Peretz: Lebanon War was missed opportunity, but was necessary

[bemildred]

This reminds me of the establishment argument here about Iraq: "We did the right thing, it was just done incompetently, and by other people (not me!). This also agrees with Avnery's take on what the spin would be: "what we did didn't work, so we need to do more of it".

Oh yeah, and :rofl::rofl:

The Second Lebanon War was a missed opportunity, but the decision to go into it was correct, former defense minister Amir Peretz said on Thursday, following publication of the Winograd Committee's final report.

"I agree with Winograd that the war was a grave and large missed opportunity, but for a missed opportunity to be created, there needs to be a reality that is being missed," he told reporters.

"There is no doubt that the decision to go to war was correct," he said.
Advertisement
"It is clear that the decision to open the war is the central issue," he added. "Politicians and military men praised the brave decision to go to war and now suddenly from every direction are voices saying the decision to go to war was hasty, undirected."

Peretz, who served as defense minister during the war, was replaced by Ehud Barak in mid-2007 when the latter won the Labor Party leadership.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/950033.html

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. So death is humorous subject, eh? Posting here for jollies?

[bemildred]

2. Peretz is a humorous subject, but don't let me dissuade you from your rant.

As far as that goes, I am not the inventor of gallows humor. But Peretz is a buffoon.

[madrchsod]

3. a war that killed hundreds if not thousands

left fields of cluster bombs,killed un observers,innocent civilians,and through the incompetence of the israeli command put the military into a situation that was a disaster. rewriting history is easy to do but there is always another view of it

[subsuelo]

4. Yes, what a "brave decision" to wipe out all those Lebanese.

How brave to drop bombs on neighborhoods filled with defenseless people.

Very brave indeed.

It is obvious that the only opportunity missed by Israeli authorities was that they didn't kill more

[Phx_Dem]

5. It's obvious

that you will say anything to dehumanize and demonize Israelis.

[subsuelo]

6. that claim is completely untrue

You will find not one word I have written that dehumanizes and demonizes Israelis.

You will find criticisms from me of Israeli authorities, of military and government policies, yes. Why? Because of the terrorism and atrocities committed on the native people of Palestine as well as on bordering neighbors such as the Lebanese. But never will you find demonization by me towards all Israelis, a wonderful people no more deserving of terror than any other people.

If your intent here is to engage in nothing more than petty mudslinging please refrain from doing so in the future now that I have clearly stated my position on the matter.

[Phx_Dem]

7. So WTF is this?

"In fact, it must be assumed that Israel considered killing civilians to be a great success, given that the subject didn't make it into the Winograd investigation."

"It is obvious that the only opportunity missed by Israeli authorities was that they didn't kill more"


Sounds to me like dehumanization and demonization of Israelis.

[breakaleg]

8. When the war is not considered the colossal mistake that it was by Israel, and instead

declared a "missed opportunity", in other words, they didn't get it right, what do you expect people to think?

For the record, the post your responded to included no dehumanizing statements so your charge in this instance was false.

[subsuelo]

9. are you incapable of distinguishing between Israelis and Israeli authorities?

[Phx_Dem]

10. Maybe you should be more specific

So people won't misinterpret your posts.

In another thread you said: "In fact, it must be assumed that Israel considered killing civilians...."

I'm supposed to assume that you meant the GOI?

[subsuelo]

11. of course

If I were to write "The U.S. considers killing Iraqi civilians a great success" - am I being dehumanizing towards Americans?

That being said, I will try to be more careful in the future with specifying intended targets of criticism.

[LeftishBrit]

12. If I were to write "The U.S. considers killing Iraqi civilians a great success" -

am I being dehumanizing towards Americans?'


Frankly, yes IMO. I would interpret "The US started a pre-emptive war" or "Israel went into Lebanon" as simply referring to the actions set out by authorities, but when you go beyond that, and say "Americans/Israelis/Palestinians/British consider killing civilians a great success" - this to me sounds dehumanizing (as though it's the attitude of the whole nation), unless you make it very clear that you're referring just to specific authorities.

[subsuelo]

13. That doesnt quite make sense

If I say "The US started a pre-emptive war", then that to you obviously refers to actions of the authorities.

But if I say "The US considers killing Iraqi civilians a great success", then that is suddenly conveying the attitude of the whole nation?

How is it different? Both describe actions of "The US".

Time to be honest. What you really object to is the statement about Israeli or U.S. leaders considering killing civilians a great success. If that's the point of contention then let's debate that, but the word games are at this point becoming a distraction.

[LeftishBrit]

14. Nope.

That's not the reason.

OK, let's translate it to the other side:

"Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israel" - that to me means SOME Palestinians.

"Palestinians consider killing civilians a great success" - that to me means that Palestinians as a group like to kill civilians, and I would object to that too.

Perhaps the reason for my distinction is that in the case of ordering specific actions, it's generally *obvious* that this cannot refer to the entire population, whereas *support* for the actions, or "liking to kill civilians" *could* refer to everyone unless clarified.

But even with regard to specific actions, it probably *is* better to say, "Bush's government ordered the invasion of Iraq" or "Olmert ordered the invasion of Lebanon" or "Members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad have fired rockets at Israel."

[breakaleg]

15. The difference in the example you suggest is that there is no state of Palestine so there

needs to be a distinction made between Palestinian militants, their leaders and Palestinians at large. Whereas for Israel you can say "Israel" meaning the state, and Israelis meaning all Israeli people.

[subsuelo]

16. that makes more sense

my apologies for misreading your previous post

[legin]

17. What I object to...

is the whole legitimizing process of this 'nice official inquiry by a committee of very respectable and thoughtful people", and it getting splashed all over the media.

A rogue state bombed some people, that's all.

Hizbollah need to hold an inquiry into the war and see if it gets as much media coverage. (which it wont)