While I agree that both sides have done terrible things, I don't think charging either side with war crimes would be helpful to reaching a long term peace agreement, so I guess I don't see the practicality of using the war crimes charge in this instance.

I thought that as well, thdfrance (interesting name...what's it for? the thd + france, how's that work?)

But as I said repeatedly during the war, I don't think that long term peace deal is possible with either Hamas or the Netanyahu regime in power.

From the Israeli standpoint, it's absurd and horrific to try and make a deal with a side that 1. Has broken deals, 2. To this day has in their charter a stated aim to wipe out the Jewish people, 3. Have used people as human shields and money for infrastructure as money for weapons, and 4. Have fought 3 wars now since 2008.

From the Gazan side, it's absurd and horrific to try and make a deal with a side that 1. Has broken deals, 2. Has poisoned the West Bank situation with settlement plans even though the US, Western Allies, and even members of the Israeli Left all agree it's both morally wrong and political suicide, 3. Just obliterated Gaza in a bid to destroy Hamas' tunnels and weapons, and 4. Have fought 3 wars now since 2008.

I think there will be charges, in part because they may be warranted, and in part because the man heading the committee investigating that, William Schabas, has a history of being publicly and vehemently anti-Israel...

Which (whether or not you think Netanyahu should face crimes) *does* seem to be the textbook definition of appointing a committee with a bias/conflict of interests.

Just saying, if Netanyahu's regime faces charges, Hamas should as well, in a supposedly bias-free system.

As to the practically...

I've said before I want Netanyahu out, and that I want Hamas out.
BOTH sides need regime changes, period.
If these sides have proven anything, it's that THEY DO NOT WORK.
Hamas couldn't even agree with Abbas in a supposedly-unified Palestinian front during the war, and ruined chances for ceasefires and, again, has a charter which still stands and, whether they can act on it or not, has clear genocidal intent towards the Jews (not just Israelis, Jews in general)...
Netanyahu is a fool who WILL eventually test that alliance with the United States too far, lose that precious support, and then Israel will find itself in a terrible spot, to say nothing of the fact Bibi's failed to see the failure of the settlement plan on the international stage--the gains aren't nearly worth the costs.

If war crimes charges can force either side to elect new membership, I'm all for it.

And on the Assad point:

I'd again reiterate that we NEED to get new leadership in there. Neither Assad nor IS will do.

"We" are not Syria, therefore "we" do not have the right to decide who leads their nation.

Very true, bo_sox.

And as for the main topic of the thread, war crime indictments are just a political tool. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, America never has nor ever will extradite an American war criminal for a trial in another country. Not that I have anything against that policy. It's the luxury of the strong.

I disagree.

First of all, right now, "Syria" is in a million pieces and at times it seems nearly as many factions--that place is septic, a gaping hole in the region, and lest we lament a year or five or ten what takes root in that gaping hole...as we've done countless times now...

We ought to ensure that it is *at least* not filled by Assad or IS.

I'm not saying install a government or anything like that...but can we at least agree that neither a man that gasses and commits atrocities against his own people, nor a group that beheads captives, torches cities, slaughters the innocent and is now selling women and children into slavery and doing so *proudly*--

Can we agree that neither of those factions are fit or desirable to have in Syria, or anywhere else?

The abstractions of morality aside, politically and practically--

Should we really let either of those groups take root, and then complain here in five years that even more human life has been lost as a result?

On the enslavement bit:

http://news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-seeks-justify-enslaving-yazidi-women-girls-150713031.html

"The Islamic State group said it enslaved families from the minority Yazidi sect after overrunning their villages in northwestern Iraq, in what it praised as the revival of an ancient custom of using women and children as spoils of war.

In an article in its English-language online magazine Dabiq, the group provides what it says is religious justification for the enslavement of defeated "idolators".

The ancient custom of enslavement had fallen out of use because of deviation from true Islam, but was revived when fighters overran Yazidi villages in Iraq's Sinjar region.

"After capture, the Yazidi women and children were then divided according to the Shariah amongst the fighters of the Islamic State who participated in the Sinjar operations, after one fifth of the slaves were transferred to the Islamic State's authority to be divided as khums," it said. Khums is a traditional tax on the spoils of war."

obiwanobiwan, since you seem to be advocating foreign intervention, I'm curious about your opinion on the American dethroning of Saddam Hussein and its aftermath, which is still in progress. Would you call it a job well done?

He's likely to say how different Iraq and Syria are, just like they used to tell us how different Iraq and Vietnam were.

The idea of intervening in order to combat a genocide holds credence both morally and in some cases politically and diplomatically, but not for individual nations. Genocide is a worldwide fight, so the world should take part. The UN does a pretty good job of doing so but they don't have enough resources. The US should not have that burden placed on its shoulders, and since the US has taken it upon themselves anyway throughout the last few decades, the blame for their failures is theirs too.

I completely agree with you on the Syria front obiwan. Assad needs to go and the Islamic State is a terrible group, but dealing with the middle east has and always will be a double edged sword. I think at this point the practical solution is to continue air strikes, consider the viability of special operations ground strikes, and ramp up humanitarian aid wherever possible.

As for the Israel-Palestine conflict: I honestly believe that both leadership groups want peace. Do I think that can be achieved with a Hamas controlled P.A. or a Netanyahu regime, probably not. But I think the vast majority of the problems in furthering the peace process come out of the extreme wings of both sides general population. Simply changing the regime on either side won't work. In all aspects of the middle east, there need to be major political culture shifts to ensure long term stability, and I don't think that's something that can be taught to a region.

And as for my name, my first name is Thaddeus, and that's where the thd comes from.

That being said, large scale direct intervention is definitely not the answer, but I haven't seen you suggest that yet which is why I didn't touch on it.

"obiwanobiwan, since you seem to be advocating foreign intervention, I'm curious about your opinion on the American dethroning of Saddam Hussein and its aftermath, which is still in progress. Would you call it a job well done?"

I'll start to answer that by responding to--

"He's likely to say how different Iraq and Syria are, just like they used to tell us how different Iraq and Vietnam were."

Not at all.

Iraq?
Genocidal dictator, and Kurds getting massacred...
Syria...why...look at that!
Genocidal dictator, and Kurds getting massacred!

Leaving aside the whole WMD debacle, if we had gone into Iraq on the basis of dethroning a dictator like Saddam...I would've been fine with that, and I was fine with that, on that basis alone. Same goes for Assad--

You do NOT get to hide behind sovereignty in order to allow for the massacre of your own people...and any nation cowering before that idea and claiming to "fight for liberty" should be ashamed of itself. Either you fight for liberty where it's needed most, and WHEN it's needed most...

Or you're an empty-headed hypocrite, reposting pictures on Facebook about how "awful" a situation is without actually agitating for the change necessary to FIX that situation.

Regardless of the success of the operation--I'd have pushed for the removal of Saddam 10+ years ago, and I push for the removal of Assad today...and as in the case of Saddam, an unsavory alternative (insurgents vs. IS) does NOT constitute a reason not to act. You cannot simply let people be massacred because you'd be willing to protect them from one monster but not two.

I think the case against Saddam should've been framed more in those terms, and should've been less of a 9/11-WMD debacle, but the reason aside, I'm fine removing genocidal dictators, in Iraq, in Syria, in any other nation.

"The UN does a pretty good job of doing so but they don't have enough resources. The US should not have that burden placed on its shoulders, and since the US has taken it upon themselves anyway throughout the last few decades, the blame for their failures is theirs too."

I agree--it shouldn't have been the US alone fighting to remove Saddam the second time, and it can't just be the US now.

Build a coalition...make the United Nations actually stand for something other than idle prattling...

And if certain nations wish to VETO action in the area (as Russia has continuously done, thereby safeguarding a murderer and, indeed, acting as an accomplice in this genocide) then they can well be left out of any coalition which other, NATO and Middle Eastern nations wish to form.

War crimes are pretty much being used as a propaganda tool against one side where the other is clearly committing them. Hamas is a great example.

It rarely gets used against an individual leader until he is out of power and from a poor third world country. Even a blatant example like Idi Amin gets to go into exile with all the money he could loot. The UN groups that should do something are stacked with member countries that are among the worst offenders so they stand together to protect each other.

I'll only address your first post, obiwanobiwan, because I've actually been able to gleam meaning from it.

1. Saying you only support Netanyahu being indicted for war crimes if the Hamas leadership is indicted as well is just a cowardly way to say you still don't think Netanyahu should be indicted, and passes the buck for whatever war crimes you think were committed from the IDF and Israeli leadership generally to one politician you happen to dislike. You're setting up a scenario which does nothing but makes you look like a good little self-critical liberal when, in fact, you're giving BOTH sides free reign to do as they please. They can do as they please in your scenario because neither can be punished unless both are, and that's a much higher burden, especially in the bizarro world of international criminal law.

If you think war crimes have been committed, you should not care who else is or isn't prosecuted for their own war crimes. Assuming this is a moral or legal argument you're trying to make, and not a political one, of course. If you're going to jump to the conclusion that Netanyahu is guilty of war crimes then go ahead and hold firm to the belief. Don't be so wishy washy if you're going to make such a serious (and, I have to say, fairly shaky) accusation.

Incedentally, now that you claim to want to indict Netanyahu for war crimes, has your admiration for Ariel Sharon lessened? After all, Netanyahu has never done anything approaching what Sharon did in Beirut.

2. Agree. Assad ought to go to the Hague. Or better yet, have the Syrian people give him the sort of rogering the Libyans gave Gaddafi.

3. As to the practical value of a war crime charge, look no further than Sudan and Kenya to see how toothless it all really is. International law works great and is indispensable when you're talking about things like coordinating postal systems or the myriad of commercial treaties states sign. But international law is, at best, a veneer to cover the power dynamics of geopolitics when it comes to things like war crimes.

"Build a coalition...make the United Nations actually stand for something other than idle prattling..."

Seriously? Do you realize how much of the UN's funding is from the US? Without the amount of funding we pump into it, Immanuel Kant would have risen from the grave by now and brought back an undead army as punishment for absolutely destroying one of his many brilliant ideas to accomplish world peace. It's everyone else that needs to make the UN stand for something. As long as the US keeps pushing the issue every time this debate comes up instead of telling the rest of the world to get it together and do their part to stop genocide and war crimes that they all signed legislation against, Russia and their allies are only going to get stronger while we take the blame for every one of the international community's fuck-ups.

"then they (Russia et al) can well be left out of any coalition which other, NATO and Middle Eastern nations wish to form"

Do you realize what you just said? Do you know what NATO is? It's literally a coalition of western powers that specifically excludes nations like Russia. How much help has that been?

bo_sox48, you're operating under the assumption that, even if they wanted to, the rest of the world COULD do something. The only militaries which can project force anywhere on Earth are the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. In that order. And only the United States can sustain that kind of projection for any length of time. France and Britain *ran out of missiles* while bombing Libya, remember.

Virtually every country's military is just a police force with cooler gear. The UN does nothing for many reasons, but one of the major ones is that no one besides the American military can even attempt the sorts of missions which even have a chance of reaching a solution.

Fair points. Still, there are a few other militaries that have that kind of capability, one being China and another being Russia, but they tend not to really care much about genocide. Their involvement in such efforts really would change the scope of world politics dramatically. Israel has a substantial force but they obviously have enough on their hands as is. I believe the Bundeswehr in Germany has a pretty substantial array of weaponry too but I really don't know nearly enough on the subject to say if it's enough to make an impact.

No, they don't. China does not have the navy nor the air force to transport troops to, say, the Nineveh plain to stop the Islamic State's rolling genocide. Neither does Russia. They also do not have the logistical capability to support the troops once they are there. They simply cannot project force like that. Only America can.

As for Israel and Germany, they too face the same force projection limitations. Assuming, somehow, they agree to go along in an anti-genocide crusade, they'll be entirely dependent on the United States to actually get their and to make sure their forces are supplied (or at least that the supplies reach them).

America has no peer when it comes to conventional warfare. It's not even close. All this talk of building a coalition against the Islamic State is really just a combination of buck-passing and fig-leafing. Buck-passing because we want Turkey or Saudi Arabia to send their young men to die against these barbarians, fig-leafing because the involvement of other nations (irrelevant for anything apart from having strategic land for bases) makes it look marginally less imperial when and if we finally do have to use American military might directly.

"If you think war crimes have been committed, you should not care who else is or isn't prosecuted for their own war crimes."

But it matters in a practical and political sense, not to mention the sense of fairness...

If you're going to penalize one side for war crimes, for that charge to stick, you need to be CONSISTENT, yes?

You'd have to punish ANY group violating those rules...not just...you know...the ones you feel like prosecuting because you have a political grudge against them?

Prosecuting Israel *or* Hamas alone would be hollow, because it'd just boil down to political pettiness...not any actual search for justice, just "I hate X, but support Y, so I'll persecute X and ignore Y despite the fact they've both committed crimes."

Crimes has a legal implication, as you said--

Everyone should be held equal before the law, or it's not a law at all, just a public bitching contest to piss on Israel or Hamas, preaching to the choir on one side, earning universal ire on the other, and thus helping NOTHING.

Hold both accountable for their actions, or justice isn't really being done.

"Incidentally, now that you claim to want to indict Netanyahu for war crimes, has your admiration for Ariel Sharon lessened?"

My "admiration" for Sharon has always been in a political rather than a moral sense.
He was a bloody, BLOODY general, who committed some nasty acts.
I don't deny that for a second.
Sharon is NOT a moral paragon, and I don't idolize him the way others here might idolize blood-stained dictators.

I said that *at least* when Sharon fought such a war and committed such acts, he made the victory stick and seem "worth it" for Israel in a purely political view. Put another way, in a sports sense, when Sharon committed a foul, he made sure it was a foul that had some benefit for his team, whereas...well, clearly Netanyahu's just committed a foul that hasn't had any benefit for Israel...

In fact, you could make a similar argument for Arafat and Hamas--the former, at least, had political victories that those on that side would claim were "worth it" (I'm not on that side, so I naturally loathe him, the same way an anti-Israel person will loathe Sharon.) By contrast...with Gaza in ruins multiple times since they've taken power, with their tunnel system a disgrace, with their turning down ceasefires, with their using money for infrastructure for weapons, etc. etc. etc., who is going to argue Hamas' efforts this time around were "worth it?"

Unless we get a peace deal tomorrow--and Putin and I become the best of friends before that--I sincerely doubt it.

So that's my answer:

Moral wrongs aside, at least Sharon/Arafat won political gains for their sides...

Netanyahu and Hamas are simply butchers who can't even claim to have sent men to their deaths for a political gain or lasting victory.

I don't think you have to be anti-Israel to loathe Sharon. In fact, you have to be rabidly pro-Israel to do anything but loathe Sharon.

@ Zmaj: .....war crime indictments are just a political tool.
Means you pay tax for killing people's , interesting ......
...next question is , is this on the private way also possibles? (Paying for killing)
...next question is , I'm guilty when I pay tax?
Nice world you don't think?

Gerry, I think you misunderstood. Check the meaning of the word "indictment".

Ok, I picked up a specially war crime but you don't think it happened?

I wasn't saying you had to be anti-Israel to be anti-Sharon, mendax...

Because again...the guy was NOT very good morally. To put it lightly.

My only statement was that, whereas I'd say he and Netanyahu lack morals, at least Sharon, from the pure Machiavellian standpoint, DID score victories for Israel and made them stick...they were immoral victories, but political and military victories nonetheless.

By contrast, Netanyahu just had this miserable 50 Days War, and not only did he fail to do anything besides reduce his enemy's infrastructure to rubble (which they'll be able to rebuild and we'll have this same exact war in 3-5 years AGAIN...as I've said dozens of times now...UNLESS *BOTH* sides have regime changes) but he took a bad PR situation (which, yes, does matter, international opinion matters in a political sense) and made it *worse* by then immediately going ahead with these West Bank settlements despite just about ally in the world asking him NOT to do so.

Both were butchers...

But you could "at least" make the case Sharon was a "good" Machiavellian general/leader.

Netanyahu is and always has been utterly incompetent, and frankly comes across as trying to overcompensate, all while failing the Machiavellian test of a good prince--"Did the state get stronger?"

With Sharon, you could argue yes (you could also argue against it, but there's at least an argument both ways)...

I challenge ANYONE to say Israel's been better off or is stronger politically, diplomatically or otherwise thanks to Netanyahu.

He's an incompetent schmuck who needs to be ousted from power, as much for Israel's safety and benefit as for any kind of hope for oppressed West Bank Palestinians.

For enforcement of a policy to be meaningful, several conditions need to apply, none of which seem to apply in this situation:

1) Policy must be clear. Definition of war crimes should be black & white.

2) Justice must be swift. Unfortunately, plenty of war criminals are allowed to lounge around on death row for a while.

3) Enforcement must be universal. People like George Bush or Henry Kissinger can't be let off the hook simply because they have nice smiles and cool ties.

Good luck getting some other nation to indict Bush or Kissinger on war crimes. No one is going to challenge a western power's credibility like that, especially the US's.

Yes, but that's my point. I'm not lobbying for them to be indicted. Rather, I'm pointing out why the Geneva convention is considered laughable by non-aligned countries. It only seems to apply to people who don't have seats on the UN Security council.

I think that's a fair point--

Even most of the anti-Israel folks here (I think we can assume nearly all of us are anti-Netanyahu, even those like me that still side with Israel vs. Hamas) would probably agree there are far bigger criminal targets out there, internationally...

But nobody's putting a Security Council leader in the slammer, so instead Geneva is used as a political axe to grind against whomever the powers that be choose to dislike.

...Which makes all that talk of any prosecution for war crimes basically grandstanding and using tragedies as political capital, and oh joy, the hypocrisy and awfulness of international politics just keeps on a-chugging...but then, it always will...

"I challenge ANYONE to say Israel's been better off or is stronger politically, diplomatically or otherwise thanks to Netanyahu."

Most people in Israel seem to think so. They keep electing him and if the next election were held today would do so again. The West Bank's never been quieter. The "villa in a jungle" view of Israel has never been more true, considering how Arab regimes are tottering all over the region.

Ultimately, your preference for Sharon over Netanyahu really just comes from your decision to *like* one and *dislike* the other. Saying Netanyahu isn't a wildly successful Machiavellian player is ludicrous. Israel is stronger than ever. It continues building settlements with abandon. It is amazingly safe despite being surrounded on all sides by disorder. Netanyahu has been a successful PM by anyone's definition.

It's really as simple as Netanyahu was mean to Obama, and Sharon never was. Therefore, Netanyahu is a bad guy to obiwanobiwan the good liberal, while the almost indistinguishable Sharon is a great leader.

Machiavellian often walks a very close line to criminal. Netanyahu, either to his credit or to his detriment depending on your personality and political views, tends to play an awful lot around that line.

@Invictus
"The "villa in a jungle" view of Israel has never been more true, considering how Arab regimes are tottering all over the region. "

I would tend to think that most of what you said above is true, although I did want to challenge one point.

If Arab regimes are tottering all over the region, it is largely because America happens to be sponsoring revolution in most of these countries. Saying that Israel is performing better is a bit silly. They are performing better with American sponsorship.

I'll avoid commenting on Netanyahu's policies, but I think we should find a better metric for leadership than the number of neighbors that are experiencing catastrophe.

Actually, if Netanyahu were such hot stuff, one would think that Israel's neighbors would be experiencing comparative political and economic stability.

Hopefully my Hebrew brethren will come to recognize the value of promoting economic stability in the region.

"Most people in Israel seem to think so."

I'd argue that's because war after war has driven the Israelis further and further towards the Right...

Give it a generation or two.

Americans liked Andrew Jackson when he was off removing Indians as well...and while some today still like him, there's a pretty large number of us who feel he did plenty moral wrong--and that's *without* the kind of long-term international diplomatic damage Netanyahu is doing.

Which is one of my issues with him--his aggressions are very much short-term...Israel NEEDS its alliances to survive long-term, and he's risking that for...some more settlements in the West Bank? Are those REALLY worth it when put against alliances with the UK, US, and other allies long-term (not to mention the economic damage it does to Israel when he makes it look like a pariah state, thus damaging the tourism industry, which is huge for Israel for obvious reasons.)

"Israel is stronger than ever."

Militarily? Yes.
Diplomatically? No.

And again, I think the latter poses a huge long-term problem for Israel...especially if the US grows cooler on Israel...is that really worth more settlements in the West Bank?

"It continues building settlements with abandon."

See the above as to why I think that's a minus and not a plus long-term...

"It is amazingly safe despite being surrounded on all sides by disorder."

A product of 1. Its military, which has always been the case and so therefore is not to Netanyahu's credit, that'd be like crediting Obama or George W. Bush for the US having a strong military...we (and Israel) had the big guns looooong before those Presidents/This Israeli PM.

"Netanyahu has been a successful PM by anyone's definition."

I disagree...at home, he may be popular, but I don't think it's popularity that can last over time historically, because this sort of attitude really isn't sustainable for Israel. They cannot keep taking and taking in the West Bank and daring the West to abandon them...because sooner or later--they WILL.

There WILL come a day when fear of other regimes in the region WON'T outweigh reprehension at what Israel's doing in the West Bank, and in the same way the day we don't need Turkish airspace is the day the United States formally acknowledges the Armenian Genocide. 43 states already independently recognize it as a genocide, so public opinion is on that side...and already, public opinion (whether I think it's fair or not) IS turning against Israel.

...I think it's equally short-sighted, if not more so, for people to turn against Israel and support the Gazan regime, Hamas, but still.

Neyanyahu's "vision" isn't sustainable long-term, for Israel OR Palestinians. He's elected there now...but many's the time a right-wing, military-first leader was popular in his own time, and then reviled twenty years later by the same people.

Israel has gotten used to taking a short term view of alliances after getting screwed so often by allies.

France and Great Britain helped Israel in 1956 against Egypt in the Suez Canal War, but are against Israel since then.

Bush I after Gulf War I cut off supplies to force out the Israeli government so he could get the Oslo Accords and cement Arab alliances. The US got its way and the Mid-East is worse off.

The US-Israel alliance exists only to benefit the military-industrial complex. If you don't want to believe that then look at what's happened. Missile contracts for the Iron Dome and sales of the system to US allied countries. Drones were successfully used by Israel and then adopted by the US for Iraq and Afghanistan. Until Gulf War I, Israel was used to test US military weapons against Soviet weapons.

The only part of the Israeli economy that is doing well is high technology, because new technology can be taken out of the country easily. Tourism is down and only recently starting to improve. Farming communities near the Gaza border are staying empty over fears that there will be new attacks.

The ICC needs an enforcement mechanism

"Israel has gotten used to taking a short term view of alliances after getting screwed so often by allies."

The US has been a constant ally of Israel's, the necessary ally, and that's what Netanyahu's risking, that a US President will never just say "screw it" and not support Israel...

Which isn't feasible, and not even for good (see: moral) reasons. At some point, the argument that US Presidents always cowtowing to the whims of the Israeli PM is a sign of weakness will grow louder, and then instead of support for Israel being a plus for a President, it'll be a minus and sign of weakness--and that's the nightmare, if you're Israel...because that's been the major deterrent against the kind of All vs. Israel war that Israel had to fight in its War for Independence--

That is, all the Arab States NOT wanting to pick a major fight with the US (and not just the US conducting "operations" in the region, or even an Iraq-style level of intervention.) It'd be crushing, militarily and economically, for those nations.

That's the real "Iron Dome" protecting Israel, as it were. Lose that, and you have a nightmare...and Netanyahu is playing chicken with it...and it really is just a matter of time and statistics before you LOSE a game of chicken...

"Israel NEEDS its alliances to survive long-term, and he's risking that for...some more settlements in the West Bank? Are those REALLY worth it when put against alliances with the UK, US, and other allies long-term"

In a word, yes. Netanyahu is a Zionist. Zionism is simply the belief that Jews have a right to live and have a state in their historic homeland. The real cradle of the Jewish people is not the pleasant beaches of Tel Aviv or the wasteland of the Negev. It is the Judean Hills, which is pretty much coterminous with the West Bank. To many Israelis, Netanyahu included, building settlements in the WEst Bank is just a continuation of the movement which created Israel. If it pisses the world off, who cares? He and they believe they're in the right. And really, from the perspective of an Israeli, it's hard to disagree.

In short, settlement building is an end in itself. Netanyahu will continue to build settlements because he sincerely believes that Israel has an inherent right to the land, regardless of whatever outside players may think.


But again, it's fine for you to dislike Netanhayu. There are good reasons to. What bugs me is that you lionize Sharon for the same reasons you hate Netanyahu. Sharon started serious settlement building. Sharon launched brutal wars. Sharon was a pillar of the recalcitrant Israeli right, and his withdrawal from Gaza was really a brilliant power play to keep the West Bank under occupation and settler rule forever. But Sharon was not mean to Obama and was a general and PM before Internet Outrage Culture existed. Therefore you haven't constructed the image of him as a villain the way you have done so with Netanyahu.

To be clear, my views on both men fall between your extreme views on each. Netanyahu is no monster, Sharon is no exemplar of statesmanship. The two are both human.

"If it pisses the world off, who cares? He and they believe they're in the right. And really, from the perspective of an Israeli, it's hard to disagree."

I'd argue that perspective has been fueled, in part, by an Us vs. the World mentality...which isn't helped when after a war such as this, a Canadian with a history of being anti-Israeli heads a group potentially prosecuting for war crimes...all while ignoring Hamas' part in the conflict. If Israel didn't feel it was Them vs. the World, I think they'd be less given to vote for an extremist expansionist like Netanyahu, since at the moment they think their best chance for survival would be expansion as he envisions, whereas if the world were less hostile, they could see themselves in a broader, diplomatically-protected context and vote for a peacemaker instead of an expansionist.

True, some would still think that Zionism should demand they continue to expand, but others--especially more liberal and secular Jewish denominations--would feel compelled to work towards peace and privilege that over expanding even further, since their view of Israel is more of a political entity rather than one of religious fulfillment.

So they MIGHT care more if they pissed the world off...if they didn't think the world already hated them and wanted them gone...which is partly the fault of Israel and partly the fault of Arab, South American, Russia and former Soviet states all having been extremely anti-Israel since 1947 and, in cases, beforehand, with many of those states professing antisemitic views. (Yes, it's not antisemitic per se to be anti-Israel, but I think it's fair to say some states and world leaders *ARE* antisemitic and dislike Israel in part on those grounds.)

"What bugs me is that you lionize Sharon for the same reasons you hate Netanyahu."

But as you say, Sharon operated in a different time...sans morality, I can be more politically forgiving of Sharon given where Israel was at that time. In 2014, there is no reason for a Sharon or a Netanyahu to have acted/be acting this way.

TL;DR, I think it's fair to call Sharon and Arafat extreme patrons for their own side and lions against the other side...which for each side may have made sense in that time...but in 2014, it doesn't work for *ETHER* side. Palestinians needs someone besides Hamas or Arafat figures who prize terrorism and martyrdom over talk and de-radicalization, and Israel cannot, in the age of social media and it being so powerful compared to the West Bank, fight with the ruthlessness and expansion Sharon exemplified. That era is past, and until Israel/the Palestinians get leaders that reflect that change, we won't see any tangible change in the region.

" In 2014, there is no reason for a Sharon or a Netanyahu to have acted/be acting this way."

So settlement building was fine up to 2005?

They were more acceptable, at the very least...

Some instances might be more acceptable than others, but the point is, in 2014, the risks outweigh the benefit, which wasn't necessarily the case in 2005. Settlement building was not something which would strain US/Israeli relations then as it would and does now. In addition, Israel still had at least something of an advantage from a PR standpoint in the West at that point...that advantage has now all but evaporated thanks to Netanyahu's throwing it and the goodwill and diplomatic power that comes with it in wars that make Israel look terrible...

And all for...a few more settlements in the West Bank?

And the media in 2005 was not what it was in 2014. Israel has to learn how to fight a war in the age of social media...you can't fight the way they do in the age of Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram--

I'd argue hashtag and meme-pictures (on both sides) are terrible forms of argumentation, but that kind of propaganda's always been a way of setting off an emotional response, and it's now easier to share 10 sensationalist images of an attack before a full report of the incident comes out than ever before.

And with as Twitter-ified as our attention spans are now, what will people choose to take their news from, actual reports, or those sensationalist images and memes?

You CANNOT fight and operate the way Sharon did in the social media age...it's as foolhardy as trying to fight World War I in the Napoleonic style--a charge over an open field towards an entrenched enemy is as foolish as not paying enough attention to the social media battle while blasting large and Facebook-friendly holes in civilian areas.

Hamas operatives and tunnels may well be there...but will people stop to read that--or will they see the image and respond simply to that, deteriorating Israel's reputation across the world and destroying its capability over time to find the allies it needs, thereby further isolating it and causing it to view expansion and defense as its only means of survival, thus perpetuating the conflict on those terms--

Israel feels threatened or that it will be threatened in the future,
Israel sees a world which hates and will not help her,
Hamas attacks, thereby confirming in Israeli public paranoia,
Israel responds,
Hamas courts public sympathy for citizens it's allowed to die as martyrs for propaganda purposes,
Israel pushes until Hamas has been reduced to where it can't attack for a few years...

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Israel cannot fight wars the way it used to, and that starts by fighting and WINNING the war on social media, which is one of Hamas' most powerful weapons.

Just when I think you can't get more unprincipled and mushy-headed on this issue. Settlements are only bad because we have Facebook now? You're hopeless.

O.o

I'm sorry, is that what I said? No.

I said Israel can't fight the way now it did then...

Would you suggest modern armies fight the way armies did in WWI?

And yes, the social climate has changed in large part BECAUSE of the power of social media...I'm sorry you don't recognize the importance of that medium.

And Israel's security and status has changed since 2005, or 1985, or 1947...

Do you not see that something might be more understandable in the past but outdated and not worth the risk it once might've been in 2014?

I asked you a very specific question about settlements. Forgive me for translating your word salad into an answer.

So why are settlements OK up to 2005? Why is Sharon not faulted by you for being an architect of initiating the settler project, while Netanyahu is the devil incarnate for pretty much just consolidating what already existed?

I would like to add, at the risk of derailing the thread from what was otherwise a stimulating conversation topic from a policy perspective, that raising these issues in the context of performing an indictment of Assad's leadership is erroneous.

Neither the Israeli hardliners nor the neoconservatives who will be clamoring the most vehemently for his ouster will likely attempt to employ (nor be able to safeguard) methods in achieving regime change that will be in any ways gentler of human rights.

Picking on his methods of policy enforcement are the worst reasons for making complaint against the man. History, both recent and further back very well indicates that there are few better candidates for the Syrian throne.