Israel created Hezbollah as a reaction to their invasion of Lebanon in the 80s. They gave hezbollah a continued reason for violence by never pulling out of the Bekka farms and holding Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners virtually forever. I can't understand how they think that they can make themselves safer by invading again. By destroying the infrastructure of the whole country and indiscriminately killing and displacing so many civilians, including Christians and tourists, they have succeeded in uniting the whole country against them and increasing the despair and rage that breeds people willing to die for a chance to get even.

This was a clear violation of international and US law. But our administration ignores this and sends millions more in weapons to replace the ones Israel has used up. Both parties are committing crimes against humanity by targeting or not caring about civilians, yet our administration does nothing to try to stop it and prevents others from doing so. This makes me a criminal by proxy and I am outraged.

Rachel -

Good for you for finally bringing up this story as a thread starting post. Some of us have tried to get Blue Oregonians to stop their navel gazing and you can find the abortive attempts scattered throughout many threads.

Thank you also for trying to make the truth real since we are not hearing the full story of what is happening in the U.S. I notice though, that YouTube (www.youtube.com) is serving a perhaps unexpected and potentially culture shifting function of becoming a place where many more folks can see clips of what is reported on CNN International and other international news services. And it is not the picture we are getting here that downplays the immorality and horror of waging urban war, and therefore dismisses the utter evil of doing so in full knowledge of the inevitable civilian casualties. (And yesterday I was stunned to even hear right-wing ABC Radio news report that the Israeli military had unquestionably targeted and destroyed a clearly marked civilian ambulance transporting civilians injured in an earlier airstrike with a precision guided air-to-ground missile.) There is a least the possibility there will be a growing revulsion at what our war-criminal-in-chief is leading and condoning in his strategy of escalating war from the Mediterranean nearly to the Himalayas.

Our NW electeds to federal office, and in particular our Democratic electeds who profess to hold core Democratic values, with just a few notable exceptions (who can name them?) have been conspicuously and disgracefully silent on the most recent violence and only timidly opposed to the strategy of starting and escalating war from the Mediterranean to the Himalayas. My question is whether their silence for the most part actually is the truest and most faithful representation of what NWers, Oregonians, and even Blue Oregonians views?

I believe it very well may be that their silence actually is a truer representation than people want to admit. The core proof is that the staff in the offices of those electeds have been absolutely resolute in refusing to respond to substantively to calls from what must be a minority of constituents who want to know one simple thing: What is the specific position of the elected on the continuing escalation of violence in the mideast by those who alone have the military force to do it? Does he or she back the war-criminal-in-chief's specific positions on the war in Lebanon, the war in Iraq, and clear plans for war on Iran, not too mention the failed war on Afghanistan (anybody reading the news lately how the failed U.S. war strategy is actually abetting a return of the Taliban to power)? Does he or she have a different position and what specifically is that?

Our own electeds are mute and cowering, and they would only do that if they thought they could safely do that without risking the outcry of the people. So far at least, Blue Oregon has not proven them wrong.

Askquestionsfirst comments about the supposed

immorality and horror of waging urban war

and

the utter evil of doing so in full knowledge of the inevitable civilian casualties

This is a very stupid argument. One should bear in mind that it would apply to a great deal of fighting during WWII. Why do people like AQF fail to see that the civilian casualties are the result of embedding military assets among civilian populations. Hizbollah counts on this sort of "useful idiocy": if they fire rockets at Israeli civilians (without much complaint from the likes of AQF) with impunity Israel loses. If Israel tries to neutralize the attacks, Israel loses. It's a great game, so long as Hizbollah has people like AQF it can count on.

Let's be clear: Abucting soldiers from their home territory is an act of war. Firing rockets to deliberately kill civilians is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. Hiding among civilians is also a war crime, and the Geneva Conventions are very clear that any civilians casualties that result from the pursuit of military assets thus concealed are the responsibility of those that use civilians as shield.

Where's the outrage about that?

If we want violence to continue and to grow in that region, let's continue to tolerate such war crimes and excoriate those who respond within the rules of war.

I must say, the knee-jerk anti-Israel impulses of many of my friends on the Left is disturbing.

I'm not sure why this thread seems to be about Israel's conduct, when the current violence began with Hezbollah -- a foreign terrorist organization -- invading the sovereign territory of Israel and kidnapping two Israeli soldiers. Of course, Israel responded with tactical strikes against Hezbollah (permitted by international law), and then Hezbollah began shooting missiles at Israeli population centers, including Israel's third largest city Haifa. What would the U.S. do if a foreign terrorist organization began lobbing missiles at Chicago?

So why are we talking about Israel, when we should be talking about how America can best help eliminate terrorist organizations like Hezbollah?

Maybe you believe we should be talking about Israel, since Lebanese casualties have far outnumbered Israeli casualties. I hasten to observe, however, that there have been fewer Lebanese casualties since the Hezbollah/Israeli fighting began than there have been Iraqi casualties in the same period. (There have also been fewer Israeli military casualties than American military casualties in Iraq over the same period.) Not to mention the fact that the situation in Lebanon is far less dire than in Sudan, Chechnya, and other hot spots around the globe.

So, again, why the focus on Israel?

I don't believe that Israel should be immune from criticism. Far from it, I have been a vocal critic of Israel's policies. But we should be mindful to keep our criticism of Israel in context. And the current context is that Israel is responding to an attack by a foreign aggressor and Israel's military-tactical decisions have not been out-of-sync with the scale of defensive strikes by other sovereign powers.

I also think this conversation could benefit from a brief history lesson:

In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon under similar circumstances (instability on the border, etc.). Israel occupied a strip of land in southern Lebanon -- a buffer zone of sorts -- until 2000, when it unilaterally withdrew. Hezbollah, which had been formed to resist Israel's occupation, continued to attack Israel after its withdrawal on the pretext that Israel was still occupying a Lebanese region called the Shebaa Farms. But nearly every authority in the world -- including the U.N. -- regards the Shebaa Farms as part of the Syrian Golan Heights, not a part of Lebanon. Even Syria, the chief sponsor of Hezbollah, considers the Shebaa Farms as part of its territory. Until its most recent attacks, Hezbollah limited itself to engaging Israel on this disputed territory. But in the past two weeks, Hezbollah has upped-the-ante by attacking Israel on its undisputed sovereign territory. That's what started this current conflict and that's why Israel has responded so aggressively.

I'm not one to say, "They attack us because they hate our freedoms." That's just stupid. Hezbollah is attacking Israel because (1) it objects to Israel's very right to exist as a Jewish state in the Mid-East (it sees Israel's very existence as a western-colonial power), (2) it is seeking the release of its members from Israeli prisons, and (3) it claims that Israel is occupying the Shebaa Farms.

The other complicating factor, of course, is Iran. Iran funds and supplies Hezbollah. It is entirely possible that Iran is behind this whole conflict, in order to divert international attention from its nuclear program. Only time will tell...

Great piece in the O's op-ed pages today by Anatol Lieven (can't find link to commentary on google) about the total failure of Bush's policies in the Mideast. There have been a number of lost opportunities that the admin had right after 9/11 in negotiating deals with the Iranians and Syrians, both of whom despise Sunni radicalism. But because the admin completely shut them out, marginalized them, and undercut their economies through sanctions the Bushies gave the radicals in these nations a new opportunity to regain support among their populations, despite the fact that Iran was on a moderating path during the 90s.

It's a huge tragedy that we will have to live with for decades to come, along with the likely blowback.

Those soldiers were not "abducted from their home territory", they were commandos captured in Lebanon during a firefight which claimed six of their squad. Please see Joshua Frank's post today at BrickBurner, , and DissidentVoice, .

I have a friend named Hala. She and I used to work together in Hollywood. She has a U.S. passport and works with a Green Card, but she has no national origin. She and her family are people without a country. From birth, she has been a Palestinian refugee. Her family has been more fortunate than most Palestinians, as they were allowed to come to the United States with refugee status, which has allowed them to live in relative prosperity compared to Palestinians who still live in terrible conditions in refugee camps in the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.

Several weeks ago Hala went to Beirut to work on a documentary film about tribal Bedouins who still live in the Syrian desert. On July 12, she packed an overnight bag and flew from Beirut to Damascus to do some research for the film. That was the same day that Hezbollah crossed into Israel, kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed with others in the process. The next day, Isreal starting dropping bombs on the Beirut airport and my friend Hala was stuck in Damascus with no way of returning to Beirut. Fortunately, after a few days, she was able to escape to Abu Dhabi, where her mother currently lives.

I attempted to engage my friend in an email discussion about the current situation and the ongoing causes of conflict and carnage in the Middle East. I’ve tried to be objective and take a third party perspective. I’ve tried to educate myself and carefully analyze both sides of the conflict. I see the pros and cons on both sides. I witness the pain and suffering on both sides. I see the horrors war inflicted on both sides.

During my less objective moments, I’ve tried to get Hala to admit that militant factions of Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organizations. I’ve tried to convince her that Israel has a right to exist and right to defend itself. While she concedes that Israel has a right to exist, she remains a devout apologist for the Palestinian cause and that actions of Hezbollah and Hamas.

Recently she sent me this email:

"Imagine in Eugene, Oregon, that some ancient scripture claimed that it is the holy land for Moslems. A Moslem force invades with the military aid of Iran and forces you and your family out - you are now in a suburb town crammed with other neighbors and displaced Eugene residents.

"Imagine nearly 60 years of this - what would you do? How would you behave? How desperate do you think you would feel?"

I haven’t responded to this email, because I really don’t know what to say.

Sid,

thanks for reminding us that Bush is responsible for everything bad.

More of the Liberals are good at pointing out the potholes in the road, but have no idea how to fix them.

Maybe you missed it during your 18 years worth of public education, but Israel and their neighbors have actually been fighting (for a couple of thousand years now) prior to Bush coming into office.

Thomas,

Looks like you were born a couple of generations too late. Germany could have used a man like you in the 40's.

Misha,

If you go outside US reports on exactly where the Israeli soldiers were captured, you'll find a different story, one that claims the soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory. Even this AP article doesn't make it clear where the soldiers were actually captured.

I have friends who are huge supporters of Israel and Middle Eastern friends, and based on what each tells and e-mails me, you would think two different wars on opposite sides of the globe are going on.

Look, this has been going on since 1948. All of the missed opportunites for a solid peaceful resolution can be blamed on the desire for political power and control of the region. That's what the bloody and barbaric 100 Year War was about between the Protestants and Catholics in Europe, at least until its populations got sick and tired of warfare and ushered in the Enlightenment. I'm sure during the 100 Yr. War Protestant supporters blamed the Catholic Church for all the blood shed and the Catholics blamed the Protestants. It's always the other side's fault, isn't it?

Interesting. The enemy is not an organization whose tactic of first resort is to deliberately target civilians; an organization that refuses to even recognize the existence of its opponent, making negotiation futile; an organization that uses civilians as shields for its military assets, including during operations; an organization that despises and is hostile to all "infidels" that don't share its faith, and whose ultimate goal is theocratic tyrrany.

No, the "enemy" is the only democratic country in the region, a country that has excelled in the arts of peace, contributing to science, agriculture, industry and commerce, and which has not only spoken but acted in the interest of coming to a solution that permits both sides to coexist.

I'm just surprised the comment didn't end with "Allah u akbar!!!!"

Dan J,

Maybe you missed it during your education that Israel was founded in 1948. Based on the math skills that I aquired during my public education that's 58 years, not a couple thousand.

Sid,

Israel existed long before 1948. Roman history documents the existance of Israel over 2000 years ago.

So yes Sid, I'd say your public education did let you down.

My advice to you is to leave the numbers alone and stick to water colors.

Dan J,

Nation states did not exist 2000 years ago. Give me a link to a map of the Middle East from 1946 and tell me if you see Israel on the map.

And if you're going to refer to Roman history, then shouldn't all of Europe still be called the Roman Empire? Oh, but shucks, part of it became the Ottoman Empire for a while. But I guess since it was the Roman Empire before it was the Ottoman Empire, it's really still the Roman Empire.

Sid,

If you want to pretend that nations did not exist 2000 years ago, well, good for you.

I realize this is a matter of splitting hairs on the definition of "nation" similar to Clinton's famous explanation of

"what the definition of 'is' is".

My original point was that to pin this on Bush is absurd. I love libs spending so much energy on someone who has already won his second election.

And we wonder why the Jews and Arabs can't get along?

How about thinking about this differently?

What would/could a strong peace movement do about this?

Imagine MLK had not been murdered and was now our ambassador to the UN instead of Bolton.

What would MLK do in that capacity? I think figuring out who was to blame for the latest round of violence would be kind of low on his list of priorities.

What about the role of ideology? Seems like globablly WE in the world are sorely lacking a unifying framework that focuses on broad based social security. Markets are powerful and important institutions but, in the end, they are about discrimination and don't in themselves make any social guarantees.

Imagine if global social democracy with adequate safety nets was the real and earnest priority in our national and global institutions. Do you think we'd have this trend toward opportunistically encouraged ethnic territoriality?

I don't.

The fine op-ed piece by Anatol Lieven that the O ran this morning is available online via the New America Foundation at:

More twaddle:

Imagine if global social democracy with adequate safety nets was the real and earnest priority in our national and global institutions. Do you think we'd have this trend toward opportunistically encouraged ethnic territoriality?

Such economic reductionism is absurd. The argument is that people would behave fine if they just had the right material conditions. Now, if that were true, there would be a lot less white-collar crime.

Economics plays a role in the Middle East, but the way it does it is complex. Israel's enemies range from the super-rich to the dirt poor. Tribal emotion and religious fanaticism operate across class boundaries.

If anything, wealth, not poverty, has driven conflict in the Middle East. It's not that people aren't economically oppressed there. Many are, but not in a way that would necessarily trouble Bert since he appears to be no friend of economic liberty. The Saudis have been spreading Wahabbist Islamic fundamentalism around the world thanks to their petroleum wealth. Iran, another oil-rich country, funds Hizbollah.

Steve Maurer made an excellent point: Why is it that there is such urgency when Israel takes military measures (that they are defensive mean nothing to many commentators) but none about places like Darfur, Congo or Rwanda--even though many more people are being or have been killed or displaced in those conflicts?

Race probably is factor, as is geographic strategic significance. However, economics is a larger factor. Whatever color they are in Darfur, they're not sitting on a whole lot of oil that the West needs. Israel's enemies are, and so they must be humored.

I would appreciate hearing Misha and anyone else comment on exactly what is meant by Israel being a "Jewish state". As I see it, regardless of how one defines "Jewish"--whether in religious, ethnic, or cultural terms--as soon as one decides that a political entity, a state, is "Jewish", then one is also deciding that the rights and responsibilities of citizenship depend upon whether or not one is "Jewish". This is a distinctly different approach to the concept of citizenship as compared to the United States, say.

Idler,

Posing a question is hardly reductionism.

Your use of the word "absurd" is awkward given that the rest of your post highlights "economics" as a "larger factor."

I am not an economic reductionist, but my guess is that people having jobs, relatively stable futures, quality education, social security, health care and, also, measures of "economic liberty" would reduce conflict.

Evidence of broad based economic well being and economic justice would also reduce the perceived legitimacy of fundamentalism.

Yes, you are right that some countries use oil wealth to support movements. Precisely for this reason, a state with the power and commitment to tax oil wealth and redirect it toward development and social democracy is part of the solution.

It is also true that western countries use their wealth for self-interested geopolitical goals and market domination. Let's use our wealth differently and see how it works.

We have the ability to do so, and we need ideas that help move us toward conflict resolution.

Many points have been made that warrant a response. But I'll just offer two observations for now:

1. Lin, there is nothing wrong or even suspect about a state that has a formal religious affiliation. The United Kingdom is officially an Anglican state. Spain, France, and Italy are all Catholic states. Turkey is a secular-Muslim state, and many other states in the middle-east (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.) are religious Muslim states.

And Israel is a Jewish state. That doesn't mean non-Jews can't live there and be citizens. Indeed, 20 percent of Israeli citizens are non-Jewish Arabs. (That is distinguished from the 3.5 million Palestinians who do not live within Israel and are not citizens.) The Basic Law of Israel (like a Constitution), as well as Israel's Declaration of Independence, grant religious freedom to all of its citizens.

EStillwell, I might respond to your friend in two ways. First, both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict have suffered enormously. Far too many parents have lost children on both sides of the Green Line. But the suffering of one side does not justify aggression against the other side. This logic only propagates a cycle of violence. Second, I might observe that your friend seems to be conflating Israel's conflict with the Palestinians and Israel's current clash with Hezbollah.

NPR ran a story yesterday about how the "left" is avoiding the topic of Lebanon. A very timely story judging from the above posts. Some of you sound ready to wrap yourselves in dynamite and die for Shia, and the rest of you can find no wrong with Israel.

Once we solve the problems of poverty, access to health care and discrimination in the US, I will be ready to turn my attention to foreign policy.

So, how about those Blazers?

Rather than believe Idler's despicable misinterpretations of what the Geneva Conventions prohibit, read them for yourself:

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Pay special attention to Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 3:

3. The presence of within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.

Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 4. and Sec. 5:

4.Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited ...

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: ...

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Also Protocol I, Art 51. Sect 8:

Any violations of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

Proportionality is the only defense for attacks which result in civilian casualties, and it is a very circumscribed and limited defense at that. What we have seen in every theatre of what in fact, by our war-criminal-in-chiefs' own words, is a multi-front war that the psychotic, sociopathic right-wing in the U.S. and our few allies joining us in the violence have launched goes way beyond any valid proportionality defense. Period. Anyone who argues otherwise deserves equal condemnation for attempting to justify war crimes.

And finally, I repeat here what I said in my earlier post. There is no defense for the mute cowardice of almost all of our N.W. electeds (although stupidity undoubtedly plays a large role). Shame on you.

Actually, it was Misha in his original posting in this thread who referred to Israel as a "Jewish state". I'm simply trying to tease out what people mean when they use this phrase. I'm quite sure that the simple fact of my asking what people mean by this phrase does not "cast aspersions on the legitimacy of Israel as a nation-state," as Mr. Maurer worried about. If I wanted to rant in that way, I'd head off to Portland Indymedia.

Pretty clearly "Jewish state" means different things to different people. For example, within the Israeli political establishment, there is at least one rather strident party (Yisrael Beteinu--not part of government, as far as I know) that seems to view the "Jewish state" concept in an exclusionary fashion and favors expulsion of Arab citizens from Israeli territory. This is a fact. A sad fact to be sure, but a fact nonetheless. The platform of Yisrael Beteinu is, in this respect, arguably quite analogous to the national-chauvinist platforms of various far-right European parties (Jean-Marie LePen and his followers in France being perhaps the most obviously relevant comparison).

As for discussion in this thread of Hizbullah and the ongoing war in Lebanon, I'm not sure I've seen much beyond the usual finger-pointing and recriminations. It's always their fault, and whatever we do is just a "response". Empathy and compassion have always seemed to me to be singularly lacking on the part of Israel, its enemies, and the parties' respective supporters and apologists. No white hats. Just black hats.

Askquestions1st,

Nice try.

The despicable interpretation is yours if you interpret the relevant sections as being a defense of using civilian shields. That is what an absolute prohibition of targeting of military assets in the presence of civilians would amount to, and that is clearly not the intention of the Conventions.

How interesting that you cite (however ineptly) only the sections that you feel will help your argument and avoid discussion of the very issue I raised. The passage on civilian shields, found at Protocol I, article 51 is right below the one you cite. How did you miss it? Some relevant text(emphasis mine):

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians SHALL NOT BE USED TO RENDER CERTAIN POINTS OR AREAS IMMUNE FROM MILITARY OPERATIONS, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations.

You don’t deny my contention that your argument would apply to a great deal of fighting during WWII because I’m right about that. History shows that, and so does common sense. The civilized people who drafted the Conventions understood that, and they also anticipated the actions of the likes of Hizbollah.

The doctrine of proportionality by no means prohibits attacks that might result in civilian casualties. The reason is that by doing so it would effectively give the green light to embed military assets in the population and at the same time deny a party to respond to attacks.

To reprise: indiscriminate attacks against civilian lives or property do qualify as war crimes. Attacks relating to legitimate military objectives (such as rocket launchers and enemy command and supply posts) do not, provided those attacks are proportionate. “Proportionate” means that they are calculated with a force adequate to achieving a military objective and not more, such that they would unneccessarily destroy a much greater area (within which civilians or civilian property could be expected to be or were known to be present) in the vicinity of the legitimate target.

Obviously if a force uses civilians to shield its personnel and equipment, proportionate force will result in civilian casualties.

If you were a rigorous and scrupulous thinker, you would take seriously the question of civilian shields and would at a minimum show a little interest in the definition of the term “excessive” in order to make a plausible case. You don’t bother with that, nor do you even make a case to demonstrate that the Israelis were in violation of the related provisions in Article 57. There are two reasons you don’t; one is that you lack sufficient fairness to care, the other is that you simply can’t.

You clearly have chosen to dismiss the question of human shields, betraying prejudices capable of drowning out serious reflection on serious ethical issues. You have also shown a misunderstanding of the Geneva Conventions, demonstrating poor reading comprehension, ignorance of military realities, or both.

Once again Idler you prove how the right operates to justify immorality and evil. Quite ugly, actually.

Protocol I, Arts.50 and 51 do not only deal with civilian defensive shields. They deal with all aspects of attacks which harm civilians populations, and consider the issue of civilians being used in the context. The quoted sections were correct and the quotes did not distort the meaning in context of those sections. The other sections dealt with other aspects of attacks which would harm civilians.

Whether civilians render areas immune, does not empower anyone too attack. As I pointed out these sections in total, tightly circumscribe belligerents to proportionality. You of course also misrepresent the point about proportionality, but of course you would because disproportionality, so long as your side is not the victim, apparently is something that pleases you. I'm quite prepared to have the leaders, including elected national leaders, who have ordered that such attacks be made removed immediately and against their will if necessary to war crimes tribunals with imprisonment power to have their proportionality defenses heard. Are you?

I won't dignify your intellectual dishonest comments about "rigorous and scrupulous" thinker except to get in your face to say that it is the tactic of a dishonest intellect, and the evil of the right wing, to try to impute motive in what is not explicitly said.

So the bottom line is this: People have to chose whether they place a higher moral value on opposing the evil of all attacks on civilians, and therefore call now for an immediate cease fire without preconditions on all fronts of the immoral and criminal war being launched by the right wing, or not. You making abundently clear where you stand. And why it is incumbent on decent and good people to start to make that position that embraces violence as you do unwelcome in and beyond the pale of decent society

Last Updated: Wednesday, 12 October 2005, 15:34 GMT 16:34 UK

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Idler: Go to BBC NEWS and type in human shield. Seems Isarel thinks even this is ok for them. This is from October.

IDF to appeal human shield ban

The practice of using human shields is against international law The Israeli Defence Ministry will appeal against a supreme court ruling banning the use of Palestinian human shields in raids, officials said. Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz is prepared to make a personal appearance in court to defend the practice, ministry officials added.

Kristof (op-ed piece in the O today) makes a great point about how India has been dealing with terrorism. Everyone has quickly forgotten that only a couple of weeks ago 200 people were killed in a terrorist attack in Bombay. The Indian PM understands that retaliation would only make things worse, along with the fact that the US has put heavy pressure on India not to engage in a war with Pakistan. Imagine if 200 Israelis were killed in a single terrorist attack...

"Israelis are not a country entirely composed of angels. Individual hard right Israelis are absolutely guilty of provocations; more than a handful - I am convinced - have perpretrated war crimes. But repeated rhetorical attempts to generalize this to the Israeli nation itself, while remaining blind to actual war-crime policies of the groups dedicated to destroying that nation, borders in anti-semitism. And I feel sorry for otherwise good people (who always seem to find a way to justify and/or ignore Arab war-crimes against jews) who resort to demonization as an alternative to acknowledgement of any moral ambiguity in the Israel/Palestine conflict."

--Steven Maurer

Steven,

When the Indian government engaged in an active campaign to oppress Kashmiri Muslims in the 90s as a result of rising militancy, backed by Paksitan, things only got worse. In fact they got pretty bad. Over 60,000 people were killed, but those numbers are finally tapering off because India has changed its policiy towards Kashmir.

That's not to say there are still problems, as the terrorist bombings in Bombay a few weeks ago demonstrate. But more and more, the terrorist groups that are backed by Paksitan are becoming marginalized as a majority of Indian Muslims refuse to support them and even commonly speak out against terrorism now.

Askquestions1st

Your latest post shows no improvement on the previous one.

Nobody is disputing your citations, but only that you cite selectively and don’t quite understand the import of the provisions you cite. Absolutely, the sections in question deal with all aspects of attacks that harm civilian populations, and I said explicitly, if you had been paying attention, that if Israelis attack civilians gratuitously they are guilty of war crimes.

It’s clear from your latest comment that you still don’t get what proportionality is, and why it is important. Proportionality isn’t a matter of whether and to what degree civilians and their property are harmed. It’s a matter of whether a legitimate military objective was being pursued with a reasonable amount of force without gratuitously harming civilians or their property.

The bottom line is you can’t use human shields as a ruse to stop people firing on you—to do so is a war crime—and combatants can lawfully fire upon military assets despite the use of human shields. Thus, the responsibility of those civilian casualties falls to those who put them in harm’s way. If you don’t understand this, you don’t understand the Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva Conventions oppose deliberate attacks on civilians and careless (“excessive”) actions against legitimate military objectives, but at the same time they affirm that no actor has to sit and receive fire without recourse just because its adversary is hiding behind civilians. If the security of a party depends on neutralizing such attacks, that party is empowered by the Conventions to do just that. And once again, the reason should be simple: it is to preserve the right of self-defense of the party being fired upon from behind human shields, and it is to provide an unequivocal disincentive to parties inclined to abuse civilians in this manner.

You make sanctimonious show of being opposed to violence, but you find it very difficult to condemn the war crimes of Hizbollah. If you are serious about refusing to “embrace violence,” even in self-defense, then I hope you never find yourself up against an enemy like Hizbollah.

I do hope, however, that somehow the opportunity arises for you to tell a WWII vet all about his despicable willingness to “embrace violence” in Europe. No doubt, as the allies began pushing the Germans toward the Falaise Gap—having inadvertently killed a considerable number civilians in the process of getting there—“decent and good people” should have called upon the allies to have an “immediate cease fire without preconditions on all fronts.” But no, those bastards embraced violence.

Torridjoe,

Hizbollah is firing deadly weapons armed with explosives and shrapnel. It is only because they are designed to kill that they “sow fear.” They are unquestionably being aimed, within the limits of the weapons’ guidance capabilities, at civilians.

If some inept or ill-equipped person tries to murder you, he’s still attempting murder, even if his efforts are laughable. Hizbollah’s capabilities may not rival those of the Israelis, but they’re certainly not laughable.

Thus, firing the rockets into residential areas is absolutely, as much as could possibly be, “deliberate targeting of civilians.” The technical capability has no bearing on the criminal intention.

It’s curious to even see such an argument, given that Hizbollah, like many of Israel’s enemies, makes no bones about their desire to kill Israeli civilians (and Jews in other places, such as Buenos Aires, where Hizbollah has executed two murderous attacks). This is what they do, and they do it proudly.

Israel’s actions are primarily justified by the fact that it is being confronted by hostile personnel and military assets. The way it conducts those attacks are regulated—but not prohibited—by the rules of war concerning proper consideration for civilians who may be expected to be present.

The hostage analogy is thought-provoking, but limited in its application to the case. If the danger can be minimized by containing the hostage-taker then, yes, that should be done. But a closer analogy would be the hostage-taker walking around taking pot-shots at defenseless bystanders with law enforcement powerless to neutralize the criminal by force. In that case, law enforcement officers would eventually risk one life (the hostage’s) for the sake of saving a greater number.

I would encourage people to think why the Geneva Conventions come to a different conclusion than yours. It might be useful to consider WWII (which I continue to cite because it is less controversial than other conflicts) and the way civilians were often killed not just in bombing raids, but in ground advances. There is no way that the Germans could have been defeated in Europe with zero tolerance for harm toward civilians and their property—even though the Germans were not particularly given to using human shields.

Torridjoe,

It’s hard to argue with the imprecise phraseology you use, but your conclusions are mistaken if you mean that if civilians are present anywhere in the field of conflict all action is forbidden.

The whole notion of proportionality is not to prohibit attacks where civilians might be hurt, but to take as much care as possible not to use more force than necessary — in order to minimize incidental civilian casualties. Otherwise the term would simply be meaningless.

I urge you to read Article 57, which talks about the obligation of belligerents to take precautions in attacks. That entire article would be unnecessary if there were an absolute prohibition against attacks where civilians are likely to be affected. The point is clearly not that you can be forced not to attack, but that when attacking you should be scrupulous about limiting use of force, to the extent that circumstances permit, in order to spare civilians unnecessary harm.

For example, the section doesn’t say simply that belligerents must “refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected incidental loss of civilian life,” etc.; it says that they must refrain from doing so if that loss of life, etc., “would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” A vernacular way of saying this might be, “Do what you must to defeat your enemy, but for God’s sake, take all reasonable precautions not to hurt the civilians.”

With regard to the rockets, I struggle to believe you’re not simply pulling my leg. At the very least, you missed the entire point about criminal intent: attempted murder is still attempted murder, even if your technical limitations render your efforts, shall we say, hit-or-miss. And of course civilians have been killed by the rockets fired by Hizbollah, and civilian property has been damaged gratuitously—which is itself a violation of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions we’ve been discussing.

And once again, it's worth noting that such behavior is utterly characteristic of the party in question. Targeting civilians is their stock-in-trade.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say with the “If someone is trying to murder Me” argument and even what analogy it relates to. Perhaps you can clarify.

My WWII example would be more instructive than you’ve found it if you considered it with the least bit of care. As I said in my previous comment civilians were often killed NOT JUST IN BOMBING RAIDS (which were by no means all on a par with Hiroshima) but also in myriad other situations.

Frankly, I can’t understand how it is that I put forward a thought-provoking challenge, as I did in my reference to the European campaign and someone thinks they have made an adequate response by simply avoiding consideration of it.

I have no doubt at all that all the hairsplitting, squabbling, finger-pointing, and generally disagreeable stuff here is going to bring the war in Labanon to a speedy end.

Bombs are falling, rockets are flying, people are being killed and maimed, and we've got people arguing about who's the biggest bully, who started it, and what the meaning of "is" is.

Anyone recall this? Is this actually what we want to endorse? Because that's what the Bush Administration is obviously endorsing.

Give War a Chance Edward N. Luttwak From Foreign Affairs, July/August 1999

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19990701faessay990/edward-n-luttwak/give-war-a-chance.html

Summary: Since the establishment of the United Nations, great powers have rarely let small wars burn themselves out. Bosnia and Kosovo are the latest examples of this meddling. Conflicts are interrupted by a steady stream of cease-fires and armistices that only postpone war-induced exhaustion and let belligerents rearm and regroup. Even worse are U.N. refugee-relief operations and NGOs, which keep resentful populations festering in camps and sometimes supply both sides in armed conflicts. This well-intentioned interference only intensifies and prolongs struggles in the long run. The unpleasant truth is that war does have one useful function: it brings peace. Let it.

Idler -

I only have a couple of points.

First, the overall thrust of your argument is really about justifying war, a debased moral position which I reject unreservedly. And trying to make valid self-defense arguments clearly is something that you are not morally or intellectually equipped to do.

Second, I have condemned all military violence as evil. I won't engage in the childish and morally reprehensible balancing of which lives are worth more than others that you seem to want to do, as evidenced by your demand that specific acts be condemned to a degree that conforms to your particular scale for assigning value to innocent lives.

Third your representations of what others have purportedly said about human shield arguments are in many cases blatantly falsehoods and in others crude cartoons of their real arguments. At the bottom line they are also an intellectually dishonest attempt to demean the full import of the Geneva Conventions.

Finally, you should be very, very careful with statements like I do hope, however, that somehow the opportunity arises for you to tell a WWII vet all about his despicable willingness to “embrace violence". You have no idea who I may be, or who I have had many and long discussions with, including family members who are vets, about the true evil of war. I can assure you, however, that they find people who have the gall to use them to attack critics who stand up to your sick and twisted beliefs, to be disgusting and despicable.

Those of you that see the world in shades of gray, and believe in moral relativism, should stop reading now.

Yes, I realize this is a an oversimplification of a complex web of geopolitics and many centuries of religious and cultural animosity.

But simplification can serve a useful purpose: clarity.

Israel and the United States = the good guys Hesbollah/Syria/Iran = the bad guys

The bad guys picked a fight with the good guys: Hesbollah kidnapped two Israeli Soldiers. The good guys responded (not with "proportional force") by opening up a fresh can of "Whoop-Ass". The bad guys responded by launching hundreds of rockets at Israeli civilians.

The goal of warfare is not to make a "proportionate" response. The goal of warfare is to win. Winning requires you to kill all the bad guys that are willing to stand up and fight. Those that run away may choose to fight another day (if so, they can die another day). To the degree the good guys respond with OVERWHELMING FORCE, some of the bad guys may decide to avoid any future confrontation.

Until the war has been won, there can be no peace. Israel is our Ally, and the U.S. should cast off the pretense of neutral third party and do everything in our power to help Israel win the war. Innocent bystanders will die. The difference is that Hesbollah is launching their rockets indiscriminately, knowing full well they are more likely to hit civilian targets. Conversely, Israel is targeting suspected Hesbollah positions, knowing full well that civilians may (inadvertently) be caught in the crossfire.

Innocent bystanders (even children) will die. That is why warfare should be avoided. But once a war is started, it must be won.

Mister Tee -

Since you appreciate simplification and clarity, let's get some clarity on where we are headed by being, as torridjoe so aptly points out, a belligerent asshole (this is slightly rephrased from another comment I posted on another thread):

Absent some population decimating war crime by the the U.S. or our few allies (which incidentally would make us "bad guys" rather than "good guys" by your own simplification) in the multifront war we have launched, the dynamics of simple population demographics prove that we are going to lose the population numbers game. And frankly, if we were to commit such a "good guy to bad guy" population balance shifting action, we would instantly be become pariahs and the energy resources we depend on would be denied us.

So in simple terms, what possible safety, never mind intelligence or morality, is there in being belligerent assholes rather than finding a new path to peace? We are only stoking long lasting enmity that unquestionably will result in retribution when the population numbers do become completely untenable. And completely baseless fantasies of military victory aside, there is no way for us to win in the long run. The Asian subcontinent and particularly China not only have no real dog on our side in this fight, even if we don't chose to destroy our own economy and all goodwill towards us in the world they stand to be the dominant economies in the future. They would do quite well if their population was able to move up economically and become the major consumers of their combined economic output AND we just went away as a competitor for oil resources.

Most of us learn at a young age that there is no moral justification nor any practical advantage in being a belligerent asshole. Some of us don't though, and we all need to be very afraid that those whose apparently didn't are in charge. The future they promise for our children is nothing but a downward spiral of violence, fear, and an ongoing struggle just to survive.

Is that enough simplification and clarity for you?

Which brings me to the question of why the U.S. isn't calling for an immediate cease fire? What is their underlying motive, considering who is in charge?

Askquestions1st,

Congratulations on inhabiting a world where war is unthinkable.

The authors of the Geneva Conventions attempted to face the unfortunate reality of war and endeavored to temper it, relying on the better angels of the potential signatories.

Their work was worthwhile for the practical good it achieved and for the ethical distinctions it delineated as a guide to future belligerents convinced of the justice of their cause, but open to appeals made in the interest of non-combatants.

Those distinctions are very relevant in the current conflict. I recommend you go back and read the sections we've discussed and reconsider the exegesis I have offered.

The funny thing is, I'm open to arguments that apply the principles of the Conventions to the activities of the Israelis and make a serious case as to whether they're meeting those standards. But you haven't even grasped those principles.

Interestingly, Torridjoe actually takes a more plausible approach in his last comment, departing from his mistaken notions about the Conventions and simply concentrating instead on the issue whether the Israelis are acting excessively, in a way that affirms the standards of the Conventions.

Unfortunately, all he offers are assertions, which are open to other interpretations. But let's allow him a grain of plausibility. It is certainly possible that the Israelis have acted recklessly to some extent or that they have chosen to take a stand where the likely outcome does not justify the attendant suffering.

That's debatable. What is not debatable is that under the Geneva Conventions they have a right to bring proportionate force against military assets that threaten them.

And what is also beyond debate is that Hizbollah is committing war crimes by their direct targeting of civilians and by their use of ciivilians to shield their military capabilities.

I'd be much more convinced of both your moral seriousness and your intelligence if you could bring yourself to make as full-throated a condemnation of those crimes as you do of Israel's choosing to fight.

THERE IS NOT PATH TO PEACE. Not with Hesbollah, Syria, or Iran.

All three of them believe that Israel has no right to exist, has stolen the "Palestinian Homeland", and that all Israelis must die or be relocated to another continent.

There is no basis for peaceful coexistence or a negotiated settlement. There is no benefit to a cease fire until the most radical Hesbollah fighters/leaders are dead, and the Israelis have destroyed their rocket launching capability.

Lebanon is old the cedar wood for the ark of the covenant and Solomon's temple came from the 'cedars of Lebanon'.Same with the fighting been going on for thousands of years.

Danny Haszard Kingdom Hall Jehovah's Witnesses Rockland Massachusetts

This American thinks the if Hezbollah and al Qaida are terrorist organizations, then Israel and the US are terrorist states, and that any discussion of the situation that does not begin from this realization is bound to detour into obfuscation leading to false conclusions.

But, hey, we don't want a ceasefire too early, do we? Consider the lost orders for munitions. Consider the lost opportunities for territorial occupation.

For all those who want moral clarity, here are some fine examples of moral clarity:

---General Phil Sheridan (19th century US): "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."

---Until he was assassinated, the Israeli cabinet minister Rehavam Ze'evi used to refer to Palestinians as "lice."

--In an address to the Knesset on May 4, Yisrael Beitenu head MK Avigdor Lieberman called for executing Arab legislators who met with Hamas leaders. He said he hoped they would meet the same fate as those who collaborated with the Nazis and who were condemned to death at the Nuremberg trials.

--The Lebanon government promised to disarm all militant groups but exempted Hezbollah by designating it a "resistance" force against Israel instead of a militia. In this way it is also exempt from money laundering and terrorism financing laws.

Yeah, let’s forget about those silly distinctions in the Geneva Conventions and just admit that our notions of moral clarity are best represented by the outburst of a 19th century cavalry officer and one cranky Israeli cabinet minister (who no doubt deserved what he got!). It only goes to show that Islamist extremists are perfectly entitled to their opinion that Jews are the sons of pigs and apes.

Let’s affirm the right of the likes of al Qaeda and Hizbollah to proudly slaughter civilians en masse, saw off journalists' heads, etc., etc., etc. After all, the U.S. and Israel are no different!

So what if Israel honored its commitments by withdrawing from Lebanon but no compliance was forthcoming on the other side of the border? The deal was that Hezbollah would be disarmed. Instead, it has built up its arsenal with impunity and begun to stage acts of war and launch attacks deliberately aimed against Israeli civilians. Who cares! Israel should make another deal and be scrutinized carefully to see that it’s keeping its commitments, while Hizbollah, the Lebanese government, Syria, Iran and U.N. “peace” brokers can do whatever they like!

How's about relocating Israel to Texas? There's plenty of room. Right next door to W's ranch.

Stray away, Steve Maurer. Anybody in this crowd who not only talks sense and has a grasp of events but also effectively uses “casualty” and “causality” in adjoining sentences has my gratitude and respect!

Opinions on the Middle East conflict like that of Steve Maurer's are common only in Israel and the US. Israel is understandable, but why the US?

Is it because only Americans are not anti-Semitic? Is it because the rest of the world loves terrorist organizations? Hardly. It is because only in the US is news media so ahistorical, distorted and one-sided on behalf of Israel. But anyone with a bit of intellectual curiosity and an internet connection can now access the media of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the rest of the world and get a more balanced view of the situation.

Why is it that the US needs to twist arms to get a third vote in the UN General Assembly for resolutions concerning Israeli behavior toward its neighbors? Because the rest of the world is tired of Israel's aggression. The characterization of Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO, Iran, Syria, etc., as hateful purveyors of violence with no provocation, and Israel's far greater violence as justified self-defense is a extreme distortion; one that would be funny if it did not provide cover for so much death and destruction. Steve Maurer and his ilk should either be ashamed for their great ignorance or ashamed for their great immorality.

Yes, I’m sure a read of the (absolutely impartial) European press will make clear that Israel’s enemies don’t actually attack civilians as a matter of policy, use civilians as human shields, set off bombs in airports, buses, schools and community centers and make sworn commitments to the destruction of Israel.

Here’s how Israel’s aggression works: they deal with the U.N. and other bodies and agree to withdraw from Lebanon, under the condition that Hizbollah will be disarmed. They unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. Result? They are rewarded by Hizbollah and Palestinian actors using those territories as launching points for attacks against Israel’s civilians. So when do we hear about “aggression”? Only when Israel takes measures IN RESPONSE TO THOSE ATTACKS.

Reports from Europe have actually been a lot more sympathetic to Israel this time around, and a lot more critical of its enemies. In fact, the situation is such that many who have been conditioned into being sympathetic to the terrorist murderers of Israel’s civilians are now beginning to see what has been obvious to others for a very long time: that Israel's enemies are not interested in peace; they’re only interested in manipulating the hilariously misnamed “peace process” to gain tactical advantage toward their goal: the destruction of Israel.

Not Tom Civiletti, however. His exquisite moral sensibility shows that Israel is the aggressor and that Israel and its allies are no better than people who set of nail bombs in buses and saw the heads off journalists and tourists.

Lin Qiao/Civiletti:

Your logic suggests the only bellicose voices are coming from the Israeli/U.S. side.

The PLO, Hamas, Hizbullah, and their idealogical friends from Al Qaeda haven't exactly pursued Ghandi's non-violent ways. The terrorists' tactics don't include sit-ins or letter writing campaigns. They all have a proud history of killing innocent civilians in order to make their message resonate on the global stage.

Your moral relativism (all killing is equally bad, there is no legitimate distinction between aggressors and victims or combatants and civilians) is an empty doctrine. The islamo-fascists you so eagerly defend would cut your throat for carrying a bible or (in the case of a woman) for failing to cover your skin.

If you really believe we (collectively referring to the Israeli/United States) are no better than them (Al Qaeda, Hizbullah, Hamas), then doesn't it make sense to lend your considerable talents to the other team? They are outnumbered, outgunned, and outspent by orders of magnitude and they desperately need your help right now. If we are no better than they are, why not help out the underdogs?

On October 26, 2005, Iran's President repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be, "wiped out from the map" insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel. Clearly, the Israelis have good cause to distrust Iran's role in supporting Hizbullah.

Here's the Al Qaeda perspective on the Lebanese/Israeli front (from AlJazeera.net):

In a taped message broadcast on Aljazeera, Ayman al-Zawahiri said al-Qaeda would not stand by while "these [Israeli] shells burn our brothers" in Lebanon and Gaza.

The deputy to Osama bin Laden wore a grey robe and white turban during the statement. A picture of the World Trade Centre on fire was on the wall behind him along with pictures of two fighters.

For those who care to read an intellectually and morally substantive perspective on what is happening in the Mideast, rather than the right wing talking points of the belligerent few here who embrace killing and refuse to call for an unconditional cease fire ahead of anything else, therefore devaluing some innocent lives relative to others:

http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/news_item.2006-07-17.9426591429

Supporting an ally is a far cry from "embracing the killing"...The Lesson of Munich taught us there can be no LASTING PEACE with those who seek the destruction of their neighbors.

Those pacifists among you should never forget the infamous cease fire negotiated by Neville Chamberlain in 1938. As the Czechoslovakian people would learn six months later, appeasement is unlikely to restrain an ideology built on world domination.

Charles Krauthammer provides the historical context of the many challenges faced by Israel in an essay entitled Why They Fight published in the Washington Post on July 14, 2006.

Frankly Mister Tee, people like you and Idler who derive meaning in your life by justifying the slaughter of those innocents whose lives you devalue have nothing to add to the conversation.

You can live on your knees, or die on your feet.

Many innocent people die every day, in car accidents, drownings, homicides, cancers, heart attacks, and stroke. While their lives may have meaning forever, there is little to be gained from their untimely death. And yet, death awaits us all.

Many brave Americans died to establish and protect the freedoms now enjoyed by the pacifists, the cowards, and the intellectually blind. Many non-combatants were also killed, and even more lost siblings, spouses, and children to war. While tragic, their deaths have meaning: we all benefit from the sacrifices they made.

Nothing written on this blog will exceed the "intellectually and morally substantive" giants whose shoulders we stand upon. Their deaths had meaning; their willingness to face the possibility of death on the field of battle is the best protection that freedom and liberty will ever know.

The Islamo-fascists who seek to dominate the region and subjugate all people to their religious dictates are willing to die for their cause. If the Western Powers are unwilling to combat Islamo-fascism, it's vitriolic and bellicose vanguard will grow to dominate the region, and pose an even larger threat to those who do not adhere to their religious edicts.

Speaking of the American Soldiers who died in the first World War, Douglas MacArthur observed:

Always, for them: Duty, Honor, Country; always their blood and sweat and tears, as we sought the way and the light and the truth.

Exactly, Torridjoe. NPR just aired an interview with a family of survivors from a village in Southern Lebanon. Their village was destroyed and many of the family's neighbors were killed. They had just been living their lives, not aligned with any political cause. Now, the father said, after seeing the death and destruction caused by Israel, he will fight at the next chance he is given. This is how terrorists are created.

It was only a matter of time before we got to the "terrorists are made not born" meme.

One has to remember that in that the sanctimonious left (a subset of the left as a whole)has a formula whereby all the mischief in the world can somehow be attributed to capitalism, colonialism, white males, the West or the United States, depending on the issue. For example, crime is the result not of individual selfishness, it is the result of economic injustice perpetrated by hegemonic white male capitalist culture.

Similarly, whatever Arabs do wrong is the result of following similarly irresistible deterministic processes set in place by the ever-responsible white male, colonialist, capitalist Westerners, represented by either the British Empire, the United States or Israel (because everybody knows that Israelis are just a bunch of white colonists).

Notice that Arabs don't create Israeli militancy by wearing away at Israelis' patience through years of civilian murder and flouted peace agreements. Rather, Israeli (along with anybody else who dares react to terrorism with something other than apologetic passivity) creates terrorists!

Good thing we didn't fight the Nazis, or there would be more of them today!

Islamo-facism is taught to them from an early age by their families and Madrasas. Hatred and distrust of the "other" is a bedrock of Islamist teaching, best illustrated by the Shari'a handling of apostasy: if you leave Islam for any other religion, your punishment is death.

Read more on Wikipedia at Apostasy in Islam In most interpretations of Shariah, conversion by Muslims to other religions is forbidden and is termed apostasy. Muslim theology equates apostasy to treason, and in most interpretations of shariah, the penalty for apostasy is death.

The Islamists demonstrate similar hostility towards other aspects of Western customs, literature, economics, and etiquette. In short, they don't hate us because of how we behave, they hate us for who we are: INFIDELS.

If political sensibility and respect were all they required, then OBL would owe the U.S. a huge debt of gratitude for all the military assistance and diplomatic pressure he benefitted from as a member of the anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan.

We can't persuade them to like us better by simply changing our behavior or withdrawing from the Middle East: they will use their petro-dollars and geopolitical leverage in an attempt to destroy the West with economic terrorism and assymetric warfare. Their threat is relatively small, unless they are left unchallenged.

I think we see that the important question now is the cowardly silence of our electeds, and particularly our elected Dems, who have refused to call for an immediate and unconditional cease-fire. Are you proud to be exposed as being in the company of those who enthusiastically justify slaughter, mindlessly repeating the talking points of the professional right-wing haters who pollute our public dialogue and airwaves and have built their power on fear, destruction, and death?

Jeff, Kari, and the rest: Where are the cowards now that it is time for genuine moral leadership? Kari, in another post you made it known that you are meeting with Evan Bayh. I see the little worm of a man has fallen right in line, doing all he can to out war monger the right wing, refusing to call for an uncondtional cease-fire now (at the time of this post) and justifying the destruction of innocent life. Why don't you put him on the spot and put his words here? Or is this the formal or informal advice you give him in whatever capacity you are working with him?

And for those who have to have it spelled out: An immediate cease-fire means a UN Security Council mandated, implemented, and member-enforced cease-fire and peacekeeping mission TODAY. And Kari - like most of the Cowardly Dems, and none of the sociopathic right, Bayh has only mumbled once or twice about how he might consider some action by the UN, sometime, someday, maybe..., "but we should not be tricked into stopping the killing now by extreme left-wingers like Luger". (OK, that's a joke quote, but it aptly describes "DLC -We're all the Republicans now" Bayh's slimy worminess on Larry King Live.)

We shall have to see if today's mission by the guy who obviously had his spine removed along with the brain atop it really is to compel action on such a plan.

First of course, we have to actually send a true statesman to the UN rather than the deranged pig that our dry drunk war-criminal-in-chief defied the majority of our Senate, and sent to the UN in that ugly and belligerent way drunks with impaired mental function behave.

It would be nice if Mister Tee actually read what I wrote before writing some silly nonsense about my “defense of Islamofascism”, or whatever were his exact words. To the best of my knowledge, high explosives have been flying both north and south across the Lebanese/Israeli border.

But be that as it may, I cannot, and do not wish to, compete with anyone as a hard-nosed proponent of Realpolitik. Instead I’ll just mention a few lines from some well-known naïve fools:

Blessed are the peacemakers. --Jesus, Gospel of Matthew

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

--Buddha, The Dhammapada

Lin Qiao wrote above:

As for discussion in this thread of Hizbullah and the ongoing war in Lebanon, I'm not sure I've seen much beyond the usual finger-pointing and recriminations. It's always their fault, and whatever we do is just a "response". Empathy and compassion have always seemed to me to be singularly lacking on the part of Israel, its enemies, and the parties' respective supporters and apologists. No white hats. Just black hats.

I doubt that "Empathy and compassion" will persuade Hizbullah or Hamas to lay down their arms and embrace peaceful coexistence with the State of Israel. Their hatred of Israel is deeply ingrained with their religious beliefs: how can you make peace with infidels?

As usual, distortion is the game played in support of Israeli policy. But then, I should be pleased that I have not been called anti-Semitic as yet.

I am no fan of Hezbollah, Hamas, terrorism, or Islamo-fascism, but resistance to Israel, no matter its philosophical underpinnings is not an excuse for Israeli behavior. There is one unchanging fact in the Middle East: Israel refuses to give up the land it occupied in 1967 and allow its Arab neighbors their sovereignty. Israel's recent withdrawals are piddle-shit moves that come nowhere close to meeting UN mandates.

Israel's treatment of its neighbors is not significantly different than when Palestinians were led by secular nationalists. In fact, Israel was a strong supporter of the proto-Hamas, believing the Islamists would deter the PLO. This parallels US support for Islamists throughout Western Asia during the Cold War, a move that has come back to bite us in the ass.

Arab refusal to recognize Israel's right of existence is largely rhetorical. Israeli refusal to let Palestinians run Palestine is actual, enforced with overwhelming military might and economic strangulation. There is no parity here.

Concerning the news media, it is not a matter of some anti-Israeli Europeans or Arab media outlets disagreeing with the US/Israeli spin on the Middle East conflict. It is the entire world press. Likewise, it is not some small cabal anti-Semitic countries pestering Israel in the UN. It is the entire community of nations calling for the end to Israeli aggression and occupation. The US and Israel are utterly isolated in supporting Israeli exceptionalism.

Security guarantees should be earned, earned by civilized behavior. Israel's behavior toward its neighbors is not civilized. It is inevitable that the most rhetorically extreme forces will gain popular support when people like the Palestinians and Lebanese are abused for so many decades. It is inevitable that terrorism will become the predominant weapon of people who are utterly overmatched militarily. Israel has created its enemies. Only by changing how Israel treats its neighbors can the Israeli people ever secure peace and security. As the US is finding out, aggression breeds anger and resistance. I hope a change of administrations will start the repair or US relations with the rest of the world. I don't know what it will take to reverse Israel's direction, but I pray that it will come to pass before thousands more die on both sides.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1201279.ece

The Big Question: Does aerial bombing win wars or does it just stiffen resistance?

Will aerial bombing work for Israel?

By Kim Sengupta, Defence Correspondent

Published: 28 July 2006

Why are we asking this question now?

The Israelis have overwhelming air superiority in the current conflict in Lebanon and their formidable air force is equipped with the latest and most hi-tech warplanes, missiles and bombs. Yet a huge number of civilians have been killed and maimed without significantly impairing the fighting ability of Hizbollah. The Israeli attacks have caused widespread anger among the Lebanese people and, at the same time, won admiration for Hizbollah within the wider Arab world as a force standing up to the might of Israel.

When did aerial bombing begin?

The use of projectiles against the enemy goes back through history, and was much in evidence in prolonged campaigns such as Rome's Punic Wars. But the first bombing from an aircraft took place on 1 November 1911 when an Italian airman Lieutenant Giulio Gavotti threw a Haasen hand grenade down on a Turkish camp at Ain Zara in Libya. No one was injured and little damage was done, but the lieutenant earned his place in history.

The second aerial bombardment took place on 16 October 1912 during the Balkan wars when a Bulgarian warplane dropped a larger device on a Turkish position in Edirne. The first attack on civilians was when two German Zeppelins dropped 24 high-explosive bombs in East Anglia on 19 January 1915.

Is aerial bombing a successful tactic?

General Giulio Douhet, one of the founding theorists of aerial warfare, held in the 1920s that "To conquer the command of air means victory, to be beaten in air means defeat ..." His modern proponents have held to the same doctrine, insisting that laser-guided missiles and bombs can "kill" large numbers of enemy personnel, armour and naval vessels.

The ultimate example of aerial strikes that led to the enemy capitulating is of course the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the authorisation of which, said President Harry S Truman, was no "great decision". The firebombing of Dresden, incinerating civilians, is also said to have significantly sapped the morale of the German public. Another bombing, that of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War, is seen as an early example of the savage destruction of a civilian target; but it also illustrated the air domination enjoyed by the nationalists - thanks to the German and Italian Condor legion - which was such an important factor behind Franco's victory.

On a temporary tactical basis, the surprise Japanese raid on Pearl Harbour on 7 December 1941 removed the US Navy's battleship fleet in one stroke as an obstacle to Imperial Japan's southward expansion. Soon afterwards Japanese planes eliminated much of the US air force in the Philippines and a Japanese army was ashore in Malaya.

Again, on purely tactical levels, the air campaigns by the US-led coalition in the first and second Gulf wars were successful in dismantling conventional Iraqi forces. However "shock and awe" was anything but the complete formula for winning the war, as is shown by the savage and raging insurgency in the country.

Or is it a tactic of failure?

Aerial bombardment can be judged to be a failure if it neither inflicts significant damage on the enemy's military nor weakens the will of its population to resist. This indeed has been the lesson through much of the past.

In 1940 Hermann Goering promised Adolf Hitler that the Luftwaffe would destroy both the RAF and Britain's infrastructure, and thus pave the way for an invasion. Members of the German military hierarchy as well as senior Nazis also held that prolonged, pulverising bombing would turn the British public against the war, and force Churchill's government to sue for peace. Neither transpired. Robin Higham, the eminent British air power historian, has pointed out that mass bombardment was such a new phenomenon that the concept of its bringing people to their knees was just a guess. The military had not taken into account the sheer strength of people's will to resist. Twenty-five years later, US Air Force general Curtis LeMay declared that his aircraft could bomb "North Vietnam back into the stone age". The Americans dropped 5 million tons of ordnance on the country, more than twice the amount used in the whole of the Second World War. The ferocious use of air power became one of the main tactics of the US in Indo-China, with strikes on Cambodia and Laos as well as Vietnam. However, the war ended in defeat for the US, again because the civilian population showed immense fortitude and refused to abandon their support for their fighters.

Does precision bombing make a difference?

The use of air power can look spectacularly successful in the age of television with the military releasing images of supposedly pin-point strikes. It is only afterwards, sometimes a considerable time later, that reality emerges. Nato's bombardment of Serbia and Kosovo was portrayed by military chiefs and politicians as a resounding success. However, Nato was forced subsequently to admit that the damage caused to the enemy was but a fraction of what had been claimed. US and British warplanes, it transpired, had bombed cardboard cutouts of tanks and plastic sheetings resembling bridges.

Israel finds itself drawn into an asymmetric conflict against against well-armed and well-trained fighters operating on ground of their own choosing. Air power against such an adversary requires detailed intelligence, which appears to be lacking. Some of the Israeli air strikes have been woefully off target, with television pictures going around the world of the mutilated bodies of women and children, injured Red Cross workers, dead UN observers and blasted homes. Eitan Haber, a respected Israeli military commentator, has said: "This is neither the time nor the place in the middle of serious fighting. But when this is all over the IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] is going to have to take a good look at itself."

Is aerial bombing the best way to wage war?

Yes... It can keep ground engagements to a minimum and thus prevent the conflict from spreading Employing proper targeting and laser-guided bombs, air strikes can take out enemy positions with little collateral damage * It has the advantage of causing immense damage to the enemy with minimal losses of one's own forces

No... If targets are not hit precisely - and they rarely are - it can lead to horrific civilian casualties It is a new form of 'gunboat diplomacy', used by the West to bully others with the threat of massive firepower * Because it seems like an easy option, governments are more likely to go to war than if they had to risk the lives of ground troops

The news coverage of Israel's bombing of United Nations observers is widespread, but the below information seems to have received less attention:

UNTSO has about 50 observers in four posts along the border, two of which have already been abandoned - the one that was destroyed at Khiam and a second near the village of Maroun al-Ras, which was abandoned after one of the observers was seriously wounded by Hizbullah gunfire on July 23, said Milos Struger, spokesman for the UNIFIL peacekeepers.

Civelleti:

Do you really believe that "U.S. agression" is the cause of unrest in the Middle East? As if the region was just bumping merrily along, minding their own business and quietly satisfying the unmet humanitarian needs of their populace? Haffez Assad, Saddam Hussein, and Yassir Arafat: peacemakers?

Lin Qiao: do you wish to abandon your earlier premise in favor of offering the IDF tactical advise on how to win this war? It seems unlikely that you would cheer for any Israeli tactical victories, and (though I can only guess) I doubt that the efficacy of their air campaign is something you actually care to improve.

Were you of the opinion back in the 80's that we should have unilaterally disarmed in order to induce the former U.S.S.R. into doing the same? Many of Reagan's harshest critics were subsequently willing to admit that it was the Reagan arms build-up that effectively bankrupted the U.S.S.R.

Would you have preferred the United States didn't enter the fray in the Kosovo War or in Bosnia Herzegovina? More than 100,000 civilians died in both conflicts, but I don't recall a large contingent of Americans suggesting it was unwise to choose sides.

The assasination of Rafik Hariri offers a striking parallel to the January 8, 1993 assasination of Bosnia Prime Minister Hakija Turajlić after the Serbs stopped the UN convoy which was taking him from the airport.

The U.N. determined that Syria was responsible for the Hariri assasination, yet I have been unable to find any condemnation from the Islamists or the usual Arab suspects (Iran, Hezbullah). I wonder why that is?

The moral relativists and pacifists don't believe it's the proper role of the United States to protect it's interests or defend her allies abroad. The French (and many Europeans) wish the United States would play a smaller role on the world stage, notwithstanding the irony that many Americans felt the same way about the U.S. entry into the European Theatre during WWII.

To date, the Dalai Lama's pacifism has been largely ineffective in achieving freedom for Tibetans (despite all the cool bumperstickers on hipster's cars and bikes). I would suggest there are legions of militarists that would exploit any trend towards U.S. or Israeli pacificsm.

It is naive or disingenous to suggest that if we just followed the Bible's mandate (turn the other cheek, lay down with the lions, etc) then worldy peace and harmony would follow suit.

Tom Civiletti and Lin Qiao -

As much as I enjoy reading the contributions you make to this suggestion, I just want to offer that the most important thing you can do is address your comments outward rather than into those here who want to destroy our country by engaging us in perpetual violence and destruction, a battle which is not winnable. We only need 50%+1 to win, and the best thing we can do is present the silent readers with the stark choice of a promising future or the destruction worshipped by the right wing haters.

As an example: The Soviet involvement in Afghanistan and the lost generation of military age men devastated that society to the point it never recovered. I know I speculated that the eventual outcome of how Reagan bankrupted us in the arms buildup would be the eventual unravelling of our economy and the attack on the middle class that we see today. It was also easy to predict that the fascist right wing here would follow the oldest recipe for attacking freedom here at home by plunging us into a Mideast war we cannot win.

It is a bitter irony that one front of that futile war is the same killing fields of Afghanistan that brought down the Soviet Union, where we are now loosing ourselves and which is on the verge of return to the conditions that prevailed after the Soviet loss.

That the sociopathic right wing has chosen as the Soviets did to destroy a generation of military age youth in our country by also launching an illegal war in Iraq, and is now bent on fomenting a broader multi-front "Third World War" to permanently bankrupt our country, destroy the very foundations of freedom at home, and reduce our economy to solely benefit the private interests of multinational corporate interests is all else that needs to be said.

Patriot and decent Americans will chose freedom and security, and defend our country by rejecting the tyranny the right wing seeks to establish through permanent war.

Ask1st:

Perhaps you've forgotten: the U.S. actively opposed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (with armaments, intelligence, and treasure).

I am amazed that "patriotic and decent Americans" would defend the same ideology of Islamist intolerance and hate that celebrates the tragedy of September 11th, the hostage taking of hundreds of Russian children, and the many videotaped beheadings of western journalists and humanitarian volunteers.

Also: that elusive 50%+1 vote has proven difficult in the last two presidential elections. Perhaps if you weren't so eager to kiss and make up with America's enemies, the electorate would take you more seriously.

These are the "moral equivalents" of U.S. Soldiers that you seek to defend?

September 11 has about as much to do with Israel bombing Lebanon as did the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Talk about distortions.

Marcia:

That's like saying that Neville Chamberlain didn't have anything to do with Nazi concentration camps. Technically, the one had nothing to do with the other. But practically speaking, the inevitable failure of Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" led directly to the Nazi invasion of Western Europe and (eventually) to gas chambers. Did the appeasers know they were signing a death warrant for 6 million Jews?

Perhaps not: but they still have blood on their hands, in my view.

The radical islamist fringe that planned and executed 9/11 are responsible for funding the madrasas that teach the next generation of suicide bombers to hate Israel and their sponsor, the United States.

They don't hate us because of what we've done, they hate us for who we are.

If you start to confuse your enemies with your allies, the world is going to become a very uncomfortable place to live. Ignore them at your peril.

More importantly, much of the hatred and vitriol directed at Israelis is because they are Jews. Given the history of anti-semitism both in the middle east and Western Europe, I am surprised that any American would not be willing to give the Israelis the benefit of the doubt where there self-defense is concerned.

U.S. policy in the Middle East is predicated on the Israels playing the attack dog if the U.S. is unable or unwilling to do so. This doctrine emerged in the Johnson Administration (he was preoccupied with Vietnam) and was formalized by the Nixon Administration (when the Syrians invaded Jordan in September 1970).

The jihadists and fedayeen have recognized the U.S is NOT a neutral third party for some time (at least since Carter left office).

Despite our philosophical and political alignment with Israel, Clinton did his level best to negotiate a settlement to the Palestinian question. He failed. Following that failure, it became necessary to demonstrate that a failed peacemaker was not a paper tiger.

We had to remove Saddam Hussein from power to demonstrate that U.S. Foreign Policy is not just a benign grouping of diplomats, with limited economic might, and naval vessels that sail the world without much of anything to do.

Quoting Madeline Albright (speaking to Colin Powell, "What good is it having the most powerful military in the world if you don’t use it.”

George Bush used it. Paper Tiger no more.

Posted by: Mister T at June 12, 2006 06:30 PM

To Mister Tee, I would say that irony must be truly dead when folks who prattle on about the superiority of Western, Christian values relative to Islamic values turn right around and reject out of hand the things that Jesus had to say. Like blessed are the peacemakers. Like turn the other cheek and all those other things he said in the Sermon on the Mount. And then you prattle on further about how Islam is warlike...yup, irony is deader than hell.

To Ask Questions 1st, although I think you make useful geopolitical points, I respectfully suggest that introspection and asking questions of oneself first is always appropriate. This is not disengagement from the world around us, but rather the first step on the path to complete engagement with the world.

Mr Tee: "t's like saying that Neville Chamberlain didn't have anything to do with Nazi concentration camps. Technically, the one had nothing to do with the other." Well, if it's all cause and effect, then I guess the U.S. caused September 11 by putting Saddam in power to begin with. What a crock.

Oh, wait. Maybe it's not a crock, following your line of reasoning.

The U.S. caused 9/11 by failing to confront Al Qaeda after their first attempt at toppling the World Trade Center. Not to mention Al Qaeda's successful attacks on two U.S. Embassies and the USS Cole, which went practically unpunished.

Inaction breeds contempt in the minds of the Islamists (or Islamo-fascists). The U.S. is the world's lone superpower, and that hegemony is reason enough to attack us. All the other "reasons" are icing on the cake: they hate our pop culture, our loose morals, our religious freedoms, and (most of all) our unflinching support of Israel.

Every American could convert to Islam, we could "reform" our cultures, and make every woman in the country wear a burka, and destroy Israel...AND THEY WOULD STILL HATE THE UNITED STATES.

If they ever quit hating us, the Shia would simply direct their hatred to the Sunnis, the Baathists, and the secularists, and the so called Muslim nation could engage in a brotherly civil war for the next 1000 years.

The difference between Islamo-fascism and fundamentalist Christians? The Christians believe that Christ will return to carry the true believers into heaven: so they wait. The Islamists believe they can strap on some high explosives and go straight to the front of Allah's receiving line. No waiting.

The Shiites and Sunnis who choose not to blow themselves up are led by apocalpytic thinkers (Osama bin Laden, Ahmadinejab, Al Sadr, Nasralla) who all believe the destruction of Israel is justified by whatever expense of blood and treasure. If they have to make war against America in order to achieve their primary objective, so be it. George Bush would not have attacked Afghanistan without Al Qaeda's provocation; Saddam Hussein would have been allowed safe passage from his country for a luxurious exile if he had chosen to do so.

Quoting Raine Marcus (July 29, 1993 edition of the Jerusalem Post): "Hizbullah secretary-general Sheikh Nasralla has already said his organization 'will not bestow legality or legitimacy on the racist entity called Israel, even if it cedes land to the Arabs,' " said [Uri Lubrani]. "This organization has made it clear that it will adhere to its strategy of wiping Israel off the map."

Prophetic words, considering they were written 13 years ago. The appeasers and anti-semites among you need to decide which team you're on. Like Saddam Hussein, you may have to live with the consequences of your decision.

As Bill Maher said, some of the fanatic/extremists in our country don't pose a threat because they're too busy trying to figure out which TeleTubby is gay. Others are wreaking their own brand of havoc on the world:http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

lin qiao -

My comments were not intended as a critique. It just seems that debating fearful and angry posters with limited and selective historical knowledge, and who do nothing but mindlessly repeat the talking points of the unpatriotic professional right-wing haters who despise our country's core values, is somewhat of a waste of your obvious communication talent and depth of insight. In a representative democracy we best fulfill our responsibilities by information each other to collectively defend freedom, justice, and security from the right-wing predators who are out to destroy it for their own advantage.

Marcia -

You of course have cleverly fastened on to the key propaganda technique of the right-wing haters here and abroad who seek to create a state of constant war around the world. They selectively cite and misrepresent an event, or a doctrine like the Geneva Conventions, to arouse fear and anger and then rationalize slaughter and subjugation with doublespeak. The key to turning back this concerted attack on our freedom and security is to help people understand the world of perpetual fear and desperation these enemies of all humanity seek to create.

Marcia -

Lest there be some misunderstanding, I probably should have worded "you have cleverly fastened on to the key propaganda technique", as rather "you have cleverly exposed and highlighted the key propaganda technique".

Mister T wrote:

"Do you really believe that "U.S. agression" is the cause of unrest in the Middle East? As if the region was just bumping merrily along, minding their own business and quietly satisfying the unmet humanitarian needs of their populace? Haffez Assad, Saddam Hussein, and Yassir Arafat: peacemakers?"

I wrote:

"This parallels US support for Islamists throughout Western Asia during the Cold War, a move that has come back to bite us in the ass."

Not the same thing. Do not mistate what I write. US interference, covert and overt, has alienated millions of people in the Middle East and central Asia. This has included CIA engineering of the overthrow of Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq and installation of the Shah, financial and military support of Israel no matter Israel's behavior, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the support of Afghani mujahadim and other Islamists throughout the area - either to oppose Soviet interests or weaken nationalist movements, support of brutal regimes like the Saudis and Egyptians, etc.

There are many reasons for unrest in the Middle East.

askquestions 1st wrote:

"As much as I enjoy reading the contributions you make to this suggestion, I just want to offer that the most important thing you can do is address your comments outward rather than into those here who want to destroy our country by engaging us in perpetual violence and destruction, a battle which is not winnable. We only need 50%+1 to win, and the best thing we can do is present the silent readers with the stark choice of a promising future or the destruction worshipped by the right wing haters."

I'm not sure of your point here. If it is that discussion of the Middle East in a supposedly progressive forum is wasting time, then I disagree.

Democrats/liberals/progressives have, in general, much more humane, much more fact based, and much more insightful views of the world than Republicans/conservative/rightwingers. This does not apply, however, to US foreign policy, an area where both parties and most Americans have cheered aggression, imperialism, and exceptionalism for most of our history. If any group of Americans has the ability to recognize the faults of US behavior toward the rest of the world and do something about it, it is Democrats/liberals/progressives, along with libertarians, who seem to understand that abuse of power can be projected outward as well as inward. So I think interjecting some facts here is certainly worthwhile.

Lin Qiao:

I have reviewed my previous posts, and can't find anything that would lead you to believe that I am asserting the superiority of Western, Christian values relative to Islamic values. The inference is certainly yours to make, as I am unabashedly devoted to the preservation of American self interest.

If Israel or the United States is defeated by Islamo-fascism (even on a limited tactical scale) the Islamists and their supporters will become stronger, and even more inclined to use terrorism in pursuit of Islamic hegemony. It may also encourage other factions or nations (Hamas, North Korea, Iran) to exploit the perceived weakness of the United States Military.

American self interest is enhanced if Israel maintains her vast military superiority, and (most importantly) the political will to use it. Why? Because a lethal warfighting capability ready to deploy (offensively) at a moment's notice is the best defense Israel has. As soon as Israel's enemies believe they have lost the will to fight, her military superiority is rendered ineffective from a deterrence standpoint. If faced by a united Syrian/Iranian/Lebanese/Jordanian/Egyptian coordinated attack, Israel would have no choice but to resort to nuclear weapons. That eventuality would become a certainty if Iran is allowed to develop a first strike capability.

Think of it like the bad old days of the cold war: Mutual Assured Destruction presumed that both the U.S.S.R. (and her client states) and the U.S. (and her allies) would be rendered uninhabitable for generations. If American's second strike capability were ever rendered ineffective (imagine a January 21st struggle over who is the legal winner of a Presidential Election, or a nationwide electrical/communications blackout), it may have enticed the Soviets to launch a first strike: if you think you can "win" a nuclear war, you might be inclined to start one.

What does this have to do with the middle-east? Israeli military hegemony has already pacified the British, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Saudi's, and lesser regional players. While the Syrians and the Iranians pay lip service to "pushing Israel into the sea", they know they would be annihilated if they attempted to do so. If they ever doubted Israel's resolve, or her military capability, their adventurism would be encouraged, and war would be the logical outcome. Similarly, the Syrians and Lebanese don't dare launch a plane or helicopter towards the theatre, because they know the IAF would shoot it down within minutes. You may not see any advantage of Israel's air superiority: yet the certainty of outcome discourages Syria and Iran from undertaking a more active role (their armies would be decimated without air support). You can see the obvious appeal of unmanned rockets/missiles.

Simply put: my support for "Israeli and American Adventurism" in the middle-east is not predicated on moral or religious superiority. Rather, I believe that balance of power politics requires a hegemonic force in the region that is capable of maintaining relative peace (or avoiding WWIII). That I proudly call myself an American, and believe my personal well being is aligned with America's defense of her national interests (including the capable projection of power halfway across the globe), is a footnote.

You could make the same argument in favor of a hegemonic Russia maintaining relative calm in the former U.S.S.R. or the utility of the House of Saud repressing anti-Americanism in Saudi Arabia, or the P.L.A. repression of the multi-ethnic "Chinese people" of the P.R.C.

The status quo (no matter how "unfair" it may seem to our western sensibilities), is frequently a much safer equilibrium than revolutionary foment or regional war. On this basis, I think George Bush's stated objective of "functioning Democracy in Iraq" is a goal too high to be readily achieved. A less ruthless (than Saddam) dictatorship would serve our interests better than a weak Democracy in Iraq. Given the fate met by Saddam, I would suggest that we have far more influence over the behavior of his successors than would have been possible otherwise.

Mister T wrote:

"Lin Qiao/Civiletti:

Your logic suggests the only bellicose voices are coming from the Israeli/U.S. side."

This is a mistaken reading of what I wrote. There is much evil and violence in war from all combatants. This is a very good reason to never engage in war. In the case of Israel and its neighbors, there has been much hatred, terrorism, and mistreatment by all parties. the important differnces are:

Israel has exponentially greater military power and has used it to kill proportionally many more people than have its neighbors.

Israel continues to occupy its neighbors' land and operate militarily there at its pleasure, all in defiance of UN resolutions and common decency.

Support by my country's government makes Israel's behavior possible. Therfore, I am responsible for Israel's behavior if I sit silent.

You've been watching too much Al Jazeera, Tom.

If you look back in time, you will learn that Israel developed her military might in the face of multiple surprise attacks from her Arab neighbors (which surround Israel on all sides, excluding the sea).

The Arabs frequently had their heads handed to them on a plate, despite their geographic advantage, their superior numbers, and (as stated above), the tremendous advantage of the element of surprise.

Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah still deny the State of Israel has any legal standing, and they have all resolved (on multiple occasions, from many political perspectives) to push the Israelis into the sea.

This is the context in which the IDF have refused to back down in the face of aggression. It is a context which cannot be understated or ignored.

"violent Christian theocrats"

Steven, where exactly are these dangerous characters?

I haven't seen them fly any planes into buildings, set any bombs off on buses, saw off heretics' heads, blow up African embassies, attack Jewish community centers as far afield as Buenos Aires and Seattle (coming soon to a Jewish center near you!).

Mister T,

I don't watch or read Al Jazeera, or any other Arab or Islamic media on a regular basis. I do read the Guardian and Independent from the UK and sometimes Le Monde Diplomatique from France, along with a variety of sources gathered by Common Dreams and Information Clearinghouse. I have a passing knowledge of recent Middle East history.

As I wrote, their is no parity between the rhetorical rejection of Israeli sovereignty by area states and the reality of Israeli aggression and denial of sovereignty. Just how, given Israel's behavior of the past 30 years, can its neighbors be expected to soften their stance? Israel's strategy has been to bludgeon them into submission. That has succeeded in killing thousands and reducing millions to lives of abject poverty, but it has not endeared Israel to its victims or its neighboring states.

Just as the US in Iraq, Israel kills and destroys, but it generates more opposition than it defeats. Only Israel can end the 1967 war. Only then will it be possible for neighboring states to recognize Israel.

Steven,

I am aware that such people exist, including close at hand. Shortly after moving to Oregon I enjoyed (for lack of a better word) a pretty amazing demonstration of the often-referred-to polarization of Oregonian politics, on local access cable. Right after DemocracyNow and some other far -left programming, a program long on head-banging music and short of commentary came on. Turned out it was sponsored by an outfit that called itself The Tualatin Valley Nazi Party.

I have read the reports about CIM-type graffiti and other signs of their presence in the military, along with the usual suspects of American gang culture (who, frankly, are a much bigger problem and still don't bear the most remote comparison with Islam-related violence). I have also read, with horrified incredulity, about those little Nazi-version Olsen twins, a singing duet called "Prussian Blue."

I see nothing amiss with calling those people who hold Christian and fascist doctrine,e "christo-fascists," or whatever you like.

However, they do not represent a global force of violence around the globe, nor do other Christians or news commentators make excuses for them.

Whatever term you want to use (and I have no problem with Islamo-fascism) Islamic extremism is causing a degree of violence around the world on a scale that admits no comparison. To resist this with statements suggestive of equivalency ("every major religion has...") is to wilfully avoid recognition of a very serious problem in the world.

But by all means let's have a zero-tolerance policy to both Christian-fascist and Islamic-fascist violence.

Well said.

Tom Civiletti -

I'm not sure of your point here. If it is that discussion of the Middle East in a supposedly progressive forum is wasting time, then I disagree.

All I meant here is that you have good points to make and that getting bogged down arguing with the right-wingers who misrepresent history and simply spout right wing talking points would seem to be a waste of your energy. Reaching out to the wider community would seem to help get that 50%+1 needed to reclaim the country from the descent into madness they are bent on.

For instance, violent theocrats (which includes more than Christians) in league with the neo-cons in this country and their collaborators abroad have launched a multi-front war in the mideast, including our war on Iraq, which have massive illegal attacks on civilian infrastructure and collective punishment as primary strategies.

Those who embrace this multifront war defend these illegal strategies not by disproving the fact this despicable behavior is happening, but instead by making shameful rationalizations and devaluing the innocent victims. They are misrepresenters of the truth, betrayers of our core American values of freedom and justice, and enemies of humanity.

34 Youths Among 56 Dead in Israeli Strike http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060730/D8J6C56O0.html

Maybe the best way to end this thread is to give:

1) The right-wing haters a chance to provide their most vile rationalizations for why they devalue innocent lives and are trully the enemies of humanity.

2) Our NW electeds, including Gordon Smith, Ron Wyden, Patty Smith, and Maria Cantwell, and their staffs who read this blog, which Kari and Jeff so proudly assure us they do, a chance to remain the mute and unprincipled cowards that they are; (And Kari, your little worm of a client Evan Bayh falls into the same category.) Clearly, they are fully in agreement with this kind of absolute moral depravity:

Rice said she was "deeply saddened by the terrible loss of innocent life" in Israel's attack. But she did not call for an immediate cease-fire in the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militias. "We all recognize this kind of warfare is extremely difficult," Rice said, noting it comes in areas where civilians live. "It unfortunately has awful consequences sometimes."

3) A chance for decent people to demand an unconditional cease-fire backed by an international peace-keeping force NOW in this theatre of the multi-front war being fomented in the mideast, and call for international action to bring economic, political, and legal sanctions to bear against those fomenting that war.

Most readers here have some understanding of this, but it bears reminding folks from time-to-time. When you read the same arguments over and over on this blog or elsewhere, despite how much such arguments may make sense on their face make sure you ask your own questions. Those arguments may be valid and based on a fair and accurate representation of the facts. Or they may simply be part of numerous well-coordinatedpropaganda efforts on all sides of the political spectrum:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-2289232,00.html

Question for Mister Tee:

I read your description of the purported benefits of regional great powers maintaining hegemonic control. Arguably Israel is a regional great power that maintains hegemonic control over its neighborhood. You think it should be, both for its own sake and for the sake of the American people, most particularly yourself.

OK then. A couple of queries:

--At what point do the Israeli people decide that their hegemonic control over their neighbors is "secure"? --At what point do the Israeli people decide that an element of compassion can enter their relations with their neighbors?

After contemplating these, substitute the word "American" for "Israeli" and repeat the exercise.

Innocent lives are destroyed by war: civilian casualties and deaths are inevitable.

The civilian casualties are vastly increased by Hezbollah's tactics: they are hiding their rocket launchers and weapons amongst the civilian population, in private homes, restaurants, mosques, and even under cover of U.N. observation posts (hoping that Israel wouldn't dare risk shelling a U.N. location). Clearly, this is a fatal miscalculation for anybody who remains in proximity to Hezbolla militants or war materiel.

The moral distinctions that distinguish Israel from the Islamo-fascists are too numerous to list, but I will try:

1. Israel dropped leaflets for three days warning the residents of South Lebanon to move north. Clearly, those who failed to leave did so at their peril.

An IDF spokesman, Capt. Jacob Dallal, said residents of the village had been warned to leave because Hezbollah was using it as a venue for rocket attacks. "Hezbollah has turned this village into a combat zone," he said.

Conversely, Hezbullah intentionally launches their rockets at civilian populations: they can't warn people to leave, because they don't know where their rockets will land. Ironically, the first children killed by Hezbollah were <href=http: www.usatoday.com="" news="" world="" 2006-07-20-israeli-arabs_x.htm="">two arab brothers (ages 9 and 3) who were the 14th and 15th Israeli citizens kelled by Hezbollah rockets in this war." Due to the indiscriminant nature of Hezbollah's rockets, Israel has evacuated the majority of Northern Israel. Why didn't South Lebanese residents do the same?

1. The Israelis do not celebrate the death of children while Hezbollah considers them martyrs. Responding to the death of these boys, Sheik Nasrallah said, "Some events like that happen. At any event, those who were killed in Nazareth, we consider them martyrs for Palestine and martyrs for the nation".

Speaking of the civilian deaths in Qana, Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said, "this is a tragic incident that is a result of war. Hizbullah operates in the heart of populated centers with the full knowledge of endangering the lives of innocent civilians."

1. The Islamist Terrorists have routinely targeted civilian deaths while the Israelis have made every effort to avoid them. Al Aqsa and Hamas suicide bombers frequently blow themselves up in restaurants or buses that are frequented by children: where is the outrage?

In September 2004, Islamofascists at Beslan Russian(Chechen separatists) took one thousand children hostage in their elementary school, 331 of those children died. Where was the anti-Islamic backlash to match today's anti-Israeli diatribe? I searched BlueOregon from September 2004, but found no handwringing over the deaths of 331 children on their first day of school. Hmmmm? I guess the largest massacre of children in modern history wasn't relevant to Blue Oregonians?

To answer Lin Qiao, I offer the below quote from Gen. MacArthur:

War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for victory. When Hezbollah has suffered a sufficient loss of militants and rockets, they will lose their capability to wage war. This will leave them no alternative but peace negotiations (rather than a resupply hiatus in preparation for their next barrage). Hezbollah was not planning for peace when they amassed an arsenal of 12,000 rockets.

There can be no compassion while a terrorist army is raining rockets on Israel. I'm sure you would feel the same way if Canadian guerrillas were launching 150 missiles/day onto Oregon.

Mr.Tee said: "Israel dropped leaflets for three days warning the residents of South Lebanon to move north. Clearly, those who failed to leave did so at their peril." Somehow this reminds me of New Orleans. In news broadcasts people were stating that many left in the south were elderly who were too sick to move, or poor people. Seems there were lots of children, too, judging from today's death toll count.

Lin Qiao:

Same answer for the U.S.

Those use terrorism against the United States (or our allies) should expect us to pursue them to every corner of the earth. Any country that grants them refuge should understand they compromise their own security. It is unlikely we will ever live in a "secure" world. Neither should the terrorists. To the degree they value their own well being (or the well being of those within the blast zone of a 2,000 pound bomb), they may choose to reevaluate their tactics.

Our superpower status (or "hegemonic control" if you prefer) does not deliver us from all evil, it merely allows us to fight terrorists at the time and place of our choosing.

U.S. interests will not benefity from a show of compassion to terrorists. Those who plan on taking up arms against us, or those who have already joined Al Qaeda (or their affiliates) should understand they are putting their lives at risk.

If by "neighbors" you are referring to Canada and Mexico, I believe our conduct vis-a-vis both countries is compassionate. Clearly, U.S. policy in the Middle East has included support of anti-Democratic regimes with resultant damage to public opinion in the region. In most of those examples, there was no Democratic alternative to support (more a question of which brand of despotism do you prefer). Many of the regimes/borders currently in place were the result of decisions made by the British, not the U.S. It is fallacy to suggest the United States only does harm in the region. The America haters would lead you to believe we only sell arms and buy oil to/from the region.

For example, Egypt has received more USAID economic and humanitarian assistance than any country in the world, and ranks third (behind Iraq and Afghanistan) in fiscal year 2007.

According to a Canadian soldier assigned to the U.N., Hezbollah was using UN post as 'shield'

Jennifer W. wrote:

According to a Canadian soldier assigned to the U.N., Hezbollah was using UN post as 'shield'<.i>

Lin Quiao,

Allow me to address your queries:

At what point do the Israeli people decide that their hegemonic control over their neighbors is "secure"?

When it is secure, the definition of which is attacks are not being launched from the territory in question.

A query for you: What is a country supposed to do about attacks on its civilians from neighboring territory? And after you remove your "hegemonic" (your word, not mine) military presence and simply start to suffer those attacks on your civilians again, what shoul you conclude, what can you reasonably be expected to do?

At what point do the Israeli people decide that an element of compassion can enter their relations with their neighbors?

The Israelis are exercising as much compassion as they can afford without simply passively suffering attacks on their civilians. We may reasonably expect compassion from other human beings. But we cannot ask governments responsible for the protection of their citizens to passively accept deadly attacks against them.

The Israelis do all they can do to minimize civilian casualties, but what they're saing now is, "Look, if we're being attacked, we're going to do whatever we can to neutralize the forces attacking us." Israel had been promised that Hizbollah would be disarmed. Apparently there was insufficient compassion for Israel's citizens, to say nothing about commitment to fulfilling the terms of Israels withdrawal. I hear not a peep of admission regarding that negligence.

Obviously Israel's enemies show no compassion to Israeli men, women and children -- they proudly announce that they are trying to kill as many Jews as possible. And sniffy pseudo-moralist poseurs like askquestions1st don't show much concern about that.

askquestions 1st wrote:

"All I meant here is that you have good points to make and that getting bogged down arguing with the right-wingers who misrepresent history and simply spout right wing talking points would seem to be a waste of your energy. Reaching out to the wider community would seem to help get that 50%+1 needed to reclaim the country from the descent into madness they are bent on."

The problem is that it is not just right-wingers who refexively defend Israeli behavior. Democratic voting in Congress is just as bad as Republican on the Middle East. Air America host Ed Schultz sounds like an AIPAC lobbyist when he discusses the issue. Supposed Democratic presidential nominee frontrunner Hilary Clinton wouldn't criticize Israel if they started using poison gas filed shells.

No, this is not the only important issue, especially when the Shrubbery inches closer to neo-fascism each week, but it is an important issue, one that won't be solved until people who care start to see with clear vision.

I love this:

"Supposed Democratic presidential nominee frontrunner Hilary Clinton wouldn't criticize Israel if they started using poison gas filed shells."

Yep, and Tom Civiletti wouldn't criticize Hizbollah if they deliberately targetted civilians, used civilians as shields for their military operations and fired from UN posts.

.Fixed the italics

Tom Civiletti -

The problem is that it is not just right-wingers who refexively defend Israeli behavior. Democratic voting in Congress is just as bad as Republican on the Middle East.

I agree with you. The difference between you and me is one of semantics: Those Democrats are betraying core Democratic values and if you scratch a little deeper, their world-view is much closer to the reactionary right wing than they want to admit. As you've seen in my other comments here, Ron Wyden, Maria Cantwell, and Patty Murray have long proven they are the kind of venal politicians who are only out for themselves, and who have no problem standing by mutely as this country has developed undeniably fascist characteristics.

Just look at the "self-defense" talking point being mindlessly parroted without any apparent understanding by the likes of Idler, Mister Tee, and Jennifer W. Simply put it is bigotted and intellectually dishonest. They misrepresent the fundamental meaning of the Geneva Conventions to rationalize the slaughter of innocents whose lives they devalue. The indisputable reality is that the world community is the arbiter as to whether a particular defense of actual actions is in fact in congruence with the facts and the indisputable right of self-defense, not the claimants.

To put it another way, just because the claimants assert a right to wage attacks and knowingly kill large numbers of innocent civilians based on a claim of self-defense, the fact that the attacker conforms to the formal tenets for waging war pursuant to such a claim does not in itself preclude such attacks from being war crimes.

The fundamental fallacy and deception in their argument is that it is the community of nations which have the sole responsibility for judging whether the claim itself is valid. If the world community finds otherwise, and the facts indisputably show this is becoming the case, the attacks are war crimes regardless of the rules followed because they were found to be unjustified. If the facts and behavior of the claimants do not lends moral substance to the claim, it is apparent that the claim itself is nothing but an propagandistic attempt to rationalize war crimes.

The professional right-wing haters know this. Day-by-day, as the U.S. and our few remaining allies destroy more and more innocent lives in this multi-front war we have launched, we become more and more isolated as the world forms its judgement and the demand for just punishment increases. That is why the right-wing haters (and their Democratic collaborators) are in such a hysterical frenzy to try to re-frame the argument to justify these war crimes. They know that the day of judgement is quickly approaching, and they have no problem using stupid and easily manipulated people like Idler, Mister Tee and Jennifer W as human shields against the courts of world moral and legal judgements in their attempt to save themselves.

In that sense people like Idler, Mister Tee, Jennifer W and Misha earlier are to be pitied. They are little more than means to an end. Nonethless they are morally culpable for their depravity because they have been provided with information quite sufficient for any person of normal intelligence to understand that they are participating in an immoral fraud against humanity.

Ask1st:

Are you "morally culpable" for the next Hezbolla Rocket that kills a citizen of Israel? Will you share in the "depravity" of the next rocket launching vehicle that parks in a residential neighborhood?

askquestions1st,

What you write is juvenile drivel. You care not for the rules, not for strategic context, not for any meaningful comparison of the parties involved and what they stand for. You just have some feeling in this case that despite all the relevant facts of that nature, that the party you don't like must be wrong.

You write:

"If the world community finds otherwise, and the facts indisputably show this is becoming the case, the attacks are war crimes regardless of the rules followed because they were found to be unjustified"

But unless this judgement is based on actual standards, it is arbitrary and can be driven by prejudice not reason.

The Geneva Conventions were drafted by a community of nations who knew that war could be made less barbaric through the observation of the rules it promulgates. You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge both the criminal and barbaric nature of the attacks against Israel's citizens and you either dishonestly or stupidly fail to observe the mechanism by which Hizbollah ensures greater civilian misery through its illicit conduct.

Israel has two choices, suffer direct attacks on its civilians helplessly or act, fully within its rights and in observation of reasonable safeguards, to destroy the forces arrayed against it. If it chooses the former, I gather the killed and injured Israeli men, women and children will get little sympathy from you. If it chooses the latter, despite Hizbollah's illicit actions encouraging the greatest degree of civilian involvement, it is Israel, not Hizbollah, that you will blame.

Hizbollah knows this. It knows that you can be counted on to be outraged not by the kind of crimes that ensure civilians will be hurt in conflicts, and which the Geneva Conventions deliberately forbade for that reason, but that you will reward that behavior by blaming legitimate belligerence on the part of a party you don't care for.

What is the result? Hizbollah (and anybody else who cares to observe) learns the potential benefit of using human shields. Thus, you and all those who focus on Israel, have done your bit to encourage the tactic.

Somehow that moral dimension is lost on you. And your stubbornness, ego, or whatever, is so strong (and your intellect sufficiently weak in the balance), that in resisting understanding of this point, you explicitly reject the importance of the Geneva Conventions. Instead you hide behind the fig leaf of asserting that the Conventions have some other meaning other than their actual provisions, as if those provisions don't represent the Conventions' spirit.

No one wants to see non-combatants hurt. But those who contravene the provisions of the Geneva Conventions ensure that more non-combatants will be hurt in the course of legitimate military action.

Forget the Geneva Conventions, you are saying, in effect. The real standard is some "spirit" of those Conventions which says the following: You may use civilian shields because the only real offense is those whose actions result in civilian deaths in combat, regardless of those attacks being aimed at legitimate military targets and their being accompanied by precautions and warnings, and characterized by proportionality. We should focus our blame on them -- EVEN AS THE OTHER BELLIGERENT MAKES EVERY EFFORT TO MAXIMIZE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES ON BOTH SIDES.

Thus do you do your part to reward the use of civilian shields, and by rewarding it, to encourage it going forward. That's exactly what the Geneva Conventions sought to avoid.

If there's something pitiful here, it's your inability to understand that causal mechanism and see that your misguided moralism is serving such an end.

Someone else makes my point more succinctly:

We have lost elementary moral distinctions over the last century. As a culture, we pretend we cannot tell the difference between accidental shootings by police in pursuit of killers, and deliberate killing by those intent on destroying innocents. This is not, as the Left likes to boast, a reflection of our higher morality. It is a loss of elementary moral discrimination. We are much less moral than our ancestors of a hundred or two hundred years ago. One role of the New Media must be to restore that common sense morality which says that hiding behind women and children in war is murder, plain and simple. The onus for murder is on the terrorist, not the cop.

There is a solution: It is for the media and the United Nations to rediscover the elementary moral distinctions of the original Geneva Conventions. Killing innocents is murder. Drawing enemy fire on children is evil. It’s not hard.

Idler:

The United Nations has proven they are just The League of Nations reincarnated with a larger budget and a more corrupt bureaucracy. They are powerless to make peace or to protect it. That vacuum has prompted the United States to fill the void that could have been occupied by a righteous world body that left the moral relativism at home.

The U.N. is powerless to either make peace or keep it. They lack any moral authority, most recently evidenced by the election of Libya to Chair the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Even Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were outraged at the horrorific irony. One (unnamed observer) likened it to hiring a pedophile to supervise a foster care agency. And don't whine about the U.S. being in arrears, or the anti-Democratic structure of the Security Council.

North Korea is as anti-Democratic as they come, but their vote carries the same weight as Switzerland or Canada. There is something wrong with that equation.

Ironically, the enemies of liberty and respect for human rights have retained their ability to draw those moral distinctions (despite the erosion of that ability in post WWII Europe and the United States):

Seif al-Islam al-Gaddafi (son of the Libyan Dictator) was quoted by the BBC:

"The Middle East has a generally bad record on human rights and this is an opportunity to embarrass middle eastern governments into improving that record".

"We have a better human rights record than our neighbours. Sure, we are not Switzerland or Denmark; we are part of the Third World and part of the Middle East. But we are better than our neighbours".

Uh-huh. That's called Moral Relativism. The "Samurai testing his new sword" is the most famous example of the failings of this philosophy.click here for a primer on Moral Relativism.

One factual point: I am quite confident there is a significant majority of the world community that is capable of reaching reasoned and moral conclusions as to whether the U.S. and our few allies who have launched this multi-front war have a valid "self-defense" argument. As I said early on:

I'm quite prepared to have the leaders, including elected national leaders, who have ordered that such attacks be made removed immediately and against their will if necessary to war crimes tribunals with imprisonment power to have their proportionality defenses heard.

Also, since I stand with those who have called for a immediate cease-fire without pre-conditions enforced by the U.N., and have explicitly stated so repeatedly, I am quite confident in my moral standing.

So in reading comments from those who continue to rationalize the slaughter of innocent lives, pay attention to several blatant propaganda techniques:

1) Ignoring, and frequently even misrepresenting, clear and unequivocal positions and arguments by those who challenge their morally bankrupt positions.

2) Recall how "self-defense" was put forward as a deception technique by the U.S. to justify attacking Iraq, and pay special attention for parallels to this technique in the propaganda shock troops on other fronts of this multi-front war. This argument is difficult to resist because, as I noted in my previous post (but which respondents sidestepped to make it seem as if people who oppose them do not recognize the right of self-defense in an example of point 1) above), of course there is an indisputable right to self defense.

Of course propagandists go immediately to this argument to rationalize violence and slaughter precisely because it is emotionally powerful. I repeat that I am quite confident the world can responsibly judge the claims being made (and I point to how that was ignored as yet another example of my first point 1)). Another important technique propagandists use is to make it seem as if this is virtually the first time this type of claim has been made, and in no other situation has the case been as compelling. Of course neither contention is true.

3) Pay special attention to words that are used in a semantically odd or even blatantly incorrect ways. The goal is not to communicate, but to hijack the emotional value of those words to further the propaganda message.

An example by Idler of trying to leverage the emotional content of specific phrases while providing another example of 1) in which he fails to acknowledge the calls I have explictly joined for an unqualified call for a cease-fire without judging either side and without preconditions, to irresponsibly allege motives on my part:

but that you will reward that behavior by blaming legitimate belligerence on the part of a party you don't care for.

As another example of a different technique for twisting words to leverage there emotional power, recall how at one point he stated:

I do hope, however, that somehow the opportunity arises for you to tell a WWII vet all about his despicable willingness to “embrace violence".

Mister Tee's continued misuse of the term "moral relativism" in contradiction to it's actual meaning because it is a code phrase to certain parts of the right wing is so sophmoric that it needs no further comment.

3) Finally, take time to understand how the arguments made by the those trying to defend the slaughter of innocent lives weave and bob from post-to-post, but they always make sure they deliver their main talking points. This is the textbook "big lie" technique, albeit a bit sophmoric because it is so transparent. I think people can pick that out by simply looking for phrases in the comments that are repeated over and over.

And bear in mind that simply repeating a phrase is not the propaganda technique, obviously telling the truth requires repeating it with no substantive variation every time it is told. The propaganda technique is repeating a phrase as a conclusion to a comment that the comment itself does not support, or sometimes in the absence of any supporting information, and that is at variance with the facts.

Ask1st,

If you had an ounce of fairness you would at the very least recognize that you have employed emotional rhetoric.

In this, as in other connections, you advance a double standard.

In the course of trying to defend innocent life (though I can't remember much concern on your part about the defense of innocent Israeli life) you ignore the war crimes that make loss of civilian life more probable. If Hizbollah didn't use civilians as shields, civilians wouldn't be as likely to be harmed. There's no way of denying this. It's also the case that Hizbollah combatants dress as civilians and cannot easily be separated in the accounting of life lost. Something tells me you're not going to take that in consideration when making your indictment of the IDF. Why is that?

When you find the Geneva Conventions undermine your argumentation you reject those extremely carefuly drafted documents in favor of some "spirit" of those Conventions with which its actual provisions are apparently inconsistent. Then you ridiculously vaunt yourself as their true defender.

The cause of non-violent conflict resolution is not served by falling for all the ruses terrorists employ to increase their strength.

Hizbollah ultimately is responsible for using civilians as shields, and arguments like yours encourage them to use that tactic by laying the blame not at those who thus abuse civilians, but those who legitimately exercise force.

I leave it to you to explain how playing into these tactics does not in fact encourage them. However, I expect that you will avoid all serious consideration of that issue, just as you resort to sanctimonious bluster instead of applying serious consideration to the WWII example for purposes of examining the principles at play.

Idler wrote,

"Someone else makes my point more succinctly:"

...which leads to a piece on The American Thinker, which decries the immorality of Hezbollah fighters hiding among the general population. It then goes on to decry the lack of moral clarity in the modern world, a la William Bennet , famous hypocrite.

This kind of intellectual diarrhea is a big part of the Israel lobby disinformation campaign. If you want some moral clarity free from relativism, I'll supply you some: The Israeli leaders are war criminals.

By the way, in response to an earlier post of yours, I have mentioned already that I am no fan of Hezbollah or Islamic fundamentalists in general. I don't condone attacks on civilians, no matter the source. You will, of course, forget this when you next infer that I'm an Arab lover or some variant of that suggesting I have a biased view of the Middle East. Again, as I have mentioned earlier, my viewpoint is one shared by the large majority of of earth's population, journalistic editorial boards, and governments. That does not make my views necessarily correct, but it places on you a greater burden of evidence than can be supplied by trash from the The American Thinker or other organs of the US Islaeli lobby.

"I was the only one to put forward a constructive idea.." no, no, no. You must have missed my constructive idea, then. About relocating Israel to Texas. Voila! No more mideast problems!

Steven Maurer,

The conflict in the Middle East has been continuous since the establishment of Israel, but talking about it for six days seems too long to you. I suggest that more talking and less bombing is almost always a good idea.

In many situations the truth does not lie halfway between extremes, especially when one of the extremes is backed by disproportional amounts of money or power.

A few comments on your last list:

Maurer: #1] Neither Israel nor the Palestinians are going away.

Let's hope not.

Maurer: #2] No amount of anti-semitic or "worldwide" opinion will change Israel's behavior in the face of real threats against its national security.

Was their anti-Semitic opinion expressed in this thread? If so, I missed it. What will change Israel's behavior is a making US aid contigent on withdrawal from occupied territories. Israel would withdraw so fast, it would create a breeze.

Maurer: #3] No amount of U.S. outrage over Palestinian use of asymmetric warfare will get them to stop until their legitimate grevances against Israel are addressed.

True.

Tom Civiletti observes:

The conflict in the Middle East has been continuous since the establishment of Israel....

Conflict in the middle east pre-dates the creation of Israel by four millenia, beginning with the Djedkare-Isesi "Smiter of all countries" While you may not have intended to suggest otherwise, the region was rife with religious intolerance, violence, and geopolitical intrigue long before the creation of Israel. The region that would become Southern Levant, was conquered in the 7th Century B.C. by the Assyrians from Ashur (forerunner of Syria and Iran), and the Aramaeans, who were conquered by The Medes (thought to be the antecedents of the Azeris) The Phoenicians,and Alexander the Great were early contributors to the historical record (he conquered Tyre in 332 BC).

I'm guessing you've heard of The Crusades? Admittedly, that was well in advance of the Geneva Conventions, but they did play for keeps.

The ottoman empire wasn't built with proportional force or international consensus

Here's a great summer reading list.

Mister Tee is, of course, correct. I was referring to THIS conflict. The cradle of civilization has always been a hotbed of conquest and conflict, some of it involving my Greek and Roman ancestors.

So discussing the present situation over the course of a week doesn't seem overkill, does it?

Here's a good chronology of the history of "Lebanon" from then (first click on "Lebanon", then click on #5. "History")...M

It is assumed that the region of Lebanon has been inhabited for more than 200,000 years. Around 3000- 2500 BCE: First traces of settlements of the Phoenicians. Whether these immigrated, or were the native population of the Lebanese coast, is not all too clear. Around 2000 BCE: Invasion by the Amorites, coming from the east. Around 1800 BCE: City states of Phoenicia become vassals under Egypt. Around 1100 BCE: Egypt loses its control over Phoenicia, and independence is regained. Tyre grows into becoming the strongest of the city states, casting shadows over rival city Sidon. 867 BCE: Phoenicia is subjugated by Assyria. 612 BCE: Freedom form Assyria is regained. 590s BCE: Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylonia conquers all Phoenicia, except Tyre. 539 BCE: Phoenicia is conquered by Persia. The time under Persia is a time of major economic growth. 333 BCE: Phoenicia is conquered by Alexander. A siege of Tyre begins. 332 BCE: After 7 month of siege, Tyre gives in. 2,000 men are crucified, 30,000 are sold as prisoners. Phoenicia plays a far less prominent role in trade following the conquest of Alexander. The culture gets heavily influenced by Hellenistic culture. 64 CE: Lebanon is conquered by Rome, and governed as part of Syria. Beirut grows into becoming the most important city. Aramaic replaces Phoenician language. 4th century A long period of religious strife begins. The quality of Christ is the most central question, where the Christians of Lebanon, the Maronites, profess that Jesus was both man and god. 637-9: Arab conquest. Religious freedom si guaranteed by the new rulers, who governed from Damascus. 1098: The first Crusader kingdom is established. In the following two centuries, Lebanon is divided between two crusader kingdoms, the one of Tripoli, and the one of Jerusalem. This period gives strength to the Maronite Christians, who enters an union with the church of Rome. 1197: A slow Muslim reconquest starts, directed by the Ayyubids of Egypt. 1289: All of Lebanon is controlled by the Egyptian rulers, the Mamluks. 1516: The Ottomans takes control over Lebanon. Some autonomy is achieved for Lebanon. Local dynasty, the Maans, rule Lebanon. 1697: Shihabs takes over the local power of Lebanon. 1842: Druze groups remove the Shihabs from power, but Lebanon is still part of the Ottoman empire. 1858: A civil war with many parties results in a lot of bloodshed. 1860: Civil war ends, with the Druze in a dominant position. Intervention from Istanbul, and France, with actions towards the Muslim population. A Christian autonomic province is set up in the middle of Lebanon. Faced with the turbulent times, many Lebanese, primarily Christians, emigrates to the Americas. 1914-18: World War 1 results in famine and hardship, even if Lebanon is not the centre of the fights between the Ottomans and British supported groups. 1920: A French mandate, made up of today's Lebanon, Syria, and Turkish province Antakya, is established. 1926: The republic of Lebanon comes under French protection. Political power is divided between Shi'is, Sunnis and Christians. It's the Christians benefiting most from this structure, by collaborating with the French. 1939: Lebanon is put under French administration. 1941: Joint occupation by British and free French forces. 1944: The French government in London recognizes Lebanese independence. 1945: Lebanon joins the Arab League of States, and UN. 1946: Real independence for Lebanon, after the last French troops have left. Christians assume the leading position in politics, and in the economy. 1948: Influx of Palestinians after war of Palestine, and the establishment of Israel. Palestinians come to play an important, if indirect, part in Lebanese politics.

While the history of Lebanon is interesting, speaking honestly the point we should be taking away, besides that Lebanon has a long history, is unclear.

Idler on the other hand shows once again how intellectual dishonesty works - misrepresentations of what was actually said and counterfactual assertions, followed by non sequitor repetitions of talking points that rationalize the devaluation of innocent lives. Fortunately, for increasing numbers of people this kind of performance is becoming the best argument against the very thesis it advocates.

Also folks might want to look up what "sanctimonious" actually means. At least from Idler's non-sequitor ramblings he or she apparently doesn't actually know what it means. This of course goes hand-in-hand with misrepresenting what others say, and ascribing motives that aren't at all in evidence and therefore that Idler would have no honest basis for asserting.

The point is simple: the Israelites/Hebrews have lived in a dangerous world for the last four thousand years. Americans are unable to comprehend that kind of historical context.

The question of who "owns" the land is moot: the "legal title" has always been determined by the winner of the last war. Israel has won the last couple of wars, and they are likely to win the next one.

You can disregard realpolitik, but you cannot change it.

Ah, what Mister Tee seems to be struggling to say is that all peoples of the mideast have lived in a dangerous world for the last four thousand years. Americans are unable to comprehend that kind of historical context. Although, the facts on the ground suggest that it is those trying their best to ignite a region-wide war, led by our dry-drunk kommandant-in-chief, have the greatest cognitive deficiences in this regard.

This of course explains why the realpolitik, paraphrasing a previous comment is quite different from what the reactionaries here would are attempting to deceive people into believing.

Absent some population decimating war crime by the the U.S. or our few allies in the multifront war we have launched (which incidentally would make us "bad guys" rather than "good guys"), the dynamics of simple population demographics indisputably prove that we are going to lose the population numbers game. And frankly, if we were to commit such a "good guy to bad guy" population balance shifting action, we would instantly be become pariahs and the energy resources we depend on for our national survival would be forever denied us.

So in realpolitik terms, what possible safety, never mind intelligence or morality, is there in being belligerent assholes and advocating the devaluation of innocent lives, since this only creates long lasting enmity (in the realpolitik colloquial: "pisses people off") and unquestionably will result in retribution as the population numbers do become completely untenable? Obviously none, so in these times only a psychopath would pursue such a course, and only fools would follow. But of course that pretty much is the definition of the right wingers here and abroad who are hell-bent on fanning this war.

Completely lunatic fantasies of true military victory aside, there is no way for us to win in any meaningful sense of the word "win" in the long run. The countries of the Asian subcontinent and particularly China not only have no real dog on our side in this fight, and they stand to be the dominant economies in the future, regardless of whether we chose to destroy our own economy and all goodwill towards us in the world. They would do quite well if their population was able to move up economically and become the major consumers of their combined economic output AND we just went away as a competitor for the mideast oil resources needed to make that happen.

So in a nutshell, the realpolitik is that those who do not support an unconditional cease-fire, as that wild-eyed left-winger two-time Purple Heart veteran Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) called for today, to avert the region-wide war reactionaries here and abroad are doing all they can to start, are really just excitedly advocating self-destruction for the U.S. and our few remaining allies. And in the deal, these reactionaries accept the widespread taking of innocent lives, the elimination of freedom and dignity as we knew it, and the turning over what is left to multinational corporate interests working the Asian rim for their private exploitation, as mere "collatoral damage".

And by the way, the quotes in this comment denote that there is no intent of hijacking the emotional content of this term for propogandistic purposes, nor false sanctimony, but rather only garden-variety sarcasm.

r u kidding?

Realpolitik applied to the Middle East has little to do with what American liberals and conservatives view as morally correct behavior on the part of Israel. It has even less to do with demographic trends or whatever piffle the United Nations votes on.

Realpolitik is a term used to describe politics based on strictly practical rather than idealistic notions, and practiced without any sentimental illusions. As Chairman Mao observed, All political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Here's one interpretation of Realpolitik in the current context:

Iran, not Israel, precipitated the current crisis in order to draw attention away from their continued flaunting of the IAEA and the nuclear non-proliferation accord they signed.

Israel is the dominant military force in the region, and they may act with impunity in Lebanon so long as they maintain majority support of Israeli public opinion.

Israel is unlikely to accept any ceasefire that does not prevent Hezbollah from reoccupying their bunkers and rocket launching sites.

The United Nations and the Lebanese Army lack the military might to enforce either a cease fire or a Hezbollah disarmament.

NATO forces will not be made available unless they are EMPOWERED WITH RULES OF ENGAGEMENT and sufficient strenght to allow them to succeed in their mission without undue risks.

Iran is likely to refuse any compromise on the nuclear question, and a U.S./Israeli coalition may be necessary to disarm and occupy Iran. It is unlikely this intervention will begin before November, and it may expand to include Syria.

If North Korea tries to take advantage of the U.S. preoccupation with the middle east, tactical nuclear weapons will be deployed against them.

European public opinion is unlikely to dissuade the U.S. or Israel from protecting their security interests. A strong Russian/Sino posture in support of Iran would be unlikely to dissuade the U.S. The Russians lack the capability to intervene, and the Chinese know it would be suicide to undertake any sort of economic sanctions.

While Chinese military capabilities are growing, they are no match for the U.S. Navy or our land based air capability in the region.

Mister Tee seems to not have understanding of what he reads from others or in the talking points someone seems to be giving him to spout. And his understanding of realpolitik, again offered really as a rationalization for devaluing innocent lives and getting a little too excited about war as immature boys and psychopathic right-wingers do, is more than a little superficial.

And Chinese military power? I'm guessing everyone missed the hidden comments in the previous comment I cleverly placed there for Mister Tee to read with his secret decoder ring. In fact, my literary skills must be so connected to my subconscious that even I didn't even know I was discoursing on the military power of Asian rim countries. Wow, those right-wingers really do have an extra-mental, Minority-Report capability of knowing what everyone else is thinking, despite what those people believe they are thinking and saying.

Now, the economic power of Asian rim countries who have the ability to play with our financial system, in partnership with the oil suppliers in the mideast they are building good relationships with right now who can play with our oil supply, could make it hard to keep a real war-waging military running. Although under those conditions it's easy to get your flesh-and-blood troops on the ground bogged down indefinitely and keep slaughtering innocent civilians in close-in fighting and air bombardment.

But I guess the "real" in realpolitik of "Mister Tee world" doesn't have any relationship to what we are really seeing right now in the Mideast on every front of the multi-front war the pro-death "realpolitikians" are trying their damndest to damn us to.

Everybody agree with and like Mister Tee's 1984 vision of the world these realpolitikians here and abroad are building? Of course, there are supporters like "r u kidding" Jennifer W., whose truly outstanding text messaging skills alone caution us average folks that we just cannot appreciate the full complexity of the thinking of exceptional intellects of the realpolitikians like her and Mister Tee.

Mister is correct that raw power generally determines the course of political history, but this is the end of things, why discuss such issues? Why have the UN? Why have the Geneva Conventions? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights? A soul?

Leaving no room for human and national rights and humanitarianism leaves us with a very cynical world and life that is more often than not solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

For folks interested in what is really going on in Lebanon, unfiltered by the corporate US media and AIPAC bullies, search Google news for Robert Fisk AND Lebanon.

Ask1st:

To reiterate: Reapolitik is based on strictly practical rather than idealistic notions, practiced without sentimental illusions. I am not offering an opinion as to whether it is (or isn't) belligerent or immoral; I'm saying that it doesn't matter what we think. Each nation (or tribe) does what they believe best serves their interests: military and economic power trump ideal or ethics.

Realpolitick doesn't require international consensus or the Pope's blessing. It is unlikely to be endorsed by newspaper editorials, unless that newspaper is a propaganda tool in the service of the state/tribe.

I submit our value laden terms (like morality, belligerance, aggressors/defenders, victor/vanquished) are completely subjective: one man's freedom fighter is another man's guerrilla. I don't endorse ethical relativism because I like it (I actually abhor it): I'm simply suggesting that what is, is.

Tom:

Tell me the UN is not as exalted as your eternal soul.

It is unlikely that any non-state sponsored militants will abide by the "rules of war" or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Unlike most legislative mandates, there is no enforcement mechanism.

Contrary to the Geneva Conventions, they don't wear uniforms, they target civilians, and they use their countrymen (and UN observation posts) as human shields.

Assymetrical warfare can only survive by NOT FOLLOWING the rules of war. If Hezbollah is not easily distinguished from the civilian population (they don't actually cary those garish yellow flags when the fighting starts), how can you differentiate "civilian" casualties from Hezbollah operatives? If a weapons cache or rocket launcher is hidden in the basement of a residential apartment building, then you should blame Hezbollah, not the Israeli Air Force.

As often as Mister Tee repeats talking points to justify the slaughter of innocent lives, it doesn't make them any more an accepted interpretation of the actual facts, or head off what is now increasingly looking like will be severe economic and political consequences.

A prediction: listen the next few days for how many voices who were silent, or who even argued these very talking points, start distancing themselves in a very public way from them. Even the father of our war-criminal-in-chief has initiated the elaborate dance of publicly speaking out against this depraved justification for the slaughter of innocents:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/washington/02prexy.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Obligatory caveats of the writer aside, the senior's advisors would not be speaking if they did not have his blessing. They are doing so to clear the way for him to publicly signal his own disapproval based on what he understands to be the good of the country, in the hopes of reducing the severity of the coming backlash.

Mister Tee wrote:

"Assymetrical warfare can only survive by NOT FOLLOWING the rules of war. If Hezbollah is not easily distinguished from the civilian population (they don't actually cary those garish yellow flags when the fighting starts), how can you differentiate "civilian" casualties from Hezbollah operatives? If a weapons cache or rocket launcher is hidden in the basement of a residential apartment building, then you should blame Hezbollah, not the Israeli Air Force."

I disagree completely with your conclusion. Guerilla forces may not abide by the rules of warfare, and they are not protected by the Geneva conventions and other agreements to the same extent as are regular forces. That in no way excuses attacks upon civilian targets in the attempt to strike at such guerilla forces. Israel, as a national state with a regular military is obligated to abide by international law, and not target civilians under any circumstances.

American forces used much the same tactics as Hezbollah during our Revolutionary War. I seldom here them called terrorists by historians, although the British may have thought them so.

Another guerilla force that used terrorist tactics was the proto-Israeli Stern Gang, which carried on "operations such as assassinations of British soldiers and police officers and, on occasion, Jewish 'collaborators'. Another strategy, (1947) was to send bombs in the mail to many British politicians."

Stop the Band-Aid Treatment

Hizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into Lebanon

Note that Strindberg wrote for European jounals, which are not anti-Semitic, but neither are they cowed by the pro-Israel lobby.

Anders Strindberg is referenced in a magazine article, titled Princeton's Anti-Israel Jihad by Lee Kaplan FrontPage Magazine January 24, 2005

It's common knowledge that Middle East Studies programs at America's elite universities have become ground zero for violent anti-Israel incitement, featuring professors, courses and conferences that excuse—and in some cases, even support—Palestinian terrorism.

It comes as no surprise, then, that Princeton University's Institute for the Transregional Study of the Contemporary Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, created in 2003 and originally financed by the royal family of Morocco, is offering a new fellowship based on the righteousness of the Palestinian cause and the illegitimacy of Israel.

Here's Dr. Strindberg's realpolitik explanation of The Ultimate Sacrifice

Sorry: here's the corrected link to the Ultimate Sacrifice "The social and political dynamics of suicide operations in Palestine.

Mr. Tee,

Do you have some critique of Strindberg's article? It seems like a legitimate scholarly discussion of suicide bombing to me. Or is it enough to discredit him in your eyes that Strindberg is criticized on a website advertising tee-shirts calling for the nuclear bombing of Iran?

By the way, have you come up with something Exposing Jimmy Carter's anti-Semitism? Or will it take a few days for the some defender of Israel to come up with a spell-checked diatribe?

I find it amazing that anybody would hold up Jimmy Carter as an expert on how to achieve peace in the middle east. The last two years of the Carter Administration were like watching chinese water torture in slow motion. I was only 11 years old, and I thought he was a big weenie.

On February 14, 1979, in Muslim extremists kidnap the American ambassador to Afghanistan, Adolph Dubs (in Kabul), who is later killed during a gunfight between his kidnappers and police. He became the 2nd American Embassador (in history) to die of homicidal violence. Carter did nothing.

In my opinion, it was largely the "malaise" of the Carter Administration that precipitated the Siezure of the U.S. Embassy in Iran on November 4, 1979. It marked the first (and only) occupation of an American Embassy in history, and 66 American Diplomats were held hostage for the next 444 days.

The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan followed one month later, in December 1979. The Sandinistas were ascendantI call it the Carter Doormat Syndrome: because America's enemies were walking all over our dilapidated reputation. The Israelis can't afford a similar mistake.

Carter's most notable achievement (the 1978 Camp David Accords) was made possible by the ass-kicking that Egypt and Syria suffered following their 1973 sneak attack launched on the Jewish Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the holiest day of the Jewish year. The facts on the ground determined the scope of the possible diplomatic solutions. A lesson not lost on Israel.

Mister Tee's orientation toward international relations has been shared by all the war mongers and imperialists of history, represented today by the neocons, who, by the way, are big supporters of Israel's foreign policy. The seizure of the US embassy in Iran was more likely motivated by anger at the US role in foisting the Shah upon them in place of their elected government, than because of some testosterone shortage in President Carter.

Anyone who has firsthand knowledge of the political of the Middle East conflict has sufficient information to come to the same conclusions as Carter did in the OpEd mentioned above. Like so many retires elected officials, he no longer needs fear the Israel lobby and is free to tell truth.

Cycles of abuse are difficult to end. It seems this is true for nations as well as individuals. Israel has transformed the trauma of the Holocaust into motivation for its own abusive behavior. "Never again" has become forever more. This is very sad.

It's difficult for most people to believe that the "Israel Lobby" (a polite way of saying American Jews) are a bigger obstacle to peace in the middle east than Hamas or Hezbollah.

The fact remains that Israel withdrew from Lebananon after a costly and protracted war, and they had no desire to return. Until two soldiers were kidnapped, and they realized they had been underestimated by their foes: the deterrent value of the threat of force was no longer sufficient to deter Hezbollah's aggression.

Plus, they recognized they should do something about the massive offensive weapons (an estimated 12,000 rockets) that had been deployed in South Lebanon, in direct violation of the U.N. mandate. Carter may not believe they constituted a threat to Israel, but then Carter is not responsible for the security of Israel: Israel's elected officials, and the IDF will do whatever it takes to protect Israel.

The sooner the Islamists recognize they cannot defeat Israel by force, the sooner a just and lasting peace can be obtained. Anti-Israel crooners (like Civiletti) perpetuate the mythology of "Israeli Aggression" on the poor, defenseless, just minding their own business Hezbollah and Hamas agents. Israeli conservatives are the neo-Nazis, and the Islamo-fascists and their suicide bombers are the victims. Ironic that.

If Canadian Separatists were raining rockets on Chicago, or kidnapping Border Patrol agents, I expect the Civiletti's in this country to simply give them everything they want, including the release of all Canadians held in American jails/prisons.

Just give appeasement a chance.

Iranian President: Israel's destruction will bring peace

By The Associated Press

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel, Iranian state media reported.

In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders in Malaysia, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate cease-fire to end the fighting between Israel and the Iranian-back group Hezbollah. "Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," Ahmadinejad said, according to state-run television in a report posted on its Web site.

Mister Tee's words are in quotes.

"It's difficult for most people to believe that the "Israel Lobby" (a polite way of saying American Jews) are a bigger obstacle to peace in the middle east than Hamas or Hezbollah."

• No. Most American Jews I know do not support the Israel lobby view of the world. Also, Christian fundies, folks who expect Jews to burn in hell, are now part of the lobby.

"The fact remains that Israel withdrew from Lebananon after a costly and protracted war, and they had no desire to return. Until two soldiers were kidnapped, and they realized they had been underestimated by their foes: the deterrent value of the threat of force was no longer sufficient to deter Hezbollah's aggression."

• Soldiers are not kidnapped, they are captured by enemy forces. If anyone has been underestimated, it is Hezbollah, which is presently kicking Israeli ass. If you would read the piece linked to above, you would see that Hezbollah has been reacting to Israeli provocation, not he other way around.

"Plus, they recognized they should do something about the massive offensive weapons (an estimated 12,000 rockets) that had been deployed in South Lebanon, in direct violation of the U.N. mandate. Carter may not believe they constituted a threat to Israel, but then Carter is not responsible for the security of Israel: Israel's elected officials, and the IDF will do whatever it takes to protect Israel."

• You want to talk weapons? How about Israel's nukes. Now, there's a threat. Used on its neighbors, these nukes would not only kill thousands [millions?] of Arabs or Persians, they would cause cancer among Israelis for hundreds of years.

But yes, Hezbollah does have more and better rockets now. Funny how high levels of armaments make one's neighbors want some of their own. Your myopia about who threatens whom in the Middle East is of Magooian proportions. No matter how many people Israel kills, it is only Israel who is threatened. Poppycock.

"The sooner the Islamists recognize they cannot defeat Israel by force, the sooner a just and lasting peace can be obtained. Anti-Israel crooners (like Civiletti) perpetuate the mythology of "Israeli Aggression" on the poor, defenseless, just minding their own business Hezbollah and Hamas agents. Israeli conservatives are the neo-Nazis, and the Islamo-fascists and their suicide bombers are the victims. Ironic that."

• There you go again. It is not Islamo-fascists who Israel is killing for the most part, it is the general populations of Palestine and Lebanon. But then, such distinctions are not consistent with Israeli hegemony. Also, Israeli conservatives are not neo-Nazis, they just behave as if they are. Your views, straight from the AIPAC talking points, are completely out of line with unspun reality and world opinion. Part of that spin is to paint anyone who objects to Israeli aggression as supportive of Islamo-fascism and terrorism. More poppycock. But then, Islamo-fascism is not much worse than the brand of fascism which arises naturally from the realpolitik view of interstate relations you espouse above. It's difficult to appeal to moral sensibilities at the same time you support the exercise of raw power. Do you ever examine your views for contradictions? I suggest doing so gradually, as you are likely to make yourself ill if you confront them all at once.

If Canadian Separatists were raining rockets on Chicago, or kidnapping Border Patrol agents, I expect the Civiletti's in this country to simply give them everything they want, including the release of all Canadians held in American jails/prisons.

Just give appeasement a chance.

Aug. 4, 2006 0:02 | Updated Aug. 4, 2006 1:27 Father, daughter among 5 dead in Acre By TOVAH LAZAROFF

A father and daughter were among the five people killed in Acre Thursday by Katyusha rockets.

Dan Izenberg contributed to this report.

Clearly Hezbollah intended to hit a military target: the 15 year old was killed by accident.

Right, Tom?

Mister Tee,

Again, you are so one-sided in your view of the Middle East that you are unable to recognize anything other than one-sided views. Let me try a simple comparison to see if you can fathom it:

Hezbollah targets civilians and is a terrorist force. Israel targets civilians and is a terrorist force.

Israel believes that only use of military might makes it secure. Hezbollah believes only use of military might makes it secure.

You care about Israelis. I care about all people.

Islamic group: 200 militants sent to bomb 'Israel's vital interests'

By By Reuters

JAKARTA - More than 200 Islamic militants from Southeast Asia have been sent on missions to bomb Israel's "vital interests" and countries that support the Jewish state, their leader said on Friday.

The militants have been trained to carry out suicide bombings to avenge Israel's military strikes on the Palestinian territories and Lebanon, said Suaib Didu, chairman of the Jakarta-based ASEAN Muslim Youth Movement.

Good news, TOM: more freedom fighters are coming to avenge Israeli Aggression!

Israel is America's strongest ally in the region, and the only Democracy besides Lebanon. Ironically, those two Democracies are fighting each other. Should we conclude that Democracy causes war? No: because the Lebanese Parliament was not involved with the decision to provoke Israel, and the Lebanese Prime Minister has no control over Hezbollah.

Rather, it suggests that Democratic Nations should not tolerate armed guerrilla movements, lest they become more powerful than the armed forces of the Democracy (as was the case in Lebanon). When the Lebanese People elected a political party that was funded by foreign powers and bent on the destruction of Israel, they committed a grave error.

It's as if President Bush handed the nuclear football (the briefcase containing launch codes which always travels with the President) to ArmageddonOnline.org and politely asked them not to launch any nukes. Do you really think Hezbollah could resist the temptation to draw the Israelis into conflict?

Tom's willingness to assign equal blame to both parties is much like prosecuting a homeowner who shot an armed intruder as he kicked in the door of his house. They both had guns, so they must be morally equivalent. And the homeowner killed somebody, so he must be the aggressor (and the armed intruder the victim). Right Tom?

Mister Tee wrote:

"Good news, TOM: more freedom fighters are coming to avenge Israeli Aggression!"

This is another example of why Israel's policy decreases instead of increasing security. Like the US, Israel makes its people targets by practicing violent foreign policy and occupation of others' territory.

Mister Tee wrote:

"Tom's willingness to assign equal blame to both parties is much like prosecuting a homeowner who shot an armed intruder as he kicked in the door of his house. They both had guns, so they must be morally equivalent. And the homeowner killed somebody, so he must be the aggressor (and the armed intruder the victim). Right Tom?"

I don't assign equal blame. Israel is clearly more guilty of violence against innocent civilians than is Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, or the Lebanese government. I'll let you look up the death tolls yourself.

Also, as a proponent of realpolitik, you should understand the inability of the Lebanese government to disarm or disband the Hezbollah militia. And now, after Israel's recent aggression, the Lebanese people would not stand for it, as they realize the Hezbollah is their only viable defense force. As usual, Israel creates and strengthens those they identify as the targets of their attacks.

Of course, there was never any objection by Zionists to irregular forces or terrorism when it was Israelis who were the insurgent terrorists. But then, selective memory is an essential tool of "supporters of Israel."

I sure hope you're not holding anything back, Tom. If you're self-editing for public consumption, I can't imagine what you say in private. If you ever plan on running for political office, I would ask Kari to consider deleting this whole thread.

Your anti-Zionist credentials couldn't be stronger. I give you high marks for research. If you want to become a full fledged Neo anti-semite, you can't forgot the part about how Jesus hated the money changers and the (ever popular) "no Jews died in the World Trade Centers: they all called in sick"!

Your writings would make the Soviet Ministry of Information swell with pride: after all these years, their propaganda machine has developed a life all it's own.

Don't read anything that might contradict your belief system. It would be very uncomfortable, and I imagine you don't like feeling that way.

I think the below paragraph (authored by Victor Davis Hanson) says it better than I can:

Partly Marxist, partly ignorant, and mostly naive, these insufferable and affluent European and American leftists see their solidarity with Palestinians as inseparable from their own embarrassed personas. It is easy, cheap — and safe — to right the injustices of the world by marching, shouting, and signing petitions, rather than by living among, marrying, seeing daily, or materially aiding the "other." It can all be done in a few seconds on campus, on television, or in the suburb — without any true self-introspection about what really ensures one's own rather comfortable material existence in the university, media, or government.

Maybe you could go down to L.A. and support Mel Gibson: I'm guessing you could teach him a thing or two.

What? It's not politcally correct to be anti-Zionist?

I guess it just depends on who you hang out with. I mostly talk politics with Republicans: we like Israel more than her neighbors. We like Jews better than Muslims. September 11th was a defining moment for many Americans who never cared very much about the middle east.

Maybe if the homeless banded together and started building suicide bombs...They could achieve all the great things that Hamas and Al Qaeda have achieved.

'Hizbullah committing war crimes'

Hizbullah must immediately stop firing rockets into civilian areas in Israel, Human Rights Watch said Saturday.

"Lobbing rockets blindly into civilian areas is without doubt a war crime," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "Nothing can justify this assault on the most fundamental standards for sparing civilians the hazards of war."

There really is nothing else left for Mister Tee than to suggest that anyone who does not support Israeli bellicosity must be anti-Semitic, not to mention partly Marxist, partly ignorant, and mostly naive. Unless, of course, that person IS Jewish, and therefore "self-hating." All rubbish.

Not that there is anything particularly wrong with being Marxist, or Jewish. Or both. I have several Jewish Marxist friends. Good people. Mel Gibson, I'm not so crazy about, but he was good in Road Warrior.

And: "We like Jews better than Muslims." What the hell is that? If someone said "we like Moslems better than Jews," you'd probably call them anti-Semitic, and understandably. What does your statement make you? Bigoted, at the least, I'd say.

Jennifer W -

Since you seem to like to play the quote game, you probably will also find this interesting from the same source you previously cited, and I'm sure you will be providing more quotes along these lines:

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/02/lebano13902.htm

Some Israeli Attacks Amount to War Crimes

(Beirut, August 3, 2006) – Israeli forces have systematically failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians in their military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Human Rights Watch said in report released today. The pattern of attacks in more than 20 cases investigated by Human Rights Watch researchers in Lebanon indicates that the failures cannot be dismissed as mere accidents and cannot be blamed on wrongful Hezbollah practices. In some cases, these attacks constitute war crimes.

“The pattern of attacks shows the Israeli military’s disturbing disregard for the lives of Lebanese civilians,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “Our research shows that Israel’s claim that Hezbollah fighters are hiding among civilians does not explain, let alone justify, Israel’s indiscriminate warfare.”.

On the one side in this thread are those of us who denounce war crimes by all perpetrators and demand an immediate end to them starting with an unconditional cease fire enforced by the U.N.

On the other side are morally depraved individuals like you and Mister "realpolitik, kill, kill, kill!" Tee who devote yourselves to actually justifying war crimes. Or at least war crimes against those whose lives you devalue.

Convincing you of anything is not the purpose. It's giving every one else a chance to decide where their values lie. I'm confident that you, Mister Tee, and Idler provide the best arguments against your own sick and twisted views to the majority of decent people here in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Tom:

I like Jews better than Muslims because they haven't been blowing up U.S. Embassies or Ships, resorts frequented by Americans, or hijacking airplanes to crash into the buildings that symbolize American Power.

Plus, I am aware of no Jewish writings (or ultra-right Rabbis) that are threatening the rest of humanity with death and destruction if we fail to convert to Judaism. When was the last time you read about a Jewish-American walking into a Mosque (or Islamic Center) just to kill Muslims without provocation? I can't think of one.

Ask1st:

I agree that we are unlikely to persuade each other; the greater purpose is to expose our prejudices for what they are, and let each reader decide. Denouncing all "war crimes" is fine if you never need to defend your borders or protect your strategic interests. The Israelis do not have that luxury. War is hell. Innocent people (women and children) have always suffered unspeakable horrors, death and disfigurement, and (for those who survive) emotional trauma.

That is the very reason that all parties to the current conflict (Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Israel, and the U.S.) would be well advised to make certain that any cease fire negotiations provide for a just and lasting peace. If the cessastion of hostilities merely allows each party to rearm for the next battle, the public relations value will offer little comfort to those who die in the next war. Sadly, not every party is interested in a lasting peace: they will have to be defeated on the field of battle (preferably in their country, rather than Israel).

The painful reality is that Hezbollah (and the entire anti-Zionist movement in the middle east) has been planning to wage war against Israel since the last one ended. The Islamo-fascists will not be placated until they are dead, or they have driven the last Israeli into the sea. I think you know which outcome I prefer.

Mister Tee wrote:

"I like Jews better than Muslims because they haven't been blowing up U.S. Embassies or Ships, resorts frequented by Americans, or hijacking airplanes to crash into the buildings that symbolize American Power."

Wow! I guess Republicans do live in a different universe. The rest of us have been discussing, for several decades now, [or centuries, if you count those who have passed] how generalizing negative behavior from individuals to the groups to which they belong is the mechanism that produces bigotry, hatred, war, and inhumanity.

Do you know how many Moslems there are? Do you really think they all deserve to be "liked less" because some Moslems are fundamentalists or terrorists? With that approach, I'd probably end up liking all humans less, a condition called misanthropy. Since you are more selective, you are merely a bigot.

Of course, yours is the same way of thinking that leads to anti-Semitism [whether those Semites be Jewish, Moslem, Christian, Baha'i, or agnostic.] I hope you are never treated shabbily in a kosher deli, or you may start calling for nukes on Tel aviv.

I don't believe the Israelis plan on killing Muslims because they are Muslims: just those who have taken up arms against Israel.

Similarly, I don't hate the vast majority of Muslims who engage in peaceful worship. I do wonder why we don't hear more of these "peaceful" Muslims speaking out against their terrorist and Islamo-fascist cousins. Especially in those countries where their freedom of speech is intact. Those Muslims who choose to remain silent in the face of Islamo-fascism are guilty of the same crime of omission as the German citizens who stood silently by as the Holocaust was happening.

I think there is a qualitative and quantitative difference between bigotry, and the realization that the Islamo-fascists are waging war against America.

Sudden Jihad Syndrome in Seattle by Daniel Pipes. Published in today's New York Sun.

Here's the unedited version, as published on his blog

My favorite summation comes from Judy Lash Balint, who lived in Seattle for 20 years, who opined in the Jerusalem Post:

"It's hard for some laid-back, peace-loving Jews of the Pacific NW, who are so very well integrated into the general community and hold interfaith meetings with local Muslims, to assimilate the idea that they may have become targets of Islamic fundamentalist violence. Several Seattle Jews I have spoken with since the attack said they are convinced that the perpetrator was a psychopath and not a terrorist, since he had allegedly been recently convicted of lewd conduct."

I'm sure this has NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda, or Lebanon, or 9/11. The ACLU loving liberals can go back to sleep now: Scotland Yard has violated sufficient terrorist rights to keep them from blowing up 20 airplanes.

Still, it seems like the common thread between all of them seems to be Islam, and an enduring hatred for Judeo-Christian values.

Mister Tee should pull his head out and think about the difference between hating someone's values and hating their imperialistic behavior. Did Hebrews at the time of Ponchus Pilot hate Roman values or Roman occupation? Did Afghanis hate Soviet values or the government Moscow installed and supported in Kabul? Did American Blacks hate southern culture or slavery?

Mister Tee reminds me of the mean cop who is outraged that the fellow whose head is under the cop's boot mutters profanity.

Tom:

I recall an altruistic U.N. intervention, led by the United States, to remove the Iraqi Army from Kuwait in 1991. Is that the "Imperialistic Behavior" that you referenced? The more I read about the Rape of Kuwait, I saw altruism, not imperialism.

Ten years later, Osama Bin Laden's agents hijacked 4 U.S. commercial airliners and crashed them across the East Coast, killing more than 3,000 Americans. September 11th was a paradigm shift: it made many of us realize that the oceans did not offer the same protections they once did, not in a globalized and "mass travelling" world. Notably, the 9/11 attacks occurred well in advance of any "Imperialist" invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq.

President Bush (rightly or wrongly) made the decision that it would be preferable to take the initiative, and demonstrate that the United States would not capitulate, or stand idle, waiting for the next attack. The best defense is a good offense: which leads to pre-emptive war.

Did everything go accordingy to plan? Of course not: it never does in times of conflict or protracted war. Nevertheless, it's been almost 5 years since 9/11, and there's been no follow on attack. Most every day, I check several news outlets throughout the day (web, T.V. and radio), hoping that the "second shoe" is not going to drop: it hasn't. I do credit America's "take the battle to the enemy's front porch" strategy, and the loyal support of America's allies. If the bad guys are hunkered down in safe houses and caves, it's much more difficult for them to go on the offensive.

While there is no direct link between 9/11 and Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, Israel/West Bank & Gaza, there is clearly a symbiotic relationship between anti-Americanism/anti-Zionism and the radical Islamists in each of the abovementioned states. To deny that nexus is either naive, or disingenuous.

Is that all there is to it? Clearly, the answer is no: the middle east is much more complex, with many diverse ethnic and religious traditions that have historically waged war on each other (and the Romans, Turks, British, and French).