I love Haaretz, but is it the NY Times of Israel? Is it the national mainstream newspaper of record? It's actual hard copy Hebrew language circulation is small compared to others. Its influence on both general public and elites is questionable.

It is, alas, much to the left of the mainstream discourse, insofar as it represents somewhere to the left side of Labor and right of Meretz.

It is not quite the The Nation of Israel, but neither is it the NY Times.

You know it's not just the right wing media and AIPAC. It is far more pervasive than that and reaches general discourse. I have personally been accused of being anti-semitic for merely making the factual statement that issues regarding Israel and Palestine are more openly debated in Israel than in the US. The uneasiness caused by the penchant of some American Jews to play that card early and often keeps many a gentile tongue guarded.

“I despise idealogues masquerading as objective journalists.” - Bill O'Reilly, March 30, 2007

So why major and minor Democratic candidates would never even consider expressing regret for
of the murders of children by American military
in Iraq and Afganistan or Serbia at all?

Lobby again?

Until they do this, they have no bussiness
expressing regret for the death of children
in I/P conflict.

Great diary, MJ. The only points that I could possibly add are (1) there are many other countries besides Israel that have a wider-ranging press than the US and (2) most Americans don't realize how narrow-minded the US press is. For some examples from other countries go here.

MJ - I am not ashamed to say I wept when I read Gideon's article. In my 41 years of visiting Israel, I have noticed a "coarsening" of Israelis with empathy a dying emotion. Attending services at some of the synogogues in the West Bank settlements where my relatives reside, I hear commentary that I don't recognize as Judaism.

I was in Israel after the victory of 67 and shared in the optomism of our people. Following the 73 war, attitudes changed and Israel became deadly ernest in cementing the occupation. Year by year the occupation has become more oppressive. I honestly believe that the occupation is destroying everything we, as Jews, should be holding sacred. Our religion is being used to justify acts which we have despised for millenia and to which we have been subjected. Israel now worships the Golden Calf of Power and Might, not G-d.

I see blog comments citing both Haaretz and US reports. Falcon 2.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

It's apparent that you don't look at this is a discussion of American politics, but simply as a way to continue your vendetta against MJ.

Not troll-rated only to be sure that all see my evaluation.

Falcon 6, applied to MJ. New Falcon code needed, I suppose, to flag irrelevant attacks. Falcon 12.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Misplaced

Your comment was more of an attack on MJ than the subject, which, as far as I read it, was killings in the I=P conflict. The fact that MJ posted it, however, apparently is more important to you than any thing else.

Falcon 6. Falcon 10. Falcon 9.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Outside, supporters of Israel need strong evidence that on a fundamental, deep, philosophical level, a candidate understands Israel's security concerns.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Well hey, that's great, the article can appear. But it seems that the Israeli public knows all this and doesn't care. That's why they keep voting for the people doing this stuff. No need to be so quick with the love.

OK, tell me what's the subject of today's discussion?

Deleted

After 911 I gave up on the American press and went foreign. Today Haaretz, Guardian and Independent are my favorites. I was actually stunned with the discovery that the Israeli press give the Palestinian side to IP struggle. It also left me not too optimistic about the prospects of peace. Namely the Israeli people know what the occupation is doing to the Palestinian people and they don't care. They have been callused by so much war that little empathy remains. Hence open discussion in Israel of the oppression of the Palestinians is not politically damaging to the movement for settling the Westbank.

However, here in the US the people have not yet been that hardened against the suffering of others. In order to maintain political support for Israel it is important to play down Israeli actions against the Palestinians. The major American papers cannot publish people like Levy, Hess or Rubinstein because the hysterical reaction to them would destroy those papers(as well as Presidential candidates). There may be some hope in these hysterical reactions. It seems they indicate that at some deep level these people know what is really going on in the Westbank and also realize that if they ever accepted that reality their own support for Israel would suffer. It may be oxymoronic but it is like they are wittingly self deluded.

In this there may be a ray of hope. Mass delusions eventually collide with reality and burn themselves out. Thus there is a limit to America's support for Israel. Soon, possibly, we will have a genuinely even-handed US ME policy.

At that time we can withdraw our support and just sit back and watch the warring tribes of the ME butcher each other. One thing we can be sure of is that the Israelis will win in the body count game but beyond that it is impossible to predict the outcome.

Mark,
You have no clue what's freedom of discussion is all about.
You censorsed Brad the Dad and me by rating 0 and now you feel you can libel us with blood libels.
What's the shame!

You bring a very good point, but it has nothing to do with current discussion.
MJ poin was that leading Democratic candidates don't talk about murder of children in Iraq Afganistan, Gaza/West Bank.

So why?

Your "point," if a soggy Q-tip picked up from the gutter can be considered to have a point, was that "major and minor Democratic candidates would that even consider expressing regret for of the murders of children by American military in Iraq and Afganistan or Serbia at all."

Not only have Democratic (and maybe the very occasional Republican) pols expressed such regret, but when the evidence cannot be spun, the military has frequently apologized for such casualties, altho they appear not to have changed they way they do business . . . . Finally, whether they constitute "murder" or negligence is probably beyond you.

I haven't heard any of the candidates talk about Haditha, for example.

Some may have on the floor of Congress.

No doubt Kucinich has, but I don't have the transcript to hand.

But in general they talk about how awful the war in Iraq is and, included in that sentiment, are the needless deaths of civilians and children.

Are you insane?  Celebrate the murder of children?  Show me where even the most twisted interpretation of what I wrote can be taken to mean that I celebrate the murder of children.

This the classic approach of the person who has no arguments:  Change the subject and smear the writer.

Hmmm. I sense some history--bad blood?--contributing to this rating. BTD's NY Times example is good and makes his point, though the question arises, how many articles like this appear?

This strikes me as having some validity:

"In Israel, it is usually taken as a given that even vociferous critics support the state and its fundamental security objectives. Outside, supporters of Israel need strong evidence that on a fundamental, deep, philosophical level, a candidate understands Israel's security concerns."

Thank you, Peter.

Now, Davai, was that so hard to find out, at least potentially, what the point was, rather than nagging with question after question?

I, too, saw the main issue the Israeli media, which is something in which Israel can take pride, and the US media take for an example -- if the owners care.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"I love children, but I can never finish a whole one..." [WC Fields]

Apropos of the foreign press, even the Web CNN International version is considerably more balanced, and blessedly covering less pop culture. Admittedly, there's soccer and other high-intensity conflicts...

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

My point was to object to MJ explanation
about "not offending the few crazies among their donor base."

He didn't have to bring the lobby to this discussion.

I have to say I was stunned to read some of the comments made on the Haaretz site regarding the article.

The sheer barbarism of many of the commenters was simply unbelievable. They read description after description of children killed with little or no cause, and clearly were entirely unmoved. Instead, they could only blame parties other than the ones choosing to fire the bullets.

What kind of human beings are these? How can they presume to act as if they, of all people, can lecture others about what's morally right and just?

I don't understand you.
Are you using his post just to express your thoughts about anything that interest you but that has nothing to do with the post?
If so why do you piggy back on M.J posts,
why don't you post yourself?
Couple posts ago you had interesting comment about doctrite about fair war, but MJ post was taken down.

Otherwise, you should comment or at least you should try to comment on the post.

To add some prospective
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/907733.html

As such, a paradox has emerged in which the Israeli government, the U.S. and Fatah believe that by exerting greater pressure on the Gaza Strip's residents, the people will overthrow the Hamas regime there, while the Islamic group is doing its best to shut down the crossings - perhaps assuming that if the civilians suffer more, they will side with Hamas.

Senior Hamas officials deny that they intend this. Ismail Haniyeh says Hamas is interested in opening the crossings, but he was hard-pressed to explain the obvious attempt by Hamas militants to destroy the crossings.

"The military wing decides its targets in an effort to bring an end to the siege over the Strip," he told Haaretz.

But how is shooting at the crossings expected to contribute to lifting the siege? Only Hamas seems to know the answer.

While you don't make it clear what is your comment and Haaretz's, this, at least, is a contribution and not a whine at MJ. Thank you.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I can't think of a better example of a comment that should be rated "unproductive" than Mark Weinberg's, if not zero. I think I'll submit it to management as an example for "FAQ." Those who rated it highly must want this forum to descend further towards the depths of most Israel/Palestine discussions on the net.

Howard,
I'm curious in your thougts?
What's the strategy of Hamas is Gaza?
Or maybe there are no strategy?
Just a gangs payed by Iran to cause trouble to Israel and force Israel to react and cause civilian deaths?

Assuming this is a serious inquiry, that there may be no strategy could very well be the answer. They might take funds from Iran, but they'd take it from anyone who would help them carry out their anger.

I'm not suggesting that Israel is exclusively responsible for their anger, although it shares some of the responsibility. There is a point when people have only anger to motivate them. Some American POWs, held long and brutally, especially by the North Koreans, survived because they could hate long enough -- while others survived through love (of people or country), or religion. There always has to be a motivator.

While suicide bombing -- where the bomber is the weapon, as opposed, say, to the 19th and 20th century anarchist that threw a bomb but didn't expect to survive -- is relatively recent, it's illustrative to look at past insurgencies. In the Phillipines, a Moro insurgents would sometimes very carefully prepare to go juramentado, into a killing rage. One of their techniques was to wrap their bodies, including their scrotums, in wet rawhide, which contracted as it dried. It did armor them somewhat, but there are accounts that it put them in so much pain that they could do nothing but lash out and kill until they died. The US Army started carrying the .45 automatic pistol to deal with them, because the conventional pistols did not have the power to knock down a juramentado and keep him down.

Look to the Vikings, and the ritual they had of going berserk. There are other societies with that sort of example of focused rage.

Japan, actually, is an exception, although suicidal attacks have a long tradition. In some cases, such as the 47 ronin, the suicide was after getting the cherished revenge, and very ritualistic. The "banzai charges" of WWII were rarely effective, as they had no discipline, in contrast with soldiers that would literally cement themselves into a bunker that would become their tomb. The kamikaze and other "special attack" units were determined, but not usually angry, and had a very different motivation than seen in the Middle East -- more a sense of social obligation and duty.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Sorry, I didn't see this, and upgraded it so the discussion will show. I'm going to concentrate more on the second question, but just say, in general, that a wide range of American politicians have not used pressure to get Israel to be a declared nuclear state. If that were done, I would absolutely support the amendment of the NPT to include India, Israel, and Pakistan, and reluctantly North Korea, as declaratory powers. I'd rather have them in the tent than outside it, but, with less wisdom than Admiral Nelson turning his blind eye to a signal he didn't plan to obey, the US has put no pressure on Israel about nonproliferation.

Let me deal very specifically with appropriate versus nonappropriate use. There is a second aspect of proportional vs. disproportionate response, which is a separate matter because it was not part of a sales agreement or US doctrine for using its own weapons. Rather than go through the computations again, did you see my quantitative assumptions on how the Israeli response in Lebanon was about 1600:1 greater against a Qassam or GRAD firing?

The specific inappropriate use begins with the sales agreement for the US M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), along with M26 unguided (although not wildly inaccurate) rockets that deliver 644 submunitions per rocket. The rockets come in pairs of six-packs, and usually 6 are fired although the launcher can do 12.

As I understand the Foreign Military Sales agreement, Israel accepted US doctrine and restrictions that the M26 rockets were not to be used against populated areas. The US originally designed them them for spread-out, relatively soft military targets, such as dispersed artillery. Experience has shown that the M77 submunitions, designed to have around a 4% dud rate (turning them into impromptu land mines), may have 25-33% dud rates -- it's very dependent on the terrain and angle of fire. The US is retiring the M26, replacing it with the guided M30, or, even more rapidly, the XM31 non-cluster munition. One reason to use the MLRS is that it has a longer range than 155mm howitzers.

Israel used the M270 system against individual Qassam/GRAD rocket fires in Lebanon, in populated areas. They also appear to have used air-delivered cluster munitions.

Now, I claim disproportionate response because I'm familiar with US Field Artillery doctrine against harassing rocket fire, and it is nothing like what Israel did. Since Israel used the same equipment, it is fair to compare it to what the US doctrine would be.

Israel and the US both use AN/TPQ-36 and AN/TPQ-37 counter-artillery radar; the difference between the two is range. These radars (there are others, but these are the relevant ones) will detect a rocket or artillery shell shortly after it was fired, and the radar computers will backtrack the trajectory and predict the location of the firing site. That information is sent electronically back to the artillery to engage the firing site, which would most commonly be the M109A5 155mm howitzer (US forces use the M109A6, with minor differences), or MLRS when the range is beyond 155mm.

Using 155mm howitzers, the normal US response would be to fire six M107 shells in a pattern that overlaps the firing site. These shells do not have cluster submunitions, although other 155mm rounds do. The shells would be fuzed to explode in the air over the firing site, raining fragments and blast onto it, but no unexploded bomblets.

155mm howitzer shells are faster than MLRS, which gives a better chance of catching the rocket crew. One must not overestimate the sophistication of the Qassam or its fUSSR ancestor, the GRAD. These rockets need only some crossed wood, or a ramp of scrap metal, to be launched, with the controller at the end of a long wire, probably in the pickup truck that carried the rocket. Picture the rocket as a piece of 5" diameter pipe, about 9 feet long, which can be handled by 2 or 3 men.

As opposed to the 6 bursts of the M107 rounds, the M26 rockets that Israel used, and for which they urgently requested resupply, would, in a salvo of six, deliver 3864 submunitions to the target area, each submunition being roughly comparable to a large grenade. A quarter to a third of these may not go off on impact, but can detonate if picked up, including by a child, or stepped upon.

Had Israel followed US doctrine and used airburst 155mm, I'd call that proportional. In Iraq, when US forces are fired on in that manner, they often use helicopter and vehicle borne infantry to capture or kill the crew, rather than use artillery at all against populated areas.

Is that sufficient to say that the inappropriate use was inappropriate because it violated both the sales agreement and US doctrine for use of the weapon system in populated areas, or do I need to go into a comparison of the relative power of the weapons? The latter would get into the concept of proportionality in Just War theory.

If I were on the receiving end of an M26 salvo versus a M107 salvo, close enough to survive, I suspect I could make the distinction knowing nothing beyond several big booms and thousands of little booms, followed by little booms for weeks.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I'd have to sit down with maps and think about this. Part of the problem in this area is the density of settlement. Walls that go through generally populated areas don't contribute to cooling off.

If there were a neutral zone of several kilometers, carefully selected and tough international peace enforcers, not peacekeepers, with UN authority to shoot to kill a potential threat from either side, might have a limited chance of getting the sides separated. The rocket problem is soluble with a good deal of technical effort, and possibly evacuating or hardening target areas.

That might put Hamas in a position of needing to be responsible to hold power. It's not a situation that offers optimism. In particular, as long as the West Bank and Gaza are not contiguous, history tells us what happens with things like the Danzig/Polish Corridor, or East and West Pakistan.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Howard,
"that a wide range of American politicians have not used pressure to get Israel to be a declared nuclear state"
Why Israel should? They are not part of any agreement. BTW, even EU contries don't pressure Israel. Maybe there are good reasons

Let's assume that your description of weapon usage is correct.
I have no way to verify it, you don't provide any refs.
My question is why Israel did it?
They didn't know any better.
They used in most effective way but didn't care about civilians?
Any other posibility?

MJ sez:

"see what it is like in a place where the far right does not intimidate the press into silence."

MJ is correct that Israel's far right doesn't intimidate their media nearly as much as they would like to. Israeli media has to contend with insidious censorship imposed by Israel's military and judiciary. The judicial gag orders include gag orders on reporting the fact that they have been imposed.

As Avi Weinberg, Secretary-General of the Israel Press Council says:

“As official military censorship is not very effective, the courts are nowadays being used to restrict the work of journalists. Requests by prosecutors or the security forces for restrictions on the coverage of certain cases are too readily granted by judges.” .

There's still a blanket of censorship over the Israel's alleged violation of Syrian airspace on 09/06.

Here's an incisive OpEd by Avi Weinberg that I would like to see published in the LAT. He skewers academics and journalists in the US and Israel for joining a "demagogic campaign" against Amadinejad's visit by reminding both "social groups" of their responsibilities in regard to freedom of speech .

"What chutzpah, what hypocrisy!” said everyone: Politicians in Jerusalem and Washington, American-Jewish leaders, students at Columbia University – how dare a distinguished university invite Iranian President Ahmadinejad to deliver a lecture? He must be silenced!

The calls to curb speech have become familiar and tired. Politicians are allowed to say this, and in any case it would be naïve to expect them to display openness to other views or the expression of views that contradict popular sentiment. Yet it’s irritating to hear the representatives of two leading social groups join this demagogic campaign: Academicians and journalists.

First of all, academicians: They should be the first ones to recognize the fact that universities are the only place that still maintains genuine commitment to the freedom of speech, and are at times an island of openness amid the wave of calls to curb speech – and it doesn’t matter whether the calls are directed at radical views on the Right or Left.

Therefore, it was unfortunate to hear serious and distinguished professors speaking out against the Columbia University president’s decision.”

The enthusiasm of editors and newscasters in the broadcast media and press who spoke out against Columbia University should also raise concerns. Journalists should be at the forefront of the struggle for the freedom of speech. It is good that they directed tough questions at Columbia University, but they should also direct such questions at those objecting to the Ahmadinejad visit. It would be appropriate for journalists to leave the populist statements for politicians."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3453383,00.html

Sweet.

The NYT's published Steve Erlanger's article about the dead children of Gaza on 09/26:

http://tinyurl.com/32mfj4

BRAVO, Mr. Rosenberg, for having the nerve and strength to write about what is all but forbidden to speak about here in the "bastion" of the free press, America.

While the majority of both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates are busy outdoing one another in professing their love at any costs for Israel, the realities on the ground in Occupied Palestine tell a much different story, a story that the majority of Americans will never see or read about.

Again, thanks for your candor.

Howard says;

I believe the US needs to be in Afghanistan. I believe the US needs to be out of Iraq. I believe the US gives too much unquestioning support to Israel, which is a contributing but not decisive point about the killing of innocents in the West Bank, Gaza, or Israel itself.

Howard,

Sometimes I think ousting the Taliban was a mistake as we may now have a responsibility to keep them from returning, and if that is so, I smell quagmire. Maybe we can get out under the cover of a Taliban/Karzai alliance.

Be that as it may, I agree we should be there but only to hunt down Osama.

As to the rest of the highlighted part of your post, I couldn't agree more.

The article cited by MJ brings back memories of the picture of the little naked girl burned by napalm running down the road
in Vietnam.

Certainly if you have lived in the area, you may well be right about the assumption of a mainstream Israeli paper. On the other hand, we have here the significant difference between the editorial policy (biased) and news reporting (usually objective) of the Wall Street Journal. In like manner, I wouldn't go to the Christian Science Monitor rather than the New England Journal of Medicine for health news, but they do excellent foreign reporting.

Either way, I see it more likely that the strong articles are looking for a change in policy. It's certainly hard to isolate Israeli policy from US support, so there may be an indirect call for changes here. While I'm really not trying to make grandiose statements about "the lobby", it is fair to say that some of the most extreme members of any international movement are those who are not at direct risk of their actions. Think, for example, of the rhetoric and response of IRA fundraisers in Boston, and the much more pragmatic actions in Belfast.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Thank you, John.

An ex-wife told me we weren't married any more because I wasn't emotional enough. As with many such things, the truth lies somewhere between. There are many things that will make me laugh or cry, but some things are deadly serious. Those include the more technical aspects of medicine and warfare, two sides of a bloody coin.

In this case, especially where there is censorship and there is news reporting by people who may not know what they are seeing, I feel forced to dig into the open literature so I can understand the technology and extrapolate from it. This is pretty classic intelligence analysis, as opposed to James Bond, technique.

If I may use a perhaps dangerous analogy, I don't remotely deny the Holocaust, but I study it differently than many people. From an emotion standpoint, I have my mother showing me the pictures she took of Dachau in 1950, and while it had been cleaned up, they were still emotional.

Quite deliberately, I have never visited the Holocaust Museum and what I believe are exhibits designed to trigger emotional response. I have read scholarly studies they have published.

Long ago, I decided if there was ever dictatorship in this country I love, it would come from an authoritarian faction demanding all be done in the interest of "security". For that reason, I studied the rise of the Nazis in great detail, both in translated documents and occasional attempts in my fragmented German, as well as document collections not just from the Trial of the Major War Criminals, but the 13 subsequent Nuremberg tribunals. The Hyperwar series, on line, from the Center for Military History is useful, and I certainly have hundreds of books on the period. I'll keep studying, especially when a particularly insightful analysis, such as Understanding Hitler, The Nazi Doctors, or Hitler's Willing Executioners comes out. Some of these, I freely admit, were controversial, and there are more generally accepted resources such as Lucy Dawidowicz, Alan Bullock, William Shirer, John Toland, and Telford Taylor. Even apologists such as David Irving can contribute to that.

With all that historical information, given the sad world of war in which we live, I've also spent a great deal of time in understanding current warfare and technology. In the case here, I couldn't reasonably criticize Israeli counterbattery tactics until I understood those of the people who had designed the equipment.

If it's any consolation, I'm involved in a startup dealing with the computer and communications need of commercial fishermen, which are surprisingly extensive. It's a pleasant change from understanding how the AEGIS system could be used by a determined Soviet attack on a carrier battle group.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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