I think you left something out here, Deckard. It doesn't actually make sense as a question. Well, none of this addresses my contention in this thread, but... I'm not sure what Israel is doing that cannot be rationalized. I agree it is unfortunate for Lebanese in general that this is happening, but then again it is unfortunate that Hezbollah chose to attack Israel. As I indicated in the other thread about who is siding with who, I understand Israel's response although I have no personally figured out whether or not it is justified. That does not mean, however, that I think Israel's actions are without any merit or justification. If anything, I think the strongest rebuff to Israeli action would concentrate on proportionality and collective punishment - although again that is a super gray area when you talk about civilian infrastructure and also about the possible culpability of the Lebanese government itself (see Nasrallah's interview I posted in the other thread).
There is one solution to this conflict - a way for the Arab leaders to win back respect from their people and cut off groups like Al Qaeda. And that's to come to the aid of Lebanon. I think it's high time that Syria, Jordon, Iran, and even Iraq send troops over to fight back the Israeli offensive. The Arab world needs to stand up and deliver a message to Israel - that boundaries can not be lightly overstepped. Is Israel wants to live securely, then it must respect the boundaries of nations around it. While this would lead to a regional war, the U.S. could not get involved. Also, politically, it would definitely hurt Bush back home, as once again he would be shown for not doing enought o contain a wider conflict. And how embarrasing would it be for Bush if the American trained Iraqi army came to the defense of Hezbelloh?
I have no idea how that is a solution to the conflict. At best it would only force Israel back into its own territory - leaving Hezbollah intact only to start the whole scenario over again at its leisure. At worst it creates a regional conflaguration between Israel and the rest of the Middle East.
On your first quote, I left out, "be justified?" I'll fix it in a minute. I don't see how you can justify it, Hayes. You are using Hayesian sematics, but, from where I sit, to no avail. Israel going after Hezbollah? Sure. Israel destroying Lebanon's hard-won reconstruction after it finally booted out Syria and began a real democracy, at the cost of the assassination of the man most responsible for it's rebirth? Absolutely not. There is no reason Israel can give to justify what it is doing to Lebanon's infratructure and it's civilans, not to mention it's economy. You can come up with your "justifications," until you are blue in the face, and I will not buy it. Israel is destroying Lebanon in the method of it's choosing because it wants to keep down casualties in the kind of fighting it is now doing in parts of South Lebanon, given that the air campaign wasn't working, and because it really doesn't give a damn about the Lebanese and that democracy I mentioned. In my opinion. Keep D&D Civil.
Well....if you are posting to tell me you can never be convinced no matter what the argument then (a) I am sorry you have closed off the matter to debate and discussion, a bit shortsighted IMO, and (b) you could have saved yourself a lot of time by just writing out 'I can never be convinced Israel is justified.' However, lol - recognizing that I like you and think you are relatively open to debate and discussion (despite your recent protestations) I will offer a few points to ponder: Attacking civilian infrastructure is fairly considered legitimate - the same actions were taken in strikes on Serbia when they refused to stop aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo. At the point that Lebanon IS a democracy then the excuses that it is out of their hands is a bit trite. At a minimum Lebanon could have asked for external assistance in controlling Hezbollah. In fact, Lebanon had already agreed to provide a buffer between Hezbollah and Israel, AND to disarm Hezbollah, and had not done so. Further, as I indicate above, the government of Lebanon is complicit in Hezbollah's attack on Israel according to Narallah's most recent interview. As he is the head of Hezbollah, it is at least worth investigation when he point blank say all of the high officials of the Lebanese government were involved in the discussions about this raid on Israel. Whether he is lying or not, I do not know, but it would behoove those of us who are leaning toward closing debate down to at least consider there is more to the story than what we might currently believe.
Oh, give me a break! (and I like you, too ) I don't believe any BS coming from the leader of Hezbollah in this regard. I don't doubt that, given time and aid, Lebanon could have reclaimed control of it's southern border. You seem to forget, Hayes, that the country has had very little time to do anything about Hezbollah, because Syria wouldn't let them touch the bastards. Why Israel, or anyone else, think that Lebanon would be able to take effective action against Hezbollah, so soon after finally getting the Syrian military out of their country (of course, Syrian intelligence is still very much there) is, with all due respect, freakin' silly. We should have been taking a proactive role rebuilding Lebanon. Of course, that word isn't in the Bush foreign policy lexigon, unless proactive means invading and occupying a sovereign nation, or aiding another country to do the same, in this case, a democracy. Keep D&D Civil.
So if my understanding of your position is correct, you are not against Israeli strikes against Hezbollah but against the strikes further north? Or is it your contention that Israel should do nothing when attacked by Hezbollah?
At the risk of repeating myself, give me a break! I've never said that. Don't be ludicrous, it's unbecoming. Keep D&D Civil.
