Israel Kills 4 UN Observers, including Canadian

[peachy0]

Rather than answer your question, I am still waiting for a justification (from anyone) for the killing of a large number of civilians, all in the name of killing what has so far amounted to a handful of terrorists. Yes, the Israeli government is doing something about fighting terrorism, but in carrying out its actions it is generating an ever larger number of civilian injuries and deaths.

This is not about killing a handful of terrorists. Nor is it about protecting the world from terrorism. This is, very simply, about the government of a particular country, Israel, doing what it thinks it needs to do to ensure its future security. There's no need to justify what you are asking, because it just isn't the point: Israel isn't a neutral body, and they aren't out to save the world from terrorism. They do, however, have a responsibility to their own country, to protect it as best they can.

That is, you keep talking about this as if this whole thing is about eliminating terrorists. But that's not what it is at all. If a non-terrorist sovereign country had attacked Israel, they also would have been obligated to respond to that. This attack happens to have come from terrorists, but the response is about protecting Israel not about eliminating terrorism.

Which is why I think the question that I asked is completely relevant. You're saying that what they are doing is wrong (immoral, illegal, whatever) because they have killed more people than they have protected. However: if Israel had responded to the initial attack by swapping prisoners, then there's a good chance that Hezbollah would just continue to kidnap prisoners again and again, while all the time amassing more weapons along the border. And if they had enough weapons, then there's a good chance they would eventually try to destroy Israel (after all, that's part of their mission statement).

What's going on now is bad, there's no question about that. But what would have been better?

 

[bizorky]

What's going on now is bad, there's no question about that. But what would have been better?

The regional situation could have been dealt with much better in the past. But that is not going to happen, as it?

That is, you keep talking about this as if this whole thing is about eliminating terrorists. But that's not what it is at all. If a non-terrorist sovereign country had attacked Israel, they also would have been obligated to respond to that. This attack happens to have come from terrorists, but the response is about protecting Israel not about eliminating terrorism

So its not about eliminating terrorism or terrorists? Then what is it about?

You're saying that what they are doing is wrong (immoral, illegal, whatever) because they have killed more people than they have protected. However: if Israel had responded to the initial attack by swapping prisoners, then there's a good chance that Hezbollah would just continue to kidnap prisoners again and again, while all the time amassing more weapons along the border. And if they had enough weapons, then there's a good chance they would eventually try to destroy Israel (after all, that's part of their mission statement).

So because Hezbollah would have acted in bad faith on the basis of previous actions, it is better to carry out a far more significant attack against a far larger portion of the country, and kill and injure many people unrelated to that initial conflict as a means to punishing Lebanon for Hezbollah being on Lebanese soil?

Is this a good long term solution, or will it only contribute to regional distrust and hatred?

And once again, the Lebanese civilians caught in the middle get dealt out of the picture.

 

[peachy0]

So its not about eliminating terrorism or terrorists? Then what is it about?

It's not about eliminating terrorism on principle. It's about eliminating the security threat to Israel, and eliminating the ability of this particular group of terrorists to attack Israel repeatedly with increasing strength.

So because Hezbollah would have acted in bad faith on the basis of previous actions, it is better to carry out a far more significant attack against a far larger portion of the country, and kill and injure many people unrelated to that initial conflict as a means to punishing Lebanon for Hezbollah being on Lebanese soil?

There is no notion of "punishment" going on here. Israel is not sending rockets as a way of "punishing" them. They are sending rockets as a way, quite specifically, of weakening Hezbollah. Has their military done a perfect job of this? The answer is most adamantly no. But this is still a far cry from "punishing" civilians.

In addition, this is not as speculative as "bad faith based on previous actions". Hezbollah, and their Iranian sponsors, explicitly call for the destruction of Israel. There is no reason to doubt that they would try this if they thought they were capable of it. I don't think this is a point of contention.

Is this a good long term solution, or will it only contribute to regional distrust and hatred?

I don't know if this is the best solution, or even if it is a good solution. Problem is, I can't think of a better solution. Bad situations don't always have good solutions.

And once again, the Lebanese civilians caught in the middle get dealt out of the picture.

Right this second, yes, they are caught in the middle and dealt out of the picture. Their opportunity not to be caught in the middle happened over the last several years when they chose not to tell their government that having Hezbollah operate within the country was unacceptable. I don't know. Maybe if Israel had waited for a few more years, then the Lebanese people would have banded together and removed Hezbollah from their midst. And maybe not. We won't ever know, and I don't think it's clear that things would have gone one way or the other.

 

[bizorky]

So its not about eliminating terrorism on principle, nor is it about punishment of Lebanon, but about increasing Israeli security. How is that security being achieved?

Bad situations don't always have good solutions.

I am glad we can agree on this point. In the process, many people are then dying very pointless deaths. I think that is wrong. In light of this present solution being bad, I don't see any accountable notion of "measured" or "acceptable" levels of civilians deaths having any legitimacy.

 

[spmarshall]

There is no notion of "punishment" going on here. Israel is not sending rockets as a way of "punishing" them. They are sending rockets as a way, quite specifically, of weakening Hezbollah

Then, please answer my question: Why are Christian areas (with no support/activity of Hezbollah) being bombed now? It's more than just weaking Hezbollah, and I see no excuses for the continuing escalation.

 

[peachy0]

So its not about eliminating terrorism on principle, nor is it about punishment of Lebanon, but about increasing Israeli security. How is that security being achieved?

By reducing the ability of Hezbollah to fire rockets at Israel: destroying infrastructure, destroying weapons, eliminating militants. I cannot know how well they are succeeding, but this is certainly their goal.

In light of this present solution being bad, I don't see any accountable notion of "measured" or "acceptable" levels of civilians deaths having any legitimacy.

But that brings us back to the question that you declined to answer earlier: what is a better solution that addresses both Israel's security concerns and the concerns of excessive civilian casualties? I do not think it is enough to say "they should have done this because they would have avoided civilian casualties" without addressing Israel's security concerns. That is, in your posts it seems to me that you talk about the Lebanese civilian deaths as if they were the only issue at play here: they are not.

Then, please answer my question: Why are Christian areas (with no support/activity of Hezbollah) being bombed now? It's more than just weaking Hezbollah, and I see no excuses for the continuing escalation.

Obviously if they were just bombing Christian areas for the hell of it that would be wrong. I have no idea why they are doing this and it's too early to know: by tomorrow there will in all likelihood be more information. I presume that they will explain in which way they intended these bombings to harm Hezbollah and Hezbollah alone; you presume that they are doing this simply to punish the Lebanese population. I doubt that any further discussion of this will be fruitful until further information comes to light because at this point it's entirely speculation based on what we believe the motives of the IDF to be.

 

[bizorky]

By reducing the ability of Hezbollah to fire rockets at Israel: destroying infrastructure, destroying weapons, eliminating militants. I cannot know how well they are succeeding, but this is certainly their goal.

So it is a bush-league attack on Lebanese society as a whole. Power plants are not required to launch missiles. Nor are farm workers, infant children, airport runways and so many other destroyed targets. After all, there have been arguments made that the destroyed targets were purposely chosen. Everything and anything is being bombed on purpose, then. Sounds like Hezbollah.

You ask me if I have a better solution. In light of the fact that I am not a regional leader, I can offer no simple or direct solution. What I do know is that any long-term solution will be complex, and that no one will walk away completely happy. This conflict is bound to the history of the region, and real solutions won't just focus on this present-day event.

But you knew all that. That way, in terms of argument, it would offer you the opportunity to slip back into the mode of stating that, in the absence of any solution from me, that what is happening now is the only option available. As if my solution (had I one) would ever be implemented.

This type of stance offers you the option of rationalizing civilian deaths as legitimate, though maybe regretable. In addition, the destruction of societal infrastructure can be seen as appropriate, and the execution of war is taken as a ready and available fall-back solution - particularly when capability requires no need for second thoughts. Might becomes right.

Then why be surprised if there are terrorists? Why be upset when they do stupid things like operate among civilian populations, or fire rockets in a completely indiscriminate manner? The individuals who became terrorists adapt to operate for another day because, long ago, they were the people who gave up on looking for any other option.

In the meantime people die, and their deaths get legitimated through filters such as "measured," "acceptable" and "collateral." All the while, their humanity is evaporated. The human purposes for war kills human beings; it undermines its own nature. Some find it an acceptable way to operate; I don't - regardless of not having any ready-made solutions at my fingertips.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Re: Israel now targeting Christians

"Lebanon" didn't do anything.

I'm afraid they did. Hezbollah is a portion of the Lebanese government, including cabinet representation. Like it or not, they're part of the lebanese government, and Lebanon as a state is responsible for those actions.

A set of "laws" may or may not have been violated on paper, but many people unrelated to the conflict are still dead.

Unfortunately, it sucks to be them.

As for the "laws" of warfare deeming civilian deaths as being "acceptable," yet another case of ideology trumping human life. What is the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable? Who appointed themselves to calculate such a number?

The majority of civilised nations appointed themselves to decide this, in the Hague and Geneva conventions. If you'd like new conventions, feel free to start a petition.

So there is no upward limit on the number of civilians to be killed in the name of the fight against terrorism? I guess it comes down to who is doing the killing and who is being killed.

Correct. Enemy civilians should be protected to the maximum extent consonant with achieving military objectives, and the Israelis aren't the ones targetting friendly civilians.

One purpose of actions against terrorism is supposedly to protect civilians that those terrorists threaten, or more broadly, human life.

You're confusing friendly civilians with enemy civilians. Friendly civilians are to be protected at all costs. Enemy civilians are to be protected to the extent consonant with achieving military objectives. Big difference.

Kevin

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Why are Christian areas (with no support/activity of Hezbollah) being bombed now?

The bridges being bombed in the Christian areas don't have a "civilians only" guard.

They're mobility assets, and are targetted for the same reason as Dresden was. They're military targets.

Kevin

 

[bizorky]

You're confusing friendly civilians with enemy civilians. Friendly civilians are to be protected at all costs. Enemy civilians are to be protected to the extent consonant with achieving military objectives. Big difference.

You're late in sending the different coloured shirts so the Israeli airforce can distinguish the different teams.

Unfortunately, it sucks to be them.

They're dead.

 

[ganjavih]

Christian Lebanese Rage Over Israeli Bombardment

Posted on Aug 4, 2006
After Israel pounded a Christian community in north Beirut, the historical allies of the Israelis are now lining up in support of Hezbollah. “Public opinion is 100% against Israel from this area,†said a prominent Christian Lebanese woman.

N.Y. Times:

... While many Lebanese Christians have long distrusted Hezbollah and other Muslims and Druse (there were, after all, 15 years of civil war along sectarian lines), and many criticized the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 that touched off the conflict, comments Friday indicated that the damage Israel has inflicted on Lebanon has shifted that equation.

“Public opinion is 100 percent against Israel from this area,†said Camille Chamoun, scion of one of the three major Christian families who mounted militias against the Muslim and Palestinian forces during the civil war and whose faction was aligned with Israel during its 1982 invasion.

“This is just an excuse to hit more of our infrastructure,†said Manal Azzi, a 26-year-old health worker who lives next to the destroyed bridge.

“I’m here speaking as a Christian,†she went on. “Israel is our main invader and has been for the last 50 years. Right now we’re getting more civilian casualties, so we’ll have another war in 10, 15 years.

“They talk about a new Middle East. To serve who? Israel and the United States. Israel is itself a terrorist state backed up by the United States.â€

Link

 

[peachy0]

You're confusing friendly civilians with enemy civilians. Friendly civilians are to be protected at all costs. Enemy civilians are to be protected to the extent consonant with achieving military objectives. Big difference.

You're late in sending the different coloured shirts so the Israeli airforce can distinguish the different teams.

I think that the original quote was pretty clearly referring to "friendly civilians" as your own civilians, that is, Israelis, and "enemy civilians" as civilians in the country which you are attacking, that is, Lebanese civilians.

 

[spmarshall]

Last time I checked, there was no declaration of war against Lebanon.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Seems nobody declares war anymore, especially not in the name of "fighting terrorism."

 

[ganjavih]

I think Lebanon and Israel are technically still at war.