State of war between Israel and Lebanon

[shad0wfax]

Don't want to be harsh, but I'm going to comment each point.

Ari said

I guess it doesn't matter that Israel warns the local population before we attack (dropping printed messages telling civilians to get out)

Yes, it doesn't matter. If I open fire against innocent people, this act is not less wrong simply because I say I'm going to do that. The decision of opening fire is unilateral and voluntary, and the victims cannot be blamed saying "it's your fault for being in the trajectory of our bullets and bombs". The victims were innocent and it was the army who dropped the bombs. They simply took cover in their building to try to get some protection. And to get out... where? Many people just cannot 'get out' (old people, children, ill people...), and where should they go to be safe?

I guess it doesn't matter that we're not trying to harm civilians and only do so by mistake because Hezbollah is opperating from within populated areas.

If they aren't trying to harm civilians, why they have dropped the invasion by land and instead have increased attacks from the air, hence increasing the probability of "collateral damages"? Because the israely army was suffering "too much deceasings". This shows that they're not trying not to harm civilians, but the main target is not suffering to much deaths of their own soldiers (BTW, that's a sensible policy from a militaristic point of view, but it shows that innocent civilians really don't care much). And, if civilians do care, why they killed the UN observers despite they did at least ten communications telling they were there and asking to stop the attack?

I guess it doesn't matter that Hezbollah have repeatedly fired Katusha rockets from the area.

An unjust agression doesn't justify an unjust response; I already said this lots of times. Perhaps the most important teaching of Plato and Socrates was that it's worse to make an injustice than suffering an injustice, and that's why Socrates accepted the death penalty the judges imposed to him despite he considered it terribly unfair and he could have prevented it simply levaing the polis. If the victims reacts to an unjust agression with another unjust agression, they simply put themselves at the same level.

I guess it doesn't even matter that the Hezbollah does none of these things to prevent civilians from being killed and doesn't hide the fact that it wants to kill Israeli civilians.

If they would do so, then surely they won't be called "terrorists". But I can refer again to the previous comment.

In your eyes we are murderes - tried and convicted.

Why do you have to endorse all your government's decisions? If my government would make something simmilar, I would consider it liable for war crimes. Just before Iraq's invasion, millions of people occupied the streets of Spain claiming for peace and against government's support to the invasion.

I really hope you never know what it is like to live in constant fear and threat and know that nomatter what you do, you'll always be blamed.

If your aim is to life without constant fear and threat, this violent attitude won't help at all, because it's overly proved that violence generates violence, and it's nearly impossible (for not saying totally impossible) to win over terrorism using a military strategy.
Both my grandparents were injuried in the civil war; other members of my familiy were killed or suffered imprisonment during the war and/or during the subsequent dictatorship. If something has to be learnt of this experience, is that violence never helps to peace and forgiveness, and serves a lot to resentment and more violence. No one could wish the peace in your country more than me, but I honestly think that things are going seriously wrong, in both strategic and moral terms.

[Dianne Lewandowski]

I thought some of you might be interested in the following article.  It was sent to me by a Jewish friend.  It has been passed around on the Internet and among Jewish circles, also has been in print.

The Vocabulary of Untruth
Words take on new meanings as Israel struggles to survive.

By Victor Davis Hanson

A “ceasefire” would occur should Hezbollah give back kidnapped Israelis and stop launching missiles; it would never follow a unilateral cessation of Israeli bombing. In fact, we will hear international calls for one only when Hezbollah’s rockets are about exhausted.

“Civilians” in Lebanon have munitions in their basements and deliberately wish to draw fire; in Israel they are in bunkers to avoid it. Israel uses precision weapons to avoid hitting them; Hezbollah sends random missiles into Israel to ensure they are struck.

“Collateral damage” refers mostly to casualties among Hezbollah’s human shields; it can never be used to describe civilian deaths inside Israel, because everything there is by intent a target.

“Cycle of Violence” is used to denigrate those who are attacked, but are not supposed to win.

“Deliberate” reflects the accuracy of Israeli bombs hitting their targets; it never refers to Hezbollah rockets that are meant to destroy anything they can.

“Deplore” is usually evoked against Israel by those who themselves have slaughtered noncombatants or allowed them to perish — such as the Russians in Grozny, the Syrians in Hama, or the U.N. in Rwanda and Dafur.

“Disproportionate” means that the Hezbollah aggressors whose primitive rockets can’t kill very many Israeli civilians are losing, while the Israelis’ sophisticated response is deadly against the combatants themselves. See “excessive.”

Anytime you hear the adjective “excessive,” Hezbollah is losing. Anytime you don’t, it isn’t.

“Eyewitnesses” usually aren’t, and their testimony is cited only against Israel.

“Grave concern” is used by Europeans and Arabs who privately concede there is no future for Lebanon unless Hezbollah is destroyed — and it should preferably be done by the “Zionists” who can then be easily blamed for doing it.

“Innocent” often refers to Lebanese who aid the stockpiling of rockets or live next to those who do. It rarely refers to Israelis under attack.

The “militants” of Hezbollah don’t wear uniforms, and their prime targets are not those Israelis who do.

“Multinational,” as in “multinational force,” usually means “third-world mercenaries who sympathize with Hezbollah.” See “peacekeepers.”

“Peacekeepers” keep no peace, but always side with the less Western of the belligerents.

“Quarter-ton” is used to describe what in other, non-Israeli militaries are known as “500-pound” bombs.

“Shocked” is used, first, by diplomats who really are not; and, second, only evoked against the response of Israel, never the attack of Hezbollah.

“United Nations Action” refers to an action that Russia or China would not veto. The organization’s operatives usually watch terrorists arm before their eyes. They are almost always guilty of what they accuse others of.

What explains this distortion of language? A lot.

First there is the need for Middle Eastern oil. Take that away, and the war would receive the same scant attention as bloodletting in central Africa.

Then there is the fear of Islamic terrorism. If the Middle East were Buddhist, the world would care about Lebanon as little as it does about occupied Tibet.

And don’t forget the old anti-Semitism. If Russia or France were shelled by neighbors, Putin and Chirac would be threatening nuclear retaliation.

Israel is the symbol of the hated West. Were it a client of China, no one would dare say a word.

Population and size count for a lot: When India threatened Pakistan with nukes for its support of terrorism a few years ago, no one uttered any serious rebuke.

Finally, there is the worry that Israel might upset things in Iraq. If we were not in Afghanistan and Iraq trying to win hearts and minds, we wouldn’t be pressuring Israel behind the scenes.

But most of all, the world deplores the Jewish state because it is strong, and can strike back rather than suffer. In fact, global onlookers would prefer either one of two scenarios for the long-suffering Jews to learn their lesson. The first is absolute symmetry and moral equivalence: when Israel is attacked, it kills only as many as it loses. For each rocket that lands, it drops only one bomb in retaliation — as if any aggressor in the history of warfare has ever ceased its attacks on such insane logic.

The other desideratum is the destruction of Israel itself. Iran promised to wipe Israel off the map, and then gave Hezbollah thousands of missiles to fulfill that pledge. In response, the world snored. If tomorrow more powerful rockets hit Tel Aviv armed with Syrian chemicals or biological agents, or Iranian nukes, the “international” community would urge “restraint” — and keep urging it until Israel disappeared altogether. And the day after its disappearance, the Europeans and Arabs would sigh relief, mumble a few pieties, and then smile, “Life goes on.”

And for them, it would very well.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.

[shad0wfax]

This seems to me a right-winged extremist pamphlet which says in essence that all arabs (and by extension, all europeans, russians and chineses) are anti-semitic terrorists (it should be added 'anti-americans' also, to be totally propagandistic). We (europeans) are used to be accused of anti-semitic and anti-americans when we defend legality and equality. Too simplistic and ridiculous to be taken seriously.

I perfectly know that Ari is a good fellow and, to be honest, I'm a bit upset because I wouldn't want to break a good relationship because political disagreements. I'd like to apologize if some of my comments could be interpreted as a personal criticism or agression. In any case, I don't think they are and it has never been my intention. The point is that I simply cannot understand that interest in defending all decisions of the government, no matter which they are. I have no problems at all for critizicing my government's decisions when I think they're not the right ones. For instance, I still believe that Iraq's invasion was illegal and that the former spanish prime minister, Mr. J.M. Aznar, should be put on trial.

As a general comment, it must be said that every acceptable moral theory must satisfy the requirement of universalization. This means that its consequences must be acceptable no matter which role each person has to play. For instance, let's suppose that some people in Israel is firing rockets to another country, causing harm and deaths to innocent people, and as a response, the army of this country starts a military offensive, doing air raids over some israeli cities. Let's suppose that this country warns the population and tell them to get out because they're going to throw some bombs. Imagine that, for some reason, Ari (an innocent civilian) hasn't got the necessary resources (money, relatives, health or whatever) to 'get out'. All that he can do in that circumstances is to stay at home and pray. Unfortunately, a bomb explodes at the top of his home and kills him, and then somebody says: it was his fault; we already warned about this. We have thrown the bombs and the victim was innocent, but it was its fault and his death is not morally wrong at all.

So you have two options: either you accept that reasoning and assume that it's totally right to kill innocents in that circumstances (even being you the innocent, of course), or it's morally wrong. And if it's morally wrong (as I believe), then Israel's bombings are morally wrong (universalization). This is so, of course, unless you adopt the paraoid wiew that all arabs are terrorists. But it's not only immoral, it's also irrational (correct relationship between means and ends), because this way you'll never get your final target and you'll only will contritute to generate more violence.

[Ari]

Sad, but quite true for the most part, Dianne.
It's quite absured the UN tries so hard to issue such meaningless statements as calling for a cease fire, when they aren't prepared to actually do anything about them.

Consider the case of the UN decision to create a Jewish homeland in Israel 58 years ago. Great, so there's a vote in favor of that.
Within hours after the vote was cast and the decision rectified, the combined armies of 7 arab countries started attacking Israeli settlements.
Did the UN do anything to back their decision? Not in the least bit.
We had to fight a bloody war to save our skins.
But back then it was okay, we were the good guys, why?
Because we didn't have tanks or planes or missiles.
Today we have the strongest airforce in the middle east and one of the best armies in the world. The situation hasn't changed considerably - we're still under attack, but now we're the bad guys.

I see the following logical pattern:
A) You are attacked, you hardly have any weapons, you use whatever you can ==> You're the good guy.
B) You are attacked, you have a lot of weapons, you use less than 10% of what you have ==> You're the bad guy.
Conclusions:
1)The amount of weapons you have determines whether you're good or bad.
2)China, USA, Russia, India, Britain, France must be the most evil countries in the world.
3)Being attacked has nothing to do with morality  :roll:

Yes, it doesn't matter. If I open fire against innocent people, this act is not less wrong simply because I say I'm going to do that. The decision of opening fire is unilateral and voluntary, and the victims cannot be blamed saying "it's your fault for being in the trajectory of our bullets and bombs". The victims were innocent and it was the army who dropped the bombs. They simply took cover in their building to try to get some protection. And to get out... where? Many people just cannot 'get out' (old people, children, ill people...), and where should they go to be safe?

I'm sorry, but you're totally distorting things.
We don't fire at civilians for the sake of firing at civilians. It's not a case of "move or I'll shoot you" rather "move because I don't want you to get in harms way". There's a huge difference.
Murder demands intention. Israel doesn't target civilians. How can you not see that? If Israel were targeting civilians, believe me, the amount of fire power we've been using would have killed thousands if not tens of thousands.

If they aren't trying to harm civilians, why they have dropped the invasion by land and instead have increased attacks from the air, hence increasing the probability of "collateral damages"? Because the israely army was suffering "too much deceasings". This shows that they're not trying not to harm civilians, but the main target is not suffering to much deaths of their own soldiers (BTW, that's a sensible policy from a militaristic point of view, but it shows that innocent civilians really don't care much). And, if civilians do care, why they killed the UN observers despite they did at least ten communications telling they were there and asking to stop the attack?

So what you're basically saying is, that from a humaniterian point of view, one should sacrifice himself just so that someone else doesn't get hurt.
I'd like to ask you a question: If you had a child, and your neighbour had a child, and god forbid, you had to choose which of the 2 children you had to sacrifice, would the moral decision be for you to sacrifice your own?
Israel has exactly the same decision to make, only worse:
We have to choose between sacrificing Israeli civilians, or Israli soldiers or Lebanese civilians. None of these choices are preferable. I would prefer it if no one got hurt. But Hezbollah won't have it.
I'll remind you again: Hezbollah is the one who started the attacks. Hezbollah is the one who killed 8 soldiers, kidnapped 2 and then proceeded to bomb Israeli border towns killing and wounding several civilians before we fired a single shot.
I haven't been able to find it yet, but there's a UN security council resolution that says that if you fire from within a civilian populated area, and someone gets hurt in a retaliatory action, you are to blame. It can't work any other way, and frankly, I'm quite surprised the UN has passed such a resolution to begin with. Maybe there's some hope after all.

An unjust agression doesn't justify an unjust response; I already said this lots of times. Perhaps the most important teaching of Plato and Socrates was that it's worse to make an injustice than suffering an injustice, and that's why Socrates accepted the death penalty the judges imposed to him despite he considered it terribly unfair and he could have prevented it simply levaing the polis. If the victims reacts to an unjust agression with another unjust agression, they simply put themselves at the same level.

Question: Are you a pacifist? Because if you are, I guess there's no sense in continuing this debate.
There's nothing moral in accepting death when you have other choices, especially when it is unjust. Would you take the same course of action if you were in his place?

If they would do so, then surely they won't be called "terrorists". But I can refer again to the previous comment.

Well, you'd think they should be called terrorists, but your friends in the UE don't call them that, and Kofi Annan likes to call them a "melitia", and quite a few in the UN call them "freedom fighters". What freedom are they fighting for in the last 6 years since Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon, is beyond me.  :roll:

Why do you have to endorse all your government's decisions? If my government would make something simmilar, I would consider it liable for war crimes. Just before Iraq's invasion, millions of people occupied the streets of Spain claiming for peace and against government's support to the invasion.

What you don't seem to understand, is that this isn't a decision by my government. This was a mistake, and if I learn otherwise, my country and I will have the head of the person who ordered an attack on civilians, but as this is still being investigated, I refuse to convict my country of murder.
I am sorry lives were lost, Israel has appologized for the mistake and for the killings, but this is not our intention. The day it becomes our intention, Israel will fall into civil war.

If your aim is to life without constant fear and threat, this violent attitude won't help at all, because it's overly proved that violence generates violence, and it's nearly impossible (for not saying totally impossible) to win over terrorism using a military strategy.
Both my grandparents were injuried in the civil war; other members of my familiy were killed or suffered imprisonment during the war and/or during the subsequent dictatorship. If something has to be learnt of this experience, is that violence never helps to peace and forgiveness, and serves a lot to resentment and more violence. No one could wish the peace in your country more than me, but I honestly think that things are going seriously wrong, in both strategic and moral terms.

I'm sorry you're family and the rest of Spain had to endure so much suffering for so long, but I think you're wrong. You're lucky Franco's heir decided to end dictatorship and that his heir King, Juan Carlos decided to abandon dictatorship, but if he didn't, you'd still be suffering the same problems as your grandparents.
WWII proved that violence can put an end to violence and that refraining from violence at all costs actually causes an increase in violence by the side that started it. If not for the US, the USSR and Britain's "acts of violence" , Europe would still be under Nazi occupation. If not for the Romanian people's "acts of violence", Romania would still be under Chouchescu's iron fist and not where it is today.
Sometimes violence is necissary.
I would very much suggest you check out the link I posted a few days ago.

[Tom]

The victims were innocent and it was the army who dropped the bombs. They simply took cover in their building to try to get some protection.

As has already been pointed out, the world is concentrating on all the Lebanese wounded and killed; I rarely ever hear about the devastation that Hezbollah has caused to Israeli citizens.  Even on liberal-slanted US mediums, like National Public Radio, they seem to focus on Lebanon's wounded.  Are Israel's citizens also hiding rockets and ammunition in their homes?  I haven't heard that this is the case.  But I've read numerous accounts of Lebanese citizens providing this service, both WITH and WITHOUT their willingness to help Hezbollah.

[shad0wfax]

Ari: yes, I'm a pacifist and an anti-militarist, but I don't see why this should prevent someone from making statements and showing opinions from a strategic/political/moral point of view. It's true that durable peace can only be settled upon strong rational and moral basis, and we're sadly too far from this; but even when violence is necessary, we should respect some basic moral rules. I'm convinced that although sometimes violence seems to stop violence, it really doesn't, because there's the strong underlying resentment that can explode at the minimum provocation.

You can believe me if I say that king Juan Carlos wouldn't be the king if spanish people did not want to. It was not his decision to stablish democracy; it was a more complicated process that involved nearly all political parties, and the common idea was that war and repression did not serve to justice, prosperity and stability.

Of course, if I had to choose between the life of my daughter and the life of other children, I would choose my daughter's life; but if her life was at the price of having to kill the other innocent child, I wouldn't do it. Maybe I'll try instead to kill the person who made me the proposition, or maybe I'll suicide; I simply coudn't live with the constant thought of having willingly killed an innocent child.

In Spanish criminal law system, and AFAIK, in most criminal law systems, even if I don't really want to kill a person, but I know that I can kill someone if I open fire, and despite this I open fire and I kill someone, then I'm liable of homicide in "dolo eventual", which I believe it's called "homicide in sencond degree" in anglosaxon criminal law systems. And the punishment assigned to this behauvior is exactly the same as in the case of homicide in the first degree (direct will to kill the victim).

I really hope someday all the people in the middle east will be able to live in peace.

[Alison]

The victims were innocent and it was the army who dropped the bombs. They simply took cover in their building to try to get some protection.

As has already been pointed out, the world is concentrating on all the Lebanese wounded and killed; I rarely ever hear about the devastation that Hezbollah has caused to Israeli citizens.  Even on liberal-slanted US mediums, like National Public Radio, they seem to focus on Lebanon's wounded.  Are Israel's citizens also hiding rockets and ammunition in their homes?  I haven't heard that this is the case.  But I've read numerous accounts of Lebanese citizens providing this service, both WITH and WITHOUT their willingness to help Hezbollah.

You are correct.

An article I read last week in my paper told about the people in one of those border villages. The Hezbollah went through the village and demanded all of their cell phones in case any of them tried to collaborate with the Israelis by telling them which buildings Hezbollah were using.  Israel not only had been dropping paper warnings for the villagers to leave, but they had also been calling every Lebanese phone number they could find to warn everyone to get out.

They were also ordered by the Hezbollah fighters to stay in the village so the Hezbollah could blend in and wouldn't be so obvious of a target.

Today's paper has an article telling about a Lebanese woman mourning the loss of her Hezbollah husband.  She said his lifelong dream had been to be made a martyr fighting Israel.  She also said her house had many other people dropping by to honor his martyrdom, and to tell her they were also hoping to be martyrs.

I cannot see the difference in innocent civilians killed by air warfare, or those killed by ground fighting.  You will get the same result no matter which method you use.  It is an unavoidable part of warfare and has been that way for thousands of years.  In these modern times, there are so many more of us packed into smaller areas that large numbers of deaths are easier to achieve with far less effort.  

Does anyone remember that old Star Trek episode about that race of people who had done away with the reality of warfare, but still had differences and grudges so they used technical hits to represent bombs and those in the affected areas reported to the extermination chambers as "casualities"?  Captain Kirk pointed out that by not experiencing the true horrors of open warfare, they never had a reason to settle their differences and stop the madness.

Until everyone sees more benefit in living with all nations peacefully, regardless of race, religion, or culture, war is going to be a part of human maturity, or extinction.  

Unfortunately, not everyone wants to see those benefits, and it makes no sense for the rest of us to  passively accept their violence, because we don't want to be thought of as just like them when we respond with force, or because we're afraid they might become more violent with our response.  Self defense is the right of all nations.  Measuring out the response based on some kind of balance of damage makes no sense at all, especially when it's not us being subjected to years of violence, and horror.  

If you are threatened and constantly attacked by people who will not negotiate, who wish your total extinction, and glorify their deaths while causing civilian deaths in your country, then you have the right to respond.  It is very sad if innocents are caught in the middle, but that does not diminish the right to defend oneself, and your own innocent civilian population.

[Ari]

As has already been pointed out, the world is concentrating on all the Lebanese wounded and killed; I rarely ever hear about the devastation that Hezbollah has caused to Israeli citizens.  Even on liberal-slanted US mediums, like National Public Radio, they seem to focus on Lebanon's wounded.  Are Israel's citizens also hiding rockets and ammunition in their homes?  I haven't heard that this is the case.  But I've read numerous accounts of Lebanese citizens providing this service, both WITH and WITHOUT their willingness to help Hezbollah.

fortunately, the 4000 or so rockets that have landed on Israeli cities in the last 20 days, have "only" killed about 20 civilians (and wounded hundreds more), but no, you hardly hear about that. damage estimates are at a few dozen million USD, and that includes the physical destruction of buildings, cars, roads and other infrastructure, massive deforestation due to fires spreading all around the north (believe me, it's hot here).
And of course there's the millions lost due to a drastic fall in tourism in the north, and the millions more that are lost due to the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have been living in bomb shelters for almost 3 weeks - not going to work unless absolutely necessary.

But of course, nobody's talking about, or even expecting reparations from Lebanon or from Hezbollah, since that'll never happen. Our government, i.e. the tax payer, and the insurance companies will have to take care of that.  :roll:

On another note, Shad0wfax: even if I disagree with you and think you're wrong, I'm not mad at you, and I don't think this should ruin our relationship on the board.
If I made an enemy of everyone I ever argued with on politics or on Israeli policy, I'd probably have no friends by now.
You see, on normal days, I'm considered a left-wing. I've been against the Israeli occupation of the territories and in favor of the withdrawal of southern Lebanon for all my life. So this sudden so-called right-wing stance I have taken in this conflict just goes to show how angered I am at Lebanon for not doing anything for 6 years and allowing Hezbollah to repeatedly launch unprovoked attacks at us from within Lebanese controlled areas, and how angered I am at the UN at not doing anything at stopping Hezbollah.
I think you don't really have a very good idea of what it's like around here, and maybe if you were here, you'd change your mind a little.
I guess I can't blame you for not being able to see our point from where you live.

[kreatorb]

Emotional arguments aside, is this action solving anything?  Does it have a reasonable prospect of resolving any of the outstanding issues? Or is it just making things worse (I think it is)?

The reason why there is such strong criticism of Israel is this seems like a revenge operation with no real objectives.  It seems the Israeli government fears looking impotent in the face of such attacks, so it acts in such a manner to keep (and increase) popular support.  In their heart of hearts, I don't think the Israel military are actually so naive to believe Hezbollah will just go away as a result of the current action.

Application of force in this way is not working now, has not worked in the past and will not work in the future - a guerilla force can't be defeated by force of arms alone.  Quite the opposite, Hezbollah will only be supported more by Lebanese who are now fearful of another invasion (which is why they aren't leaving - they don't want to lose their homes again... not because they want to be human shields).

The US are discovering similar things in Iraq at the moment.

And as a footnote - no country ever thinks they started it (the two soldiers were a convenient trigger for this action - not the root cause behind it).  Even Nazi Germany represented itself as being attacked to its citizens initally - it's often just an excuse for premeditated retaliation.

[Ari]

Emotional arguments aside, is this action solving anything?  Does it have a reasonable prospect of resolving any of the outstanding issues? Or is it just making things worse (I think it is)?

The reason why there is such strong criticism of Israel is this seems like a revenge operation with no real objectives.  It seems the Israeli government fears looking impotent in the face of such attacks, so it acts is such a manner to keep popular support.  In their heart of hearts, I don't think the Israel military are actually so naive to believe Hezbollah will just go away as a result of the current action.

Application of force in this way is not working now, has not worked in the past and will not work in the future - a guerilla force can't be defeated by force of arms alone.  Quite the opposite, Hezbollah will only be supported more by Lebanese who are now fearful of another invasion (which is why they aren't leaving - they don't want to lose their homes again... not because they want to be human shields).

The US are discovering this in Iraq at the moment.

And as a footnote - no country ever thinks they started it.  Even Nazi Germany represented itself as being attacked to its citizens initally - it's often just an excuse for retaliation.

I don't think military action will rid us from the Hezbollah. It hasn't done so in the past, and I doubt it will in the future.
HOWEVER, it does finally draw world attention to the problem in southern Lebanon, and if we get the UN or some other multinational military force to intervene, believe me, we'll be quite happy.
In addition, this campaign is showing the Lebanese government (little by little) that having the Hezbollah fire from within Lebanese controlled territory, isn't in their best interest. When they finally understand this, maybe we'll begin to see some changes in the area.
Hezbollah sitting on the border is simply not an option anymore.
If that's what it takes to get the world to do something, anything, I can't think of anything else we should do.

How would you go about solving the problem? What would you do in our place? (please don't tell me what you wouldn't do)

[Ari]

damage estimates are at a few dozen million USD, and that includes the physical destruction of buildings, cars, roads and other infrastructure, massive deforestation due to fires spreading all around the north (believe me, it's hot here).
And of course there's the millions lost due to a drastic fall in tourism in the north, and the millions more that are lost due to the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have been living in bomb shelters for almost 3 weeks - not going to work unless absolutely necessary.

correction: more like half a billion USD in damage to industry so far.  :shock:

[kreatorb]

(I was slightly revising my comment from that quoted as you replied.. but I didn't change the gist).

Sorry to pop your bubble but a UN force won't be respected - it has no ability to either:

a) shoot Lebanese or
b) shoot Israelis

Any force won't be made up of Arab nations and will be thought of as a proxy Israeli force.  They'll probably send some poor Bangladeshi peacekeepers in to cop it just like in Africa.  If they send in US/UK/EU peacekeepers it will turn into a warzone.

It is useless to send in peacekeepers when there is no peace to keep - their presence is basically worthless.

My solution?

Prior to the bombings, Israel had the sympathy of some Arab nations regarding the acts of Hezbollah.  It has now lost it.  It should have engaged surrounding Arab nations (along with pressure from the US and Europe) to apply pressure to Hezbollah (some limited tactical strikes or embargos/blockades would not have been out of the question also) - but this avenue is now closed.

The idea that Israel is showing the Lebanese anything other than a brutal display of force is wrong headed.  Lebanon already knows Israel is powerful.. it's citizens probably thought they were safe after 10 years or so of relative peace.  Now they know they were wrong.  I don't think their government will now be in a position to simply cave in (extremist elements will now be strengthened).

Sometimes the best results are achieved by NOT doing something.  The more Israel appears to be a victim rather than an aggressor, the better things will go for it diplomatically. I guess this is not glamorous enough for most people though.

Right now though.. the first step is to negotiate a ceasefire (even a bandaid one).  Even if it means Israel having to absorb some rockets,  it will probably serve Israel better in the long run than destroying more of Lebanon.

[Ari]

I would like to remind you that we've spent 6 years not doing anything and absorbing rockets. The fact that you don't seem to remember that just goes to show that doing nothing gains Israel nothing, not even sympathy, because people don't seem to be aware that shelling and killing and kidnapping has occured numerous times in the last 6 years.

So, considering that, what do you do when that option fails?

Another question, why do you suppose the area would turn into a war zone? who would these multinational forces be fighting against? (I'll give you a hint - it wouldn't be against Israel)

[Alistair]

Wow, this board is way more right-wing than I thought.

Anyway, cynical question of the day- why hasn't Israel invaded Palestine (they fire rockets into Israel regularly)?

- Alistair

[shad0wfax]

Ari said

Shad0wfax: even if I disagree with you and think you're wrong, I'm not mad at you, and I don't think this should ruin our relationship on the board.

I'm really glad to read those words

I think you don't really have a very good idea of what it's like around here, and maybe if you were here, you'd change your mind a little.
I guess I can't blame you for not being able to see our point from where you live.

Yes, you're probably right and I suspect that if I were in your context, I'd possibly change my viewpoint. But this does not mean that then I'd be right. I also can say that if you were NOT in that context, and could examine the situation from a more neutral and impartial point of view, you'd possibly change your point of view. Usually strong emotions and reason are not good friends.

I believe that if western civilization really wants to show its legitimacy, it must show that it's superior from a moral point of view (and not just from a technological/militar point of view). And this requires that individual human rights must be respected for everyone, contrary to the islamic (or other kind of) terrorists, or political regimes. The way to show we are better is that we don't simply go and kill some people, but that we respect rights and legality. This means no illegal invasion of countries, no indiscriminate bombings, no Guantanamos and no Abu Graibs, for instance. Even criminals, despite being criminals, are still persons and have some basic rights and deserve to be arrested and tried according to the law. Even someone like Hitler had this right, and that's what make us better than him. If not, we're just se same kind of beasts, or even worse, because our military power makes us capable of greater bloodbaths. Illegal actions only give the terrorists arguments for their violent actions.

So if someone makes a terrorist strike, you shouldn't go and kill him, but you should arrest him and put him before court according to the law, and if you can't, then, as we usually say in Spain, "te la machacas con dos piedras" (litteraly: "smash your penis with two stones"), which means: bad luck! maybe next time. European's Human Right's Court has condemned the spanish state twice and invalidated the whole judicial process against ETA's members for some minor legal technicisms. Those were tough hits for my country, and I wouldn't even want to think what the court had done and said if those people were just killed.

[kreatorb]

The crucial step Israel hasn't been doing is successfully integrating with its region.  Its solutions have been a combination of bad faith negotiations or stand-over-man "or else" solutions. It really has to stop being an isolationist bully to make progress.

Of course Hezbollah (and others) will target the peacekeeping force - this force will be occupying Lebanon, enforcing imposed terms.  It will be just another rallying point for jihadists wanting to target western armies (probably exactly what Iran wanted).

I wonder how Israel would feel if this force had full rights to shoot down Israeli planes/helicopters also?  That is the kind of uncompromising and unbiased UN we need.

[Tom]

The crucial step Israel hasn't been doing is successfully integrating with its region. Its solutions have been a combination of bad faith negotiations or stand-over-man "or else" solutions. It really has to stop being an isolationist bully to make progress.

So, how has the "region" offered to help?  Or more realistically, how can it help?  Is the 'region' ready to confront Hezbollah?  And while this integration is forthcoming, should Israel just stop defending itself while Hezbollah continues attacking?  I would think that this might lead to self-annihilation.

[kreatorb]

Self annihilation is a bit dramatic I think.  I don't think the state of Israel is in any real danger unless the entire middle east gangs up on it (which will only happen if Israel continues to antagonize it).  Anyway, the current action has only increased the amount of rocket attacks.

I'll flip that back to you reversed.. why should the region (neighbouring Arab nations) help Israel?  I don't exactly see any great benefits Israel has delivered to the region over the years.  Perhaps if there were more genuine diplomatic relations, beneficial trade agreements, aid to the region, etc there would be more of a dialogue where disputes such as these could be resolved before it came to shooting.  

At the moment Israel is building a huge wall around its borders, blockading Palestine and destroying Lebanon.. quite the opposite of the direction they should be heading in if they want to coexist happily with their neigbours.

[Tom]

why should the region (neighbouring Arab nations) help Israel?

I didn't say that they should, or that they would ever be willing to.  I was writing in response to your thought that, "what Israel hasn't been doing is successfully integrating with its region."

So, if Israel did nothing in response to Hezbollah's attacks (as I said), what do you then think would happen as a result?

I think you misunderstood what I wrote, or perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly.  I feel that Israel is not waiting for "integration with its region" because that, while they wait, more and more of their citizens die/are dying/will die from Hezbollah attacks.

[kreatorb]

No, I think I understood.

I was saying that they shouldn't respond to terror with terror, but should diplomatically exert pressure on Lebanon with the cooperation of surrounding states.  It may have to offer incentives to these states to get this to happen - but I think Israel just has to grit their teeth and do so.  

And what would happen if Israel didn't respond as they are doing (which will not stop the rocket attacks)? Nothing worse than we currently have - certainly not the doomsday scenario you are outlining.