http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/277183_tolan12.html

In the name of forcing the release of a single soldier, Israel has seized members of a democratically elected government; bombed its interior ministry, the prime minister's offices and a school; threatened another sovereign state (Syria) with a menacing overflight; dropped leaflets from the air, warning of harm to the civilian population if it does not "follow all orders" of the Israel Defense Forces; loosed nocturnal "sound bombs" under orders from the Israeli prime minister to "make sure no one sleeps at night in Gaza"; fired missiles into residential areas, killing children; and demolished a power station that was the sole generator of electricity and running water for hundreds of thousands of Gazans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/world/mi.../12mideast.html

The president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, met Tuesday with King Abdullah II in Amman, Jordan, and claimed that the Israeli military was targeting civilians in Gaza.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200607121421/25864bd6

Israel bombed the main power plant, causing widespread blackouts and also hampering water supplies. Bridges and roads have also been attacked in almost nightly air raids.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/29/news/web.0629gaza.php

In the West Bank city of Ramallah early on Thursday, Israeli forces detained eight ministers of the 24-member Hamas-led Cabinet and 20 lawmakers, including Deputy Prime Minister Nasser Shaer and Labor Minister Mohammed Barghouti.

Israel stepped up its confrontation on Wednesday with Palestinian militants over the capture of an Israeli soldier, battering northern Gazan towns with artillery and sending warplanes over the house of the Syrian president, who is influential with the Palestinian leader believed to have ordered the kidnapping.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-06...tent_629778.htm

Israel Radio said Shin Bet security chief Yuval Diskin had warned Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on the day of the kidnapping: "If the soldier is not returned in 24 hours, Israel will not allow the Palestinian Government to survive. "

The leaflets told residents to leave town in advance of artillery strikes, so my first cited author phrased that misleadingly.

Everything else however, seems to be pretty accurate.

Short of genocide (which shouldn't and won't be done), how can any amount force go to solve anything in this conflict?

Is Israel making things better or worse via their massive assault for the release of a single Israeli soldier?

Will this help efforts to get the Palestinians to elect a less amniable government? Is this moral?

Short of genocide (which shouldn't and won't be done), how can any amount force go to solve anything in this conflict?

No doubt it can't, but then again, maybe the use of force by Israel is not actually undertaken to solve anything, but rather to re-establish a line in the sand, across which one should hesitate to pass lest one face the direct consequences of one's actions.


Is Israel making things better or worse via their massive assault for the release of a single Israeli soldier?

Neither.

The responsibility for what is happening now rests on the Palestinians and their elected terrorist government. They've had every chance. Gaza was returned to them, but instead of following the path of peace, Hamas chose to blatently announce it had won a great military victory over Israel and instead of rebuilding and developing their opportunity for growth and peaceful co-existance, they used their recovered lands as a launch site for rocket attacks against Israel. A direct act of war that no country in the world would or should have to suffer, and no other country would be chastised for having retaliated, and this despite great reserve on the part of Israel.


Will this help efforts to get the Palestinians to elect a less amniable government? Is this moral?

What is morality? What common ground can be accepted when an elected governing party is a terrorist group or when an elected governing party has an 'armed wing'. Can you imagine a western political party, in power, with an armed wing that carries out attacks against other countries and not being held to account?

By what virtue do the Palestinians escape responsibility for their own actions? Who will hold them to account? The UN?

Israel has every right to defend itself and to take what ever measures it see's fit to bring the responsibility for their actions and decisions, back on to the Palestinian people. Plainly put, they voted for this, Israel didn't, and I have no notion of democracy granting a pardon for people who vote for terrorism violence and war.

Israel has now invaded Lebonon, acclaiming an act by a military wing of a minor Lebanese political party (no party in Lebanon has held more then 12.5% of the countries seats in years), to be an act of war by that country as a whole.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6071200702.html

No doubt it can't, but then again, maybe the use of force by Israel is not actually undertaken to solve anything, but rather to re-establish a line in the sand, across which one should hesitate to pass lest one face the direct consequences of one's actions.

Threatening thousands to lives with starvation is hardly appropiate to liberate dozens of the threat of terrorist attacks.

Neither.

Provoking a region wide conflict, refusing a truce offer, and possibly undertaking the indirect murder of massive number of civillians is not going to make things worse in the region of Cannaan?

The responsibility for what is happening now rests on the Palestinians and their elected terrorist government. They've had every chance. Gaza was returned to them, but instead of following the path of peace, Hamas chose to blatently announce it had won a great military victory over Israel and instead of rebuilding and developing their opportunity for growth and peaceful co-existance, they used their recovered lands as a launch site for rocket attacks against Israel. A direct act of war that no country in the world would or should have to suffer, and no other country would be chastised for having retaliated, and this despite great reserve on the part of Israel.

This easily goes both ways. What people on Earth would sit down and accept the kinds of civil rights violations that the Palestinians have been subjected to for the past 50 years. For the longest time, they have been denied a vote in the government which rules their land, to this day, they cannot move freely without going through economically crippleing time consuming checkpoints...

No one here is innocent.

I have a plane to catch, gtg.

I try to stay out of debates about Israel for a couple of reasons, but this paragraph demands my attention. Did Israel provoke these incidents or did Hezbollah/Hamas? Clearly you are taking the "historical guilt" avenue, which is dangerous given the incredibly long and misunderstood history of the region. In regards to a truce offer; I am curious to which one you are referring? The one where Israel releases hundreds of prisoners and Hamas, which is in theory a government, agrees to negotiate the release of prisoners? As much as I deplore the response Israel has taken, if they had taken that offer they would be inviting these sorts of abductions on a massive scale. Accepting it would be a tactical and moral error, and you'd be hard pressed to find any sort of soldier/historian/strategist anywhere on this planet who would think that it's a good idea.

Your mention of "Canaan" is interesting. I am curious what purpose it serves. Your intent seems to be an effort to paint the region as one that the Israeli's conquered without coming out and saying it directly. If we could forego the innuendo then perhaps a rational discussion of Israel would be possible.

When guerillas from Lebanon cross the border, kill seven soldiers and kidnap two others, you don't see this as worthy of retaliation?

Let's hypothesize a bit: a group of whacko Christian fundamentalists decide that Canada's gay marriage policy is immoral. So they (being the well-armed militia type Christians that they are) cross the border and kill seven border guards and kidnap a local official during a gay marriage ceremony.

Should Canadian forces, in hot pursuit, cross the border and try to capture these lunatics?

This is not the first incursion by Hezbollah into Israel. Last November 21st they launched a large scale attack along the Lebanon-Israel border, supposedly in an effort to kidnap Israeli soldiers. The Israelis repelled them. The Israelis blew up several Hezbollah command posts in Southern Lebanon and the government of Lebanon asked for a cease fire. It should be noted that the Lebanese government does not control southern Lebanon (along the Israeli border), Hezbollah does. These current reprisals are all in Southern Lebanon.

Hezbollah has continued to launch missiles from Southern Lebanon into Israel and the Kofi Annan has called for the government of Lebanon to "extend its control over all its territory, to exert its monopoly on the use of force, and to put an end to all such attacks". In other words: reign in these maniacs. The Lebanese government has not done so.

Clearly, the Lebanese government is responsible for attacks that originate from its territory. Since the reprisals are against Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon and not Lebanon in general, the response seems proportional.

There are a couple problems with your analogy. First, you are talking about two civilized societies - not just one. Secondly, we would not have to do much because Canda would be equally resolved as us to take care of the situation. No civilized society has a tolerance for this type of behavior.

Israel is one of the very few civilized countries in that area and they have no choice but to fend for themselves. If Israel did nothing and nobody were there to help them, Hitler's work would be complete.

Ultimatejoe:

Did Israel provoke these incidents or did Hezbollah/Hamas?

In early june Hamas officially announced an end to the truce initiated by Abbas, after an artillery strike fell into Palestinian territory, which Hamas alleged came from Israel. Israel denied culpability.

Perhaps Israel did do the strike, perhaps Hamas set it up as an excuse, perhaps it was executed by some third party. My instinct leans against all three of those possibilities, but whats instinct worth?

What specifically invoked the strikes against Israel from southern Lebanon I don't know. Hezbollah was formed to push Israeli occupation forces out of Lebanon, and still exists, because it alleges some 25 mile portion of Northern Israel, is really part of Lebanon.

I suspect, that once Hamas began conducting operations against Israel, Hezbollah joined in out of a sense of kinship.

To conclude, whom do we blame for our current exchange of fire?

We'll proximately that pends upon the circumstances of the artillery strike which set Hamas off.

Clearly you are taking the "historical guilt" avenue,

The denial of Democratic rights, until Israel withdraws from the west bank, is still a pertinent complaint in some areas.

The economic enstranglement is ongoing, escalating, and propagating. Israel has pledged to fight economic warfare against Palestine, and Lebanon, unless it is appeased.

Truly, poverty invokes desperation, and desperation invokes violence. Often money is as big a motivator for insurgency in the middle east, as is religion. Large numbers (perhaps even most) of those planting IEDs in Iraq, are doing so for cash. Many martyers kill themselves for the sake of their families economic wellbeing.

Poverty is why Africa is so unstable. Being unable to support themselves via civilian pursuits, many Africans are in effect forced to join militias or starve to death.

Economic warfare, will not play well for Israel.

In regards to a truce offer; I am curious to which one you are referring? The one where Israel releases hundreds of prisoners and Hamas, which is in theory a government, agrees to negotiate the release of prisoners?

http://rawstory.com/comments/16152.html
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hamas-Wants...ael-26743.shtml

No. Unless these articles are missing something, the cease fire proposed by Hamas held no preemptory condition of a prisoner exchange. Olmert responded to the peace offer, by offering to only except it, if the Hamas held Israeli captive was released. Stating it bluntly, both sides are being too stubborn here to do what would be in each and both of their respective interests. The stake isn't worth the cost, but no one is willing to stand down...an all to familiar scenario in this world...

Your mention of "Canaan" is interesting. I am curious what purpose it serves. Your intent seems to be an effort to paint the region as one that the Israeli's conquered without coming out and saying it directly. If we could forego the innuendo then perhaps a rational discussion of Israel would be possible.

Gaza is no longer technically part of Israel, and Lebanon never was. You have a better word in mind to describe the region in which exists Palestine, Israel, and Lebanon?

Amlord:

When guerillas from Lebanon cross the border, kill seven soldiers and kidnap two others, you don't see this as worthy of retaliation?

Against the guerillas themselves, yes, against the government and civilian populace? I don't think so.

Let's hypothesize a bit: a group of whacko Christian fundamentalists decide that Canada's gay marriage policy is immoral. So they (being the well-armed militia type Christians that they are) cross the border and kill seven border guards and kidnap a local official during a gay marriage ceremony.

Should Canadian forces, in hot pursuit, cross the border and try to capture these lunatics?

Perhaps I misspoke when I put an emphasis on invasion. Thats not the part of this which I think is unjustified.

Clearly, the Lebanese government is responsible for attacks that originate from its territory.

The government probably does not want civil war, and does not have popular support in the south.

Since the reprisals are against Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon and not Lebanon in general, the response seems proportional.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004201344

Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, head of Israel's Northern Command, said the army has "comprehensive plans" to fight Hezbollah in all parts of Lebanon.

CNN quoted Adam as saying, "This affair is between Israel and the state of Lebanon. Where to attack? Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate -- not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hezbollah posts."

Israel hasn't gone north yet, but they don't seem to be shirking from the prospect of doing so.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?Stor...13-015422-3745r

Israeli warplanes fired missiles at runways at Rafik Hariri International Airport in Beirut and struck at other targets in southern Lebanon early Thursday.

The airstrikes at the airport shut down the facility and had may end up stranding thousands of visitors at the peak of tourist season, The New York Times reported. The strikes in southern Lebanon added to the civilian death toll in the renewed round of fighting, the newspaper said.

Israel is as I previously alleged in my post refuting Ultimate Joe, conducting economic warfare, which arguably can in some circumstances constitute indirect murder.

Whilst, they have currently stopped short of targeting civillians, they seem to (and always have seemed to) have no concern for collateral damage at all. In the end, I would argue, Israel kills just as many, if not more, innocents then does Palestine. Empirically understandable, but only arguably forgivable.

Of course you failed to mention the 8 straight months of continual rocket attacks on Israeli cities and towns. Also the hundreds of other terrorist attacks, it appears that only Israeli responses provoke, never the terrorist attacks.

Hezbollah is a puppet of the Iran/Syrian governments. They have provided equipment and training as well as political leadership. That should be the address to to blame.

What a load of nonsense. Democratic rights are not Israel's to give. Nearly all of the territory in dispute has been under PNA control for 12 years now. How many years does it take before it is considered their responsibility?

Poverty does not and has NEVER invoke terrorism. Otherwise Africa would be awash in suicide bombings and the rest. Yet not one African suicide bomber. Kind of disproves your premise. Nearly all of the suicide bombers came from wealthy families, the rest from fairly well off families, none repeat none from poor families.

So even though the Lebanese government approves and assists in the attacks against Israel they somehow should be held accountable?

"Al-Manar TV: Lebanese President Voices Support for Hizballah Leader

Lebanese President Emile Lahhud has stressed that Lebanon cannot give up Al-Sayyid [Hasan] Nasrallah because he represents the resistance in Lebanon. In a tour during which he inspected displaced persons in a number of Lebanese areas, east of Beirut, President Lahhud said that Lebanon is strong when it is united. He added: We have a land that is still occupied and prisoners.

[Begin Lahhud recording] Nobody can defeat you. When we are united, we can remain steadfast and nobody will be able to defeat us. [applause] We know that when the liberation was achieved, it was a big blow to Israel. Now, they are retaliating. But, they will not succeed, because nobody is stronger than Lebanon when it is united and steadfast. I assert to you that they will cave in to the right in the final analysis. We say that we still have a land, prisoners, and many issues that need to be resolved. The United Nations is working, but not as required. The more time passes by, the more Israel will destroy us and our infrastructure. We can rebuild buildings. What counts is the people. You are the people and nobody is stronger than you. [applause] The state, with all its components, and the entire cabinet are with you. We will meet all your requirements. We know that you are not worried about anything. But, it is our duty to stand beside you and help you. The Lebanese state should do all that it can. [applause and chants of support for Lahhud] Rest assured Lebanon will not give up Al-Sayyid Nasrallah [applause]. Al-Sayyid [Nasrallah], the resistance, and the national army achieved liberation for Lebanon. We will not forget that. This will be written in the books of history, no matter what the Israelis do. [end recording]

[Description of Source: Beirut Al-Manar Television -- Affiliated with the pro-Iranian Hizballah]"

The Lebanese Army has used their radar system to aid in attacks against ships in the Med, including the sinking of an Egyptian cargo ship.

Short of genocide (which shouldn't and won't be done), how can any amount force go to solve anything in this conflict?

If the force is simply applied towards punishing the Palestinians, I have reservations as to whether it would solve much. But if it's applied towards reestablishing control over the area, pre-Oslo, then it could improve the situation considerably. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be Israel's goal right at the moment.

In any conflict, you must target the enemy's supply line. The roads from Syria and the airport were being used to re-supply Hezbollah, at least according to the IDF: Tehran's role is extensive


Iran reportedly supplies Hezbollah with tens of millions of dollars in arms every year (I've heard one report of $10 million a month).

Israel's goal is (or should be) eliminating Hezbollah as a threat to Israeli cities. That means either weakening it to the point where the Lebanese army can step in, or going the distance and stamping it out. Lebanon has objected that it has no power in the south. I'm sorry, but that isn't an excuse for allowing your territory to be used as a launching pad for rocket attacks on a sovereign country. If the Lebanese cannot deal with Hezbollah, then obviously Israel must do so.

Certainly it appears the leaders of Lebanon are too aware of the popularity of Hizbollah to do anything about it.
Perhaps Syria, now faced with more than 100,000 refugees and displaced people, may want to rethink their support of all of this.
Jordan, Egypt, and the rest of the moderate Muslim nations have been quite silent on this. I would take their silence as disapproval of Hizbollah.

I don't think using force will solve anything in the Middle East. The only thing it will achieve is to add more fuel to the fire that is already burning. The cycle of violence can't be ended with more violence.


If Isreal continues to act the way it has been acting on the past 50 years, you are going to see more and more support to the militant organisations from the Palestineans. Violence begets violence; if Israel continues to act irresponsibly and in a such belligerent way, there will be more people supporting HAMAS and Hezbollah.

Tell me: how was Nazi aggression stopped in Europe? How was Japanese aggression stopped in the Pacific? How was the ethnic cleansing of Muslims stopped in Kosovo? How did the genocide in Rwanda end?

One word answers all of these questions: violence. The aggressors were defeated using strength of arms. Yes, in each case there was an escalation from the initial level of violence. How many people died when Germany overran Poland? Answer: about 65,000 Poles. How many Poles died by the end of WW2? About 6 million, mostly civilians. link Was it worth it?

There is no similarity between the events you describe and what is taking place in the Middle East. Israel is not the 'Allies' of WW2, nor it is the UN force in Kosovo. Palestinians are not committing a genocide of Israeli's. (Israel on the other hand is doing a first class job of murdering the Lebanese.)

Comparing Palestine and Nazi Germany is like comparing Gandhi and Pinochet. Palestinians and the Lebanese are not the 'aggressors'. They are the victims of this war. Their grandfathers were abused and colonised by the 'Western' Imperialist Machine(Yes with its glorious democracy and everything). Now, they too live under the heels of another foreign nation: Israel.

Yes, if UN or another international organization invaded the Middle East and disarmed all those involved (Both Israel and Palestine), the unending cycle of violence can be brought to an end. But, more violence from Israel will only push the few moderate people in Palestine to the radical side.

It's not like Israel can't handle them as well. The only reason they've been able to get away with as much as they have is that Israel's restrained itself from going all out after them. They wouldn't be much of a match for Israel if Israel did decide to finally put its foot down.

Israel has the right to defend itself. If that means going in and annexing the areas from which attacks are taking place, so be it.

Fma:

Please spare me the ridiculous notion that the Palestinians equate to Ghandi. Last time I checked, Ghandi wasn't wiring his children and those without hope to self-detonate.

And maybe it's just that you live in Turkey, but please note your complete absence of reference to the former Ottoman Empire as bearing any responsiblity for any abuse of the locals and otherwise serving as the beginning of our explanation as to just how and/or why some European nations found themselves having to assume responsibility for the territory in question. And what you called "colonization", some others call "abiding by the dictates of League of Nations mandate". And the "mandate" ran, in the case of Lebanon, from the early 1920s through 1946, when the French withdrew all their troops from Lebanon ["independance" had been granted some three years earlier]. So the violence that you'd like to lay on some has actually gone on for longer now than that activity that you claim was the "colonization." That alone ought to get you to question your own mental paradigm, but I'll leave that to you to accomplish.

And, lastly, further note that the French helped create the "Paris of the Middle East." Your Palestinian Arab friends bear the more substantial part of the blame for destroying it.

1. Enough force should be used to root out Hezbollah on the border of Israel. Their fortifications, their weapons caches, everything should be destroyed. And, the Israelis should set up a DMZ and create a no man's land between their country and Lebanon. Then, they can stop.

2. They can't make it any worse. They've been attacked non stop. If it isn't suicide attacks, it's rockets and it's the same terrorists behind the attacks. Enough was enough.

3. The Palestinians seem incapable of self government. Perhaps the best thing for them would be assimilate into Jordan or Egypt and just move on. Moral? There is nothing moral about suicide attacks and terrorism and it seems that the vast majority of "Palestinians" approve of this tactic.

Please re-read my post. I never said that Palestinians equate to Gandhi. My purpose was to show the absurdness of Amlord's comparison by offering another one.


If we wanted to investgate the history of the region we could go all the way back to the Roman, even the Persian Empires. But, I don't think that is the subject of our discussion.

My point is that the people of Middle East has not seen good from the 'West'. I am sure using euphemism on subjects like colonisation could make people sleep better at night but it hardly changes what had happened. These people have no reason to trust Westerners or Western values and I can not blame them for so.


Even if costs the life of 300+ Lebanese? Is the life of one Israeli worth more than that of tens of Lebanese?

Fma:

I would like to trust, though such might be entirely misplaced, but I would like to trust that you realize the implication of your own statement. Fine, say they cannot trust us since we've never given them reason to trust us. But by that logic, they ought to be self-loathing, since their own have never given them reason to be trusted either. And by that same logic, they also ought not trust their own values.

And instead of bombing me, they ought to bomb Istanbul instead. Since the Ottomon Empire oppressed them far more and for far longer than my nation and I ever did. I'm tired of hearing of "the West." I'm not the West, I am an American, or, a citizen of the United States of America. I'll take responsibility for what my nation has done and for what we've asked some others to do, but not the blame for some others acting on their own, unless, of course, you concede that some others can engage in that same blame game [i.e., if you hold American me responsible for the UK when acting on its own, then I'll hold all Lebanese responsible for Hezbollah when acting on its own, and I don't see how you'd have any justification for complaint].

Lastly, re the not trusting the US, my only other response is that such would come as news to the late Anwar Sadat, who not coincidentally, was killed by the same people who some are trying to kill now. And back to the matter of trust in values, I would suggest that the problem is the misplaced trust of some in their own values, and that such persons are not us here in the US. Given that report, I'm sure you can imagine those persons I have in mind.

It's not a question of Israeli lives versus Lebanese lives. If Israel had been the one launching unprovoked attacks on Lebanese cities with the deliberate intent of hitting civilians, then Lebanon would have had the right to defend itself, even if innocent Israelis wound up getting caught in the crossfire and killed. Simply put, no nation should have to tolerate that kind of horsehockey. If you're attacked, you have a right and duty to your citizens to retaliate and shut down the attackers. If those attackers hide themselves among civilian populations, then they, not you, are responsible for their deaths.

As it is, Israel gave plenty of warning for civilians to get out of areas subject to airstrikes. Many simply refused. They take their own chances when they do that.

Agree--it's all the more tragic however if the report is true that Hezbolla is forcing civilians to stay in south Lebanon... suspect that will cost more Israeli lives.

You know, this entire subject doesn't appear that complicated. Hezbolla asked for a war, and they got one.

After a barrage of rocket attacks on their civilians, any other country in the world would have defended itself and attempted to destroy the aggressor. But not Israel. They have to play by a different set of rules because they are...well, Israelis.

Somewhere, there must be a law that says, "If you are a Jew, you must treat your enemies with kid gloves" because that's exactly what they do.

Hezbolla uses civilian neighborhoods as a military base. They launch a rocket, dive under an innocent's dining room table, and cry foul when the innocents get killed - as if it's Israel's fault.

In turn, Israel attempts to precisely destroy their command and control structure while warning non-combatants to get out of the way if they don't want to get hurt. The non-combatants don't leave, don't complain about Hezbolla or even better, try to do something about it themselves, but then complain they are getting hurt when they do absolutely nothing.

Hezbolla got what they asked for. Lebanon doesn't want to be bothered with doing anything for themselves. I just don't see what the problem is. They want a war, they got it.

Somehow I think lebanon is caught in the middle. I think it's more israel-hezbollah than israel-lebanon. Lebanon has a new weak government anyway.

The causes of the Israel bombing of Lebanon are not transparent but extend well beyond a desire to retaliate for the Hezbollah raid and capture. (See this article by an Israeli peace activist). However, anyone with an ounce of objectivity should be able to understand that the Israeli action is entirely disproportionate to the crime and misdirected at many entirely innocent Lebanese. To elaborate the analogy of an extreme Christian group attacking Canada, it is as if the Canadian response was to bomb American cities and infrastructure while killing civilians indiscriminately rather than pursuing the responsible parties. An even more real world example would have been for Great Britain to bomb New York for the failure of successive US governments to prevent the funding of IRA terrorists by American sympathizers.

What Israel is doing are war crimes of the first order. HERE is what a former Reagan Assistant Secretary of Treasury says about the shame of it all.



This invasion will only make the Middle East more unstable and will farther enrage Muslim populations who will give more and more support to Islamic jihadists whose targets will be Israelis and their generous super power supporter!

No, that's not a proper analogy at all. Israel isn't bombing Lebanon to prevent funding of Hezballah. It's bombing to prevent Hezballah from being resupplied. In war, you bomb the enemy's supply lines.

The equivalent in your analogy would be if the IRA was launching missiles at Britain from the U.S., and the U.S. government did nothing about it.

That still doesn't justify the bombings. Before now, there was no outright war. And, let's say hypothetically that the two groups had been at war. This isn't the type of war you're thinking of, like a WWII. There are no definitive "supply lines." In this case, you're saying that Lebanon itself -- meaning all of its cities and civilians -- is one giant "supply line."

I'm a firm believer that sometimes war is a necessary evil. In this case, militant action wasn't out of moral bounds as far as I'm concerned. What does eat at me though, is the manner in which Israel and Hezbollah alike are waging war on one another. They're not just attacking each other's military groups, they're just flat out attacking civilians. Even if it's difficult, there are still ways to avoid doing that. It's just that neither side is making any effort to do that. In fact, it's quite the opposite. They're specifically targetting innocents, which is in no scenario a morally justifiable act.

No, I think Israel has something a bit more specific than that in mind. I think they're thinking of roads between major Hezbollah strongholds, that sort of thing.


Please provide evidence that Israel is specifically targeting innocents. According to the news reports I've been seeing, Israel has been warning civilians in advance to leave areas that they intend to attack.

I wish I could link you to the video itself, but it's one of CNN's popup videos. So, the best that I can do in this case is tell you to surf over to cnn.com and for starters, watch the blogger's video with the title "raw fear." As a brief description, it contains footage and reports from civilians in Lebanon of their neighborhoods and surrounding neighborhoods being shelled, saying that they fear not just for their own lives, but for the lives of all their friends and family.

Maybe Israel says they're not targetting civilian areas, but at least the one's living there certainly don't seem to think so.

And as far as supply lines go once more, obviously they're going to attack whatever key roads and strongholds they can. The point is, however, that more than just roads and strictly-Hezbollah areas are being hit. This puts innocents in unnecessary danger, and is not the way to go about doing things.

Short of genocide (which shouldn't and won't be done), how can any amount force go to solve anything in this conflict?

What would happen to Israel is they applied the absence of force? Can a lack of force solve anything in the Middle East?

Israel is surrounded by forces that have committed themselves to the destruction of Israel as their other goal. Several neighboring countries have yet to acknowledge Israel's right to exist formally. The other neighbors would not lose any sleep if Israel collapsed tomorrow.

Since its inception under the guidance of David Ben-Gurion, Israel has operated under the foreign policy of real politik with the understanding that the differences between the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs are irreconcilable. Since the differences are irreconcilable, Israel had to rely on superior military might to control it's territory.

Do deter aggression it has used a doctrine of disproportionate response when facing threats. This has sometimes served them well and other times gained little tactically while earning Israel international condemnation.

I do think force will solve the issue for the day and keep the hostilities brewing for tomorrow.

Is Israel making things better or worse via their massive assault for the release of a single Israeli soldier?

I think this is an oversimplification of the issue. Is this the Gaza incident we are talking about? Or is it the Hezbollah raid? Israel is holding the sovereign or semi-sovereign nations on its border up to standards of sovereign nations. Neither the PA, Fatah, or Hamas have taken the opportunity to step toward a two-state solution and have a price to pay for that. Israel's responses are IMHO heavy handed, but they are justifiable.

In Lebanon I think Israel's response is destructive toward their ends. The weak Lebanese government had been making some progress toward independence and stability. The worst of the years of Beirut had seemed to pass. Syria had been removed. A popular movement seemed to be pushing for a more stable democracy.

But in its weakness it had been unable and likely unwilling to try to root out Hezbollah. I think Israel would have been better served to keep its focus on Hezbollah and make its case before the international community and take care to not take out the infrastructure of the weak country. I don't think the Lebanese government can survive this attack. Lebanon is likely to devolve once again into a non-state controlled by warlords. This will make it more of a base for terrorist groups and the bad will from the attacks will likely create more committed enemies of Israel.

Will this help efforts to get the Palestinians to elect a less amniable government? Is this moral?

Yes, I think it is moral by the standards of just war. It is not Israel's openly option. The Palestinian people may think twice before they elect a party that is officially committed to the destruction of Israel. That is a radical and inciteful position. The two-state solution was at its best place since 1996 before Hamas was elected.

I can see your take on this, DR. Certainly that's what brought the US into the ME big time, the 9/11 attack. I can also understand why Israel hit Beruit hard, given the amount of attacks they took without retaliating. Makes more sense than doing all this for a couple of kidnapped soldiers, which looks like a last straw now.

Maybe the people in Lebanon will stop tollerating terrorists in their midst. I doubt it, but it might happen. Seems that Beirut had become a modern tourist city, and now that's becoming rubble as if a hurricane came to town on the invitation of terrorists. Can these people see the connection?

That's a crock. Utterly and completely. Israel is dropping tons of letters letting innocents know, the only way they can, to evacuate. I don't recall Hezbolla notifying innocents that they were being targeted for death.

And disproportionate? Like Hezbolla demanding the release of 1000's of prisoners before they will release two? Same with the Pals...they demand a release of 1000's of terrorists to stop their terrorist activity which by the way, has never worked because the Pals have never stoped inciting terror on Israeli non-combatants.

Anybody with an ounce of objectivity and two brain cells to rub together know that you cut off the supply chain of your enemy. It's Hezbolla - not Israel- that has chosen civilian neighborhoods for their military operations. If you want to see a war crime, THAT is a war crime.

So, I guess this means you would condemn an Israeli attack on Syria or Iran as disproportionate?



Dropping letters while simultaneously bombing bridges, roads, and civilian vehicles, this shows real concern for civilians! And how do you explain the bombing of Christian areas and TV stations that were anti-Hezbollah? (See this Seattle PI article).

As I stated in a previous post, this premeditated violence will only make things worse. James Zogby states it succinctly. (See Zogby Article).

The reason these war crimes exist is because there are plenty of people like you to legitimize it. Let me repeat - Hezbolla is using civilian areas to engage in a war they started. The reason they do this is because of civilized society's reluctance to harm innocent men, women, and children. They are exploiting a weakness. In turn, Israel must do the best it can because doing nothing will end their existence. Almost every Arab country in the area is calling for the extermination of Jews. With this vile language, they have begun using a physical means to get to that end.

You are holding Israel to a standard you yourself would not hold our government to. If your house was blown up, your kids were shredded to bite sized chunks by the millions of ball bearning contained in those rockets to inflict the most indiscriminate damage possible, and you couldn't go to work unless your employer had a bomb shelter - all for the crime of being Jewish - you would be singing a different tune.

Jews cannot retaliate in kind to their attacks because they are held to a double standard. I don't know who hates Jews the most - Arabs or sympathetic Americans.

You have got to be joking!

What we're seeing now is the direct result of six years of UN controlled peace! What more do you want from Israel? Another six more years of such a 'peace' would see Hezbollah running all Lebanon and armed with long range Iranian rockets armed with Iranian nukes and manned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

I can't believe just how much pressure and condemnation is brought to bear on Israel whilst those who actually started this conflict, those who used the preceding six months of 'peace' as a way to prepare for war, build extenseive under ground bunker complexes and rocket storage facilities are largely ignored.

I never bought the accusation of the left being anti semitic until I saw how Israel has been treated in the last few weeks.

Every left wing politician and almost every media outlet in the western world is talking about a 'disproportionate response' without ever once stating in proportion to what! There is nothing 'disproportionate' about defending your nation from a threat the size of Syria and Iran combined!

And that proves that Israel's targeting them? Of course they're living in fear. They're in the middle of a war. Especially one in which one side deliberately hides among civilians to use them as human shields. It's the use of human shields that's the war crime here.

I remember during the run-up to the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein kidnapped a bunch of Westerners and installed them at military installations around Iraq, as human shields. President Bush made it clear that that would not deter him, and Saddam backed down. So if we weren't about to let some barbarian use our own people as human shields, certainly Israel is not obligated to let the Hezballah terrorists use Lebanese civilians that way either.



Now you're talking about a different situation. That would be the equivalent of our government actively providing funds and other material support to the IRA, as a weapon against Britain, not just failing to stop the funding.


Are you implying that Israel hasn't given civilians a chance to follow the directions of the leaflets? Some evidence of this would be in order. According to Israel's army, Hezballah has been acting to prevent civilians from leaving.

moif it seems like it was only yesterday that you and I were going back and forth of issues very much like this and you were on the other side. You were a very worth opponent though I must admit that I got very frustrated that you didn't seem to understand. Glad that you have made the leap to the opposite shore.

I hear things like Israel is using disproportionate force, and other nonsense. Well just what is proportionate force in this case? Hezbollah has stated that they like the idea that most of the Jews live in Israel, so that they don't have to track them down all over the world to kill them. And that Israel occupying an area the size of phone booth in Tel-Aviv would be too much land. Yesterday they apologized for murdering two little kids. Not because they were children, but because they were Muslims living in Nazareth. So that means that they are only targeting Jews, which is a war-crime known as genocide. And the Lebanese government has allowed this to happen for many years now, and it appears that the Lebanese people think that too is okay by them that makes them accomplices to genocide and that too is a war-crime. So what is the 'proportionate' response to genocide? Would it be okay for Israel to say kill every single Muslim? Is that proportional?

As for the number of casualties well Israel has flown over 3,600 bombing missions and fired thousands of rounds of artillery and unfortunately managed to kill about 300 people. That comes to less than one casuality per ten bombing missions and who knows how many hundreds of artillery rounds. Either they aren't very good at killing people or they are missing a lot of people of purpose, which is it? Please consider the large number of people in the area before answering that one.

There are a number of accounts of civilians warned to evacuate and then being attacked. Try this AP article.



Here is an earlier account carried by the BBC.



Wikipedia even has an account of attacks on civilians and goes on to quote the BBC story.

(See Here).



I wondered how long it would take for someone to drop this insinuation. Of course being critical of the Israeli military and government equates to being anti-semitic! I guess this also applies to Uri Avnery, the long time Israeli peace advocate I quoted in my original post. I have always supported Israel's right to exist and even US guarantees of that right. However, that does not mean that I have to uncritically support right wing and center governments while they continue their occupation of the West Bank and Gaza while at the same time expanding illegal settlements and stealing water supplies. And I certainly don't have to support their brutalizing of a small weak neighbor for the second time in 35 years.

If israel wants to continue with this course of action i think it is worth pointing out that:
1: Israel seems too have lost focus of her enemys.
2. They are not fighting lebanon.
3. The U.S. has no power too get involved, we are stretched too thin.

Well then I agree that's a problem. I'm willing to listen to Israel's explanation for it, because I know how crazy it can get when you're trying to fight an enemy who's not easily identifiable, and I don't know that I'd be able to do it better than they are.

Well unlike some, I do support Israel's right to exist, and I always have. That doesn't mean to say I approve of using helicopter gunships to attack terrorists in the West Bank. There is such a thing as a measured response...

But I believe that once a threat reaches a certain critical level, then any measure to counter it is justified. I do not believe a terrorist in the Palestine territories merits the use of a hell fire missile that will like as not kill innocent kids for example, because that terrorist by themself doesn't warrant that great a threat to Israel. In short, there are other ways of dealing with such people.

Hezbollah on the other hand, armed to the teeth, dedicated to the extermination of the Israeli people, dug in under the protection of UNFIL and backed by Syria and Iran is something entirely different, and as such merits any response short of war crimes.

I do not give a fig for Kofi Anan, the man is a disgrace, and I have lost all faith in the UN in the matter of the Middle East. I'm sick and tired of the line that holds Israel and the USA solely responsible for the troubles that region faces whilst we so seldom hear those who accuse, holding themselves to any sort of account.

The political left of Europe in particular, but also in the USA I suspect, has proven its craven nature in its alignment with the Muslim cause against the USA and UK (and Denmark by virtue of association) and I have nothing in common with people who will gladly march along side terrorist sympathisers, holding up placards and banners to support organisations which are actively, and openly, working to usurp our lands and destroy us.
I would like to see Denmark cleansed of Hizb ut-Tahir, Hamas, Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhood and all their like. Their organisations broken down and their members cast out of our country, regardless of which passport they hold.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Your sarcasm does not insulate you from the responsibility of your opinions Ted and I'm not 'insinuating' anything I'm saying it out right.
As loreng points out, I have also criticzed the IDF many times. I am not unaware of their faults and have made mention of them many times. To do so is not anti semitic, I agree.

Whats anti semitic is not justifiable criticism, but rather the narrow focus that only criticizes Israel. That ignores or even excuses the other side. That adds the 'but' after each assurance of support for Israel's right to exist. That ignores conflicts like Darfur for no apparent reason other than no Jews (or Americans) bear any responsibility there. The anti semitism of the left is becoming more and more apparent as the criticism of Jews becomes ever louder, whilst the criticism of the Muslims is near none existant.

Here is my blog entry for today to further explain my antipathy towards the left wing:
Link.
Irene Clausen, a typical left wing Dane, still nice and safe in the heart of Europe, all worked up about the zionists, but completely silent about the terrorists who target deliberately civilians and apparently blissfully unaware of the 2 million people ethnically cleansed from Darfur for not being Muslim enough. Talking about revolution as if it were some cocktail event for charity and not the bloody massacre of thousands, even millions that revolution so often is.


Uri Avnery is an Israeli is he not? He has every right to be critical of his own nation.


Yes. I am sure you have, and I am equally sure that you would continue to say so right down to the last Israeli.


Then you don't support Israel's right to exist, for without these measures, Israel would not exist.

Moif, don't you think you are jumping to conclusions about the position of all people on the left including mine from a reaction to a limited group? The Darfur swipe is particularly obnoxious because it is a criticism I and others on the left have made of the focus on the War on Terrorism. After all, its hard for the US to intervene in humanitarian crises when it is bogged down in an unnecessary war. The peace group I belonged to until I moved (and other similar groups) has sought numerous times to focus public attention on Darfur. Here are few examples from our website:

Article
Oil and Darfur
Public Education Notice for the following:

The Peace Studies Working Group is sponsoring a continuation of the discussion of Darfur and genocide that begin last week; this second hour of discussion devoted to Darfur will take place in Room 210 of the Hauge Administration Building on the campus of Pacific Lutheran University on Mon., Mar. 13, at 12:30 p.m. -- Participants at the first discussion included Peter Grosvenor (Political Science) and Neal Sobania (History; Wang Center) and students Nicole Sorenson and Samantha Thompson....

Your last statement is quite a mouthful. I think it is very probable that Israel could have worked out an accommodation with the Palestinians and its neighbors absent these provocations. You seem to regard anything that Israel does to only be motivated by security needs. Many in Israel do not want a two state solution because it would interfere with their ambition for a "Greater Israel" incorporating "Judea and Sumeria." Certainly people like me want some justice for the Palestinians but we also think that the only long term solution for Israel and Israelis has to have such an accommodation as its basis.

The article says nothing of the sort.



Four hours is not enough notice? Four minutes might not be enough, but four hours? Do you want the IDF to invite them to dinner as well?

Do you ever consider the fact that Israel announcing its bombing targets gives the Hezbollah leadership a chance (not a chance, a certainty) of clearing out?



You do know that wikipedia is simply a compilation of other sources.



Who started this conflict? Hezbollah. Now Israel is brutalizing its small, weak neighbor by attacking Hezbollah? Has it hit Lebanese military assets or bases?

The official count of dead in Lebanon is 380. In twelve days of fighting. That is 32 per day. Not genocide. Hezbollah claims that about 60 of the dead are its fighters, which leaves 320 civilians. Ten per day. Of course, it would be better for Hezbollah if its fighters were counted among the dead civilians.

Clearly there have been civilian casualties, don't get me wrong. But it isn't indiscriminant bombing of civilian areas (although civilians areas have been hit). If the IDF wanted to, it would have killed many more people than it has in twelve days of bombing.

Meanwhile, let's not say anything about the 2,000 rockets that have been fired into Israeli cities.

The situation prior to twelve days ago was untenable: a militant Islamic group, funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, was sitting on the border of Israel preparing its attack. Now it has launched that attack and the Israelis are to blame?

The funny thing is that Syria now backs a cease fire plan that includes a prisoner exchange and the return of the Golan Heights. I wonder why they want the Golan Heights back?

Hezbollah's "state within a state" was a mockery of how a country should operate. The Lebanese government is weak because of Hezbollah and Syria, not in spite of their "help". Hezbollah must be disarmed and a peacekeeping force needs to be deployed on the Israeli-Lebanon border and not that laughing stock UNIFIL. It must be a NATO force or a real international force or (ideally) the Lebanese army itself. The last option, which is the best, is only possible if Hezbollah is removed as a military presence, which isn't going to be done by the Lebanese army or Syria or "international pressure". Only the IDF can accomplish that.

I was about to contradict you by saying that it did say something of the sort, but then I noticed something when looking it over again. The warning to leave was issued on Saturday, to be out by 4 pm, and the minibus was struck on Sunday. That makes quite a difference indeed, particularly since it's rather difficult to tell from the air which vehicles are refugees and which are Hezbollah. (it's not like the Hezzies are about to spray-paint their emblem on the roof of their vehicles in bright colors)

As required by the laws of warfare...

Nope. What I see is a significant portion of the political spectrum, other wise known as The Left, all pretty much saying the same thing and the various arguments and responses you put forward in your posts here sound almost exactly the same as their condemnation and 'just criticism' of Israel.
Look at the links you just provided for example.
Link.
The language is the same, the perspective the same and the reasoning like wise. This could just as easily have been written by Villy Søvndal, chairman of the Socialist People's Party, here in Denmark. According to the left, oil [read the West] is the cause of everything. As usual, the democratic nations are to blame. Even if they don't have a presence there, they are to blame. Even if the Western democracies did indeed send in troops to stop the slaughter in Darfur, then 'greed for oil' would soon become the mantra of the Left.

Ideology is never to blame. Its apparently inconceivable to the socialist world view that Islamic ideology could, in any way, be a threat to any one.

In other words, it doesn't matter what a democracy does, for as long as it acts in any way that doesn't accord to socialist doctrine, then we see left wingers aligning themselves with any one, no matter how depraved, in order to protest, also against their own countries, but mostly against the USA.


Indeed! For its apparently unthinkable that the situation in Darfur might actually have some validity beyond being a means by which to attack the democratization of Iraq!

Just as its apparently unthinkable that the turmoil in Iraq is a direct result of Islamic terrorist groups stirring up ethnic tension in order to cause the US mission to fail so they can stop Iraqi democracy ever becoming a threat to their dreams of a future Islamic planet.

...even though the Jihadi's make no secret of their ambitions, the left would rather keep on blaming that Christian fundie, GW Bush.


Its funny (in an Orwellian sense) how the war you disaprove of is an 'unnecessary war', (despite its being a means by which to spread people's right to determine their own fate) whilst the brutal slaughter of tens of thousands and the ethnic cleansing of two million is a 'humanitarian crises'.

And lets look at that word 'humanitarian'.

Link.
...and yet, here I am reading about socialists fraternizing with Hezbollah, Hamas and Hizb ut-Tahir... not one of which can measure its self equal to any western nation when it comes to human rights, the equal treatment of women or equality before the law, since they are all Muslim organisations that campaign for the introduction of Sharia law.