Next week, Israel will conduct a civil defense drill against a combination of bombardment by hundreds of rockets and a cyber attack that theoretically brings down the computer networks.
The government declined to state from which countries the simulated attacks theoretically originated, but it notified neighboring countries that these are war games (IMRA, 5/18/10).
Why hundreds of rockets? Why not thousands and tens of thousands? How would Israeli anti-missile defenses stop so many?
Israel notifies enemy states that these just are war games, so they do not imagine Israel is about to attack them. The Arabs and the Soviets used to allege that Israel was preparing to attack or that it started prior wars. The Soviets made such allegations to panic the Arabs into war. The Arabs made such allegations for propaganda, paranoia, or pretext for their own aggression.
When about to attack, a country could declare it is just staging war games.
Does the enemy believe Israeli assurances? The anti-Zionist side assumes that Israel is as deceitful as the anti-Zionists. One reader told me that Israel started the second Lebanon War and that the media and Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International verified it. He must have forgotten that, besides having fired rockets at Israeli civilians — a war crime — and built up a stockpile for more such instances of aggression, Hizbullah raided Israel and killed and kidnapped some Israeli soldiers.
(For more on new types of Israeli defense, click here )
There is a class of anti-Zionists who abuse the comments box to be disruptive. Although they read many of my articles, they studiously miss the point, reject points giving substantive explanation, and deny there were such points. This class of reader seeks to attach to every sub-topic an irrelevant rehashing of the origin of the Arab-Israel conflict, on the basis of historical fabrication. Some anti-Zionists generate false claims, and others accept them without checking, because it suits them. No scholarship there.
Although they read my articles, they act unaware of the rules of decorum for comments, which I have restated periodically. They seem unaware that no respectable newspaper accepts readers’ letters that attempt to insult their journalists, call for mass-murder, and opine about topics not in the article. Some of them keep pestering, though I delete their comments. They assume a non-existent authority over other people’s time. One said he could take up all my time. This is shameful behavior. Once a person has shown himself to be just seeking to annoy, his offerings no longer are welcome.
These people accuse one of fearing debate. But they do not debate with any academic integrity. They ignore one’s points and call names. Not fear, do I have, but the same feeling in deleting their posts as in sweeping ants off the picnic table.
Specific, relevant, polite debate is welcome. Nasty harassment is not.