Israel--current Events

Hey Stormeil

That was my point, there is never any point to appeasement of tyrants/bullys

Mikel

Actually, mentioning all those previous territorial conflicts (Golan Heights, West Bank, Palestinian Jerusalem, Gaza, Shebaa Farms, Sinai . . . ) is illuminating. All those wars and occupations had to do with making some kind of security buffer. (Well -- Sinai was a very BIG buffer, and that was more like an outright land grab . . . but it did go back to Egypt under international pressure.)

So what does it take to give Israel a sense of security (which she clearly has lost, big time, at this point -- there are pit-trained Rottweilers in my 'hood with a longer reaction threshold and more moderate responses) when there is such a long history of instability and hostile regimes that do not honor each other's aims and promises all around it? Clearly the US does not make Israel feel secure, and this administration is doggedly affiliated in its intentions, for whatever reasons.
( All sing now: This land is theirs, God gave this land to them. . . )

What has happened this past weekend, and this morning, frightens me more than anything. The IDF is not listening to anyone, even their own Prime Minister. Rice's shuttle is a pointless sad story. The 48 hour cease fire melted like an ice cream cone on a hot sidewalk. I could wish Powell was back in the saddle, if only because both sides might be marginally more inclined to respond to and work with a military man.

Hey Stormeil

That was my point, there is never any point to appeasement of tyrants/bullys

Mikel

Sorry -- it seemed kind of head-on serious, if hard to believe. Should have known.

Just to clarify that we're talking about the same thing, I assume that you're referring to 1967; the "Six Day War"?

I disagree. It's precisely that sort of demagoguery that makes starting wars possible in the first place, and then makes them so difficult to stop.

Perhaps the Palestinians wanted Gaza back because it was theirs in the first place?

The study of history is hindsight. I quite understand your point; I'm not without experience with bullies. I disagree with your premises, and the logical progression from which your conclusions are derived.

By all accounts, that appears to be George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and John Bolton. No argument there.

I don't really think any force involved really matches a Bully mentality, and I think it's dangerous thinking of them as such.

Bullies are at their hearts cowards yes. But usually a bully will back down when presented with a threat.

I am more in mind to think of Zealots than bullies.

As for the sucker punch metaphor...usually when someone gets sucker punched they don't go to the offenders house and blow it sky high.

I have to agree with Mac on this issue. It appears to me as if all sides on this issue are not content with letting people do their own thing. It would be nice if we could all just get along...but unfourtunately I've never known Zealots to really be inclined to let other have their beliefs and them theres. Zealots rarely agree to disagree.

It appears that mentioning the atrocities of Islamic radicals is being viewed as offering Israel an excuse for any action they take. I have to disagree with this assessment, although I'm still interested in a response from anyone who damns Israel......where is your voice day after day when Allah gets the credit for even more violence? It happens practically every day...car bombing, suicide bombing, random shooting. Is the absence of missiles and tanks what makes these attacks less abhorrent?

It's a good question. I think possibly, and in a certain limited way, it is or may be seen as less abhorrent by some. Or maybe abhorrent is not the word. . . But somehow less to be taken seriously. Or maybe -- there's a clearer sense that sanctions can be imposed and action can be taken against the official military action, if only because there's a street address to take the complaint to.

The more or less improvised appearance of the car bomb and the kidnapping/shootings or beheadings or what have you make it possible to conceptualize the perpetrators as a loosely affiliated group of radical hooligans who are making it up as they go, and who don't respond to an official government or represent its policies (at least overtly). (Back when it was little Palestinian kids thowing rocks, it also got them sympathy, because it looked so unequal and under-doggy. That calculated deception for the news cameras is over, anyway.) The idea of crushing volleys of government sponsored missile rounds has a different flavor, because it seems like there is official government intention and massive commitment of expenditure behind it, not to mention dragging in official allies and testing their commitments, and so forth. With the radical groups, you can also maintain the idea that they can be stamped or weeded out, since they are not rooted in official policies. (An unfortunate gardening analogy, if it lulls anyone to believe it. All the crabgrass and dandelions in the world will spontaneously drop dead and disappear before al Qaeda goes away.)

I don't agree with this idea that "unaffiliated" means less significant, or less likely to last. But it is possible that a tightly organized, government-approved strike initiative is going to pull more attention, and garner more coordinated disapproval, simply because there is an overt, fixed and identified administration behind it, with that street address to send emissaries to, and all that. And then too, western allies are typically held to a "higher" or "more civilized" (that is, western) standard. So much of this runs on appearances, it makes me morally queasy to the puking point anyway.

Of course, on the human level, there is no difference at all in the level of abhorrence between a man, woman or child blown to pieces in an improvised insurgent suicide bombing and one crushed to death in a building collapse caused by a government's planned retaliatory missile strike.

I wouldn't say that Arab attacks against Israeli civilians are any less abhorrent than Israeli attacks against Arab civilians; both are clearly war crimes, neither can be justified in a civilized society, and both are beneath the dignity of both Arab and Israeli. However, responding to the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers (kidnapped to try to negotiate the release of some of over 19,000 Lebanese and Palestinians, many previously kidnapped by Israel snatch teams infiltrated into Gaza and Lebanon) by wantonly devastating an entire noncombatant country (Lebanon and Hezbollah are not synonymous) and butchering hundreds of innocent civilians is absolutely inexcusable. Yeah, I wish Hezbollah would quit with the Katyushas, and Hammas with the Qassams. However, I think that it's important to note that out of over 2,000 rockets, Hezbollah have killed a grand total 18 Israeli civilians, and the Palestinians none, with these antiquated weapons which can literally only be pointed south (or north from Gaza, out to 10 km) and elevated for maximum range, while Israel has killed hundreds and hundreds of innocent civilians with the most sophisticated weaponry in the world, which is supposed to be able to minimize such collateral damage. Either the IDF is grossly incompetent (not bloody likely), or they're intentionally killing hundreds of civilians in reprisal, which I find not only unjustifiable, but obscene beyond words...although names, like Lidice, Guernica, Oradour-sur-Glane, and Kortelisy come to mind. This isn't self defense; this is mass murder.

Of course all these acts are horrible. But I suppose that I see these acts as violence perpetrated by terrorists, and I see terrorist actions as the actions of idividuals and not countries. It is horrible whenever a fanatic decides to kill innocents, but then I could come on here every day and decry the horrible events that occur every day all over the world. Where are the voices crying out against men for the rape of women? Where are the voices crying out for those killed by serial killers? To say that someone can't have a voice against the attrocities of war simply because they don't speak out against horrible acts everyday doesn't fly.

I think that the acts of terrorists are horrible, but I don't believe that means we should fight a war against countries they allign themselves with. Just because a crazy agrees with someone doesn't mean that someone should be a target.

I have to ask though, what claim to that land does Israel have? Everything I've read about the rise of Israel pretty much says the Jewish people decided to migrate there one day, then a few years later Britain decided to go ahead and tell them they could have the land (as long as they let the people already there stay). then Britain backed out and let Palestine take care of itself.

Frankly, in light of that, I can't side with either side in this struggle. I don't blame the Arabs for fighting for land that was theirs, but I also don't blame Israel for trying to protect what they have claimed. However, I don't think that Israel has some inherent RIGHT to the land.

They've never been incompetent in the life of that nation, and they are not starting now. But neither do I think it is sheer reprisal as a primary intent. I think there's a third reading, and in a way it's worse: they've dehumanized the meaning of "collateral damage," if possible, even more than we have, and it has been tabled indefinitely as a matter of moral consideration how many civilians have to be lost to get those SOBs to surrender or get out of there. Hiroshima wasn't a reprisal either. It was self-blinding to the civilian cost, so as to forcibly and definitively end it. It is also self-blinding to the cost of what it does to the soldiers carrying out the purging missions, but that's another story.

Couldn't get the quotes to pull out at all this time but no matter

I disagree. It's precisely that sort of demagoguery that makes starting wars possible in the first place, and then makes them so difficult to stop.

You see, I disagree with you too! All this time I thought it was hostage taking and missile launching that makes the wars start and that the name I assigned came after the fact, in fact will not prolong the hostilities even a minute. If you decry actions for one side you should decry for both instead of calling one or the other a justification. However much more logical one will be over the other. (would it make you feel better if I called them "car bombing, missile launching, hostage taking thugs )

Perhaps the Palestinians wanted Gaza back because it was theirs in the first place?

possetion is 9 tenths of the law. Perhaps the British would like to have the Eastern US back for the same reason. (no offense intended to the Brits, just an equally ridiculous example to go with Emmetts ) The israelies took Gaza from them in retaliation .... oh yeah you know how they got it they did not have to give it back, but they did. Do you hate Israel for some reason? You have a very selective memory.... no offense, it just seems that you keep coming up with these obtuse arguments that you have to know don't really wash or are you in sales. (that would explain a lot )


The study of history is hindsight. I quite understand your point; I'm not without experience with bullies. I disagree with your premises, and the logical progression from which your conclusions are derived.

Ditto, for me on you with the qualifier that we can learn from history that appeasement of tyrants etc... is a bad idea. We can not be Monday morning quarterbacks to any success.


By all accounts, that appears to be George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and John Bolton. No argument there.

To a point likely but I know you would like to ignore the kidnappers, missile launchers, car bombers etc....

Bullies are at their hearts cowards yes. But usually a bully will back down when presented with a threat.

I am more in mind to think of Zealots than bullies.

perhaps Zealous bullies. Cowards because they are to impotent to attack the one they are angry with so they find someone weak enough to attack instead. Perhaps short cited bullies. Cowardly in the fact that they only want to attack the weak with no opportunity to defend themselves. Which reminds me of another point, why is it ok for the protagonist in this case to justify their actions over land holdings etc and not ok for Israel to justify their actions based on first blood etc.. Just curious about the paradox of mind set (not saying that you have that either Celtic Coalition just a question. Zealous short sighted bullies perhaps, but definitely cowards.

As for the sucker punch metaphor...usually when someone gets sucker punched they don't go to the offenders house and blow it sky high.

Generally that is true, it just depends on how hard you get punched. In this case responding to a series of high explosive missile delivered sucker punches with in kind explosives delivered by F-15 and tanks etc... does not seem totally out of line. Having seen red in the past as a recipient I can kind of relate to wanting your opponent to suffer, go down and stay down.


I hope this clears things up

Mikel

They've never been incompetent in the life of that nation, and they are not starting now. But neither do I think it is sheer reprisal as a primary intent. I think there's a third reading, and in a way it's worse: they've dehumanized the meaning of "collateral damage," if possible, even more than we have, and it has been tabled indefinitely as a matter of moral consideration how many civilians have to be lost to get those SOBs to surrender or get out of there. Hiroshima wasn't a reprisal either. It was self-blinding to the civilian cost, so as to forcibly and definitively end it. It is also self-blinding to the cost of what it does to the soldiers carrying out the purging missions, but that's another story.

Good Point Stormeil

I couldn't agree with you more

Mikel

Reprisal, collective punishment, or simply what abstractly look like ants when viewed through a high-tech bombsight from 10,000 feet, regardless of the "primary intent", it's unequivocally a crime against humanity.

Reprisal, collective punishment, or simply what abstractly look like ants when viewed through a high-tech bombsight from 10,000 feet, regardless of the "primary intent", it's unequivocally a crime against humanity.

I couldn't disagree with you more Emmett

and I'm certainly not hating

Mikel

I'm not disagreeing with that in any way. Call it my occupational hazard -- I think the way an offender is thinking, or has anaesthetized his thinking, has something to do with the methods you take toward heading him off (assuming you can communicate at all -- and aren't we pinning some hope on negotiation?). And I think there is a difference between intentional vengeance and whatever you call this robotic destruction. You see a gross inequity of force and casualties. So do I -- but I also see a nation that is a crucial ally in the region that seems to have lost both its mind and its soul, but not its trigger finger. I'm scared s***less by it, but I'm also grieving, and not only for the casualties. I believe it is much harder to pull back from this collective mental state than from plain, clearheaded reprisal.