joyfulchristian

Another (mostly obvious) criteria

I once said that Israel would never know peace as long as Arafat lived. That wasn't to say that Arafat's death would cause instant peace; it was just an acknowledgment that Arafat was an ever-present obstacle to lasting peace.

I'd now like to add that Israel will have to be willing to have the fortitude to do whatever they believe is necessary to eliminate the threats while directly defying the US government (which is never likely to give their blessing to a long-term all-out assault). I'm not saying this will guarantee success, but if they are unwilling to defy the US government, they are doomed in the long run.

So I knew Obama was arrogant

But to think that a speech by Bush blasting appeasement before the Israeli Knesset was a political attack on Obama smacks of hubris of the highest order.

Political Radar: Obama Takes Issue With Bush Foreign Policy Speech

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

I watched this part of the speech and Obama isn't mentioned. You know, typically when someone blasts a generic group and you take it as a personal affront, it's because secretly you know you're part of that group.

From Obama's policy statements it seems obvious to me that he would, in fact, be an appeaser. However, given that a big part of Israel's problems over the years have stemmed from a significant minorities appeasement instincts, wouldn't it be much more logical to assume that Bush was talking about appeasers there, in general, than one over here in specific?

World's dumbest spy

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israeli 'tried to spy for Iran'

A reserve officer in the Israeli army has been charged with offering to supply classified information to Iran, Russia and the Palestinian group Hamas. David Shamir, a psychiatrist, is accused of offering information on command centres and civilian evacuation plans in exchange for payment.

According to the story, not only was he apparently rather schizophrenic in his choices regarding who to spy for, he wasn't recruited by any of them. Instead, he apparently just started sending e-mails and faxes to foreign governments offering to sell them information. Not exactly Bond level stuff, is it?

Powered by ScribeFire.

I would make that argument

Robert Clayton:

If someone attacks you with a knife, are you only allowed to use a knife to defend yourself, or can you pull your firearm and put them down with that? No one would say that a firearm is a 'disproportionate' response to a knife.

And that is because force is only disproportionate if it is (far) in excess of what is reasonably necessary to bring the aggression to a halt. A solid case can be made that, far from being disporportionate, the Israeli response has fallen far short of what they are entitled, and perhaps even obligated (to their citizenry) to exert.

If they're not doing everything necessary to stop the attacks, they're not doing enough.

Does Israel have the right to be a "Jewish" state

David Bernstein has a very interesting post about whether Israel has the "right" to be Jewish.

My correspondent was unaware of any other countries that have an overt ethnic identity, but, judging by immigration laws, there are quite a few, and with a few exceptions (Armenia and Germany), their discriminatory immigration policies exist, unlike Israel's, without any justification resulting from persecution of that group.

For example, according to Wikipedia: "Japanese citizenship is conferred jus sanguinis, and monolingual Japanese-speaking minorities often reside in Japan for generations under permanent residency status without acquiring citizenship in their country of birth." Why does Japan have the right to exist as a Japanese state? Has this question ever been asked? Ireland: "If you are of the third or subsequent generation born abroad to an Irish citizen (in other words, one of your grandparents is an Irish citizen but none of your parents was born in Ireland), you may be entitled to become an Irish citizen" [if, as I understand it, you register properly]. Does Ireland have the right to exist as an Irish state?

I think this is an excellent point.  Read the whole thing.

Interesting

So exactly how long does it take to crank out a 30-foot banner with Condi Rice's picture one it?  Powerline asks an interesting question.

Remarkably

... this won't change Kofi Annan's view of what's going on over there one bit.

Protesters angry over an Israeli airstrike that killed more than 50 people broke into the main U.N. building in the Lebanese capital Sunday, burning U.N. and American flags and damaging some offices.

[...]

A handful of protesters broke into the building. Arab TV channels showed footage of the protesters inside, breaking down doors and pounding the walls with bats or broom handles.

It should, but it won't.

More on Hezbollah's contemptible behavior

David Bernstein has been all over this.

Who's your hero?

David Bernstein offers some perspective on Hezbollah:

In any event, Kuntar came to mind because I received an email from a reader suggesting that I try to understand things from the perspective of the supporters of the Palestinian and Party of God terrorist groups. Sorry, but while I'm reasonably well read on the radical Arab perspective, whatever someone's grievance I refuse to "understand" those who idolize cold-blooded murderers of children. [Remember the exhibit at a Palestinian university celebrating a mass terrorist murder at Sbarro's Pizza in Jerusalem?] The fact that Kuntar is a hero to the Party of God and to the Palestinian terrorist groups reveals just about all one needs to know about them.

Read the whole thing.

No real surprise

Here's a very interesting story.  It talks about e-mails sent by the Canadian Major who was stationed at the UN outpost recently hit by Israel:

"What I can tell you is this," he wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. "We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.

"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."

Those words, particularly the last sentence, are not-so-veiled language indicating Israeli strikes were aimed at Hezbollah targets near the post, said Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie.

"What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)," he said.

That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It's a tactic Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie, who was the first UN commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, said he's seen in past international missions: Aside from UN posts, fighters would set up near hospitals, mosques and orphanages.

I'm shocked!  Hezbollah was using UN observers as human shields?  This couldn't possibly explain why Israel was bombing the area, could it?

Very telling

I think this story tells us a lot about the problems with the historic method of dealing with terrorists in the middle east:

A senior Hezbollah official said Tuesday the guerrillas did not expect

Israel to react with an all-out offensive after the capture of two soldiers, the first acknowledgment by the group that it had miscalculated the consequences of the raid two weeks ago.

[...]

He said Hezbollah had expected "the usual, limited response" from Israel after the two soldiers were seized by guerrillas on Israel's side of the border on July 12.

In the past, he said, Israeli responses to Hezbollah actions included sending commandos into Lebanon, seizing Hezbollah officials and briefly targeting specific strongholds in southern Lebanon.

Komati said his group had anticipated negotiations to swap the Israeli soldiers for three Lebanese held in Israeli jails, with Germany acting as a mediator as it has in past prisoner exchanges.

I think this story shows the problem very clearly. Hezbollah believed that they could continue this insane give and take indefinitely.  That is to say, they could hurt Israel knowing that Israel would strike back, but they were in control of how much they'd get hurt.  This is why "proportionate response" is such a stupid idea.

Islamic Thinker's Society

Umm ... thinking isn't exactly what I'd call this.

Evolution of thought

Perry de Havilland explains that when conflict first broke out between Israel and Hezbollah he thought it very important that Israel be careful not to destablize the fledgling liberty movement in Lebanon.  Now, he feels somewhat differently:

In short, I find myself inescapably drawn to the notion that not only is the Israeli action warranted, I now think there is no good reason the IDF should avoid attacking targets of strategic value to Hezbollah which are located in non-Hezbollah areas. Moreover, I would urge them to follow the logic of that position and start striking targets in Syria and (above all) in Iran in order to impose a cost on those governments for their actions in enabling Hezbollah.

His reasoning is very interesting.