BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Israeli terrorism in Lebanon

 
  

Page: (1)23456... 11

 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:08 / 13.07.06
I've not been looking at the news all day so somehow missed this:

Israel's army chief said any site in Lebanon could be a potential military target.

Brigadier General Dan Halutz's warning came as Israeli forces dramatically stepped up their campaign following border fighting with Hizbullah guerrillas yesterday in which two Israeli soldiers were captured and eight killed.

"Nowhere is safe [in Lebanon] ... as simple as that," he said, addressing his warning particularly to civilians in the southern Beirut district of Dahiya, where a large number of Hizbullah militants are based.

The Lebanese health minister said the Israeli campaign had killed 47 people and wounded 103 since yesterday. Israel said two people had been killed and at least 21 injured in Hizbullah strikes on towns in northern Israel.

Israel now finds itself on the verge of war on two fronts in an attempt to pressurise two groups, hamas and Hizbullah, to free captured soldiers. In Gaza, where it is aiming to force militants to release Corporal Gilad Shalit, jets bombed the Palestinian foreign ministry overnight.

...

An Israel air force major general said the offensive was Israel's largest ever in Lebanon "if you measure it in number of targets hit in one night [and] the complexity of the strikes".

Military officials said the blockade was being imposed to drive back Hizbullah and prevent the south Lebanese-based militant group from taking the captured soldiers deeper inside Lebanon or across the border into Syria.

The soldiers were today named as 31-year-old Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, 26.

"The [Israeli] government wants to change the rules of the game in Lebanon and make the Lebanese government understand that it is responsible for what happens in Lebanon," the Israeli agriculture minister, Shalom Simchon, told Israel Radio.

"It is clear to us all that we are in for a continuing period of attrition. Calm in Lebanon will have to come to a halt until the government of Lebanon takes responsibility, until in Syria they realise that they can't sit quietly when people are uneasy in Nahariya [in northern Israel]."

Israeli military officials were quoted in the Ha'aretz newspaper promising to knock back civilian infrastructure in Lebanon "20, or even 50 years" if the captured soldiers were not returned.

...

France and Russia condemned the fighting on both sides, but the US president, George Bush, promised to work with Israel and other "agents of peace" against Hizbullah.


Can the Israeli military/government get any more brazen and explicit about the fact that they are targeting civilians with military violence to achieve political aims? And will anyone still be able to deny that these are acts of terrorism? No, don't tell me, I already know...
 
 
MacDara
17:51 / 13.07.06
You seem to be ignoring the facts here. Yes, the Israeli government is unnecessarily aggressive and completely self-serving, and their excuses for attacking Lebabon right at this particular time are flimsy at best (if Beirut's airport is such an important transit point for weapons, etc, then why didn't they attack it week or months ago? I mean, if it was really that important...).

But I think it's pretty clear that the Lebanese government has effectively legitimised terrorism by allowing Hezbollah to gain such a strong political footing there. In other words, while the Lebanese government hasn't actually committed an 'act of war' itself (as Israel is taking it) it's disingenous of them to play the innocent victim act as if's out of their hands.

And besides, everyone knows the real victims here are the innocent civilians on all sides of the borders, caught in the crossfire.
 
 
sleazenation
17:58 / 13.07.06
To say this is a worrying turn of events doesn't really do the situation justice - A friend of mine was, and still is, due to move to the Lebanon to live in August - with the Israeli interdiction of all of the Lebanon's ports and air ports it she'll be force to enter over the land boarder with Syria - Syria, let us remember, has only just withdrawn its military presence from the Lebanon...
 
 
Tryphena Absent
18:00 / 13.07.06
What do you suggest the Lebanese government should have done? If a large number of people support Hezbollah should they have banned a reasonably popular political party?
 
 
Keith, like a scientist
18:11 / 13.07.06
I don't think banning a terrorist organization is something one shouldn't expect. Doesn't the fact that they haven't done anything about Hezbollah point to a troubling attitude of the government itself?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
18:18 / 13.07.06
And besides, everyone knows the real victims here are the innocent civilians on all sides of the borders, caught in the crossfire.

If you think everyone knows this, then why accuse me of "ignoring the facts" for pointing out that the Israeli government/military are, by their own admission, explicitly targeting a civilian population with terrorist attacks?
 
 
Shiny: Well Over Thirty
18:31 / 13.07.06
Hmmm, isn’t it perhaps a little hypocritical to insist that the Lebanese government cease to allow the existence of a ‘terrorist’ group, regardless of said group's popularity among the people of the Lebanon, whilst not demanding that it’s neighbour Israel also foreswear it’s terrorist activities? Obviously I think most people would agree that things would be an awful lot better if no-one was killing innocent civilians, or indeed anyone – but it seems rather unfair to me to apply a higher standard to the weaker side in this conflict. I mean if we’re considering banning ‘terrorist’ organisations as an obligation of all legitimate governments then shouldn’t the Israeli government have banned itself some time ago?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
18:44 / 13.07.06
Hezbollah are a party political group not simply a terrorist organisation. Wikipedia entry, BBC article. Their purpose is a bit dodgy but they've held perfectly legitimate positions in the Lebanese government. I suggest you start reading the coverage instead of taking the Israeli/Western position on the group as absolutely accurate.
 
 
Keith, like a scientist
18:52 / 13.07.06
It hasn't really be sufficiently demonstrated that Israel qualifies as engaging in 'terrorist' activities yet, so, to me at least, it's not hypocritical.

I don't see Israel's actions as being for the sole purpose of evoking terror through death. They are certainly acting in a rash and probably unwise way, but they are in hard place, admittedly. Do they allow attacks and kidnapping to constantly happen to them when they are surrounded by countries that are officially hostile to their very existence? Wouldn't it be inviting more and more aggression if they didn't flex their muscle and show that they don't intend to sit by?

I confess my thoughts on this aren't fully sound and thought out, but I think it's partly because the situation isn't as clear cut as "look at Israel, they are acting like terrorists in response to terrorism being committed upon them." Painting Israel as the aggressor in this situation is very...troubling. They aren't the most patient of governments when it comes to this type of situation, true, but they live in constant fear. If they didn't have the bomb, they would have been overrun and massacred long ago.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
18:59 / 13.07.06
They are the most powerful state in the region, backed by the most powerful state in the world. Are you seriously disputing either of these facts?
 
 
Keith, like a scientist
19:02 / 13.07.06
Hezbollah is first a paramilitary group that the European Union, as well as the US, consider to be a terrorist group. They are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. They have a political wing, not the other way around. This is all from the WIkipedia article you provided.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
19:02 / 13.07.06
But Keith this is invasion of territory held by another state and it's right on the back of going into Gaza again. They're killing people who have done nothing but live in the region to get two soldiers back. So when you say Wouldn't it be inviting more and more aggression if they didn't flex their muscle and show that they don't intend to sit by doesn't it strike you that you would be more aggressive if a family member was killed by their military?
 
 
Keith, like a scientist
19:08 / 13.07.06
They are the most powerful state in the region, backed by the most powerful state in the world. Are you seriously disputing either of these facts?

No, certainly not. Are you disputing that they are surrounded by countries that actively want them to be gone? That they are vastly outnumbered, and without the backing of the US, they would have been destroyed a long time ago?

Do I agree with the way they invaded Palestine and took it for themselves? No. Neither do I think they are the sanest of governments when it comes to this. But I do think that their actions yesterday and today are not completely out of bounds, and I don't think they have done anything that in this that measures up to the ceaseless civilian attacks against their citizens by actual terrorist groups.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
19:13 / 13.07.06
And the readily-available statistics that show that the death toll of civilians killed by Israel is far in excess of Israeli civilian casualties - how would you reconcile those?
 
 
Shiny: Well Over Thirty
19:15 / 13.07.06
I don't necessarily think it's the best idea to allow the governements of US or the European Union all that much authority in deciding who I ought to regard as a terrorist. I'll decide that myself, with reference to as wide a range of sources of information as I have the time to access, and I hope come to a more balanced conclusion that I might if I based my opinion on the advice of one or two information sources which one might legitimataly argue are strongly biased on the issue.
 
 
Keith, like a scientist
19:18 / 13.07.06
So when you say Wouldn't it be inviting more and more aggression if they didn't flex their muscle and show that they don't intend to sit by doesn't it strike you that you would be more aggressive if a family member was killed by their military?

Of if 8 of your soldiers were killed and 2 kidnapped by a governmentally unopposed group in a neighboring country?

But now we are talking about the cycle of violence between these two differing cultures/faiths/people. I don't have an answer to that, obviously, but I can't think of what Israel could realistically do in this situation. Do they just let it happen? I was reading an article today at stated:

In 2004, Hezbollah exchanged prisoners with Israel in a deal that took three years to negotiate. Israel released more than 400 prisoners and returned 59 bodies of Lebanese fighters. Hezbollah released a kidnapped Israeli businessman and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers.

That's a losing battle there. 3 years and 400 prisoners for 1 man and 3 bodies. Whether or not all 400 prisoners were legitimately jailed, I don't know, but I have to believe that a good many were seriously militants that meant harm to Israel and it's citizens.
 
 
sleazenation
19:19 / 13.07.06
But I think it's pretty clear that the Lebanese government has effectively legitimised terrorism by allowing Hezbollah to gain such a strong political footing there.

I'd like to see you unpack this a little bit McDara - are you saying that by forming a coalition government with Hezbollah's political wing that the other parties and the goverment as an institution have legitimised Hezbollah? Rather than say the people who voted for Hezbollah's political wing?

And what about Syria - wasn't an important aim of the coalition government to move away from more pro Syrian-parties?

How does condemning governments that include elements allied to a political wings of terrorist organizations square with goals to increase democratization?
 
 
elene
19:23 / 13.07.06
I find it very alarming that Israel/USA, Syria and Iran all appear happy to proceed rapidly in the direction of all-out conflict. I think this means someone has badly misconstrued the nature and consequences of such a struggle. This is very bad.

Alternatively I could interpret the actions of Israel as like those of a violent drunk, but such irrational behaviour is very uncharacteristic. Or used to be.

On a different theme, Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organisations in exactly the same way Likud is. Israel’s recent military actions are terrorism, as were many, many of it’s earlier campaigns. That’s what terrorism is, a military technique for influencing those one cannot for whatever reason conquer.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:06 / 13.07.06
Alternatively I could interpret the actions of Israel as like those of a violent drunk, but such irrational behaviour is very uncharacteristic. Or used to be.

I was trying to explain to some people at work today that something about the nature of the action seemed to have changed and I thought maybe I was mad for seeing it in that way. That "used to be" makes me think that perhaps I'm not alone? I just wish I understood what I was trying to say. Is it the timing that seems so odd? I don't know but there's something weird about all of this.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
20:13 / 13.07.06
Keith has asked me to provide some of the statistics I mentioned. In order that the souce can not be accused of anti-Israel bias, I'm using B'Tselem (The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories). B'Tselem lists the following fatalities for 29.9.2000-30.6.2006"

Palestinians: 3554
Israelis: 1008 (697 civilians, 311 members of security forces)

Now, these figures do not distinguish between Palestinian civilians and security forces, for reasons which I hope are fairly obvious (the Palestinians don't have an official military to speak of), but even so, they're pretty illuminating.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
20:17 / 13.07.06
For an insight into why the perception of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is often so different to what these statistics suggest, I'd recommend the 2004 report Bad News For Israel - bear in mind that this is an investigation of media representation in the UK, where the media is often accused of pro-Palestinian bias by apologists for Israel's actions. In the USA, where the mainstream news media is less equivocal in its support for Israel, the story is different.
 
 
grant
20:33 / 13.07.06
I don't know but there's something weird about all of this.

I'm recycling an idea I just read on Talking Points Memo, but part of the deal is that Olmert, unlike the prior leaders of Israel, has no military record. It could be that he can't politically afford to be seen as weak or soft or wavering in the way that Sharon could, or it could be that he's just letting the military hard-liners run military stuff and sort of rubber-stamping whatever the hawkish defense people want.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
20:43 / 13.07.06
I was trying to explain to some people at work today that something about the nature of the action seemed to have changed and I thought maybe I was mad for seeing it in that way. That "used to be" makes me think that perhaps I'm not alone?

I think the use of force by governments, including force aimed primarily at civilian areas (justified because they might be sheltering militants - well, they might, and they probably are, but is that a sufficient justification? Not sure) - has been legitimised by the Iraq war, really. We're now in a situation where the only difference between the acts of militants and states seems to be scale (and of course the fact that the state can declare the militants to be terrorists, and this will be accepted, but not the other way round) - and no one seems to think this is odd - in other words, the ground seems to have shifted to a point where the use of force aimed at civilian areas of other states is actually perceived as normal and appropriate. I.e., warfare...
 
 
elene
20:56 / 13.07.06
... or it could be that he's just letting the military hard-liners run military stuff and sort of rubber-stamping whatever the hawkish defense people want.

But it can also be that Israel is simply moving into advanced positions as rapidly as possible and according to plan, escalating the crisis just as much as possible with each new provocation, the start of a major war.

I wish I knew whether those elements in Hezbollah and Hamas providing the excuses are in fact doing the bidding of Iran and Syria, or are rather a highly radicalised clique, possibly of jihadists, determined to provoke a major crisis off there own bat.

Is everyone reacting to a wild man, or to a warrior?
 
 
MacDara
21:01 / 13.07.06
I'd like to see you unpack this a little bit McDara - are you saying that by forming a coalition government with Hezbollah's political wing that the other parties and the goverment as an institution have legitimised Hezbollah? Rather than say the people who voted for Hezbollah's political wing?

When any given state's political parties enter into a working relationship with a group linked to paramilitary activity, it's always a cause for concern. The people's voice counts, of course - but if I voted for someone who supported terrorism even tangentally I'd want my vote discounted, and I'd take a dim view of anyone else who wouldn't.

What if everyone here in Ireland suddenly voted for Sinn Fein in the next general election? What if the BNP tipped the balance of parliament in the UK? Both are unlikely, but possible. So there are potentially cases where the will of the people isn't all it's cracked up to be.

And what about Syria - wasn't an important aim of the coalition government to move away from more pro Syrian-parties?

True, but in that case we're really just talking about the lesser of two evils. It still doesn't make a good case for the moral status of the Lebanese political environment.

How does condemning governments that include elements allied to a political wings of terrorist organizations square with goals to increase democratization?

There are numerous cases where democratically elected political entities have turned to terrorism to further their goals. Is it right to accept that we must include the political wings of terroristic groups in the political dialogue to have a truly representative democracy?

The people should have the right to choose who leads them, yes, but how do we know they're making informed decisions? This is a problem in so many young democracies today.

Needless to say, this ain't black and white, and I find myself agreeing with everyone here to various extents. My intital comment, however was really directed at what I perceived to be a shallow, reactionary analysis of the situation.

I don't approve of Israel's actions, their bullying tactics, their state-sponsered racism, you name it. I'm downright disgusted by most of it. But I also don't approve of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah claiming that they're fighting for the freedom of their people when all they're really doing it making their condition far, far worse.

I'd be happy to debate this more, but it's late and I'm knackered.
 
 
MacDara
21:08 / 13.07.06
If you think everyone knows this, then why accuse me of "ignoring the facts" for pointing out that the Israeli government/military are, by their own admission, explicitly targeting a civilian population with terrorist attacks?

That's true, but the impression I get from your original comment is that only Israel's actions are worth condemnation. Should Hamas and Hezbollah get a free pass because they're somehow supposed to be representing an oppressed and/or stateless people? Armed struggle to fight for one's freedom is one thing; suicide bombings and rocket salvos are another, I'm sure you'll agree.
 
 
bacon
01:42 / 14.07.06
drunk

why hasn't anybody mentioned there's a bunch of craZy religious fanatics in the middle of an alien fucking land bombing the shit out of aboriginese in the name of fiction?
 
 
Francine I
02:11 / 14.07.06
"It still doesn't make a good case for the moral status of the Lebanese political environment."

Why must this case be made? Why does the relative integrity of the Lebanese political environment matter? The United States and it's Western allies have committed massive atrocities and have hardly been taken to task for it. Were another state to attack purely civilian targets in the United States or the UK, would you consider this justified because a clearly unsavory political situation in these countries has endorsed and encouraged terrible atrocity in clear violation of international law? George W. Bush is a potentially illegitimate president who has successfully consolidated an amazing amount of federal power. He is arguably a violent extremist in a position of great power who endorses preemptive strikes in defense of a nationalist agenda and who opposes nuclear non-proliferation. Would you argue that this works to lessen the severity of the crimes of al Qaeda against the United States? I find that position difficult to defend.

"Should Hamas and Hezbollah get a free pass because they're somehow supposed to be representing an oppressed and/or stateless people?"

Are you suggesting that it is unfair to condemn the activities of the state of Israel without first considering their grievances against quasi-stateless entities? Why is this so? The United States claimed that Iraq shared responsibility for the 9/11/01 attacks as a selling point for the invasion. Did these (demonstrably false) claims consequently necessitate the legitimization of al Qaeda's crimes as a prerequisite to the condemnation of an illegal invasion that resulted in the death of 38,960 or more Iraqi civilians? Would it have were they true?
 
 
grant
02:29 / 14.07.06
.. or it could be that he's just letting the military hard-liners run military stuff and sort of rubber-stamping whatever the hawkish defense people want.

But it can also be that Israel is simply moving into advanced positions as rapidly as possible and according to plan, escalating the crisis just as much as possible with each new provocation, the start of a major war.


Heheheh -- I'm not sure there's a difference in those two statements. Either way, the folks who thought Olmert represented a chance at peace (or whatever passes for peace over there) are probably feeling a little upset right now.
 
 
MacDara
06:55 / 14.07.06
Were another state to attack purely civilian targets in the United States or the UK, would you consider this justified because a clearly unsavory political situation in these countries has endorsed and encouraged terrible atrocity in clear violation of international law?

Why are you putting words in my mouth? My point has been that I don't consider any act of terrorism to be justified, whether it be committed by an internationally recognised government, or a parapolitical/paramilitary group, or a bunch of nutters with guns and bombs and no scruples. There are no excuses. Yet there are also two sides to every story -- and to harp on about Israel's deplorable actions while at the same time neglecting to acknowledge atrocities committed by the likes of Hezbollah strikes me as intellectually dishonest.

And I don't mean that in terms of justification, as if one act justifies the other. I mean this in terms of understanding what the motivations are for these actions. Excuse me for trying to be disinterested.

Are you suggesting that it is unfair to condemn the activities of the state of Israel without first considering their grievances against quasi-stateless entities? Why is this so?

I haven't suggested any such thing; those are your words, not mine. You seem to be under the misapprehension that if I'm not on one side, then I must be on the other. I'm sorry, but I don't play that game.
 
 
■
07:01 / 14.07.06
Not much to add I'm afraid, but I was very annoyed with The Today programme this morning which included a report saying an Israeli bomb destroyed a flyover into the airport in Beirut "with surgical precision" and then mumbled that the falling section had killed a family in a car undereath.
Remind me not to visit that surgery in future.
There's nothing precise about bombs, they explode with a big fucking blast radius, killing indiscriminately. Lazy journalism.
 
 
elene
07:35 / 14.07.06
I'm not sure there's a difference in those two statements.

I think there is, grant, but we can't tell which applies as yet.

In one scenario Olmert has momentarily given up control to the military. Israel will either destroy South Lebanon's infrastructure and Hezbollah's heavy arsenals and get out quickly, or will occupy it and be stuck there for years (again), but whatever happens this is merely a reaction. In the other, these are the first actions of a war with Iran.

The first scenario might seem the most likely and it can escalate further into an unintended war with Iran (though who could possibly be that stupid). Nevertheless, there is full mobilisation in Israel, expensive and very serious. Iran seems happy to fight: Hezbollah has nasty new rockets, and Hezbollah's civilian leaders seem to have as little control as Hamas's had in the first act of this drama. The USA would, apparently, use any excuse to attack Iran, and Israel knows it will eventually have to negotiate should Iran ever obtain nuclear weapons.

In the one hand I hold Lebanon, in the other the entire Middle-East. Which one shall I drop?
 
 
Tabitha Tickletooth
09:21 / 14.07.06
I wonder how far Israel thinks it can go? A lot of important players in the region (Iran, Syria, for example) are very angry and very defensive. Maybe to the point of belligerence? Oil prices hit new highs in the UK today on the back of this, so I assume a similar impact is being felt in the US.

While there are those who will argue that Israel has a right to some kind of response, there are few apart from the most extreme US hawks who would realistically defend Israeli attacks on Lebanese infrastructure and civilian targets.

Israel relies on superior military might and the backing of the US. The US, meanwhile, is overstretched in unresolved conflicts (not least in Iraq) and with the start of the 'driving season' (??), amongst other things, will be unhappy with further oil price instability.

Is it just possible that Israel could misjudge its power to kill and threaten, bringing about a situation where Arab states in the region decide to co-operate? Israel has escalated conflicts on two fronts at the same time. They do not have overwhelming international support (France and Russia, for example, have been critical).

I'm interested in whether people think Israel may have gone too far at the wrong time - I think they may have. What do we realistically think next steps/outcomes might be here? I feel that the US may become increasingly reluctant to be drawn into a major Middle Eastern conflict when it has fewer than optimum military resources at its disposal and with an unknown number of players in the region possibly seeing this as an opportunity to demonstrate their opposition to the US/Israel.

Where do people think this is going?
 
 
MacDara
09:41 / 14.07.06
While there are those who will argue that Israel has a right to some kind of response, there are few apart from the most extreme US hawks who would realistically defend Israeli attacks on Lebanese infrastructure and civilian targets.

Absolutely. I can't gather how Israeli government can honestly justify the destruction of Palestine's (and now Lebanon's) infrastructure, deeply affecting the livelihoods of countless thousands, as a response to the capturing of a total of three soldiers -- unless one takes the premise that they aren't honest.

I'm interested in whether people think Israel may have gone too far at the wrong time - I think they may have.

This has been building for some time now. Ever since the country's inception the Israeli government has been going too far. It collaborated with Britain and France over the Suez Crisis (which I've been reading about in The Guardian this week; I shouldn't be too shocked by it but I am); it collaborated with the apartheid South African government over nuclear proliferation; and since the 1970s (just off the top of my head here; could have started much earlier) its seen that brute military force, regardless of the 'collateral damage' caused, can help it achieve its aims with what they regard as a minimum of fuss.

What do we realistically think next steps/outcomes might be here?

The US is in an increasingly precarious position, and 'special relationship' or not, I think we may see a distancing, even if it only goes so far as refusing to comment (as opposed to open support).

Israel is only going to get more isolationist as a result of this. Practically speaking, though, they're going to keep doing what they're doing, and Hamas, Hezbollah and their ilk are going to keep reacting or provoking with force, and the vicious cycle continues.

Meanwhile, on the sidelines, Syria and Iran are biding their time.
 
 
Dead Megatron
10:52 / 14.07.06
I just got word that a a lebanese-brazilian family who was spending a few months vacation in Lebanon got killed in one ot the Israel bomb attacks. A father, who's a scouts' master, for Allah's sake, a mother, and two kids, ages 8 and 4. I saw the guys brother on the telly saying he was a great man who only wanted to help people out.

I know this is a somewhat simplistic view (and nothing really new, bu I got to vent), but I begin to think the only difference between both sides in this quasi-war is that Israel has plenty of expensive equipment, while Hamas & Hizbollah have to improvise...

A civilian target is a civilian target, no matter how they (and by "they" I mean anyone) try to reason it away...
 
  

Page: (1)23456... 11

 
  
Add Your Reply