Israel--current Events

great timing Mac

If Hezbollah had not attacked and kidnapped Israel's soldiers, we would not be talking about this at all. Hezbollah started this current situation. For the three weeks, people in northern Israel have been living in bomb shelters which have cut down on the deaths. There have been building blown up by Hezbollah rockets.

Ah, Mac. Not nearly as heated as the thing itself under discussion.

But thanks for the reminder. It's a good opportunity this forum offers.

I have no answer for that. Those who do not value honor enough to uphold it in the face of attrocity...well there's no answer for them good enough.

I don't see Isralies fighting in the areas that are being bombed. I simply see Israel bombing them 20 years back. I'm sure the ground troops will follow and do clean up work. At that time, since the Israeli army has already shown a strategy of killing anything and anyone moving across the border...well I wouldn't be surprised if everyone across the border becomes their enemy.

I've never been on a battle field where I don't know who the enemy is. I haven't ever been in battle. I suppose to some that means I don't have a valid opinion about war. I do know though that I don't approve of mindless slaughter in the face of the war machine, women, children, whomever.

I do know of one veteran of a war where the enemy wasn't clear who wants a cease fire in the Middle East. Here's a link the the CNN online article:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/31/hag...east/index.html

Does he have a right to an opinion since he's been in war?

You have a right to an opinion. I don't believe you have to experience battle to have anything to say about it, and I won't let anybody shut me down that way. I have deep respect for anyone who has lived through it and gained wisdom from it, but I don't think that happens to everone who engages in battle either.

I am listening with respect and interest to the confusion and difficulty knowing whom to engage, including armed women or children. This goes a step further than boobytrapped wounded or babies, for intance, since it implies that the woman or child knows him/herself to be a combattant and is to some extent cooperating.

So I have a question -- when an attacker knows his best shot is to keep distance and use long range weapons of some kind, and avoid close fighting, but can't tell easily what it is he's fighting or whether it's the right enemy -- is he bound ethically or honorably to give up the advantage of distance and go in close, regardless of the risk, for precision?

Imagine living among these people.

I was in the first Gulf War.

Oh common we need to sympithize with them! LOLOL No. Very good case in point.

I CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONFLICT BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THE STAR OF DAVID BEING IN THE BLUE SECTION OF THE AMERICAN FLAG. WHY IS IT THAT EVERY TIME SOMEONE STARTS A WAR THEY BURN OUR FLAG BUT IF A NATURAL DISASTER OCCURS ITS HELP US AMERICA HELP US PLEASE.
ON THE MUSLIM RADICALS MUHAMMAD MUST BE ROLLING IN HIS GRAVE SAYING THATS NOT WHAT MY TEACHINGS WERE ABOUT.

LIKE ANY OTHER PEOPLE WHOM HAVE OCCUPIED AN AREA OF LAND FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS ISREAL HAS A RIGHT TO EXIST AND PROSPER SO DOES LEBONON,SYRIA,IRAN,IRAQ,PALESTINE. IF THESE IDIOTS WOULD TAKE THE RELIGIONS OUT OF THE PICTURE , THEY WOULD ALL HAVE A HELL OF AN ECONOMY, AND LIFE.

ON AN AFTER THOUGHT DON'T YOU THINK THAT AFTER HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF FIGHTING AND KILLING EACH OTHER THAT THEY WOULD GET TIRED OF IT .
AND AS FOR CONDOLEEZZA RICE SHE CAN ONLY DO WHAT SHE IS TOLD AND HAD NO INSIGHT TO STOP THE FIGHTING BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T. THE UNITED NATIONS PROVED ONCE AGAIN THAT THEY ARE WORTH NOTHING,YOU CAN STAND THERE AND CONDEMN ALL YOU WANT BUT IN REALITY ALL YOU ARE SAYING IS PLEASE STOP,DON'T DO THAT 'BAD LITTLE COUNTRY.

Actually, Israel "started this current situation" when they invaded Lebanon last time in 1978; killing 18,000 Lebanese. Hezbollah came into being as a resistance movement in response to the Israeli occupation. Had Israel not invaded and occupied Lebanon (and killed 18,000 innocent Lebanese; they were after the PLO), "we would not be talking about this at all."
Israel perpetuated "this current situation" by continuing to occupy parts of Lebanon, keeping Lebanese captured during the previous occupation in Israeli jails (over 20 years now), and continuing to mount incursions into Lebanon to kill and kidnap Lebanese.

Ever wonder where Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah came from? Nasrallah came to power in Hezbollah when Israeli forces assassinated Hezbollah leader Sheikh Abbas Mussawi, along with his wife, his child and five bodyguards in Lebanon.
Israeli soldiers kidnapped Mustafa Dirani in Lebanon, assassinated Abdel Aziz Rantissi and Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in Gaza.
Israel assassinates wheelchair-bound Nasir Jarrar (who had lost an arm, 2 legs in 2 previous assassination attempts in 5/01 and 4/02) in a friend's home in Tubas, firing rockets from helicopters at the house, then bulldozing it. Israel dropped a quarter-ton bomb on a Gaza City home in an attempt to assassinate top Hamas fugitives. Instead, the blast reportedly killed nine members of a Palestinian family — Nabil Abu Salmiyeh, his wife and seven of their nine children, aged 4 to 18. The head of Hamas' military wing, Mohammed Deif, was wounded but escaped, Israel said. Sheikh Salah Shehada killed by an Israeli one ton bomb from an F-16 that hit an apartment building in the Gaza Strip. The hit caused the collapse of the five-story building and damaged several adjacent buildings. In addition to Shehada, at least 14 other Palestinian Arabs, including several children, were killed by the raid. 154 people were wounded.

Again, why is it OK for Israel to do it, but terrorism when others engage in precisely the same behavior?

"The British Government has made it repeatedly clear that so-called "targeted assassinations" of this kind are unlawful, unjustified and counter-productive" Jack Straw

On February 25, 1994, 29 Muslims were killed by US-born Israeli settler Baruch Goldstein who opens fire on Muslim worshippers at prayer at Haram al-Ibrahimi mosque in Hebron.

Imagine living among these people.

You have a right to an opinion. I don't believe you have to experience battle to have anything to say about it, and I won't let anybody shut me down that way. I have deep respect for anyone who has lived through it and gained wisdom from it, but I don't think that happens to everone who engages in battle either.

I am listening with respect and interest to the confusion and difficulty knowing whom to engage, including armed women or children. This goes a step further than boobytrapped wounded or babies, for intance, since it implies that the woman or child knows him/herself to be a combattant and is to some extent cooperating.

So I have a question -- when an attacker knows his best shot is to keep distance and use long range weapons of some kind, and avoid close fighting, but can't tell easily what it is he's fighting or whether it's the right enemy -- is he bound ethically or honorably to give up the advantage of distance and go in close, regardless of the risk, for precision?

I would say it is all a matter of goals. If Israel's goal is to destroy Lebanon, then I'd say they are doing a pretty good job. Killing every last man, woman, and child is a great way to get rid of a group of people. Also, if they are after land, I suppose they are using a good tactic as well. It's much easier to take ownership of land when the previous inhabitants are either dead or run off.

However, if their goal is to reach peace with their neighbors, I would say they are going about it the wrong way. I suppose it goes back to what you were saying about dehumanizing the enemy. If you send in ground troops that can make some distinction between enemy and friend and you can reach out to the people of lebanon, you put yourself in a much greater position to gain the trust of the Lebonese while at the same time moving towards a goal of removing the Hezbollah from power. If the Hezbollah were seen to have brought this pain on the people and the Israelis were seen as a source of protection and end to hostilities, then Israel would find themselves in a better posistion for achieving peace.

However, this comes at a scrifice of troops and distance from the enemy.

By doing what they are doing, bombing without clear knowledge of the enemy, killing women and children...they are putting themselves at a safe distance from the carnage yes...but what they are sacrificing is connection to the Lebonese people. To Israel and to many others the Hezbollah are terrorists. I'm not going to say they aren't. However, who are the Lebonese supposed to turn to? The distant Israelies who are destroying their homes and people without regard for who the enemy is? Or the terrorists, who are familiar and are fighting against th Israelies? Would you side with the one killing your people, or with the one fighting against them?

Frankly I see what Israel is doing as putting them in the position of the faceless invader. They are demonizing themselves in the eyes of the Lebonese and are creating MORE enemies than had they sacrificed their superior position of distance.

Now...ethically and honorably? If Israel WAS bound to ethics of war or honor, I would say that giving up the advantage of distance is necessary. But only if one is bound to ethics and honor. Where is the honor in killing hundreds of innocents for the sake of destroying an enemy? Yes, the Hezbollah might be destroyed by all this...but at what cost? The consequences of using this bombing from a safe distance tactic could be devastating to Israel in the long run...and it certainly doesn't make them look much better to the Arabs in the area.

Now some will say "who cares about the Arabs! I have pictures of them holding up signs against the Israelis, saying to kill them! You can't talk diplomatically with them!" In that case, I suppose genocide is the only answer then. If every Muslim is a racist fanatic bent on killing and nothing else, I guess that belief gives rise to the idea that they must be wiped out.

I see these pictures...and I can't help but think of the hatred in this country that groups hold against each other. I think about how the Israeli's immigrated into that country and were persecuted and faced with hatred. I think about that...and I thinka bout the immigration problems we have in this country. I think about the racism and the hatred that we've faced in this country. And I think about how we've avoided conflict of the nature that is going on over in the middle east here in our country. I wonder why that is, and why things are so different.

I think about the signs I've seen held up in areas where I've lived speaking out against homosexuals and hispanics. I think about what happened in the founding of this country to the Native American people.

I think about all that...and I wonder if the minorities in this country feel the way that picture in here is supposed to represt the Israeli people.

CelticCoalition

I was not implying that you were not allowed to have an opinion.

I just wanted to point out that when the enemy is embedded in a civilian population and many of the combatents appear to be civilians it changes how you fight the battle.

The goal in battle is to win at all costs. When your life is on the line the rules go out the window. This is something that is difficult to understand if you have never been there.

The propaganda masters hold up figures of women and children killed as proof that Israel or the US does not care who they kill or that they are guilty of war crimes. They also revise history through the use of selective out of context misquoting to prove a point that they could not make with out skewing the evidence.

If you have an ounce of compassion in your body it is difficult not to be sucked in by this retoric. If you have a sense of honor an fair play it is difficult to play in a game where there are no rules.

Also realize that it makes no sense in a war where one side has no rules for engagement to expect the other side to play it any differently. (even though the US has a history in all engagements since Korea of hand cuffing their troops in this maner)

Finally intent is very important when considering response to an attack. Just because Hezzabolah was not capable of inflicting massive cassualties on Israel due to preparedness on Israels part and lack of technology on H's part in no way lessons their intent to kill non military Israelies indescrimenantly.

Just points to consider when condemning actions of combatents involved in a life or death struggle.

I am not condoning/justifying anything as has been suggested, only looking at it from another perspective.

Mikel

I'm sorry Emmet, I didn't realize you had addressed me with this specific question. I will gladly answer you. Please read the whole answer before responding.

I do not think there is a distinction between different forms of terrorism. People often want to argue about Israel stealing the land they occupy as a provocation for the violence perpetrated against them. The vast majority of this violence has been in the form of terrorism. I assume we do not need a dictionary for this word? Knowing a little about the historical conquering of lands, I can understand attempts to reacquire this land. Any attempts, however, should come in the form of military attacks on key government positions in an effort to overthrow them, not in the isolated killings of civilians with low-grade weaponry. Most of the attacks against Israelis has been a method of punishment by innumerable Muslims vowing the destruction of Israel and hatred for all Jews.

That being said, if the nation of Israel (land, not people this time) is supposed to be so holy as to be ordained by God, then its occupants should then be representatives of that God, no? Israel (people, not land this time) do not have a track record of infallibility. Otherwise, why would Moses have led them through the wilderness for 40 years eating Manna? Hmmm. So to those who like to give Israel a free pass anytime they inflict pain on their neighbors, I say, read your bible again. The bible tells them "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." However, devastating a country's civilians and infrastructure with destruction and overwhelming force is in no way and "eye for an eye." And again, to those who wish to give Israel a free pass for any and all things.........remember, even their Torah tells the tale of how God punished them for their transgressions. For the Gentiles among us, Psalm 80 might be good reading for you now. However.................

Israel has suffered this punishment from various Muslim groups (terrorism) for so long that the question should have always been: "how much can they take--what will be the straw that breaks the camel's back?"

Personally, I grew weary of the entire Middle East a couple of decades ago, hoping they would all blow each other to hell so the violence would stop. I don't give any of them a pass until I see two things. 1. Israel shut up and keep to yourself. 2. All Muslim nations start hunting down and executing terrorists. Until this happens, I can do no more than wait for them all the kill each other, and know there will never be peace.

So, if you fight "to win at all costs" (assuming the majority of those "costs" are not borne by you, but by noncombatant civilians, as you're clearly advocating), recognizing no rules to constrain your behavior (Hague Conventions, Nuremberg Charter, UN Charter, Geneva Conventions) precisely what makes you any better or more worthy of victory (or survival) than your admittedly equally barbaric opponent? If you're going to be that beastly, why wouldn't the world be a better place if you both simply annihilated each other?