Damn DT and FA, you two have managed to destroy TWO threads that either implied or specifically asked you to not debate the morality of the actors in this conflict. Could you take your dogs somewhere else to fight? PLEASE
And here I thought “Dolly hit me back” was only a caption from a Bil Kane cartoon illustrating childish attitudes towards responsibility. It’s nice to see so many people adopting it as a philosophy to live by.
See that little ‘report post’ button? You could always use that instead of complaining.
Or you could recognize that in a discussion of a tactical situation, whether or not Israel would be charged with war crimes might just be a valid concern. :rolleyes:.
I suggest you actually read the threads; just about everybody has brought in morality. It’s necessary, as the morality and/or perceived morality of each sides actions are part of Israel’s tactical position. Direct from the OP :
Bolding mine. If America decides it doesn’t like Israel, it will stop funding and arming it, which will affect it’s tactical position.
< previews > Well, well, I actually agree with FinnAgain.
This simplistic calculus of “Israel is more wrong, because it’s doing more damage and killing more civilians” is simply idiotic. The morality of war has NEVER hinged on that.
Tell me - was the U.S. on the side of goodness and light in WWII? The U.S. killed millions of civilians in that war, and suffered almost no civilian casualties of her own in comparison. Did Germany or Japan suddenly achieve the moral high ground once they started losing the war?
Was the U.S. only right for attacking Afghanistan until the body count on the other side was equal to the number of people lost on 9/11?
You want to talk disproportionate? Japan wiped out a few thousand American soldiers on Dec 7, 1941, invaded a few small islands, and in return had its fleet sunk, hundreds of thousands of soldiers killed, its cities firebombed, and two of them hit with nuclear weapons.
And yet, the U.S. was in the right in that conflict. Because morality in war is not about a body bag count. It’s about whether a nation is attacked first, whether its vital interests are threatened, its people under threat of destruction, and its violent response is directed at correcting the injustice, removing a continuing threat, or preventing a repeat occurance. The cold calculus of war has always been that the country that starts the war accepts the consequences. They always have the opportunity to surrender. Israel has said that Hezbollah can end this war tomorrow very simply - lay down its arms, leave Southern Labanon, and return the captured soldiers. Do that, and the violence stops today.
We demanded no less than total capitulation, occupation, and dismantling of the militaries of Germany and Japan before we’d stop hitting them, despite the fact that the outcome of the war had been assured for months before the fighting stopped, and heavy civilian casualties were incurred during that time.
The Geneva conventions say nothing about how many civilians are killed, but only HOW they are killed. If you put an aircraft factory in the middle of a city, and the other side firebombs the city because it’s the only way they can take out the aircraft factory, well, that’s war. You don’t like it, don’t start one.
Everyone understands this, except when it comes to Israel. Israel, despite being under a more significant threat to its existence than any other modern democracy in the world, is always expected to suffer terrorism, bombings, rocket attacks, and other violence, and either not respond at all for fear of ‘continuing the cycle of violence’, or if it does respond it must always be in a very measured way that only solves the problem for a short time.
NO OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET WOULD DO THAT. Not one. We all know what would happen if the U.S. had rockets fired at it daily from Mexico. We know what Britain would do if suddenly it started getting shelled from across the channel by an enemy who had promised its destruction and attacked it repeatedly over the decades. Hell, we’ve seen what France is capable of when it feels its interests are threatened.
When the Soviets said they needed a ‘buffer zone’ and invaded Afghanistan, a lot of the same people on the left who deplore Israel today defended the Soviets. I remember it well, there was a lot of talk of things like the horrible deprivations the Soviets suffered in WWII, and how they were paranoid and rightfully so, and how this wouldn’t be necessary if the west didn’t keep pushing them. The Soviets killed hundreds of thousands, razed villages, and created the largest refugee crisis the world had seen. And they were the aggressors - they weren’t defending themselves from attacks from Afghanistan. It was a pure land grab.
No, it’s only Israel that is expected to take its lumps, offer a token response, then be quiet until the next round of violence flares up.
I’m with scabpicker here. Every thread about this conflict turns into the same thread because the same posters post the same arguments up despite the fact that that was not the subject of the op. No, it is not reportable. It is not against a rule. The op does not dictate where a thread goes. It is not quite being a jerk, albeit it goes in that direction. But it is frustrating.
Dear all of youse, Should I ground my kid for breaking curfew?
Answers: Israel is morally bankrupt./It’s all Hezbollah’s fault.
Sam, that was an absolutely excellent post.
D, come on. This is a thread whose OP made not one single follow up post. A thread which asked about the course of the war and what will happen from here. Why ignore that the UN Security Council, United States included, would take action if there was clear evidence of war crimes? An event which would, of course, have a grave impact on the course of events.
Any thread on this topic will include these arguments not because it’s got the same posters (and I hardly post in every GD thread on Israel ever), but because the same arguments are relevant.
Want to know how the situation will change? Then we have to determine what the current situation is, what actions are being taken, and what their effects will most likely be on a national, intranational, and international scale.
Don’t want to discuss who the aggressor is, or what grudges are relevant? Then we can’t discuss what terms the war will end under, what goals must be met before the war will end, how far various states will go to achieve their goals, what steps must be taken to achieve those goals, or whether or not the Nuremberg Principles/Geneva Conventions have been violated.
Being unable to discuss, for example, whether or not Israel is commiting war crimes, or what the relationship is between terrorists and their state sponsors, or what the global reaction will be due to various nations’ involvement… being unable to do that handcuffs people and stops the natural form of a debate and prohibits people from talking about the issue in any detail.
Moreover, this is the Dope. The factual content of claims can and will be challenged in virtually any and every discussion. It’s mighty hard to talk about whether or not Syria will get pulled into the war if people are, for instance, claiming that Syria has nothing to do with Hezbollah.
If someone starts a thread asking what the course of a war will be, and they get the answer “As there’s no justification for the international community via the UN SC to step in, most likely State X will be able to limit State Y’s use of Proxy Force Z.” Well… that’s hardly beyond the scope of discussion, although it may be beyond an artifically narrow scope that disallows full discussion on a topic.
A tighter analogy than your ending quip would be:
“Dear all of youse, Should I ground my kid for breaking curfew? But let’s have no discussion of whether or not the curfew rules are fair, or there’s a history of this behavior, or if the cops are likely to arrest him for what he does when he’s breaking curfew.”
/$.02
.
Thats right. It does not come down to body bag count. It comes down to intention for harm.
In response to having two soldiers taken from occupied land by Hezbollah, Israel could:
a) completely obliterate Lebanons infrastructure - destroy ports, power, airports, roads and bridges - and by hurling thousands of tonnes of ordinance into the country. And in doing so kill hundreds of people and injure thousands as well as increase support for Hezzbollah across the regoin.
Or
b) together with the UN, assist Lebanon to rid itself of Hezbolah by way of more reasonable means which includes dialogue and support.
It chose a). This is the moral failure of Israel.
… and tactical failure.
Uh no. It’s in response to the buildup of 15,000 rockets on Israel’s border, followed up by a border incursion and an attack on the Israeli military, the kidnapping of soldiers, and then the immediate commencement of rocket bombardment as soon as Israel began to retaliate.
And the attacks in Lebanon have been against the airport and major roads and bridges, to prevent Hezbollah from A) being re-armed, B) fading back into the population in the north, C) being resupplied. Plus attacks on Hezbollah infrastructure in Beirut.
And by the way, the Lebanese government helped Hezbollah turn the south of their country into a rocket launching site, so they’re not exactly innocent in this.
What a great idea! That always works. In fact, if Israel’s really lucky, they can get the U.N. to pass a security council resolution demanding that Hezbollah be disarmed. And maybe even bring in some UN Peacekeepers to keep Hezbollah on the straight and narrow. The UN is highly effective in preventing kidnappings and large buildups of weapons on Israel’s border.
It chose to defend itself, after the U.N. failed once again and everyone else looked the other way.
Finn,
It is possible to analyze the different possible perceptions of the different players, and their motivations, and their goals, without getting bogged down in another discussion of whether or not those perceptions are accurate.
It is, for example, factually incorrect to imply, as antechinus just did, that the Lebanese government was just in need of Israel’s support of more dialogue to get Hezbelloh to disarm. Evidence has been provided that showed that the Lebanese government was giving Hezbollah full authority to serve as the army against Israel, ignoring UN resolutions in the process. It is fair to conclude that the Lebanese government felt that Hezbollah would be an effective force to gain control over Shebaa farms and/or that they represented the will of the people. Perhaps the calculus was the same as Syria’s and Iran’s: we can let them be our proxy and run no risk ourselves. It is safe to say that that was a faulty conclusion.
If the goal of the average Lebanese is to live peacefully, then allowing Hezbollah free reign is a bad idea. If it is to die on behalf of the interests of others, then this was a good choice.
Israel’s interest is simple: to live in some semblence of security. Her actions are motivated by trying to achieve that goal. Leave morality out of it, how do you achieve that goal? She has made clear what her approach is: disengage from any hostile neighbor to a very defensible border and then defend that border with such incredible ferocity that no one dares cross the line twice. Talk to anyone willing to commit to talk as the way to a solution, but to no one who says that they want to destroy you. Right, wrong is not the question; the question is will it work? antechinus and others would say not, that it will only strengthen the position of those vowed to Israel’s destruction.
To me it comes back to the bigger battle in the ME, and that is not the one in Iraq. The big battle is the fight for the course of Islam. Arabs and Persians are looking backwards for a model for the future. Some have embraced a view of theocratic rule and isolation from outside values and influence. Some see that Islam was at its peak when it embraced plurality and was open to new ideas. These latter forces want an educated populus that is part of the world community of communities. But the former need to keep the populus in fear of “the other” and Israel is to good a boogyman to let go of. Not right or wrong, just motive and perception.
Does Israel’s fierce defense strengthen the hand of those forces? Maybe. But I cannot help but believe that it is only a matter of time until modernity wins out.
The rocket attacks actually began as a cover for the attack on the IDF soldiers, happening at the same time, and were civilian targeted. (Cite upon request, of course. It’s late and I’m feeling lazy.)
DSeid, fair enough, and a very reasonable stance all in all. I still think we probably have a few points of disagreement, but hey, such is life. I do, of course, recognize that I may very well sometimes be over zealous in dealing with false claims, and in doing so, take a side-discussion down the rabbit hole. Just the cost of doing business, and not a real thread killer, IMO.
In any case, damn you for being so rational! Now we don’t get to fight about what we should be fighting about!
Interesting thread, though the reader must sift through a lot of chaff.
My contentions:
[1] Israel does not “own” the Mideast, to the extent that if an all-out war with Syria and Iran broke out, they would be in a heap of trouble. I’m not predicting victors: I’m saying that there is potential for unacceptable losses.
For this reason, past American Presidents have always responded to hostilities in the Mid-east with intensive shuttle diplomacy. W is different.
[2] Ten years ago, Hizballah was a light force with short range Katyusha rockets that could be launched without trucks. Now they have more sophisticated weaponry: See this history of Hisballah rocketry: Hizballah Rockets
[3] Israel won’t be able to eradicate Hizballah, despite what the crazies at the Weekly Standard might say. But they might be able to diminish their assets to the point where they have pre-1995 capabilities. More elaboration. See also DSeid’s post 17 and 71.
Given the above, I think Israel’s and W’s strategy might make sense, provided they both have a fallback plan, so as to avoid all-out war.
We haven’t even talked about the biggest difference about this conflict and historian Arab/Israeli conflicts - there’s no Soviet Union anymore.
One of the big reasons the U.S. engaged in frantic shuttle diplomacy pre 1990’s was because there was always the fear that any conflict in the middle east would spiral out of control into wider war, because the Soviets generally supported the Arab side, and the U.S. Israel’s. If one side got the upper hand and threatened the strategic balance, it could have pulled a superpower into the conflict.
That calculus has changed, and not for the better for the Arab side. Without their Soviet benefactors, the Arab world is much weaker, and Israel is much less constrained. If the cold war was still on, this conflict probably wouldn’t have happened at all.
Thats not my understanding of international law. Are you arguing that Lebanon could be similarly justified in attacking Israel because Israel has a buildup of 100’s of thousands of missiles and hundreds of nukes?
From Article 51(5)(b) of the 1949 Geneva Convention (1977 Additional Protocol I)
Indiscriminant attacks include “An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”
i.e. the attacks are illegal. Both sides actions are unlawful.
They have about as much power to stop Hezbollah as our local constabulary.
Well what does this indicate? Maybe Lebanon needed more assistance and time to acheive stability and self-government. Syria only just recently moved its army out.
DSeid, I’m with you wholeheartedly on this one.
To my mind, Israel is in the biggest quandary here. They know they can’t destroy Hezbollah without reoccupying Lebanon and fighting a prolonged ground war, which, in effect, takes them back to an occupation that they got sick of and finally abandoned. Ditto for Gaza. Does Israel really want to go back to that status quo?
Israel has always operated on the assumption that “hit 'em and hit 'em hard” is the secret to long-term security, but it’s clear that it’s not working. The American disaster in Iraq is illustrative of the problem. America, like Israel, has matchless military forces and military technology, so they’ll always enjoy a superior kill ratio, and will always emerge victorious in any set-piece kind of encounter. But it seems to end up not mattering. That’s the real danger for Israel here – to get caught in a slow-bleed situation that doesn’t seem to be working toward any particularly useful end. But it’s a situation Israel could easily find itself blundering into, just because of what it perceives to be a lack of alternatives.
If you ask me, the sensible thing to do, in both Gaza and South Lebanon, is just stop shooting, swap prisoners, and be done. But I think to the Israeli mind, this represents an unacceptable loss of face. My guess is they’ll try to split the difference – continue the incursions for some span of time, then let the UN or the US broker a deal, and then swap prisoners, as quietly as they can. And with that we’ll return to square one.
I think that Lebanon is indeed a trap. If the Israelis send in large numbers of troops, they will be opposed by a fanatical enemy that is not afraid to die. This will result in heavy Israeli casualties, and most likely end like the US adventure in Iraq. Which will please iran and Syria-who are dictating this war. their hope is that Israel will die from a thousand cuts. I also think that Hezbolla has lots of weapons, nad when large masses of Israeli troops are in lebabnon, they will use those weapons in mass attacks. Israeli may well regret this-it will be extremely costly.
Wow. What an assumption. You just translated “Attacks which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” into, “any attack that hurts civilians.”
Unless I missed your nuanced discussion of the military advantages of Israel’s attacks…
What makes you think that this would halt the rocket attacks on Israel? Ask the residents of S’derot about that. Elimination of the “Zionist Entity” is the only thing that would satisfy many of the Islamic militants.
Well, and is the Israeli incursion into Gaza and Lebanon halting the rocket attacks, or encouraging them? Don’t forget that this whole thing didn’t begin because of rocket attacks, it began with the seizing of Israeli soldiers.