(no subject)
Jul. 18th, 2006 09:13 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
teddywolfI'm not going to touch Gaza right now because that would be an even bigger flamewar, but I am annoyed - yea, to the point of pissed off - with Hesbollah.
Israel left the Golan Heights and the rest of southern Lebanon. They completely withdrew. Their reason for staying in the Golan Heights was specifically because it was far too easy for missile strikes on Israel to be launched from there.
Hesbollah dashed into Israel - invaded, technically - kidnapped a soldier, and started firing a surprisingly large number of rockets at Israel. Apparently, they had some help from another country or two, like, oh, say, Syria and Iran. Many rockets fired, a number of casualties in Israel.
We know what Israel's response was: blockade the ports, wreck the main roads to Syria and make the airport unusable, as well as target some government buildings as they feel the government might have more sway than publicly reported (ie None). The reasons given: they do not want Hesbollah to take their soldier out of Lebanon, and they do not want Hesbollah to have easy access to resupply. Hesbollah talked about 'prisoner' exchange - the soldier for a goodly number of Hesbollah members in Israeli jails. This time, Israel refused. This is the first time I can think of where Israel flat-out refused such an exchange.
Oh, the reason I put prisoner in quotes? The Hesbollah prisoners in Israeli jails have been tried in a court of law, been found guilty in said court, and have been kept in jails. The kidnapped soldier has not been tried or convicted in a court of law and is not, to the best of anybody's knowledge who isn't holding him, in an official jail.
I initially thought that the Israeli response was too severe, as it was causing intense damage to infrastructure. I'm not as sure of that any more owing to the extremely provocative nature of Hesbollah's attack, the lack of Lebanese actions of any sort to rein in Hesbollah, and the stated reasons for why Israel is targeting what it is targeting.
Israel does not want to take over Lebanon. It wants its soldier back and wants Hesbollah to stop attacking.
If, say, Cuban nationalist terrorists* came into the US, kidnapped a US soldier, fired rockets into Florida, and demanded that the US release a large number of Cuban nationalist terrorists* in return for the US soldier, what do you think the US would do? What do you think the US should do?
*Yes, I know there has been no sign of Cuban nationalist terrorists. I am using these mythical beats for purpose of example.
All right, talk to me.
Israel left the Golan Heights and the rest of southern Lebanon. They completely withdrew. Their reason for staying in the Golan Heights was specifically because it was far too easy for missile strikes on Israel to be launched from there.
Hesbollah dashed into Israel - invaded, technically - kidnapped a soldier, and started firing a surprisingly large number of rockets at Israel. Apparently, they had some help from another country or two, like, oh, say, Syria and Iran. Many rockets fired, a number of casualties in Israel.
We know what Israel's response was: blockade the ports, wreck the main roads to Syria and make the airport unusable, as well as target some government buildings as they feel the government might have more sway than publicly reported (ie None). The reasons given: they do not want Hesbollah to take their soldier out of Lebanon, and they do not want Hesbollah to have easy access to resupply. Hesbollah talked about 'prisoner' exchange - the soldier for a goodly number of Hesbollah members in Israeli jails. This time, Israel refused. This is the first time I can think of where Israel flat-out refused such an exchange.
Oh, the reason I put prisoner in quotes? The Hesbollah prisoners in Israeli jails have been tried in a court of law, been found guilty in said court, and have been kept in jails. The kidnapped soldier has not been tried or convicted in a court of law and is not, to the best of anybody's knowledge who isn't holding him, in an official jail.
I initially thought that the Israeli response was too severe, as it was causing intense damage to infrastructure. I'm not as sure of that any more owing to the extremely provocative nature of Hesbollah's attack, the lack of Lebanese actions of any sort to rein in Hesbollah, and the stated reasons for why Israel is targeting what it is targeting.
Israel does not want to take over Lebanon. It wants its soldier back and wants Hesbollah to stop attacking.
If, say, Cuban nationalist terrorists* came into the US, kidnapped a US soldier, fired rockets into Florida, and demanded that the US release a large number of Cuban nationalist terrorists* in return for the US soldier, what do you think the US would do? What do you think the US should do?
*Yes, I know there has been no sign of Cuban nationalist terrorists. I am using these mythical beats for purpose of example.
All right, talk to me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 01:53 pm (UTC)So, with that out of the way? I agree with you. Yes, I know, I'm usually fairly harsh on Israel. However, this case is rather different, involving Lebanon as it does. Hizbollah performs what would by any definition be considered military operations without official government sanction. The Lebanese government has done nothing to check them, and in fact provides them a safe harbor for their activities against Israel. Regardless of the Lebanese position on Hizbollah's activities, if they are going to provide a safe harbor for those activities and do nothing at all to curtail them, then they must accept the consequences and be considered as accomplises to Hizbollah's actions. Basically? It sucks to be the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire, just like it always does in situations like this.
The important question that no one is really willing to consider is this: is there a solution that will stop all this fighting? The short answer is no. The long answer involves both sides giving up on their religious hatred of one another, giving the Palestinians land of their own and leaving them to sink or swim in it, and in simply wiping the slate clean on past offenses, going forward blank and dealing with issues from there. The whole region would have to be involved... and if someone doesn't see why the long answer boils down to "not going to happen" as a short version, then I don't know quite how to explain it.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 03:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 04:10 pm (UTC)Conversely, I don't have any sympathy for the Lebanese. They let this shit happen to them.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 06:12 pm (UTC)Hezbollah IS part of the Lebanese government! They have 23 members in parliament and two acting ministers. So it's not as if the Lebanese government can pretend to ignore them. Of course the pundits will try and claim that the Hezbollah has different "branches", and the political one should not be accountable for the military one.
The Hezbollah actually have nothing in common with the Palestinians, they don't even share the same religion, as they are Shiites, while the Palestinians are exclusively Sunni (anybody following the news from Iraq knows how well these two groups "get along"). This organization was created, and to this day is maintained by Iran (and Syria), as their long-arm against Israel. It's like Osama bin Laden claiming he did 9/11 "for the Palestinians", when he had never actually mentioned them in his rhetoric prior to that.
The problem is, that this type of solution is precisely what created the present mess. We pulled-out of Gaza, and dismantled the settlements there. This was taken for a sign of weakness, and the Hammas won the following elections, for their part in "forcing Israel out". While part of the reason they won was due to their social-works "branch", they took their win as support for their "Destroy Israel" agenda, and continued directly or condoned others attacking Israel, to the tune of a thousand Qassam rockets raining down on south Israel, which we mostly did nothing about. The non-stop cross-border attacks kept getting more brazen until they finally kidnapped that first soldier. So giving the Arabs/Palestinians exactly what they want, only makes things worse.
As you say, peace in the Middle-East - "not going to happen".
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 06:19 pm (UTC)Correction
Personally, I think we need to treat this problem at its' root, and ALSO bomb the shit out of Damascus and Tehran, who are the real power-players behind Hezbollah. I wonder how much coverage the international media will give to the following recent news-item - IAF bombs 4 trucks carrying weapons from SYRIA to Lebanon. (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3277873,00.html) While not living in a likely target, I could still hear the WHOOMP WHOOMP of the missile strikes in the Jezreel Valley (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3276907,00.html) (which my home overlooks) on Monday night.
Re: Correction
Date: 2006-07-18 03:46 pm (UTC)Frankly, I'd wonder why the international community doesn't condemn Syria sending weapons to terrorists, but then I remember the answer is Oil.
I think a great solution would be Israel researching and developing alternate fuel sources that leave oil in the dust. The oil hegemony would collapse in relatively short order and the geopolitical lines would change very quickly.
Re: Correction
Date: 2006-07-18 04:12 pm (UTC)Solutions
Date: 2006-07-18 04:45 pm (UTC)If under two square miles can produce 500mW of power, we'd need some 15,000 square miles to do all of the US electrical power needs (http://www.antimatterenergy.com/usaee.htm). In other words, a big chunk of Arizona. (http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/az_geography.htm) I don't expect total solar takeover, since wind and geothermal are nice too, and since methane from well-made trash dumps is fine by me.
Of course, we also need good fully-electrical cars, preferably with usable solid-state solar panels.
Re: Solutions
Date: 2006-07-18 05:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 02:58 pm (UTC)What do I think the US should do if some hypothetical people captured US soldiers? There's a number of things they could do - sanctions, negotiations, covert mission to rescue them, but very last on the list, or not on the list at all, should be bombing civilians. Of course, the US is hardly an example of behaving well in these matters, and I am embarassed to live here.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 03:22 pm (UTC)To bring it to a more personal level, then. Let us say, for example, that your child has had his boundaries crossed in school. More to the point, your child has been called names and has been bullied.
If your child should hit back, the teacher's response is, "I don't care who started it, I'm ending it." And yet the teacher never catches the bullies starting things.
Do you care who is starting things if your son is being bullied? I know you do. I know how angry you'd get. Hell hath no fury like a mother's righteous rage. And I know that no matter how many times your son is bullied you care immensely who started it.
(I hope your son is not being bullied in school. Being class target is awful, and I know from experience)
You don't have a dog in the fire when it comes to Israel. I do. I have relatives there. I have friends there. This does not mean I hand Israel a blank check. I deplore Israel hitting civilian targets. That said, they do their damndest to avoid hitting civilian targets. They've gotten quite good at it. I generally disagree with them targeting government buildings unless they have solid proof of exceptional circumstance, in that I consider non-military government buildings to be civilian.
How often do you hear about Israeli troops targeting a restaurant? Or a busy street? Or a transit bus? Or a school? Or a home belonging to people who are not involved in a terrorist organization? Tell me - and remember, I said 'targeting'. Then tell me how often you've heard of Hesbollah or Hamas or Islamic Jihad targeting a restaurant, or a busy street, or a transit bus, or a school, or civilians' homes.
I am not saying I believe Israel to always be in the right on everything, because I don't. But when Israel stands for firm principles for safety within its borders, for rule of law, I stand behind that.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 03:28 pm (UTC)"You don't have a dog in the fire when it comes to Israel."
I'm sorry you are worried about friends and family. That still doesn't make any of the violence right.
Unilateral disarmament is the only hope for peace, ever - to simply stop and work out their problems with each other with some way that doesn't involve gunpowder. But this very post and follow up of yours shows, in a microcosm, why it is never, ever going to happen - because no one can let go of the "but its their fault and they are worse than us!" mentality. Everyone is too emotionally invested in excusing their own favorite sides violence.
No one ever said pacifism is an easy, feel good solution.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 03:43 pm (UTC)Pacifism only works when the non-pacifist side has a sense of shame. Gandhi used the British sense of shame. Syria and Iran and several other nations have no shame in admitting (shouting to the hills, really) that they want Israel gone.
Peace can only be achieved when both sides are willing to sit down and be reasonable in ways that overlap. Israel, reasonably (for itself), wants to live in peace. Syria, Iran, Hesbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda and Hamas, reasonably (for them), wants Israel to be utterly destroyed.
Israel does *not* want to destroy Syria, Iran, Lebanon (where Hesbollah lives), Afghanistan, Iraq (where Al Qaeda seem to have some HQs) or the Palestinian Territories (where Islamic Jihad and Hamas live). The people of Israel as a whole simply want to not be attacked by them. The only way they have been able to achieve as few attacks on them as they have has been through superior firepower and superior military tactics.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 03:46 pm (UTC)Yup.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 03:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 03:52 pm (UTC)I know there are people who want their homelands back who are never going to get them. And I know the Jewish people just want a place to be safe. Beyond these two very basic things which seem at odds with each other, there is a bunch of arguing over exactly what boundary line of which area really "belongs" to what country. People with money and guns argue over it and persuade people on different sides as to why their cause is the one true right cause, and the people who live in the contested area suffer. And there's the history of the whole thing in a nutshell.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 03:58 pm (UTC)Bear in mind, regarding Lebanon: the border was settled. There *is* no dispute. And there are no Lebanese I know of claiming that they want their ancestral land in Israel.
One more question: How is Hesbollah justified in invading Israel, kidnapping soldiers and launching rockets at civilian targets?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 03:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 04:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 04:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 04:28 pm (UTC)At the same time, I have seen a pattern for my whole life: most of the time, Israel gets hit by terrorists first. Israel reacts. Sometimes Israel over-reacts IMO. Generally, Israel gets told by the world stage to stop attacking.
Are there exceptions to this pattern? Yes, Israel has on rare cases in its history attacked first, and I deplore that. When Israel overreacts I deplore that as well.
Also, I do not see this as precursor to third world war. There are parts of the world that have been in conflict for as long or longer, or perhaps shorter but with stronger weaponry. No outright world war. Some people have argued World War Three is actually over - it was the Cold War.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 04:53 pm (UTC)So here, Lebanon is said to be "harboring terrorists." Maybe they are because they are privately on their side. Maybe they can't catch them. Maybe they are afraid to root them out because it will lead to a civil war that will topple their already weak government. I guess my question is this - is any amount of bombing is going to make the situation better? Is Hezbollah going to next week or month say "Oh wow, they are a lot tougher than us, lets give up." I really doubt it. Instead they use every attack to paint Israel as a monster, and the people who just had their house blown up are all too eager to agree, whether or not Israel had a good reason to bomb their city because x number of terrorists lived there. So in the end, it is counterproductive for a leader to attack someplace where they think terrorists may be hiding out, even though it may be satisfying and please the people voting for them. At this point there are so many grudges involved it is like that on all sides. It is euqally stupid for any PLO person, for example, to bomb a cafe in Israel. The result is not going to be anything positive for the Palestinians. Yet you can bet they are always feeling justified in their mind for doing it - otherwise, they wouldn't. Who would die for a cause they don't even believe in? And I'm sure they have a long list of reasons why it is okay for them to kill. I am not interested in those reasons either.
And yes, I understand the desire to strike back against one's enemies, it is a desire that lives in everyone. It's the desire for revenge and dominance. I believe we have to move beyond that. Perhaps I am just terribly, terribly naive to suggest the human race can ever achieve such an goal. I can't even say I have not acted on this urge myself, for example. I am not clean. But I have to try.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 07:18 pm (UTC)What should they do if a violent criminal attempts to evades capture, attacks bystanders, or attacks the cop? What methods are acceptable in order to make them stop?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 04:53 pm (UTC)It's not fair that Britain took away Palestine to give to the Jews, but that doesn't justify taking away Israel 60 years after the former happened. So, what now?
I've always said that the problem was the piece of land. This isn't a regular border conflict, like many nations have. This isn't civil war, nor is it a religious war. Everyone wants that one piece of land.
Let's say Israel breaks away and sinks into the Mediterranean sea -- now what? Well, pretty much, there's nothing to fight over. The Jews want a place to live, give 'em Texas or something, and Palestinians will move to neighboring Arab countries. Compare and contrast with a civil/revolutionary/secession war (it's a complaint with the government, and to end the war the government needs to be changed in some way (or enact a police state)) and a border conflict (move as much as you want, if someone moves an inch south and claims it as their own, their southern neighbors will fight 'em for it).
So yes, I believe both sides have reasonable wants. I just see them as conflicting wants. They've tried coexisting -- that doesn't work. They've tried self-rule of separate cities. What's left? A wall, apparently. Israel has tried giving up land for peace, and Palestinians want more.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 03:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 04:12 pm (UTC)It really does beg the question of how these tactics are even remotely similar.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 04:15 pm (UTC)You don't have a dog in the fire when it comes to Israel.
Pick one, Wolf. If all you want to hear from are people directly involved in the shooting, then say so. I'll say this: these wars are escalating, and if the escalate to involve regional warfare, especially nukes, we as in the world will ALL be involved.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 04:20 pm (UTC)I am 100% certain that Israel does not want to use its nukes unless it is being threatened with total annihilation - which admittedly probably means a nuke from the other sides.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 04:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 04:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 04:43 pm (UTC)Just because you know people there doesn't make your involvement necessarily more. I haven't heard that anything's changed from my family there (and let me be clear -- it is ALL of my family and extended family. My parents emigrated to Israel after getting married in '69 -- so aunts, uncles, cousins, grandmothers, everyone's over there). To me, that means everything is under control (either that, or total annihilation of my family and my parents' childhood friends).
The last time I went to Israel, everyone over here cautioned that terrorism was high. I should be careful. A major terrorist action occured while I was there. Except it occured in the US. Unlike the US, Israelis deal with actual terrorism on a real basis every day. They take taxis instead of the bus and don't go to nightclubs (much like folks around the US don't walk alone on unlit streets at 3 am). They don't go to, or through, Jerusalem unless absolutely necessary (the best route to the Dead Sea from Tel Aviv is through Jerusalem, and the last time I was there, we took the long way).
There isn't the heightened fear from these things. Compare to Boston -- everyone's afraid to drive in a tunnel because one person died. If one person dies of heat exhaustion on the Common, are they going to tent the whole thing? Israelis aren't shaking in their boots. They're going on with their lives, taking precautions when necessary. Just as we all do, it's just that our [perceived] dangers are different.
Israel is prepared for war, as it has always been. It stinks, but that's what you get for creating a country surrounded by enemies. How long do you think Fidel Castro would last if Cuba were Wyoming? War is awful, but it's not much different from the way they were living before.
As for the Golan Heights, recall that the only reason Israel has control is the 6 days' war. Which my father fought in and watched friends die in, by the way. Syria tried to invade Israel, and so Israel pushed them back (they got the Gaza Strip at that time).
Furthermore, the only folks that live in the higher terrorist places like the Gaza Strip are folks who live there knowing the risks. They are freedom fighters (both Palestinian and Israeli) that put themselves and their families at risk to prove a point. (No, they shouldn't have to prove their point, however, there is no lack of freedom fighters willing to die for a cause in any country).
So when you hear that a bomb explodes at a checkpoint, or near a settlement, that's what we're talking about. There hasn't been much terrorist activity in Tel Aviv (that's usually where the bus/nightclub/ATM bombs are).
Civilians, sure, but that's like going onto Native American tribal grounds, claiming the land as yours even though it's not, and then raising a family and wondering why they're violent towards you (well, OK, NA tribes are mostly peaceful, but I'm trying to make a point). Your family doesn't deserve to have violence, but you moved there on purpose! (or stayed there on purpose, for going on 40 years).
Have you actually heard that the climate is different? Are the people you know ACTUALLY AFFECTED by this? Or are you, like many people with family in the country, just saying "well it affects me because I have family there." Because I have dozens of folks over there, and nothing seems to have changed.
For the most part, life doesn't change for the average civilian when there's a war. Or even a threat of war -- in 1991, they passed out gas masks to residents in case Saddam tried a gas attack on Israel (only a few SCUDs did damage).
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 06:45 pm (UTC)I was living in Jerusalem during the 1991 Gulf War, and my life did change, even without gas attacks.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 07:04 pm (UTC)While students and scholars may live there (year-round or during programs), Jerusalem is much like the settlements -- rocked with violence. Those who choose to live there do it with full knowledge (and are mostly religious fanatics).
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 07:08 pm (UTC)Strange
Re: Strange
Date: 2006-07-19 01:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 07:45 pm (UTC)Would and should are two different things. Under the "would" category, I expect the armed forces would be called upon to raze all human life off the island. bomb it down to sub-sea level.
In the Should category, simply blockade Cuba until they cry uncle.
No go
Your move......??
Re: No go
Date: 2006-07-18 09:09 pm (UTC)Part of a soldier's caveat is that he may be killed while fulfilling his contract. The contract is that the soldier will not be killed by the government he serves. If a foreign government kidnaps my soldiers, I compensate the widows and plot my next move.
Beyond this, I'm at a loss. I don't know what should or shouldn't be done. I just thank the gods I'm not in charge of this mess.
You misunderstood
This soldier's "contract" you speak of, does it not also include a clause stating that the government they serves, will not needlessly throw away their lives? What if unlike the entirely "voluntary" Army that the USA has, due to the local circumstances such as population size, your Army is a mandatory draft. At what point does the possible injury/death of civilians in your target area become more important than avoiding the injury/death of your own civilians (serving in the army, or at home)?
Re: You misunderstood
Date: 2006-07-20 03:59 am (UTC)Or perhaps I misunderstood the location posited in teddywolf's origianl post.
I do know that I am largely uninformed about the world, I am not in charge, so while I may sit and wonder why everyone tries to tell someone else's government how to act for whatever reason, I don't presume I know the answer.