Friday, March 30, 2007

First Post in a Long Time!

Sorry I have not been posting...I just needed to take a break. But I am back, sort of. I just wanted to post what I wrote on Tsedek's blog. I think you may enjoy reading it. I am curious what you all think!

If you want to hold Israel to a higher set of moral standards, that is your right, as an Israeli and a Jew. My only point is that the world has no right to similarly engage in such conduct. I also think that in YOUR OWN judgement, you seem to be missing the boat on the genocidal threat that Israel faces.

It is inhumane and counter-productive to just go around shooting civilians for no reason. However, it is similarly inhumane to let Israeli civilians die because of a negligence and/or lack of desire to protect Israeli civilians.

I do know Israel is guilty of only ONE of those crimes - the former. (see: capitulation at Sderot) Individual IDF soldiers, as opposed to the state, are guilty of engaging in human rights violations. I am fully aware of this. But this is not because the state glorifies violence or the killing of civilians. Rather, I view the reason to be related to Israel's patheticness in defending its civilians.

I spoke to an IDF combat soldier who fought in Lebanon in 2006, and he said that if he wanted to kill a civilian, he could have ON HIS OWN, and there is little the state would have done about it. This certainly is appalling. (He did not commit such acts.)

But why does this happen?

I believe that individual acts of barbarism on the part of IDF soldiers is directly related to a feeling of helplessness soldiers have when they are told to stand down, when they see rocket launch pads in Gaza. It is the inevitable result. Normally kind, decent people devolve into barbarians when they see the state has failed them.

This is not limited to Israel. Witness the mayhem in Gujarat, India, after the state failed to act after the Godhra train burning. (More on Gujarat right here.)

This is what Israel has in store for it if it continues down the road towards capitulation. It will not be pretty.

You are fearful of 'collective punishment' of Gaza residents. I say that this is of a secondary concern, as the actions in Gaza are a fraction of what needs to happen. (no, I do not mean nuke the whole place - I mean GO AFTER THOSE TRYING TO KILL JEWS) Until Israel does the right thing, there will be increasing numbers of IDF soldiers who go off the deep end and kill civilians, in some misguided notion of vigilante justice. That is my prediction.

Anyway, these are my thoughts. I fear what will happen if the world continues on this current path of capitulation.

These fears become all the more immediate when you wonder what soldiers in Iraq will do, knowing 15 of their comrades in arms were taken hostage by Iran, and Britain is hemming and hawing and muttering "WHAT SHALL WE DO?" in response.

I see bad times ahead.


Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Only 7% of Britons think the country should be gearing up for war with Iran over it. Please note that "gearing up" doesn't mean war, but it does mean preparing for, being able to, in a public way, and then doing it if Iran doesn't back down.

This is what happens when the forces of societal feminization and appeasement take over a country.

If Blair pulls a Carter, we are in for a new round of terrorist confidence, kind of like what happens if our Democrats have their way.

Kevin said...

Thatchers got more balls than Bush and Blair combined.

Now you understand little of how the parliamentary system works. The Prime Minister of the day holds the power to declare war. However Blair is a wounded prime minister, he would be foolish to risk declaring another war at this time.
As Blair will be leaving office after the local elections in May or soon after. Gordon Brown the dour scot will be taking over (unless the pension row blows his chances).
There is no way in hell America or the UK could fight a ground war against Iran. Iraq is bogging the US Armed forces down. The only option is air strikes and that still leaves the possibility that the Iranians will either invade Iraq directly or direct terrorist operations more frequently inside Iraq and target American interests over seas. I think you underestimate the Iranians determination to be the regional super power in the middle east.

Red Tulips said...


You OVERestimate the Iranians.

Firstly, why do you think the troops are in Iraq? If nothing else, being in Iraq makes them right next door to Iran - and makes them a threat to Iran.

Secondly, Iran is militarized. But you have to question still who has the better army - and it's no question it is the US/UK. The problem, however, is the pathetic rules of engagement. This is what got the Brits kidnapped. It's what will lose us the war, unless they are reformed.

Kevin said...

We would win a conventional war against Iran, if Iraq was secure, but it's not. Iran are more likely to use Guerrilla warfare in the middle east and terrorism against us in the West. The US Army is bogged down in Iraq, if they go off invading Iran they will get attacked in the rear via the insurgents in Iraq.
The rules of engagement are not an issue if a war is declared (rules tend to get left by the way side during war). We are as yet not at war with Iran in military terms.
Now I believe the British personal did the right thing by not engaging in a fire fight, as it would have lead to a high death toll and even bigger tensions between Iran and the west. Diplomacy still has it's course to run in regards to Iran. There will probably come a time when diplomacy fails and the only option left open is war.
At the moment both sides are sabre rattling i.e. Bush is rattling the cage by building up the US Navy in the Gulf and Iran is rattling the cage by kidnapping British sailors and Marines. If it had been American troops taken then we would be at war right now.
Any war with Iran would end in a stalemate, unless Bush is stupid enough to use nuclear weapons on Iran.
You can have the best Army in the world, but you can still lose. History speaks volumes on this subject.