Replies

If only Caroline Glickman spoke for the Israeli people. But the last numbers I saw had 29% for Kadima and 20% for Likud. I'd rather not have predicted this loss, but it was obvious after Olmert's actions toward Gaza, and promises of futher withdrawal from the West Bank. It could have been worse. For the moment, Israel is effectively suicidal - whether through naivety or lassitude. The US should not commit more since the current Israeli government will likely compromise our troops, and we will need them all. Israel, as a bastion of democracy with a fine army has been an invaluable asset. That Israel could defend a tiny slip of land, outnumbered one hundred to one, is a remarkable testament to the benefits of some individual and economic freedom. But the US cannot, and should not, assume their defense. While we can only guess at discussions in Washington and Crawford, as I will discourage my children from risking their lives for state of Israel with its current leadership, our President, as much as he values the nation and people of Israel, has apparently made the same decision.

Israel, while not capable of eliminating Hizbollah, could have insured negotiations on Israeli terms rather than the current sham. Some weapons systems which would have likely (optimistic, but realistic) protected tanks and armored personel carriers might have been operational were defunded several years ago. There have been artillary radar systems for decades which locate fire and initiate counter fire in seconds, before the shell or rocket is close to landing. Instead of phone calls and leaflets to South Lebanese, a warning from Israel that a launch will initate a response makes Hisbollah responsible, and is the horrible cost of war. Reuters must not dictate the defense if Israel. Any other response shows weakness.

We in the US have similar problems, but a couple of oceans, millions of square miles, and thirty times the population insulate us from the dangers. As with the elites of New York, San Fransciso, and Los Angeles the liberal elites of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv pay little attention to the military. Their sons, most of whom still serve in the IDF, hated duty in Gaza and territories, so they found a politician who made it unnecessary. The sons (and sometimes daughters) have relatives all over the world, and leave the country to avoid serving (as a several of Olmert's children did). He was elected by a populace which no longer understands why they must be warriors. Olmert's words, "...we are tired of fighting", were simply honest.

Israel now appears vulnerable, and, from what I know about missile defense (which is dated, but from direct experience), Israel is vulnerable. I hope I'm wrong; I hope this is a "rope-a-dope" strategy to invite an attack while things are not as they appear. But I have seen no indication that Olmert is nearly that clever. And cleverness is not nearly so effective as action. That IDF F16 which buzzed the Syrian Palace before the introduction of ground forces now appears as the bluff it probably was. Moslems are the master of the bluff.

If there is anything positive from the sham of Unifil and the French protecting the peace, one hopes the failures of vigilance and tactics might be addressed before the next round. Unfortunately, it appears that the amazing cacophony of Knesset party politics, only briefly suspended during the war, are taking over. Israel, as constituted, may prove simply too unwieldy an organization to defend itself. But Jews will survive, and no doubt, in some century or millennium find our way back to our homeland. And perhaps the foundations of a new Jewish homeland will not be compromised by socialism, the burden of anti-Zionist ultra-orthodox, the tolerance of Knesset members dedicated to enemies of Israel and Judaism. And perhaps they/we will establish the founding principles, the principles which still help the US to survive, with a constitution.