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: 12(3)45678... 11

 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:02 / 18.07.06
The "human shields" thing is dodgy anyway. Not sure on the current conflicts, but in former Yugoslavia a lot of people (allegedly- which is about as much evidence as we have for the other case) gathered outside their places of work, assuming the West wouldn't bomb those. You know, TV stations, bridges, shit like that... the kind of stuff the West wouldn't bomb.

When "we" blew the shit out of them, it suddenly became a matter of "human shields".
 
 
grime
22:04 / 18.07.06
it's a standard tactic to place military assets among civilians. it either makes your enemy back down from attacking you, or it makes your enemy look bad if they do.

win - win for terrorists.
 
 
grime
22:12 / 18.07.06
that't interesting, stoatie, but i'm not sure what you mean.

there's a big difference between bombing military targets, like stashed missles, and bombing infrastructure targets, like the bridges and tv stations you mentioned.

i can't really comment about yugoslavia, but it's my own personal belief that the use of human shields, even willing ones, is immoral.
 
 
bacon
22:16 / 18.07.06
just saw bush on hardball (a cable news television show, for the limeys) and he's got himself a theory on this whole thing:

syria told hezbollah to fire rockets into israel, instigating an israeli military reaction, so the lebanese would ask syria to reoccupy lebanon
 
 
bacon
22:19 / 18.07.06
bridges and broadcasting facilities are legitimate military targets
 
 
Tryphena Absent
22:25 / 18.07.06
it's a standard tactic to place military assets among civilians. it either makes your enemy back down from attacking you, or it makes your enemy look bad if they do.

Can I get this straight, in your opinion damaged infrastructure is worse than people who are simply living their everyday lives being killed by a military force? That they in some way brought this on themselves by living in an area with potential or active terrorists? That it's perfectly acceptable for another state to cross a border in order to deal with a group who are attacking them, without the consent of the people who govern the borders of the country? That in fact states can do anything to eliminate terrorism?
 
 
grime
22:26 / 18.07.06
you're right, of course bacon. i'm sorry for the error.

by military ASSETS i was trying to describe weapons or other strictly military objects.
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
10:46 / 19.07.06
bacon - but if you throw a bunch of leaflets at the women and children warning them of impending gunfire aimed towards their current location and they continue to mull around in the proximity of the folks who need killin', well, weren't they asking for it, the women and children i mean

Asking for it? They live there, it's their home.
Hezbollah is not just a military organization. While I do not approve of terrorism by states, groups or individuals. They also provide healthcare and support the infrastructure in southern Lebanon. The IAF seems intent on collective punishment.

A political, rather than military, solution is needed. Israel should have recognised Hamas as the legitimate democractically elected government of Palestine and not imposed sanctions.
 
 
bacon
11:42 / 19.07.06
difficult for israel to recognize hamas when hamas refuses to recognize israel, it's a huge recognition fiasco, really
 
 
Dead Megatron
12:38 / 19.07.06
but if you throw a bunch of leaflets at the women and children warning them of impending gunfire aimed towards their current location and they continue to mull around in the proximity of the folks who need killin', well, weren't they asking for it, the women and children i mean

I was going to respond to this, but valence already did (it's their home, for fuck sake), so I'll make an analogy. think back to high school: if some bully said you have to get up from your seat in the cafeteria or the class room or whatever, lesty they would kick your ass, would you get up and leave, or would say "no" and at least try and hold your ground? Would you say, then, that you were "asking for it?" Now, imagine that times a hundred.

Got it?


And yes, it is a recognition fiasco. But that doesn't change the fact that innocent people are not just being caught in the crossfire, they are being actively target*.

* there's always the chance - the very dark and evil chance - that some elements in the Israeli government and military believe that killing those civilian will break Hizbollah's moral amongst the populace. Which would make the Israeli action on Lebanon the textbook definition of "terrorism". Now, I don't know if that's the case, and I sincerely hope it's not, but it is another possibility that must be considered.
 
 
illmatic
13:32 / 19.07.06
there's always the chance - the very dark and evil chance - that some elements in the Israeli government and military believe that killing those civilian will break Hizbollah's moral amongst the populace.

I don't think this needs to be presented as some outside chance, Megatron. I would say it's defintely part of the Israeli gameplan. After all, any populous that votes for Hizbullah deserves what they get, right?
 
 
grime
14:56 / 19.07.06
hi anna, let me respond to each of your questions in turn.

"Can I get this straight, in your opinion damaged infrastructure is worse than people who are simply living their everyday lives being killed by a military force?"

well, anna, what would you rather have: electricity or stupid neighbors? just kidding! but yes, in my opinion, a shattered infrastructure will do more lasting damage to lebanese society than a couple hundred deaths.

"That they in some way brought this on themselves by living in an area with potential or active terrorists?"

not at all. it's hizbollah and the lebanese government that has brought this on the lebanese people.

"That it's perfectly acceptable for another state to cross a border in order to deal with a group who are attacking them, without the consent of the people who govern the borders of the country?"

well, that's what a military is for, right? if someone in another country was launching missles at me, i'd be pretty upset if my country's military didn't do anything to stop it. also, i don't think you could accurately say that lebanon governs her borders.

"That in fact states can do anything to eliminate terrorism?"

ANYTHING? no, i don't believe that.

my first post on this thread asked if anyone had any evidence that israel is deliberately targeting civillians. many people here seem to believe that they are, but i still haven't seen any good reason to believe that.
 
 
MacDara
16:10 / 19.07.06
my first post on this thread asked if anyone had any evidence that israel is deliberately targeting civillians. many people here seem to believe that they are, but i still haven't seen any good reason to believe that.

They know civilians are in the areas they're bombarding. Dropping a few leaflets and telling people to get out or get killed isn't enough of an excuse to go ahead with such an action. (Just imagine being there yourself, really think hard about how you might react in such a situation, and you'll see what people is arguing about here.)

It's willful negligence tantamount to manslaughter on the IDF's part (though this is just my philosophical opinion); the people giving the orders are so far removed from the realities on the ground and the consequences of their actions that they don't even think twice about it. Zero compassion.

Even aside from this, the IDF's destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure was not only petty, shockingly disproportionate, and almost certainly resulted in loss of life (which was surely not unforseen), but in the cold light of day will likely prove to be futile.
 
 
MacDara
16:19 / 19.07.06
well, what is what a military is for, right? if someone in another country was launching missles at me, i'd be pretty upset if my country's military didn't do anything to stop it. also, i don't think you could accurately say that lebanon governs her borders.

I do agree with you here, to a point. It's not obvious to me that Lebanon is doing much if anything to stop Hezbollah from conducting its attacks on Israel.

If I was the Israeli government, and I knew that the Lebanese government had its hands tied, I'd send in troops over the border to do what the Leb's own security forces can't (or won't) do, in order to protect my own people. What I wouldn't do, however, is what Israel's government and military HAVE done.
 
 
grime
16:51 / 19.07.06
Hi MacDara, it seems clear to me that the lebanese government was unwilling or unable to secure their israeli border. in fact, the UN ordered them to disarm hizbollah and gain control of their borders years ago.

you just can't have a democratic goverment in which one political party maintains their own, independant armed forces. especially when that party seems determined to plunge your country into war.

the pro-democracy demonstrations in beirut last year were very moving to me. it was great to see a popular movement kick out the syrians. for me, this makes the lebanese government's failure, in its job to protect its people, all the more depressing.

and, concerning the IAF bombing civillian areas, as you mention, i stick to my human shield argument.
 
 
Ticker
18:45 / 19.07.06
This is just me trying to figure out what the hell is going on so please feel free to help me with my assessment.

It appears to me that Israel believes the best policy is a zero tolerance with escalation approach for aggressions directed towards its people. The idea being that eventually those aggressors will figure out that every time you poke the tiger with a stick you lose an arm until you have none left. However the other states in the region view Israel as something that can be driven out/destroyed given enough time and enough arms/sticks.

Israel is making military decisions based on this concept that the other states will eventually be conditioned to stop while the others believe time and fate are on their side. This is the idea of cultural martyrdom versus cultural hardlining. (I'm not happy with the term 'hardlining' but I can't think of a better one at the moment)

The US also has this view and in both cases it is extremely poor understanding of human nature and history. Martyrdom is a deeply satisfying psychological stance for accepting all kinds of horrible things and integrating them into a functional cosmology.

I know this assestment isn't new or anything but it occurs to me that the leaders are not thinking long term in a functional way. Or if they are they are willing to accept the idea of genocide as the martyrs keep chucking themselves into the jaws of the war machine and it keeps rolling into people's homes giving them no choice but to take on that role.

Neither approach is offering a solution they are just both condemning their populations to unspeakable horrors and the rest of the world as well.

On one hand you have a Pierson's Puppeteers approach that the conflict will cull the aggressive traits of the martyrs, which is fairly replusive ideology. On the other you have the belief that the loss of generations of people is acceptable because the eventual outcome is in line with their ideals.

It's obviously fucked up on both sides. Has anyone postulated a viable course out of this mess?

I have never experienced bombs dropping on my town but I have felt rhetoric inflame my passions. How much easier it must be to embrace hatred when everything you love is destroyed before your eyes?
 
 
MacDara
19:13 / 19.07.06
and, concerning the IAF bombing civillian areas, as you mention, i stick to my human shield argument.

I disagree with your argument here grime, because I don't think the actual situation can be reduced to a 'human shield' one, at least in terms of the civilians being willing participants. If they're guilty of anything, it's of being scared.

To me it's akin to the wall of silence maintained by communities in crime-ridden housing estates across Europe, or anywhere else in the world for that matter -- nobody wants to suffer the violence, and everyone knows that keeping mum doesn't help, but nobody wants to bring any trouble on their own house.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
19:57 / 19.07.06
in fact, the UN ordered them to disarm hizbollah and gain control of their borders years ago.

Israel, of course, being a state that famously disapproves when UN resolutions are ignored...
 
 
grime
20:30 / 19.07.06
if i seem to have blamed anything on the lebanese people, i apologize for the miscommunication.

i place the blame on hizbollah for cynically using their own supporters, whom they've bribed with social programs, as unwitting human sheilds as a deterrent to israeli force.

if the israelis were to respond to that deterrent, if they chose not to bomb civillian areas, it means that the terrorists can do whatever they please, as long as they have innocent people that they can run to for cover.
 
 
sleazenation
20:32 / 19.07.06
An Economist article on the large number of UN resolutions that Israel has ignored It also talks a bit about Israel as a non-delared nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear NPT...
 
 
grime
20:53 / 19.07.06
sorry guys, but i don't quite follow you.

does the fact that israel has ignored the UN somehow absolve lebanon of the basic responsibilities of a democratic sovereign nation?

on a quick side note, i've noticed that quickest way to derail any political discussion is to bring up the UN. my mistake.
 
 
Dead Megatron
21:05 / 19.07.06
does the fact that israel has ignored the UN somehow absolve lebanon of the basic responsibilities of a democratic sovereign nation?

No, it only shows Israel disregard for internationally aproved rules of engagement. No one is arguing Lebanon is not responsible for not keeping Hizbollah in check, we are only arguing Israel is also wrong, and arguably even wronger, with its disporportional and careless response. I mean, if the goal is to free the hostage soldiers, why not use some intelligence work to find out where they are being kept and send in a special black-op team to make the rescue or something like that, instead of just bombing everything and everybody in the hopes the enemy will blink first?
 
 
grime
21:23 / 19.07.06
thanks megatron, i see what you're saying about the disproportionate amount of force being applied.

however, i think a key element of this war is that it's not about retrieving two or three captured soldiers. israel is trying to neutralize the threat of hizbollah completely, while desperately trying to avoid invading lebanon.

the main thrust of their air campaing seems to be isolating hizbollah from any support, like more missles, from syria and iran. unfortunately. the very best way of doing that is to completely destroy lebanon's infrastructure and anything that connects it with the outside world.

of all the ways to deal with hizbollah, israel has definately chosen one of the more uneccessarily destructive and extreme.

that being said, i still don't believe that the IAF is dropping any bombs expressly to kill civillians.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:25 / 19.07.06
It appears to me that Israel believes the best policy is a zero tolerance with escalation approach for aggressions directed towards its people. The idea being that eventually those aggressors will figure out that every time you poke the tiger with a stick you lose an arm until you have none left. However the other states in the region view Israel as something that can be driven out/destroyed given enough time and enough arms/sticks.

Actually, I don't think this is quite right. Israel has just transferred power from the old guard of military men like Sharon who helped to carve out the borders of the state of Israel when it _did_ seem to be at risk of annihiliation to politicians like Olmert and Peretz. These two have a lot to prove, whereas Sharon had already proven that he was a strong man. That creates a desire for shows of strength.

Also, the Israeli Defence Force, while not numerically a match for the forces potentially arrayed against it, is massively more technologically advanced. This is partly about spending and partly about where it gets its support - the US. It's genuinely a toss-up whether Israel or the US have the best-equipped and best-supported servicemen. As such, opportunities to demonstrate their capacity to wage assymetric war are quite handy.

Meanwhile, at this point I'm not at all sure that any of the traditional enemies of Israel - Iran and Syria, most obviously - think that Israel will ever cease to exist. However, claiming that they want Israel not to exist, and refusing to recognise the state of Israel, is good PR, and helps to keep their own people's attention off domestic matters. If you were particularly cynical, you might view the creation of Palestinian refugee camps, carefully maintained rather than dismantled to allow the people in them to find new lives in their new host nations, as an exercise in PR. Having said which, there is also a school of thought that attributes this to Arabs not trusting Levantines.

Annnnyway - Hizbollah provides a useful way to keep the fire off your own nation and keep hostilities fairly "cool" - your people don't get killed and your borders don't get invaded. In those terms, Lebanon provides a useful stomping ground where fights between Syrian and Iranian-backed Hizbollah and the Israeli intelligence and military forces can play out without hostilities heating up - much like the occupied territories in general, really.

This time round, it looks like Hizbollah miscalculated by assuming that the Israeli government would seek a diplomatic solution. The US has decided to let Israel take a run-up at Hizbollah this time around, and will leave them a few days before asking them to stop the attacks. Israel gets to show off its destructive capabilities and cut at the branches of anti-Israeli operations, and nations backing Hizbollah get to point at the barbarity of Israel's attacks on a brother Muslim nation.

That's my very rough understanding of the immediate circumstances... anyone with a better understanding of the politics able to help out?
 
 
bacon
22:12 / 19.07.06
"I was going to respond to this, but valence already did (it's their home, for fuck sake), so I'll make an analogy. think back to high school: if some bully said you have to get up from your seat in the cafeteria or the class room or whatever, lesty they would kick your ass, would you get up and leave, or would say "no" and at least try and hold your ground? Would you say, then, that you were "asking for it?" Now, imagine that times a hundred.

Got it?"

first, the women and children comment was sarcasm, i kid

second, that's what this whole 60 year old crapfest is all about, israel took the seat of the one monkeyshit nutter kid who'll never stop trying to get his seat back from the bully, so the bully keeps on pummeling the kid and the kid keeps spitting blood into the bully's face and smiling

i, personally, would've moved on to another table in the cafeteria and finished my chicken and fries before they got cold

but i'm not an arab
 
 
sleazenation
22:47 / 19.07.06
sorry guys, but i don't quite follow you.

does the fact that israel has ignored the UN somehow absolve lebanon of the basic responsibilities of a democratic sovereign nation?


Quite a lot in that post to talk about - in fact there is quite a lot in this whole thread that I want to reply to, but have so far failed to due to lack of time...

For my own part my point was to establish fairly clearly that Israel has indeed ignored UN resolutions on numerous occasions in the past.

As you say - the comparitive value of the UN and the ammount of importance various nations attach to it is a whole other topic.

Equally the NNPT is another interesting and relevant topic that perhaps best fits in another thread.

Which brings us to the Lebanese government and to what extent it can be considered a functioning and stable democracy. Lebanese democracy in its current form is less than a year old. Before that time the country was occupied by Syria and until circa 2000 Israel too. Lebanon's current President was appointed by the Syrian-backed regime.

The broadly anti-Syrian coalition that came into power at the last election did not reach a sufficient majority to remove the President. It was also keen, in the shadow of a 15-year civil war (although the term civil war doesn't really cover the transnational reality of the conflict) to find its feet and hold together its factured Sunni Muslim, Druze, Christian and Shia Muslim populations. To this end, the main governing parties sought to bring Hizbollah into the coalition, giving them a stake in the fortunes and the future of that government.

Which is a rather long-winded way of saying that Lebanon is not a perfect democracy, moreover it is not a mature or robust democracy, it is a weak fledgling democracy that isn't going to get any stronger if its infrastructure is destroyed and it ports and airports are blockaded. If the West and/or Israel want a stable democracy in power in The Lebanon then they really need to back the democratically elected government and work to stengthen it.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
00:47 / 20.07.06
It does seem like time that the Israeli government was brought to heel on this, though. Its behaviour is now becoming problematic on a global level, and while I'm not trying to say that it isn't under a certain amount of pressure, the fact remains that Israel is the only nation state in the area that's overtly acting in a violent manner - everyone else has at least a veneer of plausible deniability, whereas Israel cannot put the actions of it's army down to a terrorist-friendly minority that its citizens may or may not be harbouring, inadvertently or otherwise.

Unfortunately though, the only faction in the world that the Israeli government is likely to listen to about this, the US Republican party, is also the last one that's going to tell it what it badly needs to hear. Which is something like, 'any more of this insanity, and we're cutting you off.'

Israel, as a highly developed economy, could probably do without the money for a while, but it would struggle a bit without the implied military support. As the right wing elements in its government well know - they're at best going to stall a Democrat administration, until a more amenable character's in the Oval office, so the only way round this, it seems, is for the Republicans to be quite clear (behind the scenes, obviously) about the penalties they'd be prepared to impose as a result of any further attempts to derail 'the road to peace.'

And it's difficult to picture that happening at the moment - diverging slightly from the topic at hand, it does seem as if, unless a vaguely sane Republican is the next US president, the rest of the world is going to be sitting round waiting for the next neo-con backlash, and not paying its Democrat predecessor too much mind.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
05:18 / 20.07.06
i, personally, would've moved on to another table in the cafeteria and finished my chicken and fries before they got cold

This assumes that there is any will in the surrounding states to assimiliate the Palestinians. There is, as far as one can tell, no such will.
 
 
*
06:14 / 20.07.06
I posted this in Radio & Music as well. It's a link to the blog of a visual and improvisational music artist working from Beirut. The comments are very telling.
 
 
elene
08:49 / 20.07.06
that's what this whole 60 year old crapfest is all about, israel took the seat of the one monkeyshit nutter kid who'll never stop trying to get his seat back from the bully, so the bully keeps on pummeling the kid and the kid keeps spitting blood into the bully's face and smiling

You've got it, bacon, only it was the kid's family's farm and not a table in a cafeteria.
 
 
elene
10:02 / 20.07.06
I see the Guardian's Comment Is Free page has an article by Newt Gingrich today. It's called The Third World War Has Begun and it informs us that,

Hizbullah's attacks on Israel are part of a global crisis of civilisation.

The civilized world stands balanced between victory and defeat.


I kid you not. Newt Gingrich - THE THIRD WORLD WAR HAS BEGUN.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:03 / 20.07.06
Actually, it occurs to me that by responding to bacon we are compelling him, because he is no doubt a polite and well-brought-up young man, to read and respond to those replies, rather than going away and learning anything whatsoever about the Middle East. I suggest we not take up any more of his valuable time.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
10:09 / 20.07.06
Jesus. Christ. This is what the UK's foremost "unbiased" news agency has to say about the whole affair.

Israel's "objectives":

Israel intends to destroy as much of Hezbollah's capability - much of that in missiles - as it can, though air power has its limitations. Its attacks, it says, are directed at targets connected to Hezbollah. [...] It also wants the return of its two captured soldiers - and a third one held in Gaza.

Well, that all seems very reasonable. What are Hezbollah's objectives, then?

Hezbollah's tactics are to cause maximum civilian casualties, to spread fear and to inflict damage in Israel.

Thanks, BBC.
 
 
Spaniel
10:27 / 20.07.06
but i'm not an arab

Yet more of your brilliant sense of humour, bacon?

Fer fuck's sake.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:47 / 20.07.06
And yet Israel's apologists will still tell you that the BBC is one of many European news agencies biased against the state of Israel...

One of many ways in which bacon is representing the situation unhelpfully is when describes the Palestinian people (I think, it's not clear and he could mean something more general and dubious) as "the one monkeyshit nutter kid who'll never stop trying to get his seat back from the bully". In fact (and there's a really nice summary of this but I can't remember who said the exact quotation), generally speaking indigenous populations don't tend to respond to occupying forces just by running away or peaceable accepting their own occupation, displacement, destruction of their homes, reduction to being second class citizens, etc. Instead there are always those who resist, by means including responding to violence in kind, until they are either granted some measure of respite, or are utterly crushed.
 
  

Page: 12(3)45678... 11

 
  
Add Your Reply