Belligerance of Israel

[Guest]

This belligerant attitude is making things worse! So many innocents are being massacred. Even more annoyingly, Bush fails to demand a stop from Israel in a situation that will escalate into imminant war. I'm sure if any other country in the M.E. were to do the same we would have seen an American invasion of some sort. Double standards is what drives hatred of the West in the middle east, that is why we have seen angry, mourning men, women and even children turn to 'terrorism'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 161820.stm

Your thoughts...

[David Bean]

I'm certain that George Bush's response to this recent conflict has been as one-sided, un-nuanced and faultily reasoned as we can have expected given his recent record. I know he has electoral concerns with respect to Jewish voters, but honestly, failing to condemn or even recognise what was, irrespective of the kidnapping of some of its troops, an escalation on Israel's part borders on criminal negligence.

As far as Israel is concerned, I'm convinced that these events are all the result of a grand mistake: given the recent history of the conflict as a whole, the rationale behind the formation of Kadima and the complete absence of any realistic potential gains by the country from its actions, I can only believe that Israel's escalation must have resulted either from a groupthinkish situation room snafu, or possibly even an invisible coup by hardliners. Obviuously the government has now had to rally around the state's actions lest it appear weak, but I don't honestly believe that Ehud Olmert intended this to happen.

I don't believe that, in the conflict in general, Israel is by any means the aggressive party, or even that it is sensible to point the finger at either camp. But I do think that its recent actions have been extremely unwise, and should be very deeply regretted. The trouble is, in the Middle East, nobody can ever be seen to back down.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Nick82]

Not sure exactly what the US can do. If I'm not mistaken they've named Hezbollah as a terrorist group before, therefore they cannot be seen to support them in any ways. Make no mistake there is no real difference between Lebannon and Hezbollah.
Another factor could be the G8 this weekend. This is not a time for rocking the boat at home if you're perhaps going to need concessions in other areas.

[Lid]

Quoting Nick82 from 12:17, 16th Jul 2006Make no mistake there is no real difference between Lebannon and Hezbollah.

How utterly utterly inaccurate. Look at the political makeup of Lebanon. Hezbollah only holds 14 seats in the National Assembly, a great total of 11%. That's less than the progressive socialist party, and in fact there are three parties larger than them.

As it is, Lebanon is positively discriminatory, the President of the country must be christian, the PM Sunni and the Speaker of the National Assembly Shia. Hezbollah does indeed have support, but only amongst the Shia muslims, mainly now the older people, located in the south.

To draw an analogy, it's much like the IRA to Ireland. There certainly was a difference between the IRA and Ireland, and indeed Sinn Féin, often referred to as the political wing of the IRA, operates in the Republic if Ireland. However, Sinn Féin was not, in the 70s and 80s, existent with the sole purpose of terror, they had legitimate political aims too. Likewise, Hezbollah has a political wing, with political aims.

Furthermore, in the 1980s, I don't ever remember the UK bombing Dublin International Airport.

To compare Hezbollah to Lebanon is nonsense, they are a member of a minority political bloc in the Lebanon, and the only reason that many support them in Lebanon is because Lebanon has done so far nothing to defend themselves, and Hezbollah is seen as the defensive force. This is why they are gaining support. Obviously the militant wing of Hezbollah has been stupid in kidnapping these militants, but what we have so far seen is a completely disproportionate response. It's, frankly, disgusting.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[Haunted]

Two things.

Quoting Lid from 17:31, 16th Jul 2006
...
Furthermore, in the 1980s, I don't ever remember the UK bombing Dublin International Airport.

This is because your analogy is flawed.

Obviously the militant wing of Hezbollah has been stupid in kidnapping these militants, but what we have so far seen is a completely disproportionate response. It's, frankly, disgusting.

They kidnapped SOLDIERS, not militants, there is a significant difference.

Isreal has been under almost constant rocket attack from Lebanon and Gaza since they withdrew. They have a right to defend themselves against these terrorists.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Lid]

Quoting Haunted from 18:52, 16th Jul 2006
They kidnapped SOLDIERS, not militants, there is a significant difference.

My apologies, slip of the tongue, or fingers, as it were.

Isreal has been under almost constant rocket attack from Lebanon and Gaza since they withdrew. They have a right to defend themselves against these terrorists.

They have not been under attack from Lebanon. By that, I mean that they haven't been under attack from the sovereign state of Lebanon. The attacks have originated from the Lebanon, but not BY Lebanon, if you follow. I do not condone in the slightest the actions of these militia, but the attacks we have seen by Israel are, in many cases, an attack against the sovereign state, as opposed to Hezbollah.

Just as bombing a power station in Gaza is against the Palestinians, and not directly against Hamas.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[Tigger]

If any country openly harbours terrorists, without the extradition or punishment thereof, then they are also jointly accountable for all atrocities. i use terrorists in the strictest sense, and i believe that lebanon has had every oppurtunity to do damage limitation, but either chose not to, or is corrupted itself.

[hr]

My Wings Are Like A Shield of Steel...
(Claire Raynor)

[rob 'f*ck off' wine boy]

Quoting Tigger from 19:58, 16th Jul 2006
If any country openly harbours terrorists, without the extradition or punishment thereof, then they are also jointly accountable for all atrocities. i use terrorists in the strictest sense, and i believe that lebanon has had every oppurtunity to do damage limitation, but either chose not to, or is corrupted itself.

[hr]

My Wings Are Like A Shield of Steel...
(Claire Raynor)

Hezbollah is fortified in the South of Lebanon, and has superior firepower to that of the Lebanese army. It is also incorrect to say that the Lebanese government has 'harboured' this group; they (Hezbollah) are funded by the Iranians. I'm sure extradition, were it a feasible option, would have happened by now, were it possible.

The Lebanese have no control over Hezbollah, so. It's not quite so cut-and-dried as 'Lebanon is harbouring terrorists'.

[exnihilo]

No, you're right, the Lebanese government has no control over Hezbollah, but neither has it done anything to prevent them attacking Israel.

The Israeli response is justified, there situation in the world is unique - to continue your analogy, Lid, Sinn Fein/IRA/Ireland did not have the professed aim of eradicating our nation and killing everyone in it (and indeed anyone who shared certain characterists with us, wherever they might live), that is the reality of the situation for Israel and, thus, when simultaneously attacked on two sides by two such group they response with deadly force.

They have no choice. To look weak is impossible here and would lead to one thing only, the other neighbours who covertly are responsible for these attacks declaring their hand openly. If the response is disproportionate, which it isn't, in any case it is precisely the response Hamas/Hezbhollah want, they hold their own people's lives so cheaply that it's nothing to them if hundreds or thousands of them die as long as their point is made.

What is the answer? How does Israel defend itself against such repellant zealotry, the kind which will strap on a bomb and gladly walk into a school? The kind which deliberately offers its own women and children up as targets because the army of martyrs needs more public support? This is not Israeli belligerence, this is the response of a government that knows, and knows all too well, what happens if it does not fight back and fight back with devastating force.

A lot of people on this, and other boards, seriously need to read some history of this situation and try to get a better grasp of the present.

[Lid]

Quoting exnihilo from 21:30, 16th Jul 2006
...they response with deadly force.

and they were quite right to, against the militants.

If the response is disproportionate, which it isn't

I disgree. Destroying an international airport and two military airbases controlled by another sovereign nation is disproportionate. Israel claims that Hezbollah is the problem, so why stop Lebanon using their planes?

Or is this just a pre-emptive strike, so you can batter the hell out of another country, and they can't retaliate. Hezbollah is the antagonist, by all means, go after them.

Hezbhollah ... hold their own people's lives so cheaply that it's nothing to them if hundreds or thousands of them die as long as their point is made.

I agree, and this is probably the point of contention in all this. The Lebanon has never (at least since the cedar revolution) expressed a view to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, only the factions that operate within its country. By all means, destroy these militants, but the Lebanon, following the cedar revolution is a fledgling democracy, what I would have said a promising one, until this week. Hezbollah holds people's life so cheaply, however Lebanon doesn't.

What is the answer? How does Israel defend itself against such repellant zealotry, the kind which will strap on a bomb and gladly walk into a school? The kind which deliberately offers its own women and children up as targets because the army of martyrs needs more public support?

Emotive, but I don't dispute that Hezbollah's militant wing are nasty people who need a good sort out.


[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[exnihilo]

Okay, so having not really answered my post and trivialised the threat of Hezbollah (they're more than "nasty") - a good sorting out by whom? That seems to be the point where your argument collapses; the "international community" can't, the Arab countries don't want to, Lebanon isn't able to and you say Israel shouldn't.

Don't simply dismiss my point as emotive, it's absolutely correct, it's horrific and you have no answer to the problem to offer. Also to suggest that the whole thing is some sort of excuse for Israel to "batter hell" out of a country that "can't retaliate" is a gross misrepresentation and a bizarre, if not outright insane, suggestion.

[Lid]

I'm saying that whoever wants to do the job should sort out Hezbollah. However, that does not mean attacking another sovereign state.

Israel has done so, on many occasions in the last five days.

All credit to Israel for stamping out the militants that cause this problem, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't a militant right in the middle of that runway they bombed, nor does it give them the right to bomb civilian neighbourhoods. Nor, again, was there on the Lebanese military bases that were bombed. They're destroying the infrastructure of another country, another sovereign state. Where were they given the mandate to do that?

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[Lid]

If I may veer slightly off on a tangent here, I liked the Sunday Telegraph today, regarding evacuation of British Citizens from Lebanon. As to whether the evacuations could take place, the Sunday Telegraph pointed out that that would depend on negotiations with Israel as to whether they could land at Rafik Hariri International Airport.

Furthermore if the Israelis refused, they would have to negotiate with Israel safe passage through the Israeli blockade of Lebanon's ports.

See, thing that bothers me here, last time I checked, Rafik Hariri International Airport was in Beiruit, in the Lebanon. So why do we have to go along nicely and ask one nation if we can land a plane in another nation? Furthermore, if the Israeli ships are in international waters, which they should be, we needn't ask them. However, if the warships are in Lebanese waters, and will not leave, Lebanon has every right to allow our ships through, and even so far as attack the Israeli ships to maintain sovereignty.

It's amazing how Britain has to ask Israel to go into a country that isn't Israel.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[exnihilo]

So you think Israel should ask Lebanon nicely to stop harbouring terrorists? That's worked up til now. Don't be so naive. You're talking as though Lebanon's not inolved, and it is, but it trys to pretend it isn't and your brand of apologism allows precisely that.

[harmless loony]

So let me get this straight - 3 soldiers are kidnapped and you people think its ok to kill in almost 100 Lebanese civilians in return.

Glad to see how poorly you view the value of other peoples' lives.

[Nick82]

Quoting Lid from 17:31, 16th Jul 2006

Quoting Nick82 from 12:17, 16th Jul 2006Make no mistake there is no real difference between Lebannon and Hezbollah.

How utterly utterly inaccurate. Look at the political makeup of Lebanon. Hezbollah only holds 14 seats in the National Assembly, a great total of 11%. That's less than the progressive socialist party, and in fact there are three parties larger than them.

As it is, Lebanon is positively discriminatory, the President of the country must be christian, the PM Sunni and the Speaker of the National Assembly Shia. Hezbollah does indeed have support, but only amongst the Shia muslims, mainly now the older people, located in the south.

To draw an analogy, it's much like the IRA to Ireland. There certainly was a difference between the IRA and Ireland, and indeed Sinn Féin, often referred to as the political wing of the IRA, operates in the Republic if Ireland. However, Sinn Féin was not, in the 70s and 80s, existent with the sole purpose of terror, they had legitimate political aims too. Likewise, Hezbollah has a political wing, with political aims.

Furthermore, in the 1980s, I don't ever remember the UK bombing Dublin International Airport.

To compare Hezbollah to Lebanon is nonsense, they are a member of a minority political bloc in the Lebanon, and the only reason that many support them in Lebanon is because Lebanon has done so far nothing to defend themselves, and Hezbollah is seen as the defensive force. This is why they are gaining support. Obviously the militant wing of Hezbollah has been stupid in kidnapping these militants, but what we have so far seen is a completely disproportionate response. It's, frankly, disgusting.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

Sorry I didn't make myself clear, though I have to admit I didn't know the facts you gave me. What I meant was that, as I understand it, Hezbollah afect every facet of life in Lebanon, especially in the region around the Israeli border. THey pay for schools, healthcare etc in return get the chance to educate and influence policy. If they were shut out all manner of services would stop. I don't believe that any decision in Lebanon is made without a signifgant interest from the Hezbollah hierarchy. Who knows if it is a controlling one.

[exnihilo]

Quoting harmless loony from 00:14, 17th Jul 2006
So let me get this straight - 3 soldiers are kidnapped and you people think its ok to kill in almost 100 Lebanese civilians in return.

Glad to see how poorly you view the value of other peoples' lives.

You people?

[novium]

I think, on the whole, the US is trying to stay out of it (picking sides). I think we're stuck between a rock and a hard place... i think we're generally in support of lebanon, especially in their backlash against syria etc. I had great hope for them. Anyway, we're obviously against hezbollah. And of course, we support Israel. However, I don't think anyone is happy with them, but we can't exactly risk alienating them.

Quoting David Bean from 01:40, 16th Jul 2006
I'm certain that George Bush's response to this recent conflict has been as one-sided, un-nuanced and faultily reasoned as we can have expected given his recent record. I know he has electoral concerns with respect to Jewish voters, but honestly, failing to condemn or even recognise what was, irrespective of the kidnapping of some of its troops, an escalation on Israel's part borders on criminal negligence.


[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[hr]

sed tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[Duggeh]

Soldiers are captured. Not civilaians. Soldiers. By a force in opposision to their government. That makes them prisoners of war, not terrorist hostages. To be a terrorist, you must target civillian targets with an aim to scaring by force and fire the people you attack into goign with what you want.

This is the terminological logic behind these words. And It is correct. At this time, under these circumstances and in continuing fashion, Isreal is reacting to a (questionably) sanctionable war act with a complete and total onslaught of what is, by its very means, terrorism.

Naturally the USA and other western goverments are as limp-dicked about this as they have always been.

[/flamebaiting]

[hr]

IMAGE:www.macintyre42.plus.com/images/tb2-100.jpg
Duggeh: Master Of Ceremonies

[LonelyPilgrim]

Duggeh, a terrorist act requires more than that civilians be targeted. Otherwise every minor cutpurse and mugger would be a terrorist.

Terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence against a civilian population in order to acheive a political aim by terrorizing that population into acting in accordance with your wishes.

Now... let's look (unemotionally for a moment) at the situation in Lebanon:

1. Israel's stated aim is the destruction of Hezbollah by ISRAELI arms and by ISRAELI action.

Let's pause here for a moment and reflect. Israel has a military goal: the destruction of an enemy force (and I don't think anyone can argue that Hezbollah is an innocent organization or that it isn't a SELF-DEFINED enemy of Israel). Further, it seeks to pursue this goal by itself, without trying to make the Lebanese population act as a surrogate.

Ok, next point:

2. Israel is attacking the infrastructure of Lebanon, not the populace. This is obvious if you stop to think about it. If Israel had the intention of targetting the civilian population there would be many many many more than 100 or so Lebanese dead.

This claim is uncontestable. If Israel wished to target the civilian population of Lebanon, the death count would be in the tens of thousands by now. If you deny that, you are an idiot and I won't acknowledge you.

"BUT!" people will say, "Isn't targeting Lebanon's civilian infrastructure the same as targeting the civilian population?"

Well, I'll admit, that point IS debatable, and can be seen both ways. Let me make Israel's case, though: Hezbollah is essentially an army, and like any army it does not exist in a vaccuum. It needs replenishment of food, ammunition, rocket launchers, SAM batteries, etc. As such, it has what we call 'supply lines', routes by which it's positions are resupplied.

Now, as we all know by now if we've been watching the news, Hezbollah does not produce it's own weapons and equipment, nor are they provided locally by the state of Lebanon. They come from Iran, through Syria. BUT more importantly, they come into Lebanon through the ports, through the airports, and on the roads that link Lebanon to the Syrian border.

KEY POINT: Hezbollah has (or had) the use of ALL of Lebanon's infrastructure to move its men and materiel, because Lebanon did not have the strength or the will to interfere in Hezbollah's operations. Just because Hezbollah is concentrated in the south of Lebanon, does not mean that they don't rely upon all of Lebanon to route their supplies through. Therefore, Lebanon's infrastructure is ALSO Hezbollah's infrastructure.

ANOTHER KEY POINT: Lebanon's refusal to even try to inhibit Hezbollah's use of their infrastructure makes the Lebanese government complicit in Hezbollah's crimes and goals. And while I agree that Lebanon alone did not have the power to act decisively against Hezbollah, it is also true that the UN would have been willing to assist them, and failing that, I'm certain that if the Lebanese PM had gotten on the phone to the Israeli's and said, "Hey there neighbour, let's say you and me get together this weekend and come up with a plan to deal with my Hezbollah infestation...", the Israeli's would have jumped at the chance. In short, Lebanon had options, painful options to be sure, but options nonetheless, that they refused to take.

Basically then, as far as I'm concerned, Lebanon's infrastructure is an appropriate military target for the IDF. What is more, I think it would be foolish to take Hezbollah on without cutting them off from their source of resupply or retreat. Israel isn't trying to drive them back into Syria or northern Lebanon. They are attempting to destroy Hezbollah. They can't do that if they can't force them to stand and fight by cutting off Hezbollah's ability to run away.

----

Now, I'm not claiming that Israel is pursuing a wise policy, or even one that is possible. And I'm not making a moral judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the action or it's scale, at least not in this post. All I've done here is show that it is incorrect to call the Israeli actions 'terrorism' - in several distinct senses.

[hr]

Arma virumque cano...