This is a malicious interpretation of Mrs. Baerbock‘s words and the German Foreign Ministry‘s position. The old trick, long ago unmasked by Christopher Hitchins: Read into another person‘s statement the worst possible intend and then declare that only this interpretation shall be true.
Your assertion, Mrs. Baerbock would find it „ok“ if Israel was attacked as long as the attacks did not cause too much damage and hence a proportinate Israeli reaction is a fabulation fueled by ulterior motives. How do you benefit from painting the representative of one of the most pro-Israel countries in the world as not pro-Israel enough? Does it strenghten your in-group to identify as nany people as possible in the out-group? What an insensible way to alienate well-meaning friends.
Thank-you for your challenge to what I wrote. Yes. Germany is very much pro-Israel as noted by their latest legislation -- to only give citizenship to refugees who swear to Israel's right to exist. (Something that no other country is ever subjected to, you know. But I appreciate the thought behind it.)
So, in order to engage in respectful discussion, how do you interpret Minister Baerbock's comment about "miscalculation?"
I interpret it literally as something senior diplomats say in such situations. Escalation could follow from miscalculation, the opportunities for miscalculation increase with every instant (= rocket launch) that needs to be calculated. Whereas there is an Israeli government one can address concerns to, there is no equivalent Hizbollah (or Hamas) authority. We could just as well address our concerns about safe drug usage to the Mafia or the Sinaloa cartel. But just because only one side is able to listen (Israel) does not mean the dumb side not listening is not also addressed. As a foot note, some Arab media changed Baerbock‘s „miscalculation“ into „simple miscalculation“: A nice example (I find) as to how one adjective can distort meaning ever so subtly.
I am sure that you are aware of the prevailing view in IDF circles that sooner or later the situation vis-à-vis Hizbollah will need to be resolved. Major-General Gershon wrote about this situatiom that „Israel should be headed to a diplomatic arrangement, not war, at this time.“ He called the country’s strategy in the past eight months a “mad run with the head into a wall”. The country, he argued, needs a ceasefire in both Gaza and Lebanon in order to take stock, elect a new government and regroup.
We can debate what we think would be the best approach for the Israeli government to take but that is not what this article is about. You did not answer my question to you: how do you interpret the word, "miscalculation?"
I interpreted it as meaning one of the thousands of rockets hitting a target that could not longer be ignored by Israel and that would trigger "real" war. AS IF launching thousands of rockets is okay. I am not saying that she necessarily thinks it is okay to launch rockets at Israel, but the way she put it, that is what it looks like what she is saying. When you write, "escalation could follow from miscalculation...," it seems you are saying that the miscalculation is what I say here. Maybe I am wrong.
So my question to you: how do you interpret the word, "miscalculation?"
I interpret it exactly the other way around. I interpret it primarily as a message to Hizbollah that they ought not to (mis-)calculate, for example, that Israel is weak, that it will not hit back while its troops are heavily engaged in Gaza, that terrorizing the north of Israel will further undermine Mr. Netanyahu. I also interpret it with regard to Israel as a warnung that is might (mus-)calculate an invasion of Lebanon would remain local and not trigger an Iranisn intervention and thus start a much larger and much more complicated war.
That is certainly very interesting. I think your interpretation assumes that neither of the parties know what you are saying Baerbock means by miscalculation. It assumes that Hezbollah is under any misconception that Israel would not (be able to) do in Lebanon what she has done in Gaza. And it assumes that Bibi does not know that invading Lebanon may trigger Iranian intervention and thus a larger scale war.
Do you really think that neither Hezbollah nor Bibi knew these things?
Before we get dragged further and further into that conversation how about you aknowledge that your interpretation of Mrs. Baerbock‘s words is a singularly ill-meaning and malicious one, and that more benign ones are possible and indeed - given the Gernan government‘s stance in the matter - plausible?
Regarding your question: I assume that Hizbollah (just like Hamas) is an Islamist death cult and prepared to go very far in provoking Israel because they do not fear the consequences, indeed they may welcome them. It is also infinitely better armed than Hamas. What is Hizbollah doing at the moment? They are sending missiles into Northern Israel and killing civilians. They are doing it largely ignored by Western media and the Western public. They are „poking the bear“. Mr. Netanyahu will face difficult elections sooner or later; if he wants to have any chance at all, he needs (in my opinion) to be seen as a strongman restoring safety at Israel‘s Northern as well as Western border. Such scenarios can only be „calculated“ to a limited extent; there is - and I propose that is the core of Mrs. Baerbock‘s message - always the danger of „miscalculating“ the reaction of the opponent. A good, albeit dramatic examples would be the beginning of World War I.
“Thank-you for your challenge to what I wrote. […] So, in order to engage in respectful discussion, how do you interpret Minister Baerbock's comment about "miscalculation?" Both O.P and Ulrik Nord (the person to whom O.P writes) sets an example for all of us, THIS is the way forward of debate, thanks to both of you. It might not end up with all being one big agreeing interweb with one voice (thank G-d and people who refuse to fall into the homogeneous soup of masses). But at least it sets a path for civilized discussions, maybe a scintilla of uncreased understanding of the underlying bases for different opinions
The language was deliberate. The bottom line is that ant-semites have hijacked the public square in an attempt to force the Jews to accept a few thousand rockets as something to just stfu about.
your analysis clearly shows why "comfortable" both sidesim doesn't work. Officials like Baerbock want to satisfy two camps of their followers leftist pro
palestina and those who see Hamas as the agressor. Ms. Baerbock, you can't have a cake and eat it.
It’s typical “both sidesism” from these feckless, cowardly western “leaders” who refuse to call terrorists what they are.
Beautifully put! Bravo!
Thank-you.
Sheri, this is top notch. Keep up the good work.
Thanks.
This is a malicious interpretation of Mrs. Baerbock‘s words and the German Foreign Ministry‘s position. The old trick, long ago unmasked by Christopher Hitchins: Read into another person‘s statement the worst possible intend and then declare that only this interpretation shall be true.
Your assertion, Mrs. Baerbock would find it „ok“ if Israel was attacked as long as the attacks did not cause too much damage and hence a proportinate Israeli reaction is a fabulation fueled by ulterior motives. How do you benefit from painting the representative of one of the most pro-Israel countries in the world as not pro-Israel enough? Does it strenghten your in-group to identify as nany people as possible in the out-group? What an insensible way to alienate well-meaning friends.
Thank-you for your challenge to what I wrote. Yes. Germany is very much pro-Israel as noted by their latest legislation -- to only give citizenship to refugees who swear to Israel's right to exist. (Something that no other country is ever subjected to, you know. But I appreciate the thought behind it.)
So, in order to engage in respectful discussion, how do you interpret Minister Baerbock's comment about "miscalculation?"
I interpret it literally as something senior diplomats say in such situations. Escalation could follow from miscalculation, the opportunities for miscalculation increase with every instant (= rocket launch) that needs to be calculated. Whereas there is an Israeli government one can address concerns to, there is no equivalent Hizbollah (or Hamas) authority. We could just as well address our concerns about safe drug usage to the Mafia or the Sinaloa cartel. But just because only one side is able to listen (Israel) does not mean the dumb side not listening is not also addressed. As a foot note, some Arab media changed Baerbock‘s „miscalculation“ into „simple miscalculation“: A nice example (I find) as to how one adjective can distort meaning ever so subtly.
I am sure that you are aware of the prevailing view in IDF circles that sooner or later the situation vis-à-vis Hizbollah will need to be resolved. Major-General Gershon wrote about this situatiom that „Israel should be headed to a diplomatic arrangement, not war, at this time.“ He called the country’s strategy in the past eight months a “mad run with the head into a wall”. The country, he argued, needs a ceasefire in both Gaza and Lebanon in order to take stock, elect a new government and regroup.
We can debate what we think would be the best approach for the Israeli government to take but that is not what this article is about. You did not answer my question to you: how do you interpret the word, "miscalculation?"
I interpreted it as meaning one of the thousands of rockets hitting a target that could not longer be ignored by Israel and that would trigger "real" war. AS IF launching thousands of rockets is okay. I am not saying that she necessarily thinks it is okay to launch rockets at Israel, but the way she put it, that is what it looks like what she is saying. When you write, "escalation could follow from miscalculation...," it seems you are saying that the miscalculation is what I say here. Maybe I am wrong.
So my question to you: how do you interpret the word, "miscalculation?"
I interpret it exactly the other way around. I interpret it primarily as a message to Hizbollah that they ought not to (mis-)calculate, for example, that Israel is weak, that it will not hit back while its troops are heavily engaged in Gaza, that terrorizing the north of Israel will further undermine Mr. Netanyahu. I also interpret it with regard to Israel as a warnung that is might (mus-)calculate an invasion of Lebanon would remain local and not trigger an Iranisn intervention and thus start a much larger and much more complicated war.
Does that answer your question?
That is certainly very interesting. I think your interpretation assumes that neither of the parties know what you are saying Baerbock means by miscalculation. It assumes that Hezbollah is under any misconception that Israel would not (be able to) do in Lebanon what she has done in Gaza. And it assumes that Bibi does not know that invading Lebanon may trigger Iranian intervention and thus a larger scale war.
Do you really think that neither Hezbollah nor Bibi knew these things?
Before we get dragged further and further into that conversation how about you aknowledge that your interpretation of Mrs. Baerbock‘s words is a singularly ill-meaning and malicious one, and that more benign ones are possible and indeed - given the Gernan government‘s stance in the matter - plausible?
Regarding your question: I assume that Hizbollah (just like Hamas) is an Islamist death cult and prepared to go very far in provoking Israel because they do not fear the consequences, indeed they may welcome them. It is also infinitely better armed than Hamas. What is Hizbollah doing at the moment? They are sending missiles into Northern Israel and killing civilians. They are doing it largely ignored by Western media and the Western public. They are „poking the bear“. Mr. Netanyahu will face difficult elections sooner or later; if he wants to have any chance at all, he needs (in my opinion) to be seen as a strongman restoring safety at Israel‘s Northern as well as Western border. Such scenarios can only be „calculated“ to a limited extent; there is - and I propose that is the core of Mrs. Baerbock‘s message - always the danger of „miscalculating“ the reaction of the opponent. A good, albeit dramatic examples would be the beginning of World War I.
Excellent.
“Thank-you for your challenge to what I wrote. […] So, in order to engage in respectful discussion, how do you interpret Minister Baerbock's comment about "miscalculation?" Both O.P and Ulrik Nord (the person to whom O.P writes) sets an example for all of us, THIS is the way forward of debate, thanks to both of you. It might not end up with all being one big agreeing interweb with one voice (thank G-d and people who refuse to fall into the homogeneous soup of masses). But at least it sets a path for civilized discussions, maybe a scintilla of uncreased understanding of the underlying bases for different opinions
The language was deliberate. The bottom line is that ant-semites have hijacked the public square in an attempt to force the Jews to accept a few thousand rockets as something to just stfu about.
I agree. I do think national and world leaders are deliberate in the language they use.
your analysis clearly shows why "comfortable" both sidesim doesn't work. Officials like Baerbock want to satisfy two camps of their followers leftist pro
palestina and those who see Hamas as the agressor. Ms. Baerbock, you can't have a cake and eat it.
As you write, Sheri, only Israel can have hundreds of rockets fired at it daily and not be “at war” according to these biased observers.
Amazing, isn't it!
It’s just awful.
Maybe Ribbentrop is still in charge of the foreign office.