Is Isreal overacting?

[Sh3kel]

Firstly, check the news from Spain please. Secondly, there are many other goals to consider, see below.

Unless I missed something the size of the Montenegro poll, Basque Country is still under Spanish authority.

You are assisting Hizbollah in achieving quite a few of their goals with this approach, exemplified by the current actions. These goals they are currently achieving are:

a) Drawing world attention to their cause.
b) Painting Israel in a negative light; morally, politically, militarily, diplomatically.
c) Highlighting the double standards applied in the Security Council by the USA (& UK less so) with regard to the Arab Israeli conflict in general.
d) Creating a legitimate opportunity to strike back at Israeli military targets.

Your mission is handing all this to Hizbollah on a silver plate. Do you see that?

Of your four points:
a) So the world is paying attention. It's also shrugging its shoulders and going "eh, they're insane. Why should we care?". The world has seen, understood and disagreed. So much for the "world's attention" - the world simply doesnt' care about their Jihadic desires.
b) A price we're willing to pay and at this point, it's a price we consider ourselves likely to pay wether we do something or don't do anything - so might as hell kick their asses and give them a bloody nose or ten.
c) We've long considered the Security Council worthless - UNIFIL did nothing but aid and assist the Hizzbollah in the 2000 kidnappings of three servicemen from the same border, and to be frank - there is little doubt in our minds the UN military forces would simply "up and flee" whenever the wind would pick up - not to mention an actual war were declared. So we're pointing out a body we consider worthless is actually worthles... is that truly spectacularly stupid?
d) They don't wait for legitimate opportunities to strike at us, so why would this point be of concern? We're going to get attacked anyway, might as well fight back.

 

[JoeM]

Not in relation to the Basque region but to these issues in general your point a) is very good.

Just because some people, be it a few or a lot, are willing to go to extraordinary lengths* for their 'cause' doesn't validate it in any way


*Be it murder, self mutilation, or dressing up as Spiderman and stopping the traffic.

 

[Rambuchan]

Sh3kel: I can well appreciate your position and strategy, which you have put forward well. Thanks. It is however one I disagree with on every level. I think your strategy is misguided and doomed to fail, as I indicated in my previous post and is evidenced by the ongoing strength of Hizbollah.

I could go off on one with each point but that would get messy, given the fundamental mismatch in our views, and it would also get repetitive. I'm happy to have posted what I have and to agree that we disagree quite fundamentally here. This does not mean it was a worthless exchange however.

PS. Please note that I am commenting here as much with your interests in mind, as those of peace.

 

[Fëanor]

Hmm, sweet finally we europeans seem to agree on someting

If they give in on this, it opens up a whole can of worms, becuase terrorists will kidnap Israeli soldiers every time they want something.

So, why did Israel do it many times before this time?

Israel does not negotiate with terrorists - it destroys them.

Yes, right, almost every nation says that and almost every nation has struck deals with terrorist. Including the USA and Israel

Its clear that the Kidnapped Israeli soldiers are the Reason for the Israeli actions as much as WMD were the reason behind the American Invasion of Iraq.

I really hope that many members of the Israeli Government and the Israeli Military are prosecuted for Crimes against Humanity for what they are doing in Lebanon and Palestine, but with the corrupt and decadent systems we have in place it is probably just wishful thinking.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

This is the way I see the senario: group A attacks, kills and kidnaps members of group B. Group B decide to attack group C which just happen to be innocent civilians. I believe it is considerable over-reacting on Isreal's part. If it is not over-reacting then it must be a misdirected reaction.

In addition we cannot continue to violently seek revenge upon terrorists. I am not saying we give in to their demands (have we even bothered to get any real idea what this might be?). The simple fact is that for every terrorist we kill a dozen more become 'inspired' to join the cause. We are killing terrorists sucessfully; we must be wary we do not kill them to our death.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Is anyone else here from the UK really pissed off with Tony Blair for his lack off leadrship and spinless toadying to Bush?

I have been since the Afghan war.....

 

[ComradeDavo]

What surprises me is that people just dont understand that proportion isnt necessary. Was the American DoW on Japan and the decision to fight until Japan's unconditional surrender in any way proportionate to the Pearl Harbor attack? Of course not and it was never meant to be.

You are forgetting the whole issue of the fact that a huge war was raging in Europe and that Japan had imperialistic ambitions for the whole of the Pacific including British and Dutch East Indies possesions, not to mention the oil embargo and THE WAR IN CHINA!

 

[greekguy]

Its clear that the Kidnapped Israeli soldiers are the Reason for the Israeli actions as much as WMD were the reason behind the American Invasion of Iraq.

The kidnapped soldiers were Israel's cassus belli, but the main reason they attacked Lebanon was because of the continued firing of rockets, by Hezbollah, into Northern Israel for 6 years, with no end in sight. This war is an action of self-defense by Israel.

 

[Shaihulud]

It is clearly visible that there is a bias in how we percieve things, based on Nationalities. The Americans mostly think that Israel is not overeacting and the Europeans the opposite. I find that quite interesting as well, oh and i voted overreacting, and in the commonwealth. I cannot think that Israels action is to secure the release of their few soldiers kidnapped, it seems more like an excuse for them to grasp more power, I wonder how are the Israelis doing on the Palestinians warfront? I haven't heard much of it since their Lebanese excursion, I just have a feeling that itis a diversion of some kind, to advance a bigger plan. It just doesn't make any sense otherwise.

 

[zulu9812]

The kidnapped soldiers were Israel's cassus belli, but the main reason they attacked Lebanon was because of the continued firing of rockets, by Hezbollah, into Northern Israel for 6 years, with no end in sight. This war is an action of self-defense by Israel.

from The Guardian

Since Israel's 1996 massacre of Lebanese refugees at Qana in Lebanon, and the end of the 22-year Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000, an agreement between the various parties - sponsored by France, the US, and the UN - has reflected the "balance of terror": Israel would refrain from bombing Lebanese civilian structures, and Hizbullah would not bomb civilian structures in northern Israel.

Although several military operations by the Israelis and by Hizbullah have occurred since 2000, neither side has violated this understanding. In 2004, Hizbullah secured the release of some prisoners held captive in Israeli jails in an exchange with Israel. And Hizbullah's military operation last week falls squarely within that framework.

Israel's immediate reaction broke the established rules of the game by bombing civilian structures across Lebanon, imposing a land, air and sea blockade, terrorising the population, and killing more than 100 civilians in a disproportionate display of power not seen since 1982. Hizbullah then retaliated by bombing northern Israel, in line with the "balance of terror" equations, and the escalation of the conflict has spiralled.

In other words, neither Hezbollah or Israel targetted civilians or civilian infrasctructure, until Israel did it last week.

 

[IceBlaZe]

from The Guardian


In other words, neither Hezbollah or Israel targetted civilians or civilian infrasctructure, until Israel did it last week.

First of all, Israel does not keep military power within civilian infrastructure like Hezbollah does. You can't damage Hezbollah without hurting civilians, it is impossible.

Hezbollah claims it has "Thousands of rockets", but there are none of those in their camps. So where are all those rockets?
Israel's army operates according to international law from defined military territory and army bases, minimizing the risk for Israeli civilians. Does Hezbollah have the same tactic?

Secondly, Hezbollah's action was unprovoked. Israel's retreat from Lebanon was recognized by the UN as complete, yet Hezbollah kept attacking Israeli outposts inside Israeli territory - an act of war.
What would you say if suddenly, without any provocation, Israel would launch an attack on Lebanon and Hezbollah? Probably your reaction would be much worse than it is already now.

You are overreacting to the Israeli actions much more than the Israeli actions are overreaction to the Hezbollah.

Thirdly, even international law recognizes some civilian infrastructure as legitimate targets as long as it can be of use for militias or military powers. So bombing the airport runways (and only the runways) so that Hezbollah would not be able to smuggle the kidnapped soldiers out of the country is OK. Bombing bridges so that transfer of Katyusha mobile-launch vehicles will be made impossible is also OK. Of course, it sets lebanon back a few years - but every war does that. Do you recall a war in which bridges and infrastructure was not bombed at all?
To be frank, if Israel is violating int'l law now, than NATO was in far worse violation in Kosovo, not to talk about targets in Afghanistan, for example.

Now I'm not saying "All is fair in love and war", but there's no war without setbacks and casualties. Lebanon should have controlled what's coming out of its own territory. It didn't, and now everyone is paying the price, including Israel.

 

[sysyphus]

Now I'm not saying "All is fair in love and war", but there's no war without setbacks and casualties. Lebanon should have controlled what's coming out of its own territory. It didn't, and now everyone is paying the price, including Israel.

That requires the assumption that Lebanon was able to control Hezbollah, which they clearly cannot since Lebanon sits under the thumb of, and Hezbollah is supported by, forces more powerful than the Lebanese government.

 

[Steph]

What if they're Siamese Twins and you didn't see John steal your fries?

Do you mean that ALL Lebanese are Hizbolah clone?
And also that you did not notice the Hizbolah firing rockets at your cities?

 

[kalif]

i dont agree with the rationalisations which are made by most of the supporters of the military offensive.

so the israeli army says they need to bombard civilian infrastructure because hezbollah hides itself and their weapons, e.g. rockets in those quarters?
but then why bombard beirut, its airport, roads leading towards the northern border, army camps of the lebanese army?

it should be obvious the rockets must be in that small corridor perhaps 40 km of the shared border and not in the north.
anyway imo, sh3kel explained to us why israel is reacting like they do.
the current israelean gouvernment is accepting to hand over the occupied territories in gazaa and so on, so they lost a medium to apply pressure on its enemies. hezbollah jumps in. and israel, who are not occupying "safe zones" anymore, has to show its potential by all means now.

the element and policy of deterrence is getting more and more important.
so sh3kels explanation of israel showing, that they are still "violent and insane" is directly relating to the deterrence element.

so this policy is imo the main argument for the israeli behaviour and no rationalisations, like hezbollah, or 2 kidnapped soldiers. its not about destroying an enemy. its simply about showing its potential, that they can reach whatever place and when ever they want.
bad luck for the civilians...

so i cant understand the killing of 300 civilians by airraids. its not justified.

 

[El_Machinae]

That requires the assumption that Lebanon was able to control Hezbollah, which they clearly cannot since Lebanon sits under the thumb of, and Hezbollah is supported by, forces more powerful than the Lebanese government.

While I agree, what options does that leave Israel?

 

[jonatas]

While I agree, what options does that leave Israel?

Not bombing civilians?

 

[El_Machinae]

How do they stop their own civilians from being bombed if the assualters are staging themselves in civilian locations?

What's Israel's obligation if Hezbollah insists on hiding (and assualting) from within a civilian population?

What is the citizen's obligation, once he realises he's being used a shield?

 

[jonatas]

They've been bombing all over the country and trying to break Lebanon's infrastructure, that's pretty clear. And the civilian rate is high to Hesbollah guerillas hit, extremely high. Quite frankly I'm not going to sit here for half an hour and answer rhetorical questions

 

[Eli]

and trying to break Lebanon's infrastructure, that's pretty clear

May I have evidence, please? How many attacks were there on Lebanese infrastructure? What part, roughly, of the country's infrastructure was hit? How large a part of the Israeli strikes was aimed at this infrastructure?

 

[El_Machinae]

Edit: X-post with Eli - I'd consider airports to be infrastructure. Considering Canadians cannot return home because of those strikes, I'm pretty well sold on the idea that those are not specifically targetting Hizbollah.

Jon:
You haven't answered any questions, though.

Does a hostage have an obligation to remove themselves from a dangerous position if they can?