Monday, August 21, 2006

Harsh words

Developments always move slower than one would like. However, to return to a situation in which the war between Hizballah and the Israelis is even more likely to ignite than before July 12 is the worst possible outcome.

No doubt, Lebanese politicians engage Hizballah in very tough negotiations as I type up this entry. Only Zeus knows what the outcome of these negotiations will be. However, as I mentioned previously on this blog, only Hizballah can decide to disarm, because doing so forcibly would simply mean the end of Lebanon (either a through a cataclysmic civil war, or "another round" of Israeli strikes, only this time, nothing will hold them back - i.e. bye bye, Army, Downtown Beirut, Lebanese State).

A good analogy of the situation Hizballah finds itself in right now would be an authoritarian ruler being asked to abdicate for the sake of his country. In fact, let me take this analogy one step further and suggest that Lebanon is currently in the midst of what could be termed a "regime change," which began the second Syrian troops started leaving the country. Will Hizballah bow out? Will it put the wellbeing of Lebanon, and its constituents, before its agenda? If so, then at what price?

As for France, and its commitment regarding the UN force, my thoughts echo those expressed by editorials published by the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. The Journal wonders whether UN resolution 1701 is still alive,
Most U.N. resolutions don't have the shelf-life of a gallon of milk, which isn't always a bad thing. But in the case of resolution 1701 - the cease-fire agreement for Lebanon and Israel adopted unanimously this month by the Security Council - things seem to be going sour even faster than that. And that is cause for serious unease.
And the Times mocks Jacques Chirac mercilessly for his "contribution" to the implementation of 1701,
It would be tempting to laugh about France's paltry commitment of 200 additional peacekeepers for Lebanon, if it weren't so dangerous. After insisting for years that they be treated like a superpower, the French are behaving as if they have no responsibility for helping dig out of the Lebanon mess.
Of course, considering that Lebanese parties are still in the midst of negotiating the near and not-so-near future, the UN force and its mission could very well be leverage that would no longer exist once it is deployed.

However, I remain as impatient as ever. At a time when the international community, and the Arab world are supposed to convey a message of strength, determination and generosity, all I see is trepidation. But then again, how much do I really see?

43 comments:

Dimitry said...

At a time when the international community, and the Arab world are supposed to convey a message of strength, determination and generosity, all I see is trepidation.

But of course. And you shouldn't expect anything else. Very rarely you will get support when your side barely knows what it is doing. One day the government declares there would be no armed forces except LAF, the next day that HA won't be disarmed or moved.
Self reliancy is the key. Pretty much nobody would gives much damn about you. Nobody will fight your wars for you. Helping you along after you figured out what you want and are striving toward that, well, that is far more likely to arrive from those whos interests coincide with your actions.

Andrey said...

" Only Zeus knows ..." , you infidel ! :)

Lirun said...

what a waste..

if our region walks away without learning anything and all that happens is that people have to go and refill military coffers and stocks with hard earned taxes for more bloodshed and idiocy instead of statesmenship and diplomacy then i will be vastly disappointed..

we must move forward..

our region thirsts peace more than rain..

lirun
telaviv
www.emspeace.blogspot.com
drinking water can come from overseas.. peaceful living must be homegrown..

Dimitry said...

lirun

Do you really think there's a chance that there won't be another round soon?

Lirun said...

mate

i dont know what the road to the end will look like.. all i know is that ultimately there is only one answer.. how many people have to die to get there - is an issue i cannot predict..

i hope it is as few as possible..

lirun
telaviv
www.emspeace.blogspot.com
delaying peace is absurd

no noise said...

lirun:

hello, i am just wriing this to you because i felt in you a person who truely wants peace.
So here goes, i want to ask you about the real situation in Israel and in Palestine.
How bad is the tension between the people (not the political crap we hear) but the real day to day world.
Are arabs in israel given equal rights to the non-arabs? are they allowed to move around and in/out of the country in ease? how politically presented are they?
On the other hand, how is the situation with the palestinians? (Apart from the last 2 months of Gaza attacks)
I am asking these questions because i really do not understand the possibilities for war/peace anymore. I think all issues (one way or another) are interlinked; unfortunetly we all hear one side of things.
Please help me out to furhter understand.
Thanks

Dimitry said...

lirun,

Nobody knows what'll happen, particularly not in the end of the road (what's that? 100 years from now?). However, while this proccess is extremly unpopular in Israel for some reason, one can think, and attempt to deduce from the current situation what is the most likely outcome of current action, and how the near future would more or less look like. What would be your prediction?

Lirun said...

dimitry

i disagree.. the end situation has to be peace.. we cannot and will not kill eachother indefinitely.. we shall talk to eachother and we shall communicate and resolve issues.. no one is going anywhere.. so may as well start realising the facts on all sides..

no noise..

thank you for noticing.. look.. its hard to summarise so much in a nutshell but ill have a crack at it..

the tensions in israel and the palestinian territories vary.. they come in many shapes and sizes.. sometimes socially determined and other times politically and legally..

arab israelis are in a tough spot.. overly identifying with israel places them between a rock and hard place with the arabs in the territories and at the same time does not guaratee them equal rights.. however.. failing to align makes them seem unworthy for citizenship and reduces their justification to oppose injustice..

it also appears nevertheless that the arab israeli community selectively voices its concerns.. it does too little too align to mainstream israel but makes full use of the fourth pillar of our democracy (the media) to shout out about any inequality..

israel on the other hand is lazy with its arab sector.. it does too little to develop it and yet not enough to assure the proper rule of law.. if israel goes too far its considered harsh and insensitive but when israel takes a laissez faire approach then it is also criticised..

ultimately israel is very much a society that is busy defining the future of the jewish people so the agenda of the minorities is easily sidelined.. nevertheless.. ask any arab israeli if they would seek to leave and i doubt they would.. their freedoms are very extensive in comparison not only to arab country alternatives but also to the west and they enjoy a kind of parliamentary representation that you do not see in many other countries.. arab MPs of the israeli parliament speak against the state of israel in a fragmenting and dissecting manner and in many other western countries this would not be tolerated.. at all.. yet here we do tolerate for the fear of seeming unfair..

i have befriended arabs in the past and will gladly do so in the future.. some of our mixed towns.. haifa and akko etc have a track record of something thats spans between peaceful coexistence.. good neighbourly living and/or plain cold living side by side.. but the university of haifa has many arabs in it and i hav emet many who have progressed to high standing careers and success in business..

the palestinians in the territories now thats a tougher one..

i could write for days..

but i will say this..

personally as an individual i make an effort.. i want arabs to know that we are not just pricks with a difference.. the racial/religious card is raised very quickly across both sectors and i feel a need to demonstrate that it is not binding.. i seek ways to strike up mini conversations (at least) so that they can end with a smile..

i have not been to gaza or to any other major arab town in the territories.. i guess i am scared.. but also i dont want them to think of me as imperliast.. i do however frequently go to israeli arab towns to eat and buy stuff.. to encourage them to think of me as a compatriot rather than just the mainstream..

you know.. its such a small place.. suffering and abundance exist in very close proximity to eachother.. at the end of the day the rockets from the north or the south dont know our differences anyway..

i hope this kind of helps.. feel welcome to ask more specific questions ;)

wishing peace to us all

lirun
telaviv
www.emspeace.blogspot.com

Dimitry said...

Lirun

I've asked specifically about Lebanon. Do you really think there's a chance there won't be another round of fighting between Israel and HA soon? Seems rather inevitable, concidering how the Lebanese gov isn't doing a squat to prevent it, and the agendas of HA (destruction of Israel) and Israel (survival) haven't changed.

Lirun said...

hey dimitry

that is exactly my point.. i do not know how exactly we will go about getting there.. whether or not there will be more battles or whether we will be blessed enough to see our future lifted into a peaceful era.. but i think it is possible..

i disagree that the leb government isnt doing squat to prevent it.. i think they are working within their constraints.. just as we are working within ours..

dude.. listen to the voices coming from the arab nations that surround us.. they have changed colour and tone.. surely together we are not that susceptible to the mischief of a single bunch of fools..

surely if we have the baility to prevail over hardship we also have the ability to prevail over blatant stupidity as we did inthe past..

lirun

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

I think the key to this is the fact that the French cowards (I repeated myself) are backing out, again. You cannot trust the world community, and you cannot trust leftist governments.

Dimitry said...

Lirun

I'm talking real short term here. Do you think HA won't be willing to go for another round, and would avoid provoking Israel for that end? If no, do you think someone is doing enough to stop them?


mr. Smarterthanyou

Couldn't disagree more. When it comes to the question of where the French forces are doing nothing, I'd rather have them doing nothing in France rather doing nothing in Lebanon. That way, at least they won't interrupt Israel (because as sure as hell they weren't going to interrupt HA).

Lirun said...

dimitry..

please let me know what the point is in speculation..

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

True, what will happen is the UN forces will be human shields, the media will be complicit, and when Israel attacks the Hezbos again, some UN weenies will be hurt, and everyone will gang up on Israel (at least verbally).

Lirun said...

where can i buy a chrystal ball like yours.. i am so envious..

Dimitry said...

Lirun

Point is very simple. When one ponders what he should do, one should try to think, and extrapolate from his current knowledge what would be the outcome of each action. For example, a porcupine could've concluded, after the wya Israel retreated in 2000, that there would be another round of fighting in Lebanon against HA. Also, once one is in a given situation, trying to figure out what the future holds would allow one to be better preapered.

The main problem of Israelis the Nowism, which is esserntially shutting off all brain functions that relate somehow to deduction - I choose what is best NOW, even if the above mentioned porcupine could've told me, if I only asked, that on slightly longer term, it is actually the worst. No thinking, no attempts to logically connect cause and effect.

I read an interview with Orna Shim'oni back before 2000 - she said the soldiers in Lebanon are doing nothing useful, that their precense their don't protect a single child in Misgav Am. Well, it turned out - and again, this was something for everyone to see even back then - that they were protecting the children of Karmiel, Haifa, Safed, Tiberias... You get the drift. And even after the current war, I read some things she wrote - did she make the logical connection between the retreat and the current war? Of course not. Then's retreat was good because it gave better immideate results. Meanwhile, magically, HA transformed into an organization that would like to continue the war, and therefore the current war is actually just. Actually, no, I'm giving her too much credit - it's not that HA magically appeared, or magically transformed. From what I can see, she isn't bothering to give any justification - it apperantly doesn't even cross her mind that back then, she should've anticipated it and acted accordingly. A complete and utter blank in the place a => sign should exist.

Sorry, but the idiotism that is so rife today in Israel society (and Nowism is only one of its manifestations) is one of my pet peeves.



mr. Smarterthanyou

My point exactly.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

lirun,
You are a 30 year old living in Israel and you don't see how I connected the dots?

If many Israeli voters are as dense as you, no wonder you guys keep voting in idiots who refuse to finish the job.

Lirun said...

i think you are simplifying us and our problems..

we are not just a bunch of short sighted deaf people ;)

but yes sometimes our actions seem to compromise our long term interests..

im not sure however how your proposed approaches bridge the shortcomings of what would otherwise seem to be nowism.. how do they address our long term needs and relations in the region.. how do they align with our amibition to integrate peacefully into the middle east..

to me they seem to suffer your nowist peeve

just my perspective mate

lirun
telaviv
www.emspeace.blogspot.com
possibly blinded by my desire for peace

Lirun said...

smarter than not quite sure what..

your insults dont flatter your intellect..

luckily not israelis think as i do.. luckily i live in a society that encouraged plurality of thought.. i thank my lucky stars that this is our nature because i am proud of the fact that our paths are tested by dissent..

i dont have anything else to add.. except that this blog has created a congenial forum for people to express their views on a matter that is important to them in a respectful fashion..

i hope that you can muster your obviously far superior intelligence to comply with the framework that we have established..

wishing you peace and a successful engineering career

lirun
telaviv
www.emspeace.blogspot.com
forever connecting dots on the road to peace ;)

Lirun said...

its late and my fingers arent cooperating with my thoughts..

good night

:)

Dimitry said...

Lirun

To create an exact model of the universe, you need something the size of a universe. Every explanation if necceserily simplification and approximation of the reality. However, those simplifications eliminated smallpox and allowed man to land on the moon. So, in short, yes, it is simplification. Doesn't mean it isn't good enough for our porpuses.



This rant wasn't about specific issue (i.e. Lebanon) or against specific political bloc (the right wing also suffers from Nowism, albeit in lesser degrees). It was about a cultural issue. Israeli public is very fond of magic solutions to its problems, and rarely bothers to think the consequences through. The solution to that is complex - after all, the Israeli education system (now that's something I can rant about) is very much encauraging the kids not to use their brains, and unused organs tend to atrophy. For my part, I just try to preach the gospel of "use thy brain".


My thoughts about the specific solution to the problem? Carry out effective campaign against the HA, one in which IDF would be allowed to operate properly (both when it comes to consistency of orders and in supplying proper artillery and air support to troops), that's first. Apperant weakness is much more powerful motivator for terror organizations and the people who concider joining them than hate. After they've been sufficiently weakened, allow the Lebanese chance to become sovereign, while making it clear that Israel would attack is that won't happen - no repeat of the 2000-2006 power buildup. And that's as far as things depends on us.

That's another problematic issue in Israel, btw - not accepting that the other side is people, not puppets, and moreover, it is possible they're people with different agendas. Uri Avenri, for example, apperantly cannot grasp the idea there might be people who do not accept the existance of Israel, and nothing Israel can do would change that.


At any rate, back to my original question: do you see the point of trying to deduce what'll happen? And if you do, can you try? In this specific situation?


G'night, and think about what I said. Peace NOW, okay - but what about tommorow? Or next year?

Lirun said...

thought about it :)

i guess it boils down to personal strategy.. i like to think of myself as an effective individual.. i have a strong career and have always been very type A personality - ish notwithstanding my laidback approach..

when i was a kid my dad once saw me training for long jump.. he sidestepped the coach and took me aside and said "see those tall trees twenty metres away? aim for the treetops!"

i listened to my dad and sure enough i did not jump that high.. but i did considerably exceed the distance i had achieched until then..

two things i have learned from life is that (a) when you are serious about something good - people tend to contribute to your cause where and when you least expect it.. (b) passion can create a momentum that can prevail over many an obstacle..

if there was a clear cut easy and predictable path to peace i reckon we would be there now.. i have no doubt that we need to take and endure risks if we are to make the best of the opportunities before us.. the question is how resilient can we be..

you know - when you surf - it is rare that you can easily paddle all the way to a good break without a few eskimo rolls and without being knocked about by a few waves.. but you duck dive it and you keep on going.. because you know the bliss of riding a good wave and dropping into a green room..

there are greater outcomes to be achieved then a mere interim score in a HA pulpitation..

peace to you too man..

its a pleasure disagreeing with you.. you're a solid thought provoker..

lirun
telaviv
www.emspeace.blogspot.com
thinking is a good first step

Dimitry said...

Lirun

What you say here hardly contradicts my points... Aiming higher than you can when you're jumping is good. If you do it over and over, the logical conclusion is that you'll improve and eventually be able to reach the destination.
My problem is with people who try to deal with the problem of air pollution by proposing people ditch cars and start moving from place to place by waving their hands and flying. An excellent idea, except it can't possibly work, no matter how low or high they aim every specific step. Gravity, you know. And then those people jump off a cliff, wave their hands, and say "my, what good air I'm breathing! my idea was excellent!" And the ground? Well, it might come, might not, hopefully not, NOW the solution appears to be working...


If you want to get from the 42th floor to the ground, you don't simply jump the moment you need it - nor do you start with aiming a bit lower than the ground. Yuor best is simply waiting for the elevator.


Heh. Look, I'm racking my brain here making up all those analogies and metaphors... You get my drift by now. The straight line from A to B isn't necceserily the best way to reach B from A. Sometimes, it's the worst.

And thanks - same to you :)

no noise said...

lirun

Thanks a million for your explanation, i noticed you presented the two points objectivly, which is something i wish the whole world would start doing.
I am sure i will have other questions to ask you, but for now i need to further assimilate what i have in front of me.

To everyone in this blog:

Just a thought... would it not be interesting if bloggers met in a forum of some kind and tried to present a working sheet to leaders (who i am starting to realy believe are either too dumb or just blind/deaf/numb to all existance around them

Maybe a humane message sent from all that says this is how we see it, and this is how close we have gotten towards one another by just dialoging

Answer me if ou think this is a good idea... then we can present it to other bloggers caring for the same subject

seeker said...

Dimitry,
one in which IDF would be allowed to operate properly (both when it comes to consistency of orders and in supplying proper artillery and air support to troops
Assuming that is feasable at all which I doubt (You know the limitations (to start with you can't distiguish HA from normal citizens),
Moreover your answers contain very storng logic, I really enjoy reading them but they are also too sterile, you fail to consider the psychological lasting effects (to be brief the resitence thrives when there is somebody to resist).
Last but not least Israel is merely a power not a superpower the international community will NEVER let israel excercise such war, so even if this is a good solution it is not practical and we must move on to the next best idea.

Apperant weakness is much more powerful motivator for terror organizations and the people who concider joining them than hate
This sounds like a speculatino to me, care to elaborate why are you so sure about this.

Lirun said...

no noise - you are welcome..

aboutyour idea.. we did actually try such a thing in the thick of the war.. i negotiated with Dany and i sent our outcome to several news networks and half of my parliament..

they ignored me hehehe

but at least we tried..

i do however think organising some forum and publicising it and its outcome could be an excellent idea..

we should certainly give it some more thought..

lirun
telaviv
www.emspeace.blogspot.com

Fearless said...

UN DELEGATION SPEAKS OF MIXED FEELINGS AFTER ENDING ITS MISSION TO LEBANON AND ISRAEL

New York, Aug 22 2006 8:00PM
Concluding its regional diplomacy today by meeting Israel’s Prime Minister, a high-level United Nations delegation that also met Lebanese leaders at the weekend said there were reasons for both optimism and pessimism after the past few days of talks, namely because the UN-brokered cessation of hostilities has so far held but also because there still exists a worrying power vacuum in southern Lebanon.

The delegation, which is led by Vijay Nambiar, Special Political Adviser to Secretary-General Kofi Annan, arrived in Israel on Sunday night and met today with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem to discuss all aspects of the UN-backed resolution that led to last week’s cessation of hostilities with Hizbollah. Yesterday, the delegation, which also includes Terje Roed-Larsen, held talks with Israel’s Foreign Minister.

“The mission has reasons for optimism and reasons for pessimism as we conclude our mission here. Our optimism is predominately grounded on the fact that, by and large, the ceasefire so far has been honoured,” Mr. Roed-Larsen told reporters before the delegation leaves Israel for Europe to brief the Secretary-General on the details of its meetings.

“The reason for pessimism is that until there is a capable and fully deployed Lebanese force along the borders, and in Southern Lebanon, and until there is implemented a full reconfiguration and deployment of an international force there will – up to a point, and I emphasize – remain a security vacuum in Lebanon.”

Mr. Roed-Larsen also said that the issue of the abducted Israeli soldiers had been raised by the delegation during all its meetings, as also had the issue of Israel lifting the embargo on Beirut’s airport and latterly the full blockade.

Mr. Nambiar told the reporters that there had also been “considerable discussions” on the question of enhancing the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which currently stands at 2,000 strong, but which resolution 1701 calls to be increased to a maximum of 15,000 personnel.

“We are hoping that in the course of the coming days, particularly at the forthcoming meeting in Brussels of the European Union (EU) that there will be some concrete indications of enhanced offerings from the European countries for this force,” he said.

The Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1701 on 11 August, in which it called for an immediate cessation of hostilities – which went into effect on 14 August local time, the deployment of Lebanese troops, the significantly expanded UN peacekeeping presence across southern Lebanon as well as the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from the area.
2006-08-22 00:00:00.000
________________

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

How Hizbullah Understands Resolution 1701


August 22, 2006

How Hizbullah Understands Resolution 1701

Aiman Mansour


For Hizbullah and its supporters in Lebanon, UN Security Council Resolution
1701 is, if not a clear victory, then certainly the least of all evils. The
main reason is that 1701 keeps the discussion of Hizbullah's disarmament
within the confines of the barren exercise known as the "Lebanese National
Dialogue." Moreover, the Resolution provides no effective mechanism for
action by the Lebanese Government or UNIFIL to disarm Hizbullah or terminate
its existence as a state within a state.

Israel's initial decision to act against Hizbullah raised hopes that it
would damage the Shi'ite organization severely enough to empower the United
Nations and the Lebanese Government to act decisively against Hizbullah and
disarm it completely.

But while the IDF did seriously degrade Hizbullah's
missile array, it was unable to strike a decisive blow at the organization's
senior military or political leadership. Moreover, the military campaign
did not initially involve destructive operations against Hizbullah's
civilian infrastructure; that only happened toward the very end.

From the viewpoint of Hizbullah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, the Security
Council Resolution does not undermine his status but rather the opposite.

The Resolution creates a situation in which Lebanon after the campaign is
little different from Lebanon before it. True, the Resolution does call on
the Lebanese Government to deploy through the south - which was apparently
impossible a month before - and it does provide for the augmentation of
UNIFIL by some 13,000 troops, but it does not create any framework that can
threaten Hizbullah's existence or ongoing terrorist activity.

The viewpoint is evident in the following ways:

1. effectiveness of the international force: Hizbullah was extremely
apprehensive about the possibility that a NATO force might be deployed with
extensive authority similar to that of the multilateral force sent to
Lebanon in the early 1980s.
Indeed, that prospect was so threatening that
Hizbullah's leaders declared their intention to fight such a force.

Moreover, the idea that even a reinforced UNIFIL might be authorized under
Chapter 7 of the UN Charter provoked outright rejection by Hizbullah. That
position led the Lebanese Government to endorse the deployment in southern
Lebanon of UNIFIL with very ambiguous authority.

This is apparent from the provisions under which it will operate. Although it is explicitly
stipulated that UNIFIL can use its weapons to defend its troops and
equipment, the force is merely enjoined to do everything "within its
capabilities" to prevent hostile actions within its area of operations.

2. deployment of the Lebanese army: a Lebanese army force is deployed in the
south with the explicit consent of Hizbullah. That constitutes a concession
compared to Hizbullah's position a bit more than a month ago. But given
that the army is not charged with disarming Hizbullah, its deployment is a
much less dramatic development than might appear to be the case.
.
3. demilitarization of the area south of the Litani: the Resolution states
that the area south of the Litani River should be free of armed personnel or
weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and UNIFIL. However,
the reality of the south is more complicated. In the Shi'ite villages
there, Hizbullah maintains "security committees" that provide a framework
for security coordinators whose ongoing task is to "protect the Shi'ite
villages." In fact, this framework constitutes a militia, and it is
unlikely that the Lebanese army or UNIFIL will have the political will to
disarm an ostensibly "civilian" framework.

4. disarmament of Hizbullah and arms embargo: the IDF's inability to disrupt
Hizbullah's civilian infrastructure or eliminate its leadership mean that
the Lebanese Government lacks sufficient self-confidence to act decisively
to disarm Hizbullah, even with the assistance of any international force.
Consequently, the "National Dialogue" may reconvene but Hizbullah's
opponents will have no capacity whatsoever to translate their political
power into a decision to disarm Hizbullah, either by peaceful means or by
force.

The absence of an effective framework to do that means that the
Security Council's stipulation that all states will prevent the "sale or
supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel
of all types" will remain a dead letter. The ineffectiveness of the embargo
is due to the fact that the Lebanese Government will continue to control
border crossings (as it did in the past) and UNIFIL will assist in this
control only if it is asked to do so by Beirut.

Absent any decision to disarm Hizbullah (and with Hizbullah officially represented in the
government), the smuggling of weapons into Lebanon, primarily by Iran and
Syria, will be far less difficult than might appear from the wording of the
Resolution.

Less than seventeen hours elapsed between the adoption of Resolution 1701
by the Security Council and the acceptance of it by Nasrallah. In one
sense, that reflects the extent of the damage the IDF had inflicted on
Hizbullah's military infrastructure and the pressure placed on Nasrallah.
But it also demonstrates the extent to which the Resolution does not really
constrain Hizbullah.

A resolution that had truly jeopardized Hizbullah
would have prompted it to fight on, as it apparent from the organization's
reaction to the original Franco-American draft.
And while regional governments may be ambivalent about the outcome, the ability of Nasrallah and the rest of the Hizbullah leadership to survive has just strengthened
their popularity on the "Muslim street."
___________________________________________________________________

Dimitry said...

seeker

Assuming that is feasable at all which I doubt (You know the limitations (to start with you can't distiguish HA from normal citizens),

This is the reason why it wasn't done this time around. It's unpleasant, but the Israeli government's duty is first and foremost to its citizens, and that includes its soldiers.
However, I hold that if someone is firing at you from a house, this house is a valid target even if all its porches are full with women and children.


you fail to consider the psychological lasting effects (to be brief the resitence thrives when there is somebody to resist).

This is more relevant to stationary occuping forces, and less to overwhelming force blitzing through.


Last but not least Israel is merely a power not a superpower the international community will NEVER let israel excercise such war

This is nothing to do with nation's strength, but rather to the double standards pretty much unique to Israel - Jordan during Black Sepember, Syria in Hamma, NATO in Kosovo, Russia in Chechnya, all used much higher level of violence that what I'm proposing here. However I'll note that this time around, Israel was given a short term premission to go to its edge. Besides, I suspect Israeli apologetic knee-jerk reactions are at least somehow responsible for those double-standards.


This sounds like a speculatino to me, care to elaborate why are you so sure about this.

First, it only make sense. You can seeth in anger until tommorow, but you're much more likely to join a cause that is likely to achieve something.
Second, this is exactly what I see when I look at histroy. Look at HA - 18 years of hate generating occupation gave them only fraction of the power and support they gained when they apperantly won.

seeker said...

Dimitry thank you for your reply,

For the first part let's assume I find it difficult to reason about that if you put it this bluntly, you may have a point but it strikes me as blutantly wrong.

Regarding hate/weakness
What about Hamas?, Hamas was thriving even before we pulled out? And you can't really state that we are showing weaknesses in Gaza, or can you ?

Dimitry said...

seeker

When you read something that strikes you as wrong, find out why. Try to reproduce the chain of reasoning, and compare it to your own basic assumtion and what you can conclude from them. Eventually, you should find the crucial point of disagreement, and we can work from there.


Hammas too was significally strengthened when Israel appeared weak - after Israel didn't react in strength to terror attacks, when the unilateral seperation idea was put into motion, and eventually after the seperation itself.

Look. I'm not saying this is a single factor, nor do I deny the importance of hate in the equation. What I'm saying is that this factor exists, it is powerful, and by all eviedence, more powerful than mere hate.

seeker said...

Dimitry.
...you should find the crucial point of disagreement...

That's the problem there is no disagrement. However you are talking about devestation, I myself am not eager to explore, not even intellectually.

On the basis of character I would like to explore all possible solutions before coming to this.
As a reservist in the IDF I am not even sure I will be able to implement what you just suggest and handle a normal life afterwards.

Lirun said...

dimitry.. i am curious as to your perspective.. where are you from.. how old are you..

Dimitry said...

seeker,

Would you prefer to allow the enemy to retain comfortable position and not have sources of fire against you and your friends destroyed, just because it was originaly entrenched among civilians?

seeker said...

Dimitry,
You are not being fair, you drag me to a yes/no questions while there are options to iterate and check agaist a probable benefit we can get.
Let me just agree with the following points before you continue:
- IDF's objective is to defend the civilians even on the expanse of Lebanese civilians
- Warinings about the impeding results were given to Lebanon and UN beforehand

Still I see the goverment resposible for a long term existance in the region
I do not trust comparison between the Middle east and what happend in WWII the conditions are different and the culture in this region is differnt.

I am tryin to stall okay :)
But do you really think that what you suggest is THE ONLY solution ?

seeker said...

Dimitry,

By the way if you are talking specifically about army operations (I couldn't understand the context) I have been to some already that were canceled due to existence of civilians in the surroundings, while endangering our ozn soldier So it will not really be any precendece.

Listen you must agree with me HA was simple and genius:
They know exactly what points they can press
They know exactly what face to show the world
The know exactly what face to show the arm nations

the are PR geniuses,
Why should we fall to their trap allowing them to exploits all these point and not fight their PR.

Lirun said...

seeker

my thoughts exactly

Dimitry said...

seeker

Well, the yes/no options are worth answering at any case, even if they don't necceserily result in my proposed set of actions.


Let me just agree with the following points before you continue:
- IDF's objective is to defend the civilians even on the expanse of Lebanese civilians
- Warinings about the impeding results were given to Lebanon and UN beforehand


I'll add to the first point also IDF's duty to defend its own soldiers, even at the expense of Lebanese civilians. But beyond that, yes.


But do you really think that what you suggest is THE ONLY solution ?


The only reasonable one that I can see, yes. If you have any other possibilities, bring 'em forth - just be ready to defend them.


By the way if you are talking specifically about army operations (I couldn't understand the context) I have been to some already that were canceled due to existence of civilians in the surroundings, while endangering our ozn soldier So it will not really be any precendece.

Yup. Stuff like that is one of the reasons Israel lost the recent war.


Listen you must agree with me HA was simple and genius:
...


Oh, I agree. But here's the thing - this tactic worked even with Israel stretching itself into loops trying to avoid hurting civilians. Despite all that effort, see simply how the people on this blog treat the campaign - it is still inhuman, horrible, a bunch of war crimes, genocide, etc. etc. etc.
So if Israel is to be condemned regardless, why not do the best it can to defend itself? It's not like it'll look any worse than it looks now...




Lirun

I'm Israeli, specifically from the Golan Heights. 20 years old. Arrived from USSR when I was 4. Finished B.A. in Phys and Maths.

I think that about covers whatever relevant info there could be.

seeker said...

Dimitry,

I guessed your are in the Phys and Math but gosh was I wrong about your age.
Your logic is impecable I will grant you that, I will even concede that it is likely to work.
I am just VERY worried about the price that you neglect to address.
regardless of what others think about Israel at the end of the day in 6 months time I won't even care,
but if I feel that my moral was breached I am not so sure about the outlasting personal/national results.

I have been serving in the IDF and I know the entire situation has made us rough,
well who wouldn't be, But I still know that the IDF moral (In global there are always vagabonds) is corresponding
to mine (I do not believe in any massacre being initiatiated neither murder).

But, were the IDF to follow the above mentioned solution it imply the following
- It can't be a one off solution, from now own it will have to be repeated (A treat is as good as your willigness to put it into action)
- Leaving in such enhenced violence is bound to change us as society to something much more than rough.

In other words we will become what we claim our enemies are. This is a price I am not willing to pay.

Regarding a different solution, I plea ignorance,
I am in mind that HA can be outsmart, but from here to a real plan I need much more information than I posses now.

Lirun said...

hey dimitry..

i dont want to be become my enemies either.. to me that is the greatest form of defeat..

wishing for peace

lirun
telaviv
www.emspeace.blogspot.com

Dimitry said...

seeker, lirun

Is US evil? Are NATO states as bad as out enemies? What I'm proposing would make as roughly as "bad" as them. Well, as modern-day-them, they were all much worse 50 years ago. Overall, looking at those countries, I honestly think I could live with it.

It is still one major step away from become our enemies. I do not - and rather oppose - targeting of civilians. I concider this to be the important distinction here. There're worlds between targeting civilians and avoiding hurting civilians only until the point it interrupts the war efforts, and causes losses of life on our side.

Lirun said...

i'm going to keep my mouth deliberately shut on this one.. happy to discuss it offline..

seeker said...

Dimitry,
I don't like this use of words good/evil it portrays nothing, to be frank I don't like the use of 'the axis of evil', or 'evil doer' It may show some serious addiction to comix but it is not helping in solving the problem.

I can talk about the subject you mentioned for hours, but I will just state the difference between your example and Israel.

US has civilians and it has an army.
NATO's army is composed of participating countries contribution to their force.
Israel's people are the army.

IMHO when you have a clear cut differantiation of civilians/army you can allow your army to be more brutal (or much much more brutal if you look at France) without affecting sociaty.

We are what we are doing, That was the reason I mentioned that Israelis became rough due to the never lasting conflict (not IDF but Israelis).

Dimitry said...

That's an interesting argument, but I'm not entirely sure I agree.

First, the seperation is never complete (even in the French Foriegn Legion - the officers are still French, after all). Second, I'm unsure at how much this would indeed affect society - I'm not a fan of the "occuption is responsible for all the faults in today's Israeli society" school of thought.

And, you know, even if you're right - I don't think the effect on Israeli society would be worse than the effect of wars like the last one.