In this context I use “right to exist” as a placeholder phrase for something that defines the situation better. Israel, as with all true nations, is a functioning political entity whose removal-even bloodlessly-would be seen as a crime against humanity. By way of definition, I believe that the Turkish portion of Cyprus has no right to exist though it is a fact on the ground, and that Kurdistan has a right to exist, even though it is less a fact on the ground and more of a burgeoning concept (One which would be focibly opposed by the Turks BTW, perhaps resulting in NATO going to war with one of its own members. But one crisis at a time).

“Rights” in this context are not settled, automatic privileges. They are perhaps best defined as actions that are not out of keeping with rational human behaviour. Maybe someone more articulate than I can come up with a better phrase, but I specifically meant to counter the idea bruted by some (and not in this thread BTW) that forcible action to remove the political entity that is Israel is a non-starter among raional adult human beings.

“Rights” also require their exercise through the actions of rational adult human beings. Israel’s actions in this war undermine the presupposition that their actions are guided by rational adults who seek to create and support legitimate functioning governments amongst their neighbors.

Jon

Two odd statements above:

No rational adult denies two facts about Israel:
1 – It has an unalterable, irrefutable right to exist.

I’m not sure why any particular state has the ‘RIGHT’ to exist. I am NOT saying I want to destroy Israel, or think it has no rights. I have relatives there believe it or not. But, I think this is not a rational statement. ‘States’ are defined and redefined all the time. Created for many different reasons. One problem in the Middle East right now is the imperial creation of States that ignored local issues by imperial powers. Never goes down without long and bloody wars.

So, a real mis-fire right off the top.

Then an extreme POV from Mr. Van der Galien:
“Extremists(‘ leaders) should be taken out completely -> or at least as complete as possible. There is no use in dealing with extremists: they are not able to compromise.â€?

The problem is, who defines who is an extremist leader? Was Hitler? Was Stalin? Was Reagan? Was Churchill? Was Nixon? Was Che? It is sort of a brain game to say something like that because you are hoping that everyone agrees with your opinion, which may be extreme as well.

I know what you are trying to get at. I understand your anger. But I think you are playing too fast and loose with language that only creates a bigger mess. I would offer I dislike many leaders. The Royal family in the Kingdom of Saud for example. The Shaw of Iran was a real problem too. But Teddy Roosevelt lead his share of invasions in his time. Let’s find a better way to discuss this without resorting to assassinations. I guarantee you would find that a disagreeable POV once the world embraces actions like that.

I am always interested to see your POV because you seem to thinking pretty rationally, but often in the end game emotion takes over and you grab for a gun. I wonder, really, what is your solution to this problem? Do you have one?

I must respectfully disagree. You may not remember it, but after the assasination of Rafik Hariri, the Syrians were thrown out of Lebanon by a popular uprising, dubbed the “Cedar Revolution”. Right-wing bloggers coverage of this seemed to consist solely of picture of photogenic young women in tight t-shirts, so the subtleties of the process might have been lost on you.

After the last Syrina soldier left (April 26, 2005, Syrians celbrated April 27, 2005 as Free from Syria Day), the Lebanese held a Parliamentary election in May 2005, and seated an anti-Syrian, pro-sectarian government that actively worked to diminish Hezbollah influence, if only for self-interest. You see the majority of the country is either Maronite Christian or Sunni Muslim. Given time, the Hezbollah could have been shut out, but it was going to take time and patience.

Because Israel had neither, both Syria, and especially Hezbollah, have regained influence over Lebanon. I saw video of Hazbollah representatives with wads of hundred dollar bills, coordinating reconstruction, weeks before any western government could or would have forces on the ground. Congratulations Israel, you pushed Lebanon into bed with your worst enemies.

If Israel had coordinated with the admittedly weak Lebanese Army, treated the government as an entity with a common interest-removing Hezbollah’s control over southern Lebanon-then *that* would have been a triumph for the good guys. Instead it seems that Israel is learning the only thing the United States government can teach these days: total incompetence.

There is absolutely no use in dealing with them.

As I wrote before, I was reading Tony Zinnis book (with Tom Clancy). Zinni is now a retired general and, among other things, former Commander in Chief of CENTCOM.

I finished it a couple of hours ago. He had some great ideas. He made clear though, that he believes (like I believe) that there is no use in dealing with extremists. He even wrote that, for a lasting peace to be able in Palestine / Israel, a civil war in Palestine will most likely be required: Hamas is an extremist organization, dedicated to destroy Israel and will only agree to periods of ‘rest and peace’ to rearm itself and to regain strength, so he reasoned. Of course, as you all know, I completely agree with that.
However, he also explained that destroying the extremist organizations isn’t enough. They have a large PR machine and play important roles in the countries they are active: build schools, hospitals, houses, etc.
He explained that, at the moment the West, the US and Israel, are fighting against extremists, we should immediately rebuild the countries in which the fightings occures even during the fighting to a degree (in secured areas for instance). What’s necessary at that point in time, is a new and adapted Marshall plan in his opinion. We should start working with the people in all possible areas: in the area of national security / public safety, economically ánd politically.
We should, Zinni wrote, have clear, ‘large’ long term goals, but we should work in small goals / parts. Local initiatives are greatly important: build schools houses and hospitals, etc., with the local residents. Bring in knowledge and financial resources, but also use local knowledge and manpower: this creates jobs and makes the people to have a band with the different local projects. As I said at the same time, large projects should also be started for the central government.

I know most people don’t take Clancy’s books serious, but this particular book: I find it to be of great value: the main author is ret. General Zinni himself.

All in all: only military options don’t solve the problem, but just political / diplomatic means will not do the trick either: extremist organizations, be it especially their leaders, should be destroyed and after that a clear plan should be drawn, with a clear strategy, in all different kinds of areas.

This demands commitment though. It means that troops will not be out of a country in 2 years. It will also cost a lot of money, but the alternative is that certain countries will, en masse, turn to extremism and become safe havens for terrorists who will hurt us even more.

“Hopefully, Israel is learning to admit that using raw military power to flatten wide territories, including Gaza, the West Bank and south Lebanon, is not a deterrent for those who want to remove it from the Middle East.”
………………….
Oh really, is that so? In fact raw military power IS a deterrent if the military is actually ALLOWED TO FINISH THE JOB. BTW, Brij Khindaria and others who constantly whine that there is no military solution to terrorism, what is your ingenious solution to deterring terrorist groups who want to remove Israel from the Middle East? None of you seem to have any answer.

Israel unilaterally pulled out of lebanon 6 years ago. It unillaterally withdrew from gaza.

What occured? In gaza, hamas became the ruleing party and began firing missles into Iraelu territory. Over the past 6 years, hezbollah has gained significant political inroads into lebanon and has built an indepenent army.

Israel was stupid? What do you people think the united states would have done if an indepedent army from canada had made incursions into its sovereign territory and killed its citizens, or mexico started lobbing missles into texas? Think we would have first attempted negotiotiation? Heck no….

Israel was stupid in that they allowed for a un ceasefire, and didnt carpet bomb the entire region.

When Britain was putting down the Ira, and keeping troops in Ireland, I didnt see the mass codemnation from the UN and other countries occuring on a daily basis. Why should Israel be held to a higher standard.

1 – It has an unalterable, irrefutable right to exist.

2 – It has absolutely no right to be stupid.

What Israel did in Lebanon was stupid. Violations of Fact #2 call the viability of #1 into question. Before the Israel/Hezbollah war there were 3 democracies in the middle east. Now, because one democracy attacked the territory of another democracy (Weren’t we reassuted recently that democracies never make war on each other?) there are 1.5 democracies. Lebanon was returned to the influence of Syria and Hezbollah by Israel. And they haven’t even got the two IDF soldiers back.

Meanwhile the government of Iraq is pushed even further into the arms of Iran. This has been a disaster for Israel and the United States of America