Israel's Mistake (interesting read)

[darius]

Israel’s Mistake
Nationalism has blinded the Jewish state to the long-term consequences of a Lebanon campaign that is practically guaranteed to fail.
By John Barry
Newsweek

Updated: 6:50 p.m. ET July 27, 2006

July 27, 2006 - As Israel hammers Lebanon and Condoleezza Rice hurries back and forth, I find myself recalling Henry Kissinger after the 1973 Yom Kippur war. What keeps coming back isn’t the secretary of State’s shuttle-diplomacy successes. It’s how much more he hoped to achieve—and why he failed.

I had a ringside seat, courtesy of a close friend, an adviser to Egypt’s Anwar Sadat. The friend smuggled me into a couple of Kissinger’s sessions with the Egyptian leadership. Ambitious doesn’t begin to describe the secretary’s hopes: having negotiated a disengagement of Israeli and Egyptian forces, he wanted to move forward toward a wider peace deal. And the prospects looked good. Sadat and Syrian President Hafez Assad were ready to do pretty much anything Kissinger asked. Both Mideast leaders believed that the war—as unrewarding as it had been for their countries—had reaffirmed Arab honor. Now they only wanted to end the military expenditures that had crippled their countries for a generation. Assad, unlike Sadat, had a sentimental attachment to the Palestinians, but both men distrusted the Palestine Liberation Organization and despised its chairman, Yasir Arafat. They were willing to pressure him to settle, too.

But Kissinger hadn’t reckoned on one figure in the talks: Israel’s leader, Golda Meir. She simply could not believe that Sadat and Assad were serious. Instead, she behaved as if Israel’s only hope of security lay in every inch of captured real estate it could keep. So Kissinger’s 1974 shuttle, seeking disengagement on the Golan Heights, descended into near farcical haggling over strips of barren soil of no conceivable military value. Kissinger got a deal, but only a minimal one. Assad concluded that Israel was not interested in a comprehensive peace. In his memoirs, Kissinger empathizes with Israeli leaders, enmeshed in a tangle of hopes, fears and religious convictions. At the time, though, his verdict was bleak. After his last meeting with Sadat, Kissinger voiced his frustration to a small group of U.S. and Egyptian officials: “We see in Israel a society so traumatized by a generation of war that its leaders are no longer capable of making strategic judgments about their country’s survival.”

A few weeks later I encountered Arafat in Cairo. I knew him some: he had dreadful ulcers on his legs that made walking an agony, and I had put him in touch with a London specialist. Arafat was ecstatic over Kissinger’s disappointment. Sadat and Assad weren’t the only ones who would have given anything for a deal, Arafat told me: the same was true even of his main backers, the Saudis. But, he said, he had never lost his confidence that Kissinger would fail. I asked why. “I knew I could rely on my best ally,” he said. “Israeli nationalism.”

Rice is facing a parallel situation now. Nationalism has blinded Israel to the long-term consequences of a campaign that is practically guaranteed to fail, no matter what level of military effort the country commits. Nothing suggests that Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbullah leader, is stupid enough to stand and fight a conventional war. Sure, he will sacrifice zealots as cannon fodder in the south. But he and the senior ranks have already retreated into Beirut. Israel can destroy much of Hizbullah’s stockpiles and bunkers near the border. But that will buy, at best, no more than a couple of years’ respite. Staking out a strip of land, whether by Israel or by some international force, will not bring peace. The one certainty is that the assault on Lebanon will bring a surge of recruits to Hizbullah, which will now be as powerful a magnet for young Shiite firebrands as Al Qaeda is for their Sunni cohorts.

The Bush administration clearly thinks it’s doing Israel a favor by enabling the military campaign to continue. But that position makes sense only on the assumption that Israel’s armed forces can wipe out Hizbullah—or at least inflict such damage that Nasrallah will sue for terms. That, at least, would give U.S. policy a realpolitik logic. The flaw is that nothing in Arab-Israeli history—or in the chronicles of irredentist nationalisms more generally—suggests that any such outcome is likely.

Whether Israel is "justified" in its actions is a debating point for TV talk shows. In the real world, the question is whether Israel is likely to achieve such a smashing victory that the short-term gains will be worth the long-term costs. And, to repeat, nothing suggests that is remotely plausible. If that is so, then America’s blessing for the campaign in Lebanon is merely increasing the final costs, not only for Israel but for the United States and more generally Western policy in the region. But then, an inability to weigh short-term gain (e.g., the overthrow of Saddam) against long-term costs (e.g., an insurgency by Iraqi Sunnis determined not to lose power) appears to be characteristic of this administration.

In the summer of 1974, Meir was succeeded as prime minister by Yitzhak Rabin. More soldier than politician, he saw clearly that Israel needed more than military force to win lasting security. But he also knew how reluctant Israel’s voters are to take the long view. I asked him once to explain this puzzle. Rabin liked parables. He said: “There were two hunters who went after a deer that was in thick brush. They shot him, and each took hold of his antlers and began to drag him back toward their car. But the antlers caught in the brush. Finally, one hunter said, ‘Let’s drag him the other way, by his hind legs.’ So they did, and they made good progress. ‘See?’ said the first hunter, ‘I told you it would be easier this way.’ ‘Yes,’ said the second, ‘but aren’t we getting a long way from the car?’ ”

It’s a story that Secretary Rice is likely to appreciate more and more in the coming weeks.

John Barry covered events in the Middle East from 1970 to 1975

[Micha]

And folks, here is the bottom line:

.

Whether Israel is "justified" in its actions is a debating point for TV talk shows. In the real world, the question is whether Israel is likely to achieve such a smashing victory that the short-term gains will be worth the long-term costs. And, to repeat, nothing suggests that is remotely plausible. If that is so, then America’s blessing for the campaign in Lebanon is merely increasing the final costs, not only for Israel but for the United States and more generally Western policy in the region. But then, an inability to weigh short-term gain (e.g., the overthrow of Saddam) against long-term costs (e.g., an insurgency by Iraqi Sunnis determined not to lose power) appears to be characteristic of this administration.

[TheHipHopBillGates]

Well nationalism is the same thing that got Bush the support to go into Iraq even though alot of people told him it would be a fucking diaster.

[Bekim...]

And folks, here is the bottom line:

Micha that's true in a way, war sucks all around but you have to look at it this way- if say america was attacked with suicide bombings week after week for say 50 years by people that lived in canada, we would have no choice but to defend ourselves and strike back.

sure both sides are wrong in one way or another but if you look at the big picture the palestinan's have commited far more crimes as well as the arab countries. It's a fact. and yea I hate to harp on 9/11 again but Micha regardless of Israel these organizations have a death wish upon America and as cruel as it may seem to lebanon Israel is really doing a lot of damage to Hizbollah which in turn is good for America and the world. War sucks it really does but unfortunately sometimes there is no other way.

[darius]

Micha that's true in a way, war sucks all around but you have to look at it this way- if say america was attacked with suicide bombings week after week for say 50 years by people that lived in canada, we would have no choice but to defend ourselves and strike back.

sure both sides are wrong in one way or another but if you look at the big picture the palestinan's have commited far more crimes as well as the arab countries. It's a fact. and yea I hate to harp on 9/11 again but Micha regardless of Israel these organizations have a death wish upon America and as cruel as it may seem to lebanon Israel is really doing a lot of damage to Hizbollah which in turn is good for America and the world. War sucks it really does but unfortunately sometimes there is no other way.

but at the end of the day, does it solve the baseline problem, and the answer to that, as history has shown to this day, is No

[Bekim...]

but at the end of the day, does it solve the baseline problem, and the answer to that, as history has shown to this day, is No

of course not WAR really doesn't solve much except for killing on each side but Darius Israel and America are both fed up with this shit ya know it's scary to think that you me or one of are familys could be caught up in the next attack, call me a racist or whatever you want but I think we should have really wiped out 85% of the arab countries in the middle east , the innocent and the guilty... is that bad? yea sure it is but proven very effective when compared to what we did to Japan. First attack on US soil and we REALLY responded and made fucking sure that it would never ever happen again, I think we should start wiping out most of the arab countries that we do not get along with well one by one starting with Iran, because beleive me my man if Iran had the chance to nuke us they would do it in a heartbeat.

[Micha]

Micha that's true in a way, war sucks all around but you have to look at it this way- if say america was attacked with suicide bombings week after week for say 50 years by people that lived in canada, we would have no choice but to defend ourselves and strike back.

sure both sides are wrong in one way or another but if you look at the big picture the palestinan's have commited far more crimes as well as the arab countries. It's a fact. and yea I hate to harp on 9/11 again but Micha regardless of Israel these organizations have a death wish upon America and as cruel as it may seem to lebanon Israel is really doing a lot of damage to Hizbollah which in turn is good for America and the world. War sucks it really does but unfortunately sometimes there is no other way.

No Beck I dont have to look at it that way. I've looked at this problem from every angle imaginable and in the end I stand by how I feel.

PS somewhat off topic, but, what are your views on capital punishment btw??

[Micha]

of course not WAR really doesn't solve much except for killing on each side but Darius Israel and America are both fed up with this shit ya know it's scary to think that you me or one of are familys could be caught up in the next attack, call me a racist or whatever you want but I think we should have really wiped out 85% of the arab countries in the middle east , the innocent and the guilty... is that bad? yea sure it is but proven very effective when compared to what we did to Japan. First attack on US soil and we REALLY responded and made fucking sure that it would never ever happen again, I think we should start wiping out most of the arab countries that we do not get along with well one by one starting with Iran, because beleive me my man if Iran had the chance to nuke us they would do it in a heartbeat.

Beck im starting to give up on you man..

[Bekim...]

Beck im starting to give up on you man..

im fucking hard head

[Defekted]

Very good read Darius....

[woo]

of course not WAR really doesn't solve much except for killing on each side but Darius Israel and America are both fed up with this shit ya know it's scary to think that you me or one of are familys could be caught up in the next attack, call me a racist or whatever you want but I think we should have really wiped out 85% of the arab countries in the middle east , the innocent and the guilty... is that bad? yea sure it is but proven very effective when compared to what we did to Japan. First attack on US soil and we REALLY responded and made fucking sure that it would never ever happen again, I think we should start wiping out most of the arab countries that we do not get along with well one by one starting with Iran, because beleive me my man if Iran had the chance to nuke us they would do it in a heartbeat.

the approach was not well thought out.

israel is scratching a scab right now.

[Bekim...]

the approach was not well thought out.

israel is scratching a scab right now.

how do you know? do you have family in the israeli army? or do you just get the news from cnn?

[woo]

how do you know? do you have family in the israeli army? or do you just get the news from cnn?

terrorists all over the middle east, europe and africa and this is the kind of shyt that catalyzes their recruitment.

[Micha]

how do you know? do you have family in the israeli army? or do you just get the news from cnn?

and your getting your news from the ISREALI army like thats not biased

[woo]

and your getting your news from the ISREALI army like thats not biased

o... and i never depend on US news in developing my point of view.

[darius]

if you live with the mentality that the same thing that was done to japan could be done the middle east and be effective, you aren't taking some rather MAJOR things into consideration . . . here are some thoughts:

Strategic position:
Japan is an island; fairly isolated; does not supply the world with the #1 resource . . . as a matter of fact, Japan isn't really a major exporter of any commodity anywhere in the realm of oil (at least not in those days)

because of the how the middle-east is situated, you can't go droppin anything of mass destruction in the middle-east. too much of the entire world has something invested there -- including US. as a matter of fact, nuking the middle-east would effective being the same thing as this: imagine the US as a farmer with a very fertile orchard, full of money trees. because of the bug population -- a few harmful and mostly not -- the farmer decides to exterminate everything by torching all the trees, razing the orchard, and then dumping salt all over so that no vegetations could grow there again. not to mention, in the process, you destroy china's, and europe's neighboring orchards as well.

if the plan is to eradicate the arabs, innocent or guilty, then in the same breath, shouldn't we go door to door here in the US and drag out every man, woman, and child or olive complexion and mow them down. i mean, a few of them might really want to do harm to the US and may advocate the struggle against Israel -- but we don't care, cuz we want them all dead, innocent or guilty. hmmm . . . sounds awefully familiar. i think your buddy adolf used that strategy back in the day -- and just look at all the success he reaped from it.

the point i'm trying to make here is that what you are proposing isn't strategic thinking in anyway. is it -- in its most simple, clear-cut form -- complete and utter racism and nothing more, not a shred or inkling of common sense. you are effectively spreading the same disease that plagues the entire conflict over there. i find it grossly offensive. any decent, respectable human being would. this is vile man.
i know this is a free message board and people can say whatever they want, but where do we draw the line with this stuff? i'm probably pissing in the wind here, but where do moderators stand on this? i recall in the past that any threads that were so drenched in anti-semetic remarks would get locked up or deleted or whatever. well what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? i enjoy visiting this board often. i've made some really good friends through this medium of discussion, but two weeks of this bullshit is two weeks too many.
beck, i don't know you, and i do not doubt that there are plenty of people here on this board that would stand for your reputation as being a good guy . . . but why tarnish that by taking a stand that is based on nothing but a foundation of hate and bigotry? i mean, its really even waaaaaay beyond anything humorous at this point. perhaps none of what i'm saying will sink in with you, cuz you couldn't possibly give two shits, but i had to say it. my hope is that i'm ENTIRELY wrong, but only you know that answer that.

[Defekted]

I agree with you Darius..... there have been very offensive posts by people, not just Beck, that have been completely racist and hateful. Yet these posts go unmoderated.... I, along with most people on the board (pro and anti Israel), have kept it to debate level.....but now and then, "kill the arabs, bomb the dirka dirkas, nuke the place, etc etc" come out and its pathetic.

[Micha]

i know this is a free message board and people can say whatever they want, but where do we draw the line with this stuff? i'm probably pissing in the wind here, but where do moderators stand on this? i recall in the past that any threads that were so drenched in anti-semetic remarks would get locked up or deleted or whatever. well what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? i enjoy visiting this board often. i've made some really good friends through this medium of discussion, but two weeks of this bullshit is two weeks too many.
beck, i don't know you, and i do not doubt that there are plenty of people here on this board that would stand for your reputation as being a good guy . . . but why tarnish that by taking a stand that is based on nothing but a foundation of hate and bigotry? i mean, its really even waaaaaay beyond anything humorous at this point. perhaps none of what i'm saying will sink in with you, cuz you couldn't possibly give two shits, but i had to say it. my hope is that i'm ENTIRELY wrong, but only you know that answer that.

I dont want to sound too serious but I dont think any of it is funny either, nor can I even tell what is sarcastic and whats not anymore. Maybe I need to lighten up but i dont see why humor or sarcasm would be used in such serious topics in the first place. But, regardless, I hear you. Im gonna continue to read this forum but Im not going to argue with anyone anymore because I dont have the time to reply to everything. But I hope to see less of what I have been seeing but hey like you say its a free messageboard so ppl are entitled to their opinions. I am just shocked thats all.

[Bekim...]

yeap im very hateful to animals that want nothing but death to my country...

58 years israel has been under attack by arabs scum, enough already, im thrilled they use such force.

[Defekted]

I think you get the record for repeating the same sentence in different ways....i think the count is 4,657 posts of how you hate arab animals who are getting bombed by israel, who has been attacked without responding for the last 58 years, but who are now killing the bastards that did 9/11 ......

breathtaking!