No, the seizing of soldiers and the teritorial incursion that went with it, was what pulled the trigger. The guns were loaded because of the rocket attacks.
Well, the guns are always loaded in Israel, no?
Let me ask you something different: what are the chances, do you think, of getting the captured soldiers back alive? It seems to me that the Israeli actions are not those necessarily calculated to bring them back, but rather to make a larger point about the risks of aggression.
Agreed, but …
I think that both sides by now know how this will play out and are prepared for endgame. After Israel has set up its buffer zone and made arrangments to turn it over to some international body, it will quietly arrange some “good faith gestures” which include soldiers for prisoners. Like you said, but not at square one. Both will spin that as they will.
I think, and I think Israel thinks, that it would be a mistake not to have some evidence that Hezbulah was being desamred and the Lebanese miltary takes control of the borders. That small buffer zone doesnt cut it anymore now that Hezbulah has proven it can reach much farther than expected with it’s new rockets.
That assumes there are still prisoner to swap, by no means a sure thing. At least the Israelis can comfort themselves that their troops haven’t been captured by the Sudanese, Taliban, USA, or any other regime that tortures and kills its prisoners.
(expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life) - yep
(injury to civilians) - check
(damage to civilian objects) - check
(combination thereof) - obviously
while
(these outweigh the military advantage) - of course
Straight forward really.
Lat’s try to put this in reality and not blogsphere::
(expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life) - yep
(injury to civilians) - check
(damage to civilian objects) - check
(combination thereof) - obviously
while
(these outweigh the military advantage) - not even close.
Sorry, you lose. Israel is responding to unprevolked attacks on it’s country. They have not nearly approached the threshold where the incidental deaths of civilians outweigh the threat to their soverignty. Israel was attacked. There is no honest way to avoid this simple fact. They are justified in defending themselves. That’s it. That’s all there is. They have to remove the threat to their country. If terrorists hide behind civilians and the civilians are hurt as a result, the fault isn’t with Israel, it’s with the terrorists. God, this is simple common sense people, how stupid do you have to be to deny that? The agressor in any war is always the one responsible for the deaths that result.
I’m sure that’s a great consolation to those pointlessly killed. Assuming it was true, of course.
Garbage. They aren’t defending themselves, they are wrecking a country. If my hypothetical teenage son tosses a rock through your window, it’s not self defense to drive a tank through my house. Israel’s response is grotequely disproportionate.
Well they aren’t; they are increasing it.
Why should I believe they are hiding behind civilians ? Why would anyone bother doing that against Israeli’s ? They’ve never shown any indication they cared; they’d cheerfully bomb a school because they think a terrorist might be there. Frankly, if they are, Hezbollah’s even dumber than I think.
Nonsense. Being attacked doesn’t given you carte blanche to do anything you want. That’s Dark Age thinking.
DT,
Hezbollah hides within civilian locations and under mosques not because they are confident that Israel won’t hit them there, but to force Israel to. That way everytime Hezbelloh is hit Israel has a PR cost to pay and Hezbelloh gets a recruiting tool. This isn’t stupid, it is lots of things, but not stupid.
So if someone is holding me hostage and the police decides to shoot the bad guy in spite of me being in the path of the bullets, it´s OK? Maybe I even should feel grateful…
Consider myself old stiled, but I don´t think the idea of shoothing your way through innocent people to get to the bad ones as morally sound.
Do I condone the alleged use of human shields?, not in the least, it´s a scummy tactic; but that doesn´t absolve your resposibility for killing people knowing they are innocent so you can have an expeditive solution to your problems.
“Expeditive”? Where in the hell have you been the last 20 plus years? Do you have any idea of the history between Israel/Lebanon/Hezbolah? Isreal has tried to negotiate with the “hostage taker” for over a generation. They have traded prisoners in the past. Did it make them safe from attack?. They have tried to get the intl community and UN to step in and help them with the situation. Did that leave them safe from attack? They gave Lebanon over a decade to police their own borders and all it did was give their enemy time to build up with almost impunity. What other choice does Israel have but to do it themselves? Diplomacy doesn’t work. If you can think of another diplomatic way to solve this than what I have listed above without Israel capitulating, by all means lets hear it.
So you would have no problem with Israel dropping atomic bombs on southern Lebanon until Hizbollah surrendered?
Oh, give me a break. The point is that when you are fighting for your survival against an aggressor, you do what you have to do. There was very little handwringing about German or Japanese civilian casualties in WWII, because it was total war. We felt that the world was threatened in a big way, and fought against it in a big way.
The blame for this conflict lies squarely at the feet of Hezbollah and Iran, and secondarily with the Lebanese government for failing in their responsibility to police their country and implement a U.N. Security Council resolution to disarm Hezbollah. It is Hezbollah and Iran and Syria that want war with Israel. They are the aggressors. Israelis want to live in peace, but their lives are being threatened yet again.
Under those circumstances, the Israeli response to acts of war has wide lattitude, morally speaking, so long as their actions are legitimate attempts to weaken their enemy and win the conflict. People in this forum keep claiming that Israel is ‘terrorizing’ Lebanon and intentionally targeting civilians and the entire infrastructure. Were that the case, the death toll could be in the hundreds of thousands instead of 300 or so. Israel is doing exactly what the US did in the first two Gulf wars - use precision targeting to pluck out important targets in civilian areas while minimizing civilian casualties. The infrastructure targets that have been hit are those that Israel feels were necessary to hit in order to constrain Hezbollah’s movements, limit their access to supplies, and prevent their re-arming.
Israel is the overwhelming military power in the middle east. Their survival is somewhat assured. Hezbollah is an irratant but no real danger. Israel has committed tons of agressive acts against its neighbors. Pretending that attacking Hezbollay only and ignoring the Lebanese casualties is disengenuous.
There are Israeli pilots wheo are asking other pilots not to take part in bombing the Lebanon infrastructure and its people. This is how terrorism is born and raised. A perfect menu to cook up a new batch of enemies. Israel will become safer just like us attacking Iraq has made us safer. It is counterproductive.
That makes sense, but it would make more if they faked locations around civilians, to lure Israel to kill the locals while suffering few or no losses; win/win, from their perspective. As well, it’s relatively easy against air strikes; the Israelis aren’t sifting through the rubble to see if they actually killed and destroyed what they say they did.
No, it was because we were, and to a degree still are, a nation of bigoted barbarians.
And THAT was terrorism as well.
No, they are simply trying to terrorize the populace into submission; what they are succeeding in doing is convince any fence sitters that Israel is evil. Just like we have in Iraq.
That’s just part of my problem with the WWII comparisons (and it’s certainly not helped by people calling this WWIII): it leaves the door wide open to justifying all sorts of madness. I don’t see why someone couldn’t take your reasoning here and make a case for the use of atomic weapons, no matter how extreme that would appear to you and me. It’s been over sixty years since WWII ended; it seems silly to pretend that the nature of warfare and the world’s situation have not basically changed.
I could just as easily liken Hizbollah to the colonists during the American Revolution: a group of radicals with a militia, a movement which they considered a legitimate resistance and others considered to be an unjust rebellion. My guess is you’d tear all kinds of holes in that comparison before even stopping to take a breath, and you’d be right to do so. Similarly, I just don’t see what WWII has to do with the current conflict (again, in terms of how wars should be conducted or judged–I’m well aware of the history of the state of Israel and its connection to the war), yet I’m hearing lots of people on the pro-Israeli side invoking it as though it were some sacred justification.
I don’t think many reasonable people would dispute that this is Hizbollah’s doing, Hizbollah’s fault, and that Israel has every right to defend herself, and that necessarily means a lot of what we’re seeing is not avoidable. I think Lebanon had a very reasonable case for accusing Israel of using excessive force, right up until they made the monumentally stupid move of saying the Lebanese army would stand with Hizbollah in the event of an invasion. Now all bets are off, and if any of Israel’s targets weren’t justified before, they certainly are now.
First Lebanon says they can’t fight Hizbollah, which is entirely plausible, and not just because the Lebanese army is the smaller force. But now they say they can fight Israel, which is suicide. Why not just stand down, unless you’re really supporting Hizbollah and just don’t want to say it? But then the madness continues: CNN is reporting that the Israelis are categorically ruling out any occupying force, saying it will be the responsibility of the Lebanese army to maintain the buffer zone. Not the UN force or a beefed up version of it–the Lebanese army itself. I’m sorry, what? Is there something in the water there that makes everybody insane?
It think it’s a bit unfair to say the world is always asking Israel to just sit there and take it, that Israel is constantly singled out in this way. Of course they shouldn’t have to take it, and if I were an Israeli, I’d want blood, too. But I think it’s obvious to the world that even if they manage to destroy Hizbollah, Israel, in buying a few years of being free from rocket attacks, is also buying an extension of at least another few decades for this conflict. Obvious I’m sure, to Israel as well; the difference is that they seem resigned to it. But even if history demonstrates that they’re probably right, and this will never really end, is that something the world really should just sit back and accept?
I feel strongly that Israel has as much right as anyone to exist and defend herself, and the extremists make it easy for me to side with Israel in these conflicts. If a rocket came down into my neighborhood and killed someone I love, I’d be ready to kick some ass and probably have very little patience for anyone who tried to urge restraint. But I’m afraid for the people of Lebanon. And I don’t think Israel should be exempt from the Pottery Barn Rule that always seems to apply to the United States. If Israel in trying to minimize civilian casualties still kills ten times as many people as does their opponent who is trying to maximize civilian casualties, then I think it’s completely fair to ask where the line should be drawn, even if it makes Curtis LeMay turn in his grave.
The point I was trying to make is that the response has to be proportional to the threat. I have yet to hear anyone urging ‘restraint’ on Israel explain how else the Israelis can ensure its security. They wave their hands and talk about diplomacy and getting the UN involved. The last time Israel tried that, the result was the creation of a Hezbollah safe zone right on their border that was used to build weapons caches and rocket emplacements used to attack Israeli cities.
Israel has done everything the world community has said it should do - it withdrew from Gaza. It withdrew from Lebanon. It left the Palestinians with millions of dollars of infrastructure it had built. The result was an increase in attacks from Gaza and Lebanon. The U.N. passed resolution 1559, then failed to enforce it. UN peacekeepers were chummy with Hezbollah, then faded away when the fighting began. As usual. All of that talk and diplomacy wound up being at Israel’s expense and her enemy’s benefit.
So I don’t blame Israel for deciding that it is on its own, and that it will have to solve these problems on its own as they arise. The UN is worse than useless when it comes to Israel - it’s actively hostile to Israel.
So Israel has decided that the only way to improve its safety is to simpply send a message that it is a hornet’s nest - leave it alone, and you’re fine. Hit it with a stick, and you’re going to have hornets swarming around. What else can it do? You claim that this will continue the conflict by destroying Arab opinion. I don’t know that it can be any worse. If your enemy is implacable and resolute in its hatred of you, sometimes all you can do is draw lines in the sand and strike hard when they are crossed.
Nice post on war morality, Sam (#65): this consequentialist liberal experienced some cognitive dissonance: I guess I need to think deeper about the ethics of war. Anyway:
My take is somewhat different. Once conquest and imposed tyranny are ruled out, stick-only strategies basically never work between groups: ultimately, there must be a diplomatic solution. So what does Israel do?
It retreats behind a wall that slows down independent killer-bombers, and takes steps to address those who are both explicitly hostile and well-armed. (One without the other is acceptable). Then wait for the sane and constructive to prevail. Until they do, go through the usual cycle of striking and stepping back. Anyway, I hope that’s the strategy.
Here’s my question Sam: what are the prospects for Israel successfully executing The Cecil Doctrine: to wit, “Decide what you want beforehand, then get in and out fast”?
That last sentence can be evaluated.
-
Hezbollah is committed to the destruction of Israel.
-
In 1995, your characterization would have been defendable, IMHO: Katyusha rockets are inaccurate and have ranges of 11-26km. But Hezbollah’s upgraded arsenal now includes more accurate missiles with ranges from 45 - 200km and payloads of up to 600 kilos, which could carry various sundry chem and bio nasties. Source: The Economist quoting “Israel”.
Now, if these armaments were directly controlled by a state, it could be deterred. But when a militia that is accountable only to Iran has these weapons, we are no longer talking about an irritant. A 200km missile can reach all of Israel.
Stick-only strategies are certainly to be avoided, but what do you do when the only carrot the enemy will accept is intolerable (i.e. “We want all your land”)?
Israel has ALWAYS been open to diplomacy, and I guarantee you that once this present conflict ends, Israel will extend an olive branch to Lebanon. What it won’t do, however, is accept Hezbollah on its border any more.
I think it is. I also think Israel knows that the only way a ‘retreat behind the wall’ option will work is if it can establish that the consequences for breaching that wall will be severe.
Here’s the problem with the ‘measured response’ approach - if Israel’s retaliation poses no cost to Lebanon, then Lebanon is under no incentive to prevent the situation from recurring once Israel withdraws. So the preconditions for war don’t change, and we’re REALLY setting a ‘cycle of violence’. This is not good for Israel, and not good for Arabs, because if Hezbollah isn’t smacked hard for this, then the next stunt it tries might involve something like a dirty bomb, and if that happens, Israel will FLATTEN all parties involved. Best send the message noow before the crime reaches a scale where the Israeli people demand all-out war.
Not good. This strategy has the sole advantage of being better than any of the alternatives. That doesn’t mean it’s going to guarantee peace for Israel. NOTHING can do that so long as Arabs live with a burning hatred of Jews, and their governments and religious leaders teach hatred and intolerance as a way of life. So Israel’s strategy is going to be to establish a defense around itself, set up a set of consequences for breaching them, and THEN negotiate from a position of relative safety.