I'm starting this as a separate thread to highlight an issue that I find very troubling regarding the Israel v. Hezbollah / Palestinian debate. It seems for many that Israel is justified in using force, even extremely brutal force, while Hezbollah and those fighting Israel are not. Israel's use of force is justified as self-defense and excused as that they are not deliberately targetting civillians. The problem with this view is that Israel still ends up killing a disproportionate amount of civilians compared to militants, the same with Hezbollah and the Palestinian militants in regard to Israeli soldiers to Israeli civillians. In the end while one claims a higher morality the end result is largely the same as the one that doesn't even bother with the pretext of claiming to not target civilians. Further I would contend that Israel's ability to even claim a higher moralitiy is only enabled by the sophistication of their weapons. Israelis can put forward the argument that they don't deliberately target civillians because they have weapons with better targetting. If the tables were turned and Israelis were limited to Kalishnikovs, IED's and Katyusha rockets would they still be justified in using those against Arab enemies? My suspicion is that those who support Israel would say yes since Israel is fighting a war and under a war you use what tools you have. A Katyusha rocket isn't sophisticated enough to be able to hit exactly and consequently causes a lot of damage to things other than its target but a 1,000 lb GPS guided bomb even though it can hit its target precisely will still do a lot of damage to everything around it. So what happens is that Israel has no qualms about using that even if it means that in addition to killing the militant its targetted at it will kill many around him. In the end both militaries use the tools that they have available and if Israelis were limited to Katyusha's they would use them and if Hezbollah had GPS guided missiles they would use them and likley to hit Israeli military installations since it makes more sense to hit the military installations than civillian targets. Also regarding that Hezbollah and Palestinian militants mingle wth civillians so it is their fault that civillians are killed. Anyone who knows anything about Israel knows that Israeli soldiers also frequently mingle with civillians and even often go around in uniform in civillian areas. So objectively both sides combatants mingle with their civillian populations. Further while Israel doesn't place military installations in civillian areas they do place them relatively close. Again given the accuracy of a Katyusha rocket one targetted at a military base could still likely hit a civillian town. Perhaps the Israelis should Know better than to place bases near civillian populations centers but way out in the Mediterranean. The other problem with the argument of militants hiding out in civillian populations is that that is a policy used by all insurgents including the founders of Israel themselves when they were the insurgents. If the Palestinian militants are immoral for hiding out in population centers then so were the Zionists who fought the British. What happens though is that people argue that one side is immoral for fighting with the tools it has while the other side is justified and even encouraged to do so under the argument that its war. IMO overall neither side's means are really that much more moral than the other and it is bias that says that one side shouldn't be allowed to use their tools since it results in killing civillians while the other side is and civillian deaths are shrugged off as collateral damage. Civillian deaths are civillian deaths. The bigger problem I see about this is a double standard and one that makes it so hard to have even reasoned debate on the issue. What happens is that one side is automatically presumed to be evil and immoral while the other side can do no wrong. It ignores the fact that both sides are fighting to win and more importantly both sides are neither wholly good nor wholly evil. In the end both sides have legitimate aspirations towards a land of their own, peace and security but at the same time both sides have their own failings. Without being able to acknowledge that there is no chance for peace.
We like Isreal and will do or say anything we can to make them look good it is that simple I'm just not happy that now we . .the american people. . are funding TWO WARS Rocket River
Yeah, bottom line is that Israel has the green light from America to do whatever. That UN Security Council Veto is pretty powerful....
For the most part I agree with your analysis. But as you know it is the nature of PR for one side to claim complete justification and legitimacy and spin things favorable to their side and to do the complete opposite with the adversary. That's why you have to examine the facts and decide for yourself (unfortunately few people will bother to do that). For some time, especially in the wake of 9/11 and Al Queda, Hezbollah has been painted with the same broad brush as some pure evil religious extremist terrorist organization that conducts worldwide terror campaigns. But this isn't exactly accurate either. Hezbollah was formed as one of many sectarian militias that fought for Shiites during the Lebanese Civil War to defend and look after Shiite interests and to expel all "foreign occupiers". It is more of a "organized militia" than a "pure terrorist organization" and has generally fought and killed combatants. From my admittedly limited research, it would appear that in comparison with other militant groups, most of whom are also labeled as terrorist, like IRA, pre-apartheid ANC, Tamil Tigers, PKK, Hezbollah seems to have committed less "terrorism" than others although Hezbollah are by no means angels. As for the Hezbollah rocket attacks, I can't exactly condone them. However Hezbollah launched them in response to Israel's massive escalation and attacks. In that sense these attacks are "less" evil and "more" "justified" than when Iraq lobbed missiles at Israel in the 1991 Gulf War even though no attacks came from Israelis at that time. Also as you point out, they are using what weapons they have. Its not like they have many precision guided missiles and bombers to precisely target the Israeli military. Things are never quite black and white. IMO, they are not angels, nor are they pure evil terrorists based on their record as far as I can see.
And how do we reconcile our push for 'democracy' worldwide to the current oligarchical structure of the UN, where a handful of countries hold a disproportionate amount of power, virtually paralyzing the effectiveness of the UN altogether?
The closest thing I can think of is have the ablity to override a veto like congress does, but that would be instilling our values and beliefs into the rest of the world, and we all know they really don't like pushy American ways.
But we're pretty pushy about it, and do interfere in everyone's business, it's not like it has stopped us. Anyways, no, it's nothing like the ability of Congress to override a presidential veto, because that would take a two-thirds majority, not one nation out of 180+ member nations. It's completely undemocratic in nature...
One UN Permanent Security Council nation can veto any resolution, similar to one president of the US can veto any legislation that gets passed by both houses of congress. Isn't it the same concept? Difference is that president is elected (yeah yeah, people will always debate that), and the UN Permanent Security Council has always been the same five and only five countries.
I would add one other thing to this, on a larger scale not just within this subject matter, but pertaining to this entire "clash of civlizations": I think from a public relations standpoint, the Arabs are the cause of their own undoing. I hope I don't offend anyone, but to generalize, the Arabs are crass and something extremely strange and foreign in the American perspective. We cannot identify with them when they intertwine their religious rhetoric with their political goals, and we consequently assume that the former is indicative of some grander global Islamist scheme. Obviously, they shouldn't care what we think anyways when we've already colonized them and bombed them into the desert, but I'm speaking simply in terms of this thread as to why we as Americans view them as we do. I really think it goes back to rhetoric and our infamiliarity with that of the Arab. While only an evangelical will refer to God in his words, the Arab references "Allah" almost endlessly. Islam is a part of their reality and almost seemingly one with the language and consciousness so much so that it appears to us that their political objective is that of its resurrection when in actuality, most of these people are fighting for their independence or a small peice of land. Islam and the Arab are so foreign to us in nature - the entire concept of blowing oneself up to acheive martyrdom and attain 72 virgins (which I might add is a complete bastardization of the actual translation) is so ridiculous to us that any Israeli agression seems innocuous. We just can't identify with this like we can with the Israeli. They are calculated in their statements, secular, and militaristic simply for survival and in defense. This is appealing. It also helps that they carry out their crimes against humanity while wearing uniforms.
I agree...Cultural differences are very important...Leaving out all the Christian views and beliefs that are imbedded in many Americans vis-a-vis Israel and Jews, it's much easier for Americans to sympathize with the Isrealis, because of similiar cultural characteristics and traits as opposed to Arabs who's habits and mannerisms appear 'alien' and 'foreign' to most Americans.
Israel must continue to go for the throat against the w**** of babylon...Why? 1. This is not a matter of talking...It is a matter of Syria being a key player and acting...they know what to do. 2. The status quo is unacceptable. We are at war on terror. Hezbollah is terror. Israel is our friends and allies on the fight. They must have the foot on their throats, they must have the knife impaled upon them and twisted slowly till they all are deconstructed.... 3. The deconstruction of Hezbollah (The w**** of Babylon) is a prerequisite for ceasefire. 4. Israel had recently been recognized by UN declaration of conceding to resolution 425 regarding the issues of borders IN FULL. 5. Resolution 1559 MUST, MUST, MUST be realized for ceasefire to occur...Otherwise there will be another, and another and a sister and a brother...dead...Ceasefire does nothing but put a stop gap on a problem that will blow up with even greater scale and vile...I'm still troubled that Iran wants Israel wiped off the map, is trying it's dernest to get nuclear weapons,...and has so ever close ties to Hezbollah who wouldn't mind the class 3 transfer sans paperwork... 6. I want...peace...
This is so faulty I don't know where to start...What is there to double standard? Without Hezbollah. Israel wouldn't feel the need to defend itself the way it has...I'm gonna say it and YOU know I don't care how you feel as I stated when you mischaracterized my meaning on reference, but ISRAEL ARE the GOOD GUYS! This is my mindset! The TERRORISTS...THE w**** OF BABYLON, HEZBOLLA, all the same to me bother...THEY ARE EVIL...I believe Hezbolla is wholly evil... Let's get on the SAME frickin PAGE with resolution 1559...THEN...peace... Till then your talk is cheap!
If Hezbollah is the "w**** of Babylon" then it must be noted that it was born out of Israel's participation in the Lebanese Civil War, its invasion and subsequent occupation. Israeli policies and actions created Hezbollah not the other way around. Although they are no angels, there is no historical or factual basis for claiming that Hezbollah is "wholly evil" except as demonizing rhetoric. No matter what people call it, it does and will continue to have support amongst most Shiite Lebanese and even other Lebanese and the Arab world as a whole. Even PM al-Malik, despite fighting "terrorists" of his own, has refused to call Hezbollah terrorist for these reasons. As for Resolution 1559 leading to peace, that's not enough. At the very least Israel and the Arab states would also need to commit to resolution 242 which requires Israel to withdraw from all territories occupied since the 1967 War and for mutual recognition. Arabs have held a summit and have already endorsed this, and if Israel was willing to go along, then and only then might there be peace.
if you can look at this situation and see good guys on one side and bad guys on the other, i envy you.
But wouldn't they have a better chance of doing this if certain groups were not calling for the complete destruction if Israel? Wouldn't that cause fear in bringing those groups closer?
