Monday, July 31, 2006
More on Israel
As you well know, I strongly believe in Israel's right to exist. I include in that belief a right for Israel to defend herself. Initially, I supported Israel's moves against Hezbollah for exactly that reason: she needed to take those measures to survive. However, Israel is making mistakes, and the justifications just aren't cutting it anymore.
I watched the Israeli foreign minister on Meet the Press yesterday morning. His rhetoric worries me. He was talking about Israel doing the "world's dirty work" in terms of combating terrorism, and I could not help but think of the similarity of those words to Bush's justifications of the Iraq war. I do think there is some validity to that argument, but unfortunately, that "justification" can be used to rationalize virtually any action, no matter how atrocious.
It's clear that the recent attack on Qana was not a deliberate targeting of civilians, but an attempt at eliminating Hezbollah. Unfortunately, terrorists often use civilians as "human shields" so that they both can keep their strongholds and win the PR war. Israel is then caught in a dilemma: either the military allows Hezbollah to continue operations in certain areas, or they run the risk of devastating civilian populations. For Israel, both are bad options.
The rhetoric used to justify taking the latter path doesn't quite cut it. Israel claims that Lebanon is held hostage by Hezbollah and that these attacks are carried out only because Hezbollah has not disarmed and continues to attack Israel. On the flip side, we must remember that these are Israeli bombs landing in civilian areas.
I must give Israel credit for one thing, and that is her reluctance to take down the Lebanese government. The regime in Lebanon is not strong; the government relies on Hezbollah to maintain peace in the south. They will not attack Hezbollah because they're afraid the military will split into factions, and therefore, the government would crumble. Moreover, Lebanon views Hezbollah as a force fighting for independence against the Zionist war machine, despite the fact that Hezbollah instigated this conflict in the first place. However, Israel, unlike the United States in Iraq, does not wish to depose the government.
The reason I worry about Israel's extreme reaction is not because I am against Israel. Quite the opposite is true. Israel's very existence is threatened if they lose credibility and support within the region and among world superpowers. While Hezbollah is the immediate threat, there are long-term consequences of Israel's refusal to compromise and negotiate. Negotiating with terrorists (which, despite its claims, Israel has done before and will need to do again) has to be better than this.
I am happy Israel agreed to halt air strikes for 48 hours, despite the fact that the large loophole (that is, Israel can still attack Hezbollah if Hezbollah continues to shell Israel) makes the halt relatively useless. One baby step is better than none, though, and I pray that Israel can make progress toward peace in the coming week.
I watched the Israeli foreign minister on Meet the Press yesterday morning. His rhetoric worries me. He was talking about Israel doing the "world's dirty work" in terms of combating terrorism, and I could not help but think of the similarity of those words to Bush's justifications of the Iraq war. I do think there is some validity to that argument, but unfortunately, that "justification" can be used to rationalize virtually any action, no matter how atrocious.
It's clear that the recent attack on Qana was not a deliberate targeting of civilians, but an attempt at eliminating Hezbollah. Unfortunately, terrorists often use civilians as "human shields" so that they both can keep their strongholds and win the PR war. Israel is then caught in a dilemma: either the military allows Hezbollah to continue operations in certain areas, or they run the risk of devastating civilian populations. For Israel, both are bad options.
The rhetoric used to justify taking the latter path doesn't quite cut it. Israel claims that Lebanon is held hostage by Hezbollah and that these attacks are carried out only because Hezbollah has not disarmed and continues to attack Israel. On the flip side, we must remember that these are Israeli bombs landing in civilian areas.
I must give Israel credit for one thing, and that is her reluctance to take down the Lebanese government. The regime in Lebanon is not strong; the government relies on Hezbollah to maintain peace in the south. They will not attack Hezbollah because they're afraid the military will split into factions, and therefore, the government would crumble. Moreover, Lebanon views Hezbollah as a force fighting for independence against the Zionist war machine, despite the fact that Hezbollah instigated this conflict in the first place. However, Israel, unlike the United States in Iraq, does not wish to depose the government.
The reason I worry about Israel's extreme reaction is not because I am against Israel. Quite the opposite is true. Israel's very existence is threatened if they lose credibility and support within the region and among world superpowers. While Hezbollah is the immediate threat, there are long-term consequences of Israel's refusal to compromise and negotiate. Negotiating with terrorists (which, despite its claims, Israel has done before and will need to do again) has to be better than this.
I am happy Israel agreed to halt air strikes for 48 hours, despite the fact that the large loophole (that is, Israel can still attack Hezbollah if Hezbollah continues to shell Israel) makes the halt relatively useless. One baby step is better than none, though, and I pray that Israel can make progress toward peace in the coming week.
Comments:
They broke that cease fire, after some Hezbollah guys fired at one of their tanks.
We need to get Jimmy Carter down there to work that peace out. He did it before, I wonder if it would work again?
We need to get Jimmy Carter down there to work that peace out. He did it before, I wonder if it would work again?
Like I said, the giant loophole in that ceasefire was that Israel reserved the right to strike against Hezbollah if Hezbollah fired. They also did not say anything about the ground offensive, which indicates to me that the agreement was more of a media blitz than anything else.
I disagreed with the cease fire. You're even at war or your not. Whatever PR was gained by the ceasefire paled in comparison to the bad PR already garnered by Isreal.
I also disagree with the Isreali action. They do have a right to exist, but not at the cost of Lebanon's existence. By flouting Lebanon in there zeal to get Hezballah, Isreal has strengthened Hezballah (and whatever replaces Hez. if it is eliminated) and destroyed any chance Lebanon had at a democracy.
I also disagree with the Isreali action. They do have a right to exist, but not at the cost of Lebanon's existence. By flouting Lebanon in there zeal to get Hezballah, Isreal has strengthened Hezballah (and whatever replaces Hez. if it is eliminated) and destroyed any chance Lebanon had at a democracy.
Mr. Moore, you need to a) read what I said and b) check up on some of your facts.
I will repeat: Israel has been very careful NOT to take out the Lebanese government and has attempted (we'll see how effectively) to leave the current regime in place. I do not necessarily support everything Israel has done, but that measure has been a good thing. You clearly agree with me.
And, sir, how can you disagree with a cease-fire and the action? What would you have Israel do?
I will repeat: Israel has been very careful NOT to take out the Lebanese government and has attempted (we'll see how effectively) to leave the current regime in place. I do not necessarily support everything Israel has done, but that measure has been a good thing. You clearly agree with me.
And, sir, how can you disagree with a cease-fire and the action? What would you have Israel do?
I would have them finish what they started. Whether I agree or disagree with the military action, a cease fire was unnecesary. You are correct, civilian casualties are unavoidable given the placement of Hezbellah elements. On top of that, accidents happen in these situations (we've made bombing mistakes in Iraq, and elsewhere.)
I beleive the statement of condolences and regret was sufficient; but, once the decision to go to war was made, it should not have pr decisions impact how it is waged. Also, I don't disagree that Isreal is trying to avoid regime change/destabilization/etc. but I fear it may be an unintended consequence.
As for the post on my blog you didn't like, I'll delete it. It was meant as sarcasm re more people covering an nonissue about a movie star, than the issues in this conflict, Iraq, etc. In respect of you, I'll delete it, though I think sarcasm was called for. (P.S. It may take me a minute to figure out how to delete it, so don't think me misleading if its not gone instantly.)
I beleive the statement of condolences and regret was sufficient; but, once the decision to go to war was made, it should not have pr decisions impact how it is waged. Also, I don't disagree that Isreal is trying to avoid regime change/destabilization/etc. but I fear it may be an unintended consequence.
As for the post on my blog you didn't like, I'll delete it. It was meant as sarcasm re more people covering an nonissue about a movie star, than the issues in this conflict, Iraq, etc. In respect of you, I'll delete it, though I think sarcasm was called for. (P.S. It may take me a minute to figure out how to delete it, so don't think me misleading if its not gone instantly.)
So if you agree that casualties are impossible to prevent and that Israel has correctly atoned for its mishap, what of Israel's actions do you disagree with?
My belief is that Israel didn't have much of a choice when it came to attacking Hezbollah, as they jumped the border and kidnapped two soldiers, then shot missiles into Israel's third largest city.
I do disagree with the way the war is being conducted, however. Israel has responded disproportionately, and will find itself in an America-Iraq position if it does not figure out how to strike and get the hell out.
Luckily, Israel is dependent on foreign countries and does not have the options that the United States has; when the world (including the US) does finally call for a ceasefire (which better happen soon), Israel will have to comply.
Post a Comment
My belief is that Israel didn't have much of a choice when it came to attacking Hezbollah, as they jumped the border and kidnapped two soldiers, then shot missiles into Israel's third largest city.
I do disagree with the way the war is being conducted, however. Israel has responded disproportionately, and will find itself in an America-Iraq position if it does not figure out how to strike and get the hell out.
Luckily, Israel is dependent on foreign countries and does not have the options that the United States has; when the world (including the US) does finally call for a ceasefire (which better happen soon), Israel will have to comply.
