Political Crossfire Forums

Secondary Oak · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 3393 Location: Haifa

I was reading an article posted in the Washington Post by Moshe Yaalon, a former Israeli chief-of-staff.

Here's the link, though be advised it requires (free) registration.

I fear that throughout most of the article I failed to get the main point, but at the end it is reiterated, and allow me to quote:

Moshe Yaalon wrote: If the world were now blaming Hezbollah, Syria and Iran for the innocent Lebanese killed, hurt or displaced in this conflict, then it would be sending a powerful message to every terrorist group on the planet: We will not tolerate the use of human shields. Period.

Instead, those who condemn Israel have sent precisely the opposite message. They have told every terrorist group around the world that the use of human shields will pay huge dividends, thereby providing them with a powerful weapon that endangers innocents everywhere.
(Emphasis mine)

This point, as simple as it is, really struck me like a hammer. This is a powerful example of how the international reaction can be not only immoral or hypocritical but also truly disastrous.

Thoughts?

thatisnotme · Joined: 26 Mar 2006 Posts: 452

I agree. World opinion is often formed not on principles but on media manipulations. Pathetic.

Plato & Socrates · Joined: 24 Dec 2005 Posts: 1745 Location: London

Secondary Oak wrote: I was reading an article posted in the Washington Post by Moshe Yaalon, a former Israeli chief-of-staff.

Here's the link, though be advised it requires (free) registration.

I fear that throughout most of the article I failed to get the main point, but at the end it is reiterated, and allow me to quote:

Moshe Yaalon wrote: If the world were now blaming Hezbollah, Syria and Iran for the innocent Lebanese killed, hurt or displaced in this conflict, then it would be sending a powerful message to every terrorist group on the planet: We will not tolerate the use of human shields. Period.

Instead, those who condemn Israel have sent precisely the opposite message. They have told every terrorist group around the world that the use of human shields will pay huge dividends, thereby providing them with a powerful weapon that endangers innocents everywhere.
(Emphasis mine)

This point, as simple as it is, really struck me like a hammer. This is a powerful example of how the international reaction can be not only immoral or hypocritical but also truly disastrous.

Thoughts?

Your cant be serious? No nation can bomb civilians period. That's why they are called civilians and not combatants.
There is a clear DISTINCTION between the 2. Israel decides to kill civilians for one reason, and that's because militarily and for minimizing the risk for its own IDF soldiers its safer. But that's just tough luck.
Nobody cares or will lose any sleep when Hizbollah fighters die. But being prepared to kill whoever is in the vicinity when Hizbollah is around. Well as soon as Israel does that, you lose any moral authority you have.

What Israel is trying to do is change the rules of engagement. We Brits never Bombed IRA areas in Dublin because the IRA conducted missions from Ireland. We have rules of engagement for a reason, because you want to employ a different strategy/tactic, don't attempt to apply some pseudo intellectual argument, based on the west sending out the wrong moral message. In other words you want the world to turn a blind eye to some of your crimes, because you Israelis deem it necessary, because of the type of enemy you face. What you are asking for is totally and utterly morally bankrupt.

Secondary Oak · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 3393 Location: Haifa

Plato & Socrates wrote: Your cant be serious? No nation can bomb civilians period.
I'm dead serious, and in fact I would like to ask you the same question - are you serious? Do you suggest that Israel must never defend itself because civilians are nearby? This is ridiculous. The government was placed to serve the interests of its own citizens - particularly, guard their lives. Not doing so because of the fear for foreigners would be practically treason.

thatisnotme · Joined: 26 Mar 2006 Posts: 452

Plato & Socrates wrote:

What Israel is trying to do is change the rules of engagement.

The terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas have done that, change the rules of engagement.

Plato & Socrates · Joined: 24 Dec 2005 Posts: 1745 Location: London

Secondary Oak wrote: Plato & Socrates wrote: Your cant be serious? No nation can bomb civilians period.
I'm dead serious, and in fact I would like to ask you the same question - are you serious? Do you suggest that Israel must never defend itself because civilians are nearby? This is ridiculous. The government was placed to serve the interests of its own citizens - particularly, guard their lives. Not doing so because of the fear for foreigners would be practically treason.

I never not once said that Israel should'nt defend its citizens. I never not once said Israel must not go after Hizbollah. In fact as you well know before a single shot was fired, I put the blame of this latest crisis, at the door of Hizbollah. These are the rules. Hizbollah is a militia or whatever else one wishes to call them. It is your duty to protect innocent civilian lives. The debate by the world is, from there view does Israel do there utmost to protect Lebanese civilian lives. The answer is clearly no. How does one come to that conclusion you may ask?
Well they may decide to look at how the spanish dealt with ETA or the Brits with the IRA.

Civilians are just that, because they are innocent. Israel makes her own choices, but when she is judged and judged fairly, don't scream because we do not share your warped view. Fighting terrorists is dirty and gritty and it costs soldiers lives. The reason it costs soldiers lives is because you fight in circumstances where civilians are about. In not killing all that moves makes you extremely vulnerable. Because Israel wants to remove that risk from the equation, you are turning a blind eye to the presence of civilians. Intellectualizing this debate regarding Hizbollahs morality in using human shields. Only exposes your own defunct and immoral position to kill them.

Nobody in the west says anything but Hizbollah is morally bankrupt in their tactics, hiding amongst the civilians.
They do it because the morality we hold in the west, is that killing civilians is a no no. That is precisely why they hide there. Because Israel does'nt like the rules, they are trying to change it, and when the world condemns them,
as per usual she is crying and complaining. Blow the f**k out of Hizbollah and the world will rejoice with you.
But leave the civilians alone. It will cost you soldiers lives but that's the price. You cant have it both ways.

Sleep on this "The Brits lost more soldiers than the number of innocent civilians we killed" That's why we can judge you and the Spanish can say the same. In this Lebanon crisis its much more than 10 to one the numbers of civilians killed to IDF soldiers killed. Why is that? And your debating about the wests morality in judging Israels tactics? :roll: please...

Secondary Oak · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 3393 Location: Haifa

Plato & Socrates wrote: Well they may decide to look at how the spanish dealt with ETA or the Brits with the IRA.
You always use these analogies, and as always I find them seriously lacking.

Quote: Fighting terrorists is dirty and gritty and it costs soldiers lives. The reason it costs soldiers lives is because you fight in circumstances where civilians are about. In not killing all that moves makes you extremely vulnerable. Because Israel wants to remove that risk from the equation, you are turning a blind eye to the presence of civilians. Intellectualizing this debate regarding Hizbollahs morality in using human shields. Only exposes your own defunct and immoral position to kill them.
Israeli soldiers are - believe it or not - Israeli citizens, and as such the government is required to consider their safety before the safety of foreigners, civilian or not. At least this is my opinion, and the opinion of - I believe - most of the people in the world, but it seems you disagree.

Quote: Knowbody in the west says anything but Hizbollah is morally bankrupt in their tactics, hiding amongst the civilians.
Really? I seem to see more condemnations against Israel about, say, Qana, than against Hezbollah.

Quote: Sleep on this "The Brits lost more soldiers than the number of innocent civilians we killed" That's why we can judge you and the Spanish can say the same.
As I said before, the situation is drastically different. For starters, Israel hadn't had the chance to dominate a third (or a half) of the world with its army. And I have little doubt that faced with the same situation the British or the Spanish wouldn't do the same as Israel is doing right now. Do you? What do you think the Spanish would do if it were in Israel's place now? And do consider all the events over the past six years in your reply.

Quote: In this Lebanon crisis its much more than 10 to one the numbers of civilians killed to IDF soldiers killed.
Countless reasons have been posted on this forum for this, and I won't repeat them here.

Quote: Why is that? And your debating about the wests morality in judging Israels tactics? :roll: please...
Yes, I do. You are a good example of what I resent, I fear. You turn most of your condemnation against Israel, and thus signal to the terrorists they are doing the right thing.

maalox · Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Posts: 133 Location: above u

not true man , the hezbollah fighter`s are NOT between civilians , Israel do not know where they are so they claim to be hitting them in theire hidings
and they claim that they have destroyed like 70% of theire missile capacity
i assure u that not even 1% of that is even touched cz noonw knows from where the missiles are being launched

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

Secondary Oak wrote: I was reading an article posted in the Washington Post by Moshe Yaalon, a former Israeli chief-of-staff.

Here's the link, though be advised it requires (free) registration.

I fear that throughout most of the article I failed to get the main point, but at the end it is reiterated, and allow me to quote:

Moshe Yaalon wrote: If the world were now blaming Hezbollah, Syria and Iran for the innocent Lebanese killed, hurt or displaced in this conflict, then it would be sending a powerful message to every terrorist group on the planet: We will not tolerate the use of human shields. Period.

Instead, those who condemn Israel have sent precisely the opposite message. They have told every terrorist group around the world that the use of human shields will pay huge dividends, thereby providing them with a powerful weapon that endangers innocents everywhere.
(Emphasis mine)

This point, as simple as it is, really struck me like a hammer. This is a powerful example of how the international reaction can be not only immoral or hypocritical but also truly disastrous.

Thoughts?

I have a thought, Oak.

First, how you doing up there? Be strong.

Second, to my thought, it is nothing new. The world has ALWAYS been immoral and hypocritical. This was expected and predicted (by nutty right wingers).

Read this short article:

http://jewishworldreview.com/0806/prager080106.php3

More important than anything is to draw the appropriate conclusions from this. The major underlying premise of Israeli policies of withdrawals/disengagements/convergence is that by abandoning territory, Israel somehow gets more legitimacy in the eyes of the world. That if Israel withdraws from areas that are thought Palestinian/Lebanese, the world will suddenly appreciate how nice Israelis are and how mean Arabs are, and Israel will have a free hand to defend itself. That logic is necessary to the (bogus) deterrent capability that Israel thinks it gains when it withdraws. For example, every withdrawal is accompanied by a threat to the Arabs, that "we will withdraw now, but if you so much as fart in our direction, boy will we kick your ass." That threat is only credible if Israel is given the freedom to fully defend itself. If Arabs know that Israel will not be allowed such freedom, the threat is useless, and any gains of the withdrawal are negated (or at least dwarfed by the disadvantages).

The lesson of the current war is that withdrawals do not put world opinion on Israel's side. That policy is demonstrably flawed. At most, and mostly due to American insistence, Israel was given a week or two of freedom to exercise "measured" response. And if Arab civilians are hit in significant numbers, the proper measure of the permitted response decreases rapidly. It does not concern the world whether Israelis have achieved their operational goals of security and eliminating the rocket threat. It does not matter that Hizbollah still has thousands of rockets. What matters is that Israel must stop defending itself. Now. Because that's what the world demands. What is permitted to other nations is not permitted to Israel. And it matters not an iota that Barak withdrew from every single inch of Lebanon. Not an iota.

So what are the conclusions that are to be learned from this. The conclusions are clear, IMHO. The premise that Israel will have great freedom of action and world sympathy if it only withdraws to its suicidal 1948 borders is fundamentally flawed. It sounds nice and logical, doesn't it? But it does not work in reality. In reality, Israel's freedom of action and world understanding will be the same (or less) as when Israel remains in the territories. So the question is, was it really worth it withdrawing from Lebanon? From Gaza? Is it worth to repeat the same blunder in West Bank? West Bank will be no different from Gaza or Lebanon if Israel withdraws. Rockets will rain down on central Israel, and Israel will have the world's sympathy only until the first pictures of the Palestinian civilian casualties will be broadcast on CNN. And considering how skilled the terrorists are at operating from civilian areas, that does not take very long.

Let me ask you. Do you think that withdrawal from West Bank is still a good idea, strategically speaking? Whether yes or no, did this war affect your thinking and if so, how?

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

Ehud Barak wrote: Regarding Lebanon, I say that in southern Lebanon there is continuous fighting against Hizballah. The determination and fighting spirit of the soldiers and commanders, and the operational ability that I witnessed yesterday during my visit to southern Lebanon, are what will enable the government to, from a position of self- confidence, lead the process to concluding the IDF's presence in Lebanon.

The government which I head will withdraw the IDF from Lebanon by agreement over the course of the coming year and will position it to, from our international border, defend the peace of our northern communities. We will honor our commitments to the personnel of the SLA and the allied forces and I do not recommend that anybody test our response to attempts to harm Israeli citizens in the new situation that will be created.

from Barak's speech in 1999, at:

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches%20by%20Israeli%20leaders/1999/Prime%20Minister%20and%20Defense%20Minister%20Ehud%20Barak-s%20S

Barak's recommendation fell on deaf ears. Why?

Secondary Oak · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 3393 Location: Haifa

Duchifas wrote: First, how you doing up there? Be strong.
I'm cool so far, but if I die dedicate a post for me, will ya?

Quote: Second, to my thought, it is nothing new. The world has ALWAYS been immoral and hypocritical. This was expected and predicted (by nutty right wingers).

Read this short article:

http://jewishworldreview.com/0806/prager080106.php3
Yes, I know "the world" has been useless in many occasions, and I have no trust in its will or ability to be useful in future ones. Specifically, I will not trust an international force in Lebanon to protect me.

But as for the 4 reasons the articles raises, none of them really convinces me. Sure, they have some effect, but they're not the main ones.

Quote: More important than anything is to draw the appropriate conclusions from this. The major underlying premise of Israeli policies of withdrawals/disengagements/convergence is that by abandoning territory, Israel somehow gets more legitimacy in the eyes of the world.
[...]
That's slightly derailing the thread, but I suppose it's still connected. Looks like you use every chance to blast the "withdrawals / disengagements / convergence" idea. By the way, you're not updated, I hear the the latest English term is "realignment".

Quote: Let me ask you. Do you think that withdrawal from West Bank is still a good idea, strategically speaking?
I don't think it will change anything, strategically. Just like I don't think withdrawing from Gaza changed anything strategically. But it will give me something I lust for: borders. I want borders. I, not the international community. And thus, to answer your question: Quote: Whether yes or no, did this war affect your thinking and if so, how?
I don't know. I still support it, but I'm not sure it will work the way it's currently planned. Similar to the way I feel towards the Iraq war - it was a good idea, but I'm not sure it was (is) executed well.

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

Secondary Oak wrote: Duchifas wrote: First, how you doing up there? Be strong.
I'm cool so far, but if I die dedicate a post for me, will ya?

If you die, I am gonna kick your ass.

Quote: Quote: Second, to my thought, it is nothing new. The world has ALWAYS been immoral and hypocritical. This was expected and predicted (by nutty right wingers).

Read this short article:

http://jewishworldreview.com/0806/prager080106.php3
Yes, I know "the world" has been useless in many occasions, and I have no trust in its will or ability to be useful in future ones. Specifically, I will not trust an international force in Lebanon to protect me.

But as for the 4 reasons the articles raises, none of them really convinces me. Sure, they have some effect, but they're not the main ones.

Quote: More important than anything is to draw the appropriate conclusions from this. The major underlying premise of Israeli policies of withdrawals/disengagements/convergence is that by abandoning territory, Israel somehow gets more legitimacy in the eyes of the world.
[...]
That's slightly derailing the thread, but I suppose it's still connected. Looks like you use every chance to blast the "withdrawals / disengagements / convergence" idea. By the way, you're not updated, I hear the the latest English term is "realignment".

Oh, good. Kind of like tires on a car? :) Yes, I also think it is slightly derailing the thread, but IMHO it is more important to draw the conclusions from the important point you raise, than to just raise the point and leave it at that.

I also think that this conflict in Lebanon is crucial to Israel in that it will either make or brake the horrendous withdrawal policy where it matters most -- West Bank. This conflict will either provide Olmert with a lot of popular support, and thus allow him to carry out his idiotic policy in WB. Alternatively, it will wake up the Israeli public to the notion that withdrawals only put Israel at a disadvantage, before the most disastrous withdrawal. I am not sure which way it will turn out, but in the end, that will be the ultimate, and most important, impact of this war.

Quote: Quote: Let me ask you. Do you think that withdrawal from West Bank is still a good idea, strategically speaking?
I don't think it will change anything, strategically. Just like I don't think withdrawing from Gaza changed anything strategically. But it will give me something I lust for: borders. I want borders. I, not the international community. And thus, to answer your question:
Quote: Whether yes or no, did this war affect your thinking and if so, how?
I don't know. I still support it, but I'm not sure it will work the way it's currently planned. Similar to the way I feel towards the Iraq war - it was a good idea, but I'm not sure it was (is) executed well.

Oak, you have a border in the North. That's what Barak's folly gave Israel. A proper international border, clearly demarcated, with fences and signs, and certified by the UN itself.

Can I ask you something? When you didn't have the border, when you had a wishy washy and confusing security zone with no clear demarcation, was there ever a point when the entire Israeli north was paralyzed for a month, with thousands of rockets raining down, and with such high civilian casualties and with such damage to the economy?

Is a "border" really worth it?

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

Plato & Socrates wrote: We Brits never Bombed IRA areas in Dublin because the IRA conducted missions from Ireland.

You Brits firebombed the s**t out of Dresden, killing more civilians in three days than Israel has in three decades.

Amnesia?

Secondary Oak · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 3393 Location: Haifa

Duchifas wrote: If you die, I am gonna kick your ass.
I'm sure there's something in Judaism against desecrating the dead, and this probably qualifies as desecration.

I hope I get buried under an oak tree.

Quote: This conflict will either provide Olmert with a lot of popular support, and thus allow him to carry out his idiotic policy in WB. Alternatively, it will wake up the Israeli public to the notion that withdrawals only put Israel at a disadvantage, before the most disastrous withdrawal.
Agreed, more or less.

Quote: Oak, you have a border in the North.
You didn't get my point. I don't want a border to show the international community or to show the UN. I care about having a border for my country, as simple as that. Israel has decided to support a Palestinian autonomy, and that means the part it will control won't be a part of Israel. I want borders between them and us. Not for security's sake.

Quote: Can I ask you something? When you didn't have the border, when you had a wishy washy and confusing security zone with no clear demarcation...
There was still a border. The fact the army crosses it doesn't make it less of a border. The border was there, as clear as it is now.

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

Secondary Oak wrote: Duchifas wrote: If you die, I am gonna kick your ass.
I'm sure there's something in Judaism against desecrating the dead, and this probably qualifies as desecration.

I hope I get buried under an oak tree.

Like the Irish toast says, let that tree be planted tomorrow. :)

I once used it as a birthday toast. Didn't go over so well.

Duchifas: Blah Blah Blah.....and may you be buried under a splendid 100 year old oak tree, and may this tree be planted tomorrow! Happy birthday!

Birthday girl: What!??? You want me to die.....? Why would you say something like that?

Duchifas: Uhhhhh, I'll sit down now.

Birthday girl [5 minutes later]: Aww, I get it, oh that was so sweet, aww.

Quote: Quote: Oak, you have a border in the North.
You didn't get my point. I don't want a border to show the international community or to show the UN. I care about having a border for my country, as simple as that. Israel has decided to support a Palestinian autonomy, and that means the part it will control won't be a part of Israel. I want borders between them and us. Not for security's sake.

Why? Meaning, I understand why having a border may be desirable in general, but what I am asking is why does this desire for a border apparently outweigh the desire for security?

Quote: Quote: Can I ask you something? When you didn't have the border, when you had a wishy washy and confusing security zone with no clear demarcation...
There was still a border. The fact the army crosses it doesn't make it less of a border. The border was there, as clear as it is now.

C'mon, you know what I mean.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

Secondary Oak wrote: I was reading an article posted in the Washington Post by Moshe Yaalon, a former Israeli chief-of-staff.

Here's the link, though be advised it requires (free) registration.
Has it ever crossed you mind that all you Israeli citizens over there in Palestine might be being held as "human shields" yourselves by the Zionists that control you?

Good luck w/ WWIII..

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 8245 Location: Petah Tikva

I'm being controlled eh?

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

superskippy wrote: I'm being controlled eh?
Yes you are.

You're also being used as a human shield.

It's unlikely that Israel will survive WWIII... the purpose of this war is in fact to utterly destroy little, tiny Israel. Read up on your Albert Pike for reference.

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 8245 Location: Petah Tikva

Oh ok.

Redruin · Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 769

Eloquent, direct, you have my admiration P & S. Great post.