A New Thread fot the Current Israel/Palestine/Lebanon mess

A writer on slate.com (not that favorable towards Israel,
generally) stated that for any nation, militias like
Hezbollah are incompatible with sovereignty, or true
democracy for that matter. I tend to agree.

>Yes, if the prisoner exchange occurred, there would be a serious >threat of Hezbollah adopting it as routine technique.

OK, so that seems to rule out the wisdom of Israel conducting
a prisoner exchange, right?

>But I doubt they would start randomly firing rockets at towns.

Wait, weren't they firing rockets before?

>I highly doubt their goal was to ignite an all-out war with Israel-->but that's what they got, and they aren't going to lay down and >quit.

I believe that Hezbollah has always been interested in all-out
war with Israel. Maybe I'm wrong.

Let's not forget Syria and Iran's continuing influence in
Lebanon, or their stated intentions towards Israel. Maybe it's
a mistake to isolate this issue from the larger context.

Maybe if more Americans had agreed, people in Northern Ireland wouldn't have had to live with the Provisional IRA for 30 years

Jessie once more on the money. I was on holidays in lebanon two months ago and I can definitely assure you that apart from people in the Bekaa Valley (ie. Eastern Hezb strongold) and in the southern border area, most people were strongly against Hezbollah and would spontaneously talk about it with a bunch of tourists like us. All the demonstrations I've been to these past few weeks have always been quick to boo any pro-Hezbollah slogans. But, I guess the longer this goes on, and at a period where Lebanon is not ready to assure its sovereign rights/obligations, the Hezbollah will increasingly look like the vietcong of all Lebanese people.

i remain unsure that this was their objective.

I guarantee you that if Israel returned the Shebaa farms and freed the three Lebanese prisoners, Hezbollah would continue to arm and train and talk about fighting Israel. Even Nasrallah says this is also about the Palestinians for him. And with his Iranian backers still talking about the need to destroy the "Zionist regime" - it's unclear whether even a two-state solution would satisfy them, though I think it'd certainly cut off a lot of the fuel for the fire.

Morality aside, extended bombing campaigns work well against nations and governments, and less so against embedded guerillas, militias, and insurgents willing to die for their cause.

If Beirut can't or won't rein in Hezbollah, right now, than
Lebanon is a failed state.

Jessie's OTM about trying to influence Lebanon and marginalize Hezbollah - instead of focusing on encouraging the behavior we want, we only punish the behavior we don't. This works as well with nations as it does with children.

The saddest thing is the lost opportunity. Lebanon stepped up and pushed to end Syrian influence in its country last year. The Bush administration trumpeted this as one of their few victories in the Middle East. Of course, no one followed through on disarming Hezbollah through force or through diplomacy, not the UN, not the US, nobody.

A historical problem in the Middle East has been the Western world looking to nationalism to solve all the problems in an area that doesn't believe in nationalism. Okay, we call Lebanon a failed state. Now what? If anything, the Western powers failed Lebanon. The same mistakes have been made in the Middle East for hundreds of years (at least) - the Western nations cheer on Arabs to stick out their necks when it fits their agenda, then leave them holding the bag when the check comes (excuse the mixed metaphor).

I want someone to tell me

1. Israel's response was totally wrong,
2. they should have responded like THIS instead

Because all i hear is 1.

Maybe you need to browse this thread again...

"The first day, everyone I talked to was furious at Hezbollah. "How can I express my anger?" wrote a Lebanese friend in a mass e-mail blazing with sarcasm. "Maybe by saying bravo to Hizbollah, thank you to Hizbollah. Thank you for ruining the entire season for the poor Lebanese who have been struggling so hard to cover the losses of last year's events... for destroying the tourism industry and infrastructure? for weakening yet again an already weak government and flushing all the hopes of millions of Lebanese down the drain? should I say more?"

But then Israel bombed the airport, and suddenly, surprisingly, I was hearing cautiously approving statements from people who'd always railed against the Shi'ite militia before. These were Christians and secular Muslims, not Hezbollah partisans, but they saved their wrath for Israel and the US. "I am angry, definitely, at the Israelis," said my friend George, who until now had always been adamant that the Party of God should give up its arms, like all the other militias that sprang up during the Lebanese civil war. "They have replied in a very aggressive manner. It shouldn't take this much to get back the two hostages. But what I'm also angry at is the US. They haven't done anything yet. They say that they are the country which helps the underprivileged countries, but they have done nothing to help us."
- Fear and Shopping in Beirut, Annia Ciezadlo
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/fear_shopping_beirut

Israel had a potential ally in Lebanese elements who wanted Hezzbollah out of their country as well, and now they've squandered that, creating just another bunch of people with a beef against Israel. The Syrian army was forced to withdraw from Lebanaon last year after outcry against them from the Lebanese public. Here are a bunch of people doing the hard work to try to turn their country around, and the reward they get is Bush shrugging his shoulders while Israel does the shock and awe number on them.

I read a thinkpiece the other day (can't remember where) saying that if the US had taken a more active role in the Syrian troop withdrawal (instead of standing from afar issuing threats), a Hezzbollah withdrawal or disarmament might have been negotiated simultaneously. Not sure how valid that is, but Bush's "hands off" foreign policy is definitely a factor in how this thing is playing out, and will have ramifications for years.

-- Edward III (ehonaue...), July 17th, 2006.

Or how about this:
Perhaps a bitter battle on the southern border might have goaded the Lebanese government to take stronger action against Hezbollah, or brought more international pressure to bear on the issue. But instead of taking incremental steps to escalate the conflict, Israel went all out with a full-blown war. Was this the wisest course of action?

Ironically, most of the international community (including several Arab nations) initially supported Israel's response to Hezbollah's aggression. Israel could have used this situation to great political advantage; instead it chose to seal off Lebanon and bomb it back to the stone age. That's when the outcry started.

-- Edward III (ehonaue...), July 25th, 2006.

How does a cease fire fit into this? It might last a day or a
year, but how will a cease fire help solve the fundamental
problem of disarming Hezbollah?

A ceasefire is important at this point because the conflict is grinding on without progress on either side. A ceasefire would give both parties a chance to stand down and think things through a little bit. When you're having a fight with someone you live with, do you ever go to different rooms to cool off? Or do you argue and argue until things escalate out of control or until one person collapses from exhaustion?

Perhaps there will be a chance to go back and do what should have been done in the first place (see above), but I fear the diplomatic ground in Lebanon has been poisoned already by Israel's excessive (and counterproductive) use of force.

This wouldn't help -- Hezbollah gets blank cheques from Syria and Iran, so they can continue to prosper no matter what the Lebanese people think of them. Not to mention the other members of the Lebanese govt ... it's not like the rest of the Lebanese govt can vote to disarm them or cut them off from public funding. And like Baaderonix said, plenty of Lebanese people already hate Hezbollah -- why would they care what they Lebanese think about them when two other sovereign nations will support them no matter what?

A ceasefire is important at this point because the conflict is grinding on without progress on either side.

Hezbollah casualties are far greater than the IDF's, Jpost and Haaretz report the numbers daily but of course Hezbollah denies all casualty numbers. This is the advantage you have when you are a non-uniformed militia that never reveals the names and faces of its members (or how many members it has).

Israel supposedly destroyed half of Hezbollah's arsenal in the first few days of the war, I think I read that they're up to around 70% now. Of course, the remaining 30% is still capable of doing a lot of damage. My feeling is that Nasrallah wanted to conserve his remaining arsenal and hold out for the more palatable ground war, so he decreased the frequency of rocket attacks and replaced them with rhetoric and threats. Now that a UN Resolution/possible cease fire is probably a week away, he can exhaust his weaponry, giving the illusion of strength and hope to get saved by the UN bell.

Some things I've been picking up late yesterday and this morning:

—The first of the U.N. resolutions could come Monday, but could be as late as Wednesday, just depending. It will call for a ceasefire, and set the political conditions for a international force. Militarily, the later, the better, of course, since Israel still has work to do against Hezbollah.

—We are working very closely with the French on all this.

—The first U.N. resolution will, of course, be meaningless if Hezbollah doesn't accept the ceasefire, which seems quite possible. (Although I would think the obvious play would be to accept it, claim victory, and live to fight another day.) If Hezbollah keeps shooting, Israel keeps at it too.

—The Israelis say they want 15,000 international troops. A writer in the Wall Street Journal today says it needs to be more like 25,000. But it's shaping up to be more like 9,000-10,000. That's still a lot. The Europeans are being amazingly forthcoming in offering troops (in theory at least). Why anyone would volunteer for this mission is a bit of a mystery to me.

—I don't know why, for instance, Hezbollah wouldn't just start killing or kidnapping the international troops. Apparently the thinking is that Hezbollah isn't al Qaeda, and wants to preserve enough of its respectability not to be utterly cast into the outer darkness by the Europeans and by all the rest of the Lebanese political players. We'll see...

—There are very real fears within the administration that Saniora's government could fall. It's been a balancing act between giving Israel the running room to hit Hezbollah and not fatally destabilizing the government.

—The refugee situation is adding a huge element of volatility into Lebanese politics—besides the fact that the government is seeing its country ravaged by two armies it doesn't control. My undertsanding is that the refugee flow has resembled Katrina in some respects. The more well-do people with some place to go got out first. Now the poorer Shia have been flooding north with no place to go, and that is profoundly unsettling to the other confessional groups.

—The hope within the administration is that the wave of popularity for Hezbollah will wilt away when it's clear that it has been dealt a severe blow, defined as: all the infrastruture and command-and-control it has built up over ten years is destroyed; it can't get back to the border; it is denuded of its heavy arms; it is kept from Syrian/Iranian re-supply.

—At least one pro-Israel hawk in the adminsitration I was talking to this morning very much shares Krauthammer's view that Israel has been given a unique opportunity that it has been blowing. He can't believe that we're three weeks into the war and Israel hasn't made more progress. He thinks they should swept into the Bekaa Valley from the beginning; should have called up more reserves immediately; and need another division to do what they need to do.

—It seems that some of the Israeli bombing in its initial campaign was just to "do something" immediately in the wake of the Hezbollah kidnappings. Yes, some of it had a strategic purpose, as has been noted here—"isolating the battlefield." But some of it was ill-considered.

—The Lebanese military is a joke. They stay in their barracks. They have basically no mobility, letting their equipment rust away. Morale's not great either. As they have lost capability, they have lost confidence too.

—At the end of the day, no matter what they say, the Israelis will probably exchange prisoners with Hezbollah in some form or other.

—If Hezbollah hits Tel Aviv, all bets are off and the political/diplomatic deck gets shuffled again.

Etc.

(in other words, this is why there have been ~ 450 rockets launched in the last two days after a period of relative calm)

(this also highlights the messed-up perception of "victory" in this war ... real wars aren't won once the loser has spent its last bullet. Israel could destroy 99.9% of Hezbollah's weapons, a cease-fire could be declared, and Hezbollah could use its remaining 0.1% and say "hi dere, we still have weapons, we're still strong". Treaties are supposed to prevent this sort of thing at the end of real wars, but there won't be a "peace treaty" to come out of this, that's for sure)

Not to argue against the word "excessive", but again (as was implied a bit upthread), when the world voted on Resolution 1559, how were they expecting Hezbollah to disarm? Did they think it would be bloodless? There's not much incentive for a militia funded by rich Muslim nations that run a semi-autonomous state-within-a-state (that could kick the ass of that state's army and police forces) to lay down its weapons voluntarily.

I would seriously challenge any nation on earth to accomplish this with fewer casualties than we're seeing right now.

It's not what Hezbollah thinks, it's that if they become less popular in their strongholds, people are less likely to help/defend/support them and more likely to help the Lebanese government to catch them. While I can't say either way for Iran, I would be willing to bet that if Hezbollah became decidedly unpopular in all areas of Lebanon, Syria would rethink supporting them--especially if diplomatic pressure were applied.

I think you're missing the point of the whole conflict, namely that the existance of "larger unresolved political issues" = future wars = the killing never stops. I'm all in favour of a cease-fire, multinational force, or whatever -- all of which is better than the status quo (= the whole world hopes that Hezbollah doesn't kill too many Israelis, that the Israelis don't snap and start destroying cities, all while Europe prays that they don't have to get involved and Syria + Iran pretend they're not already involved)

The hope within the administration is that the wave of popularity for Hezbollah will wilt away when it's clear that it has been dealt a severe blow

Are they nuts? Of course, that's who popular opinion always coalesces around in the Arab world, the military victor!

(this also highlights the messed-up perception of "victory" in this war ... real wars aren't won once the loser has spent its last bullet. Israel could destroy 99.9% of Hezbollah's weapons, a cease-fire could be declared, and Hezbollah could use its remaining 0.1% and say "hi dere, we still have weapons, we're still strong". Treaties are supposed to prevent this sort of thing at the end of real wars, but there won't be a "peace treaty" to come out of this, that's for sure)

That's because this isn't a "real war" - there's no nation or government to claim victory over. In the 50s the French dismantled the FLN with much more vicious tactics than the IDF are using on Hezbollah. They ended up winning militarily and losing politically and were forced out of Algeria anyway.

Israel supposedly destroyed half of Hezbollah's arsenal in the first few days of the war, I think I read that they're up to around 70% now.

Not sure if you see this as evidence of "progress". If they've destroyed Hezbollah so badly, why aren't one of the world's top military organizations fishing on the banks of the Litani river after 3 weeks of non-stop no-holds-barred operations? Wasn't the stated military objective "push Hezbollah off of our border?"

The Israelis say they control the southern 6-7 km of Lebanon right now, that's the same buffer zone they had up until 2000. That's "progress", whether you agree with the events in this war or not.

Not to argue against the word "excessive", but again (as was implied a bit upthread), when the world voted on Resolution 1559, how were they expecting Hezbollah to disarm? Did they think it would be bloodless? There's not much incentive for a militia funded by rich Muslim nations that run a semi-autonomous state-within-a-state (that could kick the ass of that state's army and police forces) to lay down its weapons voluntarily.

I would seriously challenge any nation on earth to accomplish this with fewer casualties than we're seeing right now.

I still don't subscribe to the "Israel had no choice" or even "Israel has handled this in the best possible fashion" viewpoints. No, I don't think disarming Hezbollah would be a necessarily bloodless ordeal - however, keep in mind that plenty of people were surprised when the Syrian army withdrew from Lebanon without a shot being fired last year. Many expected a turbulent uphill battle.

And I'll keep repeating this point: Israel missed a huge political opportunity by not taking advantage of the world/Arab/Lebanese support of their initial military actions against Hezbollah. If they had said to the UN and the US, "Look what happened when you didn't enforce the resolution, you've got to help us fix this," while restricting their military campaign to Southern Lebanon, we might've ended up with a much stabler and manageable situation than the current one. Look at the difference between the outcomes of the first Gulf War (consensus building, coalition action, stabilization) and the second (unilateralism, cowboy action, destabilization). If you can't have victory, stability's a pretty good goal.

I don't know about that, starke - obviously there would be outrage, but I think part of what makes the IDF's extant war so unacceptable to many people is the idea that they've gone out of their way to wreck Lebanon as a nation - all the destroyed infrastructure, in particular! It produces even more pictures and accounts of suffering and death and so forth, of course, but it also conveys this general ambience of over-the-top-ness. Even people not already inclined to view the Israeli military with suspicion are getting the idea of "Was all this really necessary?"

Charles Krauthammer says they're not doing it right, and if even he says so, I believe it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080301258.html

Meanwhile, a broader Haaretz piece by Daniel Levy on the neoconservative agenda and Israel, which is sort of what I was ranting about this morning:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746312.html

>Jessie's OTM about trying to influence Lebanon and marginalize >Hezbollah - instead of focusing on encouraging the behavior we
>want, we only punish the behavior we don't.

I just don't understand how any party can marginalize Hezbollah
short of military action. We can talk at them for a decade, but
will that make them return Iran's money and give up their
jihad?

I guess in light of the UN resolution
to disarm Hezbollah and their homicidal activities, I just don't
see the question "should Hezbollah be attacked?" I only see
the question "who's should do the fighting and how should it
be conducted?"

I think our differences of opinion boil down to this: many people
seem to think that, in our efforts to end this crisis, we should
give the opinions of both sides (Israel and Lebanon) equal
credence, and that we should address the grievances of both
sides equally. That would be fair, right?

But I'm not so sure. Maybe we should give Israel a lot more leeway
and be more willing to forgive their sins and mistakes. At the
same time, I think that in fairness we should be much stricter
with Hezbollah (and the Lebanese gvt), and much less willing to
offer them concessions. Why? Because, as you said, we
should reward only good behavior,

And Hezbollah has shown itself to be Bad, with a capital B.
This is not just a political party, people. This is an cruel
organization with a long record of brutality. In that light,
shouldn't any individual who aids or abets Hezbollah be
viewed as a supporter of terrorism or accessory to murder?
Why should we give such people equal weight at a negotiating
table?

What's the problem here? How can we see Hezbollah's
kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers as anything else but a
declaration of war? What more must Hezbollah do to convince
us that they don't want peace with Israel, ever?

I asked, "what would you consider proportional response to the
kidnappings?" It's a sincere question and I wish I could find a firm, non-vague answer.

Instead I get "maybe they should have started small and worked
their way up." If Israel had started small, there still would
have been civilian deaths. Do you really think that Hezbollah
wouldn't have been able to exploit the situation EXACTLY the
same way it's exploiting the current situation? How does
starting smaller change anything?

>I read a thinkpiece the other day (can't remember where) saying that >if the US had taken a more active role in the Syrian troop >withdrawal (instead of standing from afar issuing threats),

What do you mean by "a more active role." Do you mean send
American GI's into Lebanon? Because short of that, I don't
see what else we can do short of issuing threats.

>Not sure how valid that is, but Bush's "hands off" foreign
>policy is definitely a factor in how this thing is playing out,
>and will have ramifications for years.

It's all too easy to demand that the US "step in and stop the
violence." Some seem to be under the impression that if Washington
pulled enough strings they could just make this crisis go away.
It's an understandable wish - but as strong as the US is, it's
not God.

The US did take an active role in Lebanon, long ago. I don't
think anyone wants a repeat of what happened then.

Shakey said:

>(larger unresolved political issues notwithstanding I think
>halting the pointless murder of innocents, even temporarily,
>is an end in itself)

Why didn't we capitulate and negotiate a ceasefire with Japan
after Pearl Harbor? Sure, we'd lose face, but wouldn't we
also have saved millions of lives?

I wish deep in my heart for all murder to be halted, everywhere.
But I believe just as strongly in the right of self-defence.

Hurting, isn't Krauthammer saying that they should have hit Lebanon harder? He wanted the ground invasion to start almost right away, and with Hezbollah operating out of towns in southern Lebanon, surely even more civilians would have died?

As for Levy's piece, that could have been written at any point in the last four years ... still, as much as I don't enjoy the neocon/Israel links, the so-called left is far more misguided on this particular issue.

The United States has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen. It has counted on Israel's ability to do the job. It has been disappointed. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has provided unsteady and uncertain leadership. Foolishly relying on air power alone, he denied his generals the ground offensive they wanted, only to reverse himself later. He has allowed his war cabinet meetings to become fully public through the kind of leaks no serious wartime leadership would ever countenance. Divisive cabinet debates are broadcast to the world, as was Olmert's own complaint that "I'm tired. I didn't sleep at all last night" (Haaretz, July 28). Hardly the stuff to instill Churchillian confidence.

His search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well. That confidence -- and the relationship it reinforces -- is as important to Israel's survival as its own army. The tremulous Olmert seems not to have a clue.

I don't line up with Krauthammer on Mid-East policy, but I agree that the war, as bad as it is in itself, has also been prosecuted badly making things worse for everyone. A ground offensive earlier on might have saved both Lebanese and Israeli civilian lives as well as some of Israel's image. And the "victory on the cheap" barb really echoes one of the most common criticisms of our Iraq strategy.

Interestingly, the same photographer took pictures for Reuters a few days earlier at Qana, which leads me to think that there might be something to those "Qana photos = posed, doctored bullshit" theories ...

CNN tacked on an interesting factoid to this story, apparently just for kicks:

Hezbollah mortars struck the U.N. headquarters at Henniye, Lebanon, wounding three Chinese U.N. peacekeepers, said UNIFIL spokesman Milos Strugar.

I'm sure Kofi Annan will denounce Hezbollah's "deliberate" attack on a UN building. I mean, that's gotta be coming any minute now.

It was really nice of the Israelis to not kill so many Lebanese today, thereby forcing the media to show pictures of Israeli buildings getting destroyed for once.

What was the incentive for Syria's military to leave the country without the use of force last year? They were talked out of the country in a matter of months, not years. I appreciate Hezbollah is a different animal, but being able to say "We exhausted every diplomatic effort and failed" is better than saying "We did nothing and succeeded." Marginalizing can mean, as Jessie indicated, minimizing local support for Hezbollah. Instead of possibly squeezing Hezbollah from two sides (Israeli/UN force from the south, political pressure and popular opinion from the north), Israel choose to alienate any potential alliances by destroying Lebanon's infrastructure, creating a massive refugee crisis, endangering thousands of their allies' civilians and killing a few as well (don't forget several Canadian nationals died in the early days of bombing).

Many in Lebanon would've supported a military outster of Hezbollah prior to the Israeli action - how do you think they feel now? If your answer is "Who cares?" then all I can say is, enjoy your never-ending cycle of escalating violence. If anything, Israel has strengthened Hezbollah's political power.

Instead I get "maybe they should have started small and worked
their way up." If Israel had started small, there still would
have been civilian deaths. Do you really think that Hezbollah
wouldn't have been able to exploit the situation EXACTLY the
same way it's exploiting the current situation? How does
starting smaller change anything?

If you have a patient with cancer in an organ, do you remove the organ, or do you start by smashing the patient in the head with a mallet, saying "This will cut off the flow of blood to the tumor"?

I've said several times that *any* conflict will generate civilian deaths - they can't be avoided, that's a given. What we're talking about are matters of scale. If you think the international outrage over Israel's actions in Lebanon is merely the result of "Hezbollah exploiting the situation" then you obviously don't think what's gone on is abhorrent. Even the pro-Israel voices on this thread have called for more restraint on Israel's part. You seem to make the same mistake Israel is making; completely ignoring the political context and evaluating everything from a military win/lose vantage point. If after 9/11 the US had rained atom bombs on Afghanistan, we could've taken out bin Laden and the Taliban at once. I mean, why not? That would've ensured a decisive victory! (speaking of proportionality, I discovered the entire transcript of The Fog of War is online: http://www.errolmorris.com/film/fow_transcript.html )

In general, you seem to believe negotiation is pointless in this situation, or that international diplomancy doesn't require sitting down and dealing with unsavory characters (when done correctly, it often does). I don't think the US is God, but it is the most powerful country in the world and its diplomatic efforts should be stronger than the "Call me when you're ready to tell me what I want to hear" variety. The Bush administration has severed most of its contacts in the Arab world. Now when something like this happens, channels have to be reopened from scratch instead of contacting people we already have relationships with. War is the failure of diplomacy, and we've rigged this game to ensure the maximum chance of armed conflict.

It was really nice of the Israelis to not kill so many Lebanese today, thereby forcing the media to show pictures of Israeli buildings getting destroyed for once.

Again, issues of scale. A massive bombing campaign targeting civilian centers and infrastructure is going to provide more news fodder (even badly doctored photos - ye gods!) than poorly aimed missles that manage to hit targets every couple of days. The front page of my local paper was dominated by a photo of a blood-soaked wall where 12 Israeli soldiers died yesterday, so there's no lack of grue there. But if you're upset that Israel is being held to a higher standard of military conduct than a quasi-renegade armed milita, I'm not sure what to say.

I hope the subject doesn't come up at dinner with my gf's parents tonight.

-- A-ron Hubbard (Hurtingchie...), August 5th, 2006.

How did the tongue-biting go? I was at a friend's house a couple weeks ago, and his father was claiming George W Bush will go down as one of the greatest presidents in history. I nearly had to sever my tongue that night...

I think what constitutes appropriate "self-defence" is the issue here. But it seems well established that there's no point in arguing with you.

-- A-ron Hubbard (Hurtingchie...), August 5th, 2006.

How did the tongue-biting go? I was at a friend's house a couple weeks ago, and his father was claiming George W Bush will go down as one of the greatest presidents in history. I nearly had to sever my tongue that night...

-- Edward III (ehonaue...), August 7th, 2006.

It wasn't so bad - didn't really come up in conversation much. I guess our upcoming wedding is more on everyone's minds. My gf's parents are also not right-wing nutsos like some of their friends, but they've kind of given up on the peacenik side.

Do you remove the organ, or do you put the patient under,
make an incision and step outside for a coffee break?
"Shouldn't escalate too soon, could get messy."

>War is the failure of diplomacy, and we've rigged this game to >ensure the maximum chance of armed conflict.

Let me ask you a question. At what point, in your mind, is
it appropriate to give up on diplomacy? What will Hezbollah
and the other Islamic radicals have to do? At what point
do we have to say that "they" are using western-style
diplomacy as just one more tool in their radical campaign?

Because it seems to me, some people are under the impression
that it's NEVER too late for diplomacy. I disagree. On a
smaller scale, sometimes you just HAVE to take strong and
unrelenting action against abusive persons; hence our need for
jails and police. When does a nation or group become so
out-of-control that responsible parties have no choice but
to forcibly alter their behavior?

Shakey says:
>But it seems well established that there's no point in
>arguing with you.

Well, there's no point in arguing at all, really. The fact is,
all of my opinions are tentative pending further data.
I've already stated that the creation of Israel was an
aggressive, invasive act, and truly irresponsible. But that's
50 years moot and they have a right to defend themselves.

http://static.flickr.com/82/207283646_f19a907e42.jpg?v=0

Do you remove the organ, or do you put the patient under,
make an incision and step outside for a coffee break?
"Shouldn't escalate too soon, could get messy."

Or do you anesthetize the patient through hypnosis, make your incision, remove the organ and accidentally drop your watch in?

What is the geopolitical equivalent of getting really pissed off every time your care provider fuck's up billing your insurance company? There have been days when I would have loved to go Fallujah on their asses.

To suffer all the consequences of being imperialistic, while acting with all the resolution and consistency and authority of, say, Belgium, is to have failed rather badly. Fortunately, the U.S. has a secret weapon in all this. Iran's Arab neighbors do not relish its bid for regional and nuclear hegemony. Iran's population, to judge from many samplings of its opinion, wants improved relations with the U.S. and not the projection of a dead-handed theocracy through fanatical foreign militias and wasteful nuclear expenditure. Many Lebanese, including many Shiites, are openly resentful of Hezbollah for the impasse into which it has brought them. Democratic and secular forces exist in Syria and are fighting extremism in Iraq. Had the Palestinians been asked (as President Abbas was planning to ask them in a referendum before the Hamas/Hezbollah sabotage) they would very probably have voted to recognize Israel as a negotiating partner.

But what use is being made of this civil and democratic element in the equation? Opinion is curdling, in many instances, into a simple revulsion against the incompetence and cruelty of Israel's highly visible actions. Has Karen Hughes been heard from lately, or at all? Who decided that the president should ignore the eccentric recent letter from Ahmadinejad, and thus miss the chance of addressing the Iranian people over the heads of their self-selected leaders? Whose job is it to consider the whole intricate web of which Tehran constitutes the center? John Wayne, a hero to many "stand tall" conservatives, used to say modestly that he didn't really "act," he just "reacted." That seems a regrettably apt description of the administration over the past three weeks, as it appears to find absolutely everything coming to it as a surprise.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB115456787667625298-lMyQjAxMDE2NTA0MzUwNjM3Wj.html