, so its not as if peace-loving little Israel was just ever so mindful of international law before them nasty Ay-rabs decided to violate international borders . . .

i don't think so. from what i understand the israeli military has been planning this campaign for years (see here: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/MIDEAST.TMP)

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

One solution would be instead of making excuses for Israel and essentially saying "Boys will be boys" -- to hold Israel accountable.

What really makes a lie out of this "Israel defending itself" line is the proportion of the dead that happen to be children.

One-third of the Lebanese dead are children -- not Hezbollah members -- but I suppose atrocity-apologist Alan Dershowitz would find a way to question their "civilian-ness" too as he's done lately...

See more at
http://www.ifamericaknew.com

I know that the radar coordinated counterfire equipment you describe at the last of your comment exists and the way you say it is used in Iraq makes sense, to a point. How do you know about this tactic? I would expect that the second or third time I was sent rushing to a place where the enemy could then expect me to rush to, that I would be rushing right into an ambush.

The problem is that the Bush administration will never cease supporting Israel. The possibility exists, albeit slim, that the next U.S. president will reform the official U.S. policy towards Israel but that does nothing to change things right now.

Well, about the radar in general, that's been something around for quite a while, and just one more thing you worried about in command and control networks, especially the Army's TACFIRE artillery system. These are migrating to the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS), which would allow, for example, the location information not only to be sent to an artillery fire direction center, but to a helicopter, fighter, or naval ship.

The specific tactics were discussed in one of the unclassified Army branch journals, for field artillery. There's a running argument about which branch should operate this radar (field artillery, intelligence, air defense artillery, etc.). IIRC, the link came from a private mailing list (I hope) or a military newsgroup (bad). I will ask on the list if someone at least remembers the proper name of the magazine, or has the link.

I had a bit more exposure when I was involved in a project to bring TV, phone and Internet service to several bases in Iraq, purely for contractor and soldier personal use. Still, there was some careful plotting of where to place antennas and other equipment so they were out of range of any rocket seen in Iraq.

You are quite correct in observing that this could turn into a trap, or a generalized fiasco like the "Blackhawk Down" incident in Mogadishu. Suffice it to say that has also occurred to the Army. It's pretty obvious they try to get scout helicopters there as quickly as possible, and, while not publicized, UAVs are a real possibility. The ground units move in "bounding overwatch", the formations you use when you expect contact, or set random ambushes and perhaps have the helicopters try to herd the rocket crew into them. The directions of approach and such vary a lot.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I keep reading about this place "Israel" on this list... it sounds so familiar but nothing like any actual country in the world today. I mean, how can moral people let this "Israel" exist?

It sounds so so horrible: (1) they kill innocent people for no reason whatsoever, (2) spurred on by a global conspiracy, they have colonized and occupied someone else's land; (3) they oppress the natives with sadistic hook-nosed glee while the world ignores their evil.

For the authors of this fiction, tell us eager readers: who will stop this mad country (planet?) from attacking and enslaving us all? Who are the good guys? (and don't say the UN, that fiction got boring years ago, after the sequel "Genocide in Africa, Part 42")

hook-nosed glee... nice one.

tell me, who exactly do you think are all these americans who hate jews and love arabs? i can honestly say that i've never met anyone who felt that way.

So, the approximately 200 Lebanese children that have been blown up were intended targets? If not, then they can be called indiscriminate. If you are saying that dead Lebanese are just collateral damage, this too is wrong because a direct counterattack on Hezbollah militants in the south would have minimized civilian casualties to almost nothing.

Israel let slip its intentions early on. They were going to make Lebanon feel the pain until they got control of Hezbollah (restarting a civil war). They spoke of and carried out the same collective punishment in Gaza in regards to Hamas, which is one of the things that instigated Hezbollah’s initial actions in the first place.

Who is behind "What Really Happened?"

Good question, I'm glad you asked it - I hadn't really checked - I just tend to sluff-off web sites like this as far as credibility goes - they are only useful if they give citations that you can check out for yourself.   Anyway, maybe you already know, but it is a fellow named Michael Rivero who dosn't seem to have glowing credentials - maybe a paleoconservative libertarian who is anti-semitic, acording to Wikipedia.  [link]

But please recognize that I didn't rely on that link.  So, now, who's behind AP?   

Neoboho

Most of us do not have a disagreement with you about Hezbollah. Had Israel and the United States pressured Lebanon to take action, had they used diplomacy, had they even issued an ultimatum like "clean up your act in 90 days or else", had they limited their response to Hezbollah and not UN peacekeepers, hospitals, airports and pervasively attacked civilian infrastructure, I'd be on your side.

But they did not do that. They used the attack on less than a dozen soldiers to turn half a million civilians out of their jobs and homes and made them refugees.

They've turned half a million people into refugees. Even the US didn't do that when we did shock and awe in Iraq (though no doubt we have accomplished that same "mission" by now).

Keep counting bodies, we're over 50,000 in Iraq now and Israel's strategy is no better. When you keep making enemies, you just have more enemies to kill.

Americans have an extremely short term perspective. Politicians can't see beyond November. The world community moves at a slower pace especially when repositioning itself in regard to what was once thought to be a benevolent superpower, a superpower that might even be the guarantor of a "Pax Americana" through the 21st century and beyond.

Instead, they see the US conquered by neoconism, Cheneyism and what used to be called good old fashioned colonialism, imperialism or even perhaps fascism if the militaristic, war mad, bring on world war III attitude continues.

The world community may not want World War III and I'd assume they aren't going to help us into it or help us out of it and so Americans will pay for it even if the Americans who pay are our children.

I can't pretend my heart bleeds for the scoundrels of UNIFIL who have aided and abetted hezbollah for years. In fact it's poetic justice. I absolutely despise fiendish, hideous leftists like larry johnson.

Larry thats some sick calculus you're applying.

Would you and your fellow liberals be more happy if say 500-100 Jews were killed by Hezbollah so we'd have parity?

As for peacekeeping. Well there are a lot tough talkin liberals like yourself, so why don't you and the pajamas posters here start volunteering for duty.

Its high time your ilk start steppin up, since you always like to brag you're all smarter, tougher and morally superior to the right. Lets see what a tough guy you are.

The UN has quite a bit of information on-line. Here's a link to a pdf map of the border which includes the village of Ayat ash Shab, the alledged site of the capture of the soldiers.

The map shows three UN Observation posts within a 3 or 4 milie radius: 5-42, 5-22 and 5-20. The post that was hit is 30 to 50? miles away, to the northeast, near Al Khiyam (Khiam OGL) not far from the Syrian border.

I have no idea about motive. Remember in the early days of the Iraq invasion a British lorry was targeted by US Jets, and the explanation that finally came out was that the pilot was a irresponsible "cowboy" or something like that. That's the only thing I can imagine at this point.  

Neoboho

"Americans have an extremely short term perspective"

I agree.  But your argument implies that you too suffer from this malady.  When you employ generalized terms such as "world community" and Pax Americana," you seem to be arguing that the effects of the George W. Bush administration will be long lasting; perhaps even permanent.

They're not.

The "world community" that you speak of needs the United States just as we need their alliance.  As we can see with the current Israeli offensive, there is simply no other nation on Earth other than the U.S. that is capable of leading.  Europe has been pathetically inept.  Russia has not the means or the will to interfere.  China will not go near this thing.

I have asked many others here this question: If the U.S. has fallen so far in the eyes of the world community, why have there been no repercussions?

I would attempt to answer it by saying Europe, for one, will quickly and thankfully pardon any and all hurt feelings betrothed them by the Bush administration.  Europe needs the U.S. more than any other region on Earth.  So in essence we have nothing to worry about from our old alliances.

And what is this talk of World War III?  Sounds like paranoia. 

Byman, Daniel.  Deadly Connections: States that Sponsor Terrorism. Cambridge University Press: 2005

In addition, search Daniel Byman you will find some articles in Foreign Affairs that will answer your question about Iran and Hizbullah.

Sorry the truth bothers you. I guess the fact that I am a political conservative blows apart your fantasy of liberals run amuck. If the current policy followed by Israel and the United States is indicative of "rightwing" policies, then God save us. As a conservative, I believe staying at home rather than meddling in other people's business. If we use force we better be sure we have a clear objective and use sufficient resources to achieve those ends. Israel is busy shooting itself in the foot and killing way too many civilians. This will ultimately weaken Israel, which, surprise, surpise, I think would be a bad thing.

A sad fact is that it is always easier for politicians, leaders, etc. to use or advocate force than the harder thing of finding common ground for negotiation.

If force fails (as it often does) the leaders can say they tried and the foe was too clever, etc.. Much harder to contemplate trying negotiation and then defending that if it fails.

So instead of force being a last resort it can easily be the first choice of weak leaders. It sure looks that way here and in Israel. My guess is Sharon would have responded to the abduction with an incursion into Lebanon without the strategic bombing. Rabin would perhaps have captured a Hezbollah leader and offered a swap.

Bluebell

The pessimism you're caught up in is astounding.

I was talking to Tom Wright over in the Discussion Tables and made the point that our traditional alliances are as strong today as they've ever been.

You seem to think that because France and Russia will not go along with an American "crusade," this must mean that these alliances are falling apart.

This is not the case.

In fact, the U.S. and EU are on the same page with regard to terrorism in that both entities want it abolished; or marginalized at any rate.

The differences revolve around how best to achieve that goal. France and Germany initially disliked Bush's unilateral approach but that has not destroyed, or even eroded, our ties with those nations.

May I suggest that the reason why the U.S. has not had any diplomatic success with regard to the Israel/Hezbollah conflict is because we have not offered anything?

If you are so convinced that the U.S. not only cannot lead, but will not be followed even if it tries, who is going to assume that position?

I understand that you and many others here are not happy with the Bush administration. But that seems to be a poor reason for getting trapped in this completely fabricated paradigm of American defeatism.

The world will look to the U.S. to lead. Bush has not offered any sort of peace plan for the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict therefore we cannot say that his efforts have failed. There needs to be at least an attempt before something can be dubbed a failure.

Perhaps we live on different planets but what I have read on the ME war implies that the world is desperately seeking U.S. intervention. The UN is irrelivant, the EU is helpless and divided, Russia doesn't have the will or the resources to lead anyone (the Putin regime really only has true sovereigny in and around Moscow), and China won't touch this situation with a 5,000 mile pole. That basically leaves the U.S.

I also made the point on the discussion boards that if something truly catastrophic were to happen, say a nuclear bomb detonating in the U.S. or Europe, we would see firsthand just how strong and ever-lasting the American/European alliance really is.

Europeans do not like Bush but they have a much better sense of relative history than do most Americans. They understand that his days in office are numbered and that the Neocons do not represent the American way (or will).

RJB

Thankfully in this case the onus of proof is on the individual who asserts the alliances are damaged or destroyed.

To the sane person they are not and are, in fact, doing just fine.

"Israel was founded as the anti-thesis of the evil perpetrated against Jews by Nazi Germany."

This is incorrect.

Statehood is never granted; it must be seized. Jews founded Israel. Their thesis: Zionism. Zionism pre-dates Germany's war against European Jewry.

Zionism's goal was to transform the Jewish people in a nation-state. Nationalism and morality are always a dicey combination.

As far as that goes, author AB Yehoshua consideres Zionism a success because Israel has become "a nation like all others, full of pimps and whores."

What useless prattle. Have you even asked yourself WHY you support Israel's murderous assaults? This supposed outpost of western decency and democracy has been transformed into a militaristic garrison state; their state symbol is a bulldozer knocking down homes, orchards, and greenhouses. The Israeli government has done more damage to the Jewish tradition than Hezbollah could ever hope to do. If they continue down this road, they will destroy themselves, and by the time they're done, few people will care.

bluebell,

Had Israel and the United States pressured Lebanon to take action, had they used diplomacy, had they even issued an ultimatum like "clean up your act in 90 days or else", had they limited their response to Hezbollah and not UN peacekeepers, hospitals, airports and pervasively attacked civilian infrastructure, I'd be on your side.

But they did not do that.

Yes they did. 

From Dan Gillerman, Israeli UN Ambassador, to Secretary General and President of the UN Security Council, November 22, 2005:

Israel is concerned that by maintaining contacts with terrorist organizations in the area, including Hezbollah, UNIFIL serves rather to legitimize the role of these organizations. It is additionally troubling that senior United Nations officials have met with members of the Hezbollah terrorist organization, which may foster additional legitimacy to that group.

Moreover, Israel is disappointed that the United Nations, despite various organs represented in Lebanon, is incapable of preventing such grave violations of the blue-line from the Lebanese side: the infiltration of army posts, gunfire attacks against military and civilians, attempted abductions and mortar and rocket fire attacks against Israeli communities.

Israel would like to urge the United Nations and the Government of Lebanon to see to it that all obligations as decided in Security Council resolutions 425 and 1559 are fulfilled. The time has come for the sovereign Government of Lebanon to finally extend its control over all of its territory and disband Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations.

I should be grateful if you would arrange to have the text of the present letter circulated as a document of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly, under agenda items 108 and 14, and of the Security Council.

Why, you don't think AT ALL, do you? Can't you even offer a scintilla of argument based on fact and reason? Or are you just a bundle of emotions and prejudices that occasionally leaks bile?

How about two reasons--REASONS--for supporting Israel's assault on Lebanon?

Whatreallyhappened.com isn't the point - the site provides the cites to articles to go see in summary form. And India is the world's largest democracy, their papers are at least as reliable as ours. This narrow-minded Eurocentricism doesn't work anymore.

Zionista is exactly right Hass. Maybe you might also quote the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem as he exhorted the Nazis to exterminate all the Jews of the world and cleanse Palestine of the vermin. His name was Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (al-Husseini), the Mufti of Jerusalem, known for his extreme anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Unlike the "one" Zionist you selectively quote Husayni was the religious leader of jerusalem during the Nazi era. Not only did he collaborate with Nazi Germany during World War II, he actively helped recruit Muslims for the Waffen-SS. Are you even aware of this ? Or do you provide one-sided quotes to mislead people? If you think the Arab fanatics do not have blood on their hands, you really are mistaken.

didn't the stern gang also seek an alliance with the nazis, against england?

I just did a very brief search on the Stern Gang. You seem to be exactly right. They really are as scummy as they come. It is hard for me to believe.

yeah, i also found it pretty hard to swallow when i first heard of it, but i've never seen it refuted. this is from about.com (not always the most reliable source, but again, i've never heard it refuted):
http://experts.about.com/e/r/re/Revisionist_Zionism.htm

The national-messianist movement, called Lehi and nicknamed the "Stern Gang" by the British, was led by Avraham "Yair" Stern. Lehi was founded by Stern in 1940 as an offshoot from Irgun, and was initially named Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael (National Military Organization in Israel or NMO). The group openly described itself as terrorist. Following Stern's controversial death in 1942, and the arrest of many of its members, the group went into eclipse until it was reformed as "Lehi" under a triumvirate of Israel Eldad, Natan Yellin-Mor, and Yitzhak Shamir. Shamir became the Prime Minister of Israel forty years later. Lehi was guided by spiritual and philosophical leaders Abba Achimeir and Uri Zvi Greenberg.

NMO and to a lesser extent Lehi, were was influenced by the romantic nationalism of Italian nationalist Giuseppe Garibaldi, Italian fascism, and the ideas of Nietzsche.

Its goal was to establish a corporatist and religious society. The movement's activities were independent of any Diaspora leadership.

While the Irgun stopped its activities against the British during World War Two, Lehi continued guerilla warfare against the British authorities. It considered the British rule of Mandatory Palestine to be an illegal occupation, and concentrated its attacks mainly against British targets (unlike the other underground movements, which were also involved in fighting against Arab paramilitary groups).

In 1940 and 1941, NMO proposed intervening in the Second World War on the side of Nazi Germany[1] to attain their help in expelling Britain from Mandate Palestine and to offer their assistance in "evacuating" the Jews of Europe arguing that "common interests could exist between the establishment of a new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO." Late in 1940, the NMO representative Naftali Lubenchik was sent to Beirut where he met the German official Werner Otto von Hentig and delivered a letter from NMO offering to "actively take part in the war on Germany's side" in return for German support for "the establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich". Von Hentig forwarded the letter to the German embassy in Ankara, but there is no record of any official response. Lehi tried to establish contact with the Germans again in December 1941, also apparently without success.

While I seriously doubt it will be more than footnotes, this is an interesting footnote. The link suggests it was an initiative to the Nazis, with no particular response.

There's a possibly irrelevant and possibly tantalizing twist here. According to the link, the request went up one level to the Nazi embassy in Ankara, where it seemed to die.

The British controlled the Ankara ambassador's valet, codenamed CICERO. While it was generally thought that all he did was photograph documents, some suggestions have been made that he was an informal confidante of assorted officials, and may have been more active in influencing things than was thought.

Now, if it turned out that the initiative to the Nazis to have Jews work against the British turned out to be ignored because the British found out about it in Ankara, and CICERO supplied disinformation...only in the Middle East.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Thank you for the lovely straw-man argument.
The problm is that Ahad Haam isn't some ranting lunatic that you can set off against the Mufti - the point was that he documented the fact that Zionists had been promoting ethnic cleansing and abuse of Palestinians from the earliest days of Zionism (decades BEFORE the Grand Mufti came out & sided with the Germans against the British - as did many of the people who were then living under British colonialism.)

Face it, the whole enterprise of Zionism is based on racism and bigotry, and this has been the case from day 1. This isn't a secret - the fact that the Zionists were dedicated to ethnically-cleansing non-Jews from the "land without a people" is by now an established historical fact.

Nor was Ahad Haam being "Cherry Picked". Moshe Sharett, the first Israeli foreign minister, wrote in 1914:

"We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about 'the mutual misunderstanding' between us and the Arabs, about 'common interests' [and] about 'the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples.' ..... [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we ceases to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise. (Righteous Victims, p. 91)

And more recently, Israeli historians have not only admitted that Israel was built on mass murder and ethnic cleansing but they also try to justifiy it:

" A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on."

Its amazing how you seem to be totally blind to the fact that its not about The Turks or The British etc. -- this is simply your tribalistic way of looking at it. Its about HUMAN BEINGS who should not have been subjected to ETHNIC CLEANSING -- no matter what goverment claimed sovereignty over the land at the time.

Does this get through?

Incidentally, your claim that the land was "historically Jewish" is baloney even under your own tribalistic way to look at things. Count the number of years that it was under a Jewish sovereign, then compare the number of years that it wasn't. If anything, the land was historically PERSIAN and GREEK and ROMAN longer than it was Jewish - not to mention CANAANITE.

Here's an interesting game: Suppose I came along and proclaimed that I was a Canaanite. You can't object, since if some guy living in Russia or Brooklyn can claim some connection to the ancient Hebrews, then I can be a Canaanite if I want. Since the Canaanites were undeniably "there first" then I am entitled to all of the Promised Land. So, please leave and stop trying to drive me into the sea!

yes Hamas has been firing at ISrael for months -- and the Israelis have been occuping Palestinian lands and ethnically cleaning their people for 50 years. So what's your point - that Hamas and the Palestinains should just die quietly in their ghettos behind walls and fences? Would you?

The leaders of [Israel] have found [Islamic leaders] a convenient scapegoat. Better to blame the [Islamic Leader] than face their failure to [ethnically cleanse non-Jews from Palestine.]

See, I can try to shift blame as easily as you.

No, its not the point - trying to attack "who is behind the site" is simply a case of shooting the messenger. Whoever is "behind" whatreallyhappened.com, the articles listed there are from OTHER SOURCES (such as AP and Agence France Presse) and they show that there is a justified dispute over the exact location of the event.

But as I have said, that's really besides the point. Israel regularly violates borders to kill and kidnap people -- the Lebanese who are in Israeli prisons for example were taken by Israel from inside Lebanon. So even assuming that Hezbollah did in fact cross the border, so what? That border was regularly violated by Israel too.