Fighting elephants; trembling mice
There’s an old saying, rendered variously as:
When elephants fight, it’s the mice who must tremble.
When elephants fight, it’s the grass that suffers.
The applicability to the current situation in the Middle East? When Hezbollah goads Israel from its hiding place in Lebanon, and Israel retaliates, the ordinary people in both countries suffer.
Right now, as Fouad Ajami points out in today’s Opinion Journal (and as I pointed out some days ago, here), the Lebanese people are being held hostage by Hezbollah. Yes, of course, some of the Lebanese people support Hezbollah, even though it was originally a foreign graft from Iran. But the majority? Doubtful. But that didn’t stop Nasrallah from provoking the Israelis into this war in Lebanon; elephants don’t ordinarily ask the mice’s permission when they start a battle.
Ajami believes that Nasrallah miscalculated, thinking it would be just business as usual when he provoked Israel, underestimating the spine of the new, non-Sharon, government (as well as the opposition of the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan). Gone were the old warriors of Israel, Nasrallah thought–the elephants, as it were–and in their place were the bureaucrats.
But Israel seems to have found a new resolve, exemplified by this passage from a speech Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made last Monday:
“There are moments in the life of a nation, when it is compelled to look directly into the face of reality and say: no more!” Olmert said in a speech in the Knesset plenum Monday evening. “And I say to everyone: no more! Israel will not be held hostage – not by terror gangs or by a terrorist authority or by any sovereign state.”
There’s that metaphor again: being held hostage. And the linked Jerusalem Post article goes on to point out that Israel and its leaders (usually so fractious) are presently united behind Olmert.
Why is this? It seems to me that it’s because so much else has been tried, for so very long, and been found so very wanting. If the slogan of the peace movement is “Give peace a chance,” Israel can honestly say (although its enemies will never credit this, of course) “Been there, done that, many times. And it didn’t work.”
Another reason Olmert can stand firm is that the Bush administration is refusing to pay any more lip service to the ‘peace process” as a way of dealing with terrorist entities such as Hezbollah.
The tricky part, of course, is to stand firm in such a way that the Green Revolution in Lebanon is not destroyed–that the mice and the grass (to continue the green metaphor) don’t tremble too much as the elephants collide.
Secretary Rice is going to the region to try to strike that delicate balance. It will not be easy, as blogger Alcibiades at Kesher Talk points out, here:
…the crumbling of prosperous, pro-Democrat Lebanon may represent a crumbling of what could have been a very important bulwark against the Islamist night that will never be built up again in quite the right way.
But, unfortunately, for Lebanon to ever become that bulwark, Hezbollah has to be rooted out. You can’t have it both ways. The hope is that the cure isn’t worse than the disease.
Secretary Rice is declaring her own version (or Bush’s version, or their combined version) of Olmert’s cry of “No more!” Her version is a “no more, enough!” to the false promise of the ceasefire in this case:
We do seek an end to the current violence and we seek it urgently,” Rice told reporters at the State Department. Still, “a cease fire would be a false promise if it just returns us to the status quo.”….`Hezbollah is the source of the problem,” Rice said. No diplomatic solution can allow Hezbollah to stay in place, she said. The U.S. is working to put pressure on Iran and Syria, which sponsor Hezbollah, to ease the strife diplomatically…
Rice is clear: a diplomatic solution is not ruled out. But it must involve an end to the Hezbollah presence in Lebanon. Only then can a ceasefire be meaningful; until then any cease-fire would be premature and counterproductive.
“Cease-fire.” It’s a wonderful word, is it not? It speaks of peace and tranquility; the poor mice and the defenseless grass can finally stop suffering. Who wouldn’t want that? And there are those who are calling for an immediate ceasefire–such as Kofi Annan, not unexpectedly.
But ceasefires in the region, especially ones with a terrorist entity as one of the parties, don’t have a good track record. The status quo is unacceptable.
Enough is enough.
probligo:
Really, what is your affinity for Hezbollah? Hamas? Why the untrammelled support? Why the tears for the terrorists and none for the terror victims? Whose puppet are you?
I’m entering this discussion reluctantly because I decided at least twenty years ago that the Middle East situation was so complicated that I despaired of taking sides.
I have one question, though, and I’d appreciate it if some of the obviously pro-Israelis here would address it. I know that the Jewish lobby is influential in American politics; I’ve read, in addition, that the Christian Right that is so influential in the Republican party believes in the existence of Israel to support their mythology.
The question is: Why is it that the U.S. supports Israel, come hell or high water, no matter what the circumstances: Israel is in the right, and that’s the end of the discussion?
I can go into lots of ramifications of that; for example, neocons excoriated Saddam for ignoring UN resolutions, when Israel has ignored far more — there’s fertile ground there, but let’s pass over that for the moment: Why does the U.S. support Israel no matter what and regardless of the circumstances?
Or, as a corollary, am I wrong? Has the U.S. ever, even once, condemned Israeli actions? I’m not aware of such a situation, but maybe it’s happened, and surely someone here can point such a thing out for me.
Simply because questioning anything Israel does opens one to charges of antisemitism.
Even if you are a wry, verbal critic of Israeli policy like Gore Vidal you are called a “virulent antisemite.” Yikes!
Persumably that makes YOU an “antisemite with allergies” just for inquiring.
Or there is the all-purpose calumny of Larry Summers, who would call raising questions “antisemitic in effect if not in intent.”
American support for Israel is broad but not deep. Any open discussion of the fairness of Likud policies in particular, or the geopolitical and monetary cost of US support for those policies, would run the risk of eventually causing the public to wise up. Better to demonize arabs and silence any and all critics with charges of antisemitism.
Ironically, if there ever is a “new antisemitism” in the US it will gain a hearing because of the manifestly unfair “dialogue” now taking place.
Something happened around September the 11th in 2001 that gave most americans the jaundiced eye toward muslim terrorists. It may be that americans are not so much pro-Israel, as they are anti-muslim terrorist. So much of the muslim world has gone pro-terrorist recently that it may seem that americans are anti-muslim, but that would be a misapprehension.
Whatever Israel may do, I merely say, “death to terrorists and all who support them.”
For me, it was the increasingly brazen attacks by Al-Qaeda that led up to 9-11, and the Clinton Administration’s feckless but UN-approved responses, are what set me on the path to war. It’s a path the Zionists of Israel were also forced to tread, and I feel there in much to be learned from them.
Tiny little Israel living in a sea of hatred is trying to peacefully survive on what little land left to them and one questions why America stands with them come ‘hell or high water’.
ATS, after Radical Islam pushes the Jews into the sea they’ll turn their barbaric wrath towards the Christians and when their armies of suicide bombers successfully kill 100s a day for years on end they’ll come after you.
The tragedy is no one of substance will be left to protect you.
That said, there is no moral equalivency when it comes to surviving barbarism.
“I have one question, though, and I’d appreciate it if some of the obviously pro-Israelis here would address it. I know that the Jewish lobby is influential in American politics; I’ve read, in addition, that the Christian Right that is so influential in the Republican party believes in the existence of Israel to support their mythology.”
Jewish Lobby. Christian Right. Hmmm.
Well, I’m not Jewish, and I’m not a member of the Right (too much tolerance for gay folks gettin hitched and ending the drug war for that), but since I see that the same individuals that hate America and would kill us if they could (I believe in this the way you believe in the Jewish Lobby and the Christian Right) are the same individuals that would gladly kill all the Jews in the current borders of Israel and populate it with the Palestinians if they could, I’m not particularly inclined to be on their side. I’m going to stop and assume you don’t think that Hezbollah and their backers would do this, but I’m going to have to disagree. I’m also going to assume that you think that if Iran’s current leadership had deliverable nuclear weapons, they would not place several in the vicinity of Israel as quickly as possible and detonate them. Why, if they did this, they would kill most of the Palestinians, whose most identified contribution to 20th century history was the suicide bomber, beating out other original iconic acts such as the plane hijacking and kidnapping for the purpose of ransom or murder to political ends. What some see as slaughter, others can view as an opportunity for martyrdom in Allah’s service – one that will be unmatched in world history – it just depends on how you see the world.
Note what long sentences you inspire me to type!
Well, that’s a start – we just see the world very differently. Time will show who was right. Lots of folks were making a real case for Stalin in the 1930’s, for example, so I suppose anything’s possible. One of us will look like those folks in the fullness of time, and one of us won’t.
I’m a practicing Christian (but I don’t identify with Evangelicals), and I support Israel because they are a democracy and the Arab nations who surround them are not.
I suppose that if you dug into the origins of Israel and all of what happened leading up to its formation, you could find plenty of fodder for the Palestinian grievance mill, depending on how you looked at it.
But I’m not concerned with how a nation came to be. I care about what it’s up to right now. And the fact is that Israelis made the desert blossom as a rose, whereas the Arabs lacked either the imagination or the desire to do much of anything with that same land. The Israelis have prospered by the sweat of their brow, contributing to the rest of the world through research and innovation.
The Palestinians, on the other hand, have drunk deeply from the cup of vengeance and it has thoroughly poisoned their society. They have sunk into the depths of such barbarity that I don’t know how they could possibly prosper without mass brain transplants. Even if they did succeed in pushing all the Jews into the sea, they would remain poor, uncivilized, oppressed by their leaders, and otherwise miserable. And they wouldn’t be satisfied, either. They would have all that terrorist momentum going, and they’d find another target. I feel sorry for them for having got into this mess, but I can’t support their goals.
The US has always been about supporting flourishing democracies against tyrranies and other unsavory forms of government. That’s why we’ll always support South Korea over North, Taiwan over mainland China (I think…), Western Europe over the Soviet Union (back in the day).
Supporting Israel is definitely not the path of least resistance. I suppose it’s tempting to just let them go and allow the Arabs to flood in and destroy them, just to get this mess over with. But then, is that good for the Arabs in the long run? Is it good for us? Is it good for the world?
As for apocalyptic reasons for supporting Israel, they don’t hold much weight with me. If Israel became a totalitarian country, I’d withdraw my support.
Oh, and what syn said.
tequilamockinbird wrote: “Why does the U.S. support Israel no matter what and regardless of the circumstances?”
Among the liberal/left camp, there are two views about this:
i) The first view is that espoused by Prof. Mearsheimer and Prof. Walt, two political science professors. One of them is at Harvard, I forget where the other is. They have recently argued that this is because the pro-Israel lobby in the USA is very strong, and everyone is afraid to criticize Israel because if they do, the pro-Israel lobby successfully makes them look like anti-semites. You can read Mearsheimer and Walt’s viewpoint here: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
ii) Others in the left, such as Noam Chomsky, a professor at MIT, believe that Mearsheimer and Walt don’t quite get everything right. Chomsky and others don’t think that the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful that it can make the US government do things that are against the US governing class’s interests. Rather, Chomsky et al think that Israel serves a useful function for the US governing class, helping to protect the governing class’ interest in a generally oil-rich region as a proxy for the US, and in return the US supports Israel with military aid, helpful vetoes in the UN, etc. You can read Chomsky’s viewpoint here: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9999
It’s a bit obvious, isn’t it?
Whether the restoration/creation of Israel was “legitimate” or not (the U.N. thought so) is now irrelevant. So is the fact that Israel is not perfect. Israel does not want to destroy the Palestinians or Lebanon. It has been relentlessly and continuously attacked since the country was formed.
Israel is a liberal democracy who has agreed to and implemented each “peace process” and each U.N. resolution for naught.
Since the United States is a liberal democracy, how could it support Israel’s enemies, which are dictatorial states that only want Israel’s destruction?
neocons excoriated Saddam for ignoring UN resolutions, when Israel has ignored far more… — tequilamockinbird
Saddam was shooting our airplanes for 12 years is sort of a VERY BIG difference, aiding international terror was a big one too, and so on and so forth.
“Since the United States is a liberal democracy, how could it support Israel’s enemies, which are dictatorial states”
This is a hypocoritical argument — the US actually suppports lots and lots of dictators as long as the dictators support the US. Case in point: Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If free elections were held in either of these two countries today, Islamic parties hostile to the US would come to power right away. So the US actually discourages democracy in these places and supports the dictators Hosni Mubarak and the Saudi royal family.
There may be good reasons for supporting Israel, but to argue that that one of the reasons the US is supporting Israel is that Israel is a democracy, is specious (even though this argument may make us feel good and proud about ourselves), because the case of Egypt shows that if Israel were a dictatorship but still aligned with the US’s strategic objectives, we still would have supported it just the same (except, well, maybe a little less openly — but not any less).
I’m not being cynical here — just being realistic.
“This is a hypocoritical argument.”
Nonsense and misspelling combined! Which nondemocratic states did the U.S. support when they opposed democratic ones? I do agree that it’s not just about democracy, but about LIBERAL democracy. Palestine and Nazi Germany don’t qualify. Israel does.
I’ve read, in addition, that the Christian Right that is so influential in the Republican party believes in the existence of Israel to support their mythology.
Well, that doesn’t get you off to a good start. I have to seriously doubt the veracity of your source.
The fact of the matter is that from the time it was put together (1948 ), Israel has had to defend itself from attacks by its ever-loving neighbors.
During the ’50s and ’60s, Egypt’s president Anwar al-Sadat said over and over again, in speeches and in print, that Israel would be destroyed. The rest of the history is something you just might want to look into.
Can someone explain please –
> why it is necessary to bomb Beirut airport not once but four times. Did they miss the first three times?
> to destroy not just one small part of a motorway in Beirut, but every bridge in the network.
> why “surgical” air attacks destroy not individual buildings, but take out whole suburbs.
> how it is that destroying power stations “limits terrorist movements”.
.
> why it is necessary to bomb Beirut airport not once but four times. Did they miss the first three times?
maybe people were trying to fix the runways?
> to destroy not just one small part of a motorway in Beirut, but every bridge in the network.
Maybe because it’s a network, and if you only take out part of it, you’ve left alternate routes of escape and/or reinforcement?
> why “surgical” air attacks destroy not individual buildings, but take out whole suburbs.
maybe the “suburb” was a city block/development taken over by hizballah?
> how it is that destroying power stations “limits terrorist movements”.
maybe because cell phones (which rely on relay points which rely on power grids) and the internet are used to coordinate terrorist movements?
Welcome to distributed warfare. May it never take root in the cities in which you or I live.
“why it is necessary to bomb Beirut airport not once but four times. Did they miss the first three times?”
Nasrallah is still alive, isn’t he?
“to destroy not just one small part of a motorway in Beirut, but every bridge in the network.”
Oh, let’s see, to maybe, perhaps, PREVENT HEZBOLLAH FROM RESUPPLYING OR ESCAPNG?
Duh.
“why “surgical” air attacks destroy not individual buildings, but take out whole suburbs.”
Why is it necessary to remove an entire breast, when the cancer is only a lump?
“how it is that destroying power stations “limits terrorist movements”.
They can’t charge up their cell phones? It’s hard to write combat orders in the dark? The gas pumps don’t work, so it’s hard to move that rocket launcher from place to place?
Not a very strategic thinker, are you Pro?
sorry. They bombed the airport many times to make sure that it was well and truly *unusable*.
Mark,
Your use of the phrase “distributed warfare” indicates that you get it. Prob does too and is simply being disingenuous (disingenuous: not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness).
The anti American Left knows full well what is going on and, in point of fact, supports it in the belief that anything with the possibility of reducing US influence and “hegemony” is to be supported and applauded. They believe that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
“Which nondemocratic states did the U.S. support when they opposed democratic ones?”
The US helped Gen. Pinochet in Chile stage a coup against the democratically elected government of Chile in 1973. Many other examples in Latin America around the same time, in which the US helped generals torpedo democratically elected governments in their respective countries by means of coups.
In Indonesia, the US helped Gen. Suharto stage a coup against the democratically elected government of Sukarno.
“Which nondemocratic states did the U.S. support when they opposed democratic ones?”
Pakistan against Bangladesh, during the Bangladesh liberation war of 1971.
Rock and Adam,
That was then, this is now. It is not a bi-polar world anymore. Is that a problem for you?
07/21/06 Reuters: Suicide bomber kills six policemen in Falluja
A suicide bomber in a car killed six policemen and wounded 13 others near the former rebel stronghold of Falluja 50 km (32 miles) west of Baghdad, said police official Saad Farhan.
07/21/06 DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
Cpl. Julian A. Ramon, 22, of Flushing, N.Y., died July 20 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force
07/21/06 DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Pfc. Derek J. Plowman, 20, of Everton, Ark., died on July 20 in Baghdad, Iraq, from a gun shot wound. Plowman was assigned to the Army National Guard’s 1st Battalion, 142nd Fires Brigade, Rogers, Ark.
07/21/06 AP: Cheney re-enlists wounded soldier at rally for troops
Cpl. Jerrod Fields of Chicago raised his right hand before Cheney and pledged to serve another four years…Fields opted to have his leg amputated below the knee to improve his chances of returning to active duty.
07/21/06 AP: Soldiers in murder case claim order to ‘kill all military age males’
Four U.S. soldiers accused of murdering suspected insurgents during a raid in Iraq said they were under orders to ”kill all military age males,” according to sworn statements obtained by The Associated Press.
07/21/06 AFP: Turkish Army kills 4 PKK fighters after warning to Washington
Turkey’s army killed four Kurdish militants Friday, one day after Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned US President George W. Bush that the escalating violence had gone “beyond the limits of tolerance.”
07/21/06 Centcom: MARINE KILLED IN AL ANBAR PROVINCE (confirmed)
A Marine assigned to 1st Marine Expeditionary Force died due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province today.
07/21/06 Reuters: Gloom descends on Iraqi leaders as civil war looms
Iraqi leaders have all but given up on holding the country together and, just two months after forming a national unity government, talk in private of “black days” of civil war ahead.
07/21/06 AP: Gunmen Attack Iraqi Shiite Areas; 18 Die
Gunmen attacked two Shiite neighborhoods Friday in the same town where Sunnis opened fire on a market earlier this week, prompting Iraqi forces to call for American air support in a clash that killed at least 18 people, the Iraqi army said.
07/21/06 KUNA: Bomb explosion south of Baghdad injures three MNF soldiers
Multi-National Forces (MNF) in Iraq said on Friday that three soldiers were injured when an explosion rocked their patrol vehicle south of Baghdad.
07/21/06 AFP: Christian working for the ministry of higher education shot dead
In the southern neighborhood of Dora, a predominantly Sunni area that has been a focus for violence in the city, a Christian working for the ministry of higher education was shot dead.
07/21/06 AFP: Nine Iraqis killed in ‘quiet’ day in Baghdad
At least nine Iraqis were killed in and around Bagh
Mike Z wrote:
“The fact of the matter is that from the time it was put together (1948 ), Israel has had to defend itself from attacks by its ever-loving neighbors.”
Consider it from the Arab point of view:
Jews were horribly treated by the nazis, and 5-6 million Jews were killed in W.W. II — by Germans, not by Arabs. In fact, the Jews living in Arab countries were harmed in no way. Many German Jews even took shelter in Turkey, a Muslim country, and in Egypt, an Arab country, during W.W. II.
Then W.W. II ended. The Jewish people needed a homeland.
Well, logically it was the European’s responsibility to provide the Jews with a homeland, because it was the Europeans who had failed and victimized the Jewish people, not the Arabs.
But what did the Allied powers do? They decided to have the new Jewish state set up in Palestine, which was a British protectorate, i.e. on land that did not belong to the British, but to the Arabs.
Was this just? No. Was it the fault of the Arabs that the Jewish people had been persecuted by the Nazis? No!
So, naturally, the Arabs resented this. I don’t think it was unreasonable.
What is ironic is that no one blames the British, who were the real culprits for creating this mess.
senescentwasp wrote (on the question of whether the USA has ever supported tyrants against democracies, after I had provided examples from the 1970s): That was then, this is now.
Senescentwasp, dicentra’s original claim in this thread, to which I was responding, was: [exact quote] “The US has always been about supporting flourishing democracies against tyrranies and other unsavory forms of government.”
Notice the word that dicentra used? (S)he used the word “always”.
So, it didn’t matter whether in my counterexample I used instances from “then” or from “now”, because the claim I was countering had said “always” (i.e. both “then” and “now”).
No word games rock. Deal with the present time and the current situation.
US policy is not monolithic and, with the exception of the Cold War, varies from administration to administration. Trying to tease out long term “patterns” is futile.
Adam, being a-historical is silly. Google “Balfour Declaration”. Then study the modern history of the middle east from say, the fall of Constantinople; pay particular attention to consistencies in Great Power foreign policy. You’ll be a better person for having done it.
Most people in the world today think that history is last year and have the attention spans of gnats. A broader view hurts their tiny brains and disturbs their ideology, mainly derived from media, manga and comic books.
Lebanon is held hostage by hizbullah terrorists, funded by Iran and supported by Syria. Lebanon can never be a modern country until it sheds the terrorists–both Syria and hizbullah.
As for Chile, it is the healthiest economy in South America, cruising on an economic infrastructure put in place during the “P” years. Huga (sic) Chavez is gutting Venezuela, as Allende would have gutted Chile. Zerobranes want the whole world to look like Kooba.
There appears to be a seismic shift taking place in world opinion against Islamic fascism. Victor Davis Hanson seems to be feeling it as well.
We can probably predict an increase in the “La, la, la, I can’t hear you”, posters as world opinion begins to make it hot for the appeasers. It looks like the mice are getting ready to gang up on the elephants. Of course, some of the mice have friends in the community of larger animals.
“Consider it from the Arab point of view”
False history, though.
1. League of Nations Mandate approved Jewish Homeland (Ottoman Empire divided by French and British). Just as the UN would about 25 years later.
2. Arab riots in 1920s to drive out the Jews. Arabs lost.
3. Continuous Jewish migration beginning even before the 1890s. Read Mark Twain as to the land of Palestine before the 1890s.
4. The British did blow it. They put the Sauds (vile wahabbists, minor tribe) in charge of Mekkah and Medina. They put Hashemites in charge of what would have been Palestinian Arab homeland (Jordan).
5. British did not live up to Mandate of Jewish homeland because of Arab ties and Arab violence.
6. Holocaust was the final impetus, but not anywhere near the beginning of it all.
7. The ME Arabs played the Palestinian Arabs for pawns. The Palestinian Arabs are of course shameful, dishonored because they lost to the Jews. (google Shame Cultures v. Guilt Cultures, Shame Cultures are pure toxin, Western Civilization is much about moving from Shame to Guilt)
8 Roughly 50% of Jews in Israel are from Arab/Muslim countries.
There is of course a lot more detail to this, as whole volumes have been written, but the “the Holocaust did it” is hogwash.
If you want more hogwash history, go to the PA website, truth and fiction mixed together.
I am not Christian and I am not Jewish, but I do have a Jewish Grandmother I have never met. I am politically a “classical liberal”, so it isn’t just the “far-right Christians” or the Jewish Lobby that supports Israel. Israel is not perfect, and the Palestinian Arabs, as well as ME Arabs, are not guilt free. The British should have used the power of the Empire to make that Mandate stick and get it done, but they were too interested in colonialism and Roman “divide-to-conquer”.
“Why is it that the U.S. supports Israel, come hell or high water, no matter what the circumstances: Israel is in the right, and that’s the end of the discussion?”
Some of the answers touched on this with their answer, but that isn’t a fair question. They choose to ignore the “no matter what clause” and listed why they currently support them – I know of very very very very few people who do such a thing. Truly, if you believe that is the case then one can never give you an answer you will understand or believe. Your view of the world is so warped that it is most likely impossible for us to meet.
In my answer below I will assume the same thing. I will assume that what just hyperbole.
Mainly because so far (during my political life – around 1990 or so) Israel hasn’t done anything to condemn. Some of the early things they did – some was wrong.
They have just been victorious after someone else started things – that’s not a reason to condemn them.
I’ll use an example I found great, I can’t remember where I read this – it was just a short while ago. But someone suggested instead of Land for Peace lets try Land for Death. Land for Peace has been a dismal failure – left or right I can not see how one would consider it a success. The Palestenians have violated it over and over and over (usually it is “justified” as not everyone agrees with it).
Land for Death works as such – for every death you inflict on the other side you loose 1000 acres of land (or some other number – must be large enough to hurt). Only deaths that are acceptable are within your own borders for police actions.
Who would quickly own much of the middle east? I rather suspect that Israel would. At least the majority of thier neighbors and the palastenians would be VERY quickly with no land.
This would never fly – too many realise how quickly Israel would win and be shown as the non-agressor.
I also place my self in thier position. If Tennessee (roughly the size of Israel) had Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Missouri with armies at the border lobbing rockets at me and the desire to wipe us off the map (very similar to their position) how would I react when one of them made the attempt? I can assure you stronger than Israel reacts to thier neighbors. I mean hell, we detroyed Afghanastan for less than the Israelies put up with and that is SIGNIFIGANTLY worse on the proportionality scale. Even most leftists support that.
These countries are NOT full of innocent bystanders aka “ordinary people” and then a minority of our enemies. Hezb’Allah leaders were elected to power in the Lebanese government, and it enjoys widespread popular support in southern Lebanon. Hamas was elected to power by the Palestinians, the same “ordinary people” who stood firmly behind the ultra-terrorist Arafat. And the elected government of Iraq is already denouncing Israeli self-defense. Just because a civilian isn’t carrying a gun does not mean he or she does not support the murdering regimes and terrorist groups who oppose us. This is a big lie that both the left and the right accept, and it cripples our war policy. The effect is that we do not (since WW2) conduct wars to total victory as we should, but instead attempt never-ending surgery, year after year at immense expense, losing thousands of our own soldiers unnecessarily, all for the purpose of giving the supposedly magical gift of elections to a public which is largely inimical to the principle of individual rights in the first place.
I see Victor/Victoria the noted transvestite is still doing blog drivebys. He will post the same thing in the comments of as many bogs as he can today. He’s like a milkman with a route.
Regarding the “distributed warfare” model noted above here is a link to the Israeli’s hitting telcom resources
The situation in Lebanon is like certain skin cancers, no problem to excise when they are small but hard when then grow since a lot of healthy tissue has to be excised as well.
Soon, people like probligo, Adam, and even Chomsky, Mearsheimer, and Walt, are going to find out what it was like to be a member of the American Nazi Party when the papers started publishing pictures of Auschwitz.
Not only does the left understand distributed warfare, but it actually represents their last, best hope of communist revolution in the US. Islam is their guinea pig, testing to see if the US military can be defeated by distributed warfare. Success would result in them adopting the same tactics here in the US, to overthrow the American government. Failure is unthinkable, but soon it will be obvious, as the public of the US is quickly learning to say “no” when told their government is committing war crimes.
“Diplomacy is an incredible weapon, but it has one weakness: the word ‘no.'”
Tatterdemalian says: Not only does the left understand distributed warfare, but it actually represents their last, best hope of communist revolution in the US. Islam is their guinea pig, testing to see if the US military can be defeated by distributed warfare.
Oooh, so Islamism/Jihadis are actually a “communist plot”? Who would ha’ known it? Say…what about the fact that Khomeini had all the Iranian leftists shot as soon as he came to power?
The Jews in America voted 2 for 1 in favor of Kerry. If there is a Jewish Lobby, it lobbies the Democrat Party. The Republican party has historically been supportive of Israel, for various reasons. Nixon for example gave Israel crucial military support that helped Israel win the war, if not saved them from total collapse. Yet the Jews hated Nixon.
In terms of enemies, Israel’s worse enemies are Jews. Just like the most anti-American people are not Osama Bin Laden, but US Hollywood.
Dave, don’t be anymore obtuse then you have to be. We both have context for Tatterdemalian’s remarks.
He conflates “distributed warfare” with insurgent warfare but that’s OK. I know plenty of American leftists who still talk about “when the People get tired of the capitalist power structure and resort to direct action”. The still dream about being in the vanguard of the Revolution. And lots of them are Volvo driving middle class pillars who’ve never let go of the 60’s dream.
It’s simply amazing what they talk about after a couple of G&T’s when they think everybody within earshot agrees with them. I’m hearing this kind of talk more and more living in my pleasant liberal enclave. Their Fabian gradualism fantasy isn’t working and the Saturday peace marches are about forty hard core freaks pounding drums and tying up traffic for a little while.
The left has never given up on the Dream even though its not talked about in polite society. They have an elaborate set of euphemisms so that they can talk to each other.
The members of Hizbollah are not “insurgents.” Israel pulled their entire army out of Lebanon, and even the UN has given its assurances that they have never returned, until now.
What Hizbollah has been doing since the Israeli pullout is attacking a nation that is not attacking them. That is not the action of “insurgents,” but of invaders.
“Then W.W. II ended. The Jewish people needed a homeland.”
No group has some sort of right to a “homeland”. I am a french/polish/native american. I demand a homeland for the rest of us french/polish/native americans.
First of all when it comes to cease-fires, I’m agin em. A ceasefire is just a timeout from the fighting, called for by the losing party, so that it can lick its wounds and rearm for the next fight. The moslems call them hudnas. They are worthless. If I never see another ceasefire in the global defense against Jihad it’ll be too soon. What we really need are surrenders. Hizb’Allah can surrender. Hamas can surrender.
Now as to why the US supports Israel, it’s because Israel is just like America. It’s a democratic, capitalist society founded by idealists who didn’t want to live under the thumb of some king or priest or dictator. Like the US, Israel is a modernizing force in the world. Those who want to turn back the clock to a time of barbarism, as well as those who want to turn the clock back to an imaginary time of socialist dominance, cannot stand real progress. And that is why the UN is so anti-American, despite being hosted in America, and also why the UN is so anti-Israel and anti-Jew.
We are right. Israel is right. Hizb’Allah is on the wrong side. They are a force of evil, and will burn out on the ash-heap of history along with Al Qaeda and the rest of the Islamic Fascists. Why? Because they must, or else all the rest of us will either be killed or live under their thumb in a world enslaved.
Israel is just like America. It’s a democratic, capitalist society founded by idealists who didn’t want to live under the thumb of some king or priest or dictator
There’s one more interesting similarity — both the US and Israel were built on land that belonged to other people. In the case of USA, it was built on land stolen from native americans. In the case of Israel, on land taken over from Arabs….
My attitude toward Lebanon: Your government and army has terrorists in it. By incorporating terrorist representatives your government gives terrorism official sanction. You are even more brazen than Iran and Syria, who at least officially deny terrorist connections. You elevate terrorist into office and give them rank. No wonder Hezbollah was easily lobbing rockets into Israel. Democratically elected terrorists are no better than other terrorists and no more legitimate for having been elected. Your government needs to fall. Try again, this time without Hezbollah.
To those who wring their hands because a ‘nascent democracy’ in Lebanon could be killed or “Green Revolution” be thwarted by the fighting in Lebanon: Wake up – no government that officially incorporates terrorists can ever be desirable, however much we would all like it to be otherwise.
both the US and Israel were built on land that belonged to other people
All “land” has “belonged to other people,” including without a doubt the “land” where you live.
The confused and self-abnegating “herbivorous carnivore” writes:
There’s one more interesting similarity — both the US and Israel were built on land that belonged to other people. In the case of USA, it was built on land stolen from native americans. In the case of Israel, on land taken over from Arabs.
In the case of Israel, the Arabs stole it from Jews and Christians just like they stole all their other lands from Jews and Christians in the crescent from Egypt to Syria to Iraq. They stole Iran from Zoroastrians, Afghanistan from Buddhists, and had stolen India from the Hindus until the British wrested it from them and gave it back to the indigenous peoples. Back to Israel. It goes without mentioning that God gave all Israel to Abraham’s descendents, the Jews. So the Jews have first (or at least the earliest known) claim to it.
But more importantly, time goes forward not back. Every country now in existence was taken from someone else. Every home is built on property that was at one time taken by force. Yours is. Mine is. The important thing is whether life is better after a conquest or worse. People die in conquests. It’s the nature of them. But those who live, those who are born after, either live better than or worse than their ancestors. The Arabs of Israel are better off than the Arabs who lived there before Israel was finally returned to the Jews to whom it had been so long promised. I sorrow for the aboriginal Americans, Canadians and Mexicans who fought so fiercely for their mystical dreams and died in such great numbers. But I know that their descendants have better lives than they would have had otherwise. They don’t scalp each other anymore. They don’t raid each other to take slaves anymore. They have electricity and casinos and all the modern conveniences, something that the blood-soaked Aztec gods and the Ghost Dance would never have brought them. Life goes on. Scientific inquiry progresses. Those who look to the future wish for something better than what they have now. Those who look to the past wish to restore something that never was and never will be.
Don’t be one of those dummies stuck in the past.
It’s not land that matters, it is the people that live on it. The Left are all too willing to sacrifice toddlers and children to the pyre of their righteously pure “land” centric philosophy. I’m not in favor of blood for land.
Stumbley and co,
MArvellous engineers these Lebanese, huh! They can repair a bombed out motorway bridge in 24 hours!! Here in NZ it would take at least three days for the concrete to set.
Oh, and I would be most interested to know what aircraft Hezbollah might have, and what their capabilities are. That would be the only reason for bombing the crap out of the Beirut airport.
As for cellphone towers, here in NZ we have learned from direct experience that cellphone towers can operate for about three days without power. It is something called “battery back-up”. Now that is science that I have difficulty understanding, but anyone able to repair a motorway bridge in 24 hours could surely handle “battery back-up”.
“That would be the only reason for bombing the crap out of the Beirut airport.”
Well, not really, since Syria and Iran have planes, no?
“cellphone towers can operate for about three days without power. It is something called “battery back-up”.”
Since the conflict has lasted somewhat more than three days, this is a rather idiotic argument, is it not? Again, not a very strategic thinker, are you? Or do you think at all?
Stumbley, do you honestly believe that either of Iran or Syria would be that stupid that they would send aircraft to Beirut? Of course!! In your paranoia anything like that is possible, because that is what Bush would do.
Not heard of solar power cells either, Stumbley? How about back-up power supplies? Not them either, Stumbley? Why do you imagine Israel is also taking the cell phone towers out? Because bombing the crap out of the powerstations didn’t stop the cell phone networks.
Oh, not to mention the tv station. Taking the power stations out didn’t stop tv operating either. Or the neighbourhood butcher and the baker next door. After all, there could be any manner of communication in a loaf of bread, or a string of sausages, huh!!
Rationalise it how you like, Stumbley and the rest of you. This, and Gaza, was not an attempt to stop terrorism.
I am going to wait now to see just how much Israel, and the US as puppetmeister, will put into the kitty for the reconstruction of Gaza and Lebanon. Might salve a few consciences, but far more importantly it might help reduce the numbers in the next generation of terrorists that Israel has guaranteed will be knocking on their doors.
I think it’s pretty funny that probligo thinks Lebanese back-up generators run on solar power. It’s not enough to paint them as pure innocence incarnate; they have to be living in perfect harmony with Mother Gaia, too!
Never mind that they all are supporting Hezbollah. Their innocence is so great that it makes Hezbollah more pure (via “separation” into peaceful and military “wings”) rather than sully the Lebanese pacifist environmentalist virtues.
 
As for cellphone towers, here in NZ we have learned from direct experience that cellphone towers can operate for about three days without power.
Have they learned in NZ how to operate the batteries of bomb-out towers? Really? Probligo in NZ: Hey mates! The cellphone tower is gone! But the batteries still work! Hooray!
Ah, the ignorance. The frantic, knee-jerk search for anything to use to apologize for the terrorists that descends into blind devotion for the terrorists and hatred for Israel(who only wants to exist) and America.
Among Probligo’s group we have the eager believers in the Palestinian staging of phony, so-called ‘Israeli atrocities,” such as the boy, Muhamed al Durah, whose staged, non-existent wounding signaled the latest round of Palestinian idiocy. Don’t worry, Probligo, after all, the batteries still work.
Among Probligo’s group we have complete approval of civilian targeting and the use of civilians as shields by the terrorists and disapproval of Israel, who attempts to warn civilians before taking action, who attempts to limit civilian casualties. But the batteries still work.
Among Probligo’s group we have approval of the killing of civilians by the terrorists when the civilians try to flee the area after warnings by Israel that Israel is about to bomb the area. Yet Probligo’s group will prate about supposed International Law violations by America and Israel. But the batteries still work.
As for the US or Israel putting something in “the kitty for the reconstruction of Gaza and Lebanon” – Lebanon is so corrupt any reconstruction aid would probably end up lining the pockets of terrorists. Lebanon got itself into this war by harboring and elevating terrorists. I’m against even a penny going to Lebanon. It’s time we stop helping those who support terrorism.
 
“Really, what is your affinity for Hezbollah? Hamas?”
None other than a sense of justice. I have the same sense of justice for any people; oppressed, under an occupier, subject to terrorism, bombed out of existence, prevented from earning a living…
“Why the untrammelled support?”
Read what I have said in many fora – there is wrong on both sides, so too is there right on both sides. You do yourself and the people of the Levant no favours by forgetting that.
“Why the tears for the terrorists and none for the terror victims?”
And which do you call the Lebanese? Which do you call the Lebanese Christians? Which do you call the Israeli Christians? I know that you consider the “Israelis” to be the only victims.
Comparison of the civilian casualities will give the measure of your opinion. Comparison of the damage done by Hizbollah in Israel with the damage done in Lebanon will give the measure of who you support.
“Whose puppet are you?”
After conducting a full investigation of the house, my place of work, and my workshop, I have discovered (to my total lack of surprise) that the only person I might call my “puppetmeister” is SWMBO herself. I am putty in her hands. Well, not quite. If that were true I would not be posting this comment, nor probably any of the many others about.
Other than that, I am a free man. Unlike you and many others, I think for myself, rather than accepting without question the lines of political pap and nationalistic propaganda that makes me feel best about myself and my place in the world.
Does that answer your questions?
“As for the US or Israel putting something in “the kitty for the reconstruction of Gaza and Lebanon” – Lebanon is so corrupt any reconstruction aid would probably end up lining the pockets of terrorists. Lebanon got itself into this war by harboring and elevating terrorists. I’m against even a penny going to Lebanon. ”
HHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!
Obviously Grackle has never heard of Halliburton.
Grackle I look forward to my tomorrow with an uplifted head and joy in my heart.
If Hizbollah siphoning aid money is the worst that could happen in Lebanon’s reconstruction then look to where most of the Iraq aid went.
Ah, I will dream well tonight.
THANK YOU GRACKLE!!
“Among Probligo’s group we have the eager believers in the Palestinian staging of phony, so-called ‘Israeli atrocities,” …”
And what do you call the bombing and shooting up of two clearly marked ambulances?
Probligo: If Hizbollah siphoning aid money is the worst that could happen in Lebanon’s reconstruction then look to where most of the Iraq aid went.
I may not fully comprehend Probligo’s point here but it might be useful to point out that US aid to Israel is a matter of public record, aid of which I heartily approve(being anti-terrorist), whereas any aid to Lebanon is sure to surreptitiously aid terrorists – since terrorists are a part of the Lebanese government and army.
I said: Among Probligo’s group we have the eager believers in the Palestinian staging of phony, so-called ‘Israeli atrocities,’ …
Probligo replies: And what do you call the bombing and shooting up of two clearly marked ambulances?
Considering the terrorists’ absolute ruthlessness and willingness to stoop to anything for the benefit of pro-terrorist propaganda hounds like the AP, al Jazeera and the NYT, the terrorists’ past staging of the Mohamed al Dura farce, the absolute disregard for life by the terrorists on the one hand, and the Israelis’ well-known attempts to limit civilian casualties on the other hand, I must consider such an event(if it actually happened – you provide no links) either another staging by the terrorists or a tragic mistake by Israel. The terrorists are creatures that hide among the innocent(and the not so innocent) so that the innocent will die for propaganda effect. Ever since I visited The Second Draft I see things in a different light. The Committee For Accuracy for Middle East Reporting in America and The Middle East Media Research Institute were also a couple more eye-openers. Probligo ought to try them sometime. They might help Probligo correct some of Probligo’s misconceptions.
As for Halliburton, the name seems to be invoked a lot by Bush-haters but proof of any wrongdoing by Halliburton, or Bush or anyone else never seems forthcoming. “Halliburton” as a term serves the same function for Bush-haters as “Satan” served for The Church Lady on Saturday Night Live. For the true believers it explains everything. For those of us who are anti-terrorist it simply serves to highlight the ludicrousness of the pro-terrorists tactics and debate points.
“…or a tragic mistake by Israel ”
Yes, that is how the young serviceman who was pushed forward by the IDF to respond to the media described it.
“A tragic mistake” that on one ambulance put a missile in the rear door. “A tragic mistake” that put a missile smack through the middle of the red cross on the roof, and two tracks of bullet holes either side.
Sounds (and looked on last night’s tv news) like an extremely accurate “mistake”.
Just another tragic mistake
“…or a tragic mistake by Israel ”
Probligo: Yes, that is how the young serviceman who was pushed forward by the IDF to respond to the media described it.
The article Probligo linked to had no quote by any “young serviceman” that I could find. Perhaps Probligo had another article in mind. The article was very interesting, especially the following quote:
“Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending … among women and children,” UN humanitarian affairs chief Jan Egeland said.
I don’t doubt that plenty of civilians and ambulances will be blown up before it’s over. Nasrallah could be tooling around in one at this very moment. I wonder who in Lebanon decided to use the ambulances for transporting terrorists and weapons. Not a very good idea if you care about your people. Especially since the much vaunted Israeli intelligence service would be almost certain to find out. That is, if Israel is actually responsible. The terrorists are very good at staging phony atrocities, as is easily seen with the faked Mohamed al Dura affair. Such is the price of elevating terrorists to positions of power and then standing idly by, either frightened or approving, while terrorists lob rockets into a neighboring country.
“Does that answer your questions?”
Yes, it does. And it tells me that your sense of “justice” is warped indeed.
Sorry, Grackle. I have to use a kinda shorthand here ‘cos of the constraints placed upon me (but apparently not others) by a certain gentleman who takes it upon himself to act as the local postpoliceman. If I don’t run to his interpretation of the rules I get banned. Those rules preclude (among a number of things “the extensive use of cut and paste”.
The comment about the young IDF serviceman came from a tv news item on the topic. IDF serviceman, background scrubby desert. Says “The bombing of the ambulances was a tragic mistake.”
Just like Olmert described (as was quite obvious he would beforehand) the bombing of the UN outpost as “a tragic mistake”. Yep, a four or five storey building on top of a hill with “UN” painted all over it – who could resist!! Like Red Crosses make fantastic target centres.
Now, how do I link to this… report on radio news just now that the UN staff in the building had been in contact with Israel DF command TEN TIMES during the bombardment and were assured that it would stop. Well, I guess that it did – after they bombed the building out of existence.
Let me ask you a question, Probligo. You evidently believe the Israelis purposefully targeted the UN building. What do you think their motives were? Why do you think the Israelis did it?
Probligo sez: The comment about the young IDF serviceman came from a tv news item on the topic. IDF serviceman, background scrubby desert. Says “The bombing of the ambulances was a tragic mistake.”
Probligo provides no links to back up his assertion, no info on tv station, time of the supposed statement by the IDF serviceman. I’m beginning to believe that Probligo is inventing facts to fit his bias.
Clearly marked ambulances mean terroists are using them. That’s why they were shot. If you have a problem with shooting ambulances, you should go tell the terroists to stop using them to ship fighters and arms in.
These republicans that are in control of the U.S. government have established a system of government in which a dictator and a single party have absolute power over the politics,industry, etc. of this country, and seek to stay in power by promoting nationalism,racism, and militarism. They (republicans) have set the stage for their re-election in november by encouraging Israel to invade Lebanon while enriching the captains of industry (military industrial complex) there by filling their campaign bank accounts with all the money they will need to buy TV and Newspaper coverage to once again steal their election in november, but, what the heck it just an old man’s opinion from way down south in Alabama. w.a.p
dumb singaporeans online