tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post115357720411651017..comments2024-03-17T10:32:01.495+02:00Comments on From the Rock: Highlanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16532761296990891687noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153953393423597772006-07-27T01:36:00.000+03:002006-07-27T01:36:00.000+03:00I find it interesting how, in every other circumst...I find it interesting how, in every other circumstance, the United Nations will pull its peacekeepers out of the area when things get hot. Here, they insist that the peacekeepers remain around even though Hezbollah has been using UN positions to target Israelis.<BR/><BR/>More on the UN-Hezbollah alliance:<BR/>http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005611.htm<BR/><BR/>Of course, I expect ridicuous charges from the Café Annan when he hasn't a shred of evidence in front of him. Annan was the first SecGen of the UN to meet with Hezbollah (a militia that isn't even supposed to exist accoring to UN resolution 1559) and who feels the need to exercise "partiality" between Hezbollah and Israel when the murder/kidnapping of Israeli soldiers that was abetted by UN peacekeepers and covered up by the UN, including Annan himself.<BR/><BR/>Again, we are talking about the SecGen of the UN exercising partiality between an illegal terrorist organization that is not supposed to exist according to a UN resolution and a legitimate member-state of the UN.<BR/><BR/>Annan is a terrorist sympathizer. That is the only thing I can conclude.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153949373581194502006-07-27T00:29:00.000+03:002006-07-27T00:29:00.000+03:00I haven't been reading BP or SM much the last coup...I haven't been reading BP or SM much the last couple weeks (due to all the hostility flying around), but I'll go check out the "action" and see what they are talking about, NBA.programmer craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566950406349754166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153935802790805032006-07-26T20:43:00.000+03:002006-07-26T20:43:00.000+03:00NBA, that's a very big charge for Koffee Annan to ...NBA, that's a very big charge for Koffee Annan to be making based on the anecdotal evidence which is all he has access to at this time. <BR/><BR/>I don't know what the UN troops are doing there (still) do you? There's no peace for them to be monitoring. And any international force that eventually comes into Lebanon will most likely NOT be UN Peacekeepers, but rather a NATO force or some other coalition of countries which volunteer for that duty. A force that actually DOES have the necessary mandate to disarm Hezbollah, and the authority to do so at gunpoint if necessary.<BR/><BR/>Peronally, I think it's insane to send peacekeepres into Lebanon. Hezbollah killed 241 US peacekeepres and 56 French peacekeepers in 1983. Hezbollah kidnapped and murdered UN peacekeepers in the 1980s. Recently, UN peavekpeepers have been implicated (but not charged!!) in assisting Hezbollah in attacks on fatal attacks on Israeli troops. Lebanon is not a candidate for peacekeeping missions. No good can come of it. But it's not my call.programmer craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566950406349754166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153908367390250912006-07-26T13:06:00.000+03:002006-07-26T13:06:00.000+03:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153901485994233492006-07-26T11:11:00.000+03:002006-07-26T11:11:00.000+03:00Adam,Evangelical groups do some lobbying via group...Adam,<BR/><BR/>Evangelical groups do some lobbying via groups such as the Christian Coalition. However, it is important to note that the evangelicals have a wide range of goals besides supporting Israel on their agenda, such as the abortion issue, gay rights, etc. While they support Israel in a general sense, I don't think they directly lobby for particular initiatives on behalf of Israel. Evangelical support of Israel is mostly moral in nature.<BR/>There is also some support of certain pro-Israeli activities by evangelical Christians of a private financial nature, though this is less significant. For instance, some evangelical Christian organizations assist impoverished, often elderly, Jews from Russia and eastern Europe make the aliyah to Israel.<BR/><BR/><I>If this is intentional, it is as much of a war crime as Hizbollah exploding the US Marines barracks in 1983.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, if it was intentional, then it would be a war crime. However, I highly doubt it was intentional. The United Nations seems determined to make an ass out of itself. Three pieces worth reading on the United Nations in Lebanon:<BR/><BR/>http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=1968#more-1968<BR/>http://ace.mu.nu/archives/187339.php<BR/>http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21771_UN_Repairing_Roads_for_Hizballah&onlyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153896221901170642006-07-26T09:43:00.000+03:002006-07-26T09:43:00.000+03:00Tommy & LW,LW has spoken loads about the Jewish Lo...Tommy & LW,<BR/><BR/>LW has spoken loads about the Jewish Lobby. But what do you guys say about the Christian (Evangelical) Lobby,? If there is such a thing, I'm keen to hear...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153890798515994242006-07-26T08:13:00.000+03:002006-07-26T08:13:00.000+03:00Adam,It wouldn't surprise me if evangelicals were ...Adam,<BR/><BR/>It wouldn't surprise me if evangelicals were more supportive of Israel than the general population. I don't see many evangelicals taking the Palestinian side, that is for sure.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if liberal denominations, like the Unitarians, were more pro-Palestinian than average Americans.<BR/><BR/>Libyan Warrior,<BR/><BR/>I think some young Americans might be confused about who exactly the president is. I know I sometimes am. I get the impression occasionally that Cheney is more the president than Bush is.<BR/><BR/>I'm generally a conservative, but I'll be the first to admit that Bush isn't the brightest guy in politics by any means.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153868801330990542006-07-26T02:06:00.000+03:002006-07-26T02:06:00.000+03:00Tommy,The truth is that most Americans don't have ...Tommy,<BR/><BR/><I>The truth is that most Americans don't have particularly strong opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict one way or the other.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes I was under the same impression, and may have blogged so but in somewhat different words...<BR/><BR/>U mention polls on the American-Jewish opinion on Issies/Pallies. I was always under the impression that the US Evangelicals were far more avid suppers of Israel than the Jewish. Is this so? I also saw some documentary (BBC?) that stated that the Evangelicals are pretty influential despite their few numbers. 3% I read above, well at least that is a bit of relief!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153867526111673242006-07-26T01:45:00.000+03:002006-07-26T01:45:00.000+03:00The assertion that "just neocons, Jews, and evange...The assertion that "just neocons, Jews, and evangelicals" support Israel is patently wrong on several grounds.<BR/><BR/>First, several opinion polls have shown that Jewish opinion on Israel is not, in fact, substantially different than the general American population.<BR/><BR/>Second, as has already been pointed out by <I>non-blogging</I>, virtually every presidential administration has supported Israel. This extends to the mainstream of the Democratic party.<BR/><BR/>By contrast, stauch support for Palestinians prevails only among Muslims and the hard (often Marxist) left.<BR/><BR/>The truth is that most Americans don't have particularly strong opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict one way or the other. Most Americans are not news junkies (like many of us, including myself are) and don't have a very deep knowledge of the conflict. The average American has his or her own interests and concerns, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a low priority in most people's minds. The fact that they are now running news specials on CNN introducing the American public to Hezbollah shows you how little most Americans know or care about the conflict. <BR/><BR/>I think many Arabs have the false impression that most Americans are as passionate about the issue as they are, but are on the opposite side of the debate. This simply isn't true. To the extent that most Americans are familiar with the problem, they have written the whole affair off as an unresolvable difficulty that isn't their concern. In their minds, the Israelis and the Palestinians (and the Arabs, as well) are just two groups of people who don't get along and will probably never get along. Oh well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153863250635010172006-07-26T00:34:00.000+03:002006-07-26T00:34:00.000+03:00NBA,PLO, on the other hand, clearly has American v...NBA,<BR/><BR/><I>PLO, on the other hand, clearly has American victims.</I><BR/><BR/>I was unable to load that article. If what you say is true, so much the more reason to condemn Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.<BR/><BR/><I>Although Highlander disagrees, the world holds Libya responsible for the West Berlin disco bombing in the 1980s.</I><BR/><BR/>Q paid for that. He paid a high price.<BR/><BR/>Hezbollah has never paid any price whatsoever to Americans, for American dead. And Hezbollah is responsible for orders of magnitude more terrorism that Q ever was.<BR/> <BR/><I>Even Musharraf of Pakistan turned from a dangerous guy with nuclear weapons to an ally against terrorism after 9/11.</I><BR/><BR/>We aren't at war with dangerous guys. We're at war with terrorists. Musharif is an ally in that war. Without him, Pakistan becomes a terror state. And a nuclear armed one, at that. You do realize what US pre-emption in Pakistan would look like, right?<BR/><BR/><I>I repeat, I'm not saying this will happen but I wouldn't be too surprised to see the realities change how improbable they look today.</I><BR/><BR/>They already have changed. That's what I'm trying to point out. You're pointing to the 30 year period of history in which the US insisted on treating Terrorists as if they were just criminals.<BR/><BR/>That's how we got to where we are, today. We aren't going back to that. That thinking would be our deaths (and yours too, by the way) and we do not intend to die. Regardless of what YOU do.<BR/><BR/><I>Send me a bottle of good Californian wine if the US ever negotiates openly with Hizbollah ;-)</I><BR/><BR/>Some Hezbollah Abu Idiot bigshot just got popped in Lebanon today. I'd rather send you a bottle of wine in celebration of that :P<BR/><BR/><I>Only time will tell and even then historians will disagree.</I><BR/><BR/>Most assuredly. I'm amazed to hear all the various theories about how Europeans defeated the Soviet Union, these days :D<BR/><BR/>I don't really disagree with much of what you said. As usual. <BR/><BR/>I personally never forgave President Reagan for letting the deaths of my friends go unanswered in 1983. And I was (and still am) a big fan of Reagan. He was wrong, then. If he'd gone full bore after Hezbollah in 1983 and 1984, things wouldn't be as they are right now.<BR/><BR/>Even Osama used Hezbollah's "victory" over the US in 1983 as a recruiting tool. It shopuld have never happened. And it can never happen again. Terrorsist cannot ever be allowed to "win" no matter how marginal such claims are. They have to always lose, and be seen to lose. In a big splashy way.programmer craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566950406349754166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153862347916987472006-07-26T00:19:00.000+03:002006-07-26T00:19:00.000+03:00NB my man! And U2 a contemporary! This fits nicely...NB my man! And U2 a contemporary! <BR/><BR/>This fits nicely with what I have wanted to say for some time but you just opened this sub-subject now:<BR/><BR/><I><B>My point was - and this is not a critique of US policy but global hypocrisy - that when political realities set in, terrorists are not called that anymore but statesmen or at least better than their alternatives and groups not formerly labelled as terrorists get that stamp.</B></I><BR/><BR/>Pretty much my opinion, and I really do dislike it when somebody calls me of anti-American because I do not consider myself one. <I>”ah-gee-I-wonder-who-that-could-be-since-I-am-the-only-American-here” </I> Sorry man I just couldn’t resist it :) <BR/><BR/>Get this now: I am anti-suffering. I am anti-cynical. And if I see bigger suffering I use bigger words.<BR/><BR/>This for example is cynical:<I> “Our brave friends the French! They speak wise words against the war-mongers. True defenders of unsheltered humans!”</I> Yeah Right! And they are not like looking at their domestic opinion polls eh? <BR/><BR/><I>“And the Russians! Putin the proud leader! Speaking up against the oil-robbing imperialistic attackers!”</I> Yeah Right Even More! Nothing to do with lost Russian geo-political influence? Sure.<BR/><BR/>That list is endless. So, now back: In Lebanon 2000, when Israel withdrew. I think the French were one of the loudest proponents of aiding Lebanon in defending its territory. They spoke a lot. Did they <I>do</I> a lot? Nope. <BR/><BR/>This is the sad fact. 2000 and on Lebanon would have needed a lot of support do defend its territory from HB and other uninvited military elements. The UN failed, but I believe, and want to believe, that UN could have succeeded if they had sent something more than a feather-weight force! . <BR/><BR/>The EU also failed. They went ho hum without agreeing on anything, they probably couldn’t even agree on the name of the operation. <BR/><BR/>As a European I find it very complex to decide if I want a powerful single EU-army or not, but Lebanon sure could have used some help from one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153856260075299822006-07-25T22:37:00.000+03:002006-07-25T22:37:00.000+03:00NBA, don't agree with you about what Hezbollah wan...NBA, don't agree with you about what Hezbollah wants. I don't think Hezbollah cares about Israel/Palestine in the slightest. I think it's just an excuse. Hezbollah wants whatever Iran wants. Iran wants a colony on the Mediterranean. Iran also wants the Great Satan to be destooyed. The IRI has always wanted that, and has always worked towards that.<BR/><BR/>In short, Hezbollah wants the same thing that Al Qaeda wants, though for different reasons. They wants global islamic hegemony. Negotiating with such is negotiating yourself into slavery or forced conversion, NBA.<BR/><BR/><I>Craig, you have any comment on this? I'm not a conspiracy theorist claiming IDF is intentionally not discovering their brothers in arms to hit their enemies harder but I'm surprised they haven't brought their soldiers back alive so far.</I><BR/><BR/>The US has a missing soldier in Iraq - missing for over two years now. The US has only had a few successes in locating hostages in Iraq, out of thousands of hostages taken. The US never successfully found and of the American hostages in Lebanon in the 1980s.<BR/><BR/>It's not that easy to find people, when the communities involved are sheltering the hostage takers. Same thing happened in France with that Jewish man who was tortured to death for over a week. The neighbors knew he was there, and knew he was being tortured. Nobody reported it.programmer craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566950406349754166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153855578635402382006-07-25T22:26:00.000+03:002006-07-25T22:26:00.000+03:00NBA, I missed one of you statements :)My own viewp...NBA, I missed one of you statements :)<BR/><BR/><I>My own viewpoint is that if there are important groups of people too uncritical of Israel outside that country, they are easiest found in parts of the US administration, and among many Jews and Evangelical Christians and that's more or less it.</I><BR/><BR/>Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrats in the US House of Representatives, just issued a statement condemning Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki for criticizing Israel. She's Italian, I think, and no friend of the Bush Administration :)<BR/><BR/>Hillary Clinton has been more pro-Israel in her statemenst the last 2 weeks than Bush.<BR/><BR/>And Bill Clinton offerred to go and die in the trenches defending Israel, if necessary.<BR/><BR/>The Clintons are anglo-saxons. And, obviously, they are both democrats. And no friends of Bush.<BR/><BR/>Just neocons, Evangelicals and Jews supporting Israel in the US? <BR/><BR/>I don't think so! How many Americans have you seen on blogs that don't support Israel? And no, I'm not talking about LibyanWarrior as I consider him to be an enemy infiltrator :)<BR/><BR/>I know, I know. I only say that because I'm a anglo-saxon jewish fundamentalist christian right-wing zionist redneck.<BR/><BR/>Of all the things that have been said about me, it's the "fundamentalist Christian" charge that surprises me the most, as most fundamentalists consider me to be a heretic :Pprogrammer craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566950406349754166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153854474868322812006-07-25T22:07:00.000+03:002006-07-25T22:07:00.000+03:00Hi NBA,So you're not one, just a racist Anglo-Saxo...Hi NBA,<BR/><BR/><I>So you're not one, just a racist Anglo-Saxon brainwashed by Zionists LOL?</I><BR/><BR/>No, I was brainwashed by the PLO and the Iranians, in the 1970s, when I was a child :)<BR/><BR/><I>it should be an indication sincere discussion is over.</I><BR/><BR/>There is no "sincere discussion" with terrorists and their supporters. I keep hearing diplomats say there's no military solution to terrorism. To me, it seems rather the opposite. The history of the last 30 years indicates there is no diplomatic solution to terrorism. The first serious attempt to deal with terrorism by military means is now underway, and there is no evidence that it will not succeed.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, diplomacy has been tried 1000 times in the last 30 years. Diplomats are 0 for 1000, as far as I can tell.<BR/><BR/><I>Mandela and Arafat have both earlier been labelled terrorísts but have later been recived in the White House.</I><BR/><BR/>Did either of them ever kill Americans? <BR/><BR/>In any case, there has been a change in reality since 9/11. The US can and will destroy Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. We HATE terrorists over here, now. Believe it, because it's true.<BR/><BR/><I>that when political realities set in, terrorists are not called that anymore but statesmen or at least better than their alternatives and groups not formerly labelled as terrorists get that stamp.</I><BR/><BR/>You're talking about past diplomatic approaches, which have utterly FAILED. That's not on the table, anymore. The US will no longer pursue those failed polices. Not if I have anything to say about it. <BR/><BR/>Did you see the US buckling to the "international community" on the issue of HAMAS? And HAMAS hasn't even killed any americans. How do you think we are going to deal with Hezbollah, NBA?<BR/><BR/>Are you surprised teh US is not pushing for a ceasfire in Lebanon? I am not. The destruction of Hezbollah is critical to America's interests, in this war on terrorism. If teh Israeli's don't get it done, America will have to, at some point.<BR/><BR/>Keep waiting for AMerica to back off from that position. I suspect you'll still be waiting when the last surviving member of Hezbollah dies.<BR/><BR/><I>I wouldn't be surprised if Hamas and Hizbollah one day were legitimate negotiating partners of the US and EU and even Israel.</I><BR/><BR/>HAMAS and HEzbollah are not the same. HAMAS is not an international terrorist group. Hezbollah is. HAMAS is ni not a proxy of Iran. Hezbollah is. HAMAS has not committed crimes against Americans. Hezbollah has murdered hundreds of Americans.<BR/><BR/>Any US President who trie dto "engage" Hezbollah diplomatically would be impeached.<BR/><BR/><I>I'm not saying they should be, just claiming changing political realities might lead to that. </I><BR/><BR/>The political reality is that voters in America want terrorists to be killed.<BR/><BR/>See which politicians have the nerve to go against that.<BR/><BR/><I>The world has seen bigger turns of the tide.</I><BR/><BR/>America is not the world. As you have pointed out, before. A nobel peace prize and $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee. Arafat and Carter are the proof. And that raging hatemonger who won the prize last year, whatever the fuck his name is.<BR/><BR/>NBA, I like you, but I don't think you're seeing things as they are, when you look at America. We do intend to win the war on terror. Mixed feelings about Iraq notwithstanding. Iraq was a neocon brainstorm which I never agreed with, because Iraq was not part of the war on terror prior to 2003, in my opinion. Though it is NOW.<BR/><BR/>But you won't find many Americans who are ready to play kissy face with terrorists. We're pretty pathological about terrorism at this point in time. And not in any mood to negotiate with people we want to see dead.programmer craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566950406349754166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153848929597612972006-07-25T20:35:00.000+03:002006-07-25T20:35:00.000+03:00Alan !After all why are hezbollah still aroundthat...Alan !<BR/><BR/><B>After all why are hezbollah still around</B><BR/>that is a pretty good question, I’ve been wondering the same. We can all see that the UN peacekeepers in the region failed grandly to keep the south of Lebanon clean. And forgive me for being blunt but: did they fail because the <I>UN</I> sucked or because the <I>UN mandate</I> sucked? <BR/><BR/>I really would like to know. If I were to speculate I would say that another mandate would have been necessary, that they were not given sufficient authority and fire-power.<BR/><BR/>Opinion Highlander? Anyone ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153848677179298152006-07-25T20:31:00.000+03:002006-07-25T20:31:00.000+03:00As I see all the destruction, a question keeps pop...As I see all the destruction, a question keeps popping up: If the so called strategy of scientifically humane “surgical bombing” recently was so efficient against the “world’s fourth largest armed forces” (counting what? rivets??) then why is such a strategy not mentioned today? <BR/><BR/>Are the Katyushas invisible to satellites? Eh?? Perhaps they are firing from <I>underneath</I> the bridges. Or are all of them hidden in dense residential areas?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153840331802437132006-07-25T18:12:00.000+03:002006-07-25T18:12:00.000+03:00AdamI read that article, i did have some interesti...Adam<BR/><BR/>I read that article, i did have some interesting points, however the IRA and ETA, although terrorists did avoid civilian targets, although not always. Also they had grivances that could be solved or negotiated with.<BR/><BR/>However that approach is not likely to work with groups like al qaeda or Hezbollah who have extreme demands like the abolition of Isreal, which cant be met and who deliberately target civilians as targets.<BR/><BR/>After all why are hezbollah still around, when isreal had left lebannon years ago, before the current conflict, if their grievance was isreal presence in lebannon<BR/><BR/>highlander what is your opinion on thisAKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12306523414105146490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153817529635504652006-07-25T11:52:00.000+03:002006-07-25T11:52:00.000+03:00Sod my opinion Craig. Forget it. Please ignore my ...Sod my opinion Craig. Forget it. Please ignore my opinion. My personal opinion is very insignificant. Really.<BR/><BR/>The opinion expressed in that NYT article is important. For example: <BR/><BR/><I>"Yet in retrospect, the softer approach gave London and Madrid the moral high ground"</I><BR/><BR/>What do you say about that Maya?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153814141755052172006-07-25T10:55:00.000+03:002006-07-25T10:55:00.000+03:00In such a polarized conflict, I doubt that neutral...<I>In such a polarized conflict, I doubt that neutrality exists.</I><BR/><BR/>Polarized conflict? You feel "polarized" by Hezbollah terror attacks on Americans and other foreigners? And you are on the opposite side of the conflict as the United States.<BR/><BR/>To hell with that. Please stop directing things at me. We have nothing to discuss. Attack some other American. Or bicker with Europeans. I don't give a damn. I don't want to talk about this with you. Fourth time I've asked, now. I find your positions personally repugnant. I might be willing to discuss it with you anyway, if you ever bothered to correct yourself when you get caught in factual errors, but you don't. You just continue with the attacks.<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't engage an arab who used those tactics, but at least I'd understand the hostilty, coming from an arab. I do NOT understand it coming from you, Adam. Keep it to yourself, or vent it on somebody who cares.<BR/><BR/>And yes, I'm aware you didn't write "Craig" on your comment, but since it's obvious who you meant this for (it was another hatchet job on the US and I'm the only American particpating here) that's just another example of you using cheap tactics.programmer craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566950406349754166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153809663648226792006-07-25T09:41:00.000+03:002006-07-25T09:41:00.000+03:00In my previous post I may have antagonized people ...In my previous post I may have antagonized people from both camps. I never said I am neutral. In such a polarized conflict, I doubt that neutrality exists. That by the way, does not make me a Hezbollah supporter. I think that negotiations have worked, and can work in The Lebanon. Here is an article from the New York Times. It is an excellent read.<BR/><BR/>Thoughts on this, anyone?<BR/><BR/><B>Spanish Lessons for Israel </B><BR/>By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF<BR/>Published: July 23, 2006<BR/><BR/>In 1982, many friends of Israel vigorously supported its invasion of Lebanon, arguing that it was only assuring its own security.<BR/><BR/>In retrospect, though, that assault undermined the long-term security of Israel. The invasion spawned Hezbollah, whose perceived success in driving Israel out of Lebanon encouraged Hamas and other Palestinian groups to adopt more violent tactics. <BR/><BR/>Today again, Israel believes that it is improving its long-term security by attacking Lebanon. And once again, I believe, that will prove counterproductive.<BR/><BR/>Israel is likely to kill enough Lebanese to outrage the world, increase anti-Israeli and anti-American attitudes, nurture a new generation of anti-Israeli guerrillas, and help hard-liners throughout the region and beyond. (Sudan’s cynical rulers, for example, will manipulate Arab outrage to gain cover to continue their genocide in Darfur.) But Israel is unlikely to kill more terrorists than it creates.<BR/><BR/>More broadly, one reason this bombardment — like the invasion in 1982 — is against Israel’s own long-term interest has to do with the way terrorism is likely to change over the next couple of decades. <BR/><BR/>In the past, terror attacks spilled blood and spread fear, but they did not challenge the survival of Israel itself. At some point, though, militant groups will recruit teams of scientists and give them a couple of years and a $300,000 research budget, and the result will be attacks with nerve gas, anthrax, or “dirty bombs” that render areas uninhabitable for years. <BR/><BR/>All this suggests that the only way for Israel to achieve security is to reach a final peace agreement, involving the establishment of a Palestinian state (because states can be deterred more easily than independent groups like Hamas). Such an agreement is not feasible now, but it might be five or 15 years from now. Israel’s self-interest lies in doing everything it can to make such a deal more likely — not in using force in ways that strengthen militants and make an agreement less likely. <BR/><BR/>It’s certainly true that if America were raided by a terror group next door, we would respond just as Israel has. When Pancho Villa attacked a New Mexico town in 1916, we sent troops into Mexico. But that expedition was a failure (just as our invasion of Iraq has been, at least so far).<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, there are two democracies that endured constant and brutal terrorism and eventually defeated it. Neither Spain nor Britain was in a situation quite like Israel’s (Palestinian terrorists have been more brutal in attacking civilians), but they still offer useful lessons. And both the Northern Ireland and Basque problems were often considered insoluble a couple of decades ago, perhaps even more than those in the Middle East today.<BR/><BR/>Spain could have responded to terror attacks by sending troops into the Basque country, or by bombing the sanctuaries that ETA guerrillas used just across the border in France. (France was blasé about being used as a terrorist base.) Instead, Spain gave autonomy to the Basque country and restrained itself through gritted teeth, over the objections of those who thought this was appeasement.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, Britain endured constant bombings by the I.R.A., which enjoyed support in both Ireland and the U.S. and obtained weapons and Semtex plastic explosive from Libya. <BR/>Yet Margaret Thatcher didn’t bomb Dublin (or Boston), nor even the offices of the I.R.A.’s political wing in Northern Ireland. When she saw that Britain’s harsh tactics were strengthening support for the I.R.A., the Iron Lady moderated her approach and negotiated the landmark Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985. At the time, that agreement was widely denounced as rewarding terrorists and showing weakness.<BR/><BR/>Frankly, neither British nor Spanish restraint was a huge or immediate success. Spain had hoped that democracy would end Basque terrorism; instead, it increased. And Mrs. Thatcher acknowledges in her memoirs that her results were “disappointing.”<BR/><BR/>Yet in retrospect, the softer approach gave London and Madrid the moral high ground and slowly — far too slowly — isolated terrorists and made a negotiated outcome more feasible. That’s why Britain and Spain are today peaceful, against all odds.<BR/><BR/>That admirable restraint should be the model for Israel, with the aim of making a comprehensive peace agreement more likely — in 2010 or 2020 if not in 2007. The record of Spain and Britain suggests that restraint and conciliation can seem maddeningly ineffective — but they are still the last, best hope for peace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153806443739657352006-07-25T08:47:00.000+03:002006-07-25T08:47:00.000+03:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153795658534614802006-07-25T05:47:00.000+03:002006-07-25T05:47:00.000+03:00How does that make me a partisan?Your words make y...<I>How does that make me a partisan?</I><BR/><BR/>Your words make you a partisan. As you clearly are. I am also a partisan. And my country is at war. Yours is not.<BR/><BR/><I>Israel would need to concede at the negotiating table. I am convinced that a deal could be cut between Israel, The Lebanon, Hezbollah and NATO.</I><BR/><BR/>That would not satisfy me. And it would not satisfy my country. It is not one of our objectives to "negotiate" with murdering terrorists. You go negotiate with them as much as you like. Have fun with that.<BR/><BR/><I> Many people regard the Hezbollah as animals, but I am sure, they love their brothers too.</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps their brothers will mourn them when they are dead. You don't really expect me to feel pity, for murderers, do you?<BR/><BR/>You keep repeating the same statements and demanding that I answer differently than I have before. My statements have been perfectly clear. Hezbollah is my enemy, personally. And Hezbollah is an enemy of my country. If you support Hezbollah, you are supporting my enemies. America's enemies. That's all there is to say.<BR/><BR/>Adam, please don't address any more comments to me. I have nothing to discuss with you. This is the third time I've asked.programmer craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566950406349754166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153790924067260432006-07-25T04:28:00.000+03:002006-07-25T04:28:00.000+03:00Adam,And Craig, I gotta ask you, wtf is this about...Adam,<BR/><BR/><I>And Craig, I gotta ask you, wtf is this about the UN?<BR/>“they have HELPED Hezbollah kidnap and murder Israelis soldiers”</I><BR/><BR/>Why not research it yourself? It's pretty well documented. I'm off to eat dinner right now, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to check on this yourself and offer up an opinion on it, rather than accepting my sources. It happened some years ago, the last tiem Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah. The Un covered it up for over a year. <BR/><BR/>I'll comment on this and the rest later :)programmer craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566950406349754166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153785798217889032006-07-25T03:03:00.000+03:002006-07-25T03:03:00.000+03:00Craig!Thank you for asking, those are fully valid ...Craig!<BR/><BR/>Thank you for asking, those are fully valid questions. And I might add, even the dark sarcasms coming through your gritted teeth are valid, considering the amount of sarcasm I have previously expelled. <BR/><BR/>I did intend to elaborate but sometimes The Blogosphere gets very much like The Matrix: dark and cramped. I just HAD to get out, SEE THE SKY, get some fresh air into my lungs. Ah, there I go again, off subject, rats!<BR/><BR/>I will begin by stating something that - I am very very sorry - may deeply hurt some fellow Arab bloggers. From 1980 – 2006 Israel has had one single decent prime minister. <I>Yitzhak Rabin is a hero.</I> He achieved something all others failed to achieve. Dialogue, peace, a glimmer of hope. How does that make me a partisan? Let me quote Wikipedia: “While the intifada continued Rabin's attitude softened and he became more convinced that the solution to the violence should be found around the negotiation table.” See that. Magic words: “convinced”,”should”,”negotiation”. <BR/><BR/><I>I also think that most other Israeli leaders have been monsters.</I> (Peres after siding with Sharon went from being reasonable to the latter.) <I>There is no contradiction in that. I do not judge anybody by their colours. I do judge individuals by their latest deeds. </I><BR/><BR/>Why did Oslo collapse? <I>That is a matter of opinion.</I> There are accusations from both sides about whom to blame. During a few years of the Oslo Accord years there was peace. For the third time I repeat: there was not a single terror act by Palestinians on Israeli civilians for slightly more than two years. <I>That is a fact</I>.<BR/><BR/>Now why do I mention the seemingly off topic Palestinian question? To remind all blog readers of the fact that dialogue, has worked, even in the darkest hours. And, IMHO, it can work in The Lebanon. <BR/><BR/><B>Adam, what's your suggestion then? Everyone should just submit?</B><BR/><I>Stop bombing today. Start negotiations today. You might have read very similar ideas in my quotes yesterday from two different Israeli newspapers.</I><BR/><BR/>It is very sad that Israel has manoeuvred itself into a diplomatically frozen position of “WE NEVER NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS”. They have cut deals with the Palestinians before, (often through external mediation), they can cut deals again. Such an approach would have been a lot easier before they destroyed The Lebanon. In the present escalation deal cutting may of course be a huge loss of face, for all parties. But if civilian human lives are less worth than pride, then what kind of animals are we?<BR/><BR/>Israel would need to concede at the negotiating table. I am convinced that a deal could be cut between Israel, The Lebanon, Hezbollah and NATO. Many people regard the Hezbollah as animals, but I am sure, they love their brothers too. How about this: <I>“We will release 90 Hezbollah members 90 days from today. During those 90 days you will not fire a single rocket not one. You will allow the NATO peacekeepers to heavily reinforce their positions in the south of Lebanon. And if you break this …”</I> Some bloggers may go “what release 90 terrorists ? :O”. Sure I say, with the increasing number of homeless refugees they will soon be recruiting a lot more than 90 every day. And if 90 wont cut it 200 will for sure. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. Dialogue worked in -93.<BR/><BR/><B> If Israel and the United States are doing as much damge to themselves and their interests as you suggest, that should make you happy, right? Isn't that what you want?</B><BR/>A bit blunt, are we not? But the answer is no.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>It's now a war. You either want one side to win, or you want the other side to win. Or you are neutral.</B><BR/>Nope. Not at all. You think in terms of winning and losing. I do not. I think in terms of human suffering. I want to minimize civilian human suffering on both sides, as described above.<BR/><BR/>Craig, you appear to keep wondering: “So if I value Arab lives and Israeli lives equally. Why do I talk so much more about the Arabs.” You asked me something similar before. I do because the scale of the suffering is much greater for the Arabs. I answered this a few days ago:<BR/><BR/><I>I might be a softie, but if I see a big kid punching the wits out of a small kid in the street I feel sorry for the small kid, even if the small kid started it. If the big kid is my kid and he comes home with a bruise and the small kid goes to hospital, I tell my kid to hold his fire next time. That is what I feel.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>And Craig, I gotta ask you, wtf is this about the UN?<BR/>“they have HELPED Hezbollah kidnap and murder Israelis soldiers”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-1153781934827455882006-07-25T01:58:00.000+03:002006-07-25T01:58:00.000+03:00I Am a American and I support AmericaYou're a liar...<I>I Am a American and I support America</I><BR/><BR/>You're a liar. You've praised Hezbollah, the murderers of Americans, half a dozen times on this blog. <BR/><BR/>You've said you want Muslims to defeat America, half a dozen times on this blog.<BR/><BR/>You may technically be american, but your citizenship makes you a traitor.<BR/><BR/>And what's with calling me a Christian now? You called me a jew a few days ago. What am I now, a fundamentalist jewish redneck christian?<BR/><BR/>Whatever I am, it's better than a pyschotic Libyan bigot.programmer craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566950406349754166noreply@blogger.com