Is Israel in the Right?

[Friedrich N]

Simple question, do you believe Israel is in the right in their actions in Gaza and Lebanon?

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Members of a part of the government from another country conducted a cross border raid, killed 8 troops and captured two more.

That in and of itself is enough; nevermind the whole Jihad, and vowing to kill every Israeli in the name of Allah.

 

[minsue]

Members of a part of the government from another country conducted a cross border raid, killed 8 troops and captured two more.

Initial reports were that the Israeli troops crossed into Lebanon. It was only after the Israeli offensive that I saw any news reports stating it the other way around.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Hezbollah and Pericles

By FANIA OZ-SALZBERGER

War does not preclude clear thinking. When Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon six years ago, to the last inch, and from Gaza one year ago, to the last inch, scenarios of over-the-border hostilities were high on the public agenda. Thus, even as smoke rises over northern Israel, Lebanon and Gaza, some clearheaded points are being made on the Israeli side of the border. Here is a brief selection.

First and most crucial, a majority of Israelis consider this sad unleashing of Israeli firepower in Gaza and Lebanon to be, up to now, a just war. It has both a casus belli and a convincing rationale. Hostilities were initiated by militias strongly associated with the elected governments in both regions, targeting IDF personnel strictly on the Israeli side of the border. Since many media consumers have short memories, a reminder is in order: Over the last five months, some 800 Kassam rockets were fired at towns and villages in southwestern Israel. The town of Sderot alone was hit several hundred times. Israel occupied not an inch of Gaza at that time.

Israel certainly responded, as any sovereign state would; and it did so not by reinvading Gaza, but with air strikes against militants and launchers. Palestinian civilians were hurt; Europeans vocally reproached us; the rockets kept coming. Then came the recent assault on soldiers stationed within Israel, killing three and kidnapping one. Hezbollah of Lebanon, wholly unprovoked, simply liked the idea and sent a force into northern Israel and two follow-up ambushes, killing a total of eight soldiers and kidnapping two. Both assaults breached a fully legitimate international border, in the aftermath of a full Israeli withdrawal -- just in case some media consumers have forgotten. Possible lesson: A sense of right still counts for something amidst all the smoke.

Which leads to a second clearheaded point. Why is Israel's response not "proportional," and why don't we rush to negotiate with the kidnappers, as so many peace-lovers in the Western world would like us to do? Let me be blunt: A "proportional" response would please many Europeans no end, but would scarcely move a hair in the beard of a Hamas or a Hezbollah leader.

They are not set to be gently pushed into moderation, or to hammer out an exquisite compromise with the Jewish state, but to wipe it out as soon as they can. If we shoot a little, they will shoot back all the way into Islamic eternity. If we "negotiate," cave in to blackmail and release Hamas and Hezbollah militants held in Israeli prisons in return for our three kidnapped soldiers, they will send them back to bomb schools and buses and pizza parlors in no time at all.

Negotiation? For sure. It worked with Egypt and Jordan. It would work with Saudi Arabia. It would work with moderate Palestinians -- as soon as they recapture their own polity from Hamas and Hezbollah. But it would not work with the latter, who along with their Iranian allies openly declare that they want us dead, not merely complacent. Possible lesson: Compromise with ultra-extremists usually misfires.

And here is a sad, third clearheaded point: Democracy, in the Middle East as elsewhere, is not just about universal suffrage. The Palestinians brought Hamas to power, and Hezbollah is a coalition partner in the Lebanese government. Please reflect on this, dear Western lovers of democracy: Is majority vote truly the sole gist of it all? Here is a painful truth: Israel is killing civilians -- inadvertently, though arguably too freely -- as it targets militants in Gaza and Lebanon. Yet the hair-raising aspect of it is that many of those civilians voted Hamas, and some voted Hezbollah, into their own governments. Democratically elected, these groups care little for the lives of their own citizens, even less for the Israeli Arabs they have bombed and killed in recent days, and null for Israeli civilians. Yet their voters keep applauding. Gazan and Lebanese children are innocent victims of this policy, and many Israelis -- I must assert this even in the face of disbelief -- truly grieve for them.

But the adults? Are these men and women hostages of live-in terrorists, dumb natives managed by shrewd colonialists, or are they perhaps accountable civil agents who made a very bad choice in one of their first democratic performances? Possible lesson: Reread Pericles.

Arab democracy is not hopeless, a fourth clearheaded reflection suggests. The Middle East is divided between those who jeer with any rocket hitting Haifa, and those -- in Lebanon, Palestine and Saudi Arabia -- who secretly hope for both Hamas and Hezbollah to vanish into the limbo of lost lunatics and make way for better and saner Arab regimes. In the aftermath of the current war, Ehud Olmert's Kadima-Labor coalition government would promptly talk with a peace-seeking Palestinian government; this is why a majority of Israelis voted them in to begin with. Possible lesson: Moderates don't easily lose their nerve these days.

My final point may be news to both friends and foes of Israel: This society is holding strong. Opinions here are divided, for sure, about the wisdom and morality of using force, and about the wisdom and effectiveness of withholding force. The public argument keeps sizzling as the north of Israel, including my own Jewish-Arab university of Haifa, is under fire. For some reason, going beyond Israel and deeply linked to Pericles, I take this to be good news.

Ms. Oz-Salzberger is a senior lecturer at the University of Haifa.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Members of a part of the government from another country conducted a cross border raid, killed 8 troops and captured two more.

That in and of itself is enough; nevermind the whole Jihad, and vowing to kill every Israeli in the name of Allah.

Yep.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[SeaCat]

Hey now wait just a minute here. This can't be a just war. The Isrealis aren't going after control of Oil Fields, they aren't going in to dramaticly change a government. They are unjustly attacking other nations or territories that have innocently killed and kidnapped members of the Isreali Population.

Why going in and punishing a nation or a group for their justifiable launching of rockets across the border into towns to kill civilians is just plain wrong. Trying to protect ones citizens against attacks is not just wrong but immoral. There has to be another reason in there.

Oops, sorry, my mistake. I was thinking like an American Politician again.

Cat

 

[Erotos]

Who is right and who is wrong? It is tough to determine in a conflict which has lasted centuries. Surely Israel has a right to some form of self defence. However, at the same time Lebanon has a right to democratically elect those who they wish. Hezbollah the political party was legitimately elected by the people of Lebanon. Maybe they should take better care of their internal affairs and stop the more radical elements of their organisation from conducting attacks into North Israel?

At the same time, the wanton destruction the Israelis have brought to Lebanon and her infrastructure amounts to a war crime according to the Geneva conventions. One I hope would be prosecuted in the days after this conflict is resolved. The response has been totally disproportionate to the attack which sparked the latest fighting.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Who is right and who is wrong? It is tough to determine in a conflict which has lasted centuries. Surely Israel has a right to some form of self defence. However, at the same time Lebanon has a right to democratically elect those who they wish. Hezbollah the political party was legitimately elected by the people of Lebanon. Maybe they should take better care of their internal affairs and stop the more radical elements of their organisation from conducting attacks into North Israel?

At the same time, the wanton destruction the Israelis have brought to Lebanon and her infrastructure amounts to a war crime according to the Geneva conventions. One I hope would be prosecuted in the days after this conflict is resolved. The response has been totally disproportionate to the attack which sparked the latest fighting.

See article posted above and respond to its analysis of "disproportionate," please.

 

[Erotos]

See article posted above and respond to its analysis of "disproportionate," please.

It is one thing to respond to a threat to your security. It is a very different thing to openly destroy civilian infrastructure. At the very least, the destruction of the Beirut International Airport cannot be condoned by any rational person. It is a civilian airport and not a military base and is the only major port of departure for all the civilians trapped in Lebanon.

 

[matriarch]

No.
And I have no intention of justifying or explaining it.
That's my opinion.

 

[MzDeviancy]

Since many media consumers have short memories, a reminder is in order: Over the last five months, some 800 Kassam rockets were fired at towns and villages in southwestern Israel.

Yes, as opposed to Israel's actions, which have been entirely peaceful during that period.

Israel occupied not an inch of Gaza at that time.

*sputter* Um, yeah sure. There's a really great BBC report ("Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs") which discusses the brilliant Israeli tactic of pulling out current settlements, broadcasting these pullouts worldwide to show everyone how magnanimous they are, while encroaching on other Palestine borders and increasing their occupied territory from what they originally had. And that's BBC, not Al-Jazeera, so maybe you can give them the benefit of the doubt and have a look since they're not Muslim and obviously untrustworthy and extremist.

Both assaults breached a fully legitimate international border, in the aftermath of a full Israeli withdrawal -- just in case some media consumers have forgotten.

Ummm...last time I checked, while railing about Hamas not recognizing them as a legitmate state, Israel still hadn't recognized Palestine as fully autonomous. So that's kinda tit for tat. And recognizing a country's legitimacy kind of goes hand in hand with recognizing the legitmacy of their borders.

Which leads to a second clearheaded point. Why is Israel's response not "proportional," and why don't we rush to negotiate with the kidnappers, as so many peace-lovers in the Western world would like us to do? Let me be blunt: A "proportional" response would please many Europeans no end, but would scarcely move a hair in the beard of a Hamas or a Hezbollah leader.

On the contrary, this is quite probably giving Hamas and Hezbollah members 24 hour erections. This is the kind of shit that brings on the recruits. Distraught people who just watched their family get blown up tend to be open to most things that will kill the people who did it.

If we shoot a little, they will shoot back all the way into Islamic eternity.

Ummm...six shells is a little? Bulldozing Palestinian homes is a little? Blowing up an entire apartment building because one terrorist is SUSPECTED to be inside is a LITTLE? Maybe if you believe the words of that asshole rabbi who spoke at that asshole Goldstein's (the psycho who strapped a bomb on himself and walked into a mosque, killing about 40 men and boys, to refresh your memory <=How bout that? Terrorists come in Jewish, too!) funeral: "One Arab's life is not worth a Jewish fingernail." If you believe that, then maybe it's a little what Israel does.

If we "negotiate," cave in to blackmail and release Hamas and Hezbollah militants held in Israeli prisons in return for our three kidnapped soldiers, they will send them back to bomb schools and buses and pizza parlors in no time at all.

Yeah, you could probly get away with just releasing most of the women whose crimes amounted to being related to suspected terrorists, which was the original request of the militants.

But it would not work with the latter, who along with their Iranian allies openly declare that they want us dead, not merely complacent.

...Have we seen complacent yet? Why don't we try that that first, then we'll see if it works better than the 'turn Palestine into hamburger' strategy we've been going with.

Possible lesson: Compromise with ultra-extremists usually misfires.

No kidding. Which is why the Palestinians got fed up with Abbas (who basically gave in to all western and Israeli demands) and elected a group just as off their rockers as the Israeli government. If they're going to be constantly attacked and more tightly caged in anyways, may as well go out with some dignity.

The Palestinians brought Hamas to power, and Hezbollah is a coalition partner in the Lebanese government.

Hezbollah is a regional government in one part of Lebanon. They do not speak for all Lebanese, nor do they speak for the Lebanese federal government. The federal government should have been given a chance to deal with them first.

Here's a good comparison: The Bloc Quebecois is provincially elected in Quebec. We don't even have them anywhere else in Canada. They basically dislike Canada and being a part of it and piss on us every chance they get. However, they're good for Quebec. They help retain French culture in Quebec, and they help make sure Quebecois voices are heard in the federal government. Hezbollah too does productive, non-destructive things. Contrary to popular belief, the whole of Hezbollah's time is not consumed with plotting the destruction of Israel in dark basements with the Qur'an playing in the background. They've built hospitals, schools, and water plants, and overseen the running of these things.

This means two things;

One: Lebanese people may have - just MAY have - elected Hezbollah because they were an overall good government, and thought that any violent Hezbollah tendancies would have been curbed by the federal Lebanese government.

Point Two can be be explained through a hypothetical comparison: If the Bloc Quebecois goes and captures two US border guards, should I, over here in ALBERTA, have my neighbourhood, hospitals, airports and schools bombed?

Israel is killing civilians -- inadvertently, though arguably too freely -- as it targets militants in Gaza and Lebanon.

Inadvertently my left foot. When you TARGET HOSPITALS, how the FUCK can you say with no twinge of conscience that civilian casualties are inadvertent?

Yet the hair-raising aspect of it is that many of those civilians voted Hamas, and some voted Hezbollah, into their own governments. Democratically elected, these groups care little for the lives of their own citizens, even less for the Israeli Arabs they have bombed and killed in recent days, and null for Israeli civilians.

A)See the above argument.

B)Makes it easier for Hezbollah and Hamas to not care about them when they're members of a state who kill a far greater number of Arabs.

C)Sorry, still illegal to kill civilians, even if they killed yours. One would think that a nation with as much military might as Israel could exercise a little more discretion in dealing with two relatively puny groups.

many Israelis -- I must assert this even in the face of disbelief -- truly grieve for them.

True. Many Israelis also protest their own government's inexcusable everyday actions toward Palestine. Some people have something called a conscience.

But the adults? Are these men and women hostages of live-in terrorists, dumb natives managed by shrewd colonialists, or are they perhaps accountable civil agents who made a very bad choice in one of their first democratic performances?

A)I repeat: regional government, elected for other reasons, federal government was probly thought to be allowed to reign in one of its own lower governments.

B)I repeat: Still not okay to kill civilians.

In the aftermath of the current war, Ehud Olmert's Kadima-Labor coalition government would promptly talk with a peace-seeking Palestinian government; this is why a majority of Israelis voted them in to begin with.

*coughsputterwheeze*

Possible lesson: Moderates don't easily lose their nerve these days.

*rollingonthefloorchoking*

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Who is right and who is wrong? It is tough to determine in a conflict which has lasted centuries. Surely Israel has a right to some form of self defence. However, at the same time Lebanon has a right to democratically elect those who they wish. Hezbollah the political party was legitimately elected by the people of Lebanon. Maybe they should take better care of their internal affairs and stop the more radical elements of their organisation from conducting attacks into North Israel?

At the same time, the wanton destruction the Israelis have brought to Lebanon and her infrastructure amounts to a war crime according to the Geneva conventions. One I hope would be prosecuted in the days after this conflict is resolved. The response has been totally disproportionate to the attack which sparked the latest fighting.

Where do you get the inmpression that the destruction of infrastructure except hospitals is a war crime or contrary to the Geneva Convention? Here is a link to the GC. Please tell us what article you are citing.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/q_genev1.htm

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Hezbollah is a regional government in one part of Lebanon. They do not speak for all Lebanese, nor do they speak for the Lebanese federal government. The federal government should have been given a chance to deal with them first.

Here's a good comparison: The Bloc Quebecois is provincially elected in Quebec. We don't even have them anywhere else in Canada. They basically dislike Canada and being a part of it and piss on us every chance they get. However, they're good for Quebec. They help retain French culture in Quebec, and they help make sure Quebecois voices are heard in the federal government. Hezbollah too does productive, non-destructive things. Contrary to popular belief, the whole of Hezbollah's time is not consumed with plotting the destruction of Israel in dark basements with the Qur'an playing in the background. They've built hospitals, schools, and water plants, and overseen the running of these things.

This means two things;

One: Lebanese people may have - just MAY have - elected Hezbollah because they were an overall good government, and thought that any violent Hezbollah tendancies would have been curbed by the federal Lebanese government.

Point Two can be be explained through a hypothetical comparison: If the Bloc Quebecois goes and captures two US border guards, should I, over here in ALBERTA, have my neighbourhood, hospitals, airports and schools bombed?



Inadvertently my left foot. When you TARGET HOSPITALS, how the FUCK can you say with no twinge of conscience that civilian casualties are inadvertent?



A)See the above argument.

B)Makes it easier for Hezbollah and Hamas to not care about them when they're members of a state who kill a far greater number of Arabs.

C)Sorry, still illegal to kill civilians, even if they killed yours. One would think that a nation with as much military might as Israel could exercise a little more discretion in dealing with two relatively puny groups.



True. Many Israelis also protest their own government's inexcusable everyday actions toward Palestine. Some people have something called a conscience.



A)I repeat: regional government, elected for other reasons, federal government was probly thought to be allowed to reign in one of its own lower governments.

B)I repeat: Still not okay to kill civilians.

*coughsputterwheeze*

*rollingonthefloorchoking*

Lebanon has had six years to evict Hezbollah and has failed to do so. Actually, they are more of an occupying force but they dominate the southern part of the country to such a degree that they have been elected to the legislature.

The Bloc Quebecois is made up of citizens of Quebec, not of outsiders who have moved in and taken over.

If you have a hospital and you install rocket launchers on the roof and store weapons inside, it is a military target. See the link to the Geneva Convention in my previous post.

I'm aware that Hezbollah is not Lebanon. They are not Lebanese and are actually an occupying force, and a client of Iran. The army of Lebanon is not strong enough to evict them but maybe a two sided attack with the Lebanese on the north and Israil on the south might succeed.

The destruction of bridges and the airport is to prevent the resupply of weapons by Iran and Syria. This is a legit military tactic.

 

[Erotos]

Where do you get the inmpression that the destruction of infrastructure except hospitals is a war crime or contrary to the Geneva Convention? Here is a link to the GC. Please tell us what article you are citing.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/q_genev1.htm

Article 53 and so on. The targeting of civilian infrastructure is also a well settled area of international case law.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

 

[Erotos]

The destruction of bridges and the airport is to prevent the resupply of weapons by Iran and Syria. This is a legit military tactic.

And what proof is there that Iran and Syria are in the process of resupplying weapons? Would the Israelis not shoot down any military aircraft flying over the area of conflict? There were no military aircraft present at the airport yet it was subjected to bombing.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

It all depends on what you mean by "right" and who's rhetoric you believe. Israel says their boarders are not secure because the Lebonese army is not in control of Southern Lebanon. The Lebonese say this is an act of war on the part of Israel for attacking across their boarder. So, what's "right".

Does Israel have the right to exist as a country? The UN said yes in 1946. Have the Lebonese allowed a dangerous, very likely terrorist, situation to exist along the boarder? It appears they have. Has Syria armed the terrorists? Since a number of munitions recoved are of Syrian manufacture is seems so.

Sorry. I see an unstable situation where no one is "right" but everyone is so steeped in self-interest that nobody will win in the end.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

And what proof is there that Iran and Syria are in the process of resupplying weapons? Would the Israelis not shoot down any military aircraft flying over the area of conflict? There were no military aircraft present at the airport yet it was subjected to bombing.

The Israelis know about Iran and Syria because of their talented intelligence services and because of certain technologies used on rockets that have been captured or that proved to be duds.

They would shoot down any Iranian or Syrian aircraft now, but they would not have a month ago. An airport is an airport and a cargo plane is a cargo plane. The usual route for the weapons, according to Mossad, is by plane from Iran to Syria and by truck or smaller plane to Hezbollah. They are not resupplying weapons now because the resupply routres have been destroyed.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Article 53 and so on. The targeting of civilian infrastructure is also a well settled area of international case law.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

I looked at Article and through the end. There is no reference to infrastructure, except for Annex 1 relating to hospital areas. When at war, bombing of supply routes is a normal tactic.

 

[Huckleman2000]

And what proof is there that Iran and Syria are in the process of resupplying weapons? Would the Israelis not shoot down any military aircraft flying over the area of conflict? There were no military aircraft present at the airport yet it was subjected to bombing.

It's well known that Iran and Syria support Hamas and Hezbollah financially, and it's established that the rockets and missiles used are Iranian-manufactured. Obviously, Iranian aircraft entering the area would be a substantial expansion of the conflict. Arms re-supply doesn't have to take place in marked aircraft. Comments from members of the Iranian Parliament imply that they have substantial influence, and the timing of the escalation (ie, kidnapping of IDF soldiers) threw off possible measures that could have been agreed at the G8 to coordinate limits on Iranian nuclear ambitions.

 

[rgraham666]

I regard both sides, or should that be all sides, are in the wrong.

That is my only and final comment on this thread.

 

[SummerMorning]

I regard both sides, or should that be all sides, are in the wrong.

That is my only and final comment on this thread.

Yay! I agree!

 

[Selena_Kitt]

oh boy... I knew this thread was coming...

I voted, but I'm not commenting.

All I can say is that the whole thing scares the hell out of me.

 

[McKenna]

Nope.

And I'm surprised to find I'm in the minority. Scary.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Article 53 and so on. The targeting of civilian infrastructure is also a well settled area of international case law.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Article 53 and so on speak to an Occupying Power, Israel is not occupying Beirut.

Oh, my answer is a resounding "Yes". When someone pushes you on purpose you push back.

 

[R. Richard]

Israel has been attacked by rockets from within Gaza for the last several months. This last is a fact and has been reported by every news service in the area. Launching rockets at a sovereign country is an act of war. Claiming that the rockets are launched by splinter groups over which the government has no control means that there is no government. Actually, there is a govenment agency in the area. The government agency is called the United Nations.

Finally, the incursion into the sovereign country of Israel and the kidnapping of a Israeli citizen is either and act of war or banditry. The Gaza Strip is not a country and has no rights as a country.

Again, the incursion into the sovereign country of Israel by forces from Lebanon and the kidnapping of Israeli citizens is either an act of war or banditry. Lebanon is a country and it has de facto declared war on Israel. Lebanon claims that it has no control of the Hizbollah militia in the South. Then the Hizbollah militia are, under the Genva Convention, bandits. The traditional and custom with the force of law method of dealing with bandits in a war zone is a bullet in the back of the head.

The brave holy warriors who fight from within civilian populations are in violation of the Geneva Convention. Where is the UN?