Okey dokey, as you may know, after terrorists allegedly kidnapped an Israeli soldier, Israel began essentially blowing the West Bank to rubble. Shortly after, Hezbollah, over in Lebanon, kidnapped two more Israeli soldiers, prompting Israel to bomb Lebanese soil. So, there you have it, we have war in the Middle East, so the questions for debate are...

1. Is Israel right to take the actions they have [tear through the West Bank and bomb Lebanon]?

2. Does Hezbollah's kidnapping qualify as an act of war by the Lebanese government?

3. Should the United States support Israel [both diplomatically and in terms of aid]?

As always, support your answers.

CP

I disagree with the premise of your debate:



to rubble?? the whole West Bank? the most densely populated area of the Earth? And two non-combatants have died? Something seems to not add up here.

1. Is Israel right to take the actions they have?

Clearly in the case of Hamas militants kidnapping a soldier and taking him into the West Bank, Israel is justified. If the Palestinians want to think of themselves as self-governing, then they clearly need to take responsibility for militants that identify themselves with the government.

In Lebanon, again the actions of Israel are justified, although for slightly different reasons. The UN has declared that the Lebanese government cannot control the militants in South Lebanon (namely: Hezbollah). Hezbollah controls South Lebanon. Hezbollah attacked Israel, entered its territory and kidnapped its citizens. It then retreated into Lebanon. The leader of Hezbollah has acknowledged the deed. The attacks are justified not because the Lebanese governments responsible for Hezbollah's actions, but because the Lebanese government cannot be responsible for them. It cannot respond and rein them in. Israel must do so.

2. Does Hezbollah's kidnapping qualify as an act of war by the Lebanese government?

No, as explained above. The actions by Hamas militants are synonymous with actions of the Hamas government of Palestine. Hezbollah is not the same as the government of Lebanon.

3. Should the United States support Israel [both diplomatically and in terms of aid]?

Yes. Especially diplomatically, but with aid if needed. Moif pointed out in another thread that this kidnapping strategy was mapped out and announced months ago. These actions are an escalation of the general violence from Muslims towards Israel. It must be responded to.

I can't really formulate as full and a hearty reply as this topic deserves, as it's too sudden and, to be honest, somewhat shocking for me to have a full grasp on the ramifications. But here we have AMLord, basically justifying tremendous acts of violence which will no doubt result in hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilian deaths. In return for a kidnappnig of Israeli soldiers. Isnt' this the big argument of why terrorists are so much more evil than conventional military forces? Targetting civlians? Here, they aren't.

No, I think Israel is frantically escalating the violence. This is simply only going to result in more Israeli casualties as the populations of Palestine and Lebanon are further enraged and polarized to Islamic Extremism by these seemingly unmitigated, and unapologetic acts of war by a nation that should be putting itself above the Muslim aggressors, to show that there is a better way. The Muslims are absolutely no better in the long term. But balancing kidnappings and deaths of Israeli soldiers against the havoc Israel is wreaking on Muslim civilians is completely unjustified to me.

It's much easier to justify strapping a bomb on yourself and runnign into a crowded marketplace if the people you are attacking destroyed your home, your family, your life.

I'm not a hippy, I understand Israel has been pushed and pushed by these groups, but I can't see what good could possibly come out of these actions?

Israel is completely justified in seeking out their soldiers and returning them home. I hope Israel is acting with these thoughts in mind, though; that the Lebanese people and Hezbollah are not the same...




... and that working with the Lebanese (who hate Syria and wish to press forth with progressive and democratic ideals) to find these soldiers and eliminate Hezbollah as a (para)military threat would benefit both the Lebanese and Israel.

In all honesty, my money is on the soldiers in question being murdered, and that Hezbollah and "Palestinian militants" are playing a game in which they provoke Israel into escalating its operations and making them look like they're over-reacting. So at this point Israel should, tempering justice with mercy (and god willing, precision), do whatever it can to find these soldiers.

So far in short, is Israel justified? Absolutely. Is this an act of war by Hezbollah that the Lebanese government is responsible for? No. But that does give Israel a lot of leeway into going into Lebanon and finding their men.

As far as supporting Israel's actions, outside of helping them through intel and technology, this isn't our fight. The moment we become involved militarily is the moment this becomes our problem.




I wonder how many psychopaths with C4 strapped to their chest really cared if they were acting on the very individuals who destroyed their home and family? I mean, who'd have thought Israel was using toddlers, old women, and school age children to carry out military ops in the West Bank.

Using your argument, it is easily as justifiable for Israelis to seek out and find the heads of their homes, the members of their families, and the loved one's in their lives.

How many authoritarian, non-Democratic nations and governments are the target of suicide terrorist attacks? I'm hard pressed to think of a single one. So, either authoritarian nondemocratic governments are just peace-loving and wonderful by comparison to democracies, and never attack anyone's families, or suicide terrorism is more likely to be employed against states with democratic systems. Why? Because democracies are so comparatively mean and evil? Um, no.... Because that sort of tactic is much more likely to work.

That said, I would have handled this a bit differently. Bucket placed this link on another thread a few weeks ago, and I bookmarked it because I found it so interesting, though a blogspot. It looks like things have been cooking for a while. I think this move was intended to create a reaction from Israel.

What is the alternative? I'm not sure. In the 70s, some North Koreans came over the DMZ and axed a couple of our soldiers to death, and hung them on a tree. Well, things were pretty tense but thirty years later I definitely think not invading was the right decision. They simply placed more troops at the DMZ and concentrated on homeland (south Korean) defense. If I were Israel, I would make the wall higher, or whatever it takes from their side, but avoid this kind of confrontation if possible. That doesn't mean I don't believe that they are morally justified in doing so, it simply means I don't think this will make things better, and it might make the situation exponentially worse.

1. Is Israel right to take the actions they have [tear through the West Bank and bomb Lebanon]?
No.

2. Does Hezbollah's kidnapping qualify as an act of war by the Lebanese government?
Since 1967, 650,000 Palestinians( 20% of the population) have been illegally detained (including women and children). So I guess all these years the Palestinians were just attacking Israel to get these 650,000 kidnapped people back. The door swings both ways people.


3. Should the United States support Israel [both diplomatically and in terms of aid]?
Heck no.

That isn’t what it says. It says “Since Israel began its illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, more than 650,000 Palestinians have been detained, representing approximately twenty percent of the current total Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories.” Well, this is during the course of two intifadas. These were not all illegal detentions. Nor does it indicate how long these people were detained. In short, this figure combines the number of total detainees from two violent wars, and you have interpreted it to mean these people have all been arbitrarily and illegally detained.

More from that link:

Well, these figures include the numbers during the second intifada. This begs the question….how old are these “children”? My father was a soldier at 17, was he a “child” too? One of the Washington snipers was a mere "child".

The above sounded very odd to me. I’ve never heard of this before, so I looked it up. The article in question indicates no such thing. Furthermore, it states that
Okay, well, that’s enough for me. This is so blatantly counterfactual I see no reason to believe anything further that this piece has to say.

From your link:



Illegally...through a set of regulations. Those two descriptors are contradictory.

Don't you think Israel has some motivation behind the security checkpoints that doesn't include stopping Palestinians simply for the fun of it?

The number of current detainees is around 8,000 (if the information from other threads is correct) not 650,000. Let's keep a sense of perspective here and don't overblow the issue.

From your link:



Well, only 2,731 have "blood on their hands". Heck everyone else must be innocent. <-- Spot the logical fallacy.

I am not saying that all of these prisoners are justly held. But the current actions by the Muslim groups, if they were indeed attempts to negotiate the freedom of these prisoners is about the worst plan of action ever conceived.

Logic: We want our prisoners released therefore we will attack you, kill your soldiers, and kidnap one or more of them to use as hostages.

The Hezbollah actions are particularly dense considering the reaction the IDF had just a few days ago to similar actions by Hamas. Remember that the definition of insane is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result.



This is different. These are military incursions. The first and most important job of any government is security, especially from outside aggressors. The Israeli government has had its hands tied by these militants. What legitimate government would roll will such punches and turn the other cheek?

1. Is Israel right to take the actions they have [tear through the West Bank and bomb Lebanon]?

Yes.
Israel has been attacked, twice, from two different, yet affiliated Arab powers, both using terrorism as a means and both being sheltered and supported by legitimate Arab authorities.


2. Does Hezbollah's kidnapping qualify as an act of war by the Lebanese government?

In effect, yes. Lebanon has allowed a terrorist organization to dictate its foreign policy and drag it into a war situation. Any and all deaths that result from this situation are the sole responsibility of those who have allowed a terrorist organization to operate with impunity from sovereign Lebanese territory.

3. Should the United States support Israel [both diplomatically and in terms of aid]?

Yes. Democracy's must stand side by side when confronted with terrorism, or any other form of threat posed by religious extremism. The attitude taken by France and Switzerland is pure cowardice and is both hypocritical and craven. If France, for example, was being constantly attacked by rockets fired by terrorists from Monacco, would they gladly sit queietly and respect Monacco's sovereignty?

Those who do not defend themselves invite attack.

There is no truth to that statement whatsoever. Your premise completely ignores the constant barrage of rocket and mortar attacks on the Israeli civilian population DAILY. In fact, since Israel vacated some of the Gaza areas to promote a peace deal, the Pals set up shop and began using those areas to launch rockets. This is precisely the reason Israel took control of that land in 1967. Strategically, Israel's enemies - including all those invited to attack in 1967 - have an advantage when using those areas to attack.

You seem to think that all is relatively peaceful except for the suicide bombings that make the news. That is not true. Israel thwarts dozens of suicide attacks every day. And Israel gets nailed by rockets every day. Yet, you say this is all about one kidnapped solider? For the love of God, can't some of you supporters look at the facts instead of blindly rooting for the underdog?

As I've said before, feeling sorry for the Palestinians is like feeling sorry for the Menendez brothers - the brothers who killed their parents - because they are orphans.

In my opinion, the democratically elected government has committed acts of war and should suffer the consequences just like every other country on the planet that can't play nice with others.

Ok it looks like both sources got it wrong. The source I gave says article 47 and yet you linked to 27. However the quote my source has isn't actually from article 47, it's from 76:

Article 76:



Article 47:


Article 27:


As for my 650,000 number, I never ment to imply that they were all currently detained or that they were all illegally detained. (My post was w/ one foot out the door omw to work...now that I'm at work...I still don't have a lot of time But it seems that all it takes is 1. 1 soldier was kidnapped and this is the response from Israel...so let's say that over time, 1% of those 650,000 prisioners were held illegally and unjustly. That's still 6,500 people. How's that any different than 1 soldier?

Amlord


Right, just like Stalin had regulations.


Obviously my stance on this is much different than everyone elses so I'm not doing my point much justice by these perfunctory hasty posts. I can try and hash it out in my detail when time permits.

1). To form a response yes, to bomb everything into rubble no.

2). The kidnapping only confirms the sledgehammer approach to arab affairs will cause them to unite.

3). Emphatic no. This is an issue of poor relations based originally on a land grab. One nation has so much extra fire power they have completely sidestepped the original issue of prisoner detentions. They have no problems engaging several fronts and therein lies the problem. The balance of power has been so lop sided for so long the continual reinforcing of the Israeli position will no longer work. Support here is a step backwards. It is time to walk away.



Speaking of fallacies Amlord do you honestly believe Hamas is responsible for the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit? Let's take a look at how the events unfolded.

On June 25th Gilad was kidnapped. 10 days earlier Hamas offered to accept an Israeli state but with the request, "Israel must stop aggression". Seems alittle contradictory to kidnap a soldier as a path to acceptance and reconciliation doesn't it Amlord?

What becomes painfully clear is that Hamas is not in full control of the rocket attacks. Israel's response to the rocket attacks was threatening political leaders with assassination. Even before the attack this sets an important precedent of destabilising the Hamas party.

The Israeli's knew this and by attacking as forcefully as they did knew Hezbollah would get involved sooner or later. This was planned right from the start and all they needed was one 19 year old rookie to set things in motion. They played Hezbollah for a sucker in attempt to step up action against Iran. The fall of Hamas to Israel is simply a freebie. The point is to illicit a response from Iran which the international community will condemn. They won't take action with Israel. They will take action with Iran.

This would be funny if it weren't so naive.

Let's see Hamas today has offered the return of Shalit, although this is news to Israel: Israel Hits Ministry; Hamas Offers Soldier


Meanwhile, the body of a kidnapped settler has been found dead.



If a government cannot control its own territory, then it is not a legitimate government. The Palestinians wanted Israeli security forces out of its lands and what happens: Hamas and other thugs use those lands to launch attacks, both rockets and ground attacks and suicide bombers.

The government is responsible in this case because it was elements of the ruling party there. I doubt anyone would excuse the government if armed "Republican" militants attacked Toronto.

If the government cannot keep control of these armed militants, then perhaps an international peace keeping force is needed. Where is the US when they are needed?

EDIT: to remove a factually incorrect statement.

An exageration on my part, but don't read too much into it, I support Israel fully and if they did bomb the West Bank to rubble, to me, that would be 80% justified. Now, having said that, to my brilliant questions:

Absolutely. Palestine broke the cease-fire, Israel responded with overwhelming force, that's the only way to respond in the Middle East, with overwhelming force.


The two are kissing cousins, yes it qualifies as an act of war, and again, Israel responded with overwhelming force, fine by me.


Yes, we should support them diplomatically, but we should not give them money or military aid for two reasons, we don't pay taxes to support the Israeli military and they are fully capable of reducing any threat to rubble without our money.

This effictively says that Israel should act as a role model to the extreme Arabic world so they will see the folly of there ways [terorism] and become more peaceful. There is absolutely no way that this will happen. Hezbollah militants can only be killed, not reasoned with, Hezbollah's "political wing" is the brain, their militant wing is only brute force and should be met with overwhelming force.

CP

I hate to be a negative Nancy here... but Israel hasn't touched the West Bank. They've bombed Gaza, repeatedly and often. If we can't negotiate the most basic facts of the situation, how are we supposed to develop and put forth reasonable opinions.

Gaza=left; West Bank=right

Now, lets consider some other facts up for discussion. Israel has thousands of people detained; including women and children. Most of these people are guilty of crimes, and the rest are held on the suspicion of guilt. ALL of them are returned alive, or given a legitimate criminal trial. None of them are held as collateral to exchange for political concessions. Can you say the same of these kidnapped soldiers?

Thanks for the catch UJ, my bad, Israel hasn't done a thing to the West Bank, they've attacked the Gaza Strip/Gaza City...I confuse the two often...

CP

Sorry, that's not what I found...



http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf...hlight=2,prison




http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf...hlight=2,prison




http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf...hlight=2,prison




http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf...hlight=2,prison

Arbitrary arrests and detentions

Umm Joe are we tallking about the same detention policies here? Maybe you are referring to something else. From all the sources I've read over the last two weeks, almost all of them make reference to the return of 1000-1500 (which the Palastinians say are innocent) of the 9000 prisoners Israel has detained under suspicious activity. The issue here is whether they were detained for legitimate reasons. The question here is how loose Israel's definition of 'suspicious' is.

See link in 12th post above. Every link I've seen so far alway references the prisoners. Go back to this AD thread where I laid out the Israel's brutal dention policy for DTOM. This was the underlying contention that started this debacle. I'd be happy to provide additional details to clarify.

When I have a bit more time I'll address Amlord's response.

Try Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the borderline dictatorship Russia for starters. It's not so much democracy but western influences and occupation in general that is at issue. Within the Islamic sphere the more extreme Jihadists(This doesn't necessarily include Hamas which appears to have a more local agenda) dream of a Sharia based Caliphate - a society ordered under representatives of God instructed by the Koran and related religious texts and they see anyone who stands in their way, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Communist or independent, as the enemy.

I get smorpheus's point. Without justifying it, one can use common sense and recognize that a cruel occupation by group A over group B might evoke a cruel reaction by group B against group A.

You could also read further into the article Amlord, take this for instance.


Which can be taken as;

Uh Mr. Abbas can you call those guys and act as a negotiator or intermediary for us? It seems you have lost control of the situation and they aren't listening to you. Can you give me their number?

I realize you'll use the the next paragraph as a retort;



The problem began with the Israeli Military and their excessive use of force which was the impetus for the initial hostage taking. Amlord, the Israeli Military is the source of the problem and we are supposed this statement at face value and allow them to sidestep the root problem of policy??



I find this comment ambiguous since you can find on any source of your choosing detailing dozens of daily fatalities. Maybe you can clarify the purpose of this comment? We are well past pointing fingers and playing the blame game. In a scant two weeks we have been forced into a situation of containment. I don't see how this statement advances your arguement.



I think the above comment can be taken as an admission that neither side is placing much value on human life. The chances of getting an unconditional surrender become that much smaller when you blow up the offices of the Palastinian Authourity. Peace through escalation rarely works Amlord.

Ehud signed Gilad's death certificate the moment he bombed the power plant and everything else into pieces. But then Ehud wanted to back Hamas into a corner from the get-go right? To keep up appearances they issue the statement below for a little political correctness. The phoney sincerity is stifling considering the Olmert party has done everything in their power to prevent communications.



Israel's heavy handedness was sharp enough to wake europe from its slumber of ignorance and issue a warning to back off. Not only that but veto measures were taken with sadly predictable results.

This above link underscores the destructive irony of "pre-conditions".



If the situation weren't so dire, this would be funny. Take for example Bolton's comments on Iran.


I have a feeling the freezing of aid set upon the Palastinian Authourity earlier this year influenced Hamas into accepting another precondition. See the dangers of escalation and preconditions yet?



I'll have to disagree with you Amlord. Legitamacy is slow process beginning with an unimpeded electoral vote and frequent negotiations between civil servant and people. By this definition Hamas has not strayed from their commitment to the people. From the moment they took office they never had a chance. Every step was taken to reduce their funding and use poverty as a weapon to destabilize Hamas with the hope of being thrown out. So far this has not happened.

I didn't know Egypt, Pakistan, or Saudi were occupying anyone! Your response indirectly makes the point. The suicide bomber targets in those countries are western the vast majority of the time, international housing complexs and tourist areas, ect. Parents of the schoolgirls in Saudi, who were thrown back into a fiery building by religious police for not being properly dressed, and perished, haven't resorted to suicide bombing attacks on religious police stations. Russia might be a "borderline dictatorship" now, but I don't recall suicide bombing attacks from Chechen rebels back when they were a member of the USSR. Was their life so very much better then? The Tibetians didn't resort to this tactic when the Chinese invaded. Nor did the Chinese or Koreans when the Japanese invaded, the French when the Germans invaded, ect. There are far far worse occupiers that never encountered suicide-style terrorist attacks.



I'm not saying I disagree. I do agree with your point, for the most part. But that doesn't explain the suicide attacks from the PKK in Turkey, or Tigers in Sri Lanka. This would probably make for an interesting thread in and of itself.



But crueler occupations by far have resulted in less terrorist-style attacks. My contention is, terrorists (especially suicide-style terrorists) target democracies primarily because it is a coercive style of warfare that is likely to work on that sort of target. For the very opposite reason many suppose. Truly oppresive and violent occupations do not have many problems with suicide bombers. Democracies are especially vulnerable because the populations have low tolerance thresholds, and high leverage towards policy changes.

So, in a nutshell (and to drag my response on-topic), I don't think Hamas or Hezbollah are resort to these style tactics because Israel is such a horrible occupier and the Palestinians are so terribly disenfranchized. That doesn't mean I agree with the occupations, or think that their conduct is entirely wonderful and perfect. I don't. My response to the above poll might surprise you, but I answered 1) Kinda sorta (leaning more towards no); 2)No, and 3) Yes, but just diplomatically. I think they are using such tactics primarily because they have learned that they work. But they would not work if the Israeli government was so evil as many suppose.

1. Is Israel right to take the actions they have [tear through the West Bank and bomb Lebanon]?
Hamas and Hezbollah are both terrorist organizations. There's no way to negotiate with either of them in a meaningful way, period. Both have the stated goal of destroying the state of Israel. Unless Israel would be kind enough to destroy itself there won't be a resolution with either of these groups. But Israel can't just wait it out either.

When these groups grow stronger with weapons and funds from Arab countries they pose a greater threat to Israel. Right now Israel is just trimming down the terrorist threat on their borders. If they don't do this now, later Hamas and Hezbollah will be stronger and better able to attack Israel.

2. Does Hezbollah's kidnapping qualify as an act of war by the Lebanese government?
The Lebanese government doesn't control Hezbollah but if they can't deal with terrorists inside their borders, Israel must.

3. Should the United States support Israel [both diplomatically and in terms of aid]?
If Israel doesn't exist, Jesus can't come back. But seriously, Israel is a democracy that shares in our western culture and spirit of pluralism. If Israel isn't worthy of our support who is? Certainly not Egypt or Columbia.

That's a good point, but why do you condemn this logic, and not then also condemn Israel for using the exact same tactic? Why is it more logical for Israel than for Palestinians? Both amount to the same thing, though given Israel's power and military superiority, their response is not in any way proportional.

I'm not usually given to movie quotes, but I'd like to paraphrase a line from Gladiator. In the beginning of the movie, the Roman army is on its final campaign against the Germanic tribes. Quintus says, "People should know when they're conquered." Maximus says, "Would you, Quintus? Would I?"



Again, how does this apply to Israel, and not to the Palestinians? Violence creates more violence. It has always done so, and I see no signs that this will not continue to be true.

You say "The Israeli government has had its hands tied by these militants," yet I am not sure what you mean. In what way have the actions of the Israeli government reflected being 'hand-tied??' In my view, Israel has been acting more "gloves off" than "hands tied."

I condemn the Palestinians who resort to violence and terrorism. I condemn also the Israeli government who resort to the exact same thing. When has this solved this sort of problem, ever, in history? The only way violence can solve this is by the utter eradication of one side, and I hope that no one wants that!

DaytonRocker says "For the love of God, can't some of you supporters look at the facts instead of blindly rooting for the underdog?" I ask the same question of those who support Israel's actions so completely. To talk of 'facts' and then go on immediately to say "feeling sorry for the Palestinians is like feeling sorry for the Menendez brothers - the brothers who killed their parents - because they are orphans," certainly belies the first statement. Why should we not feel sorry for Israeli and Palestinian civilians who are the biggest victims in this struggle? No innocent person's life is worth more than anothers.



Why? Was the Al-Nakba justified? Deciding that the Jewish people deserved their own country didn't justify taking it by force, didn't justify what happened in Lydda or Deir Yassin. Didn't justify the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Didn't justify the Apartheid Palestinians live under today.

Let me add something here. I'm not looking at this struggle from a one-sided point of view. My grandfather, a Hebrew and Torah scholar, lived in Israel for some years. I also have friends who have spent time in the Occupied Territories with CPT (Christian Peacemaker Teams) and the ISM. I don't oppose Israel or its right to exist. What's done is done. But Jews and Moslems are people of the Book. Both should grow up and start living that.

I do firmly believe that what the Palestinians need most is a Gandhi or Martin Luther King, rather than a Malcolm X or a John Brown. And if Israel is a democratic Jewish state, they need to start treating all the people in their land as democratic citizens of their nation.

It's important to note that 20% of the population of Israel is non-Jewish and those 20% have all the same rights of Jewish Israelis, although they aren't subject to conscription into the IDF. Any people who don't have all the rights of Israeli citizens, aren't Israeli citizens.

Now I would agree that the Palestinians would do better if they had a non-violent, peaceful leadership, but what's more important is a non-violent, peaceful goal. I don't think Gandhi would be quite as successful if he had used hunger strikes to try to destroy the UK. Wanting your own state next to Israel is a non-violent goal. Wanting to wipe Israel off the map is a violent goal. I don't know which most Palestinians want but clearly Hamas isn't interested in a peaceful, two-state solution. Far-right, religious groups in Israel are almost equally intransigent but they don't have control of Israel the way Hamas does of Palestine. If you compare Hamas to Israel's leading party, Kadima, Kadima is 10,000 times more flexible in moving towards a solution.

It's great to hope for a Palestinian Gandhi but the reality is Israel has to deal with the actual government of Palestine, Hamas. You can't turn Atilla the Hun into the Dali Lama by releasing prisoners or ignoring attacks on your citizens. Hamas is dedicated to an Islamic Jihad ending with the destruction of the state of Israel. How is Isreal supposed to deal with a government like that? I don't see any way other than Israel defending itself and hoping that someday cooler heads will prevail.

You raise some good points, and I don't claim to have all the answers. However, this final bit bothers me. Why does "defending itself" include overwhelming military attacks? This is a 'Bushthink' type of idea. If defending myself means going somewhere else and killing a bunch of people, destroying their schools, water supplies, power plants, I'm afraid I have no idea what 'defending' even means.

I didn't say a word about anything that has happened in Israel/Palestine beyond the past couple of days, so everything other than "Why?" is irrelevant to what I was actually saying. The reason I say that Israel would be 80% justified in blowing the Gaza to pieces is simple...They need to make a statement, and that statement is, "this is what happens when YOU break a cease fire agreement." Israel, by virtue of their geographical location and the hostility of their neighbors cannot afford to be sensitive when they are attacked, they have to respond with overwhelming force. Now, your reference to Al-Nakba and the other historical examples show how the Palestinian people, the civilians were harmed by Israeli occupation, I am no expert on the history of Israel, but if those examples involved suffering by the Palestinian people without provocation, then fine, I'm all for blaming Israel for doing something wrong when they do do something wrong. However, in this instance, I'm not suggesting that Israel arbitrarily go around Gaza with an Apache helicopter and X number of Hellfire missels shooting at random houses. They should target Hamas, and any other terrorist organization in the West Bank, period. And regarding the "apartheid", can you explain to me how Israel should go about protecting itself from terrorists who live in the same zip code as its people without severely putting restrictions on how those people live? It's unfortunate, but I have not heard of an alternative idea put forth by anyone...ever.

I respect you as a debater far too much to think that you're looking at this or any issues from a one-sided point of view Quark.


Agreed, and don't get me wrong, I don't oppose Palestine's right to exist. But if they choose to elect a terrorist organization to lead their country, I fully support Israel to react if/when those terrorists begin to act like...terrorists.


Amen, the Palestinians need a non-violent leader as an example, but I won't hold my breath waiting for one to emerge. However, it is unreasonable [and I know this sounds bad] to ask Israel to treat Ahmad Q. Palestinian the same as you're average Israeli for the obvious reason that there is no distinguishing you're average Palestinian civilian from your average Palestinian suicide bomber. As I said, can you put forth a realistic idea that allows Israel to treat Palestinians as equals when most Palestinians support a government who would enjoy the destruction of Israel itself?

CP

If you let your pit bull off its chain knowing it's a menace and it happens to kill a passer-by, wouldn't you be held accountable?
The Lebanese government is complicit by not taking action to get rid of HB. They are in a precarious predicament tho, with an unpleasant memory of civil strife.

There is a large segment of Lebanese who want no part of HB. You ought to cruise the Lebanese blogs. If you throw out the anti-American/anti-Semite vicious trolls [they're easy to spot:)], the bloggers and many commenters are quite reasonable people. Most the Lebanese, and for that matter Israeli posters, leave you with the impression that if HB went away Lebanon and Israel would be holding block parties instead of raids.

Another little known fact is that one of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers isn't even Jewish. That's not stopping the Israeli's to seek the return of the Druze just as fervently as if he was a Semite. To Israel it's not a religious battle, it's one of self-preservation and protection.


I don't think the Govt so much so as HB, who are the ones reaping the brunt of the action. Israel is taking many precautions urging civilians to leave. I hope that in the end the Lebanese government can take advantage of HB's weakened state to rid themselves of them.


I don't think we have a choice, we need to support those countries battling terrorists and those complicit with the terrorists.

Everyday, Israel thwarts dozens of terrorist attacks. The ones they miss make the headlines. Everyday, the Pals launch rockets at the civilian population. Every single day - without fail. I'm sure you would not care, but if Canada or Mexico started launching rockets at our shopping malls, I would demand our government wipe that country off the face of the earth.

Not long ago, the Israelis - in a token of peace - and something the Pals have never made an effort to do themselves, vacated some of the settlements. They closed military bases, kicked out the settlers, and capitulated to the terrorists. So, what did the Pals do? They used the areas vacated to launch more missiles!

Now, they've kidnapped Israeli soldiers (for no apparent reason) and invited the neighboring Arab countries to lend a helping terrorist hand. Israel would love to wipe them all off the face of the map and be done with it. I wish they would. But we give them lots of money so we can be an important voice in their responses to the thousands and thousands of terrorist attacks they have suffered. We pay them handsomely to temper their responses.

Name me one time the Pals have tried peace and diplomacy as a tool to better their lives. Hell, name me one day they haven't attacked Israel in one way or the other during those relative times of "peace".

I don't think they really had any choice, there are no diplomatic avenues for them to pursue. Israel is far from innocent in this conflict but how much are they going to accomplish without going after Hamas and Hezbollah?



I was on the bubble with this one until I heard the Lebanese ambassador on CNN justifying the act. His basic attitude was, 'well what about all the innocent women and children Israel has in prison'. What I think is going on here is they want an exchange of prisoners. Unfortunately Israel has made exchanges like that before and what did they get for their trouble? Wave after wave of terrorism.



Again, I don't think there is any choice, who else are we going to side with? Hezbollah?

3. Should the United States support Israel [both diplomatically and in terms of aid]?

A good way to support Israel, while not appearing to take sides and without appearing like we're meddling in the Middle East, is to stop buying so much oil. Here it is again. Some people say that without the oil revenues that the Middle East might become more unstable, but it is these exact same oil revenues that have not only enabled, but emboldened Iran to fund Hezbollah here. People are dying because we refuse to stop making our enemies rich. Are we ever going to get this?

Well, watching the new rounds of warfare come up I must ask what does Israel plan to do with its military?

This was my position earlier on the stance the US should take, I see in no way how the current actions of Israel will bring about peace in the mideast. What is the next step, do they plan to invade Lebanon, what will they do there? How will they find and end properties in Lebanon they do not want to exist? If they have some secret formula for this why have they not shared it with the US in relation to Iraq. These “terrorist” organizations as commonly called by certain sides of the struggle mesh nicely within the culture and use it to bring about gorilla warfare, in all the years Israel has been at war with Palestine they have not ended that struggle, do they plan to now live in Lebanon and do they same there.

I will not say Israel does not hold the right to defend itself in relation to my feelings overall on the issue, I will say however that the formula Israel has run over the years really has done nothing more then to allow intense hatred for them to spawn all over the middle east, there policy in this regard is nothing but failure in my eyes. As for how to deal with the fact that some in the middle east will not rest until Israel is dead, yes they do happen to be ultimately guilty for why peace cannot come to that region, but nothing exists currently in the form of a military weapon that will take out just those people, which brings me to my main and standing point, this is an issue that can only be resolved by cultural change within devoutly conservative cultures. I see this as the last thing to occur, and as proved yet again the call to arms and warfare seems to be the avenue both ultimately accept in regards to the future and reality of that region.

The US should not back Israel, the US should back Israel if serious threat was posed to them, this does not exist within just the aspect of the Palestinians. The US should let it be known that it will react if something that could actually seriously hurt Israel was to arrive, like a real army, not the gorilla militias of Palestine which for the most part happen to live day to day because the power Israel has was not used to exterminate the entire populous.

These creatures of radial Islam feed off of military actions made against Arabic people in the “holy lands”, its quite simple to see this, and for the most part it is a successful hearts and minds campaign, I see no reason why we should feed this, or let it grow when we do not have to. If the US and the rest of the world really wanted to get serious about peace in the mideast it could do it, but the simple fact that has to be accepted is that radical elements will not at some particular second in time cease to exist, and that other methods need to be used in finding and destroying them then what is currently being employed. This peace could work if it used and empowered moderate aspects of both Israel and Palestine, they do exist. As for Palestine, Israel’s collective punishment strategy I imagine has pretty much breed hatred in a majority of the population as civilian casualties and other horrid human rights experiences have occurred more then once to them collectively, and with the current rounds of action being taken by all sides considered peace will be the furthest thing from occurring now, and yes I do know that the methods employed by thee “terrorists” run the same avenue of attacking civilians, but to simply follow in suit with something that is truly evil because of that makes no sense to me.

If war is truly what everyone desires being the go to it easier, then it should just be done that way, for everything else is just a lie then.

Offence as defence is a sound military doctrine that is far older than GW Bush. The idea is simple enough. You take the battle to the enemy to avoid having to fight on your own turf. What Israel is doing is removing a threat to its citizens. Why is that so hard to understand?

What you should consider is that Israel completely withdrew from both the territories it is now forced to strike back against. Israel acted in the interests of regional peace and has been cynically attacked in return.

For all those voices who lament the severity of Israel's response I would point out that they said nothing when Hamas launched attack after attack against Israel and their voicing such opinions now strikes me as biased and childish.


Exactly! Israel should reduce southern Lebanon to rubble and ashes for what the Lebanese have allowed to happen.

If one tolerates attacks then one invites more of them. Israel is dealing with people who want war, who vote for it, who want martyrdom and crave death.


I think what we are seeing now is a punitive action which may involve incursions into Lebanon, but won't involve a long term occupation of the land. Israel has officially stated its aim is to see an end to Hezbollah in the region once and for all.


I disagree. It is not Israel's responsibility to bring peace to the Arab world. Israel itself is a prosperous and peaceful democracy. Despite constant attacks from the surrounding Arab world, the Israeli's have proven the strength of western style democracy and industry and continue to do so.

Israel is a success as long as it survives and any responsibility for peace and regional stability rests with the region itself, not with that one tiny splinter of land that has dared to declare itself free of Islam, for lets not fool ourselves. The real reason why the Arabs hate Israel so is because Israel is not Muslim. If the Israeli's were not Muslims, then the Palestinians would receive no attention.... like the Kurds they would remain an obscure ethnic group.

The Muslim world, so happy to spread itself at the expense of others cannot tolerate a reversal of its fortunes in the Middle East and whilst Muslims all across the planet complain and whine about their 'abused rights', they themselves show neither compassion nor mercy to those who stand in their way, whether it be in Indonesia, Darfur or Israel.

The threat Israel faces is far greater than just the Palestinians. Iran's threats from the side lines demonstrates quite clearly what the Muslims are aiming for: ultimate justification for a future nuclear strike against Israel.

1. Is Israel right to take the actions they have [tear through the West Bank and bomb Lebanon]?

No. Israel can "defend itself" by targeting terrorist/guerilla strongholds to weaken their military capabilities. However, to destroy infrastructure like the Airport, bridges and streets outside the area the terrorists/guerillas are acting from does not qualify for self-defence.

2. Does Hezbollah's kidnapping qualify as an act of war by the Lebanese government?

Israel is destablizing the democratic government of Libanon after it finally became sovern when Syrian forces retreated. The Lebanese government has no power to fight the Hizbollah which has deep roots in the Southern Lebanese population, it would risk another civil war! Israel, in full knowledge of this, nonetheless targets Beirut and kills 66 Lebanese, including a German family. The Hezbollah has significant influence in the Lebanese government, but so does the NRA have influence on the US administration. If NRA members would kill Mexican border guards, would that qualify as an act of war by the US government?
The Lebanese have to live with Hizbollah, if they want or not. Israel is making a big mistake by destabilizing the democratic government and thereby forcing the Lebanese to side with Hizbollah.
The provocations came from Hezbollah and Hamas, but Israel went way too far with its collective punishment.

3. Should the United States support Israel [both diplomatically and in terms of aid]?
They should help Israel to maintain a moderate way of dealing with these attacks. The US should speak out against the attacks on Beirut and Lebanon, Lebanon is a sovreign country and should be helped to deal with Hizbollah rather than taking the punishment for the actions of these people.

No. But what if the US government did nothing whatsoever to stop ceaseless attacks by the NRA, made public ststaments supporting the NRA, or even worse proved themselves completely unable to try? I remind you that the Taliban government of Afghanistan never aattacked the US, but were held to be legitimate targets because of their active support of the group which DID attack the US.

As any of those who know me know, I have always tended to think the blame for the middle east crisis was divided petty much evenly between the Palestinians and Arab Alles, and Israel. If anything, I tended to favour the Palestinians simply because their actions have to be taken in the context of their comparative powelessness beside the IDF. Both sides have made stupid mistakes, over-reactions and questionable judgements enough to last a liftime, and both have taken enough losses to make it hard to thunk clearly. This is nothing but a semitic Hatfield and McCoy.

However, in this latest crisis, I am being reluctantly forced to fall on the side of Israel. Obviously bombing bridges and knocking out infrastructure is not an ideal solution, but there [b]IS NO[b/] ideal solution. can anyone here who is criticising Israel come up with a better and more viable action they should have taken?

Israel withdrew unilaterally from South lebanon, stating openly that if this part of the nation was used to lauch terrorist attacks against them, they would retaliate with dealy force. So what were they supposed to do now? Negotiate? Olmert has proposed so many withdrawals that he was in danger of being ejected from office, he is one of the most dovish leaders israel has had in years, and the result of his actions are more attacks on Israel.

Hamas, the government of palestine, and Hezbollah, the shadow government of lebanon, have as their diplomatic starting points the extermination of Israel. How does one 'negotiate' with that? Yes, there is a democratic government in lebanon which is not Hezbollah, but they are either unwilling or unable (or both) to do anything about these attacks. So what exactly should Israel do?

I am happy to admit their strikes and military escalation are a bad solution that will probably solve nothing in the end. Now all we need is someone to propose a better solution with more chance of success.

Anyone?

Okay, you claim that killing the soldiers and kidnapping two of them were terrorist acts? I would not think so. And even if Israel pulled out of Lebanon (why unilaterally? who else was to pull out?), they left Lebanon alone with the problem of Hezbollah, which was heavily funded by Syria (which withdrew from Lebanon last year), so when exactely was Lebanon supposed to do that? Israel stayed there for 15 years, the Hezbollah was created because of that occupation, and the Lebanese government is now responsible for the mess that was left behind.
I hate this who did what, especially in the Middle East, it leads nowhere. But right now, in my opinion, Israel is extremely overreacting. Maybe flying attacks against Southern Lebanon, that would be understandable.
What I do not understand is why Israel is bombing targets in Beirut and the middle and north of Lebanon, way outside of the Hezbollah controlled region. Israel should have given the Lebanese government an ultimatum (wasn't that in Afghanistan the case) to persuade Hezbollah to return the soldiers. But Israel is attacking infrastructure, and heavy residential housing areas, I have heard 125 people were killed so far, including 8 Canadians. Israel must stop short of bombing targets which are likely to cause significant human losses. The Lebanese people do not endorse the Hezbollah, but Israel is doing everything that the population sides with them. It is understandable that Israel wants to show strength, but this is escalating too rapidly over a rather small issue. At least the population needs to get out of the southern part of Lebanon before Israel start a major ground offensive.
When Israel is starting its ground offensive, this is going to get very ugly very fast. I heard Solana and an envoy of Annan are in Beirut to discuss negottiation possibilities, let's hope they get out in one piece.

Hezbollah is not a state. It has no right to wage war, thus any military action it undertakes against any nation, for what ever reasons or justifications it may have, regardless of the consequences, is terrorism.


Hezbollah of course. The deal was they would be withdrawn from the area to safe guard Israel's security.


You 'talk' as if Hezbollah was some exterior force that had nothing what so ever to do with Lebanon. As if it were an alien group which had imposed itself upon the Lebanese people.

The truth is, Hezbollah is a Lebanese faction. It is a partner in government, tolerated, supported, appeased and encouraged by Lebanon. It matters not one jot what the Lebanese say about Hezbollah, the truth is they have nurtured 'the Party of Allah' willingly for the last six years and done nothing what so ever to deal with them.

This argument that Lebanon has no sway or power over Hezbollah is a fiction, proven by the Lebanese Prime Ministers recent proposal for the Lebanese army to intervene against Hezbollah if only the UN would grant him a cease fire. Lebanon shold have dealt with Hezbollah years ago but they didn't because why?
Because Hezbollah, a terrorist organisation formed with the sole purpose of destroying Israel, is a Lebanese group.


...its been 'ugly' for decades.

This is what happens when you deal with Islamic terrorism. You can grant them peace, give them democracy, money, respect and everything they need to create a viable peace and in return you get nothing.


Why? Solana is a traitor. Along with the rest of the 'EU elite', they've been selling Europe out to Muslim tyranny for decades.

I only wish to address a point moif keeps making....

You 'talk' as if Hezbollah was some exterior force that had nothing what so ever to do with Lebanon. As if it were an alien group which had imposed itself upon the Lebanese people.

The truth is, Hezbollah is a Lebanese faction. It is a partner in government, tolerated, supported, appeased and encouraged by Lebanon. It matters not one jot what the Lebanese say about Hezbollah, the truth is they have nurtured 'the Party of Allah' willingly for the last six years and done nothing what so ever to deal with them.

This argument that Lebanon has no sway or power over Hezbollah is a fiction, proven by the Lebanese Prime Ministers recent proposal for the Lebanese army to intervene against Hezbollah if only the UN would grant him a cease fire. Lebanon shold have dealt with Hezbollah years ago but they didn't because why?
Because Hezbollah, a terrorist organisation formed with the sole purpose of destroying Israel, is a Lebanese group.


This is true to an extent, but you must remember the last time Hezbollah started such trouble for Lebanon a civil war erupted. Yes Hezbollah is supported within Lebanon itself, but not entirely throughout the state. There are many who oppose it and it's supporters, and look where it usually gets them, remember Hariri?
Lebanon has been occupied for years, the UN recognizes this but it is also a domestic threat, you can not forget that.

I just feel like you somehow excuse the crimes Syria and Iran has wrought upon the nation of Lebanon when you discredit the importance of their role in this monstrous creation they call Hezbollah.

Responsibility starts at home. Yes Iran and Syria are deeply involved. I have no doubt about that, but the responsibility for Lebanon rests with Lebanon and her people and thebottom line is, if Lebanon really wanted to, they could easily get help to rid themselves of Hezbollah.

Their pro