Seeking Peace Instead of Victory

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Israel is starting a ground offensive in the effort to eradicate Hamas functioning. I give them three cheers for that. I doubt that will change the radical militant Islamic mind about attacking Israel without provocation, but at least they are getting what they justly deserve. Wait for the world outcry that Israel is attacking a neighboring region., even though there wasn't a world outcry when Gaza attacked Israel.

[Jake_Ellison]

I don't know that a poll has ever been done on this issue, but when I use the term "radical Islamist," I am talking about people who wish to use violence to subjugate other populations. The Iranian government certainly supports this. To whatever extent the public wants the Koran to be the supreme law of the land, past trends indicate they do not think their government should be using military force to conquer the rest of the Middle East.

Israel is part of the Middle East, and you are saying that "past trends" indicate that the Iranian people don't think "the government should be using military force to conquer the rest of the Middle East".(that's an exact quote!)

What proof do you have that most Iranians don't support their government's efforts to provide Hamas with rockets that are launched into Israel? (with the very clearly expressed purpose of conquering Israel, and taking their land)

[The Wrath]

TW,

It might be a good idea to view some of these so called mid-east experts with the same skepticism as you might view, say, a climate change expert. I havent read any of the books you listed, but the Israeli/Palestinian issue is hardly new. From what I have seen, it is always Israel that is told to sacrifice; it is always Israel that is told to show restraint; it is always Israel that overreacts; it is always Israel who perpetuates the so called 'cycle of violence.' Israels strength, its wealth, its territory, its sovereignty and its liberty must always be sacrificed to the poverty stricken, slum bound refugee. I rarely, if ever, hear an 'expert' stand up and say what is so often said here--that Israel has a moral right to defend itself. Now, I know you agree with that and are only criticizing tactics, but neither you nor these so-called experts have put forth another option other than appeasement and sacrifice to those forces that seek the destruction of Israel.

Okay, this is a valid criticism. I admit that I don't have a solution, and it's something I need to give more thought to. My sole contention has been that the "bomb everything" tactic isn't likely to make things better. Maybe it is the lesser of so many evils. But, if that's the case, my opinion is that Israel and the rest of the Middle East are in a truly shitty situation with no foreseeable resolution. I fear that the situation is one of those unfortunate situations in which the only proper solution lies in the past.

Anyway, my main issue with Jake's posts is that he seems to reject the notion that learning the historical background of the situation is a good idea, because he likes taking his CapMag talking points and applying them to the situation, not realizing that they might not apply. Criticize my viewpoints and argumentation, if you find fault with them. But saying that I haven't tried to provide logic and evidence to support my arguments is ridiculous. Especially when he is the one explicitly rejecting the importance of learning about the subject.

I agree that any author should be viewed with skepticism...that's why, to get a truly decent grasp on the subject, it's necessary to read authors of differing viewpoints. That is what I try to do.

Also, the tactic of asking "why" to everything is just annoying, because he does it after every post I make and can continously ask it, ad infinitum. I can't even make a factual observation without him asking "why," and then accusing me of not supporting my stance when I cannot explain it. As a parallel, imagine that I make the observation that objects tend to fall to the ground when dropped. Jake then asks why. I say "I don't know, because I'm not a physicist." Then he replies "then your stance that objects fall when dropped is unsupported." I'm not an Iran expert and I don't purport to understand the reasons why the Iranian government has stayed in power for 30 years. But I can still make the observation that Iran's population is not radical Islamist, without having to explain such things.

[The Wrath]

I am now going to end participation in this thread. I can't continue taking half an hour to type out responses to everyone else (especially since virtually everyone in here disagrees with me), and we are all talking in circles anyway, not making any progress.

Some people (i.e. not Jake) made arguments that will actually make me reevaluate my views. But I simply can't stomach the argument that listenting to what Middle East experts have to say is somehow the wrong approach to learning about a topic.

[intellectualammo]

It really is becoming an "all-out war":

From this

Currently:

Israeli tanks and infantry entered Gaza after nightfall Saturday, launching a ground offensive that the military said would be a "lengthy operation" in a widening war on Gaza's Hamas rulers.

"The goal is to try and take over some of the those launching areas that were responsible for the many launches, thousands of launches in fact, toward Israeli civilians," she [israeli military spokeswoman Maj. Avital Leibovich] said. "The civilians are not our target. We are looking only after militants. Hamas militants."

You go Israel!!

[Marc K.]

To whatever extent the public wants the Koran to be the supreme law of the land, past trends indicate they do not think their government should be using military force to conquer the rest of the Middle East.

I suppose the same could be said of the German people in the 1930's, but they are kidding themselves. It doesn't take much of a leap in logic to understand that allowing police force at home to punish apostasy leads to military force abroad to punish apostasy.

You and I know the necessary outcome of consecrating faith as law. Ideologically speaking: Islamists are the support needed for radical Islam to flourish.

[Jake_Ellison]

My sole contention has been that the "bomb everything" tactic isn't likely to make things better.

Actually you've only made contentions, dozens of them. As a matter of fact, the contention that you've only made one contention is a second contention.

As a parallel, imagine that I make the observation that objects tend to fall to the ground when dropped. Jake then asks why. I say "I don't know, because I'm not a physicist." Then he replies "then your stance that objects fall when dropped is unsupported." I'm not an Iran expert and I don't purport to understand the reasons why the Iranian government has stayed in power for 30 years. But I can still make the observation that Iran's population is not radical Islamist, without having to explain such things.

Your stance that objects fall when dropped is directly supported by observation. Your stance that most Iranians are moderates is not.

As far as answering why, I guarantee you that I can provide a valid, substantiated opinion to any "Why?", applied to any of my statements. While I do read, books are not the source of of my statements, unless that statement is a direct observation made by numerous, independent sources (which I know are trustworthy), or is derived using reason, from such direct observations.

As far as my own opinions go, I do not accept other people's unproven opinions, they are mine: products of my own mind, with two "Why?"'s answered in my mind, ready to be stated. Those two why's are:

1. Why do I think that?

2. Why do I think that is possible, and fits with everything else that I know or think.

When one of my opinions creates a contradiction with a pre-existing opinion or knowledge (usually when I foolishly state them before having considered all the implications), and somebody decides to ask me "Why?", I cherish the opportunity to correct myself.

In fact I think those two questions should be asked, in the context of a conversation of any kind, every single time the answer to them isn't volunteered or obvious to one of the participants. When a conversation contains a single unknown "why?", the statement that rests upon that why and everything that follows from it are completely worthless information (much like memorizing the phone book), until the Why? is answered, and the whole set of info is reprocessed with that Why?'s implications in mind.

The perfect analogy would be an Elm tree, which is missing a section of one of its main branches: thousands of smaller branches, and leaves, as a result, are unable to be sustained, and die. Or, to be more exact, they are never created. Then someone comes and takes a branch out of a relativist fig-tree, and tapes it to your elm-tree, expecting everything to be A-OK. Except the one big Why? is missing, and from a distance everybody thinks that the big fig-branch is just a funny looking part of the noble Elm-tree. Boy will they be disappointed to discover that the weight of the branch will end up strangling the whole tree.

[AndrewRyan]

"AndrewRyan was trying to come up with an excuse to kill Iranian civilians by painting them with a broad brush as being overwhelmingly Islamist. I'm saying that--not only is that not true--but that you don't need that excuse, even if it is true."-The Wrath

Again, I wasn't coming up with any excuse to kill Iranian civilians. I said that if a nation attacks Iran, they need not consider the "inoccents" lost as they are not inoccent. I never said I wanted anyone to randomly kill Iranian citizens, but only as an act of self-defense.

I've seen this argument in so many threads on this board, that it grows very tiresome. Are you really going to argue that there are no innocents in the nation of Iran?

This discussion has already been had in the "why we should nuke Tehran" thread from a while back. In a nutshell, my argument in that thread is that it isn't anyones "responsibility" to join a resistance against a tyrannical government. A rational person might not like his government but, if he is able to maintain a generally happy life, he may not want to risk being killed. If a war comes that attempts to overthrow the government, then that person doesn't have the right to be a roadblock to regime change, but that doesn't mean it is his responsibility to take part.

"The only way to defeat terrorism would be a WWII type war against Iran and it's Islamic extremist populace."

That's sure what it sounds like. But, once again, I digress. That isn't the point. The main poitn I was making is that you are wrong in your pereception that Iran has an extremist Islamist population.

Sadly, maybe you should read the entire post, rather than picking the parts that support your argument. I said the view Israel is taking and that people on this thread are defending is that of Dr. Peikoff's view on America's War on Terror. I paraphrased and restated Dr. Peikoff's views that a WWII type of war against Iran was the only way to defeat radical Islam. I NEVER SAID THAT WAS MY OPINION OR ARGUMENT.

As to your argument that a citizen does not have the responsibility to help overthrow a tyrranical government is bs. If a rational person has rights, they also have the responsibility of those rights. A rational person would stand up for his rights. You suggest that a rational person wont or doesn't have a responsibility to defend his rights, and that is rediculous.

[Jake_Ellison]

Some people (i.e. not Jake) made arguments that will actually make me reevaluate my views. But I simply can't stomach the argument that listenting to what Middle East experts have to say is somehow the wrong approach to learning about a topic.

I am in favor of relying on expert knowledge.

I am in favor of relying on expert opinion.

...............................

I am against gaining opinion from expert opinion. (To put it another way: I am against expert opinion being presented as one's opinion, or thought of as one's opinion.)

Let me give you an example:

I rely on expert opinion all the time. For instance when I do my acconting: I do not understand why my accountant is right, I have no knowledge of accounting, yet I can do my taxes because I listen to an accountant's opinion.

However, what I don't do then, is walk up to a group of people discussing accounting, and start claiming that the opinions my accountant told me and I remember are my opinions. They are not mine: they are his opinions, I just happen to have heard them and memorized them. As a result I could not tell you why they are better or worse than any other opinions.

[intellectualammo]

Oh no!

Several rockets fired from Lebanon struck northern Israel Thursday, slightly wounding two people, police and medics said, in attacks seen as linked to Israel's war on Hamas Islamists in the Gaza Strip.

It was not immediately clear whether Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas -- against whom Israel fought a 2006 war -- or Palestinians fired the rockets in a new challenge to the Jewish state on the 13th day of a Gaza campaign.

Israeli forces have been on alert in the north, anticipating that Hezbollah or Palestinian groups could fire rockets into northern Israel and lend support to Hamas and the Gaza Strip's 1.5 million inhabitants. Some 4,000 Hezbollah rockets hit Israel in the 2006 conflict.

(from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/world/mi.../09mideast.html)

Anyone read this? by Elan Journo:

U.S. Should Help Crush Hamas

December 30, 2008

Washington, D.C.--In response to the Hamas bombardment of Israel, Washington must encourage and help Israel to annihilate that Islamist group, once and for all.

The failure to wipe out Hamas on previous occasions has encouraged Palestinian terror groups. It teaches Islamists that their terrorist war will be rewarded, that their quest to destroy Israel--and ultimately America--is achievable.

To put an end to Hamas’s brazen aggression, the jihadist group must be defeated. It is proper and necessary for America to aid and bolster Israel, its one true ally in the Middle East, in the face of a common enemy.

[Jake_Ellison]

Yeah well, the UN just decided that Israel shouldn't do that, and we, the US decided that we don't have an opinion on the matter, so we abstained: UN Security Council calls for Gaza cease-fire

[fletch]

TW,

One of your main objections to the Israeli assault on Gaza was the Egyptian respsonse. Well here is another article on that point:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123154855613269959.html

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported this week that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak had told a visiting delegation of European foreign ministers that Hamas "must not be allowed to emerge from the fighting with the upper hand." The comment was later relayed by the Europeans to Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni.

Mr. Mubarak has good reason to want to see Hamas humbled: As the Palestinian franchise of his own suppressed Muslim Brotherhood, it poses a direct threat to his rule. The same goes for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Sunni regimes like Saudi Arabia, which see Hamas as another Iranian proxy in the Sunni heartland. Their views, too, are being expressed sotto voce.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Any cease fire will only make matters worse, because Hamas evidently wants "the freedom" to attack Israel, claiming Israel's blockade around Gaza is hurting the Palestinian people. Of course, if the Palestinians would learn to live in reason and peace, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place

That's rather like Al Capone saying he wants the freedom to attack the Feds. I suppose one could debate whether or not the Palestinians can be trusted not to import weapons to use against Israel, but given their past history and especially given the rocket attacks, they cannot be trusted to have an enduring peace with Israel.

I think Israel should continue to pummel Hamas. If they didn't hate Jews so much, for no good reason, then they might become more rational, but so long as Israel exists, it enemies will continue to attack it.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Well, Hamas has declared that it won...won what? I wonder. I guess the campaign didn't last long enough to break the remaining Hamas leadership. They claim the Palestinian people are on their side, so I guess they will go back to crawling through their tunnels and throwing rockets at Israel. Of course, many if not most of the Palestinians will blame Israel for their misery, even though they could live in peace if they decided to become rational. Apparent they don't want peace, and I don't think Israel should have pulled out so quickly.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,482404,00.html

[Tenure]

I believe they are claiming a victory over Israel's intended missions of finding a destroy the arms-smuggling. I find this very sad because, if that is true, then Israel did lose this battle.

[Jake_Ellison]

I believe they are claiming a victory over Israel's intended missions of finding a destroy the arms-smuggling. I find this very sad because, if that is true, then Israel did lose this battle.

I have a feeling that Olmert made his point to them and their supporters, and the rocket attacks are going to stop now, at least until the next leadership change in Israel. At that point I'm sure the next prime-minister is going to be tested too.

But this is just a prediction. I could be wrong, and Hamas may decide to continue the conflict, depending on what their backers in Iran want.

As for stopping the smuggling, I just don't see how Israel could do that. The way to stop the war is by destroying the enemy's will. Prolonged occupation of an enemy which hasn't surrendered just doesn't work.

[intellectualammo]

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel warned Sunday of "sharp" and "disproportionate" retaliation for continuing rocket fire out of Gaza.

"We will not warn the terrorist elements in advance as to how, where and when we will respond, but we will respond," Olmert said at the start of his weekly cabinet meeting.

At least two rockets and several mortars were fired into Israel on Sunday, lightly wounding two soldiers and a civilian, and Palestinian militants opened fire on an army patrol along the border, causing no injuries, the military said.

Residents said that one of the rockets landed near a kindergarten in an Israeli village east of Gaza but failed to explode.

The Israeli military campaign left Hamas in charge of Gaza, but Israel's leaders said that the point of the offensive was to establish enough deterrence to bring an end to the rocket fire.

Many Israelis say the operation stopped too soon, however, and was inconclusive, a feeling that benefits the political hawks.

"The fact that there are still rockets means that the operation did not succeed," Danny Ayalon, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States and a candidate of the nationalist Yisrael Beitenu party, said here Sunday.

(from this)

Give justice a chance! Crush the threat!

[Jake_Ellison]

"The fact that there are still rockets means that the operation did not succeed," Danny Ayalon, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States and a candidate of the nationalist Yisrael Beitenu party, said here Sunday.

While Ayalon has a shread of a point, those (two) rockets did not come from Hamas, but from the other, rival morons. Olmert is right to make it clear that they need to stop completely, or else, but to say that the campaign failed is a stretch: Hamas-the biggest threat- is in fact probably going to behave, precisely because now they know exactly what they are going to get if they don't, even after the elections. (Netanyahu is likely to be the next prime-minister)

Time will tell for sure whether the campaign succeeded or not.

[Jake_Ellison]

Here's a video (the second half of it) of Yaron Brook raising the possibility of Israel losing the war, in the end. This analysis should be quite scary for most Americans, who cannot imagine that the destruction of Israel is a perfectly plausible outcome in this war:

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Sharia_and_Jihad...fications/1910/