Democrats Re-Enlist
A bit of follow-up on my posting last week about the Democrats' "unwaverig support" for Israel.
Revolting it is to now watch leaders from both major parties trying to capitalize on the blood being spilled in Lebanon. The Vice-President of the United States was in Florida this weekend using the war as an excuse to raise money and to push for a Republican vote in the fall. We expect this crud from the Republican leadership as it, indeed, has no pro-acvtive program to run on other than wartime fears.
But move over, Mr. Cheney. For John Kerry, a probable 2008 Democratic presidential candidate, was also mouthing off about the war on Sunday. The Senator claimed that if he had been elected president two years ago "this wouldn't have happened" and that in 2008 "we're going to have a lot of ground to make up because of it."
So "this" wouldn't have happened under a Kerry administration, eh? None of us will ever know, I suppose. But what we do know is that if a Kerry White House were in power this week and the wind-surfing President had, in fact, opposed what Israel is doing, he would be a Democratic President facing impeachment by his own Democratic party. The Congressional vote last week on a resolution uncritically supporting the Israeli bombardment revealed absolutely no daylight between Republicans and Democrats (except for the usual handful).
And some major "progressive" Democrats also donned the IDF uniform this past weekend at two West Coast rallies supporting the Israeli military campaign. In Los Angeles, progressive Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa stood shoulder with the Governator in congratulating a couple of thousand pro-war demonstrators. The Mayor spoke of Israel's "unassailable right" to respond as it is. Up in San Francisco, its progressive Democratic Mayor Gavin Newsom paired off with Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein in a similar cheerleading exercise for war. Would none of this happened under a Kerry administration? 
All this reminds me that I forgot to link to a revealing piece last week by another former California Democratic elected official. Tom Hayden offers up a mea culpa for the way he and former wife Jane Fonda allowed themselves to be used as props 25 years ago when Israel invaded Lebanon. Better late than never.
Meanwhile, Condi Rice now, two weeks after the outbreak of war and finally on her way overseas, adopts some classic Clintonian postutring. Yes, she says, a cease-fire is urgent -- depending, of course, on what your definition of urgent really is. Cute.
July 23rd, 2006 at 10:55 pm
There are three standard meanings:
1. Compelling immediate action or attention; pressing.
2. Insistent or importunate: the urgent words “Hurry! Hurry!”
3. Conveying a sense of pressing importance: an urgent message.
Pick one and wait.
July 23rd, 2006 at 11:47 pm
Endgame watch: Condi\’s sense of urgency isn\’t based on any U.S. timetable. Israel planned the length of a campaign very similar to this one over a year ago. Three weeks of fighting, all worked out in advance.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/MIDEAST.TMP
Condi\’s timing is nevertheless exquisite — if the Israeli plan is really three weeks, and doesn\’t go into overtime, we\’re about halfway through it today. So the U.S. will get credit for stepping in at the peak, damping things down, and brokering an end to a conflict, when it will really be asserting no real influence over it at all. Did I say PR Victory for Israel, AND Hezbollah, AND Syria? Add America to the list.
But the Lebanese lose, right? Still, we can roughly calculate by how much they lose.
Let\’s say the destruction of infrastructure continues at the current rate. (It may or may not, I don\’t know). The last estimate I read of the cost of the damage so far was $1.3 billion. Double that, and round it up: $3 billion at the end.
Lebanon\’s GDP is typically about $24 billion (external estimates, which might be low; see note below). So the damage bill at the end is likely to be around 12% of typical GDP. But let\’s not forget that Lebanon got a lot of reconstruction aid after its civil war, and is probably still getting it — Lebanese (and the taxpaying segment of their approximately 1 million guestworkers) might end up laying out more like 5% of GDP for infrastructure recovery out of their own pockets. Stretched out in tax receipts over, say, five years, that\’s a little over $200 million per year in added taxes. In a nation with about $6,000 per capita income (in PPP terms; probably an underestimate — again see below) and about 4 million people, that works out to an added annual tax bite of … yes, about 1% of GDP per capita for that five years. I\’m sure that\’s quite a bit less than Syria\’s usual parasitic rake-off from the Lebanese economy. pre-Cedar Revolution, and maybe even now, for that matter.
This scenario doesn\’t take into account what I think is the likely outcome here: Syria becomes Hezbollah\’s babysitter, the Hez contribution to the Lebanese economy (and treasury) largely evaporates and falls as rain over Syria. It also doesn\’t take into account the average tourist\’s perception, this time next year, that Lebanon is this dangerous, war-torn, crippled country. On the other hand, there are reasons to believe that the Lebanese economy is quite a bit bigger than the scale indicated by any official measure.
http://www.nala.com/editorls/lebanese_economy.htm
So you could double many of my negative factors, and halve many of my positive factors, and you\’re still not seeing economic catastrophe.
What a cold-hearted bean-counter I can be, when people are dying, I tell you, dying! In the Lebanese apocalypse that Virgil says we can hardly see anymore because all communications are down, I tell you, down, and the Israelis are using the media blackout to slaughter Lebanese totally indiscriminately, left, right and center! That\’s not too far from how it looks to one commentator
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5183.shtml
who nevertheless somehow gets up in the morning, turns on a TV that gets electricity in Beirut, drinks purified water in Beirut, watches broadcasts in Beirut, takes a shower using water heated by gas sent by utilities in Beirut — a whole cornucopia o 24×7 luxuries that many in Baghdad can\’t seem to lay their hands on for more than few hours a day, if at all, unless they live and work in the Green Zone.
OK, I\’m a cold-hearted bean-counter, so here I go again: Lebanese annual death rate in normal times — about 6 per 1,000. Or 24,000 per year. Call it 75 per day.
Added deaths due to this war — let\’s add a margin to the 350 deaths I last saw reported, for bodies buried under rubble uncounted, and for people who haven\’t yet died of wounds, and call it 500. (I won\’t attempt a sharp distinction between civilian and combatant, especially since I\’m suddenly in thrall to Alan Dershowitz\’s intriguing concept of \”civilianality\”.) 500 in 10 days of fighting is 50 extra deaths per day, on top of 75 in normal times. The Israelis probably haven\’t even doubled the Grim Reaper\’s daily take, so far.
Cold, cold bean-counter I am. However ….
Stable societies are run by people who do these sorts of cold bean-counter calculations. They are just careful to not talk about it, when passions are at high tide. This time next year, I expect that Hezbollahland, and the Glorious Republic of the Remainder of Lebanon will be stable societies, run by bean-counters. Most of those bean-counters will be cooking the books, perhaps, and grinding away at axes in their comments for public consumption. But they\’ll be counting beans, with both Syria and Israel looking over their shoulders approvingly.
July 24th, 2006 at 12:13 am
Hi all self-styled ” Progressives”:
Instead of bemoaning the fact that a staggering American majority and both American parties back Israel and trust its geo-political judgement, why not make some compelling arguments about why we should not back Israel and should not trust its geo-political judgement?
The false conciousness argument (and that’s the implicit argument here) was already old in 1972, if not 1848.
The American electorate isn’t stupid, isn’t gulled and has as much knowledge as you do. If you think otherwise, maybe you need to get up a theory on how to limit the franchise. I’m willing to hear it.
July 24th, 2006 at 12:41 am
Marc, You have been at your best in your comments on this war. As I watch my whole country and its leaders condone Israel’s destruction of Lebanon and killing of hundreds of people I feel like I’ve been smashed in the solar plexus. How can I ever again trust “progressives” like Villaraigosa much less conventional democrats like Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, etc. This country has entered into a state of total delusion: Israel is just defending itself, Hezbollah can be eliminated without killing every Muslim in Lebanon, destroying Lebanon will help Lebanon and promote peace. For me this war has put all other issues in the shadows. Anyone who can condone this aggression, this destruction, this violence cannot be really progressive or liberal or just or compassionate. This is a litmus test and we’re failing. Keep up the good work.
July 24th, 2006 at 4:42 am
SS, so we should trust the exquisite judgment of the American electorate and most especially that of the leaders of our major parties? Need I remind you that this is the same crowd that signed on to the now much maligned (even largely in their own opinion) Iraqi enterprise of 3 years ago?
You need to find some other angle. Maybe you could push Alan Dershowitz’ new definition of civilian. Now there’s a promising way to justify the wholesale slaughter of people you don’t like.
July 24th, 2006 at 6:34 am
Maybe Sen. Kerry is right, He would have led swift boat attacks to intervene in Lebanon-until he got three nicks. Then he could blame everyone else for deaths and failure. This is sounding more like some other conflict.
Hey, if I had been President, “this wouldn’t have happened” under me. You guys missed your chance.
July 24th, 2006 at 7:16 am
Nice to see that they’re still spitting and jeering at Vietnam Veterans. Hope the guys currently risking their lives in Iraq are prepared for what awaits them when they return home if they don’t toe the line and keep their mouths shut.
July 24th, 2006 at 8:47 am
[...] The Democratic Daily was one of the first liberal blogs to pick up on the Detroit News piece, but didn’t seem to anticipate the furor that was already developing. Marc Cooper has a similar take as many conservabloggers, though he doesn’t seem to relish the fact. Taylor Marsh comes the closest to offering a defense, asking what came between the ellipses in the final quote: How do you go from Bush’s bumbling in Iraq to we have to destroy Hezbollah, ellipses notwithstanding? This is the sort of thing that is infuriating about the corporate media. They finish with lines like this that have no context, using ellipses to connect two far ranging topics of conversation. [...]
July 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
From Associated Press: “But a day after criticizing Israel for “disproportionate” strikes against civilians, U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland accused Hezbollah of “cowardly blending” among Lebanese civilians.
“Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending … among women and children,” Egeland said. “I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don’t think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men.”
Well put.
July 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
From Associated Press: “But a day after criticizing Israel for “disproportionate” strikes against civilians, U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland accused Hezbollah of “cowardly blending” among Lebanese civilians.
“Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending … among women and children,” Egeland said. “I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don’t think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men.”
Well put.
July 24th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
From Associated Press: “But a day after criticizing Israel for “disproportionate†strikes against civilians, U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland accused Hezbollah of “cowardly blending†among Lebanese civilians.
“Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending … among women and children,†Egeland said. “I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don’t think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men.â€
Well put.
July 24th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
I just came on the site and in my name area there was an \”LA Dave?\” Anyone have any idea why this might happen? No one else has access to this computer.
July 24th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/
July 24th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
The Israeli government’s thirst for blood seems to be matched only by the Democratic party’s thirst for Jewish-american votes and campaign contributions.
The Israeli targetting of the minivan fleeing the town that the IDF had ordered evacuated the day before was so despicable.
I wonder if the Israeli soldiers carrying out these atrocities ever ponder the questions posed at Nuremberg?
July 24th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Ed, it is really difficult answering that question. I have looked at this and considered it many times, there are time I want to say perhaps it is the “twice or thrice removed principle” – different generations perhaps forget? Any people can feel that they are exceptional excusing them (in their eyes) to act as they see fit.
On the other hand, the religious positions between the two seem to exclude each other. To have a religious view which is exclusive, rather than inclusive, can isolate a people and harden them to the needs of others – this has been my observation.
When you remove the personal responsibility for how you act toward another to the realm of God, it can either become a “blessing or a curse” – if I can use that terminology. When someone sees another as a beast that walks on two legs, or the other see’s someone as an irredeemable infidel – excuses to do what you want to them become easier.
After all, you have your view of this other person via “god,” than again if we had wings so would god. It’s seems like religion, or the people who practice religion can either do great good or they can use it as an excuse to do great ill. Once you have removed the responsibility from terra firma, any scoundrel can claim to do something in the name of God and say they are justified – because their god told them this was acceptable – what do you say in response to something like this?
July 25th, 2006 at 6:38 am
Sam S. writes:
“a staggering American majority and both American parties back Israel and trust its geo-political judgement”
Nope. Depending on how the question is asked, most Americans do not support Israel’s actions in Lebanon, polls show.
I hesitate to recommend these polls, as the questions are as stilted as typical MSM coverage of Israeli military aggression, but there are, at least, proof that Samual Stott pulls stuff out of his butt.
a roundup of polls on the subject is here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/israel.htm
July 25th, 2006 at 8:07 am
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ill-take-dirty-players-f_b_25733.htlm
By the way, while the Hayden piece is well worth reading, Cooper’s sleazbo swipe at Hayden ( Cooper not only won’t bother setting the record stright on Jane Fonda, he’ll obviously put the boot in at any opportunity, this must be what he thinks of as “common cause” ), as if it’s the first balanced thing he’s said on the Mid East in twenty five years.
July 25th, 2006 at 8:40 am
Virgil and Ed, you both are skating very close to anti-semitism with your comments. If you are anti-semitic, just come out and say it straight.
The Israeli excesses have nothing to do with religion. Its ludicrous to paint the Israelis as targeting innocent civilians. As in all wars, innocent people are sometimes mistakenly hit. The diverse religious nation of the United States has been guilty of such incidents at least hundreds of times in its various wars. So have the high fallutin Europeans. There has never existed a war in which innocent people have not been mistakenly hit.
July 25th, 2006 at 9:13 am
None of you have said what you think Israel actually SHOULD do about Hezbullah.
If the answer is “Nothing” then you should say so.
And as an Israeli I find Ed’s “thirst for blood” rant to be scarily over-the-top.
July 25th, 2006 at 9:16 am
“skating very close to anti-semitism” – are you joking? These guys might as well join their Hezbollah brothers in a round of Heil Hitlers. Hezboolah kidnaps Israeli soldiers, fires rockets on innocent civilians, but the war is somehow Israel’s fault. I guess they should just let people slaughter them.
July 25th, 2006 at 9:33 am
And as an Israeli I find Ed’s “thirst for blood†rant to be scarily over-the-top.
Well, not scary. That sort of mindless drivel is everywhere nowadays. Ironic that Middle Eastern phraseology is practiced by the ‘progressive left’. Shows a common emotive quality between two mentally questionable groups, imo.
But I completely agree with you about the lack of content of these arguments.
I suspect if Marc Cooper had a random rocket or two rain down on his privileged existence, his viewpoint would change rather dramatically.
July 25th, 2006 at 9:48 am
I just love coming on sites like this, or turning on NPR, and hearing how beautiful Beirut was and peaceful Lebanon was until the nasty Israelis started ruining it again.
As if having a major terrorist organization interwoven into the very fabric of your society, rocket launchers mixed in among your homes and schools, is irrelevant to whether a city is beautiful or not.
Lebanon was in a state of rot. Not until Hezbollah is rooted up and destroyed, and Syria’s gangsters chased back into their own dens, can it begin to become what it once was, long ago. The idea that it was a healthy society, when it was riddled with terrorists and had its prime minister murdered by another country, is delusional. As delusional as that unserious gigolo who was nearly elected president in 2004– “This wouldn’t be happening if I was president, instead of rockets lollipops would be raining down.”
July 25th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Mr. Cooper. nothing is more vile than self-loathing Jews who wish their ancestors had all been burned to a chrisp in German concentration camps instead of offending Islam the territories taken by violent submission all to serve Allah.
July 25th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Democrats are not as stupid as I thought. Unlike Hizbollah they see no profit in suicide.
When nearly 70% of all Americans support Israel the politician who wants to be elected/re-elected supports Israel as well.
Except for McKinney. And it looks like she will be losing.
And how about Lieberman who, if he doesn’t win the primary, looks like a shoo in in the general election.
The communist wing of the Democrat Party (Progressives if you will) just took another hit.
July 25th, 2006 at 10:32 am
All I can think about are those poor innocent peace-loving Hizbollah rockets, forced (by Israeli aggression) to shoot themselves into the sky, only to fall tragically to the ground minutes later, being smashed to bits by the oppressors’ territory that so rudely interposes itself in front of the unfortunate rockets. They are the real victims here.
Won’t someone please think of the rockets?
July 25th, 2006 at 10:32 am
I think the far Left’s central problem in Israeli-Arabic conflict is that when push comes to shove, Americans will back a liberal-democracy against any form of autocracy. Historically, the far Left has either backed the autocracy or adopted a “pox on both your houses” attitude.
I don’t think that sells politically. Most of us believe in liberal-democracy because we believe that such governments systematically make superior and more humane decisions than do any form of autocracy. We think good government requires multiple-parties, competitive elections, an independent judiciary and a free press. Governments that lack such attributes cause operation and wars.
The far (and perhaps not so far) Left’s insistence that 90% of the blame for the Israeli-Arabic conflict lays with democratic Israel and not with the objectively oppressive and brutal autocratic regimes and groups of the Arabic world resoundingly rings hollow.
It doesn’t even pass the sniff test.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:00 am
The Doves of Hizbollah.Hossein Safiadeen also reinforced earlier threats by Hizbullah leader
Sheik Hassan Nasrallah to widen the scope of attacks, which have included unprecedented missile strikes deep into northern Israel.
“We are going to make Israel not safe for Israelis. There will be no place they are safe,” Safiadeen told a conference that included the Tehran-based representative of the Palestinian group Hamas and the ambassadors from Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority.
“You will see a new Middle East in the way of Hizbullah and Islam, not in the way of Rice and Israel.”
====================
Looks like a call to genocide to me. Are the “Progressives” against genocide of the Jews? Or do they think it should be a question open for discussion.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Anon, those comments were balanced between to warring parties – not an anti-semitic lick in any of it.
However, do not tell me that no one targets civilians – I have seen civilians shot point black with my own two eyes in the occupied territory – tell it to somebody else.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Hezbollah is firing on IDF from inside schools, hospitals, and mosques.
Lebannon has allowed a terrorist network infestation for 6 years now. If you’re going to let a terrorist hide behind your skirts, don’t complain when I shoot through you.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:36 am
The Dems rubber stamp anything to do with Israel, that is to be expected. Republicans supporting Israel to destroy terror groups is expected. What is not expected is that Israel is doing the right thing….just because they like doing ‘this’ right thing is irrelevant.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:49 am
“Nice to see that they’re still spitting and jeering at Vietnam Veterans.”
He’s wasn’t jeering at a Vet. He was reminding us that Kerry is a Fraud who embellished & exagerated his war record for political gain. How many vets do you know earned 3 PH’s in 4 months without missing a day of work, without spending a night at sick bay or field hospital? [John Rambo doesn't count, he's fictional]
You should see how we treat Frauds who falsely claim they were in Recon, SEALs, or earned a CMoH…
July 25th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Ever heard of anti-semitism. That’s at the core of the world wide response to Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah and Lebanon and is clearly a factor here. How could so many ignore so many facts about the threats of extermination of Jews by some Islamic leaders? Who among you thinks for a minute Americans would stand for rocket-launching, suicide bombing psychos using Canada as a home base to launch attacks on us? If Israel has sinned, have not Lebanon, Muslim moderates, the UN and European apologists sinned even more for allowing the Hez to take over in the first place?
July 25th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Further, Anon, very few people that I know support the neocon position in the US, but that does not mean that those in power do not hold extreme views and express them in their actions. The same is true in Israel, or in the occupied territory – just because you abhor the death of civilians does not mean that you are anti-semetic or anti-arab.
As far as the position in Israel among some Zionists in power, if you want a good dose of what I am talking about read Abba Eban – the definitive book on the Zionist position. If you want to read the extremes in the other warring camp, than read some of the Edits of the Emams.
Innocent lives taken either on purpose or “accidentally” (which is bad policy every time) is not self-defense.
July 25th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
If the US was being shelled by terrorists in Canada how long do you suppose we’d put up with it? Let’s change the scenario just a bit and say Clinton was in charge while US cities were being bombarded from Canada, and Canada wasn’t doing anything to stop it; what do you think he would have done about it, and how long would it have taken? (Hint: Bubba lived or died by the daily polls.)
So why is it exactly that Israel should show “restraint”, and “tolerance”, when you know darned well no other country on the face of this planet would? It’s really only the ones who want Israel wiped off the map who argue this; the adults know that Israel has the sovereign right to defend its people and its territory by any means necessary.
July 25th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
I believe the late Golda Meir said that there would not be peace between Israel and her Arab neighbors “as long as they hate our children more than they love their own.” True then and, sadly, still true.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
You should see how we treat Frauds who falsely claim they were in Recon, SEALs, or earned a CMoH…
While giving a pass to those who skipped their National Guard duty.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
From today’s Haaretz, by one of the paper’s regular political and financial writers (but clearly an anti-semite, according to the fabulously enlightened views of some of the recent commenters.)
(I’ve pasted the whole thing as it requires registration to link)
“THE TWO CIVILIANS SNAPPED TO ATTENTION”
By Nehemia Shtrasler
The second war in Lebanon has no name yet. The army and the government are waiting to see how things work out. If the results are good, Dan Halutz and Ehud Olmert will choose a heroic name to immortalize their action. But if it ends badly – which appears more likely – they will try to belittle it and turn it into a small, unimportant, nameless operation.
Expectations were high. For the first time in decades, two civilians were at the top of the defense pyramid. Many celebrated the victory of the social-civil agenda over the military-security one. Many believed that when the chief of staff urged for a military solution, Olmert and Peretz would stand against him like a brick wall. After all, they don’t see the world through the sights of a gun; therefore, they will choose a restrained, proportionate reaction, which will take into account all the risks and the repercussions for Israel.
But the opposite happened. The civilians felt inferior to the generals, and within minutes made a fatal decision and set unattainable, pretentious goals: driving Hezbollah out of south Lebanon and deploying the Lebanese army in its place. People close to Olmert said he was about to do something even the great Ariel Sharon was afraid of doing. Because he is braver, stronger, wiser than the sick leader, who cannot answer him.
Advertisement
But Olmert and Peretz should know that a large, cumbersome army built for conventional wars cannot defeat a small agile guerrilla group that controls the territory. Also, there is little in common between a neat military plan outlined in an air-conditioned briefing room and the reality of getting entangled in the old familiar Lebanese quagmire.
It appears, however, that Olmert and Peretz cannot tell the difference between being right and being effective. It was justified to react harshly to the killing of three soldiers and the capture of two. But since it is impossible to accomplish the lofty, arrogant goals the prime minister had announced, Israel should have made do with a short, limited response, thus avoiding the grave damages, which are increasing.
The first and dearest price of all is the military and civilian fatalities and casualties. OC Northern Command Udi Adam has a way of ignoring this. “We must change our way of thinking and not count the dead now.” With this method we could have continued the first war in Lebanon until today.
Israel is also paying dearly in world public opinion and among most world leaders. The news media, even in the United States, show the vast devastation caused by the bombings, the destroyed houses and buildings, bridges and infrastructures, the hundreds of thousands of refugees and the numerous civilians who were killed.
Olmert and Peretz boast that they had no qualms about exposing the Israeli home front to rocket volleys, which they described as “a strategic change.” But did they take into account the economic disaster which the home front is now undergoing? The million people in Israel’s north? Did they take into account the bankruptcies, the losses, the unpaid wages and the expected economic slowdown due to halting economic activity in the north, and the growing fears in the center?
Has anyone calculated how many billions would be lost, how many billions the army would demand to requip itself? Did they take into account that because of that Israel would not be able to carry out the plans to bridge gaps, to fight poverty and to assist the weak and elderly?
Most ludicrous of all is to hear Olmert boast of American and British support. If it were up to George Bush and Tony Blair, they would already send the Israel Defense Forces today into Syria as well, to do their work – to the last drop of Israeli soldiers’ blood.
The present trap was easily predicted. The war’s goals – which the army promised to achieve within two weeks by aerial bombardment alone – are not being accomplished. The rocket launching is not abating, Hezbollah is not breaking down and there is no military victory. The haughty statement of the Air Force’s commander, Eliezer Shkedi, that Hezbollah is nothing but a gang, is not helping.
Olmert, who perhaps realizes now the depth of the quagmire into which we have sunk, has already waived one of his impossible conditions, that the tiny Lebanese army deploy on the border instead of Hezbollah, and has expressed support for posting a multinational force. But he’ll find out soon enough that the Europeans are not exactly thrilled to send a “foreign legion” to prevent Hezbollah from reaching the border. Nobody is eager to die on Lebanese soil, especially not for Israel.
The whole world watches the mighty Israeli army, the world’s fifth largest, with its state-of-the-art warplanes, pinpoint weapons and colossal budgets – and sees it is incapable of defeating a small terror group of a few thousand fighters. What does that say about Israel’s power of deterrence in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and in all the Arab states?
Time is not on our side, and Israel’s interest is therefore clear. Declare victory, accept the mediation proposals, and end the war immediately.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Virgil Johnson,
very few people that I know support the neocon position in the US
That merely argues for your own provincialism not a measure of the actual support in the population.
…those in power do not hold extreme views and express them in their actions. The same is true in Israel,…
Except that the current operation has near universal support across the entire political spectrum within Israel. Moreover, the drumbeat of criticism against Israel is decades old and has occurred whether the Israel Left (Israel was founded by socialist after all) or the right has held power.
Innocent lives taken either on purpose or “accidentally†(which is bad policy every time) is not self-defense.
Since it is absolutely impossible to engage in any kind of military action without risking the lives of innocents you have conveniently defined all Israeli military responses to ANY provocation as bad policy and inconsistent with self-defense. Nice. I can’t for the life of me understand why someone could mistake you for an anti-semite. All Israel has to do to gain your approval is to meet a standard which no group of mortal humans can ever hope to match.
If it helps, I don’t think you are an anti-semite. I think you condemn Israel because it is a liberal-democracy.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Since we are using the argument in here of “they started it,” than it should apply equally to both sides. What happened? Soldiers were kidnapped, and some were wounded and killed.
The argument is “they started it,” so now in response to this aggression we will bomb the hell out of them. As ill conceived the kidnapping was it was used for negotiation, to trade for prisoners who have been incarcerated with no end in sight.
Ergo, since the argument is “they started it,” in turn the Arabs may say – “hey, we just wanted human chips for negotiation (not that the soldiers “just happened” to be there inncoently, etc.) but they have mercilessly bombed us.” We wanted to negotiate – since they started bombing us, now we will just do what they are doing “they started this undo bombing first.” There goes the “first” argument again. If you argue against it, than you allow one to use the “they did it first” without the other having the same opportunity. Now the Arabs say we must defend oursleves also from this indicriminate bombing – and on and on it goes.
You argue, “hey you let terrorists hide behind your skirts I will shoot through you.” Let me see if I have this right – the civilians are supposed to disarm the “terrorists?” The school marm is supposed to take away the AK-47 from the terrorists (as an example)? You would disarm that terrorist huh? Gimme a break! In hostage situations that is what always happens, right – the hostages disarm the terrorists? That is as rediculous as the argument that they are “allowing” these individuals to do what they are doing.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Man, all the Isreali on this thread, sure hate Arabs.
Maybe you guys are the ultimate anti-semites.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Virgil, your clearly a lightweight.
This is a linear chain of events. One side starts, not both. Therefore, if Hezbollah sets a chain of events in motion, then they are responsible for any repercussions that may follow. That’s it.
All this babbling about negotiation and indiscriminate bombing is irrelevant.
Let me see if I have this right – the civilians are supposed to disarm the “terrorists?
Firstly, Lebanon has a standing army. They should disarm Hezbollah. Secondly, this isn’t a hostage situation. Hezbollah has support amongnst most of the Shiite population. Hezbollah uses this support to further their terrorist goals by not only hiding amongst the civvys, but putting missles in houses for storage.
The arabs( and leftists) are crying crocodile tears for what is a relatively low number of civilian casualties. Darfur is a egrigious example of indiscriminate bombing, yet nary a peep out of you so called liberals, athough to Marc Coopers credit, he isn’t one of them.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Thats 4 dead UN peacekeepers, but don;t worry it was Israel that killed them so they must have deserved it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14029827/
July 25th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Reply to Virgil Johnson (about 13 posts ago):
I have no theological perspectives on the war-crimes being perpetrated although I’m quite sure that the indoctrination of the combatants on both sides (selectively) utilizes theological literature in order to compel thier personnel to murder civilians. It is less difficult to target “two-legged beasts” and “infidels”.
Reply to Anon
Re: “As in all wars, innocent people are sometimes mistakenly hit”.
I would be very surprised if Israeli intelligence didn’t have every inch of Beirut surveilled in the past year that they have been planning this “retaliatory” invasion. The IDF has a history of striking targets with precision. Numerous independant sources in Beirut have been reporting the destruction of bomb shelters, civil defense supply buildings, mosques – all civilian targets. Unless you think that the Israeli military is incredibly inept, the frequency with which civilian structures are being destroyed throughout Lebanon clearly indicates either a total disregard for innocent civilians or that this is part of thier strategy. In either case it demonstrates that, tactically, the Israelis are operating on the moral level of Hezbollah (below Hezbollah’s level if you take into consideration the number of casualties).
It is true that, as pointed out above and in MSM, Hezbollah hides behind civillians. That’s what guerilla armies do! What do you expect, they’re gonna go on-line to some army surplus site and order 10,000 uniforms? Maybe have thier women embroider the Hez insignia for them? When faced with an enemy that has far superior strength, in these circumstances, you “go guerilla’ whether you are Vietnamese, Irish or an 18th century New England colonist.
Reply to Perry
Re: What the “Israelis SHOULD DO about Hez”?
The first thing they should do is listen to world opinion and initiate a unilateral cease-fire and seek a diplomatic resolution. If the Hez continues thier war crimes of shelling civilian targets, then for once, Israel would find the consensus of world opinion on thier side (provided that if they resume the invasion, that they consider the limitations of a conventional army fighting a guerilla army and respect international law regarding the targeting of civilians, the use of cluster bombs etc.).
Israel has the right to self defense but they have the obligation to conform to international law regarding the conduct of military operations – otherwise they’re morally on par with thier despicable adversary. The argument that the “other side is doing it” or “other countries have done it” doesn’t absolve atrocious behavior at the international level any more than me claiming to the police that the reason I stole my neighbors car was because he stole my lawnmower.
In order to accept the rationalization that lebanon is getting what it deserves for not disarming the Hez, you really have to overlook alot of history. For starters, the Hez (Shias, which is the largest muslim bloc in Lebanon)came into existence as a guerilla army in 1982
fighting the invasion by Israel. From the mid 90s until last year, refraining from military or terrorist activities, they formed a political organization that in recent elections recieved 80% of the vote in southern lebanon. There is evidence that even Lebanese Christians regard Hez as a legitimate resistance to Israeli aggresion. Even IF the Lebanese army COULD disarm Hez, is it really that irrational of the Lebanese, at least prior to 2005, not to disarm Hez?
I’m not anti-semitic. I’m not anti-Israeli and I support any country’s right to self defense – including Lebanon. Nothing good came out of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. There seems to be a near-consensus among the MSM talking heads/commentators that it was a disaster for Israel. The IDF will crush, or at least cripple the Hez this time around but will it result in more security for Israel?
How many Sabraa’s and Shatilla’s will come to light in the aftermath? How many future Hez type militias will appear, reaping a recruiting bonanza of anti-U.S./Israeli sentiment created by this unrestrained, savage flaunting of superor military capability. I doubt that the answers to these questions bode well for Israel’s long-term security.
July 25th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
You argue, “hey you let terrorists hide behind your skirts I will shoot through you.†Let me see if I have this right – the civilians are supposed to disarm the “terrorists?â€
No, thats a strawman, and you didn’t even quote me right in crafting it. Dishonest of you.
I don’t expect the civillians to disarm the terrorists. But civillians who willingly allow themselves to be used as human shields have no right to complain when I shoot through them.
July 25th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
While giving a pass to those who skipped their National Guard duty.
Is that you Mary Mapes? Do you have another “memo” to prove Bush skipped out?
July 25th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Ed Watters, I’m sure the Israelis, more than anyone else, are familiar with the proceedings at Nuremberg. Unfortunately, unless you can demonstrate how European Jews of the 1930s continually shelled German towns, the analogy is as revolting as it is asinine.
Your outrage at Israelis bombing “bomb shelters, civil defense supply buildings, mosques – all civilian targets” is touching and seems deliberately obtuse, seeing how it ignores the fact that Hezbollah deliberately uses such “civilian targets” for military purposes. Once this use is discovered, civilian targets lose all protection. It would have been nice if Hezbollah had distinct bases and observed standards of civilized warfare — but they don’t, which leaves the Israelis with no options and no obligation to do the same.
Along the same lines, once civilians are used for tactical cover, they too lose protection in military operations. That’s why using them is a war crime. Do I expect the Hezbollah to fight Israelis in the open field? Yes, absolutely, if they want to be respected as combatants and have their civilians spared. “Going guerilla” can be an effective tactic, but hiding amongst civilians is not the same as hiding in jungles, and doing so is not guerilla tactics. For what it’s worth, Hezbollah has thousands of men, plenty of hard assets, and even uniforms, courtesy of Iran. They simply choose to stash them behind civilians. Well, Israel is not obligated to protect Lebanese civilians more than the Lebanese care to do. If Hezbollah doesn’t want Shiite women and children to die, they shouldn’t locate their weapons and infrastructure amongst them. (That’s the war crime actually occurring both in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.) The Israelis have already gone to extraordinary lengths to work around this problem — most other nations wouldn’t have been so charitable. Far from a “war crime,” Israel’s conduct exemplary behavior from a human-rights point of view — if anything, it leans too much to worrying about the enemy’s civilians, costing the lives of Israel’s own people. I’d like to see even one nation in that loathesome mob at the UN that has done half as much.
As for whether it was “rational” for the Lebanese “not to disarm” Hezbollah — I’m not really interested in a silly argument over what the Lebanese could “rationally” do. But it’s not up to Israel to analyze or resolve Lebanese disputes — if the Lebanese thought it’d be a good idea to leave an uncontrollable terrorist organization on the Israeli border, with all that implied, then they are now paying the price for that mistake. Perhaps next time exporting their problems won’t seem like such a good idea.
Finally, anyone who quotes “international opinion” as though listening to it is some kind of moral obligation really needs to look up the League of Nations, and quickly.
July 25th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
“But civillians who willingly allow themselves to be used as human shields have no right to complain when I shoot through them”
Exactly! Of course, the intestines spilling out of the gut and pool of blood streaming out of the mouth make the complaining part a bit tricky. But otherwise, brilliant observation, Admiral Keyboardist–maybe you can work with the Israeli military to develop a bad vs. good civilian detector that can be attached to, say, rockets or gun mounts. On second thought, easier just to shoot indiscriminately, and then twist the meaning of the word “terrorism” to apply to other types of civilian slaughter. It’s different, you know. Complicated stuff.
July 25th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Yea and those UN peacekeepers deserved it to cos, er, well we will come up with something soon.
July 25th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Rupert, I am glad you have said that I am a lightweight – I had so many misgivings about that, I was actually beginning to think that my first hand experience in some of these areas made me special. However, you have relieved me of those delusions – and specifically about my pretention to military knowledge, having had what I thought a somewhat unique view in that area. My life is just some strange mixture of confusion and misapprehension(s)…..
I believe that since all this “babbling about negotiation and indiscriminate bombing is irrelevant,” you should inform all those who are experts in these areas to cease and desist. How dare they think such things without consulting you? I can get two for one with this next point – “they hide their rockets in civilian homes (Both Rupert and E. Nough), oh yes – and they hide them one rocket at a time in each home? Who would have thought that they were so devious!? Because at this point, the homes destroyed range at about 75,000 to 100,000 – those damn Arabs (I hope you taste my sarcasm). Yes, and who would have thought that Hezbollah met in all those civilian bomb centers and Mosques? This is indeed a pourous group.
I almost forgot Shannon Love (I apologize), perhaps my sarcasm was too subtle for you – because this was what I meant by “accident” and “bad policy” every time, maybe I should have written it differently. What we see in Lebanon is the same thing that takes place in both the West Bank and Gaza – is that clear enough for you? We just see it on a grander scale in broad daylight at this juncture. I want to thank you for not saying I am an anti-semite, particularly my mother thanks you because it would be bad news to her (I’ll let you sort that one out for yourself since you are so discerning). I am about as much of an anti-semite as Norman Finkelstein could be.
I know a few (at least in this post) believe that Hezbollah should go conventional – and some think guerilla warefare takes place specifically in jungles – I can tell what an astute crowd we have here. There is only one answer for this – we do not have a war going on here, this cannot be called a war. What you have is an occupation (in Palestine) and you have the same tactics used in dealing with Lebanon. In fact, you should go read the history of the American Revolution all over again – it wouldn’t hurt.
Also, everyone that does not fit into the perfect mould of “nation” is a would-be terrorist. While we are defining terrorist I have a simple question – why is it that terrorists always seem to pop up in these heavily exploited and abused regions? Perhaps they are just born that way? These terrorists are poping up all over the world map – maybe that is why there is a “war on terrorism,” and after examining quite a bit of it I have come to the conclusion that it is a war on the people – for the most part, and I doubt if you that you will undertsand why I have come to that conclusion.
However, I do not expect you to answer this – because this is beyond your limited priviledged purview. It is apparent you cannot even conceive of what is taking place here by your previous comments.
Fennel, you are perhaps the most honest poster who has disagreed with me. If the rest were as honest as you there would be no seeming contorversy. I prefer not to try to develop weapons with discernment, because that it only as good as the party who carry’s the weapon – just like a computer that has junk input spews garbage.
In the final analysis it is best to have rules of engagement based upon the makeup of the two parties – when one is the fifth largest army in the world it is never kosher to smash a poor and almost defenseless nation in comparison! That way, you do not have make judgement calls of that nature. However, as long as there are nations which want to control the world and their respective regions to the detriment of their neighbors, things like this will always happen.
I am sorry if I left some things out of my response, remember that I am just a lightweight and because of that you cannot expect me to have adequate answers to your extremely erudite questions. One thing does puzzle me – why no one mentioned anything about Abba Eben, he is only the greatest spokesman for Zionism to date in my opinion. Too bad that you left that out of your supportive arguments for the actions of Israel, because this is the kernel of the extremists in power in Israel today.
July 25th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Marc –
I think it’s laughable; the heart and soul of the Democratic Party is falling into outright anti-Semitism. You yourself are shamefully at best applying a double standard and backing sworn enemies of all Americans. Really you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I can say I find your position both surprising and causing me to lose a lot of respect for you and your judgement.
[While we've always had unbridgeable political differences it was my impression that you backed modernity against religious barbarism. I guess I was wrong. No person on the side of human progress and America could fail to back Israel against America's second greatest enemy after Al Qaeda and in and of itself a source of barbaric anti-Modern misery around the globe. And Dems wonder why Americans don't trust them with National Security.]
Take a walk on over to Daily Kos where daily diaries call Israel a “mistake” and claim it should not exist and pose moral equivalence between Israel and Hezbollah (Party of God). Or wish for Israel’s destruction, terrorism in America, etc. Quite simply the Democratic Party has gone insane and the empty posturing in support for Israel can only go on so long … inevitably falling into the lunatic anti-Semitism prevalent in Europe and the Muslim World. A natural part of believing modern life and America (and Americans) are not worthy of fighting for or defending; the Dostoyevsky or Conrad (Secret Agent) urge to find the short-cut to perfection by brutal violence. As noted by Dalyrymple in his latest City Journal piece.
Progressives are not classical Liberals, admit all of you that you back the Party of God, religious frenzy, superstition, ignorance, tribal violence, and every insane anti-Modern idea that Mark Twain and Anatole France ever wrote against. Funny how a non-existent religion (Christianity, no one believes in it anymore) gets Progressives all upset but they’ll lay down markers to back the Party of God where people blow themselves up for their religion (and to destroy every bit of modern society). Of course Progressives hate ordinary people and ordinary life too, and love the violence that the Party of God does to the Modern World.
Most “Progressives” (who favor post-modern romanticism of the thug/tribal leader ala Fisk or Chomsky’s embrace of Nasrallah) of course hate Jews and Israel, because no other nation nor people represents modernity more (save Americans). Even someone like Villaraigosa knows that the Koss-tards and Progressivism is a dead weight which you yourself Marc have commented on at length. But it won’t be enough for him; Dems have cemented themselves to the Kossacks and Progressives fatally.
FACT: the Party of God killed more than 300 Marines in the 1983 Beirut Barracks; Navy Diver Robert Stethem, CIA Station Chief William Buckley, 19 Airmen in the Khobar Towers bombing, Col Higgins, and of course more than 300 Jews in Buenos Aires (in “retaliation” for Argentina breaking off relations with Iran). The Party of God and Iran never miss an opportunity to kill Jews.
ANY Party of God member killed by Israel makes the US safer (if they’re dead they can’t kill us) particularly when the Party of God is according the FBI prepared to strike against the US.
Progressives ought to admit they want another Holocaust, and the David Duke — Cindy Sheehan alliance is a natural outgrowth of their mutual loathing of modern American life and particularly, Jews.
The Party of God wanted a war with Israel and they got it; all they have to do to stop it is return the two hostages, the bodies of the eight murdered soldiers, and stop firing rockets into Israel. That’s three simple things that cost them nothing. [Note Nasrallah said Lebanon's laughable PM had no objection to the invasion into Israel when he was told in ADVANCE. Laughable because Lebanon IS the Party of God and vice-versa; the Cedar Revolution was still-born and knowledgeable Lebanese who are secular are fleeing. There is no future other than the Party of God which runs the nation now and then.]
Of course, Progressives don’t consider Jews lives to be worthy of consideration, only the enemies of all Americans.
Anyone who thinks that the Party of God (hint: besides Iran that’s who they answer to, as Nasrallah said “Good. That the Jews are all in Israel. It will make it easier for us to find them all and kill them.”) is “open to negotiations” please contact me immediately. I have this fantastic Nigerian Oil investment opportunity.
July 25th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Facts are Facts.
In reply to my contention that “a staggering American majority and both American parties back Israel and trust its geo-political judgement’’
Bunkerbuster says:
“Nope. Depending on how the question is asked, most Americans do not support Israel’s actions in Lebanon, polls show.”
http://www.pollingreport.com/israel.htm
Read mine and read his. (I gender Bunkerbuster as male.) I make a broad historical statement that is inarguably correct and BunkerBuster whips out a USA Today poll on what Americans thought between July 21-23. My initial inclination was to concede his very limited point without even checking the poll and return to the broader argument.
But no need to. I went to the adress proffered by Bunkerbuster.
It turns out that if you actually read the poll, it proves the opposite of what BunkerBuster says it does.
I don’t ascribe this to concious dishonesty on Bunkerbuster’s part, just the usual far-left DT’s.
July 25th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Marc Davidson writes:
“SS, so we should trust the exquisite judgment of the American electorate and most especially that of the leaders of our major parties?
NO , THIS IS STILL A FREE COUNTRY, SO CONSULT YOURSELF AND WHOMEVER AND TRUST HOWEVER YOU PLEASE. I ONLY STATED, AS AN HISTORICALLY, EMPIRICALLY IRREFUTABLE PROPOSITION THAT BOTH MAJOR PARTIES AND THE ELECTORATE AT LARGE SIDE WITH ISRAEL. ALWAYS HAVE.
ANYONE WHO CAN FACE THAT FACT WILL BE FREE TO MAKE ARGUMENTS ON MERIT, WITHOUT RESORTING TO CRYPTO ISRAELI- LOBBY, FALSE- CONCIOUSNESS, VANGUARD- OF-THE-PROLETARIAT INSINUATIONS.
Need I remind you that this is the same crowd that signed on to the now much maligned (even largely in their own opinion) Iraqi enterprise of 3 years ago?”
NOPE. GOT AN ARGUMENT? WHO DOESN’T KNOW WHAT REPUBLICANS SAY AND DO AND THAT THEY KEEP GETTING ELECTED? DO YOU LIVE IN BERKELEY OR ANN ARBOR?
July 25th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Shannon Love wins the most pungent post of the year contest:
“I think the far Left’s central problem in Israeli-Arabic conflict is that when push comes to shove, Americans will back a liberal-democracy against any form of autocracy. Historically, the far Left has either backed the autocracy or adopted a “pox on both your houses†attitude.”
Notice also the exquisite civility and liberality.
I am incapable of ratifying this observation without observing that the Far Left is full of Che-loving sociopaths nostalgic for Soviet missile parades, and that the democratic Left remains unwilling to purge, yes, purge them, any more than they are willing to state in plain English that they will back democracies over autocracies.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Wow…insanity reigns
July 26th, 2006 at 5:55 am
Wow, Virgil, you “have some firsthand experience”? Doing what, exactly?
I won’t bother to answer all your self-serving blather; the term “lightweight” seems to have been rather a compliment on subsequent readings.
But to answer what few points you seem to have made in that pile of verbiage: actually, which side is stronger is not a determinant of who is in the right, or who has the right to destroy whom. A country’s “weakness” is not a moral asset; the obvious response is that if they are so “weak,” perhaps they shouldn’t go around picking fights. It’s not difficult: you realize you are weak, and don’t fight.
I can’t say where Hezbollah stashes its weapons. 75-100 thousand homes seems like a rather absurd figure, but even if true, it proves nothing: once it’s determined that the Lebanese (and Hezbollah are Lebanese) are hiding weapons in civilian homes, all civilian homes lose any protection. It is not the job of Israel to know exactly which homes they choose to use as weapons depots. Hide weapons amongst civilians, and civilians lose protection. Hide weapons in homes, and homes use protection. Use mosques as military HQ, and mosques lose protection. End of story.
Finally, I could care less why it’s the “poor and dispossessed” that allegedly gravitate to terrorism (never mind that this isn’t true — there are far better correlations to what makes a terrorist, with religion being the best predictor). Personally, I don’t care to discuss what motivates scum — I’m happy to just kill the scum. If said scum fights using the rules of decent warfare, terrific. If not, if they prefer to hide amongst their own civilians, then quite frankly the loss of those civilians is acceptable. The choice is entirely theirs, and when they make it, they really shouldn’t gripe about the consequences.
Of course, that’s why they have their “progressive” Western mouthpieces — like you.
July 26th, 2006 at 7:37 am
E. Nough:
When you claim that “…civilians lose all protection” when one side in a conflict uses them for protection, are you citing Israeli military tactics or recognized international norms such as the Geneva Convention or the International Law Commission of the UN?
If the latter, please provide references. If the former, then you are doing no more than attempting to justify atrocities. Perhaps you should codify your own “standards of CIVILIZED WARFARE”. When you publish them,
I would suggest you change your nom de plume from E. Nough to Ox E. Moron.
July 26th, 2006 at 7:41 am
Exactly! Of course, the intestines spilling out of the gut and pool of blood streaming out of the mouth make the complaining part a bit tricky. But otherwise, brilliant observation, Admiral Keyboardist
I am a US Marine. And since all you have are adhom attacks, you lose the debate. Thanks for playing.
–maybe you can work with the Israeli military to develop a bad vs. good civilian detector that can be attached to, say, rockets or gun mounts. On second thought, easier just to shoot indiscriminately, and then twist the meaning of the word “terrorism†to apply to other types of civilian slaughter. It’s different, you know. Complicated stuff.
Its not complicated. For 6 years the “civillians” in Southern Lebannon have collaberated with Hezbollah as they built tunnels, bunkers, ambush zones, launch platforms. Hezabollah PAYS RENT to the civillians to keep their missiles in their basements, and when the IDF targets those locations, the “civillians” go on CNN to complain that the IDF blew up their homes.
Its a propaganda ploy to target the weakest link – you and your kind.
July 26th, 2006 at 7:59 am
Cute zinger, Ed — now you’re ready for middle school! Don’t forget your lunchbox.
Let’s make sure we’re clear: I didn’t say that all civilians lose their protection when one side uses its civilians for that purpose. Israeli civilians don’t lose their entitlement to not be shot, since the Israeli military doesn’t use them for cover. On the other hand, once the Lebanese military — be they the official army or Hezbollah — begin to use Lebanese civilians as human shields, the Israelis are not obligated to avoid shooting Hezbollah just because some civilians may get in the way. (They are still not entitled to deliberately target civilians, but so far no one has presented any evidence that this has happened. Which is not surprising, since unlike Hezbollah, Israelis are not bloodthirsty religious nutballs, and high body counts are neither a goal to them nor a side benefit.)
Such rules have been in place long before the League of Nations or its present-day equivalent was formed. I don’t need to write them — they are clear and have been well-understood by armies since at least the time of Westphalia. If you must have “authority,” perhaps you can review those all-important Geneva Conventions, and see what they say about the use of civilians for tactical advantage. (And the reason it’s called a “Convention,” and all those countries sign it, is that all members are expected to abide by it to benefit from it. The Palestinians and Lebanese have violated the Convention at will, and are therefore no longer entitled to its protections. This is likewise obvious — no sane nation would abide by a pact that the other side disregards. To do so would be to guarantee your own defeat: all your enemy has to do is give each soldier a civilian human shield, and he’s invulnerable.)
Sorry this wasn’t clear at first — I thought anyone capable of opining on this subject would understand the fundamentals first. (Though your constant references to “Israeli atrocities” and the alleged authority of the UN should have alerted me to the contrary.) For future reference, though, trying to compensate for basic shortcomings with arrogant bluster doesn’t impress me, though it does amuse me. Trust me — it doesn’t work for the raging Arabs, so it certainly won’t work for you.
July 26th, 2006 at 8:01 am
Of course all the Israel-bashing is Jew-hatred. Imagine any other country in the world suffering missile attacks from a neighbor and being lectured for “genocide” when it goes in–in a very limited manner, no less–to stop them. The only thing these posters are outraged about is that the Israelis (read: Jews) consider themselves human.
As for pointing out facts, contradictions, etc., it’s a total waste of time. These people are stupid murderous bigots. To understand them, don’t bother attempting to unravel or make sense of their wildly contracictory professed principals; simply look at their perceptions and proposals.
Their one true principle then becomes obvious: Exterminate the Jews and humanity’s trouble will be over. Since that is their only truth, everything else must conform to it. That is why they cannot comprehend what anyone else says, no matter how simple.
July 26th, 2006 at 8:11 am
Legally speaking the civilians do not lose the protections of the GCs or the IHRD but the onus is NOT on the party defending themselves from attack but on those who purposefully intermix with civilians, not to mention target same for extermination. On the question of the duties of the Lebanese gov and south Lebanese residents generally; no, the school marms are not expected to wrest the AK from Abdullahs hands, cold and dead or warm and alive. They are duty bound however to aid the government in locating and dealing with this renegade element, if renegade it is. The Arab/Muslim parties here have had their asses thoroughly kicked militarily every time they have sallied. To remedy this they have developed their proxies whose benefactors and sometimes commanders everyone now knows with several decades of experience. The Lebanese, if they are acting in good faith, need to expell Hizbollah and eliminate the franchise in the precincts that sent such into government until something like our own Reconstruction has been achieved. The Iranians and Syrians claim no control over their sockpuppets; these are lies of course, but we must hold these state actors to the standards of state actors. Iran and Syria have declared war on Israel and us too, the figleaf of these “independent” groups is a thin farce. If they will war on us, will we not war on them? That is not rhetorical.
Oh, and you will find in the anals of war, kidnapping for ransom or blackmail is the second oldest provocation to war, after a forthright attack. Which we have also seen.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Is that you Mary Mapes? Do you have another “memo†to prove Bush skipped out?
No, but the fact that he missed his flight physical in August 1972 and didn’t notify either the Alabama NG or Texas NG when he returned to Texas is far more substantive than any of that Swift Boat bullshit.
July 26th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Suffice it to say you some of you people give a bad name to right wing wingnuts. You know virtually nothing in regard to the Palestinian tragedy, or at least have swallowed the heaped on garbage of propaganda – and have ignored the facts. I am accused of “adhom” attacks by the general of adhom. You are a credit to the Marine Core – Fen, you believe anything you are told – that is the only conclusion I can come to regarding your ignorant statements.
E. Nough you have picked a good moniker for yourself. Yes, i lived for a period of time in Israel and had the unfortunate experience of seeing eyewitness brutality heapen on the Palestinians. I mean did you people just wake up yesterday? You have no morals as far as I can see, you are an exact match of the ubermench – more power to you (pun).
I am not going to go into a history lesson of Palestine. You are devoid of all factual information and are the equivilent of partisan hacks – that spout convenient values. Go get an education. You have no idea historically who you ape with your comments – Seig Heil! I may speak more to the point on this later, right now I have no time.
July 26th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Again – no facts from you, no attempt to defend your argument or attack mine, just a bunch of insults. Thanks for the forfeit.
And people wonder why the Left is out of ideas….
July 26th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Fen, when you pull your “facts” out of your arse, I hope you understand why I do not want to go there? Is that clear enough? I left the sophmoric point system years ago. You know the purpose of and acts that take place in war, and so do I – understand?
July 26th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Let me try one more time because I am a glutton for punishment. I am not debateing with you Fen, because you have a fallacious foundation. You cannot come to an incident, plant two feet down and say that all other history leading up to the incident is invalid – and neither can anyone else no matter how eloquent they think they sound.
It does not matter to me that you are stuck in the Leon Uris era of looking at history in this region (if you even know what I am talking about), the question of why all this occured has to be asked and it has to be applied. You cannot start where you please, that is not reality – your ideology does not count, the question is what are the foundational facts.
Without this your argument is useless, because from this flows all your assumptions – what you embrace as truth does nothing but bolster your tainted presuppositions. So argue all you want that you won the debate, because there was none to start with – we could not get to point one (hence the broad sweep of my previous original response).
July 27th, 2006 at 3:49 am
You cannot come to an incident, plant two feet down and say that all other history leading up to the incident is invalid
Strawwman. I’ve never said such a thing.
My FACTS are that the southern Lebaneese have collaberated with Hezbollah for 6 years, and that they willingly volunteer to be used as human shields for propaganda purposes.
the question of why all this occured has to be asked and it has to be applied.
Sure. But you’re changing the subject b/c you are incapable of disupting the facts I’ve given you.
argue all you want that you won the debate,
I didn’t “win” the debate, you forfeited it b/c your only retort was personal attacks.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
OK, Fen, you give me your “facts” regarding the people using themselves as human shields, and I will give you the facts of how the Israeli army uses Palestinians as human shields when incursions take place in the occupied territory. Deal?
July 27th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Here’s the most recent one for you:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3279175,00.html
From the well known human rights organization B’Tselem of Israel, pristine record of unbiased reporting, want the archive? Now where is your evidence?
July 27th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Oh, Fen, please do not send me info. from that propagada curning DEBKA nonsense, that is like getting news from Mirror or the Enquirer.
July 29th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
E Nough:
Again, is this notion that when one side in a conflict violates international codes of warfare,
then the other side is free to violate the codes at will – is this notion part of international codified norms? If so, please quote and reference.
If not, please admit that this “all bets are off”
notion is just a desperate rationalization of Israeli war-crimes: CONSISTENT TARGETING OF CIVILIAN POPULATION CENTERS, TARGETING OF RED CROSS VEHICLES, TARGETING OF CIVIL DEFENSE CENTERS, MOSQUES, UN PEACEKEEPERS ETC…
March 6th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I don?t begrudge her for dating AI guys but I?m also not surprised that she gets labeled an AI groupie.