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(7)891011

 
 
sdv (non-human)
17:57 / 30.07.06
The acceptance of the logic that 'democracy' can excuse warcrimes and conolonial behavior is rather easily accepted by people on this list...

No doubt you would also be condeming the the stalinist communists who attacked the facist invaders into France and Italy during the 39-45 war...

It simply won't do...
 
 
sdv (non-human)
18:03 / 30.07.06
Oh and the anti-semitism and the fact that the current Iranian regime is full of holocaust deniers is utterly irrelevant.

What matters is whether you are being racist in your naive defense of a regime that believes that it's murderous colonial behavior is acceptable.
 
 
Tom Paine's Bones
19:17 / 30.07.06
Certainly, it in no way provides any justification for Israel's current behaviour.

But can you tell us in what other circumstances you consider racism to be irrelevant?
 
 
Dragon
22:45 / 30.07.06
Ellene, it looks like the shift in tactics took place after losing Bin Jubeil.

Also, according to this news item, the building that collapsed, killing a number of children, didn't actually collapse until seven hours after it was hit. They said they are at a loss to explain what happened. I assume they will be investigating further.

While the conflict may have been avoidable, I'm wondering if it was Hezbollah's hope that they would clash.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
23:51 / 30.07.06
The acceptance of the logic that 'democracy' can excuse warcrimes and conolonial behavior is rather easily accepted by people on this list...

sdv, without wishing to be complacent about the general Barbelith consensus in as much as one exists, I'm not sure which people you're thinking of here. Dragon's views seem pretty unrepresentative of the rest of the people on this thread, let alone the board.
 
 
Dragon
00:55 / 31.07.06
Flyboy, I certainly seem to be different than the mainstream, here.

Let me suggest this: Even if Israel is a "terrorist state," what kind of governments would sanction suicidal behavior in which busloads of citizens are killed, or many are killed in pizza parlors? So, even if I were to accept the idea that Israel if is terroristic in nature, I cannot accept Palestinian behavior.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
05:38 / 31.07.06
According to the Wayne Madsen Report (some kind of Washington media watchdog) the invasion of Lebanon and new attacks on Gaza were planned before anyone was kidnapped, and before Hezbollah launched any rockets into Israel:

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was planned between top Israeli officials and members of the Bush administration. On June 17 and 18, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Likud Knesset member Natan Sharansky met with Vice President Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute conference in Beaver Creek, Colorado. There, the impending Israeli invasions of both Gaza and Lebanon were discussed. After receiving Cheney's full backing for the invasion of Gaza and Lebanon, Netanyahu flew back to Israel and participated in a special "Ex-Prime Ministers" meeting, in which he conveyed the Bush administration's support for the carrying out of the "Clean Break" policy -- the trashing of all past Middle East peace accords, including Oslo. Present at the meeting, in addition to Netanyahu, were current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres.

This makes sense to me. Israel's military actions have been far too well-organised for it to be merely a response to the kidnappings. It would be impossible for the IDF to set up such co-ordinated F16 attacks on Lebanon without a great deal of advance planning. It would be equally impossible for them to deploy ground troops so quickly without prior preparation.

For me, this outbreak of war seemed, at first, completely unexpected -- like the Israelis had completely lost their minds. Rocket attacks are nothing new; kidnappings are nothing new. Why now, why this particular action? I could see no political logic for the actos: not for Israel, and certainly not for the US and UK governments, which are encouraging more civilian deaths. This is also why the claims of advance planning make so much sense: it's possible to see a political logic at work, finally. The Israelis were looking for a pretext to start bombing Lebanon. So please, let's start thinking a little more about the oft-repeated "commonsense" that Hezbollah initiated this conflict. Recognise spin when you see it, people.

The article makes a further claim below that the point of this invasion is to set Lebanon up as a client state of the US -- like Iraq was supposed to be -- in order to seize more control of the Middle East and 'spread democracy' further. This makes even more sense, actually. But I think that the US and the Israelis underestimate the capability to resist of the Lebanese, and Hezbollah, as they have underestimated the resistance in Iraq.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
06:47 / 31.07.06
flyboy, fair enough. After having watched 25++ years of Israeli military interventions in the Lebanon I am heartily 'sick' of hearing from apologists for this kind of colonial behavior.

But nonetheless...
 
 
elene
07:20 / 31.07.06
All I learned concerning Hezbollah rocket attacks from that too-early assessment of the conflict at Bint Jbeil, Dragon, was that,

1. It did not help reduce the rocket fire against Israel. The number of launchers and rockets found in the small town was minimal. Any missile crewmen who may have been deployed there had moved to other locations ahead of the Israeli assault.

I say too hasty because the analysis was published on 25 July, the day Israel originally attacked, but fighting was still going on on 27 July, when 8 Israeli soldiers were killed, and even on 29 July when Israel withdrew.

I don't think Hezbollah's rocket firing routines changed at this time, but I ought to admit that I'm pretty sure Hezbollah do have simple launching platforms and supplies of rockets all over south Lebanon, including in the vicinity of towns. These are set up, fired and stored again in a manner that makes it practically impossible to hit in the way Israel claims to have been trying to do. I'm sure Israel does attack the vicinity of rocket launch as quickly as possible, but these are short-lived point targets, practical for a helicopter or ground troops if they happen to be nearby during the launch but otherwise not. I don't think this has much to do with the attacks on buildings. Israel has chosen to carry out revenge/terror attacks on the nearby towns, and these seems to be part of a systematic attempt to ethnically cleanse South Lebanon of it Shi'a population.

Concerning the delay Israel claims occurred between its acknowledged attack on the building and the building's collapse, this is denied by eye witnesses. Apparently, and unsurprisingly, the press arrived only the morning after the attack, so that there was a delay of several hours between the collapse and its being reported. Israel claims to take the time of collapse from "foreign press reports." It does not surprise me that Israel would rather not accept responsibility for its actions in this case.

Nasrallah was apparently surprised that Israel attacked with such force on this occasion, which of course does not imply they weren't prepared for that eventuality. This was definitely avoidable.
 
 
Dragon
13:08 / 31.07.06
I doubt Nasrallah was surprised, since Hezbollah seems to be acting as a proxy for Iran, according to the American Enterprise Institute.

...Evidently as preparation for the current offensive, intelligence sources report that Hezbollah received a major weapons consignment from Iran this March. The shipment, which reportedly contained 12,000 Katyusha rockets as well as other types of missiles...

I wouldn't doubt that the attack by Israel was planned, just as Hezbollah had planned. It's probable that Israel had intelligence about Hezbollah's capabilities re their missile shipments from Iran.

I guess for the time being, the building collapse will have to remain a mystery. Though Israel had camera footage showing what was hit, it had nothing to show what happened afterwords. Not knowing, they are not in a hurry to accept responsibility.
 
 
elene
14:35 / 31.07.06
I don't think Iran could have been sure that Hezbollah would perform so well against the IDF, Dragon, or the IDF so poorly. Hezbollah was and still is, as yet, a very important strategic resource for Iran. I don't believe Iran would have chosen to use it at this time, when the anticipated profits are small and, had Hezbollah been destroyed, the loss would have been very great. I might be wrong though.
 
 
Dragon
02:42 / 01.08.06
I would agree with you that Iran may not have made the decision. Nasrallah may have, though.

Another thing, I don't think certain groups of people care as much about loss of life than others. The idea of martyrdom is part of the culture. They know what other people in the world think about loss of life, and use it to their advantage, PR-wise. From an interview with Nasrallah:

We have been siding by them and speaking about the martyrdom, honour of martyrdom, and the stature of martyrs. Do the Zionists or those who encourage them imagine that I or this or that leader of Hezbollah can be afraid of martyrdom? We love martyrdom. If we take precautions, this is because we do not want the Israelis to make achievements. As a personal plan and wish, every one of us hopes and wishes to be martyred at the hands of those murderers of prophets and messengers.
 
 
Slim
02:42 / 01.08.06
I think a little leniency needs to be thrown Israel's way. Dealing with a group like Hezbollah is extremely difficult. People will argue that Hezbollah is a legitimate political organization, not a terrorist group. At the same time, others will say that the government of Lebanon has no control over Hezbollah, making it a sort of autonomous political/military organization hiding amongst the people. Therefore, the government of Lebanon cannot be held responsible for anything Hezbollah does, nor can the civilian populace. Hezbollah now has the status of an official political organization without any of the attending responsibilities. How do you deal with such a group?

Diplomacy with the Lebanese government can produce only limited effects because it wields little control over Hezbollah. Diplomacy with Hezbollah is not an option because its demands are unacceptable (the release of murderers) and as a pseudo-terrorist organization it should not be given the priviledge. Limited military options are also useless. A small scale attack will likely cause a number of civilian casualties while making hardly denting Hezbollah's strength. Every military outfit works to make war unfair. The U.S. does so by bringing to bear advanced technology. Hezbollah does so by using Lebanese civilians as shields.

I think Israel saw this and decided that the best route is a large military operation that completely eradicates Hezbollah, regardless of civilian casualties. Personally, I think it will turn out to be a strategic, operational, and tactical failure. However, they have made the wrong decision in a very difficult situation. Perhaps I missed something but I have yet to see any plausible ideas for how Israel should have acted.

As much as I don't like to admit it, I think a show of force by Israel was a legitimate response. However, they have gone overboard and the complete disregard for civilian casualties is mind-boggling, both strategically and morally.

This makes sense to me. Israel's military actions have been far too well-organised for it to be merely a response to the kidnappings. It would be impossible for the IDF to set up such co-ordinated F16 attacks on Lebanon without a great deal of advance planning. It would be equally impossible for them to deploy ground troops so quickly without prior preparation.

The Israelis probably have plans for very nearly any contigency one could think of. I doubt there was a solid plan to invade Lebanon before the kidnapping. It's more likely that Israel had existing plans for what to do if it was drawn into a conflict with Hezbollah. I imagine that it has such plans for every group/state it considers to be a threat in the region.

Israel has chosen to carry out revenge/terror attacks on the nearby towns, and these seems to be part of a systematic attempt to ethnically cleanse South Lebanon of it Shi'a population.

Again, Israel has shown a woeful disregard for civilian casualties. But ethnic cleansing? Nay. If that were the case, Israel would never have called a temporary halt to the airstrikes after what happened this weekend.
 
 
Dragon
04:59 / 01.08.06
Again, Israel has shown a woeful disregard for civilian casualties. But ethnic cleansing? Nay. If that were the case, Israel would never have called a temporary halt to the airstrikes after what happened this weekend.

Surely thousands would have died by now if this was ethnic cleansing.
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
06:43 / 01.08.06
The Israelis probably have plans for very nearly any contigency one could think of. I doubt there was a solid plan to invade Lebanon before the kidnapping.

So, Israel has plans for nearly every contingency, but no plan to invade Lebanon? Sounds like someone's getting fired.
 
 
elene
07:01 / 01.08.06
How one might best deal with an organisation like Hezbollah is an interesting question, Slim, but it's one that, in my experience, is only every asked rhetorically. The implied answer is invariably that it must be destroyed militarily and that an indefinite number of civilian casualties are to be accepted in the process. Unfortunately there are few examples where such organisations were in fact destroyed by force. A previous Israeli occupation inadvertently created Hezbollah and a long series of military assaults since then on the part of Israel have failed to disable it. This conflict will fail again, and in doing so it will again make Hezbollah stronger. Perhaps it's finally time to take that question seriously.

Concerning the possibility that Israel is pursuing ethnic cleansing in south Lebanon, one can certainly argue that this action does not count because people will presumably be able to return to what is left of there homes when the conflict ends. One can hardly argue that they are not being driven en masse from their homes while those homes are destroyed on a very large scale, however.

The Israeli's leaders haven't learned from Yitzhak Rabin, who, during Operation Accountability in 1993 (see "Rabin Briefs Knesset Committee on Lebanese Operation," Qol Yisra'el, July 27, 1993, in FBISNES-93-143, July 28 1993, pp. 20-21) told the Knesset,

We want Lebanese villagers to flee and we want to damage all those who were parties to Hizballah's activities.

...

The goal of the operation is to get the southern Lebanese population to move northward, hoping that this will tell the Lebanese Government something about the refugees who may get as far north as Beirut.


This is more or less what the IDA and IDF are doing to the civilian population again.

Concerning the current "ceasefire," Israel has indeed greatly reduced it's air campaign. It has not however stopped attacking any target it considers a genuine Hezbollah target - yesterday for instance the IDA attacked a car containing a Lebanese army officer and two soldiers, killing one of the soldiers, because they mistakenly believed the car contained a high-ranking member of Hezbollah - they are still attacking rocket launch sites and are providing support for ground troops, who remain very active. The air campaign is greatly reduced, but they are nevertheless still attacking every possible legitimate target. The additional air strikes carried out on other days clearly aim to punish, terrorise and displace the civilian population.

Ethnic cleansing is the displacement of an ethnic group from a region they previously occupied, Dragon. It does not necessarily involve killing anyone, though obviously in effect it usually does.
 
 
diz
07:27 / 01.08.06
I think a little leniency needs to be thrown Israel's way.

I think quite a fucking bit of leniency has already been thrown Israel's way. Any other country with a record as atrocious as Israel's, or with as many systematic and blatant violations of international law, would have been bombed back to the fucking Stone Age years ago.

By refraining from invading Israel, dismantling its military and its apparatus of state, forcibly redrawing its boundaries, banning members of almost all its political parties from holding office in future governments, and putting virtually everyone who's served in a high ranking capacity in the Israeli government since the beginning of the occupation on trial for war crimes, we're not only being lenient, but positively indulgent.

And, of course, we don't simply allow Israel to continue functioning as a rogue state, we (at least the US) actually fund them to the tune of billions of dollars per year. In so doing, we cross the line from simple indulgence to becoming accomplices in war crimes.

Israel is a dangerous rogue state. It has a history of violent expansionism and occupation of territory by force of arms. It willfully ignores international law every single day. It harbors extremist groups professing a doctrine steeped in ideas of racial superiority and religious fanaticism, and said groups have tremendous influence over the government and the political process. It has engaged in the torture of prisoners, the mass murder of civilians, and other comparable atrocities consistently and over a long period of time, as a matter of policy. It maintains racist policies under which religious and ethnic minority populations have been systematically persecuted. It has WMD and has threatened to use them against its neighbors.

If this was any other country, one that didn't have the unconditional backing of the United States, international action would have been taken a long, long time ago, and only the most die-hard antiwar activists would have had any problem with that.
 
 
sleazenation
11:22 / 01.08.06
Some replies to Slims post...

Hezbollah now has the status of an official political organization without any of the attending responsibilities. How do you deal with such a group?

Well this strikes me as slightly, but by no means perfectly, analagous to the situation in Northern Ireland with the various paramilitaries there, not least the IRA and the political party Sinn Fein.

Now, some will balk at the association of Sinn Fein with the IRA, others will dispute Sinn Fein's democratic credentials and decry them as terrorists. Hizbollah are in something of a similar situation with the exception that its political wing does not appear to be seperated by the use of a different name (correct me here if I am wrong).

Regardless, the lessons of Northern Ireland (which is by no means a settled issue yet by any means) appear to be that political engagement is the ONLY way forward. And it was political engagement that the government of The Lebanon was attempting before Israel started bombing its cities.

Hezbollah does so by using Lebanese civilians as shields. .

I have a bit of trouble with this phrase for a number of reasons, not least becauseI'm not sure the precise nature of Hizbollah's tactics have been established, but more importantly, because its use here seems to be implying that the shooting/bombing of Lebanese civilians on such a large scale by the Israeli army is a legitimate means of self defense.

Perhaps I missed something but I have yet to see any plausible ideas for how Israel should have acted.

I'd have thought the obvious reaction to the hostage crisis that 'provoked'* this currant crisis was to send Mossad operative across the border to rescue their military personnel.

*I use 'provoked' here because it does seem that the act is being used as something of a pretext for a wider conflict than a simple rescue operation.

Again, Israel has shown a woeful disregard for civilian casualties. But ethnic cleansing? Nay. If that were the case, Israel would never have called a temporary halt to the airstrikes after what happened this weekend.

I don't think Israel would have conceded even the temporary halt to airstikes had they not been forced to by the US, and even then I think airstikes are still continuing in support of Israeli ground offences closer to the border.

But moreover I think the idea with the temporary suspension of free airstrikes in areas of southern Lebanon away from the borders is to get the (particularly Shia) civilians out of there and give Israel a freer hand to bomb where they please with fewer protest from the international community. I have a feeling that once the civillians move, the Israelis will not be eager for them to return. One of the possible goals in the offing is to create a wider buffer zone between The Lebanon and Israel. Israel wants a hand in who lives on the other side of the border as a means of assuring its own security on its side of the border. This strikes me as analagous to ethnic cleansing.
 
 
sleazenation
11:24 / 01.08.06
By the by does anyone have particular preference for the spelling of Hezbollah/Hizbollah and or reasons for doing so - I tend to take my cues from the source texts but there seems to be some disagreement - any suggestions on which we sould adopt for consistancy?
 
 
elene
11:57 / 01.08.06
According to Wiktionary, Hezbollah is standard and Hizbollah an alternative, and the Arabic and Hebrew are

* Arabic: حزب الله (ħizb olláh) m.
* Hebrew: חִזְבַּאלְלָה (hizballa)

which suggests that Hizbollah would be best.

Wikipedia gives, Hezbollah (Arabic: حزب الله‎ ḥizbu-llāh[1], meaning Party of Allah)

[1] ^ The stress is on the final syllable. Other transliterations include Hizbullah, Hizbollah and Hezballah, Hizballah, Hisbollah, Hizb Allah, (used by Al Jazeera). 'Hizb' (party) is the Modern Standard Arabic pronunciation, and 'Hezb' is closer to Persian and to Lebanese dialect. The name is derived from a Qur'anic ayat (verse) referring to those who belong to and follow the 'Party of God'.

I'm happy with any of these transliterations.
 
 
Dragon
13:03 / 01.08.06
This strikes me as analagous to ethnic cleansing.

I didn't make it clear, but my impression was that Israel did not intentionally hit high density population target, unless they considered it to be the site of a possible weapons cache or hezbollah site. Also, why would they drop leaflets saying in effect, "move, we are going to bomb."
 
 
sleazenation
13:21 / 01.08.06
I didn't make it clear, but my impression was that Israel did not intentionally hit high density population target, unless they considered it to be the site of a possible weapons cache or hezbollah site. Also, why would they drop leaflets saying in effect, "move, we are going to bomb."

Dragon - you appear to be under the misapprehension that ethnic cleansing just means 'killing lots of people' - it doesn't necessarily follow. The defining moment is to force populations to move from their homes. Forced population transfer. This appears to be what the Israeli armed forces are doing.

Meanwhile The BBC reports that Israel are continuing to use their armed drone planes even in areas as far as 60 miles away from the border this despite the alleged temporarily suspending air strikes against Lebanon.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
13:55 / 01.08.06
so many excuses for colonial activity appearing in hear...in the early 19th C you would have been apologizing for slavery.
 
 
grime
17:32 / 01.08.06
all analysis aside, if i was a country, i would want secure borders. if i had enemies surrounding me, i would want really secure borders.

also: still looking for proof of israeli "revenge" attacks / ethnic cleansing or the deliberate bombing of civilians.
 
 
Francine I
17:36 / 01.08.06
When you say "move, we are going to bomb." it has a vaguely humanitarian ring to it, up until the point of extrapolation: "move, we are going to bomb your home, your place of employ, the neighborhood in which you were raised.."
 
 
Dragon
17:37 / 01.08.06
I'm just putting out my opinions like everybody else. But, I think we can only go so far before we are pretending to read their minds. My opinion is that Israel is not trying to permanently displace anyone except Hezbollah.
 
 
Dragon
17:41 / 01.08.06
...up until the point of extrapolation: "move, we are going to bomb your home, your place of employ, the neighborhood in which you were raised.."

I think we should be able to agree the Lebanese civilians are innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time due to the actions of Hezbollah. If not for the militant faction, Hezbollah, who doesn't really care about loss of life, none of this would have occurred.
 
 
Francine I
17:46 / 01.08.06
"still looking for proof of israeli "revenge" attacks / ethnic cleansing or the deliberate bombing of civilians."

Hmm. But tit-for-tat violence is vengeful, yes? Then revenge attacks are a policy for the state of Israel. Furthermore, as mentioned above, ethnic cleansing is not genocide. The policies of the state of Israel as regards Palestinians are in many regards a textbook example of ethnic cleansing.

As far as the deliberate bombing of civilians goes, deliberately bombing 'soft targets' (like apartment buildings) constitutes the deliberate bombing of civilians. There's not a whole lot of ambiguity there.
 
 
sleazenation
18:52 / 01.08.06
all analysis aside, if i was a country, i would want secure borders. if i had enemies surrounding me, i would want really secure borders.

also: still looking for proof of israeli "revenge" attacks / ethnic cleansing or the deliberate bombing of civilians.


The desire for secure borders is entirely justifiable. It is the means by which this aim is pursued that is the question. Then there is the simple fact that many of Israel's 'borders' are disputed and not internationally recognized and many have achieved this state as the result of various wars.

Outside of this it strikes me as pretty evident at this point that Israel is are bombing Lebanese civilians in their attempts to get at Hezbollah. They attempt to justify this with the claim that Hezbollah is using civillians as human shields. This has not prevented Israeli armed forces from attacking. They are therefore deliberately bombing civillians.

I would be interested to know what is meant by various people by '"revenge" attacks'...
 
 
elene
18:52 / 01.08.06
still looking for proof of israeli "revenge" attacks / ethnic cleansing or the deliberate bombing of civilians.

This is the latest from Israel’s military on the Qana massacre, grimes.

As the Israel Air Force continues to investigate the air strike, questions have been raised over military accounts of the incident.

It now appears that the military had no information on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence of Hezbollah men at the time.

The Israel Defense Forces had said after the deadly air-strike that many rockets had been launched from Qana. However, it changed its version on Monday.

The site was included in an IAF plan to strike at several buildings in proximity to a previous launching site. Similar strikes were carried out in the past. However, there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike.

...

IDF sources said the warning pamphlets the IAF disseminated to residents, calling on them to leave the area, were dropped several days before the strike, and not over the weekend.

The IAF does not have a way to verify whether villages have been vacated, or whether civilians remain hidden in bomb-shelters in locations otherwise believed to have been vacated, the sources said.

...

The IAF admits the village was struck three times between Saturday night and Sunday morning. Two bombs were dropped on the building in the first strike.


    1. The warning pamphlets calling on residents to leave the area were dropped several days before the strike.

    2. The military had no information (whatsoever) on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence of Hezbollah men at the time.

    3. They chose to strike at several buildings in the proximity of what they claim was a previous launching site, not the launch site itself and a site from which there had been no launches on that day.

Therefore the purpose of this attack was to punish, terrorise and displace the civilian population.
 
 
grime
20:08 / 01.08.06
Hi Sleaze, thanks for pointing out the poor wording of my post. by disregarding the lives of hizbullah's human sheilds, the IAF is definately bombing civilians deliberately.

if israel were made to stop their attack because of the danger posed to lebanese civillians, wouldn't that communicate to hizbullah that they can attack israel all they want, as long they retreat back to their bunkers built of children?
 
 
Dragon
02:47 / 02.08.06
No country I'm aware of, including the US, recognizes human shields as a reason not to attack. Those using human shields also use them for PR purposes to show how terrible the attackers are. They place no value on people, especially women and children, but recognize that others do.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
05:39 / 02.08.06
What a very interesting statement, Dragon. Please to evidence the claim that Hizbollah are using Lebanese citizens as human shields, rather than, as the Lebanese themselves seem to think, striking from bases concealed in the mountains, possibly because they, having known about this situation for a fair while now, have noticed that being embedded in civilian areas just makes them easy targets on flat ground?

Incidentally, this "I don't think certain groups of people care as much about loss of life than others" stuff is a bit hard on your fellow Americans, isnt it? I'm sure the Bush administration cares deeply about loss of human life - they just have other prioities than preventing it. I find your position frankly unpatriotic. If you hate America that much, why not move to the Middle East?
 
 
Quantum
09:46 / 02.08.06
They place no value on people, especially women and children, but recognize that others do.

That's because they are evil and we are good. Obvious really.
7. Extremists Tend To Have A Manichean Worldview

It's the 'especially women and children' part that gets me the most, wtf? You're saying the evil Hezbollah terrorists don't care about human life and they really don't care about children. You do know Israel's been indiscriminately bombing women and children, right? Have you read the news at all? Ever?
 
 
sleazenation
10:43 / 02.08.06
Grime, I don't think it is simply a matter of poor wording. This is the way the Israeli military, its government and supporters are attempting to frame the actions of the Israeli military in precisely these terms to make their actions seem more reasonable - they claim they aren't deliberately bombing civilians, because their stated aim is to attack Hezbollah. But civillians are being bombed by Israeli forces.

If israel were made to stop their attack because of the danger posed to lebanese civillians, wouldn't that communicate to hizbullah that they can attack israel all they want, as long they retreat back to their bunkers built of children?

At the moment the Israeli military appears to be communicating how little the lives of Lebanese civillians are worth to them compared to their aim of attacking Hezbollah. Israel seems set on a course that is reliant on defeating Hezbollah in purely military terms and that is not a feasible proposition.

In line with Israel's aim of inflicting a military defeat on Hezbollah, he goals of Israel's military action seem to be lengthening - not just the return of the kidnapped soldiers, nor the stopping of the Katushas. They now appear to be embroiled in a conflict more than 60 miles away from its border. But the longer it makes its list of objective, the harder they will be able to fully achieve. And if Israel fails to achieve all its objectives it will be seen, both within Israel and elsewhere, as something of a political defeat, a loss of face. I have a suspicion that this thought has entered into the calculation of the Israeli leadership, that the US won't force Israel into any action that would cause it to lose face and risk the chance of further emboldening its enemies...
 
  

Page: 1 ... 23456(7)891011

 
  
Add Your Reply