Enough
I understand the rationale.
Israel is surrounded by people who wish to do it harm. History has taught the Jews that they cannot hope such hatred will come to nothing. Certainly, Arab governments do not do enough to control the terrorists in their midst and Israel rightly feels that something must be done. This has little to do with captured soldiers.
But the collective punishment of Lebanese civilians for the sins of Hezbollah goes too far. Realpolitik dictates that one famous Jew’s maxim about turning the other cheek is an impossible policy. Still, if you strike me on the cheek, should I pummel your face? As Mormons, we believe in the concept of just war, but the Book of Mormon teaches us that war must be proportionate. Israel has stepped widely over that line.
Israel wishes to defend herself, but the sight of Arab children killed by Israeli bombs may well put the Jewish state in greater danger. And when those bombs are paid for by American taxpayers, the US may also reap the whirlwind.
Ronan, I agree. Since its inception, I have felt that Israel’s response to this most recent crisis has been overkill. While I’m sure everyone shares concern for the kidnapped soldiers I think it clear that the current escalation is not only unwarranted but more dangerous than doing nothing. The Arab world needs little encouragement to further hate either Israel or the United States.
Comment by Guy Murray — July 21, 2006 @ 5:44 am
With the U.S. as Isreal’s most loyal ally and, one might assume, Isreal’s most influencial mentor, does it surprise anyone that overwhelming and exaggerated military force causing significant “collateral” damage is their most creative response to conflict and trouble?
Comment by lamonte — July 21, 2006 @ 5:53 am
I wish there was a way to get Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah themselves as the U.N. has demanded. It’s their responsibility to do so and now they’re paying for their failure. That’s not to say that I think that Israel’s (and the U.S.’s) current actions are fully justified, and I know it’s not a simple thing for the Lebanese to do given Syria’s influence in their government and support of Hezbollah, it’s just a shame all around. It’s especially sad that it’s Lebanon that’s paying the price given that they are one of the more moderate governments in the immediate vicinty. They may not remain so for long.
Comment by Tom — July 21, 2006 @ 6:41 am
Yes, Tom, Lebanon’s the last place that deserved such fury, and I’m heartbroken that Beirut may now return to hell.
But when our dear leaders appear so weak and clueless (witness the “Yo Blair” conversation and puke), I despair.
Comment by Ronan — July 21, 2006 @ 6:51 am
I agree with Tom’s comments; this is really a shame all around.
One of the principles of the just war doctrine (no, not an LDS doctrine, but one that appears to be endorsed by the Church) is proportionality; another is that noncombatants should be protected. The Hezbollah are rightly criticized for shooting rockets into Israeli cities and putting civilians in danger. But the Israelis are doing the same thing by shooting shells 20 or more miles into Hezbollah positions; you simply can’t protect civilians from that distance.
And I’m sad for the extensive infrastructure damage that is taking place in Lebanon (and to a lesser extent in Israel); this, too, hurts civilians and goes far beyond the need for self-protection. The long-term result will be a further radicalization of the Arab world; already, many formerly neutral Lebanese are blaming the U.S. for this, for not pushing for a cease-fire. (I’m not saying that blaming the U.S. is the right thing to do, just that it is understandable.)
I don’t have any simple answers here; there are none. But neither is the simplistic reaction we get from the Bush administration — we gotta get those terrorists and Israel has a right to defend itself — the answer some would like it to be.
Comment by Copedi — July 21, 2006 @ 7:49 am
I hear people use the phrase “dispraportionate response” when discussing Israel’s current attack on Hezbollah and I have to agree- I don’t think the attack is sufficiently strong.
Lebanon is much to weak to disarm Hezbollah and there is no one else in the region–except for Israel–who is ready, willing and able to do it.
Ronan, you say “the Book of Mormon teaches us that war must be proportionate.” I am not sure which verses and instances to which you are referring, but I believe that Israel’s current response fits within the guidelines of proportionate responses.
In the Book of Mormon we read about the Nephite commanders who charge the Lamanites to disarm and leave with a treaty of peace, or the work of death would continue. That, in essence, and in my opinion, is what is happening in Lebanon today.
Hezbollah will continue to launch rockets and kill Israeli civillians; kidnap Israeli soldiers; plan and execute terrorist attacks. Israel must complete its mission and force Hezbollah to disarm, or face death. It’s that simple.
The Israeli army warned the civillians to leave the targeted areas. They are concerned about civillian casualties and want to avoid them. The death of non-combatants is indeed tragic. That said, Israel has a right to defend herself and her citizens from the terror of Hezbollah.
Comment by Brian Duffin — July 21, 2006 @ 7:54 am
Israel’s actions will not end Hezbollah. They won’t have the time. Israel is on a time limit and on a death limit (i.e. they have to watch how many people they kill). Modern warfare does not allow anymore the total destruction of an enemy, because we care these days about collateral damage. (at least some do. Bush apparently doesn’t mind sacrificing the Cedar Revolution in an attempt to get rid of Hezbollah. Too bad for him that he will lose both).
This should show two things.
1. If you want war, get your gloves off and annihilate your enemy.
2. Vie for peace.
Those who talk of war cannot talk of peace. It is impossible. It is a contradiction in terms. It is a lie. It is impossible to have peace come by the means of war.
While the Book of Mormon talks of just war, never have a righteous Nephite nation/army ever invaded or brought the battle to the homes of the Lamanites. Never. The Nephites believed that in righteous, just war, all you do is defend your home and send the invader back to his land. This was best exemplified by Gidgiddoni in 3 Nephi 3:20-21:
20 Now the people said unto Gidgiddoni: Pray unto the Lord, and let us go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness, that we may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands.
21 But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands.
Comment by Daniel — July 21, 2006 @ 8:03 am
Brian,
RT’s post (linked) outlines the BoM just war doctrine well. I believe that the Nephites righteously defended their lands “even unto bloodshed”; I am not, however, familiar with instances where Nephite campaigns risked the lives of civilian Lamanites.
Anyway, 360+ Lebanese dead vs. 30+ Israali dead does seem to indicate some degree of proportionality, or lack thereof.
In my lifetime, I have seen peace come to Northern Ireland. This was not achieved by bombing IRA fund-raisers in Boston or Dublin, nor by a “War on (Irish Republican) Terror.” At some point the British government was forced to talk to those it felt repelled by. It worked.
Comment by Ronan — July 21, 2006 @ 8:06 am
Ronan, I didn’t see the link. Thanks. I’ll have to go back and read RT’s post.
The method of warfare for the Nephite/Lamanite armies was likely did not include missiles and bombs. It is much harder to control civillian casualties when using these weapons.
While the number dead is dispraportionate, I don’t see how Israel could execute their campaign any better than they have already. (How many armies drop leaflets warning the people of impending attacks and ask them to leave??)
You mention the IRA and the peace that came after talks. Well, the IRA was not hell bent on seeing the destruction of the Brittish state and her citizens. Hezbollah’s stated objective is to obliterate Israel and her people. How do you negotitate in the face of that? How do you negotiate with terrorists of Hezbollah’s ilk???
Comment by Brian Duffin — July 21, 2006 @ 8:25 am
I find it ironic that self-described liberals/progressives have allied themselves– at least philisophically– with the likes of Iran and Syria. With the exception of Syria all of the Arab countries have made the decision at the very least to just look away while pointing out that both Hizbollah and Lebanon have brought the current situation upon themselves– Hizbollah for lauching the rocket attacks (more than 1,000 to date) and Lebanon for not doing anything to prevent it. Earlier in the week a couple influential Saudi clerics even issued fatwahs critical of Hizbollah.
The concept of proportional response is completely asinine and counterproductive. Tit-for-tat warfare merely ensures that warfare will likely continue indefinitely– especially in such an unconvential war as the one Israel faces now. Israel is attempting to disarm Hizbollah and decapitate its leadership in order to bring a swift end to the conflict and exterminate completely one of the most vicious pests to scourge the earth. Disproportionate response is a hallmark of Western law and is the foundational basis for punitive damages. I don’t hear the left clamoring for the elimiation of punitive damages in judgements.
Playing the “proportionality” card is a cowardly attempt at supporting the aims and tactics of Hizbollah.
Comment by Paul Mortensen — July 21, 2006 @ 8:28 am
Brian, you cut off their funding. This comes through Iran and Syria. Unlike some, I do not believe that these countries represent lost causes. Witness what diplomacy did with Libya.
In the meantime, yeah, I realise Israel has to do something. Quite what bombing Beirut airpost achieves, I have no idea.
Iraq. Lebanon. Palestine. Hearts and minds lost for another generation.
Comment by Ronan — July 21, 2006 @ 8:30 am
I think it’s a mistake to compare the wars of the Book of Mormon with today’s war. There are good points to be made about just wars and acceptable fighting but until the day someone gets the Israelis and Hezbollah to put down the rockets, guns and explosives and take up bows, arrows and swords and hurl themselves at each other in good, old-fashioned chivalric warfare (you know, the kind that the American Revolution put the nail in the coffin of) I think we’re going to have situations that just aren’t covered by the BOM’s guide to war. Spirutually yes– they ought to stop entirely. In terms of tactics? I don’t think so. Too much has changed. Among other things, the Nephites may never have taken the war to the Lamanites but neither did the Lamanites send warriors strapped with explosives into the Nephite market places.
I see so many articles saying “Gee Israel’s stupid! Don’t they know that with every person they kill they’re just creating more vendetta-driven fighters?” Why does no one turn that around and say “Gee Hezbollah’s stupid! Don’t they know that with every person they kill they’re just proving Israel’s point?”
I ask you: truly, what can Israel do? They are surrounded by countries that have sworn to see them destroyed. Hammas sits inside their borders like a cancer. The Islamic militants who start and perpetuate these fights have no compunctions about civillians so why does Israel come out looking like the bad guy? It’s okay to kill 5 civillians but not 50? NEITHER is okay but Isreal is the one that gets sanctioned. They have no Utah to retreat to. They are between a rock and a hard place. The Book of Mormon version of war says that it’s okay to fight to protect your homes and families. What else would you have Israel do?
Comment by Eh? Nony Moose — July 21, 2006 @ 8:31 am
Yeah,
I am always surprised that so many in the West seem to be allied with or sympathetic to terrorist entities. The end to this conflict with Hiz.. will only end with the destruction of Hiz…
Lets also remember that Hiz was involved in the 1983 attacks on the marines and US embassy in Beriut that killed hundreds. I believe that since Hiz is the enemy of the US that we should support attempts to destroy this terrorist entity
To quote Sean Connery in the movies. “there is a peace that is only found on the other side of war”
Hiz, Iran, Syria and Al Queda depend on soft westerners to be afraid of them and sympathetic to their causes.
Comment by rleonard — July 21, 2006 @ 8:38 am
Ronan,
Your IRA comparison does not work either.
Muslim terrorism is in no way comparable to the IRA. Did the IRA strap bombs on their children and send them into pizza shops in London? Did the IRA kill a British soldier with their bare hands and wave their bloodstained hands to the crowd for applause?
Isreals enemies will not stop until the Jews are driven into the sea. The peace efforts of the 1990’s are an abject failure as demonstrated by the recent conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon.
Comment by rleonard — July 21, 2006 @ 8:44 am
Of course I know that the IRA (though vile — don’t get nostalgic for them) are Serie B compared with Islamic terrorists. I am just utterly unconvinced that you can bomb Hezbollah (or the IRA) into defeat. You just cannot.
And this is utter bollocks, rleonard: “so many in the West seem to be allied with or sympathetic to terrorist entities.” I have no sympathy for these people, thank you very much. I want them neutralised as much as you do; I just do not think bombing West-looking civilian Lebanese and undermining the Cedar Revolution will achieve this.
Comment by Ronan — July 21, 2006 @ 8:53 am
So, Ronan, you imply in #15 that all the Lebanese killed are “West-looking”. Would you grant that the “civilians” killed may actually be those who directly support Hizbollah? Would that change your perspective? My guess is you’d still be bellyaching over the issue.
Comment by Paul Mortensen — July 21, 2006 @ 8:57 am
I’d be happy to bellyache over dead civilians any day of the week.
Comment by Ronan — July 21, 2006 @ 9:03 am
Ronan,
Its called being a “fellow traveler”. Hiz counts on Libs in the west carrying water for them and putting pressure on Isreal.
Isreal will send in the ground troops shortly. Hiz is counting on the west stopping the ground offensive so they can live and fight Isreal another day.
Also the demographics in Lebanon are very different than what they used to be. The Western looking Christians are now a minority due to emigration and low birthrates. If the system of government was changed in Lebanon and it was one man one vote with proportional representation in the government Hiz would probably be the Government based on Demographic shifts sicne the weird religious based allotment of power was implemented in the 1930’s
Comment by rleonard — July 21, 2006 @ 9:10 am
I don’t have any problem at all with Israel bombing Hezbollah into oblivion. What I’m concerned about, and what we should all be concerned about, is the toll this current campaign is taking on Lebanon. President Bush is ostensibly concerned about this, though he hasn’t been too urgent in his calls for restraint and he hasn’t sent Secretary Rice to lean on Israel to be more discriminating.
The crucial question is whether it’s possible to do serious damage to Hezbollah without doing serious damage to the Lebanese government and Lebanese civilians. Hezbollah, being the immoral cowards that they are, will hide behind civilian shields. This should get the Lebanese army up in arms, arresting or killing militants and seizing their weapons stockpiles, but it seems like they’re pretty ineffectual and they’re certainly scared to death of angering Syria. It seems, though, that Hezbollah fighters can only do any harm to Israel from relatively close to Israel’s northern border. They’re not firing rockets from downtown Beirut. So a reasonable response might be to destroy the militants near the border and establish a buffer zone into which militants enter at their own risk. It’s probably pie-in-the-sky to hope that international pressure could then get Syria and Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, but that’s what should happen.
Comment by Tom — July 21, 2006 @ 9:16 am
And Ronan, I guess you count yourself a righteous person as a result. Such responses reflect a severe aversion to dealing with the actual issues. Dead civilians is not the issue. You initially addressed the issue of proportional response and the the actual status of those “civilians” is a crucial component of how to address the question as to what a proportional response might be.
You still have not made a coherent argument for why disproportionate response is evil– you just assume that it is.
Comment by Paul Mortensen — July 21, 2006 @ 9:18 am
“As Mormons, we believe in the concept of just war….”
I’m Mormon, and I don’t.
Comment by Sid — July 21, 2006 @ 9:30 am
What I am saying is that Israel does not have the opportunity to hit hard enough in order to accomplish its goals. Modern warfare does not allow that anymore. Israel wishes to wipe out the threat of Hezbollah. It is impossible to do so with the strategy they are currently undertaking. Saying so does not make one sympathetic to any terrorist group. Telling anyone that they are sympathetic to terrorist groups for criticizing Israel’s strategies is weak partisanship and untruthful. I can only hope for a better counter than “those who criticize Israel are appeasing terrorists.”
Israel cannot defeat its enemies by attacking and destroying Lebanon. It cannot either by attacking Syria or Iran. It is impossible. Modern Warfare does not allow for that.
There are only two options that actually will work.
1. Total annihilation. As in previous wars that achieved peace, only the total subjugation of its enemies can one nation achieve its goals of unconditional surrender. Israel and America (and the rest of the modern Western world), thinks they can get unconditional surrenders from their enemies without utterly and completely defeating them. It is impossible. This is why the Taleban are still active in Afghanistan. This is why the insurgency in Iraq is so potent. This is why Hezbollah is alive and well. This is why Hamas is still so strong.
Modern warfare does not allow for this, because in modern warfare, we believe in the protection of the “innocent civilian,” and thus when innocent civilians die, our actions are undermined, and we lose the hearts and minds of those we want to change to our side. We should cut the crap and thoroughly defeat our enemies if we wish to wage war. In other words, thrust Rumsfeld’s doctrines into the garbage pail and go with ultimate overwhelming force.
or…..
2. The other option is peace. The reason a comparison to the Book of Mormon is actually quite viable to modern warfare has nothing to do with the tools used in war. It does not matter if they used bows and arrows then and we use missiles now. The reason the Nephites were able to live with the Lamanites, even under constant threat, for nearly 1000 years is because the Nephites never invaded Lamanite lands. The core goal of the Nephites was to live in peace, and they exemplified this by the way they treated their neighbors. While the Lamanites thirsted for war on occasion, the Nephites never thirsted for war, and they never sought war, irrespective of the actions of the Lamanites or the Gadianton Robbers. If we at our core desire peace, then our actions must inexorably show it, else we be hypocrites.
Our actions are the fruits of our desires, irrespective of what others desire to do to us. When we “take the bait,” of war that others bring on us, we in effect are letting others control our actions and desires, and we lower our own standards.
Finally, over on my blog, I quote Ezra Taft Benson who said the following:
Let me ask, do we need a true prophet of the Lord on the earth today? Did the people in Noah’s day need a prophet to warn them spiritually and temporally? Had a man refused to follow Noah, would he have been saved from the flood? Yet the Bible tells us that in the last days in which we live, the wickedness of the people will become comparable to the wickedness of the people in Noah’s day when God cleansed the earth by flood. Do you think we need a prophet today to warn us and prepare us for the cleansing that God promised will come, this time by fire?”
I added:
We know why God destroyed the world through a flood. He said to Noah in the book of Moses:
28 The earth was corrupt before God, and it was filled with violence. 29 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its away upon the earth. 30 And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will destroy all flesh from off the earth.
If the last days are like the days before the flood, and God destroyed the earth because it was filled with violence, what does it say is the great sin of the last days? My guess is on violence.
If we truly are for peace, let us therefore be for peace.
Comment by Daniel — July 21, 2006 @ 9:31 am
why disproportionate response is evil
Because the Master suggested we respond not at all.
(BTW, much as I would love to continue duking this out, I am 5-8 hours ahead of most of you, so that may not be possible. So, when you’re eating lunch, I’m getting my daily dose of BBC anti-Israel propaganda on the nightly news).
Paul, I’m very righteous. Eveyone knows that.
Anyway, lest I be accused of shirking issues, let me endorse Tom’s plan (Tom, join the foreign service, man):
Create a buffer zone in southern Lebanon with a toothed-up international force. And actually talk to Iran and Syria (as we did with that old terrorist Gadaffi). You know, it might just work.
Comment by Ronan — July 21, 2006 @ 9:33 am
oh I might add one thing about the Book of Mormon. When the Nephites did actually want war with the Lamanites, what happened to them?
Why does the Book of Mormon end when it does? Because all the Nephites save one, died.
Comment by Daniel — July 21, 2006 @ 9:33 am
While the Book of Mormon talks of just war, never have a righteous Nephite nation/army ever invaded or brought the battle to the homes of the Lamanites. Never. The Nephites believed that in righteous, just war, all you do is defend your home and send the invader back to his land.
You don’t know this for a fact. All we know is that whithin the text of the BOM that we have it does not appear to have happened. To say that it NEVER happened goes a bit to far I think as the history we have of the BOM people is extremely limited. There are volumes and volumes of their history that we do not have.
Like some of the others who have posted here, I find the attempt to compare BOM rules of war to the current situation a stretch at best. There are many tactics mentioned in the BOM that would not agree I’m sure with those who have criticized Israel here, including:
1) Forced labour of prisoners of war (Alma 53)
2) Assassination of the enemies leaders (Alma 62, way to go Teancum!)
3)Capital punishment for those who refused to support the cause of freedom (Alma 46)
The BOM was a different time and a different place.
Comment by Talon — July 21, 2006 @ 9:40 am
Ronan,
Your point seems to be, essentially, “Israel is going too far.” While nobody (at least not in this little slice of the bloggosphere) is rooting for more indiscriminate death, I think that your entire point is indeed answered by the Connery quote by rleonard.
Not to be antagonistic, but your point is, I believe, technically naive because it does not consider the precedent causes of Israel’s actions. You would of course be correct observing that Israel is doing grave damage in Lebannon, but the whole issue of proportionality requires an opposite quantity with which to balance. That opposite quantity is not theoretical, it is not speculative, and the grisly quantum of both the actual violence committed and the undilutedly peurile world view of pretty much everyone arrayed against Israel is so overwhelming that the (biased by small sample size) current statistical comparison of 30/300 is still a virtual model of restraint and discipline.
I have read your commentary for many months in the bloggernacle, and hold you in great respect. I just disagree with, and am frustrated by your position here.
Comment by XON — July 21, 2006 @ 9:43 am
Talon,
I stand by my assumption. You think Mormon would not have had something to say about the Nephites attempting to invade Lamanite country? They did, during his time. He spoke out strongly about that.
And secondly, the tactics are not the issue. Where the comparison works is in the relations between the Nephites and Lamanites, and any modern countries. Tactics are secondary.
Comment by Daniel — July 21, 2006 @ 9:44 am
This is just another cop-out argument that if followed back int 1939 would have resulted in the complete anihilation of Jews, Slavs, Muslims, etc. and would have us all speaking German today. It’s also a cop-out argument because your initial post uses the “just wars” of the BoM to argue for proportionality. I beg you, please make a coherent, measured argument in place of the tired, lazy cliches you keep throwing out.
Comment by Paul Mortensen — July 21, 2006 @ 9:53 am
Sigh. I already admitted in the post, Paul, that Realpolitik negates turning the other cheek in this context. This is desperately sad, but it is so. We’re starting from a position of failure here; I just wish we could limit the death our further human failure causes. And I honestly (naively? lazily?) think the policy of the bomb will not achieve what it sets out to do. Does anyone here think Israel can bomb Hezbollah into oblivion? At some point, peace will be sought. Too bad for those for whom that will be too late.
Comment by Ronan — July 21, 2006 @ 10:03 am
I stand by my assumption. You think Mormon would not have had something to say about the Nephites attempting to invade Lamanite country? They did, during his time. He spoke out strongly about that.
I’m saying that we know that the BOM we have contains what was considered most important for our day. To say something NEVER happened because it is not in the text presumes we know what was considered important for our day. We don’t know what lay on the cutting room floor when Mormon was finished with his abridgement (although I’m dying to know!).
It’s akin to saying Nephi never had an argument with his wife because its not in the Book, therefore it NEVER happened.
Comment by Talon — July 21, 2006 @ 10:04 am
Talon,
Methinks though that Mormon would have considered it quite important if they did.
Hezbollah will make it out of this, and Israel will have failed to destroy its enemy, because it cannot conquer with bombs. Meanwhile, Lebanon is destroyed.
That is not good policy for America.
Comment by Daniel — July 21, 2006 @ 10:14 am
There is a peace that is found on the other side of war.
Ask Japan or Germany. Or better yet. Ask Egypt or Jordan. Both were defeated multiple times on the battle field and decided to face reality and make peace.
Victory over Hiz by Isreal leading to the Lebanese government sending troops into South Lebanon is the key to peace. Anything else will prolong the conflict.
Comment by rleonard — July 21, 2006 @ 10:15 am
Ronan 29, I don’t think Israel can bomb Hezbollah into oblivion.
I’m not into bombing into oblivion in general but it seems like an even worse idea in this case as Hezbollah is not even a gov’t but a group of well funded ideologists.
You bomb the hell out of them, kill a bunch of civilians in the process, and generate more support for Hezbollah.
Comment by Amri — July 21, 2006 @ 10:18 am
I don’t see much of an alternative to trying to destroy Hezbollah, whether this means that more Hezbollians will be created or not. Even if it is a futile fight, it’s a fight that must be fought because the alternative, suing for peace and trying to defend their borders, leaves Israeli citizens at the mercy of terrorists. Hezbollah isn’t a group with demands that can be met. There are no concessions to be made. It’s a violent agressor that needs to be either disarmed or obliterated. The international community has the power to cause them to be disarmed, but as long as they/we don’t see that that be done, Israel has to make war. Here’s hoping they make smart, merciful war.
Comment by Tom — July 21, 2006 @ 10:40 am
Ronan, what do you think about the fact that Israel once occupied both Gaza and southern Lebanon, and no sooner had Israel made a showing of good will by vacating those areas did Hezbollah and Hamas start shooting rockets from those areas into Israel.
What is the lesson that Israel is to learn from this fact? Ronan, do you believe that Israel’s mistake was pulling out of southern Lebanon and more recently out of Gaza?
I agree that Israel faces a hopeless fight. The Arab world is thirsty for its blood. The Palestinians and Iran have explicitly stated that their goal is not a sovereign and separate Palestinian state but rather the complete destruction of the state of Israel (Iran going further to imply the complete annihilation of the Jewish people as well). I am not so sure that this fight against Hezbollah is unjustified even if I agree with you that it is hopeless.
My biggest concern in this situation is the destruction of the rebuilt infrastructure and economy in Lebanon. Lebanon had a lot of potential. My main criticism of current Middle East policy, both of the United States and Israel, is that toppling secular regimes creates a vacuum of power that is filled with Islamicist fanatics bent on setting up their own caliphates. The current Israeli action plays right into the hands of Iran. Iran has been getting a huge windfall for the last three years. The war in Iraq directly benefits it as does Israel’s destruction of Lebanon.
Comment by john f. — July 21, 2006 @ 10:41 am
Ronan, admit it. You are nothing but a bellyacher and appeaser of terrorists.
There is something about this fight that was completely surprising, at least to me, and which I view as a reason for great optimism. So far, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and others are sitting it out. Yes, they have issued their pro forma denunciation of the violence of the Zionists, but they have also said a few discouraging words in the direction of Hezbollah. Iran and Syria appear to be isolating themselves from the rest of the Arabs. For the first time since the state of Israel was established, it is not facing a united Arab enemy. I see this as a very good thing, and would like to understand how it came about.
Comment by Mark IV — July 21, 2006 @ 10:42 am
…and you, Mark IV, are part of the Rebel Alliance, and a traitor. Take him away!
Comment by Steve Evans — July 21, 2006 @ 10:45 am
Thanks Ronan for your posts and perspective. I agree with you. I disagree with my co-religionists who seem to read the Doctrine & Covenants to mean “Wherefore, renounce [peace] and proclaim [war]” as the solution to our (and Israel’s) problems.
Let me ask this question of those who believe in total war (i.e., not sparing civilians) and disbelieve in proportionality, should the US (or Israel) threaten or actually use nuclear bombs on Beirut or Tehran? Why wait?
Comment by DavidH — July 21, 2006 @ 10:49 am
Mark:
Iranians are not Arabs– they’re Persians. Syria and Iran are also Shiite and not Sunni– like the vast majority of Arabs. Hizbollah is a Shiite organization. The remainder of the Arab states are sitting this one out because of religious and ethnic differences. It’s pretty simple. The Sunni Arabs fear the Shiite Persians more than they hate Israel. Whether or not that is a change from past history, I don’t know.
Comment by Paul Mortensen — July 21, 2006 @ 11:04 am
David H:
Who in this thread has advocated total war. Please, be specific rather than lazy. The nuclear option is little more than a cute ploy one resorts to when they can’t come up with a legitimate argument.
Please define proportionality including how it would be measured. Also, please lay out an argument for its moral superiority to punitive response.
Comment by Paul Mortensen — July 21, 2006 @ 11:13 am
Ronan — I don’t know what you are thinking to describe the current state in the Mideast as “Israel is surrounded by people who wish to do it harm.” This is like saying that Pres. Hinckley thinks that sin is a bad idea — true, but ridiculously understated, and vague to the point of meaninglessness.
Israel has been the continual target of radical Arab regimes since its inception. The only breaks in this constant state of war (there has never been a peace treaty that covered all aggressive parties since Israel was created) have been when Israel has decisively defeated its invaders. The only concessions for the purpose of peace have been made by Israel (the creation of Palestine, the removal of Israeli troops from Lebanon, the removal of settlers in the occupied territories). And the result has been what the Likud party predicted — beach heads for further attacks into the civilian centers of Israel.
The militias have continually targetted civilians for their attacks, while Israel has sought legitimate military targets as much as possible. The militias have built themselves into civilian locations such that there is no possible way of attacking them without civilian losses. They have essentially held their own people hostage — the ones they claim to care about — to protect them from the enemy that seeks to fight only them.
This is not a tidy Western-style war (not that such a thing really exists). The purpose of the war is not to “do Israel harm” it’s to kill every man, woman and child of Jewish decent in Israel, dig up the bones of their dead, and push them into the sea. It is part of a 48 year long campaign with that very purpose, and it is an arm of a global war on the part of radical Islam intended force the entire world to choose between conversion to a radicalized form of Islam with them in control on the one hand and death on the other. They will only accept a world in which they are in control, and they have no qualm slaughtering any number of those who refuse to follow them. They would not hesitate to kill you if they had the opportunity to get away with it, and your moderate opposition to Israel wouldn’t buy you an extra breath.
Syria, Iran and the former Iraqi regime have used the Palestinian people as pawns. Palestinians aren’t beloved Islamic brothers to these people — they are the poor white trash of the Muslim world. Syria and Iran maintain camps for Palestinians to live in, but they don’t naturalize them, they don’t give them opportunities to work and build a life for themselves. They keep them living in camps so they can point to the squalor they live in and blame it on Israel. They teach that Jews use the blood of Palestinian babies in their religious services, and other horrible lies, and then teach that homicide attacks against civilians that take the life of the attacker guarantee him or her special treatment in the next life and financial gain for his or her surviving family.
This is simply exploitation. Syria, Iran and the militias have absolutely no position of moral authority from which to criticize Israel. They’ve never cared about that — their purpose is the total annihilation of the Jews in Israel, and they’ve never felt a qualm about mass murder, let alone lying, in pursuit of that goal. And they view Israel a the Small Satan. You do remember who the Great Satan is, right? Should they reach their goal in Israel, you know where they will be coming next, right?
I’ve got to go, but I would like to see a little more reality in this conversation on what the nature of this conflict is.
Comment by Blain — July 21, 2006 @ 11:15 am
I’m with you as well, Ronin.
The assumption that one cannot deal diplomatically, not with terrorists but with those who have employed terrorist tactics… this is part of the problem. And seriously, how one can make the distinction between acts that consider civilian/innocent (men, women, and CHILDREN for god’s sake) death a necessary by-product of a greater good…how one can call the one terrorism and the other defense is beyond me. How one can call it justified by some exegesis of scripture is in my mind the extreme banality of evil. Does one suppose the ‘terrorists’ to have significantly different motives and reasoning? If so, such foolishness.
That there are some here who continue in this foolishness while suggesting that Ronin is overbearingly self-righteous…this I find distressing to hope and faith.
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 21, 2006 @ 11:18 am
I’ve enjoyed the Daily Show’s coverage of the events. It has the tag something to the effect of:
MIDEAST CRISIS Day: 8,736
Comment by Tim J. — July 21, 2006 @ 11:21 am
Much of the commentary on this Israeli offensive reminds me of the lines between James Bond and Goldfinger when Goldfinger was ready to slice Bond in half: “Do you expect me to talk?” “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die.” To Israel, it is irrelevant how southern Lebanon feels right now. Israel is out to remove enemy capability, not mold feelings.
Comment by John Mansfield — July 21, 2006 @ 11:21 am
I haven’t yet read all the threads here — I’ve just skimmed them.
Whatever the doctrine of “proportionality” might mean, it surely doesn’t mean counting the dead on the Israeli side, counting it on the Lebanese side, and then saying, “Gee, there are more dead Lebanese than Israelis, so Israel is being disproportionate!”
“It is impossible to have peace comes by the means of war.”
Sheesh. Do you really need me to point out the obvious counter-examples?
Truth be told, I have mixed feelings about what is going on in the Middle East, but I’ll still quote Tom Sowell for you all:
“People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent …
There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.
“World opinion,” the U.N. and “peace movements” have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.”
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — July 21, 2006 @ 11:29 am
John Mansfield wrote:
Not to pick on you, John, but that you represent here a sort of ignorance of the principle “don’t do unto others” that is surprisingly pervasive in this discussion. So if we justify civilian casualties by this kind of rational, are we then also prepared to accept such rational if our own children become the casualties of such heartless self-interest? And in the case where your children were regarded in such a way and became the victims of such thinking, would you not then feel most tempted to repay blood for blood? I know I would.
This approach is a lie and the evidence should be in your own heart.
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 21, 2006 @ 11:33 am
#44,
John Mansfield,
“Much of the commentary on this Israeli offensive reminds me of the lines between James Bond and Goldfinger when Goldfinger was ready to slice Bond in half: “Do you expect me to talk?†“No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die.†To Israel, it is irrelevant how southern Lebanon feels right now. Israel is out to remove enemy capability, not mold feelings.”
so are you saying Israel is like Goldfinger and Hezbollah is James Bond?
Comment by Daniel — July 21, 2006 @ 11:40 am
Matt:
Terrorists negotiate in good faith? Only when it is in their best interest to do so. It only becomes in their best interest under one of two conditions:
1) Their tactics have been successful to the extent that their enemy has lost the will to fight and wants peace at any cost. Under this condition terrorists see some of their demands and tactics legitimized. The end result is more terrorism from the same and/or other groups making claims. Over the last decade this is exactly what has happened to Israel.
2. Their organization is threatened with extinction. The organization leadership, in order to survive (literally and figuratively), must back down on their absolute claims and assimilate into the larger political structure. This is what happened in Northern Ireland and with Lybia.
You also seem to be making the juvenile assertion that all war is evil and that no self-respecting Christian should engage in war of any kind. Please, come up with a better argument.
Comment by Paul Mortensen — July 21, 2006 @ 11:41 am
Aaron B,
#46, going back to the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites were constantly a threat to the Nephites, doing among other things, kidnappings, as well as murder. Were the Nephites justified in going into Lamanite lands to “exact revenge,” or even to eliminate the threat? Probably. Did they ever do that? no. Why not?
My calls for peace fall on deaf ears in these last days, because so many people want violence, have no problem in seeing other people die, no matter where or who they happen to be. It was prophesied that these last days would truly be sad days, with such violence as to make men’s hearts fail them. Why do we choose to destroy other human beings? (I’m speaking to everybody, Israelis, Americans, Iranians, Syrians, etc.).
The irony in all this is that it is those hardcore religionists on both sides that find it easier to fight and kill and maim and destroy. So ironic.
Comment by Daniel — July 21, 2006 @ 11:45 am
I just want to register my support for Israel.
Comment by gst — July 21, 2006 @ 11:46 am
Paul,
“2. Their organization is threatened with extinction. The organization leadership, in order to survive (literally and figuratively), must back down on their absolute claims and assimilate into the larger political structure. This is what happened in Northern Ireland and with Lybia.”
Lybia is not a success story for Bush’s doctrine, but that’s not my main point. you say, they must be threatened with extinction, but your examples are not about extinction, but rather, inclusion. The IRA was allowed to participate in the governance of Northern Ireland. Hezbollah, by that example, was doing the same in Lebanon. They do have 27 representatives democratically elected in the Lebanese government. I’m not defending them. I am merely pointing at how little it seems Americans know about their “enemy.” As long as we do not know our enemy, we can never defeat them.
Comment by Daniel — July 21, 2006 @ 11:48 am
Paul wrote:
My friend…that would in fact be a juvenile assertion on your part. You seem to be making the further juvenile (and perhaps racist?) assumption that all human beings do not share the same set of needs and tendencies.
My guess it that the best of us would act in ways which others would call terrorism given the right circumstances. To think otherwise is to think as a juvenile and to fail at any possibility but the most juvenile: war.
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 21, 2006 @ 11:50 am
I support Israel too. I just think their actions in Lebanon are not going to give them the results they desire.
Comment by Daniel — July 21, 2006 @ 11:50 am
I just want to register my support for the human race.
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 21, 2006 @ 11:52 am
I just want to register my support for peace.
Comment by Daniel — July 21, 2006 @ 11:53 am
I think that misguided calls for restraint on Isreal will lead to more casualties and a longer conflict and play into the hands of Iran. Better to get it over with and get the Lebanese Army on the border and the Leader of Hiz in a grave or prison.
Comment by rleonard — July 21, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
a la Iraq, eh?
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 21, 2006 @ 12:08 pm
I just want to register my support for heresy trials and knee-jerk excommunications.
Comment by Prudence McPrude — July 21, 2006 @ 12:08 pm
Yes, let burn witches!
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 21, 2006 @ 12:09 pm
I just watched Condi Rice’s press conference, and it was enough to make me sick. Since when did it become an honorable thing to be opposed to a cease-fire? She made clear this is the U.S. position — the U.S. wants the killing to continue. No, we shouldn’t have a cease-fire, she says, because we need to stand strong.
Tell that to the mother in Haifa, or the mother in Tyre, who just saw her 6-year-old die.
Comment by Copedi — July 21, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
rleonard,
Israel will not accomplish the desired goal of eliminating Hezbollah with their current strategy. So why support it?
Comment by Daniel — July 21, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
Dan,
The troops are massed at the border. Lets see what happens. Condi is right. Let Isreal fix Hiz and then let Lebanon prosper
Comment by rleonard — July 21, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
Matt:
Re. #53– To accuse me of racism is to deflect attention from the bankruptcy of your arguments. Please, I would hope you’re above that.
In addition, you make another weak argument by trying to define away terrorism without giving examples. Please, lets hear some hypothetical examples where tactics someone like me (you seem to assume you know my character) would take would be deemed “terroristic” by my enemies (assuming I have any).
Comment by Paul Mortensen — July 21, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
The other day the WSJ had a headline for one of its articles to the effect that “Bush Wants Change, Not Peace, in the Mideast”. Which I read to mean “Bush wants war, not peace.”
Paul M, my understanding from your posts is that you do not believe in any principle of proportionality in wartime. Did I miss something? If there is no such principle, then why not use total war? Why have any limits on war (so long as we (the right side) always win)?
Comment by DavidH — July 21, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
I just want to register my support for leprechauns, unicorns, middle-east peace, and hobbits. They are all in the same category.
Comment by Talon — July 21, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
DavidH:
The fact that you have to ask those questions belies the fact that this is something about which you’ve given very little serious thought. You (and those of your ilk) want to speak about “proportional response” without articulating what a proportional response would be and how such response is to be measured. I firmly believe in a proportional response and I’m willing to use a utilitarian calculation to determine proportionality but that calculation does not rest solely upon body counts. It also includes the relative merits of the endeavor (i.e. the likelihood of a lasting peace)– something about which you and your ilk are loathe to engage in debate. You want to keep the conversation to the level of body counts rather than elevate it to the metaphysical: “What is Israel fighting for?” I find that aversion both juvenile and depressing.
Comment by Paul Mortensen — July 21, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
rleonard,
all we can do now is see what happens. the pieces have been placed on the board and are set to move. I just don’t see Israel achieving their goal (eliminating Hezbollah) based on their current strategy. I’m happy to be proven wrong, but I think I’m pretty realistic in my assessment.
Comment by Daniel — July 21, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
Daniel:
Re. #51– Merely saying that Lybia “is not a success story for Bush’s doctrine” does not make it so. Please, lay out the argument because it is disingenous to make the argument that Bush’s promise to remove any crackpot despot supporter of terrorism from power had little influence on Quadafi’s decision to seek a “peace” with the US. Quadafi initiated the talks with the US and UN in order to get economic sanctions lifted. Regarding the IRA, my whole point was that the IRA began assimilating with the British political structure because too many of its leaders were spending too much time in jail (btw, that’s a success story). And regarding Hizbollah’s representation in Lebanon, I am fully aware of that fact. But they are attacking Israel, not Lebanon. If they want to influence Israeli policy then seek office in Israel (something they can’t do and still maintain their mission statement). The fact that the Lebanese parliament contains members of a terrorist organization that has attacked Israel merely provides more justification for the Israeli army making incursions into Lebanon.
Comment by Paul Mortensen — July 21, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
Here’s a commentary from Israel, on Haaretz.com
“Operations like this do not accomplish everything in one fell swoop. The important thing is that the beating Israel gives them sinks in and traumatizes them to the point where they will not be back on their feet anytime soon. But whatever we do, it had better be soon. Before the planners of the operation lose their faith in the home front. Before America says stop. As of now, it is a race against the clock.”
Based on this assessment, Israel does not have the time to accomplish their desired goal. Hezbollah will continue being who they are, and further emboldened, actually.
Comment by Daniel — July 21, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
Paul wrote:
Above thinking that we are all susceptible to racism? I’m not above that. BTW, how exactly are my arguments bankrupt? Or are you just throwing that assertion in with the same flippancy as the one about being juvenile?
Ummm, how about if you happened to grow-up in southern Lebanon and had experiences similar to those folks? True, this is hypothetical, but if you can’t recognize the possibility that those folks are more like you (and me) than they are different then you may be operating on the assumption that you are superior to them…somehow.
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 21, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
Disproportionate?
Hezbollah indiscriminately showers Israeli cities, towns, and villages with missiles while Israel, at least, has the good graces to issue a warning to Lebonese civilians before bombing strategic targets.
It’s not Israel’s fault if its citizens are better prepared for an enemy attack than the Lebonese.
And all of this silliness about BoM warfar might make a dent in the argument if, perhaps, the lamanites had launched their cimiters into Nephite territory with high-powered slingshots.
Yes there’s a philosophical argument to be made from the BoM but not a tactical one.
Comment by Jack — July 21, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
Matt, what do you make of the fact that Hezbollah intentionally positions itself among civilians so that any attempt to fight against it (i.e. to retaliate against its repeated attacks on the sovereign state of Israel through firing rockets) necessarily causes civilian collateral damage?
Comment by john f. — July 21, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
Paul,
re: #68:
Lybia’s acknowledgement of its WMDs was a ploy to get oil business into its country. Qadhafi is still a dictator ruling Lybia, and in 2003 made an attempt to assassinate the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Interestingly, Saudi Arabia decided to pardon the would be assassins. I wonder why….
It seems oil still pays for dictators. US Lybia ties
Moreover, it seems that UN sanctions placed in 1992 for the Lockerbie bombing actually worked:
Another reason for Qaddafi’s shift was the much-derided U.N. sanctions regime imposed on Libya after the Lockerbie bombing. The colonel had long believed that Libya’s oil wealth and commercial appeal would undermine any cohesive opposition to his revolutionary excesses. But the Lockerbie sanctions, enacted by the United Nations in 1992, shattered that conviction. The United States managed to convince even states with close economic ties to Libya, such as Italy and Germany, to support the sanctions as a way to force Qaddafi to hand over the bombing suspects. . . .
Prior attempts to coerce Libya had proven ineffective: U.S. air strikes in 1986 only enhanced Qaddafi’s domestic power and led to his lionization in the developing world. But the U.N. sanctions — particularly the prohibition on the sale of oil equipment and technology and a ban on financial transfers — hit Qaddafi where it hurt the most, undermining his government’s ability to extract and export its main source of revenue. Libya estimates that the sanctions have deprived its economy of $ 33 billion, whereas the World Bank puts the damage at the lower but still daunting sum of $ 18 billion. Whatever their actual cost, the basic efficacy of the sanctions demonstrated Libya’s special vulnerability to such multilateral coercion. Libya’s economic vitality and its government’s popularity depend on access to international petroleum markets. Thus the same resource that gave Qaddafi the power to upset the international order also let the world community undermine him.”
and according to another Counterterrorism blog post:
“U.S. business interests, especially oil companies, have been pressing for Libya’s removal from the terrorism list, just as various financial interests have generally opposed sanctions against other terrorist-supporting countries.”
Finally, can you prove anywhere that Lybia said, “oh, I see Bush means business, I best divulge my WMD programs.”
It seems the change was coming irrespective of what actions Bush took in Iraq.
Comment by Daniel — July 21, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
Can’t we all just get along Man!
Stop the Madness!!!
Comment by Doc — July 21, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
I realize this discussion is more about impassioned feelings than rational discourse about matters of fact, but I thought I would throw some stuff out there, just for the sake of being informed:
- Iran has been arming Hizbollah and Hamas for years. Iran trains Hizbollah. Hundreds (reports vary on how many) of Iranian Revolutionary Guard members have been incorporated into Hizbollah, taken Lebanese names and marrying Lebanese wives. In all liklihood, the people who launched the guided missile at the Israeli ship were Iranian. Estimates are there are about 13000 missiles in southern Lebanon, all Iranian manufactured. Israel took out the airports, bridges and ports to prevent Iran from resupplying or shipping more dangerous weapons to Hizbollah and to prevent more Iranians from getting in easily.
- Hizbollah deliberately places their weapons in the basements and garages of civilians and in civilian centers. They deliberately set up their offices in the first floor spaces of residential buildings so civilians will have to be put in harms way. They want civilians to die with them if they get killed.
- In the guided missile attack on the Israeli ship, Lebanese military radar stations were certainly invloved because the truck-mounted radar associated with that 3 truck convoy has very limited range and would not have been able to target the ship. The Israelis subsequently took out those coastal Lebanese military radar stations, and exercised extraordinary restraint in not targetting any other Lebanese army sites that are not directly under Hizbollah control. Guess who made that guided missile that his the Israeli warship? Iran.
- Israel has warned civilians to get out of the way and is making considerable efforts to get humanitarian aid into the affected areas.
What it boils down to is Hizbollah and Hamas are Iranian meat puppets, and Iran is using them as such. Iranian leaders care not one whit for Lebanese or Palestinian civilians, so they are more than happy to sacrifice them to stir up hatred against Israel by causing conflict. Not to mention distracting everyone away from Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which everyone has happened to stop talking about since this mess started.
Israel’s intent is to hamstring Hizbollah’s ability to attack them and be puppets for Iran. The more Israel weakens Hizbollah, the more probable Lebanon’s government can actually take control of Lebanon away from Syria and Iran.
If you want to be informed, try out:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/
http://counterterrorismblog.org/
http://www.defensetech.org/
http://armscontrolwonk.com/
Nobody wants to see civilians die, but when Iran is doing everything it can to put them on the front line, place the blame where it really belongs.
Comment by Extreme Dorito — July 21, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
John,
re: #72
“Matt, what do you make of the fact that Hezbollah intentionally positions itself among civilians so that any attempt to fight against it (i.e. to retaliate against its repeated attacks on the sovereign state of Israel through firing rockets) necessarily causes civilian collateral damage?”
How else do you respond against a vastly superior force?
Comment by Daniel — July 21, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
Extreme Dorito,
I’ve never liked the argument that “oh those are Iranian rockets.” Israel uses American firepower to pummel Lebanon. Name me one piece of Israeli military equipment that is truly their own, either built in Israel or funded solely by Israeli money.
Comment by Daniel — July 21, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
Daniel, that’s not much of an answer. I was asking Matt, given his statements so far on this blog condemning Israel, what he makes of this fact about Hezbollah’s tactics.
Comment by john f. — July 21, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
Daniel,
Hezbollah is an independent terrorist organization, not a country that purchases weapons for defense purposes.
Comment by Jack — July 21, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
Daniel,
When Iranians in Lebanon are firing Iranian missiles at Israel at Iran’s behest, who is the meat puppet? It isnt just rockets, Iranians are the ones pulling the triggers on anything that isnt a katyusha and probably on some of them katyushas as well. Hizbollah is nothing but an Iranian meat puppet, and nobody who knows anything about counterterrorism says any different.
Also, your presentation in #68 is extremely biased, in case anyone cares.
“How else do you respond against a vastly superior force?”
By putting ball bearings into your rockets so when they explode they kill and injure as many civilians as possible.
Comment by Extreme Dorito — July 21, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
to add on to 80, by strapping bombs filled with nails to the chests of youth disillusioned by the constant preaching of islamicist dogma and then sending them to completely civilian targets such as city buses, restaurants, and hotels, where there is no Israeli military presence at all (i.e. no legitimate or remotely justifiable target at all) and then having them detonate themselves with the goal of mowing down the maximum number of civilans possible under the promise of receiving salvations and virgins in the afterlife for the murderous act. The Hezbollah rockets are only part of the Syrian and Iranian backed effort to destroy Israel.
Comment by john f. — July 21, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
What I want to ask Matt with # 72 is whether he believes the tactic of Hezbollah to house its facilities in the ground floors of crowded apartment buildings forecloses the possibility for Israel to fight back against Hezbollah by destroying their infrastructure and networks.
Comment by john f. — July 21, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
Peace… follows victory.
Comment by AH — July 21, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
Extreme Dorito,
re: #80
“Also, your presentation in #68 is extremely biased, in case anyone cares.”
#68 was Paul’s comment. Which comment of mine were you referring to?
Comment by Daniel — July 21, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
Jack,
“Hezbollah is an independent terrorist organization, not a country that purchases weapons for defense purposes.”
I know. America has supplied such organizations (not Hezbollah specifically) in the past, in return for accomplishing larger goals (fighting against the Soviet Union comes to mind). So again, who cares where the weaponry comes from.
Comment by Daniel — July 21, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
I keep hearing that Syria and Iran are responsible for funding and arming Hizballah. Perhaps their governments should be suffering consequences. If taking on both at once is too much, why not focus attacks on the weaker of the two regimes?
Comment by danithew — July 21, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
Four things, John F (82) and et al:
1. You’re mistaken to think that my comments “condemn Israel” while defending Hezbollah. I find the acts of both sides atrocious and the both are to blame…both are to be condemned. I find the death and destruction on both sides to be without justification.
2. Y’all can spout-off all you want about how warning folks that their homes are about to be destroyed is a distinction of merit when the end is that homes are still destroyed and lives taken…it’s just so much propaganda.
3. Daniel is correctly countering your one-sided statements. There’s no need or justification for assuming that an attempt to balance consideration for both sides while suing for peace is anything but in the best interest of both sides.
4. And those who think this discussion is an irrational waste of time: shame on you for seeking to bully folks into submission. There a few topics more important than the welfare of humanity and the grave threat that the perpetuation of war presents.
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 21, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
Paul M. (number 66),
“you’ve given very little serious thought”
“[y]ou (and those of your ilk)”
“you and your ilk are loathe to debate”
“juvenile and depressing”
Thank you for your insight.
Comment by DavidH — July 21, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
I don’t know if I’d call it *irrational,* but I would call it a waste of time. But then, that’s what blogging is all about.
Comment by Susan M — July 21, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
What really surprises me is that truly wasteful subject threads (subjects where everyone agrees, or doesn’t care enough to disagree, or are just plain disagreeable) go on uninterrupted. But get a really meaningful subject going and the “this is a waste if time” comments start showing-up. WTF?
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 21, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
Matt, I understand that you condemn the death and destruction on both sides. However, your # 87 does not answer my question to you. Do you believe that Hezbollah’s tactic of housing its facilities in the ground floor of crowded apartment buildings and its weapons in schools and mosques forecloses the possibility for Israel to retaliate against Hezbollah’s rocket attacks by attacking Hezbollah’s infrastructure and networks?
Comment by john f. — July 21, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
Ronan, you’re statement referring to the injustice of “the collective punishment of Lebanese civilians” is baffling. It makes too many mistakes to enumerate. But allow me to name a few:
First, you presuppose a western level of separation between the army, the terrorists, and the Lebanese civilians. These Lebanese civilians tend to be very sympathetic to the goals of Hezbollah. Moreover, they incur responsibility as co-conspirators for allowing them to live and function among them.
Second, the doctrine of collective responsibility is the only one that has ever effectively checked terrorism consistently throughout history. When the US tries everything short of that, liberal anti-semetic types complain that it’s ineffective. Then Israel does something that actually works, and you cry, “No fair!” You can’t have it both ways.
Third, Israel has the moral authority to defend itself under attack–pure and simple. I do not find their reaction to have been disproportionate. Maybe you think I’m just drunk off of Zionist propaganda, but I’m damned glad that we’ve got an ally in that region that actually has the balls to stand up to terrorism.
Comment by DKL — July 21, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
Have we forgotten that Hezbollah was founded in the first place to repel the IDF in southern Lebanon?! War and occupation have failed. I understand that the IDF think the current offensive represents some new thing. That remains to be seen.
John F and others are doing what hawks always do: claim that doves lurrrvv the terrorists.
Hezbollah are major league ar*seholes. No-one is claiming a moral equivalence between Hezbollah and Israel. I’ve lived there recently and I know how horrible it is to fear indiscrimate death by suicide bombers. But it is precisely because I believe Israel and the West to have a higher ethic in this regard that I pray for a diplomatic solution: lean on Syria, talk to Iran, get a buffer force in southern Lebanon. I am even prepared to agree with a policy of the forceful expulsion of Hezbollah from southern Lebanon by the IDF, but I simply fail to see how bombing Beirut airport (to cite one example) represents a reasonable response. That was simply vengeance against Lebanon. And Lebanon really is the wrong enemy. We cheered them on when they booted Syria; now we welcome the crippling of their country. Awful.
Comment by Ronan — July 21, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
DKL,
Ah, the old anti-Semitic jibe.
I see al-Qaida buys into your collective punishment policy: because American citizens do nothing to stop anti-Muslim policies by the US government, the people in the WTC were fair game.
Hey, it’s your policy.
Comment by Ronan — July 21, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
Where’s the love man?
DKL
I don’t know if you would recall this, but I remember Lebanon was not long ago ballyhooed as the fruits of “democratic” reform in the middle East. This was the paragon of a multicultural society surviving and thriving in the midst of all the violent clashes. This was our “model” for Iraq to follow to true happiness.
Suddenly, everyone is making statements about how those D*** lebanese have only themselves to blame for not taking out the Hezbollah nuts. You are making ridiculous uninformed statements when you say the Lebanese are “sympathetic” to Hezbollah. That is akin to saying the US is sympathetic to the Aryan Nations Church. Sure, there is a militant section of their population, but somehow, I don’t see violence calming them down. Call me crazy.
We cannot have it both ways. If a democracy, freedom and peace are to ever, ever exist in the middle east, people have to learn somehow to sit down and work things out with our neighbors, offer help, cooperate, take down the crazies through legal or legitimate means, and stop acting in such bad faith and hypocrisy.
Comment by Doc — July 21, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
John F (91),
“your # 87 does not answer my question to you”
Sorry, I assumed I es answering by saying that I found the acts of both sides to be atrocious…this would include things like defensive postures and whatever means are deemed neccessary to defeating those postures.
But to answer your question more directly: I think Hezbollah’s defensive posture is atrocious in light of the fact that the Israelis have no problem firing rockets anyway. And I find the Israeli’s offensive posture atrocious in light of the fact that Hezbollah has no better alternative for defending itself.
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 21, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
Hezbollah defending itself? Do we live on the same planet?
Comment by john f. — July 21, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
Oh, and I’m not now hiding from my criticizers, but it’s 11pm in England; I’ve just suckled from the teat of BBC anti-Semitic liberal crap on the late news and it’s time for me to go to bed and dream of women in burkas. Ah, for Andalucia!
Comment by Ronan — July 21, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
Apparently not if you think they have nothing to defend.
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 21, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
Josh Marshall has a good analysis of the problems Israel and America face with the current strategy.
Comment by Dan — July 21, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
This current situation is Israel’s retaliation against Hezbollah firing rockets and kidnapping soldiers (and killing others) against Israel’s sovereignty. So, it seems you are arguing that, in this situation, Israel has no possibility to retaliate in order to destroy Hezbollah’s infrastructure and rocket arsenal because Hezbollah has no other way of defending itself (!) than by intentionally positioning its terrorist offices and resources in civilian centers.
The reason Hezbollah does this, Matt, is so that if Israel does decide to strike back and eliminate the sources of Hezbollah terror, people will say, as Ronan has and as you are saying, that Israel is inflicting collective punishment, when, in reality, Israel is performing relatively surgical strikes against known Hezbollah centers which are located intentionally by that terrorist organization in apartment buildings.
In truth, your answer in # 96 was pretty opaque. Are you saying that because Hezbollah places its offices and arsenal in apartment buildings and hospitals, Israel is not allowed to attack those offices and arsenals after Hezbollah violates its sovereignty?
(Let’s not forget the facts of history in this situation Matt: Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon years ago. Now, Hezbollah fires rockets on Israel from area that Israel previously occupied. Lebanon’s government is not securing the area to prevent Hezbollah from doing these terrorist rocket attacks against Israeli civilian centers.)
In what scenario, in your mind, would Israel ever be justified in attacking Hezbollah’s centers and arsenals? No matter what scenario that might be, it would cause the exact civilian collateral damage that the present strikes are causing. Does that mean that, in your mind, Israel would never be justified in attacking Hezbollah’s centers and arsenals in order to put a stop into the terrorist rocket attacks? This is a serious question and I would appreciate a thoughtful and direct answer.
Comment by john f. — July 21, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
Also, why do you characterize Hezbollah’s campaign of firing rockets from areas in southern Lebanon previously occupied by the Israelis into Israeli towns near the Lebanese border as Hezbollah “defending itself”?
Comment by john f. — July 21, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
Ronan, you’re off base here. First, I am not a hawk and am critical of our Middle East policy. But the fact that I am not a hawk does not mean that I am eager to condone your mischaracterization of what is going on. The IDF is not performing collective punishment. The stated objective of destroying the airport was to prevent Hezbollah from re-supplying its rocket arsenals from shipments from Iran.
And I have not forgotten that southern Lebanon used to be occupied by the IDF and that Hezbollah came into being during that period with the stated objective of liberating that area. This was part of my earlier question to you, which you have not yet answered. Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon. So, according to the caveat that you feel is relevant, there should never have been rockets fired from southern Lebanon into Israel after the IDF pulled out of southern Lebanon. Here’s the rub: no sooner had Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon (Hezbollah’s stated objective in its “resistance”) than Hezbollah began firing rockets at Israel from the exact areas the IDF had vacated. From this we learn that Hezbollah’s objective is not and was not to “liberate” southern Lebanon, since as soon as the area was cleared of the IDF, Hezbollah used the area as a missile launching ground. The same has been true with Israel’s recent withdrawal from Gaza.
Comment by john f. — July 21, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
I would bet that if the Lamanites sat in their home lands and shot rockets at Nephite cities, Moroni would have been leading the Nephite army to the Lamanite lands in a hurry.
I think it is completely wrong to assume that the only way an enemy can bring the fight to you is by standing on your doorstep. If someone is standing accross the street from my house, shooting bullets through my window, he has already brought the fight to me. And if I have to cross the street to make him stop, I will. And I think Israel should too.
Comment by Wes — July 21, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
John,
re: #103,
Why do you think Hezbollah continued the firing of rockets into Israel? Do you think it has anything to do with the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
Did not the Hezbollah leader specifically say that his capturing of the two Israeli soldiers was ordered to draw attention away from the Israelis encroaching in the Gaza Strip?
I promise all Americans this. There will be no peace in the Middle East as long as there is a conflict between Israel and Palestine. The road to peace in Jerusalem does not go through Baghdad, nor Damascus, nor Tehran. It starts and stops in Jerusalem itself. Israel and Palestine need to learn to live together. America needs to be an honest broker between the two. As long as America continues to side only with Israel, there will never be peace between the two peoples.
Why was Hezbollah formed? It was formed as an insurgency for Israel’s ground invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Why did Israel enter Lebanon in 1982? To kill Palestinians. Did they succeed? No. Hezbollah was then formed as a second front for the Palestinian cause.
In the end, it all comes back to Palestine. Fix this conflict, and I promise you peace in the Middle East.
Comment by Dan — July 21, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
Dan, Hamas is not interested in a separate Palestinian state. Their stated goal is the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of Jews from that land. The Israelis are willing to give them a separate state and have taken the first good-faith steps to achieve that by withdrawing from Gaza. What was the result of that, Dan? Hamas used the territory vacated by the Israelis to launch rockets on Israel and to kidnap an Israeli soldier. Israel was not prepared to accept this and therefore invaded Gaza to recover the soldier and secure the area.
You wrote Why do you think Hezbollah continued the firing of rockets into Israel? Do you think it has anything to do with the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
Be careful with this. It sounds like you are endorsing terrorism to achieve political goals. It is as if you are saying — John, you’re wrong, Hezbollah is not firing rockets into Israel from southern Lebanon to liberate southern Lebanon but rather to force the IDF to cease its incursion into Gaza to rescue its kidnapped soldier.
Hezbollah’s stated objective when it was created, as Ronan points out, was to free southern Lebanon. The IDF cleared out of southern Lebanon but Hezbollah was not satisfied, instead using the vacated territory as a base from which to strike Israel. This reveals that Hezbollah’s actual purpose is the same as its funder and supplier’s Iran: the complete destruction of Israel and nothing less.
Comment by john f. — July 21, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
John F (101-102),
No, just that the results are atrocious and counter-productive.
In the case where these “centers and arsenals” can be clearly distinguished from the civilian population…which, granted, is apparently not possible…at least not when using conventional tactics and weapons. In a way this is quite similar to the doctrine of “mutually assured destruction” in that there’s no winning war scenario. This is the reason why we must chill the f*** out and find none-violent solutions no matter how imperfect.
I don’t…you misrepresent what I said. I characterize their defensive posture of operating from within the civilian population as “defending itself”…and, as I said, I find this atrocious in light of the fact that it’s a play on Israeli sensibilities which apparently do not exist. So it’s atrocious and stupid and desperate.
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 21, 2006 @ 5:23 pm
Matt, it is not a play on Israeli sensibilities. It is an expression of Hezbollah’s cynicism: they do not care about the civilian consequences of their actions against Israel, neither Israeli civilian casualties, which is Hezbollah’s main target, nor Lebanese civilian casualties that are certain to result from any Israeli strike against Hezbollah’s centers and arsenal. In other words, it is no concern to Hezbollah if Lebanese civilians die as a result of Hezbollah’s tactic of locating itself in entirely civilian centers. This is because of at least three reasons:
(1) Hezbollah counts on any Lebanese civilian collateral damage to further deepen Arabs’ and Muslims’ hatred of Israel;
(2) Hezbollah counts on this tactic to force Lebanese civilians to share culpability in Hezbollah’s terrorist attacks;
(3) Hezbollah, as a Shiite terrorist organization, maintains the belief that the Lebanese civilians who necessarily die in Israel’s retaliation against Hezbollah’s terror attacks are martyrs and are guaranteed salvation by virute of their dying at the hands of Israeli airstrikes against Hezbollah centers and arsenal.
I would note that, according to your analysis of the unjustifiability of Israel attacking Hezbollah centers and arsenals if Hezbollah has intentionally located those centers and arsenals in civilian centers so as to assure maximum civilian collateral damage should Israel strike back, Hezbollah has employed the perfect tactic. That is, if more people shared your view Matt, then all an aggressor or terrorist organization such as Hezbollah would ever have to do to ensure that its victim could not strike it back would be to embed itself in an apartment building or hospital. I trust you see why this is an untenable position.
Comment by john f. — July 21, 2006 @ 5:35 pm
John,
I find your cynically single-sided view of human nature disturbing. You fail to include the fact that Israel is counting on civilian suffering at the hands of Israeli weapons to be interpreted by the civilain population as somthing to blame on Hezbollah. Both sides are playing this cynical game but Israel is appently too drunk with vengance to see that this appraoch will not win the hearts and minds of the Lebanese population.
Not perfect but proven and particularly effective for a native insurgency with inferior fire-power. We may not like it but its the reality of modern warfare and another reason why war is the wrong choice.
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 21, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
john,
the whole situation is too complicated to try and get into here. You simplify it as such: “Hezbollah are terrorists, thus they are evil.” Oh if it were that simple. But it is not.
In the end, the continual killing, one of the other, will only lead to more killing. There is no complete victory in the Middle East when it comes to war. The only option is peace. Peace takes patience. War comes easily.
Comment by Dan — July 21, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
Matt,
“You fail to include the fact that Israel is counting on civilian suffering at the hands of Israeli weapons to be interpreted by the civilain population as somthing to blame on Hezbollah.”
well said. People tend to forget that Israel’s policies in the West Bank are targeting suicide bombers’s families, demolishing their homes in order to deter future attacks.
Comment by Dan — July 21, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
There is a big difference between endorsing terrorism and merely noting that terrorism/insurgency/violence are often the result of violence imposed by a superiorly armed opponent. The difference is pragmatic. Yes, terrorism is horrible. But terrorists are not created in a vacuum. The political choices we make have consequences. The choice of violence reaps the consequence of an embittered, oppressed, angry people. Peace, negotiation, measured reaction, working to get along with your neighbors, these all benefit everybody in the long run.
Comment by Doc — July 21, 2006 @ 7:08 pm
“The assumption that one cannot deal diplomatically, not with terrorists but with those who have employed terrorist tactics… this is part of the problem.”
A quote in the most recent issue of Time comes to mind. “Everybody sees a difficulty in the question of relations between Arabs and Jews. But not everybody sees that there is no solution to the question. No solution! There is a gulf, and nothing can bridge it…We, as a nation, want this country to by ours; the Arabs, as a nation, want this country to be thiers.” David Ben-Gurion, June 1919
I tend to think that there is still no solution.
Comment by Eric Russell — July 21, 2006 @ 10:39 pm
.
2nd inaugural address
Comment by Abraham Lincoln — July 21, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
Apparently Captain Moroni believed in establishing peace through the use of overwhleming force and (note in the following) technological superiority. After his repeated attempts at establishing a covenant of peace largely fail, we read this (Alma 44:16-21):
“Now it came to pass that Zerahemnah was exceedingly wroth, and he did stir up the remainder of his soldiers to anger, to contend more powerfully against the Nephites.
17 And now Moroni was angry, because of the stubbornness of the Lamanites; therefore he commanded his people that they should fall upon them and slay them. And it came to pass that they began to slay them; yea, and the Lamanites did contend with their swords and their might.
18 But behold, their naked skins and their bare heads were exposed to the sharp swords of the Nephites; yea, behold they were pierced and smitten, yea, and did fall exceedingly fast before the swords of the Nephites; and they began to be swept down, even as the soldier of Moroni had prophesied.
19 Now Zerahemnah, when he saw that they were all about to be destroyed, cried mightily unto Moroni, promising that he would covenant and also his people with them, if they would spare the remainder of their lives, that they never would come to war again against them.
20 And it came to pass that Moroni caused that the work of death should acease again among the people. And he took the weapons of war from the Lamanites; and after they had entered into a covenant with him of peace they were suffered to depart into the wilderness.
21 Now the number of their dead was not numbered because of the greatness of the number; yea, the number of their dead was exceedingly great, both on the Nephites and on the Lamanites.”
Chilling language, some of it - but then we are living in the telestial world, and are subject to this kind of misery.
Later, this:
“And Moroni commanded his men that they should fall upon them until they had given up their weapons of war.”
None of the analogies are perfect, because the Nephites are largely influenced by true prophets at this point, while Israel, while it has the virtue of being an open, free and liberated society, isn’t.
Finally, my quick bit: love of peace and liberty, and even a profound willingness to forgive and provide amnesty to one’s enemies, hardly preclude a willingness to use violent force against a unrepentant and violent enemy, in an attempt to secure peace, liberty and amnesty, as the example of Moroni abundantly shows, thoughout the Book of Alma -
~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — July 21, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
The problem with negotiation, measured reaction, diplomacy, patience–well, those things are ideal, of course, but they are seen as weakness and cowardice by terrorists and dictators and the like. Those things invite further attacks. Someone mentioned Libya earlier–Qaddafi (or however you want to spell it)wasn’t tamed by diplomacy–it was that after the weak Clinton years, President Bush went after Iraq and Qaddafi saw that we once again had a strong president–like Reagan, who bombed him twice in the ’80s. At that point, Qaddafi bowed himself right off the world stage.
This is an imperfect world and we have to play with the hand we are dealt.
Comment by Mary A — July 21, 2006 @ 11:54 pm
I’m just jumping in, but I do have a thought…
The problem with Israel’s response is that killing large numbers of people do not always win modern wars. Think of history, France in Algeria, USSR in Afganistan, and how many people did the U.S kill in Vietnam and we still lost? (or at least we didn’t win, if only we had stayed for another 5, 10 or 20 years.)
I guess my point is that Israel’s response, proportionate or not, is really not going to work.
If it were to work would they not have already destroyed Hamas? I mean how many Hamas ‘leaders’ have been killed by Israeli air strikes over the years?
Yes, Israel did get out of Gaza, but they are still settling the more lucrative West Bank.
This is not a simple problem and I do not know what the answer would be. It just seems that Israel’s response may not work, at least it hasn’t yet.
Comment by Christophe — July 22, 2006 @ 1:21 am
Eric Russell,
“A quote in the most recent issue of Time comes to mind. “Everybody sees a difficulty in the question of relations between Arabs and Jews. But not everybody sees that there is no solution to the question. No solution! There is a gulf, and nothing can bridge it…We, as a nation, want this country to by ours; the Arabs, as a nation, want this country to be thiers.†David Ben-Gurion, June 1919″
No wonder there is still no peace. The parties involved cannot see it. This is why there is such an absolute need for an outside larger force to act as an honest broker. Where is the United States? Why is she on the sidelines?
Comment by Dan — July 22, 2006 @ 4:18 am
Mary,
re: #116,
did you read my earlier post regarding Qadhafi?
Reagan’s bombing did not do anything but further embolden Qadhafi. Read my earlier post. I quote the Counterterrorism blog which states:
Another reason for Qaddafi’s shift was the much-derided U.N. sanctions regime imposed on Libya after the Lockerbie bombing. The colonel had long believed that Libya’s oil wealth and commercial appeal would undermine any cohesive opposition to his revolutionary excesses. But the Lockerbie sanctions, enacted by the United Nations in 1992, shattered that conviction. The United States managed to convince even states with close economic ties to Libya, such as Italy and Germany, to support the sanctions as a way to force Qaddafi to hand over the bombing suspects. . . .
Prior attempts to coerce Libya had proven ineffective: U.S. air strikes in 1986 only enhanced Qaddafi’s domestic power and led to his lionization in the developing world. But the U.N. sanctions — particularly the prohibition on the sale of oil equipment and technology and a ban on financial transfers — hit Qaddafi where it hurt the most, undermining his government’s ability to extract and export its main source of revenue. Libya estimates that the sanctions have deprived its economy of $ 33 billion, whereas the World Bank puts the damage at the lower but still daunting sum of $ 18 billion. Whatever their actual cost, the basic efficacy of the sanctions demonstrated Libya’s special vulnerability to such multilateral coercion. Libya’s economic vitality and its government’s popularity depend on access to international petroleum markets. Thus the same resource that gave Qaddafi the power to upset the international order also let the world community undermine him.â€
In other words, the much derided UN was the major factor in turning Qadhafi away from his terrorist ways. Interestingly though, he’s still a dictator…..but he has oil, so all is forgiven. Meanwhile we’re punishing Saddam for his actions in the 1980s, which we happen to have approved/turned a blind eye to.
Peace works far more effectively than war ever has.
Comment by Dan — July 22, 2006 @ 4:25 am
110 — Peace will only be an option when Syria, Iran, and the militias will accept a real peace that doesn’t involve the slaughter or deportation of every Jew in Israel, and the exhuming of the bodies of their dead and throwing them into the sea.
With Iran building nuclear weapons and its president encouraging Holocaust denial while refusing to say the word “Israel,” where do you get the idea that they are going to change their tune?
Comment by Blain — July 22, 2006 @ 6:30 am
118 — You do know that the folks you are talking about view Israel as the Small Satan and the US as the Great Satan, right? Yet you expect them to negotiate in good faith with the Great Satan on behalf of the Small Satan for the first time?
Why?
Comment by Blain — July 22, 2006 @ 6:32 am
Blain,
conversely, we view them as “terrorists.” Is there any real difference in the communication? They view us as the Great Satan, we view them as terrorists. The lack of real communication could not be any worse. No wonder both sides are so itching for a fight.
Comment by Dan — July 22, 2006 @ 7:36 am
In comment #105 Dan writes:
“In the end, it all comes back to Palestine. Fix this conflict, and I promise you peace in the Middle East.”
That is absurd. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a huge and complicated matter — but if peace were established between Israelis and Palestinians there will still be plenty of Middle East conflicts/problems to resolve.
There are two main scourges of the Middle East, as I see it. The first: authoritarian governments, whether they are republics or monarchies. The second: Islamists who want to establish sharia law by force or otherwise. Almost any real opportunity for civil society and freedom in the Middle East gets crushed (on a routine basis) between these two forces.
Comment by danithew — July 22, 2006 @ 7:47 am
I love peace! I have a good job, I want a good economy, I want my four children to continue growing without having to hear about war every single day of their lives.
Did someone forget that to have peace requires cooperation from both sides? It is very common for leaders of Middle Eastern countries to call for the complete destruction of Israel. The leader of Iran as well as Hezbollah and Hamas come to my mind as well as others who are not currently at the front of the stage. It is frustrating to hear so many say that they want peace, and that Israel is somehow to blame for not having it. I wonder what those same people would say if Israel said “okay, we want peace too, here are our weopons of war”, only to have Iran and other Israel hating terrorists go in and fulfill their promise to destroy Israel. I don’t think those people would say anything at all other than maybe continue to blame Israel or the U.S.
Comment by Wes — July 22, 2006 @ 8:50 am
Hezbollah has the problem of not being corrupt and not being emeshed in graft, which has made it attractive in democratic processes. That causes all sorts of issues.
My biggest concern in this situation is the destruction of the rebuilt infrastructure and economy in Lebanon. Lebanon had a lot of potential not to mention, the collateral damage tends to make people angry at those who dropped the bombs, not those who provoked them.
The real problem would have been if the 5current 00,000 displaced persons and refugees had all gone towards the border with Israel to seek sanctuary. That will probably happen next time and will create a serious problem.
I don’t know the solution. My grandfather almost died from the stress of trying to prepare to transfer to Jordan in the early 60s. He couldn’t work out a solution either.
I’d have to disagree. Things are never that binary.
Name me one piece of Israeli military equipment that is truly their own, either built in Israel or funded solely by Israeli money
I do know that they used to sell anti-tank guns on the world market that were entirely domestic manufacture — I remember readign the Armada International advertisements for them. Visit http://www.armada.ch/welcome.cfm to see what is up these days (I’m no longer current).
Anyway, wish everyone well in thinking about the issues, learning new things, and finding ways to peace.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — July 22, 2006 @ 8:51 am
Think of history, France in Algeria, USSR in Afganistan and more.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — July 22, 2006 @ 8:55 am
I also do not buy into the fact that we created terrorists. Though there may be different definitions of terrorist, a terrorists simply kills the inocent for perhaps political or even for personal gain. I think the Gadianton Robbers were terrorists too. Are the nephites to blame for creating them. I always thought their hatred of the nephites was a result of their character and gene