Sunday, June 17, 2007

a nice hike

I had a very enjoyable day today. By Thursday afternoon I knew that I was going to have to work late on Sunday because I was reworking the telephone and network infrastructure and that can only be done on Sunday evening. So I told my boss that I was going to be coming in late on Sunday and he obviously didn't have a problem with that. My wife graciously agreed to accompany me on a hike this morning (canceling her other plans) and we went down to nachal kziv, because the place I wanted to goto in the Golan was too far away if I wanted to get to work at a decent time. The kids were all in school and we went with the littlest, who went in the backpack for the first time.
We brought our flashlight because I was thinking of going into the cave, which I have been planning on exploring for a long time and haven't had a chance yet. But when we got to the natural springs (where the cave is), we decided to continue walking because we had never really been past the springs. It's a half hour walk without the kids and with the kids by the time we get there there is no desire to continue onwards. So we walked on for another hour. The forest was green and full. We saw a bunch of fig trees and a couple grape vines, though none of the fruit was ripe yet. The river was full of water and there were some pretty large fish swimming around.
Definitely something that should be done more often.

Tonight there were 2 katyushas fired at kiryat shmona, about an hours drive from us. The apologist government, with Ehud Barak as defense minister, have decided that it was a rogue palestinian group shooting them, not the hizballah or the lebanese so that makes it ok.
When will they wake up and figure out that any rocket coming from Lebanese soil is Lebanese responsibility. Lebanon allows groups to have rockets. If they can't control their population then we will have to control it for them. Any attack on sovereign Israel from Lebanon must be answered with attacks on Beirut. The people there will have to demand that their government prevent militants from using weapons.

If a group of Israeli militants tried to harm another country they would be hunted down with the full force of the Israeli military and police. There would be no excuses that it was a rogue group and there was nothing we could do about it. A government is responsible for anything that happens on its soil. If they can't handle the heat, they should ask someone else to do it for them.


Rafi G. said...

good to see you posting again. it takes a missile salvo to get you to write something?

Anonymous said...

I see you are eager for another war.
I agree with Olmert that we should sit tight and not respond.

this area is to sensative that one small move from our side will cause this whole area to explode

(Im a student at tel hai colege and live anout 10 minutes from the Katyusha)

rockofgalilee said...

I am not in any way looking forward to another war. We are right in Katyusha range.

However, I feel that a full scale war, in which we destroy the enemy's capabilities is a lot better then accepting a situation where we get hit with a couple of rockets per month and say, "oh well nothing we can do about it."

Anonymous said...

but you realize that any response by Israel will lead (or mightlead)
to the whole area going up in flames
which in turn will lead to full scale war?
which means that we will be at war both on the southern border(Sderot and Negev)
and on the northern border(Galil and sourounds)

Israel must tread very carefully
not to ignite the whole area.

rockofgalilee said...

Look at Sderot for an example of what happens when we ignore the 2 or 3 rockets that land incidentally because we don't want to cause a war.
They increase the missile load to 20 per day.
While it might lead to a full scale conflict, at least we will solve the problem instead of letting it fester and get worse.
When you let them get away with 2 rockets because you don't want to do anything, then you encourage them to keep shooting 2 rockets because why not. Then they get bolder and see what happens with 3 rockets. or 10 rockets. In Sderot they keep shooting and nothing happens.

Anonymous said...

ok lets anialate them
finish them off once and for all
one nuclear misslile should do the job....
(hope you realize Im being cynical)

Its pritty obvious you are a Dati(religious) bloke
as Its mostly religoius and those on the far right of the political spectrum that are allways eager to pick up guns and march into war.

Im prepared to "ignore" slaps in the face(yes 3 Katyushas- no injuries is just a slap in the face)to avoid a war
Mabe Israel should issue a sturn warrning (thats the harshest reaction Israel should take for now)

isreal should prepare with full might for just incase things should get worse
but thats it

rockofgalilee said...

So you're happy with the situation in Sderot? Or if not happy at least content that we aren't at war.

Do you think there is any difference if they kill someone with their rocket or if it just damages property? The only difference would be if they could aim it. Since they can't, a rocket that kills people and doesn't kill people should be treated the exact same.

If we let them shoot a couple rockets a month, because that is better then going in and stopping them, then when one actually kills people or blows up a gas station and kills a bunch of people, they did nothing different then before so your response is disproportionate.

Anonymous said...

ושפט בין הגוים, והוכיח לעמים רבים; וכתתו חרבותם לאתים, וחניתותיהם למזמרות--לא-ישא גוי אל-גוי חרב, ולא-ילמדו עוד מלחמה. {פ}

ישעיהו פרק ב

And he shall judge among the nations and shall rebuke many people and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruninghooks nation shall not lift up sword against nation neither shall they learn war any more
(translation into english

thats the Tanach(bible)

rockofgalilee said...

I'm familiar with the Tanach(bible). Though that is a prophecy that has unfortunately not come true yet.

I would never suggest attacking them if they weren't shooting rockets into our country.

Until we have a situation of peace, we will not be beating anything into plowshares and we will be forced to continue learning war. Or risk annihilation, which is what they want to do to us.

Anonymous said...

You are prepared to declare full out war because someone spat at you?
yes, someone spat at us. not pleasant,not neighbour like.
No one was injured or killed

Issue a stern warning and wait and see.
If the situation gets worse
then Israel should plan her next steps
dont be in such a hurry to declare war.
people die in wars you know(on both sides)

rockofgalilee said...

You must not have read any of the analysis of arabs or arab countries written in the past 50 years.
If you let them spit at you they take that as a sign that you are weak and they can get away with a lot more.

What I am saying is that by trying to take care of the problem when they first spit at you will prevent a much worse incident after you let them abuse you for a while.

As an example of this, this past summer's war in Lebanon was a direct result (according to the interim report and all the analysis) of not doing anything when the Lebanese(Hizballah) stockpiled weapons and pointed them at us. You call that a spit or a slap in the face, something not neighborly. Because of that I had to spend an entire month last summer traipsing around Jerusalem because I couldn't be at home with over 100 missiles a day landing in and around our city. A lot of people got killed.
I'm suggesting that we learn from our mistakes and when someone threatens us we should disproportionately strike back to tell them that it is not worth their while to allow this to continue.

Also if 5 people got killed would also consider that just a slap in the face, or would you think that would require a response?

Anonymous said...

The minute citizens get injured thats adifferent story all together.
Anyway, life here is continuing as normal.
kids are going to school, students are going to classes, the super is full of people buying food.
believe that life should not be dissrupded unless its absolutely nessesary.
Right now , the dissruption of life here is totally unnessesary.

rockofgalilee said...

maybe you don't understand that they are not merely spitting. If you would agree that action is necessary if people are injured, then you should agree that they should take care of the problem before the people are injured. Or do you prefer to close the barn door after the horses get out?
If they shoot a rocket at a random place and it only damages property and the next time they shoot a rocket at a random place and it kills 3 children, from their perspective they didn't do anything different. It was just the luck of the draw that one time it hit people and one time it didn't.
So you're suggesting that if they accidentally(??) hit people then we should respond harshly but until then let them continue shooting at us and have our children go into complete panic and stress?

rockofgalilee said...

how would you explain to the mother who's child got killed in the tenth rocket attack that Israel was smart not to respond because until then no got hurt?

Anonymous said...

i believe we shouldnt let our emotions get the better of us
I understand your anger
Im angry too
but I believe that we should take a deep breath
try to think with our heads in a calculated manner

rockofgalilee said...

I agree. We shouldn't be getting emotional. I am suggesting that we follow the plans drawn up for the army to take care of the citizens of this country and you are suggesting that we panic and worry about some soldiers getting killed.

Obviously each soldier killed is a tragedy, but we have to look at them as our protectors and stop trying to be their mothers.
If it takes 1000 dead soldiers to protect Israel so citizens don't have to live in fear, then that is what Israel has to do.
The other option is to have a lot more dead civilians because the country didn't want to use their soldiers when they had a chance.

Do you also advocate waiting until Iran sends a nuclear bomb at us before doing anything about it? Maybe sending them a stern warning that we won't appreciate being nuked? What if soldiers will die trying to destroy their nuclear capabilities? From my perspective, if they are building the technology and have already declared what they are going to do with it, it is our country's responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen.

Anonymous said...

each soldier is a 18 19 year old child
someones child
some ones grandchild

in your opinion the capture of gillad shalit eldad regev ehud goldvasser
is not an issue
they are soldiers sent its their duty to protect
even if it means getting killed or being held hostage
a soldier is a human being

rockofgalilee said...

It is a big issue. But the reason we train our 17 and 18 year olds is not to be babysat. We train them so that they can protect us. If the country decides it needs to use the soldiers to protect the country, then, at that moment, we can't think of them as individuals. If we are worried more about a single soldier's life then the welfare of the country we may as well pack our bags right now and walk into the sea.
A country has a moral right and obligation to put its soldier's lives in danger for the safety and security of the country.

rockofgalilee said...

On the other hand, if the country is not prepared and sends our soldiers on dangerous missions with no purpose (as they did this past summer), then we have to look at them as individuals and protest loudly at the reckless irresponsibility that is carelessly deciding to slaughter our children.

Anonymous said...

you are welcome to inroll in reserve duty (miluim)
and fight

I for one am glad that isreal is keeping its cool

rockofgalilee said...

Are you also glad that Israel kept it cool from the time of the Lebanon withdrawal until last summer?
From all the analysis and reports
that was the cause of the war.

Meaning if they would have taken care of the little problems, we wouldn't have had so many dead and displaced people last summer.

I actually don't think the army is ready yet, and the politician's don't know what they are doing. So I agree with you that doing something now would be a fools mission. But the country really have to get its act together, so our children aren't living in fear of the "booms."
When my children heard that there were katyushas in KS, it took a long time and a lot of convincing to get them to sleep.

Anonymous said...

Bella, you couldn't be more wrong. Rock is totally correct. First of all, suggesting that just because someone is religious translates into being some kind of warmonger is ridiculous. Secondly, it seems that either you have no knowledge or are fully willing to ignore the rules of war and all Geneva conventions. Israel is the only country in the world that suffers daily attacks on her sovereignty without responding with full force. Any other nation would never allow rockets to be fired daily, randomly, and indiscriminately on its citizens without an extremely harsh military response.

Now, while you may be correct that Israel should not start a full scale war over these two rockets, you are completely false in what the correct response should be. "A harsh warning?" Tell me, what does that consist of? Is that like a parent telling their kid not to take another cookie while they're not looking, or the kid will be sent to their room? C'mon! Be serious a little bit. Added to that, Israel has issued numerous "harsh warnings" to Gaza about their rocket attacks, and lo and behold, they keep launching rockets into Israel. I guess they just have to threaten Gaza that they'll be grounded from a month next time.

To ask a population to suffer daily "slaps in the face" is ridiculous. A government is sworn to protect and defend its citizens, not ask them to suffer in the name of not starting a conflict. History proves that the more lenient a country is towards allowing minor enemy infractions to continue, the longer they last, and the worse they get, as Rock mentioned. The Intifada is a great case in point. Had the Army carried out an operation on the scale of "Defensive Shield" the day after it started, it would have been over in a week. But, because Israel decided to be diplomatic and conceding to the West, the Intifada lasted 4 years, and hundreds and thousands of people died as a result of it. You may want to avoid an all out war because a lot of people may be killed in a very short period of time, but the fact remains that it's proven that allowing low level guerrilla conflicts to continue without reprisal costs more lives in the end. This is the fact: Peaceniks and appeasers who say no war at any cost end up creating more war and more death and more destruction. WWII is but one example.

In regards to the Biblical verse you used, the only way swords will or can be beaten into plowshares is when the enemy puts down their weapons. God gives the Jewish people the full right to defend itself and go to war when necessary. There are numerous commandments and laws regarding fighting war in the Tanach. You really shouldn't cherry pick Biblical verses.

Are you actually comparing rockets with ball bearings and other shrapnel to inflict maximum damage and carnage, in violation of every rule of war and Geneva convention, to getting spit in the face?!? Did you read what you wrote before pressing publish? Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds? Yes, no-one was killed or hurt by the Katyushas this time, but they easily could have. That's the point of these types of weapons. They are not sophisticated, and they're not accurate. They are fired without discretion and aimed purposely at civilian populations to indiscriminately kill non-combatants. That's not getting spit in the face. What you seem to basically be saying is that when it comes to these rocket attacks, Israel should use the "Just walk away" theory. You're basically saying that we should treat these incidents like a bully beating you up. If you don't fight back, eventually the bully will get tired and walk away. Well, that's not reality. In reality, the bully keeps pounding on you until you fall down, then they keep kicking you. When you finally pass out, they take your wallet, walk away, and wait for the next day to beat on you again. The only time the bully stops is when you fight back.

In your effort to say that Israel should suffer a little bit every single day to avoid war will only lead to more bloodshed. In response to your attitude about soldiers, it's sweet but completely misplaced. Yes, they are human beings, but they are NOT civilians. They are soldiers, regardless of their age. They are sent to the front lines to defend their country, even with their life. That is their job. That is their duty. Avoiding war or fighting improperly as a means to go out of one's way to avoid casualties is incorrect and actually results in more deaths. The 1973 Yom Kippur War and this past summer's war are excellent example of that. When one soldier's death becomes seen as one death too many, then a country can no longer defend itself properly. These are the ugly realities of war and the military. If you can't accept that or wear your rose colored glasses, that's fine. You're wrong, but welcome to your illusions.

Finally, while you're correct that Israel needs to make calculated decisions, there's a huge difference between making calculated decisions and cowardice and avoidance. Right now, Olmert isn't not responding to the Katyusha rockets because of any sense of strategic rational. All he's really thinking about is not having another Winograd commission and the possibility of losing his nice big brown leather chair. All he's thinking right now is staying in power. He couldn't care less about what's good for the country at this point.

Anonymous said...

firstly ,Im anti war(what you may call a pacafist)
I believe that in a war no one realy wins. both sides have casualties and deaths
secondly , it is kinda regular that the dati community and rightists are more eager to go into war and violene

thirdly , when a state issues a warning its alittle more serious then "nu nu nu dont eat that cookie"

Anonymous said...

Firstly- its pritty usuall that the religious and rightists are more pro war that the leftists

me, Im a pacafist, which means Im anti war

thirdly- when a state issues a warning its alittle more serious then
"no no no dont touch that cookie"
if you smack your brother one more time mommy will be angry

rockofgalilee said...

being a pacifist is cute when nobody is threatening you. I'm also a pacifist, I believe that if no one threatens us that we shouldn't attack anyone. But I'm smart enough to know that if someone threatens to cut out my eyes if I don't stop him, then I should stop him. Especially if the last time he threatened, he followed through.

rockofgalilee said...

Also being that you're a pacifist, what would you suggest Israel does if they issue a stern warning and Lebanon responds with 10 more rockets?

Anonymous said...

turn to the international community
to explore the option of sanctions

war is the absolutely last resort

Anonymous said...

Bella, nobody is "pro war". That's a misnomer. That would be like calling "pro-choice" people pro death. You're playing semantics. Nobody wants war. It's a matter of seeing that sometimes war is necessary and is usually the only way to ensure lasting peace. That's a historical fact. Having a proper moral compass is also understanding when it's the right time to fight. Had the world done more sooner instead of appeasement and pacifism, the horrific consequences of WWII would not have happened.

Your suggestions for reprisals have been proven historically to fail in most cases. Sanctions only work in certain cases and certain times. Basically, you have to know your audience. When you're dealing with terrorists, which are unconventional by nature, going the conventional way just doesn't cut it. Yes, war should absolutely be the last resort, but when everything that you've suggested has already been tried and failed, continuing on that path will only resort in more death and bloodshed than if the problem had been confronted sooner.

Finally, your assertion that in war nobody really wins is completely and utterly false. It's a nice ideological belief but realistically and, again, historically false. Do you think nobody really "won" WWII? Had the Allied forces kept being pacifists, all of Eastern European Jewry would have been annihilated, and the Nazis would be ruling all of Europe and most of North Africa and perhaps much of the Middle East. Would that have been a better result than going to war?

Anonymous said...

No one realy wins a war
because both sides suffer casalties
and deaths
or is a soldiers death or injury no big deal for you?

Anonymous said...

OK, bella, there's that symantics thing again. No-one wins a war because there's casualties on both sides? Yes, there are casualties on both sides. There are still winners, though. You didn't answer my question. Based on your logic, should WWII never have been faught?

As per your assertion that I don't care about a soldier's death, I don't believe anything of the sort. I come from a military family, so let's not go there. Of course I care about a soldier's death, but I also understand their role. Their job is to defend civilians. Sometimes, their job is to go to war. Sometimes, their job involves them putting their life on the line. That includes the threat of death. Those on the front line know the dangers. They accept the risks because they understand they doing fighting for something bigger than themselves. They actually resent peacenikim and those leftists, for example those protesting the war in Iraq, thinking they're "looking out for them" when they're actually insulting them. Soldiers fully understand that there are things worth fighting fight, that are things worth dying for. I'm sorry that you can't grasp that concept.