Following Condoleeza Rice's comments yesterday that the US will only get involved when the time is right, which many in media have taken to mean when Israel have had a chance to destroy Hezbollah:

Should there be immediate intervention to prevent / minimise the civilian casualties on both sides?

Should Bush be taking the shelling by and of Israel more seriously, and acting with more speed and intent?

Are Israel right to pursue Hezbollah and Hamas without regard for civilian casualties?

Is Bush right to support Israel's approach in this without any chastisement?

Is the best solution to this diplomacy or war?

1. It's too late for that. The Palestinians sealed their fate when they elected a terrorist organization to "govern" them. And, the Lebanon government looked the other way too long with respect to Hezbollah in spite of international sanctions against that terrorist group.

2. No. He should do what he's doing and let Israel finish the job first. There won't be peace in that region until one side wins. Stalemate just means more tit for tat violence. Israel has to smash the terrorists once and for all.

3. Yes.

4. Yes. Israel was attacked (yet again). A non response would not be the right thing to do.

Should there be immediate intervention to prevent / minimise the civilian casualties on both sides?

The UN peacekeeping forces are already there....what have they done? And frankly, I think their reputation has been irreparably damaged after October 2000. Per US forces....not only no, but hell no. We've seen this before, in the 1980s. US troops went in with the multinational peacekeeping forces in an effort to act as a neutral third party and mediator. The logic being that no one would shoot at the impartial mediator. It can't happen under these conditions. Those forces (mostly comprised of the US and France, Italians and later British) became everyone's target, as they were sucked in to taking sides (same thing happened in Somalia), and via the law of unintended consequences led to a withdrawl of multinational forces not long after the worst Hezbollah attack. This needs to play itself out without outside military intervention.

Should Bush be taking the shelling by and of Israel more seriously, and acting with more speed and intent?
I wish what came out of his mouth matched the expression on his face. He sort of smiles when he talks about these things, which is a bit disconcerting. I'd prefer some appropriate austerity, but otherwise, I don't have much of a problem with what he is saying at the moment, regarding this situation.

Are Israel right to pursue Hezbollah and Hamas without regard for civilian casualties?

The (all things considered) very very low death toll would indicate that they do have regard for civilian casualties. I must be missing the fire-bombing raids?

Is the best solution to this diplomacy or war?

I'd certainly prefer diplomacy. I'd also prefer that Israel treat southern Lebanon as Hezbollah-land rather than all of Lebanon, but I understand why they don't with its growing political influence throughout Lebanon.

Should there be immediate intervention to prevent / minimise the civilian casualties on both sides?
UN forces are often so marginalized as to be ineffective when actually deployed. I would see this routine as a failure to any mission taken on by the international community if such were to be business as usual.

Should Bush be taking the shelling by and of Israel more seriously, and acting with more speed and intent?
I simply just think he is in over his head, thus the behavior and saying things like Syria can make it all better.

Are Israel right to pursue Hezbollah and Hamas without regard for civilian casualties?
No, it will not aid them in peace.

Is Bush right to support Israel's approach in this without any chastisement?
He has not simply said that Israel is right to whatever it wants, but on that same note he really has not hammered Israel for what I see as just the beginning of something much larger.

Is the best solution to this diplomacy or war?
The best solution does not exist, and the current one is a failure.

I personally believe that peace in that region is inevitably never going to happen in the sense that we'd like it to. Jews living on the back door of Militant Muslims is a recipe for disaster.

However, you have to understand that in order for Israel to survive, they must use retaliatory efforts as a deterrent to future attacks, either via crushing capability or will. If they have no weapons, funding, or man-power to attack Israel... the safer the Israelis are.

Terrorists typically have nothing to lose. I equate it to a homeless man stealing lunch from a grocery store. If he goes to jail, he gets 3 squares and a shower. Muslim terrorists believe they're fighting the ultimate battle, are often young without extensive familial responsibilities, and would like nothing more than to extend the prowess of their family and religion.

The US doesn't need to get involved unless Israel need us to. They're out ally in that region, and frankly I believe they can handle it themselves... look what they did to Egypt. Let's watch it on CNN, maybe send in a few Special Forces/Spec Ops (Seals, etc) units to advise at the most.

The general opinion, then, is that the loss of civilian life is a necessary payment? I could agree, if it looked like it had an end.

The problem is that Israel and Hezbollah are both happy to smash into civilian targets as though the other party gives a damn. I agree that the UN (only toothless because nations don't agree to yield to the majority vote and so fail to pull in the same direction) cannot be asked to intervene between the two military groups, but surely they could create a safehaven area further north in Lebanon, and south in Israel (if it wanted it) which would be guarded by the international community.

I can't accept that the loss of innocent life is an acceptable consequence, or that its ok for the mighty powers of the world to sit by and allow it. If either party was a Christian country, I feel sure there would be more of a reaction.

And if they think Syria are culpable, why is it taking so long to get around the table with them?

Should there be immediate intervention to prevent / minimise the civilian casualties on both sides?

What kind of intervention? Peacekeeping forces?

Well, there are already UN peacekeeping forces in Lebanon. Luckily, they're safe and sound and hunkered down waiting out the fighting. Indian peacekeepers in Lebanon safe

Maybe if these fools were doing their job, the current tensions would be lessened. UNIFIL


Should Bush be taking the shelling by and of Israel more seriously, and acting with more speed and intent?

Hezbollah needs to be disarmed. Since the Lebanese won't (or can't) do it, someone else must. It certainly won't be the UN or the US. Don't we want to follow UN Resolutions?

Are Israel right to pursue Hezbollah and Hamas without regard for civilian casualties?

No. Civilian casualties must be minimized. Of course, these cowards hide among the civilians (a war crime) inviting the collateral damage. The onus is on the one using human shields, not the party who is legitimately trying to end a menace to their security.

Is Bush right to support Israel's approach in this without any chastisement?

Bush has called for restraint but back Israel's right to defend itself. It seems to be the right position. Right now, Bush is giving the IDF an opportunity to disarm Hezbollah before insisting on a ceasefire. Again, this seems to be the right decision.

Is the best solution to this diplomacy or war?

The best solution is the disarmament of unaccountable militias--i.e. Hezbollah. If the Lebanese cannot rein them in, someone must do it. Israel has endured these thugs for too long after unilaterally retreating from South Lebanon six years ago. The withdrawal in 2000 just gave Hezbollah a launching pad to attack Israeli cities. This nonsense must end.

So the solution is the disarmament of Hezbollah (in accordance with UN Resolutions) and then a ceasefire. Without the first, the second cannot occur.

Should there be immediate intervention to prevent / minimise the civilian casualties on both sides?

No, the outside world needs to stay out of this. This constant "ceasefire" fetish on the part of the UN and likeminded people does nothing but prolong conflicts and prevent decisive resolutions. For once we need to allow a conflict to come to its appropriate conclusion: utter defeat for one side, particularly, the side that's actually at fault for starting it. Hezbollah would love nothing more right now than for the UN to arrange a ceasefire so that they could repair and rearm. Israel should not be giving them a moment's rest.

There is no such thing as a terrorist lordhelmet. Time and again we have seen the powerful oppress the powerless and when the powerless respond, they are labeled terrorists. The Lebanese Ambassador was quoted on CNN the other day, saying that Israel has crossed the border countless times and taken Lebanese civilians and imprisoned them. Whenever there is a response, the Israelis respond with disproportionate violence. 2 Israeli soldiers, 240 Lebanese civilians. I know you are content with that 120 to 1 Civilian to Soldier death ratio, because you do not value human life. You value power.

There will never be a "Smashing" of Hezbollah. Hezbollah was organized in response to the Israeli invasion in the 80s. Israel created Hezbollah. Think of yourself as an American and how would you respond to a foreign entity invading your homeland. Assuming that foreign power was more advanced militarily and overall a stronger power than yours, would you just submit and give up? "Well, their stronger. I guess they can just have my land." You would never consider such an option, nor will the Lebanese.

The death of all Lebanese, Syrians, Iranians, Iraqis, Arabs, Persians, and Muslims would bring peace to the Middle East. Unfortunately, embracing this outcome would separate you from humanity and plunge you into barbarism.

You have a simple concept of this conflict. You think of action without regard for reaction. You believe that crushing Hezbollah with numerous civilian casualties will not elicit anger in the Lebanese. They'll become passive and accepting of Israel's strength and power; accept a subservient role and delegate all remaining power to Israel. Well that didn't happen in the 80s and it will not happen today.

To solve this regional conflict the Israeli's must be reduced militarily to have equal strength as their surrounding neighbors. Right now, they have superior power and a smaller population. The standard operating procedure for a Western created society. We have seen this scenario time and again in South Africa, Nigeria, the Middle East, 1930 India, and anywhere a European country colonized. If the Israeli's have the same strength militarily as their neighbors, they will have a mutual respect for life that they lack right now.

The people of the Middle East have been clamoring for a solution to this problem for years. Stop supporting Israel. Just because the Israelis won't be able to destroy their neighbors in a military campaign does not mean that Hezbollah will invade and destroy Israel. The problem is Israel's aggression and disproportionate use of power against their neighbors.

Consider that Israel has been crushing their neighbors since the Six Day War. Yet, we still have conflict. It is time to consider an alternative.

Like what? A UN peacekeeping force? Such a force is already present and demonstrates clearly the futility of the UN peacekeeping notion in an ongoing war zone.

Bosnia is a prime example of the futility of sending UN troops into a war zone. There a Danish tank unit, sent to protect the Muslims of Tuzla, came under fire from the Serbs and was later reprimanded for defending itself!

Link.
I have no time for the UN and have come to the conclusion that it is a joke to think that nations like Syria, Cuba and China will allow democracy to prevail. In another example from the Balkans my own brother, stationed in Kroatia as a UN peacekeeper was prevented from firing back when his unit came under fire from Serb artillery.

I have no notion of putting our mens lives in danger, or our women lives either, in order to protect the reputation of the UN. As we saw in the Balkans where we eventually had to replace the UN with NATO, the UN is useless at this sort of thing. It should stick to humanitarian taks and leave war to those who are prepared to fight when needs must.


Nope.


I think Israel is motivated by a very strong sense of responsibility towards their civilian casualties which is why they are acting the way they are.

Israel however is not responsible for the civilians of Lebanon. Those people are the responsibility of the Lebanese military and government upon whom rests any and all blame for the 250 dead in Lebanon.


Of course. What is to chastise? Self defence


Both.

Well, this has certainly cleared any remaining misconceptions that I retained about the pro-Israel voice on this board. Israel can do no wrong. Even when it acts illegally and kills innocents. No regret, nor sorrow. More of a 'they deserved it' attitude.

The responsibility for the death of the civilians lies with those that kill them. If you run behind an old woman and I shoot the old woman to get to you, it's my fault. You can't use the 'he won't stand still and let me shoot him' argument. Many posters have made it clear they don't respect the UN or what it has said, so i'm afraid you can't use its ruling about this as a defence either - can't have it both ways.

That said, it wasn't meant to give carte blanche to just go about murdering hundreds of civilians either. If you see your target go into a building, it doesn't give you moral freedom to kill everyone in the building. The destruction heaped on south Lebanon has not majorly harmed Hezbollah, nor would you expect it to. The quality of the intelligence supposely used to guide these attacks has been weak at best, and negligent at worst.

Had to pull this quote:
Much as it is a joke to think that the US or Israel will allow democracy to prevail.

When you take a vote, you can only vote for those options available, and within those, on how you think they can achieve what you want. If the best option is the politial side of a terrorist/resistence group, or a member of a corrupt oil-tycoon family, then so be it. Who has the right to tell another how to vote? It defeats the object of democracy and freedom. You don't have to support it, or even like it, but it doesn't give you the right to try and eject it by force.

And moif, since you pointedly want to miss the point, what is to chastise is the unabaited attacking and killing of the civilian population of Lebanon. It is fair enough to attack Hezbollah, but not fair enough to attack the Lebonese people to get to them.

So, are you saying in such a situation you'd just stand there like a fool and let the guy cowing behind the old woman shoot you?



Sure, the UN has its roles to play and can play them well, but intervening in ongoing warfare is not one of them. The UN requires both parties accept a peace deal. In the current situation a deal was reached and implemented by Israel some six years ago. UN soldiers have remained in place ever since. Unfortunately Hezbollah did not honour its commitments. It continued to carry out attacks against Israel, and during these the UN soldiers did nothing since they are not allowed to intervene, as I pointed out earlier. UN troops who fire back are usually reprimanded.


I don't understand what you mean. The USA and her allies are currently fostering two new democracies in the world even as we speak.

Which democracies have not been allowed to prevail by the USA or Israel? Hamas? Hezbollah? Sure these are allowed to exist. It is their actions subsequent to their elections which has brought about action against them. WOuld Hamas be facing Israeli action had it not allowed its terrorism to carry on?

I don't understand why so many people harp on this point. Hamas has made no bones about its cause. Has not renounced its terrorist goals, far from it, and yet it is repeatedly referred to as the legitimate government of the Palestinian people. Well and good, but as the legitimate government, it is fully responsible for any and all military operations carried out under its authority... just as is the case with Lebanon and Hezbollah.


Any one who votes for the lesser of two evils has only themselves to blame when that evil engulfs them.

There were at least four non terrorist factions in the Palestin elections and together they received about 10% of the total vote. It was clear to any one but the biased that the people of Palestine voted for terrorism in that they voted terrorists, unashamed terrorists, into power.


How many civilians, as opposed to terrorist have died? Do you know?

How do you identify a terrorist any way? They don't wear uniforms, they don't stand up and shoot at you, they don't identify themselves in any way at all. They resemble civilians until they pick up a weapon, and they only do that when your back is turned.

There is no way to fight terrorists like Hezbollah without causing damage to the civilians around them. If you know any way at all to fight Hezbollah without causing civilian casualties then please, feel free to share this wisdom with the world.

This is wrong, wrong, wrong.

In a military conflict, you cannot use human shields to defend your "assets". You cannot fire rockets from population centers and yell "Neener neener neener!!" because you expect these human shields to protect you.

THAT is the breach of the laws of war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield



Hezbollah and other terrorist groups are committing war crimes by hiding amongst the population and firing from population centers. It is that clear and dry. The fact that only 300 have died in Lebanon is a testament to the restraint being utilized.

I am not here to defend the IDF simply because they are Israeli. I defend the actions of the IDF because Hezbollah launched attacks from Lebanese territory and the Lebanese government did nothing. The Lebanese obviously need help if they cannot rid themselves of these thugs despite UN Resolutions, UN "peacekeeping" forces, and the fact that they have an army.

Hezbollah hides among the civilians: a war crime. Hezbollah targets population centers indiscriminately: a war crime. Hezbollah hides its munitions among civilians: a war crime.

Do you really expect the IDF to say that some targets are off limits under any circumstances? (Obviously they have made such decisions. I haven't seen Beirut carpet bombed yet.) Do you think that Nasrallah's house should be off limits? What about his bunker in southern Beirut?

Israel dropped leaflets in Beirut warning people to keep away from Hezbollah offices and strongholds. Does that sound like they want to indiscriminantly kill civilians? No, but it did allow Hezbollah to have a warning that attacks were coming and allow their leaders to escape.

Restraint? Please. Of course, Israel could do more damage, but maybe you've not seen the pictures of the destruction of civilian buildings?

There is no argument as to whether Hezbollah has committed these warcrimes. Guilty as charged. Alas, as the Human Rights representatives of the UN have made clear, Israel is ALSO committing war crimes, and its attacks on civilian centres are illegal.

That Rice and Bush support an illegal approach is no surprise, bearing in mind their own brazen illegal behaviour, including Guantanamo. It is a disgusting show of immorality to not see anything wrong with the loss of innocent life, including many children. Mind you, they didn't exactly care too much about your own either in New Orleans.

And Moif, no you don't let the person shoot at you from behind the old lady. What you do is shoot them back. After all, in this circumstance, Israel is the elite military machine using expensive US funded/supplied tools - lazer guided bombs etc. You take out the enemy. Killing innocents is still illegal, whatever way you want to look at it.

This was a golden opportunity to right many perceived wrongs, and for both Israel and the US to be seen to work for peace. They both shunned it contemptuously. You cannot blame the work of terrorist groups on the entire population of a country, or that of an ethnic group. And yet they both do exactly that. The biggest problem this has highlighted again is the weakness of the UN - unless it suits the US to do something, nothing gets done.

Maybe we should all be allowed to vote in US elections, since we are all effected, often more than those inside the US, by the actions (or non-actions) of the US presidency on the world stage.

Give me a break GB. Do you have any idea how naive you sound when you make such blue eyed comparisons? The IDF is not some sort of super force with infallible leadership and kryptonite type weaponry supplied by the black ops factories of the US military industrial complex.

It is well armed and prepared, yes, but so to is Hezbollah, and Hezbollah has all the advantages of fighting from a prepared position, and thanks in no small measure to the United Nations 'peace keeping force' UNIFIL, its a position they've had six years to prepare.

Do you have any idea how strong you can make a position when you have years to prepare it? Try reading about the Allied landing on D day to get an idea for the sort of murderous territory the IDF must now pacify, then replace the German soldiers with religious fanatical Hezbollah fighters who by all accounts are not afraid of martyrdom and who will not surrender.
If you can't be bothered reading about it, try watching 'Saving Private Ryan's' opening scene and then imagine such a slaughter dragged out for hours and days and weeks and all the time with the western media and its European disaproval breathing down the back of your neck.

With '24 hour NEWS coverage' showing pictures of dead children, and every IDF casualty trumpetted as though a great victory for your enemy, with western journalists falling over themselves to make it clear to the meanest understanding that you are to blame for your own demise. That the religious fanatics who have attacked you, again and again and again bear no shame or responsibility, no blame for what is taking place. That they are in fact innocent civilians and you are an unwitting cog in a vast and faceless US led military machine that grinds across the planet, chewing up poor brown skinned people and drinking their wells dry.

No.

Reality is much more grey and far more dangerous.

Link.

The Israeli's are fighting for their very existance, but, given your antagonism towards it, I don't suppose the prospect of Israel's demise bothers you very much.


Yes, actually, you can blame the work of terrorist groups on the entire population of a country, or that of an ethnic group, when these vote to put the terrorists into power and these terrorists use their mandate to continue their armed struggle.

As for shunning the peace process... what peace process? Israel honoured the peace process and PULLED OUT of the contested area's. The UN ALREADY has a peace keeping force in the region.

It was the 'peace process' that directly led to the conflict we see today. It was the 'ethnic group' now engaged in conflict which allowed it to happen.


Its always the same. All the troubles and woes of the world rest on American's shoulders and we don't have to take any responsibility for our selves what so ever...

As if!

Your own nations election results are the root cause of your troubles. The USA has no authority over other countries beyond the authority other countries grant it.

If you so lament the political power the USA has over you, then I suggest you get more actively involved in your own democratic political process.

You ought to be more generous in your opinions of the USA. Thousands of Americans died fighting for your right to express your condemnation and you show no gratitude, either towards the sacrifices those men (and women) made nor those that are still makin such sacrifices. Perhaps the prosepct of living in a totalitarian state doesn't register in your mind? Maybe you think that the UK is already such a state? If so, then I may be apt to agree with you for if not quite there yet, we're certainly well on the way...

Link.

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


In other news, Denmarks premier news media source describes how a Danish UN observer, already stationed in South Lebanon, saved the life of a colleague who had been hit by incoming fire. Apparently Denmark has two men stationed with UNIFIL as 'unarmed observers'.

Whats odd about this story is its the first I've heard of the UN coming under fire in the region. The article does not say who fired at the UN, but does say that the UN outpost involved in the incident was in a region previously hit by 'Israeli rocket fire'.


edited to clarify a point and to add a link.

What is still so incredible is that you think its perfectly ok to shoot the old lady. You just don't seem to see what is so wrong with that. It seems pointless to debate it anymore. And yes, i have seen the video footage of laser guided bombs from Israeli planes. Is laser-guiding not accurate enough for you to miss large civilian area?

Our education system thankfully does not yet rely on average hollywood films to make for its weaknesses... and yet the slaughter you allude to is infact of the Lebanese civilians, not the IDF soldiers bravely hacking their way onto dangerous beaches to rescue a country and a continent.

Certainly our media in the UK has not made Hezbollah out to be innocent victims. Probably, by giving time to the Lebanese perspective, you feel they are but that is categorically not the case, and yet it keeps being touted around. At worst that belies a persecution complex. Yet, most of those being killed ARE innocent victims. They're not found with guns, or next to rocket launchers. When the people are identified as Hezbollah it is said. Just as it is said when the victims are UN representatives targetted deliberately if mistakenly by Israel tanks. And so we come round again to the failing or non-use of intelligence reports to ensure that civilians aren't targetted. I thought you've been claiming that Israel has been choosing its targets well? Israel hits a UN observation post .


I don't wish to see Israel destroyed. How many times do I say that an innocent death on either side is to be mourned? I wish I could say that you didn't want to see the Palestinians or Lebanese wiped out, but you clearly don't give a damn about them.

and you call me naive! When the US creates hostility around the world towards any embodiment of 'the west' through its foreign policy we all suffer. We will all suffer if said foreign policy results in nuclear war. We all suffer in the illegal war against Iraq. But apparently, you don't think that such things affect us. Is there room in your bubble for one more?

oh, lets not go down this one... forgetting about the facts of how long ago it was, and all who were involved, or the time it took for them to get involved... we are talking about the here and now. If someone helps you at one time, it doesn't mean you should forgive them for causing your death now. In truth, you're more than generous enough for both of us. Maybe they should be grateful for the part we played in keeping the Nazi's from invading them, or for backing them in the invasion of Iraq.

It's very easy to take the high road when it's not you who fights for survival. I bet your grandparents did not shed many tears when German towns were bombed by RAF during WWII. I really don't see what other alternatives Israel has other than taking the fight outside of its borders. The danger for Israel here is present and clear, and they were attacked first.

Israel is absolutely right to pursue Hezbollah, and I believe that there's a significant regard for civilian casualties. Despite what you might think, the Israeli society is not much different from society in any other Western nation, and images of a crying child who lost his parents in an airstrike cause as much anguish in Tel Aviv as they do in London or Paris. It's highly unfortunate that Lebanese civilians have to go through this, but Israeli government has a choice: it's either our civilians, or theirs. It's a responsibility of the government to protect their own civilians first and foremost.

Bush is taking the proper course of action in this one, which is let Israel deal with it. There are no good solutions. At least, by creating a buffer zone, Israelis may buy themselves a temporary reprieve.

Should there be immediate intervention to prevent / minimise the civilian casualties on both sides?

No, I don’t think intervention is the solution... the problem of civilians being harmed is totally on the backs of the aggressors... Israel has clearly stated how hostilities could end and again the problem reverts back to the terrorist that started the problem...

The protection of citizens of Israel is in the hands of Israel as it should be... the same if the situation was America being the victim of an aggressor terrorist activity... being nice to terrorist seems to encourage them to be emboldened to take bolder actions when not answered directly...

Should Bush be taking the shelling by and of Israel more seriously, and acting with more speed and intent?

I think he has considered the situation clearly as stated above and acknowledged the correct action is being taken.

Are Israel right to pursue Hezbollah and Hamas without regard for civilian casualties?

Yes, of course... you are either the solution or part of the problem... If Lebanon or Palestine citizens choose to elect terrorist into their government and tolerate their illegal activities within their borders and accept them as neighbors they are part of the problem... the people are the common enemy equally as the enemy that shares the distinction of not wearing a uniform.

Is Bush right to support Israel's approach in this without any chastisement?

Why should any nation of law desire to chastise president Bush since he only acknowledges a nations right to defend its citizens?

Is the best solution to this diplomacy or war?

The destruction of the terrorist is the solution... no terrorist then Israel lives in peace... appeasement of terror tactics results in empowerment for more terror... Kill them all and make the lives of all that made their attacks possible impossible ... You may say that only breeds more terrorist and I say the fourteen cities fire bombed in Japan prior to the dropping of the nuclear bombs didn’t create ONE terrorist! Likewise, in Germany the incineration of German cities by Britain at the end of WWII didn’t create ONE terrorist... the actions made clear that overwhelming harm will fall on you if you wrongfully harm our nation(s).

Edited to add: It seems to me the international press has created the idea that it is logical that if an idiot pokes a hornets nest with a stick and gets stung then the logical response is for all of his family to go out and get sticks to bother the hornets. The Iranian hostage crisis was a situtation where this seemed to work... the bombing of the US Marines in Lebonon also saddly... but 9-11 should have woken all to the reality that one cannot destroy all the hornets with sticks nor should one bother hornets unless first provoked.

Since one of the crucial aspects of this question is the means that Israel have gone about targetting Hezbollah, as indeed they have every right to do, maybe someone can explain to me the situation with the attack on the UN watch station.

The watch station is painted white, with UN written large and clear on the side. There were three shells which landed nearby and over the course of the subsequent events 10 phone calls were made to the Israeli army by the UN to let them know that they were shelling close to the UN watch station. During which the Israeli army responded with another three shells which landed nearby. Then a laser guided bomb smashed into the building killing the four UN occupants. Laser guided bombs are directed all the way to the ground. They don't tend to hit targets by accident. And let me remind you, the walls of this target were painted white with UN written clearly on them.

Now, please explain how Israel can be excused for this, and how claims that they are only targetting Hezbollah terrorists, not innocents, can be believed at all? It is an accident if you do it once, not 7 times.

Further note. After the bomb had killed the four UN occupants, more UN people approached quickly to try and rescue them if they were alive. The Israeli army responded by shelling the area again, injuring further UN rescuers.

And you call Israel the innocent party.

The issue isn't about being nice to the terrorist, it is about not killing innocent civilians with complete disregard for any life that isn't Jewish.

You will find some folks doing so over here. If your weekend is slow and you'd like to talk "right of return," we still havethat thread going too...


...and a Hezbollah flag flying on it...

Any source for this? Dispassionate neutral Hizbollah observers maybe? George Galloway? Robert Fisk?

Which is more despicable - hiding behind women and children in residential areas, hiding behind a UN outpost, or riding around in civilian ambulances?

Allow me to pose this question... what was the mission of the UN force that was killed? These folks have been there for a long time at great expense to the member nations and what reports or actions did they take that aided the conflict or attempted to avoid it? The UN seems to be usless outside of humanitarian aid distribution ... should not have the UN force warned the UN that the terrorist were continually violating the UN will to not have an armed force in southern Lebanon? What did they report... what did they know and how can one not label them an asset to the terrorist since the UN is not rushing forward acknowledging the contributions of the UN force preceeding the conflict... The UN force outwardly appears to be apathetic towards peace and only concerned for a timly deposit of a paycheck for the duty they didn't perform... If the terrorist used them as shields then they deserve neither paycheck or concern since they are like teats on a boarhog... worthless... If they had a mandate did they accomplish it? If not what action of oversight did the UN employ to appraise their value for continuing to get paychecks? Seems they were willing supporters of the terror elements or otherwise would have been making noise about the upcoming threat of terrorist building bunkers among civilians and hoarding illegal weapontry... or not?

Again, the civilians aren't innocent... well maybe the children but any adult be they UN peacekeepers... goat farmers or shop owner that allows a terrorist to place bunkers and rockets in the neighborhood are CONDONING the terrorist actions and deserve death equal to those who fire the rockets. I have no pitty for those who would support terror tactics... the terror troops are clearly Iran and Syria backed in a nation other than Iran or Syria and allowed there by locals only because they share the hate projected by the terrorist... The people have a choice in Lebanon to get mad and join in with a stick to poke the hornets nest or be responsible citizens and demand they leave they country with their weapons because it's not a nice place to raise a family in an area where people are using sticks to knock down hornet nests and logic would demand only exceptionally low mental persons would place their families in such an environment... those deserving to die with the terrorist without pitty from the civilized world!

Should there be immediate intervention to prevent / minimise the civilian casualties on both sides?

I believe Israel has already demonstrated their desire to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. They dropped pamphlets warning the Lebanese of their intent. It is unfortunate, no, it is tragic that Hezbollah uses civilians and UN peacekeepers as shields, however, Israel can’t stop defending itself just because civilians will die. This is war; civilian deaths are inevitable.

Interestingly enough, the LA Times released an Op-Ed piece today titled, "Civilian Casualty? It Depends" by Alan Dershowitz. He writes:



He goes on to write:



Should Bush be taking the shelling by and of Israel more seriously, and acting with more speed and intent?

To do what? Are we to send troops in too? Bush shouldn’t do anything at this point but continue to stay on message. It is Lebanon that should be doing something like using their army to take out Hezbollah from the north.

Are Israel right to pursue Hezbollah and Hamas without regard for civilian casualties?

This question seems to imply that Israel is doing just that - pursuing terrorist without regard for civilian casualties. Maybe I am just reading too much into it. Israel is not pursuing terrorist without regard for civilians.

Is Bush right to support Israel's approach in this without any chastisement?

Chastise for what? Why would Bush chastise Israel? Oh wait, I know something he can chastise them for; not sending in more ground troops and wiping out those terrorists in a more timely fashion.

Is the best solution to this diplomacy or war?

Both parties have to want peace. Hezbollah and Hamas are committed to destroying Israel. Their children are taught as babies that Israel is a monster, that Jews will eat them. They are taught from babies to hate and to kill the Jews. Those Arab and Persian countries that teach these lessons to their children are part of the root cause for the turmoil in the ME. Unemployment, lack of human rights, etc., are also root causes for the turmoil. Neither war nor diplomacy will change any of this. There has to be a mind shift, a culture change. I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime.

Something I know about myself is I don't know enough about the Middle East to offer an informed comment about it. The issues and history at play here are far too complicated to fit into simple categories of "good versus evil" or "liberal versus conservative" or even "Palestinian versus Israeli."

But there is something I do know.

I know that a "civilized world" doesn't stand on the sidelines while innocent people are killed. Whether it's in Lebanon, Tel Aviv, Darfur or downtown Detroit, murder is still murder and wrapping it up in the fabric of a flag doesn't make it any better.

QANA, Lebanon - An Israeli airstrike killed at least 50 people — more than half children — in a southern Lebanese village Sunday, the deadliest attack in 19 days of fighting. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice postponed a visit to Lebanon in a setback for diplomatic efforts to end hostilities.

The missiles destroyed several homes in the village of Qana as people were sleeping. Rescue officials said at least 50 people were killed, and the bodies of 27 children were found in the rubble.

Lebanese civilians have suffered the most from the fighting. Before Sunday’s attack, Lebanese officials said 458 Lebanese had been killed, most of them civilians. Thirty-three Israeli soldiers have died, and Hezbollah rocket attacks on northern Israel have killed 19 civilians.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14100258/

A "civilized world" does not approve of children being killed in their beds as death rains down from above. It takes "blaming the victim" to an absurd new low to say, ... goat farmers or shop owner that allows a terrorist to place bunkers and rockets in the neighborhood are CONDONING the terrorist actions and deserve death equal to those who fire the rockets.

By that measure of rationale if you live in a neighborhood where there are street gangs and drug pushers and YOU haven't chased them out if a SWAT team just happens by and gets into a firefight, God help you if you happen to catch a stray bullet, but it will be your own fault.

How exactly do goat farmers and shop owners persuade heavily-armed men to leave their neighborhoods? Use harsh language?

Maybe Israeli intelligence is so good and precise their bombs can find the one Hezbollah terrorist hiding under the bed of a sleeping child. Maybe---but I doubt it. There is nothing "proportionate" about slaughtering children. That's way over the line of what any nation can do in it's self-defense and still be considered justified.

The notion that America should merely hold Israel's coat while they pound Lebanon into bloody submission is a foolish notion. For every one terrorist that may be killed, many others are being inspired to take up arms against Israel and the U.S. After 9/11 the question was asked, "Why do they hate us?" The Bush Administration replied, "Because they hate our freedom." For those with no sense of history and whom appreciate simplistic answers to complicated questions, they shook their heads in the affirmative and said, "Yeah, that makes sense."

Somewhere in Lebanon a mother is crying and shrieking at the sky to a god that does not hear her anguished screams, while her husband rips his fingers into bloody shreds trying to lift smoking rubble off the crushed bodies of his chidden. Is the appropriate response to them a finger-wagging admonishment from America that they should have picked a better neighborhood?

It may be true that they hate us for our freedom. It may also be true that they hate us because we've made it clear that some lives don't matter as much as other lives. It just really sucks to be a child of Lebanon right now because whatever you get, Ol' Sarge seems to suggest you have it coming.

If this is civilized behavior, then let's drop the facade and go back to pure barbarism. At least there's no pretense of false sympathy involved and we won't be the moral hypocrites we are now.

Then I'll ask you the same question I've been asking of others without getting any answer so far: What should Israel be doing in response to Hezbollah's attacks? Your analogy to drug dealers doesn't work for two reasons:

1. Drug dealers typically don't launch rockets into other neighborhoods.

2. Hangout spots for drug dealers are usually within the political territory of the authorities trying to stop them, so those authorities will almost always have better control over the area than Israel does over southern Lebanon. Now that could change if Israel actually decides to annex southern Lebanon (something I think they have every right to do), but the "international community" would throw an absolute fit if Israel did that. As long as that remains the case, what are Israel's realistic options?

And in which golden era of civilization didn't this happen?


BY VOTING!

These 'innocent people' put Hezbollah in power, just as the Palestinians put Hamas in power. What did they expect was going to happen? That Israel was just going to evaporate in the face of their Islamic holiness? These people chose to support Islamic fundamentalism, they chose to live under its 'protection' and now, now they actually have to live with the consquences of their own decisions and actions, suddenly they become 'innocent victims'.

No one forced these people to wage a war upon Israel. They took it upon themselves. Do you walk up to a wasps nest and hit it with a stick, or do you leave the wasps well alone?

...Or maybe you'd just kill the wasps and have no more worries?

Parallels between Germany in Japan in the 1940's and Lebanon today, touch of a stretch. History is a great tool for looking at the present, but hey:

Here are --fifteen-- important distinctions between Germany and Japan and the current situation.

Nazi Germany carried a secular, western culture.
Nazi Germany was a nationalist movement, within a mostly homogenous state.
Nazi Germany was a nation.
Nazi Germany had a uniformed army, the basis of its attack.
The destruction of Nazi Germany did not inspire Anti-American movements from North Africa to Indonesia to flirt with the rhetoric of terrorism.
Nazi Germany's neighbors were not entirely sympathetic towards its destruction.
America had stronger allies in WWII, especially the Soviet Union.
America had a different internation reputation in WWII
Japan was an imperialist power, with a citizenship that was overwhelmingly invested in the war.
Japan, again, a homogenous nationalist culture.
Japan was reviled by its Asian neighbors, not revered as an ally.
The Japanese government had a clear role in the attack on pearl harbor.
The nuclear bomb was not dropped on Japan for the kidnapping of two soldiers.
Images of Hiroshima and Negasaki were not broadcasted in color TV across the world.
There were no religious fundamentalist movements involved in world war two.

I've never been to these two countries, but this strikes me as an unstomachable imposition of the strong against the weak. I agree with President Bush that an immediate cease fire would only have returned the situation to the status quo. But how will the aftermath of these attacks provide a better square one from which to build a permenant peace? The objective is to break your enemy's militaristic spirit not inflame it-- to create moderates, not vindicate the voices speaking over them. I can't say which is happening, but the images on the wire lead me to suspect the latter. If so, then if only for the sake of the people who will die for a lost objective, I think both of these nations, having learned something of a lesson, need moderators like Kofi Annon (Ghana's Finest!) to wind hostilities down towards a peace with partiality.

Its a war crime to kill non combatants, its also a war crime to use them in help your cause in the form of a shield.

Lets say this. The U.S decided that for national security it had to occupy Iraq because it was a bastion of terrorism and WMD creation for that purpose. This did not come to light, though it still could all these years later. Should the U.S then adopt they same policy being the insurgents or terrorists are basically weaved into the society there or the people, and that the people should be blamed and thus justifying the use of military force against them? Would that make the situation better if the U.S leveled building with civilians in it for the purpose of possibly destroying some amount of the insurgency there?

What the deal is the fact traditional military methods are severely handicapped to combat this gorilla style fighting. Israel I doubt really wants to send its ground forces into a protracted war the U.S currently is facing in say Iraq, so it decides I guess for the most part to "soften" it up via bombardment that is killing large amounts of civilians. Its methods leave nothing spared and basically collapsed the infrastructure in Lebanon. Israel talks of a corridor, but its policy is to not let up on Hezbollah, what is to stop Hezbollah from using that corridor in any form that Israel might perceive thus stopping it, and just like with the currently policy of imprisoning people possibly related to terror what is to stop Israel from taking such prisoners?

This is a mess, both in Iraq and now in Lebanon.

So on one side we see that Israel is just in a regard of defending itself, that alone does not justify the need to destroy civilian life in the scale and rate that is currently existing in Lebanon, to agree with such sets a standard that any nation then should be able to operate from in a legal standpoint when conducting war against such a foe, that its ok to blow up civilians. I mean after all its not like such a foe was labeled to be such a horrible evil entity because of such practice, but when we do it in fear it takes on a different tone? relative morality or a more acceptable term of situational ethics, you make the call.

So it should be made standard then, is it ok to kill civilians or not in order to achieve a military objective?

If not then something should be done internationally to broker peace, if not then I say just let them duke it out and we can count the bodies when the smoke clears and say wow the worlds now a better place without a doubt.

Now the PM of Lebanon is pulling away from peace talks and disgust of Israel’s actions are spreading around not only mideast but the world in large. Should nothing be done in the light a democratic nation is under siege and being destroyed? Should nothing be done to stop the turmoil this war is spreading around the world, will this action really bring Israel any peace?

Let me pose an analogy of the Hezbollah being equal to the KKK and Israel being equal to Afro-Americans in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s here in America... The difference being the group that held the majority of power... Is the analogy a poor one, each are hate groups that base their basis for hate on religion... Hezbollah and Hammas are equal to the KKK inasmuch they desire the elimination of a race of people based on their origin... In the case of black Americans the origin was Africa yet the origin of Jews is exactly where they are now?

I would think that you, being of a minority would be more sensitive to the plight of the Jews than a poor white man like myself... you and your race live a parallel struggle desiring to be equals and live in peace and raise your families... It is easy for a member of the majority to side with the KKK or like kind if only one member does wrong ... steals... rapes.... robs or lives from the majorities sweat in comfort... That doesn’t make the heard noble to condone wrong actions by militant groups, rather it makes them bigots or racists...

I think 83% of the Lebanese sided with the KKK after the bombing of the three story house containing women and children... in a like scenario if a black person raped a white woman in the late 1800’s one would expect 83% of the white folks to side with the KKK in the hanging... The Lebanon prime minister even joined in condoning the Negro killers today in pressure of popular support... you must recall that it was the KKK that first killed the Negroes and captured one to stir the minority into support of this conflict and you join with the KKK and I fail to understand?

There is a select group of Muslims that have perverted the teaching of Islam, like the KKK perverted Christianity... Likewise, the KKK would like the entire majority to expel all blacks based on perversion... In the Mid-East the KKK equal gains popularity daily because of perverted spin like you buy into... Kill all Americans and Jews and it is popular as the KKK at the turn of the century following the US civil war... In WWII the Ottoman Empire was broken apart and Hitler cut a deal with the Muslim KKK like thinkers and Rommel was supposed to kill all the Jews and Christians in Israel had he been successful in Northern Africa but the Arabs choose wrong sides in both World Wars and didn’t get their way so the KKK perversion of Islam now desires to return to 7th Century and to do so the Jews must die followed by the Americans and Western culture that has caused Muslim society other than the KKK sect to pervert from true Islam... Why do you choose to support the like kind of the KKK? The KKK had more class, as bad as they were and are than the pervert’s of Islam since they didn’t hid behind women and children as they served out their hatred.

Clearly, the perverted clerics in Iran and Syria, the KKK of Islam that state out loud they will kill all Jews and then destroy the west are in charge of these terror groups that hide behind of women and children... The Jews and western world better wise up and send a message to the masses of moderate Islam to not support these perverts or die with them! After this air strike ends all civilians in the south of Lebanon are KKK supporters and should be sent a message that should echo around the Muslim world.

Should there be immediate intervention to prevent / minimise the civilian casualties on both sides?

I wouldn't be against this, but what kind of intervention? Intevention at this point in time would be a clear Hezbollah victory. Is that what we want? Is it good for anyone? If Hezbollah gains more power in Lebanon, the could conceivably become the ruling party there. They desire to turn Lebanon into a militant Islamic state, and one which clearly would have any intention of cutting back on terroristic activities against Israel. Further, it would be a victory for Iran, further complicating that situation. I have difficulty seeing how any of this would further peace in the area. particularly in the long term. On the other hand, Israel has dug itself a hole which has many of the same ramifications, so not intervening might be worse than intervening. But, in order for intervention to work, I'd need to see how it would address the issue of Hezbollah gaining power in Lebanon...and so far, I haven't seen anything that even attempts to do so...indicating that any such plans aren't really attempting to do anything but address very short term concerns...likely therefore leading to more such events in the future, and on an even bigger scale. Consider that if Hezbollah gains power in Lebanon and continues to terrorize Israel, then Israel would likely eventually respond with full scale war, causing civilian casualties many, many times higher than what is occurring now.

Should Bush be taking the shelling by and of Israel more seriously, and acting with more speed and intent?

Acting with more speed and intent to do what, exactly? The Middle East is scarcely the place to practice do something even if its wrong diplomacy.

Are Israel right to pursue Hezbollah and Hamas without regard for civilian casualties?

I completely deny the premise of the question, that being that Israel IS persuing Hezbollah and Hamas without regard for civilian casualties. If such were the case, casualties would be many, many, many, many times greater than they currently are.

There is also a much more valid flip side to this question, that being 'Is Hezbollah right to purposely conduct activities from civilian areas, thereby not only inviting the ensuing casualties but also actively taking advantage of them (and perhaps even directly causing them?) for their own purposes?

Is Bush right to support Israel's approach in this without any chastisement? Again, what purpose would this serve? The last thing the US would want (although they may be stuck with it anyway) is a Hezbollah victory. Chastising Israel would only make that more likely.

Is the best solution to this diplomacy or war?

It seems very clear at this point that war is only making the problem worse. I personally, despite the above statements, don't see how more war is going to make it better. I can't see how Hezbollah can be eliminated while still maintaining the current Lebanese government. Therefore the only possible solutions would be diplomatic in nature. This was probably the case before Israel invaded, but is certainly the case now. However, exactly what that diplomatic solution is remains to be seen, and until a feasible solution is proposed, the current activities will continue.

The funny thing about democracy is it doesn't always deliver the results intended. If the Palestinians voted for Hamas instead of Fatah that is their decision and apparently they have decided to cast their lot with Hamas. What does that have to do with Hezbollah? Hezbollah is fronted by Syria and Iran. The Lebanese government is too weak to expel Hezbollah from their country and as Lebanon's second-biggest employer, they might not be willing to do so even if they were capable.

The citizens didn't suddenly become innocent victims, Moif. It's not their fault if their government is too impotent to throw the terrorists among them out. I fail to see how saturation bombing women and children is an effective means to rid Lebanon of Hezbollah. Sure seems like they're still shooting back at Israel.

You know something else? All this talk about wasps and cleaning out their nests obscures the fact that we're talking about REAL HUMAN BEINGS being killed as they sleep, not a bunch of annoying bugs. Israel does NOT possess missiles sophisticated enough to choose between a gun-toting terrorist and a toy-carrying child so stop trying to dehumanize the civilians caught in the middle of this madness by comparing them to insects!

It is appalling how people who profess to want peace advocating getting it by building it out of coffins.



Y'know, I followed the trail of your Hezbollah/Ku Klux Klan metaphor for a while, but at some point it wandered off into the ozone and lost me entirely.

Cleary, there are nations that support terrorism, the eradication of Israel and want to see Western society burning in flames or bending the knee to radical Islam. But I still believe they represent a loud, vocal and dangerous minority. Just as the KKK represented a minority and Hezbollah represents a minority.

But that's all I concede in this debate. I do not buy the infallibility of Israel in their pursuit of self-defense and I do not buy the assumption that the image of the United States benefits from the killing of civilians with weapons we provide to Israel.

You don't win over moderate Islam by turning a deaf ear and blind eye to the sight and sound of wounded, injured and dying women and children. All you do is discredit the moderates and push the fence-sitters into the open arms of the militant extremists.

Well if that's your excuse for ignoring UN phone calls alerting them to what they are targetting, so be it. As for the source... it was at least one news channel who walked the viewer through the precession of events.

Below is a quote from Kofi Annan, at: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/25/...main/index.html. Naturally, Israel immediately blamed Hezbollah and Annan...


Nothing to do with opinion. Or are you going to claim that these facts aren't facts? Maybe you'll claim the same about the weekends attacks.

I do see from the other discussion you linked to that many people seem to think that Annan is at fault and clear Israel of any blame. What a surprise. What, I wonder, would it take for them to take the blame for anything they do? I mean, we saw the video footage of the bomb as it narrowed in on its target. Which aimed for and it bang in the middle of the UN building. Not nearby, or at any proximate Hezbollah location. No, it aimed for and smashed the UN building inside the UN marked walls. Now, it turns out that not all the four are dead as first thought. Does that change that the Israeli bomb targetted and destroyed the building? Does that change that the calls were made, as even your Israeli defending evidence accepts? Or is it ok to bomb civilians and UN buildings just because Israel thinks its ok to do so...

The US is already involved, by simply going against every other country, including long time close allies like the UK, in any attempt to stem the violence. Add to this the US is also expediting an arms shipment also proves to arabs that we are supporting the Israelis kill hundreds of civilians and prolonging the war. Much like how we accuse the Iranians of suppling the Hezbollah. On top of all of that there still is the issue of going to Iraq under false pretenses and you can see we have really mucked things up in the Middle East for ourselves. I think the only thing we are waiting for is an attack on US soil before we see US involvement. That way we can claim self defense and the world can world can rally behind us again as we root out these terrorists. (Maybe not if we continue to isolate ourselves for too long from our allies.)

As for the shelling of the UN base they are denying an impartial investigation:

Dan Gillerman, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations



Three things I've see wrong with this statement.
1. It was in Lebanon not Israel.
2. Israel doing an investigation is like a criminal heading an investigation of itself.
3. Not sure what the international law for this say, but if a citizen is murdered or dies suspiciously in a foreign country, they should have the right to conduct its own investigation.

Just too much chance for a cover up, like the beach bombing investigation, the Thomas Hurndall investigation............. Israeli soldiers are rarely punished for battlefield violations. I wonder if they can actually turn this around and blame Hezbollah like they did with the beach bombing and child who was shot in the first infatida. Either way though, with the recent bombing in Qana taking headlines it will be forgotten, like Qana will be.

Looks like Arab propaganda has scored again.

There seems to be a lot different story to Q'ana than is being told in the world media. First off Israel had dropped leaflets 5 days prior to the bombing, over 150 rockets have been fired from inside the town. Even CNN ran the tape of Hezbollah terrorists firing a multiple rocket launcher from directly outside the building that was bombed and then they ran INTO that same building. Shortly afterwards the IAF hit that building at about midnight local time. The building collapsed at 7am. Those are the facts that haven't been published much at this point, but they are none the less the facts.

So who is responsible for the children being killed? According to all laws, treaties and common sense it would be the terrorists. They are firing from within Lebanese towns, in fact they have not fired from anywhere else, they hide in the buildings with civilians, and they store their rockets in civilian homes, mosques, and hospitals all of which are war-crimes. What about the civilians themselves that have not left? Are they too not partially responsible? I know that many are forced to accept these weapons and terrorists in their homes and they have been forced to remain as well, but when interviewed who gets the blame? Again it must be Israel's fault according to many here, well guess what Israel has gone well beyond what international law requires and still they are held at fault. Then I am accused of being paranoid when I point out the hypocrisy. Is that paranoia or just the facts?

Now comes the question what happened 7 hours after the bombing to suddenly cause the building to collapse? Why were there so many children in a building that had been bombed just hours before? And before you write and tell me how wrong I am please go and look for yourself. Because right now there are more questions than answers and the world media and most of the nations have already convicted Israel of this without answer those questions.

No I don't dispute the BBC account that you linked. Next time, if you would present the source concurrently with your detailed statements about the facts, that would be great. You offerred a lot of detail that I hadn't seen. We don't all read the same news sources!