Hezbollah’s sole goal is the destruction of the State of Israel and the eradication of its people. And Hezbollah does not deny it.

Hezbollah has many goals. It is a Khomeinist organization that seeks to establish and Islamic republic in Lebanon. It has an elaborate political platform, most of which is focussed on Lebanon, and it participates in the Lebanese government.

The destruction of the State of Israel remains one of its goals. But it is a strange bit of hyperbole to describe that as its sole goal.

Not so strange. Since I'm only discussing Israel, I refer to its sole goal which relates to Israel.

Note: "Not to say that there aren’t plenty of anti-Semites and Arab bashers out there – and there is no reason not to label them as such."

I see no problem labelling anti-Semites as such or consigning them to Aryan nation.

Do you think that's precious? Thanks.

I'll let go of the strawmen (No doubt M.J.'s clumsy way of making amends for calling everyone he disagreed with a Jew killer in his previous post.)

There's actually lots in this post that I agree with. Point 1 is that what's happening now is a tragedy for all sides. Point 2 is that without a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, you can kiss any chance of peace in the region a big, fat good-bye.

What's striking though is how much M.J. simply doesn't "get" Hezbollah. And to "get it" doesn't mean to make excuses for it. Everything he says about the horror of terrorism and the twisted ideology is spot on. But trying to dismiss Hezb as a bunch of ideological nut jobs is making a huge mistake. One that plays into Hezbollah's hands.

First, virtually everyone in the Arab world views Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement. They fought against Israeli occupation for 20 years. They won. If there had been a peace treaty, Israel would have had to pay reparations. No such treaty was ever signed and Israel held on to Chebaa, against Hezb's will.
So, from Hezb's point of view, the war still goes on.

I have to run, so I'll make 2 quick points.

M.J. makes two strategic mistakes:

1. He says: "Israel doesn't fight just ... but also a malignant ideology that reduces women to servitude, encourages the “honor killings” of rape victims."

Nonsense! First, that's none of Israel's business. Second, Turkey is best friends with Israel and... "honor killings" are common in Turkey, too. I don't see Israel doing much about that.

2. "I hope Israel wins its war with Hezbollah"

Don't we all? Seriously, that comment demonstrates a worrisome lack of understanding about the region. Hezbollah is native to South Lebanon: it ain't going nowhere. It provides all services, schools, hospitals, etc.

This talks reminds me of the same naivete one used to hear about Iraq: Failure is not an option. yeah, yeah.

Israel will have to sign a peace treaty with Lebanon that includes the interests of Hezbollah.
And the pledge "to destroy" Israel is a red herring. After all, remember the PLO: they, too, pledged to destroy Israel, and that changed and Rabin/Arafat shook hands, etc. No reason to think Hezbollah can't follow the same path.

At any rate, any talk of "destroying Hezbollah" is not worth the paper it's written on.

When you choose to attack another country, even when the attack is wholly justified and has clear goals, one of the things you must do is consider how the military tactics you apply will work to achieve those goals. While I have heard no small number of politicians describe how Hezbollah would be destroyed through what is primarily an air campaign, even those expressions have now been modified to weakening Hezbollah. From the perspective of having destroyed some (or even much) of its infrastructure and arsenal, and having killed many of its fighters, at least in the short-term it is fair to say that Hezbollah has been weakened. But if you mean in terms of popular support and its ability to re-arm once the conflict has ended, Hezbollah may in fact have been strengthened by what has happened to date.

To the extent that it is possible to destroy Hezbollah, or diminish the long-term threat it poses to Israel, a significant, sustained ground offensive will be required. This is the position taken by a number of Israeli generals, as well as the position dictated by the history of this type of conflict. The benefit of an air campaign is that you can cause widespread devastation without putting your soldiers at risk. But if a politician promises that an insurgency or guerrilla force can be eliminated through an air campaign, the politician is either uninformed or is being deceptive. When has that ever happened?

There are also serious questions as to how any force, Israeli, international, or otherwise, could actually take control of the areas historically held by Hezbollah without getting involved in a protracted war similar to (or worse than) the U.S. battle against the so-called insurgency in Iraq. How do you put Hezbollah into a box if nobody is willing to put troops on the ground and engage in what will quite likely be a protracted ground war involving significant casualties, or for that matter without becoming a de facto occupying force instead of a peacekeeping force? It’s great to speak of disarming or dismantling Hezbollah, but we can’t do it from the air and nobody seems to be willing to do it from the ground.

Would it be helpful for Israel to resolve its border claims with its neighbors, assuming it would negotiate (or even dictate) reasonable terms. Despite your statements, Hezbollah does assert that Israel occupies Lebanese territory, specifically the Shebaa Farms. The UN and pretty much the rest of the world believes the Shebaa farms to be Syrian territory. If Israel were to declare which portions of the Golan Heights and Shebaa Farms would be returned if it achieved a peace agreement with Syria, it would be more difficult for a group like Hezbollah to argue, pretextually or genuinely, that ending Israel’s occupation was among its sincere goals - as its tactics would be overtly hindering the return of the occupied lands.

I think the history of Israel’s conflicts and failed peace negotiations evidence that border issues cannot be left to the end of the negotiation process - they need to come first. Such a proposal by Israel would also help diminish and perhaps even end the perception that Israel cares more about keeping significant portions of the lands it occupies than in negotiating an end to its conflicts with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians.

I think that your argument lends credence to an observation made many years ago by, I believe, Moshe Arens. He noted that Israel complained about the tactics utilized by the Palestinians, but had created a history where it would ignore the conflict during periods of calm then make concessions only when confronted with violence. When did Hezbollah score its most recent appreciable "victory" against Israel? In 2004 when it negotiated a prisoner exchange with Ariel Sharon. Many warned then, probably including Moshe Arens, that this would set Israel up for exactly what occurred - Hezbollah's grabbing Israeli hostages to use as bargaining chips.

Okay.

I do not believe Israel can be expected to stop fighting until the Hezbollah threat is, at the very least, controlled. (mjrosenberg)

Israel will never control Hezbollah by fighting. By fighting, Israel will just get more fighting.

To make the rockets into Haifa stop and get its captured soldiers back, Israel needs an agreement with Hezbollah. Israel has arranged cease-fires and swapped prisoners with Hezbollah before and can do it again.

I hope Israel wins its war with Hezbollah.

You know what, I hope the US wins its war against "Iraqi insurgents." Thing is: chances of that are as fat as the chances of Israel winning "its war with Hezbollah." AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. Hope in one hand, shit in the other. See which one fills up first.

Even if the Palestinian question were settled, the manner in which Israel continues to attack Lebanon and Hezbollah will only serve to generate more popular support for Hezbollah (and their ilk) throughout the Middle East. Just as the actions of the US in Iraq create insurgents and terrorists faster than it can eliminate them, so too will Israel's actions make dismantling Hezbollah an ever increasing impossibility.

I read the following mindbending piece in Haaretz today, buried in an op-ed by Doron Rosenblum:

Future researchers may hunt and comb to dig up all the historiosophic and political reasons for the outbreak of the current war with Hezbollah, but at least they will have no trouble finding the trigger. This war, with all its hundreds of casualties and tremendous damage, broke out not because of the abduction of the soldiers, but because of a speech: Hassan Nasrallah's short, bragging speech in which he provoked Israel's new leaders.

Was it a clever trap laid by the wily fox, or perhaps one uncalculated moment of catastrophic hubris when, with that defiant smile, the Hezbollah leader told his listeners that Ehud Olmert, Amir Peretz and Dan Halutz are inexperienced and "small" as compared with Ariel Sharon? And, as though to add fuel to the fire, he emphasized the "small" with his fingers.

It's possible that the war would at least have been postponed if the prime minister or the defense minister had been a woman, or if Hezbollah had made do only with the incident in which soldiers were killed and abducted, without the provocative speech. But with that speech, and with this kind of cast on our side - bad-tempered Olmert, egocentric Peretz, arrogant Halutz - Nasrallah had a better chance of emerging unscathed if he stood barefoot in a puddle and stuck a nail into an electric outlet. Is there a trigger that can light a fuse and generate testosterone more surely than that mocking smile and small gesture of the fingers? Whose blood wouldn't rush to his head? Who wouldn't be ready to get up and head-butt the man instantly, Zinadine-like?

So the war, whatever its price, was unavoidable. Let us therefore not be surprised that it has no well-defined "strategic goals." It burst out reflexively, like a blow delivered below the belt.

Lemme get this right. Nasrallah implied or suggested that Olmert had a small dick? I mean, did he? Did he?

Is this all you need to start a war these days? For real?

This creates an impossible situation for Israel, though. Especially given its and its people's history. What you seem to be suggesting is that Israel should simply tolerate at a minimum low-level rocket attacks for the indefinite future. I think everyone agrees that striking back further embitters people. But is it really tenable not to react?

It seems entirely reasonable to me that Israel doesn't want temporary cease fires which allow Hizbullah to resume attacks the next time they want to. The alternative has real downsides as well, as you rightly point out. But Israel just isn't in a position to have daily life in the northern portion of the country at the sufferance of Hizbullah. It is a situation no other country would tolerate.

Did you see Warren Christophers Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post? He calls for a cease fire. He gives as background the times that He worked out a cease fire after Hezbollah fired missiles at Israel in 1993 and again in 1996.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I can't recall where I found it, but I read earlier this weak about some results of a UN report on border violation incidents on the Israel/Lebanon border over the past several years. According to the report, there were significantly more incidents of border violation by the Israeli side than the Lebanese/Hizbollah side.

I don't recall the time frame, and don't have the data here. And I assume that many of those violations have to do with the Shebaa farms issue.

While I'm not particularly concerned, in a direct way, with what Israel wants or what Hizbollah wants, the international community has an interest in secure borders, and in preventing incidents that can lead to the sort of escalation we have seen recently. So I am in favor of some sort of stepped up international presence at the border. However, if it is true that the provocations come from both sides, I don't see why the "neutral zone" should all lie on the Lebanese side.

There are enough answers here to both M;J Rosenbers's post and J. Marshall's comment.
So why were their descriptions of the situation so simplistic?

"This creates an impossible situation for Israel, though. Especially given its and its people's history."

The doctrine of exceptionalism.

I'd like Mr Rosenberg to tell me why I have a right to return to a place I've never been, and why the Palestinians do not. I am not denying the fact that the people of Israel are there and are not going to leave; I am asking him to defend the sense of moral -and intellectual- superiority that justifies the locking out of people from their homes. I would like to hear someone who is not a supporter of Kach or Kahane Chai tell me, not why a bi-national state is impossible (it isn't) but why it is undesirable.

Give me the liberal moral defense of a modern state built upon racial lines.
thank you.

That's some serious teeth-gnashing.

The first camp supports the Israeli incursion to the hilt. It supports not only the Israeli incursion into Lebanon but any and all Israeli attacks on Arabs. These are the people who opposed the Oslo process, believe that Israel’s peace with Egypt is next to worthless, and railed against the Gaza withdrawal.

This is a strawman argument.  It's important to note that not all people who "support the Israeli incursion to the hilt" were hard-core Likudniks who opposed Oslo and railed against the Gaza withdrawal.  As an example, I cite myself.  I supported both the Oslo process and the Gaza withdrawal.  But I also support Israel's actions in Lebanon "to the hilt" in part because Israel's experiences since the Oslo process have convinced me that true peace with the Arabs is, if not a total fantasy, at least a very distant possibility. 

But my support is also based on a changed view of the conflict.  As long as the conflict was with the Palestinians, who do not by themselves pose an existential threat to Israel, one could argue that it made sense to test the limits of how far Israeli concessions could go to foster peace.  At the very least, it made sense to withdraw from places like Gaza that hold no strategic value for Israel.  But now the conflict is with a genocidal Islamist group that cannot be appeased.  They represent the Islamization of the conflict and they must be destroyed or at least seriously degraded.  Iran cannot be allowed to play a role in stirring up trouble on Israel's border.

What's remarkable is that MJ Rosenberg seems to get this, yet still is able to say the following:

The only real connection between the Palestinian issue and Hezbollah is that the Hezbollah situation makes it all the more critical that Israel cut a deal with the Palestinians.

Contrary to the mantra of the Jewish right, the Hezbollah situation does not weaken the case for negotiations with Palestinians, it strengthens it.

Here we go completely off the rails.  How does Israel negotiate with a government that is sponsoring (or at least refusing to crack down on) launching missiles at Israeli cities? OK, you say, so negotiate with Abbas.  But hasn't it been shown by now that Abbas has no power to enforce anything? He is, in many ways, just like the beleaguered Lebanese prime minister, helpless to confront the armed gangsters who hold all the cards.

The formula of land for peace has been rendered inoperative by events.  There is no chance that if Israel were to sign an agreement, that the Palestinians could enforce it.  So what's the point?  I think theoretically land for peace makes sense.  But land for way is a non-starter.  Yet there seems to persist this notion that the Palestinian situation must be resolved and it's up to Israel and the US to take action to resolve it.  How? With whom?  How can anyone seriously think that even if the Palestinians were given everything they have been asking for, they would agree to a true peace. 

People always cite various polls that show majorities of Palestinians favoring a two-state solution.  But that is totally irrelevant if they are unable to control the radical elements in their midst.  Israel cannot be expected to make concessions based on nothing but empty promises by a corrupt, incompetent authority that has no power over and no willingness to confront the vicious killers in their midst.

Interesting question -- slightly off topic though.
(Walzer has tried to answer it: by comparing Israel to... Norway and its need for an identity separate from Sweden. I kid you not.)

Another intolerable conceit is that Israel speaks for all Jews. Olmert was in France a few weeks ago telling French Jews that they don't belong in France but in Israel.
French Jews don't belong in France?? Never mind that they've lived there for 2,000 years.
Olmert speaking like Le Pen. Lovely!

Based on that statement, I am curious to know (saying that facetiously, don't bother, really) if you support the Kurds of Iraq and Turkey having their own country, and whether you think the international community should push for Iraq itself to stay as one country or be broken down into segments which are often described as religious but are actually more tribal in their origin. And what about that former Yugoslavia, what happened to it and what is continuing to happen. Also, how about those French and Dutch struggling to retain their Frenchness and Dutchness in light of their "immigrant problem."

Talking morals on this is talking black and white, no grey. As a reader who comes here for nuance, I say: bah; hope no one takes your bait. I say the same thing to the I.R. people here who do it.

MJ,

I sympathize with your predicament. I don't think anybody can deny your committment to a just peace between Palestinians and Israelis, and your empathy with both peoples.

This is a comment I left on Ami Isseroff's web site (Isseroff is a Zionist dove who is a full-throated supporter of Israel's campaign in Lebanon):

Like most of Israel, you are absolutely convinced that last week's kidnapping was an "act of war" that gave Israel no choice but to respond with nothing but unrestrained, maximum force, concepts like proportionality or the Geneva Convention be damned. As if last week was the first time in the history of the world that a militia in one country has crossed the border and attacked military forces in another country.

Actually...cross-border attacks occur all the time, all over the world. Look at the Kurdistan-Turkey-Syria borders, or the Russia-Georgia border, or India-Sri Lanka, etc (In fact, since 2000, Israel has continued to cross over into Lebanon to attack Hizbollah). For example, PKK rebels cross over from Iraqi Kurdistan all the time to carry out attacks in Turkey. Crossing over into Kurdistan to pursue the PKK rebels would be an appropriate response. Launching a war to destroy the Iraqi Republic and dismembering its Kurdish community would not be.

Second, you are under the assumption that Israel has no alternative to what it's doing now because Hizbollah is committed to Israel's destruction. I do not deny that Hizbollah wants to destroy Israel. Does that mean it poses an existential threat to Israel? Only to the extent that Israel treats it that way. Hizbollah thrives on conflict with Israel. The more Israel escalates each incident with Hizbollah, the more it gives Hizbollah an opportunity to escalate in response. Treat a cross-border operation like the start of World War III, and that's exactly what it will become.

That doesn't mean turning the other cheek to Hizbollah. It does mean responding to Hizbollah's attacks in a measured and restrained way, avoiding disproportionate responses that only fuel the conflict. Hizbollah could not have survived if it didn't understand concepts like deterrence and balance of fear.

As analysts like Uri Avnery and Henry Siegman have argued, the best way to neutralize Hizbollah is for Israel to make a just peace with the Palestinians. What if Israel offered to hold an international peace conference with any Arab government (including the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority) that accepted its right to live within pre-1967 borders in exchange for a Palestinian state in all of West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem?

An issue that can’t be left out is the mindset of the IDF. Why is it that the case of both Gaza and Lebanon, the IDF has responded so much more severely to the kidnapping of soldiers than to terrorist attacks on civilians? Does it have something to do with how the IDF is still smarting from its defeat to Hizbollah to 2000? With how Hizbollah continues to inflict one humiliating victory on the IDF after another? Is is possible that just as Hizbollah craves conflict for conflict’s sake, there are Generals within the IDF who have no less a thirst for war?

Hezbollah has no legitimate grievances against Israel. Israel holds no Lebanese territory.

Maybe you consider the Chebaa farms not to be Lebanese territory, but from my understanding that's not an uncontroverted position to hold.

The UN says Shebaa Farms belongs to Syria not Lebanon.

I'd wish we could hear more from people whose sole goal relates to the United States.

I take it from the 2 rating that Daniel G is a Le Pen supporter. Little surprise there.

I love to read wise commentaries explaining how "saving face" is paramount to Arab culture. As opposed to who?

Currently we are supporting a government of fundamentalist pro-Iranian Shia militias just to avoid admission that Iraq is, from the point of view of our future influence, FUBAR.

We will not engage in direct talks with countries that we deem "unworthy" even if we actually have something to negotiate about.

Israel of course represents the same school of thought -- I have hard time figuring who is aping whom.

By the way, the root of the current crisis is the determination made by Israel and USA that "Hezbollah has to be eradicated". It would be half-bad if that was feasible. The persistent talk that we should whack Syria and Iran did not help either. If you talk a lot about a confrontation, sometimes it leads, well, to a confrontation.

The way I see it, the "Shia axis" felt that a confrontation is unavoidable and thus they would better initiate it at the time of their choosing. I admit that this is a mere conjecture, but unfortunately, the conjecture that some combination of threats AND concessions could lead to a de-facto peace between Lebanon and Israel was never tested.

I agree, Dan K, and was thinking the same thing this morning as I listened to the news. A nice wide neutral zone made up of equal territory from both sides.

I'm troubled, as I always am, by references to the Holocaust (earlier in this thread). The Holocaust explains why Jews wanted and needed their own territory but it should never ever be used to justify immoderate actions or territorial grabs on the part of the state of Israel.

What's more, the circumstances of the creation of Israel, its character as an nation, its decision to limit its citizenry to a single ethnicity and religion make it all the more important that Israel be accomodating. That's just plain good sense if you're moving into a home which is surrounded by neighbors who are suspicious and aggrieved by the displacement of their kin, friends, and allies.
But Israel's short history has shown any number of occasions when it's effectively given the finger to its neighbors.

One big problem with these discussions about the latest events is that they are crippled by our lack of full information as to the tipping point. Do we really know, yet, what set off the attacks -- who started it? Or are we hamstrung by strong biases on both sides, exacerbated by reports of heavy civilian ("women and children") death counts which seem, if the reports are accurate, to make for justifiable anger and grief aimed at Israel.

The one thing I regret about the way the TPM café is that it is very difficult to simply express appreciation for the author's original essay without going into detail about why one appreciates it.  There's no 0,1,2,3,4 scale for essays themselves, and I've seen some which I could assign to any of those categories.

In this case, I'd offer a 4 (maybe a 3, but I think a 4) to Mr. Rosenberg, even though I remain unconvinced by most of what he says.  He took his readership (i.e. us) seriously, as if convincing us was important to him.  He wrote with feeling but without an intent to push as many emotional buttons as he could, and he left room for persons to disagree with him, and the impression, at least, that he'd consider what they had to say in response.  For all of that I say thanks, indeed.  I think this is one of your best, Mr. Rosenberg.

The other thing which prompts me to write this little note is that most of responses I've read so far are taking a cue from Mr. Rosenberg's original essay:  they're thoughtful, considered, responsive in the main to what he actually said, and thus I'm doubly educated:  by the author, and by the commentators alike.  So let me extend the same thanks to you all as well.  The interchange I've read, in the main (not all, but in the main) gives me some hope that there are a few breaths of life left in the Age of Reason, though I think in our world generally Unreason is way ahead on points. 

Mike

I find it interesting that the facts on the ground force proponents of a two state solution to imply that anyone who disagrees with them are anti-semites.

If it is possible to reasonably disagree with that position, then there is no justification for denying political power to Hamas as well as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hezbollah or for containing Iran.

On the other hand, it is not an accusation that can stand up to direct questioning.  The fact is that it is not possible to draw a necessary connection between advocacy of a one state solution and any moral failing.

So instead we get this dance, "you're anti-semitic" "oh, I wasn't necessarily calling you anti-semitic.  Don't be so jumpy" "but a lot of you are anti-semitic" "I'd rather not name names.  I'd rather not point to exact phrases I consider anti-semitic" "anti-semitism is a big problem that you may not have, but a lot of people on your side have" "of course you are not anti-semitic until proven otherwise"

When the populations of every state in the region oppose a two-state solution, opposition to a two state solution cannot be just a difference of opinion, because if it was just that then it could just win in the marketplace of ideas.

Proponents of a two state solution are forced by circumstances to make an accusation that on some level they understand cannot withstand scrutiny, and to make that accusation in a way that they are not required to justify it.

I was comparing US commentators in North America (generally supportive of Israel) to Arab commentators in the Middle East (generally not supportive).

You as a US commentator can produce powerful arguments why there should be a Jewish state.

Arab commentators can produce a valid argument why, when the rights of the refugees conflict with the right to a Jewish state, human rights should overcome national, ethnic or group rights.

So even accepting that you have an argument that you consider valid.  You (as the US) have to take another step and nullify by force the valid arguments of the Arabs.  I'm asking for a justification of that.

If the people of Palestine vote, especially including the refugees and the Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis, and most do not want Israel to be a Jewish homeland - that is the usual way to settle disputes with valid arguments on both sides.

To argue against that you need more than just a valid argument in support of a modern ethnicity based state - not that I've seen any particularly strong one in response to the grandparent post - you need an argument that the other side should be suppressed even if it is more popular.  That is an even higher hurdle.

There's a lot the Israelis did wrong in the 1990s -- chief of which was continuing to build and expand settlements, a mistake which had many roots. But this is a terribly, wildly one-sided take on the situation. Especially with regards to Syria.

The statement is controverted or it is not.  Are you saying nobody has disputed that the Shebaa farms is Lebanese territory?

I guess your logic escapes me. There is a simple, if tragic and protracted disagreement. Some people believe in a Jewish state, others don't. You are saying that in addition to saying there should be a Jewish state I must also show why the contrary view must be "suppressed". That doesn't make sense to me. The two things are one in the same. If A and B are exclusive of one another, then believing A means not believing B. On the other point, you seem to have this vision all the people currently living on the land that was once a unified political district -- Palestine -- should vote on this matter. Why? And which unit? Palestine wasn't one district under Turkish rule. In any case, it's just a solicism. Israel is a state. It votes on its own. On the larger point of the Arab world, your point seems to be that there should not be a Jewish state because of how many Arabs there are. So America, Israel and all the Arab states have a joint plebiscite. And that plebiscite decides whether there should be a Jewish state? Is that the idea?

They are a sovereign state. No furhter justification is needed.

Well, obviously, some sovereign states are more sovereign than others.

Is a two state solution in which Israel withdraws to the 67 borders not reasonable to you?

Christian Science Monitor 28 Jul 2006:

The stakes are high for Hizbullah, but it seems it can count on an unprecedented swell of public support that cuts across sectarian lines.According to a poll released by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, 87 percent of Lebanese support Hizbullah's fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February. More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah's resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis.

Lebanese no longer blame Hizbullah for sparking the war by kidnapping the Israeli soldiers, but Israel and the US instead.

As for the issue of a binational state, a central premise of Zionism has always been that after millenia of oppresion and degradation in Europe and the Muslim Middle East, Jews would never be safe and secure unless they had a state of their own and an ability to defend themselves. That, I would say, is the Israelis core opposition to a binational state. And I think history gives them a lot of backing for that argument.

This defense of the Zionist project - and I think it really is the strongest argument - raises so many questions in my mind. Here are some of them:

Are Jews now safe and secure?

Which Jews are more safe and secure? Those in Israel or those in America?

Given the tiny size of Israel, is there reason to believe that the Jews who live there will ever be safe and secure, so long as their relations with much of the world around them are hostile?

What realistically possible historical processes or courses of action might bring it about that the relationship between Israel and its neighbors is not hostile?

If the motivation for the establishment of Israel was the safety and security of Jews, why did Israel's Zionist forbears establish a state in a region where there was so much hostility to its presence?

Isn't there something chimerical in the notion that the mere possession of a state is enough to provide safety and security? Ultimately safety and security come from numbers - lots of friends and allies. There are many small states in the world today whose safety and security extends only so far as the good will of its more powerful neighbors in the world. And there are many peoples in the world who do not possess their own state, and yet whose safety and security is greater than that possessed by some peoples who possess their own state.

If ther safety and security of Jews was the primary motivation for the Zionists, why did they establish a state that seems destined from the start to possess such a small number of citizens?

Isn't it the case that Israel's safety and security these days is guaranteed by its remaining friends in the United States and Europe? If those friends ceased to be friends, wouldn't Israel's days be numbered?

Does Israel owe any consideration to those friends, and their interests, given that the friends are the ultimate guarantors of its security?

Many Americans these days have seen their own safety and security compromised by virtue of their country's relationship with Israel, and the consequent enmity of Israel's enemies. Are these Americans entitled to a say in the resolution of Israel's conflict with the Palestinians and its other enemies? Should these Americans send one dime to Israel so long as it persists in its policy of not just occupying, but conquering and annexing additional territory?

Is it prudent to maintain a security relationship with a country that can't seem to decide where its borders are?

I meant "standing" not "standard". I was writing too quickly. But I very much stand by the point I was making. Yes, anyone can criticize. And their crits are either valid or their not. In this case, I think the Europeans frequently show a bias rooted in the anti-Semitism that has always afflicted the continent. That isn't to say there isn't also historic bias against Muslims. That has very deep roots too. I guess here I would point to the fact that many argue that Jews have nothing to fear living as minorities everywhere in the world. Well, yes, I don't think Europe has much ground to make this argument.

Grey is my favorite color.

First, my point on the Arab world is that a lot maintaining peaceful neighbors for Israel seems to require undemocratic regimes, and US support for these undemocratic regimes, and opposition to democracy in these states comprising a very large population of Arabs.

How do we settle a dispute where both sides have valid contradictory views?  We can't have a plebecite because we don't want the side that would win to win. 

That is the step that I wanted to point to in addition to what Seth brought up.  Seth asked for a valid argument.  My point is even if someone supplies a valid argument you cannot treat them as two competing valid arguments. That needs a separate justification.

Can you draw a boundary that, accepting refugees, would vote to be a Jewish state?  It would not be the 1967 borders of Israel.

You think Israel has valid reasons not to accept the refugees? OK.  Refugees think they have valid reasons to be accepted.  Can we put it to a vote?  No, because you do not want the side you know would win to win.

Forgetting this, I would rather put a single question to you directly - Assuming it is possible to create a one-state solution that protects the lives and property of individual Jews do you prefer that to the status quo? 

Personally, I think it’s probably the only answer. And the ramifications of implementing this whole New M.E. Order that BushCo envisions is scary. But the "right of return" for refugees that can prove claims, dismantling settlements, and Jerusalem would all (will always?) be sticking points.

My feeling is that Israel would have to give in more than it wants to. I see Israel as the interloper here (MHO) and just don’t think that past discriminations, even the Holocaust, give any group rights over another. Wars, occupations, refugees have been Israel’s history. Settlements have continued house by house for decades. Most of the world would support a fair two-state solution. I’m not sure that either side has ever really tried to get one (maybe with Oslo but that didn't last long).

You as a US commentator can produce powerful arguments why there should be a Jewish state.

Are there "powerful arguments" that Israel shouldn't be allowed to exist?  There might be arguments that could be made by a very small minority of people but I wouldn't characterize the arguments as "powerful". 

Sometimes it's useful to step back and say, forget who's right, who's wrong, who started it, who's morally justified, etc. Let's look at the cold facts and see how to make it work.

One cold fact is that Israel has 10-20 years to "make it work." If it doesn't then Israel will have failed permanently. Time is not on Israel's side. The country will be unprotectable from its enemies in 20 years. (If you think Zelzals are bad now, you just wait and see what's coming up.)

Trouble is, Israel is caught in a zero-sum game mentality (the expansion of settlements during Oslo, the layout of the fence, etc, being typical examples) which will never lead to peace.

It's up to Israel to make a move. Again this is not a MORAL statement I am making here.
Simply a pragmatic one. If Israel does not achieve permanent peace in two decades, it'll be a place no one will want to inhabit, except those waiting for the end times or believing that God truly really truly gave them that land.

Now you can all gnash your teeth all you want about how horrible those Arabs are and how Israel is justified to do X, Y, and Z.
But being "justified" is not the name of the game. Time is. And it's not on Israel's side.

I've read a report.  I will not be able to find it, that Sharon believes that over the next 10-20 years, Israel will build a greater technological gap ahead of its neighbors and be in a better strategic position.

Let's say I'm wrong or I misread the report it may still be too strong a statement to say time is not on Israel's side.

"They" were expelled from? What possible relationship do a bunch of Europeans and Russians have with the ancient Hebrews that makes them qualified to eject and ethnically cleanse the "land without a people" from its non-Jewish people today?

In fact, you speak as if the ancient Hebrews were the 'original' inhabitants. They weren't. The ancient Hebrews barely controlled the area for a smidgen of its history.

That's a well-written reply: Simple, clear, and yet wrong.

You don't have to consider them powerful.  Arabs consider them far more powerful than the arguments in favor of Israel that US commentators make.

My only point is that it is a difference of opinion, not a situation where your ability to make an argument makes you "right" in any sense.

That the people whose removal was necessary to make way for a Jewish state were treated injustly and correcting that injustice is a stronger moral imperative than maintaining Israel's Jewish majority is considered in much of the world to be a very powerful argument. 

Well it has to stop somewhere, doesn't it?

I consider it a meaningless hypothetical in the same way that I think it is a meaningless hypothetical to speculate on how much of American territory on Mars we might be willing to cede to China in exchange for a settlement of the Taiwan issue. On the other point you seem to believe that it is a profound insight that my opinion is only my opinion. That's not a point or an insight; it's a truism. As to the issue of a Jewish majority, again, this is a silly point. If we are discussing the long term changes in Israel's demographic by the process of differential rates of reproduction, then population levels are the proper means of discussing it. But you're not. You're talking about forcibly redrawing the countries borders and/or bringing millions of new people into the country, both against the wishes (democratically ascertained) of the state and citizenry which is currently there. You may not think that state should exist or has a proper moral foundation. But the proper term for what you're describing is dismantle. Honesty in language is important.

The statute of limitations applies to individuals, not to states or religions.

And it shouldn't apply to these entities, because it is individuals who do wrong, not states or regions or religions or ideologies. I don't blame America for what it's doing these days: I blame Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a list of people as long as my arm. And when they're out of office, or dead, I'm going to be measuring their successors by what they themselves do, not by what their predecessors did.

The same applies to Europe and Islam. States are not individuals. Religions are not individuals. And they should not be collectively judged as if they were individuals.

What you characterize as Israel's "right to exist" is better characterized as Israel's right to deny the existence of Palestinians.

I never said or implied anything of the sort...

What makes you think that Israel's rights are superior?

Israel currently exists so as the saying goes "it is what it is".  Israel's rights are equal to the rights that any sovereign nation enjoys.   

No, you're absolutely right. He believes(d) that.
And he's not the only one. I travel to Israel all the time and I've debated this with the locals on numerous occasions.

One word for it: Insanity!

I am enormously fond of Israelis. They're among the most fun, warmest, greatest people to be around. They are intellectually fearless (in ways, say, our media could only dream of).

But their political leadership has been organically immature. Maybe it's because the country is very young, or it's heavily militarized, but Israeli leaders and the whole political class consist of moral/intellectual midgets.

And Israel is paying a huge price for that.
(As we are with Bush.)

You keep hearing how come Arab countries don'thave Mandelas and Gandhis. Fair enough.
But the same criticism applies to Israel.

And we, American Jews, have done Israel a huge disservice. For all sorts of reasons, we feel guilty about the place (we don't live there; we say we hate France but we visit France and not Israel; we did nothing to help Jews in WWII, etc).
So we turn a blind eye to Israel's stupidity.

American Irish did the same with the IRA. Easy to understand human behavior.

You don't have to consider them powerful.  Arabs consider them far more powerful than the arguments in favor of Israel that US commentators make.

I think it is fair to say that most of the ME regimes do not question Israel's right to exist.  Most people who question that right to exist belong to groups like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.

I am not defending all of Israel's actions...in fact I have been very critical of some of the things Israel has done.  But it has nothing to do with Israel's right to exist...

Arnold, you seem to think that anyone is vaulted on to the defensive because you pose a question that is logically and historically empty. During the Cold War, the US had one view, the Soviets had another. Heck, why didn't we all just get together and vote? How about this? Since there are valid arguments on both sides, why don't we have a baking contest and see how it shakes out? Democracy has a meaning within constituted political communities. Here's another one. Mexico thinks it should remain independent. The US think Mexico should be annexed to the United States? Let's get everyone in the US and Mexico together and vote on it. How's that? If you want to get into a more elemental debate about political theory and the nature of the state, have at it. But your training wheels version is just silly.

What exactly does this mean?

Does this mean that Europeans who criticize Israel, or who say that Israel's Jewish ethnic status is the result of an injustice that should be corrected are anti-semitic until proven otherwise?

I would like to know how many supporters of Israel and a two-state solution are able and willing to say "Advocacy of Jews losing their political majority of Israel is not anti-Semitic. Period."

If you want to claim that there have historically been or there are now anti-Semitic Europeans, OK.

But this subterranean attempt to attach this anti-Semitism to questioning Israel as a Jewish state, but while never actually puting the supposed connection into the open where it can be disputed, is, I have to say, cowardly if understandable. 

I'm not confused: Some people in the occupied territories--the settlers--are part of the state; others--the Palestinians--are not. That's not right.

The author stated both that Hezbollah's sole goal was the extermination of the Jews, and that Israel holds no Lebanese land. If, in fact, factions in Lebanon believe that Israel does hold Lebanese land, that would be an argument that they have at least two goals. The merits of the belief are unimportant. It goes to state of mind.

Yet there seems to persist this notion that the Palestinian situation must be resolved . . .

You're arguing that it should be left unresolved?

Dan K., you get my prize for the best comment here.  Israel is committed to a course of action that has not yet been successful, and isn't likely to ever be successful, if the goal is for Jews to have a state where they can live in peace and safety.  Sometimes it is necessary to concede that a new course of action is needed.  Surely we are past that time.

The world can best help Israelis by opening our borders to them, allowing them unlimited immigration quotas.  If they want a state of their own, well the Mormons have a state of their own, Utah, so if the immigrating Jews were to decide that Iowa, for example, were suitable, they could all move there and vote in whatever government they wished.  They would be at least as safe as the Mormons, and that is far, far safer than they are in Israel.

This would not be a just solution to the problems faced by Israel, but it would be a successful solution.  The policies followed today will not lead to a successful solution. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

Two things will have to happen before there is even a serious attempt made at working out a settlement - the first is that the Israelis will have to acknowledge the wrong that they did to the Palestinians by taking the land, and the second is that the Palestinians will have to acknowledge that Israel is there now and will stay there.

The only other solution is that one people completely destroys the other people. Since neither side is capable of admitting any wrongdoing or concessions of any kind, it is obvious that the solution they've chosen is total annihilation.

I'm removing my comment. I've said enough.

I think you've misread or misunderstood the next comment, which was:

It's possible that the war would at least have been postponed if the prime minister or the defense minister had been a woman,

I understood this to clearly mean that if the Israeli prime minister or defense minister had been a woman, she would not have been at all bothered by Nasrallah's sexual jibe: only particular sorts of men are bothered by that kind of thing. In short, a woman would have shrugged off such remarks.

If Lebanon has a claim to the land they should first work out the deal with Syria and get the UN to agree to it. Then Lebanon can work it out with the Israelis. It is not for a militia group of thugs to arm and fight their own private war at the expense of the citizens of Lebanon.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I would be curious as to your source of history. The Romans required a rather large effort and had to come back to quell the Jews and oust them.

There were a fair amount of Jews in the "Holy Land" during the various crusades. However, the Christians and the Turks either killed or drove out a fair amount of them at that time.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

About a 1000 years from the first king to 70AD.

However, the Arabs did not control any of the region until the British and the French started carving up the Ottoman Empire after WWI. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Transjordan, and Saudi Arabia are all fictious countries.

They mainly owe their existence to the British deep desire to punish the Turks.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Who is "Europe"? This "you and me against the world" pose that the US and Israel put on is self-defeating for both. The real allies who have really fought side by side with Americans are almost all European and the others are Canadian and Australian. I'd like to see any Israeli politician walk the walk for the American people the way Tony Blair has for the United States. And the French would have saved us the loss of thousands of American lives had we but listened to them on Iraq (and Vietnam!).