Netanyahu - No Cease-Fire

[cigsandcoffee]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008694

JERUSALEM--Some 44 years ago, when Soviet missiles in neighboring Cuba threatened American cities, John F. Kennedy set one goal and ultimately prevailed in achieving it: Remove the missiles. Today, when Israel's cities are pummeled by Hezbollah missiles launched from neighboring Lebanon, our goal should be the same: Remove the missiles. Or destroy them.

(snip)

The objective of the military campaign currently being waged on Israel's northern border, as well as any diplomatic effort to bring that campaign to an end, must therefore be to disarm Hezbollah, first and foremost from its missile arsenal. A failure to do so would be a great victory for that terror organization and for its sponsors in Tehran and facilitators in Damascus. It would enable Hezbollah to rebuild its lethal capacity for waging war, continue to threaten the people of Israel and hold hostage the people of Lebanon, and sow the seeds for an even greater conflict in the future. In contrast, disarming Hezbollah would help restore Israel's deterrence and security, give hope to a peaceful, prosperous and democratic future for Lebanon, and deal a heavy blow to the forces of international terrorism.

(snip)

Imagine what the U.S. would do if, on its northern border, a terror state-within-a-state pledged to its destruction was established from which flurries of missiles were fired at Chicago, its third-largest city. With that in mind, to suggest, as some have, that Israel is not acting with restraint is preposterous. Unlike Hezbollah, which is indiscriminately launching hundreds of missiles at Israeli cities and towns to kill as many civilians as possible, Israel is using only a fraction of its firepower and is in fact acting with great care to minimize harm to civilians. But because Hezbollah not only targets civilians but also uses them as human shields by hiding its missile launchers in population centers, Hezbollah has deliberately placed innocent Lebanese civilians in harm's way.

(snip)

That is why any cease-fire or diplomatic effort that does not have as its objective the disarming of Hezbollah will only strengthen the forces of terror. And that is also why the world should fully support Israel in disarming Hezbollah--for Israel's sake, for Lebanon's sake and for the sake of our common future.

I find his point about Chicago to be particularly on target. If a Northern neighbor were harboring a terrorist organization shooting honest-to-God missiles at that city, the US would react very severely - and would be well within our rights to do so.

[tnlefty]

1. Kill'em all, let God sort it out!

There is no longer any need for peaceful conflict resolution, not today, not yesterday, not tomorrow, not ever.

[cigsandcoffee]

4. I don't think that's what he's saying, really.

That may be how you want to mischaracterize people who think differently from you on this topic, but it's not an accurate reflection of this opinion piece.

[Kagemusha]

2. By the way - Hezbollah's missiles aren't nuclear.

I thought that little detail should be mentioned.

[cigsandcoffee]

3. I'm missing your point. Does that mean they should be tolerated?

Cuba's missiles were never actually fired. Hezbolla's are.

[Kagemusha]

6. If Cuba's missiles had been fired THE WORLD WOULD HAVE ENDED

Wee little difference.

[cigsandcoffee]

7. So if Cuba had fired non-nuclear missiles at Florida....

...you think Kennedy would have shrugged it off? Please make your point.

[Kagemusha]

13. Hello? You couldn't understand my point before?

Before I completely give up on your intelligence, I'm just saying, Hezbollah is not firing nukes. Treating its missiles as the equivalent of INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILES THAT WILL SPARK A GLOBAL NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST FOR JEW AND GENTILE ALIKE is a bit bleeping much thank you. The comparison is a poor one.

That will be all.

[cigsandcoffee]

15. Your point appears to be ridiculous.

You appear to be saying that since these rockets are not nuclear, Israel should tolerate them. If that's your position, you really have no business questioning anyone's intelligence.

[Kagemusha]

21. Sir, I said not one thing about tolerating them. You invented that.

But the Hezbollah rockets are to the Cuban missiles what pinpricks are compared to the thrust of a lance from a charging knight on horseback in full steel plate armor. In spite of this, Netanyahu wrote that the two should be treated exactly the same. No sane reading of his statement can result in the impression that the two are remotely the same. It is a fallacious argument. That is my point.

The Hezbollah missiles should be treated for what they are... the Hezbollah missiles. Not Russian ICBM's. Which, by the way, could reach Florida from submarines or even Russian soil proper, so there was no point leaving them in Cuba at the risk of war. Hezbollah isn't going to strike Haifa from Mogadishu. Treating them as the same is just wrong.

[cigsandcoffee]

30. If one of those rockets were flying at you and your family.

I doubt you'd have the same opinion. How easy it is to shrug them off from the safety of a distant location.

The comparison is valid. Kennedy told the Russians that if the boats with the ICBMs arrived in Cuba, the US would be at war with the United States. The Soviets flinched.

Israel told Hezbollah and Lebanon that if the rocket attacks continued, Israel would respond to protect its cities. Hezbollah did not flinch (and Lebanon did not contain them), and we've got a war going on as promised.

[cali]

5. I find

these comparisons spurious. They fail to account for too many variables. In any case, Israel is creating more terror and more members of H'bollah by bombing the hell out of Lebanon. There's really no good excuse for it.

[cigsandcoffee]

8. Other than blowing up their missile caches, of course.

That seems like a pretty good "excuse." It's a criminal shame that Hezbollah hides them among a civilian population, but that's the way brutal fascist organizations work.

[cali]

34. It's a criminal shame

to bomb where you know civilians are. It's a criminal shame to keep bombing vehicles with families in them; families that are trying to escape the bombing. It's criminal to bomb roads and then drop leaflets telling people to leave their homes.

I am not an Israel hater and I do have sympathy for Israel, but this is not the way to solve that problem. What part of 'this only creates a bigger terrorist infrastructure' is so hard to grasp?

[theanarch]

11. well said...

...as for the "Chicago" analogy, if the US were doing to Canada (presumably where these rockets would be fired from) what Israel is doing to the West Bank, Gaza and now southern Lebanon, who among us could credibly argue that we didn't ask for, or deserve, it?

[cali]

28. Sorry,

I don't agree that Israel deserves to be shelled. Yes, the occupation is both terrible and wrong, but it's also an incredibly complex history, and there's plenty of fault to assign to others: the Palestinian, the Jordanians and the Egyption come to mind. For instance, The jordanians and Egyptians occupied the West Bank and Gaza for 19 years; why wasn't a Palestinian state formed in those years?

[theanarch]

42. Cali...you write that...

..."the occupation is both terrible and wrong"...and herein lies the crux of my arguement. Is it terrible and wrong enough to qualify as a crime against humanity? If one does not consider Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories a crime, then it axiomatically follows that any Palestinian resistance to that occupation (in the form of reactive, counter-terror--the only form of resistance available to them, given the disparity of military forces) is unjustified. On the other hand, should one regard the occupation as such a crime, then resistance to it (even in the form of counter-terror) can be "justified" (in terms of understanding why it occurs) without necessarily being condoned.

It's not enough for we, who are not on the front lines, to simply mount our moral hobby-horses and point an accusatory finger of blame in one direction, or the other, or both. Moral posturing may make us feel better, but it's going to take much more than moralising to resolve the crisis. The root of the crisis--the 'original sin' if you will--is Israel's annexationist/colonizing policies, that have been pursued with equal vigor and persistance, by all governing Parties (Labour, Likud, and now Kadima). The ultimate goal is to re-establish Israel's BIBLICAL borders, which straddled the Jordan R. (the coastal area occupied by modern Israel was, back then, the homeland of Philistines, or Gentiles). Israel can't achieve this goal without removing the Palestinians who already live there, which explains why Israel's treatment of West Bank citizens has been as harsh and inhumane as possible--a 39-year-and-counting campaign of ethnic cleansing that falls just below the threshhold of genocide (slow starvation, dehydration; deliberate poverty, shortages of electricity; the elimination of political leadership through exile, long-term detention, selective murder; etc). It also explains why Israel refuses to define or fix its borders, because they haven't finished expanding yet.

The point is, Israel can end Palestinian violence by agreeing to almost all of Hamas's demands, and suffer a minimum of material damage. Conversely, for Palestinian's to accept Israel's demands is the functional equivalent of commiting suicide--to lose their homeland, their cultural unity and identity; and live out their days as neglected refugees in countries that don't want them (which includes existing in isolated bantustans inside the West Bank, in those marginal areas that have no economic viability for Israeli settlers).

Like you, i deplore the situation; but while two wrongs don't make a right, it seems pretty obvious by now that in terms of being wrong, Israel is the pro-active player, and Palestinians are the reactive players...and if the moral distinction may seem slight, the political difference is huge.

[Ms. Clio]

9. like I give a shit about Bibi's ludicrous "history lessons"

not to mention that Cuba was a sovereign nation in full control of the placing of those missiles on its territory.

[cigsandcoffee]

14. And if they weren't?

America would have tolerated unsanctioned rocket attacks from Cuban territory? I'm thinking JFK would have gone ballistic, but perhaps you have another theory.

[Ms. Clio]

19. we can play what ifs all day long -- it's a stupid analogy

from someone who doesn't know jack about U.S. history.

[burythehatchet]

43. Netanyahu is the biggest player in all this

He is the link to PNAC and this is all planned.

[Ms. Clio]

45. just briefly, before I snatched up the remote, I heard him blathering

about the 12th imam, or some such rot.

Yeah, like that's truly more dangerous to the world right now than Rapturemania.

[PSPS]

10. These are silly comparisons

First, for those that need reminding, Netanyahu = Likud radical.

And even given his silly childlike "comparison" of missles coming over the border from, say, Thunder Bay or Sudbury, I suppose we'd be justified in flattening Ottowa?

[cigsandcoffee]

12. If Israel wanted to flatten Lebanon...

...it would have been done by now. Nothing would be left standing.

What do you think America would do if hundreds of missiles were being fired at Chicago from the north? How would a President Kerry react, in your opinion? Do you think he'd complain to the UN, or would he first send some F-15s over there to target the rocket launchers?

I'd bet on the latter.

[Kagemusha]

16. Then good luck to Israel in destroying them.

Wake me up when they're done.

Oh, wait, they want NATO and Lebanon to destroy them.. well if it was the US, it wouldn't ask the UN to do its dirty work, would it? Or the Cuban government? Ha. Yeah right. Ask Castro to destroy the Russian missiles.. that'll work.

Let Israel destroy them, if it can.

[liberalpragmatist]

18. That's not the question

I'm certainly not questioning the validity of a military attack and I don't think most DU'ers are, either.

But why couldn't the bombing have been more sporadic and more confined to Hezbollah? Even military analysts say they're quite surprised by Israel's targets* most of which are civilian in nature? Why has Israel bombed so much of Beirut when Beirut isn't even controlled by Hezbollah?

Certainly a military response was needed, but the one that has been undertaken appears excessive. Of course, some civilians will die in any military conflict, but the number of dead in this time is astounding if they're only targetting "military" targets. Nor do I see how this is conducive to Israel's aims; they're only turning the entire Lebanese population violently anti-Israel and increasing support for Hezbollah.

* http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-07-20-israel-strategy_x.htm

[cigsandcoffee]

22. The civilian deaths aren't surprising if the weapons...

..and militants are being hidden and hiding behind civilians.

When we attacked the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, did that shore up support for the Japanese? By your logic, no country can ever defend itself for fear of boosting the enemy. That's madness.

[Ms. Clio]

23. the Japanese? Pearl Harbor?

huh what?

[cigsandcoffee]

27. This is very simple.

You are saying that a nation shouldn't defend itself against rocket attacks by militarily attacking those weapons caches and militants, because doing so will only make the enemy stronger.

Using this logic, a country would have to tolerate attacks on its soil because responding to them will stregthen the enemy. We would have had to let the Japanese get away with their sneak attack instead of going to war with them.

To me, that seems a bizarre claim, but perhaps you can better explain it. I can guarantee you that Hezbollah is no stronger today than they were three weeks ago.

[Ms. Clio]

29. The Japanese were a nation-state, Hizbollah is not

the country of Lebanon did not launch a sneak attack on Israel.

so why should the entire nation of Lebanon suffer?

[cigsandcoffee]

32. Because they can't control the organization within their borders...

...that is launching missile attacks against Israeli cities. The rockets are coming from Lebanese cities and territories. How on Earth could you remove Lebanon from the equation?

[Ms. Clio]

35. So you are saying they all have to be collectively punished

for the actions of an organization they cannot control.

Makes as much sense as the history lessons.

[Selatius]

36. No, he can't say that because that would be breaking int'l law

Israel was perfectly within its right to attack Hezbollah positions and missile launchers. The problem is many in the international community have condemned Israel for bombing civilian targets like power plants, which is considered civilian infrastructure. There is a prohibition against the intentional destruction of civilian infrastructure for a reason: So that civilians won't die or be made to suffer needlessly.

[Ms. Clio]

39. yes, I agree

milk factories and television stations also seem to be civilian targets.

[Ms. Clio]

38. actually, since the Japanese considered they had good reason to target

the U.S., it's in fact quite interesting that they did focus solely on military targets at Pearl Harbor.

And didn't bomb Honolulu, for example.

[Kagemusha]

25. Then why Beirut damnit? Tyre's where they're shooting at Haifa from.

I read about that in Ha'aretz online earlier. Tyre's where the badass Syrian-supplied rockets are coming from that are hitting Haifa, and not Beirut so... why the hell hit Beirut?

[liberalpragmatist]

31. Then why are they attacking tons of non-Hezbollah targets?

Hezbollah controls a strip of territory in Southern Lebanon; by all means, bomb that. But don't punish the entire population of Lebanon.

And it's not just me saying this. From the article I posted in my first reply:

James Dobbins, a former Bush administration envoy to Afghanistan who now heads military analysis for the Rand Corp., said choice of targets by Israel was the key and may be misdirected.

"The military rationale seems rather thin, since many of the targets have no conceivable relationship to Hezbollah," he said.

And from Michael Totten, an American who has lived in Beirut (and is generally pro-Israeli) comes this:

> http://www.michaeltotten.com/

I sympathize one hundred percent with what Israel is trying to do here. But they aren't going about it the right way, and they're punishing far too many of the wrong people. Lord knows I could be wrong, and the situation is rapidly changing, but at this particular moment it looks bad for Israel, bad for Lebanon, bad for the United States, good for Syria, and good for Iran.

There is no alternate universe where the Lebanese government could have disarmed an Iranian-trained terrorist/guerilla militia that even the Israelis could not defeat in years of grinding war. There is no alternate universe where it was in Lebanon's interest to restart the civil war on Israel's behalf, to burn down their country all over again right at the moment where they finally had hope after 30 years of convulsive conflict and Baath Party overlordship.

The Lebanese government should have asked for more help from the international community. The Lebanese government should have been far less reactionary in its attitude toward the Israelis. They made more mistakes than just two, but I'd say these are the principal ones.

What should the Israelis have done instead? They should have treated Hezbollahland as a country, which it basically is, and attacked it. They should have treated Lebanon as a separate country, which it basically is, and left it alone. Mainstream Lebanese have no problem when Israel hammers Hezbollah in its little enclave. Somebody has to do it, and it cannot be them. If you want to embolden Lebanese to work with Israelis against Hezbollah, or at least move in to Hezbollah's bombed out positions, don't attack all of Lebanon.

Israel should not have bombed Central Beirut, which was almost monolithically anti-Hezbollah. They should not have bombed my old neighborhood, which was almost monolithically anti-Hezbollah. They should not have bombed the Maronite city of Jounieh, which was not merely anti-Hezbollah but also somewhat pro-Israel.

Israelis thinks everyone hates them. It isn't true, especially not in Lebanon. But they will make it so if they do not pay more attention to the internal characteristics of neighboring countries. "The Arabs" do not exist as a bloc except in the feverish dreams of the Nasserists and the Baath.

Do you need other examples? From Michael Young at Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2146217/

There is a rule I've learned over the years living through Lebanon's multiple wars: The optimistic predictions of anxious civilians are always wrong. A few days ago, people in my mostly Christian East Beirut neighborhood were sure that Israel would not extend its bombing campaign to include them. Yesterday morning, in two separate attacks, Israeli aircraft rocketed trucks a few hundred meters from where I live.

The trucks looked like they were carrying missiles. In fact, they carried equipment used to pump water out of the ground before developing a piece of property. As one wag put it after the attack, "At least the owner of the land won't have to spend money digging foundations for a new building."

<snip>

... this time, the attacks are also more alarming, because they are not limited, as they were then, to a sector of the capital. All of Lebanon is a target; all access roads, airports, and ports have been blocked or are in constant danger of being attacked, and a much larger swath of civilians are in danger. According to eyewitnesses in southern Lebanon, including journalist friends of mine, the destruction of villages is the worst they've ever seen—both intense and systematic—and it's not Hezbollah that is usually on the receiving end of the ordnance, it is civilians. Much the same is taking place away from the cameras in the northern Beqaa Valley, another majority-Shiite area. As for the Hezbollah stronghold in the Haret Hreik quarter of Beirut's southern suburbs, it has been reduced to dust. While this may have made it a legitimate objective, the suburbs have probably the highest concentration of inhabitants in Beirut, and virtually everybody has fled.

And from Bob Herbert's colum in the NYT today, comes this quote:

Going after Hezbollah is one thing. The murderous rocket attacks into Israel must be stopped. But the wanton killing of innocent civilians, including babies and children, who had no connection at all to Hezbollah is something else.

<snip>

Joseph Cirincione, an expert on national security matters (and a supporter of Israel) at the Center for American Progress in Washington, said last week: “There is no question that Hezbollah provoked this current crisis, and that it was right for Israel to respond, even if that meant crossing the Lebanon border to strike back at those who had attacked it. But this operation has gone too far. It’s striking back at those who had nothing to do with Hezbollah.”

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/opinion/24herbert.html?hp

OF COURSE, Israel needs to strike back, and yes, any attacks on Hezbollah will result in some civilian deaths; but this is clearly excessive, as even members of the Israeli Labor Party have noted. Nor is Hezbollah any closer to defeat. See: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/740649.html

[minkyboodle]

37. ridiculous

[PSPS]

40. Um ... I hope target the sites where the missles are coming from

Say, Thunder Bay or wherever. But apparently you'd be all gung-ho to flatten Ottowa, the same way Beirut is getting pounded when none of the missles hitting Israel came from there.

Your position isn't rational.

[Disturbed]

17. I've heard this guy speak.

He is a hard core militant. I am glad that he is no longer in power.
He would probably massively bomb then invade Syria and Iran.

[cigsandcoffee]

20. No. But we'd be justified in targeting the weapons caches...

...and the militants who fired them. Wouldn't we?

And if those caches were intentionally hidden behind civilians, do you think that would stop us from defending Chicago? I doubt it.

[Kagemusha]

26. And what of it? Or claiming missiles were in that army barracks they hit.

Or power stations.

Or milk processing plants.

Or the Hariri family owned TV stations.

Were they all hiding weapons there too?

Edit: And I think I really need to call it quits for this thread here. Don't expect more responses no matter what complete BS is thrown. Sorry, better things to do.

[Cleita]

24. Yes, how timely from Rush Limbaugh's Israeli

best friend. We have to stop thinking of these neo-cons as having a certain national or ethnic identity. They are all RW "we rule" tyrants.

[The Stranger]

33. The PNAC Nazis who wanted to invade Iraq kept shouting "Chamberlain!"

"Neville Chamberlain wanted appeasement, and the Iraqis with their weapons of mass destruction are today's Nazis."

So we know now how these asinine historical allusions (as pedestrian as they are) turn out.

[Scurrilous]

41. Netanyahu?

Seriesly?

British anger at terror celebration

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2277717,00.html

The commemoration of Israeli bombings that killing 92 people has caused offence

<snip>

"AS ISRAEL wages war against Hezbollah “terrorists” in Lebanon, Britain has protested about the celebration by right-wing Israelis of a Jewish “act of terrorism” against British rule 60 years ago this week.

The rightwingers, including Binyamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister, are commemorating the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of British rule, that killed 92 people and helped to drive the British from Palestine.

They have erected a plaque outside the restored building, and are holding a two-day seminar with speeches and a tour of the hotel by one of the Jewish resistance fighters involved in the attack.

Simon McDonald, the British Ambassador in Tel Aviv, and John Jenkins, the Consul-General in Jerusalem, have written to the municipality, stating: “We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated.”

In particular they demanded the removal of the plaque that pays tribute to the Irgun, the Jewish resistance branch headed by Menachem Begin, the future Prime Minister, which carried out the attack on July 22, 1946."

[malaise]

44. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

They have no idea or have forgotten about this evil man.