Israel: Athens or Sparta or Masada
Here’s an astounding article (via Belmont Club) about three of the four founders of the Israeli peace movement (called “Four Mothers”) that was largely responsible for the shift in Israeli attitudes leading to the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000.
Revisiting the views of these women now, six years later, provides a sort of “where are they now?” of the mind.
In the 1990’s, they had lost children fighting the war in Lebanon. They felt that the war was being waged to little or no good, and became devoted to a withdrawal of forces from the country and to the cause of peace. These women not only gave peace a chance, they believed in it with a fervent zeal, they lived it and fought for it (metaphorically speaking), and thought they won it.
But read what they have to say now. It’s not only a story about the process of how minds and opinions change (one of the themes of this blog), it’s one of the best examples I’ve found of the fact that Israelis see the current war as a fight for their very survival–a grim necessity offering no alternatives.
One of the women, the eloquent Zohara Antebi, says of her previous commitment:
So if you are saying now that I was wrong when I believed that it would be possible to ensure far fewer casualties and far more quiet after leaving Lebanon, you’re right. I was wrong. I’m afraid of those who are incapable of saying ‘I was wrong’ in the first person. I lived on the border, in Malkiya, and I saw the small tobacco plots of the farmers in southern Lebanon, and I believed that prosperity on both sides of the border would ensure quiet. That Nasrallah would aspire for his people to have a good life. In that I was wrong. I was definitely wrong.
And she says of the present war, and how it followed that previous withdrawal she helped engineer:
And leaving Lebanon then was not a military move. It was a civilian move. It was meant to enable us to be Athens, not Sparta. And precisely because of that there is now no choice. Now we have to change the diskette. This time we are fighting for our home. This time we are fighting so that we will have lives here.
Not all the women regret that initial withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, nor connect it inexorably to the present war. But all are united in believing that the present war is absolutely necessary. As one of them, Orna Shimoni, says, it’s an “existential war,” fought for their very lives. The enemy has made it clear that the goal is to eliminate Israel. And Shimoni, who has always been affiliated with the left, and who abhors killing with all her being, is now angry at her former comrades in the left in Israel. Since she sees this war as a fight for Israel’s very life, and the consequence of losing would be the slaughter of the Israelis, she sees the left as aiding and abetting that slaughter.
The article is eloquent about the intensity of the suffering the deaths of Israeli soldiers cause the Israeli people. Israel is a small country with universal conscription, and Jews are famously known–as many Arab commenters so succinctly put it–to “love life.” The Jewish mother is legendary in her protective maternal instincts, so much so that in the US she’s always good for a laugh in that regard–but just imagine those instincts coupled with the constant threat of losing so many young adult children in war.
The earliest wars in Israel, however, were very clearly for survival, and the mothers of the soldiers who fought in those wars were–if not actually Spartan–part of the tough and pioneering group who founded that country. The mothers of today’s soldiers and the soldiers of the previous decade came of age in a different Israeli climate– one that, if not exactly secure, was at least more secure, or perceived as such. As Antebi puts it, it was more Athenian and less Spartan.
The Lebanese occupation was ultimately perceived by that generation as unnecessary and even counterproductive and wrong, and the deaths as simply not worth it–much like the Vietnamese War came to be perceived here in the late 60s and early 70s, and much as the Afghan-Soviet War came to be perceived by the Russians. Thus, the 2000 pullout from Lebanon was widely supported throughout Israel.
But the events of recent years have taken away the dream of Oslo and the Camp David era. It’s no longer about the Palestinians, either; not this war. This war is about Iran and its plan to dominate the Arab world, a plan that does not include the existence of Israel. And this is true whatever Israel does or does not do, whatever steps it takes or does not take–short of the entire country reenacting the legend of Masada and committing mass suicide.
[ADDENDUM: Listen to this podcast, an interview with Caroline Glick, available through Politics Central at Pajamas Media. Her contention is that Israel must win this war not only for its own sake, but to save the country of Lebanon from becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Iran.]
what will it take for our left to come to a similar conclusion/realization?
i feat the delusion is too strong for any epiphany
Reality bites, indeed.
Yet another demonstration that heart-felt motivations and consequences aren’t necessarily connected. Unless you consider predictable disaster a connection.
To me, the saddest refrain of the left has always been this, from the eulogy to Bobby Kennedy:
“Some men see things as they are and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not.”
The answer to Bobby’s question, of course, is that sometimes the other guy wants you dead…and if you’re not prepared for it, if you don’t think it can happen—it will. Wishing for a better world and “visualizing world peace” only works in the mind, and yes, there ARE evil people in the world, no matter how much we wish there weren’t.
Nasrallah does aspire for his people to have a good life. The problem is what he defines as a good life. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with them achieving economic prosperity from their plots of tobacco, and everything to do with eliminating first the Jews and eventually all non-Muslims.
Sigh. Always a bridesmaid…. I wrote about that article last week….
I have sort of a different take on this: I think that maybe the Israeli withdrawl back then wasn’t such a bad idea for this reason alone: It gave southern Lebanese a chance to see Hezbollah’s true colors without the pressure of Israeli soldiers as a ready excuse for any sort of depraved behavior. Yes, that’s condemnatory of the Lebanese that had to actually experience life under Hezbollah, and I’m not exactly proud of having this opinion, but I can’t see how to escape that conclusion.
Granted, many of the southern Shia still support Hezbollah, but as pointed out on Michael J. Totten’s blog among other places, many of the northern and non-Shiite Lebanese are sick and tired of them. Yes, Hezbollah provides civic support and services – trash collection, medical care, etc. – that the Beruit government does not, but that’s an awful trade: We’ll provide your hospitals, but you better be ready to have to use them in service for our cause. A truly civic-minded, responsible government provides such services to better their citizens’ lives, not in order to farm them for one single purpose. That’s a devil’s bargain that treats it’s subjects as livestock, not humans.
I’m digressing… anyway, I’m not ready to call the 2000 withdrawl a mistake yet. It was done for the best of purposes, and it let Hezbollah’s true colors show. Granted, those colors were obvious to most outside Lebanon, but the six years since made them obvious to those within. It was costly, but not withdrawing would’ve been as if not more costly, plus few would’ve had the opportunity to see the reality of Hezbollah.
—–
As an aside: Wow, I come back, and Neo’s got a direct link on Instapundit. Granted, it’s by a guest contributor, but still… Instalaunch! Have your blog hits hit the roof, Neo?
neo-neocon wrote: Her contention is that Israel must win this war not only for its own sake, but to save the country of Lebanon from becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Iran.
Aha… that old Vietnam-era logic. “Sir! We had to destroy that village in order to save it !!!”
Neo,
This is a superb post. These women are brave to admit they may have erred earlier.
It seems to me all Israel feels it’s in a fight for its survial; sadly, I am uncertain the Olmert government is up to the task.
Best,
Jamie Irons
Re: stumbley | 08.04.06 – 4:18 pm |
“Some men see things as they are and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not.”
I saw Ted Kennedy say that on television in his eulogy for his brother Bobby, and that’s not exactly the way I remember it. My recollection is:
“Some men see things as they are and say why.
He saw the way things ought to be and said why not.”
Even then, I thought it was an incredibly arrogant thing to say, as if Bobby, or the Kennedy family, were the arbiters of the “way things ought to be.”
Perry,
Aha… that old Vietnam-era logic. “Sir! We had to destroy that village in order to save it…
Go out and scour the Internet for a new talking point, dog.
That “quote,” from the discredited Peter Arnett, is considered highly dubious.
Not to mention your logic trying to use it in this context.
Jamie Irons
neo-neocon writes: the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000
Pullout? Technically yes, but neo-neocon conveniently fails to mention that even after the supposed pullout in 2000 Israel continued to violate Lebanese airspace almost constantly.
For example, from minutes of the UN Security Council meeting of October 22, 2004 (click on the URL below to see it on the UN website):
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/e872be638a09135185256ed100546ae4/b3767d6a101b775285256f38005184f8!OpenDocument
“On 21 September [2004], nine air violations involving 16 jets were recorded. On 11 October, a total of 12 air violations took place, causing sonic booms in various parts of Lebanon. Further air violations occurred on 18 and 19 October. We call on the Government of Israel to cease these violations of the Blue Line.”
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/e872be638a09135185256ed100546ae4/b3767d6a101b775285256f38005184f8!OpenDocument
Welcome. You have described my political journey. Many still believe that Roosevelt was a Godsend to the Jewish people. Hah! Olmert, Livni etc. they just don’t have it. Olmert’s last statement about leaving the West Bank borders on idiocy in its strategy and its timing. BTW my 95 year old sister is praying for me, the neocon. I live in San Francisco.
I don’t understand the mind-set of Americans who actively support the terrorists. Now a former Clinton official, Sidney Blumenthal, has published classified information concerning American assistance to Israel. Here is one take on the matter. The eagerness with which the left is revealing classified information at the great cost to our war on terror is infuriating. Its not surprising; this has been their modus operandi at least since the days of Stalin.
The American left will never recant. They can’t because they come from a different place than the left in Israel. In Israel the left cares about the nation and its people, and in America the left cares only about itself and regaining political power.
There is increasing evidence that Oppositional Defiance Disorder, mental illness, is much more pervasive society than once thought.
“In children with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), there is an ongoing pattern of uncooperative, defiant, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that seriously interferes with the youngster’s day to day functioning. Symptoms of ODD may include:
*frequent temper tantrums
*excessive arguing with adults
*active defiance and refusal to comply with adult requests and rules
*deliberate attempts to annoy or upset people
*blaming others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior
often being touchy or easily annoyed by others
*frequent anger and resentment
mean and hateful talking when upset
seeking revenge
The symptoms are usually seen in multiple settings, but may be more noticeable at home or at school. Five to fifteen percent of all school‑age children have ODD. The causes of ODD are unknown, but many parents report that their child with ODD was more rigid and demanding than the child’s siblings from an early age. Biological and environmental factors may have a role.”
Now, look closely at the childhood expressions of this disorder and then project them into adulthood. Are we not describing the behavior of many leftists?
Some of the early efforts to track this disorder into adulthood have run into strong resistance in academic circles from those with a more charitable view of “opposition” and “defiance”.
For me it is clear that the left, and a few on the far right, clearly suffer from a mental disease.
Check out eurefendum.blogspot.com.Dr.North and his commenters have been deconstructing the Qana photos in detail.Take a look if your blood pressore can take it.
The withdrawals helped Israel get rid of its illusions. The cost was great. The value greater. Net profit.
What will it take to wake Americans?
I ask that question in Keep hate alive
Hi all,
My first time on this blog. I discovered neo-neocon through a bit of serendipity.
I was googling for a Churchill quote, couldn’t quite remember it and found it in Neo-neocon’s post: ‘War Quotes’
It’s the one about pacifists and crocodiles…
As I am someone who independently arrived at my neocon beliefs and personally don’t know any other neocons, I found this blog of interest.
I realize that not being Jewish [though I have a Jewish step-mother whom I love dearly] nor sharpening my teeth every night 😉 may for some disqualify me from being considered a ‘true’ neocon but for the most part I am firmly in that camp.
BTW,
“Some men see things as they are and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not.”
if I’m not mistaken is a Jack Kennedy quote. One paraphrased by Ted Kennedy @ Robert’s funeral.
Re: ‘Oppositional Defiance Disorder’ and “The causes of ODD are unknown”
I beg to differ, it’s a case of ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’
Much of our society has lost the understanding of the difference between parental physical abuse masquerading as ‘punishment’ and loving, firm corporal discipline.
You don’t swat a toddler on the tush whose about to run out into traffic to punish them…You do it to get their attention and impress upon them in no uncertain terms that it is completely unacceptable behavior.
When employed by loving parents, used judiously, and only when very young children are ‘learning the rules’ it results in well-behaved, respectful children.
And no, I am not saying it, in and of itself, is all that is needed. I am saying ‘time outs’ and ‘reason’ alone are not a substitute for a swat on the tush, when appropriate.
If you doubt it, reflect on what reasons might explain why ODD in prior generations only existed within the wealthy class? Those able to ‘spoil’ their children.
Actually, the quote is by G. Bernard Shaw.
wasp…I wouldn’t blame OOD entirely on the parents; the schools have clearly played a part with their crazy “self-esteem-building” programs.
Absolute rubbish. Go ahead, ask me why.
Make my day.
“But the events of recent years have taken away the dream of Oslo and the Camp David era. It’s no longer about the Palestinians, either; not this war. This war is about Iran and its plan to dominate the Arab world, a plan that does not include the existence of Israel. And this is true whatever Israel does or does not do, whatever steps it takes or does not take–short of the entire country reenacting the legend of Masada and committing mass suicide.”
I don’t know what you would site as evidence – or what you would site for the claim that Israel’s early wars were “very clearly for survival”- that Iran intends to dominate the Arab world – it isn’t an Arab country and I think Eygpt might not agree to that.
Iran, too has never attacked another Arab country. It certainly has ambitions to protect itself – and not in the Orwellian interpretation of the word ‘defense’ that Israel offers. It has been threatened clearly by both the U.S and Israel.
I would feel much more comfortable with Iran going nuclear than I do with Israel’s current nuclear arsenal.
I know most you will laugh. But for those of you on planet earth – the record of this rouge regime tells a very frightening story of complete callousness for human life -again, Orwellian concepts of Israel’s “respect for life etc” notwithstanding.
Iran’s major crime appears to be it’s rhetoric.
I don’t know about you but I find actions certainly have more meaning than words.
By the way – the fact is that the Iran ian president did not ‘call’ for the destruction of Israel. He stated that Israel’s current stance in the middle east would lead it to being destroyed.
Which, considering the bombastic, heated rhetoric that flows from the middle east, is quite rational.
Not very exciting, I’ll say that – but words the pro-Israel crowd would do well to consider whilst they cheer on the Jewish war machine….
I would feel much more comfortable with Iran going nuclear than I do with Israel’s current nuclear arsenal.
I know most you will laugh–Johnny
Oh I don’t know about that. I’m not laughing. Not at all.
For someone not in a ‘confined’ Institution to make a statement such as you have, is about as far from laughable as I can imagine.
“Aha… that old Vietnam-era logic.”
Yeah, like that Vietnam-era logic that if we cut and ran from Vietnam, the way Democrats are urging in Iraq, the number of Vietnamese killed by the victorious communist regime would be overlooked only because the dominoes of Laos and Cambodia fell and Pol Pot murdered 2 million people when he came to power.
Fortunately we’ve learned from the mistakes of the Vietnam-era days.
Johnny,
Pass me some of that Koolaid, son.
Ask yourself honestly this frequently posed question: if the entire Middle east, Arab states and Iran, save Israel, were magically disarmed tomorrow, what would be Israel’s fate, and what would happen to all those other states? Would the Arabs or the Iranians be in any danger?
If, on the other hand, Israel alone were disarmed, what would be the outcome?
Come on, I think you know the answer.
Jamie Irons
I’ll make an exception in Johnny’s case, he obviously suffers from cranio-rectal syndrome.
You’re quite right, J, about Iran.
“It has been threatened clearly by both the U.S and Israel.”
Provoked by them, no doubt, as is true for North Korea. I’m don’t know how Saddam stood such abuse in his time. But the clock is ticking.
Question is when the threats from these two ‘warmongers’ turn to action. What action will that be?
“Ask yourself honestly this frequently posed question: if the entire Middle east, Arab states and Iran, save Israel, were magically disarmed tomorrow, what would be Israel’s fate, and what would happen to all those other states? Would the Arabs or the Iranians be in any danger?
If, on the other hand, Israel alone were disarmed, what would be the outcome?
Come on, I think you know the answer.”
I’m unaware that this is a ‘commonly’ asked question, but I’ll give it a try.
Would Iran and Arab regimes be in danger if they were magically disarmed and Israel wasn’t?
Geez. It’s really such a silly question(without context it’s really silly). But if it happened tommorow I suspect Israel would probably finish destroying Lebanon, er Hezbollah.
And then it would go about the business of policing the whole of the middle east. I would still be the same Israel, oppressive and the like, because of it’s history with the Arab states and Iran.
Even without weapons it would still be in fear. It understands quite well the depth of hatred for it – but unlike the minnions of it’s so-called ‘supporters’ Israel planners, generals etc know that the bulk of the hatred comes from dispossession and oppression. You can find this type of thinking in early Zionist literature – the understanding that there would be war with their prescenece. And anti-semetism had nothing to do with it.(Thats not to say it doesn’t exist – it’s certainly grown in the middle east I’m sure more than it has at anytime in history)
The Israeli elite – just don’t care. For them it’s just a necessary state of affairs that comes with taking land that the Zionist’s view as the rightful inheritors – based on religous entitlement. The Israeli population is another story – a liberal democracy(yes), vibrant, cultured, the real ‘jewishness’ that this particular gentile does find appealing. But it doesn’t really have any influence on the militarized culture of the rulers – and there sway over those who seek a different way.
Whatever the cost. I will say that in my humble opinion, it isnt’ the Palestinians who are the suicidal bunch – or not as much, if you like. I feel quite confident that under the right conditions i.e Palestinian state, Israrli withdrawal to 1967 borders, at least recongition of the refugee problem and reparations – Palestinians could live with Israel and even have good realtions if this were the case(30 years ago NOBODY would ever dream that Israel and Eygpt would sign a peace agreement and have normal relations).
I strongly believe that.
Unfortunately I also strongly believe that Israel would rather be destroyed and destroy everybody along with it – than concede the required land(by international law, and by moral decency)that the Palestinians, by any standards, should have and be allowed to have.
This is what I think most Western commentary doesn’t understand or ignores.
Honestly – I hope I’m wrong. I reall
“The Israeli population is another story – a liberal democracy(yes), vibrant, cultured, the real ‘jewishness’ that this particular gentile does find appealing. But it doesn’t really have any influence on the militarized culture of the rulers – and there sway over those who seek a different way.”
Yammer, quiz time. What was this post about?
Pete, whats your point? That people die in war?
I guess Id better be more specific with Yhamir.
If the average Israeli does not hold sway over the “militant” elites, what was neo-neocon’s original thread about?
One of the foundations of media collaboration dates back a number of years. They have always worried that if the “rubes” in flyover country, those NASCAR Joe Sixpacks and weak tea Democrats ever found out just how bad things were internationally and how dangerous the world really was they would go insane and elect some kind of Man on Horseback who would get his hands on the US arsenal and do something stupid. They also truly believe that conservatism is bad if not evil.
Given this view, a little “nuance”, a teeny bit of slant is a good thing since the average American voter can do things that everyone will regret in the morning. So, in their view, they really are “defending democracy”, as they see it. It’s not hard to see where this has led them. The belief that only the media stand between a potentially enraged American public and Middle East as glassy, irradiated, parking lot.
As a result they have to drink an awful lot of poison Koolaid and just hope the whole thing blows over.
Unfortunately, they’ve got all ten fingers and some toes in the dike and the waves are starting to break over the top. Worse, those who are still reasonably responsible see no way to change the course they’ve set and the word is starting to get out that all the bad stuff that’s happening in the world is related to one casual element with a name; Islam.
What to do? They can’t say like Emily Litella, “Never mind.” or “We’ve been a little bit wrong.” And their “allies” in the International Left have been drinking Koolaid steadily since about 1968 and are throughly deranged.
It’s really too bad; since the blowback, which is coming, has the potential to make some of their worst nightmares real. There will be detention camps for those who act out their insanity. There will be a draft of massive proportions and there will, eventually, be total mobilization with all the attendant implications for civil society.
It will not be be pleasant and there is the possibility that the ashes of the guilty and the innocent will mingle in landscapes too terrible to describe. If the West survives, it will take many years to crawl out of the hole into anything that resembles a peaceful and just world. And, like so many disasters caused by people with their heads in the sand or less savory places, it was all so avoidable by the application of prophylactic early measures.
Many of those now so passionately espousing diverse views here will not live to see the rim of the hole that comes after “Us or Them.”
“Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Ozymandias
Mark_in_Texas wrote: Yeah, like that Vietnam-era logic that if we cut and ran from Vietnam, the way Democrats are urging in Iraq, the number of Vietnamese killed by the victorious communist regime would be overlooked only because the dominoes of Laos and Cambodia fell and Pol Pot murdered 2 million people when he came to power.
Pol Pot was able to come to power only because the US had bombed Cambodia nearly into the Stone Age, completely destroying anything like a normal life in that country. Only out of that devastatation and despair could a horror like Pol Pot have emerged and seized power.
Perry is right: the US is to blame even the Killing Fields of Cambodia. Although I am dissapointed that this wisdom was accmpanied by a link to a supremely objective source. Despite that, there is no questioning the logic. Im fact, I am inclined to believe that Bush did it; afterall, this was about the time that he was missing from Guard duty!
Brad2,
I think you’ve found something of importance. The loons will be all over this.
I expect, that a few years from now, they’ll start to dig dead politicians up for trial just like the “enlightened” elites used to do to heretics during medieval times.
Hilary wrote:
“If the average Israeli does not hold sway over the “militant” elites, what was neo-neocon’s original thread about?”
Well, Neo seems to be quite certain about Israeli public opinion, whereas I am not. I’ve heard that around 90% of the Israeli public support this war; I’ve seen young Israeli children inscribing sweet nothings on missles headed for Lebanon; and yes, I’ve heard that Israel is “fighting for it’s very existance”.
She maybe right. But it matters very little. I think at this point that this war is threatening Israel’s existance – a choice of the military elite, if you like – not a war of necessity; not a defensive war, a war like Iraq, concieved through arrogance, stupidity and U.S war mongering.
But I don’t believe that the Israeli public was the reason for the 2000 withdrawal – and I don’t believe that Vietnam was stoppped by the peace movement.
Quite simply – the objective was accomplished in both cases – both countries(Vietnam and Lebanon were destroyed(the prime objective I would argue) and of no further, threat(or so it seemed). Public opinion may have had a minor role(thought I doubt it), and the intellectual elite of both countries no doubt editorialized that romantic concept – 4 women who were against the war who are now for it sure looks good for those who are trying to legitimize this war or Israeli public opinion.
A cursory glance at the war – it’s causes, the escalation, the long and short term concequences to Israel and the U.S – makes it hard, for me at least, to believe that these 4 women are a fair representation of Israeli public opinion.
It takes real dedication to convince an entire country that a small militia with at best, a 20th of the military capability of Israel, is threatening Israel’s existance.
The Israeli population is another story – a liberal democracy(yes), vibrant, cultured, the real ‘jewishness’ that this particular gentile does find appealing.
Johnny likes the “real” Jews that don’t fight back, you know, the ones that are led into the ovens without protest. The pesky fighters now trying to end the terrorists’ strikes in Israel are upsetting him and causing him anxiety. From the beginning of modern-day Israel Johnny and his ilk have been extremely disappointed that the Israelis didn’t allow their neighbors to destroy their little nation.
One form of anti-Semitism is to hold a jew to higher standards than the terrorists. The terrorists are allowed any behavior, i.e.: purposefully targeting civilians and using civilians as shields, while Israel(like the US in Iraq) is allowed no civilian casualties whatsover, which is an impossible condition to meet and in effect means that Israel is not allowed to make war at all.
Pol Pot was able to come to power only because the US had bombed Cambodia nearly into the Stone Age, completely destroying anything like a normal life in that country. Only out of that devastatation and despair could a horror like Pol Pot have emerged and seized power.
One sees this argument over and over on the liberal blogs. A little paraphrasing reveals the irrationality of the argument: The US bombed Cambodia and made Pol Pot and his supporters very angry at the US; consequently Pol Pot murdered several million of his own people, which in the anti-US mind is apparently the action that logically follows if one is displeased with something the US does.
To the dedicated anti-American, the US is always to blame for any murderous despot’s behavior.
Johnny likes the “real” Jews that don’t fight back, you know, the ones that are led into the ovens without protest. The pesky fighters now trying to end the terrorists’ strikes in Israel are upsetting him and causing him anxiety. From the beginning of modern-day Israel Johnny and his ilk have been extremely disappointed that the Israelis didn’t allow their neighbors to destroy their little nation.
Yawn.
What don’t you try arguing a point instead of pretending to be Freud and putting words in my mouth.
Which, as you’ve written, is complete crap.
And typical, unfortunately…
Grackle – that ilk that you are talking about are concerned about the future of the planet – and yes, they hold their own governments to account for their actions instead of finding some dark skinned native to blame whose country we are destroying, occupying or stealing from.
As I say – the reality-based crowd.
Because dark skinned natives are just doing what comes naturally?
You mock… how could these people be any sort of threat to Israel. Well they think they can. They’re going to keep trying too. Why don’t you straighten them out and tell them to stop throwing their children into the meat-grinder for no purpose? Hmm?
“Because dark skinned natives are just doing what comes naturally?”
Oh?
And what might that be?
“Feels Strange, But Totally and Unequivocally Right”
More: http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=264
^
One person.
One vote.
Don’t forget it.
yhamir: “I also strongly believe that Israel would rather be destroyed and destroy everybody along with it – than concede the required land(by international law, and by moral decency)that the Palestinians, by any standards, should have and be allowed to have.”
It amazes me that while people carelessly toss out the expression, “Of coure Israel is a democracy”, while apparently not understanding what a democracy is. Who are the Isaelis who would rather be destroyed than cede land to the Palestinians? Are they in power? Can you show me their manifesto? Can you show me the statements to the people telling them that this is their country’s policy? Because in this context, when you say “Israel” you mean the Israeli government, and as a democratic government it can only do what its mandate from the population allows it to do. The population are currently strongly behind the government in this war; can you show me the statements from ANY leader implying a readiness to die and destroy everyone rather than cede any land?
The point is this: I’m always seeing people attribute all kinds of weird unspoken motivations to Israel, none of which are in the government’s policy. Dictators can have secret motivations that their subjects may not support or be aware of, but how can that occur in a democracy?
It’s a war to the knife, neo.
Yhamir Wins!! He was the first one in the thread to use the “dark skin” arguement!!!! Congrats on your originality and profudity. I await your next lucid comment on how the racist west and zionist jews have done nothing but damage to civilization over the millenia, while never having contributed to the advancement of humanity. The US is responsible for Pol Pot, the Khans, Attila, the downfall of the Mayans, hell, we even sent equipment to Stalin! We should all be ashamed of what we are. I agree with you bro, if you are not a dark skinned, gay, female, destitute parapalegic from a third world country, You’re an oppressor Pig!!
“Because in this context, when you say “Israel” you mean the Israeli government, and as a democratic government it can only do what its mandate from the population allows it to do.”
Or it can manipulate fear and lie to achieve a manadate.
Isn’t that what happened with Iraq?
Demcracy in prinicple, not in action…
A bit over the top, Brad.
I don’t mind a good rant, but at least have the decency to articulate my opinions accurately….
yhamir: “Or it can manipulate fear and lie to achieve a manadate.” So are you saying the government have lied to the people by telling them that Hezbollah want to destroy them?
You still don’t get it. Israel is not just a democracy, it is a highly educated, technologically savvy democracy. The population can read and hear what is said about the situation all over the world – most know English, very many also know Arabic. They can make their own minds up about what is happening around them.
I think it is rather other countries, particularly in Europe, who are lied to by their politicians, who tell them that if only Israel would play nice and give in to Hezbollah/ Palestinian demands all problems would be solved.
conned, I mean, yhamir has stopped up his ears with ideologically approved, environmentally sound, wax and cannot hear anyone else unless they too have their ears stopped with the same wax. Then they read each others lips. Actually, they don’t need to do that; five or six code phrases usually do the job.
It is no use arguing with him or trotting out your best, bespoke comments. It should be enough to know that his IP has been logged and he shall, all in good time, be asked to help the appropriate people with their inquiries.
“Unfortunately I also strongly believe that Israel would rather be destroyed and destroy everybody along with it – than concede the required land…”
You ignore the fact that land was conceded – The Gaza strip to the Palestinians, southern Lebanon to the Lebanese and Hezbollah – and that land was used as a staging area for rocket attacks.
“… the objective was accomplished in both cases – both countries(Vietnam and Lebanon were destroyed(the prime objective I would argue) and of no further, threat…”
I don’t see how mere destruction was the goal in Vietnam. That country was considered an important strategic location to the West. The objective as I recall was to preserve a non-communist state in the south as a bulwark against communism. Not to destroy it.
Also, recall the mass bombings of Hanoi under Nixon. Recall that it was such a big story because it was a change from past behavior; Hanoi was off limits for most of the war. In fact, central Hanoi remained off limits during the bomings. Stating that the prime objective was to destroy Vietnam is to ignore history.
Regarding Israel in Lebanon in the year 2000? I’m not as conversant with the details of that, but given that Israel was hardly the only player in the destruction of southern Lebanon — the warring sects, some supported by Syria, one supported by Iran were very much involved — it’s sort of silly to lay all responsibility for the destruction at Israel’s feet. Also, how ignorant would Israel have to be to merely destroy the vicinity and leave Hezbollah intact?
“A cursory glance at the war – it’s causes, the escalation, the long and short term concequences to Israel and the U.S – makes it hard, for me at least, to believe that these 4 women are a fair representation of Israeli public opinion.”
Are you referring to the current conflict? If so, refer to polls cited by CBN and the BBC, which shows support for the conflict running in the 80 to 90 percent range.
If not, I don’t have the info to analyze the assertation.
“Or it can manipulate fear and lie to achieve a manadate.
Isn’t that what happened with Iraq?”
It’s a little simplistic to think that machinations by anyone result in obvious, predictable reactions in the population. That presupposes the population is a blank slate, or just groups composed of mere reflexes instead of thinking humans. People have complex motivations for choosing what to and not to support; Neo is a prime example. Stating that the US government succeeded in playing up to fear and loathing ignores the fact that most people come to conclusions based on more that what they’re told by a leader. They base their reactions on their education, their experience, their values, and their own personal analysis. Manipulation through hardly ever results in the objectives that those manipulators anticipate; see the Iranian public’s reactions to their government, or the central and northern Lebanese’s reaction to Hezbollah and Syria. The fact is, people who support the US in Iraq lend that support after active thought and analysis. Not merely fear or ignorance.
ElMo,
you misrepresent his opinions. He didn’t mean that, he meant something else.
Israeli public opinion is changing as we speak – they didn’t mind Israel destroying Lebanon – or Gaza – as long as they don’t see it or it doesn’t effect them.
They seem to mind now……
El Mondo
To this day, I believe that between 40-50% of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 or that he had ties to Al-queda.
Checkmate.
Is it that higher education, values etc that leads fundamentalist Christians to support Israeli terrorism in the hope that will it bring the blessed ‘rapture’?
Is never-ending war a American value?
Yhamir, now you are just spam
This is an amazing piece….it really depicts the sheer necessity of victory in the present conflict with Hezbollah, from the mouths of the former staunchest adversaries of our occupation of Lebanon. Brilliant post, simply brilliant!
Pol Pot was able to come to power only because the US had bombed Cambodia nearly into the Stone Age, completely destroying anything like a normal life in that country. Only out of that devastatation and despair could a horror like Pol Pot have emerged and seized power.
Perry
Funny how US airpower was so effective in bringing down the Cambodian government and so useless in bringing down the North Vietnamese government.
Specially given that our targets in North Vietnam were various military and civil targets, while in Cambodia we bombed jungle.
I guess that’s the key–bomb the jungle, bring down the government.
“Checkmate”? One simplistic figure is proof that people do not have complex motivations, or relied on their own experiences, education, and analysis? That the US public as a group is such a willing dupe that it accepts anything it’s leadership tells it without question? Sir, in your hurry to gloat, you haven’t provided anything more substantial that one simplistic canard. Then you follow it up with even more simplistic charges about “Fundamental Christians” and the rapture, which is a stoop to caricature instead of substantive argument. Please, don’t fall into the trap of former narcisstic agitators and lower yourself to insult in place of argument. It’s not becoming, and better is expected of Neo’s guests. Plus, tolerance here is far lower due to previous abuses. Please don’t resort to such.
I conceed that too many people wrongly associate Saddam with 9/11; polls tell us so (one source is http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544. Your arguments will be stronger if you bother to source them yourself instead of relying on straight assertation, and I’m still waiting for such attribution for your charges about Vietnam). But what does that prove? Recall that it was more than mistaken opinions about Saddam’s involvement or WMD’s that led to most American’s approval of the Iraq action; his barbarity towards ethnic and religious minorities within his country played a large part as well. People may have come to a mistaken opinion regarding Saddam’s involvement, but it’s for far more complex reasons than simply buying a single person’s rhetoric.
Brad,
Respectfully, which opinion(s) did I misrepresent? Maybe I’m misreading things — it stinks to come home mentally tired from work, then try to be marginally coherent for blogs — but I confess, I’m not seeing it at the moment.
Your points are well taken ElMondo.
I’d only say that my stance is the appropriate one considering the quality of debate on this board.
In fact your own argument – “They base their reactions on their education, their experience, their values, and their own personal analysis. Manipulation through hardly ever results in the objectives that those manipulators anticipate; see the Iranian public’s reactions to their government, or the central and northern Lebanese’s reaction to Hezbollah and Syria. The fact is, people who support the US in Iraq lend that support after active thought and analysis. Not merely fear or ignorance.” – is unsourced and unconvincing to me(the Iranian reaction to their own government is just that – an internal matter quite seperate from American influence – and likely to change to outright support in the advent of American intervention – as we have seen with Hezbollah in Lebanon where Israeli aggression has spurred unqualified support for Hezbollah throughout Lebanon – and the region for that matter.)
Yhamir,
Israel is reacting to Hezbollah aggression.
The fact that Lebanon is unwilling/unable to reign in Hezbollah justifies Israeli actions. Lebanon is paying for the sins of Hezbollah and its own inability to control its borders. If the Lebanese then side with Hezbollah, they become valid targets.
Israel and the US, as usual, are showing too much restraint. Soon, we have to take off the gloves, as it is clear we can’t count on the dhimmi of Western Europe.