All Hank, all the time.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I reject the notion that the victim of attacks needs to respond with what you call "proportion". Israel does not have to limit its actions to "you kidnapped one person, so we'll kidnap one" or "you killed one, so we'll kill one." No more than I think the US should have limited operations in Afghanistan to killing 3000 people or knocking down a few buildings -- after all, that's "all" they did to us.

Sorry, Sid, but you know this is a cop out. No one is saying that the response should be exactly equal. After 9/11, we did not nuke the entire middle east. Nor did we invade the homeland of the majority of the hijackers. Why not? Wouldn't it have been "very heavy and painful retaliation?" We didn't do it becaue it would have been unjust, disproportionate, and probably counterproductive.

I would argue that endangering the lives of thousands of civilians (even if they sympathize with your enemy) and taking out a democratically elected government over a single kidnapped soldier is similarly unjust, disproportionate and probably counterproductive.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
.

I would argue that .......

just FYI- this writing style is poor advocacy. We all know that everything here is opinion and argument. To highlight it in this manner only lessens what impact there might otherwise be from the argument to follow.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
just FYI- this writing style is poor advocacy. We all know that everything here is opinion and argument. To highlight it in this manner only lessens what impact there might otherwise be from the argument to follow.

Clearly you have not read the argument to follow...

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
just FYI- this writing style is poor advocacy

This use of "just FYI" is redundant. We all know that everything you say is designed to impart information to the other, hapless posters here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
1. Calling Hezbollah a political party is a little misleading, since the political parties in Lebanon are based on religion. Hezbollah is more like a state within a state.

Now not sure what I said is any less misleading, BTW. My point: Shi'as are a third or more of Lebanon's population, and Hezbollah is their government/political party/militia/etc.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Posted by Greg Djejerian:

A reader, David Weinstein, sends in a note he wrote to Charles Krauthammer responding to his latest op-ed today.

• Dear Mr. Krauthammer:
  
  In 2005, Lebanon held an election. Hizbullah and Amal formed a common voting bloc entitled the Resistance and Development Bloc. It won all 23 seats in the south, on a platform that opposed the disarmament of Hizbullah. I am not happy about this development, and am no fan of hizbullah, but there it is. I have seen no evidence (by you or otherwise) - or even seen it asserted - that the election does not accurately reflect sentiments among the Shia in southern Lebanon.
  
  Under these circumstances, please tell me what it means to "defang" Hizbullah? What can it mean to "liberate" the south, "expel the occupier" and "give it back to the Lebanese" when 1) the local population supports the "occupier" (which is made up of local residents) and hates the proposed liberator; and 2) the proposed liberator has already sought to "liberate" the area once before, in 1982, which led to the present antagonism, and the creation of Hizbullah in the first place?
  
  And one small little matter: How will this Hizbullah-sympathetic population react to an Israeli invasion? And what should we do about these people? Are they to be eradicated too? And if not, how do you propose to make the distinction (in Israel's air or ground campaign) between the Hizbullah "occupier" who sits in the living room with an AK-47, and his cousin in the kitchen? Do any of Israel's previous efforts at the same goal, from 1982 through 2000, give you any reason to believe this is possible?
  
  There once was a time when foreign policy conservatives were the voice of realism, and their opponents (myself included) indulged in too much naivete. No longer. This latest piece is simply crazy. To quote George Will (in a slightly different context), it is "so untethered from reality as to defy caricature." One would think that Israel's efforts at the same goal in 1982-85, 1993, 1996, etc. would have dissuaded you about the ease of this task. But, then again, perhaps Israel did not possess sufficient "will" back then. Or, perhaps, not enough pixie dust.

Don't hold your breath for a coherent response David, as Charles has been suffering the vapors for some time now....

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Bombing probably does create some converts. It also may create some pressure or desire to have Hezbollah not operate from a particular area. For the last several years, supporting Hezbollah has been painless.

But this wasn't really my point. I wasn't trying to compare the recruiting benefits of bombing and assassination. I was pointing out that targetted assassinations, even if possible, are difficult, expensive, risky, and time-consuming, and they don't bring any commensurate benefit to Israel. And, I fundamentally disagree with the view that Israel can damage Hezbollah as easily with assassinations as it can with bombing.

I agree with you, but I've seen some very wrenching stories in the past couple of days -- complete with interviews and pictures -- of civilian Lebanese families (multiple generations) getting blown up in missile attacks as they were trying to evacuate North out of the combat areas -- driving along with white flags on the roofs of their cars. [I'm thinking in particular of one WaPo story today.]

Bad stuff. Makes me wonder what in the Hell Israel hopes to accomplish with that kind of targeting. I would assume that these vehicles were "targets of opportunity" seized upon by aircraft flying around above. Maybe just mistakes, but I wonder what orders/RoE they are operating under.

Seemingly random attacks on civilian targets are terrible for Israel's image [not that they care much], but also really bad for the soul, self-image and identity of the nation.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
1. Calling Hezbollah a political party is a little misleading, since the political parties in Lebanon are based on religion. Hezbollah is more like a state within a state.

You are correct that Hezbollah is more than just a political party -- but they run candidates in Lebanese national elections and hold seats in their Parliament.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
3. I understand the logic of bombing Lebanese civilians to pressure them to see Hezbollah differently. I don't think it's a whole lot different from attacking civilian populations with other kinds of bombs to pressure them to, e.g., support a withdrawal from Northern Ireland or Iraq, etc. It might work, but it seems wrong.

I agree. I suspect that, caught up in that kind of conflict (which we are not, really), Israel has decided that the moral calculus has changed, and that survival must take precedence over conventional morality (which they will try to accomodate to the extent they can).

It seems to me that it is open to debate whether this will actually help Isreal in the long term, but they have clearly decided to seize on the opportunity/excuse provided by Hezbollah to try to radically change the conditions on the ground. This conflict is about so much more than the kidnapped soldiers, that the concept of "proportional response" makes no sense.

S_A_M

[Adder]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I suspect that, caught up in that kind of conflict (which we are not, really), Israel has decided that the moral calculus has changed, and that survival must take precedence over conventional morality (which they will try to accomodate to the extent they can).

I am sure you are right. But I just don't see a threat to Israel's survival at the start of the current hostilities.

It seems to me that it is open to debate whether this will actually help Isreal in the long term, but they have clearly decided to seize on the opportunity/excuse provided by Hezbollah to try to radically change the conditions on the ground. This conflict is about so much more than the kidnapped soldiers, that the concept of "proportional response" makes no sense.

Okay, so, in other words, you seem to be saying that you think that there is a military solution to the conflict in the Middle East. I am more than a bit surprised that you would think so.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Posted by Greg Djejerian:

Krauthammer is but one example of the current Neocon Batshit Crazy Patrol. It's fun, though a little scary, to watch them tear their President a new asshole because he hasn't shown enough willpower to simply nuke Damascus and Tehran because of Hezbollah's aggression. After all, those ICBMs aren't doing us any good just sitting in their silos, right?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Krauthammer is but one example of the current Neocon Batshit Crazy Patrol. It's fun, though a little scary, to watch them tear their President a new asshole because he hasn't shown enough willpower to simply nuke Damascus and Tehran because of Hezbollah's aggression. After all, those ICBMs aren't doing us any good just sitting in their silos, right?

To their credit, most neo-cons seem to think that the use of nuclear weapons would not be proportionate.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Adder
I am sure you are right. But I just don't see a threat to Israel's survival at the start of the current hostilities.

It was not so threatened -- at least by anything Hezbollah did. As Dr. Breszinski pointed out in an NPR interview I heard this morning, Israel has not faced any kind of real conventional threat to its survival since its peace accord with Egypt in the late 1970s.

The unconventional warfare is very problematic for them -- and Arab nuclear progams _could_ threaten Israel's existence -- but that 's not what we are talking about.

Originally posted by Adder
Okay, so, in other words, you seem to be saying that you think that there is a military solution to the conflict in the Middle East. I am more than a bit surprised that you would think so.

No. That is not what I said. What I was saying is that Israel seems to think that there is a combined military/political solution to Hezbollah and, perhaps, its wider conflict.

I also think that Israel probably thinks the first step is this kind of military action, with the goals of both substantially degrading the enemies' offensive capabilities and trying to convince Arab governments that the conflict isn't worth it anymore.

In the current context where Islamic radicals threaten (or are seen to threaten) the continuing existence of these Arab regimes, Israel's policy of escalation (which will mobilize and radicalize the populations) has a chance to get the Arabs to pull back and try to restrain or cripple Hamas and Hezbollah. I think Israel figures that it can't get much worse for Israel -- it can't be more hated or more threatened. Therefore, Israel has decided to show how they can make it worse for the Arab countries, if they want to keep this going.

Iran is a huge fly in this ointment, however.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
the current Neocon Batshit Crazy Patrol.

I have a membership card that says that. This isn't to just you but everyone that is criticizing Israel's actions:

1) I agree that the bombing of purely civilian targets is not a good idea (if that happened - with this stuff it is always hard to know what was intentional - or just a mistake, what was faked and what really happened)

2) The bombing of Lebanon will just piss off the entire Lebanese population and make them all hate Israel and sympathies with Hezbollah. In other words Israel’s action will make the entire Lebanese population hate Israel even more.

3) These actions may destablize the current moderate government so it is replaced by a more radical government. And if the moderate government stays it will definitely be more hostile to Israel.

4) But isn't the first priority of the Israeli government is to protect its citizens? How else is it going to stop the bombing of Northern Israel and the kidnapping of its soldiers without massive retaliation?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky

4) But isn't the first priority of the Israeli government is to protect its citizens? How else is it going to stop the bombing of Northern Israel and the kidnapping of its soldiers without massive retaliation?

Perhaps by not invading Gaza in the first place?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have a membership card that says that. This isn't to just you but everyone that is criticizing Israel's actions:

1) I agree that the bombing of purely civilian targets is not a good idea (if that happened - with this stuff it is always hard to know what was intentional - or just a mistake, what was faked and what really happened)

2) The bombing of Lebanon will just piss off the entire Lebanese population and make them all hate Israel and sympathies with Hezbollah. In other words Israel’s action will make the entire Lebanese population hate Israel even more.

3) These actions may destablize the current moderate government so it is replaced by a more radical government. And if the moderate government stays it will definitely be more hostile to Israel.

4) But isn't the first priority of the Israeli government is to protect its citizens? How else is it going to stop the bombing of Northern Israel and the kidnapping of its soldiers without massive retaliation?

Perhaps a silly question, but anyhoo...does the Arab hatred of Israel and Jews predate the establishment of the Israeli state? Is the basis of the fundie Muslim objections that this is holy ground, such that any group who occupied that land would be now hated (e.g., Mennonites, Yankee fans, African-American Muslims)? Or would they still hate Jews (perhaps slightly less) even if the state of Israel did not exist, or existed outside of the old Caliphate?

I'm trying to figure out how much of this conflict is historical (as in pre-1948) and how much of it has to do with (rightly or not) the perceptions of injuries inflicted upon Muslims in the half century since then.