| Author |
Message |
    
Wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 2953
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 4:26 pm: | 
|
It's already on several blogs too I believe - I assume it occurred and if not it should have:
Even those who aren't particularly sympathetic to Bibi Netanyahu could get a good measure of satisfaction from his interview with the British Television this morning (i.e., Friday, August 11). I guess it can be attributed to his days studying history at Harvard.
The interviewer asked him: "How come so many more Lebanese have been killed in this conflict than Israelis?" (A nasty question if there ever was one!)
Netanyahu: "Are you sure that you want to start asking in that direction?"
Interviewer: (Falling into the trap): “Why not?”
Netanyahu: "Because in World War II more Germans were killed than British and Americans combined, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the war was caused by Germany's aggression. And in response to the German blitz on London, the British wiped out the entire city of Dresden, burning to death more German civilians than the number of people killed in Hiroshima.
“Moreover, I could remind you that in 1944, when the R.A.F. tried to bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen, some of the bombs missed their target and fell on a Danish children's hospital, killing 83 little children.
“Perhaps you have another question?"
I also have my issues with Netanyahu but G-d Bless him and his answers to this ridiculous question. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1404
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 5:31 pm: |
|
Nice post but pretty sad you have to qualify it by saying " you have issues" with Netanyahu, I guess because he is not an acceptable leftist Israeli politician.
Olmert (Kadima) and Peretz(Labor) were more than willing to use Bibi as a spokesman in this recent conflict because he speaks superior english to theirs, is better spoken, and has a superior,western education. Peretz of Labor has none.
Netanyahu to his credit did not seek to distance himself from them and their decisions in handling the war, for political gain as the head of Likud.
Netanyahu served, unlike Olmert, in an elite army unit and his family suffered direct and personal loss in the form of his brother, z"l, who fell in the raid on Entebbe, to free Israelis being held hostage by arab terrorists. His family is well respected in Israel, especially his father's academic achievments, outside of the far left.
IMHO for those American Jews who live here in comfort and security, Netanyahu should not be accorded any disrespect, unless and until they live there and contribute and share in the sacrafice.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5471
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 5:43 pm: |
|
I guess it's not enough to give him credit where credit is due. You have to fall down and kiss the ground he walks on. After all, he's not a liberal. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1413
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 7:11 pm: |
|
tom-
Appropos of your other posts, did you find out there were Jews in the world when you turned 48? |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 716
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 7:26 pm: |
|
Facts,
Per your remark:
Quote:IMHO for those American Jews who live here in comfort and security, Netanyahu should not be accorded any disrespect, unless and until they live there and contribute and share in the sacrafice.
I agree. But respectful disagreement with Netanyahu's views -- even when the respectful disagreement goes as far as condemnation of those views -- is appropriate for any American who chooses to express it, whether they are Jewish or not.
There are as many left-wing war heroes in Israel as right-wing war heroes.
|
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 642
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 1:55 pm: |
|
Good for Paul, but "respectful" rhetoric about Benjamin Netanyahu, who infamously and shamelessly used Nazi imagery in his campaigns against other Israeli politicians and peace proposals, is a gift he hasn't earned.
I'm taken aback that anybody would be cheered by an e-mail justifying the vengeful mass murder of civilians -- which is exactly what the firebombing of Dresden was. As Bibi himself points out, it was an act of pure vengeance and a terror campaign, undertaken in the idiotic belief that it would break the "moreale" of the German civilian population. What defeated the Nazi military machine was killing German soldiers, not burning alive German civilians. The thinking behind Dresden is no different than the thinking that brought down the Twin Towers.
But I guess it's somewhat useful to see how people find blanket rationalizations for the killing of defenseless children. Hitler is reached for as the all-purpose H-bomb to annihilate thought and political dialogue, whether it be about today's war crimes or Mel Gibson.
I suppose pointing out that Hizbullah is not Hitler, and that the democratic state in the Middle East that today is at risk of elimination is not Israel but Lebanon, would just fall on uncomprehending ears.
Anyway, for the record, I find Netanyahu's e-mail and his policies nauseating, and a recipe for disaster for Israelis -- as Yitzhak Rabin bravely warned and paid for it with his life. Rabin's widow blamed Netanyahu for inciting a climate of hate that resulted in her husband's assassination. I wouldn't touch that guy with a 10-foot pole. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7695
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 2:04 pm: |
|
holy stupidity. |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 643
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Perhaps Winston Churchill deserves the final word. Having approved of the firebombing of Dresden, he changed his mind and wrote in 1945:
"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so called 'area-bombing' of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our allies… We must see to it that our attacks do no more harm to ourselves in the long run than they do to the enemy's war effort."
Let me respectfully submit, in case it wasn't already painfully obvious to most people, that Netanyahu is no Churchill. |
Ender
Citizen
Username: Enderw
Post Number: 104
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Kathleen writes:
"Perhaps Winston Churchill deserves the final word. Having approved of the firebombing of Dresden, he changed his mind and wrote in 1945:
"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so called 'area-bombing' of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our allies… We must see to it that our attacks do no more harm to ourselves in the long run than they do to the enemy's war effort." "
Kathleen - that is why the Israeli's drop leaflets on sites where they are going to bomb - and make phone calls to apartments in essence telling the enemy their strategy and giving the bad guys time to escape or strategize - in order to save civilian lives. For them, hitting civilians is a tragedy and something to be avoided, even by putting their own soldiers lives at greater risk. Their enemy, Hezbollah (not the Lebanese), aim for civilians and use civilians as shields. This is assymetry at its best - and will put tens/hundres of millions more civilians at risk over the next few decades. 'Rules of war' (oxymoronic, yes) have made all efforts to avoid civilian casualties. Terrorists don't play by the rules - they desire civilian casualties - stating the obvious - yes, but sometimes people forget who the good guys and bad guys are here.
Above, you point out correctly that Lebanon, another democratic state is at risk more than Israel. I hope you agree that blame for any future demise of Lebanon as a democratic state would fall on Hizbollah, not Israel. Israel has no hostile feelings towards Lebanese people, only towards Hizbollah. Hizbollah wraps themselves around Lebanon, not the other way around. And before you say that the Lebanese people support Hizbollah, remember, they support them when the barrel of the gun is at their head. |
Gordon Agress
Citizen
Username: Odd
Post Number: 507
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 4:16 pm: |
|
Kathleen, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Maplewood's Left is utterly ignorant of history.
Quote:What defeated the Nazi military machine was killing German soldiers
Not so. Wars are won by destruction of national will and / or capability to fight. See Cannae, one of history's earliest lessons, where Carthage destroyed all of Rome's army almost down to the man and still lost the war. Also the destruction of Atlanta by Sherman and Lincoln. Also Islamic jihadists, which seem to think they can win solely by destroying our will to fight (they certainly can't hope to defeat us materially).
Quote:The thinking behind Dresden is no different than the thinking that brought down the Twin Towers.
Obviously wrong, and without knowing anything about Dresden's particulars. The British were fighting a war of national survival against a vicious enemy; they could only hope to win by smashing Germany's will and ability to fight, and had to fear a strategic reversal that would lead to their own destruction. Maybe Dresden wasn't necessary to that effort (and maybe it was), but if so it was almost certainly a mistake in strategic judgment rather than maximized murder for political purposes. Unless you've documentation that the RAF knew the target was strategically useless but still decided to waste scarce munitions for the joy of killing. And I doubt you do, since there isn't anything of the sort in Vonnegut.
Quote:I suppose pointing out that Hizbullah is not Hitler, and that the democratic state in the Middle East that today is at risk of elimination is not Israel but Lebanon, would just fall on uncomprehending ears.
Lebanon's not a yet a state of any kind, or it would be responsible for the murderers encamped in its borders, but let that pass.
What I can't comprehend is why you aren't interested in confronting incipient Hitlers in their 1928 phase when they can be made to stand down or snuffed out, rather than insisting we wait until they reach 1939 proportions when they are big enough to destory us.
One reason to confront the Nasrallahs of the world now is that we can do so now with means short of a Dresden or a Nagasaki. A serious and immediate threat to our survival would call for and justify total war, an environment that calls forth enormous civilian casualties even before controversies like Dresden appear. 200,000 people died in the firebombing of Tokyo, and I don't hear anyone claiming that Japan's national and industrial capital was an inappropriate target. If the jihadists nuke New York or Tel Aviv, the destructive response unleashed will make everyone nostalgic for the limited warfare of Lebanon 2006.
|
Eric Wertheim
Citizen
Username: Bub
Post Number: 248
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 5:19 pm: |
|
Forget WWII, there are more recent examples. U.S. siege of Fallujah - one city - killed 700 civilians. The NATO bombing of Serbia in the 90s to stop Serbia's vicious assault on Muslims killed around 500 civilians. As I recall, some of that bombing was openly coercive, attacking bridges in Belgrade for instance.
War is hell, the death of anyone in same is tragic (including young men) but as wars go, the death toll in Lebanon has not been high, especially considering the guerilla tactics of Hezbollah.
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2986
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 7:49 pm: |
|
Gordon: Kathleen does not represent "Maplewood's Left", whatever that may be, or anyone other than herself. |
Gordon Agress
Citizen
Username: Odd
Post Number: 508
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 8:14 pm: |
|
Quote:U.S. siege of Fallujah - one city - killed 700 civilians.
It's my amateur opinion that in a total war context, objectives like Fallujah would be assigned days rather than weeks on the planning calendar, and the Marines would go through under ungodly air and artillery cover without much regard for precision. They might just reduce the place and then go around it. 700 civilian casualties could be the first day. I'm sure they would try to avoid civilians as much as possible, but if a campaign or a large formation depends on taking that objective, they're going to do whatever it takes.
It's a big reason why I'd like to see these problems resolved long before we get to that point.
|
John Caffrey
Citizen
Username: Jerseyjack
Post Number: 471
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 8:45 pm: |
|
1. Firebombs over Dresden and Tokyo.
2. 50 other Japanese cities were also bombed as stated by McNamara in "Fog of War." He went on to say, if the U.S. had lost the war, American military and civilian leaders would have been tried as war criminals for these actions.
3. Cluster bombs used by Israel in Lebanon, sold by U.S. companies to Israel. These are against the Geneva Convention which is now considered "quaint" by the Bush administration.
"They started it" doesn't necessarily make the response a highly moral one.
How many new terrorists are we making each day in Lebanon and Iraq? In Afganistan, it was called "blowback" by the C.I.A.
Where and when does it stop?
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1418
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 9:28 pm: |
|
It seems the original point of the post has been lost. I guess the gist of my comment to Wendy is if you are admiringly quoting someone, leave it at that. Israelis had put aside partisan and divisive internal politics at the time of this war, so perhaps American Jews should do no less.
Gordon and Ender's excellent posts more than responded to kathleen's by now predictable postings in any thread involving Israel.
|
Wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 2973
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 9:45 pm: |
|
Fvf, part of the criticism of Netanyahu was contained in the original email. Yes I added to it as is my right as a complex human being who does not think in lock-step or vote for the party that on the surface supports Israel more than the Democrats. I can appreciate the response he gave and agree with the absurdity of the question (again showing that Israel is always held to the higher moral standard). I can also state my opinion about him. It's my right, it was my post and I'm doing nothing more than those in Israel do either. Israelis did not put aside partisan and divisive internal politics. They still have those feelings. They are a bit busy now but the collective voices are not all in unison even while under attack, nor will they ever be. |
Gordon Agress
Citizen
Username: Odd
Post Number: 510
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 9:53 pm: |
|
FvF, I'm with Wendy here. Just because Netanyahu is right about this doesn't mean he's right about everything. An intelligent discussion of what you do and don't agree with is going to do a lot to build a useful consensus.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1422
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 10:40 pm: |
|
Wendy & Gordon-
Netanyahu has not been appearing as the head of Likud, nor in a political capacity in his frequent U.S. media appearences on the war in Lebanon. He has been the voice of Israel in its badly needed public relations here in the States at this time. And at the request of the Olmert government.
To comment on him personally or negatively undercuts the collective message he is attempting to convey for Israel and helps those who wish to use any expression of opposition to his politics as a means to help diminish the overall message. Witness kathleen.
Unity in the face of enemies. |
Wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 2979
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 10:44 pm: |
|
Are you saying that if I didn't comment on him that Kathleen wouldn't have responded the way she did? In fact, I felt that, if anything, I somewhat diffused her skewed and off-topic comments. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7699
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 10:55 pm: |
|
Wendy,
FVF has a point. On one hand as a Jew you support Bibi's very important message. However, on the other hand to appease your false belief that you are an American liberal you denounce his politics.
What you need to understand is if you choose Israel you can no longer call yourself a liberal. As an American, choosing Israel and calling yourself a liberal is like choosing high taxes and calling yourself a Conservative..
Howard "who are we to pick sides?" Dean is the face of the liberal left. Is that really how you think? No it's not.
You're a common sense moderate. Welcome to the club.
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5729
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 10:58 pm: |
|
Quote:What you need to understand is if you choose Israel you can no longer call yourself a liberal. As an American, choosing Israel and calling yourself a liberal is like choosing high taxes and calling yourself a Conservative..
If I may be allowed to quote a prolific MOL poster -
"Holy Ignorance" |
Gordon Agress
Citizen
Username: Odd
Post Number: 511
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 11:17 pm: |
|
Quote:To comment on him personally or negatively undercuts the collective message
Or, doing so while affirming the message demonstrates that the message spans a political spectrum.
|
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7700
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 11:21 pm: |
|
Not really. The truth hurts you Nohero because in your heart you know it to be true. The Kathleens and Tulips are prime examples. Both are simply spitting out the talking points from their favorite radical left blogs and those talking points equate Israel with Hitler.
Sorry to rain or your parade.. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5732
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 11:26 pm: |
|
You actually believe that?
Wow, you do have a lot to learn. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7702
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 11:49 pm: |
|
Having trouble coming up with why the filthy anti-semites on MOL are all "liberals" I see...It's not easy defending liberal politics anymore because there's nothing left to defend.. It's just not the way those who refuse to hate think.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12388
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 8:17 am: |
|
Love him or hate him, one way or another, there is a real good chance that Mr. Netanyahu is going to be the next Prime Minister if the current cease fire and peace plan doesn't work. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4686
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 8:34 am: |
|
Bobk,
It will be interesting to see how Olmert survives, or doesn't, the coming wave of criticism. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 880
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 10:50 am: |
|
Dave:
This summary of the mess in Israel is from Americanthinker.com, and should be permitted to be read, in my placid, about peace, opinion.
Another Such Victory
August 14th, 2006
“Another such victory and we are undone.” —Pyrrhus, after the Battle of Asculum (279 B.C.)
You know you’re in trouble when Israel lets you down.
One of the few useful methods of judging the results of a war is whether you are better off at the end than at the beginning. (This may sound pretty straightforward, but in fact it’s not that simple. A historian – whose name I can’t recall – once pointed out that World War II began as an attempt to save Poland from takeover by an aggressive dictatorship. So was the war a success or a failure? Easily answered – if you’re a Pole.)
It’ll be some time before the chips stop falling, but the outline is clear enough: the Hezb’allah War (or the Second Lebanese War or the First Campaign in the Dissolution of the Zionist Entity) is an unmitigated disaster for Israel, the U.S., and the West at large.
This doesn’t mean Hezb’allah has won – though that’s how it will be played throughout the Arab world. It means simply that the only rational goal of the war – the destruction of Hezb’allah as a military power – has not been achieved. Hezb’allah still exists, it still has a large fraction of its weaponry, it remains a threat to both the legitimate Lebanese government and Israel. It also has gained the prestige that comes from fighting a powerful enemy to a standstill.
Israel, on the other hand, has not only been stalemated on the battlefield for the first time, but has also suffered a stunning economic blow, with most of her northern cities emptied out and close to a million refugees to care for. The Israelis blew off the propaganda war completely, allowing themselves to be painted worldwide as child-killers while tossing aside their first-ever expression of sympathy from the major Arab states. Their military has been exposed as a clown act, their political system as completely dysfunctional, unable not only to rise to meet a crisis situation but even to recognize it. Their enemy remains, fully-armed, on their northern border, and their security has become the ward of the UN, that notorious New York-based child prostitution and bribery ring. It didn’t have to be this way. The Israelis opened the war with a series of well-planned air strikes which succeeded in isolating southern Lebanon from resupply or reinforcement. All that remained was a swift attack in force in the customary Israeli style. (It’s one of the ironies of history, not often mentioned, that it was the Israelis who adapted and perfected the German combined-arms strategy known as the blitzkreig, which the Germans in their turn borrowed from the Soviets.) Hezb’allah, a guerilla force of small size—the number of active combat troops is uncertain, with estimates ranging from 1,000 – 6,000—with no real mobility or heavy weaponry, could not have stood up against this.
For the first week to ten days of the war, this appeared to be exactly what the Israelis had in mind. But it never came to pass. Precisely why remains unknown, beyond the fact that Ehud Olmert wanted it that way. The IDF ran into some trouble at the border with mines and fortifications, Hezb’allah having been allowed to work on them for six years undisturbed, but these were little more than a shell and could have easily been pierced by combat engineers. But this was probably no more than a contributing factor.
If asked to speculate, I would point out that the IDF’s chief of staff, Dan Halutz, is an ex-air force commander. Air force officers placed in a position to affect the course of a war have a long history of claiming that their boys can do the entire job on their own with no assistance from ground-pounders (e.g., Goering in 1940, the USAF staff in 1965). What happens then is a series of limited strikes that accomplish little, followed by more and larger strikes, and then desperation raids on any conceivable target before the military settles for doing what it should have done in the first place. This narrative fits the war to a tee. Even down to the fact that, when the time came to throw in the ground forces, it was simply too late. (To give credit where it’s due, the IAF did succeed in destroying most of Hezb’allah’s stock of Iranian Zelzal long-range missiles at the start of the war—apparently one of the few elements of prewar planning that went as foreseen.)
Time was bought by the major Arab states, who were anxious to see the radical Shi’ites bounced even if it was done by Jewish interlopers, and an all-out campaign by the U.S. to keep the UN from interfering. This offered Israel an unprecedented window of opportunity. But Israel wasted that window by consistently playing to Hezb’allah strengths. Ground troops were dribbled into combat in penny packets, becoming bogged down in fortified villages like Bint Jbeil, which should have been bypassed and reduced at a later time. Even after IDF troops were ignominiously ejected from Bint Jbeil, the IDF failed to move in force, leaving the advantage to Hezb’allah. The mass offensive that should have opened the war occurred only at the last possible moment, and then solely to give a jolt to the UN.
In the meantime, the air campaign had fallen victim to a well-planned Hezb’allah PR operation, complete with an impresario, the notorious “Green Helmet” (who insists that he’s simply a civil defense worker doing his job, presumably with his own personal helicopter to fly him from site to site), an apparent stash of ready corpses, and a cadre of news photographers either too enthusiastic or too frightened to protest at being used as propaganda conduits. (The record, as represented by the immortal Adnan Hajj – who has a great future in any Muslim news service if he can only be trained to use Photoshop – and the “Passion of the Toys”, seems to tilt strongly toward “enthusiastic”.)
The trap being prepared, the IAF obligingly fell in, bombing targets to little tactical or strategic purpose – a “Katyusha launcher” can be created with about $20 worth of hardware—though well aware that the Hezb’allah was placing its assets at points where civilian casualties were inevitable. The result was a quick reversal by previously understanding Arab governments, a universal moan by the easily-flummoxed Western elite, and second thoughts by Israel’s allies.
All this time, the Katyushas kept falling on northern Israel in their hundreds and thousands (the total is an astonishing 4,000). Hezb’allah had deliberately modified the warheads for greater terror effects, adding loads of ball bearings and other forms of shrapnel. The missiles effectively cleared out the country’s northern tier, with remaining residents spending most of their days in bomb shelters. This created an image of Israeli helplessness that was both spurious and unnecessary – the original Israeli war plan would have solved that problem within a matter of hours. That image will not be forgotten either in Arab countries or Israel itself.
And now we have a cease-fire, one, mirabile dictu, acceptable to both parties. It seems to envision a muscular UN peacekeeping force on the Lebanese border consisting of 15,000 troops. Presumably these will be actual soldiers instead of the whoremasters and entrepreneurs that customarily operate under the UN name (between Hezb’allah and the Israelis, it appears that brothels wouldn’t have all that much of a future in the area in any case). But with the U.S. embroiled in Iraq and elsewhere and NATO involved in Afghanistan, it’s anybody’s guess where they’ll come from.
The ceasefire also creates a number of interesting possibilities: for instance, if Hezb’allah again starts lobbing Katyushas into Northern Israel, does the UN then turn on Hezb’allah, or do the Israelis attack through the UN forces? (The latest word at publication time is that the Israelis claim the right to do exactly this.) Security Council Resolution 1701 appears to represent good thinking all around. (Condi Rice has taken a lot of flack for her role in arranging the cease-fire. But it has to be remembered that Dr. Rice is the U.S. Secretary of State, with American interests her prime concern. When it became apparent that Israel had fumbled the ball, those interests became paramount. She defended them as required.)
The results of this war will be months in coming, and few will be good (e.g., expect to see a lot more katyushas in Iraq. A lot more.) But the most critical development is this: one of the major elements – perhaps the major element – of Israeli foreign policy is the premise that under no circumstances would Israel be dependent on any other nation for its survival. It could scarcely be any other way, the Jews being the sole existing people that the modern world once attempted to destroy. To depend on anyone else would be to invite a repetition of that ordeal. No greater responsibility lies on the shoulders of any Israeli politician than to see that situation maintained.
But now, thanks to Ehud Olmert, it is over. Israel now depends for its security on the United States and the UN. These are frail reeds. The U.S. has always been faithful, but that can no longer be guaranteed, with the Democrats now being taken over by their maniac wing. That’s unlikely to be permanent, but may continue for several years… and all it takes is one more Jimmy Carter. As for the UN, they have never given a damn and never will. Apart from incompetence, there’s the barely concealed contempt for Israel, bordering on blatant anti-Semitism, plainly evident in Kofi Annan and his people. The organization still believes that Zionism is racism. To depend on its goodwill is to tempt a second Holocaust.
Israel now needs to do three things:
* The first is a purge of the IDF’s command cadre. It’s impossible to say what has gone wrong with the IDF, but that’s just the point. It has gone wrong all the way down the line. Three incidents will suffice: last year the IDF abandoned development of the Northrop THEL system, a laser cannon configured to destroy missiles of the Katyusha class that had performed promisingly in tests. The reasoning was extremely vague. The system was “too bulky”, didn’t work well if it was cloudy, and so forth. If purchased at the time, it would have been coming on line right about now. While not quite a Starship Enterprise phaser bank, the THEL is an impressive weapon that would have curtailed the panic generated by Hezb’allah’s missiles in much the same way that the RAF encouraged the British people while being unable to fully stop the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1940.
Similarly, the IAF failed to procure a reasonable supply of bunker-buster bombs even though aware that Hezb’allah had six years to fortify and tunnel. Again, this would not have completely solved the problem – some Hebollah tunnels were over 120 feet deep – but it’s still a sign of gross unpreparedness, particularly on the part of ex-air force chief Dan Halutz.
Even more troubling are reports that tanks were being ordered into heavily-defended areas of southern Lebanon with no imfantry accompaniment – which is simply asking for them to be blown away. Dealing with enemy anti-tank teams has been a textbook matter since the Normandy breakout in WWII. Infantry assaults the enemy teams, creating a hole for the armor to roar through. If there’s any truth is these stories, it reveals incompetence of a criminal degree. Courts martial should follow.
Whether the problem is political in origin, with officers bowing to interfering officials to protect their careers, cronyism, with inept officers promoted because they served with the right individual or unit, or institutional or doctrinal failings, it has to be exposed and corrected. Israel does not have two military failures coming to it. Strictly speaking, it doesn’t have one. I’m not certain whether the Knesset holds public hearings on issues such as this, but if it does, they ought to begin within weeks.
* Get rid of Ehud Olmert. The man has proven himself incapable beyond recall. Democracies have a tendency to throw up such types in times of crisis before settling on the right man. It happened in Athens, and it happened in America (look up the careers of Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, for example.) Olmert not only failed to understand how to carry out his war, he failed to understand why it was being fought in the first place. According to Israeli sources, Olmert was heard remarking that the purpose of the war was that it would enable Israel to “remove its settlements from Samaria”. This is as if George Bush had concluded that the point of 9/11 was to give Manhattan back to the Indians. Of course the alternative, the suave (and corrupt) media figure and playboy Benjamin Netanyahu is no prize, but at this point Jojo the Dogfaced boy would be an improvement. This is a case where the parliamentary system adapted by Israel is superior to ours: they can get rid of the useless politician.
* Target Hezb’allah for annihilation by any means necessary. This means every last active combatant. These are not Palestinians who can pose as helpless refugees. They are a terrorist organization and every member is, by definition, a criminal. Their treatment needs to be Biblical, with each member serving as a demonstration that no hand can be raised against Israel without the wrath of Yahweh searching him out from that moment on. Make no mistake: Hezb’allah has humiliated Israel. The country – and the Middle East, and the world at large – will not be safe until that stain is wiped out.
As for us – meaning the rest of the world – we’ll be seeing a lot of Sons of Hezb’allah springing up in the near future. Hezb’allah has taken the pennant from Al-Queda, and are now the heroes of the pathological sector of Muslim manhood, who will be doing their best to emulate them all across the Muslim world. And of course, Al-Q will have to make some effort to get the pennant back….
The first phase of the War on Terror has now ended. It could have, and should have, gone better, in a number of ways on a number of fronts. As it is, we can only repeat what Grant said to Sherman, as the two of them stood in the rain the evening after the carnage of Shiloh: “Whip ‘em again tomorrow.”
J.R. Dunn is a frequent contributor.
|
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 719
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 11:13 am: |
|
Joel,
This is an honest appraisal but it suffers from the delusion that the remedy for a flawed strategy is to conduct the flawed strategy on a larger scale.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12390
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 11:13 am: |
|
Joel, the first inteligent posting you have made in weeks. I, for whatever it is worth, agree.
I think that PM Olmert fell into the trap of many democratic leaders. He didn't want to put "the boys" at risk anymore than he had to. Leaders such as this tend to fall prey to the advocates of airpower, simply because it involves many fewer casualties, especially against a country such Lebanon (and Hezbollah) who don't have an air force or a significant anti-aircraft defense.
The estimates that I read of IDF casualties in a Bliezkrieg offensive were between 100 to 200 killed kids. In the end they have lost somewhere in that range without accomplishing anything other than the short range goal of stopping the rockets....for a while.
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1881
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 11:37 am: |
|
Whats really confusing is why are there so many damn spellings for Hezbollah.
Is it Hezbollah, Hizballah, Hizbullah, Hezb’allah, now we have Sons of Hezb’allah.
So I looked it up on the internet and found this:
http://www.cominganarchy.com/archives/2006/07/26/spelling-the-party-of-god/
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4689
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 11:47 am: |
|
As Bobk said, Joel, this is an excellent contribution.
I disagree with the notion that the Democrats will abandon Israel. That is partisan hysteria.
Also, the idea that the rockets were enhanced to make them more effective as terror weapons is a bit of hysteria. Virtually all high-explosive shells are designed to deliver deadly fragments. This dates back to the beginnings of the explosive shell - see Henry Shrapnel. The rockets are terror weapons more because they are inaccurate and, unless fired in enormous volleys, militarily ineffective. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10481
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Democrats won't abandon Israel, but Republicans will allow Israel to engage in counter-productive, experimental warfare. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1950
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Straw,
Don't forget that Bush and many of his ardent, ignorant followers think Jews (and other non-Believers) are going to Hell.
See you there. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12395
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 5:29 pm: |
|
So when is your Town, MSH, going to set up a Eruv to accomodate Rabbe Mendel in the Short Hills Avenue/Jefferson area instead of suing him? 
How about if the Muslims want to open a mosque on your street? That is OK, right.
FvF, get real.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5503
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 5:34 pm: |
|
Quote:Don't forget that Bush and many of his ardent, ignorant followers think Jews (and other non-Believers) are going to Hell.
Yes, but they'll get tax cuts first!! |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1432
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 6:39 pm: |
|
www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1201 |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page