Israel didn't go to war to get a couple of soldiers back. It went to war to smash Hezbollah. In the end it wasn't willing to pay the costs in blood and treasure (and perhaps, international opprobium) it would have taken to accomplish the goal. The war turned out to be an expensive reconnaissance in strength.

Stuff happens!

". . . . There are many democracies worldwide including the oldest one of them all, the United States . . . . "

Is that true?

And.

Why didn't Israel investigate their attack on the USS Liberty back in the 60s?

In this case, clearly not.

The stupid summer war was on the table from the time Olmert became Sharon's official replacement and meetings commenced in March 2006 in order to change the policy of containment along the border. Let's stop pretending that the IDF and Hezbollah hadn't been engaged in mutual tit-for-tat games of capturing and holding hostages, shall we? It was decided during the meetings that the attack on Lebanon would be commenced as a response to either of the following scenarios; a rocket barrage or another kidnapping/capture of IDF soldiers.

Despite intelligence warnings that Hezbollah was increasing activities in the region in order to attempt another snatch, requests for enhanced security precautions along the border were denied.

As Aluff Ben reports in today's Haaretz, there are huge holes in the Winograd Report re what in the bloody hell was going on in the run-up to the stupid summer war:

"What an embarrassing failure. After months of work, reading thousands of documents and hearing dozens of testimonies, the Winograd Committee was unable to figure out how the decision was made to embark upon the Second Lebanon War, who made it and when. This question, which is of supreme importance in understanding the dramatic events of the past year, will remain a historic mystery, a lost "black box."

Benn reads between the lines and sees American tactical involvement from the very beginning of the attacks:

"The diplomatic sections of the report have been heavily censored, but between the lines one can discern that the American administration imposed close supervision on Israel on the day it went to war, and forbid it from striking at Lebanese infrastructure, especially the country's electricity network. The result was "that Israel's ability to deviate from the policy of containment was limited." The proposals from Halutz and ministers Haim Ramon and Eli Yishai ("If they're crazy, they need to think that we're insane") to strike at Lebanon's infrastructure were rebuffed. Now it appears that not only did the Americans prevent a bombing of the electricity network, they also thwarted the diplomatic effort before the war. If so, then responsibility for the war's outbreak falls on them as well."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/855572.html

Can we stop with the bullshit that the stupid summer war wasn't another failed pre-emptive war of choice in order to alter the face of the Middle East? The war was first designated as "Operation Just Reward" and who can forget dear barren Condi waxing soooooo sympathetically about the region suffering "birth pangs"?

For chrissakes, there was even a PR roadmap laid out in advance of Israel's latest war of self-defense:

"Former prime minister Ariel Sharon's spokesman Ra'anan Gissin said he had warned Olmert ahead of the war that it would be fought largely on the foreign press battlefield.

Gissin said emergency procedures for explaining Israel's position were planned ahead of the war but never implemented.

Gissin, whose tenure ended shortly before the war, was not part of Israel's public relations campaign."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178198608660&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Let's not forget that Thomas Ricks told Howie Kurtz that American analysts told him that Israel deliberately left Katyusha batteries in place in order to justify the Israeli response, even if it resulted in civilian deaths in the North.

I doubt we will ever know how many bloody hands in DC and TA crafted this debacle.

Howard,

While I personally believe that the Liberty incident was more due to negligence (on both sides), overreaction by Israel, and error than due to deliberate action approved at high levels....

The incident has also been cynically exploited by those who have an  interest in promoting the idea that Israeli interests are nefarious by nature.

who can forget dear barren Condi waxing soooooo sympathetically about the region suffering "birth pangs"

Pangs which included Uri Grossman's death on Aug
13th by when it had long been clear that extending the war had ceased to be in Isreal's interests .

No one need feel ashamed of having supported Isreal's attack . Of continuing it , yes.

Man, we have two really brilliant comments here today.
One from Phelicity: "As long as we continue to call and/or believe an attack to be unprovoked, wars will continue. No effect is ever without a cause. No reaction can ever be the result of a non-action."

Ok, I guess that means that Hitler's attack on Poland was provoked or Stalin's on Finland. No, Phelicity, some attacks are unprovoked.

Then there is the amazing Ellen whose response to the dead Lebanese, Israelis and Palestinians (including two brothers under the age of 10) is "Stuff happens."

"Stuff happens." I'm always impressed by Ellen. She is very very astute and sensitive too.

Hezbollah, AFAIK, always qualified as an organization that had light infantry and artillery. How do you keep that out of an area without using ground troops, as distinct from police, if the other side is willing to use infantry and infantry support weapons?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

What Wolfowitz and Cheney were to combat, Condi was to birth pangs. Never been there, never done that.

Some are, some aren't.

Shortly before the kidnapping, there was a claim in Lebanon that a ring of assassins paid by Israel was uncovered in Tyre, Hezbollah backyard. One could probably list other Israeli acts as provocation.

It is possible that the ring of assassins is fiction, and that no one reasonable gets irate because of daily sonic booms above his head. But then again, the opposite is plausible too.

Lastly, comparing a force of several thousand fighters with "Hitler and Stalin" is defending totally unnecessary extreme measures (that were unproductive to boot). How about "American attack on Grenada" for an example? Sound much nicer! Bombing US cities across the country would seem like widely excessive overreaction.

It's kind of hard to inhabit land when you dump a couple of million cluster bombs/bomblets on it on the way out.

Oooops!

Nastallah was impressed too!

"It is worthy of respect that an investigative commission appointed by (Israeli Prime Minister Ehud) Olmert condemns him," Nasrallah told a crowd at the opening of a book fair in a south Beirut neighborhood complex that was rebuilt after being leveled by Israeli warplanes during the summer fighting.
"Even though they're our enemies, it is worthy of respect that the political forces and the Israeli public act quickly to save their state, entity, army and their existence from the crisis," the Shiite Muslim cleric added.

I could go on, but here are two presumptions common within the USA that I hate"

1) WWII started on 7th December, 1941. It started over 2 years ealier, and the presumption both belittles FDR's efforts and those of US volunteers that fought against the fascists earlier, and underplays the pro-German, anti-war sentiments prevalent within the country;

2) that the USA is the oldest democracy. You have to remember that over half the couhtry was disenfranchised until the 20th century, and that democracy was less than perfect even within the white, male section. So, on that qualification, UK democracy, however limited, predated US'.

6 nations

Iceland

Tinwald, Isle of Man

women enfranchised in New Zealand

Just please check your facts, qualify. There is so much myth in US "known" history.

LEL66 --

Olmert was deaf to the world (and some of his own people) as long as he wanted to be.

And the killing of exactly how many more innocent Lebanese would have shown Israel not to be intimidated by the world and made the war effective?

How much more of the country should they have destroyed that had nothing to do with smashing hizbullah?

How many more thousands of illegally used bomblets could have helped Olmert thrust his chest out to his nation and the world.

Your logic stinks of immorality and callousness.

As much as did the camp murders instigated by Sharon 20-plus years ago.

Mr. Rosenberg, please ask your friend, Rep. Chris van Hollen, (D-Md.) if he thinks people like me should apologize for criticizing his advocacy of a cease fire --which (though, I grant, not intentionally) gave aid and comfort to Hezbollah. By all means, please report his answer to that question with detailed quotations.

The reason the Winograd Commisson was formed is not because Olmert, Peretz and Halutz ignored calls for a cease fire from Van Hollen and others far more influential. No, the reason for that Commission was because--afraid of the negative reaction from the U.S.--Israel's leaders did not act with the requisite ruthlessness against its implacable foe-- even if it meant completely destroying Lebanon and killing every single one of its inhabitants.

I worry that the Olmert Government's fecklessness has made a third Lebanon war more likely, but I am glad at least that your friend has learned his lesson, and the next time Haifa comes under attack, he won't unwittingly be offerring succor to thugs.

Oh, and just so the Jew-haters around here, who flamed me after my last post, are clear: destroying Lebanon and killing every single one of its inhabitants is not a policy I advocate--unless that were the only way to stop the attacks on Haifa and other parts of Israel. Whether that result could be achieved without those horrific consequences is not certain, but what is certain is, first, that the Israeli leadership in July, 2006 did not have the will and the smarts to find out; and, second, calls for a cease fire from well-meaning doves like van Hollen only contribute to the inability of Israel's military to effectively defend its
people because flawed leaders like Olmert become even more timid in the face of those calls.

What about the Lavon Affair?, when Israeli agents bombed American and British targets and tried to pin the blame on the Arabs? Is that too just being "cynically exploited"? Or is it just a simple fact that Israeli interests are not necessarily US interests, and at times Israel has bit the hand that feeds them and harms US interests?

ooops! We're not allowed to say that, are we?

That is what the prior U.N. resolution called for. It is also an interesting illustration of Hezbollah as a nation within a nation. Where was the Lebanonese government and its master Syria?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

The UN can call for all it likes, but in this case and so many others, it's rather like the mice voting to bell the cat.

Insisting that the Lebanese government control a government-within-a-government isn't realistically going to happen. Syria doesn't yet have a motivation to do so, although perhaps they may horse-trade.

So, rather than complaining, is there anything meaningful that can be done? Short of genocidal steps, I don't see Hizbollah going away.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

(Althing being equal)

Nice!

I think LEL66 is exactly wrong on this. The question is not about how but why the war was waged. It is the same excuse used by the rightwing hawks here when they condone the invasion and occupation of Iraq by faulting the incompetence in carrying it out.

Regardless of whatever tactics Hezbollah might use (and I'm not condoning them), they are members in the Lebanese government and essentially freedom fighters who want Israel out of their country. Israel and, of course, the U.S. wanted to go after Syria and Iran and crushing Hezbollah and Lebanon (again) was an indirect way of doing that.

The pretense for war was just convenient. The IDF has been skirmishing with Hezbollah since Israel withdrew from (most) of Lebanon. Has Israel not kidnapped captured any Hezbollah fighters? Even Nazrallah was shocked at the time Israel started the war and said that he wouldn’t have taken the soldiers if he thought Israel was going to start a war over it.

Israel used the excuse that Hezbollah fighters were integrating within civilian areas to bomb the hell out of the Lebanese infrastructure and people. In most cases, the homes, schools and hospitals targeted by Israel were not near Hezbollah fighters. This was not discussed in the vaunted open-debate Israeli press. Nor was the fact that Israeli military posts being targeted by the inaccurate Hezbollah rockets were also located near civilian areas mentioned to the Israeli public.

MJ is mistaken in his belief that Israel is more accountable or less blind to its government malfeasance than the U.S. Ask this recent member of the Israeli parliament how democratic Israel is. Some commission chastises a Sharon or Begin after the fact yet these guys still go on to higher offices. It may be that the press in Israel has not been corrupted in the same way it has been here. It may be that our current administration has exploited 9/11 to usurp power and are only beginning to be called on it. But both the U.S. and the Israeli media and government spin these foreign invasions around some national security interest and never report the whole story at the time of the hostilities.

Didn't we think (or say we thought) that the Tornado was a missile?

And a mistaken attack on the wrong ground forces is not comparable in any way to what happened to the Liberty.

I remain skeptical that it was a mistake, but not quite convinced that it was deliberate. I do remember reading transcripts between the Israeli controllers in Ashdod and the IDF choppers, which suggested that the controllers on the ground knew a whole lot more than the chopper pilots on the scene did about what was going on (and how did they?), but I am too lazy to find them and start up another round of debate.

And the theory that the US had detected that the Israelis were "cooking" Arab message traffic (i.e., changing and rebroadcasting them with a more powerful signal them in almost-real-time, so that the genuine signal is not heard), or that Israel thought we had, remains, AFAIK, as an unrefuted possible motivation for an Israeli attack.

If it ever turns out they had a plan to blame it on the Egyptians or the Syrians, I guess that'll decide it for me.

I'm afraid you misunderstand my references to preventive medicine. I am trying to phrase it from an Israeli standpoint that they see threat; I'd put it differently from a Palestinian perspective; I'd put it in other terms to try to get some level of coexistence.

No one seriously expects to eradicate malaria. If one lives in malarial areas, one uses netting, chemoprophylactic drugs, and insect repellents. If one starts to spike a fever, many tropical disease physicians will assume malaria, and start treating it simultaneously with diagnostic tests.

If one chooses to live in an area where other people are shooting rockets at you, one's government can continue in the development of anti-rocket weapons, such as Arrow, MTHEL, or whatever the system based on Oerlikon automatic cannon can be called. Just as people did on Quemoy and Matsu, rather than leaving, they can choose to live underground.

To suggest that the other side will stop such attacks, without a radical change in the political and economic situation, is as plausible as deciding to eradicate malaria.

I see, however, several posters here suggesting what sounds genocidal to me, as genocidal as spraying the habitat of every mosquito.

Israel is not yet prepared to take the necessary defensive steps to minimize infections, nor is it willing either to make the political changes that might stop much (probably not all) of the attacks, nor is it willing to face squarely that some thinking is indeed genocidal.

Frankly, I see little difference betweent the settlements in the OT, and Gleiwitz.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

To criticize Israel is not to deny its right to exist. However, illegal and immoral use of force lowers Israel's own justification to this right.

I think it is hard to say that the waging of the last incursion into Lebanon was timid when civilians and civil infrastructure, as well as specific economic assets, were targeted throughout the country, much of which had nothing to do with "defeating" or even inhibiting Hizbullah -- as if you can defeat by force a resistance that, essentially, springs from popular support.

I'm sure the Israelis understand this, so the reason for destabilizing the one near-successful democracy, and plunging/bombing a recovering economy and multi-ethnic, multi-religious society back into it's prior tensions and stresses must have been deliberate and condoned by the USA, not to say the vicious, immoral and illegal use of hundreds of thousands of deadly bomblets to presumably punish the people of the area, all this exposes the immorality of Olmert's government's actions.

The Israelis have been trying to teach others to accept wrongs by imposing mistreatment, destruction and death. Hasn't worked for 40 years. Think it will now?

To suggest that the other side will stop such attacks, without a radical change in the political and economic situation, is as plausible as deciding to eradicate malaria.

I agree completely. I understand your analogy of fighting terrorism as a disease and I'm not taking issue with your analogy. I know that you were arguing against Emet18’s “last resort” solution. I was only saying that some, like Emet18, would read it as agreeing with his contention that annihilating Lebanon is one solution to consider if other remedies did not work.

Emet18 proffers the equation: terrorism = Hezbollah = Lebanese, therefore kill all the Lebanese and end terrorism. By equating terrorism with a disease or disease carrier it is easy to define the whole body as the carrier of the infection. In fact, Emt18 is probably right that terrorists could be wiped out by killing everyone. After all, you can kill an infection by killing the patient.

You are replying to Emet18 that it isn’t an answer to kill every Lebanese because others would take up that terrorism against Israel. I guess I'm just saying that the proposition shouldn't be given any credence at all by addressing alternatives. The problem comes from framing solutions in strictly military terms or even medical terms, which ignores the moral questions or, dare I say it- humanism. I guess I didn’t reply directly to Emet18 because I feel that even responding to that kind of intense racial hate with rational arguments just fuels it.

I think, in order to understand why Olmert embarked on this war, it is important to understand his political situation at the time. Olmert was elected on the platform of carrying out a large-scale unilateral withdrawal from Judea/Samaria. He called it, in an Orwellian turn, the "convergence" or "hitkansut" plan. It would have ended up expelling about 80,000-100,000 Jews from their homes. Sharon succeeded in doing the same with 8,000 with minimal resistance from the Right from Gush Katif and the northern Samaria. Sharon's success in neutralizing the opposition rested on his reputation of being a "tough" general, hero of the Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War and someone who would "never compromise the the security of the state". The media and Leftist Establishment have always pushed the line that "the Israeli public likes a tough Prime Minister who bulldozes the opposition to his policies out of the way" (I don't think that is true, but that is the way things are perceived). Sharon fired cabinet minister who opposed him and ended up breaking up his own party and setting up a new one with only hand-picked candidates for the Knesset, unlike other parties who have their public membership choose them. Sharon received great plaudits for doing this, being "tough".
Olmert, on succeeding Sharon as PM, had no such security credentials. He felt he had to establish his reputation in order to push his far more radical plan for a major expulsion of the Jewish population of Judea/Samaria. Just before the election, he hit on the idea of using massive force to destroy nine homes who were claimed to be illegally built in the settlement of Amona.
He sent thousands of police there with order to use maximum force,causing many casualties among the protestors most of whom where teenagers, half of whom were girls.
Although praised by the media for being "decisive", this action caused his popularity to fall in the polls and in the end, although expecting to receive 45 Knesset seats, his Kadima Party got only 29.
Thus, although he formed a coalition, his situation was weak in order to carry out his plan, since some of his coalition partners were not enthusiastic at such a large-scale expulsion.
Thus, when the soldiers were kidnapped on the Lebanese border, Olmert saw a golden opportunity to be "tough", especially after Chief of Staff Halutz assured him that a short, massive aerial assault on Hizbullah would do the trick. So Olmert embarked on war. He said explicity "THE WAR IS BEING CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO CARRY OUT THE 'CONVERGENCE' PLAN." Many people, even those not particularly friendly to the Judea/Samaria Jewish settlers thought it was a mistake to say that since they are a high percentage of the combat units.
Well, the rest is history. Thus, those who claim here that Olmert's war was some sort of "grand plan" to knock out the Arabs, really should understand that it was actually intended to enable the Palestinians to get the territory they want to build their state.

barkochba: Most of your analysis is spot on, until you arrive at this conclusion:

Thus, those who claim here that Olmert's war was some sort of "grand plan" to knock out the Arabs, really should understand that it was actually intended to enable the Palestinians to get the territory they want to build their state.

Surely any Israeli politician following in the footsteps of Sharon would have plenty of reason to want to establish his security credentials independent of any concerns about a Palestinian state. Who knows, perhaps the war was even intended by Olmert as a way to extricate himself from Sharon's convergence plan, despite his claims to the contrary. After all, the convergence plan did die with the Lebanon War.

But either way, the goal of the convergence plan was to solve the Israeli "demographic problem," anyway, not to help the Palestinians establish their state. Had there been any real interest by Israel in the establishment of a Palestinian state, the amount of illegal settlement activity in the OT would not have increased after the Gaza withdrawal.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

I find it difficult to believe that Olmert didn't want to carry out the "hitkansut" plan. Don't forget all the speeches he was making, starting with the famous one in front of MJ's Israeli Policy Forum where he said "we are tired of winning, we are tired of being brave, etc" were saying he was going ahead.
In 1996, when Shimon Peres was running for election in his own right after succeeding Rabin who had been murdered, he also used a rocket attack from Lebanon as an excuse to open an a large-scale assault. His handlers made a point of whisking him up to the front in order to be photographed standing in front of a cannon wearing a flak jacket. In the event, his operation was a complete failure but Israeli casualties were at least light. In any event we see how the biggest "peaceniks" in Israel feel they have to show they are "tough".

barkochba said:

In any event we see how the biggest "peaceniks" in Israel feel they have to show they are "tough".

Yes, it's sad how a minority of extremists are able to warp the political process in Israel, just as they do within the Palestinian body politic, or in the U.S. for that matter. 

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Part of what puzzles me is the incompetence of the land forces. It doesn't surprise me that an air force general overpromised results. One of the most difficult areas of warfare is getting the various arms to complement one another, and, for whatever reasons, the IDF has never emphasized what the US terms close air support.

Still, the techniques used to counter rocket fire seemed more suited to punishing the locals rather than killing the rocket crews. Armor and armored infantry had no good countermeasures to creative uses of heavy yet man-portable antitank missiles first used in that manner by the Chechens, around 1999. There shouldn't have been such surprises.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

The thing is, this tough posturing is about domestic or internal politics. It has nothing to do with reality and the real world outside the country.

But politics IS the real world.  Peoples' perceptions of their leaders have a tremendous impact on those leaders' ability to maneuver.  The fact is that whatever concessions Israel will eventually need to make to make peace with the Arabs will need to be sold to the public.  The reputation and record of those leaders is crucial to their ability to sell, especially if what's being sold involves, in Ariel Sharon's words, "painful concessions."

Just as only a staunch anti-Communist cold warrior like Richard Nixon could go out on a limb and engage with the communist Chinese, so only an Israeli leader with an impeccable record for caring about security can pull off concessions to the Arabs.  That's why Ehud Barak was able to do it.  That's also why Yitzhak Rabin (who memorably said that the way to put down the first intifada, when he was defense minister, was through "force, might and beatings") was able to do it.  Olmert's problem is similar to Shimon Peres's problem - they were not  military men and the public could not be sure that they wouldn't give away too much.

op·pro·bri·um
the teacher in me just could not help that. Sorry

If Lebanon can't keep Hezbollah under control then Israel is going to do it. They need to be better prepared both militarily and politically.

When? Will the third time be a charm? Have you heard that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

MJ. you were wrong assuming that "the Israeli government knew what it was doing",
but you are even equally wrong assuming that you know what Israeli government should be doing.
You are average mediocre guy like all of us on this blog. What are the chances that you know better than Israeli government. ?

“The good news is that the pro-Israel community is changing.”

Not at all. There is no support whatsoever in pro-Israel community for American congressmen to micromanage military operation of Israeli government.

“And more and more people in the pro-Israel community want their Representatives to speak up when they perceive our (or Israel's) policies to be damaging – [skip] and damaging to Israel.”

There is no support for this. American Jews, including Jews critical to some of the actions of Israeli government do not want their Representatives to oversight or supervise Israeli government.
Your attidude is exception.

So Davai says, "MJ, You are average mediocre guy like all of us on this blog. What are the chances that you know better than Israeli government."
I don't know whether MJ is mediocre or not although he is one hell of a writer whose stuff is everywhere.
But I have no doubt that Davai is mediocre (I've read his posts).
And why would he assume that the Israeli government is not mediocre. I am sure he thinks the American government is. But, come on, Davai, isn't the Israeli government at leat as mediocre as the American government or are you blinded by patriotic loyalty to the home country you choose not to live in.

Olmert wasn't simply chest-beating for domestic consumption.  (A better example of that would be Shimon Peres' "Grapes of Wrath" offensive that led to the first Qana tragedy.)  The whole logic to Convergence was that Israel could achieve greater long-term security through withdrawal, internal and external legitimacy and deterrance as opposed to occupation.  Hezbollah's attacks across the international border came in the context of the Palestinian attacks from the evacuated settlements in Gaza.  Olmert believed that only an overwhelming response would restore public confidence in the merits of unilateral withdrawal.   

Olmert's botching of the response has now discredited Convergence.  This is a shame, because the fundamental arguments supporting it still stand: (1) Israel needs clear borders with a clear Jewish majority; (2) Palestinians need to have the prospect of a contiguous state presented as a real alternative to violence and rejectionism; and (3) progress towards a two-state solution cannot wait for the Palestinians to produce a genuine negotiating partner. 

The best alternative in the short run is to implement a modified Convergence plan with a "settlers out, soldiers in approach" in which the isolated settlements are dismantled, but the IDF holds on the various chunks of the West Bank until a responsible force can be found/created to take over patrolling the territory.

In the long term, a high-speed rail link might be the best best (an elevated highway might cause more problems.)

However, stabilization of both the West Bank and Gaza by someone other than the Israelis has to happen first. Unmanned observation posts aren't going to stop Qassams from being launched. Egyptian and Jordanian forces (under an Arab League mandate) might.

"And why would he assume that the Israeli government is not mediocre. I am sure he thinks the American government is."

Such a mediocre thought.

There is no such thing as war crime or mediocre
goverment or mediocre writer. You always have to grade on curve.

As you know I agreed with you that Israel as well as all other contries in the world made mistakes in military operations and broke some international rules and regulations.
The two examples that you obsessed and repeat over and over again possibly are examples of such broken rules.

I am afraid that "wishful thinking" is not a substitute for a sober look at the situation. Since the failure of the Oslo Agreements as a result of the terror war Arafat launched in October 2000, and the subsequent failure of the Sharon/Olmert/Kadima attempt to unilaterally create a Palestinian state by means of a unilateral withdrawal, people have been groping for a way out. Shlomo Ben-Ami and others then hit upon the idea you state here, i.e. foreign forces will come in , take over the Palestinians areas, subdue them and give them a state. Only problem is that there is no chance this will ever happen. For example, why should the Egyptians come into Gaza and "clean it up"? It is heavily armed THANKS TO EGYPT so do you really believe that they will then send troops in the fight the same people they armed? And why should they do Israel a favor by doing this? Egypt, in spite of the phony "peace treaty" openly views Israel as hostile state (similar to the Cold War situation between the US and USSR, i.e. there were full diplomatic relations between the two, but undisguised hostility and confrontation). Egypt, being a police state, knows very well what arms are sent into Gaza and wants them there. Egypt is carrying out a proxy war against Israel from Gaza the way Syria does from Lebanon by way of Hizbullah, while keeping their own direct border with Israel on the Golan Heights quiet (WITHOUT a peace agreement, I might add). Thus, to expect Egypt to want to "help" Israel by pacifying Gaza is totally unrealistic. The Arab League is not going to send troops, either. If you think they will out of some "love" for their Palestinian "brothers", then why haven't they done the same for the Somalis who are involved in long-running fratricidal civil war? What did the Arab League do about the sanguinary Lebanese and Algerian civil wars? What did they do about Saddam's genocidal repression of the Iraqi Shi'ites ? NOTHING. So why would anyone think they would stick their necks out to help Israel?

Regarding the Europeans, forget it. You might claim that UNIFIL is in southern Lebanon watching the "cease-fire" between Israel and Hizbullah, but they are only observers, they are not empowered to disarm anyone or enforce the truce. As for a "active" force that will pacify the Palestinians, I suggest you look up the subject called "Iraq". 'Nuff said?

No one is going to step in, "straighen out the Palestinians" and guarantee Israel's security. Everyone seems to think some sort of "rational compromise" can be worked out if only the right verbiage can be found, but this is an illusion.
Only Israel can guarantee its own security.

I am not an Israeli citizen, so it is not my obligation to advise the Israeli government on techniques that come in the manuals with the US weapons. No, I do not know Israel is very good at correcting mistakes. In point of fact, it suffered badly in Lebanon from tactics known to military observers at least since 1999.

I may have a chance, as a US citizen, to have my government deliver a stronger message to Israel by cutting off, at the very least, supplies of, and support for, weapons Israel has used irresponsibly. I believe that would give a much stronger message to the Israeli government, with which I have no channels of communication.

In point of fact, I have written about the US assessment of cluster munitions, and the retirement of the M26 rockets used by Israel, the very limited use of the more accurate M30 cluster munitions, and the migration of MLRS warheads to the non-cluster unitary-warhead XM31. I have written about US doctrine against rocket fire from populated areas, an ever-changing doctrine that is generally reasonable. According to the Field Artillery journal, the preferred anti-rocket technique is to localize the firing point with Firefinder or LCMR radar, and then move airmobile and vehicle-borne infantry against it, rather than artillery of any type.

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg generally rejected the defense of tu quoque, roughly translated as "you do it too!" In point of fact, for every specific claim I have made of Israeli inappropriate use, I can cite a US technique, with the same or replacement weapons, intended to minimize civilian casualties.

Are US doctrines and tactics perfect? Of course not. Nevertheless, you consistently ignore my references to US techniques that are specific alternatives to the Israeli methods, so your claim that I never wrote about use of American weapons by American forces is either evidence of poor reading skills or outright lying.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

"Have you noticed that once Americans expressed their criticism of the 2003 invasion of Iraq"

I haven’t noticed any discussions about civilian casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I don’t think American people know or really care about casualties.
I haven’t notice any discussions by liberal politicians or activists or any oversight hearing by congress to find out if American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are using the weapon systems in a way that minimized civilian casualties.

"Again, you change the subject from a specific violation of the appropriate techniques and of the sales agreement for certain weapons. "
I'm not changing the subject.
I agreed long time ago that probably Israel violated some rules and regulations.
You changed the subject. You mentioned Iraq, not me.
And I'm saying that there were no discussions about milirary tactics in current Iraq and Afganistan wars.

"If you haven't noticed American criticism of civilian casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan, you must have a remarkably narrow range of reading. "

Any pointers ?
Also can you compare the volume of that
criticism to criticism of Israel.
Is this 1 : 1000, 1 :10000 ?