Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Video of rockets departing (apparently) close to building: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDSViaxP3qA

Posted by Flex Flint at July 30, 2006 11:13 AM

Here's a fairly simple thought experiment:

Where are Israel's military facilities? If they're anything at all like those of most western nations, they are large, fenced-off, designated areas. Spottable courtesy of Google Earth or even driving by, as both Israelis and Palestinians (when they were allowed into Israel) could do.

What does Hizb'allah target? Not just with the Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 missiles (which are quite inaccurate), but their suicide bombers, terrorist attackers, etc.? I think it's safe to say that they are not targeting Israeli military bases, or even checkpoints and guardposts.

This is not a matter of capability. This is a matter of choice.

So, we know that, given a choice, Hizb'allah would prefer to target buses, pizzerias, hotels, apartment buildings, even when they have weapons that can be targeted at military sites. A suicide bomber, after all, has a far better guidance system with far better ability to differentiate targets than the smartest smart bomb.

What do we know, or we think we know, of the Israeli military? Given the range of weapons, if its aim was to inflict casualties, do we think that the Israelis would be limited to 20-50 a day? This is, as Hizb'allah and Palestinian sympathizers are wont to remind us, a military equipped with F-16s and Apache attack helicopters and M-109 self-propelled guns. Are we to believe that with all these weapons, the Israelis couldn't inflict more casualties if that was their intention?

So, if Hizb'allah were to establish its bases, its facilities, its equipment in remote, unpopulated areas, do we believe that the Israelis, like Hizb'allah and other suicide bombers, would choose to ignore them, and target civilians instead?

I think how folks answer this pretty much indicates how seriously they've thought about the question....

Posted by Lurking Observer at July 30, 2006 12:19 PM

I've pretty much given up on the concept of War Crimes. I think it may be a corollary to the McDonalds thesis - countries that will both respect the Geneva Conventions won't go to war with each other.

Posted by Eric J at July 30, 2006 01:34 PM

Well said, Eric J.

I think I'll steal that.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at July 30, 2006 04:24 PM

Thank you for this post. Your voice is one of the few that I have heard that shows concern for the Israeli civilians that are killed and targeted. Hezbollah shoots their rockets, more than 2500 of them so far, solely at civilian targets. There are plenty of military targets on the border they could shoot them at but instead they target villages, towns, and cities. More than a million Israelis have had to flee their homes, about a million are still in the north, spending their days and nights in bomb shelters.

And this is not a fight that Israel started.

But, aside from your voice, no one seems to care about Israeli dead or injured.

Can anyone tell me of another army in the world that, when engaged in a war, drops leaflets asking civilians to leave their homes and thus letting their enemies know their next target -thus endangering their own troops? How many other armies make phone calls to residences to tell people that military activity (rockets being shot) has been observed at their house and to leave because in one hour their house will be hit?

Israel is in a fight against recognized terrorists and yet only Israel is condemned.

Posted by Yael at July 31, 2006 02:02 AM

Yael says: Israel is in a fight against recognized terrorists and yet only Israel is condemned.

I stand ehind Israel 100%, but for the record, they're not the ONLY country condemned for fighting terrorists.

Posted by Mac at July 31, 2006 06:24 AM

At a moral level, the Israeli bombing of Lebanon resembles nothing so much as the Waco siege in 1993. Not the real Waco, in which David Koresh and his followers torched the compound and shot at fire crews as they tried to rescue people. Rather, it resembles the fantasy Waco of the right wing, in which Janet Reno personally demanded that the FBI kill them all.

After all, David Koresh "hid behind skirts". Not only did he hide behind skirts, there was a warrant for his arrest and he and his men shot four federal policemen. If Koresh had been an Arab Muslim instead of an Anglo-Saxon neo-Christian, the Rand Simbergs of the world would have smiled at his incineration instead of accusing the government.

Posted by Mike Johnson at July 31, 2006 10:23 AM

If Koresh had been an Arab Muslim instead of an Anglo-Saxon neo-Christian, the Rand Simbergs of the world would have smiled at his incineration instead of accusing the government.

This comment is not only vile, but baseless.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 31, 2006 10:30 AM

Mike says: At a moral level, the Israeli bombing of Lebanon resembles nothing so much as the Waco siege in 1993.

David Koresh hid behind skirts, yes...but he didn't fire missiles into marketplaces to kill civilians and then use the media to blame the FBI for killing civilians. Apples and oranges in this case. However, I'd be willing to guess that you'd smile at the incineration of Israel, a country that was attacked after it gave the palestinians what they wanted.

Posted by Mac at July 31, 2006 10:30 AM

This comment is not only vile, but baseless.

Rand, Koresh was a killer and a child molester who hid behind skirts. It's exactly the same thing, whether you can admit it or not.

Posted by Mike Johnson at July 31, 2006 10:34 AM

Regardless of whether that is true or not, your comment re: my attitude toward Muslims and/or Christians remains vile and baseless. I don't smile when anyone is incinerated. But as another commenter pointed out, I suspect that you'll be pleased when Hezbollah achieves its goal of destroying Israel.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 31, 2006 10:44 AM

I don't smile when anyone is incinerated.

That is just a bit of sanctimonious hair-splitting. You would have called it a fitting end, for sure, if Koresh had been an Arab Muslim. You would have said "good riddance to rotten rubbish". Although even if you looked like this, you might well say that you're not smiling.

As for Hezbollah, I certainly hope that Israel comes up with a better way to deal with it than what it is doing now. What it is doing is just as bad for Israel, and good for Iran, as the invasion of Iraq is bad for America, and good for Iran. Geez, these past three years have been like the Iran-Contra scandal, times 10,000. We're going way beyond merely trading arms for hostages, now.

Posted by Mike Johnson at July 31, 2006 11:09 AM

That is just a bit of sanctimonious hair-splitting.

If you're looking for sanctimony, the easiest thing would be to check out a mirror.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 31, 2006 11:23 AM

Mike says: If Koresh had been an Arab Muslim instead of an Anglo-Saxon neo-Christian, the Rand Simbergs of the world would have smiled at his incineration instead of accusing the government.

At Rnd's reply, Mike says: Koresh was a killer and a child molester who hid behind skirts. It's exactly the same thing, whether you can admit it or not.

Okay...um Arab Muslim...versus...killer and child molester. Exactly the same thing? That's some damn fine weed you must be smoking.

Posted by Mac at July 31, 2006 11:26 AM

We all know it's the job of the ATF to answer complaints of Child Molestation. It's in their charter. Heaven knows the Texas Rangers didn't have jurisdiction.

Whether Koresh was a Child Molestor or not, it certainly was outside the jurisdiction of all the Federal government. The state of Texas was the proper venue for that. But because of Reno, Clinton and their trigger happy goons, you lefties made a martyr out of that nutjob with your inate ineptness. Gee, thank you so much!

But then when did a radical lefty moonbat actually give anythng more than crocodile tears to violations of the law? Never.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 31, 2006 06:35 PM

Whether Koresh was a Child Molestor or not, it certainly was outside the jurisdiction of all the Federal government.

This argument doesn't really work, not only because of Koresh's arrest warrant on weapons violations, but also because he killed four federal policemen.

But even if the argument did work, one could still "talk Middle East" about this case. If Texas were Lebanon or Iraq, then Washington could assume jurisdiction if they simply declared that Texas wasn't willing to "do the job". Hell, even if Texas were Texas and David Koresh were an Arab Muslim, the feds these days could barge in with a terrorism investigation.

So none of this is really different in spirit. In any case, the main point is not about jurisdiction, but about the wisdom of blowing away the perpetrator AND the skirts when the perpetrator "hides behind skirts". Certainly after Koresh's men shot and killed four guys, the authorities could have saved themselves a lot of time by dropping a 500-pound bomb on the Waco compound. After all, Koresh hid behind skirts.

Posted by Mike Johnson at July 31, 2006 06:50 PM

The only way to make any equivalence between Waco and Lebanon would be if Israel nuked southern Lebanon. Otherwise, it's nuts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 31, 2006 07:44 PM

The only way to make any equivalence between Waco and Lebanon would be if Israel nuked southern Lebanon.

We're up to nukes now? Come on Rand, the FBI didn't nuke Waco. Even though David Koresh "hid behind skirts".

Posted by Mike Johnson at July 31, 2006 07:50 PM

This Mike Johnson guy is just nuckin futs!!

Posted by Steve at July 31, 2006 07:55 PM

Jerry Pournelle has several good observations on Lebanon and Iraq, here. One example, the response to Hezbollah:

It [it = elimination of Hezbollah from southern Lebanon] is a goal worth pursuing; can it be achieved? It will be costly. Hideously costly. Will Israel be willing to pay that price? If not, then the Israeli response is disproportionate and not legitimate; but if the goal is the elimination of Hezbollah, and Israel, having considered the price, is willing to see this through, then the response was appropriate.
If they are not willing to follow through, they should have confined their response to the local area of the incident.

Lebanonese civilians have died. If those deaths are part of driving Hezbollah across the Litani, then I am saddened by those deaths, but I will not criticize. If those deaths lead to more business as usual, then they serve no purpose.

Send in the infantry and the tanks and finish the job.

Posted by Bill White at July 31, 2006 10:03 PM

At the very least Mike, try to stay coherent and consistent. Al Zarqawi was an Al Qaeda agent in Iraq. Hezbollah is an organization in Lebanon. Your original analogy compared Branch Dividian/ATF to Hezbollah/Israel, but then you compared Koresh to Zarqawi. That's just one flaw in your analogy.

If you are going to debate by analogy, then make good analogies.

Rand's comparing Israel's single attack that killed children and the subsequent outrage to Hezbollahs consistent targetting of civilians and its subsequent outrage. The correlation Rand makes does not go on a tangent about religion or who is President of the United States.

Posted by Leland at August 1, 2006 05:59 AM

the reason the criticism is asymmetrical is that israel has caused far more damage than hezbollah. also the standards are higher for israel, as they are our ally. i dont really see too many people actually supporting hezbollah.

also, israel has done things beyond just attack hezbollah. collectively punishing the lebanese into not liking hezbollah wont work. it will just make israel hated more.

Posted by at August 1, 2006 09:58 AM

Israel is not "collectively punishing the Lebanese."

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 1, 2006 10:02 AM

Israel is not "collectively punishing the Lebanese."

It certainly is. Here is a truthful analysis from a retired Israeli Army Colonel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict):

"Israel is attempting to create a rift between the Lebanese population and Hezbollah supporters by exacting a heavy price from the elite in Beirut. The message is: If you want your air conditioning to work and if you want to be able to fly to Paris for shopping, you must pull your head out of the sand and take action toward shutting down Hezbollah-land."

They are trying to whip the Lebanese into getting rid of Hezbollah themselves. That is exactly collective punishment.

Entirely apart from the morality of this approach, it won't work. This smug war strategy will make Israel less safe, not more safe. The only bright spot is that it could build up enough political capital in Israel to dismantle some of the West Bank settlements, as Olmert has had in mind all along.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 1, 2006 11:03 AM

That is an opinion of a retired Israeli colonel, not a policy.

Israel is attempting to destroy Hezbollah. That involves cutting off their supply lines and attacking them where they are, which is among civilian residences and infrastructure (and using human shields, as Hezbollah is doing, is truly a war crime). The damage to Lebanon is collateral, not intentional.

This is a truly dumb theory. If Israel really wanted to "punish" Lebanon, there are many things that they could be doing to do so that they are clearly not.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 1, 2006 11:18 AM

That is an opinion of a retired Israeli colonel, not a policy.

It is a correct description, by someone who ought to know, of a blatant but unstated policy.

That involves cutting off their supply lines

That's exactly right, except that the people of South Lebanon are the real supply line.
Their homes, their stores, their cars, their airport; it's ALL supply lines.

If Israel really wanted to "punish" Lebanon, there are many things that they could be doing to do so that they are clearly not.

So said the schoolyard tough: "I didn't punch you in the face to punish you. I did it because there was a wasp on your nose. If I had MEANT to punish you, I would have killed you."

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 1, 2006 11:30 AM

[sarcasm]Shame on Israel. They should leave the elitist in Beirut alone. If they want to vacation on the shores of the Eastern Med and then fly off to Paris for shopping, what is Israel to say otherwise? So what if Hezbollah is using the southern part of Lebanon to rage war on Israel. That's not the Lebanese government's problem. Lebanon needs tourism dollars, and Israel has no right to shutdown the Beirut airport to punish Lebanon. Everything was fine when Israel just followed the Christian ideal of turning the other cheek whenever Hezbollah killed a few jews.[/sarcasm]

Posted by Leland at August 1, 2006 11:34 AM

So said the schoolyard tough

Bullshit.

Israel's actions can be explained without resorting to the fantasy that they're doing it for the purpose of punishment or intimidation (I know, because I just did it). A bully punching someone in the nose cannot be.

As I said, it's a truly dumb belief. But one that those who dislike Israel (for whatever reason) take to like a fish to water.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 1, 2006 11:38 AM

Mike quotes and says: That is an opinion of a retired Israeli colonel, not a policy.

It is a correct description, by someone who ought to know, of a blatant but unstated policy.

ONE opinion and you believe its true. Ouch

Posted by Mac at August 1, 2006 11:40 AM

Mike quotes and says: That is an opinion of a retired Israeli colonel, not a policy.

It is a correct description, by someone who ought to know, of a blatant but unstated policy.

ONE opinion and you believe its true. Ouch

Posted by Mac at August 1, 2006 11:40 AM

Mike quotes and says: That is an opinion of a retired Israeli colonel, not a policy.

It is a correct description, by someone who ought to know, of a blatant but unstated policy.

ONE opinion and you believe its true. Ouch

Posted by Mac at August 1, 2006 11:40 AM

But one that those who dislike Israel

There are those who like Israel in wise ways, and there are those who would poison it with reckless warfare. The latter inevitably accuse the former of hating Israel.

It's really the same story in America, and in every country. Patriotism is why Argentina invaded the Falklands, and patriotism is why the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. As Samuel Johnson said, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 1, 2006 12:00 PM

Mike says: There are those who like Israel in wise ways, and there are those who would poison it with reckless warfare. The latter inevitably accuse the former of hating Israel.

And the former accuse the latter of being reckless and wrong for resorting to violence after being attacked. So what? Being attacked after you met demands because the ceded land wasn't enough leads wise people to understand that negotiation, pandering, and giving in result in nothing but loss. There is a time when violence is warranted. The wise know that too. The faux wise will constantly argue that this was not the time for violence.

Posted by Mac at August 1, 2006 03:00 PM

A retired colonel (he's been retired for almost a decade now) makes a comment, and he is considered an authority on Israeli strategy in the current conflict.

Further, wikipedia is such a great place for facts as compared to the old media, such as the Washington Post and CNN (from which the wikipedia topic takes most if it citations)...

Still, I'm not opposed the Israel making life tough in Lebanon. The US certainly didn't find it necessary to make life easy on the Taliban, while they destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. I'm sure Mike will consider Afghanistan a failure, but many colonels in the US consider the removal of the Taliban from power in Afghanistan to be a necessary policy in order to permenantly deny Al Qaeda a safe haven to operate from.

Lebanon is a legitmate target for Israel. Lets not forget that Lebanon has had years to police its southern territory and remove militants that would use Lebanon as a staging ground to attack another country.

Mike, maybe you missed the photo of the Hezbollah AAA cannon setting next to what is reported to be an apartment building. I read much commentary about how the building could be anything, and besides, the AAA cannon is a defensive weapon with a range far less than what was necessary to reach Israel. However, what only a few (who actually care about laws of war to protect civilians) noted was that the Hezbollah soldiers manning the AAA cannon were in civilian clothing.

Do you understand the significance of that scenario, Mike? It means the Hezbollah fighters are indistiguishable from the civilians. It means that if Israel kills them, then their bodies will look like... civilians. You can bet if Hezbollah is doing this with AAA, they are doing this with the soldiers firing the offensive rockets. Oh yeah, and lets not forget that the rockets being fired from Lebanon into Israel are not directed at military targets. The only goal is to hit Israel, regardless of who gets killed.

As Rand says... Still waiting for the outrage. If the Lebanese are not outraged by Hezbollah actions, don't expect me to give a damn that Israel denies Lebanese the use of air conditioners or Beirut International. Sometimes, you try to win heart and minds, but Lebanon has yet to show it cares to have a heart for Israel, and the elites certainly don't mind what Hezbollah does.

Posted by Leland at August 1, 2006 08:39 PM

leland, the taliban can be treated as a branch of al qaeda, they are that close. they are independant of each other, but to attack one is to attack the other. it is not the same in lebanon. it was legitimate to remove the taliban from power. it is not legitimate to weaken the lebanese government even further because they are too weak to fight hezbollah themself. that is what you are suggesting, and it is despicable. and it is perhaps an accurate descrpition of the situation, unfortunately.

and its not like only one person has called this "collective punishment". many have said this, including the UN. i know you wont believe what the UN has to say, but you should know its not a fringe allegation, as has been suggested.

Posted by at August 2, 2006 01:06 AM

There is so many things wrong with the response above. I point to the Jan Egeland's comments about Hezbollah operating among civilians (by that, he means Lebanese civilians). I'll give Egeland credit for recognizing that the threat to Lebanon civilians comes from Hezbollah. He even notes the area as the "Hezbollah heartland". He says that, because if the Lebanese government is too weak to secure a large section of its country, it has defacto handed over control of that region to Hezbollah. If Lebanon didn't agree with Hezbollah, then they should go to the UN Security Council and request assistance. That is how the UN is suppose to function.

Posted by Leland at August 2, 2006 05:40 AM

...its not like only one person has called this "collective punishment". many have said this, including the UN.

And why is it I should believe the UN, again? This is a brainless argument. A lot of people don't think we went to the moon, either. That doesn't make them right, or bright.

This is truly moronic. If Israel wanted to "punish" Lebanon, they wouldn't be risking their troops, and they wouldn't be taking such pains to avoid civilian casualties. They'd simply bomb the shit out of the place.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 2, 2006 08:25 AM

you can believe anything you want. im not trying to convince you of it, i know its futile. thats why i said "i know you wont believe the UN". my point was its not a fringe allegation, as you and others believe. your example is idiotic, denials of the moon landing are confined to the fringes. i dont know of any body as prominent as the UN that has denied the moon landing. my comments arent so dense that they need to be deconstructed like this.

Posted by at August 2, 2006 08:59 AM

Further, wikipedia is such a great place for facts as compared to the old media, such as the Washington Post and CNN (from which the wikipedia topic takes most if it citations)...

What I said is that many Wikipedia citations, not most, are to Frontline, not CNN. CNN isn't much worth citing either, for one reason because it is only getting more and more cowardly in response to Fix News.

Still, I'm not opposed the Israel making life tough in Lebanon.

Here you are letting the cat out of the bag. Rand says that it is preposterous and impossible that there is any element of reprisal in Israel's attack on Lebanon. But here you say, even if it were, what is so bad about that?

Rand equally well admitted the truth, when he said that the Waco siege, where about 80 people died, is morally equivalent to nuking south Lebanon. Let's set aside the fact that Koresh and his men started the fatal fire. Even if they hadn't, we are still talking 80 to 80,000. This is a statement that the collateral death of one neo-Christian American is equivalent to the collateral deaths of a thousand Arab Muslims.

So both of you clearly imply more that you don't mind reprisal killings by Israel — as long as they can be explained away — than that they haven't happened. As the top of this post says, you are "still waiting" for outrage against Hezbollah first.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 2, 2006 09:39 AM

Rand equally well admitted the truth, when he said that the Waco siege, where about 80 people died, is morally equivalent to nuking south Lebanon.

I said that would be a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. There are many other ways in which the analogy is stupid.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 2, 2006 09:51 AM

I said that would be a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.

Fine, Rand. In order for Israel to match the sin of the Waco siege, where 80 neo-Christian Americans died, it would not even be enough to kill 80,000 Lebanese with nuclear weapons; that's a necessary but not sufficient condition.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 2, 2006 09:59 AM

that's a necessary but not sufficient condition.

That's right. For one thing, the analogy would have to be...analogous. And not idiotic.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 2, 2006 10:06 AM

Rand,

How is this for an analogy: Mike is a trojan horse computer virus. He blends into the comment section by throwing out historical concepts and talking about global world strategies. You start to pay attention to the little devil, and you realize everything he says doesn't make even the slightest sense. So you start trying to fix the damage the trojan horse has caused, and he simply mutates into other off the wall historical concepts and strategies, except these are more absurd and obvious detect.

Unfortunately, by now, he's pretty well imbedded in your comments section, and he continues to operate like spy ware, waiting for a trigger to come out and launch some bigotted attack in comments in order to frustrate regular users from having rational conversation.

How far off am I, Rand?

Posted by Leland at August 2, 2006 06:00 PM

Post a comment