| Wednesday,
January 7, 2009 Subject: What are the
Israelis Thinking?
http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/
2009/01/what-are-isaelis-thinking.html
A long and thoughtful post dissecting the planning and
what might be the strategy behind the operation so far.I'm not a good editor
so the following is just a bet snatched out of the middle - there are a lot
of excellent thoughts, as are other recent posts at his site.
"Israel's leadership had no choice, that has been
clear for a while, but how would they create the means? Being right doesn't
mean you can act upon it; waging a just war with unjust methods undermines
the original justification.
Where there's a need there has to be a way, especially
in situations where throwing up your hands in despair will result in
innocents getting killed and entire communities being terrorized. The way
that seems to have been devised was what I'll call accelerated inching
attrition.
First, you think a lot. You probably start with
defining your goal: what is it you wish to achieve; perhaps you list various
possible goals. Then you look at every possible component of the problem,
you try to imagine every possible thing that can go wrong, and you ask
yourself what it would take to overcome the problems and avoid the pitfalls.
I have no doubt the IDF and its civilian surroundings have articulated every
single objection currently being screeched by the Guardian and everyone
else, and gone looking for a response. (The arrogance of the pundits who are
so cock-sure they've got anything novel to say is comic, but not my subject
at the moment).
The more you think (an activity that never ends), the
more you can begin making preparations. You train your troops for the tasks
they'll need to face, as well as for all the things you can think of that
might go wrong. And then you train them some more. Reserve units, too, of
course.
You collect information. Mountains of it, and sift it
through, and organize it in ways that will be useful. You then use the
emerging picture to calibrate your plans, hone them, and also figure out
what parts of the picture need more details, and you go get them. This is
all a self-enriching cycle.
You prepare the civilian formations: municipalities,
water companies, medical systems and organizations, communications, etc etc.
Whenever you think you've exhausted the list of preparations, you go looking
for more. There's no such thing as completing all preparations, as Achikam
told me an hour before they went in, after yet another day of completing all
the preparations.
Finally, the time came, ten days ago."
David Smith
=
Joel Rosenberg comments:
It's a good analysis. Right? I dunno. What seems to
be clearly right is that any kind of centralized Hamas command -- and I'm
not talking command and control, either, just central authority -- is
gone, at least for the time being. How far down are the commanders dead or
hidden and out of commission? Very, apparently.
Joel
The question becomes, is there anyone able to
surrender? Is a ceasefire possible? If Israel were to broadcast terms
under which it would withdraw, could anyone in Gaza enforce them? There
are always going to be idiots with access to a rocket who think it's a
good idea to shoot it. The question is, what will the people nearby do
when they see the rocket being set up? And what will the local Hamas
precinct captain do?
==========
The Perils of Zero-Gravity Videography.
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/12
/the-perils-of-zero-gravity-videography/
--- Roland Dobbins
=============
HuffPo reverts to form
Here follows a long paste from Planet Gore on NRO. I
found it a little hard to follow, but it seems that the gist is that Mr.
Ambler is now getting roundly (and personally) trashed on the HuffPo for his
apostasy
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/
An Inconvenient HuffPo Item [Chris Horner <http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/
author/?q=NDE2OA==> ]
A reader writes to note that, after yesterday’s
outrage of a voice of reason — er, “rambling . . . denial” — gracing its
pages, the Huffington Post “could NOT allow Mr. Ambler to go on so
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler
/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html>
(so, they had to denigrate HIM),” citing this
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia
/on-global-warming-is-it-h_b_155379.html>
example of HuffPo siccing someone else to go after the
gent, and quite personally.
The author naturally reaches immediately for the
alarmist’s oxygen, argumentum ad hominem: Ambler’s piece was the “ramblings
of a rowing musician” (yet somehow the very poor science student Al Gore,
and any other pol or celeb who agrees, apparently spouts Gospel). They
reach, too, for the fallacious and equally typical appeal to authority
<http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
appeal-to-authority.html> :
“NASA,” by which he actually means James Hansen, to
whom he ascribes NASA’s scientific authority.
Yet, turning the mirror a bit, we see the amusing
truth that, despite this approach, the author is not a scientist <http://www.desmogblog.com/kevin_grandia>
but a blogger for the tantrum-throwing PR outlet DeSmogBlog
<http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?
q=NDc2MmEwNWUwYmY5Yjg0ZTgzN2E
5ZmUwY2Q3MWYzMzg=> .
The alert reader directs us to the DeSmogblog
scribbler’s HuffPo bio
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
kevin-grandia/%2523blogger_bio> noting:
He’s an editor and a “social media” guy/guru. Now, how
far above “musician” is that?
But, what I find most interesting is the chastisement
of Mr. Ambler by other blogs because of a point made by Ms. Huffington
HERSELF in one of her books.
He refers us to this post
<http://getenergysmartnow.com
/2009/01/05/huffpost-scores-a-
10-on-the-inhofe-scale/> , which complains:
What is, perhaps, especially frustrated [sic] is that
Huffington Post chose to give voice to this deception as if they are
redefining ‘fair and balanced’ back to the Faux News version. As Arianna
wrote in her book:
Without the enabling of the traditional media — with
their obsession with “balance” and their pathological devotion to the idea
that truth is always found in the middle — the radical Right would never
have been able to have its ideas taken seriously.
By publishing such misleading tripe, Huffington Post
is contributing to defining some form of middle when it comes to science,
between those who actually believe that the scientific method has value
those who seem to think that they can shape reality through loudly repeating
falsehoods while holding their hands over their ears. Huffington Post has
done its founder, its readership, and the larger society a disservice by
giving voice to dishonesty.”
So above we see how once again the objection is to
allowing others to speak, or be published, and have their thoughts judged on
their merits by others. And the response is, once again, not to address the
merits but to take out after the speaker, personally. Humorously, however,
in their pique they’re now turning on themselves.
But note that last, desperate stab of “dishonesty,”
not unsurprising from an author who also went on with “It is tiring and
rarely fruitful” to counter those who disagree with their prophesying,
“especially because so many so-called ‘skeptics’ are not open to factual and
thoughtful discussion. Data and analyses at odds with their misguided
weltaunschauung [sic] will not be allowed to penetrate their thinking.” More
amusing is that I received this on the heels of receiving the following from
the producer of a nationally syndicated radio show, canceling a hit planned
for this morning:
Unfortunately we are still unable to secure a guest to
support the Global Warming Is a Reality side of the coin. Most have said
that they have moved past the debate issue and are focusing on solutions to
the problem. They stand behind their facts and say there is no longer a
debate over this issue.
[As I address in my new book, that’s clever: refuse to
debate and say, “See, there’s no debate.” Respond to every skeptic scientist
or, more recently, to a petition by hundreds or even tens of thousands by
saying either “oh, those same old names” or, “never heard of them.” Like
calling global cooling “global warming” then “climate change.” Cover all the
bases.]
As the e- mailer cited above noted, what we have here
seems to be a whopper of a case of “projection.”
I met Arianna briefly one at an opera function.
She was very pleasant. Otherwise I know nothing about the her that I
didn't hear from commentors; I've never visited the Huffington Post.
You've told me more about it than I ever expected to know. It's a pity
that science is the victim here.
Democracies seldom vote for or adopt policies
favorable to democracy; history shows this over and over and over.
Eventually egalite trumps liberte, (fraternite long having been forgotten)
and class warfare prevails. Since there will always be social classes --
the reappeared pretty fast in the USSR and again after its dissolution if
you want modern examples -- the result is the end of democracy. The usual
result is some form of dictatorship. Rhodesia/Zimbabwe is a moden example,
but Aristotle described the process well enough.
For those interested in just what happens when
democracies decay, C. Northcote Parkinson's Evolution of Political
Thought is not only readable but one of the 100 or so books I would
have all educated people read sometime in their lifetimes. (Alas, the book
assumes some general knowledge of history and social order that was not an
unreasonable assumption for its intended readership at the time it was
written, but the times have changed. A lot. It's still something you ought
to read.)
One of these days I'll have to write my list of
essential books. That, like some of the other things I ought to do, is
going to require more platinum and patron subscribers. Meanwhile I need to
catch up on deadlines. Ah well.
For platinum subscription:
============
Huge areas of
Britain have become foreign colonies. That could be tomorrow's Ireland,
too
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/
columnists/kevin-myers/huge-areas-
of-britain-have-become-foreign-colonies
-that-could-be-tomorrows-ireland-too-1589227.html
By Kevin Myers 9.1.2
People in Britain and Ireland have taken a
secret, Self-Denying Ordinance not to discuss immigration or race in any
meaningful way
What most struck me while watching BBC
television news reports of the Christmas sales in the West End of
London, was firstly obvious, and secondly, it was something that no-one
with the BBC would ever have remarked on. It was this. The shoppers --
and there were thousands of them -- were overwhelmingly of Asian or
African origin. In the vast throngs of faces, there was barely a
Caucasian face to be seen; and when there was, of course, that was no
guarantee that it was British.
Actually, I didn't need to see those TV
pictures of the London Boxing Day sales to be aware that London has
undergone a demographic transplant unlike that experienced by any
European capital since the Fall of Constantinople in 1483. A couple of
years ago, while on a trip to London, I bought a rover-ticket, which
gave me unlimited travel on the public transport system. I wandered for
miles upon miles through the east end, which bore the blitz in 1940-41,
which is the heart of Cockney culture, with the Pearly Kings and Queens
and which is, of course, the setting for the television soap.
But in Whitechapel or Stepney, to judge
from the shops and the faces and the clothes and the people around me, I
could have been in a Middle Eastern city. What does "England" mean to
these people? Do they know about the months that an earlier generation
spent in the air-raid shelters? Do they know about the 40,000 Londoners
who perished in the winter of 1940-41? Do they know anything about the
history of the streets they now occupy, and could they ever be prevailed
upon to care about it?
These areas were once home to the large
Jewish population of London, who have since moved on, as did the
Huguenots before them, and the Flemings before them. Like all great
cities, London had always attracted immigrants, who have generally
become assimilated into the population around them.
The immigration policies of recent British
governments -- though "non-policies" would be a more accurate
description of that mixture of cowardice, political timidity, abject
conformism and flatulent piety that has underlain the British approach
to this matter -- have now inverted the pyramid. Huge areas of Britain
have become foreign colonies, which demographically and culturally
dominate the native populations. This is not the much-cherished
melting-pot of liberal ideologists: it is more like the race movements
into Australia and the Americas from Europe, with the Aboriginals nearly
as helpless as the wretched natives of those former colonies.
This time, it's a voluntary helplessness.
People in Britain (and now Ireland) apparently have taken a secret,
Self-Denying Ordinance not to discuss immigration or race in any
meaningful way. The silence surrounding one most obvious transformation,
that of Britain's Premier League, is one symptom of this. Perhaps a
majority of players in any good English team will be of at least
part-African origin. This is surely worth commenting on, for many
reasons, not the least of them being the rapid disappearance of role
models for white working-class boys; but around this issue, there is
nothing but a prickly silence. So that when Michel Platini wondered
about the relationship between: (a) some hypothetical Liverpool team of
the future consisting entirely of Africans, and managed by a Brazilian,
and (b) the traditional Merseyside community, he was roundly denounced
by the soccer correspondent of 'The Daily Telegraph' -- no less -- for
his implicit racism.
So is it better to say absolutely nothing
when rapid racial changes occur in a society, in the hope that harmony
will result? For maybe, simple discretion is better than noisy
dissension, and a dutiful and prudent media silence on this topic
actually furthers the process of peaceful assimilation. Well, firstly,
that begs the question about whether a peaceful assimilation is either
possible, or is even being sought, by many of the immigrants to Britain.
And secondly, what damage is meanwhile being done to the credibility of
the media? If journalists can tacitly agree to stay mute in the face of
such clearly visible phenomena, who can then believe them on other, less
obvious issues?
Is this of any interest to Ireland? Well,
yes, not least because what happens in Britain today is what will
usually happen in Ireland tomorrow; and of course, the two islands share
a common-travel area, in which lawful residence in one jurisdiction
conveys an equal right to dwell in the other. Now, I have long since
lost any belief in the courage of the Irish media to tackle the issue of
immigration, other than by showing cheery pictures of Nigerian children
in hurling helmets (usually captioned, "The New Irish"), and by intoning
the usual ritualistic pieties from within the comfort zone of the
left-liberal consensus created by our journalism schools.
Listen: it is easier and cheaper to get
from London to Dublin than to get to Liverpool or Newcastle. The shots
on the BBC news from Boxing Day 2008 are just possibly merely a
foretaste of RTE News on St Stephen's Day in 2018. So when the change
comes, it'll be so fast, that you won't even know that it's happening:
and then, it becomes then an irreversible fact. Just don't say no-one
warned you: because, I did.
===========
I wondered aloud whether,
given the near annihilation of Hamas leadership, where was any way to
order a secession of rocket launches and accept a ceasefire. Joel
Rosenberg comments:
Business as Usual in Gaza
To answer your question: probably. The missile
launches could be stopped, easily. Haniyeh's envoys to Egypt have already
indicated that they want to, sorta, but what they almost certainly don't
have is the infrastructure on the ground to pass the word down quietly from
Haniyeh to the gunmen.
A radio broadcast from Damascus, say, by Khaled
Meshaal would do it.
He could even dress it up with "having achieved our
objections into terrifying the craven Zionist entity into begging for peace,
we now sheath our mighty Qassam daggers" (these guys really do talk like
that, you know; I don't make this stuff up).
It would have to be explicit, and open, though. Which
is kind of a problem.
The launches can't be stopped quietly, not with the
surviving local leadership understandably afraid to go on the air. Even if
Haniyeh does pass the word down, how do they do it? Turn on their cell
phones again? Or, for that matter, have a lot of foot traffic in and out of
their fuhrerbunkers? How close are the drones watching? I dunno, and neither
do they.
So, yes, it could be done. Quietly or within a couple
of days: they get to pick one, but only one. And the facts on the ground are
changing hour by hour.
About the only amusing moment out of Gaza today is
this --
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles
/0,7340,L-3651845,00.html
-- AFP photo of an "IAF jet." Photo of bizarre jet (it has one of those
spinny propeller things on top) attached.
The key symbolic event for today out of Gaza probably
happened at 4:38, local time: Grad rockets hit Beersheba, near a school.
Which pretty much says it all: the rockets were put on their launchers
during the three-hour humanitarian ceasefire Israel declared to let
humanitarian aid pass into Gaza.
Not news to me -- nor, I trust, to you -- that no
Israeli restraint goes unpunished.
Which isn't news in Israel, either, which helps to
explain why the reserves callup is batting better than .1000; see
http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/
2009/01/standing-forward-to-serve.html ; that isn't unusual.
Meanwhile, it's sure looking like there is a Step
Three to the operation, and that it's moving forward; see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/
2009/jan/07/martin-van-creveld-on-israel-in-gaza .
Step one -- air campaign: the military component to
hit high-value targets and break Hamas command, control and communication;
the political component to humiliate Hamas, just a little.
Step two, after the battlefield prep, was to move in
the tanks and infantry, and cut Gaza in half to prevent resupply of the
north from the south; politically, to do so with minimum IDF and Gaza
civilian casualties, and be able to blame the latter on Hamas.
That was tricky, and it looked for a moment,
yesterday, as if the strike on the UN school was going to be turned into the
Qana of the Hamas War . . . but, amazingly, the AP actually got reports out
from Palestinians in Gaza that, yes, Hamas were firing at the troops from
the school. (I haven't been able to verify the reports that there were
secondary explosions.) And that pretty much went away.
And now to Step three: for once, I'm not wrong; I was
sure that what went on in the Philadelphi corridor was going to be the big
deal, and that's where the interesting part of this comes from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHNk6eBw3ME ; that's from today.
And just as the IDF prepares to do whatever it's going
to do there, this:
http://www.ynetnews.com/
articles/0,7340,L-3652514,00.html .
Hamas needs to get the IDF to stop before the tunnels
all get shut down; I don't think they're going to get it. For domestic
reasons, they need to not admit defeat, even while they're begging for a
ceasefire. As some wise man pointed out, they didn't get the burning tanks
that they want, and they haven't gotten the kidnapped soldiers or dead
Israeli schoolchildren that they're hungry for, and while the locals are
surely used to quite a lot of thuggery from Hamas, having relief supplies
snatched away and having to buy them has got to sting a little more than
usual. And with even Mubarak saying that they can't be allowed to win --
http://www.haaretz.com/
hasen/spages/1052974.html
. . . .
The Philadelphi corridor is the center of mass of the
Hamas war, and the release of it was one of the two major strategic flaws of
Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza, and the hardest to fix. If Israel is serious
about a zero tolerance policy for missile attacks, that'll have fixed the
first one -- at a minimum, the destruction of tons of explosive and
ammunition, and the closing down of the tunnels, will make a huge
difference.
And, yeah, the IDF is earning its reputation, again.
If there really are folks in the PA who are looking toward something
longterm, that's good news for lots of folks.
But not for Hamas.
-- Joel Rosenberg
==============w
f
g
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Wednesday
|
