Israel vs Hezbollah

[Behrens]

Alright, I feel like putting my 2c in.

Why? Because I can, I guess. I really shouldn't get into Internet discussions, of course. Nobody is actually going to change their mind, and it's all just going to spin in circles.

First, you all probably know by now that I am a Jew, therefore, you may attribute any bias you feel you need to, or totally disregard my post on that account.

That being said, I have to say that I support Israel. Hizbollah is attacking Israeli territory with rocket attacks. They are, as is correctly stated, part of the properly elected Lebanese government. I believe that Israel would have every right, sustaining an attack from a governmental arm, to mount a land invasion and depose the government for its own self-defense. War IS a diplomatic option, which is sometimes forgotten in the rhetoric. However, Israel has decided to go with a less aggressive route of precision air-strikes.

Note that one side is purposely targeting civilians, and the other is intentionally trying to avoid hitting civilians. Now, as with any war, there are always civilian casualties. Civilian casualties are now, and always have been, a part of wars. Firebombing Tokyo and Dresden was not required militarily, but Nazism and Imperial Shintoism are dead letters now because of the destruction of the civilian will to fight as well as the military might of their respective empires. Remember that when wars are only resolved on a distant battlefield you get Germany of the 1920's and 30's. A country that feels "cheated" out of victory in a war, and looks for a violent leader to regain that "lost honor". So rises a Hitler to power.

However, Israel believes (true or false), that the military destruction of Hizbollah is all that is required to remove this threat to their northern border. Therefore, they are trying to neutralize merely the military threat.

Anyone who supports Hizbollah concedes that I am correct in my assesment that strikes against civilian targets are justifiable in war, and therefore loses the ability to argue that Israel has a responsibility to prevent civilian deaths.

Anyone who argues that civilians are not legitimate targets must support Israel as the side that is trying to prevent, rather than encourage, civilian deaths.

So, in my mind, there are two options:

1. Terror is a legitimate method, although one Israel echews. Israel has every right to respond to war via one method (terror) with war of another method (precision airstrikes)

2. Terror is an illegitimate method. Israel is therefore in the right for striking against terrorists who the sovereign government of Lebanon has not stopped, and is doing it as best it can.

I do not see any scenario in which Israel is at fault here. They are not the initial aggressor. 1982 was in response to an attack on their soil, and they withdrew over five years ago. They are doing everything they can to avoid civilian deaths, regardless of if terror is a legitimate war method.

The only reason that I can see for opposing Israel is a desire to see the Jews lose, either from a belief they are a danger to the region, or a racist hatred of Jews as a people.

I won't discuss why I do not feel that Israel is a danger to the region here, as I've already gone on long enough, but I will end with a quote that I love.

"If the Terrorists laid down their weapons tomorrow, we'd have peace tomorrow in Lebanon, the Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan."

"If Israel laid down their weapons tomorrow, we'd have another Holocaust tomorrow."

[TheNewGuy]

"If the Terrorists laid down their weapons tomorrow, we'd have peace tomorrow in Lebanon, the Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan."

"If Israel laid down their weapons tomorrow, we'd have another Holocaust tomorrow."

true. simply true.

[Ex-D&Der]

It's not true that war has always involved civilian casualties of this kind. The American Civil War, for example, entailed 600,000 military deaths, and no civilian ones among the free population. Similarly, World War I, though it caused over 10 million deaths, did not involve civilian casualties on the scale of the Second World War. It wasn't really until that war that civilians became acceptable targets of warfare.

You are mistaken to conflate the acts of Hezbolla with the acts of the Lebanese government, and even Israel isn't making this claim.

I also don't buy the logic that if Israel is ever asked to refrain from anything, the Holocaust will repeat itself. Israel should be bound by the same moral standards of any other nation.

[TheNewGuy]

no civilian deaths during the civil war? bs.

and more civilians died in ww1 than in this war so far. by far. the many civilians that died in ww2 was killed in gas chambers. id didn't have much to do with the war itself.

but the civilian population ALWAYS suffer from a war.

israel is bound by the same moral standards as other nations. and should have the same rights. like the right to defend their borders. their people.

You are mistaken to conflate the acts of Hezbolla with the acts of the Lebanese government, and even Israel isn't making this claim.

who? me? or Behrens?

[Nekky]

In response to Behrens' post, I have noticed an attitude that is at large in all societies today regarding Israel and Jewish people. It amounts largely to this. If you criticize or disagree with Israeli actions you are:

a) A terrorist or,

An anti-semite.

This irks the crap out of me, as I do not fully agree with Israel's actions against Lebanon - and by popular logic that makes me a terrorist or a jew-hater. I am neither.

So far, judging by the posts I've read, most of those who've objected to Israel's actions have had well-considered, reasonable bases for their arguments - they are not the product of terrorist sympathy or anti-semitism.

Nekky - Who is annoyed that the words 'black', 'white' and 'yellow' cannot be used on TV anymore without a law suit.

[Magick]

but the civilian population ALWAYS suffer from a war.

That's a little like saying if it rains, something will get wet. I agree though, the civilian population will always suffer in a war. So will the military population. And those not involved in war. Everyone does in some form or fashion.

On the basis of civilian deaths, War is war. You can try to limit the number of civilian casualties, but an interesting phrase is coined. Acceptable losses. Those that know war know that it will always include death, civilian and military alike. Always. Spanning from the beginning of human civilization, regardless of which you follow. Or which side you're on.

As far as the Israeli/Hesballah issue, politics is something I try very hard not to bring to the table of discussion. "No comment." That is my final answer.

[CruelEdict]

After Behrens jumped in, I am hopping out. Being an Anti-Semite, I think it best to just step back. No unneccessary bannings needed.

Though I wish to add for TheNewGuy - "Gas chambers", psh! www.ihr.org Fact argues otherwise.

In response to Behrens' post, I have noticed an attitude that is at large in all societies today regarding Israel and Jewish people. It amounts largely to this. If you criticize or disagree with Israeli actions you are:

a) A terrorist or,

An anti-semite.

This irks the crap out of me, as I do not fully agree with Israel's actions against Lebanon - and by popular logic that makes me a terrorist or a jew-hater. I am neither.

So far, judging by the posts I've read, most of those who've objected to Israel's actions have had well-considered, reasonable bases for their arguments - they are not the product of terrorist sympathy or anti-semitism.

Nekky - Who is annoyed that the words 'black', 'white' and 'yellow' cannot be used on TV anymore without a law suit.

[Ex-D&Der]

no civilian deaths during the civil war? bs.

If you don't believe me, look it up. It's true.

and more civilians died in ww1 than in this war so far. by far.

Most of the civilian deaths in World War I were the result of famine and disease, with the exception of the Armenian Genocide. Air power was minimal during the First World War, so there was little bombing of populated areas. Most of the land fighting was confined to relatively static fronts in France and Russia.

the many civilians that died in ww2 was killed in gas chambers. id didn't have much to do with the war itself.

Um, ever hear of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Tokyo? 66 Japanese cities were bombed before Hiroshima.

[goldbond]

ahah crypt, yeah i realized that last night on the WWW. internet 2 is going to rock, eh?

behrens, people would say from a military perspective that American Revolutionaries were terrorists. so what is terrorism if not asymetrical warfare? do you expect Hizb to set up artillery positions in the middle of a field or something like that? i know you went to Academy and know a lot about this already so i wont bug you any further on it.

[Warpnow]

heh, american revolutionaries were revolutionaries and heretics, but not terrorists.

Terrorists are called terrorists because of their tactics, not their politic position. They are callled Terrorists because they attack with the intent to instill terror in the population of their enemy.

Certain actions the US took in Iraq would classify under terrorism alot sooner than the American Revolution, as would the attacking of a residential area by missile, even if its for some "noble cause", the desired affect is to scare them into stopping. Hence, its "terrorism" even if you think its justified.

[Celerity]

A wise professor once laid it out for me like this:

You have militaries and civilians.

If militaries fight militiaries, that is called war.

If civilians fight militaries, that is called guerilla war.

If militaries fight civilians, that is called oppression.

If civilians fight civilians, that is called terrorism.

[jb5679]

Not sure if this was mentioned, I'm not diplomacy savvy by any means and don't know the ins and outs of whats going on in these regions, but...in regards to civilian casualties...

Civil war = no civilian casualties

-If- that is true, I can understand that

but nowadays, even though our missiles are well designed to find their correct target, they are missiles and have the property to explode. Civilians can often meander around areas to which places must/should be attacked and cannot be easily discerned at a high altitude whether or not its a civilian or a militant.

Like I said, I don't know much about these things, but just logically thinking.... my 2 cents, feel free to flame me until I develop an invoker's fire shield

[Warpnow]

There is a difference between accidents and necessary risk and intentional civillian attacks as a way of making the other goverment "pay".

[goldbond]

hate to burst your bubbles, and i guess it might not sit well with you guys, but American Revolutionaries tarred/feathered and killed several British tax collectors and folks who worked for them. they would beyond any shadow of a doubt be labelled as terrorists today. oh and by the way, they coerced unwilling (at times) civilians to house and supply them, just like modern day "terrorists." just to throw even more fact on it.

[Warpnow]

They still weren't terrorists, dude.

Look. I could go over to someone's house and torture them. I'd be a bad man, not a terrorist.

Terrorists attack random civillians, murder children and commit ATTROCITIES for the purpose of TERRORIZING the people who they felt have done them wrong. They play on the empathy of their enemies. Its like...the bravest men will die to torture before speak...but would he speak if you tortured someone else in front of him?

Terrorism isn't a measure of your goodness, or your evil. Its the way you do things. Its one kind of evil.

[Iyorvin]

Behrens: Laballing yourself a Jew isn't properly representing your religion. The Jewish religion of Israel is quite different then the one you follow. Having said that, Jew does NOT equal Israel, however it was a nation created by the harsh events of WW2.

My final stance on this, as it hasn't changed for the last week is drawn upon these facts:

Israel holds thousands of citizens of Lebenon from the war in the 80's, most of which have never held trial, and will most likely never see the light of day outside of a jail.

Hezbollah tried to counter this by taking hostage two Israel soldiers(origional aggression).

Israel responded as any nation will vs a terrorist group - do not negotiate.

Therefore, as near every nation in the world agrees right now, Israel had the right to defend themselves. Thus, the issue currently at hand puts Israel in the right.

What puts them in the wrong is, their non-democratic methods with concerns to their military, ie. the captured citizens of Lebenon. Which I will point out, does not make the nation evil. However, the United States backing Israel stresses conflict throughout the rest of the democratic community, especially in Iraq. You can not preach democracy and then back those who don't practice it.

Hezbollah is the only army to ever have forced the Israel army to retreat. Israel has hurt pride, but has moved on in the last ten years. Hezbollah is in the wrong because they should of disarmed for their people, and took control of the government instead, as they had obvoius support to do so. That would of put them in a greater diplomatic position to get their soldiers/civilians back from Israel.

Israel has always put themselves through every amount of pain they have ever gone through.( Note: I did not say JEW I said the NATION Israel). When you give a religion a nation you can expect nothing less then constant conflict, especially when you put that nation in the middle of a VERY strong opposing religion.

Tindal: Oppose the philosophies, the practices, and the methods a people use, do not oppose the people, as not all of them can possibly be the emobodiment of what you dislike. It's like if you are anti-smokers, hate the smokes not the person, otherwise it is just ignorant.

As for Israel turning Lebenon into a hole? It could already be called that. 33% of their beachfront is now covered in oil. Their capitcal looks flatened, and it wasn't until today that they finally reopened their stock trade.

In all, who I blame: The United States of America, for promising to help disarm Hezbollah and not going through with it. Now being the only nation not asking for a cease fire and making Lebenon people pay for the State's mistake. Sadly, this isn't the people of America's fault, Bush won't even listen to his own republic senators, but it is the responsibility of the people to vote in the right person, and I dont' think America will recover from this.

I have jewish friends. I have friends from Lebenon. I am not biased toward any particular side, but I think it is a very hard price for people to pay for others lack of responsibility.

Peace,

[Iyorvin]

They still weren't terrorists, dude.

Look. I could go over to someone's house and torture them. I'd be a bad man, not a terrorist.

Terrorists attack random civillians, murder children and commit ATTROCITIES for the purpose of TERRORIZING the people who they felt have done them wrong. They play on the empathy of their enemies. Its like...the bravest men will die to torture before speak...but would he speak if you tortured someone else in front of him?

Terrorism isn't a measure of your goodness, or your evil. Its the way you do things. Its one kind of evil.

During the war between Canada and the United States, the Canadians used rumors of savage indian practices to fear the Americans into surrendering. We pushed deep into the States and lit the white house on fire. Terror won the battle, but is it terrorism? I don't think terrorism can be defined. Arming the enemies of your enemies so that they stay weak so your beliefs can reign supreme? Terrorism?

[Designated_Driver]

Sure terrorism can be defined.

Merriam Webster did it.

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism

Pronunciation: 'ter-er-i-zem

Function: noun

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

[Warpnow]

Terrorism can very easily be defined, Merriam/bali just did it. heh.

Problem is the word "terrorist" is used now like the word "communist" was used in the 30s and 40s, deliberately misused as part of political sway/propoganda(I try to avoid that word because if you use it in conversation, you've immediately lost credibility). People call alot of people "terrorists" in order to bring the tide of the people against them, while at the same time failing to properly mark true terrorism.

[Warpnow]

Arming the enemies of your enemies so that they stay weak so your beliefs can reign supreme? Terrorism?

That's not terrorism at all. Just another example of what terrorism is not, but is mistakingly associated with.

[Magick]

Sure terrorism can be defined.

Merriam Webster did it.

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism

Pronunciation: 'ter-er-i-zem

Function: noun

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Bali made a funny.

Alright. Which one of you told him to say this?

[The Lemming]

OK here is my stance. When the bombings first started Isrial demanded a few things and then the bombings would stop. The first was that the two Isralies that where taken over the border into Lebanon are returned unharmed. The second was that Lebanon would disarm Hezbola perminantly. I think there was a third but I do not remember it. The kidnapping of Isralies was what started Isrial's military action so I think that what has been done so far is legitimate. The US should not get involved unless another nation starts backing Isrial, which wont happen because Isrial is compleetly capable of defending itself from any attack from anyone in that area and everyone in that area knows it. Why do you think they are crying for help insted of doing something about it themselves. Some will say it is because they are scared some will say it is because they dont want to fight themselves, but it is time the world took a step back and said "if they want to kill themselves, let them."

Second The entire world is crying "stop it stop it" and every one says the US should stay out of it, my word is they should do the same. Saying "stop it" is taking a side, saying "go for it" is taking a side. Both are getting involved, if you dont want to get involved, dont do it.

Third Isrial is a US ally and one of the best friend we have. Think about it, if your best friend was fighting someone would you get involved? If your friend was fighting hundreds of people alone would you get involved? I can say I would. As a matter of fact I can say I have helped a friend in a fight against close to a full bar. Then think about if you where doing the fighting, would you want a friend that stands up and says I'll help you fight your fights? Or one who says your problems man, not mine.

Fourth everyone wants to blame Bush for everything. We stepped in in Iraq when sadam was killing his people and Bush is at fault. Then Bush says we are not going to get involved militarily and Bush is at fault. Democrats will be democrats, republicans will be republicans. Bush haters will be bush haters and Bush lovers will be Bush lovers. That is a personal choice. But please, if you are going to say we should be involved with the military, then we should be. If we arent then we arent. To those who say lock down the border and defend the nation and never get involved in another nations business again. I hope you mean all the way to include pulling all the foreign aid the US pays out. China can pull its money and so can we. Do some research and see how much we have invested and how many countries will flounder if we pull out. I want to see if anyone comes up with the numbers I did. It is incredable.

I have some more but I am tired of typing for now, maybe tomorow. Fell free to flame me, blame me, disprove me do whatever. I have voiced my oppinion and I expect absolutly no one to change theirs. Your oppinions will not change mine without solid evidance so I expect nothing less from you. Also anyone wishing solid evidance of what I have said, send me a PM I have it all and will willingly give it out to anyone who wants solid facts not political propiganda.

[Chayesh]

Lebanon agreed to disarm Hezbollah as a condition of Israel leaving several years ago.

The major fallacy of reasoning with all these other nations of the world who call for Israel to give and give and give in hopes of some peaceful coexistence with the other nations of the region is that the other nations of the region will not accept peaceful coexistence as an option. They've repeatedly stated that they will only accept the complete destruction of Israel.

[Ex-D&Der]

You mean like Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority?

[Ophiel X]

That's hardly fair Chayesh. The nations in the region would surely like to see the destruction of Israel, because that way their citizens remain happy, but few see that as a real solution. The rational political minds of the region see a two state solution as the only way to peace. Even Hamas has officially embraced the idea of a two state solution.

When you hear leaders in the middle east spout off about the destruction of Israel it's just hardliner rhetoric to rally the support of the people.

The one thing that worries me most about this conflict are the harsh words that came out of Saudia Arabia a few days ago....it didn't get much air time but they were threatening to get involved if things get out of hand.