A Sane Israeli Perspective

Full Metal Jacket

2006-08-15T11:23:00.000+03:00

Last week, while the war was still going on, I saw Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jackett" on DVD (after arguing with someone that "Apocalypse Now" is a better movie...). The Vietnam War is very different, of course, from the war which is hopefully now behind us, or for that matter, any war that Israel fought. At the very least because in all Israeli wars we fought against neighboring countries from which actively hostile action was taken against us. Nonetheless, one can not resist drawing some analogies, in that hope the history will teach us something.

The line in the sand: Even though JFK masterfully diffused the Cuban missiles crisis (I wish we had here leaders who could handle the Hizbollah kidnapping like that), apparently the strengthening of communism in Northern Vietnam convinced him that the US must "draw a line in the sand" against communism expansion. Otherwise, the US status and credibility as a superpower, and its position in the Cold War will be fatally damaged.

Well, we all know how that ended up. The US wasn't so successful in blocking communist expansion in Vietnam, and nonetheless, ultimately, it triumphed over the Soviet Union. Many people wrote about the current war that Israel must win it, as otherwise its position in the middle east will be irrecoverably damaged. That losing it will have dire consequences on the West's power versus radical Islam. Hopefully there's some encouraging lesson here.

The limits of power: Olmert was unofficially quoted as saying that we won this war 15-0 (he's thinking soccer, of course, not tennis). It is often said that in Vietnam the US won every battle, but lost the war. While both these statements are not completely accurate, the end results painfully prove the obvious - that even if you have McNamara's brilliance on your side, and the-best-army-in-the-world, and complete air superiority and so on (neo-con conspirators?), it's not enough.

To actually break your enemy, it is not enough that rational reasoning shows that your enemies will be in a world of pain if they don't surrender. Just as your soldiers are willing to die if they believe this serves the interests of their country (and even when they have doubts...), so do your enemies. Forcefully "winning" a conflict can only be done in extreme situations. Perhaps one of the problems with the perspective of Israeli generals is that they think the '67 war to be the rule, rather than the exception.

The importance of power: While you usually can not force your enemy to surrender on your terms, the application of force can improve your position when negotiating a compromise. In late '68 Lyndon Johnson ordered the cessation of all US attacks in Vietnam, but the peace talks which this action was supposed to facilitate broke down. Only after Hanoi's massive bombing (condemned world-wide), did negotiations resume, leading to the Paris Peace Accords.

This, I think, is an important lesson for people like me, who so strongly believe in peace, that they have a very hard time believing that the people on the other side might be different. If Hizbollah comes out victorious from this conflict, and Israel is intimidated from risking another clash, then it will have no motivation to disband and give southern Lebanon over to the Lebanese army.

The world won't listen: The real losers of the Vietnam War were, of course, the South Vietnamese. Once US soldiers were no longer there, the '73 Paris Peace Accords proved a poor shield. When, only two years later, north Vietnamese forces overtook the south, millions fled the country, becoming refugees. And the regime that followed wasn't exactly a gentle one.

So where were the american people who protested the war? Where were the European countries who condemned the Hanoi bombings? With the watergate scandal on one end, and the soviet backup on the other, taking the south was like taking candy from a baby (not my baby though, he's tough). I fear there is a lesson for us here as well. Israel must be powerful enough to defend itself. Peace agreements will be worth nothing if this won't be the case.

I've intended to write about some similarities between Lyndon Johnson and Amir Peretz, but it's getting to be a long post as it is. So to conclude, here's a piece from a great dialogue from "Full Metal Jacket", which, in my humble opinion, could be a motto for this blog (copied from imdb):

Pogue Colonel: Marine, what is that button on your body armor?
Private Joker: A peace symbol, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Where'd you get it?
Private Joker: I don't remember, sir.
Pogue Colonel: What is that you've got written on your helmet?
Private Joker: "Born to Kill", sir.
Pogue Colonel: You write "Born to Kill" on your helmet and you wear a peace button. What's that supposed to be, some kind of sick joke?
Private Joker: No, sir.
Pogue Colonel: You'd better get your head and your ass wired together, or I will take a giant shit on you.
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Now answer my question or you'll be standing tall before the man.
Private Joker: I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man, sir.
Pogue Colonel: The what?

Nothing now can ever come to any good

2006-08-13T11:18:00.000+03:00

Twenty four soldiers killed over the weekend, and 13 badly injured, which probably means the death toll will be higher.

I don't personally know any of the dead who's names were released. It feels like I almost know them, like I could know them, but this chasm of "almost" is very wide. Listening to the names being read on the radio, while driving to work, I could not help but feel, alongside the great pain, some relief because of it. It is a terrible kind of relief.

On the other side of the chasm, trying to make sense of these deaths from a detached point of view, I ask myself: If this is a war, shouldn't it be expected that soldiers will be killed? Aren't they legitimate targets for the enemy? And in light of both Israel and Lebanon accepting the new security council resolution, do these deaths support Israeli interests in any way, or would the end result had been the same regardless of recent military actions? I fear I know the answers to these questions, and they only make these deaths more terrible.

Throughout this war, many Israeli commentators, talkbackers, bloggers and forumist wrote that Israel must win this war. I don't think that this is happening. Gideon Levi wrote today that some good might come out of it (Israel and the US will learn the limits of military power and be driven to make peace), but I suspect that he's dead wrong. I suspect that in Lebanon it has already reestablished Hizbollah's power, which was on the decline since Al-Hariri's assassination. In the OT, and in the Islamic countries in general, it will encourage radical Islam. In Israel, it will be taken as a lesson for how to deal with the OT - we withdrew from Lebanon, and in 6 years Hizbollah established itself as a power we can not get rid of. Hence - people will argue - the same thing will happen if we withdraw from the OT. This will destroy the one good thing we could have hoped for from PM Olmert.

The prisoner's dilemma

2006-08-09T17:15:00.000+03:00

One of the most well-known examples in game theory is the "prisoner's dilemma". In this game there are two prisoners which committed a crime together, each having two options: to betray his friend or to stay silent. Both prisoners must make a choice without knowing what the other chose. If both prisoners stay silent, they both go to one year in prison. If one betrays and the other does not, the betrayer goes free and his friend serves 10 years. If they both stay silent, they both serve 5 years.

(for more info see this link or just search the web for "prisoner's dilemma)

On the face of it, for each player separately the best option is to betray (no matter what the other guy did, he is better of betraying). This is somewhat disturbing intuitively - if they would collaborate the "best" solution for both prisoners would be reached.

Indeed, if this scenario is repeated many iterations, and one wants to minimize his total number of years served, certainly it would be best to reach some sort of "agreement" between the players. Experiments (and by now also in theory) show that a very simple strategy called "tit-for-tat" works best. This has a very natural appeal: At first, "be nice", i.e stay silent. If the other guy betrays, then retaliate back in the next iteration (i.e. betray so to "teach him a lesson"), but after that return to being nice.

Sounds familiar ? Many of us take this approach in real life. Trying to be friendly, and if we encounter an "enemy" retaliate, and then try to "make peace" and be friendly again. Without elaborating too much, experiments in evolutionary game theory confirm this strategy to be optimal in some respect.

How does this relate to the middle east ? Well, many wonder why did Israel go to war over the Hez provocation, or why was its response "so harsh". Here is an explanation: life has taught us to retaliate. To "give the other cheek" and always be nice as Jesus preached does not work. It is not "evolutionary stable" in mathematical language.

Reminds me of a joke i read recently: why is the jew always afraid ? Because that's the only jew that remained... The Jews have tried to "give the other cheek" for two millenia, and it failed miserably. The lesson we learned at a pretty heavy price is that retaliation is necessary.

Israel was nice in the last six years. The Hezbollah tried to "itch", but Israel remained quiet. The last incident, in which two soldiers were abducted and eight killed, resulted in the war and destruction we're experiencing now. It was time for retaliation, and people felt it instinctively through generations of "strategy forming". That is why Israel reacted to the abduction of the soldiers. That is why there is a huge consensus in Israel for the war.

The Army Took

2006-08-09T11:52:00.000+03:00

This morning Ofer was called for reserved duty. He is stationed in the northern part of Israel, so it's safer than being in Lebanon, but hazardous enough to have us worried.

If he calls to share his sane perspectives, I'll do my best to transcribe them.

The good guys always win

2006-08-08T10:44:00.000+03:00

Former Israeli PM Ehud Barak once said that had he been a Palestinian he'd have become a militant - what we often call a terrorist. This brave comment exemplifies how the political left in Israel (myself included) reasons about Palestinian actions, and in particular acts of terrorism and the two Intifadahs: by trying to put ourselves in their shoes.

To some extent, this reasoning is the great divide between the political left and right in Israel. We think of Palestinians (and non Jews in general) as people just like us, who think like us, and react to circumstances as we might have in their shoes. As human beings, we are no better than them, they are no worse than us.

Following this line of reasoning, from observing the Palestinian actions, we draw conclusions regarding their circumstances. If human beings just like us are desperate enough to go to such extremes as some Palestinians do, how dire must be the conditions in which they live, to drive them so?

This morning I heard on the news that a German newspaper reports that some of the photos from Kfar Qana were staged. That the body of a young girl was pulled out of the rubble for a new crew to photograph, and then buried again, until the next crew came. Of course, I have no idea if this story is true or not. But supposing it is true, is it more or less horrible than using civilians as human shields? Is it more or less horrible to bomb buses, restaurants, and shopping malls?

So lately, I find myself wondering a little less about what kind of dire circumstances drive people to wage their war on the back of innocent civilians, and a little more the kind of people who are inclined to do so.

What crosses their mind? Surely if they think that firing their missiles from within villages gives them an advantage, then they must believe that Israel is reluctant to bomb these villages. How can they, in their mind, reconcile this? How can they, in their mind, be the "good guys"?

On Terrorism

2006-08-07T13:09:00.000+03:00

The word "terrorism" has been thrown back and forth quite a lot lately. Hizballah are terrorists, Hamas are terrorists, the IDF is the terrorist army, Bush is an international terrorist. In most cases, this word is misused.

The American Heritage dictionary defines:

Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I checked a few other dictionaries and encyclopedias and they all have pretty much the same definition. When I use the word "terrorism", I certainly don't have this definition in mind. When I think of terrorism, I picture exploding busses, a suicide bomber entering a restaurant or a shopping mall, a car bomb parked near a lively market. The formal definition certainly encompasses more than that. In my opinion, the dictionary definition is inaccurate.

First of all, what does "unlawful" use of force even mean ? If it means illegal, then by what law ? If it means immoral, then according to whose morals ? The one using force almost always feels that his actions are legal, justified and moral. Resorting to the failsafe concept of "ignore that which you do not understand", lets just decide to omit this word from the definition.

Moving on, we get to the part about "using force ... with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments". Most international use of force fits this definition perfectly. Modern use of military force, more than anything else, is intended to intimidate your enemy government into surrendering. In addition, by this definition, any country which holds strategic weapons of mass destruction is a terrorist country: you hold on to these weapons precisely to intimidate everyone else, and deter them from messing with you.

And finally, "... often for ideological or political reasons". Why else would anyone use force ? For the fun of it ?

The bottom line is that the dictionary definition of the word "terrorism" is vague and ambiguous, to say the least. In recent years, the term "you're a terrorist" has basically come to mean "I think you are very evil".

Israel has been calling its enemies "terrorists" for decades. The Arabs have only started using the word more recently. Therefore, I think its only fair to apply the basic rules of kindergarten and say to our rivals "its our word, we used it first, get your own word".

I honestly don't understand the lack of creativity on the other side. Is "terrorism" the only hurtful word they know ? What about "nefarious", "atrocious", "monstrous", "dreadful", "wicked", "knavish", "villainous" ? They can even say that we're ugly and that we have bad breath, but why use the single word that we have used for so many years to describe them ?

Maybe its like a symmetric pet-name that we have for each other, like: "honey", "darling", "sweetheart", "terrorist". Maybe they're just trying to say: "If we learn to share a word, maybe there's a chance of learning how to share the Middle East". Nah, they're just not very creative.

The Army Called

2006-08-06T11:52:00.000+03:00

Someone from the army called and told me that I am on standby, and that I should keep my mobile phone open and with me at all times. Like most Israeli men, I am a reservist in the IDF. Even if I'm called again, I know that I won't be going into Lebanon, and I'm thankful for that.

I play both roles in this cartoon.

The Third Compromise

2006-08-03T22:02:00.000+03:00

On May 26, 1967, tensions between Israel and the Arab world were at their peak. Gamal Abdel Nasser, president of Egypt, announced that "If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle will be a general one... and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel." Four days later he proclaimed: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... , while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world." Nasser and other Arab leaders truly believed they could eliminate Israel. A week later, the 1967 "Six Day War" began.

The First Compromise

The 1967 war was an utter and total military victory for Israel. The 1973 "Yom Kippur War" was a much less spectacular victory, but a victory nevertheless. The Arab nations began to realize that Israel could not be eliminated with military force. 4 years later, Egyptian president Sadat recognized the state of Israel by speaking in front of the Knesset, Israel's parliament. The next year, a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel was signed. In 1994, Jordan reaffirmed this realization by signing its own peace treaty with Israel. Since 1967, Israel has been recognized, in one way or another, by many Arab leaders.

Recognition of Israel was the first compromise made by the Arabs towards a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The Second Compromise

The military victory in 1967 put Israel in a state of Euphoria. Israel felt it was invincible. The 1973 war, the Lebanon War in 1982, the painful occupation of South Lebanon, and the Palestinian Intifada in 1987 all contributed to an Israeli change-of-heart. Israel realized that its military superiority was not enough to sustain quiet in the region, and that a significant compromise must be made on its part. Israeli moderates began to support a return to pre-1967 boarders, division of Jerusalem, and a recognition in a Palestinian state. The Madrid conference in 1991 and the Oslo conference in 1993 marked the beginning of a new era of compromise in Israel.

The second compromise is the Israeli compromise: the realization that the Palestinian problem will not go away by itself simply because we are stronger, and the willingness to pay a price for peace.

The Third Compromise

There is no third compromise yet, and I think its the Arabs' turn again. A significant change must occur in Arab public-opinion if there is to be permanent peace in the region.

First, the Arabs must unequivocally denounce terror as a means of achieving their goals. As long as busses keep exploding in Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv, and as long as the masses in Gaza keep cheering-on these explosions, we will never have peace. The bland and familiar "I condemn every form of violence", which we hear today from Arab leaders, is not enough.

Second, the Palestinians must revisit their naive and romantic perception of the so-called "Right of Return". Palestinian refugees who carry keys to their pre-1948 houses in their pockets need to wake up and face reality. The keyholes that used to fit these keys are long gone. All but a handful of Palestinian refugees must accept the reality that their "right of return" to homes inside Israel can never be granted. The demographic effects such a return would have on my country would endanger its very existence, and we will never agree to that. The refugees will be compensated with dignity and with respect, either with alternative homes in the West Bank and Gaza, or with cash. Lebanon, and other Arab countries who currently house Palestinian refugees, also need a reality check. 400,000 Palestinians currently living in Lebanon will not magically disappear one day. Many of those who were born in Lebanon and who have made a life for themselves in Lebanon will likely stay in Lebanon. Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are currently denied any chance of naturalization. I'm not saying that Lebanon should accept half a million foreigners, but it should certainly adopt a naturalization policy more like those of other modern countries, such as France or Germany.

Beyond this, I have only questions:

Will the third compromise ever come ? Will it be enough or is a forth step necessary ? What can Israel do to encourage the Arabs to adopt these key points ? More specifically, is Israel's current aggression postponing this progress, or is it speeding things up ? What does the future have in store for the Middle East ?

Nasrallah, Prepare to Meet Your Maker

2006-08-03T11:08:00.000+03:00

Lets face it, Israel doesn't know how to fight a guerrilla resistance which hides behind civilians. We don't train for it. We aren't equipped for it. We're simply very ineffective at it. We're clumsy and we make far too many mistakes. The IDF trains for real war (i.e. tank vs. tank, plane vs. plane) and for urban warefare against Hamas-style terrorists. Fighting Hizballah guerrillas requires completely different tactics which Israeli soldiers don't know.

But there is something that we are very good at. Its the clean, precision warfare that inspires hollywood filmmakers.

April 16, 1988: Khalil Al-Wazir (a.k.a Abu Jihad), second in command of the PLO, is shot at close range in his home in Tunis at 2am, along with his bodyguards. His wife and children, present during the operation, were not harmed. The shooters quietly disappear into the darkness of the night.

February 16, 1992: Israeli helicopters attack a motorcade on an open road in southern Lebanon, killing Abbas Musawi, secretary-general of Hizballah. The helicopters waited patiently for the motorcade to move out of a populated area before firing upon it. His wife and child are also killed in the attack.

October 26, 1995: Fathi Shkaki, secretary-general of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, is shot at close range in Malta by two men on a motorcycle. The two calmly drive away and are never seen again.

January 5, 1996: Yehia Ayash (a.k.a. "The Engineer"), head bomb-maker for the Hamas, receives a call on his mobile phone. As he answers, the phone explodes into his head, killing him on the spot.

Israel knows how to hunt down the heads of terror. The four examples given above were all very paranoid men, very discrete and well protected by multiple bodyguards. They are dead today simply because Israel is very very good at this.

Since I'm sure that some wise-ass will comment about the failed attempt at killing Khaled Mashal in Jordan, I'll reply to this preemptively. The Mashal operation was significantly more pretentious than anything before it: they wanted him to appear to die of natural causes. The important point being that, despite his bodyguards and his discrete schedule, the Mossad agents managed to step up to the guy, pierce a microscopic hole in his eardrum and spray a deadly biological agent into his middle-ear. While all of this was going on, all Mashal's bodyguards saw was a man brushing up against Mashal, like a pick-pocket. Apparently, this was enough for them to act and that's what foiled the plot. The mossad agents could have easliy shot Mashal and his guards at close range, if that's what Israel wanted to do. Under Jordanian and US pressure, Israel turned over the antidote a few days later.

Dear Nasrallah. You are indeed victorious now. The morale of your followers couldn't be higher. You are a gifted speaker and a charismatic leader. You are the living heartbeat of your organization. Everything that is Hizballah revolves around you, and precisely this will be your downfall. Because when Israel gets you, and we will, your death will bring down your entire militant organization. Prepare to meet your maker.

It boils down to this: can Israel, or can't it, defeat Hizbullah

2006-08-02T23:48:00.000+03:00

I have been thinking a lot about whether this war is justified.

There are many issues concerning morality here. Qana is an example - dozens of civilians where killed by an Israeli bomb. One can go into the details of whether or not there were Hizbullah attacking from the village, and how far were they from the bombed house, and whether or not Israel should have known about the civilians hiding in the basement. But at the end of the day, if you are going to fight a war against an organization that fights within civilian settlements, you will kill civilians. It is important that you try to minimize the civilian casualties, and it remains a question whether the IDF is putting enough effort into that. But at the bottom line, civilians will get hurt. And since having a rule saying that this should stop you from fighting against such an organization will give a huge advantage to hiding behind civilians, such a rule is not acceptable.

So, the fact that civilians will get hurt should be a reason against, but cannot be a deal breaker in the decision to launch the war.

Hizbullah is a threat to Israel, and to the rest of the region. It represents anti-democratic forces of fanaticism, xenophobia and hatred (in fact, the only such forces in the region that do not side with Hizbullah, to the best of my knowledge, are the Israeli extreme religious right). If it is brought down, then these forces will suffer a large blow, and a great threat to the citizens of Israel, and of the rest of the region, will have been removed. I find it difficult to write, but probably the horrible casualties of this war would, in such case, be justified. However, if Hizbullah cannot be defeated, if it can claim victory, then those dangerous forces will gain a huge boost of power.

I have recently read a quote in the comments to some Lebanese blog, and I regret that I cannot remember where. The quote said something like "Wars are only defendable if they can be won". This is a very important lesson - wars are so horrible, that they are only justified if their objects are just, AND achievable.

So it boils down to this - Israel's offensive against the Hizbullah is only justifiable if it can achieve its goal of defeating Hizbullah. I am not optimistic about this prospect, and sincerely hope I am wrong in my pessimism.

May a long, lasting, loving peace come upon this region in our times.

Peace and Love

2006-08-01T23:56:00.000+03:00

What does an average European or American picture in his mind when he talks about peace in the Middle East ? I'm not too sure, but I get the feeling that it involves lots of hugs and kisses, or at least warm handshakes. The west has a very romantic (dare I say juvenile) perception of peace. They lecture us about releasing hatred from our hearts. They can't get enough of the metaphor of little Israeli and Arab children playing together. These things have nothing to do with peace in the Middle East.

Peace and love are not the same thing. The confusion may stem from the fact that these two words were used almost synonymously by hippies in the 1960's. Mind you, back then these words were also synonymous with the words "sex" and "drugs". In the Middle East, in the year 2006, peace and love are two very distinct concepts that really have nothing to do with each other.

Actually, its lucky that this distinction exists. That's because I don't see myself feeling any love for Palestinians in the near future. I don't think the Lebanese feel much love for me right now. Heck, I can't even stand most Israelis. In the words of the poet: "What's love got to do, got to do with it".

Peace and hatred have no problem coexisting, given a mutual interest on both sides. Its all about convincing the two parties that they have more to gain from peace than they do from conflict. Its not about mutual understanding, its not about empathizing with each other, its not about liking each other, its not about being friends. We don't need trade agreements with the Arabs, we don't need Iranian tourists, we don't need a Lebanese cultural attache. All Israel wants is for the damn terrorists to leave us alone. All the Arabs want ... well, let them speak for themselves. We need to find a compromise that everyone can live with, and then continue to hate each other happily ever after. Peacefully.

Yeah, I'm a cynic. A war every 10 years and exploding busses does that to a person.

On War Crimes

2006-08-01T08:11:00.000+03:00

Several Arab countries, and a few of their European supporters, have accused Israel of committing war crimes during this conflict, and have promised to charge Israel in the international court in Hague. I am doubtful that this will happen, but I'd like to address the charges anyway.

An Israeli unmanned scout plane circling the skies of south Lebanon spots a Hizballah rocket launcher fixed on the back of a pickup truck. In a matter of seconds, rocket after rocket are fired at Israeli cities. An F-15 fighter jet is scrambled to the site, but by the time it gets there, the launcher is already out of site, in the garage of a civilian home. The scout plane saw precisely which building the rocket launcher backed-up into. Is this the home of the men who fired the rockets or is this someone else's home ? Is there anyone in the house besides the men who fired the rockets ? Are there children in the house ? If we hold our fire, these men will just return to fire more and more rockets. If we go ahead and attack the house, we may end up doing more damage than we intended. Meanwhile, the rockets that were fired begin to fall on Israeli cities. Israeli civilians are injured and killed.

Holding our fire every time is clearly not the right choice. Hizballah's men don't wait around with a bulls-eye painted on their forehead, they fire and run into civilian homes for cover. That's their tactic. If the IDF were to play it safe every single time, not a single Hizballah soldier would be hit, and a shower of rockets would continue to fall on Israel's cities. We certainly have the right to target those who attack us.

Shooting back every time is also the wrong answer. If the scout plane spots civilians in the house, we should hold our fire. If the building is a hospital, we should hold our fire. If there are known concentrations of civilians in the vicinity of the house, we should hold our fire. The only way to go about this difficult decision is on a per-case basis. If we do decide to shoot, we can only pray that the occupants of this house have already fled to the north.

The international law which defines war crimes is very ambiguous and open to interpretation. Just like domestic law, the international law only specifies a set of ground rules, but does not explicitly deal with the infinite complexity of real life situations. Applying the law to the unique circumstances of each individual case is the job of a judge. But who is to judge Israel's actions? A judge from Belgium? from the Netherlands? An outsider to the Middle East, who has no way of understanding the impossible position Israel is in? A European who comes from a country where the public opinion is entirely pro-Arab? It is impossible for Israel to receive a fair trial in an international court. I want my judge to be Lebanese. Any reasonable, honest and fair Lebanese judge will do.

I will look my Lebanese judge in the eye and ask him: If you were in our shoes; If you were entrusted with the security of Israel's cities; If you knew that a million Israelis, packed in their bomb shelters, were looking to you for protection; If you were the one facing a cowardly enemy who uses babies as human shields; If you had to make the decision on whether to shoot or not, can you honestly tell me that you would be able to do your job effectively while inflicting less collateral damage than we have ?

The officers and soldiers of the IDF are faced with the difficult job of balancing the scales. On one hand, effectively fighting Hizballah and protecting Israel from rocket attacks, on the other hand, the innocent Lebanese civilians. I don't think that anyone else could have done a better job. Its a terrible terrible thing that innocent Lebanese children have died, but war crimes - I don't think so.

The Jewish Role Model: Hillel the Elder

2006-07-31T17:45:00.000+03:00

One of the most influential and important Jewish leaders in history is Hillel the Elder, who lived in the time of King Herod, before the births of Jesus or Mohamed. Hillel considered brotherly love as the fundamental principle of the Jewish moral law. When asked to summarize the Jewish faith, Hillel replied: "What is hateful to you, do not do onto your fellow man: this is the entire law. The rest is mere commentary". Hillel spent his life promoting peace, understanding and compromise. The love of peace is embedded deep within our Jewish DNA.

Is there a single Arab leader who went down in history for his love of peace ?

Numbers

2006-07-31T17:22:00.000+03:00

Israelis like to think of their country as morally superior to the Hezbollah. The most obvious reason is that formally, the Israeli army does not aim to strike civilians. The Israeli prime minister instructs the army not to hurt civilians, the chief of staff repeats that order, and any soldier/commander will repeat this in any interview. The civilian casualties are all "collateral damage".
The Hezbollah however has no such pretence. Its goal is to kill as many babies, women and old people as possible (with the exception that these need to be jewish or possibly druze).
Why then is the international public opinion concerned mostly about Israel's actions? I've heard many reasons, by far the most common is mathematical:
There are far more civilian casualties on the Lebanese side. The argument proceeds by saying that intentions have no meaning if the outcome is the same, or even worse with the "noble" Israeli intentions.

I'd like to point out a fallacy of that argument given by former israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu (by far not my favorite politician). In world war II, Nazi Germany had lost approximately seven million people. That's more than any other nation except for Russia (but including the Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals murdered in the death camps).

The Red Fields

2006-07-31T13:22:00.000+03:00

From within the the factories, from within the offices
From between our women's legs, from amongst our children
The siren will take us,
To the red fields

Every war has a womb, we are born
Every fear has life, we hadn't known before
Diverted (pervert) men we were, fathers and husbands
We have become hunters in the red fields

How years have gone by,
The tribe is returning
To the red fields

---------------------------------------------------
Words: Hilel Mitelpunkt
This is a song from an Israeli rock opera called "Mami" staged in Tel Aviv in 1986, after the first Israeli war in Lebanon. It tells the story of a wife (Mami her name) to an Israeli soldier from a poor town who is injured in war and goes into a coma. After being abused and raped herself she becomes a fascist who leads Israel to another deadly war. It was a popular show amongst young people and in a way it predicted the breaking of the first Intifadah a year later.

Thoughts on Qana

2006-07-30T15:23:00.000+03:00

What happened in Qana is a terrible terrible tragedy. I am devastated by the images.

Many Arabs accuse us of being heartless. My life would be much easier if I were.

No one meant for this to happen.

The Bear

2006-07-30T00:18:00.000+03:00

A man was walking in a forest and came across a sleeping bear. The bear was laying on its back with its feet in the air and its head tilted backwards. The bear looked cute and clumsy and harmless, so the man took a feather and started tickling the bear's nose. The bear awoke and tore the man's arms out of their sockets. So the man, bleeding heavily and in agonizing pain, asked the bear "Why did you rip my arms out?". The bear replied "Well, because I'm a bear".

I have a question for my neighbors to the north: You knew that Israel is a bear. You saw how we handled the Palestinians when they abducted our soldier. You saw how quickly we violated Syrian airspace and flew over Assad's palace. You knew that in '67 and in '73 we didn't fight-off 4 different armies, attacking us simultaniously, by being gentle. You knew that we bombed the Iraqi reactor. You've heard what our generals have to say about civilian casualties in Palestine. You knew perfectly well that Israel is a bear. For one minute put aside the question of why we are this way and answer me this: Why, in gods name, did you let Nasrallah tickle our nose ?

Winning and Losing

2006-07-29T19:49:00.000+03:00

In 2000 we lost to Hizbullah for the first time, and we payed a dear price for this loss. I don't think it was a mistake to withdraw in 2000, I think it was a mistake to be there in the first place. It was a mistake to have put ourselves in a situation where we had not option but to lose. The loss in 2000 motivated and inspired the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, and lead to countless terrorist attacks inside our boarders.

For this reason, Israel cannot afford to lose the current war in Lebanon. If Hizbullah gains another victory, we're in for some real trouble on the Palestinian front. It was probably a mistake to start a land-war on Lebanese soil, but now that we're there, we cannot retreat with our tail between our legs. We have no option but to win this thing. Its really not a question of pride, its about looking ahead and understanding the severe consequences of losing.

For the same reasons, Israel cannot agree to give Nasrallah everything he is demanding. This would also be conceived as a victory for Nasrallah, and a loss for Israel.

A question of motivation

2006-07-29T07:17:00.000+03:00

Most military experts agree that the Hezbollah is an extremely professional guerrilla/terror organization. One cannot but admire the effectiveness of their operations versus what is considered by many the best military in the middle east. Sure, the Hezbollah uses guerrilla tactics and has no moral inhibitions (by which i mean using Lebanese civilians as human shields, hiding command centers inside hospitals and schools etc.). But still, the Hezbollah seems to be functioning well and almost unharmed after more than two weeks of bombardment. Is seems Nassralla has complete control from his hiding place, promising a new "surprise" to the Israelis and delivering almost instantly.

It is clear that the Hezbollah fighters are extremely motivated and well trained. And I wonder: where is this motivation coming from ? What gives them the strength and will to carry through after more than six years that Israel is no longer a player in the Lebanese arena ? Why didn't we see such devotion versus the Syrians or during the internal Lebanese wars?

After the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon I predicted a sharp decline in motivation from the Hezbollah to fight Israel. My mistake is very apparent. Most Israelis agree that the Hezbollah is the most organized, well trained and motivated enemy we ever faced. While you'd expect such motivation from a people fighting for independence, say the Palestinians, the Hezbollah is a mystery.

Robot generals

2006-07-28T17:50:00.000+03:00

Being official contributers to this blog, we might as well take the prerogative to respond to each other in posts rather than the comments page.

So - to Ofer's "Cold-Hearted Halutz":

Ofer prefers a compassionate leader and an indifferent general. I prefer compassionate, moral leaders, generals and soldiers. True - except for extreme circumstances, soldiers, including generals, should obey orders. But an army of robots is a very dangerous thing (I am horrified by prospects suggested by the DARPA Grand Challenge, even though I find the technology used there beautiful). Armies encompass huge amounts of power. And with great power come great opportunities for abuse. For everyone. It is imperative that at every level in the chain of command, every person will have the moral strength to refuse to perform war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

The Israeli legal system is very progressive about this. There is a standing court ruling, given in the context of the Kfar Qasim massacre, that obliges every security personnel to NOT obey orders that are manifestly illegal. The ruling does not state what is a 'manifestly illegal' order. It states that "The distinguishing mark of a manifestly illegal order is that above such an order should fly, like a black flag, a warning saying: 'Prohibited!'." It will take a lot of improvement in AI for robots to be able to recognize and disobey such orders.

This progressive court ruling is far from being implemented. The battle fog, the social pressure from comrades-in-arms and the discipline embedded during training make it very difficult to identify the black flag in real time, and even harder to do the right thing and disobey the order.

As for Halutz - if a person does not feel a thing when dropping a 1 ton bomb on a civilian building, they stand no chance of seeing any black flag. I might be demanding too much, but I want soldiers that ache when they hurt civilians, even if this is a necessity, because soldiers that do not ache will not have trouble hurting civilians when it is not necessary and thus manifestly illegal.

I'll quote a song by Bertolt Brecht (even though every person that has ever thought about such things probably knows it):

GENERAL, YOUR TANK IS A POWERFUL VEHICLE
It smashes down forests and crushes a hundred men.
But it has one defect:
It needs a driver.

General, your bomber is powerful.
It flies faster than a storm and carries more than an elephant.
But it has one defect:
It needs a mechanic.

General, man is very useful.
He can fly and he can kill.
But he has one defect:
He can think.

I wish it was enough that men can think. Most of them seem to prefer not to, especially as soldiers in war.

May peace arrive soon.

Cold-Hearted Halutz

2006-07-28T13:48:00.000+03:00

In response to Elon's post on avoiding the draft, Ran wrote the following comment, which I think deserves its own post:

"Halutz, Israel's Chief of Staff, said once: If you nevertheless want to know what I feel when I release a bomb, I will tell you: I feel a light bump to the plane as a result of the bomb's release. A second later it's gone, and that's all. That is what I feel."

I personally don't find this comment as distressing as Ran does. Halutz and the rest of the IDF generals are "war technicians", carrying out the orders of our leaders. Olmert and the government ultimately make all of the decisions. Halutz may advise, but he doesn't get to make any of the strategic decisions. Therefore, its actually good to have a robot like him doing his job. I would be much more worried if he answered "When I release a bomb, I feel very happy that I am killing Arabs" or "When I release a bomb, I feel so guilty that I want to kill myself". I would also be very troubled if Olmert said that all he feels is a bump. I expect our leaders to be compassionate, and our generals to be indifferent.

Consider the hypothetic scenario where the government instructs Halutz to attack a Hizbullah base, and he refuses because its against his beliefs. Who is he to make such a choice for the entire country ? On the other hand, consider the scenario where the government instructs the army to stop attacking, but the army keeps on going despite (this actually happened to us 25 years ago with PM Menachem Begin and General Ariel Sharon, and look at the trouble it got us into).

No Words

2006-07-28T13:03:00.000+03:00

I was really taken by this photograph. Two Lebanese men watching Nasrallah on TV, on their porch. In the background Beirut burning. I wonder what they're thinking.

To draft or to refuse?

2006-07-28T02:33:00.000+03:00

If get drafted, will I refuse to go?

As most Israelies I have served in the Israeli army, and am still on reserve duty. Five years ago I have told my commanders that I refuse to serve in the West Bank and Gaza. Luckily for me, my refusal did not end in jail time. My reasons were moral - amongst them was my belief that the Israeli occupation of those lands is long past a legitimate military occupation for the purpose of defense, and that long term ruling over a population of 3-4 million Palestinians without political rights places Israel somewhere on the border between a democracy and an apparatheid state.

Now I am facing a dilema of what to do should I be called to serve in Lebanon. The war in Lebanon is a humanitarian disaster. In all likelyhood it will also turn out to be a political disaster for Israel. Nevertheless, Hizbullah, which is part of the Lebanease government, has attacked Israel without provocation, and Israel has a right to respond. Despite some 500 civilian Lebanease casualties, I have not yet seen compelling evidence that Israel is targeting civilians, or performing any other crime of war (as opposed to accidentally killing civilians while trying to target military targets).

So, despite my total mistrust of the Israeli civilian and military leadership, and my great concerns that they are making grave mistakes in running the war and setting its goals, despite my grief over the dead on both sides, for the moment, I believe that if I get called I will go. Why? Because I value the rule of law enough to only disobey an order (in my position as a soldier) when I am certain it is immoral and illegal.

But then, this is what I think now. As I learn more about the situation, I might change my mind. There's a good chance that if I do get drafted, I will learn enough about what is going on to do just that.

May peace come on all of us ASAP.

A Linguistic Question

2006-07-27T21:29:00.000+03:00

Is there a one-word English synonym for "members of Hizbullah" ? Maybe Hizbullans ? Hizbullites ? Writing the explicit 3-word version over and over again is getting tiring. Any ideas will be appreciated.

The limits of power

2006-07-27T15:26:00.000+03:00

We are deep in shit.

When this whole sorry business started, I was giving the Israeli government the benefit of the doubt. I did not know what I would have done in their place. The only thing I knew is that we must be very careful not to find ourselves in a land war in Lebanon. And I thought they understand that too.

Then, with every day, it turned out that they simply have not learned the basic historic lesson regarding the limits of power. Israel cannot destroy the Hizbullah. I wish it could, but it can't. Not by military means. Not alone. It cannot destroy all the rockets from the air - there too many of them, we don't know where they are and most are probably hidden underground safe from bombings. So, since they cannot destroy it from the air, they are now opting for ground forces. But we've been there before. Hizbullah has no chance stopping Israel from conquering any part of Lebanon it chooses. But it can effectively wage a guerilla war that will make us bleed until we decide to withdraw. The only question is whether this will take us two decades as it did last time.

This is all a result of the stupid, arrogant definition of the goals of the war. There were three realistic goals achievable via military operation right after the first Hizbullah attacks: physically reducing Hizbullah's military power, disproving Nasserallah's "spider web" theory about the strengths of Israel, and signaling the rest of the Lebanese population and political forces that they are expected to restrain Hizbullah to the best of their power. The first two goals would have been achieved by a massive, short, bombardment of whatever Hizbullah military targets the Israeli air force has had intel about. The third goal would have been achieved by a symbolic bombardment of, say, the Beirut airport.

But the generals of the Israeli military seem to not understand this. And the politicians are just accepting whatever the generals suggest. So they have set an unrealistic goal to the war - to destroy Hizbullah. And the asymmetry of the situation is not only in the massive difference in powers, it is also in what would be considered a victory - Hizbullah only has to survive with some military capability in order to claim victory. Which means that Israel is going to loose this war.

Now, I don't care about winning or losing. I just think that if Hizbullah is perceived as a winner, it will gain power, which is far from the interests of both the Israeli public and the Lebanese public.

Perhaps, somehow diplomacy can minimize damages to both Israel and Lebanon. Perhaps an effective international force could be deployed in southern Lebanon, and perhaps this could restrain Hizbullah and provide Israel with some years of quite and Lebanon with a chance to resurrect itself, again.

May peace come quickly.

Responsibility of the Innocent

2006-07-27T09:23:00.000+03:00

The Jewish settlers in Hebron constantly harass and torment their Palestinian neighbors. They teach their children to hate and provoke both the Palestinians and Israel's security forces. Their rude and disrespectful conduct is more than just annoying, given the right circumstances their provocations could easily lead to the outbreak of a new Intifada, or worse. It shames me that such people share my nationality.

Aside from voting for a political party which opposes them, I have done nothing to stop these people. I don't organize petitions, I don't go to rallies, I don't go to Hebron to confront them personally. I have better things to do with my time (and honestly, I'm also a bit scared of them). Although I disapprove of their actions, I am still personally responsible for the crimes they commit. Every Israeli shares in the responsibility for these radicals. Democracy gives me the tools to deal with them and I choose to do nothing. If the actions of these radicals leads us into a new war, I will have only myself to blame.

The moderates in Lebanon, those who are currently paying the price, were in a similar position. They knew exactly what Hizbullah was up to, but they were too busy going about their day-to-day lives to do anything about it. They had other, more urgent, issues on their minds, such as ridding their country of the Syrian presence and getting their economy back on track. This does not excuse them of doing nothing. Being moderates does not clean their hands of the responsibility for the actions of their radical brothers. The Lebanese moderates are just as accountable for Hizbullah's actions as I am for the actions of the Hebron settlers. The Lebanese moderates are innocent civilians in a very limited sense of the word. I'm not saying that the Lebanese deserve what they're currently getting. I'm saying: stop acting like victims, stop blaming everyone else, take responsibility and take back your country.

Existence

2006-07-26T23:21:00.000+03:00

There is something dishonest about the discourse on this current war in Israel-Lebanon. Especially on the side of those protesting against Israel's actions (which I too believe are disproportionate). And especially in the Arab world. It is dishonest because I feel (or know in some cases) many of the protestors don't even fully accept Israel's right to exist even inside the green line (giving up the occupied lands).
Listen to Iran's president
Listen to Nasrallah
Listen to the Hamas leaders
They do not accept Israel's right to exist at all. Even if deep inside they know Israel is here to stay and only use the incitement for internal political reasons.
This is what causes the deep Israeli mistrust of its arab neighbours. This is what cuases Israelis to think that we must hit back hard every time we are attacked in order to deterr our enemies. This is what causes Israelis to be very cautious about giving back the entire Palesitinian land (which could be used as a base for attacks, as Gaza is these days). This is what causes Israelis to be happy we have nuclear weapons.
But there are today other voices in the Arab world: Egypt, Jordan, Mahmoud Abas, Siniora, the Saudis. If these voices will have some more weight to them than public opinion in Israel, and thus the government policy, will change. It is already changing. But don't expect us to sit quietly when those who openly call for our destruction attack us.

Justifying Israel's Policy in Lebanon

2006-07-26T17:51:00.000+03:00

Over the past few days, I've been reading several Lebanese blogs. Some of the posts are very insightful and well written. I added some links from this site to the blogs I found most eye-opening. I recommend them to every Israeli, especially the ones convinced we are doing everything right.

Most of these blogs deal with the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon, which is, without a doubt, terrible. Moreover, I think it could have been avoided. Some of the posts in these Lebanese blogs go so far as to question the humanity and morals of Israelis. "What kind of people could do such a thing ? Don't they have children of their own ?" Even though I am not a great supporter of our current government or of this war, I am an Israeli patriot and I feel compelled to answer in the name of my country. So here goes:

We like to think of ourselves as compassionate people, and we hold ourselves to a high moral standard. We also like to think of ourselves as a peace loving people, with the dream of living in harmony with our neighbors. You will not find Israelis dancing in the streets, handing out sweets, celebrating the deaths of Lebanese civilians. The tragedy in Lebanon is a terrible one, and we are fully aware of our responsibility for it. But, our government is faced with an almost impossible choice: either
stop our attacks and allow Hizbullah to continue terrorizing us, or continue fighting Hizbullah at the expense of more innocent Lebanese casualties. Its a very difficult choice to make, both alternatives are bad, and the only thing to do is to choose the lesser of the two evils. The government of Israel is forced to choose the alternative which favors Israelis over Lebanese. Any government in the world would favor its own people if faced with this choice. There is no racism at play here, Lebanese lives are as sacred as our own. But at the end of the day, every government has to do what's best for its own people, even if it is at the expense of someone else who has done us no harm. Believe me, most Israelis do not take any joy in the suffering of the Lebanese. I think that the Israeli government made some bad choices over the past two weeks, but overall, Israel really doesn't have much of a choice.

Nasrallah had a Farm

2006-07-25T14:52:00.000+03:00

So what is Hizbullah all about ? Hizbullah claims to be a patriotic Lebanese resistance movement with the goal of freeing Lebanon from foreign occupation and freeing Lebanese prisoners held by Israel. As such, it is widely excepted and respected in Lebanon and in the entire Arab world.

Syria occupied Lebanon for 29 years, with a military force of 14,000 soldiers. Syria openly claims, to this day, that Lebanon is part of the historic Greater Syria, and rejects Lebanese sovereignty. Moreover, the two countries do not have formal diplomatic relations, and have only recently begun talks on marking a clear boarder between them. However, the "freedom fighters" of Hizbullah have never opposed Syria's presence in Lebanon. On the contrary: In March 2005, during the peak of the Lebanese Cedar Revolution, Hizbullah organized a massive pro-Syrian rally in Riad Al Solh square in Beirut. Quite obviously, Hizbullah couldn't care less about Lebanese sovereignty.

Last week, a Hizbullah rocket killed two Israeli children in the city of Nazareth. The two children were Arab. Nasrallah publicly apologized for this "mistake" and proclaimed the two children Shahids (martyrs). The father of these children has as much say in the policies of this country as I do: we each get one vote in the election and the freedom to express our discontent with the government. Its likely that this man from Nazareth voted for one of the Arab parties, which currently oppose the government, but I too voted for a party which opposes the current government. Both he and I pay the taxes which fund the planes, tanks and war ships that are currently attacking Lebanon. Nevertheless, Hizbullah isn't targeting the Arab residents of Nazareth, its targeting me. Nasrallah's war is a religious war against the Jews, and has nothing to do with the countries of Lebanon or Israel.

The main reason Hizbullah does not willingly disarm is their claim that Israel still occupies Lebanese land in the disputed Sheba Farms. The Sheba Farms are a 2-3km wide strip of land at the northern tip of the Golan Heights, which the UN has certified as being Syrian land. The UN reached this conclusion in 2000, after examining numerous different maps of the region, all of which clearly marked the Sheba farms as part of Syria. Some of these maps were actually issued by the Lebanese Ministry of Defense and army. The only map the UN could find which marks the Sheba Farms as being part of Lebanon was later discovered to be a forgery fabricated by Lebanon. The whole issue of the Sheba Farms first came up in 2000, after Israel had completed its withdrawal from South Lebanon (how convenient...). A wonderful summary on the topic can be found in Wikipedia. The bottom line is that Lebanon's claim to the Sheba Farms is a lie and an excuse to continue aggression towards Israel. In due time, Israel will probably return the Sheba Farms, along with the rest of the Golan, to Syria.

The only remaining justification given by Hizbullah for its aggression is the issue of the Lebanese prisoners in Israel. Guess how many prisoners we're talking about .... three. One of them is the child-killer Samir Kuntar. The other two: terrorists with blood on their hands, caught in the act.

Hizbullah currently holds an arsenal of 10,000 short and medium range missiles. Its annual budget, funded by Iran, is estimated at 100 million dollars.

No Peace with Lebanon

2006-07-23T17:08:00.000+03:00

At first glance, peace between Lebanon and Israel seems to be well within our reach. Like us, the Lebanese are cultured, literate and democratic. Their society is a fragile mix of different sects and religions, so they have first-hand experience with tolerance and co-existence. Prime minister Siniora seems to be a reasonable, intelligent man. Most importantly, Lebanon is far too weak to share Iran and Syria's point-of-view regarding Israel. If you think about it, Lebanon is a very natural partner for peace, even more than Egypt or Jordan.

Nevertheless, Israel does not have a peace treaty with Lebanon, and probably won't for many years to come. As I see it, there are two main obstacles which stand in the way of peace with Lebanon: a small obstacle and a big obstacle. The small obstacle is Syria's control over Lebanon. Despite the recent withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon, Syria's influence on internal Lebanese politics remains strong. If anything, our present offensive in Lebanon is strengthening Syria's influence. Lebanon won't engage in peace talks with Israel as long as it doesn't suit the Syrians. The reason I call this a small obstacle is that we know how to overcome it: peace talks with Lebanon should be conducted in parallel with peace talks with Syria.

A much bigger obstacle involves the 400,000 Palestinians currently living in refugee camps in Lebanon. Most Arab countries want Israel to settle its business with the Palestinians purely out of solidarity with the Palestinians. Lebanon, on the other hand, has its own personal agenda regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Lebanese desperately want every last Palestinian refugee out of their country. The Lebanese government and the majority of the Lebanese people reject any permanent integration of the Palestinian refugees, using the pretext that granting citizenship to the Palestinians, who are mostly Sunni Muslims, would upset the delicate sectarian balance in Lebanon. Moreover, the Lebanon still holds a grudge against the Palestinians for their role in starting the civil war. The refugees in Lebanon have no political, social or civil rights, and are discriminated against in almost every sense of the word.

The Lebanese are putting their faith in the infamous "Palestinian Right of Return", the demand made by refugee Palestinians to return to their pre-1948 homes, inside the Israeli green line. However, the consensus is Israel is that the right of return is an unrealistic demand can never be granted. The right of return only sounds reasonable when spoken in Arabic. Israelis see it as a very real existential threat. The only hope is that the Palestinians will agree to "return" to new homes within the Palestinian territories. Whether this is likely to happen or not, I do not know.

Anyway, almost every other Arab-Israeli issue must be addressed before peace with Lebanon can be discussed. So there you have it: no peace with Lebanon.

The Arabs want to throw us to the sea

2006-07-23T14:47:00.000+03:00

Every Israeli kid is brought up learning that the Arabs want to "throw us to the sea". He/She is given a lot of examples from history and from ongoing events. As much as you can argue as to the root causes, these events are mostly indisputable:

The Arabs didn't accept the 1947 UN suggestion to split Palestine into 2 states (Jewish and Arab) and hence the 1948 war broke out.
The Palestinians use terrorism against civilians.
The Palestinians are willing to work in steps: first getting sovereignty over some part of Palestine only to later on keep fighting until all the Israeli land is made Arab (1974 PLO decision).
The Palestinians insist on the refugees literal right of return to Israel. This demand means, in the current political structure of Israel, the ceasing of the existence of state of Israel, because an Arab majority would be formed.
All the wars between Israel and it's Arabs neighbors broke out because Israel was under threat to its very existence (especially the 1974 war).
The Arab people really hate our guts. For example when 2 poor Israeli reservists took a wrong turn inside the occupied territories on their way to vacation from service they were lynched brutally by a Palestinian mob (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/969778.stm).
When Saddam Hussein shot Scad missiles on Tel Aviv and Haifa during the first gulf war (without any Israeli threat on Iraq) the Palestinians danced on the roofs.
Days after Israel withdrew fully from the Gaza strip last year the Palestinian organizations resumed rocket launching (from Gaza) with even greater intensity and range.

On the other hand the Israeli kids are taught that Israel is peace loving. Again, very hard to dispute the arguments that are given. For example:

We gave up all the land occupied from Egypt in 1967 (including the evacuation of the settlements in Sinai) in order to sign a peace agreement. This is a proof we like peace more than we like land.
We withdrew from the so-called "security strip" around the Israeli-Lebanese border 6 years ago.
We gave up Gaza and the settlements there. This time not in exchange to peace, because there was no eager partner. We did that although there was large protest by the Israeli political right wing.
We gave up 2 settlements deep in the West Bank last year (evacuated the settlers) and Olmert declared we are going to evacuate many more.
Actually most of the West Bank is now controlled by the Palestinians which shows that the remaining occupation is for security reasons and in order to protect the existing settlements (most of which are not deep inside the territories)

I am not saying that all this justifies the ongoing remains of occupation, or the attacks on Lebanon's infrastructure these last days. But I believe this sheds some light on the thinking of the people and leadership of Israel, and colors it with at least some rational thinking of people that feel threatened on the one hand but looking for peace on the other.

An Israeli Dream

2006-07-23T12:25:00.000+03:00

I have a dream Today
I have a dream that young Israelis would drive to Beirut not mounted on fighter planes but rather in their dad's old car, just for a vacation
I have dream that young Palestinian girls would post on their room walls not posters of Shahids, but posters of popular singers
I have a dream that heads of state would be brave enough to lead and do what is right and just and not follow the mobs calling for holy wars
I have a dream that people of all religion in the middle east would understand each other's right to exist
I have a dream that hope will be given to every man and woman so they may not act out of deep despair
I have a dream that people will be brave enough to look into their (and their governments) own doings with a free mind and a genuine desire to bring peace to our lands (instead of futile anger)
I have a dream that the Palestinian People will achieve real and full independence in the occupied territories but will also learn to accept Israel's right to exist peacefully side by side
I have a dream that Israelis will feel safe enough and accepted by their Arab neighbors to call their government to abandon nuclear weapons.
I'll conclude paraphrasing Martin Luther King's words (I have just changed the place names)
"Go back to Beirut, go back to Gaza, go back to Tel Aviv, go back to Jerusalem, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream."

Nasrallah the Hypnotist

2006-07-23T00:49:00.000+03:00

Today I came across a three year old article in the Washington post by Smadar Haran, wife of Danny and mother of 4-year-old Einat, who died at the hands of Samir Kuntar in 1979. Samir Kuntar is a Lebanese citizen and a terrorist who is currently sitting behind bars in an Israeli prison. 10 days ago, Nasrallah specifically mentioned Kuntar as one of the Lebanese prisoners he would like in exchange for the two abducted Israeli soldiers.

The current consensus in the Arab world is that Nasrallah's methods may be extreme, but his intentions are good. Most moderate Arabs, especially Lebanese citizens, believe that the Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails are patriotic and heroic freedom fighters which should be released as soon as possible. Samir Kuntar shot Danny Haran in front of his daughter and then smashed her little scull with the butt of his rifle. He did this in retaliation to the signing of the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. He was not fighting for anyone's freedom. He is anything but a hero.

If an Israeli citizen were to commit these murders, he would spend the rest of his life in prison. If an American citizen, a French citizen or a Chinese citizen were to commit these acts on Israeli soil, he would spend the rest of his life in an Israeli prison. Kuntar did not deny the allegations against him, and was sentenced by an Israeli court to life in prison. There is no rational argument in favor if releasing this cold-blooded killer. Nevertheless, the consensus in the moderate Arab world is that Kuntar must be released if there is ever to be peace in the region.

Of course, this is not all Nasrallah's doing, but he has certainly played his part. Using his phenomenal charisma, Nasrallah has sugar-coated his fanatical ideology. Legitimizing Kuntar is just one example. Nasrallah has somehow convinced the Arab world that his radical agenda is reasonable. He is truly a hypnotist.

Bridges and Milk Factories

2006-07-23T00:40:00.000+03:00

I honestly don't understand our current military strategy in Lebanon. The declared agenda is to disarm Hizbollah's militia and to retrieve our two captured solders. I think both are very worthy causes. However, I don't see how destroying Lebanon's infrastructure helps us achieve these goals, or serves any of our other long-term interests.

Hizbollah has a dangerous split-personality disorder. On one hand, they are a radical militant organization with the dream of erasing Israel from the map. On the other hand, they build and fund hospitals, schools, and mosques in the forsaken south Lebanon. By destroying Lebanon's infrastructure, we are setting the scene for Hizbollah's come-back. Even if we temporarily disarm them, especially of we temporarily disarm them, they will single-handedly rebuild Lebanon and win the hearts of the Lebanese public. Our current actions in Lebanon will be the fuel of Hizbollah's rise to power. What are we doing ?

Hamas too has this split-personality disorder. Today, in the Palestinian territories, Hamas is synonymous with welfare, dignity and honesty. We brought the democratic rise of Hamas on ourselves, and we are making the same mistake in Lebanon.