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

I disagree. BBB has asserted that Isreal is in the wrong for defending itself. Isreal just wants to be left alone, but the islamic terrorists surrounding it will have none of that. So they conduct suicide/homicide bombing attacks, kidnap Israeli soldiers, and lob missiles into Isreal. BBB seems to think Isreal, instead of reacting militarily, ought to only respond with diplomatic means. Contrary to popular belief, I am not opposed to diplomacy, but I am also pragmatic, and know that one cannot negotiate with terrorists. Moveover, one should not negotiate with terrorists. The tenor of BBB's thread is to blame Isreal for the current situation, when they are they country that's been attacked. BBB would not be happy unless Isreal just sat back and took repeated attacks from neighboring terrorist groups on the chin. (Or perhaps she would prefer it if Isreal did not exist.) The point is, Isreal has sought a peaceful political solution to the problem, but the terrorists will have none of that. The best thing Isreal can do right now is take out the infrastructure of the Hezbollah, and weaken its ability to operate on its border.

And if you believe my question to BBB framed a false dilemma -- war or diplomacy -- you must recognize that BBB's original question certainly did so as well. Except it was BBB who framed the issue in such terms. All I did was ask her to substantiate the political solution she thinks Isreal can utilize to achieve peace, since she has argued that Isreal should not use its military, since she believes them to just be a "bully" --- which is a damn bizarre concept .... usually the bully is the one on the playground that goes around terrorizing smaller children with impunity. In this case, the bullys are picking on the little kid ... but he's a really strong little kid, knows Tae Kwan Do and stuff, and is kicking their little tails all over the place. (BBB seems to think that because the little kid is fighting back really hard, and really doing damage to the bully that was hitting on him, he has now become the bully ... or maybe she thinks he was the bully all along.) We all know that when a bully gets his ass kicked, he stops picking on that kid, at least for a while. You would think they'd learn their lesson and stop picking on him entirely. BBB endorses a policy of appeasement, where the little kid would get hit by the bullies, doesn't fight back, and tries to talk the bullies out of trying to beat him up. That's fine and good, and in an ideal world might work, but appeasement doesn't work with terrorists. And when the bully keeps hitting you, you better hit back.

Tico
Tico, your insulting words that I wish Israel to not exist goes way over the line which, of course, you don't care about as it is your usual style. Of course, I want to see Israel survive as a secure and peaceful country. Shame on you for that slander!

If you were a real student of Israeli history, you would know that Israel has been the military bully in the Middle East for decades. Israel's reliance on military superiority has made it arrogant in it's determination to humiliate it's Arab neighbors. This failed policy has only made Israel's security less favorable and increased hatred toward them.

Israel has repeated it's failed military mistakes over and over again through the decades. It seems not to learn from it's mistakes. Abetted by US support of what ever Israel wants to do, wise or stupid, right or wrong, Isreal has become it's own worst enemy by playing into the hands of it's enemies in the Middle East.

Maybe the best thing that could happen to Israel right now if it wants to survive is for it to lose it's war against Hezballah and stop trying to use military might to get it's way. Sad to say that, but something has to shock the hardliners in the Israeli government into changing it's policies.

yes, Israel should surrender to the good will of it's Arab neighbors. Roll over and show it's belly...

I am sure that would lead to a successful and prosperous Israel.

Re: Tico


I'm sure you'll get over it. I said "perhaps," and all you need to do to clarify your real belief is to make it clear. Which you have done. (Whether you believe it or not is another matter, but who's to say?)



I'm sorry ... I didn't know you were a "real student of Israeli history"?



Really?

Was Israel a bully in the 1956 Suez War when Egypt attacked it?

Was Israel the bully in the 6 Day War in 1967 when forces were massed along its borders in preparation for an attack?

Was it the bully in the 1973 Yom Kippur War when it was simultaneously attacked by Egypt and Syria?

Since you are a "real student of Israeli history," I eagerly await your response.



Israel's reliance on military superiority has been required because it's Arab neighbors insist on attacking it, and would like to wipe it off the map. Bus since you are a "real student of Israeli history," you should already know that.



What "failed military mistakes"? When has it made these "military mistakes"? Are you referring to all those "military mistakes" when it defeated the all of the neighboring Arab agressors that would seek to "wipe it off the map"? Those "military mistakes"?



Ah, yes. Spoken like a true "real student of Israeli history," just looking out for the best interests of Israel. What a strategy ... lose the war against Hezbollah. No, the war against Hezbollah is another battle in the war on terrorism, so Israel needs to fight this fight and win, even though you -- and your leftist appeasement mindset -- might think it would be a good idea for Israel to lose.

Israel, US, the Christian Right:The Menage a Trois From Hell
Israel, the US, and the Christian Right: The Menage a Trois From Hell
by Max Blumenthal
08.10.2006

As I reported for the Nation in my most recent article, "The Birth Pangs of a New Christian Zionism," the White House has convened a series of meetings over the past few months with leaders of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a newly formed political organization that tells its members that supporting Israel's expansionist policies is "a biblical imperative." CUFI's Washington lobbyist, David Brog, told me that during the meetings, CUFI representatives pressed White House officials to adopt a more confrontational posture toward Iran, refuse aid to the Palestinians and give Israel a free hand as it ramped up its military conflict with Hezbollah.

The White House instructed Brog not to reveal the names of officials he met with, Brog said.

Brog, the former chief-of-staff to Arlen Specter, is now the first full-time lobbyist for the Christian Zionism movement. He claims that CUFI's lobbying efforts, including organizing 3500 evangelical activists to visit congressional offices as Israel and Hezbollah exchanged their first salvoes of missiles, are having an impact. "There is an ongoing debate in Washington over how long to let Israel continue the campaign against Hezbollah--how long will we let Israel fight its war on terror as we fight our own war on terror?" Brog told me. "And I think the arrival in Washington at that juncture of thousands of Christians who came for one issue and one issue only, to support Israel, sent a very important message to the Administration and the Congress, and I think helped persuade people that they should allow Israel some more time."

But CUFI has more on its agenda than simply "supporting Israel." Its founder and president, Pastor John Hagee, is determined to see America and Israel adopt his Armageddon-based worldview as their foreign policy. Consider what Hagee wrote this year in Charisma magazine: ""The coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty. Israel and America must confront Iran's nuclear ability and willingness to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. For Israel to wait is to risk committing national suicide."

Hagee's desire to doom the now-dormant Israeli-Palestinian peace process is equally disturbing. As I detailed in the Nation, in his book, The Beginning of the End, Hagee celebrated the murder of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy and glorified his assassin, Yigal Amir. More recently, Hagee's allies, like nationally syndicated evangelical radio host Janet Parshall, became ecstatic at the outbreak of violence in Lebanon and Israel. "These are the times we've been waiting for," Parshall told her audience on July 21. "This is straight out of a Sunday school lesson."

Time and again, Christian Zionists have delighted in events that most Israelis considered grave tragedies. And yet, Israel continually expends more energy cultivating their support than it does on earning much-needed international goodwill. Case in point: after calling Ariel Sharon's descent into a comatose state God's punishment for the "dividing the land," Pat Robertson was granted a personal meeting yesterday with Sharon's successor, Ehud Olmert. Afterwards, Robertson told his 700 Club viewership that the Lebanese people were "sheltering a terrorist group" and urged them to pray for an Israeli military victory.

Even as Israel alienates the international community by pursuing extreme militaristic solutions to its problems, it can count on unflagging support from America's evangelicals. It has recycled a strategy employed during the Cold War by authoritarian, anti-communist governments waging purportedly existential battles against dark-skinned barbarian hordes. For these regimes, the Bible Belt provided a natural constituency.

When international opinion turned against South Africa's apartheid regime in the 1980's, it presented itself to evangelicals as a final redoubt of Christian civilization in a sea of Afro-militant communism. Robertson responded with repeated denounciations of Mandela and the ANC on the 700 Club. Similarly, when evangelical Guatemalan dictator Efrain Rios-Montt initiated a scorched-earth campaign (with Israeli military assistance) to exterminate his country's Mayan population, he called on Robertson for PR help. Robertson leapt to aid his friend, hosting a telethon for Guatemala's military. He even funded the construction of "model villages" (read: concentration camps) for the Mayans who survived the massacres. Israel has clearly applied the lessons of the past.

But while Israel's policies towards the Palestinians and Lebanese are morally repugnant, it would be simplistic to equate Israel with regimes like those of P.W. Botha and Rios-Montt. For all its flaws, Israel has one of the most resilient and politically sophisticated societies in the world. When the dust clears in Lebanon, Israelis will realize that their problems can only be solved through politics. And someday, they will have to deal with the Palestinians again. But then what?

What if a future Israeli government decides, as Yitzhak Rabin did, that Israel can live in the world and survive -- and even thrive? And what if a future American government backs Israel by mobilizing international allies behind a new land-for-peace effort? Most Americans would probably support this as they did in the past. American Jews would back a peace process if convinced there was a viable partner. And polls consistently show Israeli opinion in favor of the establishment of a Palestinian state. But in such a scenario, so-called Christian Zionists would reveal themselves as one of Israel's worst enemies. They have their own agenda and it has nothing to do with peace.

Israel Set to Invade Lebanon Despite Lessons of 1982 War
Israel Set to Invade Lebanon Despite Lessons of 1982 War
By Donald Macintyre
The Independent UK
Thursday 10 August 2006

Israel has approved a major escalation of war by voting to send thousands of fresh troops deeper into Lebanon in an expanded offensive echoing its invasion nearly a quarter of a century ago.

The decision came as attempts at the United Nations in New York to agree a ceasefire resolution were said last night to be on the point of collapse.

Israel gave the army the green light to push troops at least to the Litani river, around 15 miles beyond the border into Lebanon, despite the risk this could add hundreds more casualties to the rapidly mounting death toll of Israeli soldiers. Another 15 soldiers were killed in heavy fighting in southern Lebanon yesterday.

At a tense six-hour meeting in Jerusalem, the cabinet authorised Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the Defence Minister, Amir Peretz, to order a substantially expanded offensive at a time of their choosing. It was approved by nine ministers. Three, including the former prime minister Shimon Peres, abstained.

The decision was strongly recommended by Mr Peretz and the military's chief of staff, Dan Halutz. Mr Olmert, elected only five months ago, was widely reported to have hesitated before finally throwing his weight behind it.

The principal goal of such a ground offensive was described by officials as being to halt the firing of shorter-range Katyusha rockets, most of which Israel believes are launched from the area between the border and the Litani. Another 160 of them were fired into northern Israel yesterday. One minister said after the meeting that the military assessed the operation would take 30 days to complete.

The timing and even the choice of whether to implement the decision was left to Mr Olmert and Mr Peretz. This could allow still more time for the UN Security Council to come up with a resolution which would meet Israel's central demands, including an international force to disarm Hizbollah.

Insisting that the decision did not conflict with the currently badly faltering diplomatic efforts to secure a UN ceasefire resolution, Tzipi Livni, Israel's Foreign Minister, said: "The faster the international community passes a resolution, the faster an international force arrives to help the Lebanese army, the better."

Although Israeli officials declined to say last night when Mr Olmert was likely to implement the decision, one minister present at the meeting was quoted by Haaretz as saying that Mr Olmert would not act on the decision for two or three days to allow a window for the diplomatic process to bear fruit. One senior official said last night that the international community still had a window to halt a wider ground offensive that Israel would ideally prefer not to launch.

But the gravity of yesterday's decision invoking unwelcome memories of the 1982 Lebanon invasion was underlined by the abstentions of both Mr Peres and the Labour minister Ophir Pines-Paz. Both argued in the cabinet that more room should be allowed for the diplomatic process.

The third minister to abstain, Eli Yishai, from the ultra-orthodox party Shas, did so on the grounds that while it was right to expand the campaign there should be a longer aerial bombing campaign before an intensified ground operation was launched. He said after the meeting: "In my opinion, whole villages should be removed from the air when we have verified information that Katyusha rockets are being fired from there."

It was Mr Yishai who disclosed the military's belief that the operation would last a month, adding: "I think it is wrong to make this assessment. I think it will take a lot longer," he said.

In Washington, a State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, said Israel had a right to defend itself, but added that it "must take utmost care in avoiding civilian casualties".

Lebanese officials reported that at least five people had died in air strikes yesterday. Most of the Israeli soldiers killed were reservists, casualties of the anti-tank missiles which have proved to be Hizbollah's most potent weapon in the ground war. The Israeli military said 40 Hizbollah guerrillas had also been killed.

Hundreds of reservists called up to reinforce the Israeli deployment were seen moving in formation towards the eastern sector of the border near here. Fire was exchanged, using small arms, machine guns, shells and missiles, with positions in southern Lebanon. Plumes of smoke rose from Lebanese villages close to the border.

Red tracers visible from the Israeli side of the frontier crossed the sky early today as repeated tank and artillery fire demonstrated that Israel had still not secured all the immediate border areas of southern Lebanon.

As sirens sounded repeatedly, the reservists, some with camouflage paint on their faces and mainly from the Golani brigade, took cover behind walls. They were mindful of avoiding the fate of 12 colleagues killed in a single Katyusha attack at Kfar Giladi, five miles away from here, on Sunday.

Flashback 1982

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor

In June 1982, the Israeli army swept across the Lebanese border with orders to expel Palestinian guerrillas who had been firing rockets into northern Israel.

Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) were indeed forced out of Lebanon. But Israel's ill-fated occupation lasted 18 years, tarnished the reputation of its military machine, and led to the creation of the Islamic Hizbollah militias, which are now firing much more powerful rockets into Israel.

On 6 June 1982, on the pretext that Palestinian fighters had attempted to assassinate Shlomo Argov, the Israeli ambassador to London, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin sent 30,000 soldiers into Lebanon. He told the Israeli cabinet that the PLO was behind the attack, withholding the fact that it had been carried out by Arafat's sworn enemy, Abu Nidal, on the orders of Saddam Hussein.

Ariel Sharon, then defence minister, was put in charge of "Operation Peace for Galilee" ostensibly aimed at silencing Palestinian rockets by moving Israeli troops 30kms inside Lebanon up to the Litani river.

But the Israelis thrust as far as the Lebanese capital, with public support remaining buoyant despite the deaths of 100 soldiers in the first days. In August 1982, Yasser Arafat and his fighters left the rubble of Beirut on a ship for exile in Tunis, in the same month that 2,000 Syrian troops pulled out. Under a US-sponsored ceasefire agreement, a multinational force of Americans, French and Italians was deployed.

Bashir Gemayel, a Maronite Christian, was elected president, and Israel began to hope that a peace treaty could be signed. But Lebanon, split by factions and conflicting foreign interests, once again confounded optimists. Gemayel was assassinated on 14 September 1982. Two days later, in revenge killings whose scale shocked the world, Israeli forces allowed their allied Lebanese Christian militias into the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps, where they slaughtering 1,700 fighters and possibly thousands of civilians.

Sabra and Chatila, the bloodiest single incident in the Arab-Israeli conflict, marked a turning point in Israeli public support for the occupation, and led to Mr Sharon being found "personally" responsible for the massacre, and forced to resign as defence minister.

The massacre prompted the US President, Ronald Reagan, to boost the multinational force. On 29 September, the new troops entered Beirut, with about 1,800 marines, joined by 1,500 French Foreign Legion paratroopers, and 1,400 Italians. Their mission was officially neutral, but was intended to support the new Lebanese government under President Amin Gemayel, who was allied with the US and Israel.

But the presence of the foreign forces provided Syria and Iran with an opportunity as they backed the Hizbollah Shia fighters who had sprung up to resist the invading Israelis. On 18 April 1983, a suicide bomber demolished the US embassy in Beirut. On 23 October 1983, 241 marines were killed in a truck bombing of their Beirut barracks. Twenty seconds later, a truck rammed into the building where the French peacekeepers slept, killing 56 paratroopers. A US district judge ruled in 2003 that senior Iranian officials had approved and funded the attacks by Hizbollah, which he described as the "most deadly state-sponsored terrorist attack made against United States citizens before 11 September 2001". The multinational force pulled out of Beirut.

Israel withdrew to a buffer zone in southern Lebanon. Its forces stayed for 17 years, but when they left, Hizbollah claimed that it was the Shia militia that defeated the regional superpower.

Israel's Tactical Catastrophe
Israel's Tactical Catastrophe: Pushing Middle East Moderates to Embrace Hezbollah
by Arianna Huffington
08.08.2006

The U.S.-French cease-fire plan for Lebanon is getting the same reaction at the UN as a group of Connecticut bloggers at Lieberman campaign headquarters. Delegates from the Arab League arrived in New York to push the Security Council for a major rewrite, while Bush interrupted his vacation brush-clearing to brush aside the Arab world's concerns, saying the UN should approve the plan now and worry about the details later.

Neither Condi Rice nor John Bolton seemed in too much of a hurry to pull the plug on Israel's Lebanon offensive. "We're going to take a little time and listen to the concerns of the parties and see how they can be addressed," said Rice at the Crawford ranch. For his part, Bolton was happy to hold off until the Arab foreign ministers made their case: "We're not going to rush to have the text finished before they arrive." Both managed to stifle a yawn -- but just barely.

Meanwhile, the body count continued to rise as the fighting escalated -- the bombs and rockets being unleashed by both sides proving far more on target than the attempts at diplomacy.

Also escalating is the debate over whether Israel's efforts to wipe out Hezbollah are having the desired effect -- or whether they are, in fact, proving counterproductive.

This was the question I was asked to debate with Dennis Prager last night on Larry King Live.

For Prager, the discussion was all about the morality of Israel's actions (he has called support of Israel's battle with Hezbollah "the most clarifying moral litmus test of our time"). For me, it's a question of strategy and effectiveness. There's no question that Israel has the moral right to defend itself against a fanatical terrorist organization that seeks to destroy it. But, as I've asked before, does Israel want to be right or does it want to win? And can victory be defined as anything other than the ability of Israel to guarantee the security and safety of its people?

Ultimately, the long-term security of Israel depends on isolating and marginalizing the vile, violent extremists in the region from the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. As Prager wrote in a recent column, not every Arab or every Muslim is an enemy of Israel. But Israel's current tactics are pushing more and more Middle East moderates to embrace the extremists.

As Robin Wright of the Washington Post put it on Larry King: "A staggering poll last week -- in a country with 17 different recognized religious groups, 87 percent said they backed Hezbollah, which is unprecedented in the history of Lebanon." Even more ominous for Israeli -- and American -- interests, Israel's all-out approach is bringing together the traditionally divided religious factions in the country, with 89 percent of Sunnis, 80 percent of Christians, and 80 percent of Druze siding with the Shia terrorists of Hezbollah.

And we're seeing similar unsettling shifts throughout the Middle East. When the current conflict started, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan all condemned Hezbollah. Not any more.

It's extremely dangerous when you have the hearts and minds of the Arab world being filled with sympathy and understanding for a terrorist organization led by a man, Nasrallah, who has said, "If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak, and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology, and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew", and backed by the radicals in Iran, whose president said last week that the "main solution" to the Middle East crisis was the "elimination" of Israel.

Prager also tried to frame the debate over Israeli strategy as a left/right issue. In truth, the idea that Israel is doing itself more harm than good is shared by those on both sides of the political spectrum. Chuck Hagel, the second ranking Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee, recently declared "The war against Hezbollah and Hamas will not be won on the battlefield." He cautioned that a continued air and ground assault by Israel "will tear apart Lebanon, destroy its economy and infrastructure, create a humanitarian disaster, further weaken Lebanon's fragile democratic government, strengthen popular Muslim and Arab support for Hezbollah, and deepen hatred of Israel across the Middle East."

And Pat Buchanan, as identified with the Right as anyone, summed it up this way: "Whatever one thinks of the morality of what Israel is doing, the stupidity is paralyzing."

During our debate, Prager drew the comparison between Israel's response to the kidnapping of its soldiers and America's response to 9/11. That was Israel's "final straw," he said. "It's just like our final straw was 9/11."

It was an unfortunate example -- not because of the disparity in the magnitude of the two incidents, but because of the depressing similarity between the reaction to them.

After 9/11, America had the world on its side. We were undeniably in the right; no one that mattered doubted that we had the moral high ground. But we went after the wrong enemy -- Saddam and Iraq instead of bin Laden and al Qaeda -- and, as a result, find ourselves suffering in so many ways, not the least of which is the loss of our ability to be an effective power broker in the Middle East.

Just 26 days ago, Israel had the world on its side and the moral high ground. It now finds itself fighting an increasingly bloody ground war against a surprisingly effective enemy -- and the object of outrage throughout much of the world. Shades of America and Iraq.

America went after the wrong enemy. Israel went after the right enemy in the wrong way. Both decisions have left the world a far more dangerous place.

How worthwhile this might be is not clear, tico. There might not a single sentence following the first two words which I'd consider accurate in fact or reasonable in assumption.

Tico, you need to give Blatham some leeway, he is operates under the assumtion that, in general, human beans are rational and considers that you too might be a human bean. I apologize for his misthinking.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/about80835.html

When Sharon started removing some of the provocative Israeli settlement construction in Palestine, I was hopeful that peace would be achieved by the establishment of a Palestinian State.

There is another remaining issue to be resolved which is overlooked by most people. The Golan Heights were taken away from Syria after being invaded by Israel. Israel refuses to give up the Golan Heights for strategic security reasons. Syria wants them back.

It also is clear that access to water is a major issue re Israel's military actions.

I agree the issues are complex, but they should have been settled long ago. Many of the issues in the Middle East are the residual result of the policies and actions of the colonial powers in the last century after WWI and the discovery of oil. The English are especially culpable.

BBB

And to what do you attribute the fact that peace has not been achieved?



The Golan Heights were taken away from Syria because Syria demonstrated it believed the best use of said Heights was to shell Israel.

To failure's credit
To failure's credit
Op Ed By Gideon Levy
Ha'aretz (Israel)
8/13/06

The bad (and predictable) news: Israel is going to come out of this war with the lower hand. The good (and surprising) news: This ringing failure could spell good tidings. If Israel had won the battles in an easy, sweeping victory of the kind Israelis prayed so much for, it would have caused enormous damage to Israel's security policies. Another slam-bam win would have brought disaster upon us. Drugged with power, drunk with victory, we would have been tempted to implement our success in other arenas. Dangerous fire would have threatened the entire region and nobody knows what might have resulted.

On the other hand, the failure in this little war might teach us an important lesson for the future, and maybe influence us to change our ways and language, the language we speak to our neighbors with violence and force. The axiom that "Israel cannot allow itself a defeat on the battlefield" has already been exposed as a nonsensical cliche: Failure might not only help Israel greatly but, as a bonus, it might teach the Americans the important lesson that there is no point in pushing Israel into military adventures.

Since 1948's war, Israel has only achieved one sweeping military victory on its own, in the Six-Day War. There is no way of imagining an easier and sweeter victory. Israel's "deterrent capability" was restored - and in a big way - in a manner that was supposed to guarantee its security for many years. And what happened? Only six years went by and the most difficult war in Israeli history, the Yom Kippur War, took place. Hardly deterrence. On the contrary, the defeat in 1967 only pushed the Arab armies to try to restore their lost honor and they managed to do so in a very short time. Against an arrogant, complacent Israel enjoying the rotten fruits of that dizzying victory, the Syrian and Egyptian armies chalked up considerable achievements, and Israel understood the limits of its power. Maybe now, this war will also bring us back down to reality, where military force is only military force, and cannot guarantee everything. After all, we are constantly scoring "victories" and "achievements" against the Palestinians. And what comes of them? Deterrence? Have the Palestinians given up their dreams to be free people in their own country?

The IDF's failure against Hezbollah is not a fateful defeat. Israel killed and absorbed casualties, but its existence or any part of its territory were not endangered for a moment. Our favorite phrase, "an existential war" is nothing more than another expression of the ridiculous pathos of this war, which from the start was a cursed war of choice.

Hezbollah did not capture territory from Israel and its defeat is tolerable even though it could have easily been avoided if we had not undertaken our foolish Lebanese adventure. It is not difficult to imagine what would have happened if Hezbollah had been defeated within a few days from the air, as promised from the start by the bragging of the heads of the IDF. The success would have made us insane. The U.S. would have pushed us into a military clash with Syria and, drunk with victory, we might have been tempted. Iran might have been next. At the same time we would have dealt with the Palestinians: What went so easily in Lebanon, we would have been convinced, would be easily implemented from Jenin to Rafah. The result would have been an attempt to solve the Palestinian problem at its root by pounding, erasing, bombing and shelling.

Maybe all that won't happen now because we have discovered first-hand that the IDF's power is much more limited than we thought and were told. Our deterrent capacity might now work in the opposite direction. Israel, hopefully, will think twice before going into another dangerous military adventure. That is comforting news. On the other hand, it is true that there is the danger the IDF will want to restore its lost honor on the backs of the helpless Palestinians. It didn't work in Bint Jbail, so we'll show them in Nablus.

However, if we internalize the concept whereby what does not work by force will not work with more force, this war could bring us to the negotiating table. Seared by failure, maybe the IDF will be less enthusiastic to rush into battle. It is possible the political echelon will now understand that the response to the dangers facing Israel is not to be found in using more and more force; that the real response to the legitimate and just demands of the Palestinians is not another dozen Operation Defensive Shields, but in respecting their rights; that the real response to the Syrian threat is returning the Golan to its rightful owners, without delay; and that the response to the Iranian danger is dulling the hatred toward us in the Arab and Muslim world.

If indeed the war ends as it is ending, maybe more Israelis will ask themselves what we are killing and being killed for, what did we pound and get pounded for, and maybe they will understand that it was once again all for naught. Maybe the achievement of this war will be that the failure will be seared deeply into the consciousness, and Israel will take a new route, less violent and less bullying, because of the failure. In 1967, Ephraim Kishon wrote, "sorry we won." This time it is almost possible to say, it's good we did not win.

Now, there is an editorial that matches my thinking.

Thanks revel.

Did you mean to post this in a different thread?

Or do you get BBB and revel mixed up as often as I do?

Sorry BBB...I had several multiple threads open and there's the stroke and the recreational drugs and the constant sexual excitation and I was confused.

BBB


Poor Baby, how you must suffer.

BBB :wink:

Op Ed By Daniel Ben Simon
Op Ed By Daniel Ben Simon
Ha'aretz
8/17/06

I am trying to recall when I last saw Israeli leaders talking with Arab leaders about peace, and finding it hard to remember. In recent years, our compulsive tendency to talk to ourselves about an agreement with the Arabs has been strengthening, as though the real conflict in the Middle East were between the right and the left. The fruitless discussions between these two tired bodies have had two goals: to neutralize any possibility of change and to freeze the reality on the ground, for fear that any step toward peace will ignite a domestic war among the Jews. And if we are already fated to go to war, say our architects to themselves, it is better to have a war against the Arabs. It is torturous to think that had similar diplomatic energy been invested vis-a-vis Palestinian leaders, Lebanese leaders and Syrian leaders, perhaps everything would look different. Perhaps we would even be living in peace with them.

Is it possible that the miserable war in Lebanon and the endless slaughter in Gaza are an outcome of the lack of willingness to talk with our neighbors? When was the last time we tried to talk to the Palestinians about their future and about our future? When was the last time we sent out probes to the Lebanese about signing a peace agreement with them? When was the last time we tried to renew the truncated negotiations with the Syrians about the possibility of arriving at a peace agreement?

For six years now Israeli politics has been at a standstill. Ever since prime minister Ehud Barak shoved Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat into the lodge at Camp David in July 2000, there has been no serious contact between an Israeli leader and an Arab leader with whom we are in conflict. The result is dreadful. Israel has slammed doors on its neighbors and has made up its mind to set arrangements on its own, in dialogue with itself, while ignoring its neighbors as though it were a lone juniper tree in the desert. It is possible that for this insult, we are now paying the price.

To a large extent both the slaughter in Gaza after the disengagement and the war in Lebanon prove the failure of the unilateral approach. How is it possible, asks every reasonable individual, that we pulled out of Lebanon and they are attacking us? How is it possible, asks every reasonable individual, that we pulled out of Gaza and they are still attacking us? Is it any wonder that the lack of gratitude on both these fronts has led many Israelis to the conclusion that hatred for Jews is imprinted in the Muslim genome and that the urge to go to war is imprinted in the Arab character?

And perhaps this outburst of aggression has its source in our egotistic nature, in our refusal to relate to our neighbors, in our unwillingness to see them from the distance of a meter. There is no such thing as unilateral peace, just as there is no such thing as unilateral war. It takes two to dance the dance of death, and to dance the dance of joy. We have decided to dance with ourselves, as though the Arabs were shapeless, transparent and not worth speaking to.

And it isn't as though in the past there haven't been bilateral contacts that aroused hope. However, they can be counted on one hand. Only two months ago a cheerful meeting was held between our new prime minister, Ehud Olmert, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan. How many smiles they scattered, and how many times they clapped one another on the shoulder. Olmert was at his best. He laughed, he joked, he chummed and he demonstrated impressive communications skills. He spoke with everyone - apart from the only person at that meeting who justified a serious discussion. And indeed, Olmert's aides worked for days so that their boss would not shake the hand of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

These are the achievements of Israeli diplomacy vis-a-vis the Palestinians during the past six years: Ehud Barak pushed Arafat at Camp David, the same Barak invited Arafat to dinner at his home, prime minister Ariel Sharon invited Abbas to a meeting at the Prime Minister's Residence, Olmert bestowed a hug on Abbas. Two gestures, one conversation and one dinner party during the course of six whole years. Not a bad output for a country mired in a bloody conflict with the Palestinian people.

And during this entire time, Israel has withdrawn into itself, refusing to look sideways. It exited Lebanon in anger and it exited in similar anger from the Gaza Strip, without having attempted to coordinate the moves with those concerned. It is also planning to exit the West Bank with a similar, unilateral slam of the door.

Instead of speaking with our enemies we speak with our friends, not to say our patrons, the Americans, as though we were lowly vassals. We have adopted English almost as a mother tongue and we relate to Arabic as almost an existential threat. Thus far, the subordination of our lives, our values and our future to the Americans has not proved itself. We have never been as insecure as we are today. As part of our despair we are surrounding ourselves with a wall and turning the symbol of national rebirth into a fortified Jewish ghetto closed on all sides.

If the despair with our neighbors and with peace spreads, the Israelis are liable to deposit the reins of the state in the hands of dangerous fanatics like Yisrael Beiteinu MK Avigdor Lieberman. "For insane situations, you need insane people in charge," said an inhabitant of Kiryat Shmona last week who thus reflected the new mood and mentioned Lieberman as a wonder drug.

If Olmert does not hold out any hope soon and does not start talking with the Lebanese and the Palestinians and the Syrians, the despair is liable to push the Israelis toward extreme solutions.