Time for Israel to stop being military bully in Middle East?

When is it time for the terrorists to stop terrorizing Isreal?

What political solution do you advocate, BBB?

BBB
Is it time for Israel to admit that it's many military ventures have failed to bring them the security they seek? Is it time Israel stopped using guns to keep them safe and start facilitating political solutions to Middle East disputes?

Does Israel have to finally be defeated in a war to change their method of trying to gain security through military bullying? If so, is the Hezbollah war the right time for a change of Israeli attitude and policy if it wants to obtain real security?

Hezbollah has exposed the basic weakness of Israel's security policies through military action. Will Israel be smart enough to change it's policies and seek real peace and security? The entire world will suffer if it doesn't.

BBB

Olmert is unsure on how to bring conflict to an end
Last update - 13:19 10/08/2006
ANALYSIS: Olmert is unsure on how to bring conflict to an end
By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent

The defense establishment's proposal to expand the Israel Defense Forces operation in Lebanon was approved by a large majority of cabinet ministers on Wednesday: Nine ministers backed the proposal, while three abstained. But according to some attendees, the results of the vote do not reflect the ministers' true opinions. "If everyone voted the way they spoke, there would be a majority opposing the proposal," one minister said. So why didn't anyone vote against the proposal? We were afraid, the minister explained, of showing the public and the Hezbollah that there are rifts within the government and cracks in its support for the IDF.

The problem is that such cracks exist and no one is really making an effort to hide them anymore. Rifts between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz. Rifts between Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz. And those between the head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan and Head of the Imtelligence Corps, Amos Yadlin. And between Peretz and his predecessor, Shaul Mofaz and between Mofaz and Avi Dichter. One of those present summed the situation up by saying, "everyone was involved in at least one quarrel."

The prime minister does not like the master plan prepared for him this week by Peretz and Halutz. He feared that sending in several divisions to operate for a month, possibly two, in the hostile territory of southern Lebanon would entail multiple casualties, an ongoing occupation and would gnaw at the already dwindling remnants of Israel's international support. It is doubtful whether the Katyusha fire on northern Israeli towns would cease, even after such an operation. There will always be some Hezbollah man on donkey-back, poised and ready to launch a rocket into the Galilee, just like the Palestinian Qassam launchers are doing in Gaza.

But Olmert's reservations clash with his original position, that the political echelon should not interfere with operational decisions, and that it should follow the army's recommendations. What should he do? Olmert found two ways to solve this dilemma - he allowed Mofaz to present before the ministers his plan for a swift, limited operation, a plan that would enable Israel to announce victory quickly and with a minimal casualties. Mofaz met with Olmert on Tuesday and presented his plan. According to one version of the story, he also told the chief of staff about it before the meeting.

The ministers reacted enthusiastically to the plan, and Peretz realized he had been ambushed. It was an obvious trick: The minister who has the most military experience in the government, Lieutenant General (res.) Shaul Mofaz, proposes an elegant and mischievous scheme, to counter the weighty, clumsy and danger-riddled plan proposed by his heir. If there are any complications, the public will know there was a simpler, cheaper solution.

Then Peretz burst reminding that Mofaz had been the one who neglected to deal with Hezbollah's massive arming during his tenure in the past few years. When the meeting was over, the accusations continued - on the one hand, voiced claimed that even if you have a new operational plan, you shouldn't wave it at a cabinet meeting just to demonstrate your superiority. Others counterclaimed that Mofaz had been opposed to Israel's unilateral pullout from Lebanon in the spring of 2000, and had also warned Israel of the dangers of the rocket arsenal there.
Olmert made efforts to restore calm in the meeting and explained that since he must maintain authority and responsibility, he can only bring the defense establishment's proposal up to a vote.

In the end, his salvation came from Condoleezza Rice. The U.S. Secretary of State called to inform the cabinet of expected progress in talks over a UN resolution which have so far been unfruitful. Livni had earlier conditioned her support for the proposal on a "timeout" to pursue a diplomatic resolution first before going ahead with the operation. As a result of Rice's news, Olmert and Livni managed to convince Peretz that the operation should be postponed for at least 48 hours.

And so the cabinet meeting ended in a rather predictable compromise: Approval of an outline of the operation in principle, while postponing its implementation to allow for development in the UN talks. Troops, however, will take up positions in preparation for the operation. Israel is telling the UN "hold me back," in efforts to prevent itself from getting swept up in any one decision and hoping for the best. Olmert's moment of truth has been postponed, at least until Friday.

I'll try this one more time:

What non-military political solution do you advocate that will bring Isreal peace, BBB?

BBB
Between cholera and the plague
Op Ed By Akiva Eldar
Haaretz

Much has been said and written about the idyllic relationship between Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz. And indeed, the two arrived at yesterday's cabinet meeting hand in hand, having identical interests and suffering similar pressures. The prime minister and the defense minister, the leaders of the two biggest parties, both need an unequivocal victory in this war to the same extent. They both have the same fear of receiving a grade of "barely satisfactory" on the final exam that has suddenly landed on their heads during their first year of political science studies. Both of them have wives at home who would be happy to hear on the radio that the cabinet had voted against sending Israel Defense Forces soldiers into the inferno.

Nevertheless, there is a significant difference between these two politicians, who will apparently meet, sooner or later, on opposing sides of the ballot box. There are those in their intimate circles who are already wagering that it will be sooner rather than later. The war in the north has put an end to the slight chance left by the conflict in the south for the unilateral convergence plan - the only glue that holds the government together.

The grade given to the defense minister is calculated first and foremost by the relationship between the quantity of rocket launchers and the number of Hezbollah fighters that the IDF destroys, on one hand, and the quantity of missiles that turn the Galilee into a scorched ghost town and the number of civilians and soldiers killed in the war, on the other. The prime minister's grade also, and perhaps primarily, depends on the war's diplomatic outcome and its long-term implications.

Confidants who have spoken with Olmert in the past few days received the impression that he is well aware of the danger that the situation on the ground on the day after a second unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon will be similar to the situation in the territories on the day after the first disengagement from the Gaza Strip. That is to say, instead of a weak secular government with pro-western leanings, we will get an Islamic regime under strong Iranian influence in Lebanon. According to Olmert's own statements, he regards Hezbollah as the object that sprays the missiles, Syria as the pipeline and Iran as the main faucet.

The prime minister entered the cabinet meeting after having been told that an expanded offensive, even if it were to end with a result that could be considered a "victory," might throw the baby out with the bath water. The baby in this case is the Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora. Both the Americans, who were so proud of the democratic process that brought Siniora to power, and Israeli analysts believe that if the IDF expands its military operation to the Litani River and perhaps even beyond, Siniora will not be the only one who will be left crying. They warned that an "achievement" of this kind would lead to the dissolution of the Lebanese government, which is very shaky in any case. According to the constitution, the governing authority would then be put in the hands of President Emile Lahoud, one of the politicians who is closest to Syria and Hezbollah. Another "victory" of this kind and Olmert will lose power completely.

These differences may explain why the "left-wing" Peretz is eager to pursue the military option while the "Likudnik" Olmert wavers over whether to pursue diplomatic moves. From his talks yesterday with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Peretz decided that the media should receive the following message: "Israel will not agree to a diplomatic solution that does not ensure stability and quiet for many years." Not a word about Siniora's proposal to deploy the Lebanese Army in the south, backed by an international force. Olmert actually said that this is in fact the original objective of UN Resolution 1559, which Israel and the international community are saying should be implemented. The prime minister even went so far as to describe the proposal as "interesting."

This time, Olmert did not shoot from the hip. Every word of his was not only well thought out, but also coordinated with the American administration. Since the Americans are also coordinating with Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister's proposal did not hit the Israeli prime minister out of the blue. For that same reason, Olmert's response did not surprise Siniora. The Lebanese prime minister also did not fall off his chair when he heard Israel's reservations about the Lebanese government's proposal to forgo a strong international force in favor of an "upgraded" UNIFIL force. Siniora would not only have been surprised, he would have been very disappointed if Olmert had welcomed the compromise proposal worked out between him and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Siniora understands better than anyone else why Nasrallah prefers to have UNIFIL peacekeepers watching Hezbollah rather than an international force with a broad mandate from the UN Security Council. For exactly the same reason, Siniora opposes this suggestion.

The situation assessment given the prime minister before the cabinet session also included Russia and China, which are prepared to fight the Americans and the British to the last drop of Israeli and Lebanese blood. A broad Israeli military offensive that leads to the downfall of the Lebanese government would help the Russians and Chinese bury Resolution 1559, which deals mainly with the Lebanese government's imposition of sovereignty in the south of the country. A Russian-Chinese veto could kill the international force while it is still in the Security Council's womb. Without a determined decision by the international community to send a strong force to Lebanon, the last obstacle to Iran's acquisition of control over Israel's northern neighbor will have been removed. Without Syrian cooperation in the attempt to change the course of events in the region, no power in the world will be able to block the weapons pipeline from Iran to Lebanon. Those smuggling arms from Syria will not have to sweat like their brothers in the Gaza Strip. Their tunnels will be dug by bulldozers manufactured in 2006.

The result of this whole mess is that an incursion deep into Lebanon will leave Israel with a choice between cholera and the plague, between sitting for a prolonged period in fortified positions in the killing fields around the Litani or abandoning the whole of Lebanon to the hands of the war coalition of Hezbollah-Syria-Iran. Olmert's problem was that, at this stage, after more than 100 dead and 3,000 missiles, the decision to refrain from a massive ground forces incursion was also not like the choice between a vacation in Tuscany or a trip to Provence. Its price tag included an agreement in principle to give up the Shaba Farms, which, even if they were formally handed over to Siniora, would be chalked up as a victory for Mr. Nasrallah. And if Olmert abides by his word "to do everything" to bring the abducted soldiers home, he will be forced to hand over Lebanese prisoners to Hezbollah.

Had he chosen this route, Peace Now, which has only now awakened from its summer slumber, would have cheered him on. But according to the latest Peace Index poll, the vast majority wants "victory" - no matter what the cost. Olmert from Kadima and Peretz from Labor have given them what they want.

BBB
Not all Israelis favor military solutions.---BBB

In search of Tzipi Livni
Op Ed By Uzi Benziman
Haaretz

During her previous ministerial roles, Tzipi Livni was a key player in several central political and diplomatic incidents. She played an important role in filling coalition potholes on the road to the disengagement plan's passage, and she is credited with having a significant part in preparing the ground for U.S. President George W. Bush to sign a statement recognizing possible border changes between Israel and a Palestinian state, and rejecting the Palestinian right of return. And now, precisely in these times, when she bears the title of vice prime minister and serves as foreign minister, Livni's voice has disappeared.

Her absence is particularly tangible during this period, when the government is on the verge of a decision to dramatically expand the scope of the war. For four weeks, the events in Lebanon have been controlled by military considerations, and at this stage too, it appears that the operational dynamic has completely taken over the decision-making process. The Foreign Ministry's voice is not being heard, or at any rate, it is not being brought to public attention, and appears to have negligible influence over the shaping of reality.

This may be a natural aspect of any war, whose tempestuous nature focuses all discussion on achieving victory. It does not leave room for the assimilation of other considerations, nor does it give them a chance. But this does not exempt the foreign minister from fulfilling her traditional role: attempting to lower the flames with alternative ideas, political ideas. That is how most of her predecessors have behaved, even when the cannons were roaring. This includes Moshe Sharett in the 1950s and Abba Eban during the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War, as well as most of those who were considered hawks before being appointed as foreign minister such as Moshe Dayan, Shimon Peres, David Levy and Ehud Barak.

Livni is a natural candidate for undergoing a similar process. She is a thinking and non-dogmatic woman, and she has moderate political positions and a liberal worldview. Nonetheless, she has not made a significant input in navigating the country since July 12, when Hezbollah carried out the cross-border attack that led to the war. The decisions that have been made about the war appear to be purely military, and their results have dragged the government into additional moves in the same direction, and are now bringing it closer to a decision about a comprehensive expansion of the battlefield.

The impression that Livni is not among the decision-makers could be the result of an optical illusion. She was reported to have opposed, along with Public Security Minister Avi Dichter, the entry of ground forces into the war, which suggests that she thinks the aerial operation of the war's initial days was sufficient. She may also not be promoting herself these days, and that may be the reason she is not leaving her mark on the public discourse.

Foreign Ministry professionals have pointed to the components of international debates that they contributed, through the minister, and which are meant to lead to a diplomatic solution. These issues, which include stationing a multinational force and imposing an embargo on arms imports to Lebanon, have been included in the resolution being discussed by the UN Security Council. In addition, Livni is said to have played a large role in the government's initial decision to focus the war on Hezbollah, rather than the Lebanese government.

Nonetheless, after a month of fighting, Israel has not managed to achieve its primary goal: a complete change in Hezbollah's status in Lebanon in such a way that it will not be able to attack Israel. The government is headed, on the 29th day of war, for the same path on which it has already traveled - military escalation. The political alternative - the possibility of increasing international pressure on the Lebanese government, or in other words, neutralizing Hezbollah by enforcing the authority of the central government in Beirut over south Lebanon rather than destroying Hezbollah's military capabilities - is not being seriously discussed. This possibility is considered illusory at the moment, but the expectation of a crushing military defeat of Hezbollah is also not firmly grounded in reality.

Thanks for posting, BBB. A bit of sanity from Ha'aretz.

No small irony that such a piece would simply not appear over here. Or if it somehow did, would be attacked rather quickly.

Shavitz is a bright fellow. He'd done a piece some months ago on Sharon for the New Yorker (not available online, but an interview with him is). He and Sharon, over a period of years, became quite close though holding some seriously different ideas.

Blatham
Blatham, if Israel wants to save itself, it must start thinking of political solutions rather than only military actions.

BBB

In the name of Allah
09/08/2006
Ha'aretz
In the name of Allah
By Riad Ali, reporter for Channel 1

It tears one's heart and stills one's breath to see the images coming from Lebanon. The same goes for the images in Israel, and this is not added for the sake of balance.

But sorrow and grief over the war's victims shouldn't blur its prime objectives, both in Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories. When the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza adopted suicide bombing as their strategy in fighting Israel, I concluded that their war against the occupation is over, and an indiscriminate war on Jews has begun. I was convinced then, as I am now, that at that moment, the Palestinians lost the war, at least in the moral sense.

In one of my reports from Gaza, I talked to a Palestinian boy by the name of Haled. He was 10 years old at the time. He said he wanted to be a teacher. When we switched to the topic of the intifada, Haled said that he had another dream - to be a shahid. I asked him how could he be a teacher and a shahid at the same time. Ten-year-old Haled had no answer. He was only a child. It was then I realized that the Palestinian people have lost their inner compass. A whole generation of children was born and reared in their midst, and all their hopes and aspirations are to die a holy death.

A Palestinian moral-ethical debate on the status of the suicide bomber never took place. The saboteur was and remained a shahid, with all of the positive attributes that the word carries in Islamic terminology. Palestinians who still opposed the bombings did so on tactical grounds; that is to say, if it had furthered their cause, they would have seen no wrong in it.

A similar process happened with Hezbollah. If before 2000 the organization could have had the benefit of the doubt and claim it is fighting Israeli occupation of Lebanon, today it is clear to see that its war is against Jews wherever they may be. You have to be deaf in order not to hear the voice of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as it emerges from Nasrallah's throat, and naive in order to believe that the purpose of the arsenal Nasrallah has accumulated is the release of prisoners and the liberation of the Shaba Farms.

This is the time to address the Arab citizens of Israel, and tell them that the time has come for them to decide where they stand. And they should do so for their own sake, and not for the sake of the Jews. For the sake of the values they want to instill in their children. For the sake of retaining their intellectual dignity. It is clear to all that a Hamas-led Palestinian government and a Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon will not bring democratic societies with a flourishing political and social pluralism. It is clear that in regimes such as those, the rule of law, human rights, the freedom of religion and worship, women's rights, the freedom of creation, the freedom of movement, the freedom of expression and thought - all will be alien, ridiculed concepts, to say the least.

Ideological Islam has long been master of the Palestinian society's agenda in the West Bank and Gaza. But what worries me is that the same Islamic agenda that rules there rules also here in Israel, and crosses all parties and movements including those who consider themselves to be secular. The spirit of battle has overtaken the believers, and all who consider themselves as part of the Islamic nation also have to take part in its war. If not with guns, then with funds, and if not with funds, then through words, and if not through words, then in heart, as the Muslim preachers tell the masses.

I am not at war with the Jews, nor with the people of Israel. I have an argument with the Jews, and I have an argument with the State of Israel. On one point I do not argue, and that is the right of the Jewish people to their own independent state. To the best of my understanding, this war, as with the intifada, has to be judged from this perspective.

Arab citizens of the state who truly believe in the principle of two states for two peoples and those who believe in a democratic liberal society must ask themselves if the Islamic ideology that is leading the war today against Israel and the West in the guise of a war against the occupation and heathens is representative of their ambitions. We must separate the pain and sorrow for the innocent victims from the purpose of the war, as seen by those who lead it - in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and in any place where people seek to liberate land in the name of Allah.

ISRAELI FORCE TO TRIPLE IN SOUTHERN LEBANON
ISRAELI FORCE TO TRIPLE IN SOUTHERN LEBANON
Matthew Kalman, San Francisco Chronicle Foreign Service
Thursday, August 10, 2006

Zarit, Israel -- Israeli leaders decided on Wednesday to triple the country's ground invasion force in Lebanon and extend the fight against Hezbollah to the Litani River, about 18 miles across the border.

Justice Minister Haim Ramon said the huge ground operation is necessary to achieve "the cessation of the Katyusha rockets and an alteration of the status quo in southern Lebanon." The army was given another month to complete the mission.

The deployment about-face was widely expected after a month of aerial attacks and commando raids failed to halt Hezbollah rocket fire bombarding northern Israel. It came a day after Maj. Gen. Moshe Kaplinski, deputy chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, was named to replace Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, head of Israel's northern command, in overseeing the Lebanon campaign.

"This operation must be won. We have no choice. It is a war of no option that was forced upon us. The consequences of this war are far-reaching for the state of Israel and for the entire region," Ramon said.

Israel's Security Cabinet debated the new battle plan for six hours in the shadow of news -- not released to the public until midnight on Wednesday -- that the nation's forces had suffered the worst losses since the fighting began: 15 dead and 25 wounded.

Until Wednesday, Israel had hoped to overcome the 3,000-strong Hezbollah fighting units with just 6,500 Israeli ground troops, backed by heavy artillery fire, aerial bombardment and armored divisions. But four weeks into the campaign, Israeli forces are still taking heavy losses in Hezbollah strongholds such as Aita al-Shaab, a Shiite village a mile across the border that they have been trying to capture since the first days of the fighting.

The Cabinet decided to hold the final order for a day or two to see whether diplomatic moves at the United Nations could bring about a cease-fire that would force Hezbollah to disarm -- a move so far rejected by the Lebanese government.

Michael Oren, fellow at the Shalem Center, a Jerusalem think tank, and author of "Six Days of War," about the 1967 conflict, said the decision should have been made three weeks ago and seemed designed to improve Israel's position in the post-battle diplomacy.

"They are going to try and reach the Litani River and expand Israel's leverage in negotiations, in the hope that Israel can hold out not just for the deployment of the Lebanese army, but for the deployment of an international force," said Oren. "Israel can't trust the Lebanese army to keep Hezbollah out because the army is half-Shiite."

Yaakov Amidror, former head of Israel's National Defense College, agreed the move should have been made weeks ago.

"This is the only decision that can help us reach our goals," said Amidror. "One is the cessation of the firing of Katyusha rockets into Israel, or at least 90 to 95 percent of them. The other is to severely cripple the Hezbollah forces, which, up until now, have felt almost no harm. It will also make the other side think twice before starting a war with Israel."

Oren said the hesitant handling of the war so far might reflect the absence of ex-soldiers in Israeli government.

"This is the first Israeli war where all the decisions have been made by a civilian government with no military experience," he said. "In the past, there have been complaints that Israeli governments have been dominated by generals and submissive to the military. This one time, when the civilians control the military, a sizable proportion of the population is dissatisfied with their handling of the war and would have preferred a more robust approach."

On Wednesday night, about 20,000 Israeli troops, together with long columns of tanks, armored cars and military bulldozers, were snaking their way up through the winding roads near the Israel-Lebanon border, poised to pour into the battlefield.

Dozens of tanks, armored cars and military support vehicles lined the road near the border village of Zarit, near the spot where a Hezbollah attack on an Israeli patrol on July 12 sparked the current conflict. Israeli reservists sat inside the armored vehicles, sheltering from the midday sun, playing backgammon or trying to catch some sleep.

The troops were forbidden from giving their full names under army regulations. Shai, a 24-year-old student from Ashdod, said he was called up more than a week ago and was still waiting to be sent into Lebanon.

Two hours later, the same road was empty, except for discarded plastic bottles and food wrappers marking the spot where the tank brigade had been waiting.

Farther along the road, the same scene was repeated several times. Either long lines of military vehicles and waiting soldiers, or discarded trash where they once stood. In some places, the roadway bore the scars of heavy half-track vehicles.

Around a corner near Manara, a convoy of 10 tanks were rumbling up the road, interspersed with fragile-looking family vehicles trying to overtake them on the hairpin bends.

A few hundreds yards across the border, Israeli artillery shells could be seen crashing into targets in the Lebanese villages where heavy fighting continued Wednesday between Israeli and Hezbollah forces. The Israeli hits sent huge clouds of white, black or brown smoke billowing into the sky, depending on the target.

Close up, the villages that served as Hezbollah strongholds clearly showed the damage of nearly a month of Israeli fire. Many of the buildings have been reduced to burned-out skeletons. Others have gaping holes, like blackened, toothless mouths. Many landmarks are simply missing, blown up by Israeli forces.

From the upper floors of some of the few remaining buildings, there were flashes of gunfire from Hezbollah forces putting up fierce resistance against the Israeli invaders. Israeli helicopters hovered behind the lines, unleashing missiles that whistled overhead before exploding with deadly force across the border.

As the fighting continued, two particularly large clouds of white smoke apparently signaled direct hits on large stores of weapons. Maj. Avi Ortal, chief of operations for the Alexandroni infantry brigade, said his soldiers had discovered more than 150 Katyusha rockets in a single house in the nearby village of Rahamin two days ago.

Ortal, a lawyer in civilian life, said his soldiers had no doubts about their duty despite losing three men last week in a battle with Hezbollah.

"I feel that the war is very moral. The fact that Hezbollah is sitting on our borders, kidnapping our soldiers, invading our sovereignty, threatening the civilian population on the borders -- is something that we had to stop," he said as plumes of black and brown smoke billowed into the air behind him from Hezbollah villages where his men were fighting, supported by Israeli artillery.

Ortal said Wednesday's Cabinet decision had no immediate effect on his men. "In terms of the mission that our brigade gets, it is very clear and we will do it. This decision has not changed anything for us," he said.

<crickets>




<crickets>

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Mideast-Fighting-Israeli-Doves.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2147575/

Your question frames a false either/or dilemma. War or diplomacy.

Clearly, military solutions haven't achieved the goal of Israeli security. That's a pretty obvious conclusion in a general view over the last few decades but it is equally obvious in some specifics. For example, the targeted assassinations of the senior echelons of Hamas which were "successful" in the limited terms of many "key" Hamas leaders being killed. But during this same period, Hamas' influence and power in Palestine grew stronger resulting in the recent election results.

BBB (nor anyone else commenting) doesn't have to lay out a plan for diplomatic strategies to reasonably criticize Israel's response to the kidnappings. If the LAPD were to murder all local members of the Hell's Angels in order to help rid the city of this negative influence, you wouldn't have to provide some "diplomatic" alternate plan as warrant for criticism.

In any case, such plans and roadmaps, developed by people in the US and elsewhere, exist in sophisticated form already.

We can assume that using cluster bombs over civilian areas probably won't decrease hatred or the recruiting drives of the myriad groups pushing jihaad.

Ticomaya

Perhaps you might explain how peace will come Israel as a result of this bombardment of Lebanon? Seems to many of us that this has created an even more outrage, hostility & anti-Israeli sentiment in middle east than existed before. And, according to media accounts, it certainly hasn't weakened Hezbollah. So what has actually been achieved, do you think?

I believe there comes a time when concern for ones own citizens outwieghs the need to decrease hatred of your citizens. Israel will never be loved in the middle east and I think they are ok with that so long as they are not attacked.

There is a reason they need such a large military. Now they are using it to defend themselves from a menace that means to wipe them out. The lebabnese civilians are unfortunate victims of Hezbollahs hatred of Israel. I would suggest that Israel is fully within their right of self defense to seek and destroy Hezbollah. The US administration seems to agree with me.

As far as Hamas' rise to leadership, that lies directly at the feet of the failed government of Palestine. They did not support the people and Hamas was seen by the voters as a less corrupt organization. The results have been disatrous for the people of Palestine though. Western governments have refused to work with hamas, a recognized terror organization.

If Terrorist organizations cared at all about the citizens of the countries they operate within, they would cease their attacks on Israel and instead concentrate on strengthening their roles inside their countries. Lets be sure that we keep our eye on the real criminals and not be blinded by Israeli aggression. It is now, and has been only in response to aggression against them.

In the first decades of Arab opposition to Israel the threat to them was from the military forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc. In that era the IDF served Israel well. Now that the neighboring governments have (except for Syria) made peace with Israel, the conflict continues, but through non-governmental revolutionary organizations. This profoundly changes the game.

Hezbullah could not exist in such a well-organized fashion and accumulate the many weapons it has already used against Israel without a degree of complicity on the part of Lebanon. Some say the new Lebanese government cannot be held accountable for that, and neither can the 'innocent' people of that country. Taking this line of thought to it's logical conclusion leaves Israel with no recourse. Certainly this situation imposed on any other nation by its neighbors would be found intolerable, and the failure of the host government to act to suppress the attacks would almost certainly be seen as a causus belli by the victim.

However, this line of reasoning doesn't address what may be the causes of the persistent Palestinian insurgency. The neighboring Arab states have never shown any desire to accomodate or accept the Palestinians in any mutually acceptable politicaL & economic arrangement, preferring to sustain the insurgency as an instrument with which to tame a potentially dangerous neighbor (= Israel). Israel has itself failed to give the Palestinians a better alternative than continuing struggle. Perhaps the best example of this was the 30+ year military occupation of the West Bank, during which Israel appropriated large portions of the territory for the exclusive use of israeli citizens and denied the Palestinian residents any political rights in the government that ruuled their lives. I believe this was a monumental historical error on their part, and a great injustice besides.

I fear it is now too late now for Israel to reach any accomodation with the Palestinians, and that the logic of war, death and destruction will rule the Mideast until the situation of all the participants degrades to the point that currently unacceptable alternatives become desirable - a grim prospect.

At the request of Aunt Bee, i am copying here a post i made in another thread:

Whether or not Persians are fighting with Hezbollah does not alter the particularist nature of the timing of this Israeli action. For the almost 15 years since the Isrealis pulled out of Lebanon, Hezbollah has called for the release of prisoners in Israeli prisons (which has the precedent of past deals in which Israel has released Palestinian or Lebanese prisoners) and the withdrawl of Isreal from the Shebaa farms, a piece of real estate which lies between the Lebanon and Syria, and which Israel only retains because it gives them a foothold in the Lebanon and access to significant water resources (long a focus of Israeli military occupation policies) south of the Bekaa Valley and the Litani River. (O'Bill's suggestion that they kept a "buffer" is horseshit.) Throughout that nearly fifteen year period, Hezbollah has raided across the border into Israel to attempt to capture IDF hostages, and has occassionally succeeded. Throughout that nearly fifteen year period, Hezbollah has from time to time launched rockets into Israel. But it is only now that Israel has responded with such brutal military force, without regard for the citizens of the Lebanon.

The conclusion that Israel chose this particular time to respond as they have is inescapable. The contention that Israel hopes to drag the United States into conflict with Syria and Iran is very plausible. Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, an Israeli member here called for a United States invasion of Iran. This is a consumation long devoutly desired by many Israelis. To attempt to color this phase of Israeli conflict with Hezbollah as somehow different than their previous passages with that group is either naive or disingenuous. The question of "why now?" is inescapable, whether or not knee-jerk conservatives want to entertain it.

Doubts About War Growing at Hawkish Israeli Daily
Doubts About War Growing at Hawkish Israeli Daily
By E&P Staff
Published: August 10, 2006 12:10 AM ET

From the beginning of the Israel-Hezbollah war last month, the popular daily, Ha'aretz, like other publications (and most of the citizens) in that country, has taken a very hawkish position on the conflict, with some dissenting opinions also aired. But on Friday, the tone at the paper, as reflected on its Web site, changed dramatically, on the day after 15 Israeli soldiers were killed in Lebanon.. Several news stories and opinion columns expressed harsh truths or critical views.

There was even a column bemoaning the "crushing" of the Beirut music scene.

A top news story stated: "The public consensus that had accompanied the current fighting in Lebanon from the first day officially dissolved yesterday afternoon, following the cabinet's decision to expand ground operations in Lebanon.

"Meretz Knesset members, who had previously backed the Israeli military response, came out openly against expanding the ground offensive, with some warning of tragedy ahead."

Another dispatch by well-known reporter Ze'ev Schiff opened: "The large number and the location of the casualties that the Israel Defense Forces sustained yesterday indicate that the army does not yet control the narrow strip along the border, although this stage of the ground operation was supposed to have been completed already."

The opinion section of the Web site is now called "In the Quagmire."

One columnist begged for "truth, not spin." Another stated: "The result of this whole mess is that an incursion deep into Lebanon will leave Israel with a choice between cholera and the plague, between sitting for a prolonged period in fortified positions in the killing fields around the Litani or abandoning the whole of Lebanon to the hands of the war coalition of Hezbollah-Syria-Iran."

The lad editorial closes: "The war is being waged not only under fire, but also under a barrage of 'fighting words,' systematic leaks, a 'loudmouth' policy on the part of senior officers and statements about what is going to be discussed and what has already been discussed in the diplomatic-security cabinet and the war room. This is not the way to run a war, and it is not the way to make changes in the leadership of the command that is doing the fighting."

A column by Meron Benvenisti, titled "Regressing a Full Generation," begins: "Every time we have gone to war with the slogan of creating "deterrence capability" (at least three times), it has actually spurred the enemy to prepare for a more serious confrontation. The last time it was called "searing the Palestinians' consciousness," and its results were the victory of Hamas and a bleeding blind alley in the West Bank and Gaza Strip....

"The war and the atmosphere that has prevailed in its wake have caused Israel to regress by a generation. It is no wonder that people see history as a cyclical process, and that this war (like its predecessors) is also seen as the "last lap of Israel's War of Independence." And with what fury we are stoning those who do not rush to fill the heroic role being forced on them, and instead counter it with a desire for normalcy. Those who began this unrestrained war want to inflate its importance, in order to justify the terrible - and steadily increasing - price that is being paid solely in order to achieve a victory for the gambler. But perhaps the fact that they are conducting a 1950s strategy with a 21st-century society and culture is cause for optimism: It will not work."

Uzi Bensiman, meanwhile, declares: "It is to be hoped that the United Nations Security Council will quickly pass the resolution ending the war in Lebanon in the spirit of the agreement revealed on Thursday. Ehud Olmert must be encouraged to lead the cabinet firmly to adopt it.

"This war broke out in no small way because of the Israeli leadership's lack of diplomatic-military experience and failure to predict the future. Olmert will have to be magnanimous in accepting the compromise taking shape internationally, because it will be an admission of Israel's inability to achieve its declared goals.

"There is reason to believe he has this quality. He is not a cynic who, for reasons of prestige or other extraneous considerations, would take tens of thousands of soldiers into battle to risk their lives.

"The diplomatic solution, in spite of its limitations and the bitter pills to be swallowed, is preferable to expanding the war, since a new military move would not change the outcome of the armed conflict. Even if the military limits considerably Hezbollah's short-range Katyusha launch capabilities, it will not erase the impression that this organization has made in its challenge to Israel."