Different Ways Of Looking At It

372 thoughts on “Different Ways Of Looking At It”

1. According to a Guardian article linked to on Kevin Drum’s site, Tony Blair is having some doubts about the wisdom of the policies he and Bush have been pursuing.
   Duh.
   Well better late than never I guess.
   I think our country should focus on things like health care. We obviously suck and being a leader in foreign affairs.

2. There’s really something almost Bolshevik about it, isn’t there? I don’t mean the body count–I mean the rhetoric justifying it. The Revolution makes all this blood necessary; it will all be worth it after the Revolution–but when this lovely end will come, and how exactly we are going to get there through these means, are never quite explained.
   “They forget the present for the future, the fate of humanity for the delusion of power, the misery of the slums for the mirage of the eternal city, ordinary justice for an empty promised land.”–Albert Camus
   “What kind of beast is it, this Ginger Cat with its insatiable appetite for human sacrifice? This Moloch who promises that everything will be beautiful after we’re dead? A distant end is not an end but a trap. The end we work for must be closer, the labourer’s wage, the pleasure in the work done, the summer lightning of personal happiness.”–Tom Stoppard, The Coast of Utopia

3. It’s Springtime for Bush!

4. Tony Blair said last Friday that the US is prevaricating over the resolution and allowing the conflict to run on too long. I guess even the most long-suffering poodle cracks eventually.

5. I’m curious if this could happen without Syrian military being kicked out of Lebanon first. Probably not, right?
   Kinda makes you wonder about all that cedar revolution/Hariri assassination business, doesn’t it.

6. 1. Invade
   2. Demolish
   3. ????
   4. Peace and Prosperity!

7. “For decades, American policy sought to achieve peace in the Middle East by promoting stability in the Middle East, yet these policies gave us neither.”
   Somewhere, Mossadegh is laughing.
   “The lack of freedom in that region created conditions where anger and resentment grew, radicalism thrived, and terrorists found willing recruits.”
   (Ok, I now have a mental picture of George and Bandar, the Beatles’ “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” playing in the background.)
   “We saw the consequences on September the 11th, 2001, when terrorists brought death and destruction to our country, killing nearly 3,000 innocent Americans.”
   September 11th? September 11th! I had almost forgotten the horror of that day! How kind of you to remind me that Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi Republican Guard were the masterminds of it!
   “So we have launched a forward strategy for freedom in the broader Middle East, and that strategy has set in motion a transformation that is changing millions of lives for the better.”
   If by “millions of lives for the better” you mean “the Ayatollahs having wiped their brows in relief, are now living high on the hog,”, then, yes.

8. After all this time, either Bush is still clueless about the roots of the terrorism in the Muslim world or he is just being his usual, say what sounds best, even if you know is untrue self.
   In 2000, during the debates, he said terrorists were motivated by jealousy of the US. (That statement alone told me he was unqualified to be President.)
   After 9/11, he said he couldn’t understand why anyone would hate th US enough to do what was done.
   Now, it is all a result of the lack of freedom in the Middle East.
   Just 2.5 more years.

9. However, Blair and Bush look so tough and Churchill-esque…and in the end, isn’t that what really matters?
   (I can’t wait to see them dancing to a techno beat, while licking each others nipples in defiance of the world community!)

10. “The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy,”
    The outgoing British ambassador to Iraq.

11. SOD: (I can’t wait to see them dancing to a techno beat, while licking each others nipples in defiance of the world community!)
    *scrubs brain frantically* I didn’t want that in there!

12. I hate to disagree — well, no, that’s a lie — but…
    I’d submit that Lebanon was not, in fact, a free, peaceful, democratic, tolerant country, not so long as it welcomed an armed Islamist militia as part of its civil society. When a country does this, then it is responsible — and culpable — for the violence of the militia. Israel is justified in doing exactly what it takes to keep Hezbollah from bombarding its civilians, and this includes attacking both the militia and the government that was its de facto sponsor.
    In the modern world, there can only be nation-states; there can be no such thing as a private army. Lebanon has tried to have it both ways, and this cannot be allowed.
    So yes, Bush is clueless. Democracy hasn’t the first thing to do with it. But I still have to say I believe Israel is in the right.

13. not so long as it welcomed an armed Islamist militia as part of its civil society
    How did this armed Islamist militia come to be, Jake?

14. I mean Jason

15. “In the modern world, there can only be nation-states; there can be no such thing as a private army.”
    Jason, how do you propose to bring this about? What you are terming “private armies” have been involved in the vast majority of armed conflicts over the last 50 years.

16. Jason: this post was more about Bush’s cluelessness than about the justice, or lack thereof, of Israel’s response, about which I’ve written elsewhere. I don’t think that there is anything that Israel can do to finish off Hezbollah, and I think that the present course of action will make matters worse.
    I also think it’s hard to say that Lebanon is responsible. (Parenthetically, what is “Lebanon” here? The government? Any specific group of individuals?) Normally, ought implies can, and I don’t see any reason to think that the Lebanese government, or even a majority of its people, could have disarmed Hezbollah, so soon after Syria left.
    In any case, though, the whole thing is (imho) counterproductive, so the question how far Israel should be able to go in protecting itself does not apply.

17. I just want to thank Katherine for quoting Stoppard. I haven’t read the Utopia trilogy yet.
    There are probably some lovely quotes about revolution in TRAVESTIES…..

18. Re: Abolishing private armies. “Jason, how do you propose to bring this about?”
    It seems to me that the principle here is that governments are to be held responsible for the actions of individuals inside their territories. These governments must either make earnest efforts to punish violent groups and individuals (which Lebanon clearly did not do with Hezbollah) — or else the violence these elements do is understood to have government approval.
    As to whether the Israeli response can be expected to succeed, I admit it’s quite a separate question. I also admit I was more optimistic at the outset, and now I’m not so sure.
    But what bothers me in any case is how saddened everyone seems about the failure of the Cedar Revolution. We ought not to have expected so much from it in the first place. The settlement did, after all, tolerate an armed Hezbollah. What, may I ask, did we imagine those armaments were for?

19. It seems to me that the principle here is that governments are to be held responsible for the actions of individuals inside their territories.
    Yes, but practicalities will modify principles. An immediately disarmed Hezbollah was never a pratical reality from any agreement; and now, Israeli action has now made it impossible to get that in the near and immediate future.

20. And so the democratsunami washes back out to sea, leaving behind a ruined world.
    Ouch….Charles?
    There was an article in the Times that explored how the conflict crushed more than just the political hopes of the Lebanese . . . their cultural progress has been dealt a serious setback as well, knocking the wind out of a broad range of aritsts, musicians, promoters, etc., who were foolish enough (their phrasing) to believe things were actually getting better. They won’t be fooled again.
    I’d submit that Lebanon was not, in fact, a free, peaceful, democratic, tolerant country, not so long as it welcomed an armed Islamist militia as part of its civil society. When a country does this, then it is responsible — and culpable — for the violence of the militia.
    I’m beginning to see thinking like this in light of my Pentacostal upbringing. The idea that, like upon asking Jesus to forgive your sins and accepting him into your heart one is “born again” and instantly one with God, a nation working toward Democracy isn’t doing it “right” if everything doesn’t change into a rosy, problem-free situation overnight. It’s so remarkably unrealistic.

21. What is the difference between Hezb’olah’s militia, in Lebanon and American mercenaries in Iraq?
    It seems that American and South African mercenaries operate like private armies, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet are not subject to any laws.
    I think many people sense a double standard between American and Israeli’s claim for “right and moral” law and the rest of the world, or at least the “darker” world.

22. At least the Hezb’olah militia can claim to be “from there”.

23. “I also think it’s hard to say that Lebanon is responsible. (Parenthetically, what is “Lebanon” here? The government? Any specific group of individuals?) Normally, ought implies can, and I don’t see any reason to think that the Lebanese government, or even a majority of its people, could have disarmed Hezbollah, so soon after Syria left.”
    I think it is a fair argument to say that for the purpose of applying military force–Hezbollah is Lebanon. Now if it wasn’t in fact applying military force to other countries, that wouldn’t be a big deal. The contradiction between the civilian pseudo-government and the military pseudo-government wouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately for the people of Lebanon, Hezbollah likes to make war against Israel, and felt that it could because they thought Israel wouldn’t make war back.

24. it seems that the US does not grant to others what it reserves to itself. Turkey wishes to go after Kurdish terrorists in Iraq, but this US says no. Interesting, no? It’s ok for Israel to go after Hezbollah after only a year, but the US has been in Iraq for 3 years, and Turkey must NOT go after the PKK.
    Can anyone say “double standard”?
    gathering storm in Kurdistan
    Jake

25. There’s really something almost Bolshevik about it, isn’t there?
    They’ve been Bolsheviks from the very start, I think. Power, patronage and the sweet purifying fire of action–any action at all–seem to be the only things these guys really believe in. If nothing else, this Administration has been a fascinating lesson in how much people can get away with just by insisting that they can.

26. I think it is a fair argument to say that for the purpose of applying military force–Hezbollah is Lebanon.
    Okay. So it’s fair to say that the IDF is Israel? So if it’s fair for the IDF to kill Lebanese civilians and damage Lebanese infrastructure, it’s fair for Hezbollah to kill Israeli civilians and damage Israeli infrastructure? Hezbollah is in the right to attack Israel, Israel is in the right to attack Hezbollah, what on earth was anyone worrying about?

27. Jason:
    Opinions are fine, but it would be nice if they reasoned from actual facts.
    Hezbollah was the result of armed resistance to the Israeli invasion and occupation of south Lebanon. It was nutured and grew into its current form because it was a convenient vehicle of Syrian and Iranian anti-Israeli policy. A radicalized Shia of south Lebanon did not exist prior to 1982. Lebanon as a country had no say or ability to prevent any of this, although in the last year a window of opportunity opened to begin to undo 25 years of Hezbollah armed resistance.
    Without question Hezbollah is a serious threat to Israel, although to some extent, its about reap what you sow. Israelis may like to believe that they have always offered peace to Arabs, but that is a fantasy. Israel was founded on and still has a strong credo of expansionism into Arab lands. That requires violence by Israel against Arabs to succeed. The Israelis have been brutal for years and justified it because Arabs are so brutal. From my outside perspective, they each are more than willing to be brutal for their self-interests.
    The bottom line is that Israel has decided that a terror campaign against Lebanon in general is the proper response to the Hezbollah threat. You justify this by claiming that Lebanon is allegedly responsible for Hezbollah, and therefore Israel can do whatever it wants — sorry, but that does not withstand scrutiny.
    The bottom line is that Israel has guaranteed instability in Lebanon and guaranteed the impossibility of locals in Lebanon reining in Hezbollah. That is Hilzoy’s point — that US interest in a stable and stronger Lebanon are being completely undone by Israeli nuttiness, and Bush & crew refuse to see the obvious.
    So in another 10 or 20 years from now when I hear about how Israel must again commit more atrocities in Lebanon because the Lebanese are allegedly responsible for the presence of radical Hezbollah, I will want to scream.

28. I’m beginning to see thinking like this in light of my Pentacostal upbringing. The idea that, like upon asking Jesus to forgive your sins and accepting him into your heart one is “born again” and instantly one with God, a nation working toward Democracy isn’t doing it “right” if everything doesn’t change into a rosy, problem-free situation overnight. It’s so remarkably unrealistic.
    On the contrary, holding governments accountable for acts perpetrated within their territories is the very height of realism. You can’t expect Israel to sit back and get bombed, saying “Oh, not everything can be perfect.” That — that would be idealistic.
    Of course attacking Lebanon is an imperfect solution. I don’t think it at all disproves the principle, and I think the world would be a more peaceful place if it were followed more universally. (And by the way, Edward, I have no belief whatsoever in God.)
    As to Kurdistan, I understand that there has been no actual attack on Turkey. Am I mistaken? Because if an attack has indeed arrived, then I would support Turkey’s right to self-defense — and I would think it incumbent on the United States, as the responsible party in Iraq, to intervene as well against the Kurds.

29. dmbeaster: So in another 10 or 20 years from now when I hear about how Israel must again commit more atrocities in Lebanon because the Lebanese are allegedly responsible for the presence of radical Hezbollah, I will want to scream.
    Optimist. Israel may not exist in 20 years: Lebanon may not exist in 20 years.

30. “Okay. So it’s fair to say that the IDF is Israel? So if it’s fair for the IDF to kill Lebanese civilians and damage Lebanese infrastructure, it’s fair for Hezbollah to kill Israeli civilians and damage Israeli infrastructure?”
    Hezbollah does attack Israel. That is fine if they want war. They are supposed to attack the IDF. The IDF is well marked, is locationally separate and in all the standard respects distinguishable from Israeli civilians.
    If Hezbollah did the same, there wouldn’t be so many Lebanese civilian deaths.
    Your problem analyzing the situation is that you want to have rules that help out Hezbollah and hinder the IDF instead of rules that apply to both.

31. Sebastian: The IDF is well marked, is locationally separate and in all the standard respects distinguishable from Israeli civilians.
    Only when on duty.
    Most Israeli civilians have been members of the IDF: many Israeli civilians will be actively serving in the IDF in the future: many Israeli civilians can in fact contact their MK and tell them that they don’t want the IDF flattening Lebanon, and in principle, the IDF answers to the Knesset. An ordinary Lebanese civilian has no direct means of contacting Hezbollah leaders and no legal impunity if they tell them they don’t want Hezbollah to attack Israel.
    If it’s legit for the IDF to attack Lebanese civilians because they might be Hezbollah, it’s legit for Hezbollah to attack Israeli civilians because they might be IDF. Both or neither. I go for “neither”.

32. On the contrary, holding governments accountable for acts perpetrated within their territories is the very height of realism. You can’t expect Israel to sit back and get bombed, saying “Oh, not everything can be perfect.” That — that would be idealistic.
    Let’s try this again.
    My point is that it’s unrealistic to expect Lebanon, despite perhaps agreeing with your assessment of what an accountable government should do, to be able to do so immediately. So it’s wrong of Israel or anyone to imply they deserve what they’re getting because they didn’t stomp out a party widely and legitimately elected to the government fast enough to stop them from abusing their new power position. That is the underlying implication in your original statement, no? That Lebanon deserves what they’re getting?
    Jumping from that into the comicbook depiction of what you think I’m arguing Israel should do deserves to be ignored altogether.

33. Thanks Katherine for the 2 quotes. I haven’t read Stoppard, but his quote seems to concern religious future promises more than political future promises. Was this juxtaposition intentional?

34. Jason, as I read it, yes, the PKK attacked a police station inside Turkey, killing several. From a link in the article:
    The New Anatolian with wires / Ankara
    01 August 2006
    Terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) militants opened fire on and hurled hand grenades at police lodgings in eastern Turkey late Sunday, injuring six police officers and a passer-by. The officers were standing guard outside the lodgings in the town of Dogubayazit in the province of Agri when they were attacked, an official at the local governor’s office said. The assailants escaped and police set up checkpoints on roads around Dogubayazit to apprehend them.
    The PKK’s bloody campaign has led to more than 37,000 deaths in Turkey since 1984, when the PKK first took up arms.
    There’s been escalating tension between Turkey and the PKK, and the deaths of 15 soldiers in three separate attacks this month have promptedPrime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to disclose that the military is considering a cross-border operation aimed at eradicating PKK bases in northern Iraq. The U.S. is strongly opposed to such an operation.
    Clearly, this is a case of what is sauce for the goose is NOT sauce for the gander.
    Jake

35. “If it’s legit for the IDF to attack Lebanese civilians because they might be Hezbollah, it’s legit for Hezbollah to attack Israeli civilians because they might be IDF. Both or neither. I go for “neither”.”
    You obscure too much with the verb “to attack”.
    Is it legitimate “to target” Lebanese civilians? No. Is it legitimate “to hit” Lebanese civilians? It depends on whether or not you are targeting Hezbollah or IDF targets and whether or not you are taking sufficient precautions to make sure your targeting and hitting are closely matched.
    This problem is made more complicated by the fact that Hezbollah shelters its military behind civilians. This sheltering is wrong. This sheltering gravely endangers civilians. This sheltering gravely endagers civilians because the IDF is permitted (and in fact should if it is going to fight Hezbollah) attack anyway. These civilians are dying because of the Hezbollah policy to BOTH make war against Israel AND hide behind civilians. Take away either and the number of civilians dying in Lebanon would be much lower.
    So, when you try to draw a parallel between hitting Israeli civilians and hitting Lebanese civilians, you are failing to notice the difference in conduct–in targeting, in sheltering, in distinguishing combatants and non-combatants.

36. “The PKK’s bloody campaign has led to more than 37,000 deaths in Turkey since 1984, when the PKK first took up arms.”
    I hate sentences like that. The PKK is responsible for starting the rebellion and therefore they can be blamed for all the ensuing deaths, but as people at Crooked Timber have been fond of saying lately, responsibility is not a zero sum game. The government of Turkey is also responsible for the deaths since it had been oppressing Kurds and also because they caused many if not the majority of all those deaths.

37. Sebastian: So, when you try to draw a parallel between hitting Israeli civilians and hitting Lebanese civilians, you are failing to notice the difference in conduct–in targeting, in sheltering, in distinguishing combatants and non-combatants.
    Ah. So Israeli civilians never allow anyone into their homes who is currently serving in the IDF – that would be “sheltering”, wouldn’t it, and make them legitimate targets. Okay. (Oddly, this does not fit with anything I’ve heard about the IDF or about Israeli civilians, but I’m sure you’ve studied the situation and can prove it’s so via a link or two.)

38. “So Israeli civilians never allow anyone into their homes who is currently serving in the IDF – that would be “sheltering”, wouldn’t it”
    Nope, that wouldn’t be sheltering. But putting an IDF headquarters on top of a civilian apartment complex would. Or even a building that abutted an apartment complex.

39. HRW has a 51 page report out now (there’s also a one or two page summary available) saying that Israel is guilty of indiscriminate attacks and in some cases appears to be targeting civilians.
    I left my sheet of paper on how to make links at work and have a rotten memory for such things, so here’s the address–
    http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/

40. Donald Johnson: this is one of those archetypal responsibility-not-zero-sum moments. The Turkish government was unbelievably horrible to the Kurds. Not as bad as they were to the Armenians, but that’s a pretty high bar. There was an enormous amount of torture, killing, razing of villages en masse, not to mention systematic underdevelopment and such “lesser” things as making it illegal to speak Kurdish.
    On the other hand, the PKK is a horrible group. Basically Stalinist, willing to kill civilians. (I asked someone who sympathized with them once to explain to me how the slaughter of a village, which had recently happened, could be justified, and he said: they were collaborators. — The infants and children? I asked. — Well, they would have had a blood feud with the Party once they grew up, he said. — What gets people to the point where they can say things like this without their tongues cleaving to their mouths, their left hand withering, and their right hand forgetting its cunning, I have no idea.)
    Moreover, they were, rather like Israel now, pursuing a policy that had zero chance of success: armed struggle against the Turkish government, for which purpose they were willing to bring misery down on a lot of people.
    A plague on both their houses; and pity for the people caught in the crossfire.

41. Hilzoy–Agreed. I’ve kept my temptation to romanticize guerillas on a tight leash for quite a long time. Actually, the temptation should just be euthanized.

42. Jesurgislac and Sebastian,
    Thank God you’re still trying. I’m with you totally. Don’t give up!
    The war against Israel
    A small anecdote from today illustrates a trend which I had been noticing since the current crisis developed. On a bus in London, I was accosted by a middle-aged, West Indian gentleman on the adjacent seat. Recognising me, he congratulated me warmly on what I had been writing about Israel. He had wanted to attend last weekend’s Israel solidarity demonstration organised by the Board of Deputies but had been unable to find where it was being held. But friends of his had attended and shown him photographs they had taken of the event.
    ‘What no-one has reported’, he said, ‘was that there were many black people, Sikhs and Hindus at that demonstration because we all understand what is at stake here. We all realise that what Israel is fighting is Islamic terrorism, and that this threatens Jews, Christians and all of us. We local people all get it. What I can’t understand is all this stuff about Israel being ‘disproportionate’. Why don’t those people understand what is going on here?’
    Also, the definition of what I very well may have been all my life…
    Useful Idiot
    And my former hero, Gandhi? Here is his advice for Jews during WW2:
    “I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions…. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them. (Non-Violence in Peace and War)
    He also urged Jews and Czechs to commit a mass suicide as an act of non-violent resistance against Nazi occupation. In June 1946 he told to his biographer Louis Fischer:
    Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs… that would have been heroism.”
    I am sadly disillusioned, but wiser.

43. So, when you try to draw a parallel between hitting Israeli civilians and hitting Lebanese civilians, you are failing to notice the difference in conduct–in targeting, in sheltering, in distinguishing combatants and non-combatants.
    Excellent points, although they do not seem to apply much to the current situation.
    More likely is that the Israelis are falsely justifying a rather indiscriminate terror bombing campaign with assertions of this type. There are simply too many indiscriminate bombings and Israeli obfuscations to believe that high Lebanese cilivian casualties are a byproduct of Hezbollah tactics, which allegedly “force” Israelis to take actions that harm civilians.
    Buttresing the likelihood of this is the just completed devastation by Israel in Gaza, including the odious destruction of power facilities there. As if that was somehow a result of Hamas tactics?

44. Donald J: Luckily, I never had much of an inclination to sympathize with guerillas except in circumstances in which they were fighting a winnable war for a clearly just cause. (The French resistance.)
    I have a very limited amount of experience with actual guerillas (not being shot at by them; talking to them), and the ones I talked to were people who had been genuinely, horribly brutalized, and who moreover came from communities that had been genuinely, horribly brutalized — so it wasn’t just about them, but also their families, their friends, their everyone. They desperately needed a way to fight back against that injustice, for what I thought were entirely laudable reasons. (Which is to say: some people might have been inclined to keep their heads down and stay out of trouble in the midst of injustice. The people I knew were the ones who could never do that; who had to oppose it. Which is, I think, basically a very good thing.)
    The problem was, first of all, a shortage of decent groups in full-throated, non-apologetic opposition to the bad stuff, and second, whatever it is that makes people think that when you are dealing with something bad, it’s the most violent response that’s best, not the smartest. (The same instinct, I think, that makes people think that any suggestion that Israel should not attack with everything it has is “appeasement”. The thing that makes you feel: how can you possibly suggest something other than just killing them; that makes the question ‘is this wise? or decent? seem wimpy. Which of course it isn’t.)
    Given the first of these, their choices were limited; it was the awful guerilla group or no one, really. The second eased the way. But a large part of it was also how very very badly they needed a way to do something to oppose the absolutely genuine horrors they had seen and experienced.
    One of the things that makes me HATE wars — they just create more and more of this. Not that they aren’t necessary sometimes, since sometimes the alternative is worse. But the cost in often quite legitimate hatred and anger is an awful one.

45. Meanwhile, proof that Hezbollah is parking and firing katushas from next to buildilngs.
    http://www.israellycool.com/blog/_archives/2006/8/3/2192471.html
    scroll down to the 7:52pm update.

46. Stan LS –
    I’ve heard that they had converted a hospital into barracks. Also, that an individual will fire off a katyusha and then run back inside to watch TV with his wife and kids. How is Israel supposed to protect itself against this death cult? Does anyone have an answer?
    hilzoy, I HATE wars too! But what do we do when the other side WANTS one?

47. Jake (whichever one you are) —
    “Clearly, this is a case of what is sauce for the goose is NOT sauce for the gander.”
    The hypocrisy does exist, but it is not mine. I wrote, “if an attack has indeed arrived, then I would support Turkey’s right to self-defense — and I would think it incumbent on the United States, as the responsible party in Iraq, to intervene as well against the Kurds.”
    Now that I understand this to have been the case — and within the course of recent events — I have to say that things have changed, and that Turkey is in a position quite similar to Israel’s.
    Edward_ —
    What, then, should Israel do? If it must not attack Lebanon, and it must not simply sit back and allow rockets to fall on its cities… then what?
    Does Lebanon deserve what it is getting? Look, no civilian deserves to be killed in war. But as to where the blame should fall, yes, it’s unquestionably the fault of the Lebanese government. And the proper response to an approved act of aggression is to reply in such a way that the attacks will cease. This can only mean bombing and/or
    occupying Hezbollah and Lebanese military facilities.
    (Again, note that I’ve bracketed the question of effectiveness, which deserves separate consideration.)

48. How is Israel supposed to protect itself against this death cult?
    I think it begins with a different vocabulary, actually. By labeling them as such, you inadvertently (perhaps) leave the innocents in Lebanon out of the equation. It’s similar to the other problem perpetuating the situation: neither side sees its own part in the escalation. And they magnify what the other sides does, despite the reality of it all.
    There was an op-ed by Daniel Gilbert in the Times that explained how each side in a conflict sees the other side’s actions as much more severe than its own, even when they’re similar. It went on to explain that

    In virtually every human society, “He hit me first” provides an acceptable rationale for doing that which is otherwise forbidden. Both civil and religious law provide long lists of behaviors that are illegal or immoral — unless they are responses in kind, in which case they are perfectly fine.
    After all, it is wrong to punch anyone except a puncher, and our language even has special words — like “retaliation” and “retribution” and “revenge” — whose common prefix is meant to remind us that a punch thrown second is legally and morally different than a punch thrown first.
    That’s why participants in every one of the globe’s intractable conflicts — from Ireland to the Middle East — offer the even-numberedness of their punches as grounds for exculpation.

    So as long as the debate is framed as one of justifyable retribution (and sweeping labeling of [who exactly? just Hezbollah, all the Lebanese, all the Arabs? each statement like this demands precision] folks as “death cults” and such, when it’s clearly so much more complicated than that), no progress will be made.
    In the end, unless Israel changes its position to one of wanting to wipe out all its Arab neighbors, the Israelis will have to convince the Arabs to like them…peaceful cohabitation will demand it. The onus, like it or not, then is on Israel to be the bigger (in the sense of more tolerant) nation. I know they have tried. I know they’ve been willing. But they have to sustain the effort to ever get to a place of lasting peace. There will be set-backs and times when retribution is decidedly called for, but the rhetoric can, at least, not follow suit. It can remain more positive and productive.

49. Edward,
    “the Israelis will have to convince the Arabs to like them…peaceful cohabitation will demand it.”Israel has to crack that whip and show that it got bite
    You are in fantasy land. Israel will never convince the Arabs (the muslim ones, anyway) to like them. Israel just needs to convince them that if they keep attacking their civilians they will get hit back HARD. Look at Egypt and Jordan – you think egyptians and jordanians “like” Israel? Most likely not, but those two countries have made peace with Israel.

50. Edward_,
    “The onus, like it or not, then is on Israel to be the bigger (in the sense of more tolerant) nation. I know they have tried. I know they’ve been willing. But they have to sustain the effort to ever get to a place of lasting peace.”
    Several problems:
    1. This seems hopelessly utopian. If one takes Hezbollah and Hamas at their words and acknowledge that they genuinely do want to wipe Israel off the map, not responding to attacks means that they will continue to attack, not that they will stop attacking.
    2. As a result of the continued attacks, Israel will get weaker, by having less fighters. Hezbollah and Hamas will get stronger, as their successes will cause others to join their cause.
    3. Whenever Israel decides it is “the time when retribution is called for”, it is likely to face the same reaction among the international community, made worse by the precedent that firing X rockets into Israel, or capturing X soldiers, wasn’t enough to call for retribution in the past, so why is it this time?
    4. In a democracy, not responding to attacks is a very good way to be voted out of office. And the Israeli leaders are definitely politicians who want to stay in office.

51. You are in fantasy land. Israel will never convince the Arabs (the muslim ones, anyway) to like them. Israel just needs to convince them that if they keep attacking their civilians they will get hit back HARD.
    How well has that been working, Stan?

52. Edward_,
    “How well has that been working”
    Pretty well. Israel is still in existence after nearly 60 years, in spite of being surrounded by actively hostile countries with dozens of times more people than it.

53. Israel is still in existence after nearly 60 years,
    Hmmm…I thought we were talking about lasting peace, not simply survival. Lowering the bar to that point suggests all they need is a much bigger wall around the whole country and high enough taxes to have the strongest military in the region. Not exactly my idea of the promise land, but YMMV.

54. Dan, Israel is a fortified state, with it’s lifeline thousands of miles long. In what fantasy does that count as a good existence? Your whole argument rests upon the assumption that there was/is no better outcome than currently exists. I disagree.
    Jason, in fact I didn’t say or imply that you were guilty of hypocrisy. I believe that WE are guilty of hypocrisy. We as represented by the Bush admin.
    Jake

55. Edward_ and Jake,
    I will agree that lasting peace would be better than being an armed fortress. But it takes two sides to create peace, which has not been forthcoming in spite of Israel, as Edward_ said, having repeatedly tried for it. Therefore, I have no problem with Israel, having been forced to choose to fight against persons who sincerely want to eliminate it, fighting hard.

56. But it takes two sides to create peace, which has not been forthcoming in spite of Israel, as Edward_ said, having repeatedly tried for it. Therefore, I have no problem with Israel, having been forced to choose to fight against persons who sincerely want to eliminate it, fighting hard.
    But for eternity? When does it get better?

57. Edward_,
    I don’t know. As I noted, it takes 2 sides to want peace. It therefore can only come when the Arab side also wants it. I see far less pressure on them to want peace and coexistence than on Israel not to respond to their attacks. Until then, Israel’s survival is success.

58. Dantheman: a right to fight back is one thing. A right to fight hard and dumb, in ways that get a lot of people killed, and that will almost surely be profoundly destructive to their interests in the long run, is another.

59. I see far less pressure on them to want peace and coexistence than on Israel not to respond to their attacks. Until then, Israel’s survival is success.
    I’m not sure that’s the key though. As opposed to when Clinton was in office, the US has been much, much more pro-Israel in terms of being anti-Arab. That hasn’t led to improvements for Israel.

60. Both sides have always wanted peace–on their own terms. Both sides are outraged by terrorism–the other side’s terrorism, that is.
    They have a lot in common. Too darn much, in fact.

61. hilzoy,
    “A right to fight hard and dumb, in ways that get a lot of people killed, and that will almost surely be profoundly destructive to their interests in the long run, is another.”
    I’ll agree fighting dumb is never a good idea. I will disagree that the way Israel has fought this war is more destructive to their interests than not fighting would have been, as Edward_ recommended.
    Edward_,
    The US is hardly the only source of pressure on the Arab states. Given the level of shifting the blame from Hezbollah and Hamas onto Israel which has been present in other, especially European, parts of the world over the same time period (during which time Israel withdrew from Lebanon and Gaza), the pressure has not been anywhere near as strong as that on Israel.

62. How well has that been working, Stan?
    Let’s see… Israel’s neighbors are Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon. Israel defeated Egypt and Jordan and got peace treaties with both. Now it has to defeat Hezbollah or put a sufficient amount of pressure on Lebanon to police its own borders (which it’s doing right now). A ceasefire just for the sake of a ceasefire is definately not the way to go.

63. Donald,
    Both sides have always wanted peace–on their own terms.
    HAH! Good one. You mean the fact that Arabs wants Israel’s destruction is a lie? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad summed it up pretty well today:
    “Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate ceasefire must be implemented,” he said.
    This word has been thrown around before – hudna.
    Both sides are outraged by terrorism–the other side’s terrorism, that is.
    Ah, right. One is as good as the other.

64. “In the end, unless Israel changes its position to one of wanting to wipe out all its Arab neighbors, the Israelis will have to convince the Arabs to like them…peaceful cohabitation will demand it.”
    I don’t think it is at all necessary to convince Arabs to like them. It is sufficient to convince Arabs not to attack them.

65. How is Israel supposed to protect itself against this death cult?
    I think it begins with a different vocabulary, actually. By labeling them as such, you inadvertently (perhaps) leave the innocents in Lebanon out of the equation.
    First, you don’t think the jihadis are a death cult? And Israel is worried about the innocents in Lebanon. Are the terrorists?
    Please, please look around and do some research on who these people are. Don’t take my word for it.

66. Israel defeated Egypt and Jordan and got peace treaties with both.
    The Egypt and Jordan treaties seem to be relatively stable, Stan, but there was a short-lived treaty with Lebanon once too. You’re implying that bordering neighbors are key here (conveniently leaving out Syria, Iran, etc.). I hope you’re right, but I’m convinced that a big stick alone is a bad policy. You have to keep wielding it, forever, if that’s all you got. I think you have to continually lower the temperature of the rhetoric as well, so that when opportunities to repair things diplomatically do appear, there’s not a list of hyperbolic statements in the way.
    First, you don’t think the jihadis are a death cult? And Israel is worried about the innocents in Lebanon. Are the terrorists?
    Please, please look around and do some research on who these people are. Don’t take my word for it.
    God I hate people who resort to that lazy demand. This is a dialog. If you can’t make your case, at least spare people the condescending insult that they should run off to the library and learn your case for you.
    Which “jihadists”? Who are you including in that? Just Hezbollah? Just the more aggressive members of Hezbollah? Do I think every person who identifies with some part of Hezbollah is a death cultist? No. I think sweeping generalizations like that prevent progress. Statements like “How is Israel supposed to protect itself against this death cult?” are a rhetorical throwing up of one’s hands and saying “we can’t figure this out, so we might as well just kill them all…that’ the only way out of this,” foolishly ignoring what killing them all will spawn in their place.

67. There are sure a lot of “death-cultists” in charge of the current Iraqi government.

68. God I hate people who resort to that lazy demand. This is a dialog. If you can’t make your case, at least spare people the condescending insult that they should run off to the library and learn your case for you.
    Edward,
    Sorry if I came across as insulting. It wasn’t my intention. And it wasn’t my intention to imply that we should “just kill them all.”
    I suppose my only excuse, such as it is, is that I’ve had a complete shift of consciousness regarding this whole issue over these last six months. I’ve been hanging out at some of the Middle Eastern blogs (Sandmonkey’s for one) and I feel like a naïve idiot for holding the beliefs I’ve held all my life. I’ve learned so much over there, that there would be no way to bring it all over here – hence my plea to you and others to search around. I’ve read plenty of dialogue – and contributed to it as well (often without any links!) but lately, I guess I’ve become impatient with it all. And tired. It seems that so few are facing what some of us see as the “wolf outside the door.” It’s like I’ve caught a glimpse and said, “Say, did you see that?” And people are just saying, “Hey, pass the beer will ya?”
    I know, I know. I sound like a whacko. I used to be so intellectually precise about everything and PC about everyone.
    Well, I’ve had a knot in my chest for the last hour which tells me I better think about something else for awhile.
    If I can contribute to the “dialogue” at some future date, without relying on links and anxiety, I’ll try coming back. Maybe.

69. I see far less pressure on them to want peace and coexistence than on Israel not to respond to their attacks. Until then, Israel’s survival is success.
    Israel survives in large part thanks to the enormous largesse of the American taxpayer. It’s one thing to say that you’re comfortable with the idea Israel existing indefinitely as a fortress state. It’s quite another to say that the US should indefinitely foot the bill. Are you saying both of these, or just the first part?

70. So, using Jes’s brilliant logic, when my father was on active duty and serving in the Vietnam War, when he was on a rotation home and visiting my grandparents, it would have been OK — had the had the ability — for the Vietnamese to bomb my grandparents’ home because they were sheltering a member of the military.
    Brillliant.

71. Stan LS, yeah, the two sides are the same to me as far as their atrocities are concerned. I’d rather live in Israel–Western democracy, etc…, but I don’t know where people get the idea that Western democracies can’t be guilty of horrific crimes. Certainly not from American or Israeli (or French or British) history.

72. Since we were bombing North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese and Laotian and Cambodian villages, Phil, that may not be the historical analogy you want to use here, unless the idea is that Western democracies get to bomb civilians, but their enemies don’t.

73. Stan LS, yeah, the two sides are the same to me as far as their atrocities are concerned.
    That’s telling.

74. That’s telling.
    That’s meaningless.

75. Stan LS,
    Are you suggesting that morality is relative to culture?

76. Meanwhile, proof that Hezbollah is parking and firing katushas from next to buildilngs.
    The bombing by Israel for the most part has nothing to do with bombing sites from which rockets have been fired. Simply look at a map showing where Israeli airstrikes have occurred (at Juan Cole’s site), and compare that with the range of the rockets. Most of the bombing is well outside the range of any of the rockets. The Qana bombing also does not correlate to any rocket fire, which the Israelis now admit.
    Hezbollah behaves awfully, but Israel’s behavior cannot be justified based on that.

77. Hezbollah behaves awfully, but Israel’s behavior cannot be justified based on that.
    Priceless. Gotta save that one. 🙂
    See ya.

78. Bec, please excuse my over-reaction. I should have chosen my words more carefully. It was a knee-jerk reaction to a personal pet peeve and no reflection on your other valid attempts to communicate.
    I’ve been hanging out at some of the Middle Eastern blogs (Sandmonkey’s for one) and I feel like a naïve idiot for holding the beliefs I’ve held all my life….guess I’ve become impatient with it all. And tired. It seems that so few are facing what some of us see as the “wolf outside the door.” It’s like I’ve caught a glimpse and said, “Say, did you see that?” And people are just saying, “Hey, pass the beer will ya?”
    Impatience and tiredness are fully understandable, but I think folks who’ve reached those points need to step out of the peace process and let other, fresher folks take over (not that you were claiming to be part of the peace process, just that I think that’s an important point to make).
    I’ve spent hours reading truly convincing anti-Muslim rhetoric, and left it thinking, hey, they really are the enemy, but then come home to my Muslim husband and friends and realized those sites leave out the most important ingredient in their assessments (at least to me)…the individual.
    Individuals decide to be suicide bombers or rape women, and individuals decide to devote their lives to helping others or being decent upstanding citizens. You could focus on the atrocities committed by individual American soldiers in Iraq, to the exclusion of all the very decent people serving over there, and paint a very convincing picture of barbaric crusaders, if you choose to. Just because this or that extremist group is hateful and seeks destruction, doesn’t mean it’s anything other than laziness to extrapolate that behavior to others outside their group. Hateful, destructive, greedy people have always been part of mankind (just ask the Native Americans, if you doubt it) and sadly probably always will be. No one group is immune either, if they get desperate or greedy enough.
    Is that a license for the militia arm of Hezbollah to attack Isreal? Not at all. Israel is remarkably restrained in my view, clearly focused, overall, on their long-term well-being, and I support their targeted efforts to take out Hezbollah terrorists. But to reduce the entirety of Hezbollah to a “death cult” when segments of it are dedicated to improving education and health services and the like is to simplify the party in a counter-productive way, in my opinion. Sound bites may drive the messaging, but they make solving the conflicts much harder.

79. now, how did my whole name get into that comment?

80. someotherdude,
    “Are you suggesting that morality is relative to culture?”
    Am I? How so?

81. The bombing by Israel for the most part has nothing to do with bombing sites from which rockets have been fired.
    They have to do with cutting off the supply routes and hampering hezbollah’s movement.

82. Edward,
    “they really are the enemy, but then come home to my Muslim husband”
    HAH! Edward, how long would you and your husband last in Hezbollah land or any other Muslim state??? You are comparing apples and oranges here!
    “Individuals decide to be suicide bombers”
    You’ll have a point if you can name a single palestinian suicide bomber who was not affiliated with a terrorist group.
    “Is that a license for the militia arm of Hezbollah to attack Isreal?”
    Militia arm?? I got an idea. Why won’t Israel spawn off a “militia arm” and deploy it in northern Israel and let it operate freely, rocketing Lebanon, crossing into the Lebanese territory, etc. And when complained to, Israel can say, Hey, don’t look at me, it’s this militia we have no control over and won’t confront.
    “But to reduce the entirety of Hezbollah to a “death cult” when segments of it are dedicated to improving education and health services”
    Well, then let’s not reduce Hitler to a simple murderer, did you know that he painted postcards and wanted to become an architect?

83. “But to reduce the entirety of Hezbollah to a “death cult” when segments of it are dedicated to improving education and health services”
    This is a common tactic among gangs to gain local support while continuing their murderous ways. See for example Al Capone or the Medellin drug cartel. So it might not be fair to reduce the Party of God to a death cult… but it would be fair to compare it to a bunch of murderous thugs.

84. This is a common tactic among gangs to gain local support
    The area around John Gotti’s house in Ozone Park was pretty crime free, cause criminals knew better. Did that make John Gotti a crime fighter, Edward?

85. Edward,
    No hard feelings. I knew I shouldn’t have posted today. I’m glad I came by for one last look, though.
    I’ve spent hours reading truly convincing anti-Muslim rhetoric, and left it thinking, hey, they really are the enemy, but then come home to my Muslim husband and friends and realized those sites leave out the most important ingredient in their assessments (at least to me)…the individual.
    It certainly wasn’t in my heart or mind to make a blanket statement against all Muslims. I’ve worked with a few and remain close friends with one (she’s Persian, actually). However, I do see a worldwide “movement” of what I can only call a “death cult” that is spreading across the globe – and real Muslims, peaceful Muslims, seem unable to curb it. (Beslan, Mumbai, Bali, Madrid, Darfur…Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Hamas, Janjaweed…) Those are the terrorists to whom I’m referring. It’s a worldwide phenomenon which troubles me deeply. I don’t see any signs of it stopping any time soon. Israel is the focal point of it and it knows it. That’s why all the Western hatred expressed toward Israel troubles me, too. Some say Israel is a proxy for the US; some say the US is a proxy for Israel. I don’t see it that way. I see Israel as trying to hang on and survive in a warlike neighborhood. Maybe they could have tried for peace and negotiation, but I think they would not have survived this long if they had. The US is one of the few in the world who are backing it up.
    Even if Israel were to cease to exist, I believe these terrorists would focus totally on the West next. They already kill their own who don’t agree with them. Look at how Iranian student dissidents like Akbar Mohammedi are treated.
    Hateful, destructive, greedy people have always been part of mankind (just ask the Native Americans, if you doubt it) and sadly probably always will be. No one group is immune either, if they get desperate or greedy enough.
    I am half Native American, as it happens. 🙂
    You sound like me six months ago. I’ve changed a lot. One couldn’t be philosophical with Hitler or Stalin. I see this threat as being of the same ilk and I think that the sooner we wake up, the better chance we’ll have to fight it.
    But to reduce the entirety of Hezbollah to a “death cult” when segments of it are dedicated to improving education and health services and the like is to simplify the party in a counter-productive way, in my opinion.
    I felt that way, too, in the past. I even felt sorry for Arafat once upon a time. For all the good that Hezbollah does, ask yourself why it allows its citizens to take the brunt of the Israeli military attacks? Why does it provide social services and then hide in bunkers beneath these very civilians, and then parade the dead children for the news media to see? Doesn’t that seem callous and calculating to you? I agree with this guy. (My last link, promise!)
    Okay, I think I’ve expressed myself in a nutshell. At least you know where I’m coming from. Thanks, Edward, for reaching out.
    BTW, I’d love to know how your family feels about the situation. I hear all sides over at Sandmonkey’s, Lebanese Bloggers, etc – from Muslims and Westerners alike.
    (I agree with Stan LS and Sebastian, but I don’t fault you for your opinions. I was there myself only a little while ago.)

86. HAH! Edward, how long would you and your husband last in Hezbollah land or any other Muslim state??? You are comparing apples and oranges here!
    I’m so tired of that argument. If you took the time to realize that my husband is the product of a moderate Muslim state, you’d have your answer. I truly felt more at home and welcome and accepted in Turkey (a Muslim state) than I do in Red parts of Ohio, which isn’t to say I’m ignorant about how gays are murdered in Iran and other Muslim states, just that your sweeping statement is poorly considered.
    You’ll have a point if you can name a single palestinian suicide bomber who was not affiliated with a terrorist group.
    Why do you limit it to Palestinian? The bombers in Madrid and those in London were not affiliated with any terrorist group, per se. They were homegrown…individuals who chose to respond to world events with violence without direction from any group.
    moving on….
    Why won’t Israel spawn off a “militia arm” and deploy it in northern Israel and let it operate freely, rocketing Lebanon, crossing into the Lebanese territory, etc.
    You know, switch out just a few words there and you’ve got the plot for a Steven Spielberg movie.
    Well, then let’s not reduce Hitler to a simple murderer, did you know that he painted postcards and wanted to become an architect?
    And there it is. The conflation of an individual with a group. The laziness I abhor.
    Is Hezbollah an invidual, like Hitler? Have I suggested in anyway that each and every member of Hezbollah is a good person? No, I noted very specifically that I support Israel’s targeting of individual terrorists.
    What I oppose is labeling Hezbollah a “death cult.” And not because I care about the feelings of individual party members (I actually feel they should break with the party on princple, but that’s easy for me, with my health insurance and food on my table, etc., to say), BUT because it’s counterproductive. It’s fooder for the Hezbollah PR machine “look at what they said about my mother…they called her, a loyal Hezbollah voter, a death cultist.”
    It’s lazy and harmful. It should stop. For Israel’s sake.

87. Edward,
    We posted at the same time! Whoops.
    Turkey is beautiful, I hear. And moderate/secular in comparison to other places.
    I think it’s the education of the Islamist terrorists that makes the difference – the madrassas. That’s why we see them as part of a group of brainwashed, hate-filled people.
    I’ve read plenty of moderate Muslim blogs and know moderate Muslims. They are nothing like them. I understand how you would be sensitive to this “labelling” and this is one of the reasons that this issue gets heated and garbled.
    Sending this now!

88. Uncle Kvetch,
    “Israel survives in large part thanks to the enormous largesse of the American taxpayer. It’s one thing to say that you’re comfortable with the idea Israel existing indefinitely as a fortress state. It’s quite another to say that the US should indefinitely foot the bill. Are you saying both of these, or just the first part?”
    I am saying the first. Whether the US will support Israel is a decision that the US, acting in its own interests needs to make.

89. Edward: did the two of you get married?

90. Oops. My last link wasn’t there. It was the UN Official who said,
    “Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending… among women and children,” he said. “I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don’t think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men.”
    Of course he criticized Israel too for being disproportionate, but that’s an issue that one hears nonstop on the media. True?

91. Edward_, you’ve been hanging out at Tbogg’s haven’t you? 🙂
    Stan LS, assigning collective guilt to an entire nation based on the activities of some of its members, or leaders, isn’t a path you should go down – unless you intend to ally yourself with those who say the US deserved the 9/11 attacks because of the foreign policies pursued by our democratically-elected leaders, and by which token deserves any terrorist attacks we suffer in the future.
    After devoting a lot of hard thought to what Israel is doing to Lebanon, the conclusion I’ve come to hurts me deeply. I’m Jewish, I’m pro-Israel, and my criticism of Israeli policies in the past have mostly focused on the effect they have on its national soul. Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve defended Israel’s actions, repeating (and believing) the same justifications Israel itself, and others, have offered.
    I can’t do that anymore. What Israel is doing to Lebanon is a crime; an atrocity. Pure and simple.

92. (I agree with Stan LS and Sebastian, but I don’t fault you for your opinions. I was there myself only a little while ago.)
    All that great communication just to end on a condescending note. ~sigh~
    Just because your position has changed doesn’t make it more enlightened, Bec.
    One chooses to allow the overwhelming challenge of remaining open to change to make them write off large segments of the world, it’s not a logical conclusion in any way at all though. It’s a personal choice.
    I choose to watch my back, but reach out my hand. It sounds trite phrased that way (it’s been a long day), but it’s the best metaphor I can come up with at the moment.
    Once you start resigning yourself to the notion that Islam is the problem you actually serve to make matters worse. The Muslims I know are among the most generous, kind-hearted, fun-loving, family-oriented, hard-working people I’ve ever met. That kind of personality cannot emerge from a culture of death, so to generalize in such terms is an insult.
    Of course all that still leaves what to do about the groups of extremists out there.
    Killing them only spawns more. So rather than just a stick, I think a carrot is called for. We’re dealing with a resentment of modernization when all is said and done. A resentment borne out of policies that prop up oppressive dictators (e.g., what we were doing in Iran in the 50s is a travesty we should still apologize for). The concept of time is very differnt in Muslim cultures. 1950 was just yesterday to them. They still don’t trust the US won’t derail their attempts at deomcracy for our oil companies’ best interests. None of which excuses the killing of innocents, but if we want to stop it, we should try harder to understand it (as opposed to just labeling them as “evil” or whatever, which doesn’t solve sh*t).
    I wish Bush had not invaded Iraq, but spent a quarter of that money on building up Afghanistan, proving that we were behind their fledgling democracy. That example might have been the best possible response to 9/11.

93. Edward: did the two of you get married?
    Hilzoy, we would most definitely have invited you if we had. Bambino has taken to calling me his Husband for clarity, and I’m supporting his decision by following suit. Should Spitzer not get the Governorship, we might consider moving to Mass., but until then we’re still just recongized as domestic partners by the state.
    Truth be told, I’m just weary of calling him something that makes others feel better, when I know in my heart who he is to me.

94. I truly felt more at home and welcome and accepted in Turkey (a Muslim state) than I do in Red parts of Ohio
    Are you saying that you felt more welcome/accepted in *every* part of Turkey then in some parts of Ohio?
    just that your sweeping statement is poorly considered.
    It’s your comparison that’s sweeping. We are discussing hezbollah here, and you decide to introduce the fact that your husband is a Muslim here as if his Islam is the same as Hezbollah’s Islam and you can somehow relate to Hezbollah through him.
    The bombers in Madrid and those in London were not affiliated with any terrorist group, per se.
    I dont’ recall at the moment if they were official card carrying members of Al Qaeda, but did they not follow a certain groups ideology?
    Is Hezbollah an invidual, like Hitler?
    What does that matter? Is Hezbollah’s goal not destruction of the state of Israel? Did Nasrallah not say “It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth.”? What about
    “if they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”? So…
    Have I suggested in anyway that each and every member of Hezbollah is a good person?
    …given the above quotes from Nasrallah can you say that *any* of Hezbollah members is a “good person”?
    look at what they said about my mother…they called her, a loyal Hezbollah voter, a death cultist.
    But Edward, that only works with liberals. Americans get called all kinds of names and yet we still dole out hundreds of millions of dollars to countries that are against us. Have you ever seen how they treat Americans and Jews in their media????? Why do you accept this double standard? Are you saying that muslims are subhuman? Should we start treating them like dogs – “he bit you, cause he’s scared!”. Do you not expect them to be rational?
    It’s lazy and harmful.
    No, it’s not. Language is used to communicate reality, and just because you don’t like the reality doesn’t mean that you change it by changing the language with which you describe it. I know UN wont’ say it, but Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. I know many won’t say this, but terrorists are scum. Telling young males who are brought up in a sexually repressed society, that they will get 72 virgins if they blow themselves up in a crowd of civilians is *evil*. What’s lazy and harmful is pretending that its not.

95. CaseyL,
    Stan LS, assigning collective guilt to an entire nation
    I am not. I think Israel shoudl go in and destroy Hezbollah and not get out until Lebanon deploys its troops on the border.
    ally yourself with those who say the US deserved the 9/11 attacks because of the foreign policies pursued by our democratically-elected leaders,
    What does it matter what I think wether we deserved it or not? My opinion is not entirely objective, right 🙂 What’s important is that they attacked us in a cowardly way, by killing civilians. They started this war and we must see it through.
    What Israel is doing to Lebanon is a crime; an atrocity. Pure and simple.
    Israel must have flown 5,000-6,000 sorties by now. What’s the civilian toll? 400? Do the math. Any civilian casualties are regrettable ofcourse, but let’s keep in mind that the guilty party is Hezbollah. Their cowardly ways of hiding in civilian areas have been documented.
    You lack a perspective. There hasn’t been a war in which civilians haven’t died. I wonder how WW2 would be viewed had the internet been aroudn back then…

96. We’re so many miles apart on this Stan…it’s really surprising I like you as much as I do.
    We are discussing hezbollah here, and you decide to introduce the fact that your husband is a Muslim here as if his Islam is the same as Hezbollah’s Islam and you can somehow relate to Hezbollah through him.
    That explains a lot.
    It’s the opposite really. I don’t care about relating to Hezbollah (I stated that above). I personally write off everyone who resorts to terrorism, whether Muslim, Christian, or whatever. I have a zero tolerance for the individuals stupid and heartless enough to go there.
    The groups, on the other hand, are more complicated. To compare Hezbollah to Hitler (rather than the Nazis, which is a much better comparison) is meaningless to me. You argue that language is good for communicating reality (wait, I’m having a post-structuralism lesson deja vu…ahhhh, there… it’s passing…), but you refuse to use it precisely. Groups represent such a range of individuals (consider the al Qaida members who were so horrified by 9/11 they turned informant), that terms like “evil” only serve as wedges.
    just because you don’t like the reality doesn’t mean that you change it by changing the language with which you describe it
    That’s 100% wrong, IMO. You very much change it by changing the language you use.

97. It’s the opposite really. I don’t care about relating to Hezbollah (I stated that above).
    Ok, that’s contradictory. I meant I don’t care aboutg relating to terrorists, whether part of Hezbollah or otherwise.

98. I choose to watch my back, but reach out my hand. It sounds trite phrased that way (it’s been a long day), but it’s the best metaphor I can come up with at the moment.
    It has been a long day. I would say, I’m happy to accept a person no matter what what their religion, gender, nationality – whatever. My only request is that they not make it their bounden duty to kill innocents. It’s the best that I can come up with at the moment.
    Sorry about the condescension. I was patronizing, too. I was hastening to “protect” you from Stan LS and Sebastian, after you had accidentally “outed” yourself! (I do put my foot in it sometimes.) I really was where you are six months ago. And I don’t feel angry toward you for your (to me) mistaken view of things. But then…to jump from there to saying I’m enlightened? Nah. Just worried sick. If you could prove me wrong, I’d be awfully happy.
    Imagine there’s no Heaven
    It’s easy if you try
    No hell below us
    Above us only sky
    Imagine all the people
    Living for today
    Imagine there’s no countries
    It isn’t hard to do
    Nothing to kill or die for
    And no religion too
    Imagine all the people
    Living life in peace
    I see this as unattainable and maybe I wouldn’t even want this as I had once thought. However, I can imagine young people raised without hatred. Can you? I can see Israeli children and Turkish children and so many others out there in a field with flowers. But there are other children who will not be there with them. I want to bring them into the circle, too. How, when they are taught to hate from such a young age?

99. someotherdude,
    “Are you suggesting that morality is relative to culture?”
    Am I? How so?
    Posted by: Stan LS | August 03, 2006 at 08:40 PM
    You seem to be suggesting or implying that because of whom [?] and what Israel is, their murder and mayhem is quite different than the murder and mayhem committed by Hezbo’allah.
    Since Israel is the type of culture and ethnicity you approve of, their actions must be judged by a different set of moral laws and the cultures you do not approve of (at worse they are wicked at best you do not like their theories concerning political science) should be judged by a different moral law.
    No snark, just curious?

100. This is a common tactic among gangs to gain local support while continuing their murderous ways. See for example Al Capone or the Medellin drug cartel. So it might not be fair to reduce the Party of God to a death cult… but it would be fair to compare it to a bunch of murderous thugs.
     Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 03, 2006 at 09:15 PM
     Are you suggesting collective punishment for the neighborhoods that these criminal gangs live in?
     In understand Manhattan and Beverly Hills houses notorious criminals as does Compton and the Bronx…we should just teach those towns lessons about hiding criminal gangs.

101. someotherdude,
     “their actions must be judged by a different set of moral laws ”
     Let’s start from the beginning. Their actions are different from the actions of Hezbollah.

102. So when an Israeli or American murder children and destroy families, it is quite different/divine/freedom-lovin’ and the murder of children and the destruction of families by Arabs and/or Muslims is inherently wicked/evil/poor taste?

103. So when an Israeli or American murder children and destroy families, it is quite different/divine/freedom-lovin’ and the murder of children and the destruction of families by Arabs and/or Muslims is inherently wicked/evil/poor taste?

104. someotherdue,
     Ok, so allies were no different from the nazis in WW2? Both killed civilians, right?

105. If this was WW2, I would be there helping to win the war. You would not be having this conversation with most of us (actually, it would have been all the right-wing Republicans bitchin’ and moanin’)..but this is a kidnapping gone mass murder.
     In the case of WW2, I would have been there weeping while fighting.
     A kidnapping is a bullsh!t reason to commit mass murder.

106. “The groups, on the other hand, are more complicated. To compare Hezbollah to Hitler (rather than the Nazis, which is a much better comparison) is meaningless to me.”
     Didn’t the Nazis run a pretty good government for the people they wanted to care for? Hezbollah does the same. And it has the same intentions for the Jews.

107. Donald, I was constructing my analogy poorly, and did it even more poorly by bringing up a specific historical example. Yes, it was wrong for us to bomb Vietnamese villages, but only to the extent that we had other ways of engaging the VC and NVA. (Actually we shouldn’t have been there at all, but that’s neither here nor there for the purpose at hand.)
     What I was trying to say was that it is pure sophistry — worse, really — to say that it’s OK for both Military A and Military B to strike each other’s civilian structures because, on the one hand, Military A deliberately places its warmaking machinery in and around civilian structures; and on the other hand, members of Military B live in Country B. Well, duh — of course members of Military B live in Country B. But Military A has other ways of engaging them — Military B puts on uniforms and gathers and organizes itself in predictable and discernable places and ways. You bomb their barracks, not their parents’ homes, for example.
     I’m not saying that Military A placing itself among civilians means an “anything goes” approach for Military B is justified. Military B should absolutely engage Military A in the manner that causes the least harm and suffering to innocents. But if Military B cannot engage Military A without causing some predicatable harm to innocents, does that mean that Military B should be completely handcuffed? I don’t think that it does.

108. Didn’t the Nazis run a pretty good government for the people they wanted to care for? Hezbollah does the same. And it has the same intentions for the Jews.
     I should just stop using English and try Chinese.
     I meant to say just that…that the comparison of Hezbollah to the Nazis is a very good comparison, as there are many similarities. What I object to, which Stan illustrated so perfectly, is comparing Hezbollah (the group) to Hitler (the individual). That sort of conflation is rampant (ascribing the crimes of an individual to an entire group of people) in the Middle East mess, and continually making matters worse, IMO.

109. A kidnapping is a bullsh!t reason to commit mass murder.
     Any war is “mass murder” and what Hezbollah did was definately an act of war.

110. Edward,
     “What I object to, which Stan illustrated so perfectly, is comparing Hezbollah (the group) to Hitler (the individual).”
     Fine. Nasrallah = Hitler. Hezbollah = Nazis.
     That still doesn’t make Hezbollah more appealing.

111. Stan LS, you would kill puppies and children if you could prove they had “Nasrallah = Hitler” in their hearts.

112. That still doesn’t make Hezbollah more appealing.
     Ah, but it cracks open the rhetoric a bit. So Nasrallah’s sins are too great to every let him take a place among the less “evil” world leaders, fine, but to label Hezbollah a death cult (when clearly that doesn’t apply to each and every member any more than it applies to pro-choice Americans, despite some calling them the same thing) will only serve to make those in his party rally around and defend him more. If anything, you want to drive a wedge between him and the masses, not unify them, even in your rhetoric.

113. someotherdude,
     “you would kill puppies and children if you could prove they had “Nasrallah = Hitler” in their hearts.”
     You would spew nonsense if you didn’t have an argument… Oh, wait, you already are.
     Edward,
     “but to label Hezbollah a death cult (when clearly that doesn’t apply to each and every member”
     Clearly? Is there an indication that some members of Hezbollah don’t agree with Nasrallah’s genocidal ambitions?
     “any more than it applies to pro-choice Americans, despite some calling them the same thing
     Huh? I don’t get that analogy at all.

114. SoD: So when an Israeli or American murder children and destroy families, it is quite different/divine/freedom-lovin’ and the murder of children and the destruction of families by Arabs and/or Muslims is inherently wicked/evil/poor taste?
     Exactly so. Every problem in the Middle East can be immediately and easily resolved when you approach it from this viewpoint.

115. Every problem in the Middle East can be immediately and easily resolved when you approach it from this viewpoint.

     Exactly, squared.

116. “Stan LS, you would kill puppies and children if you could prove they had “Nasrallah = Hitler” in their hearts.”
     I would like to think this is a violation of the posting rules.

117. Huh? I don’t get that analogy at all.
     There are pro-life folks who call pro-choice folks members of a death cult. I’ve seen it frequently, and it seems to be growing.
     My point is that labeling all members of Hezbollah death cultists is no different from labeling all pro-choice folks death cultists. It’s hyperbolic and divisive.

118. Dantheman: I would like to think this is a violation of the posting rules.
     Can you show that no puppies and children have been harmed as Israel methodically destroys Lebanon?

119. Edward,
     There are pro-life folks who call pro-choice folks members of a death cult.
     I know that, but I fail to see how it makes for a good analogy in this case. If you think that abortion is murder, then yea, you’ld think that all pro-choice folks are murderers. As for Hezbollah, if you don’t think that their clearly genocidal (even they present it as such) agenda is genocidal, then yea I guess referring to them as a death cult would be wrong.
     Jes,
     Can you show that no puppies and children have been harmed as Israel methodically destroys Lebanon?
     You’ve stooped to a new low. Regardless of what your opinion regarding the current conflict is, note that his post was directed at me personally.

120. Jes,
     “Can you show that no puppies and children have been harmed as Israel methodically destroys Lebanon?”
     Can you show that this was Stan’s intent? That was what SomeOther Dude actually said.
     Or are you going to hide again behind your belief that people you disagree with naturally intend every bad effect that policies cause (a position which, as noted yesterday, means you are in favor of Iraqis being tortured, since you opposed Saddam Hussein’s removal)?

121. Good morning! Hey, there’s a real world going on out there! You want to hear both sides discussed by the people who are actually “in the trenches”? Read Sandmonkey and you’ll see what I mean.
     Brought to you by Bec.

122. Not being SomeOtherDude, I don’t have a hotline to what SoD meant/didn’t mean, and don’t intend to discuss that.
     But what I meant, rather dryly, is that when one country attacks another country, as Israel is attacking Lebanon (or as the US attacked Iraq) children are killed.
     (One of the horrible statistics of the intifada is that for several years, the number of Palestinian children killed by the IDF matched the total number of Israeli civilian casualties pretty closely. Yet the hundreds of Palestinian children killed were dismissed as mere collateral damage by Israeli supporters, whereas the dozens of Israeli children killed were cited as “evidence” of how much more despicable the Palestinians were that their opponents. But I haven’t checked Btselem for a while: it makes me too sad.)
     Starting wars kills children. And indeed also kills puppies, kittens, and other less cute animals like cows, goats, and camels. Anyone who wants to ignore this fact should ideally have it shoved in their face as often as possible, in as many different ways as possible, to avoid their trying to claim “Oh, I didn’t want to kill those children! I just wanted to have a war!”

123. I know that, but I fail to see how it makes for a good analogy in this case. If you think that abortion is murder, then yea, you’ld think that all pro-choice folks are murderers. As for Hezbollah, if you don’t think that their clearly genocidal (even they present it as such) agenda is genocidal, then yea I guess referring to them as a death cult would be wrong.
     That’s the sort of logic that perpetuates the violence, IMO, Stan.
     Does supporting a woman’s right to choose make me, personally, a murderer? Anyone who answers yes to that is instantly dismissable as a fanatic. So I distance myself from them, thinking they’re irrational, extremist, and most likely dangerous.
     Does supporting the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon (why Hezbollah emerged in the first place) make someone, personally, a murderer? Anyone who answers yes to that is instantly dismissable as a fanatic too, IMO. People often support parties with whom they don’t agree on every issue or path forward. I strongly disagree with the rationale used to invade Iraq, despite many Democratic politicians having supported it, but still identify as a Democrat. Does the fact that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died as a result thereby make me, personally, a murderer?
     This is what I mean by how complicated it is, and why labels like that are unproductive.

124. I’m not sure I understand the Hezbollah=Pro-Choice Movement analogy. It is clear that you aren’t arguing that there is a “Right to Kill Jews”. Hezbollah isn’t about just having Israelis leave Lebanon. It is about killing them and driving them from Israel. Do you just not believe them when they say that because it seems so awful?

125. Sebastian, Hezbollah began as a resistence movement to the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Hezbollah also operates (wiki article) at least four hospitals, 12 clinics, 12 schools and two agricultural centres that provide farmers with technical assistance and training. If a farmer accepts technical assistance and training from Hezbollah, does that make that farmer a mass-murderer who deserves to die? If a child goes to a Hezbollah school, should that child be shot for being Hezbollah? What about patients at Hezbollah clinics and hospitals?

126. Jes,
     “Starting wars kills children. And indeed also kills puppies, kittens, and other less cute animals like cows, goats, and camels. Anyone who wants to ignore this fact should ideally have it shoved in their face as often as possible, in as many different ways as possible, to avoid their trying to claim “Oh, I didn’t want to kill those children! I just wanted to have a war!””
     No doubt. And therefore you should be shoving it in Hezbollah’s face. Funny, but I haven’t seen you do so.
     Also, not having wars has its own set of costs. And under your logic they need to be shoved in the faces of people who opposed the war (as the Saddam Hussein torture victims example does).

127. I know, know, know, know, I should stay out of these discussions. I simply haven’t the patience for them. And I strongly dislike losing my temper.
     But quick observation. Jes: “Can you show that no puppies and children have been harmed as Israel methodically destroys Lebanon?”
     Lebanese population: 3,874,050 (July 2006 est.)
     Approximate number of deaths so far: ~900? (Ratio of innocent civilians to not? Unknown.)
     Timeline: Hezbollah attacked on July 12th. Israel immediately counterattacked; major strikes began July 13th.
     23 days.
     900/23= ~39 killed per day.
     To “methodically destroy” a substantial proportion of 3,874,050 at this rate….
     Meanwhile, the number of Israelis being killed per day?
     Unmentioned by Jes. Neither does she mention that a noticeable number of them are Israeli Arabs. Including Israeli Arab children.
     Anyway, the “methodical destruction” of Israel: not worth mentioning.
     Somewhat less exaggerated rhetoric might be more accurate, though, and therefore more useful, if less useful as propaganda. It’s all horrible and tragic enough as it is, and anyone sane mourns the death of each and every innocent, no matter which land they live in.
     It’s doubtless pointless to note that few Israelis feel other than sorrow and regret, and often guilt, at the deaths of innocent Lebanese, whereas the overwhelming majority of Hezbollah supporters celebrate with joy and glee the news of each Israeli civilian and child killed.
     Clearly it’s Israel in the wrong.

128. Dantheman: And therefore you should be shoving it in Hezbollah’s face. Funny, but I haven’t seen you do so.
     I suspect I’d probably be kicked off a Hezbollah blog in much the same way as I am routinely kicked off other religionist and/or warmongering blogs after a while. (And indeed, in general I try not to hang around those kind of blogs.) But, if Obsidian Wings find a pro-Hezbollah poster to join the kitty-crew, I’ll certainly be joining in on the oppose-religious-warmongerers side.
     Also, not having wars has its own set of costs. And under your logic they need to be shoved in the faces of people who opposed the war (as the Saddam Hussein torture victims example does).
     Indeed. The war on Iraq was completely justified because it closed down Abu Ghraib for good and no one was ever tortured there again after Saddam Hussein was overthrown.
     FWIW, had I believed that the invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq could put in place a better government for the people of Iraq – one that didn’t unjustly imprison people would have been a good start, though elimination of torture would also have been good – I would have been less opposed to it than I was.
     I was, edgily and reluctantly, half-supportive of the invasion of Afghanistan, because the Taliban was such a dreadful government that any government would have been an improvement: I didn’t know then that, as far as the Bush administration were concerned, overthrowing the Taliban was the end of the story, and once again, Afghans would be left to non-government by warlords. By the time the Bush administration were attempting to whip up support for an attack on Iraq, it was evident that they had no concern for the people of the country we had already seen them invade: and it would have been ironic in the extreme had the founders of Guantanamo Bay announced that they intended to invade Iraq because of their concern for people unjustly imprisoned and tortured by Saddam Hussein.

129. “If a farmer accepts technical assistance and training from Hezbollah, does that make that farmer a mass-murderer who deserves to die?”
     Hmm, you seem really bad at these analogies. Did I suggest that we should have brought up on war crimes charges every person who received a pension from the NAZI government or road German civilian trains? Huh, I don’t think I did.

130. Getting back to Israel, do you wonder why Israel feels it is in a fight for its life?
     Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday, August 3, the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate halt to fighting in Lebanon between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah.
     “Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented,” he said.
     Ahmadinejad, who has drawn international condemnation with previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, said the Middle East would be better off “without the existence of the Zionist regime. Israel “is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence,” he said.
     Iran opposes Siniora’s plan, here
     Hi Gary! Hope you’re feeling better.

131. Jes,
     “I suspect I’d probably be kicked off a Hezbollah blog in much the same way as I am routinely kicked off other religionist and/or warmongering blogs after a while. (And indeed, in general I try not to hang around those kind of blogs.) But, if Obsidian Wings find a pro-Hezbollah poster to join the kitty-crew, I’ll certainly be joining in on the oppose-religious-warmongerers side”
     That’s very different than saying that you hold them responsible for the deaths of every kitten in Lebanon, as you regularly say about Isreal. Why is that?

132. Good heavens, RODE a train, not road. Sheesh. Semi-literate people of the world untie!

133. I wasn’t discussing the merits of pro choice vs pro life argument, I was merely explaining the analogy. This, however, is really interesting:
     Anyone who answers yes to that is instantly dismissable as a fanatic. So I distance myself from them, thinking they’re irrational, extremist, and most likely dangerous.

     But you won’t treat Hezbollah the same????
     Does supporting the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon (why Hezbollah emerged in the first place) make someone, personally, a murderer?
     Supporting the withdrawal? No. Supporting genocide? That’s what Hezbollah is doing.
     This is what I mean by how complicated it is, and why labels like that are unproductive.
     Yet you were quick to label the pro life mov’t. Hm.

134. Sebastian, it wasn’t my analogy. But you seemed to be oblivious of the fact – which you could have discovered by a quick wikicheck – that Hezbollah is many more things to people in Lebanon than a terrorist organization determined to destroy Israel. You do have a habit of not looking up information that you know won’t support your ideological position, so I thought I’d provide the link.

135. That’s very different than saying that you hold them responsible for the deaths of every kitten in Lebanon, as you regularly say about Isreal. Why is that?
     Obsidian Wings, being an American blog, generally has front-page posters and commenters that already do oppose Hezbollah military or terrorist actions. I don’t see anyone here arguing that Hezbollah is justified. I do see people here arguing that Israel is justified.
     I don’t spend a lot of time arguing that the IRA were wrong to plant bombs in English cities, or that al-Qaeda were wrong to fly planes into the WTC, or that the Hutu were wrong to massacre the Tutsi, either. Yet all of these are opinions I hold, and if I saw people arguing that these actions were justified because of Anglo-Irish history, or because of US actions in the Middle East, or because of colonial support for the Tutsi over the Hutu, I would argue that corner.
     Does that answer your question?

136. Yet you were quick to label the pro life mov’t. Hm.
     How so?

137. Jes,
     No, it does not, as your comments, both here and especially in the thread last month where you continued to condemn Israel and avoid condemning Hezbollah for beginning this war, lead me to believe you yourself believe (and continue to believe) that Hezbollah’s actions were justified.

138. Hezbollah isn’t about just having Israelis leave Lebanon. It is about killing them and driving them from Israel. Do you just not believe them when they say that because it seems so awful?
     I don’t believe that describes their supporters who are basically just very happy to get the social services they provide. I don’t think you’ll get those supporters to turn on Hezbollah’s murderous leadership until you can drive a wedge between them. I don’t think you can do that if you lump them altogether under pointless umbrella terms like “death cults.”

139. “Hi Gary! Hope you’re feeling better.”
     Hi, Bec! 🙂
     I’m not particularly ill the last couple of days, if that’s what you mean. I’m pretty frustrated and depressed by, as always, the vast adoption of simplistic storylines and superficial assumptions about the Israeli/Lebanese situation I find almost everywhere I turn amongst my friends, though.
     I mean, we all agree that war is hell. And we all agree that having agreed to that, that doesn’t mean everything goes, or that war crimes don’t exist, or horrible tragic mistakes.
     What seems more difficult to find agreement upon is the notion that it might be unhelpful to immediately leap to conclusions based on every passing news story, or quote from someone in a story as to what happened, about a given incident.
     In most cases, we really don’t know. Maybe it was the worst. Maybe it wasn’t.
     But, really, in a vast number of cases, the facts aren’t going to be adequately available on that day, or the next day, or next week, or necessarily next month, or even ever.
     Sometimes, sure. I’m not saying all judgment should be suspended. Obviously.
     But it would be nice if people might consider the fog of war, and the biases of people being quoted, and of newswriters and sources, and be at least a little hesitant before being sure they conclude that, aha! I Know The Facts!
     Meanwhile, I certainly can’t say that I’m sure Israel’s strategy has been wise or just. I’m just sure that I can’t say that I’m sure it hasn’t been. I’m willing to admit that I don’t believe I’m in a position to know enough yet.
     Unlike all the military experts one finds on blogs and in blog comments. Who have in-depth knowledge of the Israeli strategy, and of what’s actually going on. From newspapers. And blogs.

140. Dantheman: No, it does not, as your comments, both here and especially in the thread last month where you continued to condemn Israel and avoid condemning Hezbollah for beginning this war, lead me to believe you yourself believe (and continue to believe) that Hezbollah’s actions were justified.
     I do not believe Hezbollah’s actions were justified. As Fred on Slacktivist noted, You’re Not Allowed To Kill Civilians. That applies to Hamas, to Hezbollah, and to the IDF. It is worth noting to those inclined to excuse the IDF’s killing of civilians and condemn only Hamas and Hezbollah, that the IDF kills more civilians than Hamas and Hezbollah.
     Were there people here arguing that Hezbollah’s actions were justified, as people here argue that Israel’s actions were justified, I would argue against them. There aren’t, and why should I waste my time arguing against a claim that no one here is making?

141. Jes,
     “Were there people here arguing that Hezbollah’s actions were justified”
     Yes there were — you, on the issue of kidnapping the soldiers, which started this entire war, and which you are still refusing to condemn. You are only condemning the loss of civilian lives.

142. Wasn’t the whole Cold War predicated on the fact that communists throughout the world sought to destroy capitalist states?
     And the Commies (at least revolutionary communists) were everywhere; in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, London, Paris, Moscow, Warsaw, Mexico City, Berlin, Tokyo, Seoul, Sao Paulo, Bombay, (you get my point), actually discussing the overthrow, by way of revolution and all sorts of violence.
     Yet blowing up the communities of these “death-cultists” (in Western communities anyway) was not part of the equation.
     Their desire to see our way of life overthrown, and the “death-to-the-bourgeoisie” did not mean we did not try to “coexist”

143. Yes there were — you, on the issue of kidnapping the soldiers, which started this entire war, and which you are still refusing to condemn. You are only condemning the loss of civilian lives.
     I condemn kidnapping!
     Will the mass killings stop now?

144. “It is worth noting to those inclined to excuse the IDF’s killing of civilians….”
     I’ve not been reading discussions here in recent days; has anyone been “excusing” IDF’s killing of civilians?
     I, for one, believe it’s absolutely tragic, and horrible.
     Which is what most Israelis believe, and most members of the IDF, I believe.
     What I’m aware of is people simply noting the difference between unintentionally killing civilians, and deliberately trying to kill civilians. One is tragic; the other is murder. There’s a significant difference between those two things.
     If anyone in the IDF committed or authorized war crimes, they should be tried and punished. Of course. No leniency. No excuses.
     In other cases, there are tragic accidents.
     Sometimes, of course, determining whether a tragic accident happened because of incompentence, or criminal indifference, or criminal irresponsibility, or simply because of wrong information or some other, non-culpable reason, is difficult. And all such matters must, of course, be investigated. (And typically the IDF does investigate, though I would never claim they have a perfect record, nor that crimes never go unpunished; one will have to check Hezbollah records to see if they also investigate when Hezbollah fighters kill civilians.)
     That is, indeed, part of why no one should be quick to go to war.
     That is, of course, why Israel hasn’t launched a major attack on Hezbollah or Lebanon since the last century.
     This is not a case of Israel spontaneously waking up on July 12th, and thinking, “hey, good day to start attacking Lebanon! We like the weather!; let’s go massacre some innocent Lebanese for the hell of it!,” after all.

145. How so?
     Anyone who answers yes to that is instantly dismissable as a fanatic. So I distance myself from them, thinking they’re irrational, extremist, and most likely dangerous.

146. someotherdude,
     And the Commies (at least revolutionary communists) were everywhere; in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, London, Paris, Moscow, Warsaw, Mexico City, Berlin, Tokyo, Seoul, Sao Paulo, Bombay, (you get my point), actually discussing the overthrow, by way of revolution and all sorts of violence.
     Yet blowing up the communities of these “death-cultists” (in Western communities anyway) was not part of the equation.
     Yet another failed analogy. Hezbollah is not merely discussing.

147. Yes, I think that killing or kidnapping civilians is wrong, and I condemn it.
     What else would you like me to condemn? I’m feeling in a very giving mood today. The third season of Due South? The substitution of Sheridan for Sinclair? England’s poor performance in the World Cup? Zidane’s headbutting Materazzi? I don’t believe I’ve ever condemned any of those things on Obsidian Wings, so people might think I liked Ray Kowalski or John Sheridan or approved of Zidane butting Materazzi in the chest.
     on the issue of kidnapping the soldiers, which started this entire war, and which you are still refusing to condemn.
     Are we now going to argue about what it’s wrong for combatants to do to combatants on the other side?

148. I, for one, like Smilin’ John Sheridan, and found Michael O’Hare as Sinclair deeply stiff as an actor.
     On the other hand, I much preferred Claudia Christian’s Susan Ivanova to Tracy Scoggins’s Elizabeth Lochley, though Scoggins was adequate.
     And I’m kinda agnostic between Andrea Thompson and Patricia Tallman; I tend to think Thompson was the better actor, but, of course, Tallman’s Lyta Alexander was a somewhat more sympathetic character.
     I also deeply condemn Sheridan’s brutal massacring of civilian Shadows at Z’ha’dum, when he committed the war crime of wiping out an entire city of civilians with a nuclear weapon.
     The man clearly should have been tried and executed, or at least imprisoned for life. That the war criminal Sheridan was instead made President of the Galaxy shows how deeply corrupt the System is, and why it must be overthrown!
     Justice for Z’ha’dum! Justice for Z’ha’dum! Justice for Z’ha’dum!

149. In fact, I propose to the kitty that there should be a Friday open thread for condemning things that we have not yet condemned on Obsidian Wings. Jar Jar Binks. Hell, all three new Star Wars films. City pigeons. Most of the 10th season of M*A*S*H.

150. “Are we now going to argue about what it’s wrong for combatants to do to combatants on the other side?”
     Someone else will have to ask Jes this to get her to answer, but perhaps someone will take me up on that: what, Jes, precisely is Hezbollah’s legitimate casus belli with Israel? Do please explain.
     I’ll preemptively point out that if anyone else has a claim on Shebaa Farms, it’s Syria, not Lebanon. (And I do believe that Shebaa and the rest of the Golan Heights should go back to Syria as part of a peace settlement with Syria, whenever Syria deigns to feel inclined to make a serious peace with Israel; this is not an outre position in Israel.)
     I’ll also helpfully point out United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559.

151. “Jar Jar Binks. Hell, all three new Star Wars films.”
     I condemn Jar Jar Binks. And I condemn bad dialogue between Anakin and Padme. But I otherwise praise the latest three Star Wars films. (If nothing else, they work brilliantly as silent films, you know.) I am a heretic.

152. Jes,
     “Yes, I think that killing or kidnapping civilians is wrong, and I condemn it.”
     Non-responsive answer, but duly noted.
     “Are we now going to argue about what it’s wrong for combatants to do to combatants on the other side?”
     It would be a nice start for you.

153. Oh, and another question for Jes flowing from this: “Are we now going to argue about what it’s wrong for combatants to do to combatants on the other side?”
     We all agree that innocent civilians should not be harmed. My question, Jes, is what guidelines would you lay down as to how to distinguish a Hezbollah combatant from a non-combatant, precisely?
     Let’s stipulate arguendo that Israel has it wrong: what’s the right way?

154. Dantheman: It would be a nice start for you.
     *pets* Don’t sulk just because I’m not that interested in having a fight with you.

155. Jes,
     You are interested in having a fight with me, as your multiple responses show. You’re just not interested in acknowledging that Hezbollah was the party that started this war. Again, duly noted.

156. I condemn Hayden Christiansen’s acting. If he were any more wooden, I’d want to stain him to match the rest of my furniture.
     I also condemn blogwars, in the strongest possible terms. Think of how many lives you could build from all the wated hours.

157. Anyone who answers yes to that is instantly dismissable as a fanatic. So I distance myself from them, thinking they’re irrational, extremist, and most likely dangerous.
     Stan, I know plenty of decent sincere pro-life folks who have enough common sense to not assert that pro-choice folks are murderers because of a belief they have. Murder is an action, not a belief. Calling someone a murderer because of a belief is fanatical.
     But here again you’re doing it. You’re taking a precise example (what I noted about a fanatical pro-lifer calling anyone who disagrees with them murderers) and suggesting I meant that to apply to every person who can be described as pro-life. Your consistency in doing so impressive, but it’s illogical and frustrating.

158. wasted, rather.

159. Slarti: I condemn Hayden Christiansen’s acting. If he were any more wooden, I’d want to stain him to match the rest of my furniture.
     I condemn Keanu Reeves, for making Hayden Christiansen look like a good actor.
     Dan: You are interested in having a fight with me, as your multiple responses show.
     No, if I were interested in having a fight with you, I would not have started talking about Babylon 5. Or Due South.

160. Jes,
     That would not be much of a fight, as I have never seen either show.
     However, having refused multiple requests for a plain answer to whether you condemn Hezbollah’s actions in kidnapping the Israeli soldiers, I am concluding that you do not do so. Therefore, under your logic, you are in favor of all of the civilian deaths in this war, as they are the natural consequence of Hezbollah’s decision to begin this war.

161. Oh, this is just great news.
     Although, probably not quite as dire as it appears. You can’t simply plop down a SAM battery and put it in control of some untrained soldiers. If you do that, two things will happen:
     1) The soldiers will fail to shoot down anything.
     and
     2) There will be another crater somewhere in Lebanon where a SAM battery used to be.
     Humorous side note: check out that picture. Whatever it is, it’s not a SAM. Looks more like one of these to me.

162. Oh, crud.
     One of these. Sorry for the excess linkage.

163. Edward,
     Murder is an action, not a belief.
     That’s correct. Hezbollah’s “beliefF” is genocide, and the rocketse they are launching (action) are loaded with ball bearings.
     what I noted about a fanatical pro-lifer calling anyone who disagrees with them murderers
     Hezbollah’s leader stated several times that he wants to kill all the Jews, you can down play that all you want, but I won’t.

164. Dan, I think it would be obvious to you by this time that when I want to have a fight with someone, I make different kinds of comments than the ones I’ve been making in this thread.
     Therefore, under your logic, you are in favor of all of the civilian deaths in this war, as they are the natural consequence of Hezbollah’s decision to begin this war.
     As for example, I think I’ll…
     …condemn the really vile cheese that Americans seem to like. Monterey Jack? That’s it. Okay, it’s not really vile, it’s real cheese not processed cheese, and aged Monterey Jack is supposed to be better, but the sort I’ve seen in US supermarkets is sort of rubbery and kind of bland.

165. Jes,
     but the sort I’ve seen in US supermarkets is sort of rubbery and kind of bland.
     Wow, you can tell that it’s “rubbery” and “bland” just by looking? 😛

166. What does “started it” mean? If I flip you off because you pulled in front of me on the freeway, and then you go into full on road rage, is it fair to say that I started it? Or even that you started it with your pushy merge? I don’t think so.
     I do not equate the life of 3 (or 8 – whatever the right number is) Israeli soldiers and the kidnap of 2 others with flipping somebody off, but in the overall scheme of states, is anything Israel has done since the kidnap raid anything other than a full on rage? No. It IS a full on ragegasm.
     Back to the Turkey thing. The PKK has been far more deadly to Turkey than Hezbollah has been to Israel. Why do we stop Turky from pursuing PKK into Iraq but ok Israel destroying Lebanon? Why should our Iraqi clients be exempt from responsibility for the PKK, resident in northern Iraq, while Lebanon is held collectively responsible for Hezbollah?
     The answer is that it isn’t about who started it. It’s ALL about expected outcomes. To argue that what Israel has done to Lebanon is justified by the Hezbollah kidnap raid, or even the sporadic rocket attacks prior to the raid, is no more than faulty thinking. If it were accurate, then Turkey would be in Iraq even as we speak.
     Turkey is not in Iraq because there is no expected good outcome for the US, no matter what the PKK does to Turkey.
     So, if expected outcomes (the fall of Hezbollah and the expected reduction of Iranian influence) is in fact the reason for destroying Lebanon, just how is that going? Not too well, I think. Israel is losing the neo-cons because Israle hasn’t been sufficiently ruthless with Lebanese life and well being, while at the same time being to sparing of Israeli life. Hezbollah still retains the ability to fire hundreds of rockets each day, and Lebanese infrastructure suffers ever more destruction, not to mention the hundreds of dead Lebanese. Those deaths are losing Israel the support of Europe and even some of America. It’s not working out like planned, if you can call wishful thinking planning.
     Not that we haven’t seen that kind of planning before.
     Who started it was never the question. Israel and the US thought they would end it, that was the plan. So far, I think their plans have worked out about as well as those we once had for Iraq.
     Which is to say, they haven’t.
     Let go of the “who started it” stalking horse. Both Hezbollah and Israel wanted this confrontation. It now appears that Hezbollah was better prepared.
     Jake

167. “But you seemed to be oblivious of the fact – which you could have discovered by a quick wikicheck – that Hezbollah is many more things to people in Lebanon than a terrorist organization determined to destroy Israel. You do have a habit of not looking up information that you know won’t support your ideological position, so I thought I’d provide the link.”
     If I wasn’t aware of it, you would think that pointing out the parallel to Al Capone’s charities and the Medellin Drug Cartel’s charities would be mighty mysterious.

168. Wow, you can tell that it’s “rubbery” and “bland” just by looking? 😛
     The first time I visited a US supermarket (the second day of my first trip to the US) I picked up a half-pound block of Monterey Jack because I love cheese and this was a cheese I’d never tasted before. The Anglophile American friend I was staying with looked on dubiously, and did not say “I told you so” when I made one sandwich with it and concluded I’d rather leave the rest. Thereafter I have eaten it only when visiting American friends who think cheese means Monterey Jack, and who have trouble thinking of things vegetarians can eat if not cheese. I hope they’re not reading this.

169. Jes,
     “Dan, I think it would be obvious to you by this time that when I want to have a fight with someone, I make different kinds of comments than the ones I’ve been making in this thread.”
     Your comments in this thread started out entirely serious and on point. Only when pressed on the issue of condemning Hezbollah for starting this war did you start to include references to popular culture. Again, your attempt to sidetrack this discussion to avoid actually stating whether you believe Hezbollah’s kidnapping of the soldiers to have been wrong and thereby under your logic the cause of the death of all of the civilians you regularly attack Israel for killing is duly noted.

170. Jes,
     I was just busting your chops. I recommend cheese and sliced deli meats at ethnic stores, not the supermarket.

171. “…and the rocketse they are launching (action) are loaded with ball bearings.”
     I have to point out, Stan, that a vast number of missiles are “loaded” with the equivalent of ball bearings. It’s besides the point. It’s noting that an anti-personnel weapon is an anti-personal weapon. There’s nothing whatever shocking about that, any more than it’s shocking that bullets are made out of metal, as a rule, rather than Nerf. Neither is a war crime.
     The point is that Hezbollah has no legitimate casus belli with Israel, save that they don’t recognize its right to exist; further, that they feel that massacring civilians, and hiding amongst civilians, and threatening to kill Lebanese civilians who don’t obey their orders, are legitimate practices.
     That their missiles are mostly anti-personnel weapons is irrelevant. The U.S., and most every country, uses claymores, which are also “loaded with ball bearings.”
     Do feel free to ask Jes the two questions I addressed to her, if you like, though; not everyone may be aware that she pretends I don’t exist.

172. Well, I’ll start a fight and claim on the record that Revenge of the Sith is the third-best film in the six-film arc, right after Empire and Star Wars. In fact, I’d rank them:
     V
     IV
     III
     II
     VI
     I

173. Hezbollah’s leader stated several times that he wants to kill all the Jews, you can down play that all you want, but I won’t.
     I have not played that down, and suggesting I have implies you’re done trying to communicate here. Fine. Just say so.
     I’m done trying to convince you that imprecise rhetoric actually makes things worse for Israel. Clearly, Israel will need to wage war against and defeat every other nation in the Middle East to ever have peace. Defeating Egypt and Jordan didn’t scare off Syria or Iran, so there’s no reason to think defeating Lebanon will either. War for the foreseeable future…that’s Israel’s fate because diplomacy comes second, always, to overreation. How freakin’ fabulous.

174. Slart: “Oh, this is just great news.”
     This is why the goal is to get a combined international/Lebanese Army force to take effective control of the Syrian/Lebanese border, and the airport and port, to keep large arms from entering Lebanon as much as possible.
     I have to say that I’m pretty pessimistic that this will happen. A Lebanese government would be unlikely to do it without Hezbollah being largely disarmed, which leaves it to an international force, and I’m frankly fairly pessimistic about the odds of an international force being put in that’s willing to fight Hezbollah when necessary to accomplish its mission.
     Right now the French are being talked of as taking the lead in such a possible force, with additional troops from Malaysia, and several other countries, and while I’m considerably more favorable about the French than many, and I’d note that they are perfectly capable both of fighting and being ruthless when French interests, as they see them, are involved, I’m somewhat skeptical that the French would see this as such a case, but I’d be delighted to be proven wrong.
     Problematically, I don’t know a better proposal. I keep seeing people talking about “negotiating” with Hezbollah, which my attitude towards is: fine, great, if that would work, I’m all for it. What’s the specific proposal that would be helpful that they would actually plausibly go for?

175. Edward_,
     If Hezbollah wants to kill all of the Jews, what is the purpose of diplomacy with them? To say “if you don’t kill us now, we will give you X”? And then next year, when they decide to try to kill the Jews again, offer them Y?

176. Dan: Only when pressed on the issue of condemning Hezbollah for starting this war did you start to include references to popular culture.
     Only when pressed on insisting I issue condemnations about things I have not talked about to prove that I condemn them did I start to condemn the third season of Due South, John Sheridan, and Monterey Jack, none of which I have written about on Obsidian Wings.
     I condemn people who start wars. It’s far from clear to me that Hezbollah inarguably started this war, and therefore, taking a leaf from Slarti’s book, I am endeavoring not to get into a fight where I am uncertain that I know what I’m talking about.

177. “It’s far from clear to me that Hezbollah inarguably started this war”
     Really. What action did Israel take which led Hezbollah to cross the border and kidnap and kill Israeli soldiers?

178. Edward,
     Defeating Egypt and Jordan didn’t scare off Syria or Iran

     Really? It didn’t? Then why do theyresort to fighting Israel via a proxy and won’t attack it directly?

179. Dantheman,
     If Hezbollah wants to kill all of the Jews, what is the purpose of diplomacy with them?
     Negotiate the Jews’ last meal, I guess.

180. “Wow, you can tell that it’s ‘rubbery’ and ‘bland’ just by looking?”
     Don’t pick a cheese fight with a Briton (or European); you’ll lose. You’ll have to go to at least a Whole Foods, if not a gourmet cheese store, in America, to even start to come close to the level of quality and quantity of selection you’ll find in an average Tescos or other supermarket in Britain.
     Also, their chocolate is far better: higher quality, and a five-pound bar is a standard supermarket size. Again, a Whole Foods starts to become competitive, but only starts, compared to what’s bog-standard in Britain and much of Europe.
     I could bring this around to the health care debate now….

181. Dantheman: If Hezbollah wants to kill all of the Jews, what is the purpose of diplomacy with them? To say “if you don’t kill us now, we will give you X”?
     If you assume that all Lebanese are Hezbollah, and all Hezbollah want to kill all Jews, there is no more point in Israel using diplomacy than there is in Lebanon using diplomacy if you assume all Israelis are complicit in a Zionist conspiracy to attack the countries bordering on Israel, take their land, and make refugees of the native inhabiants.
     Of course, neither assumption would be correct, no matter that Israel can point to Lebanese who want to kill all Jews, and Hezbollah can point to Israelis who want to expand the territory of Israel by exactly the method outlined.

182. “is anything Israel has done since the kidnap raid anything other than a full on rage?”
     Yes.
     “No. It IS a full on ragegasm.”
     No. It’s not at all about emotion. Right or wrong, wise or not (and, as I’ve said, I’ve not yet taken a stand on which it is), it’s a strategic evaluation that responding to the taking of soldiers, and the firing of a few missiles, with some minor tank fire, or some token artillery fire, is a losing strategy in the long run, and worthless as a deterrent.
     The minor response is what Nasrallah expected; he’s said so; he was entirely surprised by the massive response. Now, whether in the long run it will do more good than harm, I have no idea.
     But it has nothing whatsoever to do with “rage” or emotion. That you think so displays your ignorance.

183. Really? It didn’t? Then why do theyresort to fighting Israel via a proxy and won’t attack it directly?
     For the same reason the US has fought proxy wars, to avoid the consequences of directly implicating themselves. That didn’t mean the US was scared.

184. Did every member of the NAZI party sign on in full with the Holocaust? No.
     Did every every German helped by a service provided by the government of the NAZI party sign on in full with the Holocaust? No. Did the NAZI party in fact provide many services to Germans? Yes.
     Does that mean that the NAZI party should not have been destroyed? No.
     I don’t understand the utility of noting that Hezbollah provides social services.

185. Jes,
     Dantheman asked “If Hezbollah wants to kill all of the Jews, what is the purpose of diplomacy with them?”, you replied “If you assume that all Lebanese are Hezbollah…”
     He specifically said “Hezbollah”, stop dancing around it.

186. “…but ok Israel destroying Lebanon?”
     Israel is, of course, not remotely “destroying Lebanon.”
     Claims such as this are not helpful. Feel free to assert and argue that Israel was unwise to engage in the strategy of attempting to severely damage Hezbollah and bringing in an international force. But use of utterly non-factual language such is this is unhelpful.

187. I am so not getting involved in this thread. I will only note that this comment (the puppy-killing one) is either a joke, in which case it should have been funnier, or not, in which case it violates posting rules.
     You Have Been Warned. She Said, Ominously.

188. Israel is, of course, not remotely “destroying Lebanon.”
     On that point, I must disagree. The damage being done to Lebanon’s spirit (and what else even comes close to being “Lebanon” then that?) here is worthy of such statements. How long do you think it’s going to take Lebanon to rebuild it infrastructure? And after that how long before its people will begin again, against all reason, to dream of a better future?
     This conflict has crushed their spirit…just read the accounts. They’re lost.

189. As uncomfortable as I am in me-tooing another commenter, what Gary said.

190. “War for the foreseeable future…that’s Israel’s fate because diplomacy comes second, always, to overreation.”
     And speaking of nonfactual hyperbole: Edward, when was the last time Israel used “over-reaction,” rather than diplomacy, with Egypt or Jordan?
     Thus, your statement is demonstrated to be false.
     Beyond that, when was the last time Israel “over-reacted” with Lebanon?
     When was the last time Israel “over-reacted” with Iraq?
     With Iran?
     With Saudi Arabia? With Syria? With every other Arab nation that still has not negotiated a peace treaty with Israel, and with which Israel remains in a technical state of war?
     Or for that matter, why hasn’t Israel — the evil, always inclined towards pointless violence, aggressor nation — ever launched attacks on, say, Turkey? Or Kuwait?
     So what are you doing when you claim that with Israel “diplomacy comes second, always, to overreation”?
     Please consider what you’re saying more carefully, I ask.

191. That is, of course, why Israel hasn’t launched a major attack on Hezbollah or Lebanon since the last century.
     Israel has been given, initially implicitly and now explicitly, more leeway by the current (Bush) administration than by previous administrations. This administration has signalled that it will tolerate significantly higher civilian casualties among the Lebanese population than has been in the past. This means that financial and military aid is not in danger, and the US will use its Security Council seat to veto any UN resolutions and possible actions against the state of Israel.
     Israel is making full use of their increased freedom of action, and the infrastructural damage, number of civilian casualties, and numbers of refugees reflect this. If the US indicates that it is willing to tolerate, for instance, Darfur-level civilian deaths, then the death toll in Lebanon will rise to Darfur levels. (Discussions will undoubtedly ensue as to whether these deaths are tragic accidents, or indeed civilian deaths at all, and how much blame must be apportioned to Hezbollah for cowardly hiding behind women and children.)
     
     This is not a case of Israel spontaneously waking up on July 12th, and thinking, “hey, good day to start attacking Lebanon! We like the weather!; let’s go massacre some innocent Lebanese for the hell of it!,” after all.
     
     The intention of the attack is to teach the Lebanese a lesson. This may or may not have been the primary intention when the attack started (it probably wasn’t the sole intention) but it is, given the current facts on the ground, the only remaining intention.

192. “Defeating Egypt and Jordan didn’t scare off Syria or Iran,”
     The other problematic aspect to this is that your arguments as to why Israel should, apparently, just sit back and accept attacks, could just as well have been used in 1967, or any number of other times.
     Presumably Israel shouldn’t have fought hard enough to have defeated Jordan, and Egypt. And yet the effects of that were salutory, and today, and for many years now, there has been peace between these countries (pretty cold peace with Eqypt particularly, due to the in-depth pervasive crazed anti-Semitism there, but peace nonetheless.)
     Ditto, there’s been effective peace, if no treaty or final settlement, with Syria for decades. So plop goes your argument that Israel fighting is futile.

193. And, otherwise: very nice to see you posting here again, Edward. Missed you.

194. I’d submit that un-funny jokes ought to be provided for in the posting rules, but I’m afraid that might wind up ultimately getting me banned for life.

195. Slarti: you? Never. Any such rule would have a special exemption just for you 😉

196. “If you assume that all Lebanese are Hezbollah, and all Hezbollah want to kill all Jews, there is no more point in Israel using diplomacy….”
     What, specifically, would you suggest Israel should put forward as a diplomatic proposal to Hezbollah that you expect Hezbollah to agree to?
     It’s a simple question.

197. Hezbullah has sworn the destruction of Israel. why? Vengence for the occupation of Lebanon. A belief that Israel’s refusal to provide an adequate resolution of the Palestine occupation means that Israel has forfeited its own right to sovereignity. Probably others.
     Are these claims legitimate? My French family was under German occupation for a while. While the war was never discussed much (and those who faced the worst of it have died), it’s pretty clear that they all believed that the Nazis needed to be utterly destroyed. Occupation can really p*ss people off.
     Iran has sworn to support Hezbullah. why? I suspect that it’s because the Iranian perceive Israel to be America’s outpost in the Middle East and Iran still hasn’t gotten over that whole 1979 Islamic revolution + membership in Axis of Evil thing.
     Is Iran’s decision to use Hezbollah to attack the US via Israel legitimate? As a current world leader recently said “You’re either with us or against us.” The same guy supported a doctrine of preventive war.
     Hezbullah has chosen this summer to escalate its Cold War with Israel. Why? Because Iran is showing the US what can happen if the US decides to escalate its opposition to Iran. Also, Hezbullah may have perceived that it was under threat from the Cedar Revolution and needed to have an external threat to challenge the internal one.
     What alternatives exist for going forward?
     For the US, the military options kinda suck. If we occupy South Lebanon and start searching every possible hiding spot for weapons, we probably put 135,000 soldiers in Iraq at substantially greater risk. Ditto if we launch airstrikes at Iran. Invading and occupying Iran, according to our resident expert, is not an available option.
     Unfortunately, our diplomatic option kinda suck even if our president had the wisdom of King Solomon. he doesn’t.
     anyway, this is my response to the questions posed to Jes about the legitimacy of Hezbollah’s actions.

198. “Of course, neither assumption would be correct, no matter that Israel can point to Lebanese who want to kill all Jews, and Hezbollah can point to Israelis who want to expand the territory of Israel by exactly the method outlined.”
     The difference would be that Hezbollah dominates Lebanon, and is actually launching massive attacks, by the hundreds of missiles, aimed at killing random Israeli civilians, and those are the folks who desire to kill all the Jews. The ones actually doing their best, ineffective as it is, and who have effective power.
     Whereas the Jews in Israel who want to expand Israeli borders are in a quite distinct minority, and have no part in the government and effectively no political power whatever, other than to talk.
     So aside from that complete non-equivalence, there’s equivalence.

199. Siniora sees little chance of early peace. Why? Because Hezbollah has rejected his peace plan. Shebaa Farms again. Siniora wants an multinational force in there. Hezbollah says, no. Hezbollah is pretty much drivin’ the car.

200. Gary, you can call it what you want, but it looks like dead Lebanese to me. LOTS of dead Lebanese.
     Dead Israeli’s as well.
     Perhaps emotion IS the wrong way to look at it. If you want to settle for sheer prideful stupidity, I’ll go along with that.
     I’ll go along with anything but justified, because that isn’t the case. It wasn’t justified on it’s face, and it isn’t (so far) justified by it’s ends.
     Not that justifying by ends isn’t poisonous in and of itself.
     Jake

201. For the US, the military options kinda suck.
     I don’t know why this is even being brought up, unless (and this is certainly possible) I’ve missed where this was seriously being proposed.

202. Gary: I have absolutely no love for Hezbollah, and no interest in randomly bashing Israel. But you cannot talk about whether people in Israel do or don’t want to enlarge its borders as though Israel already includes the West Bank and Gaza. And if you don’t assume that those are already included, which they aren’t, then people who have wanted to enlarge Israel have been in control of the government since Menachem Begin took over.

203. The difference would be that Hezbollah dominates Lebanon, and is actually launching massive attacks, by the hundreds of missiles, aimed at killing random Israeli civilians, and those are the folks who desire to kill all the Jews. The ones actually doing their best, ineffective as it is, and who have effective power.
     Whereas the Jews in Israel who want to expand Israeli borders are in a quite distinct minority, and have no part in the government and effectively no political power whatever, other than to talk.
     
     And yet in the past 20 days in over 5000 missions the IDF has killed an order of magnitude more Lebanese, and are currently heading towards the reoccupation of Lebanon.
     Facts on the ground, or pithy slogans? “They made us do it! We never wanted to! We have no choice!”

204. What I’m aware of is people simply noting the difference between unintentionally killing civilians, and deliberately trying to kill civilians. One is tragic; the other is murder. There’s a significant difference between those two things.
     
     There is manslaughter in between of course: when the killing is not intended, but known to be at least a hugh possibility.
     Current status in Lebanon is 925 killed and 3283 wounded.The Lebanese authorities claim these are 839 civilians, approcimately one third kids under 12 years.
     Hezbollah claims to have lost 48 fighters, Amal 7. 26 Lebanese soldiers have been killed and 5 UN people.
     Israel claims at least 300 Hezbollah fighters are death now.
     Rockets have killed 29 Israeli citizens. In the war against lebanon 43 Israeli soldiers have been killed.
     (I can link, but the source is Dutch).

205. Stan, Dantheman was asking Edward_.
     If you go back and re-read all of Edward_’s contributions to this thread (I just did) you will find that he is consistently pointing out that lumping everyone in Lebanon who could be described as “Hezbollah” (people receive social services from Hezbollah (technical support for farming, education, health care, garbage collection), voters, party members, party leaders, government ministers, combatants, terrorists) and condemning them all as one unitary group who all want to kill all Israeli Jews, is a foolish thing to do – about as foolish as assuming that everyone who voted Republican in the 2004 elections did so because they support torture.
     As has become evident, just because you happen to support a party that’s pro-torture, that doesn’t make you individually pro-torture: and many people have been arguing with me on the earlier health care thread that just because a person happens to favor a health care policy of depriving some people of health care, that’s not the same thing as that person wanting people to suffer and die because they can’t get health care.
     I disagree on principle: if we had a pro-Hezbollah poster in the kittylective, I’d probably be arguing that it’s not possible in the real world to support the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state without supporting a horrific number of Israeli civilians being killed, and therefore, no matter what this imaginary pro-Hezbollah poster asserted about “just” wanting to eliminate Israel and not wanting to kill large numbers of Israeli civilians, they were in fact arguing for killing large numbers of Israeli civilians even if they said they weren’t.
     (Whew. Dan, do you now see why I prefer only to argue against points people are actually making on the thread, rather than having to first set up the point in order to condemn it just to prove I would condemn it if someone were making it?)

206. Francis,
     why? Vengence for the occupation of Lebanon.
     Why wouldn’t they go after Palestinians then?
     A belief that Israel’s refusal to provide an adequate resolution of the Palestine occupation means that Israel has forfeited its own right to sovereignity.
     In other words, Hezbollah doesn’t care about Lebanon and has an agenda other then Lebanon’s self interest.
     My French family was under German occupation for a while.
     There are 1,750,000 Jews in NYC (2000 census), I am not aware that that fact has any effect on the security at the German embassy here.

207. “For the same reason the US has fought proxy wars, to avoid the consequences of directly implicating themselves. That didn’t mean the US was scared.”
     I’m not at all sure I’m following you, Edward.
     The proposition is that Syria and Iran have been deterred from directly attacking Israel because of fear of Israeli response: you’re not arguing that isn’t so, are you?
     You’re not arguing that Syria hasn’t been deterred from attacking Israel yet again because it’s been defeated multiple times, decisively, in the past, by Israel, are you? (And on that always-over-reacting, not using diplomacy, thing, I’ll point out that Israel has several times pulled up short of outright taking Damascus, when nothing could have stopped Israel but Israel.)
     But I’m entirely confused by where you’re going with “That didn’t mean the US was scared.” Because if you aren’t analogizing, and saying that Syria hasn’t come to fear Israel, what are you trying to say?

     Israel is, of course, not remotely “destroying Lebanon.”
     On that point, I must disagree.

     This is one of the many ways in which Israel is placed in the “no-win” box.
     If Israel is currently “destroying Lebanon” at the rate of an average killing of ~39 Lebanese a day (ratio of civilians to fighters unknown), precisely what would it be doing if it started killing 1,000 Lebanese a day? 10,000? Using nukes?
     If Israel is to be blamed for “destroying Lebanon” when it uses pinprick attacks, what benefit does it gain from not actually being indiscriminate?
     Obviously, I’m not suggesting it should; that would be mad. But I’m pointing out that equating relatively pin-prick attacks — and all killing of innocents is horrible — rather than, you know, carpet-bombing Beirut and other cities — a tactic perfectly acceptable to the U.S. in past wars, is doing far more damage to language and truth than the points you’re objecting to as regards discussion of Hezbollah.
     Could we have a little consistency here, please?
     “Destroying” a country is what the Soviet Union did to Afghanistan. It’s what the Soviets, Britain, and the U.S., did to Germany.
     What Israel is doing is more like what the U.S. did to Panama a couple of decades ago; innocent people were killed, and it’s utterly debatable whether that was right or wrong, and it was a terrible thing, but it’s not “destroying” a country.
     Who here has been talking just moments ago about the damage done by “imprecise language” and “lumping” things together that don’t go together?
     And, incidentally, what of Israeli loss of life, of infrastructure, of the damage to spirit, of the dead Israeli children (both Arab and Jewish)?
     Why is it that people have to be so one-sided?
     The damage to Lebanese infrastructure is tragic, but can and will be rebuilt. The loss of innocent Lebanese life is tragic, and can never ben undone. The same as regards the wounded. And the damage to people’s psyche and lives is terrible. War is terrible. I wish none of it had ever happened.
     And things aren’t so great in Israel, either. Maybe that might be mentioned, now and again, as well.

208. BP: “If the US indicates that it is willing to tolerate, for instance, Darfur-level civilian deaths, then the death toll in Lebanon will rise to Darfur levels.”
     You’re directly saying that Israel, if allowed, will commit genocide.
     Noted.

209. Stan: the Nazi regime was destroyed a while back. [removes socks, gets counting] more than 60 years ago, in fact. As to whether the Lebanese Hezbullah are being logical, that’s a dispute you’ll need to have with them.
     I’m just pointing out that, from the perspective of a 20-yr old Lebanese Muslim, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to wish for the destruction of the Israeli government, including the fact that Israel was never adequately punished for the illegal invasion of Lebanon.

210. Bec: you do realize that the bloggers you mention are not in Lebanon? Try blogging Beirut or anecdotes from a banana republic. The latter quoted Robert Pape in the NY Times:

     “Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Hezbollah is principally neither a political party nor an Islamist militia. It is a broad movement that evolved in reaction to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in June 1982.
     In terms of structure and hierarchy, it is less comparable to, say, a religious cult like the Taliban than to the multidimensional American civil-rights movement of the 1960’s.
     In writing my book on suicide attackers, I had researchers scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and the biographies of the Hezbollah bombers. Of the 41, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union. Three were Christians, including a female high-school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.
     What these suicide attackers — and their heirs today — shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hezbollah. The only thing that has proven to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force.”

     Also, Chris A. is in beirut of you prefer American journalists who are at least in the country.

211. Francis,
     As to whether the Lebanese Hezbullah are being logical, that’s a dispute you’ll need to have with them.
     I am sure that they are being logical when it comes to their agenda. Their agenda, however, is not Lebanese – it’s Islamic.
     there are plenty of legitimate reasons to wish for the destruction of the Israeli government, including the fact that Israel was never adequately punished for the illegal invasion of Lebanon.
     Well, if “punishment” is a legitimate reason, then Israel should be carpet bombing Lebanon, instead of using the expensive precision weaponry.

212. Yikes.

213. “Hezbullah has sworn the destruction of Israel. why? Vengence for the occupation of Lebanon.”
     Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon on May 24, 2000, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 425 and was certified by the by the UN for having done so with UN Resolution 1391.
     Which, incidentally, says:

     4. Welcomes the steps already taken by the Government of Lebanon to ensure the return of its effective authority throughout the south, including the deployment of Lebanese armed forces, and calls on it to continue to extend these measures and to do its utmost to ensure a calm environment throughout the south;
     […]
     6. Reiterates its call on the parties to continue to fulfil the commitments they have given to respect fully the withdrawal line identified by the United Nations, as set out in the Secretary-General’s report of 16 June 2000 (S/2000/590), to exercise utmost restraint and to cooperate fully with the United Nations and UNIFIL;

     Moreover, UN
     Resolution 1559 specifically called for Hezbollah to disband.

     Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;

     Lebanon has not complied with UN resolutions; Israel has. Yet Hezbollah — an organization that the UN Security Council demanded the disbanding of — has a casus belli?
     “Vengence for the occupation of Lebanon.”
     And, incidentally, that “occupation of Lebanon,” in case anyone has forgotten, consisted of a 20 km zone. I certainly would not argue that Lebanese didn’t and don’t have a right to resent it, but you directly compare it to this: “My French family was under German occupation for a while.”
     You surely can’t be meaning to say that Israel’s occupation of a 20 kilometer zone — originally extremely lightly patrolled — is comparable to the Nazi occupation of the non-Vichy portion of France? (And, incidentally, not so good to go with the Nazi=Israeli analogies, y’know?)
     In any case, no one sensible would deny that Lebanese don’t have a right to grievances against Israel. There are grievances a-plenty to go around in that neighborhood. The point is, of course, that grievances don’t justify violence or endless war.
     “anyway, this is my response to the questions posed to Jes about the legitimacy of Hezbollah’s actions.”
     I’m rather unclear how you come down; legit, or illegit?

214. Slarti,
     I like how it fades from color to black and white. Nice and dramatic.

215. “But you cannot talk about whether people in Israel do or don’t want to enlarge its borders as though Israel already includes the West Bank and Gaza.”
     Israel doesn’t include Gaza, Hilzoy. Israel withdrew from Gaza, completely, and turned it over to the PA. You know that. (At the moment, there’s a bit of a small war on there, too, but that’s irrelevant to the fact that Israel has renounced any claim on Gaza, save the right to protect itself from attack.)
     Israel has also planned, and it remains the plan, to withdraw from much of the West Bank. I’m sure you know that, too.
     And that’s the wishes of the government, and the majority of the citizens of Israel. You must know that, too.
     There’s still the problem of the remaining territory Israel wishes to hold onto in the West Bank; I want Israel to withdraw from most or all of it, myself (I only phrase it “most or all,” because I’m not going to put myself forward to negotiate for either side), but setting that aside for now, I don’t understand why you would write as if this weren’t the case.
     However, I also keep reading this, and failing to parse it, I’m say apologetically: “And if you don’t assume that those are already included, which they aren’t….”
     I don’t know what you mean by that, I’m afraid.

216. “Thanks Katherine for the 2 quotes. I haven’t read Stoppard, but his quote seems to concern religious future promises more than political future promises. Was this juxtaposition intentional?”
     Way late on this, but no: “The Coast of Utopia” is a play about 19th century Russian revolutionary sorts. (Bakunin, etc.)

217. 
     BP: “If the US indicates that it is willing to tolerate, for instance, Darfur-level civilian deaths, then the death toll in Lebanon will rise to Darfur levels.”
     You’re directly saying that Israel, if allowed, will commit genocide.
     Noted.
     
     Essentially, yes. I do not see any reason why Israelis are genetically superior to other human beings and therefore incapable of large scale slaughter.
     If the Janjawid, Hutus, Iraqis, Germans, Turks, British, Japanese, Americans, Russians and Cambodians, to name a handful, can massacre by the thousands and hundreds of thousands, then so can the Israelis. Feel free to argue otherwise.

218. Dutch,
     Of the 41, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union.
     Just curious… Is Arafat’s Fatah considered an Islamic fundamentalist group?
     Three were Christians, including a female high-school teacher with a college degree.
     And how many Christians are in Hezbollah today? Plenty of intellectuals supported the communist revolution in Russia and we all know what happened to them after its success.

219. BP,
     By that logic, you are not incapable of molesting kids. You are not claiming genetic superiority, are you?

220. Israel withdrew from Gaza, completely, and turned it over to the PA.
     This is true for any definition of “turn over” that includes complete control of cross-border movement, military incursions into “sovereign” (ha ha) PA territory whenever necessary, and seizing PA revenue post unwanted election outcomes.

221. 
     BP,
     By that logic, you are not incapable of molesting kids. You are not claiming genetic superiority, are you?
     
     Ya think, if I was caught molesting kids, that the “I couldn’t have done it, I’m genetically superior” defence would fly?
     It might work, after all you’d buy the “We didn’t kill those civilians, we’re a democracy” argument in the face of dismembered bodies covered in flies.

222. Is there some reason why the second picture from the NYT isn’t in color like the first one?
     “And yet in the past 20 days in over 5000 missions the IDF has killed an order of magnitude more Lebanese, and are currently heading towards the reoccupation of Lebanon.”
     5000 boming missions and less than 1000 people killed (unknown how many are actually Hezbollah)?
     If we are going to suggest that is Israel utterly destroying Lebanon, what would you call it if they were killing 10,000 in that period (easily within their capability). That would be just 2 people per bombing mission. This is the definition of indiscriminate bombing?

223. after all you’d buy the “We didn’t kill those civilians, we’re a democracy”
     Israel claimed that it hadn’t killed civilians??? That’s news to me!

224. Sebastian,
     Is there some reason why the second picture from the NYT isn’t in color like the first one?
     Hah!
     🙂

225. “And yet in the past 20 days in over 5000 missions the IDF has killed an order of magnitude more Lebanese, and are currently heading towards the reoccupation of Lebanon.”
     I’m not particularly interested in discussions with people who assert Israel’s interest in committing genocide or its equivalent. I possibly should have been clearer about that, but, then, I invite you to withdraw that claim.
     Meanwhile, in hopes you will, I will point out that Israel is under no more obligation to allow an equal number of its citizens to be killed in a war, for the sake of being sporting, than any country is or does.
     As for the “re-occupation of Lebanon,” again, you can certainly fairly claim that Israel is on its way to re-occupying a strip of land perhaps 15 or so kilometers deep; this is not “re-occupying Lebanon,” a country Israel never occupied in the first place, but re-occupation of a tiny strip of land, and with the goal of turning over as immediately as possible to either the Lebanese government, or an international force, or both.
     Context and motive actually matter.
     Dutchmarbel: “The Lebanese authorities claim these are 839 civilians, approcimately one third kids under 12 years.”
     Have you considered the ever-so-faint possibility that the Hezbollah-dominated Lebanese government is not precisely under pressure to be objective and honest about who is a civilian and who is not?
     Is it at all possible that they might feel some pressure — and perfectly understandable human motivations, of course, as well — to maximise claims of civilian death?
     Not that, as I said, the death of any actual civilian is other than horrible. It’s just something to keep in mind when considering claims and assertions.
     “Hezbollah claims to have lost 48 fighters, Amal 7.”
     Similarly: have you considered the remote possibility that Hezbollah might — just might — be ever so faintly inclined to fudge and minimze just a trifle?
     Yet you present these claims as Absolute Facts.
     “Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hezbollah.”
     Hilzoy kept mentioning that. The fact that Israel didn’t, y’know, try seems more than a tad irrelevant.
     Israel went into Lebanon to root out the PLO. And utterly succeeded.
     Hezbollah came into existence following that, and Israel and it fought skirmishes, but never, ever, did Israel re-invade beyond the buffer zone in the way it did in 1982, to even faintly attempt to wipe out Hezbollah.
     So what the point of this point is is utterly beyond me.
     “In terms of structure and hierarchy, it is less comparable to, say, a religious cult like the Taliban than to the multidimensional American civil-rights movement of the 1960’s.”
     This is too lunatic and unreal to even be worth debating.

226. Israel claimed that it hadn’t killed civilians??? That’s news to me!
     Pity you posted that line right after Sebastian does the classic “probably all Hezbollah” insinuation.

227. It seems that most ME political actors make a distinction between Zinonists and Jews.
     Our allies, the Saudis and most of the Arab nations run by monarchs do not allow Jews and Zionists in their countries.
     Except for Jordan they, like Syria and Iran do not allow Zionists but they do have Jews.
     Welcome to the Middle East.

228. That would be just 2 people per bombing mission. This is the definition of indiscriminate bombing?
     I don’t know; you tell me. How many civilians per launch does Hezbollah kill?

229. Hey, Stan LS, we have another winner:
     “Have you considered the ever-so-faint possibility that the Hezbollah-dominated Lebanese government is not precisely under pressure to be objective and honest about who is a civilian and who is not?”

230. Meanwhile, in hopes you will, I will point out that Israel is under no more obligation to allow an equal number of its citizens to be killed in a war, for the sake of being sporting, than any country is or does.
     Exactly.

231. Gary: I meant that if we are talking about who wants to expand its country beyond its internationally recognized borders, we should recognize that Israel has been working to incorporate parts of the Wet Bank (and, until recently, Gaza) for decades. It’s only if you assume that these somehow already are parts of Israel, so that (for instance) Israeli settlement policy in the West Bank did not count as ‘expansionist’, that you could possibly say that “Whereas the Jews in Israel who want to expand Israeli borders are in a quite distinct minority, and have no part in the government and effectively no political power whatever, other than to talk.”
     Annexing any part of the West Bank counts as expanding Israel beyond its internationally recognized borders. Annexing the Old City of Jerusalem counts as expanding Israel beyond its internationally recognized borders. I think the number of Israelis (excluding Israeli Arabs) who do not support annexing the Old City is infinitesimal. Those who do support it are certainly part of the government, and are in a position to do a lot more than talk.
     That was why I assumed you somehow weren’t counting wanting to annex some part of the West Bank as “wanting to expand Israeli borders”: because what you said was absurd if you were. But wanting to annex part of the West Bank is absolutely wanting to expand Israel’s borders.

232. West Bank, not Wet Bank (though it would be better if it were wetter. Water issues are big there.)

233. “Yikes.”
     All I get, under either Firefox or IE, is blankness, from that URL, Slart.

234. Is it at all possible that they might feel some pressure — and perfectly understandable human motivations, of course, as well — to maximise claims of civilian death?
     
     Look in the mirror.
     I submit that Dutchmarbel is a more objective analyst of the situation than you are. With less emotional attachment.

235. You’re directly saying that Israel, if allowed, will commit genocide.
     Noted.
     Essentially, yes. I do not see any reason why Israelis are genetically superior to other human beings….

     Again, noted. But before I commence ignoring you, may I ask, are you also claiming that Israelis or Jews claim to be “genetically superior,” as the Nazis did?

236. dutchmarbel: “Hezbollah claims to have lost 48 fighters, Amal 7. 26 Lebanese soldiers have been killed and 5 UN people.”
     Gary: Similarly: have you considered the remote possibility that Hezbollah might — just might — be ever so faintly inclined to fudge and minimze just a trifle?
     Yet you present these claims as Absolute Facts.
     I think the phrase “Hezbollah claims” in dutchmarbel’s comment indicates that this is not being presented as Absolute Fact.
     </nitpick>

237. Again, noted. But before I commence ignoring you, may I ask, are you also claiming that Israelis or Jews claim to be “genetically superior,” as the Nazis did?
     If you’re going to call me an anti-Semite or Nazi, then I suggest you not waste time with weasle wording, just do it.
     If you wish to ignore me, feel free; if you wish to engage in discussion, adversarial or otherwise, stick to discussing or disputing the actual claims I make.

238. Yikes
     May take a bit on dialup, Gary. I use Firefox, and using a T1 line from work (sshhhh) the screen is blank for a few seconds before the graphic show up.
     It’s a before and after satellite photo of a portion of South Beirut. Pretty nasty.

239. Annexing any part of the West Bank counts as expanding Israel beyond its internationally recognized borders. Annexing the Old City of Jerusalem counts as expanding Israel beyond its internationally recognized borders.
     Thank you, Hilzoy.
     The whole “But Israel has given most of the illegally seized territory back…surely that counts for something!” line of argument makes me want to claw my eyes out.

240. Dutchmarbel –
     Thanks for the new links. Sorry if I misled you. I believe I mentioned “Middle Eastern” blogs, such as Sandmonkey(Egypt), who in turn links to Lebanese and Israeli and other nationalities. I believe I also mentioned the Lebanese Bloggers once.

241. “It’s only if you assume that these somehow already are parts of Israel, so that (for instance) Israeli settlement policy in the West Bank did not count as ‘expansionist’, that you could possibly say that “Whereas the Jews in Israel who want to expand Israeli borders are in a quite distinct minority, and have no part in the government and effectively no political power whatever, other than to talk.”
     But, Hilzoy, Likud was decisively defeated, and holds only 12 seats out of 120. What’s the possible relevance of this?
     Did, in the past, expansionists hold power in Israel? Of course. I wasn’t aware we were discussing history.
     Current divisions in the Knesset:
     * Kadima 29
     * Labor 19
     * Shas 12
     * Likud 12
     * Yisrael Beytenu 11
     * National Union/National Religious Party* 9
     * Gil 7
     * United Torah Judaism** 6
     * Meretz-Yachad 5
     * United Arab List 4
     * Hadash 3
     * Balad 3
     The last three, for the benefit of those unaware, are Arab parties.
     “I think the number of Israelis (excluding Israeli Arabs) who do not support annexing the Old City is infinitesimal.”
     You are, I’m afraid, in error.
     Even a rightwing nutbar source like WorldNutDaily reported following the election:

     WND FROM WND’S JERUSALEM BUREAU
     Exit polls: Olmert to become next Israeli PM
     Kadima Party expected to withdraw from West Bank, divide Jerusalem
     Kadima officials have also stated the party would seek to give parts of Jerusalem to the Palestinians to form a state.

     This is entirely well-known, and a basic fact of Israeli politics. See again here:

     Just five days before national elections here, acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s Kadima party revealed yesterday it would divide Jerusalem and allow a Palestinian state to be established in parts of Israel’s “eternal capital.”
     […]
     WND Exclusive FROM WND’S JERUSALEM BUREAU
     Israeli leader’s party
     will divide Jerusalem
     Revelation follows fierce denials
     of split in ‘eternal Jewish capital’
     Posted: March 24, 2006
     10:34 a.m. Eastern
     By Aaron Klein
     © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
     Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (Courtesy Haaretz)
     JERUSALEM – Just five days before national elections here, acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s Kadima party revealed yesterday it would divide Jerusalem and allow a Palestinian state to be established in parts of Israel’s “eternal capital.”
     The revelation follows months of denials by top Kadima officials that the party would advocate withdrawing from Jerusalem.
     “The Old City, Mount Scopus, the Mount of Olives, the City of David, Sheikh Jarra will remain in our hands, but [regarding] Kafr Akeb, Abu-Ram, Shuafat, Hizma, Abu-Zaim, Abu-Tur, Abu Dis, in the future, when the Palestinian state is established, they will become its capital,” said Otniel Schneller, a Kadima member who represented the party at a debate yesterday on dividing Jerusalem.

     Drives the rightwing minority nuts, but they’re down to an absolutely impotent twelve seats out of 120.
     Morever, for many years, polling has consistently shown Israeli support for giving up East Jerusalem to be shifting back and forth between ~40-55%. I’ll give you cites, if you like. (Quickly, here is one from last year that shows a shift between 40% and 51%.) This is hardly, you’ll agree, “infinitesimal.” I’m afraid you simply haven’t been keeping up with the facts, apparently.

242. Gary: have you read to the end of my post? I tried to be as accurate as can be, so I said that according to Hezbollah and Amas 48+7=55 fighters died, according to Israel 300 fighters died.
     Most people would conclude from that that the truth would probabely lie in between those two figures.
     You seem to have less of a problem with the Israeli death figures I quoted. Or with the number of children quoted.
     BP: actually I strongly oppose Israels behaviour in this conflict. I do try to present facts as facts though, and seperate those from my opinions and interpretations. Trying does not always equal succeeding, but my error usually lies in incomplete reporting, not in inaccurate reporting.

243. Gary: ““Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hezbollah.”
     Hilzoy kept mentioning that. The fact that Israel didn’t, y’know, try seems more than a tad irrelevant.”
     — They did not try for the entire eighteen years. As I understand it, they worked out an understanding with Hezbollah on the rules each side would more or less abide by, and the US and the international community stepped in when things threatened to spin out of control.
     However, two questions. (1) Do you think that at no point during the occupation was Israel trying to root Hezbollah out of S. Lebanon? If so, tell me why you think this, since I disagree.
     My second question depends on your answer to the first. If you think that Israel spent the entire occupation (or: that portion of it after Hezbollah was founded, which is to say almost all of it) tolerating the existence of Hezbollah in S. Lebanon, I ask: Gosh, you mean that this menace which now seems so intolerable was in fact tolerated, by the Israelis, on territory that they occupied, for nearly 18 years? How can that be? If Hezbollah’s existence struck them as tolerable then, why not now? What has changed?
     (The answer cannot be: because they are firing rockets at Israel — that started after the present bombing campaign, and thus cannot be cited in explanation of it.)
     If they did try to eradicate Hezbollah and failed, then I ask: why should we think they’d be successful this time, when they do not control the relevant territory, and when Hezbollah has had six years to dig in?

244. I seem to have broken that last link, which was to here.

245. And Gary: in the comment you’re responding to, I said that the number of non-Arab Israelis who are willing to give back the Old City of Jerusalem is vanishingly small. You say I’m in error, and then cite articles showing that they are willing to give back some parts of Jerusalem, but not the Old City.
     I chose that example carefully. I was not talking about East Jerusalem for a reason.
     More importantly, though, you seem to be missing my basic point, which is: in order to count as one of “the Jews in Israel who want to expand Israeli borders”, all you need to favor is not returning some part of the territories. Likud wants to keep more than Kadima, and Kadima, I think, wants to keep more than Labour. But none of them wants to give it all back.
     And pointing to this or that bit of land that everyone does agree should be given back and saying ‘see?’ does not change that.
     For the record, I do not support Israel giving all of the West Bank back, though I would like to see this negotiated rather than imposed unilaterally. I just think I should recognize that this counts as favoring expanding Israeli borders.

246. “– They did not try for the entire eighteen years.”
     In the sense that they never remotely tried once, yes.
     “As I understand it, they worked out an understanding with Hezbollah on the rules each side would more or less abide by, and the US and the international community stepped in when things threatened to spin out of control.”
     Correct.
     “(1) Do you think that at no point during the occupation was Israel trying to root Hezbollah out of S. Lebanon? If so, tell me why you think this, since I disagree.”
     I have no doubt that if Israel could have waved a magic wand to get rid of Hezbollah, of course they would have. But if you’d like to point to a date, or set of dates, at which time Israel was trying to wipe Hezbollah out of existence in Lebanon, please do.
     “How can that be? If Hezbollah’s existence struck them as tolerable then, why not now? What has changed?”
     Several things: the threat from Iran is present now, that largely didn’t exist before.
     Probably more importantly, Syria was removed from Lebanon in the past year; the civil war is long over; the only thing troubling Lebanon now is Hezbollah. And as part of SecCouncil Resolution 1559, Lebanon is obligated to disband Hezbollah. The UN took note of the fact that the only way for the Lebanese government to take power in their own country is to dissolve Hezbollah, and it obligated Lebanon to do it.
     Lastly, Hezbollah started violating the un-stated agreement, and attacking Israel again. That couldn’t be allowed to continue.
     Off-hand, I’d think those are the three primary changes, and the three primary answers to your query.

247. Bec: There are 7 contributors listed. 2 are living in the US, one in the UK, 1 in Lebanon and three are not stating where they live? I’ve seen referrals to them but I have not read them regularly.
     I actually read most from Dutch people blogging from the area, because they are least ‘compromised’ by partisan motives. I try to read blogs from the area too, but blogs from people not living there anymore are usually less impartial. If I had all the time in the world I would include those too… but reality sets its limits.
     Reading through it I do not see many being very happy about the Israeli actions though.

     So what did the Israelis accomplish over the last two weeks? 1) They killed around a thousand Lebanese, 2) they flattened entire neighborhoods, villages and towns resulting in over 750,000 displaced people 3) they crippled Lebanon’s infrastructure – taking the country back to the damn stone age, 4) and last but not least, they destroyed the first and only proudly secular, liberal political and social movement in the entire Middle East. A movement that effectively stood up to fundamentalists, and at the very least, looked them eye-to-eye and contained them.
     I am very aware that Israelis visit this site. So my message to those visitors is that you not only destroyed the dreams of an entire generation of Lebanese (i.e. my own, and probably my children’s). But, you guys and your government just shot yourselves in the foot! And I don’t mean merely with one shot. No! I mean, you guys got an M-16 rifle, put it on full automatic and shot both your feet to smithereens.
     Your reckless “shock-and-awe” military campaign ultimately turned a political-military organization that you hate into the Arab World’s hero; and in doing so, you have only increased the influence of your arch-nemesis, Iran. Ultimately, the biggest losers are the Lebanese people, and the hope they manifested in a region characterized overwhelmingly by hopelessness and depression.

248. Dutchmarbel: “You seem to have less of a problem with the Israeli death figures I quoted. Or with the number of children quoted.”
     I have no specific problem with any figures. I’m not over there counting bodies; I’m not aware of any truly neutral over there counting bodies. I couldn’t possibly have a way of knowing what the numbers are. I doubt anyone could.
     You’re right that I did miss your last paragraph in that comment. My apologies.

249. re the legitimacy of Hezbullah’s actions.
     Personally, I don’t think that the question is terribly meaningful. The occupants of south Lebanon certainly have a series of legitimate grievances against the State of Israel. And one grievance which is likely to be strongly felt, based on my family’s own personal experience, is the insufficient punishment of the State of Israel for its occupation.
     Whether this particular grievance is legitimate (given that the PLO had taken shelter in Lebanon) and whether Hezbullah’s actions (the killings and kidnappings) on this grievance are legitimate aren’t really relevant, because there is no effective court to adjudicate their claims.
     what does matter is that an organization which has widespread support for its hatred toward Israel exists on Israel’s northern border. And much like the Northern Ireland peace process proceeded incrementally and, in part, by slowing stripping away the support that the hard men had, it’s probably worthwhile for the West to ask itself how best to strip away the support that Hezbullah has among the people of south Lebanon.

250. “I chose that example carefully. I was not talking about East Jerusalem for a reason.”
     I noticed after I’d posted. Okay, yes, the Palestinians will most likely not be getting the Old City back (although personally, I think some form of joint sovereignty or international guarantees, with guarantees of full civil rights for all, would be the best way to go — but I can’t offer any assurances that that would happen any time soon or ever).
     If the Palestinians can’t be satisfied with either almost all, or all, of the West Bank, and Gaza, and East Jerusalem, for their state, well, we’re probably just stuck, then.
     “I just think I should recognize that this counts as favoring expanding Israeli borders.”
     I’m clear what the point is, here. We could go back and discuss various plans of the first half of the twentieth century, and we could discuss the White Papers, and the various Committee Reports, and the final Partition Plan, and the borders of 1956, too. There’s no Sacred Justice in any of these borders, nor in that of ’67.
     It’s all got an element of the arbitrary. Like all borders, everywhere.
     So what?

251. Incidentally, I think that Israeli policy towards Jerusalem has, as a whole, been dreadful ever since Teddy Kolleck ceased to be Mayor, and it wasn’t entirely fair to the Arab population during his day, or before, either. Just to be clear.

252. “I actually read most from Dutch people blogging from the area, because they are least ‘compromised’ by partisan motives.”
     How do you know that? Would you say that, in general, the Dutch are neutral and without biases as regards the Middle East and Israel?

253. “I’m clear what the point is, here.”
     Unclear, I meant, of course.

254. Gary: no, but they do not hold a stake in the outcome, nor do they have historic grievances/acts/policies that have an impact.
     The last 60 years our government has been very pro-US and very pro-Israel, but we had no colonies in the area, we have no spheres of influence, we have no direct ties.

255. And of course I understand Dutch bloggers better, because I recognize the culture they come from, recognize the weight of their statements, in short – understand their communications better. Blogs are usually not read for facts, but for impressions and opinions – and links to facts.

256. Dutchmarbel,
     Reading through it I do not see many being very happy about the Israeli actions though.
     I primarily read Sandmonkey, although I do read Lebanese Bloggers as well because I like to read all sides for more context.
     Particularly on Sandmonkey, commenters provide many links as well. There is quite a bit of rabid anti-Israeli talk and there is quite a bit of attempted reasoning done on both sides. All makes for an interesting window on human nature and events. Sandmonkey provides many current news event sources which in turn stimulate debates on wide varieties of issues and historical and cultural contexts. More than I’ve found in most blogs. I’ve learned a great deal about propaganda also!

257. Blogs are usually not read for facts, but for impressions and opinions – and links to facts.
     This seems contratictory to me. Am I missing something? 🙂
     I understand Dutch bloggers better, because I recognize the culture they come from.

258. I’m a bit puzzled what this comment by Olmert is supposed to mean:
     “All the population which is the power base of the Hezbollah in Lebanon was displaced,” he said.”
     What is he refering to? The whole shia community of the south? People in villages with Hezbollah bases?

259. Meanwhile, Hezbollah rockets seem to be continuing to kill almost as many Israeli Arabs and Druze as Israeli Jews (not that surprising; I wonder how many here realize that the “racist state” of Israel is only ~75% Jewish?).
     Currently:

     Earlier Friday, three people were killed and 29 wounded, including one critically and three seriously, as Hezbollah fired more than 200 Katyusha rockets into northern Israel throughout the day.
     Manal Azzam, a 27-year-old mother of two was killed in the mixed Druze-Muslim-Christian village of Maghar in the Lower Galilee, near Tiberias, when a rocket hit an adjacent apartment. Her children sustained light wounds, and two Maghar residents sustained serious wounds in the strike. Azzam was laid to rest Friday at 7 P.M.
     Two people were killed and several others were wounded when a rocket hit a restaurant in the Druze village of Majdal Krum.
     Police en route to the scene of the damage in Majdal Krum encountered difficulty in reaching the wounded due to the swelling crowd of people nearby.
     A resident of Sh’ar Yeshuv, adjacent to Kiryat Shmona, was critically wounded in a rocket strike Friday. One person sustained serious wounds when a Katyusha struck the village of Arab village of Bu’aineh, near Majdal Krum.
     In Kiryat Shmona, which absorbed close to 60 rockets Friday, two people were moderately injured; one person was moderately hurt and 14 others were lightly wounded in Majdal Krum; three people were lightly wounded in Horfesh, and one person was lightly wounded in Safed.
     In a barrage of rockets fired at Migdal Ha’emek, three people sustained injuries – one moderately and two suffered light wounds.
     Friday’s fatalities bring the number of people killed in Katyusha strikes since July 12 to 30.
     According to the police, Hezbollah has fired 2,500 rockets at Israel in recent weeks.
     Also Friday, two Israel Defense Forces soldiers were killed in clashes with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
     Close to 200 Katyusha rockets struck towns all across the north Friday, the worst blow being the approximately 60 rockets which hit Kiryat Shmona. In the coastal town of Nahariya, 32 rockets were reported to have landed, 14 rockets slammed into Ma’alot, Safed absorbed six rockets, the Tiberias region was hit by close to 10 rockets, and three rockets were reported to have struck the Carmiel region.
     A torrent of rockets were fired in the direction of the Golan Heights on Friday, some of which landed in Quneitra, a town on the Syrian side of the border.

     And incidentally, speaking of holding grudges, those darned always-preferring-violence-to-diplomacy Israelis, who are just dying to go re-occupy a strip of Lebanon again, because it was so much fun last time, have a government saying:

     Prime Minister Ehud Olmert would welcome the participation of German soldiers in a stabilization force in South Lebanon, he said in an interview with a German newspaper published on Friday.
     “I have informed (German) Chancellor Angela Merkel that we have absolutely no problem having German troops in South Lebanon,” Olmert told the daily Suddeutsche Zeitung.
     “There is no other nation that Israel considers more of a friend that Germany … I would be very happy if Germany participated,” he said.

     In other news that isn’t quite news:

     A senior Iranian official admitted for the first time Friday that Tehran did indeed supply long-range Zelzal-2 missiles to Hezbollah.
     Mohtashami Pur, a one-time ambassador to Lebanon who currently holds the title of secretary-general of the “Intifada conference,” told an Iranian newspaper that Iran transferred the missiles to the Shi’ite militia, adding that the organization has his country’s blessing to use the weapons in defense of Lebanon.
     Pur’s statements are thought to be unusual given that Tehran has thus far been reluctant to comment on the extent of its aid which it has extended to Hezbollah.
     Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah warned Thursday night in a televised broadcast that his organization would target Tel Aviv if Beirut was attacked by Israel.
     “If our capital, Beirut, is attacked, we will attack your capital, Tel Aviv,” Nasrallah threatened.
     The Hezbollah leader issued his warning after Israel Air Force aircraft dropped leaflets over the Lebanese capital, calling on residents of three Shi’ite neighborhoods in southern Beirut to evacuate their homes.
     Israeli security sources assessed that Nasrallah’s threats are serious.
     On Wednesday evening, the IAF attacked Beirut for the first time after a hiatus of nearly five days. The dropping of the leaflets yesterday is considered to be a precursor to new air strikes on the city.
     Military Intelligence estimates that Nasrallah would like to end the war with a dramatic move, such as the firing of missiles against Tel Aviv.

     Israel, incidentally, adopted a new tactic a few weeks ago of not just leafletting to warn people to leave an area to protect their lives, but of phone-calling individual houses in the Gaza strip, telling people personally to leave, leave, leave, so they won’t be hurt.
     This out of sheer indifference to human life, of course, and malicious interest in “destroying” for no reason whatever except to blacken their own reputation. Because who doesn’t enjoy doing that? (Okay, well, besides Hezbollah, and similar types?)

260. “Gary: no, but they do not hold a stake in the outcome, nor do they have historic grievances/acts/policies that have an impact.”
     True, but not necessarily the most relevant point.
     “The last 60 years our government has been very pro-US and very pro-Israel, but we had no colonies in the area, we have no spheres of influence, we have no direct ties.”
     And would you say that in the last twenty years, that the Dutch public tends to be unbiased as regards Israel and Palestinians?
     I don’t live there; I don’t know. I’m interested in how your evaluation.

261. Die, italics, die!

262. Lebanese Political Journal is one of the better Lebanese blogs.
     I tried looking at Sandmonkey, but I’m afraid I have great trouble reading stuff that desperately needs proofreading.
     This is not a criticism, of course, of someone not writing in their native language; it’s just a quirk of mine, due to my history as a professional editor, proofreader, etc.

263. Blogs are usually not read for facts, but for impressions and opinions – and links to facts.
     This seems contratictory to me. Am I missing something? 🙂
     I don’t expect blogs to provide me with facts, but they often link through to reports, earlier stories, official sources, etc. That does not seem contradictory to me, but ask away if it is still not clear 🙂
     Gary: I’d say that they are more pro-Israel yes, though there are always groups and individuals that are very partisan. In both directions I might add. I’ve not done an official study or anything, so it is just my perception.
     My newspaper reported about Quana with two big pictures or mourning women: one Israeli and one Lebanese. Despite the difference in numbers of victims that feels as trying to be balanced for me. Not reporting on bad things happening to Palestinians counts as pro-Israel, not reporting on bad things happening to Isreali’s counts as pro-Palestinia. But I see much more of the former than the latter.
     I tried to look on the internet for more info, but appearantly no research has been done about this specific subject. Both sides claim the other party has better representation. I find more pro-Israel sites than pro-Palestinia sites though 🙂
     My impression is that the population has been very pro-israel till the eighties, but the support has decreased since.

264. “I’ve not done an official study or anything, so it is just my perception.”
     Thanks for that.
     “My impression is that the population has been very pro-israel till the eighties, but the support has decreased since.”
     This surprises me not.
     Speaking of Qana, I don’t know if you’ve seen this:

     U.S.-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) yesterday revised the number of fatalities in the Israeli air strike on the Lebanese village of Qana from over 50 to 28.

     Still terrible, of course.
     I still have no way of knowing what really happened. There’s also this:

     The comments came as the Israel Defense Forces released the results of its probe into the air strike on a building in the south Lebanese village of Qana on Sunday, in which dozens of people were killed. The IDF admitted that it made a mistake, but charged that Hezbollah guerrillas used civilians as shields for their rocket attacks.

     Was that it? Or was it just a complete mistake? Was it a culpable mistake? Or not?
     I have no way of knowing. Without doubt, further investigation is warranted, I’m sure. Something done hastily, in the middle of a war, over just a couple of days, isn’t apt to sufficiently get near the truth, and, of course, no body should simply investigate itself.

265. Dutchmarbel-
     “I don’t expect blogs to provide me with facts.”
     I agree with you there. Original sources are always best. Blogs have helped me find some credible ones after which I then can check them regularly for myself. I frequently check IDF and a couple of US government sites, too. I look at the UN website for contrast! 🙂
     Gary –
     “I tried looking at Sandmonkey, but I’m afraid I have great trouble reading stuff that desperately needs proofreading.”
     I understand! I find the grammar quite charming, myself. But that’s just me. The style is informal and often silly, but the debates can be eye-opening and his links are wide-ranging. Thanks for the other site, though. I’ll be sure to read it.
     What do you think of Michael Totten’s Middle East Journal, BTW? I’ve read several articles from him, but haven’t had time to check out his blog.
     I feel that I’m not doing my duty as a citizen if I don’t at least try to learn the truth and meaning behind it all. I can hope, anyway.

266. “I understand! I find the grammar quite charming, myself.”
     It’s not so much the grammar as the misspellings and punctuation errors. As anyone around here or anywhere else who knows me, I’m more than a bit of a stickler.
     Not that I’m bothered by a normal level of typos; as you might observe, I’m as prone to typos as many, and writing blog comments, I write at super-speed, and often write awkwardly, make errors, engage in solecisms, and then don’t pause to proofread or even use preview.
     But a consistent level of bad punctuation and misspellings just sends me running away.
     Not out of choice; it’s, as I said, a matter of decades making a living as a professional editor or proofreader, being trained to spot every such error; I can’t turn that off. So if there’s a consistently significant amount of that, I just find it too painful to stick around for. And to repeat again for emphasis: that’s my problem, not anyone else’s.
     “What do you think of Michael Totten’s Middle East Journal?”
     Well, I’ve known Michael (online) for nearly five years, and we’ve been on each other’s blogrolls for that long. We’re casually friendly. As with anyone, I have disagreements with some of his views and opinions, but they’re not violent ones; I have a fair amount of respect for Michael, although I think he’s a bit too emphatic about “a plague on both your houses” as regards our major political divide, which I would, of course, since I remain, or have returned to being, distinctly more on the Democratic side, over the past three years, than I was for some years before that, when I was rather a bit more on the simply independent side.
     (If you ever bother to read my blog archives, you’ll see that back in 2002, I was pretty low-key in my language when I spoke of the President, which got me a lot of kicks from my friends on the left, and a lot of “oh, he’s a good liberal,” from friends on the right; but by late 2003, I blew my cork at the maliciousness and incompetence in this administration, and the damage they were doing to our interests, domestic and foreign, and began sarcastic ranting that I’ve not stopped, thus leading a certain Andrew O******* to conclude for a while that I’d lost my marbles and was no longer worth recommending. :-))
     Anyway, I think Michael is worth reading, and find his opinions about the Mideast definitely worth reading, which doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with him. But there isn’t anyone I always agree with.
     Myself, I’ve been following Mideast affairs fairly intensively, if autodictically, since June, 1967, when I was 8 years old (and, if I say so myself, extremely precocious and a bit of a reading prodigy), so I bring a fair amount of context to current events.
     And as you may have figured out, I’m Jewish (though atheistic, like most all of Israel’s founders), and I have a significant number of friends who travel to and fro to Israel, stay in Israel for long periods, who have families who live there, that I know well, as well as friends who simply live there full-time, as well as distant relatives, and obviously that biases my view, to be sure.
     Heck, one of my ex-sweeties, a professor of Jewish Studies, just got back from several months in Israel, and one of my oldest friends of almost thirty-five years leaves to visit in another week or so.
     And, while I’m disclosing background, though many here are aware of this, I’ve been a support of Meretz and Labor all my life, someone who has worked in the past with the American branch of Peace Now, been close to people in New Jeish Agenda, someone who despised Likud, and before them, the Jabotinskyites, all his life, opposed and despised Arik Sharon until the last couple of years of his life, called for him to be imprisoned as a war criminal after Sabra and Shatila, and never allowed back into Israeli political life. And don’t get me started on my level of despisement for Begin and Shamir, who truly led Israel ever so much further into the hell it has been in that started with so many wrong-headed, arrogant, foolish, evil decisions after 1967.
     I’ve spent all these decades arguing for the possibilities of peace between Israelis and Palestinians, Israelis and Arabs, predicting that it was possible for the peace with Egypt and Jordan to last, and for other such peaces to be made and better, arguing the facts on the polling that most Palestinians and Israelis do want peace, and so on.
     So I do find it a bit bemusing to be regarded at present, in many quarters, as some sort of wild-eyed crazed supporter of the Israel rightwing. But that’s context for you.
     After all, as I’ve pointed out several times, anyone who thinks that Amir Peretz is some sort of fanatic rightwinger, or any sort of rightwinger, is either simply complete ignorant, or has a mental universe in which simply being Israeli makes one a vile racist fascist. Or something.
     It would be like calling Dennis Kucinich or George McGovern or Paul Wellstone a militaristic rightwinger.
     This is the Israeli government that unilaterally pulled out of Gaza, that had the Army fight down — literally fight down — the rightwing, the settlers, the religious fanatics, literally pulling them out of their homes, kicking and screaming, for the sake of making peace with the Palestinians, and still commit to pulling out of most of the West Bank, in the face of threats of civil war from the right, for the sake of doing what is right, and trying to reverse much of a longheld tragically wrong policy.
     If people believe that this government are the rightwing in Israel, are a bunch of crazy militarists, I don’t know what they expect from Israel, or what they think Israel should, overall, do, besides disband the Jewish State, to satisfy them.
     I mean, if one can’t distinguish between Netanyahu and Peretz, then… what? Beats me.

267. Gary; yes, I had read that in the paper. As well as the bombing of 27 workers loading fruit on a truck in Lebanon, and 38 people killed in Beirut. In my newspaper they are wondering about the survival of the Lebanese industry because Isreal has bombed quit a few factories (making glas, processing milk…) and has destroyed the infrastructure to transport the produced goods. They are also reporting that Israel is stopping oil tankers from delivering, and aid transports. Without oil the generators will stop working, and they are needed for amongst others waterpumps and hospitals. Israel has allready delibarately destroyed the powerplants so a new humanitarian crisis is in the make.
     There really is a reason that ‘we don’t intentionally kill civilians’ sounded weak as an excuse, even before the HRW report.
     I assume you read the report?

268. Jes,
     “Whew. Dan, do you now see why I prefer only to argue against points people are actually making on the thread, rather than having to first set up the point in order to condemn it just to prove I would condemn it if someone were making it?”
     No, I don’t, since your answer had nothing to do with my question. I totally understand that the combatants are Israel and Hezbollah, and not the Lebanese state. However, in order to reach a resolution which stops the war, it is necessary to get each party to stop fighting. Israel would no doubt accept a permanent deal which left its northern border intact without Hezbollah trying to cross it, either by soldiers or missiles/rockets. On the other hand, Hezbollah’s stated aim is to end the state of Israel. If it is unwilling to accept anything less, then my question remains on the table: what is there for Israel to bargain about? What can diplomacy hope to accomplish?

269. “I assume you read the report?”
     Yes. I don’t believe I have anything to say that wouldn’t simply be repeating a variation of something I’ve already said.
     Oh, I suppose I’ll add that absent being aware of Israeli planning protocols and reasoning, and the intelligence they were working off of, I don’t know how it’s possible for HRW to pronounce with full accuracy on what Israel’s justification and reasoning was, and therefore how reasonable or unreasonable it was.
     But I suppose that means I need to repeat that a) Meanwhile, I certainly can’t say that I’m sure Israel’s strategy has been wise or just; and b) that I believe that the accidental killing of innocent civilians is absolutely tragic, and horrible.; and c) if anyone in the IDF committed or authorized war crimes, they should be tried and punished. Of course. No leniency. No excuses.
     I also don’t know any way to conduct a nice, clean, war, with no civilian deaths. Particularly with an enemy that holds its own population hostage and hides amongst the civilian population — which is precisely why the Geneva Conventions forbid that act.
     Should I mention again that if Israelis, after the war, are found upon sound investigation to be guilty of war crimes, that I believe firmly that they should be tried and fully punished? Or is three times enough?

270. You can avoid quite a lot of the civilian death by stopping the arial bombing. Which means more groundtroops and thus many more Israeli deaths. Soldiers vs civilians, Israeli vs Lebanese…
     You could also aim at a cease fire and start working towareds a political solution. Saying that you will not do a cease fire untill an international force is present to disarm Hezbollah is in actual fact saying that you will not stop. I cannot believe that any international force will come in and suddenly be able to do what the IDF couldn’t do in 20 years.
     Elsewhere in blogistan I’ve seen people saying that it was about time the UN or the Nato or the International Community did something – which is kind of ironic because quite a number of them have argued quite consistently that the troops they now want to deliver te peace are worthless and come from soft countries anyway.
     You cannot have peacekeepers keep a peace that has not been brokered yet, and you cannot have newcomers magically succeed where the vast and experienced IDF could’t do it.

271. “Which means more groundtroops and thus many more Israeli deaths.”
     Which is why Israel has been putting larger and larger numbers of ground troops into the fight.
     “You could also aim at a cease fire and start working towareds a political solution.”
     Which is why a ceasefire is expected sometime next week, when plans for an international force moving in are finalized.
     “I cannot believe that any international force will come in and suddenly be able to do what the IDF couldn’t do in 20 years.”
     I’m not sure what it is that the IDF couldn’t do in 20 years — I’ve already pointed out that the notion that the IDF previously tried to get rid of Hezbollah is completely made up — but are you saying that an international force can’t maintain peace in Lebanon?
     Where would that leave us, then?
     And if you have any suggestions for diplomacy, I’ve already asked for proposals. What would you put forward that you believe Hezbollah and Israel would accept? I’d love to find some new, workable, ideas I’ve not seen.

272. “Which means more groundtroops and thus many more Israeli deaths.”
     I do trust that you don’t think that would be a good thing, incidentally?
     I’m curious, though: this is before both our lifetimes, of course, but would you also retroactively decry U.S. and British bombing of Holland and German forces during WWII? Do you think more lives would ultimately have been saved if that had been done?
     How about if there had been no aerial bombing of Germany? A lot of civilian lives would have been saved — vast numbers, hundreds of thousands, right? Surely no one could oppose that? Why would anyone?
     Wouldn’t far more civilian lives had been saved if only ground forces had attacked Germany?

273. Gary…. do you really need me to state that more Isreali deaths would be horrible too? Do you really think that the fact that I condemn Israeli politics makes me indifferent to the individuals? Do you really believe that I would not care if the US ObWi commenters would die because I condemn Bush’s policies with a passion? That the death of the many brave US troops in Iraq are of no importance for me, because I was strongly opposed to the Iraqi war? My ‘problem’ is not that I do not care for victims, my problem is that I care for *all* the victims. If they have to die (and indeed, sometimes that is necessary) they should die for a very good reason and only because other options failed or would cause even more death.
     I don’t think that your comparison is much good to be honest. Oranges and apples. But for what it is worth: I think Dresden was wrong. I also think the Germans bombing Rotterdam and Londen was wrong. But WW2 was a very different kind of war with an enormously long list of things that were wrong.
     In WW2 we were occupied. I still have plenty of people in my family who have vivid memories of that time. Most of them still have trouble with germans. My mother in law is Irish and still has strong feelings about how the English killed her grandparents. My husbands uncle was stationed in Ramallah around WW2, to help maintain RAF aeroplanes. He still has strong feelings about the jews there (should I capitalize that? It feels weird, because I would not capitalize christian or muslim?). The resentment for people who supress and/or try to kill you can linger a very long time.

274. Gary (and others), since you refer to the HRW correction to the number of deaths at Qana, have you also read their 51 page report put out Thursday which says that Israel is guilty of indiscriminate bombing and in some cases possibly deliberate attacks on civilians? I skimmed the report yesterday and it seemed fairly convincing.
     I don’t doubt that Hezbollah is partly responsible for some of the civilian deaths in Lebanon, but the HRW report makes clear that the usual excuses and rationalizations made on behalf of Israel don’t explain all the civilian deaths. Having read a fair amount about how Israel behaved in their earlier attacks on Lebanon (particularly in 1982) and in suppressing intifadas 1 and 2, I don’t think they deserve the benefit of a doubt. Since it seems to be an issue here, I take it for granted that Hezbollah’s actions are also major war crimes. HRW condemns both sides and
     Talk about “the destruction of Lebanon” and “genocide” is overheated, in my opinion, though I gather people who use the first phrase are referring to the destruction of Lebanon as a democratic state with some hopes of a peaceful prosperous future.
     My own peace proposal would include the release the Hezbollah and Palestinian prisoners. That seems to be a grievance on the Arab side of the conflict, something the NYT got around to giving front page treatment today. Some (probably not all) of the prisoners are rather nasty people who should remain in prison, but then I think there are a fair number of high-ranking Israelis who ought to be rotting their lives away in prison cells alongside them. Israel ran a torture center with its Christian allies in southern Lebanon in the 90’s. It might not be common knowledge here, but the Lebanese Shiites all know it, and maybe they’d think the Israelis responsible should be imprisoned.
     I sorta wish Nazi analogies and WWII analogies would just be left out of this entirely. But since you ask, the Allies should not have deliberately targeted German civilians. Freeman Dyson in his autobiography explicitly says the RAF was pleased with the results of Hamburg and spent the rest of the war trying to replicate them. I find that distasteful.

275. “In WW2 we were occupied.”
     I wasn’t particularly comparing; I was inquiring.
     However, an awful lot of Lebanese felt more or less occupied by Hezbollah up until last month. Pretty much everyone who wasn’t a Hezbollah supporter.
     All the other militias disbanded. Only Hezbollah remained to maintain their little mini-Iran/religious dictatorship.
     “Gary (and others), since you refer to the HRW correction to the number of deaths at Qana, have you also read their 51 page report put out Thursday which says that Israel is guilty of indiscriminate bombing and in some cases possibly deliberate attacks on civilians?”
     Asked and answered.
     “My own peace proposal would include the release the Hezbollah and Palestinian prisoners.”
     I don’t know if you’ve read anything about what some of these guys (not all of them, of course) are guilty of. One of the prisoners whose release is at the top of the list of demands, for instance, burst into an Israeli apartment, shot a guy, and then smashed his 2-year-old’s daughter’s head in with the butt of his rifle. He’s a major Palestinian hero.
     However, not only is Israel willing to release Palestinian prisoners (having just released some 400 a few months ago), but maybe you weren’t aware that prior to the Hamas attack/kidnappings, Israel had an agreement, firm and absolutely done, with Abbas, to release several hundred more prisoners in two weeks.
     An overwhelming reason Hamas did what it did was to prevent that release, and Abbas, their enemy, from getting credit.
     What Israel has said is that it won’t release prisoners who have directly murdered people. I think that’s understandable. Everyone else, they’re prepared to ultimately release — just not under blackmail (despite having done it before).
     I think that’s also understandable. The problem with the previous trades is that it lead to now: the expectation that if you just kidnap some more Israeli soldiers, your guys — hundreds traded for 1 or 2 Israelis, I might add — go olley olly oxen free. What country does that regularly? Who thinks that’s sound policy?
     “But since you ask, the Allies should not have deliberately targeted German civilians.”
     That’s a fair point of view. I was just curious what Dutch thought.
     And, of course, I entirely agree that Israel shouldn’t deliberately target Lebanese civilians. I don’t believe they are, but if I’m wrong, anyone who decided to do that is guilty of a war crime, and should be treated accordingly.
     What concerns me more than notions that Israelis are deliberately killing Lebanese civilians, is whether they are taking all due care. As I’ve said, I have no way of knowing if they are. Again, if they’re not, that’s a crime.
     Then there’s the question, specifically, if in announcing what are essentially “free fire zones,” they’re being sufficiently indiscriminate as to be a war crime. Again, I don’t know if they are, and it concerns me greatly. Again, I believe that if they’re being sufficiently indiscriminate, that’s a war crime (no matter that it’s a U.S. practice of longstanding, from Vietnam to Fallujah; war crimes there, too, of course — and let’s not even talk about Grozny and Chechnya, if we want to talk about actually destroying a city or a land).

276. The NYT article today says there are 9700 Palestinians in Israeli prison. I doubt they all belong there. The Palestinians claim that many are innocent of any violent act. Some of them might be guilty of violent acts against Israeli soldiers and not terror attacks on civilians and in that case, while I can see why Israel would arrest them, I can also see why the Palestinians would think it legitimate to take prisoners themselves to use as bargaining chips. The Israelis have taken hostages themselves, from what I’ve read.
     I know that some of these prisoners really have done awful things–the NYT and others mention the child killer you write about. If it would bring a peace settlement I’d release them. In a fair and just world, no, but the point I made in the previous post still stands–there are Israeli war criminals too and the high-ranking ones don’t go to jail. Some become Prime Ministers instead. Israel is no worse than other countries, of course, but my point is that there is no universal moral principle being upheld here unless the war criminals on both sides are put in jail. That’s not going to happen. And the Lebanese and the Palestinians know perfectly well that they’re never going to have the opportunity to put Israeli war criminals in their prisons. (Not, btw, that I’d want to give them the opportunity. If I’m going to fantasize about universal justice it’s going to involve truly fair courts.)

277. “I know that some of these prisoners really have done awful things–the NYT and others mention the child killer you write about.”
     Yeah, I knew I’d read it in the last couple of days; turns out it was last night, actually, which is more than long enough ago for me to forget where; I read so much that it’s the easiest thing in the world for me to forget, which is a reason I took up blogging; sorry.

     When Hezbollah guerrillas sneaked into Israel last month, killing and capturing Israeli soldiers and setting off the current crisis, their goal was to trade them for a Lebanese man held by Israel.
     The prisoner, Samir Kuntar, was part of a cell that in 1979 raided an apartment building in the northern Israeli town of Nahariya, terrorizing the Haran family. Mr. Kuntar shot Danny Haran in the head, killing him, while his daughter, Einat, 4, watched, then smashed the girl’s head in with his rifle butt, killing her as well.

     What I note is that this is the guy the Hezbollah raid (sorry I misattributed it to Hamas) took place to get released.
     Not any of the Palestinians who haven’t killed anyone. This guy.
     It seems worth noting.
     Oh, and I was also wrong when I said that Israel had released 400 Palestinian prisoners a few months ago. Turns out it was 900.

     The Fatah leader and Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, secured the release of 900 prisoners in 2005….

278. Oh, and I should say that if it took letting the murderers of children out of jail (note that Israel has no death penalty) to secure a true peace between Israel and Palestinians, as part of a final settlement, I’d think it was worth considering.
     But as part of an interim package, while the ethic of Palestinians is that it’s still a wonderful idea to do what Samir Kuntar did, that there should be lots and lots more Samir Kuntars, and others who will commit larger, mass murders, I have a little trouble viewing that as a good idea.
     I trust you see the problem.
     Otherwise, as I said, Israel and Abbas already had another large prisoner release scheduled for a couple of weeks from now, of those who haven’t actually succeeded in killing anyone (so far as Israel knows). And, of course, if continued calm, and adequate relations continued, more releases. It’s not as if Israel gets a thrill out of holding onto people for no reason; if nothing else, it’s not cheap.

279. I’ve only scanned the comments since those made in the wee hours, so please forgive me if I’m repeating what others have written. This is going to be dreadfully long, but I gotta vent.
     Can we please stop with the knee-jerk reactions and the abhorrent demonization of the “enemy?” We all know that Israel has very real enemies, some of whom appear to be unreachable for the purpose of peaceful resolutions; it is difficult, however, to distinguish the rhetoric from actual policy, and to understand what is actual policy as directed solely towards Israel and that which is directed towards the aspirations of the United States and other interested parties of which Israel is merely one actor. But Israel is no more a model of state virtue than any other nation; and it’s long past time we stop conflating disapproval and anger concerning her policies and actions with antisemitism and Jewish self-hatred. On the other side, Hezbollah members and supporters — ditto all the various Palestinian factions — are not intrinsically a bunch of death-cult terrorist thugs whose goals should be ignored; Israelis, above all, should know better.
     Hezbollah is hardly a moral paragon; I give it as much of a pass, however, as I give Israel — because I can imagine the hatred and distrust generated by a brutal invasion and a bloody 18-year occupation, also involving other foreign troops. That’s an indignity, to put it mildly, I fervently hope to avoid; and, with that history, I refuse to condemn Hezbollah as evil incarnate, or believe its supporters to be irrational and criminal. Hezbollah has a far greater significance to the Lebanese Shi’ite population, particularly in southern Lebanon, than the presence of its militia; I cannot casually dismiss the needs of a people who have historically been the poorest and the most disenfranchised, and the group that has apparently met those needs so very well. The involvement and often murky desires of Iran and Syria alarm me; but so do the aggressive maneuverings and machinations of my own country. In other words, I can easily condemn specific actions — such as Hezbollah’s terrorist rocket attacks on Israeli citizens — but I won’t disparage the existence and essence of either the group or the civilians it serves and who support it in turn.
     So, Hezbollah “started it.” Six years of cross-border skirmishes, illegal incursions by both sides, and this was somehow the proverbial straw. Hmmm, what to do? Well, perhaps send in special forces to kidnap Hezbollah guerrillas to use as bargaining chips (illegal, but what the hey), or negotiate over the release of her soldiers as had been done in the past, or maybe formally request assistance from the Lebanese government. But, no; massive aerial bombardment over the entirety of Lebanon is Option No. 1. Just one day after the Hezbollah attack, General Halutz stated that “his military would target infrastructure and ‘turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years’ if the soldiers were not freed.” So, right off the bat, an entire country was collectively held hostage and deemed ultimately responsible for the subsequent destruction and civilian deaths — all for the retrieval of two soldiers. My God.
     It bemuses me that people believe Lebanon invited this reaction by not having fulfilled U.N. Resolution 1559. FWIW, 1559 is not considered legally binding, and since Israel took 18 years to completely fulfill U.N. Resolution 425 and is still in violation of numerous U.N. Resolutions, it seems rather hypocritical to demand that a new and rather weak central Lebanese government should have disarmed Hezbollah within a year of its elections, or to think that Hezbollah should believe that its militia was unnecessary.
     Israel has always contended that its foes use “human shields;” I don’t quite see how Hezbollah — and the Palestinian guerrillas — could retain its strong support if this was its practice, and its increasing support among the Lebanese in total is incomprehensible if it does use human shields or if it is perceived as carelessly endangering the civilian population. The allegations regarding Qana appear to have been disproved; it’s also evident that the pot has its own sable hue. Finally, the contention that Israel has been very cautious in its bombardment is debatable; given that the Israelis possess highly advanced technology and pinpoint targeting capabilities, and given that Hezbollah, AFAIK, does not, it seems that, statistically, Israel has targeted more civilians than Hezbollah has. In the end, a number of NGOs have clearly stated that both sides in the conflict are guilty of terrorist acts and other war crimes.
     Finally, something more responsive to Hilzoy’s post: Hezbollah in the Firing Line, dated 28 April 2003:
     “The overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq and Washington’s recent pressure on Syria have placed Lebanon’s Hizballah’s organization firmly in the firing line in the next phase of George W. Bush’s war on terrorism.”
     An interesting read; I highly recommend it.

280. Oh Lord, that is atrociously long. Deepest apologies.

281. Your cites, unfortunately, give “Not Found” and ” Error Occurred While Processing Request”
     “I give it as much of a pass, however, as I give Israel”
     Interesting equivalence.
     “I refuse to condemn Hezbollah as evil incarnate, or believe its supporters to be irrational and criminal.”
     I agree.
     “Six years of cross-border skirmishes, illegal incursions by both sides”
     You’re suggesting that Israel has been entering Lebanon and kidnapping Hezbollah fighters? Or otherwise engaging in attacks without provocation?
     “Hmmm, what to do? Well, perhaps send in special forces to kidnap Hezbollah guerrillas to use as bargaining chips (illegal, but what the hey),”
     Wouldn’t work. Hezbollah believes only in trading hundreds of prisoners held by Israel for each Israeli.
     “or negotiate over the release of her soldiers as had been done in the past,”
     When has Hezbollah ever released a single Israeli without getting hundreds of prisoners in return?
     “or maybe formally request assistance from the Lebanese government.”
     You’re kidding, right?
     “Israel has always contended that its foes use ‘human shields;’ I don’t quite see how Hezbollah — and the Palestinian guerrillas — could retain its strong support if this was its practice,”
     If you think that prior to June 12th, Hezbollah had “strong support” from other than its minority of supporters, which is to say, the poor Shia of Lebanon — and I certainly agree that I don’t blame all of them for Hezbollah’s crimes, of course, although it’s something of an open question of how many of them are or are not thrilled when random Israeli citizens are killed — but, still, joy over murder isn’t the same as engaging in murder, to be sure — you are misinformed.
     “Finally, the contention that Israel has been very cautious in its bombardment is debatable;”
     And who here has argued otherwise?
     “given that the Israelis possess highly advanced technology and pinpoint targeting capabilities,”
     Which actually aren’t magic. From up in the sky, moving at hundreds of miles an hour, it’s not precisely easy to determine what’s in a truck, let alone inside a building.
     On the other hand, if you’ve bothered to read the comments, you’ll find not a single person saying that war crimes should be allowed, or not investigated, or that Israel can do no wrong, or… well, I understand venting, but who you are doing it at, I have no idea.
     “An interesting read; I highly recommend it.”
     And if every single one of your links wasn’t broken, they might be readable. I don’t know what you’re doing wrong, but it’s impressively consistent.

282. And if every single one of your links wasn’t broken, they might be readable. I don’t know what you’re doing wrong, but it’s impressively consistent.

     Gary: The pages will load if you delete the extra forward slash at the end of each URL.

283. In a complete non-sequitur: Jeepers, Kevin Drum just linked to me about four minutes ago.
     That doesn’t happen too often.

284. Don’t apologize Dawn–lots of us write long comments. I agreed with most of what you said.
     Gary wrote–
     “On the other hand, if you’ve bothered to read the comments, you’ll find not a single person saying that war crimes should be allowed, or not investigated, or that Israel can do no wrong, or… well, I understand venting, but who you are doing it at, I have no idea. ”
     Well, true in a literal sense. No one in this thread says war crimes should be allowed or that Israel CAN do no wrong. The theoretical possibility of Israel doing something wrong somewhere hasn’t been totally ruled out by anyone in this thread. For instance, Israel might allow its troops to violate speed limits in Lebanon–nobody has denied that could happen. Or they might not help old ladies cross streets upon request. Or use harsh language in front of same or pick their noses in public or who knows what else. Not a single person in this thread has denied the distinct possibility of any of these things happening.
     But have people in this thread denied that Israel is guilty of war crimes in Lebanon, despite what the human rights groups say? It’s the impression I have. Just a guess, but I’d bet that’s who Dawn is venting at. Reread the thread again, Gary, and think about it for about three nanoseconds and I bet you’ll jump to the same conclusion.
     Time for bed when pointless snark starts to irritate me this much.

285. Incidentally, those ignorant lunatics who think that “the neo-cons” in America have something to do with the present Israeli government — and everyone else, as well — really should read this piece by Daniel Levy, who remains a fairly influential voice on affairs governmental and diplomatic in Israel.
     It’s entitled “Ending the neoconservative nightmare.”

286. “But have people in this thread denied that Israel is guilty of war crimes in Lebanon, despite what the human rights groups say? It’s the impression I have.”
     Perhaps you might link to a couple of those comments, then, please, for our edification? Thanks.

287. Incidentally, that lunatic Pape piece you cited, dutchmarbel? You might want to read this on Pape’s nonsense.
     There’s also a handy quick digest here. But the full dismantling is vastly more detailed.

288. In this thread, there are several people who give a clear impression that they don’t think Israel is guilty of war crimes. Stan LS, for one. Sebastian for another. Bec, I think, and maybe one or two more. If they thought Israel was morally responsible for the unlawful killing of hundreds of Lebanese civilians then they have a damn funny way of showing it in this thread.
     The HRW report says that the claim that Israel only kills civilians because Hezbollah hides behind them is falsified by their investigation. The claims being made in this thread are that Israel is not responsible for the civilian deaths because Hezbollah hides behind the civilian population.
     Here’s a quote from Sebastian responding to Jes’s claim that both sides are attacking civilians–
     “This problem is made more complicated by the fact that Hezbollah shelters its military behind civilians. This sheltering is wrong. This sheltering gravely endangers civilians. This sheltering gravely endagers civilians because the IDF is permitted (and in fact should if it is going to fight Hezbollah) attack anyway. These civilians are dying because of the Hezbollah policy to BOTH make war against Israel AND hide behind civilians. Take away either and the number of civilians dying in Lebanon would be much lower.
     So, when you try to draw a parallel between hitting Israeli civilians and hitting Lebanese civilians, you are failing to notice the difference in conduct–in targeting, in sheltering, in distinguishing combatants and non-combatants. ”

289. Dantheman: On the other hand, Hezbollah’s stated aim is to end the state of Israel. If it is unwilling to accept anything less, then my question remains on the table: what is there for Israel to bargain about? What can diplomacy hope to accomplish?
     I’m not quite clear what this conversation is accomplishing, Dan, since you have persistently ignored Edward_’s efforts to get you to perceive Hezbollah, not as a unitary and indivisible block, but as a collection of individuals: and I see you intend to continue to ignore this. Your question is unanswerable in real world terms: in the real world, Hezbollah is not one unitary and indivisible group, every single member or voter or minister of which is absolutely committed to ending the state of Israeli, any more than in the real world, the Republican party is one unitary and indivisible group, every single member or voter or Senator of which is absolutely committed to the principle that the President of the United States is above the law: or than in the real world, the US army is one unitary and indivisible group, every single soldier of any rank absolutely committed to torture, murder, and cover-ups.

290. I don’t mean to tag team on you Gary, but ‘lunatic Pape piece’ is getting a bit florid, don’t you think? I don’t read Atran as ‘dismantling’ Pape, but noting that things have changed and Pape’s conclusions were too overbroad to be supported by the data set he had.
     It seems that the crux is the notion of Hezbollah as a multifaceted organization, which you disagree with. But this is one point, and the fact that Hezbollah was the part of the Lebanese government seems to belie that. This is not completely rejecting your disagreement, but I’m not completely convinced either.
     It’s a puzzling question to me that if suicide bombing were such a successful technique, why has it not been used by Hezbollah in the current conflict? Not that I’m demanding that you answer that, but trying to understand the shape of this conflict is particularly hard and it is not made any easier when there is a level of spite and bitterness in the comments. Just because some choose to duke it out doesn’t mean that everyone has to follow along. I hope.

291. Gary: I agree with LJ about your phrasing. And I read the piece but cannot see anywhere were it contradicts the bit I quoted.
     The piece is more about the causes for terrorism, but I did not quote those Pape bits because I am still busy reading on the subject and have not yet formed more than rudiments of an opinion. I only quoted what he said about the Hezbollah suicide terrorists he investigated.
     Indeed, there were more suicide attacks in the last two years, roughly 600, than in Pape’s entire sample between 1980
     and 2003.
     Yeah, the majority of suicide attacks happened after 9-11, or after the US attacked Iraq. Personally I would not be suprised if the majority of suicide attacks happened *in* Iraq. Again: I have not really formed an worthwile opinion about why people become terrorists. Should the suicide attacks in Iraq be compared with the suicide attacks in Brittain? Should suicide attacks be seen different from non-suicide terrorist attacks? Are Japanese kamikaze pilots comparable? The IRA? The RAF? Our Christian Molukkers?
     I agree btw that quite a number of terrorist seems to be well educated & smart, but there are still different explanations for that. As I said, I’m still reading on it.
     And yes, I agree that murderers should stay in prison. However, I also feel that it is injust that captain R. was declared innocent of any wrongdoing in the killing of the palestinian girl.

     The tape recording is of a three-way conversation between the army watchtower, the army post’s operations room and the captain, who was a company commander.
     The soldier in the watchtower radioed his colleagues after he saw Iman: “It’s a little girl. She’s running defensively eastward.”
     Operations room: “Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?”
     Watchtower: “A girl of about 10, she’s behind the embankment, scared to death.”
     A few minutes later, Iman is shot in the leg from one of the army posts.
     The watchtower: “I think that one of the positions took her out.”
     The company commander then moves in as Iman lies wounded and helpless.
     Captain R: “I and another soldier … are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill … Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her … I also confirmed the kill. Over.”
     Witnesses described how the captain shot Iman twice in the head, walked away, turned back and fired a stream of bullets into her body. Doctors at Rafah’s hospital said she had been shot at least 17 times.
     On the tape, the company commander then “clarifies” why he killed Iman: “This is commander. Anything that’s mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it’s a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over.”
     The army’s original account of the killing said that the soldiers only identified Iman as a child after she was first shot. But the tape shows that they were aware just how young the small, slight girl was before any shots were fired.

     As I said previous time this Hezbollah prisoner was mentioned: there is quite a long list of horrible things done on both sides.

292. I’d like to suggest that Jes’s 3:49 am is — once again — sophistry. Is there a component of Hezbollah that is publicly construed as its leadership or otherwise empowered to conduct diplomacy or to handle bargaining with other political entities? Yes, yes there is. So let’s all pretend, just for the purposes of discussing how things occur in this “real world” to which you allude, that that’s who Dan is talking about.
     Otherwise, we can also ignore away — conveniently! — the Hezbollah requests for prisoner releases, since Hezbollah is not, after all, a completely unified and indivisable group, and surely not every Hezbollah member desires that these prisoners be released.
     Or do you think Dan is suggesting that potential diplomatic solutions be presented by Israel to Patient #22 in Hezbollah Hospital? Or the geography teacher at Hezbollah School?

293. Phil: Is there a component of Hezbollah that is publicly construed as its leadership or otherwise empowered to conduct diplomacy or to handle bargaining with other political entities?
     Is there a component of the Republican party that is publicly construed as its leadership or otherwise empowered to conduct diplomacy or to handle bargaining with other political entities?
     Yes, there is.
     Does this mean that the Republican party is not composed of individuals, and that the individuals in the Republican party may be induced by diplomacy to turn their support away from the leadership of the Repubican party?
     Well, if you listen to Phil and Dantheman, no, that’s mere sophistry. All Republicans are the same, all Republicans support their party leadership, no Republicans can be induced to hold or act on different views from their party’s leadership. There’s no point being diplomatic with Republican party members: we know they only think and feel what Bush tells them to think and feel.
     Sophistry. Yeah.

294. Well, Jes, surely if you believe that there are diplomatic routes that may be pursued with Hezbollah members which are not contingent on what the Hezbollah leadership purports to want, you’d be willing to put forth what you believe they might be. As you have been asked repeatedly to do, and as you have repeatedly failed to do in favor of falling back into sophistic, “Well, what is Hezbollah, really . . . ?” statements.

295. Phil: surely if you believe that there are diplomatic routes that may be pursued with Hezbollah members which are not contingent on what the Hezbollah leadership purports to want, you’d be willing to put forth what you believe they might be.
     Wow, thanks, Phil: I’m flattered that you think of me as an expert in international diplomacy, in particular, as an expert in negotiations between Israel and Lebanon. I fear I’m not: I’m merely taking the commonsense approach that as any party is composed of individuals, it is folly to behave otherwise.
     As you reject this commonsense approach, I presume that you hold each and every Republican party member guilty with respect to Bush’s endorsement of torture?

296. As you reject this commonsense approach . . .
     Mindreading foul, ten yards, replay of down. Do not presume to tell me what I do and do not think. If you wish to know, you may ask me. Or, if it makes you feel warm and cozy to engage in yet another exciting episode of Jesurgislac Knows What Everyone Thinks and What Their Motivations Are, knock your bad self out.
     But, if I am reading you right — and please, please feel free to correct me rather than engaging in another round of two-step — you think that perhaps there are diplomatic solutions Israel can be pursuing with Hezbollah — whatever Hezbollah is and whoever comprises it — but you don’t know what those solutions are or with which individual Hezbollah members Israel should be pursuing them?
     But, by gosh, they exist, you’re sure of that?
     And Dantheman is a fool — or, at least, is engaging in folly — for not recognizing the existence of these unknown diplomatic solutions that could be pursued with these unknown individuals, and choosing instead to stubbornly persist in believing that the Hezbollah leaders and spokespeople are the people who are making decisions for Hezbollah?
     Does that about sum it up? If not, please elaborate; if so, I can return to my prior understanding that you have absolutely nothing useful to add aside from attempting to attribute to people thoughts that they do not hold. Which isn’t actually useful.

297. Good morning –
     In this thread, there are several people who give a clear impression that they don’t think Israel is guilty of war crimes. Stan LS, for one. Sebastian for another. Bec, I think, and maybe one or two more. If they thought Israel was morally responsible for the unlawful killing of hundreds of Lebanese civilians then they have a damn funny way of showing it in this thread – Donald Johnson
     Donald, Gary Farber speaks for me:
     But I suppose that means I need to repeat that a) Meanwhile, I certainly can’t say that I’m sure Israel’s strategy has been wise or just; and b) that I believe that the accidental killing of innocent civilians is absolutely tragic, and horrible.; and c) if anyone in the IDF committed or authorized war crimes, they should be tried and punished. Of course. No leniency. No excuses – Gary Farber
     A majority of U.S. citizens (military included) support this in the case of Haditha and other horrific incidents. The fact that the population of Israel and the U.S. is horrified by actions like these and fully expects them to be investigated and prosecuted, even after the horrors purposefully perpetuated upon innocents (Nicolas Berg, among many) and the numerous Israeli citizens killed and injured (any idea how many?) by suicide bombers over these many years, speaks volumes to me.
     And then there is always the understanding that we are in a war. Abu Ghraib was exposed (which is something a democracy should expose in order to root out depraved things like this); however, it has had the unfortunate effect of inflaming further violence from the other side and will for years to come. Our errors have grave consequences. It’s why we and Israel try to be careful. If we are not, we need to know why.
     Does the other side have carte blanche, though? If you think so, please tell me why.
     Gary, that link by Scott Atran was enormously thought-provoking. His ideas at the conclusion were helpful and somewhat hopeful. I’ve often thought about how much the internet has become an terrifying conduit for terrorist activities. Maybe it can be used for helping to quell it, as he puts forth.
     When I first read this report, I thought “Edward, where are you? This is what I was trying to say by “death cult.” By the end, though, I believe I better understand the complexity of it all. (Thanks, Gary. I still have a lot to learn.)
     Edward, this report promotes the idea that the religious leaders of Islam need to become more active and insistent (through internet chat rooms, for instance) in channeling this anger into a more peaceful belief system and more constructive actions. Surely we can agree on this?
     I think that the sticking point is still Hezbollah, though. Many see it as a charity organization first. Many others see it as a terrorist organization using charity as a convenient front for the machinations of Iran. In the meantime, I’m still trying to understand this.

298. “Here’s a quote from Sebastian responding to Jes’s claim that both sides are attacking civilians–”
     That seems orthogonal to me, Donald. I don’t see Sebastian saying a word that indicates that he is sure Israel has committed no war crimes.
     Discussing “This problem is made more complicated by the fact that Hezbollah shelters its military behind civilians. This sheltering is wrong,” well, that seems correct to me, but has nothing to say, one way or another, with maybe, besides that, it’s possible or impossible that Israel might have committed a war crime in some incident or several incidents, or not.
     Clearly here, you, and perhaps Dawn and others, are willing to do what I see as stretching and mind-reading and assuming and thinking you see implications, and take that as meaning something, whereas I prefer to, you know, wait for people to actually say something direct, as regards such an inflamnatory topic, and accusation.
     I don’t mean any offense by this characterization. People do commonly read what they think are implications, and come to conclusions. I’m just very sensitive to that sort of thing, because people do it to me all the time (as we often see on this blog), and 98% of the time, they’re wrong.
     And that drives me crazy.

299. “I don’t mean to tag team on you Gary, but ‘lunatic Pape piece’ is getting a bit florid, don’t you think?”
     Not given this, regarding Hezbollah: “In terms of structure and hierarchy, it is less comparable to, say, a religious cult like the Taliban than to the multidimensional American civil-rights movement of the 1960’s.”
     I’d say that’s lunatic. Which now makes three times that I’ve said it, so I’ll stop.
     But I may have missed the Black Panthers’ Katyushas. And their huge portraits everywhere of their Iranian Ayatollah Supreme Leader.

300. people do it to me all the time…, and 98% of the time, they’re wrong.
     In the words of Abraham Simpson: “Ha! Welcome to my world.”

301. “It seems that the crux is the notion of Hezbollah as a multifaceted organization, which you disagree with.”
     Huh? I do? Please quote me where I said such a thing.
     Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.
     “It’s a puzzling question to me that if suicide bombing were such a successful technique, why has it not been used by Hezbollah in the current conflict?”
     That’s perfectly simple and obvious. Why on earth would anyone use suicide bombs when they have a well-armed regular army, and thousands of missiles? The question makes no sense.
     Dutchmarbel: “However, I also feel that it is injust that captain R. was declared innocent of any wrongdoing in the killing of the palestinian girl.”
     What are you quoting from? I recall the case, but I’m not clear that I recall that verdict, but I can’t look it up without some better grounding in your sourcing.

302. Nasrallah on the “Jewish weakness” –
     “Another weakness is that both as individuals and as a collective, they are described by Allah as “the people who guard their lives most.” Their strong adherence to this world, with all its vanities and pleasures, constitutes a weakness.
     In contrast, our people and our nation’s willingness to sacrifice their blood, souls, children, fathers, and families for the sake of the nation’s honor, life, and happiness has always been one of our nation’s strengths.”
     In other words, Israelis will protect their lives to their last breath. Hezbollah (at least as expressed by its prominent spokesman) is happy to throw its followers’ lives away as often as required. And that’s something to be proud of. How sad.

303. Back on facts, I don’t know if everyone has noticed the current news:

     France and the United States reached agreement Saturday on a Security Council resolution to halt the fighting in Lebanon and lay out plans for a permanent cease-fire and a long-term political settlement, a French official said Saturday.
     […]
     Under the terms of the diplomatic agreement, a Security Council resolution will call for an immediate cessation of attacks by Hezbollah and of “offensive military operations” by Israel, according to a French diplomatic official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the agreement had not yet been made public. The official said that the text of the resolution would be released later on Saturday and that the Security Council had scheduled a meeting on Saturday afternoon to consider the matter.
     A vote cannot occur in the Security Council until 24 hours after the formal introduction of a resolution.
     […]
     The French official said that the text called for a buffer zone to be set up free of all but the Lebanese Army and United Nations-mandated forces in southern Lebanon.
     […]
     The agreement envisages a second resolution that will create a new international force to patrol south Lebanon, set established borders for Lebanon, lay out the procedure for disarming Hezbollah and empower the Lebanese military to extend its authority throughout Lebanon and particularly those areas in the south controlled in recent years by Hezbollah.

     Hezbollah continues to murder Arabs, by the way:

     Hezbollah unleashed an extensive rocket barrage on northern Israel on Saturday afternoon, killing a woman and her daughters in the Arab village of Arab al-Aramshe, according to the Israeli police and news reports.

304. Gary: The quotes are from the transcript of the actual conversation. They are all over the internet. I knew about this case and googled, don’t know which site I copied it from. But you can read about the story and transcripthere.
     Whilst googling for the exact transcript I also found this blog stating that captain R was given monetary compensation (even though the original story they told was proven to be untrue). I couldn’t verify the Haaratz link, it does not exist anymore and the Haaratz’ search engine does not love me appearantly, or they do not have real archives available online for non-subscribers.

305. Here’s an analysis of the incident given by wikipedia, for what it’s worth.

306. Bec,
     Nasrallah sounds like a typical religious right-wing nationalist.
     Your tone, concerning Arabs and Muslims, seems to suggest that that you agree with him, except that his analysis should be directed at Arabs and Muslims.

307. I don’t know what “tone” you thought you were reading SomeOtherDude, but I think you’re reading it through your own somewhat filtered ears. My view is that life is precious, no matter whose it is. How about you?
     “Nasrallah sounds like a typical religious right-wing nationalist.” Oh, really?
     “http://www.theworld.org/worldfeature/hezbollah/hezbollah.shtml”>BBC
     “More recently, he is believed to have been involved in providing information and intelligence for Palestinian groups. He has praised Palestinian suicide bombers for “creating a deterrence and equalizing fear.”
     If I had a magic wand, you know what I’d like? I’d like for Israel and the Palestinians and alllll the neighbors to get together and broker a peace where everyone could live happily ever after and where children could grow up without all this nastiness and play together in peace. HOW ABOUT YOU?

308. Gary, from your 2:02 and 2:13, I get the impression that you are responding as you are reading, which I think (as a general rule) is responsible for a lot internet food fights. The question of ‘what Hezbollah is’ seems to be the question that this particular food fight is based on, so a calmer discussion might be useful, which is why I restated things the way I did. That you don’t seem to have any objections (I am assuming that your claim that you never said anything like that means that you aren’t opposed to the notion) might usefully be seized on as a way of making headway. If not, please feel free to do whatever it is you are doing

309. Bec,
     Western powers have never respected any of the indigenous groups that questioned their dominion over the land.
     From the first colonialists, through the Cold War to the present….right-wing nationalists and many liberals within the Western political elite have always viewed the “darker” groups as “death cults.”
     After all the meddling with indigenous leftist groups, religious right-wing nationalists finally won, and now right-wing nationalists in the West don’t like them.
     In Nasrallah you are seeing your mirror image.

310. SomeOtherDude –
     Hogwash. I happen to be Native American and don’t you go telling me I’m brainwashed, either. I’ve had three people tell me that in the last week on different blogs: one named Cadavre, one name eee and one other who’s name I can’t remember. I think it’s the latest in Islamist talking points or something, this harping on Native American. (Interesting that they never bring up African Americans, though. Maybe because of the Arab slave trade?) (Oh, and what’s happening in Darfur?)
     If you want to know what I am hearing in your tone, it’s hate and blind prejudice. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
     And you didn’t answer my question –
     I’d like for Israel and the Palestinians and alllll the neighbors to get together and broker a peace where everyone could live happily ever after and where children could grow up without all this nastiness and play together in peace. HOW ABOUT YOU?

311. “If you want to know what I am hearing in your tone, it’s hate and blind prejudice.”
     Also, vast airy abstractions. It reminds me of debates with college-age members of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade. All theory and abstraction and condemnation and rage. Empathy only for abstract generalized images of classes of victims, but never for individuals.

312. Uphold the banner of the people against the paper tiger myth of the running dogs of Italicism!

313. Uphold the banner of the people against the paper tiger myth of the running dogs of Italicism!

314. Hi Gary –
     I lost my temper. I should have known better than to “engage.” (Accidentally put in a different name, too. Sorry, Doug!)
     Say, I read a lot of your blog today. “Ending the neoconservative nightmare” was illuminating. I was one of those who endlessly worried over the whole neocon thing, but my worry has ebbed over time. Actually, the neocon issue reminds me of what that Cadavre “entity” kept harping on over at Sandmonkey’s place (I don’t know what happened to it today, BTW – it seems to have turned pornographic overnight) Anyway, Cadavre would say things like, “poor little Israel, jumping to the tune of the organ grinder, etc.” I know. I should go over to your place to discuss this, right? 🙂
     (I didn’t start the italics off and running, did I?)

315. Bec: yes, but we have fixed them.

316. Thanks, hilzoy. My apologies!

317. Not to worry.
     For the record: putting extra close italics tags in another comment does not fix italics, alas. You just have to wait for one of us to happen along.

318. Jes,
     “Your question is unanswerable in real world terms: in the real world, Hezbollah is not one unitary and indivisible group, every single member or voter or minister of which is absolutely committed to ending the state of Israeli, any more than in the real world, the Republican party is one unitary and indivisible group, every single member or voter or Senator of which is absolutely committed to the principle that the President of the United States is above the law”
     Not really. Even ignoring Phil’s response, which is itself entirely correct, a simple look at the organizations’ statements belies your attempt at silly equivalences.
     is the most recent Republican party platform. I do not see in it any statement that the President is above the law.
     On the other hand, this is the BBC’s summary of Hezbollah’s aims on the subject of Israel:
     “The party’s rhetoric calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. It regards the whole of Palestine as occupied Muslim land and it argues that Israel has no right to exist.” If you have an official statement by Hezbollah translated into English which disputes this as their aims re: Israel, I would like to see it.
     So, therefore, there is an essential difference. The Republican party does not seek to have people join it based upon belief in a theory of unitary executive which is above the law, and therefore one cannot view such a unique and unsupportable theory as being agreed to by all members. On the other hand, Hezbollah does try to recruit members based upon statements that indicates Israel has no right to exist. Therefore, it can be imputed that this is the position of all of its members.

319. Ack — broke a link. The BBC statement on Hezbollah is here.

320. “For the record: putting extra close italics tags in another comment does not fix italics, alas.”
     It does in my browser.

321. On Hezbollah, it’s not clear to me how many, if any, folks read this piece which went up this afternoon, though doubtless some already have. Just some more info.

322. Are Israelis concerned about the morality of their acts?
     Of course.
     Dutch: “The quotes are from the transcript of the actual conversation. They are all over the internet.”
     I’m afraid I have no idea what “actual conversation” you are referring to. And I’m completely confused about how this whole issue started here; you seemed to suddenly start talking about this issue as if we had been in the middle of discussing it. But that doesn’t matter, as I take it, of course, as relevant to the general question of Israeli tactics and ethics. And the Wikipedia summary seems to do a good job of summarizing it, and how badly reported it was, and the falsehoods that were reported, which your comments give the impression you took and take at face value.
     Certainly if the initial reports were true, that would be horrible indeed, and certainly the captain (an Arab Druze, incidentally) should have gone to jail. But since it turned out not to have happened that way, and was false testimony, then not. It seems to have been another terrible, tragic accident, of the sort that happens in big cities every couple of years (NYC has had a number of cases, as have had plenty of other cities), where someone, in some cases a child, is mistakenly shot.
     And it was a tremendous scandal in Israel, of course, being endlessly reported on and investigated by the Israeli media, and debated in the Knesset, as would happen in any other liberal democracy, where people are greatly concerned with the ethics and morality of the forces of their government.
     Naturally, in the middle of the ongoing terrorism situation in Israel, where there have been endless attacks and bombings, such horrible tragedies are apt to occur on a more frequent basis than in America or elsewhere. In this case, it was in the Gaza Strip, and obviously such terrible mistakes will happen even more frequently in such a situation. It’s quite awful. Peace has to come so that sort of thing rarely happens.
     And true peace would also put a halt, presumably, to the hundreds of intra-Palestinian shootings, the semi-war between Hamas and Fatah, the omnipresence of armed gunmen everywhere in Gaza, the shooting and hangings of alleged colloborators with no trial, and similar horrors.

323. In regards to the shooting and hangings of alleged collaborators, I thought that I read that one of the lessons that Hezbollah took from the Palestianians situation was the strict separation of the military and political wings because of informants, though google is not helping me out at the moment. The NYTimes article that Gary points out seems to underline that. I mean, who heard of a death cult with a health insurance plan?

324. Bec wrote–“A majority of U.S. citizens (military included) support this in the case of Haditha and other horrific incidents. The fact that the population of Israel and the U.S. is horrified by actions like these and fully expects them to be investigated and prosecuted, even after the horrors purposefully perpetuated upon innocents (Nicolas Berg, among many) and the numerous Israeli citizens killed and injured (any idea how many?) by suicide bombers over these many years, speaks volumes to me.”
     I don’t want to go into my long speech mode, but I disagree with this. So speech mode it is. The short version is I think the difference between Western nations and, say, the Palestinians is that we are hypocrites and they aren’t. That’s a compliment to us, by the way, because it’s good to be a hypocrite and at least pretend to be outraged by one’s own atrocities, rather than glorying in them. But the fact that we’re investigating Haditha–big deal. America investigated My Lai too, but it didn’t investigate its use of free fire zones or the bombing of Cambodia. Getting back to Iraq, when high-ranking government officials face trials for instituting the torture policy then I’ll be impressed. Even authoritarian regimes sometimes engage in self-criticism to some degree, you know. Ho Chi Minh admitted to “excesses” after the land reform program in the mid 50’s. The Sandinistas prosecuted a few of their own for war crimes. Whoopee.
     Now on the other hand the fact that the US and Israel and other western democracies have supported mass murderers over the decades speaks volumes to me. (Yeah, Israel too. They used to do some of America’s dirty work during the Cold War, supporting regimes like the one in Guatemala.) The way some Muslims glorify murderers as freedom fighters is not much different from the way some Americans glorify murderers as freedom fighters. The main difference, again, is in the hypocrisy. Savimbi’s Unita, the Nicaraguan contras–they were the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers. The fact that they murdered civilians as a matter of policy was sorta shuffled under the rug. Again, in all seriousness, if that’s what you want to call the moral superiority of the West than I fully agree.
     “And then there is always the understanding that we are in a war. Abu Ghraib was exposed (which is something a democracy should expose in order to root out depraved things like this); however, it has had the unfortunate effect of inflaming further violence from the other side and will for years to come. Our errors have grave consequences. It’s why we and Israel try to be careful. If we are not, we need to know why.”
     We and Israel “try to be careful”. Oh boy. I’ve read a few things about Israel’s carefulness in Lebanon in the past, how they would carefully drop bombs on apartment buildings in Beirut trying to assassinate Arafat in 1982, how they killed thousands in that invasion, etc…. I’ve just been skimming Jonathan Randal’s book “Going All the Way” on this subject. They took exactly the same line then that they take now–that they’re careful, it’s all the PLO’s fault, etc…. I suppose Israel was also really careful running that torture center in Khiam during the 90’s.
     As for giving Hezbollah carte blanche, sorry to disappoint you, but the fact that I don’t think highly of Israel’s behavior doesn’t mean I think highly of Hezbollah’s indiscriminate rocket fire or their terrorist attacks or the torture of prisoners they’ve engaged in or their desire to destroy Israel.
     The problem with Western democracies in general is that we’re satisfied with a few token investigations into atrocities like Haditha, and then we do exactly what you did here–hold up those investigations as proof of our moral superiority. Whoopee.
     Gary–I think you’re nitpicking. I sympathize with your complaint that too many people mindread–it happens to all of us. But I think you’re using that complaint a little indiscriminately. Sebastian has spent days here and elsewhere on the web arguing that Israel’s killing of civilians is qualitatively and morally different from Hezbollah’s. In his view, Hezbollah is firing rockets at cities, so the civilians it kills are killed deliberately, while Israel is bombing military targets that Hezbollah has situated among civilians and therefore the moral blame falls on Hezbollah. Now you’re right–he hasn’t to my knowledge come right out and said that Israel has not committed any war crimes at all. But that’s where you are nitpicking. The issue is whether Israel’s killing of hundreds of civilians has been a violation of the laws of war, and Sebastian’s position has been that Israel is innocent. Hence he denies the war crimes that others (including HRW) say Israel has committed.
     It’s tiresome having to point this out, Gary. You like to be precise and generally I appreciate that trait in you, but in this case you’re not being precise–you’re being obtuse.

325. “In his view, Hezbollah is firing rockets at cities, so the civilians it kills are killed deliberately, while Israel is bombing military targets that Hezbollah has situated among civilians and therefore the moral blame falls on Hezbollah.”
     I can’t speak for Sebastian; only for myself. My position isn’t remotely so simplistic. It is, to be sure, that there’s an important ethical/moral distinction between simply aiming rockets at cities/towns where civilians live, and aiming weapons (rockets, bombs) at military targets and inadvertently killing civilians.
     But the latter, of course, has many crucial further ethical dimensions. It’s not enough, of course, to simply say “whoops, accidentally also killed civilians.” There are many further essential questions: was enough care taken to try to make sure civilians weren’t present, or weren’t too close? Was enough care taken to make sure that the intelligence seemed sufficiently strong and clear that there was sufficiently little danger of inadvertently hitting civilians?
     And so on. I have no doubt that at times Israel has failed that test. Doubtless too often, because any number of times results in needless tragedy and suffering. Has it displayed wanton indifference? Well, I’m hesitant on the one hand to use adjectives with no metric, and at the same time, I don’t possess a metric to offer, that X number of mistakes is “acceptable” against Y number of efforts, or somesuch.
     So I don’t make any such superficial and silly argument as “Israel can’t be faulted” or “Israel has done all it could.”
     The fact is, absent specific incidents in which the facts are clear, or at least clear enough (and often reasonable people can differ on such judgments, of course, in either direction), I try to avoid overly broad generalizations or claims. Israel has done plenty of wrong in its history. And when I observe that so has pretty much every other country at one time or another, I don’t mean that in any way as an excuse. All killing of innocents is a crime.
     Period. Full stop.
     In point of fact, all I’d like to see is Israel treated as any other nation would be treated that was under similar conditions, in similar circumstances. And then let the chips fall where they may, so long as that perspective is upheld.
     That’s all.
     Oh, and I blogged this Michael Walzer piece here.
     I recommend it. Oh, crap, it’s gone behind a subscriber wall. Hell’s bells.
     But wait! The google cache is still available for the moment. But who knows for how long? Read it quickly!
     Some crucial bits:

     The question I want to address is about morality and politics.
     The easy part of the answer is to say what cannot rightly be done. There cannot be any direct attacks on civilian targets (even if the enemy doesn’t believe in the existence of civilians), and this principle is a major constraint also on attacks on the economic infrastructure.
     […]
     So, what can Israel do? It is an important principle of just war theory that justice, though it rules out many ways of fighting, cannot rule out fighting itself–since fighting is sometimes morally and politically necessary. A military response to the capture of the three Israeli soldiers wasn’t, literally, necessary; in the past, Israel has negotiated instead of fighting and then exchanged prisoners. But, since Hamas and Hezbollah describe the captures as legitimate military operations–acts of war–they can hardly claim that further acts of war, in response, are illegitimate. The further acts have to be proportional, but Israel’s goal is to prevent future raids, as well as to rescue the soldiers, so proportionality must be measured not only against what Hamas and Hezbollah have already done, but also against what they are (and what they say they are) trying to do.
     The most important Israeli goal in both the north and the south is to prevent rocket attacks on its civilian population, and, here, its response clearly meets the requirements of necessity. The first purpose of any state is to defend the lives of its citizens; no state can tolerate random rocket attacks on its cities and towns. Some 700 rockets have been fired from northern Gaza since the Israeli withdrawal a year ago–imagine the U.S. response if a similar number were fired at Buffalo and Detroit from some Canadian no-man’s-land. It doesn’t matter that, so far, the Gazan rockets have done minimal damage; the intention every time one is fired is to hit a home or a school, and, sooner or later, that intention will be realized. Israel has waited a long time for the Palestinian Authority and the Lebanese government to deal with the rocket fire from Gaza and the rocket build-up on the Lebanese border. In the latter case, it has also waited for the United Nations, which has a force in southern Lebanon that is mandated to “restore international peace and security” but has nonetheless watched the positioning of thousands of rockets and has done nothing. A couple of years ago, the Security Council passed a resolution calling for the disarming of Hezbollah; its troops, presumably, have noticed that this didn’t happen. Now Israel has rightly decided that it has no choice except to take out the rockets itself. But, again, how can it do that?
     The crucial argument is about the Palestinian use of civilians as shields. Academic philosophers have written at great length about “innocent shields,” since these radically exploited (but sometimes, perhaps, compliant) men and women pose a dilemma that tests the philosophers’ dialectical skills. Israeli soldiers are not required to have dialectical skills, but, on the one hand, they are expected to do everything they can to prevent civilian deaths, and, on the other hand, they are expected to fight against an enemy that hides behind civilians. So (to quote a famous line from Trotsky), they may not be interested in the dialectic, but the dialectic is interested in them.
     There is no neat solution to their dilemma. When Palestinian militants launch rocket attacks from civilian areas, they are themselves responsible–and no one else is–for the civilian deaths caused by Israeli counterfire. But (the dialectical argument continues) Israeli soldiers are required to aim as precisely as they can at the militants, to take risks in order to do that, and to call off counterattacks that would kill large numbers of civilians. That last requirement means that, sometimes, the Palestinian use of civilian shields, though it is a cruel and immoral way of fighting, is also an effective way of fighting. It works, because it is both morally right and politically intelligent for the Israelis to minimize–and to be seen trying to minimize–civilian casualties. Still, minimizing does not mean avoiding entirely: Civilians will suffer so long as no one on the Palestinian side (or the Lebanese side) takes action to stop rocket attacks. From that side, though not from the Israeli side, what needs to be done could probably be done without harm to civilians.
     I was recently asked to sign a condemnation of the Israeli operation in Gaza–a statement claiming that the rocket attacks and the military raid that led to the capture of Gilad Shalit are simply the inevitable consequences of the Israeli occupation: There “never will be peace or security until the occupation ends.” In the past, I am sure, some Palestinian attacks were motivated by the experience of occupation. But that isn’t true today. Hamas is attacking after the Israelis departed Gaza and after the formation of a government that is (or was until the attacks) committed to a large withdrawal from the West Bank. Similarly, Hezbollah’s attacks came after the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
     The aim of these militants is not to create a Palestinian state alongside Israel; it is to destroy Israel. Admittedly, that is a long-term aim that derives from a religious view of history. Secularists and pragmatists have a lot of trouble acknowledging such a view, let alone understanding it.
     By contrast, the Israeli response has only a short-term aim: to stop the attacks across its borders. Until that is achieved, no Israeli government is going to move forward with another withdrawal. In fact, it is probably true that the Hamas and Hezbollah attacks have made any future unilateral withdrawals impossible. Israel needs a partner on the other side who is, first of all, capable of maintaining security on the new border and who is, second, actually willing to do that. I can’t pretend that the Israeli military operations now in progress are going to produce a partner like that. At best, the army and air force will weaken the capacity of Hamas and Hezbollah to attack Israel; they won’t alter their resolve. It will probably take the international community–the United States, Europe, the United Nations, some Arab states–to bring the Lebanese army into the south of the country and make it an effective force once it is there. And it will take a similar coalition to sponsor and support a Palestinian government that is committed to two states with one permanent and peaceful border and that is prepared to repress the religious militants who oppose that commitment. Until there is an effective Lebanese army and a Palestinian government that believes in co-existence, Israel is entitled to act, within the dialectical limits, on its own behalf.

     Needless to say, Walzer’s credentials on just war are ten thousand times greater than mine.
     Digressing, I just noticed that the play from Riverbend’s blog is at the Edinburgh Fringe festival, along with other plays from blogs.

326. Dantheman: is the most recent Republican party platform. I do not see in it any statement that the President is above the law.
     The Bush administration has clearly stated in several recent instances that in their view, the President of the United States is above the law. For example, in the view of the Bush administration, the President can declare anyone, US citizen or not, an enemy combatant, and without having to show any evidence to any court, then imprison that person indefinitely: and the person imprisoned has no legal recourse. There are of course several other examples of this belief held by the Bush administration – shall I go into them, or do you remember them?
     I have seen no public statement by the Republican Party to separate themselves as a political party from this President and this administration. Indeed, the platform that you link to is strongly supportive of the President and the administration that has declared that the President is above the law, and enthusiastically trying to get this lawless President elected, while claiming that the President’s strategies in the “war on terror” – which very publicly include declaring people to be “enemy combatants” and imprisoning them without trial; torture; illegal spying on US citizens without warrant; leaking the covert identity of a CIA agent… &c.
     Now, nonetheless, I take the common sense approach that individual Republicans, even if they voted for Bush, even if they’re in the Bush administration, perhaps, do not stand 100% for all the criminal activities carried out by the Bush administration and justified by them by claiming that the law doesn’t apply to actions by the President.
     You appear to be arguing otherwise – that every supporter or member of a political party supports 100% the deeds, actions, and statements of the leaders of the party, so there’s no point in “diplomacy” – we can’t treat individual Republicans as individuals, but must condemn them all as “Republicans”.
     Or rather, you’re arguing this for Hezbollah, while (I gather) claiming indignantly that this is not true of the other “God’s Own Party”. I suspect this is simply because you know individual Republicans, voters, supporters, members, and therefore know that the Republican party can’t be perceived as a unitary block with which no negotiation is possible because all Republicans are the same. You’re simply not able to think that what is true of one evil political party committing crimes with impunity because of its power in its own country, is also true of another.

327. Donald Johnson,
     “That’s a compliment to us, by the way, because it’s good to be a hypocrite and at least pretend to be outraged by one’s own atrocities, rather than glorying in them.”
     In the cases of Haditha and Abu Ghraib, which I specifically mentioned? Please speak for yourself. I’ve heard from military families who expressed great agony when they first heard about Haditha. One mom likened it to when your teenage son is late coming home and you hear sirens. A wrenching of the gut. A feeling of potential shame – that this is not how we want out nation to be seen. Please don’t paint everyone with your giant brush.

328. Bec: A wrenching of the gut. A feeling of potential shame – that this is not how we want out nation to be seen.
     Do you remember General Mowhoush?
     (from Wiki) “On January 21, 2006, an American military jury convicted Welshofer of negligent homicide in the death of Mowhoush. A military jury ordered a reprimand and forfeiture of $6000 in pay, and restricted him to his home, office and church for two months.” And, according to a contemporary news report I read which is no longer online, soldiers in the courtroom applauded at the sentence.
     I appreciate that some individual military personnel do genuinely feel real shame at the torture and murder of prisoners by US soldiers.
     But the simple fact is: torturers and murderers like Lewis E. Welshofer Jr., who sat on Mowhoush’s chest and suffocated him to death, are given a slap on the wrist for committing murder (his commanding officer, Col. David Teeples, initially wanted a mere reprimand, no charges) and this light sentence is enthusiastically approved by military present in the courtroom. The shame you describe is clearly not something widely felt across the whole military community: it’s something felt by a few good apples who have no power to change the more general feeling that comes across, that for a US soldier to torture a prisoner to death is not a crime he should lose his pension over.

329. The NY Times Magazine has advance-posted a typically quite long piece that will be in next Sunday’s issue, on Hezbollah’s place in Lebanon, by Michael Young. (And after another week it will disappear behind the Times firewall, so read it while you can.
     Anyone with a clue about Lebanon is, of course, familiar with Young, and was reading his blog back in the day (until he took up blogging at Hit & Run in 2004), is familiar with his opinion pieces in the Lebanese Daily Star (where he has been opinion editor for years), his pieces in Reason, and so on.

330. Gary – great links, thanks! I’ve saved a couple of them for further study and for sharing with others.
     Jesurgilac –
     “I appreciate that some individual military personnel do genuinely feel real shame at the torture and murder of prisoners by US soldiers.”
     I appreciate your kind words. I’d like to assure you that it’s felt by more than “just a few” good apples.
     I do remember hearing about the death of Mowhoush and about the coverup and subsequent “outing” of it. I did not remember the outcome of the trial. On the one hand, I’m glad that it was caught and acknowledged. On the other hand, I do think the sentence was too lenient. However, I also understand some of the reasons for this.
     This explains it better than I could:
     Some observers may think the sentence here “rather light,” and some may think it “is about right,” but if it was an outcome that cautions military members to ask for clear guidance, to be familiar with standing regulations, and to use their internal moral compasses, it was a sentence consistent with the goals of the system. Welshofer’s civilian defense counsel, Frank Spinner, was quoted in a Denver Post article right after sentence was announced and offered that, “When you send our men and women over there to fight, and to put their lives on the line, you’ve got to back them up, you’ve got to give them clear rules, and you’ve got to give them enough room to make mistakes without treating them like criminals.” This is the argument that most likely persuaded the military members in the end.
     Regardless of one’s viewpoint about Welshofer’s punishment, our military men and women deserve to be spared the task of creating their own guidance or being forced to make the Hobson’s choice about which orders they should disobey. It is an untenable position that will create more cases like this one. Military and civilian leaders must set standards that can be clearly communicated to the troops. This is necessary to reestablish the world’s confidence in our military, our ability as a people and nation to set and enforce the rule of law and standards of humane conduct, and to guarantee basic human rights.
     Frank Spinner’s quote is worth reading for context, as well.
     This “war on terror” has increased the angle of the slippery slope we have always faced during our history. We are human beings after all. What gives me hope is our good traditions and foundations, the desire of the majority of our citizens to strive for the good, and our distaste for hypocrisy. And we have people like you who are not afraid to speak you mind and remind us to stay on the straight and narrow. As one of the most powerful nations on earth, it is critical that we do our best. (I approved of McCain’s amendments, BTW. As has been said, our military needs clear guidance). (I still feel odd being on this side of the fence; I voted for Kerry. It’s this war, dammit.)

331. Sorry, here’s
     Frank Spinner.

332. Bec: appreciate your kind words. I’d like to assure you that it’s felt by more than “just a few” good apples.
     Not “kind words” – well, I express myself badly, no doubt. I have friends in the US army – I have one friend who was in Iraq at the time the news about Abu Ghraib went public. I recognize that, despite the general culture evident in the US military, there do exist “good apples” in the barrel who really do feel shame at what was done. But plainly, for most people in the military or connected to it, claims of feeling deeply ashamed about it is just hypocrisy – it’s not real shame.
     I remember that quote:
     “When you send our men and women over there to fight, and to put their lives on the line, you’ve got to back them up, you’ve got to give them clear rules, and you’ve got to give them enough room to make mistakes without treating them like criminals.” This is the argument that most likely persuaded the military members in the end.
     That is precisely the kind of thinking that I mean when I say that plainly, shame – gutwrenching or otherwise – is just not something that people in the US military feel about these crimes being committed by US soldiers.
     Lewis E. Welshofer Jr. is a torturer and a murderer. If gutwrenching shame at the US military committing torture and murder were felt by more than a few good apples, it would not have been possible for the court to take seriously the defense attorney’s claim that he shouldn’t be treated like criminal just because he “made a mistake”. He tortured a prisoner of war to death. Perhaps he did so under orders, but those orders were illegal orders – no one had a right to give him those orders, and he ought properly to have refused them. Nor (as far as I’m aware) has anyone above Welshofer in the chain of command been brought to trial for giving Welshofer those criminal orders that Welshofer chose to obey, that made him a torturer and a murderer. (While the general he murdered may have been his only murder victim, I somehow doubt that this was the only prisoner he tortured.)
     For anyone to be convinced that there is any widespread feeling of real shame about torture and murder committed by US military personnel, there would need to be more criminal trials, with real rather than derisory sentences for torture and murder.

333. “And we have people like you who are not afraid to speak you mind and remind us to stay on the straight and narrow.”
     For certain values of “we,” Jes being British. (ObSeinfeld: not that there’s anything wrong with that!)

334. That is precisely the kind of thinking that I mean when I say that plainly, shame – gutwrenching or otherwise – is just not something that people in the US military feel about these crimes being committed by US soldiers.
     Sorry, I should again have said most people in the US military. Re-reading the jurist article you linked to/quoted from, I’m struck again by this assertion; “Regardless of one’s viewpoint about Welshofer’s punishment, our military men and women deserve to be spared the task of creating their own guidance or being forced to make the Hobson’s choice about which orders they should disobey.”
     If it were true that the US military, prior to this court case, had no guidance about torture, no information about the legal rights of prisoners of war, then that would in and of itself be a horrific indictment of the US military. But, direct information from people in the US military tells me this is not so: as well as the written guidelines which McCain’s amendment simply say have to be adhered to, I have read personal testimony that says that direct guidance is given verbally to US soldiers about the laws they are required to obey.
     That it’s claimed senior officers have overridden this guidance and told their subordinates that torture and murder are now legal in the US military does not constitute a defense for committing those crimes: it merely raises the urgent question about when those senior officers are to be brought to trial.
     (Though, yes, an enlisted soldier without much rank or experience might be excused for obeying an illegal order given by an officer: but compare Welshofer’s punishment the sentence Lynndie England was given, where England was, as far as we know, not guilty of actually murdering anyone.)

335. Jes,
     If you remain incapable of actually reading words and assigning to them their typical meaning in English, I cannot help you.
     While it is undoubtedly the position of the Bush Administration that it is a unitary executive which is above the law on matters in time of war, that is not the position of the Republican party as a whole. It was not the official position of any prior Republican Administration, and hopefully will not be true in any future one. One does not have to believe in the unitary executive to be a Republican.
     On the other hand, it is also undoubtedly the position that Hezbollah is historically committed to the destruction of Israel. It was always part of Hezbollah’s ideology from its founding, and it has never suggested that it would be willing to cnsider changing its position on this issue. One does have to believe in the destruction of Israel to become a member of Hezbollah.
     While you are correct that I know far more actual Republicans than Hezbollah members, that is not why I am capable of actually listening to what both groups say and determining whether it is consistent over time. What is your excuse for being unable to do so?

336. But plainly, for most people in the military or connected to it, claims of feeling deeply ashamed about it is just hypocrisy – it’s not real shame.
     Sorry, I really can’t see how you can claim to know what is in the mind of the majority of the military. Calling most of them hypocritical goes a bit far, as far as I’m concerned.
     For anyone to be convinced that there is any widespread feeling of real shame about torture and murder committed by US military personnel, there would need to be more criminal trials, with real rather than derisory sentences for torture and murder.
     I would tend to agree; however, this is not generally done (historically) during a time of war. Maybe Gary could speak to this.
     In the meantime our troops need very clear instructions, which I believe they were not receiving from the higher ups or McCain would not have pushed through those amendments. The soldier thought he was cutting down on violence in the community (and my understanding is that he didn’t intend to kill him) – that’s how the slippery slope works. That’s why, in the absence of authority’s clear message (or its perversion) proof needs to be presented that the soldier on trial is not just a cog in the wheel before the whole book should be thrown at him. The morale of the troops is critical.
     You mentioned Lynndie England. “England has been sentenced to three years for her crimes and given a dishonorable discharge.” Ask Iraqis if they think her sentence was light.
     I’m not arguing that you are entirely wrong. I’m simply saying that it is a complicated issue.
     “For certain values of “we,” Jes being British. (ObSeinfeld: not that there’s anything wrong with that!)”
     The more the merrier! Protesting voices are loud and clear. We need this as a balance, since we are the big guy on the block. However, I hope you spend as much time pointing out the faults of other nations which might have an even worse record than we have?
     Ashraf Kolhari as well as Akbar Mohammadi, who died recently.
     If the “left” spent as much time doing this as they do criticising the U.S., the “right” would listen to them more. At least that is the impression I get from other blogs.
     Lovely prose on Why I Love Beirut from Sandmonkey today.
     Especially poignant after reading your link today, Gary.

337. Bec: Sorry, I really can’t see how you can claim to know what is in the mind of the majority of the military.
     True. All we can say is that the majority of the military who have had the opportunity to act against US soldiers committing torture and murder, have made it clear that in their minds a US soldier committing torture and even murder has committed a minor crime worthy of no great penalty: plainly, they do not feel any “gutwrenching shame”. But you’re right that the majority of the US military have been given no opportunity to express an opinion one way or the other: you don’t know that they feel shame, I don’t know that they don’t. All we know is that when US military personnel are given an opportunity to express their opinion, they mostly don’t seem to feel any shame at all.
     The soldier thought he was cutting down on violence in the community
     No. Welshofer thought that he was stuffing an injured man into a sleeping bag, sitting on his chest and pressing his hands over the injured man’s mouth.
     The injured man was a prisoner of war who had turned himself in to save his four sons who had been taken hostage by the US military, and was injured because he had been seriously beaten in previous interrogations. Arguing that a soldier who is torturing an injured man to death “thinks he’s cutting down on violence in the community” suggests that you don’t really think that torture is anything much to be ashamed of, either, if you can stand making such excuses for torture and murder.
     (and my understanding is that he didn’t intend to kill him)
     He would certainly say so, wouldn’t he? And after all, how could anyone possibly imagine that stuffing an injured man into a sleeping bag, sitting on his chest, and pressing your hands over his mouth, would kill him?
     That’s why, in the absence of authority’s clear message (or its perversion) proof needs to be presented that the soldier on trial is not just a cog in the wheel before the whole book should be thrown at him. The morale of the troops is critical.
     Which would suggest that you don’t think that “the troops” are, for the most part, in any way ashamed of US soldiers committing torture and murder. If even a substantial minority were feeling this kind of “gutwrenching shame”, that would also be a threat to morale. But if most of them aren’t seeing torturing a prisoner of war to death as anything in particular to be ashamed of, the threat to morale would be that torture and murder would be appropriately punished, not let off with a derisory sentence.
     You mentioned Lynndie England. “England has been sentenced to three years for her crimes and given a dishonorable discharge.” Ask Iraqis if they think her sentence was light.
     You mistake me: I’m not suggesting that Lynndie England got off too lightly for her crimes. Ask Mowhoush’s sons if they think the appropriate penalty for murdering their father was a few thousand dollars fine and a “confined to barracks” order.

338. Oops, that was me, not Vogler. Sorry. Vogler’s been commenting over on the UHC thread.

339. Bec: However, I hope you spend as much time pointing out the faults of other nations which might have an even worse record than we have?
     When I see a nation being held up as an example for the rest to follow, when citizens of that nation claim in defense of torture and murder that the desire of the majority of their citizens is “to strive for the good” then certainly I do. But I won’t bother to keep saying “I condemn torture and murder wherever it occurs” just to keep you happy.
     Dantheman, if you won’t believe that, just like the Republican Party, the other “God’s Own Party” is made up of individuals with individual opinions, I guess nothing in the world will convince you, and I officially give up trying, just as Edward_ did.

340. Jes –
     You’ve totally twisted around everything I said. You missed my entire point, which I admit was a bit convoluted, and since I’m so terrible at expressing myself, I believe I’ll just end this for now.
     Actually, this tells me all I need to know: “But I won’t bother to keep saying “I condemn torture and murder wherever it occurs” just to keep you happy.”

341. Also, at my age, my blood pressure is more important. 🙂

342. J, I think this multiplicity of posting names is more annoying than humorous. So if you’re deliberately being annoying, GOOAAAAALLLL!

343. Bec: “You mentioned Lynndie England. ‘England has been sentenced to three years for her crimes and given a dishonorable discharge.’ Ask Iraqis if they think her sentence was light.”
     I’m not sure what answer you’re looking for there, but I suspect most Iraqis would say it was light.
     But I think that more to the point is that no truly senior officers, and none of the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense, have been held legally responsible for the institutionalization of torture by the U.S. military (and “OGA,” aka CIA); on the contrary, General Miller got a medal.
     I wouldn’t use Jes’s language here, nor do I at all agree with some of the things she’s said — she has a knack for over-stating, he under-stated, and I’ll leave my critique of Jes there, but I do agree with some of what she’s saying, actually.
     I don’t think the mindreading of what people in the military allegedly think is helpful; I do think that far less has been done to punish those responsible for appalling policy — the high levels, that is, not the so much the grunts and mid-level officers — than should have been done.
     “If the ‘left’ spent as much time doing this as they do criticising the U.S., the ‘right’ would listen to them more.”
     I tend to abhor generalizations about “the left” and “the right,” myself. I don’t know anyone who speaks for either. And when we write as if there were unitary bodies of such people, we wind up ascribing endless numbers of beliefs and stances and responsibilities to individuals who, more often than not, don’t hold such beliefs and stances and responsibilities. I think it tends to be vastly unhelpful.
     Whatever Jes’ faults and merits, she is not “the left.” (Even if she does seem somewhat stereotypical at times.)
     “Also, at my age, my blood pressure is more important.”
     I keep finding medical personnel staring at me like I’m going to be a character from the movie Scanners whenever I get a check-up, myself. As I mentioned in another thread yesterday, yesterday it was only 215/somethingorother, and that’s after 2 tablets of Clonidine.

344. Gary: speaking as a pretty steadily 90/60 gal myself: yikes.

345. Bec: Also, at my age, my blood pressure is more important. 🙂
     At any age, your blood pressure is more important. 🙂
     Slarti: J, I think this multiplicity of posting names is more annoying than humorous.
     Apologies. I agree, actually – one comment as Greg House was (IMO) moderately amusing, but yes, adding Vogler and Wilson to the mix was an own goal.

346. “Gary: speaking as a pretty steadily 90/60 gal myself: yikes.”
     I wrote a response to this, but decided to put it in the “Universal Health Care” thread, as more appropriate there, instead.

347. Gary –
     I’m not sure what answer you’re looking for there, but I suspect most Iraqis would say it was light.
     Correct!
     But I think that more to the point is that no truly senior officers, and none of the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense, have been held legally responsible for the institutionalization of torture by the U.S. military.
     I agree! This is why I believe the courts were lenient in his case and why McCain wanted to be sure that the top got the message.
     I don’t think the mindreading of what people in the military allegedly think is helpful
     Bec- A majority of U.S. citizens (military included) support this in the case of Haditha and other horrific incidents.
     Donald Johnson- That’s a compliment to us, by the way, because it’s good to be a hypocrite and at least pretend to be outraged by one’s own atrocities, rather than glorying in them
     (So far, this was a little altercation between DJ and me)
     Bec replied – In the cases of Haditha and Abu Ghraib, which I specifically mentioned? Please speak for yourself. I’ve heard from military families who expressed great agony when they first heard about Haditha. One mom [who knows many military families – they are their own community and so she should know] likened it to when your teenage son is late coming home and you hear sirens. A wrenching of the gut. A feeling of potential shame – that this is not how we want out nation to be seen. Please don’t paint everyone with your giant brush.
     Then Jes jumped in with: Do you remember General Mowhoush?
     Eh. I’m too tired.
     Bec-“If the ‘left’ spent as much time doing this as they do criticising the U.S., the ‘right’ would listen to them more.”
     Gary- “I tend to abhor generalizations about “the left” and “the right,” myself.
     I understand you. (Although I did use quotes, did you notice?) This comes from hanging out on conservative (how’s that?)and military blogs for a good while, listening to them as they react as though to the sounds of fingernails on the blackboard as they hear constant criticism directed towards the U.S. and Israel and none towards the terrorists. At least that is their perception. I was simply relaying it. Generalization though it might be. You don’t have to take my word for it. Just listen in to some of them.
     Please take care of yourself, Gary. I’ve found these blogs bad for my health. I get too caught up in them emotionally – sitting here for hours when I should be working or going for a walk. It’s just that my brain keeps trying to wrestle with why I’ve changed so much over these last few months. Something that only I will be able to figure out. I’m so glad I “met” you, Gary. (I tried your blog a couple of times, just so you know. I’m such a computer klutz that I couldn’t seem to get past: “Sorry this user name is not available” Anyway, I hope you take good care of yourself. You’ve helped me a lot. And hilzoy is an angel.

348. Thanks for that, Jes. I’m a House fan, too, but I think that sometimes this sort of thing subtracts much more than it adds. And I think this is one of those times.

349. “I don’t think the mindreading of what people in the military allegedly think is helpful”
     That was directed at Jes.

350. “I tried your blog a couple of times, just so you know. I’m such a computer klutz that I couldn’t seem to get past: ‘Sorry this user name is not available'”
     I assume you mean “tried to comment.” If a given name you’re trying to register under is taken, then, well, try another, I suggest? Add a number or initial or something. Whatever you pick will be good for all eight billion (or whatever the figure is, or will be next year) Blogspot blogs.
     I would be delighted to have another commenter, no matter how infrequently (and I hope to get back to more regular blogging soon; I’m usually fairly prolific when I’m posting, unlike now; various things have interfered, including depression and frustration with the present situation, and the responses and simple storylines, IMO, I see from most of my usual friends).
     Thanks otherwise muchly for the nice thoughts. (If you ever get really bored, feel free to poke around in my archives; timeless material for the ages! ;-))

351. Gary –
     Don’t worry. I’ll try again. I did try adding on several letters, but maybe it was something else I did. See you over there one day. I look forward to it. I find I prefer conversation where I can come to an understanding with someone, and learn from it, rather than argue or try to “win.” I’m the nonviolent type. 🙂 Besides, that’s why I left the other blog.
     (Oh. That was directed at Jes? Typical of me to think everything is directed at me. I’m such a neurotic!)

352. Bec, I wasn’t thinking in particular of the military when I made the comment that offended you. I was speaking more of America in general, though I think Jes is making a decent case for what you thought I was saying. I’ve also read about reaction to the My Lai massacre. It’d be nice to say that everyone was appalled, but not everyone was, in or out of the military.
     If Abu Ghraib were a gutwrenching issue for most Americans, than Bush wouldn’t have carried a single state in 2004. I have one conservative Christian friend who was leaning over backwards for Bush, saying he might not have known but should have and she said she wouldn’t vote for him because of it. Obviously she wasn’t typical, because most Republicans stood by their man.
     Haditha–well, unless Haditha is part of a larger pattern of atrocities I wouldn’t make too much of it myself. People snap in wartime and should be punished for it. What’s interesting about the various atrocity allegations is the defense given–oh, we didn’t murder people in cold blood, we just fought insurgents in the standard acceptable way and the civilians died. And one then gets the very rare story in the mainstream press about how US military action in Iraq often does cause civilian casualties. I’ve spent most of this war wondering about the level of civilian casualties inflicted by US troops and that’s impossible to know, partly because almost nobody in the mainstream press or in politics seems to care enough to push hard on the issue. Iraq Body Count does its media counting thing, but there’s no reason to think that necessarily even comes close to the true figure for American-inflicted deaths. I’ve tried finding stories about the number of insurgents we’re killing and I’ve seen a handful–one said 10-15 thousand in 2004 and another (in late 2005) said 750-1000 deaths per month. (The latter was an estimate by Michael O’Hanlon at the Brookings Institute.) So I’d guess the US-caused civilian count was comparable, on the theory that it is typical in guerilla wars for the civilian death toll to be comparable to or larger than that for the guerillas. It’s been true for Palestinians. But my point here is that there has been no public outcry about our right to know the level of violence we might be inflicting on the Iraqis. In recent months it’s probably small compared to what Iraqis are doing to each other, but throughout most of this war the average American is largely in the dark about it. Which doesn’t seem to matter too much, apparently.
     In general, I don’t notice America as a whole caring that much about the atrocities for which we are directly or indirectly responsible. Whether that’s the fault of the political system or the fault of the average citizen I don’t know, but that’s why it wasn’t such a shock that Kerry chose not to make torture a major issue in his campaign.

353. Bec,
     I appreciate you posting, and I hope this isn’t blindsiding you, but the anecdote you tell disturbs me because there seems to be an underlying notion of ‘boys will be boys’. To explain, it’s as if your teenage son got caught with some pot and there is worry of being shamed, even though lots of others are doing the same thing and not getting caught. To get at how I feel, it is as if your teenage son has been convicted of a heinous crime beyond the shadow of a doubt. I imagine for people who are of similar minds as me, the problem has gotten so large that we cannot deny it. Apologies for psychoanalyzing what is simply a passed on anecdote, but one of the reasons I feel shame is not because of the possibility but because of what has undoubtedly happened, with no assurances that it has stopped.

354. Donald –
     I appreciate that you’re attempting to clear this up between us. However, this is the comment I found offensive:
     In this thread, there are several people who give a clear impression that they don’t think Israel is guilty of war crimes. Stan LS, for one. Sebastian for another. Bec, I think, and maybe one or two more. If they thought Israel was morally responsible for the unlawful killing of hundreds of Lebanese civilians then they have a damn funny way of showing it in this thread.
     I felt as though you were musing publicly, putting me in a pile of “the people who don’t think Israel is committing any war crimes” when you had no idea what I really thought. It was creepy. Sounded like the KGB or something. For your information, I voted for Kerry in the last election and I’ve made my opinion known here since that I have supported McClain’s anti-torture legislation. I have also stated that Gary spoke for me when he laid out his thoughtful points on war crimes and how they should be prosecuted.
     I would ask that you please don’t put people in boxes like that in future.
     Also, I highly recommend this blog from Lebanon for an interesting discussion on all sides of this war:
     The Lebanese Bloggers

355. Bec, I noticed, though, that way upthread you had posted this comment from someone else and it gave me the impression that you approved–
     “A small anecdote from today illustrates a trend which I had been noticing since the current crisis developed. On a bus in London, I was accosted by a middle-aged, West Indian gentleman on the adjacent seat. Recognising me, he congratulated me warmly on what I had been writing about Israel. He had wanted to attend last weekend’s Israel solidarity demonstration organised by the Board of Deputies but had been unable to find where it was being held. But friends of his had attended and shown him photographs they had taken of the event.
     ‘What no-one has reported’, he said, ‘was that there were many black people, Sikhs and Hindus at that demonstration because we all understand what is at stake here. We all realise that what Israel is fighting is Islamic terrorism, and that this threatens Jews, Christians and all of us. We local people all get it. What I can’t understand is all this stuff about Israel being ‘disproportionate’. Why don’t those people understand what is going on here?’
     You see my confusion, Bec? That part about how this guy couldn’t understand all this stuff about Israel being “disproportionate”? Israel is being accused of being disproportionate in killing hundreds of civilians. Some of us think that is mealymouthed and would go further and accuse them of war crimes. But this person you were quoting clearly thinks even the “disproportionate” criticism is going too far. I had the impression that when you were quoting this person you were agreeing with him.
     And then later you say to Stan LS–
     “Stan LS –
     I’ve heard that they had converted a hospital into barracks. Also, that an individual will fire off a katyusha and then run back inside to watch TV with his wife and kids. How is Israel supposed to protect itself against this death cult? ”
     Now let me explain how that misled me. It sounds like you’re taking the position of the people who explain the high civilian death toll in Lebanon Israel has caused by blaming it on Hezbollah’s practices.
     So you can see why I’d have the impression I had. You repeated the arguments that people use in attempt to get Israel off the moral hook and I didn’t realize you had the kind of nuances in mind that Gary has.
     Your comparison of me to the KGB is overwrought. A man can have a bust of Felix Dzerzhinsky sitting next to his computer without being accused of KGB sympathies, I would hope.
     Seriously, Bec, we’ve rubbed each other the wrong way in this thread and I think I had good reason to lump you in with the Israel war crimes deniers. If you were more nuanced in your thinking your own writing gave the opposite impression.
     And it doesn’t matter that much–I’ve been losing my temper in this thread , but that’s my problem, because it’s sort of stupid to get overly angry when nobody is likely to change the world by “winning” an argument in a comment section of some blog. I agree that blogs can be bad for one’s health.

356. Donald, it’s entirely possible for someone to at least consider the argument that Israel isn’t being disproportionate (for any of a number of possible arguments) — or to think there’s good reason that it isn’t — and still thoroughly and entirely oppose war crimes, and to not be at all sure that Israel hasn’t committed war crimes, and to nonetheless emphatically believe that if it turns out that Israel has committed war crimes, those who committed them should be punished.
     Part of it is a matter of presumptions one makes. Part of it is a matter of what sort of evidence one is inclined to work off of. And I could list a number of other aspects from which people could take, in my view legitimately, different views as regards the “disproportionate” argument.
     “…because it’s sort of stupid to get overly angry when nobody is likely to change the world by ‘winning’ an argument in a comment section of some blog.”
     I’ve been known to commit the same error, despite knowing better. The thing about emotions is, of course, the whole “not logical” part.
     “A man can have a bust of Felix Dzerzhinsky sitting next to his computer without being accused of KGB sympathies, I would hope.”
     I laughed.

357. Just a quick FWIW: I’d been trying to find some note of how many Israelis had been killed by Hezbollah missile attacks since 2000, since I knew it wasn’t many, but I couldn’t find a cite for an exact number.
     It’s six.

358. Hint to Jes: we don’t rate murderers on their successes, but on their attempts.
     When they miss, we don’t shrug and say “well, that’s okay, then. I’ll sit back: you have another go.”
     There’s this weird presumption that somehow the Jews would be more moral if only we volunteered to be killed in equal numbers, so as to be sporting, when defending.
     That’s not how it works.
     In any case, your figures are a tad out of date.
     And, oh, oops: relying on Juan Cole as a source — not exactly credible as regards anything Israeli, given his wild anti-Israeli biases, and general tendency to get things wrong.

359. Not to mention that in just one incident Hezbollah killed over 85 people in an attack. I don’t need to start running through the rest of the list.

360. Or yesterday:

     Despite days of aerial bombardment by Israel and a force of an estimated 10,000 Israeli troops now deployed in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah militants have intensified their daily barrage of rocket attacks into northern Israel and in recent days have launched roughly 200 a day. At least 160 had hit northern Israel by nightfall on Sunday, the Israeli military said.
     The most destructive was a single rocket packed with ball bearings that slammed into a parking lot at Kfar Giladi, a kibbutz in the northeastern panhandle, scoring a direct hit on Israeli reservists who were staying there. All 12 of those killed were preparing to go into Lebanon.
     The rocket sprayed the bearings in a deadly cloud up to 60 yards in diameter, leaving a scene that witnesses, including a war-weary ambulance driver, described as the most horrific carnage they had ever seen.
     The rocket struck two small cars parked next to each other in front of a cemetery enclosed by a stone wall and tall trees that overlook the long valley that runs from northeastern Israel into Lebanon.
     The dead were both inside and outside the two cars, said Maj. Zvika Golan, a military spokesman. The cars were in smoking ruins as emergency workers and soldiers rushed to bring the blanket-covered corpses and the wounded to ambulances that took them down the steep hill to helicopters waiting next to the highway below. The stone wall in front of the cars was covered in blood.
     The victims were apparently “just resting,” Major Golan said.
     Raging brush fires ignited by other rockets enveloped nearby Kiryat Shmona, the largest town in this part of Israel, in dense smoke and haze. Batteries of Israeli Army artillery blasted shells over the ridge above Kfar Giladi into Lebanon.
     Gidon Giladi, whose family founded the kibbutz, or communal farm, said he rushed to the site of the attack to extinguish what he first thought was only a fire, and what he saw left him almost speechless. Warning sirens at the kibbutz had gone off several times during the day, and were on when the attack took place, an Israeli military spokesman said.
     “This was an awful sight, and what bothers me is that it could have been avoided,” Mr. Giladi said, clearly shaken by the aftermath of the blast. “It is nothing that can be described. It’s something I’ll never speak about publicly.”
     Hours later, around dusk, Hezbollah rockets hit Haifa, the normally bustling Israeli port that has been largely paralyzed by the daily barrages. Besides the three civilian deaths, dozens were wounded. One rocket collapsed a residential building and set it ablaze, as rescue workers and civilians scrambled to help those trapped inside.

     Nothing to be bothered by, though. That a third of the country is constantly in shelters is only fair play, of course. When the V-2s were landing in London, well, it was silly of Americans to be concerned; they really didn’t kill very many Londoners most of the time, after all. Usually they just blew up buildings, and hardly hurt anyone at all.

361. Jes,
     “Dantheman, if you won’t believe that, just like the Republican Party, the other “God’s Own Party” is made up of individuals with individual opinions, I guess nothing in the world will convince you, and I officially give up trying, just as Edward_ did.”
     Somehow, I missed the Hezbollah primaries and party conferences where the individuals with differing opinions on whether Israel should continue to exist sought to replace the leadership of Hezbollah with persons whose positions are closer to their own. Can you point me to some reports of them?
     While it is fun to pretend that Hezbollah is a democratic institution which is susceptible to change if the positions of its leaders are out of touch with their members, there is no evidence for that position. Therefore, unlike the Republican party, the position of low level members who hold differing positions in Hezbollah is irrelevant. This should be obvious to anyone who gives it a moment’s thought. Why is it not to you?

362. “This should be obvious to anyone who gives it a moment’s thought. Why is it not to you?”
     While I think you’re on perfectly sound ground there, it might be worth giving ground on the point that it is possible to be a Hezbollah supporter without Jew-hatred being your primary motive, and theoretically, at least, you could be a Hezbollah supporter for any of a number of plausible reasons, without hating Jews at all.
     Now, what the exact statistics on that sort of thing are, and how one could, under the circumstances and history, reasonably sort out irrational Jew-hatred from some degree of understandable hatred of Israelis as enemies or former enemies, I have no idea.
     But it might be worth separating out the issues a bit more here, perhaps, given that Jes is blurring these rather separable issues, and isn’t apt to separate them out herself.
     Besides, this thread will start getting to the length where it will start breaking, in not much longer. 🙂

363. Gary,
     “it might be worth giving ground on the point that it is possible to be a Hezbollah supporter without Jew-hatred being your primary motive, and theoretically, at least, you could be a Hezbollah supporter for any of a number of plausible reasons, without hating Jews at all.”
     I am not arguing that it is not possible to be such a thing, only pointing out that it does not describe the persons who have any decision-making role among Hezbollah’s leadership. Jes seems to believe that there exists persons within Hezbollah who will respond to Israeli negotiations by backing off Hezbollah’s position that Israel cease to exist. I am pointing out to fallacy in believing any such persons would be in any position to influence Hezbollah’s stance.

364. Dan: Jes seems to believe that there exists persons within Hezbollah who will respond to Israeli negotiations by backing off Hezbollah’s position that Israel cease to exist.
     Correct. Of course, Israel is traditionally extremely unwilling to negotiate, in general preferring the military solution – rather than negotiate, stomp hell out of the opposition and then offer whatever Israel’s willing to give. (And then, of course, complain about how uncooperative the Arab countries (or the Palestinians) are, following this kind of treatment.)
     Given an Israeli government willing to negotiate with the Lebanese government, including the elected representatives of the Hezbollah party, who knows what would happen? Given an Israeli government willing to negotiate rather than resort to mass overkill and destruction of Lebanon, I think it probable that common ground could be found – simply because neither Israelis nor Lebanese, neither Likud nor Hezbollah, are unitary unchangeable forces, but political parties made up of individuals. Your unwillingness to acknowledge that, Dan, has made this conversation deeply frustrating.

365. Jes,
     “Of course, Israel is traditionally extremely unwilling to negotiate”
     This of course explains the entirely fictional peace treaties Israel has negotiated with Egypt and Jordan.
     “Your unwillingness to acknowledge that, Dan, has made this conversation deeply frustrating.”
     And your unwillingness to ackowledge that Hezbollah as an entity is committed to the destruction of Israel and is unwilling to change that position, making negotiations useless until they back off from that position, has made this conversation little short of insane.

366. On information flow:

     Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said Monday that one person was killed in an Israeli airstrike on the southern village of Houla, not 40 as he had earlier reported.
     “The massacre in Houla, it turned out that there was one person killed,” Siniora said. “They thought that the whole building smashed on the heads of about 40 people … thank God they have been saved.”
     Siniora had earlier told Arab foreign ministers in Beirut that the attack “was a horrific massacre … in which more than 40 martyrs were victims of deliberate bombing.”
     Siniora said he had based the initial tally on unspecified information that he had received. He offered no other explanation for the error.

     One would guess that he was given the info from Hezbollah sources.
     Hezbollah has a very sophisticated and practiced propaganda/information arm, as anyone who knows anything about them knows. They’re very skilled at at least attempting to manipulate Western reporters, and while some know better, many do not, while others are simply sympathetic to them. This is the primary reason I’m very skeptical of much information flow from Lebanon. (And neither do I automatically accept or believe that which comes from IDF sources, either, of course; naturally, the IDF will also attempt to put the best spin on things, at least initially, and to unknown degrees thereafter; and in war, fog of war alone means that information is unreliable; this is why I’m disinclined to pass judgment on much of anything, for now.)
     Jes: “Of course, Israel is traditionally extremely unwilling to negotiate, in general preferring the military solution….”
     This is pretty much untrue, and is your prejudices/acceptance-of-anti-Israeli-propaganda talking, rather than knowledge of facts and history.
     And the notion that Hezbollah is a democratic organization with factions interested in making peace with Israel is entirely risible. That many people support it because of the social benefits is perfectly true; that there are factions who are peace-makers, rebuffed by the horrible war-like Israelis: to be polite, it’s up to you to point to signs of their existence.

367. I haven’t been able to return to the discussion before now — I’m thankful, if surprised, that it’s still ongoing.
     Thank you, mattbastard, for pointing out the extra slash; it’s the first time I used HTML tags and did everything according to the guide — so, of course, it went wrong.
     Gary,
     As Donald Johnson graciously pointed out, my comments were generally addressed to those commentators I felt were expressing greatly simplified views of this and other conflicts between Israel and her neighbours, and, I believed, were reactively demonizing the ‘enemy,’ a practice I abhor and for which I blame the media:

     TV news says almost nothing about the history or origins of the conflict … Because there was no account of historical events …,there was a tendency for viewers to see the problems as “starting” with the Palestinian action … Israeli actions tended to be explained and contextualised – they were often shown as merely “responding” to what had been done to them by Palestinians … There was also differences in the language used by journalists for Israelis and Palestinians – words such as ‘atrocity’ … The word ‘terrorist’ was used to describe Palestinians by journalists but when an Israeli group was reported as trying to bomb a Palestinian school, they were referred to as ‘extremists’ or ‘vigilantes.’

     And, now, there is the same distorted language to represent Hezbollah and the current situation, e.g.,

     It’s doubtless pointless to note that few Israelis feel other than sorrow and regret, and often guilt, at the deaths of innocent Lebanese, whereas the overwhelming majority of Helbollah supporters celebrate with joy and glee the news of each Israeli civilian and child killed

     and

     The point is that Hezbollah…feel that massacring civilians, and hiding amongst civilians, and threatening to kill Lebanese civilians who don’t obey their orders, are legimitate practices.

     for which I’d like to see some links.
     Interesting equivalence. I don’t know about interesting, but “equivalence” pretty much sums up the subtext of what I wrote. I did not mean to suggest a blanket acceptance or approval of the myriad beliefs, desires, and actions of Hezbollah, the various Palestinian factions, and Arab leaders; but I am advocating that such blanket acceptance and approval be withheld from Israel. Reflexive endorsements and automatic condemnations serves only to enable the worst behaviour from all parties.
     Context matters. For example, it helps to understand how Hezbollah sees itself by reading this “open letter” printed in the Jerusalem Quarterly; mind you, it was printed in 1988, twelve years before Israel completely disengaged from Lebanon. One doesn’t have to like or agree with its aspirations, but there is a strain of pragmatism in both the letter and the group’s subsequent behaviour, such as their treatment of women’s rights and dropping their insistence of a theocracy and participating in mainstream politics via democratic procedures.
     The point is that Hezbollah has no legitimate casus belli with Israel, save that they don’t recognize its right to exist.
     Hezbollah has always been clear that it wants Israel to withdraw from Shebaa Farms, a goal fully shared by the Lebanese government; and that it wants the return of Lebanese prisoners, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and a resolution to the Palestinian problem, especially given that a large number of Palestinian refugees remain in Lebanon. It has been guilty of sporadic, although occasionally heavy, border skirmishes with Israel since 2000; Israel has been guilty of regular violations of Lebanese air space. Dan Lieberman points out the underlying problem I have with this latest conflict:

     Hezbollah’s seizure of two Israeli border guards and firing two rockets close to Shlomi, an Israeli town… were criminal acts, but hardly acts of war. Acts of this type are not rare; they have occurred, and still occur in various parts of the world…the list is endless of border skirmishes that didn’t lead to a total attack by the stronger nation. Let’s be clear, Israel ferociously attacked Lebanon without first making local and international appeals and before Hezbollah launched its Katyusha rockets against Israeli cities.

     Concerning the casus belli, events leading up to the crisis are not quite how they’ve been usually presented. First:

     The situation in Lebanon is also more complicated than its portrayal in U.S. media… A major incident fueling the latest cycle of violence was a May 26, 2006 car bombing in Sidon, Lebanon, that killed a senior official of Islamic Jihad, a Palestinian group allied with Hezbollah.
     …”The Israelis, in hitting Islamic Jihad, knew they would get Hezbollah involved too,” … “The Israelis had to be aware that if they assassinated this guy they would get a response.”
     And, indeed, on May 28, Lebanese militants in Hezbollah-controlled territory fired Katyusha rockets… Israel responded with airstrikes against Palestinian camps deep inside Lebanon, which in turn were met by Hezbollah rocket and mortar attacks on more Israeli military bases…

     And this:

     We all know the conventional wisdom about the current battle between Israel and Lebanon. The mainstream news, across the spectrum, have presented the story in succinct similarity: Hamas militants kidnapped an Israeli soldier on June 25th and Hezbollah followed with more kidnappings… Virtually every timeline of the current conflict begins on June 25th… But what about the “day before?”
     One June 24th, one day prior to the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier by “Palestinian militants”, Reuters reported that “elite [Israeli] commandos mounted Israel’s first arrest raid into the Gaza Strip…since the Jewish state withdrew a year ago”…All that is firmly known is that Israel invaded sovereign territory and seized two citizens.

     Anway, the “methodical destruction” of Israel: not worth mentioning.
     The existential threat problem. On one side, you have various groups and regional leaders who have for decades called for the elimination of Israel; a few of the nations are well-armed, most of the militant factions, except Hezbollah, armed with stones, guns, and crude rockets — and, of course, suicide bombers. On the other side, you have a nation with the most powerful military in the region, with advanced weaponry and nuclear capabilities; who has a history of pre-emptive strikes and starting wars (1956 Suez, 1967 Six-Day War; and the deceptions that lead to the 1982 Lebanon invasion), from which she always ends up with more territory — and every time presented these events as a fight for survival. According to Reuven Pedatzur, diplomacy does not exactly dominate Israeli foreign policy:

     The result is that military considerations have often become more dominant than political ones. Thus, Israel’s foreign policies have come to be based on an essentially belligerent perception that favors military considerations over diplomatic ones. Violence is seen not only as a legitimate instrument in international affairs, but almost as the only means that can bring positive results.

     And, now the argument is used for this latest conflict:

     No situation can continue to exist for long without an ideological reason. That’s how when once it was clear that it was not achieving its aims, an unsuccesful military campaign was upgraded with the wave of a magic wand to the level of a war of survival.
     That is how a campaign of collective punishment that was begun in haste, without prior judgment and on the basis of incorrect assessments, including promises that the army is incapable of fulfilling, turned into a war of life and death, if not some kind of second War of Independence. In the press there have been embarrassing comparisons to the struggle against Nazism, comparisons that are not only a crude distortion of history, but disgrace the memory of the Jews who were exterminated.

     Israel’s existential threat is one of demographics, not obliteration; all the players know this regardless of the bellicose and alarming rhetoric. She can neither grant the right of return to Palestinians nor allow refugees to return to the disputed territories; this would end the Jewish majority population and, hence, the Jewish Homeland. For decades, Israel has encouraged immigration and established settlements for those refugees on occupied land; she’s played the game of divide and rule, funding Hamas to offset Fatah before denouncing both of them — and then claim that there’s no partner with whom to negotiate a final ‘peace.’
     So, what to do? I find this suggestion interesting, but I have to agree with the author; it ain’t gonna happen.

     In my opinion, the only solution would actually work is a radical one that would probably never happen: declare that Israel is no longer a “Jewish state,” but rather, a secular democracy, and write an Israeli Constitution upholding human rights (it does not presently have one). Its stated goals of being a Jewish state and a western democracy are mutually contradictory. One cannot uphold western values of religious and racial equality while simultaneously stating that you intend to promote the welfare of one people over another.

     It’s all horrible and tragic enough as it is, and anyone sane mourns the death of each and every innocent, no matter which land they live in.
     I agree:

     Listening to the rhetoric of this war reminds me of a sports tournament. We beat them by however many points, or they beat us by however many points. But it is not points we are talking about and there is no trophy. The points are human beings with families and loved ones fleeing their daily lives, sometimes succeeding and sometimes not. Whose side shall we take in the tournament? After all, we feel very good about ourselves when we have a side to back…Is this how the world looks at a conflict, as a glorified tournament?

368. “Hezbollah has always been clear that it wants Israel to withdraw from Shebaa Farms,”
     Without addressing the rest of your points, the crucial detail here is that Lebanon has about as much claim on the Shebaa Farms area as Peru does.
     It’s Syrian territory, plain and simple, currently held by Israel as a negotiating chip to be given back to Syria when Syria is willing to make a full peace deal.
     Everyone with the faintest knowledge of the history of the area is aware of this. There is no controversy whatever. There have been plentiful statements from the UN certifying the history of Shebaa Farms. There is no history whatever of Lebanon ever making any claims on the Shebaa Farms area until 2000. Do you deny this?
     So the idea that Hezbollah or the Lebanese government is demanding this land that they have absolutely no claim on whatever (unlike Syria, and unlike Syria on the Golan) would be ludicrous, except that it’s perfectly obvious that they took up doing so at the behest of Syria, at a time Lebanon was still thoroughly occupied (truly occupied, unlike the Israeli “occupation” which consisted of a tiny strip of land, rather than occupying the whole country, putting in tens of thousands of soldiers and thousands and thousands of secret police and dominating the government) by Syria, so as to conveniently provide a grievance for Hezbollah to protest after Israel withdrew entirely from Lebanon and was certified as doing so by the UN, given that Syria was uninterested in negotiating peace anyway.
     If you’re not aware of this, well, I dunno what to say. I’d recommend reading the links at Wikipedia, and reading up on your own as you wish on Shebaa Farms. The facts are nothing but clear.
     “Hezbollah’s seizure of two Israeli border guards and firing two rockets close to Shlomi, an Israeli town… were criminal acts, but hardly acts of war.”
     No government on Earth would agree. That’s a risible claim.
     “In my opinion, the only solution would actually work is a radical one that would probably never happen: declare that Israel is no longer a ‘Jewish state,’ but rather, a secular democracy,”
     Yeah, yeah. Heard it before. I’m sorry, but I have no interest in arguing Zionism 101. I entirely believe that you have nothing but good will, but I’m just too old and tired of this stuff to have any interest in that debate any more.
     Please forgive me for being cranky. I’m also just very tired of the generally one-sided nature of both much of the news presentation, and so many people’s presumptions. I have little patience left, which is my problem, not yours. As I said, I thoroughly believe that you are a person of good will, seeking truth and justice as you can find it, and that’s a good thing, indeed.

369. Dan: This of course explains the entirely fictional peace treaties Israel has negotiated with Egypt and Jordan.
     I think you confuse “unwilling” with “unable”.
     And again:
     I said: simply because neither Israelis nor Lebanese, neither Likud nor Hezbollah, are unitary unchangeable forces, but political parties made up of individuals. Your unwillingness to acknowledge that, Dan, has made this conversation deeply frustrating.
     Dan said: And your unwillingness to ackowledge that Hezbollah as an entity [my emphasis] is committed to the destruction of Israel and is unwilling to change that position, making negotiations useless until they back off from that position, has made this conversation little short of insane.
     I rest my case. It appears insane to you, Dan, because you either will not or cannot acknowledge reality. To someone adrift from reality, people in the real world must appear insane. But I cannot adopt your unrealistic view of Hezbollah as one unitary entity without individuals with differing views, because I will not take part in an argument one premise of which depends on being so entirely unrealistic.

370. Jes,
     “It appears insane to you, Dan, because you either will not or cannot acknowledge reality. To someone adrift from reality, people in the real world must appear insane.”
     We entirely agree on everything except who is not looking at reality, and whose ideology is blinding them to it.
     Again, “While it is fun to pretend that Hezbollah is a democratic institution which is susceptible to change if the positions of its leaders are out of touch with their members, there is no evidence for that position. Therefore, unlike the Republican party, the position of low level members who hold differing positions in Hezbollah is irrelevant. This should be obvious to anyone who gives it a moment’s thought. Why is it not to you?”

371. We entirely agree on everything except who is not looking at reality, and whose ideology is blinding them to it.
     Oh, you acknowledge that it’s ideology that makes you believe that Hezbollah is one unitary entity? Fair enough.

372. Jes,
     Don’t be sillier than you absolutely need to be. I agree that your anti-Israeli ideology is preventing you from acknowledging that Hezbollah is not a democratic organization, but rather one where the opinions of dissenting members has no effect on the policies of the organization as a whole.

Comments are closed.