True? Most of the DFA group didn’t think so.
Let me lay out where I’m coming from on this because I realize it’s counter-intuitive. We all grew up wathcinging images in the 1980s of Palestinian youth throwing rocks at tanks. Everyone noted how unfair a fight it was, and international resentment toward Israel grew, notably on the left with writings by Noam Chompsky and others.
However, times have changed, and since the 1980s the spread of radical islamic extremists has become pervasive to the point where I’m not sure the “little guy” is so little anymore. Israel is surrounded by nations and extremists who have announced there wishes that Israel be “wiped off the map.”
Can a nation, although possessing of a strong conventional army, really be considered “the favorite” to win out over an enemy who would gladly end his own life to kill hundreds of innocent civilians? An enemy who fires his missles from children’s shelters knowing Israel cannot fire back without risking a loss of support from the international community? An enemy who, in short, negates the effectiveness of even the best conventional military forces?
I’m reminded of the Godfather, Part II, where Michael Corleone relates to Hyman Roth the story of the Cuban rebel that he saw end his own life and the life of his captor, rather than be taken prisoner. Hyman Roth asks, “What does that tell you?”
“That they can win,” responds don Corleone.
There are no underdogs in this fight, only losers. Both sides are losing both in lives and in their prospects for future security.
<
p>
a couple more quick responses . . .
<
p>
Israel is also currently wiping the Palestinian state off the map through their occupation. Which is less of an underdog, a nation that “announces their wishes” to wipe another off the map, or one that is actually doing it?
<
p>
As we know, Israel not only can fire back, but they have. Moreover, as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty Interational, and even mainstream American press have noted, many of their targets have nothing to do with Hezbollah. This “human shields” excuse is laughable if you actually look where they’ve struck.
<
p>
Olmert is just an Israeli version of Bush. Both think they can bomb their way to peace.
<
p>
P.S. so you know my biases, or lack thereof, I am both Jewish and Lebanese
I can’t go as far as gary on much of this (Olmert is a technocrat who is suddenly thrust in this situation and is over his head…Sharon was the Israeli cognate of Bush), but there is a factual error here.
<
p>
At one time, most states surrounding Israel vowed to wipe it off the map, but since then Jordan and Egypt have revised their policies after their peace treaties. I’m not sure about Lebanon’s policies.
<
p>
Not to say that I’m unsympathetic — Israel is fighting the dread asymmetric warfare, and what we’re seeing here is that at its worst.
Just out of curiosity, how much more of Palestine does Israel have to unilaterally withdraw from before you’ll amend that opinion?
You’re coming dangerously close to endorsing a “whatever means necessary” approach to Hezbollah tactics.
<
p>
And you can’t be serious about Israel wiping Palestine of the map. Arafat was offered the deal of the century in 2000 and walked away from it. And what does Hezbollah do to further the plight of the Palestinians who wallow under the corruption of the Palestinian government? The kidnap soldiers and bomb citizens in Northern Israel. Nice work.
<
p>
And before you accuse me of endorsing a “by any means necessary” approach with Israel, I’ll beat you to it:
<
p>
I do think Israel has been heavy handed. I disagree with you on the nature of the targets, and I think the weaponry and technology deployed by the Israelis has limited the body count greatly. This has also been pertty well-documented by the press.
<
p>
I’ll support a ceasefire when I see one that demands the disarmament of the militant wing of Hezbollah.
Broadened rules of engagement and mandate for UNIFIL with an injection of 10k French troops seem to be what we’re playing for now.
<
p>
If Israel couldn’t disarm Hezbollah, a motley collection of other countries won’t do it.
<
p>
And I completely agree wtih your diary. Lefty bloggers need to get over this “support the underdog” mentality when it comes to completely wrong third world nations.
The “deal” Arafat was offered would have divided Palestinian land into apartheid-style cantons, criss-crossed by Israeli security roads, and whose resources, particularly water, would have been under Israeli control. That’s a Palestinian “state” in name only. A fair deal would have been something along the lines of the Geneva Accord.
<
p>
My discussion of what Israel could be doing differently is no way shape or form a justification for Hezbollah’s attacks. Similarly, when liberals discuss what the US could have done differently to prevent 9/11, that is in no way justification for those attacks either. You’re coming dangerously close to adopting dishonest right-wing talking points on these issues.
<
p>
Based on no evidence, apparently. If you have any evidence contradicting the conclusions of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (other than “Olmert said so”) please bring it forward.
<
p>
Will the ceasefire also require a disarmament of the militant wing of Israel, i.e. the Olmert administration?
Here’s a debunking of the ‘bantustan’ garbage.
<
p>
Check out their front page if you want to see where their biases lie (hint: it’s not towards Israel)
<
p>
Water? Another red flag to me that somebody’s being dishonest about the conflict. We gave egypt 3 billion a year for the last 30 years to make peace with Israel. I bet the palestinians could get us to give them water.
<
p>
And as far as the nature of the targets. If Israel were not trying its best to minimize casualties, there would be many, many, many more dead Lebanese civilians. Hezbollah on the other hand is doing their best to maximize civilian casualties.
<
p>
And Hezbollah vetoed the recent ceasefire offer. Which didn’t even demand their disarmament, it just called for allowing UNIFIL under their rules of engagement to enforce the ceasefire. (Right now they just ‘monitor and report’ violations) So Israel is now expanding the ground offensive that they threatened to expand earlier this week. Who’s fault is that?
That’s what I’m afraid of. As soon as a liberal starts to take a no-nonsense, zero tolerance approach to radical islam tactics, all of a sudden he’s “right wing.” I’m not talking about arbitrary military action here. I’m talking about finding and ending a terrorist organization.
<
p>
And why on Earth would you want a legitimate government disarm? You’re equating Israel with Hezbollah?
I no longer self-identify as liberal, or Democrat, largely because of this incomprehensible phenomenon. Why must American liberals support what may be the most illiberal force on the planet? It doesn’t make sense.
<
p>
Note to Lebanon: If you don’t want a disproportionate response, then get the terrorists out of your government and shadow government.
<
p>
Note to Palestinians: iF you don’t want a disproportionate response, get the terrorists out of your government.
Your argument is dishonest in at least two ways:
<
p>
Here you equate criticism of Israeli foreign policy with “support” of Hezbollah. Obvious logical fallacy — similar to when right-wingers equate criticism of the Bush administration with support of Al Qaeda.
<
p>
This is a dishonest double-standard. You could just as easily give Israelis the ultimatum: “Stop your illegal occupation of the West Bank or face suicide bombings”. Neither ultimatum is acceptable. Illegal attacks on innocent civilians is not justification for other illegal attacks on innocent civilians.
This post seems to suggest that good guys=underdog. Most of us would consider whoever is stronger to be the top dog, and whoever is weaker to be the underdog. Suicide terrorism is a tactic of the weak. However, it is also so horrific that it should disqualify those who practice it from the sympathy we normally accord “underdogs.” However, it doesn’t make the Israelis “underdogs” or excuse the wanton destruction that Israel is currently engaged in. The destruction of Southern Lebanon is playing right into Hezzbollah’s hands. I suppose you could say that Israel are “underdogs” in the sense that their military victories will end up being hollow once again.
I’d define it as the group less likely to win a particular fight.
<
p>
Now, that’s a pretty scary statement when you consider the genesis of this thread. I wasn’t just talking about Israel, but the discussion went that way. But the larger question was this: Are WE ALL underdogs (you, me, the guy next to you on the subway) in a fight against an enemy more than willing to kill himself just to get to you, simply because you’re part of the larger western world. When all you were doing was buying a coke at a seven-eleven.
<
p>
Which, in and of itself, is apparently a crime these days, but I digress…
I am not shaking in my boots over the suicide terrorists. For people outside of Israel, the odds of being targetted by a suicide terrorist are vanishingly small. As for the likelihood of dying while buying a coke at the seven-eleven, I would suggest that you should be more worried about your average American armed robber…and then there’s the drunk driver that’ll run you over on the way home. Or, an earthquake (they have them on the East coast, too) that causes a chunk of a building to land on you while walking down the street….