All Hank, all the time.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I don't think that there is a clear cut answer. I am not arguing for thought crimes. I believe that regardless of the state of war or peace, large portions of the population of the ME will remain anti-semitic. Not unlike how large portions of the South remained racist after the civil war or anti-semitism in W. Europe after WWII. Truly changing mindsets in that region will take generations beyond our lifetimes.

Going beyond just hateful thought (which, however does breed attitudes, actions and behaviours based on the thought), I am not saying any pure civilian DESERVES to die. NO CHILD does. they are the one true absolutely universally innocent victim. What I am saying is that large parts of the civilian population give aid, shelter, comfort and political support to Hezbollah and their Syrian sponsors because of their hatred of Israel and desire to destroy the same. Over time, a lot of time. 20-30 years they have ceded the autonomous nature of their country to Syria and Hezbollah. At some point there has to be responsibility for what you have done or passively allowed to be done in your name. Are the masses of refugees coming out and decrying Hezbollah or Syria. Is their blame spread all around? What would these same innocent cilivilans be saying if the battle went the other way and Hezbollah moved into large parts of Israel and Syria moved into the Golan? I think that in part speaks to their neutrality and innocence.

You sound like Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, blaming the Russians for going meekly like sheep when the KGB knocked at the door, or like those who don't necessarily deny the Holocaust, but blame the Jews for not rising up against the guards and storming the walls of the camps.

I agree that the problem calls for a significant military component if it is to be solved. However, I don't really think you can say that the Lebanese children deserve to die because some people who live in their villages shoot rockets that kill Jewish children.

I will submit, once again, that neither Israel nor the Arabs have proven themselves capable of solving the crisis. Withdrawal from the Gaza doesn't count for shit when they use it as an excuse to wall off the area, split up families, and send in the tanks and helicopters under the guise of "maintaining security."

Israel goes into Gaza to kill members of Hamas. They don't particularly care how many civilians get killed in the process. Two soldier get kidnapped and taken over the Lebanese border, and Israel softens up the countryside with a couple weeks of bombing, then sends in the troops.

Israel needs to be there. Israel needs to be safe. But Israel will never be safe until there is a Palestine that is also safe. They can't do it on their own. Sidd and Club have scoffed at this notion, but the only way this problem will be solved is if we go in and take it all, then make both sides go stand in opposite corners while we separate out the troublemakers.

It will take decades. It will be incredibly expensive. So what. Britain and France created the problem, just as they did in so very many parts of the world. Maybe we should bill them for the clean up. But we either live (or die) with the conflict or we solve it.

We need to find a rational way to divide the territory. We need to help create infrastructure. We need to adminster schools and hospitals, build kibbutzes, and shelter families so that they have hope for their children. We need to maintain order with just enough force that legitimate debate can take place without degenerating into war.

If we succeed there, then maybe we can try to do the same thing at home.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was unclear. My point was, a war with Syria is a bad idea because it would topple the current regime and what would come next would probably be worse.

Given the chronic problems over the last 60 years how much worse is worse?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Nukes are one thing. These rockets are another. Double, triple or quadruple the damage they've done, and Israel is still "functioning" -- with nowhere near the damage it's done to Lebanon.

That's nuts. Israel is a relative democracy, willing to live in peace. You asserting that is not big deal to their survival if they have an enemy force on every border, including tens of thousands of missles, some of which periodically get fired on their cities. They should have to "function" like that? Why not just give the Arabs free reign and arms to drive them into the sea, it would be more efficient.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was thinking about diplomacy on our part, not Israel's. Though your points are well taken, esp. about the Golan. If I were an Israel prime minister, I would not want Syrian troops in the Golan. Could I live with a Syrian flag flying over a demilitarized, UN-occupied Golan? Dunno.

The chances of that happening, and of it having any real effect, are basically zero. (And that would be true even if the Bush Doctrine had not rendered the US incapable of accomplishing anything in the UN.

As for diplomacy on our part, what would the US offer Syria? Even leaving aside the practical reality of how the Bush Doctrine has alienated most of the world, Syria is not a country with which the US has any negotiating leverage. And if ever Assad were tempted to let the US buy him off, he would only have to think about Sadat, and about the radical Shiite power that will emerge (if anything cohesive emerges) to the east, and he'll be un-tempted fast.

Surely you understand that Israel's continued occupation of a portion of an Arab country is a festering sore in the eyes of Arabs.

Surely you understand that the number of Arabs who want Israel destroyed, and who would change their minds if Israel pulled out of Golan, approaches zero.

And don't call me Shirley.

I'm not sure what this means. With all of Hezbollah's rockets, Israel is functioning. I think Penske meant something else.

Take the cruise missile Hezbollah launched at an Israeli ship. Multiply the quantity by a few hundred. You want to live in the target zone?

I give up -- what?

Gee, let's wait and see. I'll bet "military power that can do serious damage, and that is far too dug in to be dug out with anything short of a massive invasion that kills tens of thousands."

You'll bet "peace-loving group of guys who, after Israel gave up Golan, finally realized that the nation deserved to exist."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
We can agree to disagree, I think that there is a difference between "deserve" as in they deserve to die and asserting that there are consequences for their behaviour, passive and active. Death is the most extreme consequence. It's also the most indiscriminate. Which is unfortunate. What is also unfortunate is that in the last 25 years, Syria and portions of the Lebanese people (including leaders of certain powerful factions) and Iran have declined the possibilities to seek out long term peaceful strategies for their region and the more produtive governance of their lands. Now, that 25 years of making a choice to acquire and stockpile better and more arms, and create and foster larger, more aggressive and better armed paramilitary/terrorist groups within their borders, all for the singular purpose of aggressive action towards Israel, there are some consequences coming to bear.

Yes, there are. The point I was making with the original post is that the consequences aren't going to benefit anyone, in the main. Specifically, many of those consequences are being borne by Lebanese who did not do the things you describe.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Given the chronic problems over the last 60 years how much worse is worse?

The current leadership is rationally interested in its own preservation. E.g., they arm Hezbollah, but do not attack Israel themselves. Radical Islamists would be worse.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Yeah, tell that to the people he has killed, imprisoned and oppressed in the last decade. I am sure it will be plenty of cold comfort for them.

But isn't it kind of their fault for allowing him to stay in power?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You sound like Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, blaming the Russians for going meekly like sheep when the KGB knocked at the door, or like those who don't necessarily deny the Holocaust, but blame the Jews for not rising up against the guards and storming the walls of the camps.

When the majority of the populaces of the ME over a significant number of years manifest and continue to manifest the expression, through words and actions, of the desire that Israel should be eradicated, then I think they have to take responsibility for the actions that come out of that expression.

Again, I did not say any iinocent civilians, or civilains generally deserve to die. Nor am I advocating that Israel just killl all the lebanese, syrians et al indisriminatetly. I am saying that to date, I generally think that their prosecution of this military action is reasonable and justifed.

I am not in favour of us going in there. I don't think it will work and I think that the Arab nations needs to come to accommodation with Israel on their own. We can't force it on them and I wuld rather spend the money on our citizens, eg education for one. In the interim, until certain Arab nations can act responsibily, Israel has to defend itself and its borders. Which it is doing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
That's nuts. Israel is a relative democracy, willing to live in peace. You asserting that is not big deal to their survival if they have an enemy force on every border, including tens of thousands of missles, some of which periodically get fired on their cities. They should have to "function" like that? Why not just give the Arabs free reign and arms to drive them into the sea, it would be more efficient.

I didn't say it was a great situation, I said it was not an existential threat to Israel. And so far you haven't offered a solution either. If the current war was going to solve anything, then we could take about its costs and benefits, but Israel is creating ill will generally and unifying the Arab world (despite Sunni and Shi'a tensions), but at the end of the day we're going to have a (more) hostile Lebanon north of Israel. And a lot more dead people.

Hence my crack about the Kobayashi Maru.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
But isn't it kind of their fault for allowing him to stay in power?

The Soviets stacked the deck.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes, there are. The point I was making with the original post is that the consequences aren't going to benefit anyone, in the main. Specifically, many of those consequences are being borne by Lebanese who did not do the things you describe.

Living in blissful ignorance of the problem on the theory that Israel is invicible ultimately is hubris. I think there is a benefit and Israel will be more secure. For the time being.

As for the lebanese, half of their country is a terrorist camp. somehow it happened and to some extent the local populace allowed. As a means to the end of being more secure from/destroying israel.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The current leadership is rationally interested in its own preservation. E.g., they arm Hezbollah, but do not attack Israel themselves. Radical Islamists would be worse.

Right. Syria is radical islamist free and not doing business with Iran on this one. Got it.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I didn't say it was a great situation, I said it was not an existential threat to Israel. And so far you haven't offered a solution either. If the current war was going to solve anything, then we could take about its costs and benefits, but Israel is creating ill will generally and unifying the Arab world (despite Sunni and Shi'a tensions), but at the end of the day we're going to have a (more) hostile Lebanon north of Israel. And a lot more dead people.

Hence my crack about the Kobayashi Maru.

I think the current action will make Israel more secure and Hezbollah weaker in the near term. My solution might be for Israel to keep going until Hezbollah is destroyed I am not sure how you measure that but I am sure the Israeli militaru could tell me and I trust them. and then turn Lebanon over to the UN with an express warning to Syria that Damascus is the next target unless it keeps its hands off lebanon.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am not advocating killing as many civilians as possible. I am fine with Israel destroying as much of the infrastructure, military and non-military as it thinks it needs to do impact on Hezbolah's ability to operate. At this point the innocent civilians should be evacuating.

See, here's the problem.

* Israel drops flyers saying "Get the Fuck Out."

* Some people leave, most stay. (As to why at least some stay, think about why people stay home in the face of hurricanes.)

* Israel bombs the shit out of Beirut's infrastructure, kills more people.

* Israel drops more flyers saying "No, really, Get the Fuck Out."

* Israel bombs every piece of infrastructure in Lebanon.

* People think about leaving but there's no infrastructure to get them the fuck out. Some people try to leave on the roads, and they get bombed. Reports suggest that those remaining in the territory are fucking terrified.

* You're left with the choice of leaving everything you have, trying to traverse bombed-out roads and, evidence suggests, getting bombed there, and heading to some place you've never been before, probably to live in a converted school or a tent or something for many months. Or you can stay home and try to tough it out.

* So, for making that choice, those who stay home die. And are told that because they lived among Lebanese who thought bad things, and failed to leave over the bombed out roads, they are less than an "innocent civilian," and share some intangible degree of culpability.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Israel needs to be there. Israel needs to be safe. But Israel will never be safe until there is a Palestine that is also safe. They can't do it on their own. Sidd and Club have scoffed at this notion, but the only way this problem will be solved is if we go in and take it all, then make both sides go stand in opposite corners while we separate out the troublemakers.

I will continue to scoff at this notion. Leave aside that the US military is already overextended. Leave aside that our current nation-building efforts are not going so well.

Do you think Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. would not be as happy to kill American soldiers as they are to kill Israelis? And do you think that American soldiers will not kill as many civilians in retaliation?

OTOH, for awhile there we seemed to be uniting the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis in their hatred for us. Maybe forcing ourselves into Israel would do the same thing?