Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

July 23, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

WHO IS ISRAEL FIGHTING?....Tony Blair continues to support Israel's right to respond to Hezbollah's rocket attacks, but "Downing Street sources" say that Blair also agrees with Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells' "scathing denunciation of Israel's military tactics":

Speaking to a BBC reporter before travelling on for talks in Israel, where he will also visit the missile-hit areas of Haifa and meet his Israeli opposite number, Howells said: 'The destruction of the infrastructure, the death of so many children and so many people: these have not been surgical strikes. If they are chasing Hizbollah, then go for Hizbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation.'

The French Defense Minister, Michele Alliot-Marie, said much the same thing today:

"One cannot ask the Lebanese national army to disarm the militias and at the same time bomb the main Lebanese barracks." Alliot-Marie also raised doubts about the strategic sense of bombing factories that produce powdered milk for infants.

"And unfortunately, more and more, we are seeing a number of bombardments that are hitting civilians, even convoys of people who were simply seeking to reach Beirut to find shelter have been hit by bombs."

Israel's military strategy continues to baffle me. As Gideon Levy puts it, Israel "claims it has declared war on Hezbollah but, in practice, it is destroying Lebanon."

It remains unclear whether this was part of the plan all along or merely the all-too-predictable result of lofty political promises leading to improvised escalation, but it's quickly beginning not to matter. A war against Hezbollah is justifiable, whether wise or not, but a war against Lebanon isn't. Israel will gain nothing from continuing it.

Kevin Drum 3:41 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (183)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Frist?

Posted by: SS on July 23, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

For those, like Kevin, baffled by Israel's strategy, Juan Cole has a lengthy explanation of his take on their strategies and goals. It is worth a read.

Posted by: karin on July 23, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Could be that the new Chief of Staff of the IDF Dan Halutz is a true believer that precision tactical bombing (surgical strikes) can accomplish everything, including capturing disputed ground.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2006/07/post.html#more

Of course the problem is that precision tactical bombing usually isn't that precise, and especially when it includes artillery.

Posted by: dano45 on July 23, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Since Hezbollah holds 18% of the seats in the Lebanese parliament, Israel is justified in destroying 18% of Lebanon. Right Alan?

Posted by: enozinho on July 23, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Israel complains that Lebanon is too weak to rein in Hezbollah and then proceeds to further weaken it, to the point of absolute collapse. There is no logic in this. Israel will eventually alienate all support other than hard core. And they will have only themselves to blame.

Posted by: moe99 on July 23, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

same as always: "kill them all and let god sort them out."

the policy never changes. they seem to deliberately wipe out those who might actually be willing to compromise, negotiate, or otherwise facilitate a path to peace. the only way that I can interpret this is that Israel really doesn't want peace. they can perpetuate the fiction that they have no "partner' and use that as a pretext to grab more land, create more refugees and bomb their neighbors.

it's time for the US to wake up and realize that Israel doesn't do anything that is in our national interest, and hasn't in a very long time. they now want a war with Iran, and by god Bush is probably gonna give it to them.

Posted by: susan on July 23, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

"Tony Blair continues to support Israel's right to respond to Hezbollah's rocket attacks"

But Israel is responding to Hezbollah kidnapping the two soldiers. The rocket attacks began only after the Israeli airstrikes. Pro-Israel sources, media, politicians and "leftie" bloggers allow the original casus belli to be confused in this manner, through sloppiness or duplicity. But they'd do that, wouldn't they?

"A war against Hezbollah is justifiable". Didn't you mean, "is arguably justifiable"?

"Israel's military strategy continues to baffle me"... I think you've already mentioned this, but surely their plan is to create a 20 mile buffer zone in southern Lebanon, kind of a DMZ.

Posted by: luci on July 23, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

A war against Hezbollah is justifiable, whether wise or not, but a war against Lebanon isn't. Israel will gain nothing from continuing it.

Au contraire:

"...there is very little difference between what Israel is doing in Gaza to overturn the democratic wishes of the Palestinian electorate and what it is doing in Lebanon to smash any hopes of a democratic future for its northern neighbor. In Gaza, it wants Hamas destroyed because Hamas is prepared to counter Israel's unilateral policies with its own unilateral agenda; and in Lebanon, Israel wants Hezbollah obliterated because it is the only force capable, possibly, of preventing a repeat of Israel's long invasion and occupation of the 1980s and 1990s.

"...Israel is holding Hezbollah less to account with its attacks than the Lebanese people and their government, despite the latter's transparently shaky grip on the country. Israel's military strikes polarize opinion in Lebanon, weaken Fouad Siniora and his ministers, and threaten to push Lebanon over the brink into another civil war.

"...Israel is keen to talk about "changing the balance of power" in Gaza and Lebanon, implying that it is trying to strengthen the "democrats" against the "terrorists." But this impression is entirely false. Israeli actions are destroying what little balance of power exists in Gaza and Lebanon so that the two areas become ungovernable.

"In Gaza, Israel has been engineering a debilitating struggle for power between Fatah and Hamas, while in Lebanon whatever hollow shell of national unity has existed till now is in danger of cracking under the strain of the Israeli onslaught.

"...In both cases it is clear Israel hoped that, by Islamizing its opponents in these regional conflicts, it would delegitimize them in the eyes of Western allies and that it could cultivate sectarianism as a way to further weaken the social cohesiveness of its neighbors.

"...The same set of policies is being continued now in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon: the shattering of these two societies will only deepen the trend toward radical Islam. Islamic movements not only offer the best hope of local resistance to Israel for these weakened societies but they also offer a parallel social infrastructure of health care and welfare services as state institutions collapse.

"There is immediate advantage for Israel in this outcome. With secular society crushed and Islamic resistance movements filling the void, Israel will be able to reinforce the impression of many in the West that Israel is on the front line of global "war of terror" being waged by a single implacable enemy, Islam. Israel's ability to persuade the world that this war is being waged against the whole "civilized" Judeo-Christian West will be made that bit easier.

"As a result, Israel may be able to drag its paymaster, the United States, deeper into the mire of the Middle East as a junior partner rather than as an honest broker, giving Israel cover while it carves up yet more Palestinian land for annexation, puts further pressure on the Palestinians to leave their homeland, and destabilizes its regional enemies so that they are powerless to offer protest or resistance."

Posted by: Bill on July 23, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

It looks like Israel is trying to create a buffer zone. Given that Lebanon allows Hebollah to launch rockets at Israeli schoolbuses from their territory, that's entirely understandable.

Posted by: American Hawk on July 23, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

these have not been surgical strikes

The myth of the surgical strike has got to be exposed. There is no such thing, and it provides a convenient moral buffer zone for champions of pre-emptive military action, allowing them to distance their endorsement of that action from the virtual certainty that it will result in children and other innocents being blinded, dismembered, and otherwise maimed or killed.

I've always thought their is a valid distinction of intent that separates the U.S and Israels' military actions from the terrorists. But if the death and suffering of innocents is a certainty, then what is the real distinction?

Posted by: Charlie Bucket on July 23, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

I think Kevin gets it just about right. Hezbollah is the proximate cause of the conflict and a proportionate attack on Hezbollah is probably justified, but disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, civilian infrastructure, and Lebanese government targets is out of hand -- and probably counterproductive.

Posted by: The Fool on July 23, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

I think it is becoming painfully obvious that the Israelis have settled on wiping out the Lebanese people. I just cannot believe that the children and grandchildren of the Holocaust would forget how terrible the suffering of their parents and grandparents was, that rather than learning never to inflict that kind of suffering on others they learned exactly how to inflict that kind of suffering on others.

Just as there are many marvelous stories of people overcoming the seduction of evil, there are so many horrendous stories of people falling prety to exactly the hatred they should have known never to engage in. There is an illuminating book review in the New York Times today on the subject of post-war pogroms in Poland - I would hope that everyone who loves Israel would read that book or review, look in the mirror and ask him or herself about exactly what they should do.

Posted by: reader on July 23, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

they seem to deliberately wipe out those who might actually be willing to compromise, negotiate, or otherwise facilitate a path to peace.

I've had a theory about this for sometime, although I can't really prove it. Basically, there are three types of people on the receiving end of hostilities: Those who fight, those who duck, and those who flee.

Much like Iraq, Lebanon has been left with the first two groups, having lost many of the moderates/intellectuals during the civil war/occupation. What was left were the fighters and the "duckers" whom have learned to survive by trying to stay on the sidelines.

So when the Judeo-Christian armies bomb the hell out of the place, they expect the "duckers" or moderates to stand up and fill the power vacuum left behind. After all, this is what these Western governments were told would happen by the "those who flee", usually while sipping champaign at cocktail parties. This, of course, has never, ever happened. A portion of those who duck become those who flee, or they become those who fight, usually joining a sub-category called, those who is dead. Multiply this by decades of similar activity by Western powers, and you have the modern Middle East. Not a pretty picture.

Posted by: enozinho on July 23, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

Since the number of Jews who have answered the questions raised by this article is zero, and the number of Jews who have ignored it is all, and it is so relevant to this thread, I feel it needs to be posted again:

Israel Fakes a Provocation (the "kidnapping" of Cpl Gilad Shalit)

The following passages in italics are from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/26/wmid26.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/26/ixnews.html

Last night two Israeli soldiers were killed and another kidnapped in a dawn attack by Palestinian militants who tunnelled under Gazas heavily protected border.

The attackers, believed to number seven or eight, surprised Israeli forces when they appeared at first light through a tunnel on open ground 300 yards inside Israel near a kibbutz.

Gaza is built on old semi-consolidated sand dunes. It is extremely unlikely that anyone could tunnel 500, or more, yards in the sandy ground of Gaza (300 yards into Israel plus 200 yards of no-mans land plus more to the tunnel entrance), without the tunnel collapsing at some point.

They split into three groups before launching simultaneous attacks on three Israeli defensive positions - a look-out tower, plus a tank and an armoured personnel carrier, both dug in, facing Gaza.

If you were only seven or eight, would you split into three groups? If you were only two, or three, would you attack a tank over flat ground, manned by four soldiers waiting inside to kill you?

They blew open the tanks rear doors with a missile fired from point-blank range before tossing grenades inside. Two of the tank crew died and another was severely wounded but the final crew member, the gunner, was forced out of the wreckage at gunpoint.

The rear doors are blown off and a few grenades popped inside. Tanks are not made to fall apart. Blowing off the rear doors would have taken a blast sufficient to seriously hurt those inside. The grenades would have then made mincemeat of them. One wonders if it is standard practice to wear a bulletproof vest inside a hot tank. One would think that the tank would be bulletproof enough not to require such a vest. Can Israeli tanks stop bullets, or not?

Later reports, from the New York Times and Guardian, tell use that Shalit suffered only minor injuries to his abdomen and one arm, even though everyone else in the tank was severely wounded or killed. Shalit would have been less than three feet away from those killed (there is no spare room in a tank).

Israeli trackers said they found his blood-stained bulletproof vest close to the Gaza perimeter fence.

The militants force Shalit to take off his bulletproof vest and leave it close to the Gaza concentration camp fence, in order to help the Israelis with their investigation.

By the way, whose blood is it on his bulletproof vest? Did his minor wounds bleed profusely, or was it the other soldiers blood and guts all over him. Pity their bulletproof vests didn't save them.

Meanwhile, two other militants attacked a nearby concrete watchtower.... The troop carrier was also damaged in another attack but it was unoccupied. The attackers then escaped back into Gaza by cutting their way through the perimeter fence.

Interestingly, the attackers escaped easily by cutting through the (electrified) perimeter fence, yet cutting through the perimeter fence in order to get in, was so hard to do, that they burrowed through half a mile of sandy ground instead. Something wrong with this story, perhaps?

After all this commotion, the soldiers in all the nearby Gaza concentration camp guard-towers, manage to miss a few Arabs running the 300 yards, over flat ground, back to the perimeter fence, miss them when they cut through it, and miss them running across no-mans land to safety. Any why, you may ask, did they not return through the tunnel they had painstakingly dug? Perhaps, they wanted to prove the total incompetence of the Israeli soldier.

If you believe this sad tale, I have a bridge to sell you.

The Hamas political leadership sought to distance itself from the incident last night when a spokesman said it had no knowledge of the fate of Cpl Shilat. Ghazi Hamad, a spokesman, said: "We are calling on the resistance groups, if they do have the missing soldier to protect his life and treat him well."

Yes, the Hamas political leadership had no idea of the fate of Cpl Shilat, as the story is a total fabrication.

If you are not already convinced that the whole story is a fabrication, ask yourself; What were the four Israeli soldiers doing in the tiny confines of that dug-in tank? Ask your self; How long were they going to continue sitting in that tank? All day perhaps, or till they roasted in the desert sun? Or, till another group of four took over on the next shift? And of course, having four soldiers in just one tank, wont provide a defense, so there will have to be hundreds of tanks and hundreds of soldiers all sitting in these tanks,...

all waiting,... all waiting,... all waiting,.... for exactly what?

Waiting for Palestinian children to throw stones at them, perhaps? Perhaps, waiting attentively for militants to dig a half mile tunnel through sandy soil, pop up, and rush them over flat ground, but not attentively enough to see them approach? Perhaps, they were waiting for the Egyptian army to materialize, Star Trek like, from their bases hundreds of miles away on the other side of the Suez canal? I dont know,... you tell me why?

Yes, the story is a total fabrication. A fake provocation to start a war. Yes, the Jews are evil people.

Posted by: watcher on July 23, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Watcher: UNSUBSCRIBE!!!

Posted by: enozinho on July 23, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

Terrorists like Hezbollah go after civilians on purpose and with a desire to kill as many innocent civilians as possible.

Wow, you're brilliant. Transcript from a recent Nasrallah interview on Al-Jazeerah:

"No thank you Habibi, I don't want that F-16. I would rather attach a grenade to this bottle rocket here. No, no, Saidi, we don't want tanks or artillery. We blow ourselves up because we like it. Cordite and human flesh smells delish."

Posted by: enozinho on July 23, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

by forcing out the average citizens of Lebanon, leaving no one but easily accused terrorists, in essence radicalizing Lebanon, no one will make much of a fuss if Israel sterilizes the reminants of Lebanon.

Posted by: pluege on July 23, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

It is important to understand that

THE JEWS STARTED BOTH THE MASSACRES IN GAZA AND LEBANON.

IN GAZA they fabricated a (clearly false) story in their newspapers about a "kidnapped" soldier.

IN LEBANON the Israeli Death Force sent troops into a disputed piece of SYRIA (Shebaa Farms: it was stolen from Syria by Jews in the surprise Jew attack of1967, so the legalistic Jews decided they did not have to return it to Lebanon when they withdrew in 2000) knowing full well how Hizbollah would respond to an intrusion by Jew troops into Arab lands. Hizbollah responded exactly as they have in the past. No surprise here. The Jews used this as an excuse for their pre-planned Nazi attack on Lebanon.

In short:

THE JEWS STARTED BOTH THE MASSACRES IN GAZA AND LEBANON.

Posted by: watcher on July 23, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

" The real distinction is intent. Terrorists like Hezbollah go after civilians on purpose and with a desire to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. The US and Isreal go after specific targets and try to minimize the civilian casualties as much as possible.

What is disappointing is that so many people do not recognize the difference and that war is messy any way you slice it."

gee, I wonder what the dead people feel about that: dead on purpose or dead by [cough] accident. So comforting to know there is different kinds of dead. Jackass. Jackass

Posted by: justfred on July 23, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

The French and those "powdered milk factories."

Posted by: lemonde on July 23, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

Fat White Guy, if israel were not bombing beirut, and highways, and similar non-hezbollah targets, we might think that the civilian casualties were justifiable, but they are, and therefore they aren't.

more to the point, let's pretend they were justifiable, just for the moment: so what? the question is whether the israelis have a strategy in mind here, and it's not at all clear they do. Exactly what Lebanese politician for the next 20 years can be friendly to israel after this? Exactly what is the point?

stunningly enough, we've come to a moment where i have to say that even Sharon wouldn't have mishandled things this poorly.

meanwhile, watcher, go fuck yourself.

Posted by: howard on July 23, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

FWG: war is messy any way you slice it.

That is the exactly the "moral buffer zone" I was referring to. Like I said, I used to think the "intent" argument was valid. But you can say "I'm going to go kill some civilians", or you can say "I'm going to blow up a military target and civilians will certainly be killed", (unless you hide behind the "surgical strikes" myth). I don't know that the distinction really means anyting.

Posted by: Charlie Bucket on July 23, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

"War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations..."
--Robert McNamara

Posted by: Quotation Man on July 23, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

As far as I'm concerned, Israel lost the moral high ground in 1982 when Ariel Sharon took charge of the invasion of Lebanon. The government of Israel has been tone deaf ever since. Reminds me of the "Old Testament". God is consistently pissed off at the Israelis...

Posted by: Detroit Dan on July 23, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

With that first Israeli strike on the Beirut airport, they lost me.

Chris Allbritten (formerly reporting from Iraq) has been in Beirut these last few months (getting permits to go to Iran, plan now scotched) and is reporting from there.

http://www.back-to-iraq.com/

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on July 23, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

Juan Cole has a lengthy explanation of his take on their strategies and goals. It is worth a read.

Cole's explanation seems to offer an example in line with Tuchman's assertion in The Guns of August that(to paraphrase), elaborate, long-standing war plans have a will of their own.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on July 23, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

"it's time for the US to wake up and realize that Israel doesn't do anything that is in our national interest, and hasn't in a very long time. they now want a war with Iran, and by god Bush is probably gonna give it to them."

Unfortunately, it is in the intrest of the Corportactracy that rules the U.S.

Billions in military aid to Irael paid for with our tax dollars benefits the defense contractors.

Instability in the Middle East resulsts in higher oil prices which benefit the oil companies.

Support for Israel keeps the RW Fundies happy and benefits the Rethuglican party.

Win, win , win!!!

Posted by: Whack a NeoCon for Christ on July 23, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Screaming, all-cap headlines aside, it does that Israel and the United States are joined in an hysterical suicide pact based on paranoid, messianic delusions that somehow have a way of coming true at the point of a frantically brandished sword.

Sad, really, as both countries had so much potential -- and such fatally flawed memories.

Posted by: Kenji on July 23, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

I wish Israel would have daily press briefings to explain as much as possible the tactical utility of their targeting list. I know it would do nothing for 85% of the party line nuttters on this post, but it would at least provide a historical record to compare the preconcieved meme of the "reporting" by the press and the facts on the ground.
As for Kevin's sneers at Dershowitz in a prior posting, have you ever noticed how committed the Arabs are to tribal unity. The most recent example of this was the mother of the two Israeli Arab children killed by a Hizbollah rocket - her response was to praise the fanatics that killed her children and beg them to bring on more. If there was ever any evidence of Arab hesitation to allowing Hezbollah to hide a missle in their basement I'd have more respect for your argument.

Posted by: minion of rove on July 23, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

Israel attacks Lebanon and strays too close to the Syrian border. Syria intervenes. Israel attacks Syria. Iran intervenes. US declares war on Iran. All before Nov elections.

Posted by: Guest on July 23, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

"Israel's military strategy continues to baffle me.
Israel will gain nothing from continuing it."

Israel's grand strategy is predicated on military parity and political superiority with the combined strength of its neighbours. To maintain that is not easy as Israel only has 6 million or so people and its neighbours have more than a hundred million. It is not enough for Israel to be economically developed with a strong military, its neighbours must also remain undeveloped. That goes double for neighbours that share a border with Israel. The whole strategy is based on a subtle racist belief that Arabs incapable of developing themselves. The main reason that Israel is so freaked out by the current crisis is that it was precipitated by sophisticated and well planned operations that challenge this belief. In Israeli eyes Arabs are supposed to be too dumb to sneak over an electronically well monitored border and capture alive two Israeli soldiers, from within Israel itself, for the loss of only one of their own. And they are supposed to be too evil to attack military targets instead of civilian ones.

A democratic and economically successful Lebanon is a nightmare problem for this strategy. If it is economically successful it can afford a military and air force capable of defending itself. If it is democratic it can use that military and air force to defend itself or as part of a regional military alliance to defend others from Israel, with full legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Israel is bombing Lebanon back to the stone age to prevent it successful development. Under Israel's present strategy of superitory, a developed Lebanon, especially if it is peaceful, is just too much of a threat. That is what Israel is trying to acheive.

Posted by: still working it out on July 23, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

Watcher must be that Holocaust denier, Honest Joe, who tried to hijack the threads here a while back.

Posted by: gauker on July 23, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

Israel's military strategy continues to baffle me.

I am glad to see this remark in public, for I have felt this way for a number of years. It would be something like the Israelis complaining that the PLO did not police something, but then they would right away kill a policeman or blow up a police station. What the ...? It is up to Israel to explain such strategy, but they never do.

People can't be stopped thinking, and guess what conclusion they are going to come to about Israel?

Posted by: Bob M on July 23, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

As an effete intellectual, it pains me to point out that Ariel Sharon was one of the most physically grotesque world leaders I've ever seen. Can you imagine Americans electing such a physical freak to the presidency? I can't. As much as I decry the superficial in American politics, there's something about an incredibly overweight person that speaks of decadence, if not illness.

In deeds, as well as in physical appearance, Sharon was grotesque. As a neutral observer sympathetic to Israel, Sharon was a big turn off to me. He didn't seem to make any effort to rise above petty thuggery. That Bush supported him 100% was a clear early indicator that Bush was also a thug.

How incredibly tone deaf our leaders are. How delusional. Let's promote democracy, while displaying the most thuggish face to the world.

One of the values of democracy is that it provides an incentive for empathetic behavior -- for leaders who will try to see the various perspectives and communicate accordingly. Yitzak Rabin was a leader whom I would follow. I would never vote for Ariel Sharon. The man was one-dimensional. Once he became the face of Israel, Israel lost its chi (positive energy).

I pray that Israel will have the good sense to elect a leader who is more than the thug that Sharon was. Someone like Rabin...

Posted by: Detroit Dan on July 23, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

Israel is bombing Lebanon back to the stone age to prevent it successful development.

That is one theory I sometimes think myself, but my Lord.....

Posted by: Bob M on July 23, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

Total war. A war to pursue the final solution of a significant population unwilling to submit to Israel's authority. Scorched earth, take no prisoners war. Not just a fortnight of Kristalnachts, but a war to annihilate. A war to dehumanize the already weakest groups of the region and eliminate them. War fought with state of the art weapons systems against small armed militias with inaccurate missiles. Total War wholly subsidized by the US.

Posted by: Hostile on July 23, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

I don't believe the chief danger here - a la "Munich" - is that there is a bottomless well of Arab-Muslim hatred for Israel that will continually replenish the ranks of Hezbollah, that terrorist organizations can never be defeated or at least far degraded on the battlefield.

From a strategic (as opposed to humanitarian) point of view, the real threat I think is that the Israeli incursions into Lebanon re-open the country's sectarian divisions, leading to a new phase in the Lebanese civil war, possibly drawing in other players in the region, and leading to a humanitarian catastrophe on a far greater scale. In a worst case scenario, you can imagine scenarios in which this conflict explodes into a region-wide civil war between Sunnis and Shiites ending in the partition of Lebanon and other states.

No one will thank Mr. Bush for that.

As we are finding out in Iraq, anarchy is the friend of non-state guerrilla and terrorist networks - especially when cornered. Hezbollah may decide, like the Sunni insurgents (and their moneyed masters who are looting the country's oil sector under cover of chaos), that the best hope it has for survival is to provoke Lebanon's other players into civil war, and begin targeting Sunnis and Christians. Remember: this isn't just about Islamism and anti-Zionism (although no one should underestimate the extent to which maintaining male supremacy in the Arab-Muslim world is an unconscious motivation); it is about money and power.

Posted by: Linus on July 23, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

Why do Israelis feel they can win with leaders with can't see beyond the end of their noses? Netanyahu & Sharon have no appeal other than to those who feel that American might makes Israel right. What a bunch of bullies. They are doomed to fail, in my opinion.

Please Israel, elect someone with a bit of sophistication and empathy for human life on both sides. It's in your best interest...

Posted by: Detroit Dan on July 23, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

Geez, the Israeli leadership are a bunch of whining babies. They're getting a TINY FRACTION of what they have been doing to the Lebanese and Palestinians for decades, and they are pretending to be the victims.

How dare anyone fight back against the Israelis.
.

Posted by: VJ on July 23, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, so that makes Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and now Lebanon...

At what point does it make sense to say that the U.S. and Israel are engaged in a full-fledged war against the Middle East? When the bombs fall on Damascus? Tehran? Is 6 the magic number?

Posted by: smedleybutler on July 23, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

United Nations Humanitarian Ambassador Jan Egeland has called Israel's repeated attacks against civilian targets in Lebanon a violation of international law.
.

Posted by: VJ on July 23, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

I for one am tired of the oft-repeated refrain by the apologists that israel doesn't target civilians ... in the last 12 days alone, the death toll is already 300 lebanese to 30 israelis.

I couldn't give a fuck if they meant to kill all the civilians ... but they sure are good at it.

Posted by: Nads on July 23, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

At the behest and with complete cooperation of our government, Israel wants to eliminate the root cause of the problem.

That's a goal that, of course, everyone must applaud, but, unfortunately, for finding the root, they are looking at a few inches above the ground.

Posted by: nut on July 23, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

From Billmon:

There is a vast difference both moral and legal between an Aryan 2-year-old who is killed by an enemy rocket and a 30-year-old Slav who has allowed his house to be used to store Katyusha rockets. Both are biologically human, although the former is obviously superior to the latter. There is also a difference between a member of an inferior race who merely favors or even votes for the Bolsheviks, and one who provides financial or other material support for the international conspiracy of Jews and Freemasons.

Finally, there is a difference between enemy civilians who are held hostage against their will by terrorists who use them as involuntary shields, and those who voluntarily resist resettlement in the East in order to aid the so-called freedom fighters.

These differences and others are conflated within the increasingly meaningless word "human" a word that carried great significance when uniformed armies fought other uniformed armies on battlefields far from civilian population centers. Today, however, as we seek to bring the glories of German civilization to the barbarous East, this same word equates the truly innocent with the guilty accessories to Communism and decadent Jewish capitalism.

Posted by: Detroit Dan on July 23, 2006 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

What if the last Muslim is killed but even then the second coming does not occur?

Posted by: nut on July 23, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

Israel's military strategy continues to baffle me. As Gideon Levy puts it, Israel "claims it has declared war on Hezbollah but, in practice, it is destroying Lebanon."

They also claim that their various measures in the West Bank are only such as necessary to deal with terrorist threats, and have nothing to do with seizing land for settlements. What's baffling is why you would give any credence to their disingenuous claims, when their actual intent is so plain to anybody without a kneejerk pro-Israel stance.

Posted by: dj moonbat on July 23, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

The question isn't who Israel is fighting but who when the fighting ends will want to be part of a UN force enforcing a buffer zone. The US is radioactive in the world today. No one sees it as an honsest broker in this conflict. Its going to be real hard with Iraq and Afghanistan in utter chaos, to get anyone to sign on with more adventures with ths Administration.

Posted by: aline on July 23, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

If Hizbollah would fight like real men, civilians would not be dying.

They're cowards.

Posted by: Jay on July 23, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

"What if the last muslim is killed but even then the second coming does not occur"

Still a good day.

Posted by: Jay on July 23, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

The nut said "At the behest and with complete cooperation of our government, Israel wants to eliminate the root cause of the problem."

This shows you have no clue.

The root cause of the problem arises from the fact that the Jews ethnically cleansed somewhere between 750,000 and a million Christian and Muslim Arabs from their homes in the 1948 Jew land grab.

The solution is easy. Compensate these people and/or the 5,000,000 of their descendants in the Palestinian diaspora, for what the evil Jews have done to them.

If you had been thrown out of your home and not allowed to return, you would be still fighting as well. I certainly would be. I would never give up, and I would teach my children to hate the Jews who did this to me. You see how it goes on?

Posted by: watcher on July 23, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you for the Hizbollah point of view watcher.

Posted by: Jay on July 23, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

I would teach my children to hate the Jews

Who taught you?

Posted by: SoCalJustice on July 23, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

My impression is they are trying both to discredit Hezbollah, and wreck what they've accomplished, and, more importantly, to cause Lebanon to have a unified reaction, to react as a whole, not just as a venue of external influence.

It won't win them any friends, but they may see this as more stable in the long run.

(Conversely, if you want to put on your Machiavelli hat, they may be trying to get in a circumstance where some interaction with the Syrian army happens, real or not, whereat the US can pitch in with cruise missiles and try to force regime change in Damascus.)


This article points out that most people in the Lebanese regular army are Shiites,

http://upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060719-043938-2556r


Which probably answers why they bombed the regular army barracks.

Posted by: cld on July 23, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

The French Defense Minister, Michele Alliot-Marie, said much the same thing today:

"One cannot ask the Lebanese national army to disarm the militias and at the same time bomb the main Lebanese barracks."

Other criticisms of Israel's war conduct may be valid, but this is disingenuous. In fact, Israel didn't just ask Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, Lebanon committed to do so some years back. By now, it's obvious that Lebanon will not or cannot disarm Hexbollah. So, Israel is doing so themselves.

Posted by: ex-liberal on July 23, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

I see we have Jay wishing the extermination of the world's one billion muslim.

And watcher vilifying the "evil Jews".

Should have this crisis cleared up in no time.

Isn't that great? We get to hang with the smartest, most interesting people here at WM.

Posted by: Foundation of Mud on July 23, 2006 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINK

i would like to think my appraisal is way too extreme

i think that the armageddonists are in control. so, here is what i expect to see unfold over the next 30 days.......

israel land and air forces will exterminate every non-jew in the territories adjacent to israel. in gaza - all will be slaughtered. similarly, every human being in the lebanon will be exterminated. jordan may also be depopulated.

in jersusalem, in israel...all non-jews will be rounded up by idf einsatzgruppen and relocated to camps. in these camps there will be no food, no water, no sewage system. mass deaths from starvation, dehydration, cholera, typhus. these camps will be worse than oswiecim ever was. and there will be no crematoria for those dying in these camps from disease - israel will prefer to allow the bodies to rot on the ground, will prefer to have the vultures swarm to consume them.

if the killing ground extends to syria, it may well be the case that the usa participates in the destruction of that country.

and the rest of the world will stand by, doing nothing. why, because israel has them all targeted by their nuclear arsenal. has all their political leadership blackmailed.

the pope will be silent, even though a significant percentage of those exterminated by israel will be catholic christians[also maronite christians]. the dalai lama will be silent. so, too, all the leaders of all the world's religions.

if i see it accurately, israel will launch to eliminate riyadh, tehran. perhaps even cairo. perhaps even karachi.

and to paraphrase winston churchill, an iron blanket of totalitarianism will be draped over this planet.

if, and when, it is over, those with any memory may reconfigure their cerebral capacities to conclude that, all things considered, adolf and his gang weren't really so bad.

the zionist-controlled media in amerika rewrites history. unfortunately, the amerikan public don't care, i think. and then if you live in many european countries these days, denouncing israel may have now become a hate crime - a form of hate speech - and can cause one to become seized by the statspolizei, gendarmarie, mi5 and incarcerated. eric blair was so prophetic.

i wish that i knew the hebrew for seig heil, mein olmert.

Posted by: albertchampion on July 23, 2006 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, because all this hatred is working out well for us, isn't it? Unfortunately, when it comes to BushCo and the Israeli right, failure always amounts to some kind of weird vindication. Guess most of us will just stand by while they vindicate us all to kingdom come.

Posted by: Kenji on July 23, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

You may not agree with the Blair government, but at least they show some intelligence with their statements. All the statements coming out of the Bush administration show they really have no real grasp of what the geopolitical situation is. They're either clueless or indifferent, or both.

Posted by: Andy on July 23, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, you would think Watcher is trying to disrupt these threads on purpose.

Posted by: Thomas on July 23, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK


The major problem about Israel's invasion of Lebanon is that it is attempting to effect a conventional solution to a guerrilla war.

This has serious negative implications for the United States, such as those suggested by William S. Lind below.


With Hezbollahs entry into the war between Israel and Hamas, Fourth Generation war has taken another developmental step forward. For the first time, a non-state entity has gone to war with a state not by waging an insurgency against a state invader, but across an international boundary. Again we see how those who define 4GW simply as insurgency are looking at only a small part of the picture.

I think the stakes in the Israel-Hezbollah-Hamas war are significantly higher than most observers understand. If Hezbollah and Hamas winand winning just means surviving, given that Israels objective is to destroy both entitiesa powerful state will have suffered a new kind of defeat, again, a defeat across at least one international boundary and maybe two, depending on how one defines Gazas border. The balance between states and 4GW forces will be altered world-wide, and not to a trivial degree.

So far, Hezbollah is winning. As Arab states stood silent and helpless before Israels assault on Hamas, another non-state entity, Hezbollah, intervened to relieve the siege of Gaza by opening a second front. Its initial move, a brilliantly conducted raid that killed eight Israeli soldiers and captured two for the loss of one Hezbollah fighter, showed once again that Hezbollah can take on state armed forces on even terms (the Chechens are the only other 4GW force to demonstrate that capability). In both respects, the contrast with Arab states will be clear on the street, pushing the Arab and larger Islamic worlds further away from the state.

Hezbollah then pulled off two more firsts. It responded effectively to terror bombing from the air, which state think is their monopoly, with rocket barrages that reached deep into Israel. Once can only imagine how this resonated world-wide with people who are often bombed but can never bomb back. And, it attacked another state monopoly, navies, by hitting and disabling a blockading Israeli warship with something (I question Israels claim that the weapon was a C-801 anti-ship missile, which should have sunk a small missile corvette). Hezbollahs leadership has promised more such surprises.

In response, Israel has had to hit not Hezbollah but the state of Lebanon. Israels Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, referring to the initial Hezbollah raid, said, I want to make clear that the event this morning is not a terror act but the act of a sovereign state that attacked Israel without reason. This is an obvious fiction, as the state of Lebanon had nothing to do with the raid and cannot control Hezbollah. But it is a necessary fiction for Israel, because otherwise who can it respond against? Again we see the power 4GW entities obtain by hiding within states but not being a state.

What comes next? In the short run, the question may be which runs out first, Hezbollahs supply of rockets or the worlds patience with Israel bombing the helpless state of Lebanon. If the latter continues much longer, the Lebanese government may collapse, undoing one of Americas few recent successes in the Islamic world.

The critical question is whether the current fighting spreads region-wide. It is possible that Hezbollah attacked Israel not only to relieve the siege of Hamas in Gaza but also to pre-empt an Israeli strike on Iran. The current Iranian government is not disposed to sit passively like Saddam and await an Israeli or American attack. It may have given Hezbollah a green light in order to bog Israel down locally to the point where it would not also want war with Iran.

However, Israels response may be exactly the opposite. Olmert also said, Nothing will deter us, whatever far-reaching ramifications regarding our relations on the northern border and in the region there may be. The phrase in the region could refer to Syria, Iran or both.

If Israel does attack Iran, the summer of 1914 analogy may play itself out, catastrophically for the United States. As I have warned many times, war with Iran (Iran has publicly stated it would regard an Israeli attack as an attack by the U.S. also) could easily cost America the army it now has deployed in Iraq. It would almost certainly send shock waves through an already fragile world economy, potentially bringing that house of cards down. A Bush administration that has sneered at stability could find out just how high the price of instability can be.J

It is clear what Washington needs to do to try to prevent such an outcome: publicly distance the U.S. from Israel while privately informing Mr. Olmert that it will not tolerate an Israeli strike on Iran. Unfortunately, Israel is to America what Serbia was to Russia in 1914. That may be the most disturbing aspect of the summer of 1914 analogy.

Posted by: Thinker on July 23, 2006 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, you would think Watcher is trying to disrupt these threads on purpose.

Or the Joooooooz are making him do it.

Posted by: dj moonbat on July 23, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, the story is a total fabrication. A fake provocation to start a war. Yes, the Jews are evil people.
Posted by: watcher

Where you lose me is in your use of the bold font. It shows a lack of serious. Ness. Now if you were to combine bold and italics together your arguments would form a virtual gtterdmmerung de resistance' a steamroller of logic that would sweep all of us before it like the trash on Bourbon Street before Katrina.

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 23, 2006 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

"And the hungry sheep look up and are not fed, and swollen by the wind and rank mist they draw, rot inwardly and foul contagion spread..."
--Plutarch

Posted by: Quotation Man on July 23, 2006 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

Something like 95 percent of child molesters were molested as children. I guess that explains Israel psychologically.

Posted by: El Pollo on July 23, 2006 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

"If Hizbollah would fight like real men, civilians would not be dying.

They're cowards."

I suppose they should line up on the plains with their IEDs so IDF jets, helicopters, and tanks can mow them down...shhheeesshh. how unbelievablly stupid can a wingnut be.

no jackass, its chickenhawks sitting behind their keyboards in their comfy homes 20,000 miles from the war zones passing judgements and being frustrated by their fantasmogorical enemies denying them their organisms from watching them be blown to bits on TV that are the cowards.

the warmongers on this blog - you are the cowards. yellowbelly, chickenshit, spineless, mouth organs blowing each other while real people are slaughtered for no damn reason at all except the blood lust of you and your sick perverted ilk.

Posted by: justfred on July 23, 2006 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

They are destroying a rival economy that was really getting its act together and was again becoming a tourist mecca.

They are creating a failed state and a northern border that will be unstable for another decade. They have solicited a serious attack from an agent that has some margin of effectiveness, whereas the Palestinians have really been ineffective enemies for many years now. This is great to keep the populace in fear and clinging to the lunatics in power in spite of their inability to improve the lives or security of Israelis.

They are creating a distraction from the utter failure to solve their Palestinian problem.

They are letting Syria and Iran see they are still crazy motherfuckers who just might drop a bomb or ten or their capitals, perhaps without a lot of reason.

They are driving a deeper wedge between the US all arabian and muslim countries. They want everyone to remember who's bitch we are.

So in all important aspects, they are getting what they wanted.

Why the hell would htey actually want to defeat Hezbollah. The entire political structure of the country is based on keeping people afraid.

Posted by: Mysticdog on July 23, 2006 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

Um... Whom is Israel fighting?

Posted by: Grammar twit on July 23, 2006 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

Now, now justfred, I thought liberals were opposed to hate speech and that is not a good example of tolerance the liberals espouse towards free speech.

Hizbollah intermingle with civilians and wage war from residential areas. The Israeli armed forces are identifiable and follow the rules of engagement. Two sentences, surely you can understand that.

Posted by: Jay on July 23, 2006 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

justfred
I suppose they should line up on the plains with their IEDs so IDF jets, helicopters, and tanks can mow them down...shhheeesshh. how unbelievably stupid can a wingnut be.

justfred, would you hide behind women and children in order to fight?

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 23, 2006 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

It's sad that Israel has lost its way, while their Arab opponents have never found theirs. This will only come to an end when a non-violent opposition assumes preeminence in the Arab territories. IMO...

Posted by: Detroit Dan on July 23, 2006 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

justfred, would you hide behind women and children in order to fight?
Posted by: Red State Mike

what difference would it make ... even if they didn't, apologists like you would still somehow justify israeli massacre of civilian arabs.

in the last 20 years, israeli aggresion has slaughtered 1000's more arab and palestinian civilians than suicide bombers. I'm sure all of those casualties were busy shielding a "real" terrorist every single time, and so were justifiably killed.

... or they just didn't leave the land that the expansionists wanted, and so got what was coming to them.

... just be an honest racist ... like jay. you don't give a fuck about the israeli massacre of the civilian sand niggers, and you never have.

Posted by: Nads on July 23, 2006 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

"justfred, would you hide behind women and children in order to fight?"

RSM, would you hide behind your keyboard because you are afraid to fight?

Or, maybe you would just hide behind your F15 or M1A1?

Why not go over there and show them what a real Red State man would do.? Or, is it past your bedtime again?


Posted by: Whack a NeoCon for Christ on July 23, 2006 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

Nads
justfred, would you hide behind women and children in order to fight?
Posted by: Red State Mike
what difference would it make...

Apparently none to you. You seem to be comfortable with the tactic.

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 23, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Jay, Red State Mike. Did you guys go to church today and worship you little pigeyed god (that is love?).
jew christian muslim israeli american it matters not you are ALL cannon fodder.
I hope you get the "hell" you're praying for (and so richly deserve). I hope the first bombs that hit this country fall on MY head. I am so sick of pricks like you guys.

Posted by: slackdaemon on July 23, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently none to you. You seem to be comfortable with the tactic.
Posted by: Red State Mike

Insults from trash like you is beneath consideration. Apologists for war criminals have little moral room to decry others' unsavory tactics.

Posted by: Nads on July 23, 2006 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINK

slackdaemon
I hope the first bombs that hit this country fall on MY head. I am so sick of pricks like you guys.

I'm sure you'll be hiding amongst women and children when it happens.

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 23, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

rsm:

people like you probably whined that the indian savages were scalping the white man, while simultaneously you were passing them blankets with smallpox to steal their land.

you have the moral authority of dogshit. you find hiding behind civilians offensive ... good for you. I find the ethnic cleansing of palestine offensive.

there is a cult of victimhood among white males that I just don't understand.

Posted by: Nads on July 23, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, racist, hate monger and stupid. Nads wins the trifecta.

Posted by: Jay on July 23, 2006 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK

There's a lot of things you don't understand Nads.

Posted by: Jay on July 23, 2006 at 10:23 PM | PERMALINK

Learning some Lebanese History.

In 1954, Jews planned and eventually caused the first Lebanese Civil War. It took them much effort and time, but eventually their evil plan came to fruition.

How do we know this?

Because Ben Gurion and Moshe Sharett (early Israeli prime ministers) corresponded to each other about Ben Gurion's plan to destroy Lebanon and Moshe Sharett's son published the correspondence.

"The only thing that's necessary is to find a Lebanese officer, even just a major. We should either win his heart or buy him (with money) to make him agree to declare himself the savior of the Marionette population. Then the Israeli army will enter Lebanon, will occupy the necessary territory and will create a Christian regime which will ally itself with Israel ... and then everything will be all right." Moshe Dayan

You can read exactly what these evil Jews planned for Lebanon here.

Posted by: watcher on July 23, 2006 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

It doesn't take much to expose the irrationality stupidity of liberalism as exemplified by slackdaemon and Nads.

No wonder you guys lose elctions.

Posted by: Jay on July 23, 2006 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINK

jay ...

the white trash viewpoint is already well-represented. no need for you to be here, as you contribute so little. go back to masturbating to pictures of dead fallujan mercenaries.

Posted by: Nads on July 23, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

So lets see watcher, the Israeli's planned to subvertly win over the Lebanese gov't in order to co-exist and the Arabs planned to wipe Israel off of the map by killing them all.

And the Israeli's are the "evil" ones?

You might want to rethink that one.

Posted by: Jay on July 23, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

There's a lot of things you don't understand Nads.
Posted by: Jay

"What if the last muslim is killed but even then the second coming does not occur"

Still a good day.
Posted by: Jay

Nads understands plenty. You are a filthy, hate-filled racist advocate of genocide. Nads is right. You are dogshit. You belong in an asylum, because you're not fit to walk around among polite society.

Posted by: Reprobate on July 23, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

israeli's aren't evil ... only juvenile dickweed pussies like jay think in terms of collectively condemning entire races or countries. ... usually hiding behind the safety of their keyboards.

israeli aggression is evil, as are the massive civilian casualties they've caused.

Posted by: Nads on July 23, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

Completely unhinged, all of you.

We play you like a fiddle.

Posted by: Jay on July 23, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

I'd be fighting with the Israelis if my hemmorhoids weren't acting up. Ouch.

Posted by: Jay on July 23, 2006 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

I play you all like I play with myself every day--since women won't touch me with a 100 ft. pole.

Posted by: Jay on July 23, 2006 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

Jay said: "So lets see watcher, the Israeli's planned to subvertly win over the Lebanese gov't in order to co-exist,....."

Does this sound like a plan to subvertly win over the Lebanese gov't ?!?!?!? READ IT.

"The creation of a Christian State (in Lebanon) is therefore a natural act; it has historical roots and it will find support in wide circles in the Christian world, both Catholic and Protestant. In normal times this would be almost impossible. First and foremost because of the lack of initiative and courage of the Christians. But at times of confusion, or revolution or CIVIL WAR, things take on another aspect, and even the weak declares himself to be a hero. Perhaps (there is never any certainty in politics) now is the time to bring about the creation of a Christian State in our neighborhood. Without our initiative and our vigorous aid this will not be done. It seems to me that this is the central duty - or at least one of the central duties, of our foreign policy. This means that time, energy and means ought to be invested in it and that we must act in all possible ways to bring about a radical change in Lebanon. Sasson ... and our other Arabists must be mobilized. If money is necessary, no amount of dollars should be spared, although the money may be spent in vain. We must concentrate all our efforts on this issue ........ This is a historical opportunity. Missing it will be unpardonable." Ben Gurion, February 27, 1954, from personal correspondence to Moshe Sharett.

Posted by: watcher on July 23, 2006 at 11:01 PM | PERMALINK

watcher, the Arabs have the same "evil" plan for Israel, as recently re-stated by Ahmendijad.

So, really what's your point?

Posted by: Jay on July 23, 2006 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

btw, I'd like to see verification of this "personal correspondence", I'm thinking you pulled it off of another moonbat site.

Posted by: Jay on July 23, 2006 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

Here we go round
the mulberry bush
the mulberry bush

Posted by: Chris Tucker aka Genius on July 23, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

SBMike said: "You're absolutely right. (The HolyCo$t is) Nothing but a big lie."

Yes exactly. The HolyCo$t is nothing but a big lie.

So, SBMike, how many people died at Auschwitz?

The 4,000,000 recorded on the Auschwitz plaque shown in this photo:

Plaque from Auschwitz showing 4 million "victims".

This plaque was on display at Auschwitz from 1948 until about 1990 when the Soviets released certain documents found at Auschwitz.

OR, the 1,500,000 recorded on the Auschwitz plaques shown in these photos:

Plaque from Auschwitz showing 1.5 million "victims".
Plaque from Auschwitz showing 1.5 million "victims" (Deutsch).

These plaques are currently on display at Auschwitz (English and German).

OR, something closer to the 68,864 death certificates issued by German doctors at Auschwitz. These deaths certificates were issued between August 1941 and January 1944 and were found at Auschwitz by Soviet troops. They were then hidden by the Soviets till 1989 when Gorbechev presented them to the Red Cross.

Strangely, just after the Soviets released the deaths certificates the claimed number of dead at Auschwitz was reduced (by the Jews) from 4 million to 1.5 million.

So, SBMike, 4,000,000 or 1,500,000 or about the one hundred thousand, according to the documented evidence.

Posted by: watcher on July 23, 2006 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK
As far as I'm concerned, Israel lost the moral high ground in 1982 Detroit Dan5:24 PM
Here's a partial list of Israeli massacres of Palestinians. Are there more? Of course. You can google the Qana Massacre yourself or you can start here. I remember it too well. It was a disgusting Israeli atrocity.
If Hizbollah would fight like real men They're cowards. Jay 7:38 PM
They are pretty damn brave to take on the region's largest military, especially when one compares their bravery to the cowardice of those Bush war supporters who flee from military duty.
So, Israel is doing so themselves. ex-liberal 8:00 PM
That is disingenuous. Israel is destroying the civilian population of Lebanon and its infrastructure which is the opposite of what one would do to meet the stated goals.

Syria was maintaining a relative peace but was kicked out after Prominent Lebanese anti-Syrian MP and journalist Gibran Tueni has been killed in a massive car bomb attack in Beirut. This was blamed on Syria, but it never made sense to me that they did it. If one asked, Cui bono?, the answer was the US and Israel. Of course, in these matters, proof is nearly impossible until government records are disclosed decades later.

However, I note that " Last month, the Lebanese police uncovered a wide network of Israeli intelligence in Lebanon headed by a certain Mahmud Rafi`. The network was responsible for various assassinations (using car bombs--one of Israel's favorite forms of assassinations), and for the delivery of briefcases filled with explosives to agents all over Lebanon. This is part of the context of Israeli aggression on Lebanon." My suspicion remains.

Hizbollah intermingle with civilians and wage war from residential areas. The Israeli armed forces are identifiable and follow the rules of engagement.Jay 9:10 PM Red State Mike

Hezbollah is attacking from the hills of southern Lebanon; Israel is destroying civilian targets throughout the country. Their "rules of engagement" allow them to attack children, women, innocent civilians with bombs from 10000 feet when there is no presence of Hezbollah. Cowards.
Wow, racist, hate monger and stupid Jay 10:22 PM

Sorry, those prizes all went to you and your soulmate, watcher

Posted by: Mike on July 23, 2006 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

Israel, though they use attacks as the reason, and nearly all those wackos in the middle east are still fighting a war that's a thousand years old.

Until you rip that Koran and the Torah and the Talmud and all that other Religious text out of these peoples hands they will continue to repeat themselves and their actions.

Here today we have a certian Mr Hagee, a Preacher in texas, who has amassed his membership of 18,000 folks, and traveled to Washington to promote the War of Israel to hasten the 'second coming'

I am a religious person, I do have my Ideology, and no man should ever forget his history, but until we learn to put mankind before our history we WILL continue this mulberry bush of death, destruction and hatred.

If we in America can get over the race card, then we ALL need to get over this religious card.,.just sayin my mind.

Posted by: Chris Tucker aka Genius on July 23, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

Ooops. The HolyCo$t stuff should have gone to the other thread.

Posted by: watcher on July 23, 2006 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK
watcher, the Arabs have the same "evil" plan for Israel, as recently re-stated by Ahmendijad.

Iranian ≠ Arab

Posted by: cmdicely on July 23, 2006 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK

In effect what we have today, [Saudi Hijackers] is that Saudi and Israel have been warring by proxy.

A Reverse Proxy in the case of Iraq due to our aforementioned, previous post, Christian Zionists [aka Neo-Cons]

The Arab Israeli War Continues while we are in a quagmire in Iraq.

Posted by: Chris Tucker aka Genius on July 23, 2006 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Mike, get your head out of the sand. Why do you contend that Israel is killing"women, children and innocent civillians" while extolling virtues of Hezbollah as if they are the Green Party? Do you not see the pictures of bombs hitting "women, children and innocent civilians" in Haifa, Israels third largest metropolitan city? Peolpe like you who only know part of the story make me sick. I call comments like yours half-assed.

Posted by: sickandtired on July 23, 2006 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

Syria was maintaining a relative peace but was kicked out after Prominent Lebanese anti-Syrian MP and journalist Gibran Tueni has been killed in a massive car bomb attack in Beirut. This was blamed on Syria, but it never made sense to me that they did it.

Well, Mike, I guess you're right - it does make more sense to trust your evidence-free hunch than to take the word of an independent UN-mandated inquiry run by a German prosecutor that spent months investigating and had the full cooperation of Lebanese and Syrian sources.

Posted by: brooksfoe on July 24, 2006 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINK

There are several people in the Republican party and the Bush administration who put the interests of the Israeli rightwing above the interest of the United States of America.

Look at the actions of PNAC. They first tried to sell an invasion of Iraq to the Israelis. When the September 11 attacks occurred, the PNAC sold the same bill of goods to the Bush administration.

Our PNAC-sponsored endeavors in Iraq were, from the beginning, designed to defend the interests of Israel, not the USA.

Would it not be correct to say that Republicans who put the interests of Israel above the interests of the United States are traitors?

Posted by: julie on July 24, 2006 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, RedStateMike, Watcher, American Hawk, FWG, how can you not understand how similar your arguments are, just vilifying different people? Oh, and you too, AlbertChampion. How can you sit here and read other people's posts and fail to see this. Or are you too busy thinking up other verbiage to vilify your chosen objects of hate?

Detroit Dan and Charlie Bucket: many thanks for a welcome breath of sanity.

There is plenty of blame to go around here. Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi, and yes, poor Lebanon, all have blood on their hands. And we Americans sure as hell do, too. So what happens?

Warmongers/fanatics of Hamas or Hezbollah or a Palestinian do a suicide bomb or blow up a public bus. THAT'LL show 'em! We have to teach 'em a lesson!

Warmongers/fanatics of Israel bomb the shit out of Lebanon. Or annex Gaza. THAT'LL show 'em!
We gave to teach 'em a lesson!

Or someone on either side abrogates a treaty or refuses to live up to an agreement.

Both sides: See, I told you! You can't trust [fill in the blank]!

Both sides: what do you expect us to do? We HAVE to defend ourselves or they'll perceive us to be weak!

Both sides after a few blessed weeks of peace: Oh no, [fill in the blank] thinks we're weak! We better SHOW 'em!

And so on and on it goes with no permanent resolution. How can anyone not see this?

We who are not crazy and who truly value human life have to start seriously using the power of the Internet to communicate with one another, to march and use non-violent means. To editorialize.

Those of us living in countries with more-or-less real elections need to pool our money and seriously get behind organizations like Sojourners, MoveOn, and others, so we can elect politicians who are capable of thinking beyond saber-rattling. Who are capable of admitting when they are wrong. Who will talk with each other. This will be a long-term process. The problems have been there for millennia and will take a long time to counteract.

Think of slavery, folks. Less than 160 years ago this was legal in the U.S. and many other places. Today it is not legal anywhere. That's not to say it doesn't go on, or that people live in de facto slavery where there is no form of representative government. But ownership of one human by another? This is no longer a policy of any government that I'm aware of.

So we can do this with war as well. Make it unacceptable. There will still be violent people, crazies, fanatics, who cannot or will not rein themselves in. But let's work toward making bombing people, bayonetting people, shooting at people, unacceptable, and going after and jailing those who do this. Let's work toward making conflict resolution through talk and negotiating and you give a little, I give a little, we both get something we want.

For right now, get a larger international force in there with teeth to go after individuals indentified as aggressors.

And we of the U.S., I agree with I believe it was Detroit Dan. We are poison in the Mideast now. None of the Arabs trust us. Bush with his freakin' cowboy "diplomacy" has made this worse, but bad decisions, further inflaming things, and working towards lining the pockets of a few evil men and women, have gone on for years and decades, under both Republicans and Democrats.

We need to get our troops out of Iraq and withdraw from the Mideast for some time to come, and stay out. I'd be willing to bet also, that if we quietly told Israel that we will no longer support them when they practice genocide, that they would suddenly find more diplomatic ways of dealing more attractive.

We also need to embark on a Manhattan project for energy dependence from Mideast oil, because that has seriously distorted our policies since WWII, at least.

Jay, RedStateMike, Watcher, American Hawk, FWG, AlbertChampion, and others who think like you: I pray that some day you will come to a more mature understanding. You harm yourselves a great deal with your hate.

Posted by: Wolfdaughter on July 24, 2006 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

Learning some Lebanese History.

In 1954, Jews planned and eventually caused the first Lebanese Civil War. It took them much effort and time, but eventually their evil plan came to fruition.

How do we know this?

Because Ben Gurion and Moshe Sharett (early Israeli prime ministers) corresponded to each other about Ben Gurion's plan to destroy Lebanon and Moshe Sharett's son published the correspondence.

"The only thing that's necessary is to find a Lebanese officer, even just a major. We should either win his heart or buy him to make him agree to declare himself the savior of the Marionette population. Then the Israeli army will enter Lebanon, will occupy the necessary territory and will create a Christian regime which will ally itself with Israel ... and then everything will be all right." Moshe Dayan

You can read exactly what these evil Jews planned for Lebanon here.

For those too lazy to click, the following snippet from the correspondence sums it up.

"The creation of a Christian State (in Lebanon) is therefore a natural act; it has historical roots and it will find support in wide circles in the Christian world, both Catholic and Protestant. In normal times this would be almost impossible. First and foremost because of the lack of initiative and courage of the Christians. But at times of confusion, or revolution or CIVIL WAR, things take on another aspect, and even the weak declares himself to be a hero. Perhaps (there is never any certainty in politics) now is the time to bring about the creation of a Christian State in our neighborhood. Without our initiative and our vigorous aid this will not be done. It seems to me that this is the central duty - or at least one of the central duties, of our foreign policy. This means that time, energy and means ought to be invested in it and that we must act in all possible ways to bring about a radical change in Lebanon. Sasson ... and our other Arabists must be mobilized. If money is necessary, no amount of dollars should be spared, although the money may be spent in vain. We must concentrate all our efforts on this issue ........ This is a historical opportunity. Missing it will be unpardonable." Ben Gurion, February 27, 1954, personal correspondence to Moshe Sharett.

Jews like Wolfdaughter call the above article exposing Jewish evil, hate.

What is more hateful:

1) providing documentation concerning the totally evil Jews who plan wars that will kill hundreds of thousands, or millions,... or

2) trying to keep such knowledge from the public by calling it hate, so that these evil Jews can do it all again tomorrow.

Posted by: watcher on July 24, 2006 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK

Watcher:

Thanks for proving my point and being totally clueless while doing it. Did you read my post at all?

Incidentally, I am not Jewish, although I was married to a Jewish man for 24 years. I am an Episcopalian. I never cease to be amazed at the assumptions some people make.

Posted by: Wolfdaughter on July 24, 2006 at 2:25 AM | PERMALINK

you are an astonishingly ignorant woman.

and i shall leave it at that.

Posted by: albertchampion on July 24, 2006 at 2:45 AM | PERMALINK

Wolfdaughter: so you see hate in that article. Perhaps you should say where.

I assume you agree that people who plan wars that will kill hundreds of thousands, or millions, are evil.

So Jews who plan wars that will kill hundreds of thousands, or millions, are therefore also evil.

But in your skewed world it is "hate" to call Jews evil (especially when they are totally the evil Jews who plan wars that will kill hundreds of thousands, or millions).

Posted by: watcher on July 24, 2006 at 2:49 AM | PERMALINK

Don't worry wolfdaughter - pearls before swine, and all that...

Posted by: floopmeister on July 24, 2006 at 3:01 AM | PERMALINK

A war against Hezbollah is justifiable, whether wise or not, but a war against Lebanon isn't. Israel will gain nothing from continuing it.

Make a list of targets in Lebanon that Israel must be forbidden to attack. In the next round, that is where Hiabollah will store its rockets. There isn't in fact any way to destroy more than a few percent of the rockets and their launchers without doing enormous damage to Lebanese civilian infrastructure. So either you support the destruction of Hizbollah military capacity along with the other civilian costs, or you support the ability of Hizbollah to inflict considerably more casualties on the Israelis.

It's possible that a neutral force, NATO or UN, could go in and disarm Hizbollah, but Hizbollah is not yet ready to agree to such a thing.

You could outline how Israel could effectively war against Hizbollah without damaging the rest of Lebanon. However, as I hinted, if Hizbollah saw the pattern, they would take advantage of it.

I think that you just haven't accepted the cruel dilemma posed by Hiabollah's use of civilian facilities for its military purposes.

Posted by: republicrat on July 24, 2006 at 3:12 AM | PERMALINK

Are there really this many anti-semites out there all the time, or they just crawl out of their dark filthy corners when someone is foolish enough to post an inviting entry on a blog?

Posted by: brooksfoe on July 24, 2006 at 3:32 AM | PERMALINK

As Gideon Levy puts it, Israel "claims it has declared war on Hezbollah but, in practice, it is destroying Lebanon."

The US declared war on Germany, and then it leveled the cities and towns of France and Italy. The apparent disparity is easy to understand.

Israel is destroying the part of Lebanon that Hizbollah uses for its military purposes.

Posted by: republicrat on July 24, 2006 at 3:52 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin:

Gideon Levy on anything re: Israel is the equivalent of Noam Chomsky on anything re: U.S.'s foreign policy, minus the latter's brilliance and academic cridentials. To put it bluntly, G. Levy is about as far as one can get to the left of Israel's journalistic mainsteam, without actually crossing into enemy territory.

Quoting G. Levy's opinions the way you did adds nothing to one's understanding of Israel's policies. (Needless to say, Mr. Levy has zero access to Israeli policy makers.)

The vast majority of mainstream journalists in Israel -- both print and electronic media, support Israel's goal of defanging Hezbollah. Regrettably, last year Hezbollah became part of Lebanon's govt, without giving up its own militia. Then, they foolishly provoked Israel.

Now, in order to protect its 2+ million citizens (40 percent of whom are Israeli Arabs) who live within the range of Hezbollah's rockets, Israel must do the dirty work, which entails a surgical separation of the cancer that is Hezbollah from Israel's border with Lebanon. It's naive to think that such a surgery will inflict no pain on Lebanon's civilian population.

So far, Israel has been doing a remarkably clean job. Indeed, after 12 days of military campaign Lebanon has suffered much physical destruction, but less than 360 fatalities. Compare that to the last three U.S. campaigns: in Serbia/Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. (Btw, Lebanon claims that all 360 dead are civilians. Yeah, right.)

As to the fighting itself, esp. the ground part, it's been moving slower than in Israel's past military campaigns. Clearly, the Hezbollah spent the last 6 years digging in, and IDF is trying to minimize casualties to its own troops.

As to Israel's goals (IMHO):

Creating a Hezbollah-free buffer zone to the north of Israel, to be enforced by NATO-based military presence, eventually to be handed over to the Lebanese army, is a must. After all, it's the Israeli govt.'s job to protect its citizens.

The return of two kidnapped Israeli soldiers may work out after the fighting is over, esp. since Israel has already captured a few new Hezbollah fighters, and it's likely to capture more.

Disarming of Hezbollah -- a part of the UN Security Council's resolution, should be left to the international community. Sadly, a complete elimination of Hezbollah is not in the cards: it'd be impossible to achieve without occupying Lebanon, something no one has the stomach for.

Shebaa Farms -- no one cares, IMHO. The land officially belongs to Syria, but Lebanon claims it, and Syria seems willing to give it up. I think the Israelis wouldn't mind either, as long as it doesn't become some sort of a victory for Hezbollah, like Israel's 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon had become.

P.S. Kevin: A few days ago, you claimed ignorance on the whole Israeli-Arab issue. IMHO, reading the likes of Gideon Levy won't farther your education on the subject. Frankly, I know no Israelis who take the man seriously. Try instead Akiva Eldar or Zev Schiff from Haaretz, or almost anyone from Yediot Aharonot - Israel's largest daily (ynetnews.com). All these guys are center-left politically. The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com) is usually center-right, but still well within Israel's national concensus.

Good luck,

Gary S. in LVNV

Posted by: Gary S. in LVNV on July 24, 2006 at 3:53 AM | PERMALINK

K...E...V...I...N -- D...R...U...M,
this must be your blind spot. I couldn't understand why you left this brutal war alone for so long.

I posted repeatedly that you were ignoring something important.

Eventually you came to post on this and now you show so much ignorance.

Quite amazing, really. What is wrong with you?
-------------
"...Israel's military strategy continues to baffle me. As Gideon Levy puts it, Israel "claims it has declared war on Hezbollah but, in practice, it is destroying Lebanon."..."

Kevin Drum 3:41 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (111)
--------------------
In the last 3 weeks, I think I have posted several times here in some form or another on the out-of-balance confrontation in the Middle East:

Particularly repeated: The 20-year destruction:

Israel's chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, told Israel's Channel 10, "If the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years."

===========
Hey, Hey! He told you what was going to happen here. He turned out to be right.

How ignorant or stupid do you have to prove yourself to be?

Asymmetric? Collateral?

Pick your own "rosy" term.
The Israelis don't have compassion.

Posted by: notthere on July 24, 2006 at 4:10 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum, I apologize. If I remember corrtectly, you said you had no knowledge of international affairs, and, as such, you are in line with most US citizens.

If I don't remember correctly, then you show the often apparent affliction.

C. Rice is finally heading for the Middle East but with the idea that Hizbullah is the core of the problem.

This is clearly an error.

The base of the problem is Palestine and 2-state settlement.

For GGOOODDDDSS Sake, get back on the actual problem.

This administration SOoo much wants to chase shadows. Stop it!

Posted by: notthere on July 24, 2006 at 4:25 AM | PERMALINK

Dear Kevin,

Your comments section seems to be overdue for its monthly flea and tick bath. Vermin are crawling all over your recent posts. I suggest drastic measures to prevent additional contamination.

Sincerely,
Your Friends on the Internets

Posted by: Readers of the Washington Monthly on July 24, 2006 at 8:09 AM | PERMALINK

Your comments section seems to be overdue for its monthly flea and tick bath. Vermin are crawling all over your recent posts. I suggest drastic measures to prevent additional contamination.

Sincerely,
Your Friends on the Internets
Posted by: Readers of the Washington Monthly

He pegged it right when he explained his reticence to blog on this topic last week...the Arab/Israeli conflict brings out the worst. Great trolling opportunities, but you end up reeling in a diseased carp covered with hairy (contagious) tumors.

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 24, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin:

While I don't support blog censorship (I realize it's your right, of course) and moderation of most any sort, feeling, like you do, that we can take care of ourselves -- nontheless I have to echo brooksfoe, wolfdaughter and some others here and throw my voice with theirs in protest against our new infestation of virulently anti-semitic trolls.

Understand I'm making a distinction between watcher -- the sine qua non of this new batch, if not indeed the sock puppet master -- and PA regulars like manuga and albertchampion. Those guys seem like old military types with heads full of conspiracy theories -- which is fine. While they both detest Israel and say some things way out of mainstream opinion -- neither use gutter invective like "evil Jews."

Watcher, OTOH, is a bona-fide Holocaust denier (he spells it HolyCo$t). I don't think that kind of opinion has any place in a rational discussion of Israeli policy. If it were possible, I'd strongly support banning him and others of his ilk -- with that position as litmus test. We've always had a few of these sorts pop by every few weeks or so (e.g. "karen" / "tj"), but since you've been posting a lot on the Israel / Lebanon war, they've decided to misread our often intense criticism of Israeli policy as a seedbed of hostility to Jews, and to trawl (troll) for Jew haters. It's disgusting, Kevin. I don't want to see this drive away good commenters from PA.

It's also politically awful, because it gives our regular GOP trolls that much more ammunition to conflate a position critical of Israel to anti-semitism.

I'm not making practical, concrete suggestions. I've seen you delete a few posts from these types already. I just wanted to throw my support to you for that, hoping it would matter especially since I've been such a vocal proponent of laissez-faire moderation in the past.

All The Best,

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 24, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

I'm emailing Kevin that post.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 24, 2006 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINK

RSM: He pegged it right when he explained his reticence to blog on this topic last week...the Arab/Israeli conflict brings out the worst.

It surely does, but given world events, one can hardly fail to address it at this point and still call oneself a political blogger.

Great trolling opportunities, but you end up reeling in a diseased carp covered with hairy (contagious) tumors.

This blog suffers from several serious infestations from trolls and non-trolls. It sucks, but it's the price we pay to be able to say what we want. Once again (not that it will do any good), a registration system would take care of a lot of this crap by allowing readers to put worthless trolls and diseased regulars on personal "ignore."

For what it's worth--not much--I think "watcher" and a couple other of our more virulently anti-Semitic posters are ringers from the right. That's not to say there aren't actual anti-Semites on the left, but I've yet to meet more than a handful, none of which begin to approach this level of cartoonishness. Watch morons like Mike K. snapping like a trout at the prospect of calling anti-Semitism a liberal affliction and you can't help but be amused; these goofs fall for it every time.

Of course, taking this argument to its opposite extreme, I'd have to consider that psycho anti-Islam Jay (who calls the prospective eventuality of exterminating the last Muslim on earth "a good day") might be a creation of the left designed to make the right look bad.

Hmmmm. I'll give that some careful thought.

Posted by: shortstop on July 24, 2006 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

So, Bob,... We know from a previous thread that you believed that the camps Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, and perhaps other camps in Germany, were death camps.

But I have educated you and you now know that there were NO DEATH CAMPS IN GERMANY.

You now know that all the film footage taken by the Americans, of the dead and starving, that is used as evidence for death camps, is NOT EVIDENCE for death camps at all, because there were no death camps in Germany and Americans only took film footage at the camps they liberated, which were in Germany and France.

Are your other beliefs about the HolyCo$t as erroneous as that belief was?

Lets ascertain some facts. You see, Bob, I believe in discussing facts.

How many people DO YOU BELIEVE died at Auschwitz?

1) The 4,000,000 recorded on the Auschwitz plaque shown in this photo:

Plaque from Auschwitz showing 4 million "victims".

This plaque was on display at Auschwitz from 1948 until about 1990 when the Soviets released certain documents found at Auschwitz.

2) The 1,500,000 recorded on the Auschwitz plaques shown in these photos:

Plaque from Auschwitz showing 1.5 million "victims".
Plaque from Auschwitz showing 1.5 million "victims" (Deutsch).

These plaques are currently on display at Auschwitz (English and German).

3) something closer to the 68,864 death certificates issued by German doctors at Auschwitz. These deaths certificates were issued between August 1941 and January 1944 and were found at Auschwitz by Soviet troops. They were then hidden by the Soviets till 1989 when Gorbechev presented them to the Red Cross.

Strangely, just after the Soviets released the deaths certificates the claimed number of dead at Auschwitz was reduced (by the Jews) from 4 million to 1.5 million.

So, Bob, 4,000,000 or 1,500,000 or about the one hundred thousand, according to the documented evidence.

Please, Bob, tell us which number you believe (and why the 4 million figure suddenly became wrong,... if indeed it is wrong).

Posted by: watcher on July 24, 2006 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

Watcher:

Since you didn't get it the first time, here's the post that refutes your BS from the other thread.

If you don't choose to engage these arguments, don't expect me to read your anti-semitic boilerplate.

NoLongerWatching:

> Gee bob, you are a nasty piece of work.

No, actually I'm not a nasty piece of work. I'm fairly good-natured,
and tend to be a lot more patient with the trolls on this site than
most. For example, the very fact that I'm responding to you civilly.

"A nasty piece of work" is a Holocaust denier. That's you, my friend.
A Holocaust denier is a person so filled with hatred that they exist
in their own parallel intellectual universe. If you think I harbor
any illusions of getting you to see the light, you'd be mistaken.
You're already damned. Your mind, heart and soul are poisoned.

I'm just writing this for my own entertainment, and the amusement
of the one or two regulars who might check out an old thread.

If you think anyone else on this site is going to agree with your
parallel-universe version of history, you'd be mistaken as well.

> You ask: "How much did they pay those actors to get
> so incredibly skinny for the footage shot after the
> American troops "liberated" the so-called death camps?"

I was being sardonic. Do you know what being sardonic means? It's
like sarcasm, only darker. You're apparently so literal-minded
that you thought the locutions in that sentence indicated that
I harbor doubts about whether or not the Holocaust happened.

Well, like most forms of irony, they meant quite the reverse.

(Does it make you feel like a complete idiot that
I spell this out for you? If not -- it should.)

> I mention the fact that even Simon Wiesenthal states that there were
> no death camps in Germany (and every historian now believes this).

And I responded with a chunk from Wikipedia confirming that. You
respond by calling the quote irrelevant. It wasn't; it indicated
precisely where the death camps resided in Nazi-controlled territory.

In my quote above, when I referred to the death camps as "so-called,"
I was being acidic. I know damn well that Holocaust-deniers begin
their spiel with the historical fact that there were no death camps
in Germany itself as a way to plant the initial seeds of doubt. "Gee,
if there were no death camps in Germany, I wonder how much else about
the Holocaust is a legend, or a fabrication, or a plain old lie?"

My black humor was riffing precisely on your methodology with the
historically ignorant you're trolling for who have vague suspicions
about the Jews and want a *reason to believe* in their "evil."

News flash: I am not one of them, nor do they post on this site.
Criticism of Israel in no way requires your gutter anti-semitism.

> Maybe you have not made the connection.
> So, let me make the connection clear:

Maybe *you* are a steaming sack of shit.

> There were no death camps among those liberated by
> the Americans, because they were all in Germany,
> and there were no death camps in Germany.

> So again, I ask: which part of:

> "there were no extermination camps on GERMAN soil..." quote
> from Simon Wiesenthal, the infamous "Nazi hunter" in the
> British periodical Books and Bookmen (April 1975, p5).

> didn't you understand?

Most were in Poland. One was in the Balkans,
one in Belarus. All Nazi territory at the time.

> I will see if I can help you out of your ignorance.

I run a pure text inteface for blogging, so your "two pictures are
worth a Wikipedia post" strategy is impotent with me. Doubtless
the pictures are taken wildly out of context in any case.

So to return the favor of being painfully explicit: The conditions
in the concentration camps, the POW camps and forced-labor camps
that the Americans liberated in Germany were abominable, with huge
death rates. Not like the Nazis honored the Geneva Conventions or
anything. The corpses in those films rather explain themselves.

Are we done yet? Are you ready to move on to
another site to find some half-ignorant asshole
with an axe to grind to peddle your lying bilge?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 24, 2006 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

Bob, in 1988 there was a trial in Canada (Zndel's trial).

Charles Biedermann, a representative of the Red Cross (ICRC), was called as a witness.

He said, that as of December 31, 1976, the International Tracing Service of the Red Cross was in possession of the names of 357,190 who died in the entire German concentration camp system.

He also said, that as of December 31, 1983, the International Tracing Service of the Red Cross was in possession of the names of 373,468 who died in the entire German concentration camp system.

Biedermann was shown a large, two volume work entitled Gedenkbuch prepared by the Federal Archive in Koblenz and published in 1962 as a gift from the Federal Republic of Germany to Israel.

The book records the names of those Jews known to have died in the German concentration camp system. It contains about 129,000 names.

What do you think of these numbers from the Red Cross and German government, Bob?

You can read more about them here: http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/10biedermann.html

Posted by: watcher on July 24, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

shortstop:

When we went to registration at Howard Dean's BlogForAmerica, there was no ignore feature. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but twit filters are a creature of old-style mail packet readers and message fora, not blogs. I don't believe even Daily Kos has one, and they use one of the most sophisticated blog software packages out there.

Kos' approach, to have reader ranking, is not something I support, as I believe it fosters a climate of groupthink.

Watcher's ideology is so extreme I don't think left or right are meaningful terms for it. If you peruse anti-semitic websites (and I googled "steatlh Jews" and had a gander), you'll see that they're always discussing ways to co-opt forms of populism -- whether left or right -- to candy-coat their core ideology of hate. This has been true, of course, since at least Hitler.

Jay, OTOH, is not really a hater. He's just dumb and obstinate, and has a love for blunderbuss rhetoric because he likes the way it yanks our chains. I think his little genocide minuet is more the result of not thinking through the consequences of his assertions.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 24, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

watcher:

Why should I engage your arguments if you won't engage mine?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 24, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

Bob
watcher:

Why should I engage your arguments if you won't engage mine?

Heh. How's that big, hairy, tumored covered carp tasting?

It's easy to scroll through the posts and pick off the ones to ignore.

Shortstop
For what it's worth--not much--I think "watcher" and a couple other of our more virulently anti-Semitic posters are ringers from the right.

I don't think a blissful lack of conflict in developing one's worldview is a wholly owned trait of the right.

This blog suffers from several serious infestations from trolls and non-trolls. It sucks, but it's the price we pay to be able to say what we want.

I almost agreed with you, but then I remembered the whole Richard Thompson/"it burns" kerfuffle and thought I'd spare you the further agony.

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 24, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

watcher, I fail to see the "evil" in Sharetts plan. He is merely calling for the subversion of the Lebanese gov't and attempt to moderate or "christianize" the country. Although a minority, there are quite a few Arab christians. In addition, he is asking for the solicitation of the their Arab friends. This is in complete contrast to the Arabs "evil" plan for Israel which strictly calls for death and elimination.

Mike, um.......no, they're not fighting from the vacant hillsides. They're fighting from the villages along the border, hence Israeli's dropping leaflets telling citizens to leave before they bomb. Have NOT been paying attention, or are you getting all of your news from Al Jazeera?

cm, so Iranian = tolerant fun loving Muslims?

Posted by: Jay on July 24, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

I guess being dumb and obstinate means that you don't agree with rmck1's wisdom and worldview. And this is exactly what rmck1 chastizes GWB about.

You have a lot in common with GWB, rmck1.

Posted by: Jay on July 24, 2006 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

It is hard to achieve proper surgical strikes without practice - Better to practice on vehicles with Red Crosses on top.

As the other side practices on buses.

April 20 must be a very special day for Watcher and his ilk - So much to celebrate.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on July 24, 2006 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

Hi Bob, did you read the article I linked to.

Did you like the part about the Red Cross sending Red Cross packages to Jews at Auschwitz?!?!?!?

... and the bit about them acknowledging receipt of the Red Cross packages shortly before the Soviets overtook the camp in January, 1945.

Funny, those Germans, imagine them fattening up those Jews just so that they could gas em. Who would have believed it?

"watcher, I fail to see the "evil" in Sharetts plan."

Well, that is not surprising, since it was not his plan. You really should read the material before commenting.

Posted by: watcher on July 24, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Oh excuse me, Gurion (wtf does that matter)

address the content, you also might notice the complete lack of any language inciting destruction which contrasts again the the Arab plan.

you lose game, set and match on that argument.

Next.

Posted by: Jay on July 24, 2006 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

Jay:

As Monty Python would say, you're a true son of a silly person :)

Watcher:

Do I *look* like that guy from the Southern Poverty Law Center? There isn't enough time in a day to run through point-by-point refutations of Holocaust denial. There are plenty of scholars out there more skilled at marshalling the primary source arguments than myself, who is only a hobbyist debater. They take you and your ilk apart in the fora that matter -- academic journals. Which is good enough for me.

Since you've blown off every direct response I've given you, it's not like I think you'd respond to me honestly if I made an attempt, so ...

In the words of the prophet: Go fuck yourself :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 24, 2006 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

RSM: It's easy to scroll through the posts and pick off the ones to ignore.

Sure. But it's a drag, particularly when the offending posters think they're getting paid by the word and appear to lack other meaningful outlets/interactions in their lives.

I don't think a blissful lack of conflict in developing one's worldview is a wholly owned trait of the right.

Now, I didn't say that. But over-the-top, parody-surpassing outrageousness is a trait associated with insincerity. One can draw one's own conclusions from that.

I almost agreed with you, but then I remembered the whole Richard Thompson/"it burns" kerfuffle and thought I'd spare you the further agony.

Heh. That was an entertaining moment. You inspired me to dig out my RT CDs, though, including the tribute one, "Beat the Retreat." Got that one? Ah, it hurts so goooooood.

Posted by: shortstop on July 24, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

reader said "I just cannot believe that the children and grandchildren of the Holocaust would forget how terrible the suffering of their parents and grandparents was"

BULLETIN - JEWS ARE AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN VIOLENT, XENOPHOBIC RACIST and traitors to their hosts.

and THAT dear reader, is why Germany wanted them gone.

When will we learn?

Posted by: tj on July 24, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

thethirdpaul! Sight for sore eyes. Where the hell you been?

Posted by: shortstop on July 24, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

You are not too good with facts are you Bob?

So, Bob, how many died at Auschwitz, 4,000,000 (like the first plaque shows) or 1,500,000 (like the other plaques show) or about one hundred thousand, according to the number of deaths certificates issued by the German doctors at Auschwitz?

So, Bob, how many died in total (in the entire German concentration camp system). Was it the approximately 373,468 as reported by the Red Cross?

And Bob, how many Jews died in total (in the entire German concentration camp system). Was it the approximately 129,000 as reported by the German Federal Archive in Koblenz in the Gedenkbuch?

Jay said: "complete lack of any language inciting destruction which,..."

Are you for real? You really should read the material before commenting.

"The creation of a Christian State (in Lebanon) is therefore a natural act; it has historical roots and it will find support in wide circles in the Christian world, both Catholic and Protestant. In normal times this would be almost impossible. First and foremost because of the lack of initiative and courage of the Christians. But at times of confusion, or revolution or CIVIL WAR, things take on another aspect,.... Ben Gurion

Posted by: watcher on July 24, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

shortstop:

> But over-the-top, parody-surpassing outrageousness
> is a trait associated with insincerity. One can
> draw one's own conclusions from that.

It's also a trait associated with irony. Especially the darker sort.

And irony can be quite pointed.

I Wanna See The Bright Lights Tonight is still my favorite R/LT
album, though I saw he and Linda on the Shoot Out The Lights tour. Tbe
outchorus of Back Street Slide is in some way-fucked up time signature.

Live, Love, Larf, Loaf, with prog stalwarts Henry Kaiser,
Fred Frith and John "Drumbo" French is a wonderfully
intelligent, humorous and poignant synthesis of free
improv, Beefheart-like demented structure and roots rock.

Thompson's up there with Peter Gabriel as one of
my all-time favorite rock vocalists. Plays a mean
Strat, too. His vocal on the live Matty Groves
blows Sandy Denny away -- and that's hard to do.

Bob

Posted by: lynx on July 24, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Hehe, that was me. Now y'all have confirmation that's my browser :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 24, 2006 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

watcher:

News flash: I don't bother to read ideological boilerplate.

Had you not laced your other posts with gutter invective, I might've had a chance to take your views seriously.

But as Carole King sung, it's too late, baby. I'm not about enabling the justification of hatred.

Hopefully, Kevin's had a look at my email by now ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 24, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK
When we went to registration at Howard Dean's BlogForAmerica, there was no ignore feature. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but twit filters are a creature of old-style mail packet readers and message fora, not blogs.

Sure, their one of the things that keeps getting lost and rediscovered as people keep reinventing the wheel of internet discussion fora, each time tossing away most of the accumulated wisdom of the past iteration and being forced to slowly regrow the same features. Every decent NNTP newsreader had it, then webboards came out that filled the same role as NNTP newsgroups, but accessed through a web-browser and without most of the features (threading, filters, etc.) of the most common NNTP clients. Over time, web-boards started getting a lot of those features, but about that time, blogs with comments became popular: again, without those same features. More sophisticated blog comment systems are starting to regrow some of those features (the better ones have at least some kind of threading system), but by the time they reach the level of basic, 1980s newsreaders, some other form of internet fora will come along, and set the standard back to zero. At least, that's what history suggests...

Posted by: cmdicely on July 24, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

It's easy to scroll through the posts and pick off the ones to ignore.

...like when a certain poster responds to criticism of Israel's tactics with unfounded accusastions that the critic is a Hezbollah supporter, eh, Mike?

Speaking of ignoring posts, when are you going to explain how Israel's tactics -- not to mention "Shock and Awe" -- don't fit your own definition of terrorism (an attack inteded to cause terror and fear in the civilian populace)? Because I'm really curious.

Posted by: Gregory on July 24, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

one hundred thousand, according to the number of deaths certificates issued by the German doctors at Auschwitz?

Why would anyone give serious thought to the number of death certificates issued by German doctores at Auschwitz? do you think the doctors carefully inspected the ashes and bone remnants to determine whether anybody had survived the gases in order to be killed by smoke inhalation? Or to determine whether some had heart failure before the gas flowed? Just to mention the death certificates is an absurdity.

Posted by: republicrat on July 24, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

definition of terrorism (an attack inteded to cause terror and fear in the civilian populace)?

The answer to your question is obvious. Israel's intention is to destroy Hizbollah's military capability, not to cause terror and fear in the civilian populace. You can tell because, in thousands of sorties, the Israeli warplanes have killed about 350, of whom an undisclosed number were in fact Hizbollah fighters. If the intent were to cause terror and fear, Israel would be "area bombing" the residential areas, instead of targeting buildings and vehicles selectively. In a manner like the indiscriminate and inaccurate Hizbollah attacks on Haifa.

Posted by: republicrat on July 24, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Watcher just never got over the way the smart kids made fun of his Joanie Loves Chachi lunch box.

Posted by: cld on July 24, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

"Just to mention the death certificates is an absurdity."

Indeed, it is absurd that the Germans wrote death certificates for those they supposedly killed.

The reason for the absurdity is because no one was ever gassed at Auschwitz.

If no one was ever gassed at Auschwitz, then death certificates make perfect sense.

The Jews made up the story of gassings in their press, just like the fabricated "kidnapping" story.

Posted by: 4watcher on July 24, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

Well, this has certainly become the conventional wisdom, sorta like one of those media story-lines folks are always criticizing. Sad & regretable as any civilian casualties are, Israel is making strenuous efforts to minimize them & without such efforts, many, many more would have died so far. Israel's response HAS been proportionate & taken in clear self-defense, which even the British & French must recognize.

Posted by: Dan on July 24, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Conservative principles at play . . .

Sanctions on Iraq that (allegedly) resulted indirectly in the deaths of children: wrong.

Israeli bombing that directly, knowingly, and without question results in the death of children: right.

--------------

Dan: Israel's response HAS been proportionate & taken in clear self-defense, which even the British & French must recognize.

No, it HASN'T.

And, no, they MUST NOT.

Posted by: Advocate for God on July 24, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

watcher:

I think it's about time for your Zyklon B enema.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 24, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory
Speaking of ignoring posts, when are you going to explain how Israel's tactics -- not to mention "Shock and Awe" -- don't fit your own definition of terrorism (an attack inteded to cause terror and fear in the civilian populace)? Because I'm really curious.

Israel's actions are intended to strike at Hezbollah. Terror is not its purpose.

Shock and Awe's purpose is to...shock and awe the opposition into realizing the futility of fighting such overwhelming force. Terror is not its purpose. If terror was its purpose, Israel would be napalming civilian population centers.

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 24, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

'republicrat' posted:

"The US declared war on Germany, and then it leveled the cities and towns of France and Italy"

Except we were not engaged in illegal military occupation at the time, Germany and it's allies were. Israel is engaged in illegal military occupation, not Hezbollah. You have the wrong shoe on the wrong foot.

Not a surprise from a RightWinger.
.

Posted by: VJ on July 24, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone else think "tj" and "4watcher" are pro-Israel fanatics creating outrageous arguments for use in painting all critics of Israeli policy as anti-semites?

Posted by: ChetBob on July 24, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

watcher:

Once again, choke on it.

Zyklon B

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zyklon B (IPA tsyklo:n |be:, also spelled Cyclon B) was the tradename
of a cyanide-based insecticide notorious for its use by Nazi Germany
to kill over one million people in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and
Majdanek during the Holocaust. It consisted of hydrocyanic acid
(prussic acid), a stabilizer, and a warning odorant that were
impregnated onto various substrates, typically small absorbant
pellets, fiber discs, or diatomaceous earth. It was stored in airtight
containers; when exposed to air, the substrates evolved gaseous
hydrogen cyanide (HCN).

[...]

Zyklon B is still in production in Czech Republic in Kolmn under the
tradename Uragan D2, sold for eradicating insects and rodents.

[...]

Use on humans

The pesticide was used as a lethal chemical weapon by Nazi Germany in
the gas chambers of the largest extermination camp, Auschwitz
Birkenau, and also at Majdanek, one of the Operation Reinhard camps.
(At the other extermination camps, engine exhaust was used in the gas
chambers).

Zyklon B was used in the concentration camps initially for delousing
to control typhus.

In January or February, 1940, 250 Gypsy children from Brno in the
Buchenwald concentration camp were used as guinea pigs for testing the
Zyklon B gas (see Proester's report ref.). On September 3, 1941, 600
Soviet POWs were gassed with Zyklon B at Auschwitz camp I; this was
the first experiment with the gas at Auschwitz.

After the war, two directors of Testa were tried by a British military
court and were executed for their part in supplying the chemical.

The use of the word Zyklon (German for cyclone) continues to prompt
angry reactions from Jewish groups. In 2002 both Bosch Siemens
Hausgerdte and Umbro were forced to withdraw from attempts to use or
trademark the term for their products.

Modern Holocaust deniers assert that Zyklon B gas was not used in the
gas chambers, as evidenced by the lack of Prussian Blue residue in the
chambers themselves. The Institute for Forensic Research in Krakow,
however, refuted this claim, finding substantial concentrations of
cyanide in the buildings in 1994.[1]

Zyklon A was also used as a pesticide, with methyl cyanoformate as the
active agent. Its manufacture was banned under the Treaty of
Versailles as it could be an intermediate in poison gas production.
[edit]

Reference

* Emil Proester, Vrazdeni cs. cikanu v Buchenwaldu (The murder of
Czech Gypsies in Buchenwald). Document No. UV CSPB K-135 on
deposit in the Archives of the Museum of the Fighters Against
Nazism, Prague. 1940. (Quoted in: Miriam Novitch, Le ginocide des
Tziganes sous le rigime nazi (Genocide of Gypsies by the Nazi
Regime), Paris, AMIF, 1968)

Posted by: rmck1 on July 24, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

republicrat: If the intent were to cause terror and fear, Israel would be "area bombing" the residential areas, instead of targeting buildings and vehicles selectively. In a manner like the indiscriminate and inaccurate Hizbollah attacks on Haifa.

I didn't know that Hizbollah had aircraft with precision armament.

Oh, that's right, they don't.

Then, there's that pesky fact that Israel started bombing residential areas in Lebanon and Gaza at a time when the only attack by Palestinians had been on Israeli military personnel.

Indeed, Israel's response to an attack on its military personnel has been more aggressive than its responses to attacks on civilians, contrary to their assertion that if only Hizbollah and other Palestinian freedom fighters would attack military targets and not civilians, then they wouldn't be terrorists.

Posted by: Advocate for God on July 24, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

ChetBob:

I don't. I think they're genuine hate-filled anti-semitic Holocaust deniers.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 24, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: If terror was its purpose, Israel would be napalming civilian population centers.

Because Hizbollah is napalming civilian population centers.

Oh, that's right, they aren't.

Next strawman, RSM.

Posted by: Advocate for God on July 24, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

"Shock and Awe's purpose is to...shock and awe the opposition into realizing the futility of fighting such overwhelming force. Terror is not its purpose. If terror was its purpose, Israel would be napalming civilian population centers."

The difference to those killed is pretty insignificant. And how is that shock and awe thing working? Yep, they gave up in Iraq... They are laying down their arms in Lebanon... Just another NeoCon wet dream.

Posted by: Whack a NeoCon for Christ on July 24, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate for God
RSM: Red State Mike: If terror was its purpose, Israel would be napalming civilian population centers.

Because Hizbollah is napalming civilian population centers.

OK, literalist. Special version for you...

If terror was its purpose, Israel would be lobbing missiles randomly and indiscrimately into population centers, same as Hezbollah.

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 24, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Israel's intention is to destroy Hizbollah's military capability, not to cause terror and fear in the civilian populace.

The effect of Israel's attacks are to cause terror and fear in the civilian populace. And, of course, whatever Israel says its intention is, the fact is Israel is attacking civilian targets. Your assertions are, as usual, not at all in evidence, "republicrat."

in thousands of sorties, the Israeli warplanes have killed about 350, of whom an undisclosed number were in fact Hizbollah fighters.

Evidence? I'll make it easy -- which of these were undisclosed Hezbollah fighters?

If the intent were to cause terror and fear, Israel would be "area bombing" the residential areas, instead of targeting buildings and vehicles selectively.

Well, for starters, republicrat, histroy shows that you can cause terror just fine with random bombing, so your logic is faulty. But again, your assertion that Israel is "selectively targeting" bulidings and vehicles appears to contradict the facts.

Care to try again?

Mike,

Israel's actions are intended to strike at Hezbollah. Terror is not its purpose.

Your excuses get less and less convincing, Mike. Terror is its effect. And Israel has been attacking Lebanese civilian targets quite apart from Hezbollah. How do you know terror is not its purpose? And if not, why is Israel dropping leaflets advising civilians to evacuate? They're issuing a threat of harm by violence if they don't comply, no? (And, I might add, the warning fairly neatly contradict rebublicrat's contention of "seelctive targeting.")

Shock and Awe's purpose is to...shock and awe the opposition into realizing the futility of fighting such overwhelming force. Terror is not its purpose. If terror was its purpose, Israel would be napalming civilian population centers.

Again, Mike, what is the difference between "shock and awe" and "terror and fear"? Earlier, you seemed prepared to concede that intimidation by violence was its purpose -- but now you seem to want to back off from that position, even though all you can muster is the tautology that "shock and awe is shock and awe," implying that it can't be terror and fear. Terror is not its purpose? How so, Mike?

Um, besides, Mike, Israel didn't employ "Shock and Awe," the US did.

It's also quite disingenuous for you and rebublicrat to point to the greater extent of damage Israel could cause as a claim that they are not, therefore, inflicting terror attacks. We agree that Hezbollah and Hamas (et al) are terrorists -- by your logic, if those groups conducted an attack that was less than its capacity, it by definition was not terror. That's a bogus standard.

Frankly, Mike, you seem to want to hold a double standard because you perceive Israel and the US as the "good guys." I bother with you because, unlike republicrat, I actually believe that you're somewhat honest, simply blinkered by yor preconceptions. You've failed to define how, exactly, the US and Israel's respective operations against civilian targets are not terror, except by asserting they are not (or are not "intended" to be, something you can't possibly know -- and, again, an assertion that flies in the face of your own characterization of shock and awe).

Really, Mike -- I want to know how you can reconcile this contradiction.

Posted by: Gregory on July 24, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike:

What -- you don't think if Hezbollah had the capability, they wouldn't be launching missiles into military installations, instead?

They're not so much "targeting" civilians as not doing any targeting at all. These are only crudely guided weapons.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 24, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

If terror was its purpose, Israel would be lobbing missiles randomly and indiscrimately into population centers, same as Hezbollah.

As opposed to dropping bombs with precision onto apartment buildings? That doesn't produce terror?

A distinction without a difference, Mike. Although you seem, again, to be adopting a technochratic definition -- the US and Israel use higher tech weapons, and therefore is "legitimate warfare" and not terrorism. But how's that, Mike?

Posted by: Gregory on July 24, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

Indeed, Israel's response to an attack on its military personnel has been more aggressive than its responses to attacks on civilians

This is a topic I think metits much more discussion. Personally, I believe the Israelis went apeshit Hamaz and Hezbollah attacked their soldiers, and on two fronts, yet.

It's just a pity that Israel has responded to attacks on its fighters with attacks on civilians. That behavior reminds me of someone....I can't quite put my finger on it, though.

Posted by: Gregory on July 24, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

well, Israel has started its ground war, I suppose that they cant be accused of targeting civilians if they capture Hezbollah bunkers.
No wait, what about the village surrounding those bunkers... Ah well

Posted by: carib on July 24, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

When they put in watcher's hair plugs an extra-bad thetan got it, you know, like Being John Malkovich with bad thetans.

Posted by: cld on July 24, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory
As opposed to dropping bombs with precision onto apartment buildings? That doesn't produce terror?

You quoted my definition, whcih includes the word "intent". What was their intent?

Sure bombing a building induces terror in bystanders. But if Israel's *intent* was to induce terror, I can think of a million different ways that they could do it more effectively and brutally. The accusation that their intent is to produce terror flies in the face of the facts, which are that they have enormous capacity to cause it (capacity Hezbollah can only dream about at the moment) and yet don't use it.

A distinction without a difference, Mike. Although you seem, again, to be adopting a technochratic definition -- the US and Israel use higher tech weapons, and therefore is "legitimate warfare" and not terrorism. But how's that, Mike?

GPS-guided bombs are perfectly capable of being indiscrimately dropped on population centers.

The corrollary to your statement seems to be that, if all you have are weapons that can only be indiscrimately sprayed across a civilian populace, it is OK to use them.

For the record, I am cringing at the damage Israel is causing to Lebanon. I'm hoping they aren't shooting themselves in the foot. But I see no moral equivalence between Hezbollah, who hide behind women and children and indiscrimately target Israel's civilians as their primary target, and Israel who do the opposite.

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 24, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

You quoted my definition, whcih includes the word "intent". What was their intent?

That's a good question, Mike. Obviously, neither of us can know. But we can judge by their actions, and the effects of their actions, and I contend that if Israel is intent on bombing civilian targets -- including the spectacular destruction of the Beirut International Airport -- without causing terror and fear, they're doing a piss-poor job of it.

Sure bombing a building induces terror in bystanders.

I'm glad that you, at least, concede that Israel's attacks on civilians, regardless of their stated intent, have the effect of producing terror and fear.

But if Israel's *intent* was to induce terror, I can think of a million different ways that they could do it more effectively and brutally.

No points. Arguing that Israel could cause terror and fear by other means does not equate to their not causing terror and fear by their current tactics. Hezbollah could use suicide bombers, car bombs or rockets -- once again, that a party uses certain tactics does not mean that those tactics are terrorist and others are not.

The accusation that their intent is to produce terror flies in the face of the facts, which are that they have enormous capacity to cause it (capacity Hezbollah can only dream about at the moment) and yet don't use it.

No, Mike -- the conclusion that their intent is to cause terror is precisely in accordance with the facts, especially in light of the results. And again, the fact that a party to the conflict is capable of causing terror and fear by other methods does not mean that their current methods are not, also, intended to do so.

As a corrolary, the US could have carpet-bombed Baghdad during "shock and awe." That they did nto do so, though, does not make the attack any less one that was intended to produce terror and fear.

GPS-guided bombs are perfectly capable of being indiscrimately dropped on population centers.

Indiscriminately or not, Israel is unquestionably dropping bombs on population centers. Regardless of what the bombs are capable of doing, again, the facts of their effects are undeniable.

For the record, I am cringing at the damage Israel is causing to Lebanon.

That's evident....not.

I'm hoping they aren't shooting themselves in the foot.

I am too -- and you can shove your earlier accusation that I am pro-Hezbollah, thank you very much -- but again, my comments are intended to suggest that such is exactly what they are doing, because even your tortured moral relativism can't quite muster a convincing argument that justifies their tactics.

But I see no moral equivalence between Hezbollah, who hide behind women and children and indiscrimately target Israel's civilians as their primary target, and Israel who do the opposite.

Of course you don't.

Again, Mike, your assertion that Israel does not target civilians is contrary to the facts -- did you read the WaPo article about Israel targeting civilan cars fleeing the very cities they demanded civilians evacuate? At best that's an example of egregious incompetence or wanton disregard for civilian life -- and the latter would pretty much demolish your protestations of Israel's intent.

It's beyond clear that you don't want to see a moral equivalence between the tactics of Israel and Hezbollah. But you have failed to muster a convincing defense of their tactics, except to cite your faith in Israel's intentions. (And again, Mike, what about Shock and Awe?) But that faith and a buck will get you a cup of coffee, Mike, while civilian corpses -- many of them children -- continue to pile up.

Mike, here's my point. It used to be that the difference between Hezbollah and Israel really was that the latter strove for a moral high ground, even if imperfectly. I fear that Israel is, for no good reason and for little likely benefit, throwing away one of its key cards. You have, so far, failed to convince me otherwise -- certainly "it's okay if Israel does it!" doesn't do so.

Posted by: Gregory on July 24, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

bob,

They hit the Israeli military post that controls the whole northern sector on the first day. Reportedly that's what really flipped out the Israelis.

Spaced off the reference.

Posted by: cld on July 24, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike said:

"For the record, I am cringing at the damage Israel is causing to Lebanon. I'm hoping they aren't shooting themselves in the foot."

Well Mike, it all depends on intent now, doesn't it? If the Israei intent is not to shoot themselves in the foot, then they won't, now will they? However, if their intent is to shoot themselves in the foot, then...well, we can wonder what their intent will be in how they respond to their foot shooting when that bridge is crossed.

I like this whole intent thing. In fact, we can even look at the most questionable posters in this thread and not judge them until we know for sure what their intent was. Sure, some may have seemed combative of unwilling to check facts or even come out as outright crass, but was that their intent? What is my intent by posting this? You can't be for certain until I tell you for sure. Now, of course, if we decide we don't like them, we can announce their intent for them, thereby making our job of judging them easier. But if we like them, we can give their intent the benefit of the doubt, announce their intent as we see their intent to have been, and make their intent make logical sense to us.

Nice, clean and easy, as intended.

Posted by: I intend on July 24, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, I forgot to praise RSM again for his unintentional solution to the whole terrorism problem. See, if it all revolves around "intent," all the terrorists have to do is declare that their intent was to strike a target that is, by some torturned justification, military in nature (like, say, civilian cars and trucks -- they might be carrying the enemy!), and then -- hey presto! -- all those dead civilians become "collateral damage," and as we all know, that's perfectly OK, right, Mike?

Posted by: Gregory on July 24, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory
See, if it all revolves around "intent," all the terrorists have to do is declare that their intent was to strike a target that is, by some torturned justification, military in nature (like, say, civilian cars and trucks -- they might be carrying the enemy!), and then -- hey presto! -- all those dead civilians become "collateral damage," and as we all know, that's perfectly OK, right, Mike?

Then why haven't they done it?

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 24, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Then why haven't they done it?

Maybe they're a tad more honest than the Israelis and the US?

But seriously, I'm mocking you, RSM, for your touching faith that "intent" makes a damned bit of difference to kids burned in an attack that kills their mom or dad.

Posted by: Gregory on July 24, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory
But seriously, I'm mocking you, RSM, for your touching faith that "intent" makes a damned bit of difference to kids burned in an attack that kills their mom or dad.

Same as for a premeditated murder victim or a manslaughter victim. Are you saying the penalties should be the same?

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 24, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Same as for a premeditated murder victim or a manslaughter victim. Are you saying the penalties should be the same?

Ah, but both are regarded as crimes, Mike -- and the fact that they both are, and that the recognition of both distinct types of crime serves justice, increases confidence in the system overall.

And, indeed, it serves justice for someone who kills with malice aforethought to be punished more severely than one who kills by accident.

Yet you haven't been characterizing Israel's attacking civilian targets as crimes -- you've been staunch in saying that intent makes them not crimes.

Therein lies the difference, and the problem: There's little disputing the fact that Israel is attacking civilian targets -- including the civil and political infrastructure of Lebanon -- and not just Hezbollah. With a hefty civilian death toll, of course (but it's just "justifiable collateral damage" when Israelf and the US do it, right, Mike?). And the Bush Administration, rather than restraining Israel, is rightly perceived as giving Israel the green light (a decision whose perception I regard as not at all in the US's interest).

So again I have to ask, Mike, after all your fancy dancing -- why is Israel inflicting terror by attacking civilian targets okay?

And what about "shock and awe"? I remind you it was your definition, not mine. How can you not apply it?

Posted by: Gregory on July 24, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory
And what about "shock and awe"? I remind you it was your definition, not mine. How can you not apply it?

Gregory, you're stuck on stupid. You've asked about shock & awe and I've answered it about 5 times now, in this thread and other previous ones. I'll assume you aren't serious and just ignore you from here on out.

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 24, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

As opposed to dropping bombs with precision onto apartment buildings? That doesn't produce terror?

Yes: there is an important distinction between dropping bombs on apartments that house weapons and dropping bombs on apartments that do not house weapons. It is important enough that it is written into the Geneva conventions, which clearly states that the former is permitted and the latter is not.

both kinds of bombing may have terror as a result, but your comment was about intentionally causing terror; my comment was that the intention was not to create terror but to destroy weapons.

Instead of writing indirectly, why don't you just say straight out that you do not distinguish between targeting civilians and targeting weapons, if that's what you intend ? Is that what you meant by a "distinction without a difference"? Whatever you believe, the Israelis always intend to distinguish weapons from civilians, and Hizbollah and Hamas never do.

Posted by: republicrat on July 24, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory, you're stuck on stupid.

Pot, kettle, etc...

You've asked about shock & awe and I've answered it about 5 times now, in this thread and other previous ones.

But never satisfactorily: You've never described how "Shock and awe" was not an attack against civilians designed to cause terror and fear -- your definitin of a terrorist attack, Mike. you simply repeat the tautology that it was designed to cause "shock and awe."

What's the difference, Mike?

I'll assume you aren't serious and just ignore you from here on out.

Mike, with all due respect -- none too much, of course -- your inability to get around your own preconceived notions and answer the question doesn't make me the one who isn't being serious. Obviosuly the question makes you uncomfortable -- in that first thread, it looked like you were almost thinking about it for a second, before cognitive dissonance took over -- but that's your problem, not mine.

republicrat, good Ford, you're notably, ah, credulous at taking government claims at face value, but sheesh!:

Yes: there is an important distinction between dropping bombs on apartments that house weapons and dropping bombs on apartments that do not house weapons. It is important enough that it is written into the Geneva conventions, which clearly states that the former is permitted and the latter is not.

And your evidence that the apartment buildings the israelis have bombed all contained weapons is...? And if not, do you concede that the Israelis are perpetrating war crimes agaisnt civilians?

both kinds of bombing may have terror as a result, but your comment was about intentionally causing terror; my comment was that the intention was not to create terror but to destroy weapons.

And my rejoinder, again, is how do you know? Both about the intent, and the claim that each of these apartment buildings contained weapons? And how about the families fleeing cities Israel ordered evacuated -- were they concealing weapons too? I suppose those injured, orphaned children were some clever mechanism of concealment?

Instead of writing indirectly, why don't you just say straight out that you do not distinguish between targeting civilians and targeting weapons, if that's what you intend ?

I am saying straight out that there's precious little reason to make a distinction, given that we don't know what Israel is targeting, except from what they're claiming, and the fact that they're indisputably targeting non-Hezbollah civilian targets.

And, of course, that the families of the dead and injured Lebanese civilians have no reason whatsoever to make such a distinction, nor are they likely to, which is why Israel's actions

Whatever you believe, the Israelis always intend to distinguish weapons from civilians, and Hizbollah and Hamas never do.

republicrat, again, this claim flies in the face of what Israel is actually doing. You have no grounds for making a factual claim; it speaks more of your own belief -- I daresay, rather, what you want to believe -- than the facts on the ground.

Posted by: Gregory on July 24, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

You have no grounds for making a factual claim; it speaks more of your own belief -- I daresay, rather, what you want to believe -- than the facts on the ground.

IAF has flown more than 3,000 sorties and has killed 350, a mixture of civilians and Hizbollah, plus an unkown additional number of Hizbollah. Do you think that any air force, much less a well-trained air force, could intentionally target civilians and kill only 350 in 3,000 sorties? What Israel has actually achieved is only possible because they are clearly doing what they can to attack military targets. If they were intending to create terror, they'd be doing fire-bombing, aka "aereal bombing" a la' Dresden.

Posted by: republicrat on July 24, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

IAF has flown more than 3,000 sorties and has killed 350, a mixture of civilians and Hizbollah, plus an unkown additional number of Hizbollah. Do you think that any air force, much less a well-trained air force, could intentionally target civilians and kill only 350 in 3,000 sorties?

If they were intending to create terror, they'd be doing fire-bombing, aka "aereal bombing" a la' Dresden.

Hezbollah has fired over 2200 missiles according to the Israeli Defense Minister, killing a mixture of 20 troops and 17 civilians.

Do you think that any militia capable of "the utter destruction" of Israel as you keep contending could ever achieve that goal by killing only one person with every 59 missiles fired?

If they were intending to destroy Israel much less capable of it they'd by setting off suicide bombs in markets, using easily constructed chemical weapons, and acquiring missiles that kill other than just by sheer accident.

The better analysis is that they kidnapped two soldiers so that they could get two of their own soldiers back in a prisoner exchange as has happened in the past, and are now stuck responding to Israel's massively disproportionate response the only way they can, which is with crude, barely-aimable weapons.

Posted by: Windhorse on July 24, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

我向大家推荐:北京 租车 厂向广大客户提供租车产品及租车服务。要想寻找租车信息请访问 租车 网,各种租车应有尽有。北京 租车 厂向广大客户提供租车产品及租车服务。上海 汽车租赁 公司专业生产汽车租赁产品,欢迎选择汽车租赁。中国 租车 网,打造租车领域专业搜索平台,提供全球租车品牌公司及产品展示。北京 上海租车 厂向广大客户提供上海租车产品及上海租车服务。上海 汽车租赁 公司专业生产汽车租赁产品,欢迎选择汽车租赁。中国 租车 网,打造租车领域专业搜索平台,提供全球租车品牌公司及产品展示。上海 上海汽车租赁 公司专业生产上海汽车租赁产品,欢迎选择上海汽车租赁。

Posted by: dd on July 24, 2006 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

OK, this is the right thread:

Bob said: watcher: Once again, choke on it. Zyklon B

Why Precisely Zyklon B?

One might naturally wonder why the SS are supposed to have decided to use Zyklon B as an instrument of mass murder, after all the Jewish led Soviets, killed countless millions of human beings either simply by shooting them in the back of the neck or allowing them to die in camps under miserable conditions.

Theoretically, one could, at that time, have chosen nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), phosgene (COCl2), chlorine (Cl2), hydrogen cyanide (HCN), nerve gases such as Tabun and Sarin, Diesel engine exhaust, internal combustion engine exhaust, producer gas, coke or city gas, or process gas.

At the end of the war, Germany had over 12,000 tons of the nerve gases Tabun and Sarin stockpiled (the main storage area was at Krappitz, now Krapowice, about a hundred miles from Auschwitz).

Hitler had ordered that it not be used, except in retaliation to a gas attack, and it never was used. Such an attack, however, was ordered by the mad-man Churchill, in a drunken outburst, on July 6, 1944. In a rare display of steadfastness, his chiefs of staff overruled him.

The poison gas CO was available in limitless quantities and in lethal concentrations at giveaway prices, substantially cheaper than Zyklon B, on almost every street corner in the Third Reich: hundreds of thousands of vehicles all over German-occupied Europe had been equipped with producer gas generators (produces up to 35% by volume CO), since it was necessary to convert to alternate fuels due to the Allied oil blockade.

So why use the expensive insecticide Zyklon B when essentially costless producer gas (carbon monoxide) generators were already present in their hundreds of thousands.

Because they didn't. The whole HolyCo$t story is a total fabrication, that's why.

Posted by: thewatcher on July 25, 2006 at 12:25 AM | PERMALINK

thewatcher:

> hydrogen cyanide (HCN),

Idiot. Can't you read? As I posted from Wikipedia
above, Zyklon B is essentially an HCN delivery system.

> Diesel engine exhaust, internal combustion engine exhaust,

And, as the article stated, *most* of the
death camps used internal combustion exhaust.

> So why use the expensive insecticide Zyklon B

Zyklon A was the insecticide, boy genius.

> when essentially costless producer gas (carbon monoxide)
> generators were already present in their hundreds of thousands.

The Nazis liked to experiment. Zyklon B was originally used
as a de-lousing agent, and they doubtless had some stockpiled.

So they got creative with some overly effective bug spray.

> Because they didn't. The whole HolyCo$t
> story is a total fabrication, that's why.

And there you are, reduced to shouting an unsupported assertion.

See above for the forensic research documentation.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 25, 2006 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

watcher: the Jewish led Soviets,

now I know you are a crackpot.

Posted by: republicrat on July 25, 2006 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK

windhorse: Do you think that any militia capable of "the utter destruction" of Israel as you keep contending could ever achieve that goal by killing only one person with every 59 missiles fired?

That's a pretty good question. I think that Hizbollah was intending to kill Israelis in large numbers after they had accumulated more on the order of 200,000 rockets, and that they intended (as explained by Nasrallah and Ahmedinejad) to fire them in large volleys, taking the Israelis by surprise. Right now, Hizbollah is firing them in desparation, hoping to do what damage they can before the rockets are destroyed. Obviously, I do not know their motives beyond doubt, but that's consistent with their rhetoric. (unlike Gregory's inference, which is inconsistent with both Israeli rhetoric and Israeli performance.)

Posted by: republicrat on July 25, 2006 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

republicrat:

It took you that long?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 25, 2006 at 3:52 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly