desh | (no subject)

(no subject)

You know, I've always felt much less connection to Israel than your typical active American Jew. I was only in Israel once, 10 years ago, and haven't had much desire to go back since. When the Israeli government does things I don't like, my reaction isn't "let's do something about that", but rather, "I don't want to be associated with that".

So why is the news making me sick to my stomach?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I dunno, it's probably because Israel just expanded the conflict from a border problem to a regional conflict. That said, I've been wondering what the breaking point was for Israel in terms of these small attacks. I think they've reached it. Legally, the kidnappings in both cases represent an act of war. However, these are asymetrical threats meaning that both aggressors are not states. They are factions of political movements which hold power in two nations. The best analogy I can think of, just because it's the only one I think of, would be like the Nazi SS launching a raid into Russia on its own, without the Wermacht backing it up. This would make an interesting alternate history story in which German military refused to along with the Nazi party's plans. As it happened, the party would've had its own military force to do its bidding albeit not as big as the state's legitmate armed forces. So the scenario would play out with the party's army launching a raid specifically to provoke the Russians into an armed response to force the legitimate army to fight. I don't know if that's what happened here, but I see a motive for Hezbollah that goes way beyond simple ransoming of prisoners. They might have conducted these raids to provoke an Israeli response in order to unify the population behind them. I don't know if they counted on this kind of response. I know the average person didn't. I can't clearly see the long term consequences of this, but let me put this way: Life should not imitate art if the art is the comic, Appleseed or Twilight X. Both are fun reads, but I wouldn't even want to visit those fictional worlds.

I don't know if Israel can clean out the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon without alienating the Lebanese people, but I think that's their aim. But rights the Lebanese government should've dismantled this militia years ago, but it's matter of capability. I have read US military experts rank that militia as the best light infantry in the world and the region is one that infantry can defend very well. No one really thinks the Lebanese military has the capability to clean out the militias in the South of the country.

Yeah, I think it's been at least a few years since Israel was attacked in any way by a bona fide, widely recognized nation. (Unless I'm forgetting something.) Who knew they were that close to the snapping point about it.

NPR has been interviewing Iraeli citizens on the peace outlook sporadically this past year and I've noted an increasing anger at the constant small attacks. The do no real harm, but the problem with terrorist acts is that they terrify. One thing I've noticed with adults who survive an abusive childhood is that attempts to intimidate them will cause a goodly number to react with violence or an esclation beyond the scale of the effort to intimidate. Hell, I do that myself and I'm aware of the problem. I think Israel is like that. I also wonder if they have some intelligence that hints of larger operations in the offing. I have to admit, these attacks are scarily impressive. These were not suicide raids, but well executed military operations. I think that's what spooked the Israeli government. The quality rather the quantity. The nature of the raids speaks of a capability that belongs in elite or special forces units. This is something that most news outlets miss and even NPR glosses over.

I think you are more right than you know. This, of course, spurred me on to rant about this subject for several paragraphs. Lucky you.

Your mention of asymmetrical capability reminded me of an article in Ha'aretz I read a few days ago about the popularity of these small-impact big-terror attacks on Israel in the Palestinian territories. Basically, the Palestinians recognize that they will never meet, or even come close, to Israel's strength - so, in return, they support actions that affect Israel's spirit rather than Israel's capability (it's a similar argument to the Counter-Value vs. Counter-Force argument in nuclear deterrence theory). The idea is that the Palestinian people can hold these strikes as a bargaining chip for much more valuable concessions from the Israelis - just look at what Hamas demanded in exchange for the return of Gilad Shalit (i.e. the release of all juvenile and women Palestinian prisoners, a number somewhere in the hundreds of people for the release of one soldier). Of course, as always, the Palestinian militants completely misjudged the situation, even though it has been replayed countless times before - Israel does not take kindly to these terror assaults. If you didn't win your freedom with the first suicide bombing, you probably won't with the latest kidnapping. Idiots.

Though, this does represent a change in tactics on the part of Hamas; now that they are in power, they probably feel some responsibility to tone down their militancy and to find new weapons with which to strike terror into the heart of their enemy. Kidnappings aren't new to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but this kidnapping was most likely sanctioned and even planned by Hamas - one of their first major operations inside Israel since they came into power. It represents a shift for Hamas from operations meant solely to terrorize (i.e. suicide bombings) and operations meant to provoke negotiations. They want to TALK to Israel (even though Israel refuses to talk to them) and on their terms - and they probably feel that kidnappings will give them extra bargaining chips in these negotiations. Sadly, they aren't taking into account that a) these kidnappings actually reduce the size of the pie Israel is willing to split and b) each aggressive action committed by the Palestinians convinces Israel to act unilaterally and ignore negotiations and concessions. Hamas is running on the old Intifada 1 playbook, where violent acts were necessary to get Israel and the world's attention. They should have learned by now that those rules no longer apply.

Of course, the rational response on the Israeli side to this kidnapping would have been to declare that they will not deal with terrorists and to close down Gazas borders to starve Hamas out of public opinion. Yes, it is collective punishment - and yes, collective punishment is morally wrong and most of the time completely ineffective - but in this case, the majority of the Palestinian government (being Hamas) has committed what is tantamount to an act of war (though they are hedging their bets and claiming no direct link to the kidnappers, they hypocritically still maintain that they are in control of Shalit's health and whereabouts). The objective of this collective punishment of Gaza would be to prove that for life to continue as normal in Gaza (with gas, electricity, food shipments, and work), Gazans have to NOT fire rockets into Israel and NOT kidnap Israeli citizens. It's a very clear message - if you can't play nice with us, we will shut you out. It is also a message to Hamas - if they can't control their violent tendencies then they risk losing Gazan public support as the crisis in the Strip worsens. That would be the rational thing to do.

Israel's response of sending in the tanks, however, is completely asymmetrical and counter-productive. Though it makes a good show in Israeli public opinion polls, it is a completely knee-jerk and ill-thought-out reaction. It is driving Palestinian support for a resolution with Israeli into the ground and shoring up support for the beleaguered Hamas - essentially, it has ENTIRELY the opposite effect of what I described in the previous paragraph. However, this being a cycle of violence wrought with the inflamed emotions of both sides, yadda, yadda, yadda, both the Palestinians and the Israelis completely miss the fucking point of the CYCLE of violence being CYCLICAL. At the very least, Israel has its whole "Unilateral Disengagement Plan", which I applaud for at least being a way OUT of this cycle, though not a very fair plan to the Palestinians. If the Palestinians want fair, they can at the very least acknowledge that violence is NOT the way to solve the conflict. Of course, even with this latest offensive into Gaza, there was still hope that this particular chapter of the ongoing saga could be put to rest - until Hezbollah had to go and fuck things up by kidnapping TWO Israeli soldiers.

The struggle between Hezbollah and Israel is VERY similar to that of Hamas and Israel. Hezbollah is a powerful political force in Lebanon and a terrorist threat to Israel. Hezbollah's signature tactics have involved rocket strikes against Israelis across the northern border. Hezbollah has enjoyed some measure of popular support in Lebanon, but only so long as the majority of Lebanese are militarily unable to remove them from power permanently - attempting to do so now would only plunge Lebanon into a civil war. However, one major factor emerges that separates Hamas and Hezbollah - support. Hamas, like most of the Palestinian body politic, is very much alone in the international arena. Hamas has no dependable allies and no major sources of funding. If Israel were to take on Hamas (and it is), it would be relatively assured of some sort of victory. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has backing from Syria and Iran. Though this backing does come with strings attached, they have a larger support base, more funding, more weapons, and better trained fighters than their Hamas counterparts. Basically, they're more dangerous than Hamas and have taken advantage of Hamas's kidnapping's timing to perform their own to throw Israel in to utter chaos. And what's more, it worked.

Now, Israel was stupid to attack Hamas for the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. It is counter-productive and wasteful to do so. However, at least with Hamas and Gaza, it's an operation that is assured to meet little or no actual resistance. Hamas's resources are stretched thin and Israel is supremely dominant in this arena. However, Israel is just being moronic in attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon - and what's more, at the same time that the whole Gaza operation is still going on! Ehud Barak got Israel out of Lebanon in 2000 for the exact reason that Ehud Olmert should avoid going in - Lebanon is Israel's Vietnam. It is the guerilla war that no one wants that is unavoidably complex. It is good-kids-returning-in-body-bags, Charlie-in-the-trees, war-what-is-it-good-for, My-Lai-Massacre, unsolvable-quagmire-esque and Olmert just doesn't see it. Same thing with Hamas in Gaza - you don't want to attack the Lebanese people, because you want instead to drive a wedge between the mainstream Lebanese and Hezbollah. Hell, the wedge is already there! The mainstream Lebanese hate the Syrian influence that has invaded Lebanon and, TADA!, guess who just happens to be working with Syria in Lebanon? Hezbollah! Seriously, Israel is becoming a poster child for missed opportunities here.

So, getting back to your original point which was Israel is expanding this conflict well beyond its borders, I think you are entirely correct. And I spent way too many paragraphs getting to that agreement, but the journey for me was worth it. Israel should wake the fuck up, realize that it's digging itself further into a hole, and get the hell out of both Gaza and Lebanon before this escalates any further. And Desh, you're right - I don't want to be associated with this in any way, but I'm going to take it a step further: I don't think Israel should associate itself with this in any way. They should pull back from both fronts, throw out a half-assed, "Sorry we overreacted" apology, and then continue on the diplomatic front as if it never happened. I hope.

--Jeff

"Israel should wake the fuck up, realize that it's digging itself further into a hole, and get the hell out of both Gaza and Lebanon before this escalates any further."

and then what, tell everyone up north to brace themselves for major explosions while we sit back and do nothing? because somehow I feel that the Hizbollah won't be taking that apology to heart.
I find that being here, I have little patience for reading through political musings, whether or not they are valid (which yours probably are to some extent). it just seems much more clear cut than all this. Israel was experiencing serious acts of war, and responded by doing its best to target an enemy which is very difficult to target. When I hear about the 'escalation of violence' supposedly triggered by Israel, I wonder what people would suggest as a response to the kidnapping and killing of soldiers in their own territory - an eye for an eye? kidnapping and killing a few members of the Hizbollah? What would this accomplish? It disgusts me that as always, the world talks about Israel bombarding random cities and innocent civilians, when it is obvious that in reality, Israel is pinpointing the lifelines of Hizbollah (the airport, seaport etc). Obviously, if civilians were the target in the first day of attacks the toll would have been 500 or 5000, not 50. This is a war, and this is what happens in war, and if Israel were to pick up and leave now after multiple declarations of war by its enemies - it's hard not to come to the conclusion that that would be an extremely dangerous move. I really don't claim to know pretty much anything about war, but I do know that what a lot of the media sources are saying isn't making much sense to me at this point.

I'm not going to try to argue that Israel is a monster, because that's patently untrue. However, I will argue that Israel is reacting emotionally instead of rationally - for exactly the same reasons you just put forth. Israel sees itself as the victim only, and sees its conduct as justified. That's just not true. Israel is at war with Hezbollah, not Lebanon. Blowing up bridges, fuel depots, and airports affects everyone in Lebanon, not just Hezbollah. Ideally, Israel could rely on the Mossad to carry out targetted assassinations against Hezbollah members, which is riskier than airstrikes but a lot more focused, surgical even. And if Hezbollah still sends rockets over the border, then Israel should respond with a single artillery shell per rocket. And if Israel wants, they should defoliate a kilometer's worth of no-man's land along their northern border to prevent exactly this kind of kidnapping. Instead, Israel sends in jets and helicopter gunships, which are precise enough to target bridges and Hezbollah convoys, but still not precise enough to avoid civilian casualties. That's why Israel gets bad foreign press - because, for example, the death of an entire Hamas family is acceptable to Israel's military strategists as long as they get the Hamas leader they wanted, while the rest of the world mourns the loss of a half-dozen women and children. Israel's perspective is tainted by rage, to the point that the IDF and the government can write off these women and children as "acceptable collateral damage". No innocent lives should be "acceptable collateral damage".

If that doesn't convince you, maybe this will: there is a terrible price to be paid by escalating this conflict in Lebanon to beyond just Hezbollah, which is the very reason Barak pulled out in 2000 - two Israeli lives are not worth the sacrifice of future hundreds or even thousands. I don't care how high minded your principles may sound, an escalation of the Lebanese border conflict will bring more death than Israel is prepared to handle. I don't know if you see it this way yet or not, but please, consider it.

Our greatest advantage as members of Habonim Dror, our acute ties with and sense of Israel, is also a great weakness. We get involved, we get emotional, and we don't fully consider the consequences. I'm asking you to consider that now. Please consider the price Israel will pay down the road for lashing out. In my mind, it's not worth it.

--Jeff

Jeff, obviously I wish there wasn't such an escalation of violence going on right now. And I agree with the majority of what you just said, although maybe not with the whole one shell for one rocket idea. At the same time, one argument I've heard from the beginning is that Israel IS attacking Lebanon - not just the Hizbollah - for not doing anything about the Hizbollah up til now. Whether or not they could do anything is another story, but the fact of the matter is that they have not... and even in agreement with all the things you just said, I still can't see how at this moment an immediate retreat by Israel would work in calming the entire situation. I really, truly hope it doesn't get more serious though than it is now. And I don't know if this is stupid but Iran's threats scare the crap out of me.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

Jeff Rants!, Part 1

Jeff Rants!, Part 2

Jeff Rants!, Exciting Conclusion

Re: Jeff Rants!, Exciting Conclusion

Re: Jeff Rants!, Exciting Conclusion

Re: Jeff Rants!, Exciting Conclusion