War crimes are not a valid response to terrorism
Israel has responded to border skirmishes and an abduction of two of its soldiers in Lebanese/Israeli border by Hezbollah militants with the unilateral declaring war on the Lebanese government and launching a devastating bombing campaign into Southern Lebanon.
In essence, it has responded to terrorism with what can only be described as flagrant war crimes.
Regardless of Israel’s claim of only targeting “Hezbollah” facilities and installations, the truth on the ground is clear. Israel has systematically targeted civilian facilities. Roads, entire neighbourhoods have been flattened by the air strikes. Over 350 Lebanese have been killed, the majority being civilians. At least a half of a million people in southern Lebanon have been displaced. Recently reported today, Israel has started targeting television and radio transmission towers within Lebanon, even those unrelated with Hezbollah.
States UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour:
This disproportionate warfare has hardly been lost to the people of Western Europe or the United States. There have been extensive anti-war protests in London as well as significant diplomatic disquiet. Nevertheless, both the United Kingdom and United States have resisted official condemnation of the Israeli action or calls for a ceasefire. The United Kingdom, nevertheless expressed its displeasure unofficially through the comments of Mr Kim Howells, the Foreign Office minister who stated:
It is interesting to read the United States position on the conflict. The United States has by large given explicit consent for the Israeli military campaign and has placed the “blame” solely on Hezbollah. Lebanese civilian casualties, just like those of the Gazans have been ignored behind the glib “Israel has a right to defend itself”. Syria and Iran are the usual bogeymen with their arms support for Hezbollah. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Rather than condemning the Israel’s bombing strategy, the United States, Israel’s main weapons supplier, has expedited a shipment of munitions to Israel. Far from simply “looking the other way”, the United States is complicit in this slaughter of civilians.
Even more ludicrous is the suggestion by Australia’s feckless Foreign Minister Alexander Downer who claimed in the 7:30 report:
The international effort for peace must be pursued. Violence begets only violence.
Source articles
Perry T. Israel and Lebanon under fire. Reuters. 23 July 2006.
Tostevin M. Diplomatic flurry in Israel over Lebanon war. Yahoo! News (Reuters). 23 July 2006.
Long G. Thousands march in protest against Israeli attacks. Yahoo! News (Reuters). 22 July 2006.
Noueihed L. Lebanese flee north raising white flags. Yahoo! News (Reuters). 22 July 2006.
Pickler N. Bush: Rice trip will focus on Hezbollah. Yahoo! News (Associated Press). 22 July 2006.
Minister condemns Israeli action. BBC News (International). 22 July 2006.
US rushes precision-guided bombs to Israel: NYTimes. Yahoo! News (Reuters). 22 July 2006.
Israel targets Lebanese television towers. Taipei Times. 23 July 2006.
UN warning on Mid-East war crimes. BBC News (International). 20 July 2006.
Downer defends embassy staff [transcript from TV program]. ABC 7:30 Report. Broadcast 19 July 2006.
Israel has responded to border skirmishes and an abduction of two of its soldiers in Lebanese/Israeli border by Hezbollah militants with the unilateral declaring war on the Lebanese government and launching a devastating bombing campaign into Southern Lebanon.
In essence, it has responded to terrorism with what can only be described as flagrant war crimes.
Regardless of Israel’s claim of only targeting “Hezbollah” facilities and installations, the truth on the ground is clear. Israel has systematically targeted civilian facilities. Roads, entire neighbourhoods have been flattened by the air strikes. Over 350 Lebanese have been killed, the majority being civilians. At least a half of a million people in southern Lebanon have been displaced. Recently reported today, Israel has started targeting television and radio transmission towers within Lebanon, even those unrelated with Hezbollah.
States UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour:
“Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians… Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable.”Although Arbour did not specify individuals, she suggested that leaders could bear personal responsibility. It is universally acknowledged that the actions of Hezbollah militants toward rocket attacks on civilians constitute terrorism. The action of the Israeli military and government should be measured by the same standards. Again, Ms Arbour:
“There is an obligation on all parties to respect the principle of proportionality.”As a point of comparison, a total of 35 Israelis have died in the recent conflicts, 15 of them civilians. That is, the Lebanese casualties are over an order of magnitude worse.
This disproportionate warfare has hardly been lost to the people of Western Europe or the United States. There have been extensive anti-war protests in London as well as significant diplomatic disquiet. Nevertheless, both the United Kingdom and United States have resisted official condemnation of the Israeli action or calls for a ceasefire. The United Kingdom, nevertheless expressed its displeasure unofficially through the comments of Mr Kim Howells, the Foreign Office minister who stated:
“I very much hope that the Americans understand what’s happening to Lebanon. The destruction of the infrastructure, the death of so many children and so many people. These have not been surgical strikes. And it’s very difficult, I think, to understand the kind of military tactics that have been used. You know, if they’re chasing Hezbollah, then go for Hezbollah. You don’t go for the entire Lebanese nation.”British Prime Minister Tony Blair official spokesperson has supported Howells statement.
It is interesting to read the United States position on the conflict. The United States has by large given explicit consent for the Israeli military campaign and has placed the “blame” solely on Hezbollah. Lebanese civilian casualties, just like those of the Gazans have been ignored behind the glib “Israel has a right to defend itself”. Syria and Iran are the usual bogeymen with their arms support for Hezbollah. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Rather than condemning the Israel’s bombing strategy, the United States, Israel’s main weapons supplier, has expedited a shipment of munitions to Israel. Far from simply “looking the other way”, the United States is complicit in this slaughter of civilians.
Even more ludicrous is the suggestion by Australia’s feckless Foreign Minister Alexander Downer who claimed in the 7:30 report:
“Hezbollah should immediately withdraw from southern Lebanon and leave Israel alone, and the sooner they do that, the better.”I can fully agree that Hezbollah should “leave Israel alone”, but our esteemed foreign minister needs to explain why the Lebanese should “withdraw” from their own country for the sake of the Israelis. Of course, parroting US foreign policy dogma seems to be the standard path for the Howard Government.
The international effort for peace must be pursued. Violence begets only violence.
Source articles
Perry T. Israel and Lebanon under fire. Reuters. 23 July 2006.
Tostevin M. Diplomatic flurry in Israel over Lebanon war. Yahoo! News (Reuters). 23 July 2006.
Long G. Thousands march in protest against Israeli attacks. Yahoo! News (Reuters). 22 July 2006.
Noueihed L. Lebanese flee north raising white flags. Yahoo! News (Reuters). 22 July 2006.
Pickler N. Bush: Rice trip will focus on Hezbollah. Yahoo! News (Associated Press). 22 July 2006.
Minister condemns Israeli action. BBC News (International). 22 July 2006.
US rushes precision-guided bombs to Israel: NYTimes. Yahoo! News (Reuters). 22 July 2006.
Israel targets Lebanese television towers. Taipei Times. 23 July 2006.
UN warning on Mid-East war crimes. BBC News (International). 20 July 2006.
Downer defends embassy staff [transcript from TV program]. ABC 7:30 Report. Broadcast 19 July 2006.
24 comments:
It is interesting to note just who started the most recent outbreak of hostilities.
It is also interesting to note how the Hezbollah side chooses to respond. The rockets that Hezbollah fires are not aimed at military targets, they are aimed at Israeli population centers.
Michael, please be "proportional" in your condemnations.
I believe that I am more than "proportional" in my condemnation. As before, the acts of Hezbollah I consider to be acts of "terrorism", hence the subtitle of this article.
If someone murders your brother it does not in any way justify killing his entire family and razing his neighbours' homes. That, is exactly what Israel is doing. There is no question that Israel's actions constitute collective punishment of the Lebanese people.
As before, consider the principle of "universality". If we accept that Israel is justified in killing over 350 Lebanese civilians and displacing over half a million as a response to two captured Israeli soldiers then we must also accept that the rocket attacks by Hezbollah to be justified also.
The rocket attacks by Hezbollah are not acceptable and neither are the atrocious military actions on the part of the Israelis.
How can you even begin to argue that the Israeli response is "proportional"? The Hezbollah rockets are barely effective. I have yet to see any Israeli neighbourhoods levelled by Hezbollah airstrikes and I doubt very much we ever will. It is palpably obvious that the abductions were simply a pretext by Israel to launch an invasion to "root out" Hezbollah, very much like it was used in Gaza.
Regards,
Michael Tam
I note with interest that you would describe the rocket attacks coming from Gaza and Lebanon as being a pretext. If rockets were falling in your neighborhood, would you expect the Australian government to respond to these attacks? If only a couple of your neighbors ended up dead as a result of these attacks, would this be OK with you?
Let us examine history. After the Nazis dared to attack London with air raids, the Nazis were subjected to attacks from the air that were not "proportional". Allied air attacks included the fire bombing of Dresden.
Israel is at least entitled to the same disproportionality as that exercised by allied forces in WWII.
Who started the present conflict?
I would expect the government to respond, but I would expect my government to act in a controlled and just manner. If my government was killing an order of magnitude more of the "opposition" and displacing half a million people for a "couple" of my neighbours being dead I would be ashamed to call myself an Australian.
As for your example, how apt. Dresden, is one of the most controversial aspects of the second world war and argued by many to have been a war crime.
As for "who started" the present conflict, it depends how far you want to go. Arguable, Israel started it when they invaded Lebanon the first time around.
Regards,
Michael Tam
I see even some Israelis see the immorality of this current war: by Professor Ze'ev Moaz of Tel Aviv University.
Regards,
Michael Tam
That would indeed be an interesting point to begin your argument.
That invasion was followed by the Israeli withdrawal to the UN sanctioned blue line. The UN Security Council announced that the Israeli withdrawal, after some adjustments by the Israeli side, was fully in compliance with UNSC Resolution 425.
Now let us look at the other side of the border. On Sept 02, 2004 the UN Security Council adopted UNSC Resolution 1559, which amongst other things, called for all Lebanese militias (including Hezbollah) to disband. Quite the opposite occurred. Hezbollah continued to arm itself with more capable and longer range rockets with which to threaten Israel.
The first Israeli invasion of Lebanon resulted in the withdrawal of Israeli forces to internationally recognized borders. There still remains some dispute about just where these borders lie (such as the dispute surrounding Sheba Farms) however the UN Security Council has decided the lines withdrawn to are acceptable, at least for the time being.
So there is no justification for Hezbollah actions due to the past invasion of Lebanon by Israel.
There is at least some merit to arguments that Hezbollah actions were taken in support of Palestinian forces in Gaza, or perhaps to distract the international community from the Iran nuclear enrichment "problem" or perhaps both were the motivation.
Hezbollah is the side responsible for escalating tensions to all out warfare. While the exact motivations of Hezbollah might not be crystal clear, it is certain that for some reason Hezbollah picked the fight.
Michael,
Thanks for the link to Professor Ze'ev Maoz's article.
That is what I love about the Israeli side. Their side does contain many who will force soul searching. The Israeli side also includes the actions and efforts Peace Now.
Too bad no such voices exist to any substantial degree within the forces aligned against Israel.
Ooops. Let me take that back. "Moderate" Arab government voices seem to be quite reluctant to voice support for Hezbollah. They seem to realize that Hezbollah picked a fight, and perhaps are getting what they deserve.
There is no "justification"?
Daily Israeli incursion into Lebanese territory (as part of security photo surveillance) could be viewed as continuing and substantial provocation.
In any case, this is entirely irrelevant. I can fully agree that Hezbollah "started this fight". The point you are missing (or ignoring) is that the State of Lebanon nor the Lebanese people are Hezbollah. Hezbollah doesn't form anywhere even close to a majority in the Lebanese democracy.
Israeli military action has either by design or gross incompetence killed large numbers of civilians, destroyed huge amounts of public infrastructure not to mention displaced over half a million people in their "pursuit" of Hezbollah.
"Proportionality".
If someone punches you in the face, you may be justified at some "natural justice" level to punch them back. You are not justified in shooting him dead, killing his family and burning down his neighbour's house.
As for "voices against Hezbollah", most of the Lebanese political parties are against Hezbollah. They have chosen, however, to deal with Hezbollah by engaging in the democratic process rather than through internal/civil war.
Regards,
Michael Tam
The UN still can't get aid into Southern Lebanon.
Israel using cluster bombs around populated areas.
Yes, Hezbollah is launching rockets into Israel, having killed around 20 civilians. It's a damn atrocity. This doesn't justify what Israel is doing to Lebanon and it is damned unlikely that their current actions are going to secure their northern border in the longer term.
Regards,
Michael Tam
"Proportionality?"
If a criminal breaks into my home and threatens to kill my family, I am not justified in using deadly force PRIOR to him actually taking the life of someone in my family?
The intelligence gathering flights by Israeli jets is justified by the military buildup within Lebanon of Hezbollah.
You stated: "The point you are missing (or ignoring) is that the State of Lebanon nor the Lebanese people are Hezbollah. Hezbollah doesn't form anywhere even close to a majority in the Lebanese democracy."
However, Hezbollah holds seats within the Lebanese government. The excuse given for why the Lebanese government can not take action against Hezbollah in compliance with UNSC Resolution 1559 is that large portions of the Lebanese army would desert if it tried.
If the "majority" of Lebanese do not stand with Hezbollah, then the "majority" should have policed their own nation and taken action against Hezbollah. However this is not what happened. They allowed Hezbollah to exist as a seperate military force unresponsible to the control of the government. A seperate military force sworn to the destruction of Israel and a military force that frequently conducted attacks, including rocket attacks, against Israel after the Israeli withdrawal to the blue line.
Southern Lebanon is a war zone. Israel wants the "innocent civilians" to flee the war zone so that Hezbollah can not hide amongst these civilians.
If UN Aid workers are allowed into the area, they will only add to the problem. Let UN Aid agencies set up outside the warzone with promises of relief for those civilians that flee the zone of hostilities.
If a criminal breaks into my home and threatens to kill my family, I am not justified in using deadly force PRIOR to him actually taking the life of someone in my family?
So that use of "deadly force" includes shooting the "criminal's" entire family and his neighbours as well? "Just in case"? What a ridiculous argument.
The intelligence gathering flights by Israeli jets is justified by the military buildup within Lebanon of Hezbollah.
Universality
By your logic, then Hezbollah is justified in launching raids against Israeli military installations for their obvious (and copious) build up inside Israel. Let us not lose sight of reality. Israel has the largest and best supplied military in the entire Middle East and is the only country that has developed nuclear weapons.
As for the nonsense about Hezbollah and the Lebanese government not taking action, this is called democracy. Remember, you Americans are trying to peddle it. The US doesn't try to disarm or arrest Neo-Nazis and white supremists. Neo-Nazis are illegal in Germany. By YOUR argument, Germany is justified in launching air raids against neighbours with suspected Neo-Nazis because the US is unable to "take action" against them.
As for your high principles of compliance with UN resolutions, the same resolutions do not in any way justify the invasion by the army of another nation into Lebanon. Israel has breached dozens of UN resolutions. That is hardly a justification for the invasion of Israel by another country.
Oh yes, and before I forget, as for the questions on "who started" the current conflict, let us keep the chronology sound. Hezbollah only launched rockets against Israeli after (i.e., in response to) air strikes by Israel into Lebanon. Hezbollah had launched a military sortie against Israeli military personnel and captured soldiers. Illegal? Absolutely. However, arguably the first "strike" against civilians in this conflict was not in fact by the well known "terrorist" group.
Regards,
Michael Tam
If UN Aid workers are allowed into the area, they will only add to the problem. Let UN Aid agencies set up outside the warzone with promises of relief for those civilians that flee the zone of hostilities.
Missing the point -- and read the news.
Israel has given permission for the UN to enter Southern Lebanon and has stated on more than one occasion that it is aware of the humanitarian catastrophe in the region. However, its token changes has made it impossible for the relief organisations to enter effectively or safely.
Furthermore, I would like to see how well YOU flee the "zone of hostilities" when it covers the entire southern part of Lebanon and where the majority of roads and bridges exiting the region has been destroyed. That, and bombs are falling apparently in an indiscriminate manner.
From AlterNet, the view of on the street in Lebanon. It was not so long ago that Lebanon was held up by the United States as an example of democracy in the Middle East (and it is). Rice has now basically given approval for Israel to continue its military campaign in Lebanon. Betrayal? Absolutely.
Regards,
Michael Tam
You would equate intelligence gathering overflights that harm no one with ground military incursions conducted to kill opponents and to take hostages? Ahem, just who is being rediculous?
It is not like Hezbollah never launched rocket attacks against Israel during the "ceasefire".
You stated: "Israel has the largest and best supplied military in the entire Middle East and is the only country that has developed nuclear weapons."
First, I think I read somewhere that Pakistan now also has nuclear weapons. As for Israel being the largest and best supplied conventional military, perhaps you would be satisfied if Israel only restricted themselves to not using their military advantage and only responded "tit for tat" with barrages of indiscriminate Qassam rockets across the border? Nope, Israel must be condemned for using weapons that might actually hit the targets they were aimed at! Chuckle.
As for your statement: 'As for the nonsense about Hezbollah and the Lebanese government not taking action, this is called democracy."
Well you are shooting yourself in the foot. I believe in democracy. I believe in holding the democratically elected Lebanese government (which includes representatives of Hezbollah) responsible for their actions (or in this case inaction). Just because they were democratically elected does not through some magical formula hold them innocent. They are still held responsible. Remember, Hitler came to power through elections.
You unreasonably think the majority of Lebanese should be held harmless solely because they were elected. I on the other hand think those elected should be held responsible.
As for neo-Nazis in America, I do think they have the right to freedom of speech. However when they cross the line into action they should be held accountable as was our domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh. If the Deutsch government has any grievances against Neo-Nazis residing in America they can take this up in the courts and there is no need to launch airstrikes against America. Here in America, unlike the EU, we will even be willing to execute the bastards. Grin.
I see you retreat from your original argument as to who started the current conflict. Now you state that Hezbollah attacks against a military target was not "first". Chuckle. So past Hezbollah rocket attacks against Israeli population centers do not count? The Hezbollah military incursion was only the straw that broke the camels back. It is not like previous straws were not added to the camels burden.
I think that we can agree to disagree on this issue. In any case, we seem to be arguing on different points. As before, I fully accept that Hezbollah "started" this war. However, that does not justify the gross disproportunate Israeli military action. It specifically does not justify the attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure. I maintain that Israel has committed war crimes in the current conflict.
One last point, Pakistan has nukes. Pakistan, however, is not in the Middle East.
Regards,
Michael Tam
If there is proof that Israel is trigger happy with their air strikes, they have targeted a UN Observation Post on the Lebanese/Israeli border killing at least 4 UN observers.
Regards,
Michael Tam
Israel has the right to try and prevent Hezbollah from being rearmed with additional rockets. Israel has the right to defend her citizens. There is no requirement in international law that actions taken during warfare must be proportional.
As for the attack on the UN outpost, perhaps this proves that the Israelis are not perfect. It is not unusual for even friendly fire upon ones own forces to happen during wartime. Or perhaps someone has proof that the attacks were intentional?
Yes, technically Pakistan is not in the Middle East, however Pakistan does possess the "Islamic bomb". They most certainly are in the neighborhood.
Israel has the right to try and prevent Hezbollah from being rearmed with additional rockets. Israel has the right to defend her citizens.
What is the flip side? Lebanon has a right to try and prevent Israel from being rearmed with additional rockets/missiles. Lebanon has the right to defend her citizens.
There is no requirement in international law that actions taken during warfare must be proportional.
Resorting to this now? Thanks for winning my argument. There may be no requirement in international law that warfare be "proportional", but there is an ethical and moral requirement. There is a requirement in international law that civilians and civilian infrastructure not be targeted.
As for the attack on the UN outpost, perhaps this proves that the Israelis are not perfect. It is not unusual for even friendly fire upon ones own forces to happen during wartime. Or perhaps someone has proof that the attacks were intentional?
The UN post has been there from a very long time and is clearly marked. It shows one of two things. Maliciousness on the part of the Israelis, or incompetence. The building was clearly targeted by the airstrikes, not hit by a stray bomb. Israel still dares try to claim that their airstrikes are well considered and specific to Hezbollah military structures. This is obviously not the case.
Yes, technically Pakistan is not in the Middle East, however Pakistan does possess the "Islamic bomb". They most certainly are in the neighborhood.
Erh??? Pakistan is most certainly not considered to be in the region. Pakistan rarely enters the political sphere of the "Middle Eastern conflict" and its attention is focused much more to India to its East and occasionally to Afghanistan to the North. "In the neighbourhood"?? Greece is in the "neighbourhood" as well. Your use of Pakistan is little more than a sneaky attempt to claim that Israel isn't the only country in the region with nukes.
As for "Islamic" bomb, the world of the Middle East should not be polarised with such simplistic notions.
Regards,
Michael Tam
Michael, you stated: "What is the flip side? Lebanon has a right to try and prevent Israel from being rearmed with additional rockets/missiles. Lebanon has the right to defend her citizens."
Seems the Lebanese side, as represented by Hexbollah, is striking out against Israel. They started the current outbreak of hostilities and are actively engaged in continuing the violence.
You stated: "Thanks for winning my argument. There may be no requirement in international law that warfare be "proportional", but there is an ethical and moral requirement. There is a requirement in international law that civilians and civilian infrastructure not be targeted."
Aside from the remark about winning your argument for you, which I have no idea where you came up with that, I will call attention to the fact that Israel's opponents have no respect for that "civilians and civlian infrastructure not be targetted". Aside from the fact that if Hezbollah hides military assests within civilian structures, and that if the "civilian infrastructure" is used to rearm your opponents they become militarily valid targets, I would again point out what happened in WWII. After Germany engaged in the wanton bombings of London, German cities then were subjected to the same treatment.
As for Pakistan not being in the Middle East or part of the considerations, let the Pakistani government become an Islamic Republic or something and then let us see if there is no reason for concern. Technically, Iran is not part of the Middle East either. But I guess you would then claim that Iranian viewpoints and actions can thus be ignored?
Seems the Lebanese side, as represented by Hexbollah, is striking out against Israel. They started the current outbreak of hostilities and are actively engaged in continuing the violence.
As usual, you are entirely missing the point. You are missing the equivalence. You condemn Hezbollah action and yet condone Israeli. It is moral inconsistency and hypocrisy. If you condemn Hezbollah military action, then you must also condemn what the Israelis are doing now. Both are wrong. The Israelis more so for the SCALE of what they have perpetrated.
If you argue that Israel has a "right" to defend herself AND use this as a justification for its current military action, they the same argument can be applied to the Lebanese side.
I will call attention to the fact that Israel's opponents have no respect for that "civilians and civlian infrastructure not be targetted".
You have used this argument multiple times on several articles and this line is thought is fundamentally wrong. Because someone is "bad" does not justify another perpetrating "bad" things to the first. A murder of a murderer is still murder. It isn't any less wrong to rape the child of a convicted paedophile.
I agree that Hezbollah doesn't adhere to the norms of international law. Yes they target civilians. That is why they are known as terrorists. How does this even vaguely justify Israel's attack on Lebanese civilians?
Aside from the fact that if Hezbollah hides military assests within civilian structures, and that if the "civilian infrastructure" is used to rearm your opponents they become militarily valid targets,
This is no longer valid under international law. Furthermore, it has become blatently obvious that Israel has not just been targeting Hezbollah positions. Razing entire apartment buildings? Using cluster bombs in urban areas? Bombing Beirut international airport runways? Hitting non-Hezbollah related radio and TV stations? Bombing a UN complex?
After Germany engaged in the wanton bombings of London, German cities then were subjected to the same treatment.
As before Little David, Dresden is widely now regarded to be a war crime.
As for Pakistan not being in the Middle East or part of the considerations, let the Pakistani government become an Islamic Republic or something and then let us see if there is no reason for concern. Technically, Iran is not part of the Middle East either. But I guess you would then claim that Iranian viewpoints and actions can thus be ignored?
For God's sake, learn some basic geography before posting this nonsense. I know that you are more intelligent than this.
Firstly, the official name of Pakistan is: The Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is ALREADY an Islamic Republic and has been an Islamic state since the partition of British India.
Secondly, Iran is DEFINITELY part of the Middle East in just about ALL modern and historically accepted definitions of the term. "Persia" has been part of the "Middle East" since Europeans were aware that there existed civilisations to the east.
Regards,
Michael Tam
I think it is you who miss the point. Hezbollah started the current outbreak of hostilities in Lebanon. Israel has the right to defend itself against aggression.
You state that the Hezbollah action amounts to exercise of similiar rights. However Hezbollah action involves striking out and then evaporating into the civilian population, firing rockets from civilian locations and in fact inviting as much involvement of the civilian populace into military action as possible.
How is Israel supposed to defend itself against such methods? Or is Israel supposed to only absorb the rocket attacks without striking back? I am glad that you agree Hezbollah should be defined as a terrorist organization. And just how should Israel strike at this terrorist organization that takes sanctuary within Lebanon if the Lebanese government is unwilling or unable to take action against them? Perhaps Israel should send its military forces to the border, have the soldiers fall to their knees and plead in one loud chorus for the rocket attacks to stop? Grin. I do not think that is going to work.
As for Iran/Pakistan being included in the Middle East, I stand chastened. Iran is most certainly part of the Middle East. I think I was confused/distracted by coming to the understanding that Iranians are not Arabs, but Persians. However I also noted with interest that both Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikepedia state that Pakistan is considered to be part of the Middle East by some definitions. Certainly this is true of the G8 definition of the area.
I could take offense at your questioning my "intelligence" due to my error. Certainly you are educated enough to know there is a difference between intelligence and ignorance. However let me state that while I COULD take offense, I am not that thin skinned. I was in error and I am grateful you corrected me. Thanks.
As for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, let me now correct you. I believe the current government of Pakistan is more accurately described as being a dictatorship, or would you disagree? You can call an apple an orange if you want, but it is still an apple.
I wish to point to how the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon to the United Nations sanctioned Blue Line, completed in May 2000, did not yield peace.
From Israelinsdier I will lift a quote from a piece written by David Bedein.
"In the four years since the IDF unilaterally redeployed its troops from Lebanon, the following attacks on Israel took place from the north: 34 attacks with mortar shells and anti-tank missiles into northern Israel; 7 shooting attacks with light arms fire into northern Israel; 8 roadside bombs that were planted in northern Israel; 127 times when anti-aircraft missiles were fired into northern Israel; 5 Katyusha rocket attacks into northern Israel; 10 infiltrations into northern Israel; 11 soldiers killed in northern Israel, while three IDF troops were kidnapped and murdered; 50 soldiers were wounded in northern Israel; 14 civilians were killed in northern Israel."
Now, I do not agree with the point that Mr Bedein is trying to make. I still think Israel MUST withdraw from the West Bank. However I do not think that such a withdrawal should result in Israel being forced to renounce the right to retaliate against continuing acts of violence launched from within the West Bank.
I am in favor of peace. I am not in favor of any settlement that forces Israel to live with a permanent state of warfare that would force Israel to "live with" a permanent state of war, including attacks upon her citizens, from her opponents that still seek to destroy the "Zonist entity" and still seek to drive all Jews into the sea.
I am in favor of a just resolution of the current conflict. However I do not think it is a crime for Jewish voices to scream for a little bit of "justice" as well.
As before, Israel has a right to respond and a right to "protect itself". It does not have a right to perpetrate war crimes. Nobody and no nation does.
In any case, I do not believe that we will necessarily agree on our respective interpretation on the current events.
Thank you for a great discussion in any case.
Regards,
Michael Tam
OK, Michael, thank you too for the great discussion.
I am almost motivated to try and tempt you to continue the discussion, however I agree with you that I will probably not change your mind, nor are you apt to change mine.
I am contemplating writing an article of my own, which I will post on my own blog, on one issue that our discussion brought up but which I feel was not adequately explored.
Thanks again.
Post a Comment