33 Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

1. Kerry, besides being heavy on the rhetoric and there being a huge disconnect between what you claim Israel is doing and what Israel is actually doing, there are many factual errors in this piece.

   (1) “The terrorists are not stupid. They are quite aware that Israel or any other country in that situation would never make that type of concession”

   This is blatantly false. Israel has agreed to prisoner exchanges several times in the past, as have other countries. And, because Israel values its citizens so much, it often releases them in such unbalanced exchanges as several dozen/hundred for only a handful of Israelis. The reason Israel has done this in the past is because a vast majority of those released are not actually dangerous, and most have never been charged. Nevertheless, I will agree with the second part of this sentence that the more recent hostage situations were coordinated in bad faith–not against Israel though. For me these are domestic moves. The Gaza kidnapping was Khaled Meshaal pulling the carpet from underneath the feet of Ismail Haniyeh & Mahmoud Abbas, and the Lebanon one was Hizballah doing the same to the national Lebanese government. It is clear that there is Syrian and Iranian influence regarding both of these events.

   (2) You make the following claim: “al Qaeda has called upon all Muslims to join in the ‘holy war’ taking place against Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah.”

   This one really made me laugh. al-Qaeda and Hizballah are so diametrically opposed it’s not even funny. Nasrallah has always publicly denounced bin Laden, and vice versa. There is no collusion here. In the same paragraph, you imply that binding Israel to a “proprtional response” will make it “unsuccessful.” You miss the point completely here–it’s not a matter of proportionality, it’s a matter of effectiveness. Israel is not attacking Hizballah, it is attacking Lebanon as a whole. Its attacks thus far have been useless in disabling Hizballah, and they always will be (this is the nature of a guerilla organization), unless Israel is willing to take a scorched earth policy against all of Lebanon.

   (3) You claim that Kofi Annan hates Israel. You neglect to mention that in the same day that Israel hit the UN encampment, personnel there informed the IDF that they were shelling too close to the headquarters at least 10 times. Intentional or not, it sure as hell is criminal negligence. I, too, would be suspicious under these circumstances. It was not a default judgment.

   These are not about factual accuracy, but relevant to your piece:

   (4) The quips about Israeli propaganda being ineffective are morally repugnant. Essentially your message is that it does not matter what Israel is doing, as long as it’s sugarcoated enough to make it easy to swallow. There’s a limit beyond which no propaganda can save you–and that is when the truth is so overwhelmingly at odds with the framework you present the story in, which is why the international community is atypically hostile to Israel regarding its assault on Lebanon, not Hizballah.

   (5) You neglect to mention that every single Arab regime (do not call them moderate, they are subservient) in the region, with the exception of Syria, has more or less given Israel the green light to continue with this war like the rest of the international community has. Israel was basically unchecked for at least the first week and a half, and now that information has had time to disseminate properly, and the political costs of Israel’s recklessness are being realized [both for the US, Israel, and the national Lebanese govt], pressure is increasing accordingly for the operations to stop.

   (6) In retrospect, this entire post is nothing more than a blank check for Israel. It is incredibly narrow and shallow considering that it touches only on the issue of whether or not Israel is ‘justified’ in doing what it is doing. This is not how politics is done or how military strategy should be created. If countries dealt with each other on a knee-jerk reaction basis, without examining the consequences of their action or even the possible benefits, we would be living in a world-scale version of Kindergarten. On top of justification, there needs to be purpose. Israel does not know its purpose in this war. Olmert is strong-arming to prove himself capable in the eyes of domestic Israel. Its attacks, besides being indiscriminate and ridiculously disproportionate, are aimless: what will be the benefit to Israel from these attacks? Nothing. The rockets haven’t stopped, they will not stop, and Hizballah has been empowered, while a US-friendly AND democratic government in Lebanon has been undermined severely and now forced to concede Hizballah more power than it would have had otherwise.

   Comment by Yaman — 7/30/2006 @ 4:36 pm

2. Wow, Yaman… Quite a long comment. Okay then. I’ll just go through each of your points.

   1) “This is blatantly false. Israel has agreed to prisoner exchanges several times in the past…” I do know that Israel has agreed to prisoner exchanges in the past. As you apparently forgot from my recent previous article about Israel (which you responded to a number of times in the comments section), I already wrote that Israel has agreed to prisoner exchanges in the past. I’m unaware of any past situation in which Israel agreed to release 1000 prisoners in exchange for information about a single soldier’s condition. I’m sorry, but you are mistaken. Previous prisoner exchanges have been uneven, but never to such an extreme degree as the current demands. Also, as I wrote in the previous article: The fact that Hamas and Hezbollah are part of elected governments also differentiates the current situation from previous ones. Israel has said that, for that reason, it will not agree to a prisoner exchange of any magnitude in the current situation. I don’t think the terrorists are stupid, and I do think that they were aware that Israel would be responding in a big way to their decision to kidnap Israeli soldiers. I also think that they were aware that Israel would never make that type of a concession– not only because it was too extreme (even in comparison to past uneven prisoner exchanges) but also because the terrorist organizations who kidnapped these soldiers were integral parts of neighboring governments.
   2) I am aware that there are rivalries between different terrorist organizations, and I also know that Al Qaeda and Hezbollah are examples of rival terrorist organizations. However, you are not paying enough attention to the news because you missed a very crucial news story. Here is a link for you to read: http://euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&article=372087&lng=1 If that link doesn’t work, let me know. It’s a very publicized story that’s all over the Internet and all over news channels. Obviously you are missing the big picture of this situation. It doesn’t matter that these terrorist organizations are rivals. Ultimately, they want the same thing. They want to eliminate Israel (and eventually the West), and they see this current situation as an opportunity to come together for a common goal. Why do you think that Hezbollah decided to kidnap soldiers and launch rockets right after Hamas did that? You can try to differentiate between terrorist organizations, but you can’t escape their basically common nature. It’s analogous to rival gangs in Los Angeles, as a random example– each gang wants to take control of a given territory and they fight each other to gain greater power than the other, but ultimately they are both violent and oppose the police. If you don’t like that example, then ignore it. But I think that’s a good example, and certainly you will want to check out that news story that I posted a link to.
   3) “You neglect to mention that in the same day that Israel hit the UN encampment, personnel there informed the IDF that they were shelling too close to the headquarters at least 10 times.” My point in mentioning this situation was that a full investigation has not yet taken place, yet Kofi Annan instantaneously declared that it was “deliberate” on the part of Israel. I mentioned that an email has been uncovered in which the location was apparently full of Hezbollah fighters. It appears that Hezbollah could have been using the U.N. base as a shield, exactly as it’s doing to the civilian population in Lebanon. You have no idea what exactly happened there because a full investigation has not yet taken place– yes, they contacted Israel 10 times to stop the attack, but you don’t yet know all of the facts of why Israel chose to attack this location. I will only tell you that it is absolutely insane to suggest that Israel WANTED to kill the U.N. peacekeepers. Israel is aware that any mistake it makes will be blown up in the media all over the world– it makes no sense on either a political or a military level for Israel to attack the U.N., but mistakes do happen.
   4) I don’t fully understand what you’re trying to say here. “Essentially your message is that it does not matter what Israel is doing, as long as it’s sugarcoated enough to make it easy to swallow.” I didn’t say that propaganda cures all evils, if that’s what you’re trying to accuse me of. I said that terrorists have convinced a lot of people in the media that they have equal– or even greater– moral standing than Israel does in this situation. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. No amount of propaganda should be sufficient to convince anybody that terrorist attacks are justified. You yourself prove that the terrorist propaganda has gotten to some people’s heads. Your claim that Israel is actually targeting Lebanon rather than Hezbollah is basically saying that the IDF are terrorists– that they are deliberately targeting civilians. If you truly believe that Israel is targeting Lebanese civilians, then you are sadly uninformed. Hezbollah is using Lebanese civilians as human shields– storing weapons and fighters in civilian homes. Israel calls these homes before attacking, telling civilians to evacuate. Israel can’t force them to evacuate– perhaps Hezbollah is even forcing the civilians to stay in these targeted areas– but the fact is that Israel is doing all that it can to protect civilians in the given circumstances. This is a war zone, and there is unavoidably collateral damage in war. But there is a difference between collateral damage in war and deliberately targeting civilians– and that is what differentiates Israeli action from that of the terrorists.
   5) “You neglect to mention that every single Arab regime (do not call them moderate, they are subservient) in the region, with the exception of Syria, has more or less given Israel the green light to continue with this war like the rest of the international community has.” Um, I suppose that’s why every country in the U.N. except for the United States has constantly been calling for a “proportional response” and requesting Israel to “exercise restraint” since the beginning of this conflict. No country except the United States gave Israel a “green light,” Yaman. Sorry, but empty rhetoric (from the U.N. as well as from those MODERATE Arab regimes) that denounced Hezbollah’s provocative attacks on Israel during the early stages of this crisis cannot be termed “support” for Israel as it defends itself.
   6) The purpose of this article is to say that terrorists cannot be appeased. You clearly think that they can be, but you’re wrong. Israel is not only “justified” in what it is doing, but it is dealing with a crisis that cannot be avoided. Those who are evil are always willing to fight, but it seems that the rest of the world really is that “world-scale version of Kindergarten” that you brought up. People who don’t understand the essence of the terrorist mindset continue to believe that being “kind” and “loving”– with restraint and diplomacy– will end the terrorist threat. The truth is that they will never stop because they care more about killing all the “infidels” of the world than living in peace. The U.N. really is similar to the League of Nations before World War II. You have to see the similarities. The world should have already learned this lesson. If this does escalate into a type of World War III, be aware that nuclear weapons will be involved. Israel has to give a tough response right now before nuclear weapons enter into the equation. This is Israel’s purpose, and despite your brainwashed claim that Hezbollah has been “empowered” by the Israeli attacks (I’m sure you bought right into Nasrallah’s claim that Hezbollah has been untouched by Israel’s attacks) I believe that Israel will make the rockets stop– because eventually it has to, or the country will be destroyed. The Israeli population can’t go about their daily lives with random rockets flying into Israel.

   Comment by Kerry — 7/30/2006 @ 9:33 pm

3. Kerry,

   Thanks for taking the time to respond–we deal in long comments, I guess.

   (1) OK, you have clarified your statement then. On a related note, we are analyzing Hizballah and Hamas from two different vantage points. You are looking at it from the vantage point that all these groups want to destroy Israel, and I am looking at it from the vantage point that these groups are working for their own self interest–they are not al Qaeda and they are not Islamic Jihad. That is the difference. They are political, and even if they engage in terrorism, they can be manipulated from the outside. We just have to be smart to make sure that it is the US manipulating them, not Syria and Iran.

   The kidnappings (coordinated in timing apparently) make PERFECT sense if we look at the people who perpetrated them. Khaled Meshal, the exiled military leader of Hamas in Damascus, is obviously an extremist, and probably a rejectionist. Ismail Haniyeh on the other hand is a realist, and his moves in the first several months of his election prove this. He asked for ceasefires in good faith, he acted often in good faith, and he worked with Mahmoud Abbas in good faith. Meshal’s increasingly isolated wing was NOT happy about this–and what better way to undermine the political process for normalization with Israel than to initiate hostilities? The problem is that by responding in the way it did (unprecedented, by the way), Israel has severely damaged the internal dialogue that was going place in Palestine between Abbas and Haniyeh, and has essentially pushed everybody to survival mode. In survival mode, Meshal’s extremism seems much more appealing to the masses. Also, I have no doubt in my mind that Syria encouraged Meshal to push for this kidnapping (which involved Izz alDin Qassem Brigades, the real terrorist wing of Hamas), for its own political purposes (I have elaborated these in the past on my blog, and it is too much text to include here).

   The same thing has happened in Lebanon. Nasrallah was on his way out politically in Lebanon (the other factions have been engaged in serious talks [with Hizballah by the way] on how to disarm/integrate Hizballah into the national army for the past several months), and, with the moral support of Syria, went ahead and called for this operation. Of course, he has been planning this for the past six months, and the specific timing is a propaganda move because of what the PRC did by kidnapping Gilad Shalit.

   The first day after Nasrallah ordered these kidnappings, the rest of Lebanon was PISSED. I cannot underestimate the importance of this fact–it was only after Israel continued to bomb Lebanon, drawing high civilian tolls and apparently causing little damage to Hizballah, that popular opinion turned significantly against Israel and now has officially turned pro-Nasrallah. This is so bad in so many ways, for all people in Lebanon and in Israel. As I said before, if Israel wants to salvage what little it can in saving the Lebanese government, it must stop immediately. Otherwise, it will have to do what America did to Japan in order to gain its goals–and I can guarantee you no country in the world will allow this. Instead, Israel will leave having done a half-assed job that leaves Nasrallah more powerful domestically. The point is that Olmert failed miserably with this plan (or rather, lack of plan), and it will cost him, Israel, the US, and Lebanon dearly.

   (2) I am aware of this statement. I am referring to the fact that even if al Qaeda wants to help Hizballah, Hizballah wants nothing to do with it. Hizballah and Hamas are NOT on the same level as al Qaeda. They are Islamist groups, but they are NOT imperialist groups. al Qaeda is an imperialist organization, Hamas and Hizballah are legitimate resistance movements. They all engage in terror acts, but for different reasons, and it is counter-productive to ignore all of this by simply lumping them all together. It’s not a matter of being sympathetic to them, it’s a matter of making sure we have the appropriate knowledge to make sound decisions about how to act intelligently against them.

   (3) I am not suggesting that it was deliberate, or that conclusions should be issued before investigations. Nevertheless, you are already giving Israel the benefit of the doubt, as has most of the press. I only wish that the press was that courteous to those involved in Abu Ghraib and Haditha.

   (4) By your reasoning, every single Israeli death north of Haifa (hell, even beyond nowadays!) is justified because Nasrallah issued a blanket warning to civilians that rockets were being fired in their general direction. Is this the case? Can you really accept this reasoning, knowing that it can be used against you? Nobody has the moral high ground on this one, and unless you can use reasoning that doesn’t rely on such subjectivism, you can’t end up with a good strategy.

   (5) I encourage you to look back on the news for that week. We had lunatics like the House of Saud and Hosni Mobarak come out and “condemn” Hizballah. Both of these countries manufactured fatwas against working with Hizballah or even promoting its cause rhetorically. Yeah, okay. This is as close to a green light as Arab governments can risk without being toppled. Maybe we can call it a green glow.

   (6) I agree with you, terrorists should not be appeased. But we have to be smart when we deal with them, because the slightest mis-steps will empower them and make our job more difficult. That is the very nature of those groups–they work on sympathies, and things like what happened in Qana today (which did NOT need to happen), reempower them temporarily and delay progress for everyone for years to come. It’s not a question of appeasement–nobody wants to appease them.

   In any case, nobody is asking for appeasement in this situation. If I had said “Israel should release the prisoners,” that would have been appeasement. But suggesting that maybe Israel should not be bombing entire countries over this is NOT appeasement. In fact, had Israel decided not to attack the way it did, that would not have been appeasement either. There were other ways to go about this.

   Comment by Yaman — 7/30/2006 @ 10:47 pm

4. I think that your opinion on this situation is interesting, so thank you also for responding. I guess I’ll just go through each of your six points again.

   1) So what you’re basically saying here is that IF Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad were elected to a government, they would suddenly start caring more about pleasing their constituents than about destroying Israel. I completely disagree, and I think your claim is proven wrong by the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah have NOT acted in the interests of the Palestinians and the Lebanese during this conflict. Releasing the captured Israeli soldiers would have stopped this crisis from escalating to where it is right now. Hamas and Hezbollah may be elected, but they are NOT acting in their own self interest right now. Israel has already destroyed a lot of their territory and their people are suffering– yet they still refuse to release the captured Israeli soldiers. You’re saying that Syria and Iran are “manipulating” Hezbollah, but why do you think that Hezbollah’s goals are different than those of Syria and Iran with regard to Israel? The fact is that they all want Israel eliminated– and Hezbollah is acting as a proxy fighter for that goal. Hezbollah may be political, but it is not your typical political party. I know that it is a broad organization, but it remains a terrorist organization– meaning that it will sacrifice its self interest for the goal of destroying Israel. I totally disagree with you when you say that the U.S. could successfully manipulate Hezbollah.

   You say that “Israel has severely damaged the internal dialogue that was going place in Palestine between Abbas and Haniyeh, and has essentially pushed everybody to survival mode. In survival mode, Meshal’s extremism seems much more appealing to the masses.” What I think you’re missing here is the fact that Israel did not initiate this violence. It isn’t Israel that damaged the dialogue between Abbas and Haniyeh– terrorists did this. And this goes right back to what I just said: Hamas and Hezbollah are both NOT acting in their own self interest or in the interest of the people that they represent in government. Their only interest is extremism. Of course Israel’s response was “unprecedented”– when was the last time that an elected government kidnapped Israeli soldiers and started attacking Israel with rockets? And you seem to think that Israel should have put up with the rocket attacks without responding so that Lebanon could get its act together. Israel had to respond to these attacks– ANY state would have responded to these attacks. I see what you’re saying here– you’re saying that if Israel didn’t respond, the extremist element would not have become as popular as it now is in Lebanon. So you’re saying that ultimately, Israel’s response is harming Israel. But I think you’re wrong about that: The decision of the Lebanese to embrace this extremism more than before is a call for their own destruction. They are ultimately harming themselves. If they elect a terrorist organization to represent them in government (which they did) and those terrorists attack Israel, Israel will respond to those acts of war. If they decide to embrace those terrorists even more after Israel’s response to those acts of war (which they apparently have), then they are going to be harmed even more in the future.

   Another part of your argument basically says that Israel can’t win against Hezbollah without using a nuclear bomb. How long has this war been going on? Not very long. If Israel’s politicians give it enough time, they will win– and they would never use a nuclear bomb on Lebanon, just to point that out to you. Your attitude on the hopelessness of Israel’s situation is based on Hezbollah’s propaganda along with your belief that Israel is somehow fundamentally different than other countries. All countries must respond to acts of war (a state has to preserve itself), and wars usually last longer than a few weeks! This war has lasted only a few weeks– the fact that it lasted longer than one week doesn’t mean that Israel is hopelessly doomed to failure. And as I was saying before, Israel MUST succeed in this conflict because failure would destroy the country. Not only can Israelis not go about their daily lives amidst random rocket attacks, but Iran is extremely close to developing nuclear weapons. Israel can’t afford to lose.

   2) “I am referring to the fact that even if al Qaeda wants to help Hizballah, Hizballah wants nothing to do with it.” Are you claiming that Hezbollah would refuse help in the current situation? They need all the help they can get. And since both organizations dislike each other, why would Al Qaeda want to be involved with Hezbollah but not the other way around? That’s inconsistent. Sure, they’re rivals. But they can put that rivalry aside for a common goal– destroying Israel. “al Qaeda is an imperialist organization, Hamas and Hizballah are legitimate resistance movements.” You think that Hamas and Hezbollah aren’t imperialist? Isn’t the fact that they both have the destruction of Israel as their central goals enough to qualify them as “imperialist”? “They all engage in terror acts, but for different reasons,”– Oh really? What are these “different reasons” that you speak of? The fact is that they commit terror acts because they hate Israel. Hatred is the reason, and they all share it. And how do you “deal intelligently” with organizations who hate Israel more than they value the welfare of their own people? You have to use force, because diplomacy doesn’t work. And that’s what Israel is doing.

   3) “I am not suggesting that it was deliberate, or that conclusions should be issued before investigations.” Well then, I’m glad that you agree that Kofi Annan was totally out of line to jump to that conclusion before an investigation took place. “Nevertheless, you are already giving Israel the benefit of the doubt, as has most of the press. I only wish that the press was that courteous to those involved in Abu Ghraib and Haditha.” This statement really confused me. First of all, are you serious in claiming that the media is giving Israel the benefit of a doubt? Quite the opposite, Yaman. And secondly, this is why I find you so interesting. You think that the media should have given the Abu Ghraib and Haditha soldiers the benefit of a doubt? It’s surprising to hear that from someone who has your views. I was browsing your blog and noticed this as well– a quote that really stood out to me was “The slogan of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations/militias usually runs along the lines of “Islam is the solution.” That is, accept an Islamic government and all your economic, political, and social woes will disappear. Well, I have yet to see one political manifestation of Islam that has been less than devestating to human freedom.” This is your own quote, yet you seem to truly hate Israel– and Israel is a democracy that allows all religions to worship freely. You’re very confusing, because you should be aware that although no country is perfect, some are better than others on a comparative level.

   4)”By your reasoning, every single Israeli death north of Haifa (hell, even beyond nowadays!) is justified because Nasrallah issued a blanket warning to civilians that rockets were being fired in their general direction.” Oh wow, that was NOT my argument. Nasrallah is not justified because warning that rockets were being fired in civilians’ “general direction” is terrorism. How can anyone in Israel live with the knowledge that a rocket can come flying in ANYWHERE? Israel warns civilians to leave specific houses/buildings/cities/etc. before it attacks. That is a huge difference. (And yes, mistakes do happen– but those mistakes are not consistent with the IDF’s strategy.)

   5) “This is as close to a green light as Arab governments can risk without being toppled.” Well that’s too bad, because issuing fatwas is not enough. That does not constitute “support” for Israel. It’s nothing more than empty rhetoric.

   6) “I agree with you, terrorists should not be appeased.” Well that’s interesting, because the beginning of your comment was saying that terrorists could be manipulated and that Hamas and Hezbollah do act in their self interest. If that was the case, then they could certainly be appeased. The fact is that it isn’t the case because they aren’t acting in anyone’s interest– not Israel’s, not their people’s, and not their organization’s. They are acting out of hatred, and that’s all. I know that terrorists gain ground from sympathies, but there is no way to deal with them outside of force. No sort of “progress” can take place with terrorists.

   “If I had said “Israel should release the prisoners,” that would have been appeasement. But suggesting that maybe Israel should not be bombing entire countries over this is NOT appeasement.” Well what do you suggest, Yaman? According to that statement, Israel should not release prisoners. So, their captured soldiers would not be released– but that’s not acceptable to Israel. Also according to that statement, Israel should not respond with force while it’s being attacked by rockets on a daily basis. Well what exactly is Israel supposed to do? You say that Israel should deal with this crisis intelligently, but you don’t make any suggestions. You take issue with the fact that Israel is causing a lot of destruction in its response, but that goes back to what I was saying earlier– all states respond to acts of war, and it’s irrational to argue that a state should not use its full capability in its response. The world IS calling for appeasement in this situation because it has called for “restraint” from Israel since the beginning of this conflict. And, currently, the world is calling for a cease-fire, which would only set the stage for a more devastating– and inevitable– future attack on Israel. Israel is dealing with the problem before it becomes too much to handle– and that could happen in the VERY near future. Yet the rest of the world is still trying to give diplomacy a chance when it comes to terrorism– and it’s really sad that the world has not learned its lesson about appeasement from World War II.

   Comment by Kerry — 7/31/2006 @ 9:22 am

5. “al-Qaeda and Hizballah are so diametrically opposed it’s not even funny.” yaman.

   Speak English. What, Who, where and why?

   Both al-Qaeda and Hizballah hate Jews and want them off the earth. [Are] You going to deny that and continue to lie?

   Comment by Anonymous — 7/31/2006 @ 12:08 pm

6. Yaman is right on this one, Al Qaeda considers the Shiite faith as much of a heresy as Judaism or Christianity.

   There goals are also very different. Al Qaeda is a global terrorist network, its objective is to cause damage to the west wherever and whenever it can. Hezbollah is fighting over a specific piece of land (the Shebaa farms) and it organizes itself as a territorial army.

   Between the two of them Hezbollah represents the greater threat to Israel because it is presently violating its territorial integrity while Al Qaeda looks for the next spectacle of terrorist bloodshed.

   Comment by mickeyk — 7/31/2006 @ 12:13 pm

7. “If countries dealt with each other on a knee-jerk reaction basis, without examining the consequences of their action or even the possible benefits, we would be living in a world-scale version of Kindergarten. ”

   BTW, Yaman, WWI and WWII begun as “Kindergarten” arguments. So I agree with you there.

   What are the issues, the root cause issues in this war Yaman? I believe a radical group called Hezbollah, and with its blessing from Iran and Hamas, wants Israel to leave the region. So Where? Should the world listen to every Islamofacist group and move-out of their place whenever they ask for it? Did any Arabs ever do a conquest in Palestine in history? Yeppy-do! ‘The After WWII argument’ applies to Arabs as well who conquered places they were not supposed too (throughout-history) in the first place. So that is not an issue. I know the real cause is the Islamic religion which determines a medieval lifestyle for Islamic people and they see Israel partying it up and are jealous; and so have guilt and fight against them believing if *they do not have to see* such happiness they will not feel so guilty and depressed.

   You know this is exactly the issue.

   Arabs fight the Islamic laws of medieval living constantly. It is an outdated religion. Only Allah and salvation remain relevant in Islam – not the backward living *parts*.

   Comment by Anonymous — 7/31/2006 @ 12:21 pm

8. Yaman, was a little vague there mickeyk. Both Shi’its and Sunnis in groups of Al-Stupid and Hexpukla hate Jews. That is not contradictory. Both will side with one another on a larger issue – which has been proven throughout history.

   Comment by Anonymous — 7/31/2006 @ 12:24 pm

9. Well yes, Muslim extremists tend to be anti-semetic and when asked they all say they want to obliterate Israel. Beyond the usual hate speech rests their concrete political objectives that are radically different.

   Al Qaeda doesn’t represent a immediate threat to Israel because their terrorist operations are non territory specific. They only want to cause blood and terror when they strike to spread the word. Even if they succeeded in suicide bombings they would not push Israel anywhere politically because they are demanding no land or wealth.

   Hezbollah, on the other hand, has its mind on taking a piece of the Golan hights and has a fairly regular army to attempt this goal. Hezbollah makes most of its attacks on civilian areas but the end result of their operations is not terror, but rather territorial gain and the eventual collapse of Israel as a political entity.

   Comment by mickeyk — 7/31/2006 @ 12:53 pm

10. Mickey, your entire post is just wrong. “Yaman is right on this one, Al Qaeda considers the Shiite faith as much of a heresy as Judaism or Christianity.” So that is why Al Qaeda wants to join Hezbollah’s side and help out in their war against Israel… that sure makes a whole lot of sense. How could this not register with you? It doesn’t matter that Al Qaeda and Hezbollah are rivals– they both want to destroy Israel, it’s a major goal that both organizations have in common. This is their moment of opportunity.

    “There goals are also very different. Al Qaeda is a global terrorist network, its objective is to cause damage to the west wherever and whenever it can. Hezbollah is fighting over a specific piece of land (the Shebaa farms) and it organizes itself as a territorial army.” Yet again, Mickey, nothing seems to register with you. Aren’t you aware that Hezbollah in the United States has been called upon to plan for attacks against Americans? Hezbollah’s #2 enemy is the United States (obviously, Israel is #1). Hezbollah hates the West just like every other Islamic terrorist organization does, and ultimately they want to destroy the West as a whole– not just Israel. You need to ditch your little intellectualness (in which you’re unsuccessfully trying to classify these organizations as fundamentally different) and start focusing on reality.

    Comment by Kerry — 7/31/2006 @ 12:55 pm

11. Yet another incorrect post from you, Mickey. “Muslim extremists tend to be anti-semetic and when asked they all say they want to obliterate Israel. Beyond the usual hate speech rests their concrete political objectives that are radically different.” You can’t be serious. You think that they only SAY that they want to destroy Israel but in truth have totally different objectives? That is an absolutely insane statement. I guess they’re aiming to improve their economies by launching unprovoked rocket attacks into Israel.

    “Al Qaeda doesn’t represent a immediate threat to Israel because their terrorist operations are non territory specific.” Right, Mickey. It’s very “non territory specific” for Al Qaeda to say that it wants to join the fighting to destroy Israel– because Israel is not an actual territory. Right.

    “Hezbollah makes most of its attacks on civilian areas but the end result of their operations is not terror, but rather territorial gain and the eventual collapse of Israel as a political entity.” Deliberate attacks on civilian areas = terror, in case you weren’t aware of that. Terror is the tactic they’re using for their ultimate goal of destroying Israel– it’s the means, not the end. No one is claiming that terror is the “end,” that’s really an out-of-nowhere assertion.

    Comment by Kerry — 7/31/2006 @ 1:01 pm

12. Good thing that once this is over everything will be A-OK in Israel and Hezbollah will be defeated forever. It’s also a really good thing that Israel bombing the hell out of Southern Lebanon definitely will not prove to be an effective recruiting tool for Hezbollah for the next 20 years.

    Comment by Crotch Gangster — 7/31/2006 @ 1:16 pm

13. A better way to put it is that Hezbollah has political goals that can be reasoned with and Al Qaeda doesn’t. The goal of Hezbollah is to set up an Islamic republic in Lebanon and wage a “war of resistance” against Israel with the primary goal of recapturing the Shebaa farms.

    Al Qaeda’s mission is to destroy Western civilization and establish a new Muslim empire spanning the Middle East. They demand no land or political influence, rather, they believe that only the neverending struggle will prevail (as opposed to Hezbollah which claims publically that they will renounce violence if Israel withdraws from the farms).

    Although it is not impossible that agents of Al Qaeda might be planning attacks in Israel to coincide with the Lebanon invasion, it is a mistake the treat the two as the same.

    Finally, its absurd to say that the aims of the two groups are the same because they both commit atrocities against civilians. Targeting innocents to spread terror through the population is as old as war itself, except it got a new buzzword when NGOs started doing it.

    Comment by mickeyk — 7/31/2006 @ 1:23 pm

14. mickeyk,
    All I can say is you have a unique twist on the situation and in general what is considered a simple understanding of what Al-Qaeda’s objectives are about by most people on both sides of issue and all over the world, remains staggering. I happen to read Al-Qaeda’s speeches and understand their rhetoric. I have no doubt in my mind after reading their statements, speeches, threats and communications over the years they want Israel off the earth and the Jews exterminated. Just because they have not attacked Israel as of late does not mean that they would be against Hezbollah and its actions right now. Like I said about history. Shi’its and Sunnis have often collaborated against a common enemy when it suits both of their goals. Only after that goal becomes completed do they go back to in-fighting between their sects.

    Comment by Anonymous — 7/31/2006 @ 1:23 pm

15. BTW mickeyk, “…The goal of Hezbollah is to set up an Islamic republic in Lebanon. ” Islamic law is at issue here. An Islamic Republic brings in a law that calls for all Non-Arab/Muslim people to be second-class citizens. This is racist and against democratic principles of people rule and people representation.

    Al- Qaeda have the same agenda, and on a wider world scale. They also want a Caliph/Islamic Republic, so there is no difference. You state that Hezbollah’s agenda can be reasoned with – I say no way. Islamic law calls for the observance of 6 pillars ( Not the commonly know 5 pillars) The 6th pillar is Jihad, the continual path to reign in Islam into a world culture. Under an Islamic Republic is the mandate to observe the 6 Pillars of Islam. This doesn’t bold well for Freedom of Religion which should be tolerated or at least kept within peaceful boarders. Israel may not tolerate other religions but I did not see Israel begin shooting rockets into Lebanon. Did you?

    Comment by Anonymous — 7/31/2006 @ 1:35 pm

16. “A better way to put it is that Hezbollah has political goals that can be reasoned with and Al Qaeda doesn’t. The goal of Hezbollah is to set up an Islamic republic in Lebanon…” No, and I’ve already addressed this in previous comments. Hezbollah is still a terrorist organization despite its political/welfare/etc. dimensions– and that means that it can’t be reasoned with. As I’ve already said, the fact that Hezbollah is willing to put the Lebanese population through this ordeal shows the extent of its hatred for Israel.

    “Al Qaeda’s mission is to destroy Western civilization and establish a new Muslim empire spanning the Middle East. They demand no land or political influence…” What frustrates me about your posts, Mickey, is that you are so contradictory. You say that Al Qaeda wants a Muslim empire spanning the Middle East, and then RIGHT AFTER saying that, you claim that they don’t want land or political influence. What is an empire? An empire = land and political influence. You really need to take one of Professor Gregor’s classes– your attempts to classify are at odds with reality, and maybe taking one of his classes will clear that up for you.

    “they believe that only the neverending struggle will prevail (as opposed to Hezbollah which claims publically that they will renounce violence if Israel withdraws from the farms).” And you actually believe Hezbollah’s propaganda, how sad. Oh yeah, I totally bet that Hezbollah would be peaceful if Israel withdraws from those farms. It would not longer want to destroy Israel as a whole and I’m sure it would not want to attack the U.S. etc. if Israel made that move.

    “Although it is not impossible that agents of Al Qaeda might be planning attacks in Israel to coincide with the Lebanon invasion, it is a mistake the treat the two as the same.” MIGHT be planning attacks in Israel? I’ve already posted a link and I know that you follow up on the news– Al Qaeda has already announced that it wants to join the fighting in Lebanon– and it’s called upon all Muslims to do the same. Yet again, I will reiterate: I don’t care about your little intellectual classifications of different terrorist organizations. They have the same essential goal of destroying Israel, and therefore must be treated as the same enemy in the current conflict.

    “its absurd to say that the aims of the two groups are the same because they both commit atrocities against civilians.” Yet again, you don’t seem to understand a word that I’m saying. Terrorism is a means, not an end. These groups are the same because they have the same END– namely, destroying Israel. The fact that they commit terrorist acts does not in itself make them essentially the same– although it does make them all immoral (because it is never justified to deliberately attack civilians, no matter what the professed cause may be).

    Comment by Kerry — 7/31/2006 @ 2:00 pm

17. Oh and “Anonymous” said “Israel may not tolerate other religions but I did not see Israel begin shooting rockets into Lebanon. Did you?” Israel most certainly does tolerate other religions. I went to Israel and saw this for myself. There is religious freedom in Israel, and I even saw a mosque, church, and temple in the same location. And as for “Crotch Gangster,” I already responded to that in an earlier comment. So I’ll just ask you what I asked Yaman: What do you believe Israel should have done in this situation? You can’t magically rid the world of terrorism by love and understanding and diplomacy or whatever else. Israel has to respond with force. If you disagree, come up with another suggestion– because your comment is not helpful or constructive in any way.

    Comment by Kerry — 7/31/2006 @ 2:04 pm

18. I agree that Israel has a right as a secular tolerant society to make war on religious militants of all stripes. Israel is a parliamentary democracy with equal rights for citizens of all faiths. This is something worth defending in a sea of tyranny.

    At the same time, a cool head is important to analyse the goals of your enemy. If all Islamic republics were dedicated to warlike jihad regardless of the utility, then why arn’t Iran, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia embarking on huge wars of conquest?

    Comment by mickeyk — 7/31/2006 @ 2:08 pm

19. Mickey, I didn’t say that “all Islamic republics are dedicated to warlike jihad regardless of utility.” I said that terrorists are dedicated to warlike jihad regardless of utility. Most Muslims are not terrorists. And, as I’m sure you’re aware, Hezbollah is a proxy fighter for Iran– so Iran is one instance in which an Islamic republic IS dedicated to this “cause.”

    Comment by Kerry — 7/31/2006 @ 2:12 pm

20. Kerry:

    (1) The fact that they were elected, and continue to be elected, means that their people support them, and believe that they are the best people to work for their interests. I am not saying that al Qaeda or Islamic Jihad would be legitimized by election if they were given office tomorrow–however, the assumption of political office has had a tendency to moderate the flexibility these organizations have in what they do, which is good. With political power comes actual responsibility–especially elected power, which is what we see in Palestine and Lebanon. Groups like al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad reject the political process altogether and are inherently anti-democratic and anti-the interests of their people.

    (2) I did not say that Israel initiated this violence. On the contrary, it is clear that Hizballah and Hamas did. Nevertheless, Israel responded in an unwise manner, neglecting the repercussions of a reckless response. Israel had to respond, that is not the issue. But it did not respond properly in either Gaza or Lebanon. I am not here to argue about Hizballah and PRC’s actions–they were stupid from my perspective because mine is one of general interest of the Lebanese and Palestinians for progress. However, both of these groups believe that they did the RIGHT THING; not because it’s in the best interest of the people directly, but because it was a way for them to manipulate the political process by subverting the movement towards moderation by Ismail Haniyeh and Siniora’s government.

    (3) No, I am not saying that Hizballah is undefeatable. But it’s not as if Hizballah came out of nothing. It came out of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. You have to realize that sloppy violence breeds these kinds of groups. If Israel continues this way, there will be another organization, and it won’t matter if it’s Hizballah 2 or Black September 2–either way, we will be drawn back into the same type of scenario again because the core and root issues are not resolved by Israel destroyed Hizballah or Lebanon. If anything we should realize that much by now.

    (4) I can’t deal with your paragraph about Hizballah and al Qaeda. I’ve already said all I have to say, but you are going back to issues I have already addressed.

    (5) About Israel and conflicting views. You are not familiar with my views. I think that Israel, hands down, is the best country in the region as far as how it treats its own citizens. On the other hand, Israel’s policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians especially and today the Lebanese has been DEVESTATING to human freedom as well because it relies on propping up dictators and monarchs like Abdullah, Mobarak, Hussein, and even Assad.

    (6) I’ll let you test out the power of fatwas in Saudi Arabia by driving a car around Riyadh without a veil on.

    (7) Appeasement is not the same as manipulation.

    As for what Israel SHOULD have done, it’s easy: Israel responded militarily almost INSTANTLY after the kidnapping, taking its bombings all the way to Beirut within a day or two. This is before it opened any diplomatic channels whatsoever with the Lebanese government to see what it could do to strongarm Hizballah. The point is that Israel never tried, it never will, because it still believes that violence is the answer to everything. This is not the case–Israel should have noticed by now.

    Comment by Anonymous — 7/31/2006 @ 3:44 pm

21. Shoot, Kerry, that last Anonymous was me.

    Anonymous @ 12:21pm: Occupied territory is the central issue. Extremist groups will exist with or without it, but they can be dramatically undermined by negotiating an end to the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem with the Palestinian Authority; and negotiating a way out of the Shebaa Farms, if Lebanon claims them. The Golan Height should not be ceded, and the Syrian government should not be negotiated with, until it starts to act in good faith. Nevertheless, a Palestinian state is the most important issue.

    Comment by Yaman — 7/31/2006 @ 3:46 pm

22. Kerry: They ARE fundamentally different organizations, not just in religion (Shiite versus Sunni–even Hamas is different from Islamic Jihad is different from the Muslim Brotherhood is different from al Qaeda)–but also in methodology, ideology, and their goals. Hizballah is NOT comparable to al Qaeda, on any level, except that they both dislike Israel and the United States. That’s like saying that Libertarians and Green Party are the same because they both oppose drug laws.

    Comment by Yaman — 7/31/2006 @ 3:50 pm

23. Also, mickeyk is correct about Hizballah. al Qaeda wants to establish a global Islamic empire, while Hizballah wants an Islamic state in Lebanon–and, by its own claims, not by force.

    I suggest reading the following document regarding Hizballah’s history in the context of domestic Lebanese politics: http://www.merip.org/mero/mero073106.html

    Hizballah offers a nationalism that views Lebanon as an Arab state that cannot distance itself from causes like the Palestine question. Its political ideology maintains an Islamic outlook. The 1985 Open Letter notes the party’s desire to establish an Islamic state, but only through the will of the people. “We don’t want Islam to reign in Lebanon by force,” the letter reads. The party’s decision to participate in elections in 1992 underscored its commitment to working through the existing structure of the Lebanese state, and also shifted the party’s focus from a pan-Islamic resistance to Israel toward internal Lebanese politics.

    Comment by Yaman — 7/31/2006 @ 5:01 pm

24. To Kerry from anon, 7/31/2006 @ 1:23 pm / 1:35

    Then I must have fallen too - to the propaganda. I’m certainly happy to hear from someone that actually observed first hand the ongoing of religious functionaries in Israel itself - makes me feel better than hearing from people like me that have never stepped foot on Near-East Soil.

    mickeyk, Saudi Arabia is ruled by shakes with huge bankbooks. Laden wants them gone and his men to take control of the 7th or 9th ( according to different sources) most powerful military machine in the world.

    Iran is currently trying to link an intercontinental Ballistics Missile ICBM and a large powerful nuclear-warhead to have for blackmail purposes. The more the merrier.

    Indonesia is not a unified area yet with a strong centralizing Islamic agenda – many people - but not the core traditional Middle East areas where Islam feels its roots with Mecca and Baghdad (both traditional Islamic capitals in history).

    Part of the agitation of Israel is to garner a unified Muslim backlash – so that all of the Arab states unite and retaliate at once against different countries. Currently they understand to do this they all need modern technology and weaponry to do so. This takes time and this is what they are working forward on and we need to understand this garners patience and long process – but Bush’s plan is to foster states in the Middle East with provisions for tolerance of other religions. In general and simplicity, it is a race against the clock. The period in question is the modernity of a fully capable nuclear weapons force controlled by Jihad fanatics who care only about 72 virgins and less about their own people’s welfare.

    Like I stated above before, many Arab states struggle with Islamic law. Bin Laden wants to go back to strict Islam and run Piller 6. This is hard to do with current financial circumstances of oil rich shakes in control of Saudi Arabia ( who do not run strict Islam as an example for themselves, but certainly some sense of strictness for the general populations) . So meanwhile , he goes about his Jihading covertly.

    Comment by Anonymous — 7/31/2006 @ 5:47 pm

25. Please refer to it accurately as Salafi Islam. “Strict” Islam is a meaningless and ambiguous term.

    Comment by Yaman — 7/31/2006 @ 6:51 pm

26. I believe the west renamed it as Wahhabism. Most would not understand what I was saying in context so I used the word ‘strict’. Maybe ‘pure Islam’, the type of the first three generations after Muhammad would be a more adept usage, but unnecessarily long in script for most readers.

    Comment by Anonymous — 7/31/2006 @ 7:21 pm

27. Anonymous ato 721pm: No, the West didn ot rename it Wahhabism. This is the name given to it after Sheikh Abd-al-Wahab, who is the actual sheikh that is followed in Saudi Arabia today. Salafi is slightly different, but for the sake of this convo, very similar. “Pure Islam” referring to the first 3r generations ais a misnomer, because Salafi Islam was not named such until the 18th or 19th centuries. So, yes, the Arabic word “salafi” does refer to the first generations after Muhammad, but in modern practice, Salafi Islam refers to something drastically different.

    Comment by Yaman — 8/1/2006 @ 1:17 am

28. Yaman you stopped when it was getting intresting. Please elaborate on the difference between Wahhabism and Salafi?

    Comment by Anonymous — 8/1/2006 @ 2:42 pm

29. Anonymous: No. I’m not sure I could do it decently, or that it would be any more meaningful to you than the distinctions between Hanafi and Shafi’i Sunnis. What is important for you to know is that they are not synonymous, and that the most obvious distinction is chronological. The Arabic word salafi refers simply to the first few generations after Muhammad’s death, and the primary scholar which popularized the idea of trying to emulate them (and thus rejecting the idea of mujtahids and mathahab) was Ibn Taymiyyah in the Middle Ages. What he meant by this was to go directly to the Qur’an and Hadith, rather than rely upon the various interpretations of the primary scholars–Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki, and Hanbali (we are talking Sunnis of course). Modern Salafis (or what you refer to as such) are primarily the followers of Abd al Wahab (Wahhabis) in Saudi Arabia, which build upon these principles, but are an independent movement. In any case, both Wahabi and Salafi theologies are scrutinized severely by the majority of Sunni scholars because of their inherently anti-progressive views–the modern manifestation is greatly critical of innovation (bida’ah) and considers such crimes to be punishable by death. They also reserve (and indeed excercise) the right to engage in takfir, or calling other Muslims non-Muslims, and thus justifying that they be executed.

    Comment by Yaman — 8/1/2006 @ 6:29 pm

30. So what you are telling me, in that I used the word ‘strict’, is that only relying on the Qur’an and Hadith, is not the way of Islam, but an alternative to another way. Why? Because , as you claim, other scholars take more progressive look into interpretation, and therefore sometimes do not follow the * strict verses*, possibly because words or things which were not present in the 7th century now exist – therefore claiming their progressive version of Islam is actually Islam itself and this Shafi’ is not actually Islam but other forms? I think your response will start-out as it is not that simple. Hanafi is progressive, as a general statement, but Shafi remains ridged ‘only relying on the exact words of the Qur’an and Hadith[s]’?

    So basically the only real relevance to Islam is that Muhammad is the last prophet and through his words ( Qu’ran only) - Muslims reach salvation with Allah. The a’hadith consist of Muhammad’s words, but were all recorded by the people who knew him and not necessarily – Muhammad, in fact not at all.

    So is it safe to say that both Hanafi and Salafis remain both ‘strict ‘versions of Islam? Is there such a thing as a liberal version of Islam. I know plenty of liberal versions of examples of Christianity. Also, can Hanafi and Salafis both be called ‘ pure Islam?’ This will help me better understand how to communicate correctly when speaking on these delicate issues. Thanks for the help.

    Comment by Anonymous — 8/2/2006 @ 7:25 pm

31. Anonymous: Not quite.

    (1) Salafis say that they rely only on the Qur’an and Hadith. That means that they go directly to the source, make their interpretations, and generally disregard those belonging to others. Shafi’i, Hanafi, Maliki, and Hanbali are all the mainstream “schools of thought” in Islam, which started before Ibn Taymiyyah, the Salafi, came onto the scene. Those four could be considered real salafis in the strict sense that they are early Muslims. The Salafis today and of Ibn Taymiyyah’s sort reject the schools of thought because they think that the individual begins to put faith in the person rather than the texts. They would call it heresy to follow a school of thought, and, indeed, frequently tried to assassinate those who lead them.

    (2) As for your interpretation of Islam, it’s pretty much way off the mark. Muslims believe that Muhammad is the last prophet, and that truth is contained in the Qur’an, and that belief in god is salvation. They believe Jesus is the messiah and that he will return for the final religious war. As for the Hadith, they do not have the same status as the Qur’an, but are often used as a way to interpret the Qur’an. For example, if there is an ambiguity in the Qur’an, scholars generally study the Hadith to see if there is anything that Muhammad said or did that would incline for one way or another. Often, scholars have conflicting views, and they mutually agree that it is possible to follow either one as long as an individual is consistent in methodology.

    (3) I don’t understand your last paragraph really. When you said “strict” Islam, I thought you were referring to the Salafis, which are literalists. But of course there are people that are socially more conservative in the schools of thought, and those that are more liberal. It is an individual property. As for which is the purer Islam, that is not for me to judge, and not really something I care about. Probably the most “liberal” thread in Islam thought is Sufism (Tasawwuf), which is based in the four Sunni schools of thought, and also in Shiite theology, but is wholly rejected by the Salafis and Wahhabis, who consider it a heresy punishable by death.

    Comment by Yaman — 8/2/2006 @ 11:07 pm

32. (1)Yaman, “As for your interpretation of Islam, it’s pretty much way off the mark. Muslims believe that Muhammad is the last prophet, and that truth is contained in the Qur’an, and that belief in god is salvation.” I actually tried to say something like that. I guess it didn’t come out as eloquent.

    (2)“They believe Jesus is the messiah and that he will return for the final religious war.” Are you serious? They know that religious Jews that follow the Old Testament and the Talmud do not follow in that Jesus was the savior at all. So they are not going to be saved because of this denial? Yes, or no? “As for the Hadith, they do not have the same status as the Qur’an” That is important to know. I suppose the Hadith is a little less tolerant of the Jews. Is that safe to say?

    (3)“I don’t understand your last paragraph really. When you said “strict” Islam, I thought you were referring to the Salafis, which are literalists. But of course there are people that are socially more conservative in the schools of thought, and those that are more liberal.”

    Now you understood what I was saying. Strict had nothing to do with either Salafis and Wahhabis or the four major schools of thought, but not allowing liberalism into the modern Islamic way of life. In fact, there are many things today that did not exist during the 7th Century, and therefore, IMO, one cannot read into any law of that time and append it to a new thing today. I thought the Ayatollah ( Of Iran in the late70s-80s) calling for the ripping up of linoleum from kitchen floors because the stuff was not around during the 7th century was a bit to ‘strict.’ This is what I was getting too about strictness. Do you understand? I’m well aware now of many schools of thought, some literalists and some not, but being strict in the sense to apply to things that never existed before to the 7th century laws are a bit confusing to most people including modern Muslims.

    Comment by Anonymous — 8/3/2006 @ 11:52 am

33. Anonymous:

    I don’t understand your response to (2). I don’t understand the connection to religious Jews. Can you please elaborate what you meant? As for the remark about the Hadith and Jews, I have no idea where this came from. Was it relevant to our conversation? Am I missing something?

    About what is strict and what is not strict, okay. Pretty much just like conservative versus liberal Christians and Jews. Nothing different. Only a handful of countries enforce fatwas as law, and these are by far the exception.

    Comment by Yaman — 8/3/2006 @ 6:01 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.