...and I'm not going to let people forget that.
Posted on 02/25/2005 9:31:30 AM PST by Marguerite
Edited on 02/25/2005 9:36:36 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- On Sunday, Feb. 20, Israel crossed two Rubicons. The Cabinet decided once and for all to withdraw from Gaza and dismantle 25 settlements -- 21 in Gaza and 4 in the upper West Bank. Yet, had Israel done only this, it would be seen, correctly, as a victory for terror, a unilateral retreat and surrender to the four-year intifada. That is why the second Israeli decision was so important. The Cabinet also voted to finish the security fence on the West Bank, which will separate Israeli and Palestinian populations, and create the initial border between Israel and a nascent Palestine.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
The main question 'what Israel is going to do when Qassams will start hitting Ashkelon' was never answered. The initial answer - "we gonna hit them hard" - was dispelled when people started dying from this attacks and Israel did nothing.
A military fortification such as the Israeli Wall is not, was never intended to be and can never be a "deterrent".
Such a fortification is merely a static piece of military infrastructure whose purpose is to vastly increase the defensive capabilities against enemy land attacks and infiltration.
That is all it does. Period.
It has no offensive capabilities.
While land-bound threats do not constitute 100% of the Palestinian's offensive capabilities, they do constitute the vast majority of the Palestinian's meaningful offensive capabilities. The severe curtailment of Palestinian land-bound threats reduces the Palestinian's range of offensive options from the capability of killing thousands by means of dozens of suicide bombings to the capability of conducting nuisance rocket attacks.
The military definition of deterrence is the military capability to discourage any would-be aggressor from starting an attack through the fear of retaliation. That is not the role of static field fortifications. That is the role the units of your armed forces who posses the ability to project power into enemy territory, namely, the Air Force, artillery and Army assault units.
I discussed this issue of deterrence in my Post 21 of yonif's May 2004 thread
For Israel, the use of such deterrence is solely an issue of political will and political and military judgment.
The Israeli Wall considerably reduces the downside consequences of exercising such deterrence. Without thousands of Israelis on the wrong side of the Israeli Wall, any deterrent retaliation on Palestinian infrastructure can be carried out with much greater impunity than in the past.
Since I am neither Jewish nor Israeli but am a strong supporter of Israel, I am analyzing the situation from a purely military perspective without any of (what I consider) the irrelevant emotional overtones of the situation.
Manning a strong defensive position is not "hiding". It is simply what professional military men have done for ages from Hadrian's Wall, to the Korean Military Demarcation Line to the mine field and bunker and tank traps defenses of U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo where I served.
Whatever problems may come from Gaza's Palestinians, they are severely aggravated by having Israeli civilians living in Gaza. They serve no useful military purpose there and, as a practical matter, are a drain to the Israeli military that must divert forces to protect them.
If you are looking for absolute Peace, there is only one solution and that would be to totally exterminate the Palestinian population of Gaza.
Since that is not going to happen, the answer lies in the time-honored combination of a strong defense combined with strong offensive military capabilities and the political and military freedom to use that offense.
Istraeli civilians in Gaza further neither offense nor defense and, in fact, detract from both of them.
As a recent example, consider the problem of Fallujah.
When the U.S. was trying to fight in Fallujah with civilians that they wanted to spare, the offensive options were limited.
When the Fallujah civilians (they would now be the Israeli Gaza settlers) were no longer there, the offensive options greatly increased, Fallujah was flattened and the enemy was massacred.
What "sophisticated weapons" could Gaza project into Israel that they do not already have now?
Right now, you have nuisance weapons manned by militias. Any attack by a greater degree of sophistication of weapons would entail involvement by the Palestinian Government itself which would then open up all of Gaza's infrastructure devastating attack by Israel since it would constitute acts of war by one Government on another instead of attacks by militias whose actions the Palestinian leaders can now claim (truly or falsely) to be uninvolved with.
As an Israeli example, look at the northern border of Israel where that situation now exists and thing are rather quiet.
In Gaza, any massive and very bloody attack on the Palestinians would have to be weighed against the consequences of a massive and very bloody attack against the Israeli settlers in Gaza.
In the future, that will no longer be a concern.
Gaza move is clearly not military - it is political. As the matter of fact, many in IDF were against moving out of Gaza, because they will not be able to monitor Pals acquisition of more sophisticated weapons - anti-aircraft missiles, Katyusha rockets, etc.. With Israel out it would be up to Egypt to control flow of weapons via tunnels. I am not sure who is going to control port of Gaza, but clearly it would be open to all kind of abuse.
If "many" in the IDF were against it, that means that the others in the IDF are not against it.
Military strategy, like all other human endeavors, will have opposing viewpoints. Military history is filled with such arguments between respected military leaders.
My military opinion, as a third party unencumbered by any Israeli emotional considerations such as considering a defensive line as "hiding", happens to agree with Sharon's military opinion.
If you disagree with that decision, that does not make that decision "political" rather than "military". It only makes it different.
As an "occupying power", Israel's hands are tied in the degree of punitive force it can now unleash against the Palestinians. It just doesn't look good on the World stage when you flatten a city you posses "occupying power" over.
In the future, attacks by a Palestinian sovereign state can be met with overwhelming force by the Israeli sovereign state.
If the Port of Gaza becomes a problem by importing weapons used against Israel, the Israeli Air Force can flatten it and the Israeli Navy can blockade it.
In regards to anti-aircraft missiles, Israel is just as capable as the U.S. of defeating an anti-aircraft system. Arab anti-aircraft systems were merely a bump on the road in the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, the Gulf War and the Iraq War.
You view a Palestinian state as a means by which the Palestinians can acquire better weapons.
I view a Palestinian state as an entity which Israel can direct massive retaliation against in case of attack without being encumbered by all the political considerations it must deal with as an "occupying power".
Don't worry. We're not going to forget your anti-semitism, either.
...and I'm not going to let people forget that.
Thanks for getting my message! If Mel Gibson's a lurker, he's glad, I'm sure, that somebody on freerepublic is reminding people of Krauthammer's vicious attack on Mel, on The Passion, and on the Christian Gospels. It was stomach-turning, and, no, it shouldn't be forgotten. (Just like when I hear people saying good things about Jesse Jackson, I feel obliged to remind them of his anti-semitism -- eg his "hymietown" comment -- so I also feel obliged to remind people (who want to forget about it) that Krauthammer is an anti-christian bigot). Mel Gibson (and my religion) were viciously maligned by him, and people shouldn't forget about it!
I liked South Park's vicious attack better......
...that somebody on freerepublic is reminding people of Krauthammer's vicious attack on Mel....
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER ON THE PASSION: A "BLOOD LIBEL" enough said. This is why I don't listen anything Krauthammer says anymore.
Oh well, s..t happens... Of course "Leaving Gaza" has nothing to do with Mel Gibson or Christianity or a movie, but he won't stop, so I stopped answering his posts ;-)
Once you leave Gaza they will be closer to the border and be able to fire deeper into Israel.
It has this relevance: The column is written by a guy who showed himself to be an anti-christian bigot, so doesn't deserve respect, imho. If somebody posted, approvingly, an article by Jesse Jackson or some La Raza racist -- even on a nonconstroversial topic that had nothing to do with race -- I would get on that thread to remind readers that the writer is a racist.
I make a point of linking to this "tirade" whenver there's a pro-Krauthammer column posted -- because, like you, a lot of people don't know about this column. Krauthammer should not be allowed to make an inexcusable slander against Mel Gibson and Christianity, and have people simply act as if he never wrote it. I believe in accountability. That's one reason I'm a conservative and a Republican.
No doubt good policy. Its a sad thing that we cannot "fall in love" with our leaders, commentators, etc. because lurking in everyone is that darn human factor. But I agree about Chas. Most often a good guy but some skeletons or un worked out emotions are in there to be sure. Tha same holds for Bush, Ginrich, Rush, Savage, the list is endless.
And don't forget that Krauthammer was the single biggest supporter of Christianity during the Christmas season. He was absolutely stalwart in his support for Christians, at a time most other columnists were silent.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091813/posts
Open Letter To Charles Krauthammer Re:"The Passion"
Posted on 03/05/2004 6:27:49 PM PST by Stand4Truth
Charles,
Why such hostility toward a movie that has moved millions of Christians to deepen their faith? All true Christians including myself believe that Christ died for the sins of all mankind everywhere for all time. That is the story and Mel Gibson has given millions and millions of Christians a valued and treasured depiction of this central theme to our faith. The fact is that certain Romans and Jews 2000 years ago were directly involved in this story. It is frustrating to many, many Christians and Jews that a small minority has tried to make this a story about Jews vs. Christianity. That does a serious disservice to the movie, the story of "Christ's Passion" itself, and it comes off as quite disingenious. When you get outside of Hollywood and the beltway and speak with average people you have to hunt long and hard (I have yet to find one in my many many discussions of the movie) to find those who sincerely think that Mel Gibson created an anti-semitic movie. Millions of Christians such as myself have a great love for the Jewish people as we do for all races (that is what Christ commanded and incidently Mel went to great lengths to include that communication that Christ commanded us to love all people as He had done).
YOU WROTE:The blood libel that this story had affixed upon the Jewish people had resulted in countless Christian massacres of Jews, and prepared Europe for the ultimate massacre -- 6 million Jews systematically murdered within six years.
So, you believe that the central act of the Christian faith is responsible for the holocaust. Please, spare us the overheated hyperbole. The message of "Christ's Passion in the gospels, in 2,000 years of Church teaching, and in "The Passion" is that mankind turned it's back on God and sinned and in order to provide a way for us (all of us) back to God's grace the bloody sacrifice was necessary. Christ "voluntarily" stood in for us to give himself as that sacrifice.
YOU WROTE: He openly rejects the Vatican II teaching.
Many Catholics reject "the result" of Vatican II because of the devastation it has wraught on The Church. To insinuate that because Mel rejects what Vatican II has done to the Catholic Church makes him an anti-semite is like saying that because someone does not support the war in Iraq they are pro-terrorism. You should really do your due diligence and study the whole of Vatican II, how it has been "interpreted and carried out" by the liberals in the West before you judge someone for accepting it or not based upon a single aspect of this vast council.
YOU WROTE: His other defense is that he is just telling the Gospel story. Nonsense. There is no single Gospel story of the Passion; there are subtle differences among the four accounts.
This is a classic "muddy the waters" strategy so that the non-thinking reader cannot figure out how to disagree with you. The central theme and truth of the "Gospel Story" is what I stated above. All four gospels clearly tell this story as does the movie. Different aspects of "Christ's Passion" are emphasized in the different gospels because they were written by different disciples of Christ who wanted to get certain aspects and truths across.
YOU WROTE: And Gibson's personal interpretation is spectacularly vicious. Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus' scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson's movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film. Why 10? Why not five? Why not two? Why not zero, as in Luke? Gibson chose 10.
Why not 15?? Why not 20?? Do you really expect us to believe that Mel overplayed the viciousness of a Roman scouraging?? This wasn't the only one you know. The brutality of this kind of punishment is legendary and the fact that you apparently don't understand that speaks again to a lack of proper research and due diligence before writing your opinion piece. When you take a cat of nine tails with weighted shards of metal or glass and drive it repeatedly into someone's skin with brute force you cannot overplay the result. The gospel writers were writing to people who clearly understood how horrible a "scourging" was and did not need to have it explained in excruciating detail. Your minimization of this portion of Christ's sacrifice is in itself evidence as to why Gibson needed to present this so graphically. If I say that Truman "dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima" those who understand what this is clearly know the devastation, but my kids who have not seen the images or heard the stories would not receive it with the same impact.
YOU WROTE: The most subtle, and most revolting, of these has to my knowledge not been commented upon. In Gibson's movie Satan appears four times. Not one of these appearances occurs in the four Gospels. They are pure invention.
Anyone who understands the Christian faith and the Christian Scriptures to any serious degree knows full well that satan was at the very heart of "The Passion" story and is at the very heart of the battle for souls today and for all time. Without satan none of this would have been necessary. It is the ultimate clash between good and evil. To "not include" this in the story in some way would have been shocking. Satan appears as you say four times and you are using one of them to try and drum up some claim of anti-semitism. The simple answer as to why this has not been commented upon is because objective viewers of this movie who are not "searching for something" would have never dreamed that Mel injected satan into this story to paint Jews, Romans, or any race as particularly satanic. Clearly Christians believe that satan is behind motivating people throughout history to committ heinous sinful acts such as Hitler's murder of millions of Jews, Stalin's murder of millions of Christians, and yes the betrayal of Christ by Judas, the savage beating He received from the Roman guards, and the other brutalities that He suffered for "all" and from "all".
Are you going to post this crap on every single column and post about Krauthammer. Shame on you. Your anti-semitism is showing.
You have been told, and know very well, that Krauthammer was the biggest single supporter of Christianity, especially during the Christmas season when the ACLU was trying to shut down any visible sign of Christianity.
Shame on you. You are a disgrace to Free Republic. And you are spamming the threads by posting unrelated material. If I see you do it again, I will notify the mods. Spamming is not appreciated here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.