by hilzoy
David Adesnik wonders why liberal bloggers aren’t writing about Lebanon. In my case, it’s the combination of unremitting gloom and vivid memories of the last time Israel invaded Lebanon, which I got to see from closer up than I wanted to. Whenever I sit down to try to write something about this, I find myself drowning in press coverage, each bit more depressing than the last, until eventually I just get up and do something else. Still, I have to write something, so here goes.
The continued bombardment of Lebanon is obscene, and it should stop now.
When I first wrote about this, I said that it was Hezbollah’s fault. Israel had withdrawn from Lebanese territory, and Hezbollah crossed international boundaries and kidnapped their soldiers without provocation. I also said that Israel had a right to defend itself, which of course it does. My views about the Middle East tend to be complicated, but the one point I am absolutely clear on is that the rejectionists — the people who would rather provoke a war than countenance some settlement that they view as inadequate — are completely and utterly wrong. Hezbollah: that means you.
However, the fact the Hezbollah is wrong does not mean that Israel is right; nor does the fact that Hezbollah started this mean that anything Israel does as a result is OK. If someone attacks you, there’s a point at which your response crosses a line and stops being mere self-defense and becomes a horror of its own. (There’s your attacker, lying limply on the ground, and yet you go on slamming his head into the sidewalk over and over and over.) That’s the point at which your friends, if they’re around, should pull you off your attacker and say: for God’s sake, stop, you’re going to kill him! In my opinion, Israel crossed that line after the first couple of days of bombing; and the reason I wrote this post ten days ago was that I thought it was past time for Israel’s friends intervene.
We should do this not just for the sake of the Lebanese, but for Israel. For reasons I tried to explain here, I think that the idea that this campaign will strike a decisive blow against Hezbollah — let alone bring about its "complete defeat" — is a fantasy. Moreover, it makes the only real long-term solution to this problem — having a Lebanese state that is able and willing to police its border with Israel — much more difficult than it was before. (And it was already quite difficult enough.) If I’m right, then whatever part of the Israeli campaign was not needed to show that there are large costs to kidnapping Israeli soldiers — that is, most of it — is pointless, and harms everyone involved for no reason.
And killing hundreds of people, wounding thousands, displacing nearly a million people, and inflicting damages that are now thought to run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention basically destroying a country, for no good reason, is, as I said, obscene.
Israel should stop, and it should stop now.
Isn’t there a question of fact (to what extent can Israel degrade Hezbollah’s missile and military capability) to be addressed? I’m not competent to do so, but it seems to me that one needs to answer that before concluding “it makes the only real long-term solution to this problem […] much more difficult than it was before.”
Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.
I haven’t been able to write about this for the last week and a half, because each time I start a fog of dread just paralyzes me.
But posts like yours help pierce the fog; thanks again.
It feels as if we’re hurtling along a river, and there are falls somewhere ahead. The people who set the craft in, waaaaay back upstream, either don’t seem to care or feel they can’t afford to show that they know about the falls.
There’s more and louder murmuring about the coming catastrophe than there’s ever been, but it’s still only murmuring.
rilkefan, if the IDF were limiting their assault to actions that had a plausible connection to “degrading Hezbollah’s military and missile capability”, you might have a point.
Hilzoy is referring to the massive bombing, indiscriminate killing of civilians, destruction of infrastructure, and more that make it clear that the objective is to destroy Lebanon as a country.
rilkefan, I am confused by your statement. What part of bombing civilians and killing hundreds of people – people NOT engaged in terrorism or supporters of Hezbollah – would be made excusable if the Israelis did destroy significant portions of Hezbollah’s rockets?
I’ll answer my own question – none. Hezbollah is wrong, but in this, Israel is wronger.
And they are doing it with American weapons, bought with American money.
hilzoy, the greatest cost to Israle may in fact be the loss of support by the American public. Israel as a state has lost MY support. It is time we separated American and world interests from that of Israel.
And we can start by ridding ourselves of our oil addiction.
Jake
I don’t think it’s feasible for Israel to actually stop Hezbollah from firing rockets at them. Doing so would require them to not only clear the area of all the rockets and missiles currently hidden there, but prevent any new ordnance from being brought in.
Doing the first is difficult, as it would require Israel to go through the entire area, every building and cave, and search them for all the missiles and rockets. It would take a lot of time, and it would mean a lot of Israelis and Lebanese killed in street fighting.
Even assuming they could accomplish that, how could Israel prevent more missiles from being brought in? Unless they’re willing to put a military cordon around the entire area, whatever stocks Israel finds and destroys can be replenished quickly.
There is no reasonable military solution to this problem. Until Israel’s neighbors no longer wish to kill Jews, Israel will continue to endure this kind of attack.
“There is no reasonable military solution to this problem. Until Israel’s neighbors no longer wish to kill Jews, Israel will continue to endure this kind of attack.”
That is why I believe that Tel Aviv will be nuked within the next 15 years.
That is why I believe that Tel Aviv will be nuked within the next 15 years
so, there’s no possibility in your mind for any kind of peace ?
rilkefan: I had tried to address this in my ‘little list’ post, making some of the points Andrew makes, only less eloquently. Hezbollah needs people willing to fight, weapons, and an environment in which they can get away with it. Killing fighters only works if there aren’t any more where they came from, and there are. (And the bombardment will create more.) Destroying weapons is, as Andrew notes, difficult in itself, and it’s only a long-term solution if those weapons can’t be replaced. They can. Making southern Lebanon stop being a permissive environment for Hezbollah would require either depriving them of popular support or enabling the Lebanese government to control the territory, or (for the short term) inserting some other force. We’ve proposed the latter, but that force will presumably not be there indefinitely, and Israel’s actions are making the other two options impossible.
Thus, my gloom.
Seb: nuked? By who? I assume you’re thinking Iran, but it is not at all clear that they cannot be contained.
Nell: “that make it clear that the objective is to destroy Lebanon as a country”
No.
Jake: you’ve got an assertion there, not an argument.
No possibility? Or isn’t very likely? There is absolutely nothing that Israel could do to satisfy Hezbollah that wouldn’t involve turning Israel into a Taliban-like Islamic state. The fighting will continue so long as Hezbollah exists. It will continue with whatever weapons Hezbollah can get their hands on. When they get their hands on nuclear weapons, they will use them.
Seb: yeah, but do you think they’ll get nuclear weapons within 15 years?
— Insert obligatory statement bemoaning our failure to even try to address the problem of Russian loose nukes, plus our more or less total inaction vis-a-vis North Korea, here. If I shared your pessimism, I’d be even more upset about these things than I already am. If that were possible.
“The continued bombardment of Lebanon is obscene, and it should stop now.”
This could just as well have been said of the American invasion of Morocco, or of Torch in general, or of Normandy.
Full of evil and endless deaths, including that of innumerable innocents.
No, I’m not remotely saying it’s the same thing. No. No. No. No. I’m not.
I’m just saying that war is evil.
I have no idea if the ends justify the means here. I truly don’t. If I thought it did, I’d say so. I may wind up utterly condemning this thing. Utterly. Condemning.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah should be destroyed or degraded as much as possible.
Andrew says: I don’t think it’s feasible for Israel to actually stop Hezbollah from firing rockets at them”
Of course not. But making Lebanon, as a political entity, make it stop, in the long run, is a political solution. That happens when the country has the means and force and will to stop it.
That’s what countries do with military force: make a political solution when military force makes it hurt enough.
Meanwhile, appreciate the irony that I’m being more hardline than you are, Andrew. 🙂
“Seb: nuked? By who? I assume you’re thinking Iran, but it is not at all clear that they cannot be contained.”
I would not be at all shocked if it is Iran, it may not be clear that they cannot be contained but it isn’t at all clear that they can. But it doesn’t have to be Iran. Once Iran gets nuclear weapons the arms race in the Middle East is on. Is Syria next? It has the secrecy and access to many of Saddam’s scientists. Saudi Arabia? It has enough money to make things happen. Both have reason to fear an ascendant Iran–though at the moment Syria acts as if it can perfectly balance the secularists and Islamists. Egypt? Probably not, but if two or three other states are seeking them they would certainly try. None of these states are stable enough that I would feel at all comfortable that they could keep control of nuclear weapons. We had close calls with the US and the USSR. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Syria are all more unstable than the USSR was. A coup in the USSR was a change of communists–and that was plenty dangerous. A coup in any of the countries could easily put nuclear weapons in very scary hands.
And that is not even factoring in the idea that some idiot in one of those countries could believe that he could deniably pass a nuke off to an anti-Israel group. Once you get multiple people with nukes, it becomes more believable to a non-scientist (though likely wrong) that you could avoid getting things traced back to you.
Andrew, the question is I think not whether _all_ the rockets can be cleared, but whether many of the longer-range ones (and any associated emplacements and infrastructure) can be destroyed, and whether Hezbollah can be weakened relative to Lebanon’s other forces or to what the UN could field. And long-term of course the Israelis have to have an international presence in mind. That or they’re stupid.
I of course yield to your expertise in military matters – but this discussion seems to be a bit lacking in analysis of what Israel is trying to achieve tactically and strategically.
“Hilzoy is referring to the massive bombing, indiscriminate killing of civilians, destruction of infrastructure, and more that make it clear that the objective is to destroy Lebanon as a country.”
Yeah, because they’re doing it for no reason, because they’re wacky, because they have no regard for human life.
Or, perhaps they actually are striking Hezbollah targets.
The notion that Israel wants to destroy Lebanon, that, let’s see:
is nuts. Why would Israel want to do this? Why would anyone think so?
This is nuts. No marbles.
“Is Syria next? It has the secrecy and access to many of Saddam’s scientists.”
I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if Tel Aviv gets nuked in a somewhat more distant time frame than 15 years, but I don’t think Syria has the educational and engineering and scientific infrastructures needed to build a bomb.
I largely agree with Gary’s comments. This is a war, and wars are not pretty. Moreover, it is a war started by Hezbollah.
If it stops now without any larger steps than putting into place a ceasefire, all that will occur is a respite for Hezbollah, and restarting of the war at a time and place of Hezbollah’s choosing. It is easy to see why that is not an acceptable resolution for Israel.
If a larger package were to be put into place, one that either created a buffer zone or disarmed Hebollah so that it could not restart the war whenever it chose, I would be in favor of that. Otherwise, all we are doing is kicking the can down the road, with no likelihood at all that the situation will improve.
Rilkefan,
I’d love to know what Israel hopes to accomplish. Tactically, I think they’ve got no hope of causing any significant damage to Hezbollah; it’s too late for that. Hezbollah can just melt away if Israel tries to put serious pressure on them.
On the strategic front, I would like to believe that Israel plans to render Hezbollah weak enough that the Lebanese government can move in and control the area. But the damage Israel is doing to the Lebanese government tends to undermine that hypothesis.
Gary,
I’ve got no objection to being hard. I just think Israel’s tactics aren’t going to get them what they’re looking for.
Also consder what Iran is willing to use Hezbollah for now–which is to say before they are a nuclear power. Even if Iran does not explicitly use a nuclear threat, and even if Iran does not try to go through a deniability route, they will certainly feel even freer to support groups like Hezbollah against Israel. (See for example Pakistan blatantly funding terrorism in India).
So even if Tel Aviv is not nuked in the next 15 years (which I think is likely) the chances for peace are very slim. If Hezbollah still exists as any particularly strong entity after Iran get nuclear weapons I would say that the chance for peace is almost nil.
And that is very depressing since Hezbollah isn’t likely to be destroyed or wither away any time in the next five years.
Incidentally, this situation is exactly what justifies Israel, and why Israel has to be a nation, and not depend on others.
The kindness of others towards Jews, including America, is great.
But either people have a right to a nation, and to make their own policy, and to protect and save and defend themselves or not.
America is a great nation, but it isn’t there to save the Jews. Or the Palestinians.
And neither people would ever be safe to count on America. America isn’t set up to guarantee either people as a nation. Only their own nations can do that.
And that’s the point of their stories.
The point of this post is so obvious — the next question needs to be asked. Why is the US unreservedly supporting this heinous warmongering by Israel? The bombing cannot be justified as a defense against Hezbollah agression.
Particularly bad is the rush shipments of more US bombs to Israel to facilitate what is the most heinous part of the Israeli offensive. In the eyes of the world, the US is now a direct participant in the heinous bombing. Without question, the Bush administration is happy to support the overkill, as it believes war is the solution to these issues. Laughable is the official line that we cannot have a ceasefire unless it is a “sustainable ceasefire” — Orwellian speak for a ceasefire only after the military annihiliation of Hezbollah (which cannot be achieved militarily without the ethnic cleansing of most of southern Lebanon).
Another thought:
Hezbollah crossed international boundaries and kidnapped their soldiers without provocation
I know this is the conventional wisdom, but I find this highly improbable. Much more likely is that an Israeli patrol in southern Lebanon was ambushed, and the Isaelis are lying about it. The reasons for this are simple military logic. The border is closely monitored by the most sophisticated devices — it is not believable that a large Hezbollah party infiltrated (one large enough to rapidly overwhelm how large an Israeli force?, killing 8 and capturing 2), attacked the Israeli troops in Israel, and then recrossed to safe cover in Lebanon with two prisoners in tow while the Israelis are caught so flat-footed that they cannot react.
It still does not matter as Hezbollah is at war with Israel — but I believe the official cover story is itself a lie. It seems Israel has been planning this large offensive for a long time (no doubt because they have been monitoring the large number of rockets moved into southern Lebanon), and the border skirmish is simply pretextual.
If a nuke went off somewhere, I doubt there would be a considered, scientific effort to trace it back to its source. There would be a quickly announced official explanation (or various quickly announced official explanations, from various countries), so that some action could take place, and then looking into the details would be left to the conspiracy theorists (and hopefully some intelligence agencies, but we wouldn’t hear much about that). With luck, the official explanation might have some resemblance to the truth.
Dantheman writes: “I largely agree with Gary’s comments. This is a war, and wars are not pretty. Moreover, it is a war started by Hezbollah.”
By capturing two soldiers.
How many people has the US captured/kidnapped/disappeared?
Is every innocent person in Guantanamo worth hundreds of Americans dead and billions in damage?
Like Andrew, I have no objection to being hard in the service of a good objective. I have a lot of problems with the idea that being tough is always the more realistic option, while not being tough is weak-minded idealism and/or a refusal to face the (always grim) facts, but that’s different. And I accept that war is ugly, which is precisely why I mind so much those pundits who toss the idea of starting wars around casually. (Bill Kristol, I’m looking at you.)
That said, I do not know what Israel’s objective is here. There are various stories one can tell that don’t even require an objective: Yagil Levy in Ha’Aretz, for instance, argues that the military’s contingent plan for Lebanon was the main, and possibly the only, option discussed during the very short time that the cabinet discussed what to do, in which case there was not a decision to use this plan rather than other, different plans to achieve some specific objective. Likewise, whatever role the fact that Olmert is perceived as weak and inexperienced in defense played, it doesn’t involve an objective.
What worries me is that I do not see the strategy here at all. Tactics, yes, but how they are supposed to fit into, or even not greatly impede, a long-term objective, no.
rf, are you saying that it is an assertion to say that Israel, in killing MORE Lebanese, is wronger than Hezbollah?
I suppose it is an assertion. Something like the assertion that life is important, or in the same vein that “We, the people …” is “just” another assertion.
So you are correct. I assert that for Israel to bomb innocents is murder. I assert that for Hezbollah to rocket innocents is murder. I assert that we are complicit in the murder of Lebanese innocents. I assert that it is time to STOP being complicit in murder.
Jake
“I’d love to know what Israel hopes to accomplish. Tactically, I think they’ve got no hope of causing any significant damage to Hezbollah; it’s too late for that. Hezbollah can just melt away if Israel tries to put serious pressure on them.”
And yet missile launchers are large and entirely destroyable.
And once they’re gone, a political solution to keep them out should be entirely feasible.
This is not a complicated notion.
If Canada was host to folks launching missiles onto New York, Michigan, Idaho, and Washington, this would not be controversial. Eliminate the missiles, and stop the people launching them.
That the launchers are put into place by these evil people in schools and hospitals and the like? Despicable. Evil. Horrible.
The world, and everyone, should emphasize over and over and over and over and over and over and over how evil these people are for doing that.
It’s so effing evil.
“The continued bombardment of Lebanon is obscene, and it should stop now.”
This could just as well have been said of the American invasion of Morocco, or of Torch in general, or of Normandy.
That is complete nonsense — your analysis in unhinged.
The Israelis are attacking a country that for the most part does not support Hezbollah — they are currently powerless to reign in this large armed force in their country. Attacking Lebanon overall only weakens its capacity to resist the military might of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
This is not just “collateral damage” in a war against Hezbollah — it is a war against the civilians of Lebanon, most of whom do not support Hezbollah.
Yeah, because they’re doing it for no reason, because they’re wacky, because they have no regard for human life.
Or, perhaps they actually are striking Hezbollah targets.
Perhaps denial is a large river in ….
The Lebanon bombing campaign is a terror campaign — to induce Lebanese to reject or otherwise restrain Hezbollah or else. There is no carefully targeted effort to attack only Hezbollah. It is a tactic that has never worked, as evidenced by the disaster of the 1982 invasion.
Fighting Hezbollah is a great idea — bombing the crap out of innocent Lebanese as a tactic to fight Hezbollah is lunacy.
“What worries me is that I do not see the strategy here at all. Tactics, yes, but how they are supposed to fit into, or even not greatly impede, a long-term objective, no.”
Degrade Hezbollah, bring in an international force to stand up for Lebanese sovereignty and peace.
Not complicated.
And killing another three in the process, but who’s counting?
That’s, of course, assuming other nations are out there willing to stand up for Israel’s right to exist.
I’m right that that’s a true description of the world?
Right?
Right?
lunacy, depression and related issues:
Let’s assume that Sebastian is correct and Tel Aviv will be nuked on June 1, 2020 absent a major shift in the Middle East.
my only response is: “What the Hell Are You Doing, Then, Dicking Around In Iraq and Lebanon?”
you are talking total war. it will take at least three to five years to build the army necessary to take and hold Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. It will cost hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. you will need to mobilize the public to commit to a draft, higher taxes, significant casualties, worldwide condemnation and a generational commitment.
because the war will last far longer than a single administration, there must be bi-partisan support.
and yet one of the online leaders of the need to commit fully to this hot war, Tacitus, has nothing but contempt for hilzoy and other posters here.
great way to reach across the aisle, guys. if we’re really in WWIII, and this ain’t just jive talk to stay in power another cycle or three, you’re going to need to work on your powers of persuasion. Because right now your credibility is in the toilet.
there are times when it seems to me that a certain group of conservatives actually want Tel Aviv to be nuked, so they can then say: “See! See! We told you so” and finally have their casus belli for their war on islam.
Andrew,
The best explanation I’ve heard is that Israel’s military objective is deterrence, not destruction. As in, they want to remind people that messing with Israel carries a very high price. There’s a school of thought that believes that the recent legacy of negotiations and concessions and especially lack of serious retaliations has diluted Israel’s “don’t f— with us” reputation.
So the objective is not to directly root out Hezbollah, but to inflict enough pain on the enabling population to 1) make the Lebanese think twice about sheltering or supporting insurgents, and 2) discourage other sovereign nations from overtly supporting Israel’s enemies.
I won’t comment on the morality or practicality of this approach, but it seems plausible that this might be the strategy, given the parallels with recent United States foreign policy.
“That the launchers are put into place by these evil people in schools and hospitals and the like? ”
I’m not sure I believe that anymore. Not when Israel is bombing ambulances and passenger cars.
They aren’t looking for missile launchers, they’re just killing randomly.
If Canada was host to folks launching missiles onto New York, Michigan, Idaho, and Washington, this would not be controversial. Eliminate the missiles, and stop the people launching them.
But the devil is in the details, my friend. Simply eliminating the missiles isn’t simple, as I noted earlier. Stopping the people launching them is even more difficult; even if the Lebanese government takes over security for the rest of the country, will they be able to prevent Hezbollah from moving more missiles into position? Political solutions are easy to find, but often hard to actually implement. My concern is ending up right back in the same place in six months or a year.
“The Israelis are attacking a country that for the most part does not support Hezbollah ”
And yet has 18 members in the Parliament, and is otherwise unable to stop the Hezbollah militia.
“Fighting Hezbollah is a great idea — bombing the crap out of innocent Lebanese as a tactic to fight Hezbollah is lunacy.”
And yet no one is for bombing innocent Lebanese.
Meanwhile, Haifa goes unmentioned in this thread for how many comments?
The whole thing is awful. Awful. Please, we’d all like to see it stop.
I don’t know how to make it stop in any useful way if Hezbollah’s missiles aren’t mostly eliminated. They’re not otherwise going to stop firing them on children in Israel.
Any sort of international force that can beat the crap out of Hezbollah’s missiles raining down on folks would be great.
Absent that, what? Nice waves and hearty handshakes? Good wishes? Smiles? What?
Gary: missile launchers can be destroyed. Other missile launchers can then be brought in. Alternately, one can do without them: last time I checked, individual Katyushas can be launched from any platform, e.g. the back of a truck or a driveway, using a car battery. But even if one wants the convenience of a multiple rocket launcher, it’s hard to see how the proposed international force could be effective enough to interdict all the launchers people tried to smuggle along the extensive border, especially without serious popular support.
This will not end the firing of Katyushas at Northern Israel.
“Stopping the people launching them is even more difficult; even if the Lebanese government takes over security for the rest of the country, will they be able to prevent Hezbollah from moving more missiles into position?”
Why not? Are there a lot of missiles targeted on American military positions, or civilian sites where you live?
Oops: checking, I see that launching an individual Katyusha requires not just a car battery, but also a pipe. My bad.
“Other missile launchers can then be brought in.”
Thus the need for an international force to control Lebanese borders, of course.
I mean, man, apply this argument to any state anyone in the U.S. lives in. Would anyone actually claim that it’s impossible to keep rocket launchers out of the hands of folks?
WTF? What’s the story here?
This has to stop. Indeed.
The best explanation I’ve heard is that Israel’s military objective is deterrence, not destruction. There’s a school of thought that believes that the recent legacy of negotiations and concessions and especially lack of serious retaliations has diluted Israel’s “don’t f— with us” reputation.
Israel’s “don’t fuck with us” reputation has never deterred terror before. If you’ll recall, their last major show of force in Lebanon gave rise to Hezbollah in the first place.
What amazes me – what truly and utterly amazes me – is when I hear American liberals, who would normally balk at something like Jonah Goldberg’s Ledeen Doctrine (“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business”), suggest that maybe, just maybe, such a display of Power and Strength and Will in Lebanon is exactly what Israel needs. The last few decades of Israeli counterterror policy should demonstrate, if nothing else, that Israel is the exemplary negative case for the “display of power and will” theory. Nobody questions Israel’s strength and their willingness to throw it around. It’s their tendency to throw it around that has so many people trying to blow them up as it is!
It drives me absolutely nuts to see so many people completely discount the role that engendering hatred plays in the Mideast. Does anyone think the families of the dead and scattered in Lebanon are going to be less likely to want to kill Israelis now? This is insane.
“Meanwhile, Haifa goes unmentioned in this thread for how many comments?”
Maybe because of the order-of-magnitude difference in damage?
Maybe because most of the missiles shot at Israel do little or no damage, whereas Israel is able to ruthlessly and precisely target, say, a couple of ambulances and their wounded civilian passengers?
And yet has 18 members in the Parliament, and is otherwise unable to stop the Hezbollah militia.
And destroying the current government is going to make Lebanon more capable of handling Lebanon? Give me a break.
From what I’ve heard, Israel is pretty hard at work denying Hezbollah the ability to resupply via Syria, while Hezbollah is deliberately insinuating its missiles, launchers, etc amongst the civilian populace and using ambulances to transport its…whatever you want to call them.
If anyone can think of any reason (rational or no) why Israel has all of a sudden decided (as some would like to have it) to just randomly bomb civilians, please let me know your theory.
Gary, I think Israel has a right to exist, and they’re (as far as I’ve been able to tell) utterly committed to that existence. They have a right to protect themselves, certainly. As far as what they’re doing to that end, if one is inclined to believe absolutely everything that comes out of the region, one has to at least give this sort of thing a look:
Hilzoy: Imagine militias are a couple of miles from your house — whether they are neo-Nazis or Islamists or what have you, it doesn’t matter. Would your position be that political negotiations should be opened up, or that they should be cordoned off by the police, and if necessary, killed?
It’s that simple.
It’s. Just. That. Simple.
Are there a lot of missiles targeted on American military positions, or civilian sites where you live?
I realize that this is an emotional issue for you Gary, but I think you need to take a deep breath here. Yes, the situation is different in Israel than in the United States. This does not pass for particularly deep wisdom, nor is it remotely helpful because the situations simply aren’t comparable.
What international force is going to occupy southern Lebanon and ensure that no more missiles or rockets are brought in (even assuming Israel is successful in eliminating those that exist there now)? Given how much of the world views Israel, do you think it’s really likely any international force that moves into southern Lebanon is going to work very hard, possibly risking the lives of its soldiers, to prevent Hezbollah from firing missiles at Israel? I’m not saying they won’t, only that I’m unconvinced that this international force you’re referencing is all that likely to have the effect you’re looking for.
“If anyone can think of any reason (rational or no) why Israel has all of a sudden decided (as some would like to have it) to just randomly bomb civilians, please let me know your theory.”
Maybe it’s the same reason they shoot utterly unthreatening Palestinian children?
“Maybe it’s the same reason they shoot utterly unthreatening Palestinian children?”
Which they’re doing a) some of the time, b) most of the time, or c) only by accident?
Or, perhaps d) whenever the opportunity presents itself? Just trying to calibrate, here.
“”It’s that simple.
It’s. Just. That. Simple.”
Really?
Did that approach worked in Northern Ireland? I miss the part where the IRA disarmed after the island was bombed flat in retribution for the mortar attack on Number 10.
“Or, perhaps d) whenever the opportunity presents itself? Just trying to calibrate, here.”
d, when the military person in question is so inclined.
Power corrupts, even in Israel, even in the IDF.
Gary: Actually, I do think it would be impossible for another country to keep Katyushas out of the hands of US citizens without occupying the US in a very major way. (At least, if we assume there’s a country that borders us that’s willing to supply those rockets or allow transshipment.) Likewise, I think that there are things Israel could do to prevent this. It could wipe out the entire population of southern Lebanon, flatten it, pave it over, and never allow anyone within missile range of its northern border, for instance. But if we’re talking non-unthinkable options, then no.
In the US, we have: the following advantages: (a) we control the government without having to occupy the country, since it’s our country, and thus our control of it does not tend to incite hatred, or to need to be routinely enforced through violence in the way military occupations do. (b) We have a citizenry that is, in general, disinclined to let people wander around with rocket launchers. Those people can tell the police about people roaming about with Katyushas, and — special bonus! — will not be accused of being Quislings or collaborators, or killed. (c) We have no large resistance movement, or even any appreciable number of sympathizers with the idea that there ought to be one. These are all, I think, pretty striking dissimilarities between “any state in the US” and Lebanon.
I started out by slamming Hezbollah, and I meant it. I did not mention Haifa specifically, but here goes: I condemn the attacks on Haifa, where I first set toot in Israel. I condemn the attacks on Nahariyya, which I never much liked but do not wish to see hit by rocket fire. I condemned the attacks on Kiryat Shmona, which I very much hope have not disturbed the grave of one of my best friends from Israel, a US-Israeli double agent, now retired. I condemn the attacks on Tzfat, which I very much wish people on the newscasts would pronounce correctly. (Likewise, Tyre: one annoying newscaster said: we pronounce it ‘tire’, but people in Lebanon say ‘tear’. WRONG. Last time I checked, they said: soor. Phonetic shifts, doncha know.) Tzfat is a gorgeous town, but even ugly towns like Metulla do not deserve to be hit by Katyushas. I also condemn the attacks on all the random unnamed fields and highways in Israel. I condemn ALL the attacks.
Ditto Crips and Bloods, etc.
Andrew: “Given how much of the world views Israel, do you think it’s really likely any international force that moves into southern Lebanon is going to work very hard, possibly risking the lives of its soldiers, to prevent Hezbollah from firing missiles at Israel?”
You might be right that Israel shouldn’t depend on outside forces, and should simply fight and kill as needed.
I prefer not to believe that. I prefer not to belief in such killing, including more deaths of more innocents.
Still, you make the argument for it. It’s a tragic argument, but it’s a real one.
The world is wishy-washy, at best, about Israel.
If folks would consistently step in to defend Israel’s right to exist, then Israelis, and Jews, would have far less reason to worry, and to take unilateral actions.
Instead, the whole thing is very wobbly. And Israel fights for itself. With some wobbly outside support.
So, to reiterate Gary’s question:
Does Israel have a right to exist? Yes or no.
Andrew: “I’m unconvinced that this international force you’re referencing is all that likely to have the effect you’re looking for.”
Remind me what your policy rec for Israel is – grin and bear the rocket attacks for the foreseeable future in the hope that Lebanon will eventually get its act together?
Also, do you have a rough rule-of-thumb as to the relative casualties rates a state should accept in being attacked – if it takes a 10-to-1 civilian casualty rate to suppress the opponent for time t (where that 1 is integrated over t), is that unacceptable?
Generally – note that the question is the relative strength of the rest of Lebanon to Hezbollah, not the absolute strength of either.
Sun Zi said
“Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.
Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy’s plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy’s forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy’s army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.”
So where in this continuum do Israel’s current tactics fit?
It is absolutely idle to debate what Israel is “entitled” to do. That question belongs in a discredited and obviously useless worldview. It is Middle Eastern.
GF, I think the argument could be reasonably made that in Kristol et al we have our own Hezbollah. Just how good are we at eliminating them? THEY RUN OUR GOVERMENT.
Yet I don’t support them, am powerless to remove them, and would be the victims of the same kind of attacks as are the Lebanese were the US not the unitary super power.
Not that Hezbollah RUNS the Lebanese government, but they are an integral part of Lebanese society – just as the neo-con warmongers are a part of ours. So, no, we don’t have rockets in Tucson, or Denver, we have bombs in Iraq, and in Lebanon, and even in Afghanistan. I don’t see much difference between Kristol et al and Nasrullah, except that Nasrullah pulls the trigger while Kristol et al only pulls the strings of puppets who pull the trigger.
Looked at in that light, the Kristol krew are even less admirable men the mideast terrorists.
Jake
Christmas,
Israel’s “don’t fuck with us” reputation has never deterred terror before. If you’ll recall, their last major show of force in Lebanon gave rise to Hezbollah in the first place.
Well, right. My point was just that it’s misleading to focus on all the reasons why Israel can’t hope to interdict the flow of war materiel into Lebanon if their objective is not to actually destroy Hezbollah, but just to put on a good show. Especially if the intended audience is not limited to the Lebanese.
“rf, are you saying that it is an assertion to say that Israel, in killing MORE Lebanese, is wronger than Hezbollah?”
I would like to address the idea that Israel killing ‘more’ Lebanese civilians is some sort of automatically disqualifying argument.
First, they aren’t all civilians. I’m not following Dershowitz’s very wrong claim that most of the Lebanese are automatically non-civilians because they tolerate Hezbollah. But I am saying that since Hezbollah does not separate itself from the civilian population and does in fact put things in what would normally be civilian structures, that the question isn’t as easy as one might think. Last time I looked (two days ago), Hezbollah was claiming that only three of their own had been killed. That is frankly crap. But because they are guerillas they get to say that everyone is a civilian when they are dead.
Second, there is a difference between targeting and hitting even for a very good military structure like Israel. Saying that a dam was hit by a bomb is one thing (and this charge has been fairly prominent in the European places I read). It is transparently clear that the dam was not targeted because it was hit with a bomb that wasn’t appropriate to destroy a dam. You can’t destroy a dam with one run-of-the-mill bomb. You either have to hit it repeatedly or you hit it with a specially designed bomb. If you are targeting the dam, you take one of those latter options. If you are targeting something near a dam, you may very well hit the dam and not destroy it (or even do a huge amount of damage to it). The dam is a civilian object. In most cases it isn’t a legitimate target. There are international rules about putting military targets away from civilian objects so that when your enemy targets the legitimate target and misses the civilian objects are not as endangered. Hezbollah (and Hamas) intentionally do not follow that rule. See also–the Beruit airport. If Iran resupplies Hezbollah through that airport–and it does–and Lebanon won’t stop it–and it didn’t–the airport is absolutely a legitmate target. Israel could have easily leveled the airport structures. They could have easily used runway specific munitions to make the runway very difficult to repair. They did neither. This suggests to me that they really just wanted to stop the re-supply and/or air transport of the POWs.
Third, even if you do not count Nakasaki and Hiroshima, and even if you do not count fire-storm deaths, the number of civilian deaths cause by the US in Germany and Japan far outstrip the number of civilian deaths in the US caused by Germany and Japan. Tallying the total number of civilians killed by one side is not in itself indicative of anything particularly useful for analytic discussion of the justice of a war or just means in a war.
“Gary: Actually, I do think it would be impossible for another country to keep Katyushas out of the hands of US citizens without occupying the US in a very major way.”
This is all completely astray from what I said: If Canada was host to folks launching missiles onto New York, Michigan, Idaho, and Washington, this would not be controversial. Eliminate the missiles, and stop the people launching them.
Canada. Launching on the US. Canada. Launching on us.
Would we all be saying oh, my, we have to stop attacking those Canadian missile launchers, because it’s terrible that Canadian children are being killed, much though we all feel horrible that, in fact, Canadian children are, in fact, being killed?
should simply fight and kill as needed.
Not quite the argument I was going for there.
1. Deterrence isn’t going to work against Hezbollah. Until and unless Israel can demonstrate an ability to pinpoint Hezbollah’s leadership and eliminate them at will, Hezbollah is more than happy to provoke Israel into attacking them and killing Lebanese civilians into the bargain. So the idea this campaign is going to deter future attacks on Israel is questionable at best.
2. Short of going in on foot in force, Israel isn’t going to be able to root out the rockets and missiles being fired at her.
3. Short of establishing their own cordon around southern Lebanon, Israel isn’t going to be able to keep Hezbollah from resupplying.
4. Israel already tried occupying Lebanon and discovered its not a winning strategy.
I’m all for Israel defending herself from these unconscionable attacks. I’m well aware of who the bad guys are here. But I don’t see this strategy working, and therefore I question whether it is in Israel’s best interests to continue it.
should simply fight and kill as needed.
Not quite the argument I was going for there.
1. Deterrence isn’t going to work against Hezbollah. Until and unless Israel can demonstrate an ability to pinpoint Hezbollah’s leadership and eliminate them at will, Hezbollah is more than happy to provoke Israel into attacking them and killing Lebanese civilians into the bargain. So the idea this campaign is going to deter future attacks on Israel is questionable at best.
2. Short of going in on foot in force, Israel isn’t going to be able to root out the rockets and missiles being fired at her.
3. Short of establishing their own cordon around southern Lebanon, Israel isn’t going to be able to keep Hezbollah from resupplying.
4. Israel already tried occupying Lebanon and discovered its not a winning strategy.
I’m all for Israel defending herself from these unconscionable attacks. I’m well aware of who the bad guys are here. But I don’t see this strategy working, and therefore I question whether it is in Israel’s best interests to continue it.
“If anyone can think of any reason (rational or no) why Israel has all of a sudden decided (as some would like to have it) to just randomly bomb civilians, please let me know your theory.”
If true:
possible reason
via Billmon.
“GF, I think the argument could be reasonably made that in Kristol et al we have our own Hezbollah.”
Um, he’s launching missile attacks on Maryland?
WTF?
What do the Katyusha rockets have to do with Israel’ existence? Does anyone imagine that these rockets threaten the existence of Israel? That the taking of two soldiers and the killing of several others threatens the very existence of Israel?
We, the most powerful country in the world, threatened Iraq, Iran and N Korea. We DID destroy Iraq, and we appear to be intent on destroying Iran. If there are threats to be feared, they are AMERICAN threats, not Palestinian, Iranian, or Hezbollah threats.
And yet, North Korea gets no threats. Why is that, I wonder? I wonder how that plays into Iran’s nuclear ambitions? I wonder how much help Iran continues to get from our Pakistani allies?
Jkae
I have never doubted Israel’s right to exist. And I also think that it’s just wrong to say that they are deliberately targeting innocent children, etc. Not being sufficiently careful to avoid hitting civilians; accepting too many civilian deaths for a given target, OK, but deliberately targeting kids? No.
That said: Gary: “Hilzoy: Imagine militias are a couple of miles from your house — whether they are neo-Nazis or Islamists or what have you, it doesn’t matter. Would your position be that political negotiations should be opened up, or that they should be cordoned off by the police, and if necessary, killed?
It’s that simple.”
No, I don’t think it is that simple. Really. Because my problem is that I do not think that there is any such cordon that will do the trick, and that thinking that there is is costing an enormous amount not just to Lebanon, but to Israel and to the US.
Taking my basic assumptions about the facts, I could say: look, suppose that there are militias around your house, and they attack you and kill your kid, and you run them off, but cannot capture them. Then you get home and take out your saw and start cutting your own leg off, and I ask: Gary, why are you doing that? and you say: You don’t expect me to get attacked and just do nothing, do you?
It’s obvious that sawing your leg off, while “doing something”, is not a useful response there. It’s less obvious that what Israel is doing is not a useful response to Hezbollah. (Useful in terms of Israeli interests.) But I think it’s true.
Still, I don’t think that it would be helpful of me to make my little analogy to you and expect it to settle the matter. You and I differ on the underlying facts, not on whether Israel has a right to exist or to defend herself.
So, is your answer “Yes”?
If so, does Israel have a right to defend itself?
Remind me what your policy rec for Israel is – grin and bear the rocket attacks for the foreseeable future in the hope that Lebanon will eventually get its act together?
I don’t know. Would that I was wise enough to be able to figure that out. But I’m afraid that I’ve never been a fan of FDR’s dictum about doing something.
Last question to Jake, just to be clear.
In the continuum between FDR and Coolidge, there’s got to be somewhere you’re happy. Where would you say that is, Andrew?
“Does Israel have a right to exist? Yes or no.”
Is anyone here suggesting it doesn’t? The question is not whether Israel has a right to exist, or whether Israel has a right to defend itself. The question is how it coexists with other nations and how it chooses to defend itself. In this case it chose to respond to the abduction of two Israeli soldiers by a non-state militia in southern Lebanon with an all-out attack on Lebanon itself. It’s not enough for the cause to be just; the conduct has to be just, too.
“1. Deterrence isn’t going to work against Hezbollah.”
Interesting argument. So much for the idea that rational deterence will work.
Let’s all hope that civilians move as far away as they can, then.
I’m pretty sure I read an awful lot of arguments on this blog, though, before, about how rational everyone in Iran and Hezbollah was, and how we can count on that, and such.
I’ve never argued that that was definitively wrong.
But, well.
Gary, Kristol et al advocate not only continued destruction of Lebanon, but bombing Iran because, hey, they are Muslim and they dislike us, and we need to prevail BEFORE they might hurt us. How is that any different from Hezbollah? In fact, Hezbollah was born from an Israeli occupation. What is Kristol’s excuse? Could it be his Israeli ties? That he conflates American interests with Israeli interests?
Where are you coming from Gary? Are you attmepting to justify the bombing of civilians because all other possibilities are so hard and take so long?
IS THAT A REASON?
Jake
Timmy hit Tommy so Tommy hit Timmy so Timmy hit Tommy….it really doesn’t matter who hit who last or hardest or the most. Both Palestine and Isreal have a right to exist, assuming that there is any such thing as a national right to exist. Kos says people who hate each other will keep on killing each other until they get sick of it. I guess he’d know. I think our role should be to refuse to get involved in the fighting and insist on focusing on the only route to peace: the existance of both nations as economically and politically viable entities. We need to stay out of the shortterm action/reaction cycle.
Christmas is right about the long term effect of the Isreali attacks being to engender more hate and keep the fight going. In the long run the solution has to be political and it has to start with Isreal helping Palestine get on its feet. I know the response to this; but those evil people did evil things to Isreal! Well yes they did but doing evil things back doesn’t stop the fight. Do we want the fight to stop or not?
Gary, what part about bombing civilians counts as rational deterrence? I’d say it is totally IRrational.
Jake
And Gary: in case I haven’t been clear, I am arguing as I am both because innocent Lebanese are being killed and because I think that Israel’s policy will harm Israel. Also, I think it will harm the US. but that’s another story. This is not about the question, am I willing to stop attacks on Israelis at the cost of Lebanese kids. I do not think it will stop the attacks, and I expect it will cost the lives of Israeli kids.
Moreover, I think there is plainly a limit to the number of civilian casualties one should be prepared to produce in order to stop a given number of attacks, when those casualties are really civilians. I mean, presumably we would all agree that if Israel (or anywhere) were attacked by someone who would, in all likelihood, go on to kill millions if not stopped, and killing the attacker involved risking the life of one innocent person, it would be OK to run that risk. Whereas if the attacker were a threat only to one other person, and stopping him would require incinerating the entire earth (except for that one person), it would be wrong. Where the line gets drawn I have no idea, but surely there must be one.
Hilzoy: “Not being sufficiently careful to avoid hitting civilians….”
Look, here’s what’s bothering me here: is this true? I don’t know. I’m not in the relevant HQ. Neither are you. Is it possible? Maybe. But is it true? You don’t know, and neither do I.
And since neither of us knows, what sense does it make for either of us to make claims that it is or isn’t true?
If it’s true, it certainly should be said. Absolutely. And I’ll stand and fight with anyone for that.
But if it’s not true, that also should be fought for.
Meanwhile, not knowing, the implying: not so good.
“Does Israel have a right to exist? Yes or no.”
I’m thinking it would be better to move Israel to, say, the environs of Palm Springs. I’m sure it would be a lot cheaper in the long run.
Granted, there is no religious link between the Jews and Palm Springs. But then, the religious evidence is that God seems to prefer a diaspora to a Jewish state in the eastern Mediterranean. At least, he keeps running them out of there, so I’m not sure why anyone would expect things to go differently this time. And, really, I don’t see why the US should put our necks out on the basis of some old religious myths.
A Jewish state near Palm Springs would certainly have the property of being a safe homeland for the Jews. And they would save money on their arms imports, because shipping costs would be far lower. Not that they’d need much armament.
Slartibartfast,
I’m a fan of doing something effective. I don’t see Israel’s actions as meeting that threshold. As best I can determine, Israel’s plan is to hammer Lebanon until such time as the international community steps in to disarm Hezbollah. I don’t think Israel is aiming to kill any more civilians than are necessary to take out Hezbollah targets, but the nature of this war means that almost any strike at Hezbollah will kill civilians, and there are plenty of people out there who are happy to assume that if Israel kills a civilian, that was their goal all along, which helps to undermine support for Israel (granted, that is often a limited resource, but there was higher than usual consensus that Hezbollah was in the wrong when this all began).
If Israel wanted to destroy Hezbollah, then they should have attacked them with the level of force necessary to do that. That would have meant full-scale war in southern Lebanon, of course, but it was the only chance Israel had to eliminate Hezbollah as a serious military force. Once they chose not to do that, their attempts to take out Hezbollah from the air became little more than symbolic.
Slarti, all peoples have a right to defend themselves. Not just states – all peoples. And in parts of the world where the state cannot defend anyone, who else besides “the people” will?
Hezbollah remains wrong to send rockets into Israel. Nothing Hezbollah has done excuses in any way Israels response in Lebanon.
Not even counting that it seems to totally ineffective, losing Israel world support. There is no high ground to be had if your tit for tat murders the innocent.
Jake
Gary, I’m not sure exactly where you’re coming from — are you saying that the Israeli military actions are *understandable* or that they’re *wise*?
I’m thinking it would be better to move Israel to, say, the environs of Palm Springs.
Or Mars, even. Yes, Mars would be even better, and only a little less realistic.
Israel choosing to relocate to Palm Springs (or anywhere else, for that matter) is utter fiction, and certainly not something you can exercise any choice over.
But that aside, let’s amend the question to read “Does Israel have the right to exist in its current location?”
Gary: About ‘not being sufficiently careful’: I just meant to distinguish that claim (which, like you, I don’t know about) from claims about deliberately targeting civilians, which I don’t KNOW are false, not having been in on the relevant targeting meetings, but am willing to bet are false. Basically, I meant: if you want to say that they’re not being careful enough, go ahead, but it;s wrong to say that they’re targeting civilians.
Sorry for the confusion.
I didn’t get any answer from Jes when I brought it up in another thread, so I am throwing it out here. Compare Israel’s actions with the Pancho Villa Expedition, where Pancho Villa crossed the border into the US and killed a handful of Americans. In response, the US sent an expeditionary force into Mexico for a period of months, with hundreds of Mexicans dying, most of whom were not Pancho Villa’s fighters.
The most salient difference I see is that Pancho Villa was not part of the Mexican government and was instead in the middle of an unsuccessful revolution against it, while Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government. Otherwise, I do not see any significant differences.
slarti:
israel has a right to exist and defend itself.
pro-israel liberals like me (i’m married to a jew) can nevertheless doubt the wisdom of the particular policy.
France and Germany for centuries didn’t like each other. It took two world wars and a Marshall Plan (not to mention the Soviet threat) to build a lasting peace. We americans have NEVER lived in a country where a hated enemy was just on the other side of the border. yet that is the reality for most countries around the world through most of history. and somehow they manage to get through cross-border incidents without launching major wars. (see, eg, the Korean peninsula.)
so shall we play the role of the Russian bear in order to bring the warring countries together? threaten everyone in the ME, including Israel, with annihilation unless they behave? who would believe us?
Slarti: if people are talking relocation, let me preemptively mention and then disarm the word: Madagascar.
Is anyone denying Israel’s right to exist?
FWIW, I’m with Andrew. If Canada was launching rockets over the border the U.S. could not practically stop them. We can’t even stop cigarette smuggling over the border. And I’d like to think that we wouldn’t bomb Toronto to stop the rocket attacks (though with Bush who knows).
“Moreover, I think there is plainly a limit to the number of civilian casualties one should be prepared to produce in order to stop a given number of attacks, when those casualties are really civilians.”
Well, duh. Of course.
And if I was sure or even fairly persuaded that an cruel number of civilians were being killed, I’d — of course — be right with you in objecting, protesting, standing up, etc.
And I get that you think that this is so.
I’m just not at all convinced of that, at this time.
And that’s where we disagree.
I couldn’t agree more that war is evil, that civilian deaths are horrible, that the whole thing is dreadful.
But is Israel going too far?
Well, I’m not even remotely arguing with clarity otherwise.
My stance is simply that I don’t know.
And, indeed, maybe that in itself, at this time, is immoral. I know that argument well, I’m completely familiar with it, and I live every moment, every second, with the knowledge, the awareness, the possible evil, that I’m wrong, that I should suffer, that I’m immoral in not being against injust evil.
But. Still. I don’t know. I don’t have sufficient knowledge.
Maybe you do. Maybe you know, Hilzoy, Andrew, others, etc., what’s going on, what’s in the minds of the Israeli generals, what will happen in the future, what’s going to be the result of all this.
If so: I envy you.
The comparison of missile attacks to cigarette smuggling is, I suggest, inapt.
Jon H,
“But then, the religious evidence is that God seems to prefer a diaspora to a Jewish state in the eastern Mediterranean. At least, he keeps running them out of there, so I’m not sure why anyone would expect things to go differently this time.”
By this logic, there are very few places that God wants the Jews to be, as every European and most Asian nations where Jews have existed has at one time or another expelled the Jews and committed pogroms against them. Are you also saying Jews should also not be permitted to live in England? France? Russia? Poland?
“No, I don’t think it is that simple. Really. Because my problem is that I do not think that there is any such cordon that will do the trick, and that thinking that there is is costing an enormous amount not just to Lebanon, but to Israel and to the US.”
Okay, you’re saying that if Hezbollah took up residence in Ontario, and started firing rockets on Buffalo, you’d advocate negotiations? And oppose wiping them out?
Really? Why? (I don’t believe it, but I also don’t get the difference.)
Andrew: “If Israel wanted to destroy Hezbollah, then they should have attacked them with the level of force necessary to do that. That would have meant full-scale war in southern Lebanon, of course, but it was the only chance Israel had to eliminate Hezbollah as a serious military force. Once they chose not to do that, their attempts to take out Hezbollah from the air became little more than symbolic.”
So you favor the ongoing movement of ground forces? (Essentially huge raids, and not occupation, of course.)
And oppose wiping them out?
So is it your opinion, Gary, that Israel’s current campaign has favorable chances of wiping out Hezbollah?
“Is anyone denying Israel’s right to exist?”
Anyone here? Looks to me like JonH–he is at a very minimum skirting the question.
Anyone at all? Looks to me like very large groups in the Middle East including but not limited to Hezbollah, Hamas, the leadership of Iran, and Syria. Probably lots of Egyptians too.
The problem with condemning Hezbollah while they fire rockets into Haifa (Haifa!!!) is that mere condemnation doesn’t stop them. It doesn’t slow them down. It doesn’t do anything. And from the international community that condemnation only happens when Israel fights back. I didn’t see people freaking out when the rockets were launched in December, or October. The international community seems perfectly happy to let the rockets rain down on Israel indefinitely.
An interesting article on TPM Cafe –
Is it OK for Cuba to Bomb Targets in Miami? Or Washington? Or both?
If Frank Joyce is to be believed, we have the perfect example of the US as Lebanon, and Cuban ex-pat terrorist groups as Hezbollah.
Jake
So you favor the ongoing movement of ground forces?
I think that those movements are too little, too late. If Israel plans to launch a full scale war with Hezbollah, I think Hezbollah will just get out of the way and leave Israel punching at air. They may kill some line fighters, but those are relatively easy to replace.
if Hezbollah took up residence in Ontario, and started firing rockets on Buffalo, you’d advocate negotiations? And oppose wiping them out?
when “wiping them out” is a practical impossibility, your choices are reduced.
Okay, you’re saying that if Hezbollah took up residence in Ontario, and started firing rockets on Buffalo, you’d advocate negotiations? And oppose wiping them out?
Let’s turn the asking questions thing around. If the only way for Israel to be secure from rocket attacks were to expel everyone within 25 miles of its border and then try very hard to kill anyone who entered that zone, would you consider that policy acceptable? You seem to be saying that the fact that Israel is in a very, very difficult security situation makes it morally acceptable for Israel to use force in ways that might otherwise be unacceptable. How far does that principle go?
“If Israel wanted to destroy Hezbollah, then they should have attacked them with the level of force necessary to do that. That would have meant full-scale war in southern Lebanon, of course, but it was the only chance Israel had to eliminate Hezbollah as a serious military force.”
This is the reason I’m so troubled. When Israel drops leaflets saying they are going to bomb an area, they are giving enough warning that Hezbollah fighters can escape. This is of course very counterproductive to destroying Hezbollah, but strongly supports the idea that Israel really wants to protect civilians as much as possible. Nevertheless, Israel gets strongly condemned.
Okay, you’re saying that if Hezbollah took up residence in Ontario, and started firing rockets on Buffalo, you’d advocate negotiations?
There’s a huge difference between Hezbollah moving to Ontario and a large percentage of native Canadians deciding that they hate the US and sponsoring / supporting local groups launching cross-border raids.
when “wiping them out” is a practical impossibility
Eh? What makes you say that?
The international community seems perfectly happy to let the rockets rain down on Israel indefinitely.
and they’re perfectly happy to watch millions die in Africa or war and hunger. what makes Israel’s plight more urgent than, say, the Sudan’s ?
“So is it your opinion, Gary, that Israel’s current campaign has favorable chances of wiping out Hezbollah?”
Nah. Wiping out most of the major missiles, and moving the rocket threat down to minor, though, yes.
Beyond that, I have no problem with Hezbollah being a political and social movement in Lebanon, and neither do 95% or so of Israelis. Of course.
They’re Shi’ites. If they want to worship the Supreme Leader of Iran, hey, fine, whatever. (As Hezbollah, of course, claims to do, with the huge portraits everywhere, etc.)
Hezbollah, I couldn’t care less about per se, any more than I do any other religious movement anywhere else on planet earth.
It’s those large missiles they keep firing that I care about. And the numbers of Katyushas, and the interest they have in firing them on their neighbors.
Those are physical objects. They are destroyable. And borders are enforceable as regards large rockets.
That’s that.
Beyond that, if Lebanese Shi’ites want to make fists and thrust them in the air, hey, go for it.
SH: in the first few days of the war, Israel actually had support from Saudi Arabia. Don’t be too quick to play the international-condemnation card.
Andrew: “If Israel wanted to destroy Hezbollah, then they should have attacked them with the level of force necessary to do that. That would have meant full-scale war in southern Lebanon, of course, but it was the only chance Israel had to eliminate Hezbollah as a serious military force. Once they chose not to do that, their attempts to take out Hezbollah from the air became little more than symbolic.”
I’m not seeing this as true for a variety of reason. Perhaps you could elaborate a little more. Doesn’t the US routinely ‘prep’ gound action by air strikes? Is it fair to say they haven’t chosen to eliminate Hezbollah? I would highly doubt the Israeli plan here is to achieve some symbolic notion.
Okay, you’re saying that if Hezbollah took up residence in Ontario, and started firing rockets on Buffalo, you’d advocate negotiations? And oppose wiping them out?
Speaking as someone who lives in Buffalo, yes. Pretty much because practically you couldn’t eliminate the rockets without destroying the non-Hezbollah Canadians. And there would be very bad consequences for that.
Answer me this, though, because I don’t know. Prior to this, were there many Hezbollah rocket attacks on anyplace besides the Shebaa farms area?
cleek: “…and they’re perfectly happy to watch millions die in Africa or war and hunger. what makes Israel’s plight more urgent than, say, the Sudan’s ?”
Welll, y’know, if you want to claim I don’t care about African causes, I’ll bombard you with umpty hundred posts I’ve made on African topics.
So: wrong.
And have I posted on Sudan? Got you there, too.
“and they’re perfectly happy to watch millions die in Africa or war and hunger. what makes Israel’s plight more urgent than, say, the Sudan’s ?”
Nothing. But you should note that if Israel chooses to fight back for one week, the international community takes a much keener interest than they do after three years of genocide.
So the answer apparently isn’t “nothing”.
Gary: let’s imagine that the Canadian government is extremely weak, having been occupied first by us and then by — Greenland? Russia? — for several decades, and having only freed itself about a year ago. It doesn’t have Canada’s infrastructure, skilled work force, or natural resources, and civil war is always an option. It lacks the power to control its territory, and while helping it to get back on its feet would make a lot of sense, expecting it to have disarmed Hezbollah is not realistic. Let’s imagine further that we have, as I said, occupied most of Canada for a few years, and southern Canada for several decades, during which time we utterly failed to root out Hezbollah and strike the ‘decisive blow’ we’re now after, despite actually having deployed the ground troops Andrew is talking about. And let’s suppose further that one of the things that makes it possible for Hezbollah to operate is the fact that so many Canadians bitterly hate us for a variety of reasons, some bad, but some understandable — and among these, the resentment produced by our last occupation, which was, as occupations tend to be, unpleasant for those who live under it.
Under these circumstances, if someone said to me: bombing the hell out of Canada will cripple Hezbollah, I’d wonder what makes now so different from a few years ago, when we did a lot more and failed to achieve that objective.
The absurdity of the notion that the military offensive will convince the people of Lebanon to reject and expel Hezbollah is pretty clear from a thought experiment.
Imagine a counterfactual world where Iran had the capability to launch air strikes on U.S. territory without facing massive military retribution from the USA. Now imagine that Iran launched such strikes, on the theory that they were necessary to dissuade the dominant neoconservative faction in the U.S. from pursuing military action against Iran. How would those strikes affect my thinking? Right now I’m about as opposed to the neocon right as you can get. I wish they had no power at all in setting American policy. Would I, then, take Iranian airstrikes on major parts of the U.S. infrastructure as a “lesson” that we in America need to be even more proactive in rejecting the neocons and expelling them from positions of power? Hardly. Like just about all Americans, I’d react with visceral fury at the country that was turning parts of my own nation into smoky rubble. Whatever anger I felt at Rumsfeld, Ledeen, et al., for provoking the attack, would be dwarfed by my anger at the immediate aggressor whose daily bombing runs shaped my daily existence.
The same is surely true of the Lebanese. The idea that they — even the ones who are predisposed to dislike Hezbollah — will react by learning some lesson about the need to “respect” Israel is just laughable. Why people lose track of basic, obvious truths about human psychology — things they know perfectly well about themselves — when they think about people in other countries is beyond me.
I’m going to now point out that if we were being rocketed from Canada, we’d be asking Canada if they needed any of our assistance in their diligent efforts to root out foreign agents attempting to foment war from their soil.
And I’d guess that Canada would probably use us as much as they needed to. Now, is there still a parallel?
Welll, y’know, if you want to claim I don’t care about African causes, I’ll bombard you with umpty hundred posts I’ve made on African topics.
go right ahead. but first double check that i said anything at all about your level of concern for African causes.
So: wrong.
yeah. congrats on defeating your own homebuilt cleek.
Doesn’t the US routinely ‘prep’ gound action by air strikes?
Yes, it does. And while the fighting is going on you’ll hear the Air Force extolling their success. But when push comes to shove, it inevitably turns out the air bombardment was of limited to no utility. Taking out point targets is simply not something aircraft can do effectively, and ground forces are nothing but point targets. In order to seriously degrade Hezbollah, Israel is going to have to go in on the ground in force. But Hezbollah isn’t like a normal army: they don’t have to wait for Israel to invade, they can just go where the Israeli army isn’t. If Israel seriously intended to wipe out Hezbollah, their first step had to be cordoning southern Lebanon to prevent the escape of Hezbollah forces. That takes boots on the ground.
But you should note that if Israel chooses to fight back for one week, the international community takes a much keener interest than they do after three years of genocide
and you think the reason for that is…. ?
Dantheman writes: “Are you also saying Jews should also not be permitted to live in England? France? Russia? Poland?”
Of course not. Those are jus places to live like anyone else. There is no Jewish claim to having some God-given right of ownership of those places, as there is in Israel, which results in the tenacious clinging to the place.
@rilkefan: Okay, I made an assertion, not an argument. I retract it. Please respond to this revised version of my earlier comment:
rilkefan, if the IDF were limiting their assault to actions that had a plausible connection to “degrading Hezbollah’s military and missile capability”, you might have a point.
Hilzoy is referring to the massive bombing, indiscriminate killing of civilians, destruction of infrastructure, and more that make it clear that the objective is
something other than that limited goal.
That is what must stop, and that point is entirely separate from the pragmatic question of how much the IDF can degrade Hezbollah’s capacity to attack Israel.
your own homebuilt cleek.
Can I get a kit to make one of those? They sound pretty cool.
“(i’m married to a jew)”
Non-capitalization isn’t a good idea here, given the history of that.
Can I get a kit to make one of those?
they were only available in the winter of 1970. i think my mom bought the last one. sorry.
they were only available in the winter of 1970.
Just my luck.
Jon H,
Funny, but I think the person who brought into this discussion the issue of God’s desires was you, by saying that history suggests God does not want Jews to live there.
ahem. I’m married to a Jew. (12 years quite happily, thanks very much.)
(You’d think that GF might have noticed by now that my capitalization is pretty erratic. but given the level of tension in this thread, I wouldn’t want to offend unnecessarily.)
About targeting: having just defended Israel on this score, what do I find on Billmon but this from the Jerusalem Post:
If true, that’s awful. And while obviously I wasn’t there, etc., it’s hard to see how someone could think that that order had been given if something pretty much like it hadn’t been. (I mean, what confusion, exactly, leads to someone thinking that this particular directive has been given, when in fact the orders are something more like: here’s a target list of known Hezbollah hideouts; take care to minimize civilian casualties”?)
I hope it’s wrong.
“(i’m married to a jew)”
Non-capitalization isn’t a good idea here, given the history of that.
My beloved Nell: “….the massive bombing, indiscriminate killing of civilians….”
Indiscriminate? Massive?
I’d be fine with “horrible,” or “terrible,” or any number of other condemnatory adjectives, because, indeed, it is, and no one should deny that. But it seems to be quite discriminative, and while “massive” might be a matter of numbers, it’s hardly “massive” in terms of targets.
Killing civilians? Yes. Awful. Horrible. Everyone opposes that.
War? Always evil? Yes.
Unopposed? Not so simple.
Started by Israel? Not hardly.
Condemnation of Hezbollah and Hamas rockets? Always not bad to hear.
I’m at the point where I find jews and muslims batshit-crazy. Or is it bat-shit crazy? Just such irrational god-fearing crap and the world would be a better place without gods.
Sebastian: “And from the international community that condemnation only happens when Israel fights back. I didn’t see people freaking out when the rockets were launched in December, or October. The international community seems perfectly happy to let the rockets rain down on Israel indefinitely.”
I quite thought about bringing this up, but was lazy, as ever.
I don’t recall posts here about that. Hey, one nation is raining down assaults on another? It’s just Israel. Same old same old. Not remarkable.
Turnabout?
The whole world goes front page.
Same old same old.
Gary: But making Lebanon, as a political entity, make it stop, in the long run, is a political solution. That happens when the country has the means and force and will to stop it.
Surely what Israeli forces are now doing to Lebanon decreases rather than strengthens Lebanon’s ability and will to do that?
Also, the fact that the current and previous government of Israel have failed to pursue specific political solutions aimed at making Hezbollah attacks stop weighs quite heavily against Israel in evaluating this episode.
As does the fact that during the very period during which the Likud and Kadima governments have been ignoring concrete political initiatives, their representatives have been reviewing with foreign governments the details of the very military operation which they are now conducting. Defenses of the variety ‘of course they have a plan, it would be irresponsible of them not to have a plan’ don’t wash with me; in the absence of any efforts to resolve the border threat politically, this looks very much like an offensive plan waiting for the right provocation to be put into effect.
Related tangent: Can anyone point me to solid information about where the two IDF soldiers were captured, and what were the circumstances?
“I’m at the point where I find jews and muslims batshit-crazy.”
Great and ignorant stuff. (Also, a violation of the posting rules, hello?)
Israel was, as anyone with a clue knows, a secular project of socialists, opposed to religion, and opposed by religious Jews.
And when time came, many leftists dropped Israel.
Kibbutz’s: socialism, leftist, not religious.
Stating otherwise is complete crap, but also constant.
Also, again with the derogatory “jews.” That was a Nazi expression. Could we please put a stop to it here? It’s a pretty minimal request, after all. Stop being Nazi with the “jews” references. Thanks.
Hey, one nation is raining down assaults on another? It’s just Israel. Same old same old. Not remarkable.
Turnabout?
The whole world goes front page.
Same old same old.
The blindness in these kinds of claims that the world is unfairly picking on Israel to distinctions of scale, proportionality, and access to alternatives just leaves me speechless. I’m leaving this thread for my own good and that of the level of discussion.
Gary, you’re way past enough already with the backhanded insinuations that anyone who disagrees with you on Israel is anti-Semitic, and that last comment is a long way over the line. Irregular capitalization is not Naziism.
“I hope it’s wrong.”
And if it’s true, then wouldn’t it have been rather more effective had they said so beforehand?
“Surely what Israeli forces are now doing to Lebanon decreases rather than strengthens Lebanon’s ability and will to do that?”
I sure don’t know. It’s perfectly clear that Lebanon, per se, has no military abilitary to resist Hezbollah (I kinda looked into this further over the weekend, and the notion became an even huger bad joke than before, no matter that I didn’t post about it, as I usually don’t).
So the question is who would degrade Hezbollah? And the answer seems very clear. (Given that, of course, Europe or the US or Russia or China wouldn’t do the trick.)
So, there we are.
After Hezbollah gets beaten down, the rest of the world should build up Lebanon’s armed forces, of course.
Hey, maybe they might even give them a Piper Cub, and create a fixed wing Air Force.
Crazy, I know.
Hilzoy, Tim pointed out the article linked by Billmon at 2:08, but it’s understandable that it got lost in this thread.
Stop being Nazi with the “jews” references
this is too far, dammit. there is not a poster here who is in any way advocating the extermination either of Israel or of Jews worldwide.
Most people’s capitalization on blogs is at best erratic. You have NO BUSINESS lecturing others on their typing.
“Gary, you’re way past enough already with the backhanded insinuations that anyone who disagrees with you on Israel is anti-Semitic….”
I am?
Link to two such comments, please.
Or withdraw that claim.
Let’s be clear. Link to two of my said comments.
Francis,
“there is not a poster here who is in any way advocating the extermination either of Israel or of Jews worldwide.”
Overstated, somewhat. Change to very few and I’d agreed.
And Gary, you are definitely overdoing it with the Nazi references.
“Overstated, somewhat. Change to very few and I’d agreed.”
Other than Jake’s “move Israel to Palm Springs” line, which I didn’t exactly take to be a serious policy proposal, who’s advocating the extermination of either Israel or of Jews worldwide here?
Gary, I imagine DaveL is bringing over the conversation from Unfogged, where he made a similar (far as I can tell baseless) claim.
And, uhh, you just kinda savaged Francis by accident.
“Other than Jake’s “move Israel to Palm Springs” line, which I didn’t exactly take to be a serious policy proposal, who’s advocating the extermination of either Israel or of Jews worldwide here?”
That was mine, not Jake’s, and was not meant to demonstrate animosity to Jewish *people*, but to the 100 year old utopian practice of clinging to a scrap of dirt based on a claim about as strong as China’s claim to Tibet.
Well, let’s see, the “stop being a Nazi” one would probably do pretty well for starters, as would the one that I quoted back to you at Unfogged. Unless you’re objecting to the “anyone who disagrees with you” part, in which case I’ll withdraw it and substitute “many” for “anyone.” I don’t think it’s a close call. You’re strongly, repeatedly insinuating that people disagree with you because they aren’t adequately attentive to the history and just claims of the Jews. What would you call that?
And if you’re in the mood, I’d still be curious about your answer to the questions I asked upthread. To repeat, they were:
If the only way for Israel to be secure from rocket attacks were to expel everyone within 25 miles of its border and then try very hard to kill anyone who entered that zone, would you consider that policy acceptable? You seem to be saying that the fact that Israel is in a very, very difficult security situation makes it morally acceptable for Israel to use force in ways that might otherwise be unacceptable. How far does that principle go?
Having said that,I really shouldn’t be fighting with you when you’ve said over and over again that you don’t want to fight. But you keep fighting, and not, to my eyes, fighting fair, and it’s hard not to respond.
Ten buildings in Beirut for every rocket attack on Haifa.
That is collective punishment. Which is a war crime.
Or shall we assume that every one of those ten buildings in Beirut will be precision-targeted Hezbollah safehouses?
Israel is now losing an international public relations war with Hezbollah. One might have thought that impossible just two weeks ago, but there you have it.
Gary, I’m confident that the undercapitalization of the ‘J’ in “Jew” was not an intentional slight. You have now, correctly noted that it has an ugly history and I am certain we will all endeavor to be careful about that. Let’s all move on.
“there is not a poster here who is in any way advocating the extermination either of Israel or of Jews worldwide.”
I am becoming convinced that JonH is such a person for the extermination of Israel part. JonH, you are welcome to disabuse me of the notion.
A fairer thing to say might be that we disagree about how Israel is permitted to protect itself, and given the history of Jews in general and Israel specifically such arguments are likely to become heated.
We can make pointed arguments without descending into madness.
We can’t all get angry at once–I hate having to be the reasonable one. Can’t you all calm down so I can fly off the handle?
🙂
Oh, also, moving every Jew in Israel to Palm Springs isn’t exactly “extermination”.
Stop being Nazi with the “jews” references. Thanks.
Honestly, Gary, that’s really over the line. I have to think you do this unconsciously, and remain mostly unaware of how you’re basically bullying people who even mildly disagree with your views on Israel, because throughout this thread at Unfogged you seem to think that the idea of Israel critics being pressured into silence by accusations of antisemitism is crazy. But here you are implying that Francis espouses Nazi beliefs because her capitalization is spotty, a not-uncommon condition on the internet.
Christmas,
I’d put Jon H in that category for his “But then, the religious evidence is that God seems to prefer a diaspora to a Jewish state in the eastern Mediterranean” comment. Certainly that suggests extermination of Israel is something that may not be so bad.
judson’s bat-sh!t crazy comment may count, as well, though he seems to be an equal opportunity attacker.
seb writes: “You have now, correctly noted that it has an ugly history and I am certain we will all endeavor to be careful about that.”
I’ll just point out that one can be aware of a capitalization issue, but not be aware of which one is the negative one.
Oh, also, moving every Jew in Israel to Palm Springs isn’t exactly “extermination”.
No, it’s really not, but I was trying to take the most generous possible take on what appeared to be a pretty ugly insinuation (that is, that there were in fact people on this thread advocating the extermination of the Jews).
And I apologize to you and Jake for wrongly attributing that comment.
Ok. I hope the rest of the ObsidianWings hive mind will forgive me if this is a bad choice, but to calm things down we are going to take a very short break.
I am closing comments to this post for 5-10 minutes. They will reopen shortly. Let all just take a breath.
Ok, that was a bit longer than expected because Typepad was resisting me.
Funny thing happened on the way to the forum.
Even though part of brain knew that I had closed comments here, another part was surprised to see no new comments after so long.
Ok, then.
I’d just like to point out that Palm Springs isn’t really quite the right locale, and suggest that Jon H alter his proposal to include all of Southern California from Los Angeles down to San Diego, with some nontrivial amount of inland territory thrown in.
Upside: we get rid of LA in the process. Downside: we’d have to relocate Camp Pendleton, and figure out some way to reproduce La Jolla in some other place.
I was waiting for the “10 buildings per missile” item to pop up.
Looking WAY upthread, I see Gary making bad analogies to the Normandy invasion, etc.
IIRC, Germany had a regular army in the field, its instrument of exerting military force over Europe. To destroy that army, the Allies had to invade Europe with their own army and engage the Germany army. After that army was defeated, the Allies could occupy Germany and end the war.
There were a few millenia of experience to back up that theory. And it worked, as it turned out.
Also, as always, there were many, many civilian casualties, largely due to no one’s having figured out a feasible way to avoid them. (I omit the terror bombing of Germany’s cities as morally indefensible; others disagree of course.) But it was deemed worse to let the Germans continue to rule Europe.
Whereas in the present war in Lebanon, Israel is trying to use conventional military weapons and tactics against a guerrilla/insurgent enemy. It doesn’t work. It won’t work now.
And the civilian casualties incurred are thus sheer waste, if not a deliberate terror policy (which the “10 for 1” story certainly suggests it is).
I have always been skeptical of there being a 100% match b/t Israel’s interests and the U.S.’s, but I have never been anti-Israel. That is starting to change, and would’ve changed already were my own gov’t not engaged in so much comparable wickedness.
hope on one front, anyway :
Palestinian factions, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have agreed to stop firing rockets at Israel and to free a captured Israeli soldier in a deal brokered by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president.
The deal, agreed on Sunday, is to halt the rocket attacks in return for a cessation of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip, and to release Corporal Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured on June 25, in exchange for the freeing of Palestinian prisoners at some point in the future.
i’m sure many here have linked to this and written 500 words on it. but, i’m going to post it anyway.
cleek, that’s awesome, thanks.
My own feelings in this matter is that Israel needs to safeguard its citizens and security, but the current strategy is failing. I’m surprised that they have taken this disasterous course, and can only speculate that something fundamental is broken in either the government or military, or both.
Nothing good will come of this, for Israel, for Middle Eastern peace, or for us.
Interesting last sentence in that article, cleek.
Good news. Thanks for linking, Cleek, I hadn’t seen it yet.
Hopefully, my Palestinian co-worker (who is from Gaza) will be able to lower his blood pressure now.
Slarti: Interesting last sentence in that article, cleek.
Why? That was announced last year.
I actually think the second to last sentence is the really interesting one:
“If Syria could be assured that the investigation does not continue, there are indications that Syria would be willing to be helpful on many issues, not just the release of Israeli soldiers,” Mr Abbas’s aide said.”
The story Cleek reports says there’s no Israeli agreement to the deal yet, right?
For some representative right-wing responses, see James Joyner & his links:
“While this looks at first glance like a victory for Israel, it’s mostly a sign that the terrorists have gotten all they can hope for in this conflict and wish to regroup.”
Oh, just a bit of a shock to see all of that matter-of-fact tracing-back of money and influence through Syria to Iran. And of course if Syria’s willing to assassinate Hariri, what else might they be willing to do? Perhaps foment some nontrivial armed conflict between Lebanon and Israel?
I heard the Syrian ambassador to the US on NPR this morning sounding eager to be of assistance.
xmas: “her capitalization”
[checks pants.] nope, no sex change this morning. “his” not “hers”.
[the male reproductive organ is shaped much more like an “i” than an “e”.]
thanks.
Remember to dot your “i”.
Slarti writes: “I’d just like to point out that Palm Springs isn’t really quite the right locale, and suggest that Jon H alter his proposal to include all of Southern California from Los Angeles down to San Diego, with some nontrivial amount of inland territory thrown in.”
Well, yeah, if one insists that they have a coastline, as opposed to just having an equivalent amount of land. At least I didn’t suggest that they be given the depopulating areas of the upper Great Plains. ;^)
It would actually be interesting to see what would happen if AIPAC started lobbying for this…
I’d just like to point out that all of this talk of moving Israel (just ponder on that idea for a few seconds, ok?) is, like, way silly (sorry, Southern California is throwing me off a bit) without the willingness of Israelis to be moved. Completely, utterly silly.
the male reproductive organ is shaped much more like an “i” than an “e”.
depends how you’re sitting
Um, guys, the key fact is that the Grauniad as regards I/P is rubbish.
Aside from that, great.
Gary, could you catch up on the capitalization stuff above re Francis, please?
“Completely, utterly silly.”
Well, the movement of all those people *into* Israel wasn’t all that silly, was it?
“Gary, could you catch up on the capitalization stuff above re Francis, please?”
Sure. As per 04:39 PM he’s a he. And I’ve never said otherwise.
Well, the movement of all those people *into* Israel wasn’t all that silly, was it?
No, not trivial. I think you’re making my point for me.
How do you propose to move them out, Jon?
let’s try to take this in a new direction.
what happens next?
A. Israel sooner rather than later stands down. Subsequent rocket attacks are met with minor artillery barrages and airstrikes. Iraq slowly slides into ever-worsening violence but the gov’t, protected by Americans, nominally stays in power. No international force for Lebanon; the US stays in Iraq until the end of the Bush admin.
B. Israel re-occupies a 15-mile buffer zone and insists that it will not leave until it is replaced by an international force with the authority and responsibility to prevent further rocket attacks. Muslim rhetoric against Israel and the US heats up rapidly, and Americans are once again forced to move even more troops to Bagdad to protect the Green Zone and the govt and to try to put a lid on the violence.
then what?
The Kurds use the opportunity to ramp up ethnic cleansing of Kirkuk and opens discussions with the Chinese to have them pay the Kurdish govt directly for oil from northern “iraq”.
The Iranians and Syrians openly attack Israeli forces in south Lebanon, purportedly with the support of the Lebanese govt. The Bush admin., tired of the Iranians feeling their oats, launches airstrikes against a range of Iranian and Syrian assets. Iran then … what? starts WWIII?
Gary, sorry, meant Francis‘s comment here.
Umm, lets let the grammar flame die down for now.
what happens next?
Speculation at this point has about as much bearing on reality as an evening playing Dungeons and Dragons™
There are now so many elements and forces at work that small events can trigger large reactions, and so there is little that can be guessed at as to what tomorrow’s headlines might be.
This is the folly of destabilization. It makes diplomacy difficult, if not impossible, it provides very little in the way of comfortably predicting outcomes, and it usually ends in bright lights, loud noises, and lots of smoke and dismembered people.
Heh, especially if I’m going to screw up.
“Umm, lets let the grammar flame die down for now.”
What will we use to light the torch at the Grammar Olympics, then?
what happens next?
GWB gets his war on! Yeee-hah, Jester’s dead!!
Speculation at this point has about as much bearing on reality as an evening playing Dungeons and Dragons™
You did NOT just put the “TM” by D & D. Omigod you *did*. In *superscript* no less.
Do you work for Wizards of the Coast, or are you just an IP attorney with a keyboard shortcut for that?
“How do you propose to move them out, Jon?”
Gradually. Jerusalem West wouldn’t be built in a day.
All I’m really getting at is that despite the historical and religious landmarks, the plot of land we call Israel might not have been the best choice for a new Jewish state in the 1940s. Because, like, it was occupied already.
Granted there wasn’t really any other option at the time. And the desire for a state, self-determination, and self-defense was certainly about as well-founded as can be.
But they have better options now, should they wish to pursue them. They could acquire or be granted land in the US that is not contested, set up a soverign nation there, live peacefully, and have a dramatically lower likelihood of being exterminated by Islamist nukes.
You did NOT just put the “TM” by D & D. Omigod you *did*. In *superscript* no less
I played a once-weekly D&D™ campaign that lasted more than a decade. I am a WOTC thrall.
Well, no, I thought it would be funny, and I wanted to use the ™ tag.
a keyboard shortcut for that?
&trade + a semicolon
Ha ha, Cleek screwed up.
<html_geekiness>
Try &trade;
</html_geekiness>
d-p-u: we might as well start speculating about the future, because rehashing the past and discussing the present has already lead to use of the N— word and a shutdown.
from what i’ve read, it seems that Hezbollah is dug in and itching for a fight. on the plus side, this gives the Israelis a fixed target. but it also means that Israel is going to need to commit substantial ground forces to kill the enemy.
Condi has pretty clearly given the green light to a lengthy operation and the Israelis have been pretty blunt that this may last a while.
If we didn’t have 150000 troops in Iraq I wouldn’t be so worried. But if the Lebanon war drags on, I imagine that those troops will start looking more and more like possible targets.
I doubt that “Dungeons and Dragons” is really the trademarked phrase. It is “Dungeons & Dragons”. 🙂
“the plot of land we call Israel might not have been the best choice for a new Jewish state in the 1940s.[…]
Granted there wasn’t really any other option at the time”
This seems like a bit of a contradiction – the only possible place for X is surely the best place.
Are you an advocate of giving the Palestinians a plot of land, say next to the Navahos, for them to have their own sovereign country in peace and prosperity?
I played a once-weekly D&D™ campaign that lasted more than a decade. I am a WOTC thrall.
I am so jealous. I can handle fidelity as a consequence of marriage/kids, but the fact that I will never play D&D again is harder to bear.
™ Doesn’t work on preview …
Drop the “amp;”
Are you an advocate of giving the Palestinians a plot of land, say next to the Navahos, for them to have their own sovereign country in peace and prosperity?
Myself, I was thinking of letting them stay at JonH’s place. You have a big back yard, doncha, JonH?
rilkefan writes: “Are you an advocate of giving the Palestinians a plot of land, say next to the Navahos, for them to have their own sovereign country in peace and prosperity?”
The Palestinians don’t include lots of immigrants from all over the world. They’re local.
from what i’ve read, it seems that Hezbollah is dug in and itching for a fight. on the plus side, this gives the Israelis a fixed target. but it also means that Israel is going to need to commit substantial ground forces to kill the enemy.
From what I’ve read, the Hezbollah military may be the second most effectivbe and well-trained military in the region, right after the IDF. Even if substantial ground forces are committed, there will be heavy casualties, as this is no longer a ragtag bunch of suicide bombers. They’ve had years to build up weapons caches, fortified bunkers, booby-traps, and military plans.
Add to that the threat of volunteers arriving from the Iraq Shia, thousands of them. Then there’s the question of what role the Sunni/Shiite conflict is playing in the whoile mess.
Regardless, it will be unlikely that the IDF will effectively wipe out or even weaken Hezbollah. That will raise their reputation considerably in the region. Indeed, it already has.
Drop the “amp;”
Sorry, that was aimed at Cleek’s attempt to display the tag to use.
If you type this: ™
…you will get the superscript trademark.
I am so jealous. I can handle fidelity as a consequence of marriage/kids, but the fact that I will never play D&D again is harder to bear.
I stopped playing once the children arrived, but I still have all my manuals and dice, as well as maps and campaign notes. I regale the children with tales of Gronk the Mighty Warrior, and his adventures on the high seas with his band of merry adventurers, and hold high hopes that they will ask me to DM a game some evening.
They, on the other hand, may think I’m just aweird old fart, so that may not happen.
Jon h,
First, my compliments on your first name.
Second, may I make a gentle suggestion? Your points about moving Israel, etc. may be in a purely intellectual sense right. However, this really, really, really isn’t a purely intellectual issue. And saying what you are will cause many people who might otherwise be amenable to your general perspective to just shut down and stop listening.
Again, I’m not saying you’re “wrong.” I’m just saying that we should keep uppermost in our minds what we’re trying to accomplish (i.e., some measure of justice and security for everyone concerned), rather than look for opportunities to show ourselves to be intellectually correct.
The reason I bring this up is that I have similar tendencies myself, and so am sensitive to them in others.
Sebastian:
I believe this argument was first popularized by Netanyahu. (Campaign slogan — “Israel: This Country Can Burn!”)
I always thought it was created as a soundbite for cable TV appearances. Because in other places, people might take the time to ask some basic questions. Like: did Germany and Japan do anything else in World War II besides kill U.S. civilians? Or: if the only thing they’d done was kill the number of U.S. civilians they killed, what would we then think about the actions of the U.S.?
Try ™
i think i like my explanation better 🙂
oh see now it works. to hell with HTML and clever server apps. hell, i say!
Not Yet
by von Hilzoy writes (below) that this has to stop in Lebanon — that, whatever justifications Israel may have had going into Lebanon, they’re outweighed by the damage now being done to the nascent Lebanese democracy and to Lebanese civilians.
™
I feel so … fulfilled. Nunc dimittis!
Not Yet
by von Hilzoy writes (below) that this has to stop in Lebanon — that, whatever justifications Israel may have had going into Lebanon, they’re outweighed by the damage now being done to the nascent Lebanese democracy and to Lebanese civilians.
I feel so … fulfilled.
Someday, Grasshopper, you may be ready for … ©
Not Yet
by von Hilzoy writes (below) that this has to stop in Lebanon — that, whatever justifications Israel may have had going into Lebanon, they’re outweighed by the damage now being done to the nascent Lebanese democracy and to Lebanese civilians.
Not Yet
by von Hilzoy writes (below) that this has to stop in Lebanon — that, whatever justifications Israel may have had going into Lebanon, they’re outweighed by the damage now being done to the nascent Lebanese democracy and to Lebanese civilians.
and so this thread draws to a close. not with a bang, but with a copyright.
r.i.p.
Hey, guess what? I could start another comment war, just by saying:
On my Mac, I can just insert these things at will, without playing with html at all! ™®©!!!
â„» ₤ ௹ â‚Ş É ĘŁ ʨ ĘĄ !!!
Not Yet
by von Hilzoy writes (below) that this has to stop in Lebanon — that, whatever justifications Israel may have had going into Lebanon, they’re outweighed by the damage now being done to the nascent Lebanese democracy and to Lebanese civilians.
Macs rule! Or whatever.
Macs would rule, if Apple would just stop being stupid about it.
Let the flame wars begin! I predict 375 comments before comments is so screwed up that it must be closed.
Macs are for weenies. Weenies with trust funds.
Look, we can argue about politics and religion, but I think it’s best if we don’t touch the third rail of internet discussions: Macs and PCs.
Macs are almost the Beta of home computing.
Better open up a new thread for this one, Andrew. It could very well destroy this one.
I think I’m taking the offensive on my next thread. B5 rulz, Star Trek droolz or something to that effect.
“Hey, guess what? I could start another comment war, just by saying:”
Talk about war crimes.
(just kidding. I just *knew* hilzoy would be a right-thinking Mac user.)
“I doubt that “Dungeons and Dragons” is really the trademarked phrase. It is “Dungeons & Dragons”. :)”
I bet a whole filing cabinet at the PTO is dedicated to trademarks of all possible permutations of Dungeons & Dragons.
Not Yet
by von Hilzoy writes (below) that this has to stop in Lebanon — that, whatever justifications Israel may have had going into Lebanon, they’re outweighed by the damage now being done to the nascent Lebanese democracy and to Lebanese civilians.
d+u: Hah. I started using Macs in 1984. Back then the really salient difference was that Macs did not have a command line interface, and you could draw pictures on them, which I wanted to do. I had lots of fun doing Stupid Computer Art Tricks, like making my own version of Magritte’s painting in which it’s raining men in bowlers — just draw one, and resize and paste a whole lot of times! It was fun.
Hah. I started using Macs in 1984.
Ah yes, I still have the carboard ad insert in Scientific American announcing its debut. A mouse with only one button so that you don’t press the wrong one. I was wondering why they didn’t have a one key keyboard as well.
I had an Apple ][+ at the time, but couldn’t afford a Mac. So I entered the lucaritive PC world, and aside from a dreadful job experience where I had to write programs for both platforms, I haven’t looked back since.
“So I entered the lucaritive PC world, and aside from a dreadful job experience where I had to write programs for both platforms, I haven’t looked back since.”
Of course, nowadays the Macs have Intel processors, are a form of Unix with the commandline and everythin’, and can even be booted into Windows.
Not counting my old TRS-80 Color Computer™, I started on an Apple IIgs™ sometime around 1987. I quickly became allergic to DOS™ and Windows™ (and not from lack of exposure to them, either). From then on out it was Macintosh™ all the way. Mac OS X only cemented this preference.
Now my mom has a recent model iMac™ and my wife a MacBook Pro™, which lets my mom videoconference with her 4-month-old grandson from two states away with no additional equipment or software, and absolutely no configuration hassles. Add in iPhoto’s™ photocasting and online printing capabilities (I had really lovely coffee-table-style books of baby photos printed up for the great-grandparents) and it’s a perfect setup for keeping distant family in the loop.
Of course, I’m still working on a G5™ tower professionally, at least until Adobe™ gets on the ball about updating its products for Intel™ chips.
I have to admit, I still look back on MacDraw and CricketGraph with an inordinate amount of fondness.
I try to ignore those feelings, though, and move on. It’s the incurious part of me working its will, dontcha know.
See also–the Beruit airport. If Iran resupplies Hezbollah through that airport–and it does–and Lebanon won’t stop it–and it didn’t–the airport is absolutely a legitmate target. Israel could have easily leveled the airport structures. They could have easily used runway specific munitions to make the runway very difficult to repair. They did neither. This suggests to me that they really just wanted to stop the re-supply and/or air transport of the POWs.
This is one of many remarks that seems to strive to find some rational anti-Hezbollah reason for the widespread bombing by Israel, and none of them make the mark. This one is particularly nonsensical (and there is no evidence that the airport is the shipping point for rockets — it makes for more sense that they are smuggled in via Syria in commercial trucks, etc.).
Under this logic, you could bomb every road, bridge, airport, truck or other means of moving rockets since, hey, they are all potentially part of the Hezbollah war effort. No amount of bombing would be improper.
Just admit that you don’t care that the bombing is wildly disproportionate, and don’t care whether or not the bombing has a decent link to Hezbollah. Since it might be hurting Hezbollah, that’s allegedly good enough.
I pretty much agree.
I got really, really upset when I saw a set of casualty figures yesterday. It wasn’t the number of Lebanese civilian deaths (350+). It was the number of estimated Hezbollah fighter deaths (11)–specifically, the ratio of those deaths to all the others. About 1 Hezbollah fighter killed for every 30 civilians; 1 Hezbollah fighter killed for every 1.5 Israeli soldiers and 1.5 Israeli civilians; 1 Hezbollah fighter killed for ever 1.9 Lebanese soldiers (in a war whose stated goal is to have the Lebanese military replace Hezbollah in souther Lebanon!), 1 Hezbollah fighter killed for every .8 freaking Canadians….
They were the numbers from the Lebanese government, and it occurred to me that they were probably low-balling the estimates of Hezbollah fighters in cases where it was not clear, just as Israel would probably rank them higher. And indeed, today Israel estimates 100 Hezbollah fighters dead. I would guess the actual number is between, but where between, who knows.
But before you weigh whether the ends justify the means, you have to ask whether the means will actually accomplish the ends. This war isn’t going to destroy Hezbollah, and the short term military damage it inflicts seems likely to be outweighed by the long term support for Hezbollah by the Lebanese population unless a force other than either Hezbollah or Israel moves into that southern region.
This war would seem to increase the likelihood of an intl force, but not enough to make it likely to actually happen if the newspaper articles I’m seeing are right–and that was before the UN workers were killed. It would seem to decrease the likelihood of the Lebanese gov’t being able to do this.
If it’s not going to lead to those results, what’s the purpose? To show that Israel’s still got it, that they’re still tough? I really don’t like war as self-expression. I really really don’t.
The other thing is that–we just would not accept this amount of killing of civilians if it were not Arabs & if a majority of them were not Muslims. We wouldn’t. The President, the Secretary of State, Congress–they would not dream of saying the things they are saying. And this is Lebanon, our purported ally, a country with a large Christian majority and a much more secular population than most of the mideast, whose “Cedar Revolution” we were cheering on last year.
It’s not surprising. Everyone values their own lives and their families’ over strangers, and their fellow-citizens’ lives over foreigners’, etc. I’m not claiming to be immune–I get more upset about terrorist attacks in London than terrorist attacks in Bali or Baghdad; I get more upset over an Israeli soldier’s kidnapping than a report that X # of anonymous Palestinian civilians were killed along with the Hamas leader. God knows that much of Arab world doesn’t seem to give a damn about Jewish deaths except to cheer them on.
But we have the power to make our emotional response to a death into concrete reality in the world today: an American life, an Israeli life, a European life is worth much, much, much more than an Arab or Muslim life, and that’s just the way it is and the way it’s going to be.
Israel is acting in response to a direct attack on its territory, and its existence is seriously endangered in a way that America has not been, and they have known nothing but that for their whole history. So this is understandable, by geopolitical standards, but I don’t think it’s right. I know they don’t want to kill Lebanese civilians, but the attitude seems to be a sort of listless “oh, that’s a shame” rather than a sense of a disaster to be avoided whenever possible. Which is how countries behave, in Israel’s situation, but I am not converting to Judaism to belong to a group of people that acts like that.
And all of this gets me to thinking about Iraq, and my usual hobby horses, actions which I find a lot less explicable and excusable than Israel. There’s a line in a Bob Dylan song–“you play with my world like it’s your little toy”.
oh, and these cheap stunts are driving me insane, and are a perfect example of why I identify less and less with the Democratic party.
“and there is no evidence that the airport is the shipping point for rockets — it makes for more sense that they are smuggled in via Syria in commercial trucks, etc.”
That isn’t true at all. I’ve previously linked to the well known fact that Iran supplies Hezbollah through the Beruit airport via a cargo 747. The Beruit airport is the ONLY place in Lebanon where a supply plane that large can land.
Let me briefly point out that it now appears that this was an attack long in the planning; the Hezbollah assault was an excuse.
I remind everyone that, lacking globally-recognized international law, nations neither have nor lack a “right to exist”; the only “right” is the goodwill of their neighbors and the great powers, and the ability to hold their territory.
There are now as many Lebanese refugees as there are citizens of Portland, Oregon where I live. This will make for enmity for generations. Israel can probably win this assault, but I cannot imagine how it will lead to a long-term advantage for Israel.
The Chinese, it appears, are supplying Hezbollah via Iran. Bleah. (The Chinese make the missiles. Why not? They make bloody everything else.)
Also there are the Alt Key codes….
http://www.frontpagewizard.com/use_alt_keys.asp
Not Yet
by von Hilzoy writes (below) that this has to stop in Lebanon — that, whatever justifications Israel may have had going into Lebanon, they’re outweighed by the damage now being done to the nascent Lebanese democracy and to Lebanese civilians.
Not Yet
by von Hilzoy writes (below) that this has to stop in Lebanon — that, whatever justifications Israel may have had going into Lebanon, they’re outweighed by the damage now being done to the nascent Lebanese democracy and to Lebanese civilians.
Not Yet
by von Hilzoy writes (below) that this has to stop in Lebanon — that, whatever justifications Israel may have had going into Lebanon, they’re outweighed by the damage now being done to the nascent Lebanese democracy and to Lebanese civilians.
Not Yet
by von Hilzoy writes (below) that this has to stop in Lebanon — that, whatever justifications Israel may have had going into Lebanon, they’re outweighed by the damage now being done to the nascent Lebanese democracy and to Lebanese civilians.
Not Yet
by von Hilzoy writes (below) that this has to stop in Lebanon — that, whatever justifications Israel may have had going into Lebanon, they’re outweighed by the damage now being done to the nascent Lebanese democracy and to Lebanese civilians.
There is a fairly depressing familiarity about this. I was brought up in Northern Ireland, which was seen as just as intractable as this situation, and lost members of my family to terrorist violence. The lesson we were forced to learn is compromise – I was not keen for the Irish or UK governments to deal with terrorists, but at some stage the violence has to stop. Hizbollah has no reason to EXIST if the Shebaa farms were given back; Palestinian violence would be cut off at the knees if Israel adhered to UN resolutions and withdrew to the 1967 borders. Anyone – Jew, Arab, Christian, atheist – who has lost loved ones should make an effort to heal rather than infame the situation. I find the current vitriol – mainly, it seems to a European, anti-Arab – utterly disgusting, and any supposed Christians saying such things should stop hiding behind Jesus.
Token Eurpoean,
“Hizbollah has no reason to EXIST if the Shebaa farms were given back; Palestinian violence would be cut off at the knees if Israel adhered to UN resolutions and withdrew to the 1967 borders.”
Umm, no. Do you need references to statements by Hezbollah, Hamas, Iranian governmental figures, et al, saying that the existence of Israel is the problem, whether under the 1967 or current borders? While there would likely be some Palestinians who would stop fighting, expecting the violence to stop is naive.
Not Yet
by von Hilzoy writes (below) that this has to stop in Lebanon — that, whatever justifications Israel may have had going into Lebanon, they’re outweighed by the damage now being done to the nascent Lebanese democracy and to Lebanese civilians.
All I know is that I didn’t think well of Hezbollah before and whether or not they started it is questionable but now I think of them as the victims and Israel as the aggresor.
After all wasn’t there a similar situation in Nazi Germany, where the Nazi’s destoroyed several Jewish towns as punishment for the death of two of their Nazi soldiers? Guess the Israeli’s have learned from the Nazi’s