See the article from Globes (Israel's WSJ) below, ranking world happiness.
Palestinian territories ranks 128 - ahead of egypt (151), Syria (142), and Jordan (141). These are the alternative countries that actually Israel fought in 1967, and captured THEIR land. Bottom line, the palestians are in better shape under "israeli occupation" than living in Syria, Egypt or Jordan!
Israel 58th in UK university's World Map of Happiness
University of Leicester: Denmark, Switzerland, and Austria are the happiest of 178 countries.
Aaron Rosen 30 Jul 06 15:34
Six countries from Europe and two each from Asia and North America are the ten happiest countries in the world according to the first ever World Map of Happiness compiled by an analytic social psychologist Adrian White at University of Leicester in the UK. The top happiest countries in the world are Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, the Bahamas, Finland, Sweden, Bhutan, Brunei, and Canada.
Israel is ranked 58th in the list of 178 countries, ahead of France (62nd), Japan (90th), and not far behind Italy (50th) and the UK (41st). Germany is in 35th place, the US in 23rd, China 82nd, and India 125th.
Lebanon was ranked 113th, even before the present war. Among Arab countries, Saudi Arabia is in 31st place.
White found happiness to most closely associated with health, followed by wealth and then education. He quantified and analyzed data from UNESCO, UNHDR, the World Health Organization (WHO), the CIA, the New Economics Foundation (a UK organization), the Veenhoven Database, the Latinbarometer, the Afrobarometer to create a global projection of subjective well-being.
The result is a “satisfaction with life” (SWL) index. Israel accumulated 223.33 points. According to the survey, Israel’s life expectancy is 79.7 years (a figure apparently taken from the CIA database). The US, by contrast, accumulated 246.67 points, with a life expectancy of 75.4 years. Israel’s GDP per capita is $24,600 (according to the CIAfigure for 2006), compared with the US figure of $41,800. The figures are in purchasing power parity (PPP), not the nominal dollar value.
Israel has 93 points for access to education, compared with a score of 94.6 for the US, 157 for the UK, and 109 for France.
At the bottom of the World Happiness Map were the African countries Burundi, Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of Congo (which is holding its first democratic elections in decades today).
White said, “There is a belief that capitalism leads to unhappy people. However, when people are asked if they are happy with their lives, people in countries with good healthcare, a higher GDP per capita, and access to education were much more likely to report being happy.”
White added, “The concept of happiness, or satisfaction with life, is currently a major area of research in economics and psychology, most closely associated with new developments in positive psychology…There is increasing political interest in using measures of happiness as a national indicator in conjunction with measures of wealth. A recent BBC survey found that 81% of the population think the government should focus on making us happier rather than wealthier.”
Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes.co.il - on July 30, 2006
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Thursday, July 27, 2006
The truth about the 4 UN deaths in Lebanan
Retired Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie was interviewed on CBC radio, and had some very interesting news about the UN observer post hit by Israeli shells; the Canadian peacekeeper killed there had previously emailed Mackenzie telling him that Hizballah was using their post as cover.
"We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that’s veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it."
"We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that’s veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it."
Now is the time for a better use of air power
Interesting expert analysis on using air not ground forces in Lebanan.
Analysis: Now is the time for a better use of air power
SHMUEL L. GORDON, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 26, 2006
A hard and fast rule of war is that the use of ground forces in urban combat is directly related to loss of life. In Gaza, the IDF has somehow learned to go in and get out with few casualties. Hizbullah is a different enemy, with different equipment, a different surrounding population and, perhaps, a greater motivation to fight.
Wednesday's casualties in Bint Jbail may indicate that Hizbullah has managed, yet again, to neutralize the IAF's technological advantages. The proper use of air power against a terrorist or guerrilla formation takes time, and herein lies Israel's problem.
Last week in Maroun a-Ras, several soldiers died fighting Hizbullah around their fortified bunkers. The correct use of military power in that situation would have been to use small special forces teams equipped with nothing more than GPS trackers, laser pointers and Uzi submachine guns.
The elite forces, instead of going into the bunkers, could have laser-painted the bunkers' positions to the IAF, which would have destroyed them. That would be the correct way to leverage Israel's technological advantage.
The massive bombings - the IAF's use of brute force - has its limitations with respect to high-value targets, and the deployment of ground troops neutralizes our advantages. When a soldier meets a soldier, when a Kalashnikov meets an M-16, when the fight is eye to eye, there are no technological advantages. It will always be like this.
Hizbullah has no qualms about losing 50 fighters, whereas we Israelis do, and the Islamists know it. Wednesday's battle will give Hizbullah a huge morale boost - regardless of how many fighters they have lost.
During the Lebanon War, I was in charge of the air force's underground command bunker. Every time the infantrymen got themselves into trouble, they would call on the IAF to "open the roads." This usually entailed civilian casualties. The air force chief at the time, Maj.-Gen. David Ivri, demanded that the ground forces provide quality intelligence to ensure that civilians were not being accidentally targeted. That is still the key now.
Counterterror air warfare strategy has developed a great deal in recent years. It is now based on new intelligence technologies that have enabled airborne systems to locate small mobile vehicles such as rocket launchers, and even a pair of terrorists trying to launch a Kassam rocket, and precision-guided munitions, which have made it possible to hit such targets quickly and accurately.
The most important characteristic of these systems is their ability to preserve the lives of innocent people located near the targeted terrorist.
To find, designate (by laser-painter, for example) and hit terrorists in a limited time frame, teams of special forces should join the battle. The new strategy integrates intelligence, air power and special forces into a combined force that plans its missions as surgical operations. Intelligence officers search for the highest-value targets, including leaders of the terrorist organization, its training infrastructure, professionals who produce dangerous bombs, and those who recruit suicide bombers.
The strategy is based on the assumption that it is almost impossible to demolish terror organizations in a short, intense war. On the contrary, the preferred scenario is a war of attrition. Step by step, operation by operation, the light at the end of the tunnel becomes brighter. Counterterror air warfare doctrine emphasizes using air power in a different way than in large-scale conventional warfare. The new doctrine prefers a longer but lower-intensity conflict.
The Israel Air Force's operations in the current campaign do not even come close to conforming to this concept. The government is attempting to use the air force's brute force to crush Hizbullah and to compel the powerless Lebanese government to control southern Lebanon with its own toothless army.
Throughout military history, there have been gaps between doctrine and reality. In the current case, the gap is particularly large, created by the government's ignorance of the appropriate strategy. The cabinet is ignoring, or simply doesn't understand, the principles of modern counterterrorism, especially those relating to air power.
The cabinet needs to take into consideration the strengths and weaknesses of the intelligence/air power/special forces mixture. It is the duty of the IDF General Staff to acquaint the civilian leadership with the limitations and capabilities of air power. The government need to have the information to set the goals, which will then dictate the military means and strategy. There is no alternative.
Dr. Shmuel L. Gordon, a colonel (res.) in the IAF, is head of the Technology and National Security program at the Holon Institute of Technology, and an expert in national security, air warfare and counterterrorism. He is also the author of The Vulture and the Snake: Counter-Guerrilla Air Warfare: The War in Southern Lebanon.
Analysis: Now is the time for a better use of air power
SHMUEL L. GORDON, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 26, 2006
A hard and fast rule of war is that the use of ground forces in urban combat is directly related to loss of life. In Gaza, the IDF has somehow learned to go in and get out with few casualties. Hizbullah is a different enemy, with different equipment, a different surrounding population and, perhaps, a greater motivation to fight.
Wednesday's casualties in Bint Jbail may indicate that Hizbullah has managed, yet again, to neutralize the IAF's technological advantages. The proper use of air power against a terrorist or guerrilla formation takes time, and herein lies Israel's problem.
Last week in Maroun a-Ras, several soldiers died fighting Hizbullah around their fortified bunkers. The correct use of military power in that situation would have been to use small special forces teams equipped with nothing more than GPS trackers, laser pointers and Uzi submachine guns.
The elite forces, instead of going into the bunkers, could have laser-painted the bunkers' positions to the IAF, which would have destroyed them. That would be the correct way to leverage Israel's technological advantage.
The massive bombings - the IAF's use of brute force - has its limitations with respect to high-value targets, and the deployment of ground troops neutralizes our advantages. When a soldier meets a soldier, when a Kalashnikov meets an M-16, when the fight is eye to eye, there are no technological advantages. It will always be like this.
Hizbullah has no qualms about losing 50 fighters, whereas we Israelis do, and the Islamists know it. Wednesday's battle will give Hizbullah a huge morale boost - regardless of how many fighters they have lost.
During the Lebanon War, I was in charge of the air force's underground command bunker. Every time the infantrymen got themselves into trouble, they would call on the IAF to "open the roads." This usually entailed civilian casualties. The air force chief at the time, Maj.-Gen. David Ivri, demanded that the ground forces provide quality intelligence to ensure that civilians were not being accidentally targeted. That is still the key now.
Counterterror air warfare strategy has developed a great deal in recent years. It is now based on new intelligence technologies that have enabled airborne systems to locate small mobile vehicles such as rocket launchers, and even a pair of terrorists trying to launch a Kassam rocket, and precision-guided munitions, which have made it possible to hit such targets quickly and accurately.
The most important characteristic of these systems is their ability to preserve the lives of innocent people located near the targeted terrorist.
To find, designate (by laser-painter, for example) and hit terrorists in a limited time frame, teams of special forces should join the battle. The new strategy integrates intelligence, air power and special forces into a combined force that plans its missions as surgical operations. Intelligence officers search for the highest-value targets, including leaders of the terrorist organization, its training infrastructure, professionals who produce dangerous bombs, and those who recruit suicide bombers.
The strategy is based on the assumption that it is almost impossible to demolish terror organizations in a short, intense war. On the contrary, the preferred scenario is a war of attrition. Step by step, operation by operation, the light at the end of the tunnel becomes brighter. Counterterror air warfare doctrine emphasizes using air power in a different way than in large-scale conventional warfare. The new doctrine prefers a longer but lower-intensity conflict.
The Israel Air Force's operations in the current campaign do not even come close to conforming to this concept. The government is attempting to use the air force's brute force to crush Hizbullah and to compel the powerless Lebanese government to control southern Lebanon with its own toothless army.
Throughout military history, there have been gaps between doctrine and reality. In the current case, the gap is particularly large, created by the government's ignorance of the appropriate strategy. The cabinet is ignoring, or simply doesn't understand, the principles of modern counterterrorism, especially those relating to air power.
The cabinet needs to take into consideration the strengths and weaknesses of the intelligence/air power/special forces mixture. It is the duty of the IDF General Staff to acquaint the civilian leadership with the limitations and capabilities of air power. The government need to have the information to set the goals, which will then dictate the military means and strategy. There is no alternative.
Dr. Shmuel L. Gordon, a colonel (res.) in the IAF, is head of the Technology and National Security program at the Holon Institute of Technology, and an expert in national security, air warfare and counterterrorism. He is also the author of The Vulture and the Snake: Counter-Guerrilla Air Warfare: The War in Southern Lebanon.
Israel has to end this
The article below I agree with some and disagree with some. The underlying point is accurate: Israel has to finish this ASAP. If the goals are reached 100% or not. There should be an internal military time limit on this. We just lost 9 soldiers yesterday (pics below of funeral reactions that I added). The majority of Israelis have no idea why we are sending in ground troops. Terrible political job by Olmert. Why are 9 soldiers' lives cheaper than Lebanese civilians? Israel should have flattened the key Hezbollah villages with the IAF. Any civilians that did not heed to the IDF's 3-day warning, too bad. Did we learn nothing from Jenin? The world will always label us immoral. Lets at least be moral to ourselves.
Also, politically we must exit. If not, the world, including Israelis, will quickly forget why this started and just blame Israel. That will be a super victory for Hezbollah.
Rattling the Cage: There is a limit
Larry Derfner, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 26, 2006
I wouldn't have joined last weekend's demonstration in Tel Aviv against Israel's war in Lebanon, because I think this war was forced on us.
If Hizbullah had been allowed to kidnap two IDF soldiers and kill eight others without being made to pay a wholly "disproportionate" price, if the IDF had settled for a tit-for-tat response, then Hizbullah would feel free to attack again anytime, and the security and well-being of northern Israel would be at Hassan Nasrallah's mercy.
But if Israel is still fighting in Lebanon after another week, then I'm going to be looking for an antiwar protest to join - and my guess is that such a protest, if it's still necessary, will attract a lot more people than the 2,500 who showed up for the first one.
So let the IDF take a few more days to kill as many Hizbullah men and destroy as much of their weaponry as possible - but then this has to stop. There is just so much we can reasonably expect to achieve in this war, there is only so high a price we can pay - or make Lebanon pay - and just so great a risk we should take.
WE'VE ABOUT reached the limit of what's reasonable. If the IDF keeps going, it will be fighting on overconfidence, and that's a dangerous thing. The war could get out of control and become one Israel can neither win nor walk away from. It's happened to Israel before in Lebanon. It's happened now in Iraq to America, Israel's patron in the new war against Hizbullah.
When the fighting started I felt sure the Olmert government wasn't going to get swell-headed, that it had in mind an intense, two-or-three-week, in-and-out operation meant to leave Hizbullah severely wounded and reluctant to try Israel again. It seemed a worthy goal that could be achieved at an acceptable price.
But I'm not so sure about the Olmert government now. Between the genuine "moral clarity" of Israel's cause, the war's wall-to-wall domestic support, the encouragement that's come in from abroad, and the green light from Bush, the government seems to have become giddy. Its war goals, its conditions for a cease-fire, are unrealistic, if not impossible.
If the government stands by these conditions - which the Bush administration, in its well-meaning, pea-brained way, is backing - there's no telling how long the war could last or where it might lead.
Israel is saying it won't stop fighting until Hizbullah is supplanted in southern Lebanon by the Lebanese army and/or an international force, one that will be committed to actually fighting off Hizbullah and enforcing the cease-fire.
GOOD LUCK. Which countries are going to put their soldiers in such a spot? They'd have to be crazy. If the Bush administration honestly thought this was such a good idea, it would be offering at least a few thousand US troops for the mission - but it's not, because the last time America sent troops to Lebanon, Hizbullah blew up 241 of them, along with 58 from France, and that was the end of that peace-keeping mission.
Right now, the war in Iraq is more than enough Mideast adventure for the forces of democracy, thank you. If Israel is waiting for someone to "hand off" to in southern Lebanon, it will be waiting a long time.
The government's other "non-negotiable" condition for a cease-fire is that Hizbullah free the two kidnapped IDF soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. I find it impossible to believe that any level-headed Israeli really expects Nasrallah to just give the two up, unconditionally, without getting at least a couple hundred of his own men out of Israeli prisons in return. Yet the Olmert government has committed itself to this demand, and it will be difficult to abandon, but it's going to have to be abandoned if the war is ever going to end.
I think everyone knows we're going to have to trade to get Goldwasser and Regev back, only not everyone - nor any politician I know of - is willing to admit it.
THIS WAR has become too much for civilians on either side to bear. A million residents of the Israeli North are at their wits' end, in their third week of living in bomb shelters or at their relatives' houses further south.
In Lebanon, of course, it's far worse. Whatever the justice of Israel's cause, whatever Hizbullah's immoral use of the Lebanese civilian population, the IDF cannot wreak "collateral damage" on civil Lebanese society without limit. The deaths to innocents and destruction to infrastructure there may be unintentional, but it is also inevitable.
Morally, there is just so far we can go, and we've gone far enough.
What worries me most, though, is that Hizbullah will land one of its "surprises," which will cause not only intolerable Israeli casualties but also compel us to escalate in kind - because if we let them land the last blow, they win and we lose.
This is the road to quagmire. It can happen again, unless we wrap this thing up.
Israeli-US policy is to bring Hizbullah to its knees; but Hizbullah is in another league militarily from that of Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorists. The only conceivable way to break Hizbullah is to fight an all-out, open-ended war in Lebanon, and probably in Syria and Iran as well.
In such a war, the chance of bringing Hizbullah to its knees would be dwarfed by the chance of catastrophe.
But if Israel winds the war up now, it can still win. Once the fighting stops and the dust settles, Hizbullah will retain plenty of capability to hurt Israel, but I don't think it will be in a hurry to try. Lebanon does not want to go through this again, and neither do the leaders of the Arab world.
Israel has exacted a very high price for Hizbullah's aggression, and by doing so it just may have achieved the one realistic, legitimate goal of this war - the reestablishment of Israeli military deterrence.
If this goal is accomplished, the war will have been a success. But we can only find out once the war is over.
Also, politically we must exit. If not, the world, including Israelis, will quickly forget why this started and just blame Israel. That will be a super victory for Hezbollah.
Rattling the Cage: There is a limit
Larry Derfner, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 26, 2006
I wouldn't have joined last weekend's demonstration in Tel Aviv against Israel's war in Lebanon, because I think this war was forced on us.
If Hizbullah had been allowed to kidnap two IDF soldiers and kill eight others without being made to pay a wholly "disproportionate" price, if the IDF had settled for a tit-for-tat response, then Hizbullah would feel free to attack again anytime, and the security and well-being of northern Israel would be at Hassan Nasrallah's mercy.
But if Israel is still fighting in Lebanon after another week, then I'm going to be looking for an antiwar protest to join - and my guess is that such a protest, if it's still necessary, will attract a lot more people than the 2,500 who showed up for the first one.
So let the IDF take a few more days to kill as many Hizbullah men and destroy as much of their weaponry as possible - but then this has to stop. There is just so much we can reasonably expect to achieve in this war, there is only so high a price we can pay - or make Lebanon pay - and just so great a risk we should take.
WE'VE ABOUT reached the limit of what's reasonable. If the IDF keeps going, it will be fighting on overconfidence, and that's a dangerous thing. The war could get out of control and become one Israel can neither win nor walk away from. It's happened to Israel before in Lebanon. It's happened now in Iraq to America, Israel's patron in the new war against Hizbullah.
When the fighting started I felt sure the Olmert government wasn't going to get swell-headed, that it had in mind an intense, two-or-three-week, in-and-out operation meant to leave Hizbullah severely wounded and reluctant to try Israel again. It seemed a worthy goal that could be achieved at an acceptable price.
But I'm not so sure about the Olmert government now. Between the genuine "moral clarity" of Israel's cause, the war's wall-to-wall domestic support, the encouragement that's come in from abroad, and the green light from Bush, the government seems to have become giddy. Its war goals, its conditions for a cease-fire, are unrealistic, if not impossible.
If the government stands by these conditions - which the Bush administration, in its well-meaning, pea-brained way, is backing - there's no telling how long the war could last or where it might lead.
Israel is saying it won't stop fighting until Hizbullah is supplanted in southern Lebanon by the Lebanese army and/or an international force, one that will be committed to actually fighting off Hizbullah and enforcing the cease-fire.
GOOD LUCK. Which countries are going to put their soldiers in such a spot? They'd have to be crazy. If the Bush administration honestly thought this was such a good idea, it would be offering at least a few thousand US troops for the mission - but it's not, because the last time America sent troops to Lebanon, Hizbullah blew up 241 of them, along with 58 from France, and that was the end of that peace-keeping mission.
Right now, the war in Iraq is more than enough Mideast adventure for the forces of democracy, thank you. If Israel is waiting for someone to "hand off" to in southern Lebanon, it will be waiting a long time.
The government's other "non-negotiable" condition for a cease-fire is that Hizbullah free the two kidnapped IDF soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. I find it impossible to believe that any level-headed Israeli really expects Nasrallah to just give the two up, unconditionally, without getting at least a couple hundred of his own men out of Israeli prisons in return. Yet the Olmert government has committed itself to this demand, and it will be difficult to abandon, but it's going to have to be abandoned if the war is ever going to end.
I think everyone knows we're going to have to trade to get Goldwasser and Regev back, only not everyone - nor any politician I know of - is willing to admit it.
THIS WAR has become too much for civilians on either side to bear. A million residents of the Israeli North are at their wits' end, in their third week of living in bomb shelters or at their relatives' houses further south.
In Lebanon, of course, it's far worse. Whatever the justice of Israel's cause, whatever Hizbullah's immoral use of the Lebanese civilian population, the IDF cannot wreak "collateral damage" on civil Lebanese society without limit. The deaths to innocents and destruction to infrastructure there may be unintentional, but it is also inevitable.
Morally, there is just so far we can go, and we've gone far enough.
What worries me most, though, is that Hizbullah will land one of its "surprises," which will cause not only intolerable Israeli casualties but also compel us to escalate in kind - because if we let them land the last blow, they win and we lose.
This is the road to quagmire. It can happen again, unless we wrap this thing up.
Israeli-US policy is to bring Hizbullah to its knees; but Hizbullah is in another league militarily from that of Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorists. The only conceivable way to break Hizbullah is to fight an all-out, open-ended war in Lebanon, and probably in Syria and Iran as well.
In such a war, the chance of bringing Hizbullah to its knees would be dwarfed by the chance of catastrophe.
But if Israel winds the war up now, it can still win. Once the fighting stops and the dust settles, Hizbullah will retain plenty of capability to hurt Israel, but I don't think it will be in a hurry to try. Lebanon does not want to go through this again, and neither do the leaders of the Arab world.
Israel has exacted a very high price for Hizbullah's aggression, and by doing so it just may have achieved the one realistic, legitimate goal of this war - the reestablishment of Israeli military deterrence.
If this goal is accomplished, the war will have been a success. But we can only find out once the war is over.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Good versus Evil
This is a great quote on how to understand objective good and objective evil:
"Here is the simple fact. Tomorrow, if the terrorists (Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Al Qaida, etc.) stop killing and lay down their arms, the violence in the Middle East and Iraq will stop. Tomorrow, if Israel throws all its weapons into the Mediterranean Sea, there will be another Holocaust."
This is from Bill O'Reilly from Fox News.
"Here is the simple fact. Tomorrow, if the terrorists (Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Al Qaida, etc.) stop killing and lay down their arms, the violence in the Middle East and Iraq will stop. Tomorrow, if Israel throws all its weapons into the Mediterranean Sea, there will be another Holocaust."
This is from Bill O'Reilly from Fox News.
Can Israel Win?
I am getting really disturbed / frightened about the situation in Israel. Read the article below. It is somewhat of a military analysis of the situation according to Ralph Peters. I believe much of what he said is based on fact, but, according to the Israeli military experts that I have spoken with, Israel is in a much better situation than he portrays. Bottom line, victory is very different for Israel and Hezbollah. This is a lose-lose Israeli situation and a win-win Hezbollah situation. Hezbollah cannot beat Israel, they can only terrorize it. And Israel cannot 100% uproot Hezbollah with destroying it at the choke point - Syria and Iran. Therefore, this battle is a sure win for Hezbollah and global terrorism in general, and a sure loss for Israel and the free world in general.
CAN ISRAEL WIN?
From the New York Post
By Ralph Peters
July 22, 2006 -- ISRAEL is losing this war. For a lifelong Israel supporter, that's a painful thing to write. But it's true. And the situation's worsening each day.
A U.S. government official put it to me this way: "Israel's got the clock, but Hezbollah's got the time." The sands of the hourglass favor the terrorists - every day they hold out and drop more rockets on Israel, Hezbollah scores a propaganda win.
All Hezbollah has to do to achieve victory is not to lose completely. But for Israel to emerge the acknowledged winner, it has to shatter Hezbollah. Yet Israeli miscalculations have left Hezbollah alive and kicking.
Israel has to pull itself together now, to send in ground troops in sufficient numbers, with fierce resolve to do what must be done: Root out Hezbollah fighters and kill them. This means Israel will suffer painful casualties - more today than if the Israeli Defense Force had gone in full blast at this fight's beginning.
The situation is grave. A perceived Hezbollah win will be a massive victory for terror, as well as a triumph for Iran and Syria. And everybody loves a winner - especially in the Middle East, where Arabs and Persians have been losing so long.
Israel can't afford a Hezbollah win. America can't afford it. Civilization can't afford it. Yet it just might happen.
Israel tried to make war halfway, and only made a mess. Let's review where the situation stands:
* By trying to spare Israeli lives through the use of airpower and long-range artillery fire instead of ground troops, the IDF played into Hezbollah's hands. The terrorists could claim that Israel feared them. Meanwhile, Israeli targeting proved shockingly sloppy, failing to ravage Hezbollah, while hitting civilians - to the international media's delight.
* The IDF is readying a reinforced brigade of armor and 3,000 to 5,000 troops for a "limited incursion" into southern Lebanon. Won't work. Not enough troops. And Hezbollah's had time to get locked and loaded. This is going to be messy - any half-hearted Israeli effort will fall short.
* Famed for its penetration, Israeli intelligence failed this time. It didn't detect the new weapons Iran and Syria had provided to Hezbollah, from anti-ship missiles to longer-range rockets. And, after years of spying, it couldn't find Hezbollah.
This should set off global alarm bells: If Hezbollah can hide rockets, Iran can hide nukes.
* The media sided heavily with Hezbollah (surprise, surprise). Rocket attacks on Israel were reported clinically, but IDF strikes on Lebanon have been milked for every last drop of emotion. We hear about broken glass in Haifa - and bleeding babies in Beirut.
* Washington rejoiced when several Arab governments criticized Hezbollah for its actions. But the Arab street, Shia and Sunni, has coalesced behind Hezbollah. Saudi and Egyptian government statements are worth about as much as a greeting card from Marie Antoinette on New Year's Day, 1789.
* Syria and Iran are getting a free ride. Hezbollah fights and dies, Damascus and Tehran collect the dividends.
* Israel looks irresolute and incapable - encouraging its enemies.
* The "world community" wants a cease-fire - which would only benefit the terrorists. Hezbollah would claim (accurately) that it had withstood Israel's assault. Couldn't get a better terrorist recruiting advertisement.
* A cease-fire would be under U.N. auspices. Gee, thanks. No U.N. force would protect Israel's interests, but plenty of U.N. contingents would cooperate with or turn a blind eye to the terrorists. Think Russia's an honest broker? Ask its Jews who fled to Israel. Would French troops protect Israeli interests? Ask the Jews Vichy bureaucrats packed off to the death camps. (The French are more anti-Semitic than the Germans - just less efficient.)
* One bright spot: The Bush administration continues to resist international attempts to bully Israel into a premature cease-fire. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is flying off to the big falafel stand as a token gesture, not to interfere with Israel's self-defense.
But the clock's ticking. Washington can only buy Israel so much time.
* Every rocket that lands in Israel is a propaganda victory for Hezbollah. After 1,000-plus Israeli air-strikes, the rockets keep falling, and Israel looks impotent. The price of sparing Israeli infantrymen has been the elevation of Hezbollah to heroic status through the Muslim world.
* The Olmert government tried to wage war on the cheap. Such efforts always raise the cost in the end. Olmert resembles President Bill Clinton - willing to lob bombs from a distance, but unwilling to accept that war means friendly casualties.
* Israel needs to grasp the power of the global media. Long proud of going its own way in the face of genocidal anti-Semitism, Israel now has to recognize that the media can overturn the verdict of the battlefield. Even if Israel pulls off a last-minute win on the ground, the anti-Israel propaganda machine has been given so big a head-start that Hezbollah still may be portrayed as the victor.
The situation is grim. Israel looks more desperate every day, while Hezbollah appears more defiant.
This is ultimately about far more than a buffer zone in southern Lebanon. In the long run, it's about Israel's survival. And about preventing the rise of a nuclear Iran and the strengthening of the rogue regime in Syria. It's also about the future of Lebanon - everybody's victim.
The mess Israel has made of its opportunity to smack down Hezbollah should be a wake-up call to the country's leadership. The IDF looks like a pathetic shadow of the bold military that Ariel Sharon led into Egypt three decades ago. The IDF's intelligence, targeting and planning were all deficient. Technology failed to vanquish flesh and blood. The myth of the IDF's invincibility just shattered.
If Israel can't turn this situation around quickly, the failure will be a turning point in its history. And not for the better.
Ralph Peters' new book is "Never Quit the Fight."
CAN ISRAEL WIN?
From the New York Post
By Ralph Peters
July 22, 2006 -- ISRAEL is losing this war. For a lifelong Israel supporter, that's a painful thing to write. But it's true. And the situation's worsening each day.
A U.S. government official put it to me this way: "Israel's got the clock, but Hezbollah's got the time." The sands of the hourglass favor the terrorists - every day they hold out and drop more rockets on Israel, Hezbollah scores a propaganda win.
All Hezbollah has to do to achieve victory is not to lose completely. But for Israel to emerge the acknowledged winner, it has to shatter Hezbollah. Yet Israeli miscalculations have left Hezbollah alive and kicking.
Israel has to pull itself together now, to send in ground troops in sufficient numbers, with fierce resolve to do what must be done: Root out Hezbollah fighters and kill them. This means Israel will suffer painful casualties - more today than if the Israeli Defense Force had gone in full blast at this fight's beginning.
The situation is grave. A perceived Hezbollah win will be a massive victory for terror, as well as a triumph for Iran and Syria. And everybody loves a winner - especially in the Middle East, where Arabs and Persians have been losing so long.
Israel can't afford a Hezbollah win. America can't afford it. Civilization can't afford it. Yet it just might happen.
Israel tried to make war halfway, and only made a mess. Let's review where the situation stands:
* By trying to spare Israeli lives through the use of airpower and long-range artillery fire instead of ground troops, the IDF played into Hezbollah's hands. The terrorists could claim that Israel feared them. Meanwhile, Israeli targeting proved shockingly sloppy, failing to ravage Hezbollah, while hitting civilians - to the international media's delight.
* The IDF is readying a reinforced brigade of armor and 3,000 to 5,000 troops for a "limited incursion" into southern Lebanon. Won't work. Not enough troops. And Hezbollah's had time to get locked and loaded. This is going to be messy - any half-hearted Israeli effort will fall short.
* Famed for its penetration, Israeli intelligence failed this time. It didn't detect the new weapons Iran and Syria had provided to Hezbollah, from anti-ship missiles to longer-range rockets. And, after years of spying, it couldn't find Hezbollah.
This should set off global alarm bells: If Hezbollah can hide rockets, Iran can hide nukes.
* The media sided heavily with Hezbollah (surprise, surprise). Rocket attacks on Israel were reported clinically, but IDF strikes on Lebanon have been milked for every last drop of emotion. We hear about broken glass in Haifa - and bleeding babies in Beirut.
* Washington rejoiced when several Arab governments criticized Hezbollah for its actions. But the Arab street, Shia and Sunni, has coalesced behind Hezbollah. Saudi and Egyptian government statements are worth about as much as a greeting card from Marie Antoinette on New Year's Day, 1789.
* Syria and Iran are getting a free ride. Hezbollah fights and dies, Damascus and Tehran collect the dividends.
* Israel looks irresolute and incapable - encouraging its enemies.
* The "world community" wants a cease-fire - which would only benefit the terrorists. Hezbollah would claim (accurately) that it had withstood Israel's assault. Couldn't get a better terrorist recruiting advertisement.
* A cease-fire would be under U.N. auspices. Gee, thanks. No U.N. force would protect Israel's interests, but plenty of U.N. contingents would cooperate with or turn a blind eye to the terrorists. Think Russia's an honest broker? Ask its Jews who fled to Israel. Would French troops protect Israeli interests? Ask the Jews Vichy bureaucrats packed off to the death camps. (The French are more anti-Semitic than the Germans - just less efficient.)
* One bright spot: The Bush administration continues to resist international attempts to bully Israel into a premature cease-fire. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is flying off to the big falafel stand as a token gesture, not to interfere with Israel's self-defense.
But the clock's ticking. Washington can only buy Israel so much time.
* Every rocket that lands in Israel is a propaganda victory for Hezbollah. After 1,000-plus Israeli air-strikes, the rockets keep falling, and Israel looks impotent. The price of sparing Israeli infantrymen has been the elevation of Hezbollah to heroic status through the Muslim world.
* The Olmert government tried to wage war on the cheap. Such efforts always raise the cost in the end. Olmert resembles President Bill Clinton - willing to lob bombs from a distance, but unwilling to accept that war means friendly casualties.
* Israel needs to grasp the power of the global media. Long proud of going its own way in the face of genocidal anti-Semitism, Israel now has to recognize that the media can overturn the verdict of the battlefield. Even if Israel pulls off a last-minute win on the ground, the anti-Israel propaganda machine has been given so big a head-start that Hezbollah still may be portrayed as the victor.
The situation is grim. Israel looks more desperate every day, while Hezbollah appears more defiant.
This is ultimately about far more than a buffer zone in southern Lebanon. In the long run, it's about Israel's survival. And about preventing the rise of a nuclear Iran and the strengthening of the rogue regime in Syria. It's also about the future of Lebanon - everybody's victim.
The mess Israel has made of its opportunity to smack down Hezbollah should be a wake-up call to the country's leadership. The IDF looks like a pathetic shadow of the bold military that Ariel Sharon led into Egypt three decades ago. The IDF's intelligence, targeting and planning were all deficient. Technology failed to vanquish flesh and blood. The myth of the IDF's invincibility just shattered.
If Israel can't turn this situation around quickly, the failure will be a turning point in its history. And not for the better.
Ralph Peters' new book is "Never Quit the Fight."
The Blog's new format
My blog will now take a new format:
Instead of being the author of all original articles, for which I do not have time, I will post interesting articles from other sources and provide some brief comments.
Enjoy.
Instead of being the author of all original articles, for which I do not have time, I will post interesting articles from other sources and provide some brief comments.
Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
