Israel's Attack on Lebanon and Hezbollah

[ACPlayer]

At this point by your logic all he can do is sit and watch his country being demolished.

I dont think he can order his troops south the fight the Hez, if he wants to -- I doubt if the Israeli's would let him.

So, today, all he can do is make calls for cease fire which will not happen in the security council (the US veto is ready) or hang around. A bad spot for the leader of a nation.

Now, if the Israeli's had ever been serious about getting the Lebanese to help route out the Hez, the time to ask was before the fighting (waiting a couple of days would have made little difference). At least then the claim to the moral high ground would have some traction.

The scale of the attack, the widespread nature, the willingness to offer the "at least we are not as bad the other guy" reason, the lack of any attempt at diplomacy -- the list is too long.

Both sides have descended into an abyss.

FWIW -- It is possible -- I just dont know -- that Lebanon would never have had the ability or willingness to deal with the Hez. But, this is not an excuse. To claim the moral high ground, additional serious efforts at diplomacy, to resolve the skirmish, were needed before all this.

[Sniper]

Some 150 rockets were fired from the Lebanese village of Qana over the past 20 days, Air Force Chief of Staff Brig.-Gen. Amir Eshel said on Sunday evening.

Speaking to reporters, Eshel added that Hizbullah rocket launchers were hidden in civilian buildings in the village. He proceeded to show video footage of rocket launchers being driven into the village following launches.

[NapHead]

It is abundantly clear that Hezbollah's aim is to maximize civilian casualties on both the Israeli side and the Lebanese side.

"Speaking to reporters, (Air Force Chief of Staff Brig.-Gen. Amir) Eshel added that Hizbullah rocket launchers were hidden in civilian buildings in the village. He proceeded to show video footage of rocket launchers being driven into the village following launches."

Rocket launchers moved into villages

There are many other reported cases of Hezbollah terrorizing Lebanese villages by moving their rocket launchers between houses and beside churches and then firing on Israeli population centers.

"Hezbollah has been firing rockets from the village since Day 1 hiding behind innocent people’s places and even CHURCHES. No one is allowed to argue with the Hezbollah gunmen who wont hesitate to shoot you and i've heard about more than one shooting incident including young men from the village and Hezbollah."

Hezbollah fires from churches

From NY Times:

“Hezbollah came to Ain Ebel to shoot its rockets,” said Fayad Hanna Amar, a young Christian man, referring to his village. “They are shooting from between our houses.”

One woman, who would not give her name because she had a government job and feared retribution, said Hezbollah fighters had killed a man who was trying to leave Bint Jbail.

“This is what’s happening, but no one wants to say it” for fear of Hezbollah, she said.


NYT - Hezbollah kills man trying to leave village

When Hezbollah met resistance from a Druze village when they tried to gain access to it to launch rockets at Israel, they "responded by cutting off the town's electricity and water supply, essentially laying seige to a town on its own side of the border, hoping that its residents would pack up and leave." .. "Hizbullah's intention was to bring Israeli reprisals on the town, ostensibly to destroy or damage it significantly, and to cause greater civilian suffering. Hizbullah's MO and tactics are well-known in the south."

Hezbollah cuts off water and electricity in attempt to use town for launch sites

[Sniper]

US government officials announced on Sunday night that Israel agreed to suspend air force activity in Lebanon for the next 48 hours.

The agreement is meant to allow investigations into the deaths that followed IAF bombing in Qana.

-------

Israel will also coordinate with the United Nations to allow a 24-hour window for residents of southern Lebanon to leave the area if they wish, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli told a briefing in Jerusalem.

------

Spokesman Adam Ereli said the Israelis reserve the right to take action against targets preparing attacks against it during the 48-hour period, but the bombing halt should "significantly speed and improve the flow of humanitarian aid."

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW -- It is possible -- I just dont know -- that Lebanon would never have had the ability or willingness to deal with the Hez.

[/ QUOTE ]


AC, always the Arab apologist. You get to saying that somehow some Arab faction might be at fault, but you leave it vague so as not to have to assign blame to an Arab faction while always assigning same to Israel upon much less evidence or reasoning.

You say you don't know? What does that mean? Is there another logical possibility in the situation where Lebanon won't take action against Hezbollah other than the 2 even you see of "unwilling" and "unable"? If you cannot give another reasonable 3rd possibility other than those two (and in fact acknowledge that it doesn't even matter which of the 2 is true because the effect is the same), then it is dishonest for you to say you don't know and that it is only "possible".

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW -- It is possible -- I just dont know -- that Lebanon would never have had the ability or willingness to deal with the Hez.

[/ QUOTE ]


AC, always the Arab apologist. You get to saying that somehow some Arab faction might be at fault, but you leave it vague so as not to have to assign blame to an Arab faction while always assigning same to Israel upon much less evidence or reasoning.

You say you don't know? What does that mean? Is there another logical possibility in the situation where Lebanon won't take action against Hezbollah other than the 2 even you see of "unwilling" and "unable"? If you cannot give another reasonable 3rd possibility other than those two (and in fact acknowledge that it doesn't even matter which of the 2 is true because the effect is the same), then it is dishonest for you to say you don't know and that it is only "possible".

[/ QUOTE ]

They are willing and they are able but Allah told them to stay out of it. (Of course Allah speaks from many places, including Tehran and Damascus)

[siegfriedandroy]

i am basically just reading this thread trying to educate myself about what is happening, since I have little prior knowledge about these issues, and have not yet formed much of an opinion. You said that to claim a moral high ground, Israel should have tried diplomacy (but that you dont know whether Lebanon would have been able/willing to assist. But what if Israel did KNOW for certain that Lebanon was unable/unwilling. In this case, wouldn't any attempt at diplomacy be utterly useless?

[ QUOTE ]
At this point by your logic all he can do is sit and watch his country being demolished.

I dont think he can order his troops south the fight the Hez, if he wants to -- I doubt if the Israeli's would let him.

So, today, all he can do is make calls for cease fire which will not happen in the security council (the US veto is ready) or hang around. A bad spot for the leader of a nation.

Now, if the Israeli's had ever been serious about getting the Lebanese to help route out the Hez, the time to ask was before the fighting (waiting a couple of days would have made little difference). At least then the claim to the moral high ground would have some traction.

The scale of the attack, the widespread nature, the willingness to offer the "at least we are not as bad the other guy" reason, the lack of any attempt at diplomacy -- the list is too long.

Both sides have descended into an abyss.

FWIW -- It is possible -- I just dont know -- that Lebanon would never have had the ability or willingness to deal with the Hez. But, this is not an excuse. To claim the moral high ground, additional serious efforts at diplomacy, to resolve the skirmish, were needed before all this.

[/ QUOTE ]

[siegfriedandroy]

What are your philosophical/religious/moral beliefs, Cyrus? Just curious (since you are speaking of moral relativism)- cant recall whether you participated in any of the smp forums on atheistic morality, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do not know if it is true that Israel has racked up hundreds of civilian deaths but I will assume it is.
<font color="white"> . </font>
So what? Lets say we knew for an absolute fact that Israel was specifically targeting civilians to terrorize and kill. Would it not be fair to say that Israel at worst is simply engaging in the same tactics as its enemy who we know for a fact is specifically targeting civilians to terrorize and kill them?
<font color="white"> . </font>
If both sides agree to use the same tactics then let them fight it out.

[/ QUOTE ] By the same token, we are not supposed to be horrified when a terrorist organisation explodes a bomb in a Tel Aviv supermarket or when a suicide bomber detonates himself in the middle of a Haifa disco.

So, I disagree. If we are to remain different from the other animals, if we indeed do not accept "the natural laws" last seen propagated on this Earth by angry men in black uniforms, we must protest the barbarism of others, of any others.

I will also remark that your term "agree" can only be used metaphorically. Each side unilaterally justifies its atrocities; they have not "agreed" to anything. The other side's atrocities are proclaimed as such; our atrocities we find a way to justify and excuse and call by a different name.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no morality in war and civilian death tallys are silly.

[/ QUOTE ] In order precisely to halt the descent into such an abyss and hold fast to higher humanistic principles, there are various agreements between nations, eg GCP, however idealistically or utopically formulated, which try to claim for Man a somewhat less savage mode of conduct.

Note that your mode of thinking practically excuses each and every atroctiy committed by terrorists against Jews and Israel. It reduces every moral argument to a quest about who's stronger and who's weaker.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
i am basically just reading this thread trying to educate myself about what is happening, since I have little prior knowledge about these issues, and have not yet formed much of an opinion. You said that to claim a moral high ground, Israel should have tried diplomacy (but that you dont know whether Lebanon would have been able/willing to assist. But what if Israel did KNOW for certain that Lebanon was unable/unwilling. In this case, wouldn't any attempt at diplomacy be utterly useless?

[ QUOTE ]
At this point by your logic all he can do is sit and watch his country being demolished.

I dont think he can order his troops south the fight the Hez, if he wants to -- I doubt if the Israeli's would let him.

So, today, all he can do is make calls for cease fire which will not happen in the security council (the US veto is ready) or hang around. A bad spot for the leader of a nation.

Now, if the Israeli's had ever been serious about getting the Lebanese to help route out the Hez, the time to ask was before the fighting (waiting a couple of days would have made little difference). At least then the claim to the moral high ground would have some traction.

The scale of the attack, the widespread nature, the willingness to offer the "at least we are not as bad the other guy" reason, the lack of any attempt at diplomacy -- the list is too long.

Both sides have descended into an abyss.

FWIW -- It is possible -- I just dont know -- that Lebanon would never have had the ability or willingness to deal with the Hez. But, this is not an excuse. To claim the moral high ground, additional serious efforts at diplomacy, to resolve the skirmish, were needed before all this.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh... a logical voice from SMP arrives...greetings!

Re this question, diplomacy was already tried and was resolved in the form of UN Resolution 1559 which put the onus on the Lebanese government to ensure the disarmament of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. By virtue of their unwillingness or inability to do so (and most of us on the pro-Israeli side believe there is no practical difference in those two) diplomacy with Lebanon failed.

Dealing directly with Hezbollah is tantamount to negotiating with terrorists...philosophically an untenable situation for Israel. Despite that there was some brief talk of prisnoer exchanges...2 Israelis for 1000+ Arabs or something like that, without any talk of compliance with 1559.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i am basically just reading this thread trying to educate myself about what is happening, since I have little prior knowledge about these issues, and have not yet formed much of an opinion. You said that to claim a moral high ground, Israel should have tried diplomacy (but that you dont know whether Lebanon would have been able/willing to assist. But what if Israel did KNOW for certain that Lebanon was unable/unwilling. In this case, wouldn't any attempt at diplomacy be utterly useless?

[ QUOTE ]
At this point by your logic all he can do is sit and watch his country being demolished.

I dont think he can order his troops south the fight the Hez, if he wants to -- I doubt if the Israeli's would let him.

So, today, all he can do is make calls for cease fire which will not happen in the security council (the US veto is ready) or hang around. A bad spot for the leader of a nation.

Now, if the Israeli's had ever been serious about getting the Lebanese to help route out the Hez, the time to ask was before the fighting (waiting a couple of days would have made little difference). At least then the claim to the moral high ground would have some traction.

The scale of the attack, the widespread nature, the willingness to offer the "at least we are not as bad the other guy" reason, the lack of any attempt at diplomacy -- the list is too long.

Both sides have descended into an abyss.

FWIW -- It is possible -- I just dont know -- that Lebanon would never have had the ability or willingness to deal with the Hez. But, this is not an excuse. To claim the moral high ground, additional serious efforts at diplomacy, to resolve the skirmish, were needed before all this.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh... a logical voice from SMP arrives...greetings!

Re this question, diplomacy was already tried and was resolved in the form of UN Resolution 1559 which put the onus on the Lebanese government to ensure the disarmament of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. By virtue of their unwillingness or inability to do so (and most of us on the pro-Israeli side believe there is no practical difference in those two) diplomacy with Lebanon failed.

Dealing directly with Hezbollah is tantamount to negotiating with terrorists...philosophically an untenable situation for Israel. Despite that there was some brief talk of prisnoer exchanges...2 Israelis for 1000+ Arabs or something like that, without any talk of compliance with 1559.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the warm SMP welcome, bro! And I appreciate the info. Good thread...