An other nations in the region are supposed to allow Israel to occupy part of SYRIA? enact prejudiced and oppressive policies geared toward a people because of the ethnicity and not related to security? Brilliant. That is sadly the whole point. We know that Hezbollah, and Palestinian terrorists are bad. But sadly Israel isn't a good guy either.
It is totally in context because the issue was that Arabs have an opinion that the US supports Israel as the US has an opinion that Iran and Syria support Hezbollah therefore blame for Hezbollah falls partly on Iran and Syria. The same can be applied that Arabs see blame for the Israel falling on the US since Arab opinion is that the US heavily supports Israel.
No Israel is supposed to look at long term strategic interest when defending itself. Like attacking Hezbollah military targets but refraining from attacking Lebanese civillian infrastructure. You can win a battle and lose the war. Just consider that every major battle in Vietnam was a numerical US victory along with every major Soviet battle in Afghanistan yet the failure to analyze the nature of the conflict in both cases those victories never translated to winning the overall war.
First, the US has absolutely supported "subnational" groups that attack civilians. See the Nicaragua/Contras for one example. Second, the fact that you see a massive difference between support of states or subnational groups that attack civilians, doesn't make it so. The innocents being killed and their families don't care whether the bombs that are blowing them up were delivered by a soldier wearing a uniform or a headscarf. The moral judgement on whether violence is justified depends on many factors, self defense vs. agression, fight for self determination vs. government oppression, etc. By your equation, that "subnational" group ,otherwise known as the Minutemen, should have been condemned for their attacks on the "legitimate" state actor, England.
Those who go to war against an enemy they don't understand are doomed to defeat. In other words, anybody who understands what Hezbollah is knows that there is very little difference between military targets and civilian infrastructure when dealing with a large terrorist organization like Hezbollah. I can't quite understand why so many people have this utterly simplistic idea that Israel is just bombing civilian infrastructure for the hell of it.
Israel Lobby in Action Ari Berman I almost never write about Israel. Someone who supports the Jewish state but opposes the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, as I do, generally gets flack from all sides. Too many on the left are reflexively anti-Israel. But too many in the so-called American mainstream are too quick to back whatever military excursion Israel undertakes--no matter how unproductive or misguided. Nowhere is the knee-jerk support of Israel more clear than in the debate in Congress this week--or lack thereof--over the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. Leaders of both parties have been quick to forcefully condemn Hamas and Hezbollah while offering unconditional support for Israel's bombing of civilian Beirut. Just take a look at the draft copy of the resolution under consideration in the House: "Be it resolved that the House of Representatives reaffirms its steadfast support for the state of Israel; further condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for cynically exploiting civilian populations as shields...calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers held captive by Hezbollah and Hamas; (and) affirms that all governments who have provided continued support to Hamas or Hezbollah share responsibility for the hostage-taking and attacks against Israel and, as such, must be held accountable for their actions." Only a few senior statesmen have raised an alarm about the ferocity of Israel's response. Rep. John Dingell, the longest serving Democrat in the House, called the Israeli counterattack "disproportionate and counterproductive." "The use of force has brought about a tragic amount of civilian deaths and has weakened a promising democracy in Lebanon," Dingell said in a statement. "The United States-–as a leader of the free world--must take immediate steps to bring about a cease fire so that negotiations may begin." Likewise, Senator John Warner, the hawkish Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has been a lone voice in holding up legislation in the Senate viewed as unnecessarily slanted toward Israel. "Our support for Israel is very strong, Mr. President, but it cannot be unconditional," Warner said on the Senate floor yesterday. "I urge the Administration to think through very carefully how Israel's extraordinary reaction could affect our operations in Iraq and our joint diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue," he added in a statement. Why are so few in Congress following the advice of Dingell and Warner? Perhaps it's because of the influence of what professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt call "The Israel Lobby," particularly its largest player, AIPAC. Even former Bush and Clinton Administration Middle East envoy Dennis Ross, a sharp critic of Mearsheimer and Walt, admits that AIPAC exerts a disproportionate grip on the Congress. "It's pretty clear that they are a significant force on the Hill," Ross recently told NPR, "And that shouldn't be underestimated. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=102781
They're not bombing them "just for the hell of it", but they're bombing them as 'collective punishment' to pressure the civilian population into action, which has never worked in the past and likely won't work this time around either; Israel only needs to look at its own history of conflict with the Palestinians/Lebanese in the past to draw this conclusion.
No, it's not "collective punishment". Listen to yourself for a minute. Exactly what purpose would that serve Israel? The "civilian" targets that are being destroyed are Hezbollah infrastructure - their office buildings, their homes, their money houses. The objective is to cripple Hezbollah, plain and simple. The airport and roads were bombed to ensure aid doesn't come in from outside, notably Syria. Same reason why they're air-patrolling the borders and taking out the incoming trucks loaded with missiles and weapons. Don't just make assumptions about their objectives based on your predetermined opinions about Israel...I understand that media coverage of this war hasn't been stellar, but you *can* stay informed. This is a deliberate war against a specific enemy, not just some reactionary explosion of revenge committed against innocent targets like so many assume.
Wow! So, Hizbollah never mixes in the civilian infrastructure. If the IDF's purpose was simply kill civilians, there woulld have been thousands upon thousands dead by now.
That is the whole meat of the matter. Most of what they are doing has a purpose, most of it doesn't really serve Israel judging by history. It isn't hard to look at what has worked, and what hasn't. Oppression and discrimination hasn't worked. The military campaigns and incursions haven't worked. Peace deals have as long as they have lived up to them. It doesn't matter how you try and rationalize a reason for attacking convoys of civilian vehicles following Israeli orders, or bombing civilian highways, and airports. Those are the same types of rationalizations that terrorists use for their bombings of civilians. They try and apply some twisted logic as to why they do it as well. I don't take those excuses from terrorist groups, and I don't buy them now.
As I said, it's to exert pressure on the civilian population/leadership to 'come to their senses' and stop the resistance/violence being directed at Israel. Not entirely, no, they have bombed other targets as well, for whatever reason we don't know, we have limited knowledge in that regard. I agree their objective is largely to cripple Hezbollah and limit their support within Lebanon, I am not sure they have accomplished those goals, however. No 'predetermined' opinions on my part, just informed opinions based on facts; we can disagree on that... I wouldn't worry about how 'informed' I am, if I were you. I get plenty of informative news coverage from multiple sources, not just ynetnews. I don't think most assume that it's a 'revenge' campaign targeting innocents, but I do think most are a bit uneasy about the way the Israelis went about conducting this campaign. It's legitimate to target Hezbollah, but the Israelis have gone beyond just that. However, I don't blame them for targeting Hezbollah, but I still maintain that they won't be able to accomplish their stated goal of dismanteling/disarming Hezbollah without a full-scale invasion.
You know, this is why I don't like to get into arguments with you guys around here. I'd rather just post news updates and a little bit of personal analysis and be done with it. "Attacking convoys of civilian vehicles"? Come on man.
Did that not happen? I'm sorry if you don't like reports of those kinds of attacks, but I merely mentioned an incident that happened. It shouldn't bother you that it gets mentioned, it should bother you that it happened in the first place. These strikes are fine with me Attacking a civilian convoy after they were told to evacuate is not.
And you assume that that was an intentional hit? Every war is going to have a handful of tragic instances like this...the past few years in Afghanistan and Iraq have had more of their fair share of them, for example. It's not right to characterize them as malicious acts on the part of the Israeli military.
the thing is there is no real targets... Israel is not fighting an army...it's just bombing suspected areas... Honestly Israel is so powerful that it's actions are like a father hitting a 12 year old boy...
Take it for what its worth, but IDF's claim is that they have an incredible amount of information about Hizbullah's locations, their infrastructure and their organization, and that Hizbullah has been really taken by surprise at the level of intelligence they have (in other words ... they claim to know what they're hitting/going after). They're not merely bombing "suspected areas". And I think there's good reason to believe that the Israelis have a lot more military intelligence than the common man would give them credit for.
When a helicopter gunship sees a caravan of cars going down the highway and fires a missle into them, it is hard not to characterize it as intentional. Especially when you combine other attacks on civilian infrastructure and civilians such as the airport(twice) and highways. I understand collateral damage and forgive it when it is unavoidable. This doesn't meet that condition. I also understand that even terrorists have reasons why they attack civilian populations, and how that is a strategy to them. I don't buy those excuses. I don't buy them from govts. or terrorist groups. Attacking civilian targets is wrong, no matter who does it or why.
Umm, I do not think this is pretty apparent. In fact, although it pains me to say this, it certainly seems as if the US is encouraging attacks on civilians. Currently, the reckless bombarding of the Lebanese people by the Israelis has caused the deaths of 200 civilians. What is the US response? "The Israelis have a right to defend their people." So, unfortunately, we are condoning the slaughter of the Lebanese civilians by the IDF, and in doing so we are indirectly encouraging the attacks on civlians. So best case scenario, the US is currently supporting a regime that has committed numerous war crimes. Okay. So the IDF are war criminals and Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. I guess its just a matter of semantics; in the end, the 200 people who are killed by the IDF are just as dead as the 25 people killed by Hezbollah.
If we agree that Israel's actions are indeed illegal (I know you said that hypothetically, I don't know if you do), and should be defined as 'war crimes', then your gripe is reduced to a mere matter of semantics...? I'm not sure I'm really following you. So the wrong word to label Israel's rich history of actions of opression is being used...? On moral grounds, is a state any more justified in these actions than a subnational group simply because it is internationally accepted as a legitimate state? Those people in Lebanon would still be dead whether they were killed by an Arab suicide bomber dressed in rags or the victim of an Israeli incursion acting on the grounds of some moral superiority.
Again, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. It seems the majority of your gripe centers around semantics and formalities. So a subnational militia has no right to engage in any action to defend itself simply because of these formal definitions, in your opinion? On moral grounds, where would that leave the founding fathers? Or the numerous uprisings the U.S. has supported in South America or Bin Laden's own mujahideen?
