Archive for politics
July 31, 2006 at · Filed under middle east, politics
gorillasushi sent me a link to a site that tries to illustrate the difference in casualties between israel and lebanon. i assume moiz syed was trying to show the imbalance between the losts (btw, i didn't check into the accuracy of the numbers, but it looks about right - taken from the BBC).
i think it is nor surprising that there is such a discrepancy. this is not a conflict between equals. israel has much more fire power and capability to inflict damage. in that sense the israeli response is indeed using "restraint" as requested by the US (i guess restraint is a relative term..)
i think the following point should be made over and over again. it is important to make the distinction between the target of the attacks. while the hezbollah is aiming its rockets at civilian population, with the intent to cause civilian deaths, israel is directing its power at military targets and infrastructure (which israel stopped doing, and i thought was a mistake), and is trying to avoid collateral damage (as the Qana incident shows israel has nothing to gain and all to lose from civilian casualties).
i think israel will be willing to live with the PR disadvantage of less casualties, vs the alternative..
July 30, 2006 at · Filed under middle east, politics
israeli kids writing messages on artillery shells about to be launched at lebanon.
lebanse kid dressed up in hezbollah uniform looking to grow up and become a martyr.
does not look like a promising future.
July 30, 2006 at · Filed under middle east, politics
on the 19th day of the conflict an israeli air strike on the village of Qana killed 54 60 people, among them 37 children. in 1996 an israeli bombing killed 100 civilians in Qana, which caused israel to stop its "Grapes of Wrath " operation against the hezbollah.
in israel's defense:
- israel has warned Qana residents days ago to leave the village
- hezbollah is firing rockets at israel from within the village
- while it is not clear that this is true in this case, israel usually targets a specific building when there is hezbollah militants in the building
but. and there is a big but. there are 37 dead children.
this is not an easy moral debate. in a war when an enemy is using civilian population as a shield, the other army can either engage in face-2-face, door-2-door infantry battles, or can bomb from a distance, avoiding casualties but causing collateral damage. the immorality of one side (firing and hiding among civilian population) generates immoral results by the action of the other side (killing of civilians).
i believe that israel is doing a justifiable thing when it is bombing a building where there is clear hezollah activity. the hezbollah cowardliness is as much (or even more) to blame. this is on the macro, strategic level. but in a day when israel kills 37 children, every israeli should feel blame. every israeli should seriously question whether israel is doing the right thing, are the generals going to far? maybe much of this is about pride? what is the long term solution, and do the current actions bring israel any closer to this solution?
i think this a good day to stop shooting. maybe the two sides will understand they let this madness go to far.
July 29, 2006 at · Filed under middle east, politics
in the past couple of weeks i have been getting several chain-emails with israeli propaganda.
below are the two most common pictures being sent around. plus there is a video of an arab american lady being interviewed in al jazeera (watch on youtube).
beside the fact that i think israelis should be able to produce a propaganda in better quality, i think that is an indication of the mood in israel. it seems like the big parts of the israeli public went back to the rhetoric of 20 years ago (before the first intifada), when israel lost its moral compass (or maybe it never had one), and everything was painted in black and white, good vs. evil. arabs are ruthless savages and israel is just an innocent small country trying to defend its meager land.
i hope that the current conflict and public despair will not erase all that was learned in recent years in terms of empathy to the other side, the realization that israel is not a saint, that the arabs are not monsters, and that diplomacy, peace negotiations and reconciliation is the only way to bring an end to the conflict.
July 27, 2006 at · Filed under middle east, politics
i think israel should make a strategic decision with regard to the future of the current conflict.
in my opinion there are two options:
- Cease Fire together with International involvement
- Significantly escalating the military operation
the current status of air campaign together with a small ground force going from village to village is not effective.
i personally think that the path should be a Cease Fire. the Lebanese government and Hezbollah did not expect this type of reaction from Israel. they now understand that there is a heavy price to pay for these types of provocations. the International community should step in with peace keeping forces working together with the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon, and with the clear goal of disarming Hezbollah. at the same time the G8 should drive pressure on Syria and Iran to stop their support of Hezbollah.
there is a good chance this will diplomatic effort will not work. and Israel will have to enter into a military conflict sooner or later (in the meantime it will have to make it clear that efforts to arm the Hezbollah by Syria and Iran will not be tolerated). but i believe it is worth giving it a chance.
the other option of escalating the military operation means recruiting the reserves, a long battle, casualties, the inevitable loss of civilian life, economic impact, etc. and the ever true reality that it is much easier to start a war than to end it, with many surprises in the middle.
so if there is a chance to avoid all the mess why not give it a try?
one of the answers may be that people like wars. men mostly. it is an adrenaline rush. it is exciting. a sense of purpose. soldiers in their eagerness for action seem to spend more time dreaming of glory and comradeship than thinking about the chances of getting killed or wounded. with so many armed conflicts these days and throughout history you just can't avoid the conclusion that people actually like going to war.
July 26, 2006 at · Filed under middle east, politics, religion
it has now been 15 days since the start of the Hezbollah - Israel conflict.
at this stage i am bit confused regarding israel's goals and strategy. there is a question of what is the goals israel is realistically trying to achieve. is the goal to completely destroy hezbollah? just drive hezbollah from the border? create a new status quo? return the kidnapped soldiers? cause a civil war?
what ever the goal may be. it seems to be it is about time for israel to stop bombing civilian targets (e.g. power plants, airports, bridges), and focus just on hezbollah targets. by now i am sure the lebanese government and people got the message that israel holds them accountable for a militia working out of their supposedly sovereign country. continue this almost indiscriminate attack and that message may be forgotten.
i think israel should try to let parts of lebanon to return to a relatively normal life, while continuing the campaign against hezbollah in the south. to think that bombing beirut on a daily basis will cause people to start fighting hezbollah is a flawed logic.
i also don't understand why israel should send ground troops into lebanon fighting from bunker to bunker, village to village (WWI style). the type of fighting that is bound to generate casualties and gain little if any long term strategic advantage.
July 17, 2006 at · Filed under middle east, politics, religion
in israel people are always talking about "the situation" usually referring to the armed conflict with the arab countries and in the occupied terriorties. in (the rare) times when the military conflict is getting less headlines and the country is calm "the situation" can broaden to include the economic conditions, but again this rare.
these days when people talk about "the situation" they clearly refer to the military conflict, plus "the situation" conversation dominate the public and private discourse.
i too find myself discussing "the situation" with all my friends and work colleagues. we actually start the conversation by asking each other, whomever gets to it first, "so what do you say about the situation in the country?" (which is also interesting that israelis call israel "the country" like new-yorkers call new-york "the city" as if it is the only country/city in the world).
below are my thoughts about "the situation".
my basic assumptions:
- israel should not accept a status quo where its cities and citizens are being attacked with rockets (whether it is by hamas in the south, or by hezbollah in the north)
- israel must retaliate when soldiers are being attacked and kidnapped on an internationally recognized border (UN resolution 1559) with a sovereign country (lebanon)
- neither hamas nor hezbollah anticipated the scale of the israeli reaction
- israel is taking advantage of the recent kidnapping to try and achieve much broader strategic goals (essentially creating a new status quo with both hamas and hezbollah)
the burning questions (and my short answers):
- will the current conflict escalate to a full blown war involving Syria? Iran? [i don't think so]
- how much is iran involved in the decision making of the hezbollah? [i think their role mostly has to do with supplying funds and weapons, and less in the way of how to put them into use (beside broad guidelines, such as inflict as much damage as you can on israel..)]
- does israel know what it is trying to achieve in its military operation? [i am not sure]
- how long before the "world" will make israel stop the assault? [anywhere between a few days to a couple of weeks]
- will the status quo change after this eruption of violence? [i think it will, in the sense that both parties will have a much better of understanding of the price involved in escalation]
- how will the west (world?) going to deal with iran and syria (as it is pretty clear that they are actively supporting and to a certain extent directing the hezbollah actions) [i think that thanks to the brilliant middle east policy of Bush iran does not have much to worry about at this stage…]
July 11, 2006 at · Filed under internet, politics
congress has passed legislation (house voted 317-93) trying to further limit online gambling, but carving out state run lotteries and horse racing???
i don't see why they are trying to fight it. makes much more sense to regulate the field, let the states/federal government take their piece of the action (like any respectable mob organization), and give the people the freedom to lose all their money.
carving out lotteries and horse race betting is obviously without any real merit.
June 14, 2006 at · Filed under politics
read an amazing article about the CIA handling of information regarding Eichmann and other top Nazi officials post WWII (i am quite surprised it didn't get more coverage).
according to recent findings (based on declassifying of millions of documents) the US government has worked closely with a good number of ex-Nazi officials post WWII. the main purpose was to gain information that will help in the cold war against the soviet union.
the logic was the usual realpolitik. the greater good. the cause justifies the means. a lesser evil?, my enemy's enemy is my friend..
the work on the archives started after Congress passed the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act in 1998, the Inter-agency Working Group worked to declassify over 8 million pages of documents from the period, and came up with some interesting conclusions.
- the CIA knew about the whereabouts and alias of Adolf Eichmann in 1958, but have not share the information with other agencies or the israelis
- the CIA has asked Life magazine to omit a mention of Hans Globke Nazi's past from an article. Globke was a former Nazi government official that at the time served as the national security adviser in West Germany
- the intelligence service of west germany (that was heavily supported by the US) and included many ex-Nazis was penetrated and compromised easily by the KGB. apparently the ex-Nazis were easy targets for the KGB. many of them harbored bad feelings towards the west, and their nazi past was an easy button to push in terms of extortion
the american public should be concerned about the morality of this policy and the secrecy and censorship that came together with it. in retrospect it looks like the strategy of recruiting ex-Nazis to serve against the soviets was not effective, and in many cases worked against the US.
looking at the US government conduct over the last two decades and today, i am not sure much have changed in terms of policy. the evil we are fighting today is terrorism, and the administration thinks that giving up on some personal liberties, breaking a few rules (both US and International), running secret prisons in europe, Guantanamo, etc. all are justified in light of the battle that is being waged (and the cruel/merciless/inhumane enemy we are facing).
in the case of US policy in afganistan/pakistan we didn't have to wait too long, to see the result of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" and questionable values of our selected partners backfiring.
maybe i am naive on this issue, but i believe foreign policy can not be disconnected from the values the country stand for. and while in the short term opportunistic approach may look effective and rewarding it seems that with the perspective of time these decisions turn to be a long term liability, overshadowing the short-term gains.
June 8, 2006 at · Filed under politics, religion
so we finally got Zarqawi.
good.
zarqawi is dead, long live [ ] (name will be filled within a matter of weeks). this is the nature of this conflict.
before Bush comes out with statements such as "this may turn the tide" (which is an interesting acknowledgment of the status of the "war on terror" so far), he may want to speak with a few of his israeli friends.
israel had been killing "public enemy #1", "most wanted in gaza/west-bank" for years now. every couple of months the israeli air-force/special forces are successful in killing these #1 guys. the issue is that there is always a replacement.
unless the resistance is very, very small removing the head does not change much in the macro. it does not mean that these guys should not be prosecuted and removed, but you just need to be realistic in the expectations of the impact. zarqawi will be a martyr, we will have a new #1 guy we must get, and life will go on.
btw, the picture at the top is of an iraqi woman celebrating his death (according to the AP). they sure know how to have fun these guys.
« Previous entries ·
Next entries »
